By Matt Underwood Keith Kellogg’s suggestion that Ukraine could be divided like post-World War II Berlin is a deeply problematic proposal, sparking outrage and disbelief across the board. The immediate reaction from many is one of profound shock and anger. Dividing a nation currently under brutal invasion is seen as an act of appalling disregard for Ukrainian sovereignty and the suffering inflicted upon its people.
The comparison to Berlin is particularly flawed. Germany was divided after a war it instigated and lost, resulting in its defeat and occupation. Ukraine, on the other hand, is the victim of unprovoked aggression, defending its territory against a full-scale invasion. Applying a similar solution to a fundamentally different situation is viewed as insensitive, inaccurate, and possibly even malicious.
Many see Kellogg’s suggestion as a form of appeasement that rewards the aggressor, Russia, while punishing the victim, Ukraine. The idea of ceding territory currently occupied by Russian forces is considered unacceptable, particularly since these territories were taken illegally through invasion and warfare. The focus should be on restoring Ukraine’s territorial integrity and holding Russia accountable for its actions, not rewarding its aggression through territorial concessions.
The proposal completely overlooks the human cost of such a division. A partitioned Ukraine would likely lead to further violence, displacement, and humanitarian crises. It risks permanently fracturing the nation and creating a festering wound in the heart of Europe. The argument that the division of Berlin worked is immediately countered with the fact that the context of the two situations is radically different, and the precedent is inapplicable.
There’s a strong current of anger and indignation directed at Kellogg himself. Many question his judgment, his understanding of history, and even his mental state. The idea is seen as not only wrong-headed but also deeply cynical, suggesting a willingness to sacrifice Ukrainian self-determination on the altar of political expediency. The sentiment echoes accusations of corruption, with many implying the suggestion is fueled by hidden agendas or interests.
The counter-arguments are forceful and numerous. Instead of dividing Ukraine, many suggest focusing on forcing a full Russian withdrawal from all Ukrainian territories, restoring the country’s internationally recognized borders. Alternatively, some propose focusing the discussion on the possibility of dividing Russia itself, highlighting the aggressor’s role in the conflict. Other proposals simply urge leaving Ukraine alone to determine its own future, respecting its sovereignty and self-determination.
The prevailing sentiment against Kellogg’s proposal is overwhelmingly negative. The analogy with Berlin is seen as deeply flawed and insensitive, ignoring the critical differences between the two situations. The response ranges from outrage and disbelief to accusations of moral failings and disregard for human life. The overwhelming consensus is that Ukraine’s territorial integrity must be upheld, and the focus should be on holding Russia accountable for its actions, not dividing Ukraine and appeasing the aggressor. The proposal is viewed as not only impractical and morally reprehensible but also strategically unsound.