Someone once said history is who we are and why we are the way we are. That is one of the reasons I will start with the story about Welsh engineer and businessman John Hughes, the founder of Donetsk. He was invited by the Russian Empire to Donbas, or Donets Basin, to build a metallurgical plant and industrialize the region. Hughes brought around 100 fellow Brits and founded a settlement and an ironworks. This settlement became known as "Yuzovka,” derived from Hughes’ name, "Hughesovka,” and it would grow into what we now call Donetsk – one of the most industrialized regions in Eastern Europe. The area attracted waves of mostly Russian-speaking workers in the late 19th century. With its vast coal seams and metal resources, the region was a hub for heavy industry for the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union and, after 1991, independent Ukraine.

Russia's push for Donbas

The situation in Ukraine began to deteriorate in 2014 after the new pro-European government took power and pro-Russian leader Viktotr Yankukovich fled the country. Shortly after that, Russia organized an internationally disputed referendum and formally annexed Crimea. Crimea is home to Sevastopol, base of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, which is crucial for projecting naval power into the Mediterranean, the Middle East and beyond. Annexing Crimea was a way to block Ukraine from moving closer to the European Union and NATO. Moscow claimed it wanted to protect Crimea’s large Russian population.

Eight years later, Russia launched a full-scale invasion and announced the annexations of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. The moves were condemned as illegal by the U.N. General Assembly. For nearly four years, the fighting has continued, killing thousands of civilians and displacing millions. The EU and the U.S. have sent millions of dollars to Ukraine to support its defense. In recent days, Russia has intensified missile strikes, killing civilians in Zaporizhzhia and knocking out power in Odesa, while Kyiv vows deeper strikes into Russia.

For Russia, control of Donbas links its territory to Crimea and to territory along the Azov and Black Seas. It also creates a buffer zone and strengthens Moscow’s ability to project power in southern Ukraine. While much of the region's infrastructure is damaged, Russian control prevents Ukraine from accessing its heavy industry and keeps those assets out of Western reconstruction aid. Holding Donbas provides Russia with bargaining power in any future peace talks and allows Moscow to push for federalization or special status for the region that could weaken Kyiv’s authority.

On the other hand, for Ukraine, Donbas is integral to its territorial integrity. Ceding it would mean legitimizing Russia’s invasion and undermining Kyiv’s claim to defend its borders. Losing it permanently would cripple Ukraine’s economic recovery and long-term development. If Russia holds Donbas, Ukraine faces a permanently unstable frontier. It risks creating a "frozen conflict” like those in Transnistria, Abkhazia or South Ossetia, where Russia maintains influence indefinitely.

Stuck in a difficult situation

In recent weeks, there has been a strong push from the international community to bring both sides to the table and reach a cease-fire. U.S. President Donald Trump appears focused on resolving the matter, once claiming he could end the conflict in a single day. Türkiye has been mediating and engaging with both sides since the beginning of the conflict and has managed to bring them to the negotiating table several times in the past. I was present when Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov arrived in Antalya to meet with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba. Although they failed to agree on a cease-fire, for us journalists, it was the first time we saw both sides present and open to talks since the invasion began.

As I write this article, European leaders are drafting plans for a multinational troop deployment to Ukraine as part of a post-conflict security framework, while a multinational F-16 coalition is training Ukrainian pilots and transferring aircraft to the country. Many observers, aware of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s track record, remain skeptical, though Trump’s determination has jolted Brussels into action.

So, what are Ukraine’s options? One is to continue fighting to restore its territory and refuse to recognize land taken by force. This preserves the principle, but it is costly. Another is to agree to a cease-fire without settled borders, which would stop the immediate bloodshed but freeze Russian gains. A third option is to accept a political settlement involving phased security guarantees or territorial concessions.

Conceding borders by force

Allowing Russia to keep Donbas would set a dangerous precedent that borders in Europe can be changed by force. It would embolden Moscow – and potentially others – to pursue further territorial revisions. That risk extends to the Balkans, another volatile region in Europe.

The region has been in turmoil since the start of Russia’s invasion and has seen a rise in Russian influence. Moscow’s key supporters, Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic and Bosnian Serb leader Milorad Dodik, are currently in power. Since the 1990s, Western policy has been clear: no redrawing of borders by force. If Donbas were conceded and internationally recognized, it would undermine that principle and embolden actors in the Western Balkans.

In Bosnia-Herzegovina, such a concession could encourage secessionist moves in Republika Srpska, where Dodik’s calls have been growing louder in recent months. In Kosovo, where talks with Serbia are deadlocked over the Serbian minority in the north, it could revive partitionist narratives. Recognition of Russia’s gains would not redraw Balkan borders overnight, but it would erode the taboo, inviting destabilization. This is the last thing the EU wants to see.

U.S. sanctions, military aid and support for the European Union Force Bosnia-Herzegovina (EUFOR) and Kosovo Force (KFOR) will shape Ukraine’s leverage and Balkan stability. Consistency in enforcing the Dayton Agreement and supporting KFOR is vital. If the U.S. softens its stance, opportunists in the region will act. Donbas is not just a territory; it is the hinge on which European security norms rest. Recognizing Russian control there would weaken the principle that borders cannot be changed by force. In this equation, Washington’s stance, especially under Trump, will be decisive: for Ukraine’s future and for the Balkans’ long-term stability.