The Alaska Summit and The Donbass: Is This The End?

Τhe Alaska Summit, on August 15, 2025, attracted media and diplomatic attention world-wide. Various theories have circulated; some viewed it as a “second Yalta”, leading to a groundbreaking resolution that could grant peace and end the Russian-Ukraine war. Others, more pragmatic than opportunists, saw it simply as an opportunity for direct, face-to-face, diplomatic dialogue between the world leaders. Since Moscow launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, and in light of the ICC arrest warrant, Putin has been considered an international criminal, which has restricted his international mobility. The United States hosted the talks at the Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, with President Donald Trump, receiving President Putin. Reactions within Europe remained divided: while some favored diplomatic engagement, others, such as French President Emmanuel Macron described Putin as “a predator at our doorstep”.

Donbas: The Apple of Discord

Donbass, encompassing Donetsk and Luhansk regions, has been a critical geopolitical and strategic point for both Ukraine and Russia. Moscow’s core demand is for Ukraine to cede the unoccupied portion of Donetsk Oblast, and freeze the frontline elsewhere, with no commitment to a final peace treaty or assurance that fighting will not resume.

In classical geopolitics, Russia is situated in the Heartland. Sir H. J. Mackinder argues that states located in the Heartland tend to emerge as formidable powers. Their strength rests on rapid industrialization and exploitation of natural resources. Nevertheless, Heartland states, such as Russia, face difficulties in fortifying their territory and ensuring effective defense against potential threats; vast land distances, the absence of natural geographic barriers, such as mountain ranges or navigable straits, and the sheer exposure of multiple frontiers, hinder their ability to response immediate to external attacks. This geographical vulnerability tends to be mitigated through efforts to control and, ultimately, exercise sovereignty over neighboring territories. By expanding their geographic reach, Heartland powers seek to establish buffer zones and to eliminate potential sources of imminent threat along their extensive frontiers.

In 2022, the Russian Federation recognized Donetsk and Luhansk as independent states, as rebel – pro-Russian territories. Today, Russia controls more than half of the Donbas region.  For Russia, Donbass has a historical value, in its narrative. During the Russian Civil War, contested by various forces, including troops loyal to the Ukrainian People’s Republic, seized control of much of the Donbas region. Later, during the implementation of the Russification policies, there was a demographic shift in the region, due to migration of Russian-speaking population, ultimately establishing a strong Russian presence. Notably, the Donbass region has always been considered a sovereign part of Ukraine and has never been recognized as a Russian territory.

Ukraine, according to Mackinder’s theory, is part of the Western Heartland; situated in Central and Eastern Europe, offers limited access to the seas for naval forces but holds a strategic significance for any state actor that controls it. Having for decades been exposed to Russian influence and threat, due to Moscow’s size, geography, and economic power, Ukraine has been unable to overcome the structural imbalance with Russia. Consequently, it remains under constant risk of political pressure and territorial encroachment.

Strategically, Donbass, is a «fortress belt»; Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts, are among the easternmost parts of Ukraine, forming part of the border with Russia. The cities of Slovyansk and Kramatorsk form the northern half, while Druzhkivka and Kostiantynivka, form the southern half of the belt. These cities serve as strategic points, enabling continuous and rapid supply lines, as well as the deployment of strategic equipment, thus creating a protective barrier against Russia. The Donbass region is a strategic pivot, where Ukraine has established a strategic and defense line, able to defend Russian incursions.

Is Ukraine willing to cede Donbass to Russia?

The cede of the Donbass region may have strategic, economic and social consequences for Ukraine.

According to classical realist geopolitics, national sovereignty represents one of the core principles of realism. It is expressed as the absolute and exclusive authority, exercised by a state over its territory. The exercise of national sovereignty entails the protection of the state’s territorial integrity, security, and interests. Similarly, national interest corresponds to the concept of raison d’état, in the sense that a state’s political decisions on the international stage are primarily guided by the country’s own interests and strategic objectives, rather than necessarily conforming to moral, legal, or other normative rules. From a realistic geopolitical perspective, Ukraine’s refusal to cede Donbass, is consistent with the defense of national sovereignty and the safeguarding of the raison d’état. Any concession of sovereign territory would directly contradict Ukraine’s national interests and undermine its territorial integrity.

The loss of Donbass, would create more vulnerable defense positions against Russian incursions, allowing for much deeper penetration of Russian forces. Ukraine, in this scenario, would be forced to accelerate the construction of fortifications in its easternmost territories, in Kharkiv and Dnipropetrovsk Oblasts, tightening the military and economic pressure. Notably, this area is also surrounded by rivers, which, as natural obstacles, could serve as immediate strong defensive positions. However, the possibility that the Ukrainian borders would end short of the Donbass region, Ukraine would face significant defensive challenges, as the rivers in the northern area would require enhanced protection to maintain a long-term border and military security. Furthermore, Donbass is a major industrial hub, associated with coal production and steel manufacturing. The eastern part of Ukraine contains critical raw materials, such as Lithium, Metal, Titanium. A substantial portion of coke producing companies and coking coal miles of Ukraine are now located in Russian-occupied territory. The cede of territories does not concern only the land; it is not merely a matter of losing or gaining territory. One must also consider the people who live on that land, their culture, language, social and political preferences.

Is the Alaska Summit the end? It is undoubtedly not the end, but it may mark the beginning of the end. It is clear that the Russian-Ukrainian war is multidimensional, crucial, and complex. The end may still be far, yet as long as dialogue and diplomacy can restrain violence and authoritarian tendencies, international law will ultimately prevail.