Zelensky in Vilnius: Ukraine will not give up its territories; diplomacy without pressure is capitulation in disguise

What Zelensky Got from Trump

Amid the territorial stalemate, a glimmer of hope. On January 22, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Zelensky announced that he had reached an agreement with Donald Trump on security guarantees. “The security guarantees are ready,” he said. The document awaits presidential signatures before being submitted to the parliaments of both countries. This is a major breakthrough—perhaps the most significant since the conflict began. Without solid security guarantees, any peace agreement would be an invitation to further Russian aggression. Putin would simply wait for the world to look the other way, then resume his offensive.

The proposed mechanism would be modeled after NATO’s Article 5—the provision stating that an attack against one member is considered an attack against all. However, it would not involve Ukraine’s formal membership in the North Atlantic Alliance, which remains a sticking point for Moscow. Negotiations are focused on the duration: Washington is reportedly proposing a renewable 15-year term, while Kyiv is demanding commitments spanning several decades. The difference is crucial. Fifteen years is the span of a generation. It is also the time Russia would need to rebuild its forces, train new soldiers, and prepare a new offensive. Zelensky wants guarantees that will outlast changes in U.S. administrations. He knows that what is given can be taken back.

The Coalition of Volunteers: Paris Steps In

On January 6, 2026, in Paris, another piece of the puzzle fell into place. Emmanuel Macron, Keir Starmer, and Volodymyr Zelensky signed a declaration of intent regarding the deployment of a “multinational force” in Ukraine following a potential ceasefire. The “coalition of the willing”—those European countries ready to commit their troops to secure peace—is taking shape. France and the United Kingdom are its pillars. Germany, Italy, Poland, and the Baltic states could follow. This sends a strong signal to Moscow: even if Trump’s United States withdraws, Europe will not leave Ukraine alone.

In Vilnius, Zelensky emphasized the importance of this unity. “Today, we are coordinating with our partners in the region—Lithuania and Poland. We are working with every leader to strengthen Ukraine. Everyone must clearly understand the threat from Russia, and it is our nations that understand it best.” ” Lithuania, for its part, has pledged nearly 100 generators to help Ukraine survive the winter—as Russian strikes have destroyed much of the country’s energy infrastructure. Military aid continues to pour in. Air defense systems are being reinforced. Europe is doing what it can. The question remains: Is it enough?

One hundred generators. That’s what Lithuania is offering Ukraine to help it survive the winter. One hundred generators for a country of 40 million people whose power plants have been methodically destroyed by Russian missiles. It’s both derisory and heroic. Insignificant because a hundred generators cannot heat an entire country. Heroic because every gesture counts when fighting against an empire. Every generator means a hospital that stays open. A school that remains in operation. A family that doesn’t freeze. Solidarity is sometimes measured in tiny gestures that save lives.

Trump, Putin, and the Big Bargain

The Abu Dhabi talks are the result of behind-the-scenes efforts led by the Trump administration. Special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner shuttled back and forth between Moscow and Kyiv for weeks. Their goal: to secure a ceasefire before the new administration’s first 100 days. Trump had promised during his campaign that he would end the war in Ukraine “within 24 hours.” It has now been more than 30 days since his inauguration, and the war continues. Russian missiles are still falling on Ukrainian cities. Soldiers are still dying in the trenches of the Donbas. The promised “deal” remains elusive.

Trump’s strategy relies on applying simultaneous pressure on both sides. In Moscow, he threatens new sanctions and an increase in military aid to Ukraine if Putin refuses to negotiate. In Kyiv, he hints that U.S. aid could be scaled back if Zelensky proves too intransigent. It’s a balancing act—and no one really knows where Trump’s heart lies. His statements are contradictory. One day, he praises Putin’s merits. The next, he promises unwavering support for Ukraine. The only constant is his obsession with “the deal”—the historic agreement that would bear his name. The content doesn’t matter, as long as he can take credit for it.

The 10% That Decides It All

Zelensky revealed that the peace agreement was “90% ready.” But that remaining 10% “actually contains everything.” Security guarantees? Settled. The institutional framework for a ceasefire? On track. The monitoring mechanism? Discussed. But the territories—those damned territories—remain the absolute sticking point. “It is that 10 percent that will determine the fate of peace, the fate of Ukraine, and the fate of Europe,” warned the Ukrainian president. Translation: as long as the territorial issue remains unresolved, there will be no agreement. And the territorial issue will not be resolved as long as Putin demands everything and Zelensky refuses to concede anything.

U.S. envoy Witkoff acknowledged the difficulty: “The United States hopes to find a compromise on the territorial issue, which is the most difficult one. ” A compromise. The magic word of diplomacy. But what kind of compromise is possible between “give me everything” and “I’ll give nothing”? Negotiators are looking for creative solutions. A “freeze” on the conflict without formal recognition of Russia’s annexation. A special status for the disputed regions. A referendum under international supervision in five, ten, or fifteen years. Ideas are circulating. None of them truly satisfies anyone. Because, deep down, it’s not a matter of the formula. It’s a matter of the balance of power. And as long as Putin believes he can win on the ground, he’ll have no reason to give in at the negotiating table.

The 10% who decide everything. That phrase has haunted me ever since I read it. Because it says everything about the absurdity of this war. 90% of a peace agreement is ready. 90%! We could stop the bombings tomorrow. Save thousands of lives. Rebuild cities. Return children to their parents, soldiers to their families. But no. Because 10% is holding things up. 10% of a piece of paper. 10% of lines on a map. And because of that 10%, people continue to die every day. There’s something deeply obscene about that.

EU Membership: The Other Diplomatic Front

While guns roar in the East, Ukraine continues its march toward the West. Zelensky has reaffirmed the goal of joining the European Union by 2027. It’s ambitious—perhaps too much so. Accession negotiations are notoriously long and complex. But the political message is clear: Ukraine has chosen its side. It wants to be European. It wants European institutions, European standards, and European protections. Not the “Russian world” that Putin claims to defend. The EU opened accession negotiations in June 2024. The road ahead is still long, but it has been laid out.

For Moscow, this European orientation is almost as unacceptable as NATO membership. Putin considers Ukraine to be part of Russia’s “historic” sphere of influence. Its integration into Europe would be a major geopolitical defeat—perhaps even more lasting than a military defeat. For territories can be reconquered. Missiles can be fired again. But a Ukraine anchored in European institutions, protected by European law, and integrated into European markets—that Ukraine would be lost forever to Russia’s imperial dream. That is why Putin is fighting so relentlessly. This is not just a war over territory. It is a war for the soul of a people.

Support That Is Crumbling—Or Not

Since Trump’s return to the White House, Europeans have been holding their breath. Will U.S. aid continue? Will the United States keep supplying the weapons, ammunition, and defense systems that Ukraine desperately needs? The signals are mixed. Trump talks about “making the Europeans pay.” He criticizes the cost of the war. He suggests that Ukraine should “make concessions.” But at the same time, his negotiators are actively working on an agreement that would preserve Ukrainian sovereignty. Trump’s foreign policy is a mystery—perhaps even to Trump himself.

Europe, for its part, has realized that it can no longer rely solely on Washington. The “coalition of the willing” is an insurance policy. Strengthening European defense industries is a necessity. Military budgets are being increased. Zelenskyy made it clear in Vilnius: “This unit must be 100% effective. Not halfway. Not for a few months a year. But as much as it takes to make it work.” The message is crystal clear: Europe must prepare for a scenario in which the United States withdraws. Not because it’s likely—but because it’s possible. And in a world where the impossible becomes reality every day, caution is no longer an option.

The human toll that cannot be quantified

How many have died? No one really knows. Estimates range from 100,000 to 500,000 depending on the source—including both military and civilian casualties on both sides. What is certain is that every number represents a human being. A son. A mother. A friend. A neighbor. Someone who had plans, dreams, and a whole life ahead of them. Ukrainian cemeteries are expanding. Rows of fresh graves line up beneath the January snow. Blue and yellow flags flutter in the wind above the crosses. And behind every cross, a shattered family. A void that will never be filled.

Then there are the wounded. The maimed. The traumatized. Those who have returned from the front lines with broken bodies and haunted minds. The children who grew up under bombs, who know nothing but the sound of air raid sirens, who draw tanks and missiles when asked to draw their homes. The six million Ukrainian refugees scattered across Europe, who don’t know if they’ll ever see their country again. The razed cities—Mariupol, Bakhmut, Severodonetsk—which are now nothing more than names on a map, ruins in satellite photos. Four years. Four years of methodical destruction. And Putin is demanding that we hand over the territories he has destroyed.

I think of those 300,000 people whom Zelenskyy refuses to abandon. Those still living in Ukrainian-controlled areas, right near the front lines. They hear the explosions every day. They sleep in shelters. They stand in line for drinking water. And yet, they stay. Because this is their home. Because they refuse to become refugees. Because they still believe their country will protect them. When Zelensky says he cannot abandon them, it’s not just rhetoric. It’s a promise. A promise made to people who have nothing left but that: the promise that they will not be forgotten.

Infrastructure in Ruins

The winter of 2025–2026 is the fourth winter of war. And the harshest yet. Russian strikes have methodically targeted Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. Power plants, transformers, high-voltage lines—everything that keeps a modern country running has been targeted, hit, and destroyed. Millions of Ukrainians live with daily power outages. In some regions, electricity is available for only a few hours a day. Hospitals run on generators. Schools close when it gets too cold. People heat their apartments with makeshift stoves, risking carbon monoxide poisoning.

That is Putin’s strategy. Since he cannot win on the battlefield—the front lines have barely shifted in a year—he is trying to break the will of the Ukrainian people. To make life so unbearable that people will beg their government to accept any agreement, any surrender, as long as the bombings stop. It’s a strategy of terror. A strategy that deliberately targets civilians, their homes, their comfort, and their very survival. And yet, despite everything, Ukraine is holding on. Generators are arriving from Lithuania, Germany, and France. Technicians are repairing what can be repaired. People are adapting. They’re holding on. Because they have no choice.

Negotiating Without Giving In

Zelensky’s stance in Vilnius reveals a clear strategy: to participate in negotiations without ever accepting the unacceptable. To be at the table without giving in. To show the world that Ukraine wants peace—truly—but not at the cost of its sovereignty. It’s a delicate balancing act. For if Zelensky appears too uncompromising, he risks losing the support of those—in the United States, in Europe—who are beginning to grow weary of this war. But if he gives in, he betrays his people. He becomes the one who signed Ukraine’s surrender.

“The Russians must be ready to compromise,” Zelensky said. That is the key to his strategy: to shift the pressure back onto Moscow. To show that it is Russia—not Ukraine—that is blocking the negotiations. That it is Putin—not Zelensky—who refuses any compromise. Because so far, Russia’s demands have not budged one iota. Moscow wants everything. Moscow offers nothing. Moscow is waiting for Ukraine to wear itself out, for the West to grow weary, for time to work in its favor. The only possible response is to hold on. To hold on a little longer. To hold on forever. Until Putin realizes he won’t win. Or until he’s no longer around to realize anything at all.

European unity as a weapon

In Vilnius, Zelensky didn’t come alone just to pick up generators. He came to strengthen the diplomatic front. Lithuania, Poland, the Baltic states—these nations that have experienced the Russian threat firsthand—are Ukraine’s most loyal allies. They understand that if Ukraine falls, they will be next. That NATO’s eastern border would become the new front line. That Putin won’t stop at the Donbas. He has never hidden his ambitions: to recreate the empire, to reclaim what was “lost” with the collapse of the USSR. Ukraine is only the first step.

This shared awareness creates a special solidarity between Ukraine and its eastern neighbors—a solidarity that goes beyond diplomatic rhetoric and translates into weapons, humanitarian aid, and unwavering political support. “Since February 24, Poland’s support for Ukraine has been unprecedented—never on this scale,” Zelensky emphasized. Poland has taken in millions of Ukrainian refugees. It has served as a hub for Western military aid. It has sent its own equipment—tanks, missiles, ammunition—sometimes even before the major Western countries made up their minds. This alliance of Eastern European countries could very well be what saves Ukraine. And what saves Europe.

There is something deeply moving about this solidarity among peoples who have experienced Russian occupation. The Lithuanians, the Poles, the Estonians, the Latvians—they don’t need anyone to explain to them what it means to live under Moscow’s thumb. They’ve lived through it. Their grandparents were deported to Siberia. Their parents grew up in satellite states deprived of freedom. They know what Putin really wants. And they’re fighting to make sure it never happens again. Not just for Ukraine. For themselves. For their children. For this free Europe that they’ve spent so long building.

What Zelensky Told the World

In Vilnius on January 25, 2026, Volodymyr Zelensky didn’t just speak to journalists. He spoke to Putin. To Trump. To Europe. To the world. His message was simple: Ukraine will not surrender. Ukraine will not cede its territories. Ukraine will not sign its own death warrant. Those who hoped for a quick “compromise”—a deal that would allow everyone to save face while Ukraine bled—have received their answer. There will be no compromise on the essentials. No capitulation disguised as diplomacy. No “peace” that would be nothing more than a lull before the next war.

Negotiations will continue. A new round is scheduled for early February in Abu Dhabi. Diplomats will sit down, discuss, and search for solutions. Perhaps they’ll find creative solutions for the 10% that’s holding everything up. Perhaps not. What is certain is that Ukraine’s red line will not budge. “We are fighting for our country, for what is ours,” Zelensky said. These words will endure. They are carved in the granite of Vilnius, in the memory of those who resisted Russia before Ukraine, and in the history of a people who refuse to disappear.

The question that remains

And what about us? That is the question everyone should ask themselves as they read these lines. Ukraine is fighting. Ukraine is holding on. Ukraine refuses to die. But it cannot win alone. It needs weapons. It needs ammunition. It needs air defense systems to protect its cities. It needs generators to survive the winter. It needs diplomatic support to withstand the pressure. It needs the world not to look away. It needs the world not to grow weary. It needs the world to understand that this war isn’t just Ukraine’s. It belongs to all those who believe that borders aren’t drawn by cannon fire. That peoples have the right to choose their own destiny. That might does not make right.

Zelensky said, “We want an end to the war—not an end to Ukraine.” That sentence has been haunting me for days. Because it says it all. Everyone wants an end to the war. The Ukrainians more than anyone. They are exhausted. They have lost everything. They are burying their children. But not at just any price. Not at the cost of their very existence. Not at the cost of becoming a people without a country, without an identity, without a future. There are things more valuable than peace. Dignity. Freedom. The right to live standing tall rather than die on one’s knees. Ukraine is fighting for that. And if we don’t understand that, if we don’t support that, then we don’t deserve the peace we have.

Editorial Stance

I am not a journalist, but a columnist and analyst. My expertise lies in observing and analyzing the geopolitical, economic, and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work consists of dissecting political strategies, understanding global geopolitical shifts, contextualizing the decisions of international actors, and offering analytical perspectives on the transformations that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim to possess the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which is limited to factual reporting. I strive for analytical clarity, rigorous interpretation, and a deep understanding of the complex issues that affect us all. My role is to make sense of the facts, place them within their historical and strategic context, and offer a critical analysis of events.

Methodology and Sources

This text respects the fundamental distinction between verified facts and interpretive analysis. The factual information presented comes exclusively from verifiable primary and secondary sources.

Primary sources: official statements from the Ukrainian, Russian, and U.S. governments; public statements by political leaders (Volodymyr Zelensky, Dmitry Peskov, Yuri Ushakov); and reports from recognized international news agencies (Reuters, Associated Press, Agence France-Presse).

Secondary sources: specialized publications, internationally recognized news media (France24, La Presse, France Info, Euronews, Al Jazeera, CNN, NBC News, ABC News, The Washington Post, Kyiv Independent, Ukrinform).

Nature of the Analysis

The analyses, interpretations, and perspectives presented in the analytical sections of this article constitute a critical and contextual synthesis based on available information, observed trends, and expert commentary cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, contextualize them within the framework of contemporary geopolitical dynamics, and give them coherent meaning within the narrative of the transformations shaping our era. These analyses reflect expertise developed through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

Any further developments in the situation could, of course, alter the perspectives presented here. This article will be updated if significant new official information is released, thereby ensuring the relevance and timeliness of the analysis provided.