It's a mistake to focus on Ukraine as the core of the conflict. Geopolitical outcome of the war is far more relevant. We're seeing much of the world turning away from the west now, and BRICS is already a larger economy than the G7. The trend will be for western economic bloc to shrink and for BRICS to grow. This will cause a deep economic crisis in the west, and I'd argue we're already seeing the start of it happening. Current political system in the west is already unstable, and I don't think it will survive the crisis.
Meanwhile, Russia doesn't have to take all of Ukraine. An alternative scenario to consider is that Russia takes the territory that's largely populated by Russian speakers where there will be little support for any kind of insurgency. They will likely cut off remaining rump state of Ukraine from the sea by going through Odessa and connecting to Transnistria.
The remaining territory of Ukraine will be cut off from most of the industrial and agricultural areas, and it's populated by hardcore nationalists who will be very bitter with the west abandoning them. If the west allows western Ukraine fail then Europe will be faced with a flood of refugees feeding further into the current economic crisis. However, continuing propping western Ukraine up will become an economic black hole for the west.
That makes sense. But wouldn't leaving the rump state invite the fascists back into power? Does the gained territory really offer much of a buffer for Russia if what's left of Ukraine keeps getting funded by the West to agitate the region?
The rump state is not going to be very easy for Russia to destabilize, and eventually Russia will likely end up with a puppet regime there. There's already precedent for this in Chechnya right now. Meanwhile, the buffer Russia gains comes from the fact that whatever is left of Ukraine will not be able to join NATO. Whatever is left of Ukraine will be demilitarized going forward.
It's a mistake to focus on Ukraine as the core of the conflict. Geopolitical outcome of the war is far more relevant. We're seeing much of the world turning away from the west now, and BRICS is already a larger economy than the G7. The trend will be for western economic bloc to shrink and for BRICS to grow. This will cause a deep economic crisis in the west, and I'd argue we're already seeing the start of it happening. Current political system in the west is already unstable, and I don't think it will survive the crisis.
Meanwhile, Russia doesn't have to take all of Ukraine. An alternative scenario to consider is that Russia takes the territory that's largely populated by Russian speakers where there will be little support for any kind of insurgency. They will likely cut off remaining rump state of Ukraine from the sea by going through Odessa and connecting to Transnistria.
The remaining territory of Ukraine will be cut off from most of the industrial and agricultural areas, and it's populated by hardcore nationalists who will be very bitter with the west abandoning them. If the west allows western Ukraine fail then Europe will be faced with a flood of refugees feeding further into the current economic crisis. However, continuing propping western Ukraine up will become an economic black hole for the west.
That makes sense. But wouldn't leaving the rump state invite the fascists back into power? Does the gained territory really offer much of a buffer for Russia if what's left of Ukraine keeps getting funded by the West to agitate the region?
The rump state is not going to be very easy for Russia to destabilize, and eventually Russia will likely end up with a puppet regime there. There's already precedent for this in Chechnya right now. Meanwhile, the buffer Russia gains comes from the fact that whatever is left of Ukraine will not be able to join NATO. Whatever is left of Ukraine will be demilitarized going forward.
Again, makes sense.