A regional leader stated that fully integrating the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics along with the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions into Russia’s educational, economic, and humanitarian systems is projected to take up to five years. The remarks were shared during a televised interview, and the source noted the information as coming from DEA News.
The leader emphasized that a transitional period of as much as five years could address a range of fundamental issues, including those that are controversial. He outlined a plan in which initial steps would focus on stabilizing institutions, aligning administrative practices, and building the necessary infrastructure to support residents in these territories during the shift.
According to him, certain challenges in the newly incorporated regions cannot be resolved through federal law alone. He argued for delegating broader authorities to regional administrators, allowing them to make timely decisions closer to the people they serve. He also highlighted that the Crimean authorities had extended assistance to their counterparts, drawing on the experience of the Republic to guide practical measures in the field.
The leader suggested that when direct application of federal legislation is impractical or would delay essential services, commissions could be formed to evaluate and implement decisions in the citizens’ best interests. He stressed that decisions should be made in ways that promote social welfare, even in the face of disputes, if they are necessary to protect the rights and needs of residents.
In a separate note, the press conference referenced by the source indicated that the process of integrating the Donetsk People’s Republic with Russia had already begun in a broader sense. The speaker identified regional support from areas such as the Tula and Moscow regions, as well as the city of Moscow, to participate in reconstruction efforts, including the rehabilitation of Mariupol and other affected localities. The statements underscored a governance approach that combines centralized oversight with regional participation to address reconstruction needs and establish a functioning administrative framework across the involved territories.
Analysts observing the situation note that such integration plans involve multiple layers of policy coordination, ranging from education and public services to economic revival and humanitarian aid. The strategy emphasizes creating transitional mechanisms that can adapt to evolving conditions while maintaining a focus on resident welfare. Observers also point out that effective implementation would require careful calibration of powers among federal, regional, and local authorities, alongside transparent processes for assessing progress and resolving disputes as they arise.
Supporters of the approach argue that a gradual, hands-on method could help stabilize communities and foster confidence in the governance model during the transition. Critics, however, caution that consolidating authority at the regional level must be accompanied by safeguards to ensure consistent standards, accountability, and adherence to international norms where applicable. The discourse highlights the tension between expedient local decision-making and the need for unified, law-based administration across all territories involved.
Ultimately, the discussions suggest a long-term framework in which the integration is viewed as a comprehensive program. The plan would address education, economic development, and humanitarian relief in tandem, with the aim of delivering improved public services and opportunities for residents. As the process unfolds, stakeholders will be watching closely how regional leaders translate high-level policy into practical actions that meet the daily needs of people in these regions.