Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva recently floated a controversial idea: that Ukraine might consider relinquishing Crimea to end the war. The remark drew attention not only for its potential implications for regional security but also because it echoed a sentiment occasionally voiced by left-leaning politicians in Europe after Lula’s ascent to the Brazilian presidency. The broader question centers on whether such a concession could ever be acceptable to Kyiv or the international community, and how it would impact the postwar order in Europe.
Russian President Vladimir Putin, by contrast, has consistently asserted the inviolability of Ukraine’s borders and has shown no readiness to acknowledge any loss of Ukrainian territory. Lula’s comments, made during a press gathering in Brasília, sparked swift commentary from various corners of the political spectrum and international observers alike, highlighting the delicate balance between diplomacy and territorial integrity.
Regarding Crimea, Lula suggested that Zelensky might need to accept a bargaining outcome as part of a broader peace framework. The statement was framed as a call for a pragmatic, end-to-conflict solution rather than a hardline stance, underscoring the urgent need for a path to lasting peace while respecting the realities of the conflict. The remark prompted intense debate about what concessions might be permissible in the pursuit of stability, and how such concessions would be viewed by Ukraine and its partners. It was noted that any potential settlement would have to align with international law and the principles that govern state sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Kowalski: Poland will never agree to any idea of trading Ukrainian territory
Janusz Kowalski, Deputy Minister of Agriculture, responded to Lula’s proposal through a post on social media, recalling that left-leaning figures inside Poland had welcomed Lula’s election. The Polish official emphasized that under no circumstance would Poland consent to trading Ukrainian territory, including Crimea, stressing that such a move would be unacceptable to the Polish people and incompatible with Poland’s commitments to Ukraine and regional security. Kowalski’s remark reinforced a clear national stance: there is no Polish permission for any plan that would involve ceding Ukrainian land to any other power.
The message from Kowalski highlighted a broader tension within European politics, where shifts in diplomatic rhetoric can provoke strong reactions at the national level. In Poland, as in many allied states, the emphasis remains on upholding Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, along with a commitment to collective security arrangements that deter aggression and support peaceful resolutions that preserve borders as they currently stand.
Ukraine’s strong response to the Brazilian president’s proposal
Ukraine welcomed the intention behind Lula’s outreach as a sign that international mediators are willing to help end the conflict. At the same time, Kyiv made it clear that it would not barter away any portion of its territory. Ukrainian Foreign Ministry spokesman Oleh Nikolenko stated on social media that there was no legal, political, or moral justification for surrendering any Ukrainian land, including Crimea, in pursuit of peace. The emphasis was placed on the necessity of safeguarding Ukraine’s sovereignty and ensuring that any eventual peace agreement adheres to the principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter.
Nikolenko underscored Ukraine’s position: any mediation must rest on the full restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. This stance reflects a consistent policy: peace negotiations should not undermine national borders or undermine the legitimacy of Ukraine’s government. As the dialogue around possible concessions evolved, Ukrainian officials continued to stress that international mediation should advance a framework where sovereignty is respected and territorial integrity is non-negotiable.
The ongoing discussion also touched on the broader implications for regional stability and international law. Ukraine’s leadership reiterated that any path to peace must be built on trust, verification, and a solid commitment to the UN Charter. The conversation continued to unfold in public forums, reflecting the high stakes involved for NATO partners, neighboring states, and global actors who are closely watching the developments as they unfold in real time. The push for a balanced solution remains anchored in protecting Ukrainian self-determination while seeking a sustainable halt to hostilities. The situation remains fluid, with officials urging continued dialogue and careful consideration of all viable options while upholding the core principle of territorial sovereignty.
tkwl/Twitter/PAP
Source: wPolityce