Kiev's Existential Trajectory: Western Tone Shifts Again

And we discuss the outlook on a future beyond Ukraine's coming defeat.

The tone around Ukraine continues to shift. It was imperceptible at first, but has since reached a point where utterance of previously unspeakable things is a commonplace cry of alarm. For a long time, yellow press flacks tried desperately to couch Ukraine’s collapse as merely the need for a breather, or deceptively spinning it on Russia or Putin’s desire for peace talks, owing to high losses and a putative inability to achieve goals.

But now, everywhere you look, for the first time the omerta has been lifted: outlets are openly—albeit still in hushed tones—admitting that Ukraine not only faces some vague ‘defeat’, but total capitulation to Russia. Even before, when at times such an outcome was hinted at, the full ramifications of the word were left intentionally open-ended, as if in hopes the reader would not yet assume the worst, but perhaps imagine Ukraine’s “collapse” was merely some localized event. What’s changed now is they are openly defining it: this is the second major report in days which quite directly says: If things continue as they are, Russian tanks will roll through both Kiev and Lvov, full stop.

I bring you, the Hill’s latest:

A brief point summary before discussing:

Russia Will Seize Kiev and Lviv in 2026 If US Stops Aid, — The Hill

▪️"Without US support, Russia will move forward in 2025 because Kyiv will run out of weapons.

▪️ By 2026, Ukraine will lose effective air defense, allowing Russia to conduct continuous large-scale bombing.

▪️Ukrainian troops will continue to fight, but will most likely collapse by the end of the same year, which will allow Russia to capture Kyiv and then advance to the NATO border,” the publication fears.

▪️"Then Russia will rebuild its combat units, use Ukraine's resources to strengthen its capabilities, deploy its forces along NATO's border, and be ready to attack outside Ukraine by 2030."

First, the author tries to guilt trip the Western readers into believing that far more of their hard-earned tax money will have to be wasted on military expenditures if Ukraine loses the war:

Analysis conducted at the American Enterprise Institute has determined that Russia defeating Ukraine would cost American taxpayers an additional $808 billion over what the U.S. has planned to spend on defense in the next five years. This is about seven times more than all the aid appropriated to the Pentagon to help Ukraine since Russia’s 2022 invasion.

This estimate is based on a scenario in which the U.S. stops providing aid and the resulting Russian victory requires us to adapt our military capabilities, capacity and posture in order to maintain our security. The study then uses the Defense Futures Simulator to estimate the spending required to deter and, if necessary, defeat Russia in Europe, while also preventing further conflict by emboldened adversaries in the Pacific and the Middle East.

The most eyebrow-raising part is the source of the above “estimate” happens to be the named ‘Defense Futures Simulator’, whose front splash page features a giant blurb from the article author above. How convenient—or should we say, unethical and inappropriate—is it for the author to utilize a questionable program she appears to be involved in as grist for her propaganda to gullible taxpayers?

But after warming the oven, she drops the bombshell:

Without U.S. support, Russia would advance in 2025 as Kyiv runs out of weapons. By 2026, Ukraine would lose effective air defense, allowing Russia to conduct continuous large-scale bombings. Ukraine’s conventional forces would continue to courageously fight but would likely collapse by the end of that year, allowing Russia to seize Kyiv and then drive to the NATO border.

An emboldened Russia would reconstitute its combat units, use Ukraine’s resources to bolster its capabilities, station its forces along the NATO frontier, and be ready to attack beyond Ukraine by 2030

First of all: note the arrant contradiction of the above statement. She argues for emergency measures to save Ukraine because Russia could soon conquer Kiev and push all the way West to “NATO’s border”. So, the understanding is that Russia on NATO’s border is an existential threat to be avoided at all costs…right?

Then riddle me this: how is it possible to simultaneously push for Ukraine joining NATO as a solution, which would put NATO’s border right against Russia, or rather Russian forces “right on NATO’s border”. What’s the difference? A smart Ukrainian would note the subtly ingrained racism here: NATO mouthpieces appear to be fine with expendable cannon-fodder Ukrainians as “frontier meat-shields” stacked at the long end of Russian tank barrels. But the much more valuable “NATO-proper” countries further West are too ‘valuable’ to be risked sharing a border with Russia.

See how that logic works?

The important thing, though, is that Western narrative writers have now shed all final vestiges of pretense. Everywhere you look, top figures are openly evoking a total Ukrainian defeat, not a ‘stalemate’. Even Ukraine’s Budanov recently drew fire by admitting Ukraine faces “existential” collapse if negotiations are not pushed through in the next six months, as I wrote about in the last report.

But though he tried to downplay or dismiss it, Ukrainian outlet Strana now reports that criminal charges have been opened by the SBU for the leaking of Budanov’s comments to the media—which indirectly validates them.

https://strana.today/news/479248-sbu-rassleduet-publikatsiju-smi-o-slovakh-budanova.html

They wouldn’t have done that if Budanov’s “highly sensitive” revelation wasn’t real, would they?