U.S. Security Guarantees and the Donbas Territory: The Strategic Game Behind the Abu Dhabi Negotiations

On January 27, news from Washington stirred the nearly four-year-old Russia-Ukraine war situation. According to Reuters and the Financial Times citing multiple informed sources, the U.S. Trump administration has indicated to Ukraine that providing legally binding security guarantees would depend on whether Kyiv first reaches a peace agreement with Russia—an agreement likely to require Ukraine to relinquish the entire Donbas region. This revelation emerged just before a new round of trilateral talks in Abu Dhabi, exposing that the U.S.-mediated peace process is entering the most challenging core issue: territorial disputes. Although Ukrainian President Zelensky stated on Sunday that the U.S. security guarantee document was "100% ready," a senior official admitted that Washington repeatedly halts at the moment when signing could proceed, leaving Kyiv increasingly uncertain about the commitments from the United States.

The structure of documents on the negotiation table and the calculations of all parties involved.

According to Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha's explanation to European Pravda, the core of the current peace process revolves around a 20-point framework agreement. The structure of this document is quite meaningful: it will be a bilateral document signed by the United States and Ukraine; at the same time, the United States needs to sign a separate document with Russia. Although the European Union will not appear as a signatory, any provisions in the agreement related to European integration must be agreed upon by EU partners. This design reflects the United States' attempt to play the role of a core guarantor while placing the EU in a supportive rather than leading position. Sybiha particularly emphasized that the security guarantees under discussion are legally binding guarantees, not political declarations, and require approval from institutions such as the U.S. Congress.

The U.S. strategic considerations appear to follow two parallel lines. On one hand, according to information from eight informed sources reported by the Financial Times, U.S. officials have hinted that if Ukraine agrees to withdraw from parts of the Donbas region currently under its control as a price for peace, the United States would pledge to provide additional weapons and equipment to strengthen its peacetime military. On the other hand, White House Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly firmly denied the report, calling it completely inaccurate, and reiterated that the sole role of the United States in the peace process is to bring both sides together to reach an agreement. A source familiar with the U.S. position also told Reuters that the United States is not attempting to force Ukraine into making any territorial concessions, and that security guarantees depend on both sides reaching a peace agreement, but the content of the agreement is for Russia and Ukraine to decide themselves.

The Kremlin's position has remained consistent. TASS reported that after the weekend talks in Abu Dhabi, Russia once again made it clear that territorial issues remain the foundation of any agreement to end the conflict. Russian Presidential Envoy Kirill Dmitriev stated bluntly on social media X: Withdrawing troops from Donbas is Ukraine's path to peace. Currently, Russia controls about 90% of the territories of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, and its core demand has always been for Ukraine to relinquish the remaining parts.

The Strategic Value and Military Reality of the "Fortress Area" in Donbas

The Donbas region, particularly the parts still under Ukrainian control, is far from ordinary territory. This area, comprised of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, has served as a fortress against Russian military offensives since 2014. The approximately 50-kilometer defensive system constructed by Ukraine in cities such as Kramatorsk, Sloviansk, Druzhkivka, and Kostiantynivka is often referred to as the "fortress belt." In its campaign assessment report dated January 27, the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) analyzed that for Russia to seize the remaining territory of Donetsk Oblast by force, it would require substantial resources, time, and personnel. Assuming Russian forces could maintain the advance speed seen at the end of November 2025, they would still be unable to achieve this objective before August 2027, and recent adverse weather conditions have already slowed the Russian advance.

Ukrainian military and analysts warn that if the Donbas is ceded to Russia as part of a peace agreement or seized by force, it would provide Moscow's forces with a springboard to attack deeper into Ukraine. Zelensky himself emphasized in August 2025 that the Defense Forces would not leave the Donbas under the framework of so-called territorial exchanges, as for the Russians, this would serve as a new offensive platform. ISW assesses that a Ukrainian withdrawal from currently controlled territories in Donetsk Oblast would place Russian forces in a more advantageous position to launch new attacks into southwestern and central Ukraine after future rest and reorganization.

The actual situation on the battlefield significantly differs from official Russian propaganda. During his inspection of the Western Group of Forces on January 27, Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces Valery Gerasimov claimed that since January 1, Russian forces had advanced on all fronts, capturing 17 settlements and over 500 square kilometers of territory. However, based on observed evidence, ISW pointed out that between January 1 and 27, Russian forces only made progress or established a presence in an area of approximately 265.45 square kilometers. Gerasimov particularly exaggerated achievements in the Kupiansk direction, stating that Russian forces had captured Kupiansk-Vuzlovyi and encircled 800 Ukrainian personnel. However, the Ukrainian Joint Forces Task Force refuted this claim, asserting that Ukrainian forces still fully control the settlement. Even pro-war Russian military bloggers widely denied the Ministry of Defense's exaggerated reports, with one blogger sarcastically remarking that these reports exist in a parallel reality.

Beyond Donbas: Russia's Ultimate Goal and Cognitive Warfare

Although the current negotiations focus on Donbas, substantial evidence indicates that Russia's war objectives extend far beyond this region. Gerasimov repeatedly mentioned in his report the need to expand buffer zones in Kharkiv, Sumy, and Dnipropetrovsk Oblasts. Russian officials claim these buffer zones are necessary to protect the Russian-occupied areas of Luhansk and Donetsk. However, the latest publicly available version of the U.S.-Ukraine-Europe 20-point peace plan demands that Russia withdraw its troops from northern Ukraine and Dnipropetrovsk Oblast.

Russian senior officials' rhetoric to domestic audiences more clearly reveals their ultimate goals. On January 26, Sergei Naryshkin, head of Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service, told RIA Novosti that a peaceful solution must address the so-called root causes of the war. On the same day, Alexei Zhuravlyov, deputy chairman of the State Duma Defense Committee, said in an interview with Russian state television that Donbass is not the main issue and questioned how Russia would respond to NATO and the so-called Ukrainian neo-Nazism. These statements point to the demands Russia made in 2021 and 2022: halting NATO expansion, rolling NATO back to its 1997 borders, and replacing the current democratically elected Ukrainian government with a regime of Russia's choosing.

Russia is waging a broad cognitive warfare campaign aimed at forcing the West and Ukraine to surrender to all its demands now, out of fear of future Russian military offensives. Naryshkin claims that Russian forces are steadily advancing across the entire theater, the defense industry is developing at an accelerated pace, the economy is resilient, and the public supports Putin's policies and the military. He also mentioned Russia's debut of the Burevestnik, Sarmat missile, and Poseidon unmanned underwater vehicles in 2024 and 2025, attempting to push the West and Ukraine into surrender through implicit threats. Andrey Kolesnik, a member of the Duma Defense Committee, stated that Russia can only resolve the war through military means and called on Ukraine to realize that resistance is futile. The Kremlin has consistently demanded that any peace agreement not include meaningful security guarantees for Ukraine—a demand reiterated by Naryshkin on January 27.

The Shadow of Humanitarian Crises and War Crimes

While high-level negotiations are underway, the brutal reality on the front lines remains unchanged. On January 27, Russian forces launched a Shahed drone attack on a civilian passenger train in the Kharkiv region, resulting in the deaths of at least 5 civilians. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy reported that the attack occurred near Barvinkove, approximately 49 kilometers from the front line, with over 200 passengers on board at the time, and 18 people were in the carriage that was hit. Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister Oleksiy Kubrava stated that Russian forces used three Shahed drones. A Ukrainian soldier present at the scene told the media that one drone struck the train, while another failed to reach its target. ISW assesses that Russian forces have been leveraging recent drone improvements—including the integration of artificial intelligence, cameras, and radio control capabilities—to increasingly target moving trains within Ukraine. The use of multiple drones in this attack indicates it was deliberate. Compared to the expected military gains from attacking a civilian train carrying only limited military personnel, causing such disproportionate loss of civilian lives, injuries, and damage to civilian objects likely constitutes a violation of international law.

On the same day, released geolocation footage showed Russian first-person view drone operators attacking and killing two civilians in Grabovsk (southeast of Sumy). The 14th Army of Ukraine reported that these two civilians were executed by Russian forces while attempting to leave the occupied territory near Grabovsk. During a series of cross-border attacks launched by Russian forces in Grabovsk on the night of December 19 to 20, 2025, approximately 50 civilians were forcibly displaced. These ongoing war crimes stand in stark contrast to the diplomatic rhetoric in the luxurious hotel conference rooms of Abu Dhabi.

The tripartite talks in Abu Dhabi are expected to continue on February 1. U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff expressed optimism about the negotiation process, stating that the issues have been narrowed down to one... which implies it is solvable. Zelensky later confirmed that this one issue refers to the territory of Donbas. Currently, the United States appears to be attempting to push for Ukraine's withdrawal of troops from Donbas to establish a free economic zone. Initially, Washington proposed a demilitarized zone with international recognition as Russian territory; following opposition from Kyiv and its European partners, Trump ultimately compromised with Zelensky, agreeing to have the area supervised by a neutral force. Zelensky has since shifted his support to the concept of a free economic zone, but on the condition that the area remains internationally recognized as Ukrainian territory and that Russian forces withdraw to an equidistant distance.

The outcome of this game is far from clear. Ukraine hopes to abandon any territory only after its security guarantees from the United States are confirmed; the United States believes Kyiv must relinquish Donbas to end the war and has put almost no pressure on Russian President Putin to give up this most stubborn demand. Russia, as assessed by ISW, will not be satisfied with a peace agreement that fails to meet all its demands and is using information tools to push for Ukraine's preemptive surrender. The hope for peace remains slim, and the land of Donbas, whether it ultimately remains within Ukraine's borders or is incorporated into another country's territory, has already been soaked in the blood of this war.