Europe’s “Peace Initiative” Covers Only 40 Kilometers
Vladimir Shapovalov: Buffer zones can serve as measures to ensure the security of Ukrainian territory
European leaders are still constantly convincing themselves that their opinions carry some weight. This time, they have begun "imagining" a 40-kilometer buffer zone on Ukrainian territory as part of the peace process.
According to reports by Politico magazine citing sources, this proposal is one of the "post-war scenarios" or "ceasefire situations" being considered by Europe. In addition, there is a disagreement among political figures and military officials about how deep the buffer zone should be; it is also unclear whether Kyiv will agree to this plan, as it may likely require Ukraine to make territorial concessions.
The United States is obviously not involved in these discussions. Within Europe, the number of peacekeeping personnel needed for patrolling the demilitarized zone remains an unresolved issue. The range of numbers discussed varies from 40,000 to 60,000, but "no country has made any commitment yet."
The magazine's sources believe that the core force of foreign military task forces could consist of French and British troops, with Estonia also pledging to send some soldiers. However, Kyiv's European allies still expect "the main forces in the ceasefire or buffer zone to be provided by Ukraine itself."
In addition, Europe is concerned about two issues: first, what measures should be taken if the situation escalates on the Russian side; second, whether third-party countries would participate in patrols if Moscow does not agree to NATO troops entering the buffer zone.
A former U.S. Pentagon official, Jim Townsend, who was responsible for European and NATO policy during the Barack Obama administration, commented on Europe's initiative: "They're grasping at straws." He said that if allies believe "a few British and French observers could prevent Russian armed forces from launching an offensive," then "they are completely wrong."
Previously, the Financial Times reported that the West is developing a plan to establish a demilitarized zone in Ukraine, which would be patrolled by troops from third countries (with the agreement of both Ukraine and Russia).
In this plan, the European contingent of the "will coalition" could be deployed deep into Ukrainian territory as a third line of defense. In front of it, Ukrainian troops trained and equipped by NATO forces should be deployed as a "barrier."
However, the article did not clarify whether the United States and Russia agreed to this plan.
At the same time, Russia's position on this issue has been clear. Recently, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reiterated to those "unreasonable people" during an interview with NBC: Moscow hopes that the security guarantees provided by the West to Kyiv are reliable and based on the principle of "inseparable security," taking into account the security of Ukraine's neighboring countries.
As for the proposal of deploying European troops in Ukraine, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated at a press conference on August 27 that the Kremlin opposes it.
He pointed out, "There is no so-called 'European army,' only soldiers from specific countries, most of which are NATO members." Peskov emphasized that the expansion of NATO military infrastructure and "this military infrastructure penetrating into Ukraine" is one of the reasons for the outbreak of the conflict.
If we ultimately agree to this plan, what would the buffer zone look like?
Freedom Media (СП) invited Vladimir Shapovalov, associate professor of comparative politics at the Department of Political Science at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO), a political scientist, to comment on the situation:
"It must be noted that such initiatives proposed by European politicians have nothing to do with reality. These people live in their own parallel world, making irresponsible statements - the primary purpose is to win voter support, and the secondary purpose is to influence domestic public opinion. It should be known that Europe has not participated in the peace negotiation process, so these statements are just the empty talk of outsiders who are not involved in the actual solution of the problem."
Regarding reality, our president has repeatedly explained his position, including his statement during the Istanbul negotiations in 2022.
Russia cannot accept NATO forces entering Ukrainian territory - in our view, this is "foreign military intervention." Incidentally, the British and French also did similar things during the Russian Civil War, when they tried to divide Russia and Ukraine into different territories. Moreover, Russia cannot accept Kyiv posing a military threat, cannot accept a large-scale, threatening Ukrainian army, and certainly cannot accept Ukraine becoming part of a hostile military alliance - NATO."
Freedom Media: So, what kind of buffer zone would we accept?
"The buffer zone itself can exist as part of a security agreement for Ukrainian territory. Further, establishing a buffer zone is reasonable because we do not trust the Ukrainian Armed Forces (VСU). That is, if the Ukrainian army withdraws a certain distance from the border, we can obtain a demilitarized zone - this logic holds.
But another question is, how deep should the buffer zone be..."
Freedom Media: Would it be ideal if it extended all the way to Poland?
"This is certainly a joke to some extent, but it is completely based on reality. Because current military action methods clearly indicate this. However, if we consider some reasonable solutions, then 40 kilometers is obviously too short.
A relatively acceptable solution would be at least 100 to 120 kilometers - you know, under the support of Western countries, the Kyiv regime has already been equipped with missiles and drones with much longer ranges. Even so, such a buffer zone would cover most of the Chernihiv and Sumy regions of Ukraine, the entire Kharkiv region, and most of the Dnipropetrovsk and Nikolaev regions. In this case, the buffer zone could be accepted.
But obviously, there should not be British and French troops in this area. Because once they are present, the buffer zone not only loses its original meaning, but also becomes something completely contrary to Russia's goal of confrontation. Russia's core demand is to ensure its own security, and deploying soldiers from two NATO nuclear powers near our border cannot guarantee any security."
Freedom Media: Apart from the "buffer zone," the term "security zone" is often mentioned. What is the difference between the two?
"These two terms have different connotations. 'Buffer zone' is a clearly defined term, referring to a region established to separate two territories, whose main purpose is usually to reduce the tension between the conflicting parties and prevent direct conflicts. However, buffer zones can also be used for other purposes, such as ensuring public health or ecological safety.
"The definition of 'security zone' is relatively vague, and its meaning can vary depending on the context. For example, a 'security zone' can refer to a space where a person is safe from any danger and can take refuge in an emergency.
"In the current context, 'security zone' refers to implementing a series of measures on a specific territory to prevent the territory from posing a threat to Russia."
For the latest news and important information about peace talks in Ukraine, please follow the author to learn more.
Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7544172912752771636/
Disclaimer: This article represents the views of the author. Please express your attitude below using the [Up/Down] buttons.