Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is caught in a dire bind in the Russia-Ukraine war: continuing the fight offers little hope of reclaiming lost territories, while pursuing a ceasefire risks accusations of treason from his people. This is more than a personal tragedy—it’s a systemic paradox of republican governance. The sanctification of popular sovereignty grants legitimacy to the state yet shackles its leaders, turning territorial disputes into sacred symbols. Zelenskyy’s struggle over Crimea and Donbas reveals how republics become paralyzed by clashing public opinion, constitutional constraints, and international pressures, laying bare the fragility of modern sovereignty.
1. Zelenskyy’s Impossible Choice
In February 2022, as Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Zelenskyy vowed in a televised address:
We will fight to the end, defending every inch of our land.
This pledge ignited national fervor but boxed him into a corner. Practical geopolitics urges Ukraine to consider “freezing the front line” or “limited concessions” to secure peace and reconstruction. Crimea has been under Russian control since 2014, and the Donbas conflict remains a protracted stalemate with slim prospects for military recovery. In November 2024, Zelenskyy signaled openness to temporarily ceding Russian-occupied territories in exchange for NATO protection over uncontested regions, aiming to ensure peace and stability (The Telegraph). Yet, a 2022 poll by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) found 82% of Ukrainians opposed any territorial concessions, with only 18% open to compromise. When his advisor Oleksiy Arestovych floated the idea of “freezing the front line,” it sparked immediate domestic backlash, forcing a retraction. Zelenskyy’s decision-making room is stifled by public sentiment and nationalist rhetoric, with compromise attempts igniting swift outrage, underscoring the rigid constraints of popular sovereignty.
2. The Clash of Public Will and Reality
The fractured public opinion in Donbas undermines the ideal of “popular sovereignty.” Nationwide, especially in western and central Ukraine, citizens view Donbas as an inseparable part of the nation, a belief rooted in the ethnic identity forged since Ukraine’s 1991 independence. In contrast, a 2019 International Crisis Group report found that 40% of Donbas residents supported separation (either independence or joining Russia), while only 30% favored remaining with Ukraine, with the rest neutral. A local Russian-speaking resident told foreign media:
Kyiv calls us traitors, but all we want is peace, even if it means standing with Russia.
This divided “will of the people” leaves Zelenskyy in a dilemma: aligning with national sentiment means dismissing some Donbas residents’ demands, risking escalated conflict; granting regional autonomy is seen as betraying sovereignty, threatening the nation’s foundation. In April 2025, Zelenskyy reaffirmed that Crimea belongs to Ukraine, stressing that the constitution prohibits territorial concessions and any compromise would be illegal (BBC News). A 2023 KIIS poll showed over 70% of Ukrainians demand unconditional Western support to reclaim all territories, further narrowing his options. Russia exploits pro-Russian sentiment and military dominance to entrench control over Donbas, rendering compromise nearly unattainable.
3. The Double-Edged Sword of Republican Sovereignty
This predicament stems from the core design of republican sovereignty: territory belongs to the people and is inalienable. Intended to prevent leaders from arbitrarily disposing of national land, this principle becomes a double-edged sword in modern geopolitics. Historical disputes over Crimea and Donbas—Crimea was transferred to Ukraine by the Soviet Union in 1954, and Donbas, with its Russian-speaking population, Russia views as part of its sphere of influence—have been woven into Ukraine’s sacred narrative of territorial integrity. Unlike empires that could cede land for peace, a republic’s legitimacy is inseparable from its territorial claims; concessions equate to betraying sovereignty. Elected in 2019 on a hardline platform, Zelenskyy reinforced support by signing a 2022 decree ruling out negotiations with Putin, closing diplomatic avenues. In early 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump’s direct talks with Putin, aiming to freeze the current front line and recognize Russian control over Crimea, drew a sharp rebuke from Zelenskyy, who insisted he would not accept talks “over Ukraine’s head” (ABC News). This episode highlights the diplomatic powerlessness of republics under international pressure, while Russia leverages “de facto sovereignty” to cement its hold on occupied zones.
4. A Universal Predicament and Future Reflections
Zelenskyy’s plight is not unique but a symptom of republican systems. The Republic of China ignores the 2016 international arbitration on the South China Sea, clinging to its sovereignty claims; the People’s Republic of China adopts a hardline stance in border disputes, driven by public opinion and the sanctification of sovereignty. These cases reveal that republican sovereignty’s rigidity hampers compromise and even public debate, escalating territorial disputes into national crises. Zelenskyy’s November 2024 proposal to secure NATO protection for uncontested regions in exchange for a temporary ceasefire reflects an attempt to navigate domestic pressures with international guarantees, yet it hinges on public approval, underscoring the persistent challenge of institutional gridlock (Sky News).
Zelenskyy has etched “reclaiming all territories” into Ukraine’s national consciousness, turning it into a sacred symbol. Every speech and every refusal to negotiate bolts the door to compromise. Future leaders, whether opting to freeze the front line or persist in fighting, risk being branded “traitors.” When popular sovereignty becomes an untouchable totem, can republics survive the perilous crises of modern geopolitics? Zelenskyy’s tragedy warns us that the ideal of popular sovereignty, while the lifeblood of republics, may also be their fatal flaw, trapping leaders in an eternal paradox between sacred pledges and pragmatic betrayal.
