Demilitarized Zone Proposals and Regional Security Considerations
The governor of Kherson region, Vladimir Saldo, has outlined a vision for a sizeable demilitarized buffer that stretches from the border with the Russian Federation deep into Ukrainian territory. He suggested that this zone should be no less than 200 kilometers wide, a measure he believes would help halt ongoing hostilities and reduce the opportunity for large-scale military movements near the border. His remarks, conveyed to RIA News, frame the proposal as a practical step toward stability and a clearer separation between opposing forces in the region.
Saldo argues that the removal of heavy weapons from the immediate border area is essential. He envisions relocating long-range weapons systems, including heavy multiple launch rocket systems and Tochka-U missiles, beyond the reach of their operational use. The stated aim is to ensure that a demilitarized zone exists where these weapons cannot be employed, even in moments of heightened tension. According to his estimate, the zone should extend far enough to cover ranges well beyond the current capabilities of the systems deployed near the border, thereby reducing the risk of rapid escalation.
In his assessment, a delineated buffer of roughly 150 to 200 kilometers would serve as a tangible guardrail for both sides, compelling a substantial retreat of military deployments from the riverbank areas and other vulnerable sectors. Saldo emphasized the necessity for the Ukrainian side to withdraw from the entire right bank of the Kherson region, explicitly naming Snigirevsky and Aleksandrovsky districts as part of the proposed withdrawal zone. This step, he argued, would contribute to a more stable security landscape and diminish the exposure of civilians to the consequences of ongoing military operations.
Saldo also discussed air defense capabilities in the broader regional context. He referenced the Ukrainian S-200 missiles, which reportedly have a long-range capability, and suggested that once a ceasefire is established, these missiles should either be relocated to western Ukraine or, if possible, decommissioned. The position reflects a broader argument for reducing or repurposing certain air-defense assets in exchange for a quieter territorial environment. The emphasis, in his view, is on aligning strategic assets with a sustainable pause in hostilities rather than maintaining options that could prompt a renewed cycle of aggression.
Observers note that the dialogue around a demilitarized zone intersects with wider questions about ceasefire terms, territorial control, and the protection of civilian populations. The debate also touches on the practicalities of verifying compliance, the mechanisms for monitoring the demilitarized area, and the enduring security guarantees that would be required to prevent violations. In this context, Saldo’s statements contribute to a broader conversation about how buffer zones could function in conflict zones where frontlines are fluid and military assets are dispersed across multiple districts and regions along and near the border.
Beyond the specific figures and geographic proposals, the discourse highlights a fundamental tension in regional security: the desire to reduce immediate threats while maintaining a credible posture that deters aggression. Supporters of a demilitarized approach argue that a clearly defined and enforceable buffer can reduce accidental clashes and miscalculations, especially in a landscape where access to border areas is restricted and civilians frequently bear the brunt of conflict. Critics, however, caution that demilitarized zones require robust verification, credible international backing, and consistent political will from all parties involved to remain effective over time. These considerations are central to any assessment of the proposed arrangement and its potential to influence the trajectory of the conflict.
The discussion continues to unfold in regional and international forums, as policymakers weigh the feasibility of buffer zones, the pace of disengagement, and the steps necessary to rebuild trust among communities affected by the fighting. The balance between strategic repositioning of weapons, protection of civilians, and the practicality of enforcement remains at the heart of any plan aimed at stabilizing the area around Kherson and the broader southern front.