MOSCOW — Unlike during his first term in the White House, President-elect Donald Trump now appears determined to keep many of his campaign promises. His Cabinet nominations — from the Kremlin-friendly Tulsi Gabbard as director of national intelligence to the conspiracy-loving vaccine skeptic Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as secretary of Health and Human Services — confirm his commitment to a scorched-earth campaign against American institutions and perceived enemies “from within.” His victory speech suggests that he is serious about “stopping wars.”
Trump has long asserted that he would end the Ukraine war within 24 hours of taking office. There has been much speculation about a negotiated settlement, and the scenarios all have one thing in common: Ukraine’s dismemberment. If this has to be the cost of peace, it is worth considering the grim history of territorial partition.
Few events create such long-lasting enmity; fewer still have caused more devastating violence. The three partitions of Poland that took place in the late 18th century are perhaps Europe’s closest parallel to what may befall Ukraine. Beginning in 1772, Austria’s Habsburg monarchy, the Kingdom of Prussia and the Russian Empire seized and annexed territory, effectively dividing Polish lands among themselves and erasing what had been Europe’s largest state by landmass.
In the face of such subjugation, violent resistance is all but inevitable. Poles conducted periodic guerrilla-style campaigns throughout the occupation, with major uprisings in 1831 and 1863. Resistance continued well into the 20th century, led by Jozef Piłsudski’s campaigns for independence — laced with acts of terror — before World War I. Enmity toward Russia in particular endures, with the Kremlin having Stalin-era violence toward the Polish people to answer for.
As for France, it harbored hatred toward Germany for decades over Kaiser Wilhelm I’s absorption of Alsace and Lorraine into the new German Empire following the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71. Reconciliation between the two countries began only in the 1950s, with the emergence of the European Coal and Steel Community (the precursor to today’s European Union) and NATO.
Similarly, Britain’s decision to partition Ireland, keeping the northern province of Ulster as part of the United Kingdom, incited a civil war between those willing to cede Northern Ireland and those who rejected any treaty that did not grant Ireland complete independence. That “war of peace” lasted two years and left a legacy of terror — both Catholic and Protestant — that ended only with the Good Friday Agreement, brokered by the United States, in 1998.
Perhaps the most brutal partitions occurred in Asia in the 20th century. In 1932, the Empire of Japan carved Manchuria out of the Republic of China and created the puppet state of Manchukuo. The Japanese Kwantung Army’s 13-year rule there — which included the enslavement of millions of people, perverse medical experimentation and slaughter of minorities — became something of a blueprint for the Nazis in Eastern Europe.
In terms of lives lost directly to a partition, however, nothing can compare to the 1947 division of the Indian subcontinent, following the departure of the British, into Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan. The partition triggered one of the largest migrations in history — involving some 18 million people — with Muslims heading to Pakistan (including modern-day Bangladesh) and Hindus and Sikhs trekking to India. Sectarian violence including rapes, burnings and mass killings led to the deaths of as many as 3.4 million people.
In the 77 years since the British Raj was partitioned, India and Pakistan have fought four wars, with the most recent, in 1999, occurring when both countries already possessed nuclear weapons.
Vietnam’s 1954 partition — into a northern zone, governed by the communist Viet Minh, and a southern zone, governed by the Republic of Vietnam — proved similarly bloody, unleashing two decades of war that left up to 3 million Vietnamese dead.
And then there is the 1947-48 partition of Palestine into an independent Jewish state and an independent Arab state. This decision by the United Nations sparked decades of hostility, oppression, terrorism and wars that continue to this day. One need only to look at the ruins of Gaza to see the horrifying legacy of partition.
So, what might a partition of Ukraine yield? In fighting for their territorial integrity since February 2022, Ukrainians have demonstrated courage and dynamism, qualities they will certainly bring to bear in rebuilding their country. But given the scale of the human and economic losses they have incurred, it will be hard for them to submit quietly to the idea of partition. It will be especially hard given that Russian President Vladimir Putin has made no secret of his belief that Ukraine is not just a “neighboring country,” but “that modern Ukraine was entirely created by Russia” and therefore should exist only under the Russian umbrella.
In any possible future peace negotiations, Ukrainians know that the best chance to prevent further Russian interference is through ironclad international security guarantees, if not immediate NATO membership.
Trump appears to loathe America’s current security commitments, but for the U.S. not to offer such guarantees may prove harmful to Russia, too.
Putin rose to power on the heels of a devastating war and protracted insurgency in Russia’s republic of Chechnya, which included terrorist attacks by Chechen separatists in Moscow and other Russian cities. Already in 2022, the Ukrainians promised a guerrilla war against Russia. Devoid of other options, that risk will only increase. Trump should seek to persuade the Kremlin of the need for fair negotiations; otherwise, post-partition terrorism may come to Russia, possibly on a greater scale than the Chechens ever imagined.
Nina L. Khrushcheva, professor of international affairs at the New School, is the co-author (with Jeffrey Tayler) of “In Putin’s Footsteps: Searching for the Soul of an Empire Across Russia’s Eleven Time Zones.”
