Russian media have revived a long-running campaign portraying Ukraine as a state with no future, claiming its territory could eventually be divided between Russia, Poland, Hungary and Romania.
The latest messages were circulated on 17 and 18 August 2026 by outlets including RIA Novosti Crimea and Antimaidan. Their claims present Ukraine as an “artificial state” whose collapse is inevitable, while suggesting that Russian strikes on its economy are accelerating that process.
RIA Novosti Crimea said Ukraine’s existence, allegedly sustained by European support, was unlikely to last beyond the end of next year. It described a possible “natural disintegration” in which parts of the country could pass to Russia, Poland, Hungary and other states.
Antimaidan went further, arguing that Ukraine should not be incorporated entirely into Russia but instead broken up under a “divide and rule” principle. Its proposed map assigns Ukrainian territory to Russia, Poland, Hungary and Belarus, while creating a neutral, demilitarised zone in the centre under international control.
A narrative designed to undermine Ukrainian statehood
The portrayal of Ukraine as an artificial creation is incompatible with the country’s history and its legal status. Ukraine has a long tradition of state-building, including the period of Kyivan Rus and the Ukrainian People’s Republic. In a nationwide referendum in 1991, 92% of voters backed independence across every region, including Crimea and Donbas.
That vote provided the basis for broad international recognition, including recognition by Russia. Ukraine’s borders as they stood in 1991 remain recognised internationally and are embedded in international documents. Claims that the country has no legitimate right to exist therefore have no legal foundation.
Russia itself formally recognised those borders on more than one occasion. Under the 1997 Treaty of Friendship, Co-operation and Partnership, it affirmed respect for Ukraine’s territorial integrity and the inviolability of existing borders in accordance with the UN Charter and the 1975 Helsinki Final Act. In 2003, Vladimir Putin signed the treaty defining the land border between Russia and Ukraine, which entered into force after ratification.
The contrast between those commitments and current Russian narratives is central to the campaign. By recasting an internationally recognised state as a temporary or artificial construction, the Kremlin seeks to make territorial claims and aggression appear historically inevitable rather than unlawful.
Poland, Hungary and Romania reject the suggested partition
The idea of dividing Ukrainian territory among neighbouring countries is not new. In March 2014, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, then leader of Russia’s Liberal Democratic party, sent letters to the foreign ministries of Poland, Hungary and Romania proposing referendums on the possible annexation of parts of western Ukraine. Western countries rejected the proposals.
Since then, Russian officials and media have repeatedly attempted to draw central and eastern European states into discussions about Ukraine’s possible break-up. In July 2026, Putin told representatives of the Russian navy that Ukraine would eventually lose its western territories, which he described as having once belonged to Poland, Hungary and Romania and as a “gift” from Joseph Stalin.
Poland, Hungary and Romania are members of both the EU and Nato and, according to the supplied position, have consistently rejected attempts to question Ukraine’s sovereignty or discuss dividing its territory. Their governments have backed Ukraine’s territorial integrity within its 1991 borders and have not advanced territorial claims against Kyiv.
Using selectively presented historical arguments to justify the partition of a sovereign state also conflicts with the foundations of Europe’s postwar security system. The principle that borders must not be changed by force is enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act, signed in 1975 by 35 states, including the Soviet Union. Russia’s aggression against Ukraine has repeatedly been described as a breach of those principles by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the EU.
Ukraine’s resilience contradicts the collapse narrative
Russian messaging also rests on the claim that Ukraine is too divided to sustain a common future. Yet the full-scale invasion has strengthened Ukrainian civic identity and social cohesion across regions and language groups. European observers have described the level of unity shown in defending the country’s independence and democratic values as unprecedented.
Nor has the war brought about the institutional disappearance suggested by Russian media. Despite attacks on energy, transport and industrial infrastructure, the Ukrainian state continues to provide social payments, maintain public institutions and adapt its economy to wartime conditions. It is also deepening integration with the EU, pursuing reforms and developing long-term mechanisms for reconstruction.
That resilience does not remove the damage caused by the war or the danger posed by continued Russian strikes. It does, however, directly contradict the assertion that Ukraine is approaching an unavoidable natural collapse. The partition narrative remains useful to Moscow because it attacks both Ukraine’s legitimacy and confidence between Kyiv and its western partners.
The unresolved question is whether the repeated promotion of these claims can weaken international opposition to changing Ukraine’s borders by force, or whether their contradiction with Ukraine’s history, legal status and continuing state capacity will remain clear.
How should European governments respond when Russia presents the partition of Ukraine as an inevitable historical outcome?
