1. The reported proposal
The alleged proposal to name part of the Donbas “Donnyland” should not be understood first of all as a normal act of geographical renaming. It is better interpreted as a symbolic diplomatic maneuver: a possible attempt by Ukrainian negotiators to appeal to Donald Trump’s personal vanity and thereby encourage a harder American position against Russia’s territorial demands. Accessible reports summarizing the New York Times article state that the term was first raised partly in jest, then appears to have circulated informally in negotiations, though not in official documents. TIME reports that the idea concerned a contested part of the Donbas and was connected with broader discussions about demilitarized or special-status arrangements, including a possible “Monaco model” or free economic zone.
The reported details make the proposal more than a casual joke but less than a formal policy. The Irish Times, citing people familiar with the negotiations, says that a Ukrainian negotiator even created a green-and-gold flag and a national anthem using ChatGPT, although it remains unclear whether the American side ever saw these designs. The Kyiv Independent similarly reports that the label would refer to a roughly 2,000-square-mile part of northwestern Donetsk Oblast and that the name plays on Donetsk/Donbas, Donald Trump, and Disneyland.
This ambiguity is central: “Donnyland” is not yet a toponym in the strict administrative sense. It is a proposed nickname, a diplomatic signal, perhaps even a bargaining device. Its academic interest lies precisely in that hybrid status.
2. Official Ukrainian reaction: distancing without full denial
President Volodymyr Zelensky’s reaction is politically significant. He did not embrace the term. On the contrary, he emphasized that in his own negotiations only official formulations such as “Donetsk Oblast,” “Luhansk Oblast,” “our Donbas,” and “territory of Ukraine” are used. He added that the essential point is that Donetsk and Luhansk remain Ukrainian territory, “as long as it’s not ‘Putinland.’”
This response performs two functions. First, it distances the Ukrainian presidency from a potentially embarrassing or unserious-sounding label. Second, it reframes the question away from flattering Trump and toward resisting Russian annexation. The Guardian also reported Zelensky’s denial that such a renaming offer was made in his negotiations, while noting that he cannot constitutionally cede Ukrainian territory and that Ukrainian commanders regard Donbas as a possible springboard for future Russian attacks if Russia is allowed to consolidate control there.
Therefore, the official Ukrainian line appears to be: no such term in formal documents, no abandonment of Donbas, and no recognition of any Russian claim.
3. Commentary: vanity diplomacy, deterrence, or absurdity?
The reactions found online fall into three main interpretive camps.
The first sees “Donnyland” as vanity diplomacy. The Week’s Rafi Schwartz places the proposal within a wider pattern of foreign leaders and governments attaching Trump’s name to strategic projects in order to attract his attention. He describes Trump’s name as a kind of “global currency” in diplomatic flattery. This framing is useful because it links “Donnyland” with earlier cases such as “Fort Trump” in Poland, “Trump Heights” in the Golan Heights, and the “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity” between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
The second interpretation sees the proposal as an attempted security device. The Week cites RAND political scientist Samuel Charap’s view that Ukraine might regard a “Trump imprimatur” on a free economic zone as a form of deterrent against Russian aggression. The logic is not entirely irrational: if a disputed zone bore Trump’s name, Moscow might hesitate to violate it for fear of provoking American prestige politics. In that reading, “Donnyland” would function not as a serious cultural name but as a diplomatic tripwire.
The third interpretation is sharply critical. Salon’s Chauncey DeVega calls the idea surreal and treats it as evidence that flattery has become a foreign-policy strategy in the Trump era. He argues that such proposals exploit Trump’s need for personal affirmation and transform international security into symbolic branding. DeVega’s criticism is polemical, but the core point is analytically useful: “Donnyland” appears to personalize a question that should be handled through law, sovereignty, security guarantees, and local legitimacy.
Russian-language media unsurprisingly framed the story in a way that can be used against Kyiv. Gazeta.Ru presented it under the headline that Ukraine “wanted” to name part of Donbas after Trump, emphasizing the AI-created flag and anthem, the “Peace Board,” and the “Monaco model.” Even if this is based on the same NYT reporting, the Russian framing illustrates one of the main risks: such a name gives hostile media an easy way to portray Ukraine as unserious, externally dependent, or willing to trade symbolic sovereignty for American favor.
4. Academic interpretation: a case of transactional toponymy
From an onomastic and political-geographical perspective, “Donnyland” is best described as transactional toponymy.
In this article/blogpost, I introduce the term “transactional toponym” to describe a place name proposed not primarily to reflect local history, linguistic tradition, collective memory, or administrative continuity, but to produce an immediate political, diplomatic, economic, or symbolic exchange. A transactional toponym functions as a bargaining device: it offers symbolic recognition, prestige, gratitude, or reputational reward to an external actor in expectation of material, military, diplomatic, or political benefit. In this sense, the reported “Donnyland” proposal differs from conventional commemorative naming, decolonial renaming, or restorative toponymy. It is less an act of memory than an act of negotiation. Related possible terms would be instrumental toponym, bargaining toponym, patronage toponym, diplomatic toponym, quid-pro-quo toponym, or performative geopolitical toponym; however, “transactional toponym” best captures the exchange-oriented logic of such names. The category overlaps partly with research on critical toponymy, which treats place naming as an expression of power, ideology, and spatial governance, and with studies of toponymic commodification, where names are commercialized, branded, or sold through naming-rights regimes. Yet the transactional toponym is more specifically political: its value lies not in market branding alone but in its attempted conversion of symbolic naming into strategic advantage. Examples that approximate this category include Bill Clinton Boulevard in Pristina, Kosovo, George W. Bush Street in Tbilisi, Georgia, or Heydar Aliyev statue / Mexico-Azerbaijan Friendship Park in Mexico City. In all these cases, naming operates as a form of symbolic payment, designed to secure, reward, or dramatize political patronage rather than simply to identify a place.
Ordinary official renaming often emerges from regime change, decolonization, language policy, commemoration, or restoration of historical names. In Ukraine itself, recent toponymic policy has been dominated by decommunization, derussification, and the removal of names associated with Russian imperial power. Ukraine’s UNGEGN report describes legal and administrative work on geographical names, including updates to the State Register of Geographical Names and renamings under the 2023 law on condemning Russian imperial policy and decolonizing toponymy.
“Donnyland” moves in a very different direction. It is not a Ukrainianizing name. It is not an older local name. It is not a neutral administrative label. It is an English-language, person-centered, brand-like invention tied to an external political actor. This makes it almost the opposite of the logic behind Ukraine’s current official toponymic policy.
In critical place-name studies, names are not passive labels. They inscribe power, memory, and identity into space. Rose-Redwood, Alderman, and Azaryahu describe place-naming as a field in which governance, ideology, and spatial identity are actively negotiated. In this sense, “Donnyland” would not merely describe territory; it would symbolically recode a devastated Ukrainian borderland as an object of American presidential branding.
5. Political risks
The proposal has several serious political weaknesses.
First, it risks moral trivialization. The Donbas is not an empty diplomatic chessboard. It is a war-damaged industrial region with destroyed towns, displaced civilians, military casualties, occupation, filtration, deportations, and contested memory. A name echoing “Disneyland” sounds grotesque when applied to a devastated war zone.
Second, it risks sovereignty dilution. Even if intended as a clever deterrent, “Donnyland” could imply that Ukrainian territorial security depends less on Ukrainian sovereignty or international law than on the vanity of one American president. That is dangerous for Ukraine’s own legal and diplomatic position.
Third, it risks propaganda exploitation. Russian state and pro-Kremlin media could use the term to claim that Ukraine is ready to externalize Donbas, create an artificial protectorate, or submit its territorial future to Washington. The Russian-language coverage already shows how easily the story can be reframed in that direction.
Fourth, it could create domestic political backlash in Ukraine. Any settlement involving special status, demilitarization, outside administration, or semi-autonomy would be politically explosive. Adding Trump’s name to the formula would make it even more vulnerable to criticism.
6. Possible strategic logic
Yet the idea should not be dismissed as pure stupidity. From Kyiv’s wartime perspective, the United States remains indispensable. If Ukrainian negotiators believed that Trump was leaning toward accepting Russian territorial demands, then a personalized symbolic maneuver may have seemed like a desperate but pragmatic attempt to redirect his instincts.
The possible deterrence logic is especially interesting. If the area became a demilitarized or special economic zone branded with Trump’s name, a future Russian attack might be framed as an attack not only on Ukraine but on Trump’s personal diplomatic legacy. That is the logic behind Charap’s reported comment about a “Trump imprimatur” functioning as a deterrent.
However, this is an unstable basis for security. Deterrence built on personal vanity is weaker than deterrence built on treaty obligations, troop presence, enforceable guarantees, or alliance mechanisms. It also expires politically: what happens after Trump leaves office, loses interest, or changes position?
7. Comparative examples
The closest precedent is “Fort Trump” in Poland. In 2018, Polish President Andrzej Duda publicly floated the idea of naming a permanent U.S. military base in Poland after Trump and offering more than $2 billion toward the project. But Reuters later reported that the “Fort Trump” project had effectively crumbled, quoting a U.S. official as saying, “There is no Fort Trump.” This is highly relevant: personal flattery can open a conversation, but it does not guarantee durable institutional outcomes.
Another relevant example is the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity in the Armenia–Azerbaijan context. Unlike “Donnyland,” this name appears in a formal joint declaration and implementation framework. The difference is important. TRIPP names an infrastructure/connectivity project embedded in a negotiated declaration; “Donnyland” would name a devastated, militarized, sovereignty-sensitive war zone. The symbolic burden is much heavier in Donbas.
A third comparison is Trump Heights in the Golan Heights, which The Week discusses as part of the broader pattern of naming projects after Trump. Here again, the name is connected to contested sovereignty and international recognition, but it functions within Israeli domestic commemorative politics. “Donnyland,” by contrast, would be attached to an active battlefield settlement.
8. Probability of actual renaming
My probability assessment remains low, but with more nuance after reviewing the online reactions.
Official legal renaming of part of Donbas as “Donnyland”: 1–2%.
The name is absent from official documents, Zelensky has publicly emphasized official Ukrainian territorial terminology, and the proposal conflicts with Ukraine’s legal and symbolic approach to geographical names. Ukraine’s Constitution explicitly includes Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts in the state’s administrative-territorial structure.
Use as an informal negotiation nickname: 35–50%.
This appears already to have happened, at least according to NYT-based reporting. Informal labels often survive inside diplomatic circles even when they never enter formal texts.
Use in a public-facing peace plan or memorandum: below 5%.
The political cost is too high. A neutral formula such as “Donbas Security Zone,” “Donetsk-Luhansk Demilitarized Area,” “International Security Zone,” or “Special Recovery Zone” would be much more likely.
Adoption of a related special-zone model without the name “Donnyland”: 15–25%.
The “Monaco model,” demilitarized zone, free economic zone, or international administration concept is more plausible than the name itself. TIME reports that such arrangements have been discussed, although neither side has endorsed them.
9. Final judgement
Academically, “Donnyland” is a fascinating but troubling example of how contemporary diplomacy can transform geographical naming into personal branding. It reveals the convergence of three processes: wartime territorial bargaining, performative flattery, and the mediatization of diplomacy.
Politically, however, the proposal is weak. It risks trivializing suffering, undermining Ukraine’s sovereignty narrative, and gifting Russian propaganda an easy target. It also substitutes personalized symbolic deterrence for the harder but more reliable instruments of security: enforceable guarantees, international monitoring, military aid, legal continuity, and territorial integrity.
My final position is therefore critical but not dismissive. If Ukrainian negotiators raised the idea, they may have done so out of strategic desperation rather than frivolity. But as a naming act, “Donnyland” would be poor toponymy and poor statecraft. It may be memorable, but it lacks legitimacy. It may flatter a powerful actor, but it does not honor the place. It may briefly attract attention, but it would not produce a stable political geography.
A serious settlement should avoid “Donnyland” and use sober, legally precise terminology: Donbas Security Zone, Donetsk-Luhansk Demilitarized Area, Internationally Monitored Recovery Zone, or Ukrainian Donbas Security Corridor. Such names are less spectacular, but they better serve the principles of sovereignty, dignity, and postwar reconstruction.
Bibliography
Alderman, Derek H. “Street Names and the Scaling of Memory: The Politics of Commemorating Martin Luther King, Jr within the African American Community.” Area 35, no. 2 (2003): 163–173. DOI: 10.1111/1475-4762.00250.
Azaryahu, Maoz. “Renaming the Past: Changes in ‘City Text’ in Germany and Austria, 1945–1947.” History and Memory 2, no. 2 (1990): 32–53. JSTOR.
Azaryahu, Maoz. “The Power of Commemorative Street Names.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 14, no. 3 (1996): 311–330. DOI: 10.1068/d140311.
Azaryahu, Maoz. “German Reunification and the Politics of Street Names: The Case of East Berlin.” Political Geography 16, no. 6 (1997): 479–493. DOI: 10.1016/S0962-6298(96)00053-4.
Berg, Lawrence D., and Jani Vuolteenaho, eds. Critical Toponymies: The Contested Politics of Place Naming. Farnham: Ashgate, 2009. ISBN 978-0-7546-7453-5.
Gnatiuk, Oleksiy. “‘Iron Ukrainization’: The Historical and Political Dimensions of Naming the Railways in Ukraine.” Names: A Journal of Onomastics 73, no. 2 (2025): 47–63. DOI: 10.5195/names.2025.2663.
Light, Duncan, and Craig Young. “Habit, Memory, and the Persistence of Socialist-Era Street Names in Postsocialist Bucharest, Romania.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 104, no. 3 (2014): 668–685. DOI: 10.1080/00045608.2014.892377.
Rose-Redwood, Reuben, Derek Alderman, and Maoz Azaryahu. “Geographies of Toponymic Inscription: New Directions in Critical Place-Name Studies.” Progress in Human Geography 34, no. 4 (2010): 453–470. DOI: 10.1177/0309132509351042.
