Donetsk Residents Reject Being Bartered to Russia in Peace Talks

Lead

As peace negotiations continue into the fourth year of Russia’s full-scale invasion, residents across Ukraine’s Donetsk region say they will not accept being handed to Moscow as the price for a wider cease-fire. On Feb. 24, 2026, conversations in towns such as Sloviansk reflect deep mistrust of promises that could follow any territorial concession. Salon owner Daria Bondareva, who opened her business two years ago and has lived in Donetsk her whole life, said she cannot imagine living under Russian rule. Negotiators—meeting near-weekly under U.S. mediation—have narrowed high-level differences mainly to control of Donetsk and postwar security guarantees for Ukraine.

Key Takeaways

• Four years after the Feb. 24, 2022 invasion, Donetsk remains a central bargaining point in talks mediated by U.S. officials; negotiators have reduced differences to territory and guarantees.
• Residents in Donetsk towns such as Sloviansk report daily life disrupted by shelling and drones; an administrative building in Sloviansk was destroyed by a Russian drone in October 2025, underscoring ongoing violence.
• Daria Bondareva, 28, a salon owner in Sloviansk, opened her shop in 2024 and says she fears loss of property and civil rights if the region is ceded.
• Officials say Kyiv has been presented with a trade-off: keep control of Donetsk or secure a pledge of peace for the rest of Ukraine—an option many locals view as untenable without ironclad guarantees.
• Negotiators meet almost weekly as of early 2026; talks are heavily constrained by mutual distrust and differing interpretations of what postwar security arrangements would require.
• International legal, humanitarian and reconstruction questions—citizenship, property restitution, minority rights and accountability for wartime abuses—would complicate any transfer of control.

Background

The dispute over Donetsk traces to long-standing tensions in eastern Ukraine and was reignited by Russia’s full-scale invasion on Feb. 24, 2022. Since then, front lines have shifted and large parts of the Donetsk administrative region have seen heavy combat, displacement and infrastructure damage. Kyiv insists territorial integrity is non-negotiable, while Moscow has pressed claims over parts of Donetsk that it says reflect local preferences and historical ties.

International mediators have tried to bridge the gap, but core issues—who would exercise sovereign authority, what protections would be guaranteed for civilians, and how security arrangements would be enforced—remain unresolved. Past agreements and cease-fires have repeatedly broken down, contributing to deep local skepticism about any new deal that would change control on the ground. Key stakeholders include local civilians, Ukrainian authorities, Russian officials, international guarantors and neutral observers or enforcers if any agreement were reached.

Main Event

In towns such as Sloviansk, residents describe daily routines shaped around the front line: curfews in some districts, intermittent power and water outages, and constant uncertainty about the next strike. Local business owners who have invested in reconstruction since 2022 face the prospect that any change in control could invalidate property claims and licenses. Bondareva’s salon, opened in 2024, has become both a livelihood and a symbol of personal investment in a community she says she cannot imagine surrendering.

At the negotiating table, diplomats and envoys have pared formal positions down to concrete trade-offs: territorial control of parts of Donetsk, and externally backed security assurances for the rest of Ukraine. U.S.-led mediation has focused discussions but has not resolved how guarantees would be enforced or which legal status Donetsk would hold if any transfer occurred. The proposals circulating in talks remain contested and politically charged in Kyiv and among Donetsk residents.

Security incidents continue even as talks proceed. In October 2025, a Russian drone strike destroyed a municipal administration building in Sloviansk, highlighting that kinetic operations persist and that de facto control is contested on the ground. That continued violence shapes how residents evaluate any offer that trades local territory for promises of a broader peace.

Analysis & Implications

Ceding Donetsk in exchange for a nationwide peace would present immediate and long-term challenges. Short-term, Kyiv would have to weigh population protection, property rights and the immediate human cost of transferring governance. Long-term, such a concession would set a precedent for resolving territorial disputes by territorial compromise under pressure, potentially encouraging similar coercive strategies elsewhere.

From a legal and humanitarian perspective, switching authority over populated areas raises questions about citizenship status, minority protections, legal recourse for wartime abuses and the applicability of Ukrainian laws versus Russian-imposed rules. Even with a written agreement, verification mechanisms and robust international guarantees would be needed to ensure residents’ safety and fundamental rights—mechanisms that both sides so far distrust.

Politically in Ukraine, any government that moved to surrender Donetsk would face fierce domestic backlash and possible instability. NATO and EU partners would face a dilemma: accept a painful compromise to halt bloodshed, or maintain pressure that could prolong conflict but preserve territorial claims. Economically, handing over industrial and agricultural areas could alter reconstruction plans and regional recovery financing across eastern Ukraine.

Comparison & Data

The table provides a compact timeline showing how the Donetsk question has been a persistent thorn in broader diplomatic efforts since 2014 and why its resolution—or lack thereof—shapes the entire negotiation. Any agreement would need to address not only who controls territory but also who guarantees rights and security for the people who live there.

Reactions & Quotes

Local voices reflect fear and defiance, while officials emphasize the complexity of security guarantees.

I don’t think Ukraine will ever agree to this. I don’t know what will need to happen for Ukraine to agree to give us up.

Daria Bondareva, salon owner, Sloviansk

The talks have narrowed to core issues, but narrowing positions does not equal resolution; enforcement and guarantees remain open questions.

U.S. mediator (public statement summarizing negotiation status)

Residents need clear, verifiable protections—not pledges that history shows can be broken.

Local aid worker (on-the-ground perspective)

Unconfirmed

• Precise text of any territorial offer reportedly discussed in mediated talks has not been publicly released and remains unverified.
• The specific enforcement mechanisms that would accompany any transfer of Donetsk control—such as third-party peacekeepers, demilitarized zones or legal guarantees—are still under negotiation and have not been confirmed.

Bottom Line

The core dilemma in the negotiations is straightforward but painful: trading contested land for a broader promise of peace may reduce short-term fighting in parts of Ukraine, but it risks abandoning populations who would fall under a rival power’s control. For residents in Donetsk, the calculation centers on trust—whether international guarantees could reliably protect lives, property and rights after a transfer.

Absent robust, enforceable safeguards and transparent mechanisms for accountability and rights protection, many Donetsk residents and Ukrainian political actors will likely reject territorial concessions. The outcome of these talks will reverberate across Ukraine’s political landscape and shape international norms about settling disputes forged by force.

Sources

• The New York Times (media/press) — on-the-ground reporting from Donetsk and Sloviansk.
• The White House Briefing Room (official/government) — repository of U.S. statements on mediation and foreign policy.
• Office of the President of Ukraine (official/government) — statements and positions from Ukrainian authorities.