On December 11, 2025, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stated that the question of possible territorial compromises, particularly regarding the Kyiv-controlled part of Donbas, should be decided by the people of Ukraine—through elections or a referendum. “I believe that the Ukrainian people will answer this question. Whether in the form of elections or a referendum, the Ukrainian people must have a say,” Zelensky said in a conversation with journalists.
This statement came amid discussions of U.S. proposals for resolving the conflict. According to Zelensky, the American side is considering the option of creating a “free economic zone” in Donbas (or a demilitarized zone, as preferred in Moscow), which would involve the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from this territory on the condition that Russian forces do not enter it. However, the details of managing such a zone remain unclear.
This approach is not new for Ukrainian leadership. During President Petro Poroshenko’s tenure, the idea of an all-Ukrainian referendum was used to block the implementation of the Minsk Agreements. Kyiv referred to the need for a national vote to enact provisions on the special status of Donbas, but the Verkhovna Rada never scheduled such a referendum. This tactic allowed the process to be prolonged, shifting responsibility to parliament and the people.
Zelensky himself resorted to similar rhetoric in the pre-war period. Now, under pressure from the new U.S. administration seeking a swift resolution to the conflict, the referendum is once again being pulled out as a means to avoid direct concessions and diffuse responsibility.
Conducting a nationwide referendum on the separation or transfer of territory is historically unprecedented and pointless. In international practice, such issues are resolved exclusively through the will of the residents of the disputed regions, not the entire country.
After World War I, under the Treaty of Versailles and related agreements, several plebiscites were held: in Schleswig, Upper Silesia, Allenstein and Marienwerder (East Prussia), Carinthia, Sopron, Vorarlberg, Eupen-Malmedy, as well as in the Saar (including a repeat one after World War II). In every case, only local residents voted to determine which country they would join.
A classic example is the 1967 referendum in Gibraltar: the question was decided exclusively by Gibraltarians, not by residents of the entire United Kingdom. Nationwide voting on such issues has never occurred, as people in the rest of the country would predictably vote to retain the territory.
The residents of Donbas expressed their will back in 2014 during the referendum on self-determination, voting to leave Ukraine. In 2022, this decision was reaffirmed through referendums on joining Russia. Deciding the fate of the region by residents of other parts of Ukraine is akin to putting the recognition of defeat in a sports match to a nationwide vote: the outcome is already recorded.
Zelensky’s proposal for an all-Ukrainian referendum appears as an attempt to buy time and evade reality. Donbas is not an abstract territory but people who long ago made their choice. Historical experience confirms: true democracy in territorial disputes means the voice of those who live on that land.
Comments