The chief of Ukraine's military intelligence stated on Sunday, 27 March, that the Kremlin might be planning to carve up the country into two – in a similar fashion to what happened with Korea after the Second World War –and keep the eastern half under its control.
This while President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, on the very same day, said he wanted to reach a "compromise" over the Russia-controlled Donbas region.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine, ordered by Vladimir Putin on 24 February, has been going on for 33 days, and despite the former's overwhelming military superiority, the latter still stands as it continues to fight off Russian troops and tanks.
The speculation regarding the "Korean scenario" was made by General Kyrylo Budanov, who said that "there are reasons to believe that he [Putin] may try to impose a separation line between the occupied and unoccupied regions of our country."
"In fact, it will be an attempt to set up South and North Koreas in Ukraine," he added, as quoted by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.
If something like this does end up happening, then Kyiv will essentially be surrendering a large part of Ukrainian territory to the Kremlin. This will most likely be the eastern part of Ukraine, which is home to a lot Russian-speaking people.
While the implications of carving up Ukraine into two can only be speculated at the moment, certain educated guesses can be made after understanding the 1945 partition of Korea.
Why Was Korea Partitioned?
Pre-partition Korea was a Japanese colony for 35 years, thanks to the Japan–Korea Annexation Treaty of 1910, which was basically the formalisation of Japanese rule in Korean affairs, something that had been increasingly happening since 1905 (after Japan won a war against Czarist Russia).
Fast forward to 1945, when Japan lost the Second World War and surrendered to the Allied Powers.
There exists no scholarly consensus on how, during the immediate years following the Japanese surrender, the decision to divide Korea at the 38th Parallel was arrived upon.
Some say that the Soviets wanted all of it because it had invaded Japan, and Korea was the prize, while negotiations with the US led to its division into occupation zones amongst the two.
The US president at the time, Harry Truman, had later said that "there was no thought at the time other than to provide a convenient allocation of responsibility for the acceptance of the Japanese surrender."
The most popular theory, despite all the scholarly disagreement, is the one put forward by Cold War historian John Lewis Gaddis among others, in which he says that the partition of Korea was intended to "minimize the amount of territory in the Far East to come under Russian control."
Whatever the logic behind the partition, tensions never ceased between US-backed South Korea and Soviet-backed North Korea.
Both governments, led by Syngman Rhee in the south and Kim Il-sung in the north, proclaimed themselves to be the only legitimate ruler of all of Korea.
Border clashes were rampant, and people in the south were starting to get disillusioned by Rhee's corrupt administration's authoritarian style of governance.
It was also believed by Kim Il-sung that there had been widespread communist rebellions in the south and a North Korean invasion would be welcomed by the locals. Does that sound familiar?
The constant north-south tensions and the perception that the south was weak and disunited led Kim Il-sung to ask Stalin for permission to start a war. Stalin eventually said yes in April 1950, on the condition that Mao sends Chinese troops to aid the Korean communists.
War finally erupted on 25 June when troops from the north crossed the 38th Parallel and started firing at rival troops (some scholars say that the south's troops fired first). The Chinese entered the war on 19 October.
After three years of bloodshed, the Korean Armistice Agreement was signed by the belligerents, which demanded an end to hostilities until a final peace settlement was reached. Almost seven decades later, no settlement has been reached, and both the Koreas are technically still at war.
The 'Korean Scenario' for Ukraine
If Ukraine has to go through a similar scenario, it would most likely mean a partition between the eastern and western parts of the country. A pro-Kremlin puppet regime would be installed in the east, similar to the Viktor Yanukovych one before the 2014 Euromaidan revolution.
Institutions like NATO and the EU, and close ties with countries like the US and the UK enjoy huge support in Western Ukraine, where people are more attracted to ideas of democracy and liberalism.
The people in the eastern part of the country, according to surveys conducted by Kyiv International Institute of Sociology and other research centres, are less likely to vote in parliamentary elections, or in favour of joining the EU and NATO, in comparison to the people in the west.
Additionally, Russian is the most common language spoken in the east.
If we keep in mind the logic of why US pushed for the partition of Korea, then Putin's intensions become clearer.
He wants to reduce the influence of the US, Europe, and NATO in Ukraine, something that he perceives as a threat to Russia.
Ukraine used to be his buffer zone. That changed in 2014 when Yanukovych was thrown out by the people, and the subsequent governments led by Petro Poroshenko and Volodymyr Zelenskyy initiated a pro-west foreign policy.
Putin wants that buffer back, and a Kremlin-controlled puppet ruling the east would serve that purpose.
The problems that may arise with the east-west partition are similar to what happened in Korea seven decades ago.
The backing of the west and the east by their respective patrons will keep political tensions high. Border clashes will be inevitable, and so will be false flag attacks to use as justifications for political bargaining or military operations.
History has shown, in the case of Korea and Vietnam, and to a lesser extent, in the case of post-war Germany, that the partition of a country without resolving the fundamental causes of tensions will only lead to further tensions. The threat of war will never disappear, and arms races will make it worse.
Therefore, if the Ukraine-Russia war indeed does end with the 'Korean scenario', then a new type of conflict will develop, characterised by dangerous rhetoric, border clashes, arms races, and super-power backing.
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)