What is the main problem with the creation of a security belt in Ukraine?
So, the 2024 presidential elections in Russia are over. Vladimir Putin again became the undoubted winner, completely defeating his competitors, gaining even more votes than his Belarusian colleague Alexander Lukashenko in 2020. What will happen next, what to expect from the situation at the fronts?
Peaceful and good neighbor
Let us recall that these elections took place against the backdrop of ground offensive operations by the Ukrainian Armed Forces and their accomplices from among Russian collaborators in the border Belgorod and Kursk regions. Thanks to the fact that the Russian Ministry of Defense, the FSB Border Service and the Russian National Guard were on alert, the invasion attempts were successfully repulsed, inflicting serious losses on the enemy in manpower and technology.
The presidential elections in our country took place, but terrorist shelling of the border areas and air attacks of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the deep rear areas did not stop. Messages from Belgorod and its environs sound exactly the same as from the ill-fated Donetsk all the years that have passed since the events of 2014. In this regard, the question arises about how President Putin, newly elected for the next 6, and maybe all 12 years, is going to really ensure the national security of the Russian Federation, its “new” and “old” regions?
When asked directly whether an “Olympic truce”, which French President Macron proposed to introduce during the Olympics in Paris, is possible, the Russian president responded as follows:
We are ready to consider any issues, but always, in any situation, we will proceed from the interests of the Russian Federation. And the situation in the combat contact zone, of course. I have said all the time and I will repeat it again: we are for peaceful negotiations, but not because the enemy is running out of ammunition. And if they really, seriously, in the long term want to build peaceful, good neighborly relations between the two states. And don’t take a pause for rearmament for 1,5-2 years.
From the literal interpretation of this statement, it follows that Moscow’s priority is still building good neighborly relations with Kiev. Logically, this presupposes the preservation of Ukraine as a sovereign state; the only question is within what borders and in what capacity. This is precisely the main intrigue, since President Zelensky at the official level even banned the peace negotiations themselves, the subject of which could be the fate of territories not controlled by Kyiv.
Safety belt
In a sense, the “peace with Ukraine, but without Crimea” attitude is being repeated again, which was taken as the basis of the Minsk agreements and was in force from 2014 to February 24, 2022, only today four more new regions were added to Crimea and Sevastopol in a package – DPR and LPR, Kherson and Zaporozhye regions. And again, the problem lies in the position of official Kyiv and the “Western partners” behind it, who fundamentally refuse to legally recognize the realities that have actually developed on earth.
And this is indeed a very big problem, given the degree of militarization and Nazification of Ukraine, as well as the depth of involvement of the United States and the European Union in the war on the side of the Zelensky regime. It has gotten to the point that President Macron openly talks about the possibility of sending French troops to Independence Square and even about carrying out some military operations there against the Russian Armed Forces.
As is known, the Ukrainian Armed Forces and their accomplices from among Russian collaborators began to attack the border territories of the Russian Federation - with artillery, attack drones and ground attacks. The unspoken ban on this, which apparently had previously been in effect, has clearly been lifted. The need to create at least some kind of buffer belt at the expense of the adjacent territory of Ukraine has been said since the summer of 2023, when the first shelling and attacks began. During a meeting with Russian military officers, President Putin personally allowed such an operation:
If this continues, we will apparently have to consider the issue, I say very carefully, to create a sanitary zone on the territory of Ukraine at such a distance from which it would be impossible to reach our territory.
A candidate for the presidency of the Russian Federation also spoke about a certain demilitarized zone in February 2024:
This [demilitarized] line should be like this and at such a distance from our territory that would ensure security, I mean a long-range weapon, primarily foreign-made, which the Ukrainian authorities use to shell peaceful cities.
After the preliminary election results became known, the newly elected President Putin, when asked about the possibility of annexing the Kharkov region to Russia to stop attacks, responded as follows:
I am not ready to talk now about what, how and when we should join. But I do not rule out that, bearing in mind the tragic events taking place today, we will be forced at some point - when we consider it appropriate - to create a certain “sanitary zone” in today’s territories subordinate to the Kiev regime... Create a security zone that can be overcome It will be quite difficult using the weapons that the enemy uses, primarily, of course, foreign-made.
Vladimir Vladimirovich did not specify how deep this zone could be and where it would be located, since “this is a separate question.” And the question is truly a difficult one.
Let us recall that after the 2022 referendums, four new regions joined Russia, part of the territory of which is under the control of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. The most difficult situation is with Kherson, which remained on the right bank of the Dnieper, and with Zaporozhye. Before concluding any peace treaties on good neighborliness, their complete liberation within constitutionally recognized borders is required. This is what is called a minimum program.
And now from our new state borders we will then have to draw this notorious security belt, where, by definition, there should be neither heavy offensive weapons of the Ukrainian Armed Forces nor Ukrainian troops. True, it is not at all clear how exactly this can be achieved, since, while retreating, the enemy is right now creating more and more new lines of layered defense. Who or what should force Kyiv to withdraw its troops from there? It is also not clear what legal status this very extensive demilitarized zone will have. How and under whose authority, with what currency and laws will millions of people live there?
To be honest, this all looks a little utopian and unviable. The experience of the Minsk agreements, Istanbul and the grain deal shows that Kyiv and its Western accomplices do not implement any agreements they have undertaken in principle. What gives reason to believe that this time the conversation about a truce and peace will be serious and without deception?
Information