Oh, I didn’t even think of that. You’re right, they’ll probably blame Ukraine for “fumbling” what should’ve been an “easy victory” They’ll be demoted back to “Asiatic horde” status soon enough I suppose.
It’s going to be interesting to see what happens once it starts sinking in for the Ukrainians that they’re going to be discarded like a used condom by the west.
The amount of weapons shipped to Ukraine that went “missing” only to appear in the hands of various fascist groups throughout Europe is a pretty major clue as to what will happen next.
Will it start, though? Look at Russian liberals. Still hasn’t clicked. Most are still blaming our issues on “Sovoks” in government and believe Putin is building USSR 2.0
I think there’s going to be a profound psychological impact once it becomes clear that Ukraine isn’t going to win the war because the west abandoned them. There’s also going to be political motivation for whoever is in charge to cultivate this view since blaming the failure of the west to provide support will increasingly be the excuse from the regime. We’re already seeing the start of that with Zaluzhny blaming the failure of the offensive on lack of F16s and air defence.
It’s important to recall that the reason Ukraine decided to renege on the peace deal in March was because the west said they would back them to the end whatever it takes. Ukrainians bought into the whole mythology that the west has unlimited resources, and can just give them whatever they need indefinitely.
Now the tap is running dry, and I think Ukrainians are going to interpret it as the west not wanting to give them what they need as opposed to genuinely not being able to. It’s impossible for them to believe that Russia could possibly outproduce the west and defeat western weapons on the battlefield. This goes against the whole narrative of western superiority.
There’s also going to be political motivation for whoever is in charge to cultivate this view since blaming the failure of the west to provide support will increasingly be the excuse from the regime. We’re already seeing the start of that with Zaluzhny blaming the failure of the offensive on lack of F16s and air defence.
Thing is, this type of “stab in the back” narrative would still require an unhealthy amount of nationalism (think British “lions led by donkeys” shite from WW1), and this will inevitably clash with the annexation (can’t think of a different term at the moment) of Crimea, DNR, Zaporozhye, etc.
And frankly it won’t undo the damage already done by weapons and infrastructure destruction, nor will it help bring socialism to the region
Cynically speaking, the best option for Russia will be to annex friendly and neutral areas in the east, and then leave a dysfunctional rump state in the west which will ultimately become a problem for NATO. It won’t be able to function on its own, and it will be resentful of the west. However, they’re not going to be able to let it collapse entirely either as it would create a huge immigrant crisis in the west. So, it’s just going to be an economic black hole they’re going to have to keep throwing money into at the time their own economies are being eroded.
I don’t think there’s much hope of bringing socialism to the region or even to Russia in the near future, but breaking western hegemony over the world will at least create the conditions for socialism in the future.
I disagree. Any remaining rump Ukraine will be militarized to the teeth by NATO and turned into one large base from which to continue to threaten Russia in the future. It will continue to be propped up financially by the EU like the Baltics (and to some extent like Poland which due to its role as the US’ number one lackey in Eastern Europe has been heavily invested in) which without EU help would be equally dysfunctional and economically unviable as a rump Ukraine would, but are too important as a forward base against Russia. The only solutions for Ukraine are either full annexation or installation of a Russian controlled government protected by Russian forces, followed by thorough denazification and re-education over the next few decades, even if it will be uncomfortable for Russia at first. People like to say that Russia could not, would not and should not try to occupy western Ukraine, but i disagree, the Soviets managed to pacify the region eventually and it was at least as Nazified after WWII as it is today, there is no reason why Russia wouldn’t be able to suppress the terrorism and insurrection there if it really wanted to, much like they have in Chechnya. In fact it is more likely that terrorist attacks on Russian territory and Russian civilians will continue if they do not go all the way. For their own safety Russia must finish the job.
Whatever is left of Ukraine is going to be highly unstable economically, politically, and socially, so turning it into some sort of a NATO beachhead is going to be a herculean task. It’s worth keeping in mind that the conditions today are very different from what they were back in the 90s when US managed to create puppet regimes in Poland and other former Soviet bloc countries. Today, Europe is in a deep recession and US is likely as well. There is political instability all across the west, and the cost of keeping a rump Ukraine going is going to be a significant burden on top of that. Furthermore, if there is a western Ukraine left than it will be subject to the same terms that Russia demanded before the war. So, militarizing it is not really going to be an option for the west.
I agree that finishing the job is a safer long term option for Russia, but the cost of doing that is going to be significant. It’s going to be interesting to see what the Russian leadership decides to do.
It will indeed be interesting to see what happens. Just to be clear i think the scenario you laid out is more likely to be chosen by the current bourgeois Russian leadership than the one i proposed, which would have been more likely to be chosen if Russia still had a socialist government.
Oh, I didn’t even think of that. You’re right, they’ll probably blame Ukraine for “fumbling” what should’ve been an “easy victory” They’ll be demoted back to “Asiatic horde” status soon enough I suppose.
It’s going to be interesting to see what happens once it starts sinking in for the Ukrainians that they’re going to be discarded like a used condom by the west.
The amount of weapons shipped to Ukraine that went “missing” only to appear in the hands of various fascist groups throughout Europe is a pretty major clue as to what will happen next.
💯
Will it start, though? Look at Russian liberals. Still hasn’t clicked. Most are still blaming our issues on “Sovoks” in government and believe Putin is building USSR 2.0
I think there’s going to be a profound psychological impact once it becomes clear that Ukraine isn’t going to win the war because the west abandoned them. There’s also going to be political motivation for whoever is in charge to cultivate this view since blaming the failure of the west to provide support will increasingly be the excuse from the regime. We’re already seeing the start of that with Zaluzhny blaming the failure of the offensive on lack of F16s and air defence.
It’s important to recall that the reason Ukraine decided to renege on the peace deal in March was because the west said they would back them to the end whatever it takes. Ukrainians bought into the whole mythology that the west has unlimited resources, and can just give them whatever they need indefinitely.
Now the tap is running dry, and I think Ukrainians are going to interpret it as the west not wanting to give them what they need as opposed to genuinely not being able to. It’s impossible for them to believe that Russia could possibly outproduce the west and defeat western weapons on the battlefield. This goes against the whole narrative of western superiority.
Thing is, this type of “stab in the back” narrative would still require an unhealthy amount of nationalism (think British “lions led by donkeys” shite from WW1), and this will inevitably clash with the annexation (can’t think of a different term at the moment) of Crimea, DNR, Zaporozhye, etc.
And frankly it won’t undo the damage already done by weapons and infrastructure destruction, nor will it help bring socialism to the region
Cynically speaking, the best option for Russia will be to annex friendly and neutral areas in the east, and then leave a dysfunctional rump state in the west which will ultimately become a problem for NATO. It won’t be able to function on its own, and it will be resentful of the west. However, they’re not going to be able to let it collapse entirely either as it would create a huge immigrant crisis in the west. So, it’s just going to be an economic black hole they’re going to have to keep throwing money into at the time their own economies are being eroded.
I don’t think there’s much hope of bringing socialism to the region or even to Russia in the near future, but breaking western hegemony over the world will at least create the conditions for socialism in the future.
I disagree. Any remaining rump Ukraine will be militarized to the teeth by NATO and turned into one large base from which to continue to threaten Russia in the future. It will continue to be propped up financially by the EU like the Baltics (and to some extent like Poland which due to its role as the US’ number one lackey in Eastern Europe has been heavily invested in) which without EU help would be equally dysfunctional and economically unviable as a rump Ukraine would, but are too important as a forward base against Russia. The only solutions for Ukraine are either full annexation or installation of a Russian controlled government protected by Russian forces, followed by thorough denazification and re-education over the next few decades, even if it will be uncomfortable for Russia at first. People like to say that Russia could not, would not and should not try to occupy western Ukraine, but i disagree, the Soviets managed to pacify the region eventually and it was at least as Nazified after WWII as it is today, there is no reason why Russia wouldn’t be able to suppress the terrorism and insurrection there if it really wanted to, much like they have in Chechnya. In fact it is more likely that terrorist attacks on Russian territory and Russian civilians will continue if they do not go all the way. For their own safety Russia must finish the job.
Whatever is left of Ukraine is going to be highly unstable economically, politically, and socially, so turning it into some sort of a NATO beachhead is going to be a herculean task. It’s worth keeping in mind that the conditions today are very different from what they were back in the 90s when US managed to create puppet regimes in Poland and other former Soviet bloc countries. Today, Europe is in a deep recession and US is likely as well. There is political instability all across the west, and the cost of keeping a rump Ukraine going is going to be a significant burden on top of that. Furthermore, if there is a western Ukraine left than it will be subject to the same terms that Russia demanded before the war. So, militarizing it is not really going to be an option for the west.
I agree that finishing the job is a safer long term option for Russia, but the cost of doing that is going to be significant. It’s going to be interesting to see what the Russian leadership decides to do.
It will indeed be interesting to see what happens. Just to be clear i think the scenario you laid out is more likely to be chosen by the current bourgeois Russian leadership than the one i proposed, which would have been more likely to be chosen if Russia still had a socialist government.
Sounds like you work for Putin to be honest.