NOSTALGIA AS STRATEGY ⟩ Russia Reawakens WWII Rhetoric of Spheres of Influence, Aiming to Lay the Groundwork for Dividing Ukraine

Simultaneously, a new flashpoint has emerged alongside the ongoing war in Ukraine—the Gaza Strip has become the scene of even more intense conflict, with the U.S. and U.K. providing air support to Israel. Fighting has now spread to Lebanon as well, prompting repeated announcements of security zones to which civilians are urged to retreat, lest they find themselves caught in a storm of artillery fire.

In Lebanon, a buffer zone maintained by UN peacekeeping forces remains in place. Yet, on September 30th, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu called for their withdrawal to allow Israel to establish a permanent security zone on its own terms—a demand that was ultimately rejected.

Amid these discussions of provisional territorial arrangements and temporary versus permanent security zones, Moscow has curiously resurrected the topic of occupation zones imposed after World War II. This theme was highlighted in a speech by Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov at the UN General Assembly, and a detailed article has since been published titled, "On the Division of Germany and Austria into Zones."

This article is a clear exercise in propaganda, beginning with a critique of British policies and claiming that Winston Churchill was fixated on dismantling Germany—a notion countered by Stalin's push for occupation zones as a more orderly solution. The narrative casts Russia in a favorable light, suggesting that it treated the Germans more justly than its wartime allies. It even alleges that, during his first visit to Moscow in October 1941, British Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden proposed a secret protocol to confirm the Soviet Union’s borders established through its collaboration with Hitler.

Beyond this primary argument, the article also touches on the evolution of Poland’s, Lithuania’s, and other nations' borders during wartime summits between U.S., British, and Soviet leaders. Given its presentation to the Russian Federation's Security Council, the article’s timing appears deliberate, yet it notably omits one key event: Churchill's visit to Moscow from October 9 to 15, 1944, whose 80th anniversary is imminent. To historians, this visit is inseparable from the infamous "percentages agreement," Churchill’s proposal to divide spheres of influence across Eastern Europe.

This analysis may seem unconventional, yet it underscores a broader truth: the maneuverings of great powers in Ukraine and the Gaza-Lebanon theater are a stark reminder that their diplomacy operates on a plane distinct from that of smaller nations seeking to secure their interests. One need only recall how Ukraine, in 1994, surrendered its nuclear arsenal in exchange for guarantees of sovereignty and territorial integrity from the U.S., U.K., and Russia. By 2014, those assurances had proven hollow, with the Western powers side-stepping their commitments and leaving Germany and France to take the lead—only to find themselves outmatched and unable to resist the will of the true global powers shaping Ukraine’s fate.

To better understand the currents of today, we must revisit Putin's dual ultimatums from December 15, 2021—one to the United States, the other to NATO—demanding, among other things, that NATO retreat to its 1997 borders. In essence, Russia's current aggression in Ukraine is but a continuation of an eternal struggle for conquest and spheres of influence.

A pivotal moment in this struggle took place on October 9, 1944, within the walls of the Kremlin. Amid discussions on the Eastern Front's military operations, Churchill, in a move both bold and startling, jotted down a proposal on a piece of paper and slid it across the table to Stalin. The note detailed a division of influence: "Romania—Russia 90%, others 10%; Greece—Great Britain (in accord with the USA) 90%, Russia 10%; Yugoslavia 50/50; Hungary 50/50; Bulgaria—Russia 75%, others 25%." It was a stark offer to partition Europe, which Stalin accepted with a few amendments before returning the paper. When Churchill suggested destroying the note, Stalin advised that they keep it as a record of their accord.

This candid bargain was kept under wraps until Churchill finally revealed it in the closing volume of his memoirs, published in 1953. Privately, he had called it his "naughty document," a term that belied its gravity. Yet, there was little extraordinary in its substance—it was an era defined by the drawing of lines and the demands of war. Indeed, Churchill and Stalin had already embarked on such divisions years earlier, in August 1941, when they jointly moved their forces into Iran, a country they had preemptively carved into zones of influence. The wider partitioning of Central and Eastern Europe was only postponed, as the Soviet advance ultimately left all of Eastern Europe under Moscow's sway for the next half-century.

Today, we find ourselves on the brink of another era of division. The Kremlin continues to assert its territorial claims, while Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu stood at the UN podium on September 27, speaking of Judea and Samaria—known to much of the world as the West Bank—and pointedly referencing Southern Lebanon. As the world awaits a decisive response from the United States on the war in Ukraine, there is a growing sense that this response might prove as vague as it is insufficient. One can only hope that Ukraine's fate will be kinder than that of Finland in March 1940, yet uncertainty reigns.

For now, we must look for clues in the unfolding propaganda battles, where both sides remain masters of unmasking their opponents, skillfully weaving narratives from both past and present. In this contest of wills, history itself becomes a weapon, wielded by those who understand that the struggle for influence is as relentless and unending as the conflicts that have shaped our world.