• grandepequeno [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    2 months ago

    Not even? I mean if Ukraine loses then ukraine loses, ukraine losing for them means de facto accepting SOME type of security arrangement with Russia that doesn’t involve expanding NATO closer and closer to their borders, or at least not through Ukraine.

    The west still has overwhelming economic power and influence. “End of western hegemony”? Over what? Over Ukraine? Well not over what’s left of it.

    Over the balkans? Maybe.

    Over the world? Definitely not the end, in fact I expect some adventurism as overcompensation.

    • theturtlemoves [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      2 months ago

      NATO losing to Russia in Ukraine, and to the Houthis in the Gulf of Aden, will send a message to a lot of neutral countries that (1) NATO can’t / won’t protect you anymore, and (2) you can push back against NATO and win or at least gain concessions. NATO will still be the single largest military bloc in the world, but they’ll actually have to negotiate, maybe even compromise.

      • Ericthescruffy [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yeah…only thing that makes me feel like this is still semi-hyperbolic is…didn’t Afghanistan and the last quarter of a century plus already kinda show that to be the case? Ukraine itself already kinda seems like the result of that sense that the west is insurmountably powerful being squashed.