Even the catastrophic scenario means Ukraine loses lots of territory (Odessa) but is still able to stabilize the front and survive.
"rules-based world order"
Rules based world order has to be the stupidest dogwhistle ive ever heard for western hegemony.
genocide-based world order
that's akshually called COMMUNISM
Show
I love how they consider Trump being elected to be an apocalyptic outcome. Liberal brainrot strikes again.
Hey! When he was elected in 2016, I very distinctly remember the world ending! You tankies refuse to learn from history!
Where the fuck do they keep getting this idea that Russia is going to "keep invading other countries"?
They really do live in an alternate reality
Their historical geopolitical knowledge is limited to Hitler so any opponent automatically becomes an untrustworthy Nazi who's hell-bent on conquering all of Europe.
Except for actual Hitler, who was a misunderstood smol bean trying to save the rest of Europe from those ontologically evil Russians
They have a caricature of Putin in their minds that they are convinced is real.
NATO-heads love invading countries for flimsy reasins, so they just think everyone else is into that too
So what happens in the perfect scenario? Russia gets another Yeltsin in charge who sells off their industries for scrap, like what happened in Ukraine? Navalny or some other fascist gets in charge?
What's Russia look like in 10 years?
What's Ukraine look like after it's been immiserated by the fire-sale of it's state-run industry, schools, ports, and powerplants, predatory loans, war, and is politically locked into the right, having banned all leftwing parties?
What's Ukraine look like in 10 years?
It is odd how there are more details in the “catastrophic” scenario than the “perfect” one. Like, what does the defeat of Russia truly mean?
I think regardless of the outcome, Ukraine will be the poorest/most exploited country in europe lol.
Moldova was worse, Ukraine was second-worse. It changed something like one month into the war and since then it's getting worse still for almost 2 years.
Ah, ok. I remember Ukraine being both the poorest (I think per capita) and the most corrupt prior to the war, I could easily be wrong though.
I must've heard the two used interchangeably at some point, thanks for letting me know, last thing I want to do is mention Ukraine being the most poor and corrupt country in Europe before the war and have some shitlib go
"umm acktually Moldova was technically the poorest, so I can now safely ignore your entire argument about how the west is fucking over Ukraine?"
Show
Saddled with debt because the United States doesn't give anything away for free.
Maybe? I could imagine a divided Ukraine where Western Ukraine gets the Marshall Plan treatment and Russia supports development of Eastern Ukraine. Then again, maybe capital is so advanced it's no longer capable of even that.
Except there is no chance for Marshall plan, if anything USA is pillaging Germany and rest of EU in revrsed Marshall plan now.
Wasn't Marshall plan a deal to plunder European industry and not let them rebuild themselves, but rather to indent them to USA?
Absolutely, though not to "not let them rebuild" but to rebuild with murican economical, military and political strings attached and control them. It was sowing, now they are reaping.
if this were the 50s, they would do that. i dont think they have the political will (or brain) to do a marshall plan on western ukraine at this point.
It'll be the Marshall plan but in reverse: Ukraine has to rebuild the world out of it's own pocket as thanks for all the help.
If they're convinced that Russia will invade again if Ukraine is not in EU/NATO, then Russia wouldnt be interested in a peace negotiation in the first place since Russian domestic support for the war is still high and the Ukrainian position is increasingly untenable even with Western support. If the Russian goal is to annex everything up to the Polish border, they wouldn't stop now when Ukraine is at its weakest.
It only kind of makes sense if you believe that Russia has lost 9 gorillion men and is about to run out of munitions (any day now, Bellingcat!). Therefore, whoever prepared this chart is fucking delusional either way you slice it.
Catastrophic seems incredibly hyperbolic, and this is coming from someone who catastrophizes a lot. They truly believe Russia wants to take over the world, huh? Out of all of these the subpar option seems the best/most realistic. The end of Western support should be added to the subpar section considering the war is the only reason they’re sending “aid,” once the war ends what reason would the West have to stay?
I think the sub par seems likely, although the NATO falls apart bit seems wonderful
What if the settlement involves a Russian-driven security guarantee?
Since an obvious read of the war is "Russia wants a sphere of influence", a sarcastic take on that is "sure, but you have to pay the costs of having one."
Then the West starts asking ChatGPT how to translate "Bay of Pigs" into Ukranian, and trying to make their obligation an expensive hassle without actually tripping a treaty.
Don't you know? Russia is an evil country run by extra evil orks and the most extra evil ork of all is Putin, that's why Ukraine can't trust Russia to agree to any security deals, because they would just break them! Probably, I think, maybe. The western media tells me that they will, so that's good enough for to switch my brain off and stop thinking for myself on this one!
NATO heads live in a bizarre reality
