Home World Ukraine war: 4 terrible scenarios after the occupation of Kyiv | Political news | Al Jazeera

Ukraine war: 4 terrible scenarios after the occupation of Kyiv | Political news | Al Jazeera

by admin
Ukraine war: 4 terrible scenarios after the occupation of Kyiv | Political news | Al Jazeera

Russian troops were everywhere, near Lutsk and Lviv in the west, in the northeast and south, and 3 breakthroughs straight into the capital, Kyiv, after Russia ordered an “expansion of the offensive in all directions” in Ukraine on Saturday night. So the idea of ​​Moscow cutting off the head of the regime and bringing Ukraine to its knees is no longer vague, so what’s next?

In an analysis published in the French newspaper Le Figaro, Elizabeth Pearson said that Ukraine has only two possibilities: organize resistance and act heroically, or be quickly occupied, which will lead to four scenarios – withdrawal, division , negotiate or install a regime ruled by a Moscow puppet.

Last Thursday, Russian President Vladimir Putin threatened to “disarm and expel the Nazis from Ukraine and bring to justice those responsible for countless bloody crimes against civilians, including citizens of the Russian Federation. “. The newspaper suggested that the situation in Ukraine could be compared to the situation in Iraq in 2003, which was the military occupation of foreign powers. What is Putin’s next plan?

Scenario 1: Withdrawal

If Putin sticks to the content of his speech in the early hours of February 24th, in which the goal is clear: “We do not intend to occupy Ukrainian soil, nor do we intend to impose anything on anyone, but only to disarm Ukraine to protect areas loyal to Russia. from any military attack.”

This goal will be technically achieved once Ukraine is defeated. As the author says, the head of the Kremlin will withdraw his troops, after which nothing will prevent the People’s Republic of Donbass from applying later to “join” the Russian Federation.

See also  Who is Olena Zelenska, the Ukrainian First Lady who remained in the country at war: "I will be next to you"

Cyril Brett, a professor of political science, said, “I would like to be able to believe that scenario,” but given the development of the Russian attack, the closest thing to international law is becoming more and more difficult to achieve.

Second case: split

The second possibility, according to the author, is that Russia will forcibly separate the Donbass once Ukraine is disarmed, fulfilling an old dream frozen by the Minsk Agreement in 2015. This can be done in one of three ways; simply by incorporating the territory into Russian territory, or by organizing a referendum to decide on belonging to the Russian Federation, as happened in Crimea, or by declaring the Donetsk and Luhansk republics independence of autonomous regions, such as the “Georgia” model, as well as the situation in South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

In this case, Luhansk and Donetsk could become Moscow’s “buffer zone” between Russia and the West, while Putin could seize from its current strong position linking the Donbass with the one he annexed in 2014 Coastal corridor of Crimea.

From left to right: Ukraine, Donbass, Luhansk, Donetsk, Russia (Al Jazeera)

Scenario 3: Start Negotiation

The author argues that a negotiated solution to the crisis may be the most logical, as Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky announced his support for dialogue with the Russian president on Friday following fighting across Ukraine. “Let’s go to the negotiating table to stop the killing,” said a video posted on his Telegram channel.

But if Ukraine is defeated militarily, Russia would be in a strong position to “impose its own conditions on the negotiating table, such as (requiring Ukraine) to renounce NATO membership or maintain neutrality”, as Austria or Switzerland did. Marcelo Cohen, secretary-general of the Institute of International Law and professor at the Geneva Institute for Development Studies, thinks so.

See also  In the war on Covid-19, China appeals to "vaccinated little warriors"

However, the obligation committed in this case “is void under international law,” Cohen explained, because the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states that any agreement made under duress is void, “when someone puts a gun on Your words are useless when it comes to aligning your temples.” For example, the 1939 agreement between Nazi Germany and the president of Czechoslovakia to annex parts of the latter was invalid.

From left to right: Ukraine, Donbass, Luhansk, Donetsk, Russia (Al Jazeera)

Fourth Scenario: Placing a Puppet Regime

According to the author, this is the extreme view predicted by Russia’s blitzkrieg and integrated tactics, otherwise, why would Putin attack the country and target Kyiv, instead of limiting his attack to the Donbass where he seeks “protection”, he does this Don’t you want to behead the Ukrainian regime? Especially since he has spoken many times about his desire to eliminate the “neo-Nazi” regime that rules Ukraine.

So, as political science professor Cyril Breiter said, “Afterwards, he could establish a regime ruled by puppets, a pro-Russian techno-regime, similar to the Vichy regime in Paris during the German occupation of France”, some pro-Russian Countries will recognize the regime, such as Belarus, Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and maybe China, but it is very unlikely, because even if Beijing did not oppose Moscow, it would not support such a project to such an extent. “

As for the occupation of Ukraine, this scenario is very unlikely, since controlling 600,000 square kilometers of land will be very difficult, especially as Russia is subject to the toughest sanctions of European countries, its military will be in direct confrontation with NATO forces, and even Putin may Worry about the risk of war breaking out.

See also  Giletti ready to go live from Moscow. The staff: "Controversies are his daily bread"

“Even if the Russians succeed in creating a puppet government, it won’t last,” said Antoine Argakovsky, author of “The West and Russia.” Empire of different nation-states and showed great courage in the early days of the conflict.” Ukrainian researcher Hannah Shelst agreed, saying: “Our most effective weapon is our people.”

The author concludes with a view of Marcelo Cohen, who asserts that all of these situations represent interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states and therefore violate international law.

You may also like

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More

Privacy & Cookies Policy