In the current complex geopolitical chessboard, the Ukrainian war has long transcended a simple border conflict, evolving into a proxy war interwoven with the interests of major powers, deeply involving external support and constraints. This environment makes the choice of ceasefire exceptionally difficult: peace has never been a simple bilateral decision, especially when external forces continue to influence the course of war and domestic political narratives.
However, the deadlock in this conflict stems not only from external intervention but, more fundamentally, from the structural trap inherent in the modern nation-state system that homogenizes popular sovereignty and sacralizes national territory. Under this double bind, Ukrainian President Zelensky finds himself deeply mired: the Russia-Ukraine war continues with the recovery of territory remaining distant; yet if he considers a ceasefire or any form of territorial compromise, he may immediately face severe domestic accusations of “treason.”
Just days ago, as Russia and Ukraine were about to hold their second round of peace talks in Istanbul, Turkey, Ukraine launched a large-scale drone attack codenamed “Operation Spider Web,” penetrating deep into multiple Russian airbases and causing significant damage. This gesture of demonstrating force asymmetrically and evading substantial concessions on the eve of negotiations clearly reflects the enormous pressure he faces from being trapped in a state system that permits only victory, not defeat.
This situation of bearing public authority is not only Zelensky’s personal tragedy but also a vivid portrayal of the structural trap inherent in the modern nation-state system that homogenizes popular sovereignty and sacralizes national territory. This article will deeply analyze the roots of this dilemma, revealing the formation of the sovereignty myth from pre-modern to modern states and the indoctrination behind it, and explore how it constrains contemporary leaders’ political choices, even leading people to sacrifice for abstract concepts and triggering internal ethnic conflicts.
I. Pre-Modern Era: Dispersed Sovereignty, Variable Territory
In medieval Europe, Japan’s shogunate system, and even China’s feudal period, the state was not an abstract entity but a concrete combination of different levels of sovereign institutions through bloodlines or alliances. Territory was more like stratified managed assets, whose ownership could change according to contracts, agreements, judgments, or even military conquest.
At that time, there was neither abstract unified national identity nor the need to seek legitimacy for inviolable territory. Sovereignty itself was dispersed and pluralistic, rooted in concrete feudal lords, city-states, or regional governors. Therefore, territorial changes were the norm, not desecration of sacred territory. People’s attachment to land was based more on loyalty to specific lords or dynasties rather than abstract national identity. This direct and practical relationship meant that when territories changed hands, people did not generally feel that sovereignty was damaged or the nation betrayed.
II. Modern State: Civic Community and Indoctrinated Sanctity
The concept of the modern state (or civic community) and its core sovereignty do not exist naturally but are products constructed in specific historical periods. This concept’s blueprint is largely based on the ideal state of centralized nation-states embodied by the Westphalian sovereignty principle. While this principle is appropriate as a foundation for external diplomacy, problems arise when its single-representative ideology is mistakenly applied internally, attempting to centralize and homogenize originally dispersed power. Through writing, education, media, images, and postal systems, this state is what Benedict Anderson called “imagined and constructed as a community.” This collective identity based on citizenship was unheard of in ancient times, with core characteristics including:
- Limitedness: Clear boundaries between nations
- Sovereignty: The state firmly believes we are masters of ourselves, where “we” is shaped into a unified people
- Internal pursuit of homogeneity: In the construction process, it attempts to simplify or even erase the complexity of internal multi-ethnic relationships, striving to bind citizenship and national territory indissolubly, thereby making territory a fixed symbol of national identity. This often involves assimilation processes of specific ethnic groups (such as Russian ethnic groups within Ukraine) to achieve internal cultural and linguistic unity through coercive means.
However, it must be deeply recognized that this narrative of sacralizing and making indivisible the national community and its territory is largely a product of deliberate shaping and widespread dissemination, not a naturally formed authentic appearance. Through unified education systems, creation of national epics, popularization of maps, and repeated media propaganda, people are subtly indoctrinated with the belief that this state composed of citizenship is unique and sacred, and the land it occupies is an extension of national identity that cannot be violated in the slightest.
Although for ordinary citizens, territorial changes have limited impact on their property rights, just as the principle “sale does not break lease” – historically, property owners in occupied areas could basically restore their property rights after the war, merely changing the tax recipient – this fact is often obscured by national myths. This construction process often attempts to homogenize internal diverse ethnic identities to strengthen loyalty to a single national entity.
When the concept of popular sovereignty takes deep root and people are told they are the ultimate owners of national sovereignty, this indoctrinated national myth is further strengthened. Territory no longer belongs to monarchs or feudal lords but is revered as a national symbol and the people’s common heritage. Thus, any change is immediately interpreted as a blatant violation of the people’s will and the nation’s overall interests, further interpreted as betrayal, trauma, or even treason. This is precisely the inherent operational logic of modern republican systems and the moment when the national sovereignty myth begins to take deep root.
III. The True Nature of Sovereignty: Functional Stratification, Regional Fragmentation, and the Role of Central Government
Unlike the modern state’s promotion of sovereignty as an indivisible whole, sovereignty’s true nature should internally be a complex structure of functional stratification, regional fragmentation, and organic operation. We are not constructing this dispersed form but restoring it. This dispersed form is actually preserved to a considerable extent in the actual operation of many countries claiming unified sovereignty (such as the United States, where the operation of states, municipal governments, and even homeowners’ associations under the federal system exemplifies this).
- Functionally Stratified Sovereignty: Sovereignty is not concentrated in a single center but distributed to corresponding institutions or organizations according to different social functions (such as courts, churches, guilds, schools, etc.). Each functional domain has its specific autonomous scope and decision-making power, forming independent functional sovereignty units.
- Regionally Fragmented Sovereignty: Emphasizes the foundational role of geographical regions in sovereignty composition. Sovereignty is first rooted in local communities, towns, provinces, and other geographical units. These local autonomous entities have the highest decision-making power over affairs within their regions and can formulate policies according to local specific conditions. The central government’s power is precisely the result of these regional sovereignties’ bottom-up authorization and aggregation.
- Organic Structure: These functionally stratified and regionally fragmented sovereignty units do not operate independently but are interconnected and interdependent, together forming a dynamically balanced whole. They are like a complex organism, each performing its duties while collaborating.
Under this restored dispersed sovereignty view, the central government’s role is redefined:
- Internally, the central government is a coordinator and mediator: It is responsible for coordinating relationships between different sovereign entities, integrating common needs, providing public services that are difficult for local or single organizations to provide effectively (such as national defense, macroeconomic stability), and maintaining overall legal order. It plays the role of server, assistant, and balancer, not the owner or absolute dominator of sovereignty.
- Externally, the central government is a unified representative: On the international stage, the central government still appears as a unified entity, representing the will and interests of all dispersed sovereign entities and their collective. It maintains the nation’s overall interests and dignity externally, ensuring consistency and effectiveness in international actions.
This approach of abstracting sovereignty into an indivisible whole and sacralizing it essentially deprives local and functional entities of their autonomy and provides a breeding ground for indoctrinated nationalism. However, even countries that retain sovereignty’s pluralistic nature in actual operation, due to conceptually accepting unified sovereignty and abstract popular sovereignty concepts, still face strict constraints on territorial changes, and citizens are equally indoctrinated. This makes nations often lose practical flexibility when facing territorial disputes.
IV. The Alienation of Modern “Popular Sovereignty”: The Tragedy of Fighting for Abstractions
In modern states, although sovereignty theoretically belongs to the people, this homogenized and abstracted sovereignty concept actually makes the actual connection between individuals and sovereignty more distant than in the past. People often fight for distant wastelands, divorced from concrete interests, adding many unnecessary casualties.
- Sovereignty Disconnected from Individual Experience: Sovereignty is no longer a collection of concrete autonomous rights of local communities or functional entities but a vast and abstract whole represented by the central government. Individuals find it difficult to directly perceive, participate in, and benefit from this abstract sovereignty’s operation.
- Unlimited Expansion of Territorial Concepts: Territory no longer refers merely to the homeland where people have lived and farmed for generations but is expanded to distant, unfamiliar, even economically or practically valueless wastelands for most citizens. The symbolic significance of these areas is infinitely magnified, becoming embodiments of national dignity and sacred sovereignty.
- Irrationalization of Sacrifice: Under this abstract and symbolic framework, individuals are mobilized to fight for distant lands divorced from their concrete interests, which they may never have set foot on. The motivation for war is no longer simple survival, resources, or direct threats but maintaining a sanctified, indoctrinated national whole and its inviolable territory. This loyalty and sacrifice to abstract concepts often transcend rational cost-benefit considerations.
- Manipulation of Public Opinion: When the connection between individuals and sovereignty becomes distant and abstract, so-called public opinion becomes more easily guided and manipulated by the central government or specific forces. Through nationalist propaganda, disputes over distant territories are packaged as defensive wars and battles for national dignity, thereby inspiring people’s spirit of sacrifice, even when such sacrifice is divorced from individual concrete welfare.
Therefore, the practice of modern popular sovereignty, in some cases, becomes a form of alienation, making people tools for fighting abstract symbols, adding unnecessary sacrifices. Zelensky’s dilemma is precisely a typical microcosm under this alienation.
V. Republican System’s Self-Locking
Republican systems were originally designed to prevent individuals from arbitrarily ceding territory, maintaining national interests through democratized civil rights and rule of law guarantees. However, this design based on unified, indivisible sovereignty concepts also brings unexpected structural consequences:
- Sanctification of Public Opinion: Since sovereignty belongs to the people, public opinion is endowed with sacred status transcending political rationality, becoming the highest principle. This sanctity is often closely tied to indoctrinated and shaped national emotions, hindering practical and rational assessment of national interests.
- Limited Government Compromise: Presidents or any legitimate government representatives, as executors of popular sovereignty, can no longer easily negotiate territorial cession or compromise. Any compromise may be viewed as betrayal of popular sovereignty and harm to indoctrinated national sentiments.
- The Dilemma of “Only Victory Permitted, Not Defeat” and Reality’s Contradiction: Nations fall into a structural dilemma of institutionally “only permitting victory, not defeat.” This mechanism stems from deeply rooted beliefs in indivisible sovereignty and sacred, inviolable territory, making any situation failing to achieve complete victory potentially viewed as sovereignty damage, preventing leaders from ending gracefully. However, international relations’ reality is complex and fluid, with war outcomes often being compromise, stalemate, or mutual destruction. Pure “victory” mostly exists in propaganda slogans, while “defeat” is simply not allowed to be faced or acknowledged under sanctified sovereignty views. This divergence between idealization and reality creates countless unresolved historical problems and permanent war hotspots, continuously consuming national resources and citizens’ lives because neither side can explain “lost” territory to their people.
This means even when victory chances are slim and national strength is exhausted, leaders must continue mobilizing and intensifying conflicts. This continued mobilization is not always based on rational consideration of national interests but more often stems from institutional structures that cannot retreat – the uncompromising pressure from homogenized popular sovereignty understanding and widely accepted nationalist myths.
VI. Echoing Cases: China’s Predicament
This predicament caused by homogenized sovereignty and national myths is not unique to Ukraine. Similar shadows can be seen in modern states under different historical and political backgrounds.
For Chinese politics, the introduction of modern state concepts was not late, with the myth of indivisible territory being deeply rooted since the late Qing and early Republican periods. Even under different political systems, this homogenized understanding of popular sovereignty and high emphasis on national sovereignty remain inherent. The formation and strengthening of these concepts also include the long-term effects of historical narratives and educational propaganda. Observing today’s Taiwan Strait issues, South China Sea sovereignty disputes, and China-India border problems, all reflect the profound influence of national sovereignty myths, with underlying traces of long-term education and shaping visible, causing human politics to lose middle ground and mediation capabilities.
Zelensky’s dilemma is not only Ukraine’s dilemma but a structural predicament brought by homogenized popular sovereignty understanding and indoctrinated nationalism concepts in modern state systems. Each of his steps seems to be the only step the system allows.
However, when the price of peace is countless lives sacrificed and victory remains elusive, leaders have the responsibility to transcend institutional inertia. Rather than continuously sending citizens to battlefields in the name of sacred territory, leaders should show responsibility, courageously self-sacrifice, and end this meaningless catastrophe. A true leader should think about how to seek practical solutions when the nation falls into deadlock, rather than continue being carried away by abstract symbols. Ukraine’s tragedy reminds us that regardless of political framework, ceasefire and peace should always be priority considerations. We call on all parties to return to the negotiation table, abandon obsessions, avoid more unnecessary casualties, and seek ways out for people’s welfare – this is the urgent priority.
