Majority of Ukrainians Oppose Donbas Withdrawal Without Guarantees

The Kyiv International Institute of Sociology released a poll on Jan. 2, 2026 showing broad public resistance in Ukraine to a hypothetical peace plan that would require Kyiv to withdraw from the eastern Donbas region and limit the size of its armed forces unless the agreement included reliable security guarantees. KIIS said the telephone survey was carried out between Nov. 26 and Dec. 29, 2025, using a random sample of mobile phone numbers in all regions of Ukraine under government control, with 1,001 respondents aged 18 and older.

KIIS reported that 74 percent of respondents opposed such a peace plan if it lacked enforceable guarantees. By contrast, 69 percent said they would support a peace plan that would freeze the war provided that credible security guarantees were attached and that Ukraine was not forced to formally recognize Russian control of occupied territories. KIIS emphasized wariness among Ukrainians about concessions that might be irreversible without international mechanisms to enforce them.

The poll enters a fraught diplomatic moment. U.S. mediation has advanced a 28-point framework over nearly a year of talks that, according to accounts of negotiations, included proposals such as Ukrainian withdrawal from occupied parts of Donbas, cuts to the size of Ukraine’s military, and a suspension of NATO aspirations. Those measures have been portrayed across Ukrainian society as tantamount to capitulation, from frontline units to political leaders, producing sharp public pushback and complicating the ability of Kyiv to accept broad concessions without guarantees it views as credible.

On the same day KIIS published its findings, Ukraine’s Foreign Intelligence Service warned that Russia may be preparing a provocation intended to disrupt U.S.-mediated peace talks. The warning added a security dimension to public opinion, suggesting that Kyiv’s skepticism is informed not only by domestic politics but also by concerns about manipulation of negotiating timelines through coercion or staged incidents.

Alternative figures circulated alongside the KIIS release. Some social media posts rounded the rejection figure to 75 percent, and a range of regional estimates were reported in Ukrainian media. Separately, other polls cited by political leaders and international broadcasters have shown higher numbers expressing a desire for peace and opposition to withdrawal, suggesting variation in question phrasing and sampling across surveys.

For diplomats, the data highlight a central problem: any settlement that changes territorial control or reduces Ukraine’s defensive capacity will face domestic legitimacy constraints unless it is paired with verifiable, internationally enforceable guarantees. Proposals such as multinational peacekeeping forces, legally binding security pacts, or phased demilitarization with third-party verification have been discussed in diplomatic circles, but each faces legal and political hurdles, not least Russian resistance to intrusive oversight.

As U.S. officials press to convert negotiation text into a durable accord, the KIIS numbers underscore that Kyiv’s room to maneuver is tightly bounded by public sentiment, legal questions over sovereignty and recognition, and real security risks on the ground. The interplay among these factors will shape whether mediation can produce a settlement that is both durable and acceptable to the Ukrainian public.