What to do about the Donbas issue: positions of Ukraine, Russia, and the USA
Kyiv • UNN
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced that the Donbas issue will be discussed on January 23-24 in Abu Dhabi. Delegations from Ukraine, the USA, and the Russian Federation will hold trilateral talks on the war.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced that the issue of Donbas will be discussed on January 23-24 in Abu Dhabi. Delegations from Ukraine, the USA, and Russia will hold trilateral talks regarding the war. This was reported by UNN.
Details
The issue of Donbas is key. It will be discussed, and the modalities of how the three sides see it, will be discussed in Abu Dhabi today and tomorrow. I spoke with the head of the group, with Umerov, in the morning, and at night. He will work and will give me relevant signals at each stage of those or other conversations or agreements.
Donbas issue 'key', to be discussed in Abu Dhabi - Zelenskyy1/23/26, 10:25 AM • 18652 views
Donbas remains one of the key and most complex issues in the Russian-Ukrainian war and any potential negotiations for its conclusion. It is around the status of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions that the fundamental contradiction between the parties is concentrated: for Ukraine, it is a matter of sovereignty and international law; for Russia, it is a tool to consolidate the results of aggression; and for the United States, it is a component of a broader attempt to stop the war and stabilize the security situation in Europe.
After the start of the full-scale invasion in 2022, Donbas transformed from a region of hybrid conflict into one of the main arenas of war. Russia has repeatedly stated that it considers the Donetsk and Luhansk regions "part of the Russian Federation," referring to the pseudo-referendums of 2022, which were not recognized by any democratic state in the world. It was from this moment that Donbas finally became not just a subject of negotiations, but a symbol of a fundamental clash between two approaches to the world order: force against law.
Ukrainian position on Donbas
Ukraine's position on Donbas is publicly consistent and legally clear. Kyiv proceeds from the premise that the Donetsk and Luhansk regions are an integral part of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders of 1991. Any changes to the status of these territories, from the perspective of the Ukrainian authorities, are impossible without the restoration of full sovereignty, the withdrawal of Russian troops, and the creation of conditions for the legitimate expression of the will of Ukrainian citizens. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has repeatedly emphasized that territorial concessions cannot be the "price of peace," as such peace would be unstable and would set a precedent for rewarding the aggressor.
At the same time, Ukraine recognizes that the issue of Donbas is one of the most complex in any negotiation process. That is why Kyiv emphasizes not only the return of territories but also security guarantees that would prevent a repeat of aggression. In this context, Donbas for Ukraine is not only a territorial but also a security node: control over the region has a direct impact on the protection of the south and east of the country, logistics, industrial potential, and defense capabilities in general.
Russian position on Donbas
The Russian position is diametrically opposed. The Kremlin insists that Donbas must be definitively removed from the Ukrainian political and legal sphere. In various variations, Russian proposals boil down to the demand that Ukraine recognize the loss of control over the occupied parts of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. Moscow views Donbas as the minimum outcome of the war, without which any cessation of hostilities loses its meaning for it.
American position on Donbas
The United States' position on the Donbas issue is more complex and less unambiguous. Officially, Washington, under the new Donald Trump administration, supports Ukraine's territorial integrity and does not recognize any attempts to annex Ukrainian lands. At the same time, within the framework of diplomatic efforts, the US increasingly views Donbas as a potential point of compromise around which a ceasefire scenario could be built. Americans have an idea of creating demilitarized or special economic zones in parts of Donbas, as well as scenarios for the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops in exchange for security guarantees.
For the US, Donbas is not so much a matter of historical justice as it is an element of risk management. American logic stems from the desire to stop the active phase of the war, reduce the likelihood of direct escalation between Russia and NATO, and stabilize the situation in Europe. That is why some American proposals may be perceived in Ukraine as pressure or as an attempt to "freeze" the conflict without resolving its root causes.
As a result, Donbas remains a point where compromise seems least likely. Ukraine is not ready to cede territories, as this contradicts both its Constitution and the basic principles of international law. Russia is not ready to give up Donbas, as it views it as a strategic trophy and a guarantee of influence over Ukraine in the future. The US, in turn, tries to balance between supporting Ukraine and striving for a quicker end to the war, even if it requires difficult and politically painful decisions.
Thus, the issue of Donbas is not just a territorial dispute, but a concentrated manifestation of a deeper conflict between different visions of security, sovereignty, and world order. That is why any decision regarding Donbas will determine not only the future of Ukraine but also the security architecture in Europe for years to come.
However, even a hypothetical agreement by Ukraine to lose Donbas would not guarantee either lasting peace or an end to Russian claims. On the contrary, such a step could only solidify the logic of forceful border revision and create grounds for new demands from the Kremlin. In this context, one cannot rule out a scenario in which, after Donbas, Russia again actualizes the issue of the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions, appealing to the same pseudo-legal arguments and "referendums." Under such conditions, concessions do not reduce the risk of escalation, but only postpone it to a new stage.