A demilitarised zone won't work – Russia and Ukraine must enforce peace themselves

Telegraph

18-02-2025

If sitting through a Putin history lecture is the price of peace, then Donald Trump has already made a great sacrifice for humanity. The Trump-Putin call to decide the fate of Ukraine began with a monologue about the 'Great History of our Nations' before Trump could get a word in; but if it brings an end to the war, maybe we should all endure a few more 'lessons' from Professor Putin.
President Trump revealed that he has directed that ceasefire negotiations begin. As momentum builds for a ceasefire in Ukraine – an essential first step toward elections and a lasting peace accord – we must be clear-eyed about the dangers of a misguided approach. Some voices have suggested establishing a demilitarised zone, policed by UN peacekeepers or European forces or even NATO, as a mechanism for securing this ceasefire. This is a grave mistake. It is a fantasy conjured by those who do not understand the realities of modern war, the limitations of international forces or the brutal nature of Vladimir Putin's strategy. It is a solution that, in practice, will lead to escalation, not peace.
The argument for a DMZ assumes that international forces – whether UN blue helmets, European troops, or even NATO peacekeepers – can somehow enforce a ceasefire between two of the largest standing armies in Europe. This is an illusion.
The proponents of a plan that puts peacekeeping forces on the dividing line are misguided. What kind of peacekeeping force could be placed between two of the largest and most experienced armies in Europe, fighting across a 3700 kilometre front line? These forces comprise 1.5 million soldiers with three years of modern warfare experience.
More to the point: How many casualties would European countries be willing to accept in a year of their peacekeeping mission when the warring parties have already lost nearly a million over several years? There will be losses – significant ones – because provocations are inevitable. The warring parties have not yet reached their critical threshold of losses, whereas for Europe, the deaths of even a few hundred soldiers and officers would be a political catastrophe.
The formula for peace – ceasefire, elections, negotiations, peace agreement, trade deals and the beginning of reconstruction – is the optimal path and a new opportunity for Ukraine and peace in Europe. This path, which must be covered over nine months to a year, contains several critical crossroads and dangerous turns. One of the most significant questions concerns the demarcation of the warring parties and the creation of a demilitarised zone.
The idea that a few battalions of European peacekeepers – whose combined forces are a fraction of that size – could police this war is absurd. In 2024, the German Army's roster counted 64,000 active duty soldiers; there are 30,000 casualties in the war every month. In two months of war, the German Army would not exist. Could they ever be an effective peacekeeping force? Who will keep the peace between armies that dwarf those of the so-called peacekeepers? President Trump made clear today: The United States will not keep the peace by force; and without the US, nobody else can.
The question is moot, however: A DMZ is not a shield; it is an invitation to disaster. The moment UN, EU or NATO troops set foot in Ukraine as 'peacekeepers,' they become targets for Putin. Consider a UN or NATO force – Lithuanian, for example – establishes a peacekeeping perimeter; a 'stray' Russian shell lands in their camp, with 30 soldiers dead. Lithuania would invoke Article 5 of NATO's treaty, demanding collective retaliation. If NATO soldiers are placed in a demilitarised zone, it is only a matter of time before Putin tests our resolve. Would NATO go to war? Or would it hesitate, exposing the Alliance's weakness? Either scenario is a gift to Putin. He would either drag NATO into war or humiliate the West by showing that Article 5 is a paper shield. This is the real risk.
But if a foreign-policed DMZ is impossible, what is the alternative?
The answer is both simpler and stronger: A military ceasefire negotiated directly between the Ukrainian and Russian general staffs. NATO can and should enforce a no-fly-zone over Ukraine during the ceasefire and, on mutually beneficial terms, will assist in rebuilding Ukraine's economy – but after that, it will be up to Europe.
Europe needs Ukraine – and its army. This is why the West must help Ukraine conduct presidential and then parliamentary elections, and assist the new Ukrainian leadership in forming a reasonable compromise for long-lasting negotiations with the Putin regime.
Ukraine and Russia have been fighting for over 11 years. Russia is the clear aggressor in this war, but every war eventually ends in peace. The time has come for the warring parties to assume their share of responsibility in the peace settlement proposed by the US President – and to face the test of mutual accountability. They must enforce the peace themselves.
The role of other countries should instead be monitoring and structured dialogue. The United States should take the lead in establishing a five-party commission – a body to monitor compliance, prevent conflict and ensure ongoing dialogue. This commission, composed of the US, China, Europe, Russia and Ukraine, could oversee the ceasefire and manage disputes. Representatives could be personally appointed by their heads of state, with the authority to act decisively – not bureaucrats, but real decision-makers.
Such a commission could be set up immediately as part of President Trump's peace framework. It could meet regularly, have direct crisis-response protocols and operate without bureaucratic delays. The more business leaders and experienced military officials involved – the faster and more effectively the peace process can be guided to a positive conclusion. President Trump is a businessman, as are many of his top officials; he knows the value of decisive action.