Key Points and Summary – The term “land swap,” widely used by officials and the media to describe President Trump’s proposed Ukraine peace deal, is a dangerous misnomer.
-While the deal may be a necessary path to peace, it is not a reciprocal exchange of territory.
-Ukraine is being asked to permanently cede significant regions, like the Donbas, in return for U.S. security guarantees and an end to the war—not for other land.
-This inaccurate language creates confusion and masks the difficult reality of the concessions Kyiv is being pressured to make for long-term stability.
Let’s Be Clear on Ukraine Peace: This Is Not A “Land Swap”
During an interview on NTD News last week, discussing President Donald Trump’s Alaska summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, I raised what I think is an important question: Is his proposed peace plan for Ukraine really a “land swap”?
In principle, I am not opposed to what appears to be unfolding on the negotiating table.
Russia appears to be open to the possibility that Ukraine is provided some substantial security guarantees from the United States, effectively mimicking the protections that come with NATO membership without formally accepting Ukraine into the fold.
And while the prospect of Ukraine ceding four – or five – major regions within its borders to Russia is a hard pill to swallow, the reality is that Putin will continue to fight this war for as long as humanly possible.
This war is ideological, not logical, and Moscow has already shown that one million Russian casualties and a struggling national economy are a price he’s willing to pay to achieve his stated goals in Ukraine.
The Land Swap Language
With that being said, language matters – and the use of the term “land swap” is an interesting one.
What land, exactly, will be “swapped” in exchange for Ukraine’s Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia Oblasts?
Search the analysts’ blogs, read the news, and listen to the statements from officials in Washington, Moscow, and Kyiv, and you’ll find nothing about a “swap.”
Even Trump’s own comments on the matter are arguably baseless.
Meanwhile, Putin has made it quite clear that a deal is only possible if Russia is permitted to take full control of Ukraine’s Donbas region – even as Zelenskyy’s forces retain control of roughly one-third of the territory. The Ukrainian president insists that he would not withdraw from that remaining 30% of territory under his control, arguing that it would be unconstitutional for him to do so. And while that may well be true, it could still happen.
What, then, does Ukraine get in return?
So far, it looks to be two things: peace and security guarantees.
But not land.
Nonetheless, the Trump administration continues to use this phrase. The media echoes it. Negotiators still use it. And in doing so, they have made a rod for their own backs.
I have been asked on multiple occasions by observers where this term originated, and what land Ukraine stands to gain from a deal. There could be an argument to be made that Russia already controls some small regions of Ukraine outside of the Donbas, including border areas to the north – but in reality, the best answer I have for that question is to shrug. Should Russia move out of these “buffer zones” to the north, there may be an argument that it is effectively a “swap” – but there’s simply no telling what might happen to regions currently under Russian control should the war continue for years to come. Continued U.S. and European support could see those frontlines move all over again.
This week, Trump doubled down on the concept of a “swap,” too. The president told reporters that Ukraine will regain “a lot of land,” effectively confirming that Ukraine sets only to “regain” territory lost to aggressors over the last three and a half years. That, in my book, is not a “swap.”
For the sake of clarity – not just for negotiators but for observers throughout the West trying to understand what’s at stake in these talks – I’d argue it’s worth dropping this “land swap” term entirely.
The problem? My definition is a little wordier: an ultimately unfair, but necessary, ceding of Ukrainian territory to an aggressor in exchange for security guarantees and longer-term stability.
About the Author:
Jack Buckby is a British author, counter-extremism researcher, and journalist based in New York. Reporting on the U.K., Europe, and the U.S., he works to analyze and understand left-wing and right-wing radicalization, and reports on Western governments’ approaches to the pressing issues of today. His books and research papers explore these themes and propose pragmatic solutions to our increasingly polarized society. His latest book is The Truth Teller: RFK Jr. and the Case for a Post-Partisan Presidency.
Military Matters
The F-22 Raptor Just Keeps Getting Better
