“America’s new Ukraine map looks like Putin drew it himself,” reads a headline on the English-language page of the Ukrainian news site Euromaidan Press. The news organization was originally founded in 2014 during the Winter of 2013-2014 Revolution of Dignity in Ukraine and the subsequent Russian invasion and occupation of Crimea.
The 14 April article on the site refers to a plan to divide Ukraine into separate zones. It is supposedly proposed by the two special envoys to Ukraine and Russia appointed by US President Donald Trump, retired LTG Keith Kellogg, and real estate developer-turned-negotiator Steve Witkoff.
The partitions Kellogg is said to have proposed call for Ukraine to be divided into three regions. More than half the country from the border with Poland in the west to the river Dnipro would be protected by a joint formation of Ukrainian troops plus an Anglo-French “Peace Enforcement” force.
An all-Ukraine force would control the territory east of Kyiv, from the capital to the edge of the eastern zones occupied by Russian troops. Those occupied territories constitute the third region, but Russian troops stationed in these areas and Ukrainian forces in the zone to the east of Kyiv, which currently shoot at each other every day, would now be separated by an 18-mile-wide demilitarized buffer zone.
Partition of Ukraine? More Like The Partition of Poland
Pro-Ukraine supporters and most of Ukraine’s political leadership are less than enthusiastic about this plan. Kellogg was quoted by The Times of London as describing the separation of Ukraine into these three zones: “You could almost make it look like what happened with Berlin after World War Two, when you had a Russian zone, a French zone, and a British zone, a US zone.”
This characterization was met with numerous negative responses, many of which referenced the disastrous consequences of previous partitions throughout history in this part of the world.
The former world chess champion Garry Kasparov, who is himself an outspoken critic of the dictatorship of Russian President Vladimir Putin, criticized Kellogg’s comparison and stated, “If there are any parallels with WWII, it’s the [1939] division of Poland [by Nazi Germany and the USSR] rather than [the partition of] Berlin.”
A “Stunning Turning Point” in Ukraine War
The Euromaidan correspondent described this proposed resolution as “a stunning turning point” in the negotiations to end the conflict. “Postwar Berlin was divided because Nazi Germany had started a genocidal war across Europe.”
“It [Germany] was the defeated party, partitioned by the Allies to ensure it could never rise again. Ukraine, by contrast, is not the aggressor. It did not invade. It did not annex. It did not call for genocide. On the contrary, it is the victim of a ruthless, unprovoked war. And yet, here in 2025, it is being treated like the criminal, not the victim.
“To divide Ukraine as one might have divided Hitler’s Reich is a moral travesty. It gives legitimacy to Russian propaganda, which has long claimed that it invaded to “de-Nazify” Ukraine.
Others voiced their opposition to the plan, as it would de facto recognize Russian sovereignty over the territories it currently occupies.
Adding to the injury is the endorsement of Russia’s claims to the four Ukrainian regions it has occupied by Witkoff, who has parroted back Putin’s claims to this territory, citing the Russian language and rigged referenda conducted under occupation as justification.
“The Berlin Wall may have fallen in 1989,” reads the Euromaidan Press report, “but the logic that built it is alive and well in 2025.”
NATO F-16. Image Credit: NATO Flickr.
Kellogg has since called out the reporting in the Times as not being an accurate description of his remarks. He later wrote on X that:
“The Times article misrepresents what I said. I was speaking of a post-cease fire resiliency force in support of Ukraine’s sovereignty. In discussions of partitioning, I was referencing areas or zones of responsibility for an allied force (without US troops). I was NOT referring to a partitioning of Ukraine,” he explained.
About the Author: Reuben F. Johnson
Reuben F. Johnson is a survivor of the February 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and is an Expert on Foreign Military Affairs with the Fundacja im. Kazimierza Pułaskiego in Warsaw. He has been a consultant to the Pentagon, several NATO governments and the Australian government in the fields of defense technology and weapon systems design. Over the past 30 years he has resided in and reported from Russia, Ukraine, Poland, Brazil, the People’s Republic of China and Australia.
Jim
April 14, 2025 at 10:31 pm
Everybody agrees a partition would be a bad thing.
But most important, Russia won’t accept a partition with Nato troops as so-called “peace keepers” (or reassurance troops).
There is one deal on the table.
Ukraine officially cedes the four oblasts with no possibility of being ever returned to Ukraine (the Donbasians never want to be a part of Ukraine again).
But, the Banderites are not removed from power, but there are new elections, everybody gets to run for election, including the Banderites.
Yes, if you take the deal now, those espousing Stepan Bandera’s ideology can stay alive and participate in politics. If you reject the deal you will be hunted down… guaranteed!
Ukraine is limited to a national police force in para-military order, also called a national constabulary force limited to 90,000 men & women.
No Nato now, or in the foreseeable future, period.
Ukraine retains roughly 80% of their territory.
This is the best deal Ukraine will get.
Take the deal or prepare to be defeated all the way to Kiev and Banderitism will be hunted down and arrested, but many will be hunted down and disposed of… many will rot in prison. Stepan Bandera’s ideology will be eliminated, period.
And, there is not guarantee what territory will be left in Ukraine and it will be subject to Russian overseeing.
Take the deal… sue for peace, now.
Or be eliminated and tossed in the ash heap of History.
Serious as a heart attack.
There will be no mercy… exactly as the Banderites have behaved… eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth… and, this is a good deal because the Banderites deserve nothing but death.
This way they stay alive… and they can take their chances in politics in Ukraine.
Michael
April 15, 2025 at 2:21 pm
rashka-paraska will implode in economic Turmoil, thanks to your very own krasnov. Oh, the irony 🙃
There is a better deal, Dzhim – return to your shithole country and pray that HUR never figured out who you are. And avoid escooters parked outside your apartment.
George Gordon Byron
April 16, 2025 at 7:05 am
For Russophobes-Nosterdamus and Wangs (like Michael):
1) Charles Bohlen, American diplomat:
“There are no experts on Russia – there are only [people] of varying levels of incompetence.” ().
2) Carl Clausewitz:
“Russia is not a country that can really be conquered, i.e. occupied; at least, it cannot be done… by the forces of modern European states… Such a country can only be defeated by internal weakness and the action of internal discord.”
3) Otto von Bismarck:
“Do not hope that once you take advantage of Russia’s weakness, you will receive dividends forever. The Russians always come for their money. And when they come – do not rely on the Jesuit agreements you signed, supposedly exonerating you. They are not worth the paper they are written on. Therefore, with the Russians you should either play fair, or not play at all.”
4) Insulting expressions in relation to the names of countries and peoples speak only of the wretchedness of the thinking of the people doing it.
For offensive expressions are used in relation to any countries and peoples, but only the wretched use them instead of arguments, facts, documents and sound thoughts. Right, Michael?
Michael
April 16, 2025 at 3:14 pm
Oh, it was not meant as an argument. Rather as a vivid and accurate description of what russias soul is.
Here’s another quote:
”The difficulty in understanding the Russian is that we do not take cognizance of the fact that he is not a European, but an Asiatic, and therefore thinks deviously. We can no more understand a Russian than a Chinese or a Japanese, and from what I have seen of them, I have no particular desire to understand them except to ascertain how much lead or iron it takes to kill them. In addition to his other amiable characteristics, the Russian has no regard for human life and they are all out sons-of-bitches, barbarians, and chronic drunks.”
/ George S. Patton