Security after the war: Kuleba explained why a “wall like Gaza’s” and Ben-Gvir’s “moat with crocodiles” logic won’t suit Ukraine

After the war ends, Ukraine does not intend to copy the model of physical separation similar to the Gaza Strip. This was stated by the Deputy Prime Minister for Reconstruction, Minister of Community and Territory Development Oleksiy Kuleba, explaining why relying on walls and solid barriers will not work for the country.

In an interview with “Economic Truth,” Kuleba outlined an approach considered more realistic in Kyiv: complex engineering solutions, underground infrastructure, shelters, and tunnel systems integrated into the urban environment, rather than symbolic lines of defense.

He recalled that Israel once relied on a physical wall around Gaza. However, subsequent events showed the limitations of such an approach: the barrier did not become absolute protection and did not solve the security problem in the long term.

“My framework is very simple: wall — no, tunnels — yes,” Kuleba formulated, emphasizing that physical barriers create an illusion of control but do not address modern threats.

Underground cities instead of cities behind fences

According to the minister, after the war, Ukrainian cities will be rebuilt considering constant risks. This means changing the everyday logic of life, especially in frontline and border regions.

He openly admitted that not all residents will be ready to accept such conditions. In particular, in Kharkiv, some citizens may refuse to live in a city where safety is integrated into underground routes and engineering shelters even in peacetime.

Kuleba separately mentioned Kherson, noting that implementing such solutions there will be extremely difficult from a technical and logistical point of view. In Odesa, the situation is different: despite the presence of catacombs, they, according to him, do not provide a real defensive advantage in modern conditions.

Why “fencing off” is not a strategy

In Israeli politics, radical ideas are periodically voiced. One of the most illustrative examples is the proposal by the Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir, who publicly speculated about the possibility of a “moat with crocodiles” around territories controlled by terrorists.

This idea quickly became a meme and a symbol of ultra-hard thinking: isolating the threat physically without delving into complex systemic solutions. But even in the Israeli context, it remained more of a rhetorical gesture than a real plan.

For Ukraine, such an approach is even more inapplicable. The country has the longest line of contact with an aggressive neighbor in Europe, and attempting to “fence off from Russia” with a wall would mean decades of living behind a concrete barrier — without security guarantees and with constant economic and military tension.

Internal conversation — and silence for the enemy

Kuleba emphasizes: security decisions should be discussed within Ukraine as openly as possible, but taking into account military risks. Details cannot be public, and compromises cannot be imposed from outside.

“This should become part of our recovery — what we agree on among ourselves and what the enemy will minimally know about,” he summarized.

In the Ukrainian context, post-war security is not a line on a map or a symbolic fence, but a complex system integrated into cities, infrastructure, and lifestyle. This is how the agenda is being formed today, as written by NAnews — News of Israel | Nikk.Agency.