Even the catastrophic scenario means Ukraine loses lots of territory (Odessa) but is still able to stabilize the front and survive.

“rules-based world order”

  • 小莱卡@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Rules based world order has to be the stupidest dogwhistle ive ever heard for western hegemony.

  • Mzuark@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    I love how they consider Trump being elected to be an apocalyptic outcome. Liberal brainrot strikes again.

    • DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Hey! When he was elected in 2016, I very distinctly remember the world ending! You tankies refuse to learn from history!

  • taiphlosion@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    10 months ago

    Where the fuck do they keep getting this idea that Russia is going to “keep invading other countries”?

    They really do live in an alternate reality

  • alcoholicorn [comrade/them, doe/deer]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    10 months ago

    So what happens in the perfect scenario? Russia gets another Yeltsin in charge who sells off their industries for scrap, like what happened in Ukraine? Navalny or some other fascist gets in charge?

    What’s Russia look like in 10 years?

    What’s Ukraine look like after it’s been immiserated by the fire-sale of it’s state-run industry, schools, ports, and powerplants, predatory loans, war, and is politically locked into the right, having banned all leftwing parties?

    What’s Ukraine look like in 10 years?

  • SpaceDogs@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    10 months ago

    Catastrophic seems incredibly hyperbolic, and this is coming from someone who catastrophizes a lot. They truly believe Russia wants to take over the world, huh? Out of all of these the subpar option seems the best/most realistic. The end of Western support should be added to the subpar section considering the war is the only reason they’re sending “aid,” once the war ends what reason would the West have to stay?

  • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    10 months ago

    If they’re convinced that Russia will invade again if Ukraine is not in EU/NATO, then Russia wouldnt be interested in a peace negotiation in the first place since Russian domestic support for the war is still high and the Ukrainian position is increasingly untenable even with Western support. If the Russian goal is to annex everything up to the Polish border, they wouldn’t stop now when Ukraine is at its weakest.

    It only kind of makes sense if you believe that Russia has lost 9 gorillion men and is about to run out of munitions (any day now, Bellingcat!). Therefore, whoever prepared this chart is fucking delusional either way you slice it.

  • HakFoo@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    10 months ago

    What if the settlement involves a Russian-driven security guarantee?

    Since an obvious read of the war is “Russia wants a sphere of influence”, a sarcastic take on that is “sure, but you have to pay the costs of having one.”

    Then the West starts asking ChatGPT how to translate “Bay of Pigs” into Ukranian, and trying to make their obligation an expensive hassle without actually tripping a treaty.

    • DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      10 months ago

      Don’t you know? Russia is an evil country run by extra evil orks and the most extra evil ork of all is Putin, that’s why Ukraine can’t trust Russia to agree to any security deals, because they would just break them! Probably, I think, maybe. The western media tells me that they will, so that’s good enough for to switch my brain off and stop thinking for myself on this one!