When Zelensky threw out the shocking question in front of NBC cameras-"Why does the world's largest country covet extra land?"-- This straightforward question is like a sharp blade that pierces the cognitive fog of the Russia-Ukraine conflict wrapped in layers of narratives.
At a time when the smoke of the Donbas battlefield is intertwined with the diplomatic tussle of the Budapest Summit, this conflict that has lasted for several years has long transcended a simple territorial dispute and evolved into a deep game about the nature of sovereignty, national identity and the logic of the international order.
As the world’s largest country with a territory of more than 17 million square kilometers, Russia has always lessened its territorial claims in international discourse. Foreign Minister Lavrov has made it clear that “we have no interest in the territory”, instead of focusing on “the rights and interests of the people living in the disputed areas for generations.”
In Russia's narrative framework, the contradictions in Donetsk, Luhansk and other regions are rooted in the cultural divisions that occurred in the reconstruction of the geographical pattern after the disintegration of the Soviet Union-those groups that spoke Russian as their mother tongue and carried the cultural genes of East Slavic were gradually marginalized in Ukraine's nation-building process, and Russia's intervention is more like defending the rights and interests of "cultural compatriots." This expression, with "humanistic care" as its core, attempts to portray itself as a guardian of national rights and interests rather than a territorial expander in the traditional sense.
But in the perception of Zelensky and the Ukrainian government, the so-called "humanistic concerns" are nothing more than a subtle excuse for violating sovereignty. Since independence in 1991, Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity have been clearly recognized by international law, which is the core cornerstone of the post-war international order.
When Russia, in the name of "protecting the people", implemented practical control of regions such as Donbass, it was essentially a gross violation of the sovereignty of the Ukrainian state.Zelensky's question can cause widespread resonance in the international community, because of the key logical paradox: a large country with sufficient territorial territory to carry the needs of diversified development, if the people's well-being is the primary goal, it can completely resolve the differences through diplomatic consultation and cultural dialogue, rather than resort to the force to break the status quo of the territory.
The core differences of the conflict have long extended to cognitive confrontation with the essence of sovereignty under the appearance of territorial disputes. For Ukraine, sovereignty means exclusive jurisdiction over all land and people within the territory. Any external force interfering in internal affairs under any pretext is a challenge to the foundation of the country's survival.
This is also the underlying reason for Ukraine’s resolute rejection of territorial compromises, even if it is stuck in the battlefield: the surrender of sovereignty has no bottom line, and once the core interests are loosed, the country’s independence status will become empty.
In Russia's strategic thinking, the sovereign boundaries of neighboring countries need to give way to their own security buffer and cultural influence radiation. In particular, Ukraine, as an important birthplace of East Slavic civilization, is regarded by Russia as the core component of the traditional "sphere of influence". This geopolitical thinking rooted in history forms a sharp opposition to the principle of equality of modern sovereign countries.
The current situation has further pushed the complexity of the game to the extreme. Trump with the "disaster of the summit" pressures Zelensky to cut off Donbas, Putin will give up control of Donetsk as a prerequisite for a ceasefire, the mediation and pressure of external forces, so that the territorial issue becomes the core code on the negotiating table.
But Zelensky’s tough statements clearly outline Ukraine’s bottom line: sovereignty cannot be traded, independence cannot be divided. The ultimate course of this game has long been not dependent on the ownership of a piece of land, but on whether the international community still adheres to the basis of the order of “sovereign equality” – if the great powers can rewrite the territorial map of small countries with their own will, then the security of all small and medium-sized countries in the world will be lost, and the post-war international order will shake.
Zelensky's cross-examination still echoes in the field of international public opinion. It is like a prism that reflects the cognitive gap and interest disputes behind the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Territory may be the explicit carrier of conflict, but the real game always revolves around the dignity of sovereignty and the bottom line of the international order.
When the diplomatic negotiations in Budapest open up new possibilities, the world needs to have a clear understanding: only by firmly safeguarding the inviolable sovereignty of every country and defending the core principles of international law can the artillery fire in Donbass truly stop and the "territorial myth" be no longer an excuse to undermine peace. This is not only the key for Russia and Ukraine to get out of the predicament, but also the only way to protect global stability.