In Trump’s Truth Social post following his phone call with Putin last Monday, the U.S. President wrote the “tone and spirit of the conversation were excellent.” Putin also voiced guarded optimism, adding the call was, “very meaningful.” Words aside, the realities on the ground do not indicate peace is any closer today than before the […]
At this point I pretty strongly believe that total collapse and occupation by Russia would be far and away the best outcome for most Ukrainians
Its the best outcome for the world too, we don’t need a western rump Ukraine for the EU/US to pump full of weapons and create a flashpoint
Ok but what if rump Ukrainian state backed by EU/US that turns on the EU/US?
Blowback Season 7 hell yeah
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Not exactly sure about that, there’s going to be a substantial insurgency either way.
Yeah, either way. The best outcome for Ukraine would’ve been to tell the west to kick rocks in like 2013, not done ethnic cleansing, and not gotten into this situation in the first place.
But now the best outcome is anything that ends the war with the least amount of control by the United States.
There will definitely be an insurgency but I’m not sure it’s going to be as powerful as many think. With the losses Ukraine has suffered, there won’t be a huge reserve of people willing and able to carry it out, similar to how there was very little Nazi insurgent activity after the end of the war because most of the true believers with military experience had been killed by that point. This is probably an additional reason as to why Russia is carrying out its attritional strategy, as it partially defangs the inevitable insurgency. But I suppose the counter to my argument is that a Ukrainian insurgency would almost certainly have Western intelligence backing, whereas the Nazi’s Werwolf was an anemic project from the outset with no outside backing.
That and all the skilled nazis got hired by the us and nato for reasons. When the nazis stayed in power in lots of places there was not a practical need for them to have an insurgency in that way.
Good point, I definitely overlooked that. I also forgot to mention for comparison that one of the reasons why the Iraqi insurgency was so strong was because the Iraqi military wasn’t destroyed (at least manpower-wise) in the US invasion, which allowed huge swathes of Iraqi soldiers to become insurgents.
I have to remember to think about it myself. That lifetime of propaganda sits in sometimes.
In the west, which I doubt russia will occupy. Central and Eastern Ukraine will be no issue.
You strongly believe Russia should occupy the parts of Ukraine that are majority Ukrainian? Why?
This is a country that was already not wealthy to begin with, which will have to deal with the devastation caused by the war, with the remains of a military increasingly run by card-carrying neo nazis and with having lost an entire generation of men. And if that wasn’t enough, Ukraine has already agreed to let Western capital loot the country and strip it for parts the second the war is over, like the extortion deal they signed with the US. Even if Putin were to sign an unconditional ceasefire tomorrow and retreat from every occupied territory, Ukraine would be absolutely and completely fucked.
Those territories becoming part of Russia would cause its own share of problems, sure, but I can see how Russia would be more capable of rebuilding and maintaining at least a minimum of stability.
Couldn’t have said it better
The Ukrainians built their national identity around worshiping a Nazi-collaborating pogromist. I hardly think Russia could make the place worse.