NYT: How Would Peacekeeping Work in Ukraine? 

The NYT, in one of its first headline articles today, is thinking about how a peacekeeping force can operate in Ukraine.
But the NYT has made its creative thinking without asking the Russian side.
Russia has always rejected NATO or allied European troops on Ukrainian ground, saying they would be targets. Indeed, from a Russian perspective, NATO troops in Ukraine, stationed closely to the Russian border, would be the backdoor to realize the NATO and Obama/Biden Project Ukraine, i.e. the inclusion of Ukraine into NATO, so fiercely battled against by Russia. As well, NATO troops would not be ordinary peacekeepers as they are clearly on the Ukrainian side, protecting Ukraine, and retaliating on Russia for any reason there may be. Therefore, it is foreseeable that no peace agreement will be made with NATO troops on the ground.
Unfortunately, European leaders have made it their mantra to bring European/NATO troops on the ground to protect Ukraine (and not peace).
The NYT confirms that “for most of Russia’s three-year invasion of Ukraine, the possibility of a cease-fire seemed far-off and, some analysts say, a taboo topic for Western leaders. Kyiv and Western leaders sought to keep the focus on the battlefield rather than the complications of an eventual compromise, and were reluctant to speak publicly about the possibility that Ukraine would fall short of victory.” They never planned for peace, only for war.
Now, as Donald Trump demands immediate peace, the Europeans and Kiev have no answers – other than to continue the war till Ukraine wins. This European answer is completed unrealistic and expected to lead to a direct war between NATO and Russia, a result that will not be accepted by Trump. Therefore, Trump’s suspension of all aid to Kiev is also a suspension of US Support of European efforts to keep the war going. Trump wants to force Kiev and the European to make peace.
The NYT reports about a new, but actually old, “creative” idea from a Geneva based biased think tank which still includes NATO peacekeepers on the ground – a no-go for Russia and therefore a pure fantasy.
In response to the NYT question “How would peacekeeping in Ukraine work?”, there are simple answers also considering Russia’s basic needs:
1. No biased peacekeepers and only deployed with Russian consent, under the UN Security Council rule. 2. Demilitarization of Ukraine and creation of a neutral buffer zone on the total territory of Ukraine. 3. No NATO for Ukraine, all NATO combat elements, support, intelligence and weapons to be withdrawn. 4. Never again Project Ukraine. 5. All sanctions abolished, normalization of relations with the West.
In case of a violation by Ukraine, immediate Russian military operation to stop it. In case of a violation by Russia, immediate intervention of the UN Security Council’s peacekeepers.
If anybody would say to this solution that it maybe unfair for Ukraine or detrimental to Ulraine’s and Western interest, the short answer is: “Russia has all the cards in its hands”, Russia is winning, Project Ukraine failed. That’s the price for the lost gamble on the proxy war. To be reminded that these answers on essence were formulated by the current US Administration. Peace now, or Ukraine and Europe will lose much more as the US “will be out”.