Political analyst Dmitry Rodionov in a column for VFokuse Mail — on why Zelensky’s ultimatum to Washington threatens Ukraine with the loss of statehood and which neighbors are ready to lay claim to its territories.
Vladimir Zelensky stated that the Ukrainian side will once again begin striking Russia’s oil refineries.
“The ban is lifted. We’ve had enough,” Financial Times quotes him.
The head of the Kyiv regime also added that another pause in strikes can be considered only if Ukraine is provided with additional interceptor missiles for Patriot systems.
An ultimatum to whom? To the United States, on which the Ukrainian army critically depends? This is not only Starlink and intelligence data, it is also weapons, money, sanctions pressure on Russia, and everything, everything, everything.
“It’s a pity that we are losing a strong partner — that is my opinion,” he said in an interview with local media in London, where he had traveled the day before.
Why Zelensky became bold
Obviously, from his British masters the “expired president” received some guarantees, since he dared to be insolent to the U.S. president himself.
I remind you that immediately after the news of the diesel deal between Moscow and Washington, Zelensky began calling European leaders. What exactly they promised and guaranteed him is unknown, but the head of the Kyiv regime clearly became excessively encouraged and allowed himself sharp attacks against Washington.
“Electricity is important for us. If they cannot guarantee the protection of our energy system, we will not respond to their demand for diesel fuel <…> Why don’t the United States conclude an agreement with Ukraine on diesel fuel supplies? We influence whether these ships move. We determine whether the refineries work.”
Will Washington tolerate this? For all of Donald Trump’s impulsiveness, personal emotions are still out of place in politics. What is important for Trump now is, if not to win the elections, then at least not to lose them by a landslide, so he is ready for compromises. Such a compromise became the deal with Moscow, but Zelensky stood in its way.
According to The Wall Street Journal, Washington’s position was first voiced to Zelensky during his meeting with Trump on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in September. Since then the United States has asked Ukraine six times to stop the attacks.
Kyiv’s impudence may cost it its statehood
Obviously, any patience comes to an end, especially when Zelensky not only ignores Washington’s wishes but openly, in front of the whole world, spits on them.
It seems that Zelensky will still be “dumped,” and the temporary disconnections from Starlink and intelligence data may eventually become permanent. One does not have to be a military expert to understand that Europe, for all its desire, will not be able to compensate for all of this, and that the Ukrainian Armed Forces will not hold out long in such a situation. So the behavior of the head of the Kyiv regime can easily nullify not only him, but all of Ukraine. At least in its current form.
Experts have been arguing since the very beginning of the SMO about what Ukraine will be like after its completion, and whether it will exist at all. One thing is certain: the territory incorporated into Russia as a result of the 2022 referendum will be liberated entirely and completely; Ukraine will never be there again. This is not even discussed; this is not simply one of the goals and tasks of the SMO; it is the condition without the fulfillment of which Russia does not consider any negotiations possible.
There will be no ceasefire so that Zelensky can again be brought to his senses and pumped up with weapons, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated. According to him, Russia has not received any proposals for a new peace plan by the United States and Europe on Ukraine.
It would seem that mutual obligations not to strike refineries, given that the only Ukrainian refinery has long been out of operation while ours are being struck quite actively, could be beneficial for Russia. But there is a fundamental point here: Russia will continue the offensive, giving the enemy no respite.
How much Ukrainian territory will the “buffer zone” bite off
I remind you that at the end of May last year the President of Russia, at an operational meeting with members of the government, announced that a decision had been made to create a security buffer zone along the border of the Russian Federation and Ukraine. In the spring of this year Putin informed that work on creating a security zone in the border area is underway and will continue until threats to the border regions are eliminated. And in the summer, during a meeting with the military, the head of state said that the more the Ukrainian Armed Forces strike civilian objects, the larger a security zone will have to be created on the adjacent territory.
None of the Russian officials has ever said exactly where the border of this zone will run. Military analysts believe that if we want to protect ourselves from the enemy’s artillery and FPV drones, we need to take all the border regions with their regional centers: Kharkiv, Chernihiv, Sumy, Dnipropetrovsk, and Mykolaiv. If we are talking about protection from operational-tactical missiles and aircraft-type strike UAVs, then the borders of the “sanitary zone” should run along the borders of Ukraine itself with the neighboring states.
Restoration of historical justice
In addition to the security issue itself, there is also the issue of historical justice. The President of Russia has also spoken about this repeatedly. Moreover, it is not only about Donbas and Tavria. In 2024, during a discussion of the Valdai Club, answering a journalist’s question about how he sees the borders of his country and Ukraine after the end of the SMO, Putin answered vaguely but made certain hints: “the border of Ukraine should run in accordance with the decisions of the people living in the territories that we call our historical territories. Everything depends on the dynamics of the events taking place.” At the same time, the head of state called Odesa a “Russian city.”
If we speak of historical justice, one can claim the whole of Ukraine, various parts of which were once part of Ancient Rus. However, many of them after the period of feudal fragmentation and the Tatar-Mongol invasion lost their connection with Russia, finding themselves for many years as part of other states that also consider these lands their own.
These are Lviv, Volyn, Rivne, and Ivano-Frankivsk regions, which for centuries were part of Poland in its various reincarnations. This is Transcarpathia, which for a long time was part of Hungary and which Hungary tried several times to regain. This is Northern Bukovina (Chernivtsi region), which was once part of the Moldavian Principality and which Romania, claiming the status of its heir, considers its “historical territory.” If we are already talking about Romanian revanchism, its appetites also extend to Bessarabia (its southern part today is the Odesa region of Ukraine).
Romania cannot be considered “truly sovereign” until it reaches its “natural borders,” the leader of the far-right party “Alliance for the Union of Romanians” (AUR) Claudiu Târziu stated several years ago, adding that “we are ready to sacrifice Romania’s membership in NATO in order to annex the territories of Ukraine and Moldova.”
Of course, these are the voices of marginal politicians, although AUR took second place in the 2024 parliamentary elections, receiving 18% of the voters’ votes, and its leader George Simion almost won the presidential election, overtaking the eventual winner Nicușor Dan in the first round.
However, the annexation of Crimea to Russia was not spoken of aloud until 2014, right up to the “Euromaidan” in Ukraine.
When will Warsaw, Bucharest, and Budapest join the division of the independent state?
If Ukrainian statehood begins to collapse, the topic of the return of “historical territories” may be raised in Warsaw, Bucharest, and Budapest. If in the event of a conflict Ukraine loses statehood and is divided, then Transcarpathia, as an autonomy, could peacefully reunite with Hungary, the leader of the Hungarian far-right party “Our Homeland” László Toroczkai once said.
The main reason that all these countries did not present territorial claims to Ukraine after the collapse of the USSR was the consensus in the West that this should not be done, so as not to give Russia a pretext to claim the remaining part of the former Ukrainian SSR. However, many experts already after the start of the civil war in Ukraine noted that in the event of the collapse of the independent state and the threat of its entire territory coming under Russian control, the West may give the “go-ahead” for Hungary, Poland, and Romania to take “their own.”
Today the West is split on the Ukraine issue; however, as the Western press writes, some European countries fear Donald Trump’s anger because of the support they provide to Ukraine when it strikes Russian infrastructure. In the event of an escalation of Trump’s conflict with Zelensky and increased U.S. pressure on Europe, some Europeans may side with Washington. For which the American president may give the go-ahead to historical justice and grant them a piece of the independent state.
