April 13, 2025 - 10:00am
US Special Envoy for Ukraine Keith Kellogg, though not a central figure in American efforts to end the war with Russia, has nonetheless made a new proposal with the intention of jumpstarting stalled peace negotiations: partitioning Ukraine “almost like Berlin after World War Two”.
Kellogg later clarified that his blueprint would split the country into three “zones of responsibility” rather than separate states, but the plan will still be a non-starter for both Kyiv and Moscow. Far from advancing peace talks, this proposal is more likely to derail them, driving both Russia and Ukraine away from a bargaining process that seems increasingly likely to give them a bad deal.
As he explained it to The Times, Kellogg’s plan sounds simple enough. After a ceasefire, Ukraine would be divided into an eastern region controlled by Moscow, comprising the territory Russia currently occupies; a middle region secured by Ukraine alone, stretching from the edge of the Russian zone to the Dnipro River; and a region west of the Dnipro, protected jointly by Ukraine and a reassurance force made up of British and French soldiers.
Though Kyiv might appreciate Kellogg’s inclusion of a European reassurance force, it will find the plan’s other conditions unacceptable. First, partitioning or dividing Ukraine into official zones of responsibility would explicitly recognise Russian jurisdiction over the Ukrainian territory it currently occupies. Although Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has signalled a willingness to accept Moscow’s temporary control of this land, Kellogg’s proposal goes further, offering the Kremlin what amounts to formal US acceptance of potentially permanent Russian dominion over the region. This crosses a key red line for Ukraine.
What’s more, Kyiv will push back against a deal that keeps European forces west of the Dnipro River. Zelensky wants British and French soldiers operating closer to the front line alongside his own army, where they can bolster deterrence — or serve as a tripwire which guarantees European support should Russia invade again. Any settlement that leaves Ukrainian soldiers alone along the line of contact will be met with bitter disappointment in Kyiv.
As much as Kyiv will dislike Kellogg’s partition plan, Moscow may hate it more. The proposal would put British and French forces inside Ukraine, spread across more than half the country — including right next to Russian-occupied territory in the southeastern corner — and might speed the integration of Ukraine’s western zone with Europe. Still, Kellogg has asserted that having European forces in this western region would “not be provocative at all” to Moscow.
Russia, having fought a three-year war to avoid just this outcome, will beg to differ. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has made the Russian position clear, noting that Moscow will not accept the presence of soldiers from Nato countries in Ukraine “under any circumstances”. With his position on the battlefield improving, Russian President Vladimir Putin has little incentive to give Kellogg’s suggestions a second look.
But even if Ukraine and Russia could be talked into backing Kellogg’s proposal, the idea should still be rapidly dismissed. Where partition has been used to settle conflicts in the past, it has rarely set the foundation for a lasting peace. Instead, dividing a country into pieces more often leads to continued or new instabilities, as well as political and economic fissures along what are usually artificial dividing lines. In Ukraine, a partition — even into zones of responsibility as Kellogg proposed — would not resolve the war’s underlying drivers, address Russia’s or Ukraine’s remaining insecurities, or end the ongoing territorial disputes. Fighting might stop temporarily, but it would likely resume — this time with a greater risk of dragging Europe directly into the war.
Notably, the Trump administration has yet to comment on Kellogg’s plan, so it is unclear whether the proposal has wider support within the US government. Either way, it does not deserve serious consideration by American officials leading negotiations. Frustrations are rising as the war drags on but a partition of Ukraine, in any form, will not bring peace closer.
jekavanagh
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeKellogg is an idiot suggesting this. It won’t fly with anyone … he must know this.
This is Putin’s 3rd war. (Chechny, Georgia, & now Ukraine. If he doesn’t have a casus belli, he invents one. Putin is the aggressor. Ironically he has driven NATO closer to Russia, with Sweden & Finland eschewing neutrality.
Putin is the aggressor, everything else is noise.
And, in that time, how many wars has America fought?
If we date the Chechnya one to say 1999/2000, then on the US side in that time we’ve got Iraq Ver.2, Afghanistan (you could possibly argue that’s the same one), there’s the war with ISIS in Syria (and general involvement with the Free Syrian Army). I’m leaving out Libya since it’s not really a war they’re fighting, more of a destabilise-and-abandon, and also the Orange Revolution et. al.
Going a bit further back, to the 1990’s we have the US actually bombing a European capital (Belgrade)
Which isn’t to say Putin is or isn’t the aggressor in a given situation, or in many of the wars you cite, but he’s not someone who’s uniquely rogue or aggressive on the world stage. He uses his military aggressively in defence of what he perceives to be Russia’s interests. Rather as the US does, in its interests.
Chechnia was a civil war.
The EU appointed a commission to investigate the 2008 war in Georgia and concluded that Georgia started the war. The Russians gave Georgia a bloody nose, then voluntarily retreated back to the positions they held before Georgia attacked.
You’ll find that western intelligence were all over all three conflicts. Like the Libyan/Egyptian/Syrian ‘uprisings’.
We started all three if you dare to look at the histories of each. We wanted it, we got it (you never know it might have just destabilised Russia and ousted Putin) we mismanaged it and finally we’ve lost.
This is the last western military adventure, proxy or non proxy for a long time. Well, except for Iran it’s beginning to look like.
Would it not be simpler to offer both Ukraine and Russia membership of the EU and get them both bogged down in the politics of the EU. Russia would feel entirely at home with increasing levels of red tape and restrictions on free speech. The EU might have to soft-pedal fines for anti-gay policies in Russia but sacrifices for the grater good have to be made and Russia could easily absorb the EU’s surplus immigrants into the vastness of Russia. With Russia’s oil and mineral resources and indifference to net zero Europe would surely be on a par with the US and China.
The partitions of Cyprus, Korea and Germany may not have been lasting solutions to their problems but all brought peace.
The partitioning of Ireland led to civil wars and decades of murderous “troubles”. The partitioning of British India led to massive ethnic cleansing and bloodshed, and repeated wars. The partitioning of Vietnam led to two decades of bloody war. The partitioning of Palestine has led to ethnic cleansing, unremitting bloodshed and a brutal occupation.
I don’t think partitions as a means to achieve peace have been that successful.
Unfortunate that Mr. Kellogg doesn’t entice Russia by offering it a better “zone of responsibility”. Why not give it, for example, the Atlantic coast of Florida? Balmier climate than Ukraine’s southeast coast, and it might assuage the Russian paranoia about being “surrounded” by the evll West.
Gotta better idea?
Because unless that country is divided up with some international supervision, the Europeans will continue to bankroll their military-industrial partners surrounding it. And once the Russians look again to be steamrolling through the front towards Kiev, then the US will start pouring significant dollars into the war machine once again.
How about letting people vote where they want to be?
I realise the West no longer believes in listening to voters, but it used to be an idea that worked quite well.
US Special Envoy for Ukraine Keith Kellogg, though not a central figure in American efforts to end the war with Russia, has nonetheless made a new proposal with the intention of jumpstarting stalled peace negotiations: partitioning Ukraine “almost like Berlin after World War Two”.
I’m assuming he misspoke and that what he really meant was “almost like Czechoslovakia before World War Two.
Kudos for saying what few in the Western media will admit: That there are, in the Russian parlance, “root causes” to the war which must be addressed to achieve a peace.
The article linked confines itself to a limited menu of what the Russians have repeatedly stated as the casus belli, but at least acknowledges that Russia had a perfectly rational reason to invade when it did.
Any effort that refuses to engage with the war’s underlying drivers is, as the author states, doomed to failure. The West has talked out of both sides of its mouth for too long for any promises to be effective. That is what ultimately led to the war, and the West will have to accept that this time, only performance will count.