Blog

A DMZ In Ukraine: An End to the War?  

Introduction 

Throughout his third campaign for the American Presidency, President Elect and Former President Donald Trump has repeatedly promised to end the Russia-Ukraine Conflict on his first day in office. Recently, his team has floated the idea of creating a demilitarized zone (DMZ) in Ukraine as a way of freezing the conflict. This analysis will explore the pros and cons of a ceasefire imposed through the creation of a DMZ and if it can create lasting peace.  

Figure 1: Volodymyr Zelensky, Donald Trump, and Vladimir Putin (Newsweek) 

Background 

Trump and members of the Republican Party have repeatedly criticized President Joe Biden for his handling of the Russia-Ukraine Conflict. In early 2024, Marco Rubio, Trump’s future Secretary of State, voted against a bill which would send $61 billion in aid to Ukraine as did 15 other GOP senators. Trump campaigned on the idea of a settlement, claiming on Fox News that he would obtain a settlement “within 24 hours.”  

The idea of a ceasefire or the establishment of a DMZ as a possible end to the Russia-Ukraine Conflict is not new. For instance, China has repeatedly advocated for a de-escalation of the conflict, and, in May 2024, was joined in its calls for the establishment of a DMZ by Brazil. India and several African countries have also advocated for ending the war through diplomatic means. In February 2024, Putin floated the idea of a DMZ and a diplomatic end to the war, though his proposal was denounced by the Department of State as Russia still occupied territory within Ukraine. Since then, Russia has made some advances deeper into Ukraine, especially in the Donbass.  

What Would A DMZ Look Like 

The establishment of a DMZ could take many forms. One possibility is to establish a DMZ along current battle lines. This would lead to the effective loss of ⅕ of Ukrainian territory and allow Russia to keep, at least temporarily, the regions that have formally been voted for annexation. An article from Newsweek discusses the content of talks amongst the members of the future second Trump administration. Some of the conditions that they have discussed include:  

• The creation of an 800-mile-long DMZ within Ukraine  

• The creation of a military patrol staffed by soldiers from the European Union to man the DMZ 

• Barring Ukraine from joining NATO for up to 20 years   

Importantly, members of Trump’s transitional team have stated that such a zone would not be manned by Americans, and that Americans would play only a supporting role in such an arrangement. As such, Newsweek has suggested that the border would be manned by European forces. 

Pros 

Perhaps the largest of the potential upsides of the creation of a demilitarized zone in Ukraine would be that it would simply stop the fighting. Whether this pause in fighting would lead to a lasting arrangement remains to be seen, but it would likely at least lead to a temporary cooling of the ongoing escalation between NATO and Russia over Ukraine. This could lead to more sustainable negotiations between NATO and Russia, and ideally to a degree of rapprochement. Some other benefits to the creation of a DMZ in Ukraine include:  

• Easing the immediate financial burden on both the United States and the European Union through reducing the urgent need for munitions in Ukraine. 

• Providing Ukraine with the opportunity to recuperate a portion of the human and financial costs of war.  

• An arrangement could provide members of the E.U. and NATO with vital time needed to adapt their military and economic infrastructure for potential future Russian aggression. It might also allow them to adapt to a geopolitical situation in which the United States would be unable or unwilling to provide protection.  

Cons 

The principal con of the implementation of a DMZ in Ukraine is that it would likely only freeze the conflict rather than ending it definitively. While the specifics of where the 800-mile demarcation line would be situated are not known to the public, one likely scenario consists of freezing the current battle lines in place. Under this scenario, large parts of Ukraine including but not limited to the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, Crimea, and Mariupol would be put under Russian control. Perhaps surprisingly, it would also see parts of the Kursk region of Russia fall under Ukrainian control. From now until January 20th (the date when Trump will retake the office of the Presidency), there could be changes in which country controls which territory. In any case, Ukrainians living in occupied territories may attempt to resist occupation, requiring Russia to invest manpower and resources into quashing potential dissent. The following are several other potential cons to a DMZ settlement:  

• A settlement may give Russia the time needed to recuperate the human and financial cost of the war. This could create a strengthened Russia, though it would need to partially restructure its economy, which is currently configured for wartime conditions.  

• Manning the DMZ presents a significant cost for NATO members other than the United States which they may or may not be willing and able to pay.  

• A settlement which cedes too much could be seen as a Russian victory. 

• A settlement could harm U.S.-NATO relations, degrading trust in the alliance system.  

Policy Recommendations  

Ideally, the United States would negotiate from a position of strength. This, however, seems not to be the current reality. Russia has shown strength through recent advances in the Donbass, deploying an IRBM in the Ukrainian city of Dnipro, and relaxing its conditions for the use of a nuclear weapon. It has also continued to show signs of a growing economy despite, or perhaps because of, the war. Trump, thus, may have to negotiate with an emboldened Russia. 

Figure 2: Russian wartime production as of the end of 2023 (Joseph Politano) 

Following the presidential transition, Trump’s team should push for more favorable conditions than those that have previously been outlined. This scenario, though, assumes that Ukraine will be able to hold without suffering significant territorial losses until late January. One potential solution in this case could be to consult Ukraine about trading sections of its territory (the Donbass and Crimea) against security guarantees.  Ukraine may be more willing to negotiate when pushed by the United States. The Trump administration may be more willing to integrate Ukraine into its defensive alliance network if it can be proven that the cost of supporting the Eastern European nation would be less than the benefit of having a regional outpost against future Russian advances into Europe.