[Update III] What Happens if Ukraine Collapses?
The best- and worst-case scenarios (Free)
The situation is developing rapidly in Ukraine. Many of the key towns and cities to Ukrainian defence seem to be falling like dominoes. Colonel of the Austrian Armed Forces, Markus Reisner, has warned that the collapse of the AFU (Armed Forces of Ukraine) is likely to be near. Developments on the ground are confirming this with, e.g., Kurakhove and Velyka Novosilka falling in consecutive (rapid) fashion.
A “peace plan” has also surfaced, allegedly from the Trump administration. It basically lays out a path, where a truce should be declared by Easter (April 20) 2025 and peace by May 9. If this is the actual plan, I have to ask in what reality are the people who wrote it living in? The collapse of the AFU may be just days (the worst-case) or few weeks away. And then there’s this proposition:
Ukraine does not reduce the size of the army. The United States is committed to continuing support for the modernization of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
The idea that Russia would allow the U.S. to continue to create a proxy-force along its longest border in the west is ludicrous. For example, in the Paris Peace Treaties of 1947, the Finnish army was heavily sanctioned and it’s size diminished. No outside force was allowed to participate on its modernization or development, because the Soviet Union did not want to see another attack on their soil (Finland took part on the Operation Barbarossa, unofficially). Moreover, like I have noted in the Peace in Ukraine, there’s only one force in the world that can surveillance the line of ceasefire with any credibility: the U.N.
If this really was an actual (second) proposition of President Trump, it’s definitely better than the first one, but there’s still a long way to go. The main point to recognize is that the days of American military hegemony have passed.
To provide some additional motivation, I will now open the best and worst-case scenarios of post-AFU-collapse developments for everyone to read.
Update II 1/25/2025
It seems that I was a bit too hasty in my conclusions concerning the halt of U.S. military aid to Ukraine. First of all, the stoppage reportedly concerns only the part of the State Department, while most of the military aid (naturally) goes through the Pentagon. Zelenskyy has also just recently stated that U.S. military aid has not been halted (“thank God”). To note, the halt of foreign aid concerned all countries, except Egypt and Israel.
However, we should remember two things. In late-June, President Trump was presented a plan that suggested a halt of military aid to Ukraine, if it refuses to open talsk with Russia. Secondly, the Secretary of Defence, Pete Heghseth, was appointed (approved) by the Congress just yesterday.
These imply that the halt of the flow of aid through State Department could have been a warning. That is, it could have been used to signal President Zelenskyy that negotiations with President Putin needs to commence, asap. And, if this does not happen, actual curbs in the flow of funds through the Pentagon will be introduced.
Based on what I know from the negotiation strategies of President Trump,1 such a work-plan is plausible. Trump has also stated many times that he wants a peace to Ukraine, and it needs to start with getting the two sides to the negotiation table. “Blackmailing” Ukraine with military aid, will accomplish this, I am sure.
With the Kremlin, however, President Trump needs to pull out some (serious) carrots, not just sticks. Russians are progressing steadily in Ukraine and closing in on critical logistic hubs, most notably Pokrovsk. Russia is holding a serious upper-hand in the war, and further economic sanctions are a moot point (more on that later). I think everything needs to start with negotiations between Presidents Putin and Trump. Here’s the roadmap.
Let’s see what comes.
If you prefer not to subscribe, you can support my work through here: https://buymeacoffee.com/mtmalinen
Update
Yesterday evening, we learned that the Trump administration halted almost all foreign aid, including military aid to Ukraine, for 90 days. This was reported by Politico, and it means that the clock truly starts to tick for the collapse of the AFU.
President Zelenskyy now effectively faces two options:
1. To start negotiations with President Putin.
2. Face an impending collapse or an unconditional surrender of the AFU, possibly leading to a military coup.
In other words, the stakes were just raised heavily. I am keen to think that President Zelenskyy will start negotiations, but first he has to change his decree making all negotiations with President Putin illegal.
In any case, things are in motion now.
GnS Economics has launched a new service publishing the Weekly Forecasts with a fraction of the price of our full service. You can find it and our opening offer from here.
Issues discussed:2
The best-case scenario leading to truce and negotiations after the collapse of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU).
The worst-case scenario leading to a regional war after the collapse of the AFU.
How do we get to the path leading to peace.
Ukraine has become something of a re-entry way to geopolitics for me. This is mostly, because I have made a complete 180 degree turn in my views towards the war between Russia and Ukraine. I started with an over-whelming support for Ukraine (see, e.g., this, this and this), which turned into a suspicion in September 2022, and into a full opposition five months later. Now, I want to understand, what could happen in Europe, if the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) would collapse, a point which edges closer each passing day.
I present two, the best-case and the worst-case, scenarios for post-collapse Ukraine (and Europe). By collapse I mean a mass retreat of soldiers and battle-field commanders from the frontlines across the nation. Such an event may come about much easier than many think. This is because in a situation, where reserves are highly limited, like they are now in Ukraine, collapse of some sections of the frontline can come rapidly leading to panicky capitulations across the entirety of the frontline. When there are no amble reserves to strengthen the failing sections, there’s a risk of forces becoming pocketed in, forcing a wide-scale retreat. This is, e.g., what happened to Finnish Defence Foces in the Karelian Isthmus in early summer of 1944.3
More precisely, I will sketch two plausible paths of developments after the defences of Ukraine crumble. I will not go into specifics of possible military developments, because that’s not my expertise. No one also can honestly state that they would know what happens after a collapse of the AFU, but we can speculate. Let’s dive in.
Post-requiem of the AFU: The best-case
The best-case scenario assumes that there will be no aim of the NATO Deep State or Ukrainian leadership to push the whole continent into a war. Based on what we have seen, the opposite seems to hold. Moreover, the best-case scenario assumes that President Trump is willing to accept Ukraine losing a large chunk of its landmass and to end the open-door policy of NATO. We at GnS Economics have recently warned on the possibility of a failure of President Trump in Ukraine, as it appears that he would not be willing to commit to such conditions.
These assumptions lead to 10 developments that could occur after the collapse of the AFU, in the best-case:
Russian troops quickly progress to the banks of the Dnepr.
Generals of the AFU hastily secure the defences of Kiev.
The United Nations jumps into action with the Security Council calling for an immediate ceasefire supported also by Russia.
Russian troops halt their progress to the Kherson-Dnipro-Kiev -line (along the Dnepr).
NATO halts all Ukraine/NATO attacks to Russian troops in Ukraine, by the order of President Trump.
Presidents Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy agree on the terms of an U.N. monitored line of ceasefire along the Dnepr.
Russia limits its military presence to ceded areas and evacuates attack systems to sufficient distance from borders (established line of ceasefire) of the remaining Ukraine.
The EU and the US stop all deliveries of weapons and volunteers to Ukraine.
The EU and the U.S. agree on an emergency economic support package for the (remaining) Ukraine.
The neutrality of Ukraine is agreed as the starting point of peace negotiations including all the major parties: China, The EU, Ukraine, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States and NATO.
Essentially, the best-case scenario mimic the developments and actions we would need to see to establish a (lasting) peace in Ukraine. At this point, this looks unlikely, which is why need to turn to the worst-case to understand what may come.
Post-requiem of the AFU: The worst-case
How could the situation develop in the worst-case?
Russian troops advance rapidly to the Dnepr.
NATO calls for imminent ceasefire and hails to send in a “peace-keeping force”, while announcing that Ukraine will be made member of the Alliance.
Russian troops cross the Dnepr and enact a siege of Kiev with the troops advancing from Belarus, while Russian troops in the South advance on the outskirts of Odessa. President Zelenskyy flees to Poland to oversee the “resistance”.
France sends troops to Odessa, while the U.K., in accordance with the 100-year Partnership Declaration, send troops to Lviv.
Russia strikes Lviv with Oreshnik or with a tactical nuclear weapons destroying the U.K. troops.
The U.K. declares war to Russia, and President Trump warns Russia not to escalate any further.
Poland strikes Belarus, while sending her forces to Lviv.
Russia and Belarus strike to NATO bases in Poland.
NATO enacts Article 5 and starts a massive buildup of troops along its eastern border. Russia and Belarus responds with mobilization.
A regional conflict forms.
NATO is yet not ready for a full military conflict with Russia, which is why the ladders of escalation end to “forming” of a regional conflict (on which more below). Naturally the sequence of events can also take a much darker turn with the 10 ladders leading into an onset of a nuclear war. There’s also the possibility that, when the imminent collapse of the AFU looms the Zelenskyy regime, with the help of the NATO Deep State, stages a false flag attack targeting either the NATO troops in Europe or a NATO country, blaming Russia. This would start a NATO-Russia war, or at least lead to widening of the conflict.
Conclusions
I have to say that I am not very optimistic on the prospects peace in Ukraine, currently. President Trump seems to be fixated to the old-dated view that NATO and the U.S. would hold a military upper-hand still. Developments in Iran and especially in Ukraine have already shown this not to be true.
Moreover, I worry on the growing military strength of Russia. Just yesterday, I learned that Russia has started to mass-produce battle-drones which are immune to electronic warfare. The story with Russian military development in a conflict is always the same. First, they screw up massively, then retreat, learn, regroup and strike with unmet fervor. During the past 90 years there’s only exception to this, the Soviet-Afghan war, which ended to the defeat of the Red Army and to the collapse of the Soviet Union (driving the defeat). At current time, I am rather certain that Kremlin seeks only peace. If the AFU and Ukraine become over-run, would that change? It probably depends on the scenario we end up to.
I honesty cannot conclude anything else from the actions and comments of some European NATO members than that the Alliance is seeking a pro-longed conflict with Russia. The likelihood of this grows with Russian military strength building up, because it will be met by NATO (eventually). It seems rather obvious that NATO is not yet ready for a pro-longed conflict with Russia, and the NATO Deep State, et al., may look to end the conflict in a way that would create fear and thus wide-spread acceptance in Europe for a re-armament. A false flag attack somewhere in Europe blaming Russia would suit this purpose well. Also, an unconditional surrender of the AFU combined with massive russophobic propaganda could also do the trick. When re-armament cycle gets going in Europe, wars result.
How long do we have, before the AFU collapses (or surrenders)? No one knows for sure, but most estimates put this in the range from months to a year. Yet, we have to acknowledge that this point can also arrive very quickly. Losses are massive and there are rumors of a mutiny building within the AFU. After the collapse, we would enter some very dangerous waters.
I dearly hope that President Trump changes his course in Ukraine rapidly.
You can also support my work through: Buy me a coffee
Disclaimer:
The information contained herein is current as at the date of this entry. The information presented here is considered reliable, but its accuracy is not guaranteed. Changes may occur in the circumstances after the date of this entry and the information contained in this post may not hold true in the future.
No information contained in this entry should be construed as investment advice. GnS Economics nor Tuomas Malinen cannot be held responsible for errors or omissions in the data presented. Readers should always consult their own personal financial or investment advisor before making any investment decision, and readers using this post do so solely at their own risk.
Readers must make an independent assessment of the risks involved and of the legal, tax, business, financial or other consequences of their actions. GnS Economics nor Tuomas Malinen cannot be held i) responsible for any decision taken, act or omission; or ii) liable for damages caused by such measures.
It has been a trademark negotiation tactic of Donald Trump since the 1980s to shock his opponents in negotiations with preposterous proposition displayed in an aggressive manner. The aim of these have been to force concessions from his negotiation partners. This proved to be a highly successful tactic in many of Donald Trump’s crucial negotiations, like during his financial troubles, and “forced” restructuring of his debts by banks, in the 1990s.
I wish to thank Dr. Peter Nyberg for comments and suggestions. Remaining errors are my own.
After the siege of Leningrad ended on 27 January, 1944, the Soviet Union started preparations to push Finnish forces from the vicinity of Leningrad. Its major attack began on June 3, 1944, concentrating on the Karelian Ishtmus. Majority of Finnish reserves were either pulled back or concentrated of East-Karelia due to serious miscalculation by the high command of the Finnish military. The bridgehead of Finnish Defence Forces fell on June 10, leading into a panicky retreat across the whole peninsula, lasting almost the whole month. A major victory, essentially stopping the retreat and the major attack of the Soviet Union, was reached in Tali-Ihantala between June 25 and July 9. The Soviet Union began its major attack on the Estonian front on July 24, effectively ending its campaign in Finland.