The image of a Ukrainian soldier, part of the 93rd Separate Mechanized Brigade ‘Kholodnyi Yar,’ on a mission to resupply frontline units in Donetsk, eastern Ukraine, paints a stark picture of the ongoing conflict. This scene underscores the grim reality of a war that Moscow, through its pro-Kremlin media, attempts to portray as a controlled operation achieving its objectives. They claim Russia has the right to occupy new Ukrainian territories, all in the name of regional security.
This narrative, delivered directly by President Vladimir Putin, asserts that Russia “knows how it will all end” and will pursue its goals for the “special operation” in Ukraine. Putin emphasizes the gradual establishment of a “security zone” along the border, stating, “We will continue to act until we eliminate the threat to our border regions.” This idea of a buffer zone, first articulated in May 2025, according to the article, aims to create a protective barrier for Russian regions like Belgorod, Bryansk, and Kursk, which border Ukrainian territories, and to suppress “the enemy’s firing positions.” A member of the State Duma’s Defense Committee, Andrey Kolesnik, estimates this zone to be at least 50 kilometers long. The underlying narratives here are clear: Russia is systematically achieving its goals, the security zone is a necessary and legitimate defense measure, and Ukraine is the aggressor, forcing Russia to defend its populace. The purpose of these claims is to justify the continued aggression, cast Russia as a victim, reassure the Russian public that the war is proceeding as planned, and shift the narrative from the initial, failed objectives of 2022 to a more adaptable concept of “security.”
However, these narratives crumble under scrutiny. Putin’s consistent claim of achieving war objectives rings hollow, especially considering the initial plan to swiftly conquer Kyiv and replace Ukrainian leadership utterly failed. The “special military operation,” a term invented to avoid the label of a war of aggression, has dragged on for over four years, far exceeding the projected three days. None of the goals declared by Putin on February 24, 2022, have been met: Ukraine has not been demilitarized, “denazification” remains an empty propaganda slogan, and Kyiv’s government continues to function independently. The United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly condemned Russia’s aggression, demanding troop withdrawal and affirming Ukraine’s territorial integrity, even condemning the escalation of attacks on civilians and infrastructure in February 2026. Furthermore, an international arrest warrant has been issued for Putin by the International Criminal Court for the illegal deportation of Ukrainian children. The World Bank, UN, European Commission, and the Ukrainian government estimate the cost of reconstruction at nearly $588 billion, highlighting the immense destruction caused by Russia – the most extensive in Europe since World War II.
The “security zone” or “buffer zone” narrative is a blatant reversal of reality. Russia, the invader, claims it is threatened by the country it attacked, asserting that its security can only be guaranteed by seizing more Ukrainian territory. This is not a defensive measure but a pretext to prolong the war. Moreover, this “buffer zone” has not shielded Russia from attacks. Ukrainian attacks are no longer confined to border regions but extend far beyond, hitting ports and oil infrastructure in the Baltic Sea, rendering terminals non-operational for weeks and forcing a reduction in oil production. Even refineries located over 1,400 km from the Ukrainian border have been struck. This demonstrates that pushing the frontline deeper into Ukraine does not eliminate the fabricated threat the Kremlin invokes. Instead, it exposes the false premise of the entire “security zone” concept.
Ironically, the war has brought Russia not more safety, but increased vulnerability and insecurity. Ukrainian attacks have led to power outages, gas shortages, and internet disruptions in several Russian regions, directly impacting the population and economic activities. Within Russia, even among those who once supported the war, criticisms are emerging regarding the exaggerated claims of frontline successes and the authorities’ inability to prevent Ukrainian strikes on crucial targets. This internal dissent contradicts the official narrative of an unblemished plan and a certain victory. The “buffer zone,” therefore, is not a genuine security mechanism but a cynical new justification for perpetuating the conflict, aiming to present the illegal occupation of more Ukrainian land as a defensive measure. It’s a logically flawed proposal, as a true buffer zone for troop separation would necessitate reciprocal action from both states, not a unilateral push deeper into Ukraine. The Kremlin’s version of a “buffer zone” is designed not to reduce danger for both sides, but to further strip Ukraine of its territory and its ability to defend itself.
The idea of a buffer zone, initially floated by Putin in 2024, was presented as a necessity due to “tragic events,” implying that a zone would be established in territories under Kyiv’s control when deemed “appropriate.” This notion quickly gained traction among pro-Kremlin figures, with the leader of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic, Denis Pushilin, endorsing it, arguing that Ukrainian troops must be pushed further west. Pro-Kremlin commentators have gone so far as to suggest that this buffer zone should begin at Russia’s self-defined borders, meaning it would encompass the partially occupied and illegally annexed Ukrainian regions of Kherson, Donetsk, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia. This interpretation implies that the “buffer zone” would extend so far that only a fraction of Ukraine’s current territory would remain, effectively making it a blueprint for further territorial annexation under the guise of security.