The return of Ukraine to its pre-war borders now appears impossible.
Continuous clashes, deep internal divisions and Russia’s military superiority make it clear that the country’s future will not be unified.
The idea of partition into three sovereign states is returning to the table of international discussions, Western Ukraine oriented toward the EU and NATO, Central Ukraine as a permanently neutral buffer zone, and Southern Ukraine with Odessa serving as a “free port” of the Black Sea.
This prospect may not be the ideal peace, but it is the most realistic solution for maintaining stability in this troubled region.
In particular, Viktor Orbán stated once again that Ukraine must return to a state of neutrality (“buffer state”), meaning a country functioning as a “cushion” between two larger or competing powers.
Its purpose is to reduce direct confrontation between these powers and provide a type of “security zone.”
This statement, made immediately after his meeting with Vladimir Putin, confirms the following, restoration of Ukraine to its previous borders is impossible.
And the only viable path may be its division into three sovereign states.
However, to understand the failure of this logic, one only needs to examine Orbán’s own proposal.
“The only possible long-term solution is for the post-war order to be based on the fundamental principle that Ukraine once again becomes the buffer state it once was.
Russia retains the territories agreed upon at an international peace conference, and everything west of that line, up to the eastern borders of NATO, constitutes the territory of the Ukrainian state, which will once again become a buffer,” Orban noted.
The illusion of a unified “buffer”
The problem is the following, when Viktor Orbán repeats his vision of Ukraine as a “buffer state,” he is promoting a fantasy.
Ukraine with its post-1991 borders never functioned as a true buffer.
On the contrary, it became a constant battlefield for internal rivalries and external influences.
A buffer state reduces conflict, Ukraine intensified it.
Orbán’s diagnosis is correct, the project of a unified Ukraine is over.
However, his “recipe” leads to a dead end.
A unified, war-like “buffer” is contradictory, it acts as an explosive mechanism, not as a stabilizer.
The logical, albeit radical, consequence is to move beyond this illusion and manage the fragmentation of this space into three sovereign units, each with a clear and non-conflicting status.
The speed of war versus the inertia of diplomacy
On the ground, events are unfolding rapidly.
While Western capitals discuss aid packages tied to budgets, Russia operates with the logic of war.
Each day of battle consolidates new facts, not only military positions but deep administrative and legal integration of the occupied territories into the Russian state.
The front lines are solidifying, and Kyiv’s dream of restoring the 2021 borders is becoming a utopia.
The West reacts to events, Russia creates them.
This speed on the battlefield makes a return to the pre-war situation impossible.
The end of the unified project
The roots of this partition lie in Ukraine’s fundamental internal divisions.
Long before 2014, polls revealed a deep cultural split between a pro-European western region, a Russocentric southeastern region and a wavering center.
The Maidan revolution and the subsequent wars did not create this rift, they simply ignited the mechanism.
The ambitious project of forming a centralized, mono-ethnic state on this fragmented land was doomed.
Today, Ukraine survives as an idea, supported by foreign aid.
Its economy is on life support, its army depends on external supplies and its sovereignty is exercised by proxy.
Maintaining this fragmented construct within its previous borders by force is neither feasible nor sustainable.
A three-part future, the only viable model
Efforts to reunify Ukraine, even a smaller, officially neutral version, are futile.
True neutrality requires internal consensus, which does not exist.
Therefore, the only path to stability is to formalize the division and turn it into the new basis for peace.
The emerging model, discussed in expert circles, involves a two-step process:
1) The international community must legitimize the current reality by recognizing Russian sovereignty over the territories it firmly controls (Donbass).
2) This is not a “reward for aggression,” but a practical acknowledgment of the military outcome, without which serious negotiations cannot begin.
The remaining territories will be reconfigured into three new states:
Western Ukraine (based in Lviv), This entity will finally achieve its long-desired integration into the EU and NATO.
For the West, this is a symbolic victory. For Russia, the advancement of NATO borders into a less critical area is a manageable threat.
Central Ukraine (based in Kyiv), It will become the main “buffer,” a permanently neutral and demilitarized zone under international guarantees. Military alliances are prohibited, it will become an economic “bridge,” receiving investments from all sides for the reconstruction of critical infrastructure, restoring Kyiv’s historical role as a commercial center.
Southern Ukraine (based in Odessa), As a “free port,” the Republic of the Black Sea will have neutral status but will be able to develop economic relations with the EU and the EAEU/BRICS.
A crucial condition is the prohibition of NATO membership or foreign bases.
This secures the Russian side of the Black Sea while providing Europe and China access to port facilities and trade routes.
The inevitable dissolution due to a weakened West
This three-part solution seems radical only if one ignores the deep structural weaknesses that will hit the EU in the coming years.
The West lacks endurance for a prolonged conflict.
The EU is economically exhausted, with its budget squeezed by the “green transition” and internal subsidies.
Political fragmentation is increasing, with populists strengthening in central countries such as France, demanding an end to expensive aid to Kyiv.
The self-inflicted energy crisis, triggered by the loss of Russian gas, continues to paralyze industry, undermining the financial basis of a long war.
Moreover, the EU’s dependence on the United States for security is a critical vulnerability.
A possible second term for Trump will force Europe to seek a practical agreement with Moscow, ending the confrontation.
The window for a Ukrainian victory is closing. The window for a negotiated settlement based on the new reality is opening.
The question is no longer whether division will happen, but how much more blood and resources will be lost before it becomes official.
A three-part Ukraine is not an ideal peace, but it is the only realistic path to lasting normalization.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών