Russia's Aim for the Demilitarization of Eastern Europe: U.S. Envoy Presses President Putin

Why do defense systems of countries outside the battlefield become an issue in discussions to end a war?

A video article from Germany's WELT dated November 12, 2026, raised such questions. The headline suggested that what Russia ultimately seeks is the "demilitarization of Eastern Europe."

The article reported on the movement of Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff from the United States heading to Moscow following Ukraine talks in Abu Dhabi. Correspondent Christoph Wanner suggested that they would urge President Putin to include Europe in the negotiation process.

It's important to distinguish here that "demilitarization of Eastern Europe" is not a term indicating the conditions agreed upon in the current negotiations. It is a journalistic analysis of how to interpret Russia's goals.

Nevertheless, this term carries weight because negotiations to end the war in Ukraine could also become discussions to reshape the security of the entire Europe.

Whose safety is enhanced by "demilitarization"?

Hearing the word demilitarization might seem like an effort to reduce weapons and decrease the risk of war.

However, in real negotiations, "who reduces what and where" becomes critically important.

There is a significant difference between both sides limiting arms in a verifiable manner and only one side being restricted in its defense capabilities or support from allies. In the latter case, reducing arms does not necessarily lead to increased safety.

For example, even if the deployment of troops and equipment in a country is restricted, if military pressure from surrounding areas remains unchanged, that country could find itself in a more unstable position.

That's why, when evaluating peace plans, it's necessary to look beyond the seemingly gentle words and examine the content. The weapons involved, the geographical scope, reciprocity, monitoring methods, and responses to violations—all these conditions can change the meaning of the same "arms limitation."

The background of Russia's 2021 demands

A clue to understanding the current issue lies in the security agreement proposal Russia presented in December 2021, before the full-scale invasion.

The proposal to NATO included demands to halt further NATO expansion and clauses to limit the deployment of troops and weapons in other European countries based on the status as of May 27, 1997.

This was not a proposal that only questioned the course of Ukraine alone. It was a demand concerning how the alliance operates and where military power can be placed across a wide range of Europe.

However, the proposal at that time cannot be equated with the current negotiation conditions. The 2021 document serves as background material showing what kind of security framework Russia sought in the past.

Meanwhile, in January 2022, NATO also indicated room for discussions on risk reduction, transparency, and arms control. The issue is not just whether to engage in dialogue but how to uphold the principle of countries choosing their own security while reducing military tensions.

Why Europe insists on a "seat at the table"

The issue of European participation cannot be explained by diplomatic protocol or face-saving alone.

If post-peace security guarantees, troop deployments, and monitoring activities are to be discussed, the intentions of European countries directly affected by these must not be absent.

If the U.S. and Russia decide the framework and then demand Europe to implement and bear the costs, not only the legitimacy of the agreement but also its feasibility will be questioned.

The same applies to Ukraine. Even if European participation is realized, it does not mean that Ukraine's own intentions have been sufficiently respected. The positions of European countries and Ukraine, the party to the war, may overlap but are not identical.

Moreover, "Europe" is not a single negotiator. It requires coordination on who will represent and to what extent the concerns of which countries can be reflected.

Increasing the number of seats at the negotiating table can be a step forward. However, having chairs prepared and having statements reflected in the agreement are separate issues.

Expectations and caution seen on social media—reading the statements of negotiation parties

What stands out in the social media-related information confirmed this time is the statements by the negotiation parties. The following is a summary of posts introduced in reports and does not indicate the overall reaction or public opinion of general users.

Kushner expressed on X his expectations regarding prisoner exchanges as something that could lead to family reunions and trust-building. On the other hand, he also acknowledged that significant differences remain among the negotiation parties.

From this statement, the U.S. side's stance of wanting to accumulate humanitarian achievements and advance political negotiations can be seen. However, the progress of prisoner exchanges and the resolution of territorial and security conflicts need to be considered separately.

Ukrainian President Zelensky emphasized on social media the importance of the U.S. taking a strong stance and exerting influence on Russia, which started the war.

Additionally, Ukraine's negotiation representative Rustem Umerov also showed on X a stance emphasizing the end of the war and guarantees of safety for Ukraine.

Although all are statements related to peace, the emphasis differs. While the U.S. side emphasizes the advancement of negotiations and trust-building, the Ukrainian side places significant weight on the conditions to prevent being attacked again after stopping the war.

Notably, the WELT page showed zero comments. From this, reactions such as "a flood of reader anger" or "European social media was all welcoming" cannot be derived.

The move for European participation is progress, but it doesn't equate to peace establishment

In response to the outlook introduced before the visit in the WELT article, the follow-up report on November 12 indicated that European representatives are moving towards participating in future peace negotiations.

This is a change related to the format of negotiations. However, an increase in participants does not mean that conflicts over territory and security have been resolved.

At least three points will be important when interpreting future agreements.

First, whether the content is acceptable to Ukraine itself.

Second, who will verify ceasefire violations and how to respond when violations occur.

Third, to what extent the conditions of peace limit the defense and decision-making of surrounding countries.

The announcement of a ceasefire holds great significance. To connect it to long-lasting security, a mechanism that functions after the announcement is necessary.

The principle of "not deciding without the parties involved" also concerns Japan

This issue cannot be dismissed as just diplomatic news from a region far from Japan.

Japan and Europe differ in geographical conditions and alliance systems. The situation in Ukraine cannot be directly applied to Japan.

However, there is a commonality in the question of how much the security choices of another country should be influenced by negotiations between major powers.

If transactions between major powers are prioritized over the consent of the parties involved, surrounding countries will have to reconsider the reliability of alliances and support. Conversely, if a path to stop the war while preserving the participation and intentions of the parties involved can be created, its significance will extend beyond Europe.

What Japanese readers should focus on is not just the headlines of whether the negotiations succeeded or failed, but the specific structure of who sits at the table, who bears the obligations, and whose safety is guaranteed.

What is being questioned is the safety after stopping the war

The term "demilitarization of Eastern Europe" presented by WELT is an analysis concerning Russia's aim and not a confirmed peace condition.

However, this expression highlights the difficulty of the current negotiations. The conditions to end the fighting could potentially affect the subsequent defense systems of Europe and the choices of each country.

Progress on the humanitarian front and European participation in negotiations are movements that should each be evaluated. On top of that, it is necessary to confirm whose anxiety is reduced and who bears new burdens due to the peace.

Stopping the war and creating a state where war is less likely to occur again—whether both can be achieved will become the axis for evaluating future negotiations.

Sources and References

1. WELT TV:Dated November 12, 2026. On Kushner and Witkoff's visit to Moscow, European participation in negotiations, and the correspondent's analysis of "demilitarization of Eastern Europe."
   https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/video6af5d86c5596369bf0edd65d/kushner-und-witkoff-in-moskau-im-endeffekt-wollen-die-russen-eine-entmilitarisierung-osteuropas.html

2. ABC News: On the U.S. visit to Moscow and social media statements.
   Summary of Kushner's X post on prisoner exchange and negotiations, and Zelensky's request to the U.S., confirmed through reports.ABC News
   https://abcnews.com/International/witkoff-kushner-arrive-moscow-meet-putin-discuss-ukraine/story?id=138070892

3. Euronews: Negotiations regarding European participation and statements from the Ukrainian side.
   On U.S. efforts to include Europe in negotiations and Umerov's emphasis on security guarantees in his X post.Euronews
   https://www.euronews.com/2026/11/12/witkoff-and-kushner-arrive-in-moscow-seeking-putins-blessing-to-bring-europe-into-ukraine-

4. Reuters: Follow-up report on the November 12 discussions.
   On the movement towards European participation in peace negotiations.reuters.com
   https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-envoys-arrive-moscow-latest-round-ukrainian-peace-talks-with-putin-2026-11-12/

5. Yale University's MacMillan Center: Explanation of Russia's 2021 security demands.
   Background material for understanding the 2021 proposal, including restrictions on troop and weapon deployments based on 1997.macmillan.yale.edu
   https://macmillan.yale.edu/stories/us-and-nato-open-talks-russia-over-ukraine-security-guarantees

6. NATO: Official statement on the January 26, 2022, proposal to Russia.
   Explanation of the stance to discuss risk reduction, transparency, and arms control while maintaining basic security principles.NATO News
   https://www.nato.int/en/news-and-events/articles/news/2022/01/26/nato-conveys-written-proposals-to-russia