As the Trump–Putin summit in Alaska draws near, one demand threatens to overshadow diplomacy: Russia insists Ukraine withdraw entirely from Donbas as part of a ceasefire deal. At first glance, giving up this embattled region might seem a way to halt a war with no clear endpoint.

Yet the push for withdrawal raises a pressing question: can Ukraine truly afford to abandon Donbas? The stakes go beyond shifting lines on a map—it’s about the survival of Ukraine’s defenses, the fate of its heartland, and what kind of peace, if any, might follow.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has been unequivocal:

“We will not leave Donbas. We cannot do this. Donbas is a springboard for Russia’s future offensive… They want to take about 9,000 square kilometers—around 30% of Donetsk Oblast—and that will be a platform for new aggression.”

The term Donbas refers to two eastern Ukrainian regions: Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. As of mid-2025, Russia occupies nearly all of Luhansk—about 99%—and roughly 75% of Donetsk, leaving only a narrow stretch under Ukrainian control.

It is within this fractured and embattled landscape that Ukraine’s most critical defensive line—the fortress belt—has held firm.

The fortress belt: Ukraine’s eastern shield

The fortress belt stretches from Sloviansk through Kramatorsk to Druzhkivka and Kostyantynivka, a 50-kilometer chain of fortified towns and cities. It relies as much on geography as on engineering: Karachun Hill towers over the plain, rivers carve natural moats, and slag heaps, quarries, and railway embankments reinforce defensive positions.

Victor Taran, a Ukrainian Armed Forces officer and co-founder of the “KRUK” UAV training center, captures its essence:

“The paths into this agglomeration are mined, re-mined, and controlled with interlocking fire.”

Within these urban zones, streets are blocked by tank traps and trenches; anti-drone nets span chokepoints. Just behind the front line lie the arteries of resistance—supply depots, repair hubs, and medical evacuation routes—all seamlessly integrated into defense.

This fortress belt isn’t static—it’s a dynamic defense network, built over a decade. Recreating it farther west would mean starting from scratch, on flat, exposed steppe.

Why the fortress belt matters

According to the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), Russian forces have repeatedly failed to break through or encircle it. The belt’s cities aren’t mere strongpoints—they are the linchpin holding back the eastern advance. ISW notes that Russia’s demand for its surrender is a telling admission of its inability to take it by force alone.

If the belt falls: Why geography turns against Ukraine

Abandoning the fortress belt would push Ukraine’s front line 82 km west onto open fields—no hills, few settlements, no river buffers. This flat terrain is made for airpower and drones, not defense.

Again, Taran warns:

“Without the fortress belt, our troops would be in open fields. The Russians would kill them with bombs and missiles like in a shooting range.”

The rebuilding problem

To build a new defensive network farther west—in Kharkiv, Dnipropetrovsk, or Poltava oblasts—Ukraine would need months of engineering, vast resources, and unwavering Western support. And even then, the terrain offers no natural advantages like rivers, industrial strongpoints, or commanding elevations.

A front under intensifying pressure

Even without forced retreat, Ukrainian defenses are under growing strain. The situation in Donetsk Oblast worsens daily. Recently, Russian forces made their deepest breakthrough in more than a year near Pokrovsk, advancing 10–17 km into Ukrainian-held territory.

Though narrow, this salient threatens to sever supply routes feeding the fortress belt. If it widens, Ukrainian positions in Sloviansk, Kramatorsk, and Druzhkivka could face isolation and collapse—a risk that underscores how close the danger already is.

A launchpad for the next offensive

Without the fortress belt, Russia would gain a direct launchpad to strike deeper into Kharkiv, Dnipro, Zaporizhzhia, and Poltava. The terrain offers nothing to slow such an offensive—unless a strong, pre-prepared defense stands in the way.

The historical warning

In 1938, Czechoslovakia ceded its fortified Sudetenland to Nazi Germany, hoping for peace. Six months later, the entire country was occupied. History teaches us: surrendering fortified ground to an expansionist power rarely ends wars—it triggers the next.

What’s really at stake

Donbas is more than scarred land—it is the cradle of Ukraine’s eastern defense. Surrendering it isn’t neutral—it is giving up the very shield that has held since 2014.

The question remains: can Ukraine afford to abandon Donbas? Some may see it as a pathway to peace. But if peace means sacrificing its strongest defenses, it may be a peace paid for with its survival.

Kremlin officials are reportedly demanding that Ukraine surrender the Ukrainian “fortress belt” in Donetsk Oblast before any ceasefire, a move the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) says is deliberately designed to be unacceptable. The think tank assessed that Moscow “lacks the means to capture” the fortified cities and instead wants Kyiv to abandon them “in exchange for nothing.”

Putin’s demands target Ukraine’s strongest defense line

Bloomberg reported on 8 August that Vladimir Putin’s proposal would require Ukraine to withdraw from Ukrainian-controlled areas in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, along with Crimea, before any negotiations. The plan makes no mention of Russian withdrawal from the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant or from positions in Kharkiv, Sumy, Dnipropetrovsk, and Mykolaiv oblasts.

According to the Wall Street Journal, two European officials briefed on the offer said it included two phases: Ukraine would first withdraw from Donetsk Oblast and freeze the frontline, followed by a peace plan to be agreed between Putin and US President Donald Trump, and later negotiated with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Trump said at a press conference on 8 August that “there will be some swapping of territories to the betterment of both,” adding there would be “no further announcements until August 9 or later.”

Explore further

Trump’s Russia deadline expires without sanctions — now he’s flying Putin to Alaska for “peace” talks

ISW stressed that conceding the Ukrainian fortress belt—a line of four major cities and several towns reinforced since 2014—would allow Russian forces to avoid “a long and bloody struggle for the ground.”

The belt, stretching dozens of kilometers along the H-20 highway from Sloviansk to Kostiantynivka, has blocked Moscow’s advance for over a decade. Losing it would push the front 82 kilometers deeper into Ukraine, positioning Russian forces within striking range of Kharkiv and Dnipropetrovsk oblasts.

Risk of new offensives after a ‘ceasefire’

The think tank warned that Russian forces “will almost certainly violate any future ceasefire or peace agreement” without robust monitoring and security guarantees. Ceding the belt would also force Ukraine to urgently fortify open terrain at the Donetsk Oblast border, which ISW described as “significantly less defensible than the current line.”

Russian troops have repeatedly failed to seize Sloviansk, Kramatorsk, and Druzhkivka since 2022. ISW noted that taking them now would require years of combat and high losses, making a negotiated surrender far more advantageous for Moscow. It would also spare Russian forces from costly battles for Pokrovsk and Myrnohrad, and allow them to bypass Ukraine’s westernmost Dobropillia-Bilozerske defensive line.

Ongoing strikes signal lack of good faith

While the proposal circulated, the Ukrainian Air Force said Russia launched four jet-powered drones and 104 Shahed-type strike and decoy drones overnight on 7–8 August. Of these, 79 were downed, but 26 struck ten locations, damaging civilian and industrial infrastructure in Kharkiv City’s Saltyvskyi Raion, Bucha Raion in Kyiv Oblast, and in Sumy and Odesa oblasts.

ISW concluded that these continued strikes, combined with Kremlin messaging that “only Putin will dictate the terms of peace,” show the Russian leader “remains disinterested in good-faith negotiations” and still seeks Ukraine’s capitulation.