It is alarming and troubling how easily terms like “territorial concessions,” “land swap,” and “recognition of occupied territories” are being manipulated today…For clarity:A land swap is when two countries formalize — under international law and through their domestic legal procedures — an agreement to exchange parts of their sovereign territories. It is not an exchange of a temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine for yet another part of Ukraine’s territory!Moreover, this can concern relatively small areas or a minor adjustment of the interstate border for mutual benefit (of course, without hostilities, occupation, or pressure). Enshrining it in an international agreement (concluded and adopted in accordance with the norms and principles of international law, with the relevant signatures) is not de facto recognition of territorial changes. It is de jure recognition, whatever the text may claim!We are, of course, realists and do not expect that, while basic principles and norms of international law are being disregarded — when no embargo is imposed on the aggressor and no international coalition is formed to compel it by force to make peace — there can be a rapid de-occupation of Ukraine.But now we should be talking not about Ukraine’s territorial concessions (which are practically impossible to implement), but about the occupation regime and Russia’s obligations in the temporarily occupied Ukrainian territories.By what right are they conscripting Ukrainians to fight against Ukraine?! Where are the deported (abducted) adults and children?! Why are Ukrainians in Donetsk and the Autonomous Republic of Crimea suffering from a shortage of the most basic necessity—drinking water?! Dear friends, we all want peace!But first, settle the definitions. Calling a log a propeller won’t make it fly!Also, be clear about the sequence of actions.Don’t put the cart before the horse!First — a joint, reinforced negotiating position; then bilateral meetings between Ukraine’s leadership and each partner that will guarantee Ukraine’s post-war security; and at the end of the negotiating process — a summit, with the initiators of the war and the occupiers, Russia and its allies, on one side, and on the other — those who seek to compel the aggressor to peace, Ukraine and its partners.Other options are a simulation of peace talks, the consequence of which — besides bringing Russian war criminals out of international isolation — may be blaming Ukraine (we have already seen this in the Oval Office), Donald Trump and the United States exiting the peace process, and the continuation of the war, rather than a summit whose goal must be a truly lasting peace.SourceAbout the author. Valeriy Chalyi, Ukrainian diplomat, former Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Ukraine to the United States.The editorial team does not always share the views expressed by blog authors.