A specter of the Cold War has emerged in the political debate over Ukraine’s future: the fear that the country could break in two, as was the case with the Korean Peninsula. The stagnation on the front lines, with neither side managing to upset the balance, has led to more and more political and academic voices recognizing the possibility that the conflict, just like that between North and South Korea, could escalate will come to an end. Hostilities that result in two opposing realities: that of a free Ukraine integrated into the Western bloc and that of a Ukraine de facto annexed by Russia.
The end of World War II led to the division of the Korean Peninsula, which had until then been occupied by the Japanese Empire. The part north of the famous 38th parallel would be protected by the Soviet Union; and south through the United States. After failed attempts at reunification, two new states were proclaimed in 1948: communist Korea and Korea, which was allied with the United States. North Korea began a war of invasion in the South in 1950, which provoked military intervention by the United States under the protection of the United Nations. China participated militarily on behalf of the North, while the Soviet Union provided resource support. In 1953, the Armistice was signed, with both countries temporarily ceasing hostilities without a peace agreement being reached. And it continues like this to this day.
The Korean scenario has always been on the table in the Ukraine crisis. In this sense, numerous scientific analyzes already pointed to the year 2022. But it was only this year that fears of a division of Ukraine began to take shape. Last January, Oleksii Danilov, secretary of the National Security Council of Ukraine, warned: “We are being offered the Korean option.” “Here there are some Ukrainians, here other Ukrainians and here there are no Ukrainians.” I am convinced that one of the options, that they are going to offer us is this 38 inch parallel. Oleksii Arestovich, a well-known Ukrainian public commentator and former adviser to President Volodymyr Zelensky, highlighted the problem in February: the country could end up in “a two-Korea scenario.” “The worst thing of all,” Arestovich added, “is that the West thinks this way and we are completely dependent on them.”
Danilov and Arestovich’s words were spoken before the start of the Ukrainian counteroffensive, which began in June and in which both Ukrainian society and its NATO allies had inflated expectations of success. Russia continues to occupy 18% of Ukrainian territory. It is the same percentage since November, since the last victorious Ukrainian offensive, when half of Kherson province was liberated.
Former US President George W. Bush raised the Korean option at a conference on September 8 at the annual meeting of the Yalta European Strategy (YES) group, a political event in Kyiv. In his speech, Bush raised the possibility that, as in Korea, the war would divide the country and never officially end. When asked whether Ukraine should give up some of its territory to achieve peace, Bush replied that it was a decision that the Ukrainians had to make and that the United States and the rest of its allies would support them if they did decide to do so or if they wanted to, keep fighting.
Agreements behind the scenes
Join EL PAÍS to follow all the news and read without restrictions.
Subscribe to
Both Zelensky and the high command of the Ukrainian armed forces are demanding more time, they are asking for support for a war that will last for years, but not all of Kiev’s international partners are in favor of the work, as the president himself has admitted. In his September 19 speech to the UN General Assembly, the Ukrainian president said he was “aware of attempts to reach shady agreements.” [de paz] Behind the scenes”. It became clearer in an interview with The Economist, also this September. Zelensky admitted that he had noticed a change in some of the international leaders with whom he regularly meets: “I have this intuition, I read , listen and look into their eyes when they tell me: ‘We will always be with you.’ And I see that he or she is no longer here, he or she is not with us.”
On Wednesday there was a clear example of the fragility of these alliances. Poland was one of Ukraine’s most unconditional supporters in the war and yet a bilateral conflict over agricultural imports has caused an earthquake, with Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki assuring on Wednesday that there would be no further arms deliveries to Ukraine beyond what had already been agreed. Polish President Andrzej Duda even compared his neighboring country to a desperate person who drags those who want to help him to their deaths: “It’s as if we were dealing with a drowning person.” “Everyone who has tried to Helping a drowning person knows that it is extremely dangerous because it can drag you into the depths.”
Four options for the future
A bleak report on Ukraine’s future in 2040 was presented at the YES Group’s annual conference. The document, prepared by Ukrainian politicians and summarized by MP Oleksii Zhmerenetskii, offers four possible futures, only one of which is positive. The first states that Russian domination can lead to a world war if the invading country decides to attack other Black Sea states. The second option suggests that popular anger will bring ultra-nationalist groups to power and turn the country into an autocracy after territorial cessions force Ukraine to agree to a ceasefire. The third option suggests that Ukraine will break up into several autonomous regions. The fourth option, the positive one, envisages Ukraine winning the war and driving the Russians out of their territory.
The Korean scenario would be part of the second option, which predicts a serious threat of a democratic transition in Ukraine. In fact, an adviser to the Slovak Foreign Ministry told EL PAÍS this month that one of his government’s main concerns is that Ukraine will take an authoritarian path when it comes time to force negotiations between the two sides.
“Win Peace”
There are scholars who argue that the Korean option may be the least harmful for Ukraine. The main proponent of this thesis is Stephen Kotkin, one of the most recognized experts on the history of the Soviet Union and Russia. From his position as an academic at Stanford University and the Hoover Institute, Kotkin argues that the time has come for Ukraine “not to win the war, but to win a lasting peace.” In an August 25 interview with War on the Rocks, one of the most reputable media outlets analyzing the war in Ukraine, Kotkin stated that events on the battlefield proved that the moment of euphoria had passed and the Russian army “did not “fell apart.”
For Kotkin, Ukraine’s victory means joining the European Union and a new security model, whether within NATO or in a defense agreement similar to the one South Korea has with the United States. “Do you need the entire territory for this?” asks Kotkin. It is not clear to him whether this is possible, not only in terms of military resources, but also in terms of the social reality of the territories annexed by Russia with the support of the Donbass separatists: “In Crimea [península del mar Negro anexionada ilegalmente por Rusia en 2014] There are already more than two million Russians. Will these Russians be driven out if Crimea is liberated? Will there be ethnic cleansing like the Russians carried out on the Tatars? [pueblo nativo de Crimea]? Because these people are also a potential focus of uprisings.”
American soldiers encountered a group of refugees on their march to the Naktong River region in August 1950. Bettmann (Bettmann archive)
“South Korea doesn’t have all the territory, but it has security after a ceasefire,” Kotkin told a Hoover Institute conference in July. “It’s an imperfect solution because it separated a lot of families, but South Korea is one of them. “ wealthiest societies in the world. “Ukraine can go this route.”
The division of Germany
Kotkin isn’t the only one who thinks this way. In a debate organized by American radio NPR on September 8, prominent experts bet on the same thing. Carter Malkasian, former adviser to the US General Staff and director of the Defense Analysis Division at the Naval Postgraduate School, stated that “the Korean ceasefire model may be the best option, although nothing guarantees its success.” Also Jong Eun Lee, retired South Korean military officer and Professor of political science at the University of North Greenville, made it clear: “It is controversial to say this, but after such a long division, it is over.” [en Corea] “A cultural, political, economic difference, perhaps better than starting a war or unifying the two countries in such a costly way as in Germany, a progressive peaceful coexistence is more realistic.”
The German case has also been frequently used to understand what the future holds for Ukraine, but there are notable differences since the two German states, like the two Koreas, were states that were founded and internationally recognized. Furthermore, there was no armed conflict between West and East Germany. The German case is being used from Kiev to demonstrate that free Ukraine can be a member of NATO, just like the Federal Republic of Germany, despite the Russian occupation of part of its territory.
Malkasian reiterated an aspect on which all military analysts consulted by EL PAÍS in recent months agree: “Negotiations will be possible if the fighting continues and both sides are exhausted and accumulate heavy losses.” Malkasian emphasized that the only way for this , that peace negotiations could take place in the future, precisely through long-term military support from Ukraine’s allies in NATO, because “only in this way can Ukraine maintain its position and security.” Pressure on Russia.
“Without a major military advance by Ukraine or a major political change in Russia, both sides will find themselves in the same situation as the Korean forces in 1953.” [cuando se firmó el armisticio]: stalled in a line of war that makes little progress for one side or the other. This was written last August by John Feffer, a scholar at the American Institute for Policy Studies. Feffer believes that with this blockade and after enormous attrition on both armies, which predisposes them to negotiations, the international community will propose a ceasefire. But Feffer is anything but optimistic about an end to hostilities. Firstly, because the borders of the territories annexed by Russia, unlike the two Koreas, are not recognized by the international community. And, according to him, experience shows that “Russia, as in Georgia and Moldova, will use the situation to destabilize Ukraine.” Ukraine, for its part, will “want to convince the population of the occupied eastern territories to reunite in order to To become part of prosperous Europe.”
The Israeli model
There is another country that is a role model for Zelensky: Israel. In numerous interventions, the president has declared that for a life of constant threat, Ukraine must militarize itself and have an anti-aircraft system that allows its cities to develop despite regular bombings. Kotkin criticized this idea of turning Ukraine “into a fortress state” because it “does not contribute to lasting peace” and because it is hardly compatible with EU membership.
And could Ukraine, as a member of the European Union, find itself in a permanent military conflict with Russia? Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitro Kuleba gave the answer in an interview with EL PAÍS in July 2022: Cyprus, whose territory is partially occupied by Turkey, is a member of the EU. “Europe is full of conflicts that remain under the layer of endless negotiations,” Kuleba added. “I am sure that there will be a way for Ukraine to become a member of the EU if there is the will to find a political solution.”
Follow all international information on Facebook and Twitteror in our weekly newsletter.
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits