“Yesterday, May 22, the Ukrainian media came out with alarming headlines: Putin declared the decision to create a “buffer zone” along the borders of Ukraine. Although in fact the leader of the aggressor state said a little differently. He noted that “this work is already underway” by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, and the decision was made earlier. Putin did not provide any other details. Although he later specified his opinion: according to him, “buffer”, – WRITE ON: ua.news
Yesterday, May 22, Ukrainian media out with alarming headlines: Putin stated The decision to create a “buffer zone” along the borders of Ukraine. Although in fact the leader of the aggressor state said a little differently. He noted that “this work is already underway” by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, and the decision was made earlier.
Putin did not provide any other details. Although he later specified his opinion: he said, the “buffer zone” will be created for three Russian border regions. These are Bryanschyna, Kurschyna and Belgorod. Accordingly, Chernihiv, Sumy and Kharkiv regions of Ukraine are threatened.
The President of the Russian Federation is not for the first time publicly reflecting on the need to create such a zone. Similar conversations began at least from the end of 2022, updating in 2024, on the eve of the new invasion of Russians into Kharkiv region. So the idea, as we see, is not new.
However, what is it at all – a buffer zone? How should she look like in theory? Are there any successful historical cases of creating such spaces? What Ukrainian territories are threatened? UA.news political observer Nikita Trachuk Together with experts He understood the question.
What is a buffer zone
A buffer or demilitarized area is a general concept of one order. These terms are often used as interchangeable and synonymous. However, they still have several nuances.
The buffer zone is usually a neutral or limited area that separates two or more territory from each other to prevent conflicts or contain hostilities.
The demilitarized zone is a special type of buffer zone where the armed forces are prohibited, as well as any military objects and appropriate activities. It is created in order to prevent direct military clashes between parties in a conflict or post -conflict state.
The Russian President has repeatedly raised the topic of creating such a zone in Ukraine. However, he is every time calls This is different: it is a buffer zone, then demilitarized. It seems that the Russian dictator does not fully understand the differences between the two terms. But according to its rhetoric and actions, it is more about the creation of a buffer, “gray” zone: a limited territory that “separates” Ukraine from Russia, and at the expense of Ukrainian lands.
In general, such spaces are a typical product of the XX century, the age of modernity, in the categories of which Putin lives and thinks. The whole essence of the demilitarized or buffer zone is already in their name.
That is, it is a place between two warring parties, where there is no whole that is connected with the war: neither soldiers, nor equipment, nor fortifications, etc. In the Russian version, there should be nothing at all in these territories: neither people nor settlements. In some way, the Russian Federation does not know how to learn and does not even try to learn.
Historical examples of creating “security zones”
The history of mankind of the last 100-150 years knows both successful cases of creating demilitarized or buffer zones, and completely failed. Perhaps the most famous success was the Korean demilitarized zone, which has been holding two antagonistic states from suicide war for over 70 years.
The width of this zone is only 4 kilometers. Even in 1953, when it was created, it was not considered any such serious breeding of troops. And now, in the long -range systems and drones, 4 kilometers are generally funny and purely symbolic distance. However, both Korea still do not fight, so it turns out that the creation of this area has worked and has become a fuse from conflict for many decades.
A mirror example, however, with a minus sign is a demilitarized area between South and North Vietnam. It was created by analogy with the Korean case, but in fact it did not work. First of all, because the Vietnamese did not want to live in two separated countries, and no one blocked the “Hye Ming Trop”. As a result, Vietnam is a single state today, but the Korean Peninsula remains separated.
Another quite successful example of creating a “security zone” is the Sinai Peninsula. In 1967, when Israel defeated the coalition of Arab states in the six -day war, Egypt lost vast territories. The whole Sinai was occupied by the Israelites.
Subsequently, under pressure from the international community, the peninsula had to be returned. However, Egypt received a strict treaty to demilitarize this territory. Sinai was divided into four zones and clearly prescribed how many troops there can be the Egyptians. For example, in one zone it was allowed to have one division. But in the area that borders with Israel – nothing but easily armed military patrols. The most interesting thing is that this agreement is still working, and the Sinai Peninsula in the military plan does not threaten Tel Aviv.
But with no less, and even the more famous Rhine zone, nothing came. When Germany lost the First World War, the French and other winners forced it to demilitarize the entire Rhine region. Moreover, at one time this territory (most industrially and resourceful for the Germans) was generally tried to remove from Germany, creating there (not without the help of the French) quasi -dependent “Rhine Republic” – a kind of analogue “DNR” at that time.
As a result, after Hitler came to power, a deeply nationally offended German people completely supported the introduction of troops into the Rhine zone, which immediately ceased to be demilitarized. And in four years the Wehrmacht troops were already traveling by the captured Paris.
Putin’s Buffer Zone: A threat to Ukrainian territories
As noted above, the idea of the “security zone” at the expense of Ukrainian territories is not new. Putin plans to make part of Ukraine’s border with such a “gray zone” by placing Russian troops on the borders. That is, it is no longer a “demilitarized zone”, but the buffer zone of Russian control.
In fact, this euphemism hides a banal desire to move the borders of the Russian Federation to the west. If you do it even 30 kilometers deep into Ukraine, it will bring big problems to the state and citizens. Because settlements such as millions of Kharkiv will enter this area. And what to do with this is not yet clear, as it is not clear and how it can look in the picture of Putin’s world at all.
The same story with the city of Sumy, which is neat 30 kilometers from the border with the aggressor. By Putin’s idea, 250- The thousandth settlement should also enter the Kremlin’s “security zone”. That is, in this case, it is likely that there is just nothing left of the city, including with its inhabitants, almost all of which will be forced to leave.
In principle, it makes no sense to continue to give examples. Already at the stage of consideration of the situation around Sumy and Kharkiv, which in the case of the implementation of plans of the Russian Federation turn from important regional centers it is unclear to what is unclear in what status, demonstrate the complete unrealistic idea.
Obviously, Kyiv will never voluntarily gone. Therefore, it remains to put hope on the defense forces that will not allow such a scenario. In the end, the “safety zone” in Kharkiv region is trying to create for the second year, but so far they are still trampling on the spot, “resting” in the almost destroyed Vovchansk.
Expert opinions
Political scientist, director of the Ukrainian Institute of Policy Ruslan Bortnik He is skeptical of Putin’s plans to create a buffer zone. He considers it an element of raising rates in the negotiation process, as well as a possible “involvement” for future annexations.
“So far, Russia has not enough strength to implement this intelligence in full. However, the idea is voiced as a political and psychological signal in several directions: as a form of pressure on Ukraine and its allies, as an element of internal Russian discourse … and as a workpiece for international negotiations, especially with the United States. As for the status of the buffer zone, there are two scenarios: annexation on the model of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia or the format of the “gray zone”, as in the case of “LDNR”, Abkhazia, Ossetia, Transnistria, etc. The actual control of Russia without legal recognition in order to maintain space for future political auctions. In general, the uncompromising rhetoric of the Kremlin became especially explicit after Putin and Trump’s telephone negotiations. Against the background of the towing negotiations and the soft reaction of America, Russia begins to open rates openly, expanding both its territorial claims and ideological justification of the war, ”, – says Ruslan Bortnik.
Military Expert, US Navy Captain retired Gary Tabaks It believes that Ukraine is that it is not at war with Putin, but with Trump. Now everything looks like the war is not against Putin, but against Trump. Here is what to solve Ukraine.
“The issue of a buffer zone is a truce. This is when the troops simply diverge during the truce. Negotiations you need to discuss these things. Putin hopes that both sides will compromise. His country will also go to some compromises. But this requires negotiations: to make professional diplomats at the talk table and start negotiating. And this requires a mediator. The only possible mediator is Donald Trump … Trump on the side of Ukraine. It is opposed to Trump, in addition, offensive. And it is painful, believe me. Both in Congress and the Republican Party as a whole. Trump agreed to be a mediator in this situation, he constantly offers something. Whether you agree to it or not is your business. But it will depend on whether the issue will be resolved, whether there will be a further war. You can fight further if you want, ”Gary Tabakh said.
Summarizing, one can state that the very idea of a demilitarized zone is not something fundamentally new. More: it was very successfully used to complete wars and conflicts. Some of these spaces exist on the planet still, providing long peace for decades.
However, the key factor that determines success is the sincere desire of both parties to end a difficult war and endless bloodshed. Then the specific problematic “safety zones” are discussed, in which there is an agreed and documented demilitarization. The same happened during an attempt to breed troops in the Donbass before the full -scale war. And it could really work.
But if the “buffer zone” wants to be created by one state at the expense of another, and behind the facade of “security” hides only the desire to move its own borders to the West – then it is anything, but not the way to peace. This is just another cover for aggressive plans for the invading colonial war, no less and no more.