Ukraine’s current state of long-standing conflict, economic hardship, and division reveals an uncomfortable reality about national sovereignty: some states, given their historical, cultural, and geographic circumstances, may struggle to maintain their independence in the face of intense regional pressures. From a pragmatic perspective, Ukraine’s trajectory in recent years bears striking similarities to the internal divisions the United States faced during its own Civil War. Just as the secessionist aspirations of the Confederacy were ultimately crushed in favor of a single national entity, a similar outcome may be the most stable long-term solution for Ukraine—a unification, or integration, with the Russian Federation.
This argument may seem controversial, but an analysis by the Realist School of Thought suggests that if Ukraine’s internal divisions cannot be bridged, and since its security and economic stability demonstrably cannot be guaranteed by Western alliances, then abandoning its independence may present a viable alternative. Just as the United States emerged after the Civil War as a unified nation that forged a new, strong national identity, Ukraine could find long-term stability by becoming part of the larger Russian Federation. In doing so, it could secure protection, remove the burden of its precarious position on Europe’s eastern border, and address and even eliminate the cultural and regional differences that have persisted for decades. The alternative solution, to divide it into two parts, one annexed by Russia and the other by Europe, is a scenario on the negotiating table, but it may not ensure peace between the Ukrainian state-Europe and Russia.
The Structural Realities of the International System and the Survival of Nations
Realism argues that the international system is anarchic and that states operate within it primarily out of the need for survival. The situation in Ukraine is a typical example: it remains trapped between two powers, the West and Russia, with conflicting interests.
The West wants to economically exploit Ukraine and through orange revolutions (CIA finger) finally installed its own government, the now Dr. Zelensky who promised peace with Russia but brought death and misery to Ukrainian citizens.
On the other hand, Russia desired good neighborly relations and respect for the citizens of Ukraine with Russian roots, but was forced to wage a military invasion to protect their lives and property from a Ukrainian regime that constantly bombed them indiscriminately.
It is therefore obvious that the continued existence of Ukraine as a separate entity remains in considerable doubt. Let us look at a similar case from 1861.
Analyzing the American Civil War, we find a similar structural dilemma. The pre-war United States was divided between a growing industrial North and an agricultural South, which were based on a fundamentally different economic and social model. The South sought secession, seeking to become an independent state more aligned with its interests and values. However, this separation would leave both entities weaker and more vulnerable to foreign influence. The eventual reunification, though forced, demonstrated a pragmatic calculation: a single, unified state would be stronger, better able to defend itself, and better placed to develop economically.
For Ukraine, these same structural forces apply. Its independence makes it vulnerable to pressure and destabilization from the West, while its Western ambitions, implanted by agents of influence and the machinations of Western intelligence services, have so far failed to produce full security guarantees. Realism suggests that where a state cannot independently ensure its survival or effectively join a stabilizing alliance, its survival may depend on its integration with a stronger neighboring power composed essentially of the same race and the same customs and traditions. Just as in the American Civil War, where the protagonists of the conflict belonged to the same racial group, with similar customs and traditions. Their only difference was the economic model of development.
The Prevalence of National Unity and the Prospect of a Unified Identity
During the American Civil War, the United States faced the turmoil of a nation torn apart by contradictions, political divisions, and regional differences. However, after the war ended and reunification was imposed, the United States gradually formed a new national identity, uniting the North and the South. Over time, internal social divisions have largely receded, and today America, as a country, is empowered by a sense of common identity and purpose.
Similarly, Ukraine faces cultural and linguistic divisions that make long-term unification problematic, as the eastern population tends to identify more with Russia, while the western regions seek alliances with Europe. This division leaves Ukraine divided and vulnerable, as internal tensions and external pressures undermine social and political stability.
In this context, a comparison could be made with the case of the United States. Just as the US chose to unite the divided North and South under one flag and forge a new collective identity, Ukraine could potentially reconsider its independence and consider the prospect of unification with Russia. If such integration were achieved, the country could achieve greater stability and security, while a more homogeneous identity could help reduce internal divisions.
Ensuring Security through Strength and Stability
A state’s security depends on its ability to protect itself and deter external threats. Ukraine, however, finds itself in an uncertain situation, precisely because of its geopolitical position and its weak capabilities vis-à-vis a much more powerful neighbor that a few decades ago belonged to the same state as it, the Soviet Union. Ukraine’s reliance solely on Western alliances for its security leaves it exposed to vulnerable strategic risks, as there is no guarantee that these alliances will remain consistent or reliable, especially after Trump’s re-election in America, and thus the change at the helm of NATO.
This security problem is reminiscent of the position of the South during the American Civil War. Just as the South could not survive independently in a hostile environment and eventually joined a stronger, unified American federation, Ukraine could find a more stable place within Russia’s sphere of influence. Integration could bring the much-needed security it cannot provide as an independent state but a puppet of the West.
The Realism of the Compromise Solution
From the Realist perspective, solutions based on humanitarian principles are not always sustainable in the long term, especially when they conflict with the needs of security, economy, and survival. Ukraine’s compromise and acceptance of its entry into the Russian Federation may be the only realistic solution when independence leads to a deadlock, prolonged uncertainty, and a fight to the death for every Ukrainian under the dictates of the hawks of the West.
For Ukraine, integration with Russia could be a practical move, allowing it to achieve stability, security, and development.
Conclusions
Just as the American North and South were unified after the Civil War, Ukraine may choose to unify with Russia, offering a solution to a problem it has faced for decades. If it seeks full independence on terms it cannot secure, it may end up in prolonged instability and insecurity. Could it choose to unify with Europe-West? Of course, but Russia is winning the war and holds territory it will not relinquish. If Europe were to win the war through Ukraine, then we would suggest that Ukraine unify with Europe and not with Russia. The securing of territory by one of the two sides determines which power (West-Russia) Ukraine should be aligned with.
Just as the United States united under a common purpose, Ukraine could find stability and security through unifying cooperation with Russia, drawing lessons from the historical experience of the United States and addressing the challenges of national survival with realism and strategic foresight.
