Ukraine Is Facing The Scenario Of Asymmetrical Partition

Submitted by Andrew Korybko

Asymmetrical partition between Ukraine’s western neighbors into “spheres of economic influence” alongside a de facto Korean-like partition between NATO and Russia is much more foreseeable than its western neighbors like Poland formally reincorporating their lost territory due to financial and political reasons.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova warned about the impending partition of Ukraine. According to her, “All these statements that Macron and other NATO politicians make, about the possibility of introducing contingents or some kind of paramilitary units into the territory of Ukraine, are related to the partition of what they see as the remnants of Ukraine…They are ready to occupy and partition Ukraine.” What she didn’t mention, however, is that this will likely be an asymmetrical partition.

Instead of Ukraine’s neighbors officially divvying it up like former President and incumbent Deputy Chairman of the Security Council Dmitry Medvedev suggested via the map that he recently spoke in front of, NATO states are unlikely to formally reincorporate their lost lands. Rather, what’s more likely to happen in the event that they form a “coalition of the willing” to conventionally intervene there is that they’ll carve out “spheres of influences” on the pretext of protecting their “strategic borders”.

Romanian President Klaus Iohannis revealed that while the bloc as a whole can’t intervene in Ukraine since it’s not a NATO ally, members could bilaterally do so on their own, which Poland might have sought America’s approval for during its President and Prime Minister’s meeting with Biden. It was argued here that this could even be partially motivated by domestic political factors, not to mention the West’s “worst-case scenario” of Russia achieving a military breakthrough that catalyzes Ukraine’s collapse.

France and by extension also the UK might be plotting a Ukrainian power play under Germany’s nose to prevent their historical rival from resuming its superpower trajectory with US backing as Washington empowers Berlin to contain Russia in Europe while America “Pivots (back) to Asia” to contain China. These rapid moves come amidst reports that the G7 is planning to appoint a special envoy to Ukraine, which this analysis here argued could be tasked with implementing the Davos agenda in that country.

Zelensky told the World Economic Forum in May 2022 that “we offer a special – historically significant – model of reconstruction. When each of the partner countries or partner cities or partner companies will have the opportunity – historical one – to take patronage over a particular region of Ukraine, city, community or industry. Britain, Denmark, the European Union and other leading international actors have already chosen a specific direction for patronage in reconstruction.”

It therefore makes sense that they’d want to safeguard the regions, cities, communities, and industries that Ukraine promised them patronage of so as to stop Russia from taking control of them in the event that it achieves a military breakthrough which catalyzes Ukraine’s collapse and leads to regime change. This analysis here, meanwhile, argued that formally reincorporating its western neighbors’ lost lands is unlikely due to how much their demographics have changed since the end of World War II.

Accordingly, “spheres of economic influence” are the most likely outcome if France’s talk of a conventional NATO intervention is implemented, after which the participants would be able to profit from their respective zones while carrying out military training and law enforcement activities there. These foreign troops could also prevent the state’s collapse in the areas under their control, repel uncontrollable refugee influxes, and combat weapons smuggling into the EU.

The end effect would be to formally preserve Ukrainian statehood per the West’s officially stated objective that “justifies” their proxy war against Russia through that former Soviet Republic while nevertheless asymmetrically partitioning it into “spheres of economic influence” per the Davos agenda. It’s also possible that with time some of Ukraine’s western neighbors like Poland might consider entering into a “confederation’ with the adjacent region under their control but that’s still a far-fetched scenario.

Their taxpayers could be stuck with the bill for reconstructing those formerly Ukrainian regions, plus the locals would become citizens with equal rights (including voting ones), which those countries’ people might firmly oppose and therefore potentially rebel against. It’s much less economically and politically costly to simply siphon wealth from those regions in exchange for limited security support than to constitutionally enshrine enduring economic, political, and security rights to their locals for prestige.  

For these reasons, while Zakharova is likely correct in assessing that plans are afoot for partitioning Ukraine depending on several situational variables (e.g. the conflict’s military-strategic dynamics and domestic politics like in Poland’s case), everything probably wouldn’t unfold like the public imagines. Asymmetrical partition between Ukraine’s western neighbors into “spheres of economic influence” alongside a de facto Korean-like partition between NATO and Russia is much more foreseeable.