August 12, 2025

Institute for the Study of War: Russia demands Ukraine hand over vital territory in. Donetsk

Institute for the Study of War

Kremlin officials are reportedly demanding that Ukraine cede to Russia strategically vital unoccupied territory in Donetsk Oblast and freeze the frontline in other areas as part of a ceasefire agreement. The surrender of the rest of Donetsk Oblast as the prerequisite of a ceasefire with no commitment to a final peace settlement ending the war would force Ukraine to abandon its “fortress belt,” the main fortified defensive line in Donetsk Oblast since 2014, with no guarantee that fighting will not resume. Putin’s reported proposal reportedly demands that Ukraine concede this critical defensive position, which Russian forces currently have no means of rapidly enveloping or penetrating, apparently in exchange for nothing. The precise terms of Putin’s position remain unclear as of August 9; however, Trump Administration officials, particularly US Special Envoy for the Middle East Steve Witkoff, have offered four different presentations of Putin’s terms.

  • The fortress belt is made up of four large cities and several towns and settlements that run north to south along the H-20 Kostyantynivka-Slovyansk highway, with a total pre-war population of over 380,537 people. The belt is 50 kilometers long (roughly 31 miles, about the distance between Washington, D.C., and Baltimore, Maryland).
  • Ukraine has spent the last 11 years pouring time, money, and effort into reinforcing the fortress belt and establishing significant defense industrial and defensive infrastructure in and around these cities.
  • Slovyansk and Kramatorsk form the northern half of the fortress belt and serve as significant logistics hubs for Ukrainian forces defending in Donetsk Oblast. Druzhkivka, Oleksiyevo-Druzhkivka, and Kostyantynivka serve as the southern half of the fortress belt.
  • Ukrainian forces first began building up defensive positions in and around these cities after retaking them from pro-Russian proxy forces who attacked and seized Slovyansk, Kramatorsk, Druzhkivka, and Kostyantynivka in April 2014.
  • Russia’s failure to seize Slovyansk in 2022 and ongoing struggles to envelop the fortress belt underscore the success of Ukraine’s long-term efforts to reinforce the fortress belt cities.
  • Russian forces are currently still attempting to envelop the fortress belt from the southwest and are engaged in an effort to seize it that would likely take several years to complete.

Ceding Ukrainian-held parts of Donetsk Oblast would place Russian forces on the borders of Donetsk Oblast, a position that is significantly less defensible than the current line.

  • Allowing Russian forces to take up positions along the Donetsk Oblast border would require Ukrainian forces to urgently build up massive defensive fortifications along the Kharkiv and Dnipropetrovsk oblast border areas, whose terrain is poorly suited to act as a defensive line.
  • Potential Ukrainian defensive lines in this area would run through open fields, and natural obstacles such as the Oskil and Siverskyi Donets rivers are too far east to serve as defensive positions for Ukrainian forces defending the Donetsk Oblast border.
  • A potential ceasefire along the Donetsk Oblast border would also require large-scale investment in infrastructure compatible with a large-scale, long-term ceasefire monitoring mission.
  • Russian forces also hold limited positions along the Dnipropetrovsk Oblast border southwest of Pokrovsk, but ceding the remainder of Donetsk Oblast would allow Russian forces to avoid completing their ongoing costly efforts to envelop Pokrovsk and Myrnohrad. Russian forces would also avoid having to fight through Ukraine’s westernmost Dobropillya-Bilozerske-Novodonetske-Oleksandrivka defensive line, which also runs north to south, similar to the fortress belt. Conceding the remainder of Donetsk Oblast would thus also provide Russian forces more advantageous positions from which to attack into Dnipropetrovsk Oblast.
Share the Post:

Wilson Center

Forced displacement represents one of the most pressing humanitarian issues of our time. Individuals and families, torn from the fabric of their communities, find themselves navigating a world of uncertainty, often without basic necessities or a clear path to safety. There are currently some 110 million forced displaced, and this number is growing by 10 million each year!

At the heart of this crisis are the political triggers. Armed conflicts, ethnic or religious persecutions, and systemic human rights abuses force millions to flee their homes in terror. Many are displaced within their own national boundaries, while others seek asylum abroad. If these factors change as a result of political shifts at home or the pressures from abroad, they can return to their homes. Forced displacement is thus different from environmentally driven displacement, as victims of climate change may never be able to return to their homes.

The ramifications of any sort of displacement are profound, not just for those directly affected, but also for host communities and countries. Overburdened infrastructures, socio-economic strains, and cultural tensions can arise, necessitating comprehensive strategies to foster harmony and integration. Yet the root causes of forced displacement can be remedied with a concerted focus by local players and international diplomacy.

Organizations like Refugees International play a crucial role in this arena, advocating for the rights and needs of the displaced, conducting on-the-ground assessments, and influencing policymakers to take informed actions. Their relentless work underscores the gravity of the situation and the urgency ofinternational cooperation. But they, too, are overwhelmed by the rapid expansion of the crisis.

International Humanitarian Law (IHL), with its core principles centered on the protection of civilians during conflicts, plays a pivotal role in this discourse. Yet, despite clear legal frameworks, compliance remains
inconsistent. This initiative emphasizes the importance of upholding and reinforcing these international standards.

It’s not just about recognizing the problem; it’s about active engagement. We urge governments, organizations, and individuals to prioritize the rights and needs of the forced displaced. Through collective efforts, informed policies, and sustained advocacy, we can shift the narrative from passive acknowledgment to proactive intervention.