Zelenskyy states Russia lost battlefield initiative in Dec 2025, arguing Ukraine has a diplomacy window before winter if sanctions pressure on Russia continues.
It actually kind of is. Depending on the laws on both countries. There was a petition that Norway would’ve gifted a top of one mountain to Finland when Finland celebrated 100 years of independence. Border would’ve moved something like 20 meters in the middle of nowhere, without any resources or pretty much anything else of any value. It would’ve just made the officially highest spot in Finland a bit higher.
It just wasn’t legally possible. Constitution in Norway says that the only way to lose land is to lose it in a war and changing their constitution isn’t really practical just for that kind of feat. Also there was more or less serious discussion that what if Finland claims a “war” against Norway and conquers that hilltop, but that would’ve meant that Finland (not a NATO member at a time) would be in a war with a NATO country, which is not trivial either.
There was also legal issues on Finland side of things too, but those would’ve been far simpler to resolve.
I don’t know about legal situation in Russia nor in China, so that might not apply, but in general countries tend to have legal limits on how they can lose or gain land. China has not annexed areas from Africa, they’ve just bought the rights for resources and use them as they see fit, but internationally agreed borders stay where they are. If they actually took land from Russia that would cause other kinds of legal issues, like having to build stuff in there to meet their legal minimum standards, set up administration and whatever their legal system requires. So, in many ways it’s just far easier to buy what they want and leave the border and land ownership politics out of the equation.
It actually kind of is. Depending on the laws on both countries. There was a petition that Norway would’ve gifted a top of one mountain to Finland when Finland celebrated 100 years of independence. Border would’ve moved something like 20 meters in the middle of nowhere, without any resources or pretty much anything else of any value. It would’ve just made the officially highest spot in Finland a bit higher.
It just wasn’t legally possible. Constitution in Norway says that the only way to lose land is to lose it in a war and changing their constitution isn’t really practical just for that kind of feat. Also there was more or less serious discussion that what if Finland claims a “war” against Norway and conquers that hilltop, but that would’ve meant that Finland (not a NATO member at a time) would be in a war with a NATO country, which is not trivial either.
There was also legal issues on Finland side of things too, but those would’ve been far simpler to resolve.
I don’t know about legal situation in Russia nor in China, so that might not apply, but in general countries tend to have legal limits on how they can lose or gain land. China has not annexed areas from Africa, they’ve just bought the rights for resources and use them as they see fit, but internationally agreed borders stay where they are. If they actually took land from Russia that would cause other kinds of legal issues, like having to build stuff in there to meet their legal minimum standards, set up administration and whatever their legal system requires. So, in many ways it’s just far easier to buy what they want and leave the border and land ownership politics out of the equation.