By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Amidst ongoing negotiations, a Trump envoy suggested a post-ceasefire arrangement for Ukraine resembling Berlin’s post-WWII division, sparking controversy. This proposal, later clarified, involved allied forces in western Ukraine, while Russia would retain occupied eastern territories. Simultaneously, another envoy met with Putin, ignoring Zelenskyy’s demands for Ukrainian inclusion in the talks. These developments highlight differing approaches to the conflict, with Trump prioritizing a swift ceasefire, contrasting with Ukrainian resistance to territorial concessions.
Read the original article here
Ukraine could be divided into European and Russian “zones of responsibility,” a suggestion that immediately brings to mind the division of Germany after World War II. The parallel is striking, yet deeply flawed. The post-war division of Germany was a consequence of complete military defeat, a situation drastically different from Ukraine’s ongoing fight for its sovereignty. To even suggest such a partition for Ukraine implies a tacit acceptance of Russia’s aggression and a disregard for Ukrainian self-determination.
This proposed division fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the conflict. Ukraine isn’t a territory to be carved up; it’s a nation fighting for its very existence against an aggressor. Drawing lines on a map to delineate “zones of responsibility” ignores the brutal reality of a war fought on Ukrainian soil, a war filled with atrocities and displacement. It suggests a willingness to compromise Ukrainian territorial integrity and sovereignty, a premise deeply unsettling.
The idea that Russia should be granted any “zone of responsibility” within Ukraine is particularly alarming. Russia is the aggressor, the nation that launched an unprovoked invasion, committed countless war crimes, and continues to occupy Ukrainian land. Rewarding such behavior with territorial concessions would send a devastating message to other potential aggressors: invasion and occupation can be rewarded. It establishes a dangerous precedent that undermines international law and the principle of national sovereignty.
The notion that this division could somehow be “fair” is completely unfounded. Fairness implies a balance of power and mutual agreement, neither of which exists in this scenario. Ukraine has been fighting for its survival, and any suggestion of a compromise that doesn’t prioritize its sovereignty and territorial integrity is fundamentally unjust. The idea ignores the suffering endured by the Ukrainian people and disregards their right to self-determination.
Furthermore, the idea that the European Union would somehow be responsible for the western portion of this hypothetical divided Ukraine, with Russia responsible for the east, is deeply problematic. It creates a deeply unequal and inherently unstable situation. It saddles Europe with the responsibility of rebuilding and integrating a part of a nation beset by war and Russian occupation without addressing the underlying cause – the ongoing aggression of Russia itself. It also lets Russia off the hook for the atrocities committed and the reparations owed to Ukraine.
The suggestion of dividing Ukraine into zones of responsibility ignores the broader implications for international relations. It establishes a precedent that could potentially embolden other authoritarian regimes to engage in similar acts of aggression, knowing that territorial concessions might be offered as a “solution.” This undermines the very principles of international law and could lead to a world where national sovereignty is routinely disregarded.
The only acceptable outcome is for Russia to withdraw completely from all Ukrainian territory, and for Ukraine to remain a unified, sovereign nation. Any other outcome would be a betrayal of the Ukrainian people and a grave threat to the stability of the international order. To entertain the notion of a partitioned Ukraine is not only a morally reprehensible proposition, but also a strategically unsound one, with potentially catastrophic long-term consequences. The world must unequivocally reject this idea and continue to support Ukraine’s fight for its freedom and territorial integrity.