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.
I can assure you that nobody gives a shit about your feels one way or the other. I’m just stating a basic observation about your intellectual capacity, or lack of there of as the case may be.
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.
Yeah, I think so as well.
Sounds like you work for Putin to be honest.
Sounds like you are an idiot to be honest.
Ouch. What a scorcher! My feels!
I can assure you that nobody gives a shit about your feels one way or the other. I’m just stating a basic observation about your intellectual capacity, or lack of there of as the case may be.
Ouch. Owwwy. Pleeeeeese stop. Now you use big words to hurt my feels.