Defense Priorities Defense Priorities
  • Policy Topics
    • US-Israel-Iran
    • Ukraine-Russia
    • Western Hemisphere
    • NATO
    • China
    • Syria
  • Analysis
    • Research
    • Q&A
  • Programs
    • Grand Strategy Program
    • Military Analysis Program
    • Asia Program
    • Middle East Program
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Media
  • About
    • Mission & Vision
    • People
    • Jobs
    • Contact
  • Donate
Select Page
Home / Ukraine-Russia / Ukraine partition plan won’t bring peace
Ukraine‑Russia, Europe and Eurasia, Russia, Ukraine

April 13, 2025

Ukraine partition plan won’t bring peace

By Jennifer Kavanagh

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.

Read at UnHerd

Author

Jennifer
Kavanagh

Senior Fellow & Director of Military Analysis

Defense Priorities

More on Europe

Op-edUS‑Israel‑Iran, Europe and Eurasia, Iran, Middle East

The U.S. war on Iran could make Europe even more dependent on Washington

By Thomas P. Cavanna

March 17, 2026

Op-edUkraine‑Russia, Europe and Eurasia, Iran, Middle East, Russia, Ukraine, US‑Israel‑Iran

Is Ukraine peace toast, now that the Middle East is on fire?

By Jennifer Kavanagh

March 9, 2026

Op-edNATO, Alliances

NATO needs the Germans to be up

By Gil Barndollar

March 6, 2026

Op-edNuclear weapons, Europe and Eurasia, Russia

Russia Is Offering An Informal Nuclear Deal. Washington Should Take It.

By John Grover

February 25, 2026

Op-edNATO, Alliances, Europe and Eurasia

Breaking Europe’s Trans-Atlantic Habit: The End of the Senior Partner Myth

By Moritz Graefrath

February 24, 2026

Op-edNATO, Alliances, Ukraine‑Russia

Europe debates the bomb

By Daniel DePetris

February 19, 2026

Events on Ukraine-Russia

See All Events
virtualUkraine‑Russia, Air power, Diplomacy, Drones, Europe and Eurasia, Land power, Military analysis, Russia, Ukraine

Ukraine’s critical choice: Pursue peace or fight on

April 16, 2025
virtualUkraine‑Russia, Europe and Eurasia, Russia, Ukraine

Trump and Ukraine: Prolonging or ending the war

December 13, 2024
virtualNATO, Alliances, Europe and Eurasia, Russia, Ukraine, Ukraine‑Russia

A ‘bridge’ to NATO or false hope for Ukraine?

July 12, 2024

Receive expert foreign policy analysis

Join the hub of realism and restraint

Expert updates and analysis to enhance your understanding of vital U.S. national security issues

Defense Priority Mono Logo

Our mission is to inform citizens, thought leaders, and policymakers of the importance of a strong, dynamic military—used more judiciously to protect America’s narrowly defined national interests—and promote a realistic grand strategy prioritizing restraint, diplomacy, and free trade to ensure U.S. security.

  • Research
  • Experts
  • About
  • For Media
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Contact
© 2026 Defense Priorities Foundation. All rights reserved.