On the third anniversary of Russia’s launch of its “special military operation” against Ukraine, with a fifth of the country now under Moscow’s control, Donald Trump is pushing for a rushed peace deal to bring the war to an end, but at what cost? If a U.S.-brokered peace deal results in Ukrainian land being ceded to Russia, the implications will extend far beyond Eastern Europe—emboldening revisionist powers and rewriting the rules of the international order.
If Moscow successfully uses the language of self-determination to justify territorial acquisition, Turkey could follow suit.
Recent U.S.-backed discussions initiated in Saudi Arabia, which have not included Ukraine, remain in their early stages. The precise terms of any agreement are still uncertain, but one outcome is becoming increasingly plausible: Ukraine being pressured to relinquish territory in exchange for an end to hostilities.
Russia’s allies—particularly Turkey and Iran—are watching closely. Ankara has long harbored territorial ambitions in northern Syria and Iraq, where it claims to protect ethnic kin and counter perceived security threats. If Moscow successfully uses the language of self-determination to justify territorial acquisition, Turkey could follow suit, arguing that its military operations in Kurdistani regions are necessary to safeguard Turkish and Turkmen communities. Other states with expansionist tendencies, such as China regarding Taiwan or Serbia concerning Kosovo, may also seek to exploit this precedent.
The same applies to Iran. Tehran has historically used sectarian and ideological justifications to exert influence in the Middle East, portraying itself as a protector of Shiite populations in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. If Russia’s “new theory on self-determination” —justified by allegations of “genocide” against Russian-speaking communities— gains traction, Iran could apply similar reasoning to further entrench its presence in these countries. In Iraq, it could bolster claims over areas dominated by Shiite militias loyal to Tehran, positioning itself as a guarantor of their self-rule. In Syria, Iran’s long-standing military and political investments—particularly in the strategically vital Alawite coastal regions and Shiite-majority areas—could be framed as a legitimate defense of aligned communities.
If the United States ultimately facilitates a peace deal that results in Ukrainian territorial losses, it would mark a stark departure from longstanding U.S. foreign policy principles. Since the end of World War II, Washington has championed the sovereignty and territorial integrity of nations as a cornerstone of the international order, opposing the forced annexation of land through military aggression. Supporting a settlement that rewards the aggressor would represent an abandonment of this principle.
Since the end of World War II, Washington has championed the sovereignty and territorial integrity of nations as a cornerstone of the international order.
The outcome of the war in Ukraine is not just about one nation’s sovereignty—it is about the principles that govern the international system. A world in which borders can be altered through force is a world far less stable, where smaller nations live under constant threat of invasion and where military power, rather than diplomacy, dictates statehood. The United States must recognize that any concession to Russia will set a precedent that others will exploit, reshaping the geopolitical landscape in ways that will be difficult —if not impossible— to reverse. Is the Trump administration happy with a world where powerful countries invade smaller ones, given that the United States is a powerful country and Trump has expressed interest in acquiring territories such as Greenland, the Panama Canal, and Gaza?
America’s leadership in global affairs would diminish, signaling that U.S. commitments to allies are conditional rather than steadfast. European nations, increasingly skeptical of Washington’s reliability, might accelerate efforts to decouple from the United States and develop an independent security framework, thereby reducing their dependence on NATO. Meanwhile, countries in the Indo-Pacific—particularly Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan—could likewise reconsider their reliance on American defense guarantees. China, which has closely observed the war in Ukraine as a test case for its own ambitions, could interpret a Ukrainian territorial concession as a green light for aggressive maneuvers in the South China Sea and potentially against Taiwan. If Washington is seen as unwilling to stand firm against Russian aggression, how would it respond to a similar crisis in Taiwan?
The United States may find itself presiding over the unraveling of a system it spent decades constructing if it chooses pragmatism over principle.
The stakes of ending the conflict on Russian terms and siding with an aggressor go far beyond Ukraine. If Russia is allowed to retain all the territory it has seized, its narrative in certain circles will prevail. This would leave Ukraine vulnerable to future Russian assaults, emboldening Moscow in its broader ambitions. Furthermore, it would create a dangerous schism between the United States and Europe—exactly what Putin has been aiming for. Trump’s approach could leave a legacy of potentially igniting new conflicts that he seeks to avoid. Russian terms would extend to the very fabric of the international order, as authoritarian regimes might see an opportunity to redraw internationally recognized borders, knowing that the enforcement of international law has become selective and negotiable.
The United States may find itself presiding over the unraveling of a system it spent decades constructing if the United States chooses pragmatism over principle; what is being decided is not just the fate of Ukraine, but the future of the global order itself. This decision could shift the world toward a multipolar landscape, where China and Russia dictate global norms on their own terms.
Granted, Trump’s approach has been insensitive, even crude; he could have acted more tactfully without undermining the Western alliance. Although Ukraine’s NATO membership may not be “realistic,” restoring its territory should not be seen as “illusory.” However, to save lives, this war must end at some point, with positive consequences in the end—rather than pushing America’s firm adversaries closer together.
