• Shrike502@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    There’s also going to be political motivation for whoever is in charge to cultivate this view since blaming the failure of the west to provide support will increasingly be the excuse from the regime. We’re already seeing the start of that with Zaluzhny blaming the failure of the offensive on lack of F16s and air defence.

    Thing is, this type of “stab in the back” narrative would still require an unhealthy amount of nationalism (think British “lions led by donkeys” shite from WW1), and this will inevitably clash with the annexation (can’t think of a different term at the moment) of Crimea, DNR, Zaporozhye, etc.

    And frankly it won’t undo the damage already done by weapons and infrastructure destruction, nor will it help bring socialism to the region

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmygrad.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Cynically speaking, the best option for Russia will be to annex friendly and neutral areas in the east, and then leave a dysfunctional rump state in the west which will ultimately become a problem for NATO. It won’t be able to function on its own, and it will be resentful of the west. However, they’re not going to be able to let it collapse entirely either as it would create a huge immigrant crisis in the west. So, it’s just going to be an economic black hole they’re going to have to keep throwing money into at the time their own economies are being eroded.

      I don’t think there’s much hope of bringing socialism to the region or even to Russia in the near future, but breaking western hegemony over the world will at least create the conditions for socialism in the future.