Connect with us

World

Ukraine accepts demilitarised zone to end Russia war, but do DMZs work?

Published

on

Ukraine accepts demilitarised zone to end Russia war, but do DMZs work?

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says Kyiv is willing to turn the parts of the Donbas region that his troops currently control into a demilitarised zone (DMZ) if Russia also commits to keeping its soldiers out of this eastern region of Ukraine.

Zelenskyy’s comments represent Ukraine’s biggest territorial concession so far as he faces mounting pressure from both Russian military advances and United States President Donald Trump to agree to a ceasefire with Moscow.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

The Ukrainian president also spoke of a second DMZ near the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, Europe’s largest, which is currently controlled by Russia. The DMZ proposals, he said, were part of a 20-point peace plan seeking the end of the Ukraine war that Zelenskyy on Tuesday said was backed by the US.

Here is what we know about the plan and whether demilitarised zones could work in Ukraine:

What is the 20-point peace plan?

Zelenskyy unveiled the plan in a two-hour briefing with journalists, reading aloud from a highlighted and annotated copy. The plan was formulated by negotiators from Washington and Kyiv in Florida over the weekend.

Advertisement

Here’s where negotiations stand on key issues:

  • Ukraine’s NATO membership: Russia has insisted from the start of the war that it will not accept Ukraine as a part of NATO. The Trump administration, too, has made clear that Ukraine must give up its hopes of joining the military alliance. But Ukraine continues to resist pressure to introduce constitutional amendments explicitly stating that it will stay neutral and not seek NATO membership. “It is the choice of NATO members whether to have Ukraine or not,” Zelenskyy said on Tuesday. “Our choice has been made. We moved away from the proposed changes to the Constitution of Ukraine that would have prohibited Ukraine from joining NATO.”
  • Territorial concessions: Zelenskyy said any proposal requiring Ukraine to withdraw its troops would have to be approved through a national referendum. Ukraine has repeatedly pointed to its constitution, which prevents the government from changing the country’s borders on its own. But many analysts believe that Ukraine might need to settle for a middle path – not recognising Russian-occupied regions officially while acknowledging that it does not actually control them.
  • Elections: Zelenskyy said Ukraine would hold a presidential election only after a peace agreement is signed. US President Donald Trump has been pushing for elections in Ukraine while Russia has used the absence of elections during the war to question Zelenskyy’s legitimacy.
  • Demilitarised zones: Zelenskyy said any areas that Ukraine pulls out from will become DMZs, which he also called free trade zones. “They are looking for a demilitarised zone or a free economic zone, meaning a format that could satisfy both sides,” he said on Tuesday, referring to US negotiators.

What are the proposed DMZs in Ukraine?

Russia has demanded full control of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, which constitute the Donbas, historically Ukraine’s industrial belt.

Its troops currently control almost all of Luhansk and 70 percent of Donetsk.

The latest proposal would involve Ukrainian soldiers pulling out of the territory in the Donbas that they control – as long as Russia does not seek to occupy the region. Instead, that region is to become a DMZ.

Meanwhile, in Zaporizhzhia, Russian troops are in control of a nuclear plant that Ukraine has tried – so far in vain – to get back.

The latest proposal suggests turning the region around the nuclear plant into a DMZ, too.

Advertisement

But it is unclear how the proposed DMZs – if both sides were to agree to them – would be governed, who might ensure that both sides play by the rules and how resources there, such as the nuclear plant, could be shared.

“It’s a point in the plan that is supposed to satisfy both sides,” Marina Miron, an analyst at King’s College London, told Al Jazeera.

“However, I don’t see how this is going to function because in Ukraine Zelenskyy said that Russia would have to withdraw its forces, and we’re talking about the Donbas, and I don’t see that happening, especially if Russia is winning on the battlefield.”

Miron explained that Ukraine designating demilitarised zones in this peace plan was a tactic by Kyiv to signal that it was ready for peace, thereby pushing “the diplomatic burden on Russia”.

Has Russia responded?

Moscow has not accepted or rejected the latest peace plan so far.

Advertisement

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on Wednesday that Russia was “formulating its position” on the plan. He did not comment on the specifics of the plan.

What are other demilitarised zones in the world?

Several DMZs exist. They include:

Korean Demilitarized Zone

The Korean DMZ is a 4km-wide (2.5-mile-wide) buffer zone separating North Korea and South Korea.

It was established in 1953 after the signing of an armistice ended the fighting of the Korean War.

The war had broken out in June 1950 when North Korean forces crossed the 38th parallel and invaded South Korea in an attempt to reunify the peninsula.

Advertisement

Korea was temporarily divided at the 38th parallel by the US and the Soviet Union after World War II. This division placed Kim Il Sung’s Soviet-backed Workers’ Party of Korea in control of the North and the US-supported Syngman Rhee government in control in the South.

The conflict lasted three years with Soviet- and Chinese-backed North Korean troops fighting against US-led United Nations forces. It killed an estimated two million people and devastated cities and villages on both sides.

The war concluded with an armistice signed by the US, China and North Korea, but South Korea refused to agree, and no formal peace treaty was ever concluded. More than 70 years later, the two Koreas remain technically at war.

UN Disengagement Observer Force Zone in the Golan Heights

The UN established a narrow strip of land as a DMZ in the Golan Heights in 1974 after the war that year between Israel and Syria and an armistice signed by the two countries.

The broader Golan Heights is a rocky patch of land that under international law belongs to Syria. Israel captured it during the 1967 Six-Day War and annexed it in 1982 in a move recognised only by the US.

Advertisement

The Observer Force Zone separates Israeli-occupied territory from the remaining part of the Golan Heights that is still under Syria’s control. The zone is still monitored by UN peacekeepers.

Sinai Peninsula demilitarised zones

DMZs were established in the Sinai Peninsula as part of the 1979 Egypt-Israel peace treaty. The treaty divided the Sinai Peninsula into four security zones with different military restrictions.

These zones are monitored by an international peacekeeping force called the Multinational Force and Observers.

Aland Islands

The Aland Islands are a small archipelago in the Baltic Sea between Sweden and Finland. They are an autonomous, Swedish-speaking region of Finland.

They have been demilitarised since 1921 as per a decision by the now nonexistent League of Nations. Finland and Sweden took the issue to the league because in the early 20th century, the islands were part of Finland, which gained independence from the Russian Empire in 1917.

Advertisement

After this, many Alanders wanted to reunite with Sweden, which spurred tensions.

Antarctica

Antarctica has been established as a demilitarised zone under the 1959 Antarctic Treaty.

This forbids military activity and nuclear testing, ensuring the continent is used exclusively for peaceful purposes and scientific research.

This is because several nations had made overlapping territorial claims in Antarctica, raising fears of future conflicts.

Preah Vihear Temple

The Thailand-Cambodia border, shaped by French colonial-era delineation, contains ambiguous boundaries and overlapping claims.

Advertisement

These disputes have grown more contentious as both countries strengthened their institutions and the strategic value of certain areas increased.

One of the contested zones is the culturally significant Preah Vihear Temple from the Khmer Empire, which is symbolically important to both nations. In 1962, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that the temple belonged to Cambodia.

Disputes erupted from 2008 to 2011, marked by exchanges of artillery fire, mass displacements and duelling legal interpretations of the ICJ ruling.

In 2011, the ICJ ordered a provisional demilitarised zone around the temple.

Have DMZs worked before?

DMZs have been considerably successful in some cases, such as in the case of the Koreas.

Advertisement

The zone between North and South Korea has prevented the two from large-scale military conflict.

On the other hand, violence has broken out between Thailand and Cambodia this year over their border dispute, killing nearly 100 people in July and December and displacing about a million, according to official counts. The two countries reported new clashes on Wednesday.

In other cases, such as in the Golan Heights or Sinai Peninsula, demilitarised zones have prevented direct, large-scale clashes.

However, Israel has repeatedly violated the Golan Heights buffer zone, especially over the past year, using the chaos after the ouster of former President Bashar al-Assad in December 2024 to grab territory and expel Syrian families. The UN has criticised Israel’s DMZ violations.

Advertisement

World

Video: A Small Election Could Change British Politics

Published

on

Video: A Small Election Could Change British Politics

new video loaded: A Small Election Could Change British Politics

transcript

transcript

A Small Election Could Change British Politics

Voters in the northern English district of Makerfield cast ballots on Thursday to choose their representative in Parliament, the outcome of which could lead to Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s ouster.

Well, I don’t think there should be a leadership election. I think that the last government proved that parties that spend their whole time in leadership elections don’t go on to win the next general election.

Advertisement
Voters in the northern English district of Makerfield cast ballots on Thursday to choose their representative in Parliament, the outcome of which could lead to Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s ouster.

By Alisa Shodiyev Kaff

June 18, 2026

Continue Reading

World

From bear hugs to handshakes: How India lost its edge with Trump while Pakistan quietly gained ground

Published

on

From bear hugs to handshakes: How India lost its edge with Trump while Pakistan quietly gained ground

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

This week, President Donald Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi came face-to-face at the G7 summit in France, their first such encounter since February 2025. Rather than his trademark bear hug, Modi greeted Trump with a smile and handshake.

Then on Wednesday, the two held a bilateral meeting. It was a friendly chat, but one that came against a backdrop of compounding tensions.

As India works at restoring its relationship with Washington, its arch-foe Pakistan has expanded its own diplomatic profile, complicating India’s campaign against its nuclear-armed rival.

COMMERCE SECRETARY HOWARD LUTNICK MAKES QUIET TRIP TO INDIA DAYS AFTER TARIFF SETBACK

Advertisement

President Donald Trump looks at Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif speaking following the official signing of the first phase of the Gaza ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas. Shariff announced his intention to nominate Trump for the Noble Peace Prize for a second time.  (Evelyn Hockstein / Reuters)

For years, India built an international case against Pakistan, projecting it as an isolated or destabilizing state. This hardline stance appeared to be working, with Modi declaring to Pakistan, “India has been successful in isolating you, and we will intensify those efforts.” 

But a decade later, Pakistan is rapidly emerging as a key global player in the region and beyond.

While Modi initially tried to engage Pakistan, his government’s approach eventually hardened around the mantra that “terror and talks cannot coexist.”

In Washington, India has typically been favored, with Presidents Trump, Biden, Obama and George W. Bush all making visits during their time in office.

Advertisement

President Donald Trump (R) shakes hands with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi during a bilateral meeting at the G7 Summit on June 17, 2026 in Evian-les-Bains, France.  (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Modi built a rapport with Trump during his first term in office and was one of the first world leaders invited to the White House after Trump’s inauguration. But over the past year, that relationship has come under strain as Islamabad quietly clawed its way back to credibility.

“India misjudged Trump in term two, banking on once friendly relations,” Sid Dubey, a visiting professor at Bennett University in India, told Fox News Digital. “They have yet to start recovering from that.”

PRESIDENT TRUMP, INDIA’S MODI TO TACKLE TRADE, TARIFF TENSIONS AT HIGH-STAKES MEETING

U.S. President Donald Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi wave to the crowd at Sardar Patel Stadium in Ahmedabad, India, Monday, Feb. 24, 2020. India poured on the pageantry with a joyful, colorful welcome for President Donald Trump on Monday that kicked off a whirlwind 36-hour visit meant to reaffirm U.S.-India ties while providing enviable overseas imagery for a president in a re-election year. (AP Photo/Aijaz Rahi)

Advertisement

The shift first became apparent in May 2025, when President Trump announced he had secured a ceasefire between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan. The fighting had come over India-administered Kashmir and was the worst in decades.

Islamabad promptly praised Trump for ending the deadly dispute and even nominated him for a Nobel Peace Prize. New Delhi, however, rejected the claim, insisting the ceasefire was the result of direct bilateral talks with Pakistan.

The response reflected India’s long-standing sensitivity to third-party involvement in what it fiercely maintains is a bilateral dispute.

In the months that followed, frictions only deepened.

FILE — In this Jan. 11, 2013 file photo, a Pakistani Ranger in black uniform and his Indian counterpart march during a flag-off ceremony, at the joint Pakistan-India border check post of Wagah near Lahore, Pakistan. (AP Photo/K.M. Chaudary, File)

Advertisement

President Trump hit India with some of the steepest tariffs imposed on any major economy. Meanwhile, U.S. sanctions pressure on Russian oil rattled energy import-dependent India, while disputes over H-1B visas added further strain. Analysts say Trump’s America First agenda increasingly overshadowed the friendship Modi had cultivated during Trump’s first term.

“When Trump unfortunately said the May 2025 clash ended because of him personally, that upset India a lot, and they made that known,” Dubey said. “Then the tariffs were another slap in India’s face. Meanwhile, Pakistan took advantage, leaving India at a bit of a loss. From there, relations fell further with the Iran conflict.”

India is among the countries most indirectly affected by the strategic fallout from the Iran war, facing economic pressure and mounting energy concerns.

IRAN WAR FUELS ASIA ENERGY CRUNCH AS INDIA, JAPAN, OTHERS FEEL STRAIN

Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf meets with chief of Defence Forces of Pakistan, Field Marshal Asim Munir, in Tehran, Iran, May 23, 2026. (Iranian Parliament Speaker Office/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via Reuters)

Advertisement

Last week, a U.S. strike further exacerbated tensions after three Indian seafarers became collateral damage in the conflict. They were the first and only seafarers confirmed killed as part of the U.S. blockade, sparking outrage across India.

New Delhi instantly summoned Washington’s Chargé d’Affaires Jason Meeks, expressing deep concern over the renewed attacks and arguing that its nationals were becoming casualties in a war not their own.

India also warned of the broader humanitarian, economic, and energy consequences of the conflict, which are expected to linger even as an agreement has now been reached.

U.S. Vice President JD Vance, center, walks with Pakistan’s Chief of Defence Forces and Chief of Army Staff Field Marshall Asim Munir, left, and Pakistani Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Mohammad Ishaq Dar after arriving for talks with Iranian officials in Islamabad, Pakistan, Saturday, April 11, 2026. (Jacquelyn Martin/Pool via AP Photo)

All the while, Pakistan was gaining diplomatic visibility, finding itself in the unusual position of currying favor in Washington while maintaining deep ties with China, Iran and the Gulf states.

Advertisement

Pakistan’s prominent role in recent months highlighted how Islamabad has been more nimble in its diplomacy than India,” Council on Foreign Relations Senior Fellow Sadanand Dhume told Fox News Digital. “Additionally, Pakistan decisively outmaneuvered India’s quixotic bid to isolate Pakistan on the world stage.”

Regional dynamics have also been reshaped by the two rivals’ competing strategies. India has deepened its strategic partnership with the U.S. through alliances such as the Quad partnership with the U.S., Australia, and Japan and has expanded cooperation across South Asian states, including a burgeoning relationship with Afghanistan. Meanwhile, Pakistan’s growing regional relevance has been reflected in its strengthened ties with China, improved relations with regional partners like Bangladesh and expanded security cooperation with Gulf states.

RUBIO VISIT TO INDIA PUSHES DEEPER ENERGY TIES AS IRAN CONFLICT RATTLES GLOBAL OIL MARKETS

Additionally, Trump, who accused Pakistan of “deceit and lies” during his first term, has since repeatedly praised its leadership. In June 2025, the president invited Pakistan’s army chief Asim Munir to the White House for a high-profile lunch meeting.

Munir was the first Pakistani military chief who was not also president to be hosted by a U.S. president. He also led the war effort against India earlier that year. 

Advertisement

In this photo released by the Inter Services Public Relations, Pakistan’s Chief of Defense Forces and Army Chief Gen. Asim Munir, center, Pakistan Naval Chief Admiral Naveed Ashraf, left, and Pakistan Air Force Chief Air Chief Marshal Zaheer Ahmed Babar attend a guard of honor ceremony at the joint military command headquarters in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, Monday, Dec. 8, 2025.  (Inter Services Public Relations via AP)

Trump described Munir as his “favorite Field Marshal” and an “exceptional human being.” 

Their relationship has been further reflected in trade deals and, most recently, Pakistan’s role as a principal mediator in restoring diplomacy between the U.S. and Iran.

“India tried to make Pakistan an international pariah. Instead, Pakistan has wormed its way into Trump’s good books through a combination of concrete co-operation with the U.S. and outrageous flattery of the president, leading to Trump elevating Field Marshal Asim Munir and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif as heroes,” Dhume said.

India, meanwhile, has maintained close ties with Israel while generally sticking to more measured messaging. 

Advertisement

TRUMP’S FAVORITE FIELD MARSHAL: WHO IS PAKISTAN’S POWERFUL ARMY CHIEF ASIM MUNIR WITH DEEP INTEL TIES

On June 15, upon the agreement of a deal with Iran, Modi released a statement, saying, “India hopes that the implementation of this understanding will help restore peace and stability in the region and ensure the freedom of navigation and commerce.”

“Hats off to Pakistan. They worked really hard to bring this awfully disruptive war with Iran to an end,” Dubey told Fox. “India unfortunately lost out by not seeking to be a problem solver like Pakistan. It could have played its cards better as a peacemaker, given its traditionally strong relations with Tehran.”

Still, analysts caution these are rapidly evolving dynamics. There is no guarantee that Pakistan’s current moment will last, and the tide for India could still turn.

“Pakistan’s mediation role has allowed it to substantially reset its international image. It has positioned itself as a responsible international actor rather than a rogue state responsible for both nuclear proliferation and exporting Islamic terrorism. How long this lasts depends in large measure on two things: will Pakistan find a way to remain in Trump’s good books, and will it be able to change its behavior sufficiently to convince the world that it has indeed turned over a new leaf,” Dhume told Fox News Digital.

Advertisement

Meanwhile, India is working to regain its position and show the U.S. it is still a reliable partner.

Marco Rubio visited India last month, his first since becoming Trump’s top diplomat last year, which was widely seen as an attempt to reset ties. 

Secretary of State Marco Rubio speaks as President Donald Trump looks on during a cabinet meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House in Washington, DC, on April 30, 2025.  (JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images)

Trump and Modi’s G7 meeting marked another significant step. 

Trump praised Modi as “calm, cool and totally killer” and said he would be traveling to India “sometime in the future.” India has been pressing Trump for a visit, potentially as part of a broader meeting involving Japan and Australia.

Advertisement

Trump also said the United States would defend India.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“If anybody attacks that man, we’re going to be there,” Trump said, referring to Modi. “Now, if there’s a new leader, I’m not sure about it.”

The Pakistani and Indian governments did not respond to Fox News Digital requests for comment.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

World

EU of six, not 27, is needed to ‘stay relevant’ – Bruno Le Maire

Published

on

EU of six, not 27, is needed to ‘stay relevant’ – Bruno Le Maire

Working with a coalition of six core European countries instead of 27 is the best way to reinforce Europe, former French Economy Minister Bruno Le Maire told Euronews on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Évian, France.

ADVERTISEMENT


ADVERTISEMENT

His comments come as the European Union looks for ways to streamline its decision-making process and become more agile on key issues from defence to foreign policy.

“The single lesson that all the European leaders must draw from the past months, and I would say from the last two years, is that if they want to be relevant and strong, they need to be united. And they don’t need to unite with 27 member states,” he said in a Euronews interview.

“They need to give a new impetus to the European construction by building a European [project] with six core countries,” Le Maire, who was the longest-serving economy and finance minister since World War II and the shortest-serving minister for armed forces, note

Advertisement

Le Maire listed France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Poland, and the Netherlands — the EU’s six largest economies — as the states that should band together to discuss key issues facing the bloc, ranging from the Iran conflict and support for Ukraine to chip manufacturing on European soil and nuclear energy.

“Six countries instead of 27 countries is the best way of reinforcing Europe, of facing the threats posed by many empires around the world, and getting some concrete results,” he said.

Le Maire pointed to the pressure from the US administration against the EU, including tariffs and threats over regulatory standards, in response to Brussels’ antitrust fines and digital regulations targeting American tech giants like Google and Amazon.

“We can no longer accept being blackmailed […]. The way President Trump and the US administration are saying, ‘You should get rid of the taxation of Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Microsoft, otherwise, I will hit you with new tariffs,’ is 100% unacceptable among allies,” he said.

“If we want to resist that kind of threat, that kind of blackmail […] the six strongest European member states must stand united […]. If we are divided, you cannot resist that pressure,” he said.

Advertisement

“If you stand united, explaining that it will be difficult for the US to gain access to the European market if they do not respect Europe as a partner, that is the best way of getting some concrete results.”

Too much talk, too few decisions

Often held up by a principle of unanimity, Le Maire told Euronews that involving 27 countries to form a consensus on EU decision-making means “long talks and very few decisions”, while what is needed now is “strong decisions and fewer talks.”

He envisioned a structure in which the six core countries move forward on matters, and “then the 21 other member states, if they want to join, they will join,” adding, “first of all, let’s move on.”

The idea of this coalition is not new. In fact, it already exists in some shape or form.

Earlier this year, the finance ministers of Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Spain launched a new coalition, dubbed the “E6”, to push for “decisive action and swift progress” in four strategic areas: defence, supply chains, the Savings and Investments Union, and strengthening the euro internationally.

Advertisement

“We are providing the impetus, and other countries are welcome to join us,” German Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil said at the time. The President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, endorsed this two-speed Europe concept as a way of bolstering the European economy.

In May, the E6 signed a joint letter calling for an acceleration of the Capital Markets Union (CMU) in an attempt to get a deal through a politically stagnant Brussels.

The CMU aims at creating a single, integrated market for capital across all 27 member states to service companies, investors and consumers.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending