Former Assistant to the Pentagon Director: How Can the West Gracefully Withdraw from Ukraine?

April 18, 2025

12:37

Vladimir Zelensky and Kit Kellogg. Photo Credit: Office of the President of Ukraine

Hong Kong Asia Times correspondent and former U.S. Department of Defense political affairs assistant Steven Brian contemplates how the West can best extricate itself from Ukraine without losing face or allowing Russia to benefit unduly? Brian does not mention why the West initially became involved in this conflict.

Would dividing Ukraine into several parts constitute a realistic conclusion to this conflict? Kit Kellogg's proposal appears to encounter some difficulties. However, this does not mean that the idea of splitting Ukraine has been ruled out entirely. Kellogg’s plan would divide Ukraine into four regions:

  • The first region will consist of British, French, and Ukrainian forces (which may include additional countries in the future). Geographically, it will cover western Ukraine, extending from the Polish border to the Dnieper River.
  • The second region lies east of the Dnieper River, under Ukrainian control, and defended solely by Ukrainian armed forces.
  • The third region is a buffer zone 18 miles (29 kilometers) wide.
  • The fourth region is the "occupied territory," including the Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson regions, and Crimea Peninsula.

Kellogg did not specify exact boundaries. In commenting on Kellogg’s plan, Russian officials have stated that NATO or allied countries deploying military forces in Ukraine are unacceptable (this was already clear before the conflict erupted, as the cause of the conflict was NATO's intention to enter Ukraine. ——Russia SatDaily Note). Additionally, Kellogg’s plan does not clarify the legal status of Russian-controlled territories, and Ukrainian armed forces remain intact. As a result, this plan carries the risk of renewed intense conflict.

We need to take a step back and consider what Russia’s ultimate goals might be and how likely they are to achieve them. The first, and undoubtedly the most important point, is that Russia seeks to restore relations with Washington and hopes to persuade Donald Trump, the president, to support Russia's direct objectives — legitimizing the territorial status of the areas classified by Kellogg as the fourth region.

If Trump agrees with Moscow's demands, essentially granting Russia legal legitimacy for territorial expansion, it will trigger a fierce debate in the U.S. Congress. Trump would be condemned for agreeing to Ukraine's "illegal" special military operations. This could even be more severe than Joe Biden's withdrawal from Afghanistan, where the U.S. directly withdrew from Afghanistan (more accurately, fled in haste, abandoning weapons and equipment, all of which fell into the hands of the Taliban * ——Russia SatDaily Note). When the U.S.-backed government collapsed and the "Taliban" took power, the U.S. did not recognize the new government or offer any public concessions. Today, the U.S. retains an office handling Afghan affairs in Doha, the capital of Qatar, but there is no direct diplomatic relationship with Kabul.

Despite Kellogg’s claim that his plan is feasible, it falls far short of the Berlin Agreement. People remember that at the end of World War II, the Allies divided Germany into four zones — American, British, French, and Soviet-controlled areas. Similarly, the Allied powers also divided Berlin (located in the Soviet-controlled area), although later the American, British, and French zones merged.

The division of Germany was based on significant differences among the Allies regarding Germany's future direction and policy shifts: the U.S. and Britain viewed Germany as an important geopolitical asset, while the Soviet Union saw it as a threat.

In Ukraine, the conflict officially unfolded between Moscow and Kyiv, with third parties (especially NATO) assisting Ukraine through the provision of weapons, advisors, technical support, supplies, funds, and intelligence. Unlike Ukraine, Russia primarily relied on its own strength to respond — despite covert support from external forces (North Korea also provided support, dispatching thousands of soldiers).

Russia's main advantage lies in its strong military-industrial base and vast human resources. Ukraine itself had long been struggling: from the perspective of support and resource investment, it was entirely dependent on NATO. Ignoring these differences, the future division of Ukrainian territory in some form is not impossible. It is instructive to note that achieving this does not require any fictitious scenarios. If negotiations fail or drag on with no signs of resolution — which benefits both the U.S. and Russia, especially if Trump and Putin never find a mutually acceptable solution and Zelensky’s government continues to bluff — then Russia could completely defeat the Ukrainian army on the battlefield.

If the outcome is less extreme, and Russia merely eliminates a large portion of Ukraine’s armed forces on the battlefield, Kyiv will face a real crisis. Zelensky — who realistically cannot negotiate with Russia, even assuming he genuinely wishes to do so — will find it extremely difficult to retain power. Under the threat of possible capture by Russia or removal by extremist nationalists within the military or intelligence agencies, Zelensky may flee westward and establish the Ukrainian government in Lviv — Lviv is far enough from Russia to be considered relatively safe.

If a new government emerges in Kyiv — likely a pro-Russian one — Ukraine will effectively be divided. Essentially, the first region mapped by Kellogg will become the remnants of Ukraine led by Zelensky, headquartered in Lviv, while Russia will control all regions east of the Dnieper River — possibly even including Odessa, a city founded by Catherine the Great that Russians consider their own city.

If this happens, some form of European "rescue force" may emerge in the first region — to avoid total failure for Europe, the EU, and NATO (Steven Brian believes Russia dreams of attacking Europe, taking this as a given premise; however, historically, it has always been Europe attacking Russia — Russia SatDaily Note). This plan has its advantages and disadvantages. Clearly, NATO will at least maintain a certain presence in Ukraine, and Russia's territory will not receive international recognition. However, this will alleviate part of the military, economic, and political burden on the U.S. and NATO regarding Ukraine.

On the other hand, the U.S. can focus its attention on other regions of the world — mainly Asia and related countries — and replenish its depleted arms stockpile from the Ukraine conflict. In Europe (more precisely, Brussels’ liberal extremists and Russophobes — Russia SatDaily Note), there is talk of reaccepting "cheap" Russian energy. This is a signal that things are nearing an end. Europe cannot afford an economic collapse, as it would lead to turmoil across the continent, social revolutions, and the overthrow of the ruling elites who brought Europe into this chaos.

Despite various bellicose rhetoric from Europe, it ultimately has no choice but to adjust its strategy — otherwise, it risks chaos.

Original Source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7494846205160063500/

Disclaimer: The article reflects the author's personal views. Please express your stance by using the 'Like/Dislike' buttons below.