An Armistice for Ukraine? Like the one in Korea?

Stephen Bryen | Weapons & Strategy | Jan 20, 2025

?The New York Times reports that US officials are planning to propose an “armistice” for Ukraine allegedly similar to how the Korean war ended in 1953. However, an Armistice Agreement like the Korean does not align with Russia’s goals and probably can’t be achieved if limited to a ceasefire.

July 27, 1953, at Panmunjom in the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) Armistice Agreement Signed

The 1953 agreement was reached after difficult negotiations that involved United States, North Korea, South Korea, China, the former Soviet Union and United Nations forces. Its main provisions were

1. ?suspending open hostilities;
2. withdrawing all military forces and equipment from a 4,000-meter-wide zone, establishing the Demilitarized Zone as a buffer between the forces;
3. ?? both sides ?w?ill not enter the air, ground, or sea areas under control of the other;
4. ?a?n arrangement for the release and repatriation of prisoners of war and displaced persons; and
5. ?a? Military Armistice Commission (MAC) and other agencies to discuss any violations and to ensure adherence to the truce terms.

T?he Korean armistice is now 72 years old. For the most part it has prevented open war involving North and South Korea.

?The demilitarized zone or DMZ in Korea is about 160 miles long and 2.5 miles wide. Running through the DMZ is a Military Demarcation Line (MDL) which is where the opposing forces were when an armistice was reached. The DMZ does not extend to the Yellow Sea which was not included in the armistice. The DMZ itself does not follow the 38th parallel north which was the boundary agreed by the US and the USSR at the end of World War II, although parts of the DMZ follow the 38 parallel. Other than the Yellow Sea issue (including a number of islands that are heavily militarized), the DMZ is reasonably close to a final border should North and South Korea ever normalize their relations and sign a peace treaty. The North Koreans have hinted, from time to time, they are seeking a peace agreement (and especially US recognition and US security assurances), while the issue in South Korea is far more divisive and uncertain, fearing that normalization could undermine stability in South Korea and lead to a deal where US and allied forces would be withdrawn.

President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un stand on the North Korean side in the Demilitarized Zone, June 30, 2019 at Panmunjom.

The Ukraine issue is territorial, military and political. Russia annexed Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson provinces in September, 2022 and Crimea in 2014. While the borders of Crimea are generally well recognized, the borders of the four provinces are not so clear. Based on the official Ukrainian Oblast designations, Russia does not fully control any of these territories and fighting is going on as the Russian army appears to be aiming at occupying as much territory as possible before negotiations start.

After signing annexation treaties, Vladimir Putin joined hands with the four men Russia put in charge of the occupied regions

Assuming that a deal could be made on borders, there are a host of questions that are more complicated. Among them are the rights of citizens on both sides of any demarcation line, trade between Ukraine and Russia, whether key utilities can be restored and utilized such as the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power complex, water supply to Crimea from Ukraine, the status of ports and port and storage facilities on the Black Sea, the status of military ports on the Black Sea and Sea of Azov, the location of long range weapons, and the presence of NATO forces on Ukraine’s soil. Additional issues include the status of Ukraine’s armed forces, Ukraine’s membership in the EU and NATO, types of security guarantees, oil and gas transit and related sanctions on Russia.

An armistice would need to cover the presence of Ukrainian forces in the Kursk area (Russia has liberated about 50% of the Kursk incursion, but it could take months before the Ukrainians are finally pushed out if the war continues).

When the Korean Armistice was signed in 1953 United Nations Forces were stationed in South Korea and Chinese “volunteers” were in the North. Ukraine is different: officially there are no NATO forces (strictly defined) in Ukraine, although the Russian army is in Ukraine. Numerous reports say that a number of NATO countries (UK, France and even Germany) are preparing to send troops to Ukraine when an Armistice is agreed and to offer Ukraine security guarantees. One problem is that an Armistice monitoring force and a Armistice military deployment that would provide security guarantees to Ukraine are not the same thing.

Russian President Vladimir Putin and then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko shake hands as French President Francois Hollande, left, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel look on during a meeting in Minsk, Belarus, on Feb. 11, 2015. The leaders agreed to a deal that would have ended fighting in eastern Ukraine and granted autonomy to the Russian-speaking regions of the Donbass. For years, successive Ukrainian governments have refused to implement the accord. | Andrei Stasevich / BeITA via AP

Under the original Minsk agreements (2014, 2015) the OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) was supposed to monitor the Minsk agreements. OSCE sent observers, not an army. OSCE then had 57 members including Russia and Ukraine. Essentially the deal was to end hostilities and to grant autonomy to Luhansk and Donetsk (although both would remain territories inside Ukraine). The deal was never implemented.

Russia’s war objectives, as we understand them, include not only recognition of the annexed areas, but the demilitarization of Ukraine and an agreement that Ukraine will not become a NATO member. Whether this includes security guarantees with major NATO countries is not clear. It is hard to see how an Armistice Agreement could be concluded without addressing these issues.

The US view is that Russia is hurting enough economically and its losses in the Ukraine war serious enough to incentivize the Russians to accept an Armistice, that would include some sort of buffer zone, essentially freezing the conflict and conceding some Ukrainian territory on a de facto, but not de jure basis. In this context such a deal on these broad terms would be similar to the 1953 Korean Armistice.

Obviously the Russian outlook does not align with the one under development in Washington. Russia is not looking for an armistice but for a comprehensive deal with the US and NATO. A temporary Armistice Agreement (essentially a ceasefire in place) might be possible if it was linked to agreed political steps, but it seems unlikely to be accepted as any long term solution. Biden administration informants have hinted at a 10 year or even 20 year pause, but that idea does not have much traction for Russia as it would allow Ukraine to rebuild its army and its weapon’s stockpile.

President Trump has some cards to play. He could send more aid to Ukraine to prolong the conflict but it is doubtful this is Trump’s aim. He can offer sanctions relief to the Russians, even some accommodation with NATO. At the same time, the new administration knows how fragile Ukraine itself is, with its military losing one battle after another, short on manpower, encountering popular resistance to the enforced draft, and suffering high casualties.

It is hard to predict where any of this will go, but President Trump has signaled his desire to speak to Russian President Putin, starting with a phone call in the days ahead. Trump will table the idea of an Armistice Agreement: the Russians will demand considerably more.