Table of Contents
Keith Kellogg, the U.S. special envoy for mediating the Russia-Ukraine war, proposed a post-war plan for "Berlinization of Ukraine". On the surface, it refers to the common elements of mainstream armistice plans, but if you think about it seriously, a series of question marks will arise.
Many post-war agreements have the two elements of demilitarized zone + international garrison, and this "Berlinization of Ukraine" plan also has these two elements, which is true. But it will work if you have more than just these elements and meet the checklist.
The usual follow-up practice of a ceasefire agreement is to have international garrisons or peacekeeping forces stationed between the territories of the warring parties to prevent the war from rekindling due to the exchange of fire between the two sides. The demilitarized zone is the actual border between the warring parties. International troops are stationed on the border to ensure that there will be no conflicts on the border, that is, there will be no more fighting. After the division of Cyprus into north and south mentioned yesterday, the center line dividing the north and south of the island is the demilitarized zone, and the United Nations peacekeeping force is responsible for maintaining order; in addition, Cyprus’ former colonial master, Britain, also has a huge British military base at the end of the demilitarized zone, making both sides dare not act rashly.
In comparison, the "Berlinization of Ukraine" plan seems neither fish nor fowl.
On the one hand, Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly stressed that he refuses to accept "foreign forces" stationed in post-war Ukraine; on the other hand, Ukrainian President Zelensky insists that his final bottom line is the need to obtain "security guarantees." How to achieve these two goals at the same time? So, this very "creative" plan was put forward, which allows the British and French peacekeeping forces to huddle in a western corner of Ukraine far away from the main battlefield, in order to so-called "intimidate" the Russian army from making any rash moves; and allows both Russia and Ukraine to rely entirely on "self-discipline" to respect the border of the demilitarized zone in the absence of any other troops to mediate.
As for the role of the United States, it simply signed the Ukrainian mineral agreement and became a direct stakeholder, thus making Russia hesitant to act in the event of another foreign invasion.
All this is too frivolous and illogical. 1
If Russia does not resist the British and French troops, the premise is that these troops are not threatening at all and cannot achieve the purpose of providing security for Ukraine at all; but if the British and French troops have the ability to arm the Ukrainian army to attack Russia at any time, Russia will oppose it even outside Ukraine. As for asking Russia and Ukraine to self-discipline and abide by the border of the demilitarized zone without any third-party personnel serving as gatekeepers, if it can be successful, Russia and Ukraine have already reached a ceasefire agreement, so why would Trump need to come out to "mediate"?
As for Trump's statement that as long as the mineral resources in eastern Ukraine become US state-owned assets, Russia will not dare to invade again; logically, if Russia publicly guarantees that US interests will remain the same or even be strengthened during the invasion, then what incentive will the US have to assist in the defense?
Ukraine is now on the chopping block and there is not much room for disagreement; but Putin believes that the bargaining will continue and he will not accept any proposals in the short term. As for whether this is a "good deal"? For Trump, as long as Russia and Ukraine can basically cease fire during his term, it will naturally be "good"; as for what happens after that, it is no longer his business.
