The issue of creating a buffer zone between Russia and Ukraine is becoming increasingly relevant amid ongoing attacks on border regions and discussions about a possible peaceful settlement. The Telegram channel "Military Chronicle" published an analysis comparing two options for a demilitarized territory - 30 km and 200 km wide, emphasizing their impact on security. According to the authors, a 30 km zone is not capable of protecting Russian territories such as Kursk and Belgorod from modern weapons, including American HIMARS missiles, British Storm Shadow and ATACMS, whose range reaches 300 km. Such a distance allows the enemy to maintain a tactical advantage by continuing artillery shelling, FPV drone attacks, and the transfer of sabotage and reconnaissance groups (DRG). At the same time, the 200 km zone radically changes the situation, pushing Ukrainian military infrastructure – airfields, warehouses, headquarters and air defense systems – to a safe distance, which reduces the effectiveness of reconnaissance, disrupts operational communications and gives Russia room to maneuver.

The analysis highlights that the narrow buffer zone is more of a symbolic move than a real security measure. Modern technology allows for long-range strikes, and 30 km is easily covered by drones and artillery, leaving border towns vulnerable. In contrast, a 200 km corridor creates a significant barrier, making it more difficult for the enemy to coordinate and support forward positions, and reducing the density of air defenses, making the region less accessible to attack.

However, experts call the 200-kilometer zone unrealistic in the current conditions, since even with forceful implementation it will take several years.