"The Trump Plan" cannot avoid the concept of a "buffer zone" in any negotiation.

“Trump Plan” Leaves Unanswered Questions: What Will Happen to the Kherson, Zaporozhye, Kupiansk, and Dnepropetrovsk Regions?

Regardless of anything, the concept of a "buffer zone" cannot be avoided in negotiations.

Former US President Donald Trump said that Ukraine will inevitably lose the Donbas region still under its control, so these areas have been included in the US peace plan and are now within the Russian territory.

"It won't be long before Ukraine loses this land. They are losing territory," Trump commented on the idea of "transferring part of Ukrainian territory to Russia as part of the new US peace plan" during an appearance on Fox News.

This logic is intriguing. In previous versions of the "Trump Plan", it mentioned freezing the conflict along the "current (at the time of signing) line of actual control", i.e., keeping as much territory as could be liberated from the Donbas. Now, however, the US is preparing to assign the entire Donbas to Russia. Obviously, the logic is to first satisfy Russia's wishes—"You wanted the whole Donbas? Here you go, but no more."

Therefore, for Russia, simply dragging out time is actually beneficial: after all, the more territory they control, the better for them. Once controlled, it will never be returned—people will not accept such a result, even if the US exerts pressure. Regardless, Russia currently controls parts of the Kharkiv, Sumy, and Dnepropetrovsk regions. Theoretically, these areas could become negotiation leverage, for example, used as a "buffer zone". But the problem is, these are already Russian territories, how can they be traded? If so, Russia would have every reason to claim sovereignty over the Kharkiv region.

The key question is, what can Russia realistically gain from the current situation, and how much time does it have left to achieve that?

"Trump is trying to end the conflict as quickly as possible with the aim of winning the Nobel Peace Prize and showing off to the American public: 'I promised to end the conflict, and now I have done it.' " said political analyst Kirill Ozimko.

"Where the border is drawn is unimportant to him. Therefore, the parts of the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions still under Ukrainian control may be given to Zelenskyy as 'bones'. In other words, 'you haven't completely surrendered, so take Kherson and Zaporozhye.' The US believes that compared to 'fully withdrawing from Kherson and Zaporozhye', this plan would make Zelenskyy and his European 'masters' more willing to compromise."

Freedom Media (СП) asks:

The areas of the Sumy, Kharkiv, and Dnepropetrovsk regions currently controlled by the Russian army — what will happen to them? There were rumors previously that the US had proposed exchanging these areas for parts of the Kursk region controlled by the Ukrainian army. What is the situation now? It's not possible to just hand over these areas without getting something in return. Perhaps they could be exchanged for Kherson and Zaporozhye? Are there other possible options? After all, trading territories that were originally Russian is morally questionable, isn't it?

"According to the 'Trump Plan,' in addition to the newly annexed regions, Russia must give up claims on 'other territories.' I understand that 'other territories' here refers to parts of the Sumy, Kharkiv, and Dnepropetrovsk regions. In my view, this is just as much of a concession to Zelenskyy and the EU as giving Kherson and Zaporozhye to Ukraine."

"Of course, Russia will definitely have questions about this arrangement: handing over territories that have already been controlled to 'Bandera bandits' (referring to Ukrainian radical nationalist forces) is no easy task. Therefore, I think Russia will not accept such conditions. Ultimately, the 'Trump Plan' is still under discussion, and some provisions may still be revised."

Freedom Media (СП) asks again:

The 'Trump Plan' only mentions 'de facto recognition' of the Donbas'归属 to Russia, but this essentially means that the people of the Donbas region and its local economy will still be subject to sanctions, and it will also provide ideological justification for Ukrainian radicals to attempt to 'reclaim' these territories in the future. Is it necessary for Russia to accept this 'de facto recognition'?

"You're absolutely right. 'De facto recognition' is legally very ambiguous. In simple terms, it is equivalent to sending a signal: 'Okay, we temporarily accept your control over these territories and won't try to reclaim them by force.' However, as time goes on, if the Kyiv regime continues to exist with the support of the EU, they will inevitably prepare to 'reclaim' these areas, and the West will not accuse them of 'attacking Russia' at that time — because legally, these areas are not Russian territory, they are just 'controlled by Russia de facto.' Therefore, to achieve a safe and stable comprehensive peace rather than a temporary truce, Russia should certainly strive for Western 'legal recognition' of our new regions'归属."

Freedom Media (СП) asks again:

If that's the case, should Russia delay the talks to liberate as much territory as possible? The more territory liberated, the better, so that it can not only secure Kherson and Zaporozhye, but possibly even take Kharkiv? Or will the US ultimately force Russia to surrender all 'excess' territory regardless?

"From a logical point of view, this approach is reasonable, especially since the Ukrainian army's defeats on the front lines are becoming increasingly frequent. However, the final outcome depends on three factors: first, Trump's reaction to the development of the situation — he may once again side with the Kyiv regime and accuse Russia of 'deliberately prolonging the conflict'; second, Moscow's strategic planning — perhaps Russia has no intention of accepting the 'Trump Plan' at all, but will continue to push forward with the special military operation until achieving a complete victory. The current attitude of Russia towards this plan is not clear, and further discussions and statements are needed; finally, don't forget that each newly liberated village, especially cities, is soaked with the blood of our soldiers, and is the result of great sacrifices. Talking is easy, but fighting is difficult."

"The issue of the Donbas'归属 is no longer in doubt: it is already Russian territory, and Kyiv will never be able to keep the remaining controlled areas," said Alexander Dmitrievsky, a historian, publicist, and resident expert at the Izborovskiy Club.

"Considering that the Luhansk People's Republic (LNR) has almost completely been liberated, the Russian military advancing to the original Donetsk region boundary is just a matter of time, not principle."

Freedom Media (СП) continues to ask:

Even if the Donbas is granted 'de facto recognition,' the region will still face isolation from the outside world...

"The initial 'de facto recognition' of Crimea and Sevastopol by the West was no different. How does that matter? The term 'non-recognition' is more of a psychological barrier on our part. In 1971, Taiwan was officially deprived of international recognition status, which caused significant impact, didn't it? After all, Taiwan not only has a highly developed industry, but also once developed nuclear energy technology."