
Why Russia is desperate to capture eastern Ukraine's industrial heartland
The Russian leader demanded that Ukrainian forces withdraw from Donetsk as part of any ceasefire deal, and said he would be prepared to stop fighting on the rest of the frontline if Kyiv gave in to the demand and addressed the 'root causes of the conflict'.
The Ukrainian president has said that Putin wants to take the remaining 30 per cent of the eastern region, which has been the location of some of the fiercest battles in the three-and-a-half-year war.
But losing Donetsk would give Russia control of almost all of the Donbas, the collective name for Ukraine's eastern industrial heartland, which has been long coveted by Putin.
Earlier this week, Zelensky vowed that Ukraine would 'never leave' the Donbas and warned that Putin could use it as a springboard for a future invasion.
However, sources close to the meeting told The Independent that the dramatic move appears to have been endorsed by Mr Trump as a means to bring an end to the war.
As Kyiv fights to keep the Donbas from Trump's so-called 'land swap' deal, here's all you need to know about the region.
Where is the Donbas?
Situated along Ukraine's eastern border, the Donbas takes its portmanteau name from 'Donets Basin', a further abbreviation of 'Donets Coal Basin', in reference to the coal basin along the Donets Ridge and River.
The Donbas stretches across the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, two large regions of Ukraine that have been on the front line of the war that followed Russia's invasion.
How long has it been occupied?
The Donbas has been partially occupied by Russia since 2014, around the same time that Putin annexed the Crimean peninsula. Russian-backed separatists broke away from the Ukrainian government to proclaim the regions of Donetsk and Luhansk independent 'people's republics' and, as a result, Moscow captured more than a third of Ukraine's eastern territory.
Russia classes inhabitants of the Republic of Crimea, Sevastopol, the Luhansk People's Republic, the Donetsk People's Republic, and the regions of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson as subjects of the Russian Federation. Ukraine insists these territories are part of Ukraine.
It is believed that around 88 per cent of the Donbas is under Russian control. This includes almost all of the Luhansk region and 75 per cent of the Donetsk region, according to Reuters. Approximately 6,600 sq km is still controlled by Ukraine, but Russia has been focusing most of its energy along the front in Donetsk, pushing towards the last remaining major cities such as Pokrovsk.
A key strategic region in the war
The hyper-industrialised Donbas economy is dominated by coal mining and metallurgy. The region has one of the largest coal reserves in Ukraine. When conflict broke out in 2014, Ukraine's coal-mining enterprises saw a 22.4 per cent decline in the production of raw coal compared with 2013, according to the Kyiv Post, showing the country's reliance on Donbas as an energy powerhouse.
But as well as its economic significance, Donbas has been described as a 'fortress belt' by the Institute for the Study of War in terms of its strategic value. Donetsk forms the main fortified defensive line across the front line, stretching through Sloviansk, Kramatorsk, Druzhkivka, and Kostiantynivka.
'Ukraine is holding a key defensive line across Donetsk,' says Elina Beketova, a fellow at the Centre for European Policy Analysis, describing a 'fortified zone buildup over years because the war began 11 years ago'. She adds that Russia hasn't been able to break through since 2014, and has lost many people there. The entire region is heavily mined, and Ukrainian troops have been preparing it for years.
'It's not just trenches, it's a deep, layered defence with bunkers, anti-tank ditches, minefields, and industrial areas built into the terrain. The area includes dominant heights, rivers, and urban zones that make it extremely hard to capture,' explains Beketova.
She says that losing this fortified line would have 'catastrophic consequences' for Ukraine, as it holds back Russia's advancement into central and western parts of the country. 'The front would shift approximately 80km west, and Russia would gain open ground – flat steppe with no natural barriers – giving it a direct path towards Kharkiv, Poltava, and Dnipro.'
What Zelensky has said about the Donbas
Zelensky has repeatedly rejected calls from Russia to give up the Donbas.
In response to Putin's request that Ukraine withdraw from eastern Donetsk, Zelensky vowed that his people would 'never leave' the Donbas, and warned that Putin's troops could use it as a springboard for a future invasion.
'We will not leave Donbas. We cannot do this. Everyone forgets the first part – our territories are illegally occupied. Donbas for the Russians is a springboard for a future new offensive,' he said.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Reuters
a few seconds ago
- Reuters
Take Five: From Anchorage to Jackson Hole
Aug 18 (Reuters) - There seems to be very little standing in the way of stock-market bulls right now, but what follows a U.S./Russia summit in Alaska, a central bank shin-dig in Wyoming and the outcome of Bolivia's election may imbue them with some caution. Here's your week ahead from Rocky Swift in Tokyo; Suzanne McGee and Rodrigo Campos in New York and Dhara Ranasinghe and Naomi Rovnick in London. Following Friday's meeting between Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, it's the turn of Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and European leaders to meet the U.S. President later on Monday, opens new tab to map out a peace deal. The fear is Trump could try to pressure Kyiv into accepting a settlement favourable to Moscow. Zelenskiy has already all but rejected the outline of Putin's proposals, including for Ukraine to give up the rest of its eastern Donetsk region, of which it currently controls a quarter. No doubt, markets will be hesitant to price in an end to the war until a ceasefire, at least, is agreed. Europe, meanwhile, is unlikely to embrace Russia, even if peace returns to Ukraine. Defence stocks are likely to remain an investor favourite for now. It's officially summer in financial markets. Q2 earnings are out, the next crop of major economic data isn't until early September and many money managers and traders are heading out to the beaches for a break. There is just one thing to worry about: Jackson Hole. The Wyoming resort plays host to the annual central bankers' schmoozefest and will include Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell among its attendees. The conference takes place as stocks hover near record levels, and Trump continues to take pot-shots at Powell. Jackson Hole has the potential to be disruptive. Any hint from Powell that a September rate cut isn't happening and markets could sell off hard, while an overly upbeat tone from the Fed chair may feed more euphoria. 'And bull markets die in euphoria,' says Steve Sosnick, strategist at trading firm IBKR. As global stocks rally, everything from weak U.S. jobs data to trouble at the top of the Federal Reserve has been a reason to bet on U.S. rate cuts, meaning it's not been profitable to be bearish. About 60% of global investors surveyed by BofA think U.S. stagflation could be the dominant global market regime within three months. A basket of stocks that do well in stagflationary environments, where growth slows as inflation accelerates, has been outpaced by Wall Street's benchmark S&P 500 index (.SPX), opens new tab this year, Societe Generale strategists reckon. Next week's business surveys, which can show economic trends months before they appear in official data, will offer more clues about whether U.S. tariffs are driving the world's largest towards stagflation. SocGen, however, expects Fed rate cuts to inflate a stock-market bubble that might not pop until at least next year. With nearly every central bank looking to cut rates to give their economies a soft landing, the Bank of Japan stands apart in its mission to raise borrowing costs - in theory. So, next Friday's inflation data will be in focus for any sign of when the BOJ's long-pledged tightening cycle will resume. The previous reading of the core consumer price index (CPI) showed an annual 3.3% increase in June, remaining above the BOJ's 2% target for over three years. No bank went harder or longer with quantitative easing than the BOJ. But the long road towards normalisation has been complicated by uncertainty over U.S. tariffs and concerns about whether Japan was seeing the right kind of price increases. BOJ Governor Kazuo Ueda has justified slower rate hikes because underlying inflation, which focuses on domestic demand and wages, remains below the central bank's target. Centrist senator Rodrigo Paz was leading Bolivia's presidential election late on Sunday. The election kicks off a string of national and local votes across Latin America that extends into late next year, when behemoth Brazil votes to elect a new (or sitting) president. After 2022's "pink tide" brought left-leaning governments to power in Chile, Colombia and Brazil, investors want to see if voters will return to more market-friendly right-wingers. Ahead of the Bolivian election, the country's bonds rallied on hopes that political change could bring the economy back from the brink. Argentina's local elections in September and October are seen as a gauge of the popularity of President Javier Milei's radical economic transformation. Chile votes for a president in November, while next year Colombia elects its congress in March and president in May. Peru holds a presidential election in April and Brazil does so in October 2026.


Evening Standard
30 minutes ago
- Evening Standard
Trump says Zelensky 'could end war' with Russia as leaders prepare for crunch White House talks
'Ukrainians are fighting for their land, for their independence. Now, our soldiers have successes in Donetsk and Sumy regions. I am confident that we will defend Ukraine, effectively guarantee security, and that our people will always be grateful to President Trump, everyone in America, and every partner and ally for their support and invaluable assistance. Russia must end this war, which it itself started. And I hope that our joint strength with America, with our European friends, will force Russia into a real peace.'


Spectator
30 minutes ago
- Spectator
Starmer's coalition of the willing has been saved from itself
It is commonplace to accuse politicians of being out of touch. There is often some truth in the charge, and our elected representatives take it on the chin. One of the least likely politicians to face this charge has always been John Healey: the defence secretary has been one of the most sensible and pragmatic ministers in Sir Keir Starmer's cabinet – not a high bar, admittedly. And yet there are signs that he has succumbed to the Ministry of Defence's corrosive habit of dealing with the world as it wants it to be, not as it is. We all watched the news from Friday's summit between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin in Anchorage. However you try to frame the encounter, it was at best a huge disappointment for the US president. His Russian counterpart conceded nothing and his armed forces continue to pound Ukraine's cities. Meanwhile, his pre-conditions for any kind of negotiations remain the maximal aims with which he began the war: Ukraine must cede territory to Russia, rule out membership of Nato indefinitely and, in practice, allow the Kremlin a veto over its foreign policy. And yet, John Healey can't be accused of being a pessimist. 'In the circumstances of a ceasefire we're ready to put UK boots on the ground in Ukraine,' he told the BBC on Friday, shortly before the talks began. 'They are ready to go, they're ready to act from day one. The military plans are complete.' This is, of course, the 'coalition of the willing' which Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron have worked so hard to assemble. But there is one problem: it may indeed be 'ready to go' – although this is doubtful – but there is no ceasefire nor any prospect of a ceasefire, and Russia has violated previous pauses in the fighting with impunity. Secretary of state Marco Rubio was downbeat in the wake of the summit. 'There remain some big areas of disagreement,' he admitted to ABC's This Week. 'We're not at the precipice of an agreement, we're not at the edge of one.' President Trump, for whom consistency is something that applies to other people, seems to have decided a ceasefire is no longer important, despite having previously stressed what a priority it was. He casually edited reality on his Truth Social platform in his characteristic and odd way: It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a peace agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere ceasefire agreement, which often times do not hold up. Where does this leave the coalition of the willing? Starmer and Macron are now all dressed up with nowhere to go. They have made an enormous play of their genuinely tireless efforts in constructing the coalition, but its only purpose is to monitor, police or help implement a ceasefire in Ukraine. It is now plain to any rational observer that there will be no ceasefire in the foreseeable future, because it is not an approach which suits Putin and he now knows that Trump has little intention of putting pressure on him to bring it about. That may prove good fortune in a heavy disguise for Starmer because there is another consideration. Our armed forces are in no position to deploy significant numbers of troops in a safe and sustainable way to Ukraine. The size of the coalition's anticipated deployment is unknown but has been a moving target: in February, President Zelenskyy talked about needing a force of between 100,000 and 150,000. At the time, the Ministry of Defence carelessly allowed the idea to circulate that the UK might contribute 20,000 troops. In March, Starmer talked about 30,000 troops. The following month, the chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, consulted with his military colleagues in the coalition of the willing about generating a force of 64,000, and was told that not only was that utterly unrealistic, but that less than half that number, even 25,000, would be extremely challenging. Once again, UK ministers are trumpeting an idea that by definition cannot come to fruition. Without a ceasefire, putting boots on the ground in Ukraine is impossible; even if there were a ceasefire, the UK does not have the resources, especially in terms of artillery and logistics, to assemble anything more than a battlegroup of maybe 1,000 soldiers. Even our current commitments are stretching us. For context, Russia is estimated to have 600,000 soldiers in and around Ukraine. John Healey seems to have retreated into a comforting game of 'what if?', supposing that every eventuality he wants has come to pass and is then telling the media what the UK would do. Increasingly, though, he is talking not about potential outcomes but doors which have already closed. What if Russia agreed to a ceasefire, what if Putin moderated his demands, what if Russia and Ukraine could find an acceptable long-term settlement? As Jake says in the closing pages of Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises, 'Isn't it pretty to think so?'