Financial Times: il piano statunitense per la zona demilitarizzata del Donbass prevede il ritiro solo delle forze ucraine

The United States and Russia are demanding that Ukraine withdraw from approximately a quarter of the Donetsk region and part of the Luhansk region still under Ukrainian control, an area defined as the most fortified and strategic defensive line against Moscow’s offensive.

The British newspaper “Financial Times” reports this, describing this “security belt”—which includes key cities such as Pokrovsk, Kostiantynivka, Druzhkivka, Kramatorsk, and Sloviansk—as the centerpiece of ongoing negotiations.

According to the “Financial Times”, the White House special adviser Steve Witkoff would have intensified pressure on Kyiv to accept a territorial exchange that would transfer the remaining areas of Donbas still under Ukrainian control to Moscow: this circumstance, in fact, would be considered inevitable by US emissaries to reach a peace agreement.

Witkoff, who met with the Russian president Vladimir Putin six times in 2025, he is described as “obsessed” with the idea that an immediate territorial transfer would avoid an even more devastating conflict.

The Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky Instead, reiterates that he has “neither legal nor moral right” to cede territory, warning that any concession without guarantees would lead to an internal political crisis and a freeze in the conflict similar to what happened on the Korean Peninsula, with the risk of a new Russian offensive after a brief pause.

Several Ukrainian analysts quoted by the Financial Times warn that a weak agreement would cause “internal fractures” and leave regions exposed, ripe for further Russian advances.

The British newspaper also reports that preliminary drafts of the US plan include a “neutral, demilitarized zone” that would be recognized as Russian territory.

However, the plan does not envisage a withdrawal of Russian troops from the eastern edge of the demilitarized zone, nor does it provide fully defined security guarantees for Kyiv, factors that, according to experts interviewed by the newspaper, would make the agreement too risky.

The analysts cited – including Michael Kofman of the Carnegie Study Center and Emil Kastehelmi Black Bird – believe the proposal presents profound operational challenges, especially in terms of military surveillance and the management of engagement zones dominated by drones, artillery, and mines.

The possibility of the West reducing military aid and sanctions following a territorial transfer is also considered a further strategic risk.

The Financial Times finally recalls the precedents of the Minsk agreements – the negotiations between Russia and Ukraine started to end the 2014 Donbass conflict –, judged a failure and incapable of preventing the transformation of the southeastern region of Ukraine into a military base for the 2022 invasion.

The Ukrainian Nobel Peace Prize winner Oleksandra Matviichuk, Interviewed by the British newspaper, she said that “Putin will not stop” because he sees Ukraine “as a bridge to Europe” and aims to rebuild the Russian empire.

Edit: original article (paywall) https://www.ft.com/content/ec490909-80e5-48ff-a518-8185a6a5d2c7

“peace”

Ukraine ceding the fortress belt would be absolutely grounds for another russian invasion in 1-2 years max.

everyone knows it, except wankoff and his team.

Europe needs a counter proposal limiting Russian forces, demanding withdrawal, and the creation of a 150km demilitarized zone on the Russian side of the border

Then back the Russian grid and bring it down.

Escalation is the only language Russians understand.

The American boycott should be much greater in Europe.

Lol. Nice deal..

The only solution for a lasting piece (of Ukrainian land for Russia)