Land, Law and Leverage: The Geopolitics of Territory in Peace Negotiations

Few issues in international diplomacy are as intractable as the question of territory. Borders are not only lines on a map but symbols of sovereignty, resources, identity and survival. When wars end, the fate of land often determines the durability of peace. In Ukraine, the geopolitics of territory has become the central obstacle to any meaningful negotiation with Russia. Understanding how land, law and leverage intertwine sheds light on why peace remains so elusive, and why territorial disputes so often prolong conflict rather than resolve it.

Land as the currency of war

Territory is the most tangible prize in war. Armies march to capture it; civilians cling to it as the locus of their homes and histories. For aggressors, land is a demonstration of strength and expansion. For defenders, it is existential. In Ukraine, Russia’s seizure of Crimea in 2014 and its subsequent recognition of supposed “people’s republics” in Donetsk and Luhansk marked a return to nineteenth-century geopolitics, in which land grab was the measure of power. Each village or town captured became a bargaining chip to be traded, or at least a pressure point to extract concessions.

For Ukraine, however, land cannot be reduced to a token of exchange. Every hectare lost is a diminishment of sovereignty, every compromise a wound to the principle enshrined in the post-World War II international order that borders cannot be redrawn by force. This asymmetry creates a paradox: for Russia, territory is leverage; for Ukraine, it is principle. And principles are rarely traded away without political collapse.

The role of law

International law aspires to resolve this paradox by enshrining the principle of territorial integrity. The United Nations Charter prohibits the acquisition of territory by force, and numerous conventions reaffirm this norm. Yet law by itself does not settle disputes: it provides a framework, but enforcement depends upon political will and power.

In the case of Ukraine, international law is unambiguous. Russia’s annexations of Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia are illegal. Yet illegality alone does not restore territory. The law becomes a rhetorical weapon: Ukraine invokes it to rally international support; Russia seeks to bend or reinterpret it, insisting upon dubious referenda or historical claims. The battlefield thus extends into the courtroom of global opinion, where states choose sides according to interests as much as norms.

Leverage in negotiations

Territory functions as leverage not only because of its physical importance but also because of the symbolism attached to it. A city such as Mariupol is not merely a port; it is a symbol of resilience and suffering. To cede such a city would be to dishonour those who fought for it. Conversely, Russia’s insistence upon retaining Crimea reflects not only its military value but its centrality to Russian national mythology.

In negotiations, leverage is about what each side believes the other is willing to concede. If one party perceives that the other will never accept the loss of land, then the very proposal of territorial compromise becomes a means of prolonging conflict rather than ending it. In Ukraine’s case, public opinion overwhelmingly rejects any trade of land for peace, which sharply limits negotiators’ room for manoeuvre.

Historical precedents

History shows that territorial settlements imposed in the shadow of war are rarely stable. The Treaty of Versailles, with its redrawn borders, planted the seeds of another European war. The frozen conflicts of the post-Soviet space—Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh—illustrate how unresolved territorial disputes become incubators of renewed violence. Only when a broader political transformation occurs, such as Germany’s acceptance of post-war borders within a new European order, do territorial questions finally recede.

Implications for Ukraine

For Ukraine, the challenge is to reconcile principle with pragmatism. On the one hand, any concession of territory risks legitimising aggression and undermining the very foundations of international law. On the other hand, protracted war extracts immense costs in lives and resources, tempting some external actors to suggest compromise. The danger lies in equating territorial “solutions” with peace. Without security guarantees and political transformation in Russia, territorial concessions would only invite renewed aggression.

The challenges facing peace

The geopolitics of territory in peace negotiations is a triangle of land, law and leverage. Land is the object of contest, law the framework of principle, and leverage the currency of bargaining. In Ukraine, these three dimensions are locked in stalemate: Russia seeks leverage through occupation, Ukraine insists upon law and sovereignty, and the land itself bears the scars of the struggle. Peace will come not when land is traded, but when the balance of power and the credibility of law align to deny territory as a weapon of aggression. Until then, the battlefield will continue to be measured not just in kilometres gained or lost, but in the unyielding principle that a nation’s land is not for barter.