this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2023
68 points (88.6% liked)
GenZedong
4242 readers
122 users here now
This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.
Rules:
- No bigotry, anti-communism, pro-imperialism or ultra-leftism (anti-AES)
- We support indigenous liberation as the primary contradiction in settler colonies like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel
- If you post an archived link (excluding archive.org), include the URL of the original article as well
- Unless it's an obvious shitpost, include relevant sources
- For articles behind paywalls, try to include the text in the post
- Mark all posts containing NSFW images as NSFW (including things like Nazi imagery)
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's a mistake to focus on Ukraine as the core of the conflict. Geopolitical outcome of the war is far more relevant. We're seeing much of the world turning away from the west now, and BRICS is already a larger economy than the G7. The trend will be for western economic bloc to shrink and for BRICS to grow. This will cause a deep economic crisis in the west, and I'd argue we're already seeing the start of it happening. Current political system in the west is already unstable, and I don't think it will survive the crisis.
Meanwhile, Russia doesn't have to take all of Ukraine. An alternative scenario to consider is that Russia takes the territory that's largely populated by Russian speakers where there will be little support for any kind of insurgency. They will likely cut off remaining rump state of Ukraine from the sea by going through Odessa and connecting to Transnistria.
The remaining territory of Ukraine will be cut off from most of the industrial and agricultural areas, and it's populated by hardcore nationalists who will be very bitter with the west abandoning them. If the west allows western Ukraine fail then Europe will be faced with a flood of refugees feeding further into the current economic crisis. However, continuing propping western Ukraine up will become an economic black hole for the west.
That makes sense. But wouldn't leaving the rump state invite the fascists back into power? Does the gained territory really offer much of a buffer for Russia if what's left of Ukraine keeps getting funded by the West to agitate the region?
The rump state is not going to be very easy for Russia to destabilize, and eventually Russia will likely end up with a puppet regime there. There's already precedent for this in Chechnya right now. Meanwhile, the buffer Russia gains comes from the fact that whatever is left of Ukraine will not be able to join NATO. Whatever is left of Ukraine will be demilitarized going forward.
Again, makes sense.