Nothing but a Land Grab

The view that the invasion is a “land grab” is a very common and well-supported perspective among international analysts and governments. While Russia offered justifications like “denazification,” the strategic and economic value of the annexed territories strongly suggests a more pragmatic, territorial motive.

Here is a breakdown of the key reasons why these regions are so important to Russia:

• Crimea: The peninsula holds immense strategic value due to its location on the Black Sea. It is home to Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, based in Sevastopol. Control of Crimea provides Russia with a dominant naval position and influence over the Black Sea, which is a vital trade route and a gateway to the Mediterranean.
• The Land Corridor: The annexation of regions like Kherson and Zaporizhzhia is crucial for creating a continuous land corridor connecting Russia to Crimea. Before the 2022 invasion, Russia had to rely on a single bridge for all supplies to Crimea. This land bridge provides a much more secure and direct route for both military and economic traffic, making Crimea’s position far more defensible.
• Economic and Natural Resources: The Donbas region, comprising the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, is Ukraine’s industrial heartland. It is rich in natural resources, including coal, and is a major hub for metallurgy and manufacturing. Taking control of this area provides Russia with significant economic assets. The Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions also have valuable agricultural land and control key water resources, including the North Crimean Canal, which supplies water to Crimea.

In this context, the narrative of “denazification” is widely seen as a pretext to justify the acquisition of these strategically vital and resource-rich territories.

The question of ceding land to Russia is one of the most complex and contentious issues in the ongoing conflict, and it’s understandable why it would be a major concern.¹ From Ukraine’s perspective and that of many of its allies, the idea is seen as a reward for aggression and a violation of international law. However, various arguments are put forward by those who believe some form of territorial concession must be on the table to achieve a lasting peace.

Here’s a breakdown of the different viewpoints and the factors at play:

Arguments Against Ceding Territory

• Sovereignty and International Law: Ukraine’s position, backed by most of its Western allies, is that its territorial integrity is non-negotiable.² Giving up land would violate the fundamental principle of international law that prohibits one country from seizing the territory of another by force.³
• Constitutional Issues: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has stated that he does not have the constitutional authority to cede territory, as any changes to the country’s borders would require a nationwide referendum.⁴
• Precedent and Future Security: Critics of territorial concessions argue that it would set a dangerous precedent, signaling to other aggressor nations that they can be rewarded for military invasion. Additionally, giving up strategically important regions like the Donbas could leave Ukraine more vulnerable to future Russian attacks, as it would create a more advantageous “springboard” for a new offensive.⁵
• The Will of the People: Many Ukrainians, having endured years of fighting and immense loss, are deeply opposed to giving up land.⁶ Recent polls suggest that freezing the conflict along the current front lines is a more palatable option for many than a formal land swap.⁷

Arguments for Considering Territorial Concessions

• Ending the Conflict and Saving Lives: The primary argument from those who propose territorial concessions is that it could be the only way to end the war and prevent further loss of life. Proponents suggest that a negotiated end, even if it involves difficult compromises, is preferable to a prolonged military stalemate.⁸
• Acknowledging Battlefield Realities: Some analysts argue that ignoring the reality of the territory Russia currently occupies is not practical for peace negotiations.⁹ While they stress that this should not be a legal recognition of Russia’s claims, they suggest that it may be a necessary starting point for talks.
• Potential for Swaps: There have been suggestions that a peace deal could involve a “swapping of territories,” where each side makes concessions.¹⁰ However, Ukrainian and European leaders have expressed skepticism that Russia would offer anything of value in return, and Ukraine has not formally endorsed such a proposal.

In essence, the debate boils down to a conflict between principles and pragmatism. For Ukraine and its strongest supporters, the principle of territorial integrity cannot be compromised.¹¹ For others, the pragmatic need to end the war and stop the bloodshed might justify considering a difficult compromise.¹²

When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, it was widely considered to have committed several serious violations of international law, particularly those enshrined in the United Nations Charter and international humanitarian law.¹

UN Charter Violations

The central legal violation is the breach of the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force.²

• Article 2(4): This article is a foundational principle of the UN Charter.³ It states that all member states “shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nat⁴ions.”⁵ The invasion of Ukraine is seen by the vast majority of international legal experts as a clear and direct violation of this article.⁶

Russia’s justifications for the invasion—such as the need for “self-defense” or to prevent a supposed “genocide” against Russian speakers—have been rejected by the International Court of Justice and the UN General Assembly. These are considered invalid legal justifications under the UN Charter, which only permits the use of force in very limited circumstances, such as in self-defense against an armed attack (Article 51) or when authorized by the UN Security Council.⁷

Laws of War (International Humanitarian Law)

Beyond the initial act of aggression, Russia has been accused by international bodies and human rights organizations of numerous violations of the laws of war, primarily codified in the Geneva Conventions.⁸ These are not violations of the UN Charter itself, but they are violations of the body of law that governs the conduct of armed conflict.

Accusations of violations include:

• Targeting Civilians: Reports from organizations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International detail attacks on civilian infrastructure such as hospitals, schools, and residential buildings.⁹
• Indiscriminate Attacks: These are attacks that do not distinguish between military targets and civilians, which is a clear violation of international humanitarian law.¹⁰
• Forced Transfer of Civilians: The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for Russian officials, including President Vladimir Putin, on charges related to the war crime of unlawfully deporting and transferring Ukrainian children from occupied territories to Russia.¹¹

The Role of the UN

The UN’s response has been significantly affected by Russia’s position as a permanent member of the Security Council, which grants it veto power.¹²

• Security Council: Russia has used its veto to block resolutions aimed at condemning its actions and demanding a withdrawal from Ukraine.¹³ This has prevented the Security Council from taking any decisive action on the matter.¹⁴
• General Assembly: In response to the Security Council’s deadlock, the UN General Assembly has held emergency sessions.¹⁵ On March 2, 2022, it passed a resolution with overwhelming support that “deplores in the strongest terms the aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine.”¹⁶ While these resolutions are not legally binding, they carry significant moral and political weight and serve as a strong international condemnation.

You’re right, Vladimir Putin’s justification for the invasion of Ukraine included the goal of “denazification.”¹ This was a key part of the official narrative presented to the Russian people.²

Here is an explanation of that claim and why it is so widely rejected by the international community.

The Russian Claim of “Denazification”

The Russian government’s narrative argues that Ukraine is controlled by neo-Nazis and far-right nationalists who are committing atrocities against Russian-speaking people.³ In this context, Russia claimed its military operation was necessary to liberate Ukraine from this supposed Nazi influence and protect the Russian-speaking population.⁴ This narrative draws on historical references to Ukraine’s role in World War II, a time when some Ukrainian nationalist groups collaborated with Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union.⁵

Why the Claim is Widely Rejected

The international community, as well as independent historians and political analysts, have overwhelmingly dismissed the “denazification” claim as a false pretext for the invasion.⁶ Several key facts are cited to counter this narrative:

• Democratic Elections: Ukraine has a democratically elected government.⁷ Its president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, is Jewish and had family members who were victims of the Holocaust.⁸ He was elected with over 73% of the vote.
• Political Influence of Far-Right Groups: While far-right and nationalist groups do exist in Ukraine, as they do in many countries, their political influence is marginal.⁹ In the 2019 parliamentary elections, a coalition of far-right parties received only about 2% of the vote, failing to secure significant representation in the government.¹⁰
• A “Weaponized” Term: The term “denazification” itself is a political tool.¹¹ Experts on disinformation have stated that Russia’s use of the term is a form of propaganda intended to justify the invasion to its domestic audience and to dehumanize Ukrainians.¹² It attempts to connect modern Ukraine with the historical horrors of Nazism, despite the vast differences in political reality.¹³

In short, the international consensus is that the “denazification” claim is a fabricated narrative, lacking factual basis, that was created to provide a cover for the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign country.¹⁴