"Ukraine’s Western Borders Are Unlikely To Change After The Conflict Ends"
I disagree. I'm quite certain that significant forces in Hungary, Poland, and Romania want it, and fully expect it to happen. I'm quite certain that territorial expansion is great for domestic politics, everywhere. A failure to make it happen would be horrible for domestic politics. By the way, do you know that the Trianon Treaty Day is an official day of mourning and remembrance in Hungary?
"They also don’t want to ethnically cleanse them either nor would the US approve of this even if some tried."
What's that supposed to mean, the 'US won't approve' piece? What does the US have to do with it, and why would they disapprove of an ethnic cleansing there, when they have no problem with ethnic cleansing pretty much everywhere else?
"Trump is a businessman who won’t let his country’s nearly $200 billion worth of funding to Ukraine go to waste without at least keeping everything up to the Dnieper under the US’ de facto control"
This is weak, I think. If he is the kind of businessman that is easily overwhelmed by the allure of the sunk costs fallacy and keeps throwing good money after bad, then he's a lousy businessman. Is he a lousy businessman? I have no idea, but it doesn't seem obvious.
There's no credible indication that any serious force in those neighboring countries wants those lands. Few of their co-ethnics still live there, with the exception of Hungary's and Romania's, but even those are minimal and concentrated on a sliver of border territory.
Even if one or some of them made such a move, they'll have to support a new Ukrainian minority or ethnically cleanse them, and there's no credible indication that any serious force in those countries is considering that either.
Regarding Trianon Treaty Day, yeah, of course I know about that. I think you brought it up though not so much to inform me but to inform the audience who you expect to read your post.
To your next point about US approval, there's also no credible indication that any serious force in those countries wants to oppose the US in such a major way, let alone that other serious forces (not even counting the US) would let them actually attempt that.
It doesn't matter that the US doesn't have a moral right to interfere because the world doesn't turn based on what "should" be the case but simply based on what "is", and the US still exerts unipolar hegemony over its European vassals in many ways.
And finally, yet again, there's no credible indication that Trump is considering abandoning Ukraine. To the contrary, he's threatened to impose more sanctions against Russia and secondary ones against its partners if it rejects whatever deal he might offer it.
My impression from your post is that your worldview is based on what you think "should" happen as opposed to what actually "is" happening, and you seem convinced of the US' supposedly irreversible decline and weakness, which I consider to be a huge mistake.
I'm not interested in arguing though, but people like you are going to be deeply disappointed when the conflict ends in a way that shatters your expectations. You're welcome to continue fantasizing though, it's not my problem.
I only wanted to answer your points since they're popular opinions that are held by a lot of "Non-Russian Pro-Russians" (NRPRs) in the Alt-Media Community (AMC). I think they're based on false premises though and associated top influencers are regularly wrong.
That's okay, I am all for pluralism, and I am not trying to convince anyone. Just to present my point of view. Sometimes.
I am familiar, a little bit, with the situation in Hungary. Here's a BBC piece about the new Trianon monument built in 2020 (100-year anniversary of the Trianon).
A huge thing, right in front of the parliament in Budapest (the parliament building here is quite big, and beautiful), with the name of every town, every village they lost in 1920.
The Hungarian government (and Viktor Orban specifically) do support this ареа, Zakarpattia; have been sending a lot of money there since forever. Schools, kindergartens, hospitals, and more. Everyone in Zakarpattia benefits, as there is no way to help just ethnic Hungarians. But also, I suspect, Hungary wants to be nice to everybody in this area, exactly for this kind of situation.
As for the US, I don't see why the US would be against it. I just don't see it. For one thing, it would immediately remove from the US and EU the (presumed) financial burden of "rebuilding" these areas.
I fully agree that the war of attrition was improvised and that the actual plan was copletely different. But many analysts state that the collapse of the Ukrainian military is a possibility due to their losses war of attrition. So I have two questions:
1. What speaks against some kind of 1918 Scenario in case of a collapse of the Ukrainian military (The side which won an unplanned war of attrition dictated terms even without entering German territory)?
2. What could Trump do to escalate in a way that does not harm US interests in an unacceptable way (making Russia Chinas Junior partner, risking a nuclear war or harming the US oil industry through too low prices)?
I do not want to criticize your analysis. I just want to understand your reasoning.
I've been writing for a while about how a Russian military breakthrough, which could occur through a collapse of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, might be countered through American escalation up to the point of brinksmanship.
This could take the form of threatening to authorize a conventional military intervention into Ukraine up to the Dnieper River, the purpose of which would be to serve as a tripwire for greater escalation if this force is attacked not to directly fight Russia.
The whole point would be to reach an understanding with Russia for partitioning Ukraine along the Dnieper. Under no circumstances is the US going to let Russia plant troops along the NATO border.
Whatever "analysts" claim otherwise are either propagandists disguised as self-described "analysts", those that have their fellow propagandists call them "analysts" to make it more believable, and analysts who've sold out for propaganda.
Every single one of them always insists that the US would inexplicably let that happen or that Russia would nuke the US (destroying its second-strike capabilities and not suffering any retaliation) if it responds. It's absurd, self-discrediting, and intellectually insulting.
None of them considers that the US would very likely escalate to brinksmanship, retaliate if it or a single inch of NATO territory is attacked, and that Russia might voluntarily restrain itself from crossing the river for escalation control purposes.
I can't take them seriously. They're either innocently naive or have an agenda to generate clout, push an ideology, and/or solicit donations. Many of them have also been spectacularly wrong over the past three years and thus already exposed themselves long ago.
Not a convincing piece, Mr. Korybko. It is entirely possible that this...thing called Ukraine will cease to exist when its military finally collapses. Your point that Russia hasn't managed to reach the Dneipr in 3 yrs is myopic. You don't have to be a Russia Bro to see that Russia has intentionally pursued an attrition strategy with one main goal being minimization of Russian casualties and the other being the eventual collapse of Kiev's military. Territorial acquisition is incidental.
But the time is soon coming when all the Western weapons and money will trickle to insignificance and Kiev's ground troops will finally start giving up en masse or deserting. At that critical juncture all things are possible. Neither the US nor EU will do anything to save Ukraine at that point. It will be Russian calculus on where to draw the lines. If Poland, Hingary, et al want to cooperate, so much the better. Trump knows he's got no cards to play here ither than a grand strategic agreement w Russia. Ukraine will pass.
I completely disagree with the "5D chess master plan" conspiracy theory alleging that the "war of attrition" was the plan all along and explained why here:
The “War Of Attrition” Was Improvised & Not Russia’s Plan All Along
To your other points, they assume that the West -- principally the US -- will fully abandon Ukraine and take the loss, which we haven't seen any indication of them planning.
They also don't address what I wrote about none of the neighboring countries wanting a (potentially radicalized and violent) Ukrainian minority and being responsible for them.
"Ukraine’s Western Borders Are Unlikely To Change After The Conflict Ends"
I disagree. I'm quite certain that significant forces in Hungary, Poland, and Romania want it, and fully expect it to happen. I'm quite certain that territorial expansion is great for domestic politics, everywhere. A failure to make it happen would be horrible for domestic politics. By the way, do you know that the Trianon Treaty Day is an official day of mourning and remembrance in Hungary?
"They also don’t want to ethnically cleanse them either nor would the US approve of this even if some tried."
What's that supposed to mean, the 'US won't approve' piece? What does the US have to do with it, and why would they disapprove of an ethnic cleansing there, when they have no problem with ethnic cleansing pretty much everywhere else?
"Trump is a businessman who won’t let his country’s nearly $200 billion worth of funding to Ukraine go to waste without at least keeping everything up to the Dnieper under the US’ de facto control"
This is weak, I think. If he is the kind of businessman that is easily overwhelmed by the allure of the sunk costs fallacy and keeps throwing good money after bad, then he's a lousy businessman. Is he a lousy businessman? I have no idea, but it doesn't seem obvious.
There's no credible indication that any serious force in those neighboring countries wants those lands. Few of their co-ethnics still live there, with the exception of Hungary's and Romania's, but even those are minimal and concentrated on a sliver of border territory.
Even if one or some of them made such a move, they'll have to support a new Ukrainian minority or ethnically cleanse them, and there's no credible indication that any serious force in those countries is considering that either.
Regarding Trianon Treaty Day, yeah, of course I know about that. I think you brought it up though not so much to inform me but to inform the audience who you expect to read your post.
To your next point about US approval, there's also no credible indication that any serious force in those countries wants to oppose the US in such a major way, let alone that other serious forces (not even counting the US) would let them actually attempt that.
It doesn't matter that the US doesn't have a moral right to interfere because the world doesn't turn based on what "should" be the case but simply based on what "is", and the US still exerts unipolar hegemony over its European vassals in many ways.
And finally, yet again, there's no credible indication that Trump is considering abandoning Ukraine. To the contrary, he's threatened to impose more sanctions against Russia and secondary ones against its partners if it rejects whatever deal he might offer it.
My impression from your post is that your worldview is based on what you think "should" happen as opposed to what actually "is" happening, and you seem convinced of the US' supposedly irreversible decline and weakness, which I consider to be a huge mistake.
I'm not interested in arguing though, but people like you are going to be deeply disappointed when the conflict ends in a way that shatters your expectations. You're welcome to continue fantasizing though, it's not my problem.
I only wanted to answer your points since they're popular opinions that are held by a lot of "Non-Russian Pro-Russians" (NRPRs) in the Alt-Media Community (AMC). I think they're based on false premises though and associated top influencers are regularly wrong.
That's okay, I am all for pluralism, and I am not trying to convince anyone. Just to present my point of view. Sometimes.
I am familiar, a little bit, with the situation in Hungary. Here's a BBC piece about the new Trianon monument built in 2020 (100-year anniversary of the Trianon).
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52903721
A huge thing, right in front of the parliament in Budapest (the parliament building here is quite big, and beautiful), with the name of every town, every village they lost in 1920.
The Hungarian government (and Viktor Orban specifically) do support this ареа, Zakarpattia; have been sending a lot of money there since forever. Schools, kindergartens, hospitals, and more. Everyone in Zakarpattia benefits, as there is no way to help just ethnic Hungarians. But also, I suspect, Hungary wants to be nice to everybody in this area, exactly for this kind of situation.
As for the US, I don't see why the US would be against it. I just don't see it. For one thing, it would immediately remove from the US and EU the (presumed) financial burden of "rebuilding" these areas.
YMMV, obviously.
Hello Mr Korybko,
I fully agree that the war of attrition was improvised and that the actual plan was copletely different. But many analysts state that the collapse of the Ukrainian military is a possibility due to their losses war of attrition. So I have two questions:
1. What speaks against some kind of 1918 Scenario in case of a collapse of the Ukrainian military (The side which won an unplanned war of attrition dictated terms even without entering German territory)?
2. What could Trump do to escalate in a way that does not harm US interests in an unacceptable way (making Russia Chinas Junior partner, risking a nuclear war or harming the US oil industry through too low prices)?
I do not want to criticize your analysis. I just want to understand your reasoning.
I've been writing for a while about how a Russian military breakthrough, which could occur through a collapse of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, might be countered through American escalation up to the point of brinksmanship.
This could take the form of threatening to authorize a conventional military intervention into Ukraine up to the Dnieper River, the purpose of which would be to serve as a tripwire for greater escalation if this force is attacked not to directly fight Russia.
The whole point would be to reach an understanding with Russia for partitioning Ukraine along the Dnieper. Under no circumstances is the US going to let Russia plant troops along the NATO border.
Whatever "analysts" claim otherwise are either propagandists disguised as self-described "analysts", those that have their fellow propagandists call them "analysts" to make it more believable, and analysts who've sold out for propaganda.
Every single one of them always insists that the US would inexplicably let that happen or that Russia would nuke the US (destroying its second-strike capabilities and not suffering any retaliation) if it responds. It's absurd, self-discrediting, and intellectually insulting.
None of them considers that the US would very likely escalate to brinksmanship, retaliate if it or a single inch of NATO territory is attacked, and that Russia might voluntarily restrain itself from crossing the river for escalation control purposes.
I can't take them seriously. They're either innocently naive or have an agenda to generate clout, push an ideology, and/or solicit donations. Many of them have also been spectacularly wrong over the past three years and thus already exposed themselves long ago.
Not a convincing piece, Mr. Korybko. It is entirely possible that this...thing called Ukraine will cease to exist when its military finally collapses. Your point that Russia hasn't managed to reach the Dneipr in 3 yrs is myopic. You don't have to be a Russia Bro to see that Russia has intentionally pursued an attrition strategy with one main goal being minimization of Russian casualties and the other being the eventual collapse of Kiev's military. Territorial acquisition is incidental.
But the time is soon coming when all the Western weapons and money will trickle to insignificance and Kiev's ground troops will finally start giving up en masse or deserting. At that critical juncture all things are possible. Neither the US nor EU will do anything to save Ukraine at that point. It will be Russian calculus on where to draw the lines. If Poland, Hingary, et al want to cooperate, so much the better. Trump knows he's got no cards to play here ither than a grand strategic agreement w Russia. Ukraine will pass.
I completely disagree with the "5D chess master plan" conspiracy theory alleging that the "war of attrition" was the plan all along and explained why here:
The “War Of Attrition” Was Improvised & Not Russia’s Plan All Along
https://korybko.substack.com/p/the-war-of-attrition-was-improvised
To your other points, they assume that the West -- principally the US -- will fully abandon Ukraine and take the loss, which we haven't seen any indication of them planning.
They also don't address what I wrote about none of the neighboring countries wanting a (potentially radicalized and violent) Ukrainian minority and being responsible for them.