I know no one here is part of the Russian government, so I’m not expecting concrete answers here.
What I’m asking is simply what will happen if [well, when, at this point] The Ukraine ends up…falling, per se?
That’s a question in of itself really. Will Ukraine fight until the AFU collapses? Will there be a coup? Would a pro russian or neutral ukraine be established across all of what is currently the Ukraine, or will there be an attempt to make a “taiwan-ified” state in the west?
The AFU collapsing seems like the more probable scenario because the extreme right wing is the main political force in Ukraine right now. So, even if Zelensky were removed, it’s almost certain he’d be replaced by somebody who’d continue the war. The nationalist battalions being broken will end the war, however.
The most likely scenario, in my opinion, is that Russia will run referendums in all the oblasts that are pro-Russian or neutral and absorb them. Then, they’re going to leave a rump western Ukraine that’s not going to be viable as a problem for the west to deal with. It’s going to be a huge economic burden on Europe because if it’s allowed to fail, that will result in a massive refugee crisis at a time when the European economy is hanging by a thread. And the alternative is to keep pouring money in to prop it up, making it an economic black hole. It’s also possible that Poland, Hungary, and Romania decide to carve up what’s left of Ukraine.
i had an incredible laugh at the thought of orban trying to reclaim karpatalja from ukraine and the ragged AFU left to the rump state just rolls over hungary in about 9 hours and annexes it.
lol I recall one of the azov leaders was actually saying that they should split the AFU in two and attack Europe for betraying them a while back, I kid you not
yeah but they could actually take hungary, for real
lol yeah
Was trying to think of a historical precedent for an Ukrainian occupation of Hungary and I don’t think there is one. That might be a new one in the chapters of the War Peninsula.
only under the aegis of the russian empire (1848, brief, partial) and later the soviet union (temporary until communist hungary formed)
that is, ethnic ukrainians were involved in occupation of hungary.
Thank you, I was trying to think of anything earlier but yeah that seems to be it.
i guess if you count the mongol occupation (again, brief), there may have been some ukrainians in that army too :D mongols swept up anyone willing to fight alongside them as they went, i think.
deleted by creator
“join us or die”
I agree with most points but I don’t think allowing a West Ukrainian rump state to still join the EU and NATO is a palatable settlement for Russia. If this state was left to its own devices it’d just be waiting for a second war.
I think the best-case scenario for Russia would be to negotiate a joint appointed government for the western half for a few years before allowing elections. That’d take a total victory to be able to demand, so a more likely middle ground is a permanent ceasefire that would provide justification to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO with the “can’t join while at war” article.
I think it’d take a major colapse European Union core states for Russia to ever be able to demilitarise that border safely.
Oh yeah I agree, NATO is absolutely off the table and likely EU membership as well at this point given that EU is becoming more of a military alliance at this point. I also wouldn’t rule out total victory, once the AFU starts collapsing then there’s really not going to be any way to reverse that. At that point, Russia can dictate whatever terms it wants. I really can’t imagine Russia settling for any sort of a ceasefire, they’re going to finish this decisively.
I also don’t really see the EU being able to do much here. They can pump money into Ukraine, but they can’t solve the manpower problem or provide ammunition in volumes that would remotely make a difference. The US is needed to keep the war going, and even the US industry isn’t keeping up anymore now that the existing stocks have run down.
The collapse of the EU core states shouldn’t be ruled out either given how things are going in UK, Germany, and France right now. I actually wrote about this in some detail recently. https://dialecticaldispatches.substack.com/p/the-terminal-crisis-of-european-neoliberalism
Could you see Belarus taking some parts of northern Ukraine in that last scenario?
I mean Belarus and Russia form a union state now, so I don’t know if the distinction would be meaningful here.
Honestly i don’t know. But at this moment a negotiated solution seems farther away than ever. Which means that it will have to be fought to its inevitable conclusion. What that will look like depends on how much longer the Ukrainians are willing to allow themselves to be sacrificed by the Nazi junta in Kiev and the deranged dictator Zelensky. The longer it goes on the more territory Russia will take. And I’m not just talking about the four new Russian regions. Those are already non-negotiable.
As far as what happens in Ukraine, nothing is off the table right now. There may be a coup at some point or they might just fight until the AFU completely collapses. That depends entirely on how successfully the Zelensky clique can suppress the internal opposition. Mind you, whoever ends up in power after a coup would still be a fascist, because there are only fascists left in Ukraine who have the influence and power to do it. It’s a lot of fash on fash infighting there at the moment.
At some point the West (specifically the Europeans) may become so desperate that they try to insert troops into Ukraine to keep a rump NATO aligned state alive, but the Russians have already said they will not tolerate that and will just strike any foreign troops on Ukrainian soil. At the moment the Russians seem confident and determined that they will get what they want one way or another. The only kind of government that Russia will tolerate on Ukrainian soil is one that is not hostile to Russia.
The only question is whether any Ukrainian state survives at all. There are hardliners in Russia that consider it safer to just do away with the whole thing, but the moderate (and i would say almost pathologically liberal) faction currently dominant in the Kremlin doesn’t want that. They want to keep some form of Ukrainian state because it’s easier for Russia that way. Just so long as it’s not NATO aligned. I can certainly understand that viewpoint. But things can always change…
Long story short, i personally rate the likelihood of a Korean scenario very low right now. That would require a stalemate, but despite what the western media likes to claim, there just isn’t one at the moment. In fact the longer this goes on the weaker Ukraine gets and the stronger the Russians become. The rate of disintegration of the AFU will accelerate and with it the pace of the Russian advance. We are already seeing this. They just don’t have the reserves anymore to put out every fire at once.
The most interesting scenario, the implications of which I haven’t really seen discussed much, is that Russia absorbs everything aside from a rump western Ukraine where anti-Russian sentiment is the strongest. That would become Europe’s problem, and since it wouldn’t be a viable state economically, that would mean Europe having to dump billions into propping it up. If Europe allows it to collapse then there will be a refugee crisis compounding the current economic disaster.
From Russian perspective, Ukraine isn’t the root problem, it’s just a tool that NATO is using to fight them. So, their goal has to be to neutralize NATO as a threat. Putting stress on the economy in Europe seems like the logical way to go about it. We’re already seeing a huge political crisis unfolding with the neoliberal centre collapsing, and that’s creating political opportunities for Russia to exploit. I’m sure I thought of this, it must’ve been gamed by Russian planners as well.
deleted by creator
I think the most likely scenario is that Ukraine will be partitioned between Russia and the EU, with a large neutral/demilitarized zone in between.
Russia doesn’t want anything to do with Western Ukraine. In fact, allowing a fascist Ukrainian rump state to (try to) join the EU would be a great destabilizing force for NATO.
Will Ukraine fight until the AFU collapses?
Most likely.
Will there be a coup?
Like, a pro-Russian one? Most unlikely.
Would a pro russian or neutral ukraine be established across all of what is currently the Ukraine, or will there be an attempt to make a “taiwan-ified” state in the west?
Strategically speaking, Russia needs the most industrialized regions and the entire shoreline. Demilitarization of the rest too. Which way what remains of “independent” Ukraine leans doesn’t matter a lot at that point, only that it remains. But it might be better for Russia, if it’s westward, so that Russia doesn’t have to rebuild at least that. Neutral status on paper though.
Which way what remains of “independent” Ukraine leans doesn’t matter a lot at that point, only that it remains.
I should clarify. That’s because the Russian government is clearly trying to do it “right”. SMO isn’t breaking international law, which is why there aren’t any sanctions, like, UN ones, only unilateral restrictions from individual countries(which are, ironically, illegal). Annexation of Ukraine wasn’t in the declared goals at any point. And leaving it be, albeit demilitarized, would be the final nail in the coffin of already ridiculous genocide allegations. Good for propaganda in a different way too. Independent Ukraine is yet another entity people in the West that have a good idea of what’s going on can point at as an example of NATO using up it’s supposes allies and leaving them the worse for wear, whereas annexing the entire thing just adds to the rUsSiAn ImPeRiAlIsT cOnQuErErS narrative, even if Ukraine asks for it till the end.
Wait, can you tell me more about how the SMO isn’t breaking international law? That seems interesting.
Article 51 of the UN charter allows for collective self-defense. Russia invoked this article when they accepted the call for aid from the Donbass republics in 2022. The Donbass republics were clearly under attack by the Kiev regime. Also the right of the Donbass to declare independence (and Russia to recognize them, thus legalizing collective self-defense) is enshrined in the UN charter as the right of peoples to self-determination.
Russia used the exact same legal argument that NATO used to break off Kosovo from Serbia. The difference being that NATO was lying about Serbia committing genocide which invalidates their entire argument, and Russia wasn’t lying about Ukraine’s ethnic cleansing intentions in the Donbass, we have Ukrainian politicians, military leaders, and nationalist media figures on record admitting to this.
(Also there was never a referendum in Kosovo to legitimize their independence like there was in the Donbass; the self-appointed “government” there simply declared it and then ethnically cleansed the Serb population…but that is a story for another day.)
What would you suggest reading to learn more about the Serbian conflict for a nuanced understanding?
To start with, Michael Parenti’s “To Kill A Nation: The Attack on Yugoslavia”. The NATO attack on Serbia is downstream of the deliberate destruction of Yugoslavia by the West.
Thank you
If I read Article 51 correctly, in this part: “[…] if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations […]” it could be argued that the Donbass republics were/are not members of the UN.
Or do i misunderstand something?
And right before that it says “nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense”.
Articles 3 and 4 of the “Treaties of Friendship and Cooperation and Mutual Assistance” which Russia signed with the DPR and LPR, and which the State Duma ratified when it recognized their independence on February 22nd, enshrine a commitment to mutual defence. These are essentially articles which function as NATO’s commitment to treat an attack upon one member as an attack upon all.
Russia is a UN member and its right to collective self-defense applies. But UN member or not, states have the right to defend themselves and to ask for protection. Remember the “responsibility to protect” rhetoric that NATO used in Yugoslavia? Why would Russia not have that responsibility towards the people of the Donbass? The main point here, which the West always tries to obscure, is that the Donbass Republics were under attack and their people were facing an existential threat.
Thank you for the answer. I have regular discussions with a friend and he still has the opinion “russia bad”. In my country the media never gets tired to speak and write of the “russias illegal aggression war”. This exact wording is in every article and interview it’s obvious something is wrong.
It’s the same with “islamist terror organization Hamas” in every article, always the same words.
Yup. Whenever they keep repeating the same phrase over and over again, you know they are trying to turn a lie into “truth” by pure repetition.
The most obvious is when they speak about an “unprovoked full-scale invasion”. The reason they have to keep repeating that over and over again is because the reality is the exact opposite.
There has never been a conflict more provoked than this one, and even the West’s own strategy papers, those that are mainly meant for internal consumption, admit they were provoking Russia. It’s only the public facing mainstream media, that which is designed to brainwash the public and manufacture consent, which still pretends otherwise.
It is also extremely obvious that the qualifier “full-scale” is just meant to trigger an emotional response. It’s purely arbitrary. Objectively speaking it means nothing. Is Russia using its full force? No. If it was, Kiev would look like Gaza.
Is there such a thing as “just a little invasion”? Also no. Even though the West also likes to pretend that there is such a thing whenever they talk of “limited strikes” against the targets of their aggression, like when they bombed Syria, or when they recently bombed Iran.
And the most dystopian fact about all of this is how much literally all the media in the West are in lockstep on this. They literally all use the same language and the same phrases, almost as if there is a co-ordinated campaign (which there is) and the talking points are being fed by the state to all the outlets (which they are). No deviation from this line is tolerated.
This is what was known in Nazi Germany as “Gleichgeschaltete Medien”, media in total lockstep with the state.
Seconded
How sure are we that Russia’s SMO isn’t violating international law? This caught my eye, because this would be an chef’s kiss talking point against the Russophobic liberals if it were true, but unfortunately all the evidence I could find didn’t point in that direction.
A UN general assembly voted 141-5 (35 abstentions) to demand Russia withdraw all military forces. As well as the ICJ ordering Russia to “immediately suspend” military operations in Ukraine.
The lack of UN sanctions on Russia is because Russia has veto power in the UNSC and has exercised it, so theoretically any of the 5 permanent members can commit crimes without being sanctioned as long as they use their veto power. Note that while the general assembly has condemned it, their actions are generally not legally binding. A better example is the general assembly of US ongoing blockade of Cuba, but nothing happens because US veto power on the UNSC.
As for the unilateral sanctions, there is ongoing debate over whether those are illegal, with some bodies like the Hague claiming they are illegal, as they bypass the UNSC, but there’s obviously the issue of one of the UNSC members themselves committing the initial crime unilaterally and vetoing resulting sanctions.
All of this to say that NATO of course is the ultimate evil in this tragic scenario, but I don’t think you could objectively say that the Russian SMO is within international law, even if it’s hand was illegally forced by NATO. If the point can be argued, however, then I’d be very curious to learn! Because that would be an excellent talking point against Russophobic liberals. ___
Unilateral sanctions are definitely illegal.
As for the General Assembly voting to condemn Russia, they did so under extreme pressure from the West in 2022. The same goes for rulings by international institutions like the ICJ. All are vulnerable to threats, blackmail, political and media pressure. More recent UN votes have actually swung in favor of Russia. The global south is clearly on Russia’s side.
The fact remains that Russia’s intervention is legal according to article 51 of the UN charter pertaining to collective self-defense. Russia invoked this article when they accepted the call for aid from the newly recognized Donbass republics in 2022, which had the right to secede according to the internationally enshrined right of all people to self-determination, and which were clearly under attack by Ukrainian forces.
This is one-to-one NATO’s Kosovo playbook, except it was actually legitimate this time and not backed by false claims. The West calling Russia’s intervention illegal is tantamount to calling their own actions in Serbia illegal. The global south can see the hypocrisy.
Upvoted :)
So yeah i totally agree with your angle here. So my reasoning to strictly adhering to international law is because, in a perfect world, a country which violates it is punished. And because the US commits the overwhelming majority of the war crimes, it would face the most sanctions under such a system. Feel free to let me know if you disagree, I am far from an expert on this conflict so I’m not gonna pretend to be :)
It’s the good old point about the West having “rules for thee…”. I just surprised you with the angle, I guess.
I see what you are saying about the five untouchables, but cases against them happened. Just as political statements, with no hope of result. No one even tried sanctions this time though.
ICJ case was a circus on three levels: Ukraine literally did a strawman by claiming that Russia justifies the invasion with Genocide Convention, when Russia openly invoked article 51 of the UN charter; the ruling had little to nothing to do with the application; was unintentional self-trolling by the US diplomats that no doubt worked on the case, because… I’ll save it for Christmas.
As for the unilateral sanctions, there is ongoing debate over whether those are illegal, with some bodies like the Hague claiming they are illegal, as they bypass the UNSC, but there’s obviously the issue of one of the UNSC members themselves committing the initial crime unilaterally and vetoing resulting sanctions.
That is…not at all how law works. Mob justice is a criminal offence in most countries. Probably in all countries.
I’m not saying Russia had UN mandate to invade. What I am saying is that Russia made all the moves and got diametrically opposed results to those of NATO. Russia recognised LPR and DPR, signed agreements with them, even the blind OSCE monkeys in Donbass registered hundreds of ceasefire violations by Ukraine and only about two weeks later Putin came out with his stand up bit.
Which brings me to Christmas. The UN didn’t sanction Yugoslavia bombings. But ICJ ruled they were humanitarian intervention. Under what? Under Genocide Convention.
Need I remind that Milošević was aquited by Hague tribunal after death?Neither spirit nor the letter are broken. Rulings of an organization headquartered in NYC that can’t give a straight answer when asked about the US blatantly stealing oil in Syria are another matter.
So no new talking points for you, comrade) Not really. Just another angle to ridicule the so called rules based order.
Upvoted :)
I get what you’re saying! My approach to this is to carefully craft the narrative so that it can not be used to excuse the war crimes committed by the West. So for example I think BRICS should unilaterally impose sanctions on the US for its war crimes, and I don’t think that should be illegal for this to happen. Even if it means once in a while the US can sanction and isolate itself more on the world stage, whatever.
So the reasoning is, if we say the sanctions on Russia are unilateral and therefore illegal, then wouldn’t we also have to concede that the US can commit a crime and not be subject to unilateral sanctions from China / Russia because the UNSC does not vote in favor of it (bc of US veto)? Adhering to this narrative also benefits in the long term, because the US commits many more crimes than Russia / China and therefore would be subject to the most sanctions under this reasoning.
What are your thoughts on this? Also a disclaimer but I do admit ignorance on the Russo Ukraine conflict so I’m not going to pretend to be an authority here.
(And yeah, sounds like the UN is compromised. I totally agree there.)
My thoughts are that international law is such a mess now that it doesn’t matter at all any more. It was selectively disregarded for years by the West, Russia, China and some others have been proving both that it doesn’t work as written and that precedents set by the West somehow don’t apply to others, and now all we’re waiting for is complete breakdown.
I don’t know if the UN goes the way of the League of Nations as a result of WWIII or if this breakdown takes some other form, but I also think it’s too soon to be developing the next system. The current patient formally isn’t six feet under yet and formalities matter with law.
I think it’s looking like it’ll be the last or second-to-last season of Blowback, and if we’re alive by then it’s going to be a real banger.
Russia should advance the front until they cut off Ukraine entirely from the Black Sea. That should ensure Ukraine becomes bigger, shittier Kosovo.
Once there, Russia should also join up with Transnistria (like how they already border Abkhazia and South Ossetia) to prevent Moldova from invading it at NATO’s orders.
I expect that’s very likely the plan. Once Zaporozhye falls, I expect Odessa will be next and from there there’s a straight path to Transnistria. Russia is likely planning to exhaust the AFU in the north first, and take Krasnoarmeysk (Pokrovsk) which will cut the logistics between the north and the south.
Capitulation of the Ukrainian state as soon as it is clear that they can no longer hold ground and their lines are about to utterly collapse.
Then, annexation of Donetsk and Luhansk and Zaporizhia oblasts (and maybe Kherson), a Russian client state across the rest of the country, and an insurgency within it that lasts decades and continues to receive weapons from NATO via the Polish and Romanian borders. It doesn’t matter that much how the insurgency ends, it will be extremely bloody and blow back into Europe amd perhaps all over the world.
I’m getting to the point where I don’t see an end to the war until after usa and China have exchanged nukes. The Treaty of Versailles will look like minor changes to geopolitical landscape by the time there is peace in Ukraine.
I hope for the best - integration of russian-speaking eastern Ukraine and creation of independent Union State member in western
