Kyiv Map of Post-Russia Not Only Features New Countries but Also Restores Territories Seized from Others and Sets Up Special Mandates in the North

Paul Goble

            Staunton, May 2 – Most predictions about the future reordering of the space now occupied by the Russian Federation focus only on the appearance of new states to be carved out of what is now the Russian Federation. But Vitaly Kulyk, a Ukrainian futurologist, argues that there are two other kinds of territories that must be taken into consideration.

            The director of Kyiv’s Center for Civil Society Studies has come up with a detailed map showing how he thinks the current Russian space may be divided in the course of a complex civil war after the defeat of Russia in its war with Ukraine and the collapse of the Moscow regime’s control over the country (medium.com/@vitaliikulyk_79175/after-the-victory-first-kyiv-map-of-postrussia-f8aed1093ea).

            Kulyk’s ideas concerning the new states – and he provides detailed maps – resemble those of others. But he makes two points which most other prognosticators don’t. He says it is critically important to restore to neighboring countries territories Moscow has taken from them and to set up special mandate territories in areas with fragile eco systems lest these be destroyed.

            The Ukrainian futurologist acknowledges that most regimes in the anti-Putin coalition oppose changing the external borders of the current Russian Federation, but he and his colleagues have concluded that “some historical justice is necessary with regard to Japan, Kazakhstan, Estonia, Finland and Ukraine.

            In his map, the Kuriles and Sakhalin are to be returned to Japan, Pechora to Estonia, Orenburg to Kazakhstan, certain border areas to Finland, and other border regions to Ukraine. Perhaps even more significant, much of what is now the Arctic region of the Russian Federation is to be placed under a mandate in the form of a global natural patronage system.

            Kulyk’s ideas are only that ideas. But they are important in that they are a clear indication that dividing up the Russian Federation is going to be far more complicated and involve far more violence than almost any of those now talking about this process are prepared to admit. As a result, they are useful even if in the end, they are never fully realized.