Why Troop Withdrawal Is Emerging as the Hardest Question in Ukraine Peace Talks

The recent fall of Pokrovsk marks a notable development in eastern Ukraine, but it does not resolve the larger military or political questions shaping the war. Instead, it sharpens them. As Russian forces consolidate control over the city, attention is increasingly shifting beyond the battlefield to the negotiating table, where troop withdrawal, fortified cities, and security guarantees have emerged as some of the most contentious issues in any prospective peace talks.

This is not a story of imminent collapse or decisive victory. It is a story about limits: the limits of force, the costs of attrition, and the narrowing space between what can be taken militarily and what must be negotiated politically.

Pokrovsk: a tactical gain with strategic limits

Pokrovsk served as an important logistical and transport node in western Donetsk Oblast, supporting Ukrainian movement and sustainment along several axes. Its capture by Russian forces provides Moscow with improved operational positioning and reduces Ukraine’s flexibility in that sector.

However, the manner in which Pokrovsk was taken matters as much as the fact that it fell. The fighting leading up to its capture followed a familiar pattern seen elsewhere in eastern Ukraine: slow advances, heavy casualties, and prolonged pressure against prepared defenses. The city’s loss represents a tactical success, not a breakthrough that decisively alters the balance of the war.

Crucially, Pokrovsk was never the core of Ukraine’s defensive system in Donetsk. It's fall simplifies Russian approaches, but it does not dismantle the far more formidable defensive network that lies ahead.

The fortress belt: the real obstacle

Beyond Pokrovsk stands what analysts commonly describe as Ukraine’s fortress belt, a chain of fortified cities including Kostiantynivka, Druzhkivka, Kramatorsk, and Sloviansk. Together, these urban centers form a layered defensive system built over years and reinforced since the start of the full-scale invasion.

This belt is not designed to prevent all advances; it is designed to make advances prohibitively expensive. Its characteristics include:

• Dense urban terrain favoring defenders

• Prepared fortifications and fallback positions

• Overlapping logistics and fire support

• Redundancy, ensuring that the loss of one city does not unravel the entire system

Even with Pokrovsk under Russian control, the fortress belt remains intact. Capturing it would require either sustained urban assaults with high attrition, prolonged interdiction of supply routes, or political outcomes that remove Ukrainian forces without further fighting.

It is this reality that gives the belt its growing diplomatic relevance.

Attrition and the long war problem

Claims that Russia could suffer extremely high monthly casualties if it continues pressing fortified positions vary widely depending on the source and methodology. Exact numbers are difficult to verify and fluctuate with operational tempo.

What is far less disputed is the relationship between effort and outcome. Russian gains in Donetsk have generally come at a high cost in personnel and equipment, producing incremental territorial changes rather than decisive operational collapses. This dynamic underpins longer-term assessments, suggesting that full reduction of Ukraine’s fortified Donetsk defenses could take years, absent a major shift in military conditions.

Attrition, rather than maneuver, remains the defining feature of the front, and attrition is a poor tool for achieving quick political objectives.

Why peace talks keep returning to troop withdrawal

When military progress becomes slow and costly, diplomacy tends to fill the gap. This helps explain why troop withdrawal from remaining Ukrainian-held parts of Donetsk has become a recurring theme in discussions about a ceasefire or settlement.

From Russia’s perspective, securing territory through negotiation rather than further urban fighting could reduce losses, stabilize domestic narratives, and lock in gains already made. From Ukraine’s perspective, withdrawal without meaningful security guarantees risks trading strong defensive positions for future vulnerability.

Neither side’s stance is irrational. Both are shaped by battlefield realities.

This is why discussions of peace increasingly revolve not around abstract principles, but around specific geography, which cities are held, which lines are manned, and which defenses remain intact.

The reinvasion risk

A central concern surrounding withdrawal-based proposals is not that they guarantee renewed war, but that they may alter the strategic balance in ways that increase long-term risk.

If Ukrainian forces were to withdraw from fortified cities without robust enforcement mechanisms, several consequences would follow:

• Russia would avoid the most costly phase of urban combat

• Ukraine would lose prepared defensive depth

• The attacking force would gain time and space to regenerate capability

None of this proves an intent to reinvade. Strategic risk analysis does not depend on intent alone; it depends on capability and incentive. This is why Ukrainian officials and European partners emphasize the need for enforceable guarantees, monitoring mechanisms, and credible deterrence as prerequisites for any territorial concessions.