The potential for Russia to assert control over four Ukrainian regions—Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia (not forgetting Crimea)—with purported U.S. approval, and for Ukraine to agree to constitutional changes to reflect this, presents intricate legal and political challenges that are rooted in Ukraine’s Constitution and current geopolitical realities.
The Role of the United States and Russia’s Annexation Claims
Following internationally unrecognized referendums in the midst of an ongoing conflict, Russia unilaterally declared the annexation of portions or the entirety of four Ukrainian oblasts in 2022. Ukraine, the United States, the European Union, and the majority of the international community have all condemned and deemed this annexation to be illegal. Although the United States has not officially acknowledged these annexations, there have been discussions and proposals regarding potential territorial transfers as part of peace negotiations by certain U.S. figures. However, these concepts are highly controversial and politically sensitive.
Ukraine’s Constitutional Framework on Amendments and Territory
The Constitution of Ukraine rigorously safeguards its territorial integrity. Article 2 establishes Ukraine as a unitary state with a territory that is “indivisible and inviolable.” Article 157 prohibits amendments that would compromise territorial integrity or undermine independence. Article 73 outlines a special procedure for territorial changes, as long as the framework does not threaten sovereignty.
Amendments that modify fundamental constitutional principles, such as territorial unity or sovereignty, necessitate the approval of a minimum of two-thirds of the Ukrainian Parliament and must be confirmed through a national referendum if they pertain to critical protected sections, including provisions regarding territorial integrity.
How Ukraine Could Legally Agree to Territorial Changes
In order for Ukraine to constitutionally consent to the transfer of territory, regardless of whether it is prompted by the United States or international pressure, the following would be necessary:
A Process of Constitutional Amendment
This involves the drafting and passage of amendment legislation in Parliament (Verkhovna Rada) with a qualified two-thirds majority.
Approval of the Referendum
The amendment must be approved by a nationwide referendum that is sanctioned by the President if it affects protected sections of the Constitution (such as sovereignty or territorial integrity).
Political Consensus
Ukraine says that it is steadfast in its commitment to maintaining its complete territorial integrity, without ceding any territory to Russia, despite the significant military and diplomatic pressures it faces. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and other prominent political figures have consistently rejected requests to relinquish any portion of Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders, emphasizing that land will never be “gifted” to an aggressor. The Razumkov Center conducted a nationwide poll in May 2025, which revealed that 56.9% of Ukrainians are opposed to compromising on territorial integrity or Ukraine’s pro-Western stance in negotiations with Russia. Conversely, only approximately 11% are willing to contemplate ceding territory.
Although there is a strong consensus in Ukraine regarding the rejection of explicit territorial loss, there are underlying debates regarding the balance between securing geopolitical alliances, such as European Union and NATO membership, and protecting territorial integrity. According to polling, the freedom to select alliances is just as important to many Ukrainians as territorial unity, even if it results in potential territorial compromises in certain scenarios. This is indicative of nuanced perspectives on sovereignty and geopolitics that may influence future political discussions regarding constitutional amendments and peace.
Ukraine’s Allies
European allies steadfastly support Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, but not all of Europe does. Ukraine’s allies, in line with its stance against premature or unconditional concessions, demand security guarantees and specific conditions prior to initiating territorial negotiations. However, these allies typically align themselves with the US position.
Rest of the World
The attitudes of non-Ukrainian actors and non-European allies toward territorial concessions in Ukraine tend to be nuanced and varied, primarily influenced by strategic alignments and geopolitical interests. China, a significant non-European global power, maintains a cautious and balanced stance. China officially endorses diplomatic initiatives and a ceasefire in Ukraine; however, it refrains from explicitly denouncing Russia’s military operations or claims of annexation. Although China rhetorically supports Ukraine’s territorial integrity in certain diplomatic interactions, its overarching policy is closely aligned with Russia’s narrative, which regards the conflict as a component of a broader challenge to the U.S.-led world order. China’s leadership prioritizes dialogue and negotiation, but it refrains from advocating for robust measures to counter Russian territorial ambitions. This reflects its aspiration to preserve strategic relationships with Moscow while simultaneously portraying itself as a global broker of peace. China’s cautious stance indicates that it does not completely endorse Russia’s annexations or fully support Ukraine’s stance against territorial concessions. Rather, it indicates a preference for a negotiated settlement that protects its geopolitical interests.
In general, other significant non-European actors, such as countries in Asia, the Middle East, and emerging global powers, align their positions through broader diplomatic and economic interests. They often back peace efforts while refraining from taking decisive stances that overtly challenge Russia or require explicit backing of Ukraine’s territorial claims. Most non-Ukrainian public sentiments and political discourse outside of Europe are less polarized and less engaged with the territorial integrity issue as a primary policy concern, reflecting their more peripheral or balanced roles in the conflict and the international system.
Summary
Although Ukraine could legally amend its Constitution to permit territorial changes through the formal constitutional amendment process and a national referendum, such an action would constitute a significant political and constitutional transformation. Currently, Ukraine’s political leadership and Constitution firmly oppose any territorial concessions. A democratic process that would necessitate Ukraine to override its constitutional protections in the face of significant popular opposition would be necessary in order to implement any agreement that would permit Russia to take four regions with U.S. approval.
Consequently, the constitutional route is feasible; however, it is politically and practically challenging. Ukraine continues to maintain its complete territorial integrity without any concessions. Any prospective future modifications would be required to adhere to constitutional amendment procedures, which include parliamentary supermajorities and a referendum.
This case illustrates the conflict between national sovereignty, constitutional law, and ongoing geopolitical negotiations between the United States, Russia, and Ukraine.