- Fox News host Jesse Watters argued Ukraine should consider ceding territory to Russia as part of a peace deal.
- The remarks came during a panel discussion of President Trump’s summit with Volodymyr Zelensky.
- Watters compared Russia’s invasion to U.S. and German territorial history, saying “borders change all the time.”
WASHINGTON, D.C. (TDR) — Fox News host Jesse Watters ignited fresh debate Monday after suggesting that Ukraine should surrender regions under Russian control, framing the conflict as part of a broader historical pattern where borders are rarely permanent. His comments came during a discussion on The Five about President Donald Trump’s high-profile summit with Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House.
Watters: “Borders Change All the Time”
Addressing Vladimir Putin’s peace demands — which include Ukraine legally ceding Crimea and parts of the Donbas — Watters suggested Kyiv should accept reality.
“How are you gonna get Vladimir Putin to relinquish the land he won in battle? The United States won lands in battle. We didn’t just give it back! No country gives back land they win in battle. That’s what this is all about.”
Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10
Don't miss out on the news
Get the latest, most crucial news stories on the web – sent straight to your inbox for FREE as soon as they hit! Sign up for Email News Alerts in just 30 seconds!
He then pointed to Germany’s shifting map through the 19th and 20th centuries.
“Borders change all the time! Think about Germany: it used to be the Prussian Empire, then the German Empire. It expanded, it contracted in the world wars. Then they divided it in two, and now it’s reunited. And they can’t do this to Ukraine? Come on, that’s ridiculous.”
The Context of Trump’s Meetings
Watters’ remarks followed Trump’s summit with Putin in Alaska, where the Russian leader reiterated his conditions for peace. That meeting came just days before Zelensky’s Washington visit, where he again rejected ceding land, warning that acquiescence would only embolden Moscow.
Some observers saw Trump’s language as carefully ambiguous. On Truth Social, the president wrote that Zelensky “can end the war with Russia almost immediately, if he wants to, or he can continue to fight.” Analysts debated whether this was a nudge toward concessions or simply a call for Zelensky to make the decision himself.
Historical Parallels and U.S. Land Gains
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE THE DUPREE REPORT
Watters underscored his point by citing U.S. territorial history, from the annexation of lands taken from Mexico in 1848 to acquisitions like Hawaii and Puerto Rico.
“The U.S. didn’t give that back,” he said. “That’s how nations expand. It’s not new.”
Still, as historians note, the U.S. also relinquished holdings like the Philippines in 1946 and the Panama Canal Zone in 1979 — complicating any direct comparison.
Criticism and Defense of Trump’s Approach
Watters used his platform to defend Trump’s current role as negotiator, contrasting him with past Democratic presidents.
“Trump is just stopping the bleeding. Bill Clinton made Ukraine give away its nukes. Then he invaded Crimea, under Obama’s watch and when Joe said ‘don’t,’ Vlad went in stronger. Trump is there to patch things up, and he’s doing it not by being bullied, not like the media says he’s being bullied. Putin bullied all these other Democrats in office.”
The host added that Trump had previously issued threats to Moscow.
“This guy threatened to nuke Moscow. Think about it. He was going to bomb the be-jeesus out of their capital if Vlad tried this on the last watch.”
The Larger Debate
The broader question remains whether conceding territory would secure lasting peace or undermine international norms against wars of conquest. European leaders are preparing for a videoconference summit to assess Trump’s meetings and weigh Europe’s role in ensuring Ukraine’s sovereignty.
Watters closed his remarks by suggesting a pragmatic outcome.
“Now, you can guarantee European soldiers to go under the front lines if Vlad gets this dumb idea back in his head, and we get the minerals and drone technology gets out of the Ukrainian military? Pretty good win!”
Is Watters right that history shows borders are fluid, or would Ukraine’s surrender set a dangerous precedent for global security?
Follow The Wayne Dupree Show on YouTube
Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10
Join the Discussion
COMMENTS POLICY: We have no tolerance for messages of violence, racism, vulgarity, obscenity or other such discourteous behavior. Thank you for contributing to a respectful and useful online dialogue.
NOPE – while a peaceful resolution is indeed a laudable goal, ANY concessions by Ukraine gives tacit admission that the naked aggression and atrocities committed by Vlad the invader and his troops are somehow ‘justified/legitimized’. Ask Neville Chamberlain how well that ‘peace at any price’ attitude worked out for the entire world.
NOTE – I’m not saying that the Ukies don’t have some blood on their hands as well but they didn’t invade Russia twice – remember Crimea?
Hey Jesse – if I break into your house and take over your kitchen and master bedroom and bath it would be okay and you should just suck it up and deal with it? I doubt you would accept that………………..especially when I insist you keep feeding and caring for me.