The importance of "transitional zones".

By Artem V. Shamsutdinov
January 12th, 2025

There is a saying in India - we would have no problems with China if Tibet was independent. The largest mountain range on the planet is between the two countries, Nepal and Butan provide some distance between the most heavily populated Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Orissa & northern West Bengal western Assam, but that has not sufficiently insulated the two countries from each other, pertaining to security. There is a clear need for a large, contiguous land mass between the two regions with sufficiently different interests.

All of the current armed conflicts are taking place in current "transitional zones". Sudan is a region that separates the Middle East and East Africa (among others). Israel (with Gaza being a nested "transitional zone") and by extension Jordan separates Egypt from The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and by extension the Arabian Peninsula, and from Lebanon+Syria and now increasingly so Turkey. Ukraine separates the European Union from the Russian Federation and by extension the Commonwealth of Independent States.

There are also two less known transitional zones of Democratic Republic of Congo, which separates the influence zones of Nigeria (West Africa), South Africa (of the wider Southern Africa) and Uganda & Kenya (of East Africa); and Myanmar (Burma) which is the flat land transitional zone between India and China. Both of these zones have very high long term strategic importance. Both also have lesser known and understood, long term armed conflicts that are very sensitive in their nature and involve a wide array of interests.

Transitional zones can and as we are currently experiencing do become war zones. But, in times of peacem as a result of that trade and communication, they can be transportation hubs and related technology hubs (living in Denver that is clearly apparent to me). They have the potential to unite the regions at their edges or at least to moderate differences between them. Out of all of these regions the one with the most potential for improving the wider region around it is DRC, and with coming (though possibly regionally delayed) technological paradigm shifts of nuclear fusion (clean, limitless, cheap energy) and robotization (productivity improvements, especially in hard to work in areas) it has the potential of finally unifying all of Sub-Saharan Africa.

For the world at large, the most important wider region zone is the Middle East, which is in the center of most of the Old World and, by extension of Iranian influence in Afghanistan, also connects East Asia. In terms of threats to global security the wider region of CIS has the most importance as it separates EU and PRC, connects to the Middle East (West Asia) and by extension of South Asian influence into Afghanistan connects to South Asia and its influence hub of India.

In 2025 the three most known of these conflicts will almost definitely end and the shift in global security focus may cause at least an easing in the other two mentioned here. Of all of these, the hardest to achieve long-term resolution in, is the conflict in Ukraine. The two adjacent macro regions are both de-facto claiming the region as their own and this is resulting in the stalling of the peace (or at least the ceasefire) process.

For a while now the scenario of partionioning of Ukraine has been discussed and even predicted, with Western Ukraine joining the EU and the bulk of the country joining CIS. However given the massive loss of life in the conflict this scenario does not appear to be a stable one in the long term. The alternative scenario of setting up a sizable contingent transitional zone of neo-Grand Duchy of Lithuania also does not appear to be feasible with modern Lithuania being in EU and NATO and Belarus being in the Union state with RF.

On top of that from a historical perspective such a formation would be strong enough to compete for influence with both the EU and the CIS and would eventually likely join one of the two. If it joins the EU (as seems more likely than the other scenario) then it would alter the global balance of forces and potentially lead to disintegration of CIS and loss of the region (if not its member states). Certainly as a former Soviet citizen I adamantly oppose such a scenario (and on a basic level support the reunification of the USSR, though as mentioned above that has become all but impossible, especially in the long term).

Hence, keeping in mind the importance of transitional zones in preventing armed conflicts and possibly hostilities, the solution of a fully neutral Ukraine that respects the status of Russian culture and language, while being open to EU influence appears to be a superior option to the option of its partitioning.

Thus, likely through divine providence, the argument stated here nearly a year ago still appears to hold. A Ukraine that forbids any Nazi tendencies (even if they are superficial in nature), is willing to integrate economically into CIS (due to its geographical protrusion into the CIS zone of influence), more so than with EU may be the best option out of the armed conflict. Yet at the same time, just as Switzerland, Ukraine has the right to be properly armed and prepared to repel invasion from any side. May God help the involved parties in the most expedient resolution of this most deadly armed conflict.