Well, here’s a rather depressing article: five possible outcomes, and only one good.
-
A negotiated solution
-
A quagmire
-
An escalation
-
Russians overthrow or replace Putin [replaced by hardliners]
-
A stalemate
Sigh.
I would think anyone that overthrew Putin would want to normalize relations with the world as quick as possible and reverse the damage of sanctions as fast as possible. So I don’t buy 4 as more likely than Replace Putin with more reasonable people.
What is the difference between 2 & 5 in this case?
#3 is the scary one. This way lies nuclear exchanges.
I think that Putin being replaced by someone else is most likely, though that covers a whole bunch of different sub-scenarios depending on how he’s replaced (best case, I think, is that a rigged election turns out to not be rigged enough, and he gets voted out). Even if his replacement is someone even worse than him, though, they’ll want to appear nonthreatening, at least at first, and will probably start by blaming the whole mess on Putin and withdrawing. And if they later get up to their own villainy, hopefully this time the world will be better prepared.
I found this article, trying to analsyse different cultural traits in Russia and other countries and their effect on policy decisions. It’s an interesting read, but I don’t have any background in psychologoy/sociology to allow me to assess it. It’s written by a Ukrainian professor, which obviously affects the partialtiy.
Anyone have any insights into the thesis and analysis she uses?
National culture – a roadmap forward or an enternal trap: what the world is dealing with in this war with Russia
I can’t comment on the methodology etc., but her description of the differences between Russian and Western cultural traits jibes well with a lecture I watched by a Finnish, retired reconnaissance officer specializing in Russia.
Chilling and hopeless, summarizes the conclusions.
The OP’s list of outcomes is incomplete. Additional options:
-
complete destruction of Ukrainian cities, with residents either dead or fled and Ukraine functionally ceases to be an independent nation.
-
complete destruction of Ukrainian cities, with all citizens either fled or taken prisoner/killed and removed from the land, to be replaced by immigrants from Russia. This, too, destroys Ukraine as an independent nation.
-
complete destruction of Ukraine, with all citizens either fled or dead, with the land contaminated by either chemical or radiological weapons and therefore uninhabitable for generations by anyone. Think the Chernobyl exclusion zone, but the size of Texas. Yeah, really complete destruction.
If escalation occurs you can add:
- global nuclear war, destruction of modern civilization, billions dead either from the war or subsequent famine.
I get that thinking about such consequences is something a lot of people shy away from but it’s important to keep in mind the stakes here and that even (we hope) unlikely outcomes are possible.
Same as after Trump his followers rushed to return to moderation.
There is every chance that anyone who overthrows Putin will do so on the basis Putin was a wishy washy loser who shamed Russia by failing to ruthlessly crush Ukraine with ease. And who will as a consequence be more extremist and ruthless.
Sadly history suggests nations have to go all the way down the rabbit hole to near total self-destruction before they can arise from the ashes.
Edited to add: I am such a cheery bundle of joy at the moment aren’t I? Overall it’s been a relatively nice Sunday. Had a nice lie in. Weather good. Got some worthwhile work around the yard done this afternoon. Just a shame that the world geopolitical situation is such a downer. Sigh.
I think the endgame was Ukraine would roll over and play dead with a display of power and without much shooting and be part of Russia a month ago in one form or another. But Ukraine didn’t approve the script before Russia started shooting the film. Now Russia is in a new film and thinking WTF are we going to do now.
I’m not sure that its likelihood is predictable, however, as ISTM that it would be completely dependent on who’s waiting in the wings at the right time and place.
Though related to this, I have wondered who, amongst that Putin cabinet meeting, where he reamed out his intelligence chief, is truly for or against Putin.
And what happens when they, too, fail to take Ukraine? That might be a problem if they were right, that Putin is only failing because he’s wishy-washy. Except that we don’t need to buy that propaganda: Putin has been plenty ruthless. The reason Putin is failing is because his military is more rust than steel, and that rust is what any successor of his would have to work with, too.
Russia want access to the Black Sea. Perhaps the attack on Kiev is a distraction, while the objective is to capture the Black Sea from Crimea to Dneiper river. Russians pull out of Kiev with a deal to withdraw to east of the Dneiper and consolodate Crimea.
“East of the Dneiper” is half of Ukraine. That’s an enormous loss of territory. And Crimea, which Russia already has a pretty firm lock on, is just a peninsula jutting out into the sea.
The end game for Europe is to become completely independent of Russian exports and to improve and expand NATO and its ability to defend against Russian aggression.
Whatever Russia wins in Ukraine will cost them dearly for decades to come.
Any negotiated settlement will have an economic dimension that goes far beyond Ukraine. Russia may become the new Iran in terms restricted economic trading opportunities.
This is a new cold war that the global military establishment wants to continue for decades. It will seem never ending.
Thanks for the repost of Russian propaganda by a known conspiracy theorist nutbar.
Your promotion of garbage propaganda is noted.
The article was just a repost of this article in American Conservative:
And yet your first post was a link to a known conspiracy/Russian propaganda site.
This tells me all I need to know.
It’s a total bullshit article written by a nutbar from the Cato Institute, which is essentially a mouthpiece for the libertarian lunatic Charles Koch. Just the hyperbolic language in the article betrays it as a ridiculous propaganda piece, let alone trying to characterize US training of Ukrainian military as “provocation”, or purely defensive Javelin anti-tank missiles as “deadly”. Anyone reading this bullshit would come away with the impression that Ukraine invaded Russia!
Koch Industries, notorious for its environmental violations, is one of the very few American companies still doing a roaring business in Russia after the Ukraine invasion.The only good thing about the notorious Koch brothers is that one of them is now dead.
We are fighting a new Korean War, with Ukrainian proxies, and without taking any of the casualties ourselves (I say as an American). Under those circumstances, territory is liable to be lost.
This war is totally Russia’s fault. There was nothing wrong with NATO letting nations, who very much wanted it, to join our club. That’s the past.
In the future, we can’t expect every month of the war to go as well for Ukraine as this one has.
As explained here, the U.S. seems to have a cynical (keep this going to the last Ukrainian) / optimistic (hope for Putin to be overthrown by liberals) plan that probably will not work:
Putin Misunderstands History. So, Unfortunately, Does the U.S.
After publishing the above, on what not to do, Niall Ferguson must have realized he hadn’t presented a positive program. Here it is:
P.S. I am far from sure of the Ferguson approach. It maybe too defeatist. Or not.
I agree that east of the Dnieper Region is a huge giveaway to Russia, but it would be the most logical place to do a divide of West Ukraine vs East Ukraine.
Not that I’m advocating such a split. But if a split must be done, it’s the most logical geographical boundary.