Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Politics

Early versions of the peace plan envisaged a buffer zone in the Donbas

In initial drafts of the U.S. plan, it was proposed to create a neutral demilitarized zone in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, from which Ukrainian forces would be withdrawn while Russian forces would remain in place; Kyiv warns of the risk of a frozen conflict.

Oleg Bazylewicz

By Oleg Bazylewicz

December 11, 2025 · 2 min read

Early versions of the peace plan envisaged a buffer zone in the Donbas

In the initial versions of the US peace initiative, it was envisaged to establish a neutral demilitarized buffer zone within Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. The proposal suggested withdrawing the Armed Forces of Ukraine from this zone, while Russian units would remain.

Conditions of demilitarization

The document envisaged granting this strip international recognition as territory belonging to the Russian Federation, which would make it possible for its troops to remain there without any requirement to withdraw.

According to information familiar with the negotiation process, officials of US President Donald Trump's administration in recent weeks insisted on arrangements for territorial exchanges, which they considered an integral part of a potential agreement between Kyiv and Moscow. Special Representative Steve Witkoff particularly pressed for this.

Kyiv's position

Ukrainian participants in the discussions compared the proposed format to the zone that divides North and South Korea: they argued that such a decision could provide a long-lasting but indecisive peace — effectively a freezing of the conflict, during which Russia would be able to regroup its forces for further offensives.

A senior Ukrainian official familiar with the latest version of the plan said that the text does not include a requirement for Russia to withdraw its troops from the area that would become the eastern border of the demilitarized strip.

Territorial coverage and timeline of statements

Control over the Donbas under these proposals would mean the subordination of the "belt of fortresses" — Pokrovsk, Kostiantynivka, Druzhkivka, Kramatorsk, and Sloviansk — cities that hold a strategic line of defense in eastern Ukraine.

  • On December 5, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Oleksandr Syrskyi said that Russia is using the negotiation process to seize as much territory as possible.
  • On December 8, President Volodymyr Zelensky emphasized that Ukraine has no right to give up land and that the US is allegedly seeking compromise options.
  • On December 11 it became known that the US handed European partners a plan for the gradual return of Russia to the global economy.

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026