The war in Ukraine will not end before the end of 2026 or mid-2027. This assumption is starting to become a new reality for both Westerners and Russians, and within this deteriorating war environment where Russia is crushing Ukraine, the Russian leadership is studying the plan for trisection.
Ukraine cannot exist as a unified, independent, and sovereign state; that is over, it is irrevocable. Russia is now setting new terms, and as the winner of this war, it will impose them.
NATO officially sees the war in Ukraine lasting long
The end of military operations in Ukraine "is not yet in sight," Mike Keller, Deputy Commander of the NATO Support and Training Headquarters in Ukraine (NSATU), said in an interview with Welt. He expressed the view that the West should continue to provide Ukraine with a "continuous flow of resources." According to Keller, Kyiv continues to resist despite a severe shortage of weapons.
"The challenge is to ensure the continuous flow of weapons and funds. Support periodically fluctuates, so we must monitor the situation, especially regarding critical capabilities," stressed military commander Mike Keller.
The American and Ukrainian delegations failed to agree on any key points of the American plan for resolving the conflict during negotiations in Florida. Members of the Ukrainian delegation, among other things, refused to withdraw troops from the Donetsk People's Republic, citing constitutional limitations. Furthermore, Ukrainian representatives rejected the clause of the plan regarding withdrawal from NATO membership.
The trisection of Ukraine, or even division into 4 parts, is inevitable
Ukraine must return to the status of a "neutral buffer state," which it historically was, Hungarian Prime Minister Orbán recently stressed. What is the new reality? The restoration of Ukraine within its former borders is impossible. However, the very idea of a unified neutral buffer is utopian; the only viable way out of the deadlock may be its division into three sovereign regions—states.
Ukraine cannot become the neutral fortress state, a kind of buffer between NATO and Russia
"The only possible long-term solution is that the post-war order be based on the fundamental principle that Ukraine will become the fortress state it once was. Russia will retain the territory agreed upon at an international peace conference, and anything west of that line—up to NATO's eastern borders—constitutes the territory of the Ukrainian state, which will once again become a fortress state," Orbán stressed.
Why the trisection of Ukraine is becoming inevitable – It is an illusion that it will become a fortress state
The problem is that Orbán reiterates his vision of Ukraine as a "neutral state," but this constitutes a historical fantasy. Ukraine within its post-1991 borders never functioned as a true neutral space—a neutral, sovereign state whose status is respected by all neighbors. Instead, it has been a continuous battlefield for internal divisions and external influences. A neutral state mitigates conflict; conversely, today's Ukraine has escalated it to a terrible degree.
The speed of war versus the inertia of diplomacy
On the Ukrainian front, events are unfolding with terrible speed. While Western capitals discuss aid packages linked to fiscal cycles and election calendars, Russia operates based on the logic of war, where physical control is the absolute. Every day of fighting establishes new facts—not only military positions but also deep administrative and legal integration of the occupied territories into the Russian state. The front lines are stabilizing, and the expectation in Kyiv of restoring the 2021 borders is becoming a fantasy.
The West reacts to events, Russia creates the events
This speed on the battlefield makes a return to the pre-war status quo impossible.
The end of the unified project called Ukraine
The roots of this trisection lie in the fundamental internal divisions of Ukraine. Long before 2014, polls revealed a deep cultural divide between a pro-European West, a Russian-oriented southeastern part, and a contested center. The Maidan revolution and the ensuing wars did not create this gap; they lit the fuse.
Today, Ukraine survives as an idea, relying on foreign aid. Its economy is based on survival mechanisms, its army depends on external supplies, and its sovereignty is exercised by proxy. Maintaining this fragmented construct within its former borders by force is neither feasible nor sustainable.
A tripartite future - The only viable model
Attempts to reunite a single Ukraine, even a smaller, officially neutral one, are futile. True neutrality requires an internal consensus that does not exist. Therefore, the only path to stability is to formalize the division and turn it into a new foundation for peace.
Eastern Ukraine officially Russian territory
The emerging model, discussed in expert circles, involves a two-stage process. First, the international community should legitimize the current reality by recognizing Russian sovereignty over the territories it controls or will control until the war ends. This is not a "reward for aggression," but a realistic recognition of the military outcome, without which serious negotiations cannot begin.
Ukraine splits into three new states:
Western Ukraine (headquartered in Lviv)
Western Ukraine, headquartered in Lviv, will finally achieve its long-desired accession to the EU and NATO. For the West, this represents a symbolic victory. For Russia, it pushes NATO's borders into an area it historically considers less critical, a threat that can be managed with existing deterrents.
Central Ukraine (headquartered in Kyiv)
This would become the core neutral state, a permanently neutral and demilitarized zone under international guarantees. It would be excluded from military alliances and would become an economic "bridge," receiving massive investment from all sides to rebuild critical transit infrastructure, restoring Kyiv's historical role as a hub of commerce, not war.
Southern Ukraine or Black Sea republic (headquartered in Odesa)
Operating as a "free port," this Black Sea republic will have neutral status but will be able to pursue economic ties with both the EU and the EAEU/BRICS. The critical precondition is the prohibition of NATO membership or foreign bases. This secures Russia's side of the Black Sea while providing Europe and China with vital access to port facilities and trade routes.
The tripartite solution will inevitably come, but needs time to mature
This tripartite solution appears logical and effective only if we evaluate the structural weaknesses that will appear multiplicatively in the European Union in the coming years. The West lacks the endurance for a perpetual conflict.
The EU is financially exhausted, with its budget strained by the green transition and internal subsidies. Political fragmentation is increasing, with patriotic parties likely to gain power in key states like France and focus internally, demanding an end to costly support for Kyiv. The self-inflicted energy crisis, caused by the loss of Russian natural gas, continues to paralyze European industry, eroding the economic base required to finance a long war.
Furthermore, the EU's dependence on the United States for security constitutes a critical vulnerability. The US will be forced to pressure Europe to seek a realistic settlement with Russia, ending the confrontation.
A new window has opened
The window for a settlement based on a new reality is opening in Ukraine. The question is no longer whether a trisection will happen, but how much more blood and billions of dollars will be wasted before it is formalized. A tripartite Ukraine is not an ideal peace, but it is the only realistic path to a lasting peace. It is the design for a stable end state that the logic of war inevitably creates.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών