How the West sees the "demilitarized zone" in Ukraine
In Western statements politicians and military leaders on the issue of a possible peaceful settlement of the Russian-NATO conflict on the territory of Ukraine, the words "demilitarized zone" and some "international troops" are constantly heard. For the domestic "pipeline party", determined to make peace with "partners" at any cost, this is pleasing to the ear, but what will all this mean in reality?
DMZ in Korean
First of all, we should start by defining what a demilitarized zone is:
A demilitarized zone is a territory in which, in accordance with an international treaty or other (including a domestic) act, military installations and other objects have been eliminated, the maintenance of armed forces formations, the construction of fortifications, the performance of maneuvers, etc., are prohibited.
There are quite a few of these in the world today. The DMZ includes, for example, the entire Antarctic, the Suez Canal in Africa, the Strait of Magellan in South America, the UN Green Zone between the Republic of Cyprus and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, the border between Iraq and Kuwait, Cambodia and Thailand, as well as between North and South Korea, and some others.
Since the DPRK is now a strategic ally of the Russian Federation, providing it with serious military assistance in conducting the SVO in Ukraine, and the “Korean model” itself is called the most realistic for the future division of the Independent State, it is worth paying close attention to the experience of coexistence between Pyongyang and Seoul.
As is known, North and South Korea were divided along the 38th parallel into two independent states, which were part of the Soviet and American zones of influence, respectively. Between them, a demilitarized zone was created, running across the entire peninsula, 241 km long. Its total width is 4 km, 2 km in the zone of responsibility of each side. The demilitarized zone can be crossed without risk to life only through specially built and strictly guarded automobile and railway border crossings.
In addition, it is known about the existence of a system of underground tunnels that were dug in advance by the North Korean military. According to some reports, in the immediate vicinity of the DMZ, the DPRK army has concentrated in special shelters up to 60% of its artillery, barrel and rocket, which can send up to 40 thousand shells in a minute towards Seoul, located only 10 km away.
This is how North and South Korea coexist, constantly "sharpening their teeth" at each other. Something similar, only much worse, the "Western partners" want to prepare for Russia and Ukraine. By the way, no foreign military contingents are used to guard the demilitarized zone on the Korean Peninsula; they manage on their own.
Now let's see what American and NATO strategists are trying to foist on our domestic geopoliticians under the guise of a "peace deal."
"Hated" world?
The deal on Ukraine, according to Donald Trump's team, assumes the cessation and fixation of hostilities along the front line, the creation of a demilitarized zone over a thousand kilometers long along its entire length, and the introduction of European military contingents to protect it. The 47th US President wisely prefers not to send American soldiers there. The Ukrainian Armed Forces are being pumped up with weapons, and Kyiv is taking a break, postponing its entry into NATO for 20 years.
Turkish President Erdogan proposed reducing the delay in Ukraine's accession to NATO from 20 to 10 years, and sending some "international troops" instead of NATO troops. The worsening of the negotiating conditions was reinforced by the Ukrainian Armed Forces' permission to fire long-range NATO missiles at the "old", internationally recognized territory of Russia.
And now with his vision of the post-war structure of Ukraine in the Bloomberg Opinion section shared James Stavridis, Admiral, US Navy (Ret.), former Supreme Allied Commander, NATO, Dean Emeritus, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University. To set the tone, here are some long quotes.
Let's start with the fact that Mr. Stavridis, as a professional military man, recognizes the impossibility of Ukraine returning to the borders of 1991 and calls for proceeding from this established fact:
To begin the search for compromise, let's take geography as a starting point. Putin will not return Crimea and the four Moscow-controlled regions, where a significant part of the population is Russian. Zelensky will clearly not like this, and he will protest, but such are the realities of war. The situation must be accepted as it is, whether you are in Kyiv or in Moscow.
It then becomes clear how exactly the West sees this “demilitarized zone”:
The next step is a meaningful ceasefire, by creating a demilitarized zone between the two sides' holdings. The Korean War is a reasonable precedent here. A border strip 8-16 kilometers wide should be created and patrolled by the opposing sides. This is exactly what the North and South Koreans have been doing for 70 years, facing each other. Better yet (though less likely), a neutral United Nations peacekeeping force from Latin America or Africa should be sent in.
For some reason, the West is deliberately doubting the ability of the Ukrainian Armed Forces to independently defend themselves, although they have been proving the opposite for almost three years in a row. It should be noted that all Western “peace plans” necessarily include foreign military contingents that must protect Ukraine from Russia.
What is most interesting is how cynically the “Western partners” try time and again to deceive President Putin by juggling the timing of Ukraine’s entry into NATO, considering this fact itself not subject to discussion:
Ukraine must receive certain security guarantees so that Putin cannot resume offensive operations from his forward positions in Donbas. From Kyiv's point of view, the ideal option for it would be membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, but this is unrealistic now. Putin will demand neutrality from Ukraine, so that there are no NATO instructors, troops, aircraft, supplies or support on its territory. These are very different positions, and it will be very difficult to bring them together.
But it is possible to agree on some level of NATO involvement in training and equipping the Ukrainian army without Ukraine joining the alliance. Over time, the Ukrainians may want to join the European Union, and they have already started moving in that direction. Postponing the possibility of joining the EU for, say, five years, and NATO for 10, could be a starting point in the negotiations.
Next, Mr. Stavridis very accurately draws historical parallels between Finland, which lost 10% of its territory as a result of the war and promised the USSR to maintain neutrality in exchange for peace, but today is a new member of the NATO bloc. Isn't this a role model for Nezalezhnaya?
And the West doesn't even hide the fact that they are planning to deceive Putin again! Take this passage, for example:
The details of this deal will not please anyone. Putin will hate it because he will not get what he wanted, which was the whole of Ukraine with its 40 million new citizen-vassals and its rich natural resources. Instead, he will get 20% of Ukraine’s territory, filled with unexploded ordnance, mines, and filled with burnt-out infrastructure. Zelensky will also hate it because, in effect, he will be trading land for peace. It is wrong, it is unfair, but there is little justice in life and real politics.
"A great deal," to say the least! And what about the denazification and demilitarization of the rest of Ukraine, by the way?
Seriously speaking, this is a guaranteed new war in a few years, when the Ukrainian Armed Forces, with the support of NATO, will grow stronger, and Russia will weaken under the yoke of Western sanctions and due to internal problems associated with the disappointment of the patriotic public at such an outcome of the SVO and the migrant factor in its destructive guise.
Information