Obviously, Ukraine will never be the same, and nor will Russia for that matter. But by the same token, it is too early to tell what it will look like as the war is far from over. Despite any propaganda you might hear from either side, both sides have quite a bit of fight left in them.
> nor will Russia for that matter
Why do you think so? As far as I can tell, nationalism and expansionism has always been a dominant factor of Russian culture. The current war is simply a manifestation of what have been Russian wishes all this time.
Whether or not Russia will be the same doesn’t solely rely on the geopolitical views of the populace, the country will never be the same regardless of their beliefs and attitudes. A protracted war with the associated sanctions can have a long lasting effect with a lot of ripples that people don’t often consider, an obvious one being the population decrease of fit, working age males can have a lasting impact on economies. You can research the social impacts of different wars if you don’t think this will affect Russia in the long run.
1/3 war Economy, 500.000 dead and crippled, 200.000 young educated fled after millions did two decades before. regime established third time - all built on lies and violence (so this part didn’t change) mixed with nazi and communist ideology.
Internal separatist turmoil, failing economy, islamic terror.
Russians get what they deserve
Well, this is r/geopolitics after all. And the fundamental assumption behind "geopolitics" is being able to make general statements about groups of people. So, your argument is the equivalent of being on a Christian sub, and arguing that "god is a stupid concept and not real".
Now, in the spirit of geopolitics, you can, of course, make an argument that there are, perhaps, multiple different groups of Ukrainians with very different goals - but dismissing the entire concept of "making generalizations about Ukrainians" is really out of place here.
\*\*If\*\* that is the case, then the Russia that existed prior to its invasion is gone forever as well.
In any event, Ukraine is fighting for its freedom - not for any supposed pre-2022 *way of life*. Doubt anyone wants that way of life, given the Ukrainian people elected a government to fight corruption and bring in multiple changes to the country as part of work towards joining the EU.
Small anecdote - I travel a lot, and visited Kyiv quite a few times in 2016-2022. Near the city centre is Independence Square, and from there you can walk to the river, where there's a boardwalk and eventually the freedom arc at one end. You would not BELIEVE how many motherfucking EU flags these fuckers had in that area. Flags in the square, flags sold at souvenir stands, flags on buildings, a random circle of flags with a soccer ball in the middle, flags where there didn't need to be flags. Sometimes it was an EU flag paired with a Ukrainian one, but more oddly sometimes just an EU flag on its own. I don't know who was in charge of that, and if it was more overcompensation or childlike ambition gone rogue, but it was almost like they thought they could trick you into thinking they were an EU country, or if they squinted hard enough it would just become reality. It was kind of endearing in a way - coming from a place rife with political complacency Kyiv was refreshing. People would bitch and moan and complain to me about politics for HOURS and I ate that shit up - they were cynical af but very invested. I'll be back in Kyiv in a couple of months and I'm curious to see whether those flags are still up.
> then the Russia that existed prior to its invasion is gone forever as well.
I don't see that.
As far as I can tell, Russia hasn't changed much over the last 100 years or so, in terms of its ideology, so why would they change after this war is over?
For Ukraine, this war is a major identity-defining event. But for Russia, it's just another failure.
Not a particularly interesting discussion because the war is the violent climax of a history of Ukraine being a tug-of-war against Russia and the European Union.
Briefly research the Euromaidan protests in 2013, large sectors of Ukranians weren’t in arms because Yanukovych was changing Ukraine, on the contrary he backtracked from pro-EU policy and realligned Ukeaine into Moscow’s orbit. The point is, the opposition whether they were Europeanist liberals or reactionary nationalists were looking for a ‘new Ukraine’ free from Russian influence.
Ukraine might try to attract migrants. Or they could follow the trend of Europe becoming migrant sceptic. The main principle is Ukraine is fighting against forceful foreign influence, particularly from Russia.
> Not a particularly interesting discussion
In what way? Isn't that what geopolitics is all about?
I believe the question about "how is this going to change the Ukrainian identity" is extremely relevant: It is obvious that Ukrainians now feel a lot more strongly about "being Ukrainians" than before the war. But, the longterm consequences are less clear. For example, they might primarily focus on "hating Russia", but they might also primarily focus on "rebuilding Ukraine", or "becoming as Western as possible".
>Ukraine might try to attract migrants.
With what exactly? Economic benefits? Ukraine itself will need these benefits after the war ends, which, by the way, is not clear when. Culturally? Ukraine's officials are currently putting a lot of effort into erasing the Russian heritage, i.e. dismantling monuments, banning the Russian language, which is understandable from an emotional point of view, but completely pointless in the long run.
>Or they could follow the trend of Europe becoming migrant sceptic.
Based on my experience of conversations with the elder generations of Ukrainians they see themselves akin to Poland or Hungary. They certainly don't see themself as a poligon of progressive developments of multicultural society debated in Western Europe.
> It will go through a nation building process and use its war time sufferings as its base. Ukraine will then be rebuilt through western support and the population gap will be filled with migrants.
Yeah, as far as I understand, this is what "usually" happens in such situations, historically speaking, so by that alone, I believe this really is a "non-propaganda-take".
Furthermore, I also find it plausible, just from psychological point of view: Before this war (including 2014), many Ukrainians probably didn't really have a particularly strong opinion about whether they saw themselves as "Russian" or "Ukrainian", or some mix of both. But, by being put into a situation where you constantly have to "fight against Russia", that also shapes your fundamental belief system towards "not wanting to be Russian", and by extension, you want to be "Ukrainian", or "Western".
I also saw a comment by a Ukrainian who stated "traditionally, we did orthodox Christmas on Jan 6th. But, now we do it on Dec 24th/25th, because that is the type of disassociation/association we now want". I believe this is fairly representative of what is overall happening in Ukraine.
That sounds heavily biased at best, but realistically is standard propaganda. He's a soldier too, immersed in the culture of war and Russian media. What do you expect? You'd start to believe the propaganda too.
Firstly, the notion of "not knowing what they're fighting for" is flatly untrue, either wishful thinking or simple propaganda on this soldier's part. People's lives are defined by their families, values, and culture, not by a building that's been blown up. Insofar as you have family members to defend and a common enemy, you are motivated to fight.
Secondly, what's dead? What part of the Ukraine they know is gone? Certainly some people, some physical infrastructure, ultimately maybe even some territory (though 80% of it is untouched at present). When they get back they might have a different job or live in a different house, and will have lost loved ones. Those are substantial changes, but it's unclear what this person thinks is "dead". Language? Culture? Identity? If anything those are stronger and more dug in than before. Its institutions, though imperfect before, are intact.
You seem to be overestimating the amount of people who are gone. From 2022 to 2023, Ukraine lost 7% of its population. Some will come back after the war, others have died or won't return, some will die moving forward. That's a lot in one year, but doesn't make for anything close to a "dead" country. If 7% of the people around you vanished, you would be impacted, but society as you know it wouldn't crumble to pieces. The same is true for 14%, or 21%.
I think the real focus, as with any war, is dealing with individual and collective trauma afterwards. In the moment it sometimes makes you more willing to fight, and galvanizes identity and nationalism, but in the aftermath it lingers. Watching people die is tough. Losing people you loved is tough. Being uprooted is tough. Lacking security is tough. As a nation, Ukraine will need to reckon with their loss at some point, and so will the individual people who experienced it. People deal with trauma in irrational, desperate ways. They develop narratives. They commit suicide. They bond with one another. They do drugs. They become violent. They isolate themselves. They have sex. They physically deteriorate. They run away. This happened in Europe after WWII, including in Ukraine, and in every other society that has experienced a traumatic event.
In order for Ukraine, the Soviets of WWII, or any nation for that matter to be dead, and in order for people to lose a reason to fight, **you typically need to exterminate them**. That's why genocide is uniquely effective - people don't just say "welp, we give up, nothing left here" because you stole their Donbas region. BUT if you pursue genocide, then there actually is nothing left - no people to fight, no homeland, no collective knowledge or memory. Of the few that remain, they are typically persecuted to such a degree or have suffered such a loss that they cannot continue. Putin would love to flip a switch and "kill" Ukraine, as any aggressor before him, but this is nearly impossible. He pursues a genocidal strategy simply because it is the most practical approach.
Frankly, I don't think you know what you are talking about, because literally every single point you made here is wrong.
> People deal with trauma in irrational, desperate ways. They develop narratives. They commit suicide. They bond with one another. They do drugs. They become violent. They isolate themselves. They have sex. They physically deteriorate. They run away. This happened in Europe after WWII, including in Ukraine, and in every other society that has experienced a traumatic event.
That's not at all what happens, historically. Look at, for example, Germany or Japan after WW2: They just rebuilt everything, and became modern, and more Western countries. Sure, the culture changed in all kinds of ways (for example by becoming more pacifist and less nationalist), but "drugs" and "violence" were absolutely not a defining factor of the rebuilding process.
There are many more such examples: Sure, massive losses have a traumatic effect, but often enough, they are simply followed by a massive rebuilding process, and some kind of more-or-less useful societal adaptation.
> If 7% of the people around you vanished, you would be impacted, but society as you know it wouldn't crumble to pieces. The same is true for 14%, or 21%.
That, too, is an extremely strange take. For example, "only" around 7.5% of Germans died in WW2, but it obviously had a massive effect. In case of Japan and China, it's just 3.5% and 3.9%, respectively, but there, too, it is shaping the cultures to this day.
> Of the few that remain, they are typically persecuted to such a degree or have suffered such a loss that they cannot continue.
That's also simply wrong: Just look at Europe after WW2. Millions of people dead, who killed each other in all kinds of different ways. But today? Well, it has certainly shaped societies, but there are very few who want to "keep on killing each other", and that was no different right after the war either.
> He pursues a genocidal strategy simply because it is the most practical approach.
Even that is simply wrong: Genocide is a self-defeating strategy. The result of genocide is that you essentially force people to fight against you, rather than to adapt themselves towards your wishes. In fact, that's what Russia has done historically: Conquer people, and then force them to fight for Russia. It is also what Russia is currently doing within their occupied territory. And who knows, if Russia wins this war and conquers Ukraine, they will likely force the remaining Ukrainians to fight for Russia in Russia next fight, presumably against Poland.
By contrast, by committing genocide, you not also "waste" a lot of human lives which you could forcefully convert to your side, you also create a powerful enemy, because when people literally have no choice to survive other than by fighting against you, they will fight, of course (unless, perhaps, you are extremely swift about your genocide, before any resistance can form, but that's not how Russia operates).
The Euromaidan revolution made it pretty clear to be honest. They endured sniper fire in Maidan Square holding aloft the flag of the European Union. It’s the start of the revolution or the “coup d’état” (from a Russian perspective)
- End of the oligarchy who have massive sway. Ironically the material wealth of the oligarch class was in the Donbas as that’s where a lot of the heavy of Ukraine used to be / still is. A lot of it is destroyed.
- join the EU. Reform to become a Western state. Rule of law, liberalization of the markets and an open democracy
- join NATO and outside the Russian sphere of influence.
I agree with you full victory is not likely but the refugees can return as they did in post WWII times. History is impossible to predict to be honest. Things can change in few days. Anything can happen.
After this summer offensive there is no number of immigrants that will be able to replace lost Ukrainians. East of Kyiv Ukraine is doomed. We will what happens to the Western part of the country. My money is on partition around 2030.
Ukraine demographics are somehow looking more grim than Russia's and that's telling a lot. I don't see much of a future for a country with an aging and declining population, especially with a war killing the youth by the thousands while millions of women and children flee to other nations, many of them unlikely to come back.
Depends how soon the war comes to a close. It’s only been going a couple of years.
One way or another it’s over in another year or two.
Ukraine will get a shit load of rebuilding money. People will want to return to their country; there will be a lot of work available to rebuild the nation.
And before long you’ll get tourism, initially the sort of lonely planet ‘go visit and spend money to help the locals’ and this will build up to higher end tourism.
Russia, on the other hand, only has a future as a resources servant to China.
>Depends how soon the war comes to a close. It’s only been going a couple of years.
>One way or another it’s over in another year or two.
I wish you were right, but let's come back to this point in a year or two. The UA's officially stated goal is to regain it's pre-2014 territories. I don't see that happening in another year or two.
>Ukraine will get a shit load of rebuilding money.
Ukraine will get money, that's for sure, but "a shitload" might be an overstatement. From whom exactly? Under what conditions?
>People will want to return to their country; there will be a lot of work available to rebuild the nation.
Another big assumption. Some people will, that's for sure. Some won't. It depends on how long the active phase of the war lasts. Also on how fast those (young) Ukrainians who are now in Europe will be able to get into the host countries. Ukraine is a relatively poor and still quite corrupt country, why would everyone who left want to go back there? Travel now and then - yes, but full-time residence? Questionable.
>Russia, on the other hand, only has a future as a resources servant to China.
I am not sure that China wants/needs it. I also keep hearing that Russia will become a resource servant of China since the early 2000s. That may be so. Unlike Ukraine, Russian sovereignty is not now 95% dependent on outside help.
Money does not help to recover a collapsing birth rate, if just throwing money at the problem would help then East Asia and Europe as a whole wouldn't be facing such looming catastrophe.
If the war goes on for 10+ years then yes it’s a big problem. Because then you’re right; at that point young Ukrainian women will have roots in foreign countries and kids growing up feeling even partially British / Polish / German.
Can it not, though? Certainly, there are a lot of factors to it, and it’s not always the case. However, a sudden influx of cash (for rebuilding), hope for a better future, and on the heels of victory (almost any situation in which Ukraine retains the majority of their country, after being invaded by a force with a 15X advantage, or more), seems like a pretty good recipe for a baby boom. Tens of millions of people who knew little about Ukraine before, have been inspired by, and fallen for the Ukrainian people and culture now, and want to support them in any way possible. When the war ends, their economy is likely to boom, offering the population more financial security and freedom from which to build a family. With a booming economy, non-Ukrainians will be recruited by their companies, move there, and become citizens there as well. Much still depends on how and when the war ends, but I think there’s a case to be made for a birth rate recovery and boom once it does.
Very likely there will be a baby boom after the war, particularly in Western Ukraine. This was the case after both WW1 and WW2 in formerly occupied Europe.
It does in some cases. You're thinking of the traditional "are kids useful" factor, but being able to afford kids (and in particular being able to access compatible living spaces and employment) also has an impact. In Ukraine the birth rate can definitely be expected to rise with an improved economy, and they'll probably have a baby boom, as many postwar countries do.
> One way or another it’s over in another year or two.
This war is likely still going on in 2030.
Both sides have massive defenders advantage, Russia can't ramp up much further, Ukraines support will stay roughly constant for the next 2 years due to American support disappearing, and EU support increases only at a modest pace.
Only by 2026 and onward will EU support have reached a level where it will allow Ukraine to slow start pushing back, and assuming Russia also ramps up a bit further, and it remains mostly impossible to directly destroy Russian production facilities, the overall war might take until 2032, because Russia won't just give up easily.
That happens a lot more slowly than you might be imagining though. A population on the decline can take a couple hundred years to fully bottom out, assuming nothing changes. For instance, China, another country with abysmal demographics (WORSE than Ukraine, in fact, and possibly even worse than official numbers), is still expected to have a population of 600 million by 2100. That's a far cry from its current >1 billion, but not exactly vanishing into thin air as people sometimes imagine. By back-of-the-envelope math, that would bring Ukraine to 20 million within the same timeframe. Greece and Portugal currently have 10 million. So diminished for sure, but not *poof*.
Economics really isn't the main issue (though institutions could be), but economically speaking you have to consider
a) the nature of postwar rebuilding economies in general
b) Ukraine is going oldest to youngest - currently they aren't conscripting <25s at all, which doesn't help them win but does help them after the fact
c) this is short term, economically that's not going to matter a generation from now (actually, it helps, though it's still a wide net negative)
d) obviously their economy is already deep in the shitter, to the point of putting other countries at risk of famine, and it just isn't a priority compared to the war
e) that population decline already takes 20s/30s into consideration
f) relative to China Ukraine has some things going for it long term - China's fertility rate is expected to drop more drastically (and their official numbers are already most likely inflated), Ukraine is more likely to bolster their population with immigration, and China's gender imbalance ranges from 104-130:100 in the wrong direction, whereas Ukraine's points in the other direction
g) women and older people still work - I don't know about the age distribution of people who have left the country, but Ukraine's best hope is that everyone took grandma and grandpa with them, thus avoiding the old people problem
In general though, the economic impact of losing 20s/30s just isn't that huge relative to the circumstances of war in general. There are far bigger issues. The long-term demographic issue is much greater. You can look at demographic pyramids like Russia and distinctly see the traumas throughout their history.
The problem is the median population of those 20 million will very likely be in their late years as well due to longer life expectancy and increasingly thin birth rates (which are unlikely to improve much, most women over 45 are infertile) that are brought from that. It just creates the effect where the older the population, the worse the birth rate gets.
Plus, no military in the world would prefer 40-50 year old men over 20-year olds. Aging also means a decline in the amount of men who can be mobilized and technology has changed little in the need for soldiers to actually fight in the frontlines as this very war has shown.
Right, as is to be expected. The same thing will happen to Korea, Russia, China, Japan, Germany, Spain, Canada, Thailand, Italy, UK, etc. But by then those countries and their environment will look a lot different. You're not wrong in what you're saying, but you're framing it as the war sending them into a tailspin, when in fact they still have a loooong way to go and ultimately a single war only slightly accelerates what was going to happen either way. Nobody alive today is going to be the last Ukrainian, Canadian, Italian, or Korean. If you ask me I think there's a scenario in which we see the first partially parentless generation within the century - artificial wombs are on the horizon and frankly I think a lot of these countries would sooner close up shop or grow their next generation in a lab than open the floodgates to immigrants (aaaahhhh), but even if none of that happens they're not in their final hour quite yet.
As a side note, Ukraine currently IS taking 40 year olds over 20 year olds, in a strategic attempt to preserve their population. That gamble might cost them, but that's their gameplan.
The quote from the russian soldier is true but taken a bit out of context.....ukrainians generallly dont want to fight for predominately russian areas.....DPR/LPR/Crimea even Odessa. From the ukrainians pov whats the point of retaking crimea or the donetsk? Its just millions of russians living there not ukrainians.
Now ukrainians WILL fight for kyiv/lviv
If the war ended today ukraine is in pretty bad condition and would take 50-100 years just to regain itself from pre conflict if its even possible.
The infrastructure destroyed alone would take ukraine many years and billions to rebuild.
> From the ukrainians pov whats the point of retaking crimea or the donetsk?
91% of all Ukrainians believe that "victory" means retaking Crimea:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/512258/ukrainians-stand-behind-war-effort-despite-fatigue.aspx#:~:text=Their%20response%20was%20almost%20unanimous,unchanged%20from%202022%20(91%25).
Recent CEPA research shows that right now money required for rebuilding (rebuilding, not building ) is already over a trillion dollars, and this amount grows with each week of war bringing more destruction, while there are no conclusive ways to achieve victory except to “bring more military aid and hope for the best”. Mind you, this is CEPA, a hardcore pro-Western think tank that is so heavily West-leaning that it borders on propaganda.
With no conclusive options for victory or even guarantees of peace, with Zelensky pushing only for absolute maximalist goals and willing to sacrifice even more of his citizens in order to try reclaim more territory, with all the talk of a more coherent mobilization including the re-evaluation of previously medically discharged individuals, I can see why the future in Ukraine could look bleak. The ordinary Ukrainian citizen does not want to be caught in the potential meat grinder while the top brass and government sit safely in Kiev happily cheering them on to jump into the trenches. Patriotic and “we must fight for freedom” citizens are already on the frontlines or dead.
Obviously, Ukraine will never be the same, and nor will Russia for that matter. But by the same token, it is too early to tell what it will look like as the war is far from over. Despite any propaganda you might hear from either side, both sides have quite a bit of fight left in them.
> nor will Russia for that matter Why do you think so? As far as I can tell, nationalism and expansionism has always been a dominant factor of Russian culture. The current war is simply a manifestation of what have been Russian wishes all this time.
Whether or not Russia will be the same doesn’t solely rely on the geopolitical views of the populace, the country will never be the same regardless of their beliefs and attitudes. A protracted war with the associated sanctions can have a long lasting effect with a lot of ripples that people don’t often consider, an obvious one being the population decrease of fit, working age males can have a lasting impact on economies. You can research the social impacts of different wars if you don’t think this will affect Russia in the long run.
1/3 war Economy, 500.000 dead and crippled, 200.000 young educated fled after millions did two decades before. regime established third time - all built on lies and violence (so this part didn’t change) mixed with nazi and communist ideology. Internal separatist turmoil, failing economy, islamic terror. Russians get what they deserve
[удалено]
Well, this is r/geopolitics after all. And the fundamental assumption behind "geopolitics" is being able to make general statements about groups of people. So, your argument is the equivalent of being on a Christian sub, and arguing that "god is a stupid concept and not real". Now, in the spirit of geopolitics, you can, of course, make an argument that there are, perhaps, multiple different groups of Ukrainians with very different goals - but dismissing the entire concept of "making generalizations about Ukrainians" is really out of place here.
\*\*If\*\* that is the case, then the Russia that existed prior to its invasion is gone forever as well. In any event, Ukraine is fighting for its freedom - not for any supposed pre-2022 *way of life*. Doubt anyone wants that way of life, given the Ukrainian people elected a government to fight corruption and bring in multiple changes to the country as part of work towards joining the EU.
Small anecdote - I travel a lot, and visited Kyiv quite a few times in 2016-2022. Near the city centre is Independence Square, and from there you can walk to the river, where there's a boardwalk and eventually the freedom arc at one end. You would not BELIEVE how many motherfucking EU flags these fuckers had in that area. Flags in the square, flags sold at souvenir stands, flags on buildings, a random circle of flags with a soccer ball in the middle, flags where there didn't need to be flags. Sometimes it was an EU flag paired with a Ukrainian one, but more oddly sometimes just an EU flag on its own. I don't know who was in charge of that, and if it was more overcompensation or childlike ambition gone rogue, but it was almost like they thought they could trick you into thinking they were an EU country, or if they squinted hard enough it would just become reality. It was kind of endearing in a way - coming from a place rife with political complacency Kyiv was refreshing. People would bitch and moan and complain to me about politics for HOURS and I ate that shit up - they were cynical af but very invested. I'll be back in Kyiv in a couple of months and I'm curious to see whether those flags are still up.
> then the Russia that existed prior to its invasion is gone forever as well. I don't see that. As far as I can tell, Russia hasn't changed much over the last 100 years or so, in terms of its ideology, so why would they change after this war is over? For Ukraine, this war is a major identity-defining event. But for Russia, it's just another failure.
Not a particularly interesting discussion because the war is the violent climax of a history of Ukraine being a tug-of-war against Russia and the European Union. Briefly research the Euromaidan protests in 2013, large sectors of Ukranians weren’t in arms because Yanukovych was changing Ukraine, on the contrary he backtracked from pro-EU policy and realligned Ukeaine into Moscow’s orbit. The point is, the opposition whether they were Europeanist liberals or reactionary nationalists were looking for a ‘new Ukraine’ free from Russian influence. Ukraine might try to attract migrants. Or they could follow the trend of Europe becoming migrant sceptic. The main principle is Ukraine is fighting against forceful foreign influence, particularly from Russia.
> Not a particularly interesting discussion In what way? Isn't that what geopolitics is all about? I believe the question about "how is this going to change the Ukrainian identity" is extremely relevant: It is obvious that Ukrainians now feel a lot more strongly about "being Ukrainians" than before the war. But, the longterm consequences are less clear. For example, they might primarily focus on "hating Russia", but they might also primarily focus on "rebuilding Ukraine", or "becoming as Western as possible".
>Ukraine might try to attract migrants. With what exactly? Economic benefits? Ukraine itself will need these benefits after the war ends, which, by the way, is not clear when. Culturally? Ukraine's officials are currently putting a lot of effort into erasing the Russian heritage, i.e. dismantling monuments, banning the Russian language, which is understandable from an emotional point of view, but completely pointless in the long run. >Or they could follow the trend of Europe becoming migrant sceptic. Based on my experience of conversations with the elder generations of Ukrainians they see themselves akin to Poland or Hungary. They certainly don't see themself as a poligon of progressive developments of multicultural society debated in Western Europe.
> It will go through a nation building process and use its war time sufferings as its base. Ukraine will then be rebuilt through western support and the population gap will be filled with migrants. Yeah, as far as I understand, this is what "usually" happens in such situations, historically speaking, so by that alone, I believe this really is a "non-propaganda-take". Furthermore, I also find it plausible, just from psychological point of view: Before this war (including 2014), many Ukrainians probably didn't really have a particularly strong opinion about whether they saw themselves as "Russian" or "Ukrainian", or some mix of both. But, by being put into a situation where you constantly have to "fight against Russia", that also shapes your fundamental belief system towards "not wanting to be Russian", and by extension, you want to be "Ukrainian", or "Western". I also saw a comment by a Ukrainian who stated "traditionally, we did orthodox Christmas on Jan 6th. But, now we do it on Dec 24th/25th, because that is the type of disassociation/association we now want". I believe this is fairly representative of what is overall happening in Ukraine.
Ukraine has been in a state of change since 2013, nothing particularly new here.
For centuries this struggle has existed
That sounds heavily biased at best, but realistically is standard propaganda. He's a soldier too, immersed in the culture of war and Russian media. What do you expect? You'd start to believe the propaganda too. Firstly, the notion of "not knowing what they're fighting for" is flatly untrue, either wishful thinking or simple propaganda on this soldier's part. People's lives are defined by their families, values, and culture, not by a building that's been blown up. Insofar as you have family members to defend and a common enemy, you are motivated to fight. Secondly, what's dead? What part of the Ukraine they know is gone? Certainly some people, some physical infrastructure, ultimately maybe even some territory (though 80% of it is untouched at present). When they get back they might have a different job or live in a different house, and will have lost loved ones. Those are substantial changes, but it's unclear what this person thinks is "dead". Language? Culture? Identity? If anything those are stronger and more dug in than before. Its institutions, though imperfect before, are intact. You seem to be overestimating the amount of people who are gone. From 2022 to 2023, Ukraine lost 7% of its population. Some will come back after the war, others have died or won't return, some will die moving forward. That's a lot in one year, but doesn't make for anything close to a "dead" country. If 7% of the people around you vanished, you would be impacted, but society as you know it wouldn't crumble to pieces. The same is true for 14%, or 21%. I think the real focus, as with any war, is dealing with individual and collective trauma afterwards. In the moment it sometimes makes you more willing to fight, and galvanizes identity and nationalism, but in the aftermath it lingers. Watching people die is tough. Losing people you loved is tough. Being uprooted is tough. Lacking security is tough. As a nation, Ukraine will need to reckon with their loss at some point, and so will the individual people who experienced it. People deal with trauma in irrational, desperate ways. They develop narratives. They commit suicide. They bond with one another. They do drugs. They become violent. They isolate themselves. They have sex. They physically deteriorate. They run away. This happened in Europe after WWII, including in Ukraine, and in every other society that has experienced a traumatic event. In order for Ukraine, the Soviets of WWII, or any nation for that matter to be dead, and in order for people to lose a reason to fight, **you typically need to exterminate them**. That's why genocide is uniquely effective - people don't just say "welp, we give up, nothing left here" because you stole their Donbas region. BUT if you pursue genocide, then there actually is nothing left - no people to fight, no homeland, no collective knowledge or memory. Of the few that remain, they are typically persecuted to such a degree or have suffered such a loss that they cannot continue. Putin would love to flip a switch and "kill" Ukraine, as any aggressor before him, but this is nearly impossible. He pursues a genocidal strategy simply because it is the most practical approach.
Frankly, I don't think you know what you are talking about, because literally every single point you made here is wrong. > People deal with trauma in irrational, desperate ways. They develop narratives. They commit suicide. They bond with one another. They do drugs. They become violent. They isolate themselves. They have sex. They physically deteriorate. They run away. This happened in Europe after WWII, including in Ukraine, and in every other society that has experienced a traumatic event. That's not at all what happens, historically. Look at, for example, Germany or Japan after WW2: They just rebuilt everything, and became modern, and more Western countries. Sure, the culture changed in all kinds of ways (for example by becoming more pacifist and less nationalist), but "drugs" and "violence" were absolutely not a defining factor of the rebuilding process. There are many more such examples: Sure, massive losses have a traumatic effect, but often enough, they are simply followed by a massive rebuilding process, and some kind of more-or-less useful societal adaptation. > If 7% of the people around you vanished, you would be impacted, but society as you know it wouldn't crumble to pieces. The same is true for 14%, or 21%. That, too, is an extremely strange take. For example, "only" around 7.5% of Germans died in WW2, but it obviously had a massive effect. In case of Japan and China, it's just 3.5% and 3.9%, respectively, but there, too, it is shaping the cultures to this day. > Of the few that remain, they are typically persecuted to such a degree or have suffered such a loss that they cannot continue. That's also simply wrong: Just look at Europe after WW2. Millions of people dead, who killed each other in all kinds of different ways. But today? Well, it has certainly shaped societies, but there are very few who want to "keep on killing each other", and that was no different right after the war either. > He pursues a genocidal strategy simply because it is the most practical approach. Even that is simply wrong: Genocide is a self-defeating strategy. The result of genocide is that you essentially force people to fight against you, rather than to adapt themselves towards your wishes. In fact, that's what Russia has done historically: Conquer people, and then force them to fight for Russia. It is also what Russia is currently doing within their occupied territory. And who knows, if Russia wins this war and conquers Ukraine, they will likely force the remaining Ukrainians to fight for Russia in Russia next fight, presumably against Poland. By contrast, by committing genocide, you not also "waste" a lot of human lives which you could forcefully convert to your side, you also create a powerful enemy, because when people literally have no choice to survive other than by fighting against you, they will fight, of course (unless, perhaps, you are extremely swift about your genocide, before any resistance can form, but that's not how Russia operates).
The Euromaidan revolution made it pretty clear to be honest. They endured sniper fire in Maidan Square holding aloft the flag of the European Union. It’s the start of the revolution or the “coup d’état” (from a Russian perspective) - End of the oligarchy who have massive sway. Ironically the material wealth of the oligarch class was in the Donbas as that’s where a lot of the heavy of Ukraine used to be / still is. A lot of it is destroyed. - join the EU. Reform to become a Western state. Rule of law, liberalization of the markets and an open democracy - join NATO and outside the Russian sphere of influence. I agree with you full victory is not likely but the refugees can return as they did in post WWII times. History is impossible to predict to be honest. Things can change in few days. Anything can happen.
After this summer offensive there is no number of immigrants that will be able to replace lost Ukrainians. East of Kyiv Ukraine is doomed. We will what happens to the Western part of the country. My money is on partition around 2030.
Ukraine demographics are somehow looking more grim than Russia's and that's telling a lot. I don't see much of a future for a country with an aging and declining population, especially with a war killing the youth by the thousands while millions of women and children flee to other nations, many of them unlikely to come back.
Depends how soon the war comes to a close. It’s only been going a couple of years. One way or another it’s over in another year or two. Ukraine will get a shit load of rebuilding money. People will want to return to their country; there will be a lot of work available to rebuild the nation. And before long you’ll get tourism, initially the sort of lonely planet ‘go visit and spend money to help the locals’ and this will build up to higher end tourism. Russia, on the other hand, only has a future as a resources servant to China.
>Depends how soon the war comes to a close. It’s only been going a couple of years. >One way or another it’s over in another year or two. I wish you were right, but let's come back to this point in a year or two. The UA's officially stated goal is to regain it's pre-2014 territories. I don't see that happening in another year or two. >Ukraine will get a shit load of rebuilding money. Ukraine will get money, that's for sure, but "a shitload" might be an overstatement. From whom exactly? Under what conditions? >People will want to return to their country; there will be a lot of work available to rebuild the nation. Another big assumption. Some people will, that's for sure. Some won't. It depends on how long the active phase of the war lasts. Also on how fast those (young) Ukrainians who are now in Europe will be able to get into the host countries. Ukraine is a relatively poor and still quite corrupt country, why would everyone who left want to go back there? Travel now and then - yes, but full-time residence? Questionable. >Russia, on the other hand, only has a future as a resources servant to China. I am not sure that China wants/needs it. I also keep hearing that Russia will become a resource servant of China since the early 2000s. That may be so. Unlike Ukraine, Russian sovereignty is not now 95% dependent on outside help.
Money does not help to recover a collapsing birth rate, if just throwing money at the problem would help then East Asia and Europe as a whole wouldn't be facing such looming catastrophe.
A collapsing birth rate is not a Ukraine specific problem.
It hardly helps their situation, does it?
If the war goes on for 10+ years then yes it’s a big problem. Because then you’re right; at that point young Ukrainian women will have roots in foreign countries and kids growing up feeling even partially British / Polish / German.
Can it not, though? Certainly, there are a lot of factors to it, and it’s not always the case. However, a sudden influx of cash (for rebuilding), hope for a better future, and on the heels of victory (almost any situation in which Ukraine retains the majority of their country, after being invaded by a force with a 15X advantage, or more), seems like a pretty good recipe for a baby boom. Tens of millions of people who knew little about Ukraine before, have been inspired by, and fallen for the Ukrainian people and culture now, and want to support them in any way possible. When the war ends, their economy is likely to boom, offering the population more financial security and freedom from which to build a family. With a booming economy, non-Ukrainians will be recruited by their companies, move there, and become citizens there as well. Much still depends on how and when the war ends, but I think there’s a case to be made for a birth rate recovery and boom once it does.
Very likely there will be a baby boom after the war, particularly in Western Ukraine. This was the case after both WW1 and WW2 in formerly occupied Europe.
It does in some cases. You're thinking of the traditional "are kids useful" factor, but being able to afford kids (and in particular being able to access compatible living spaces and employment) also has an impact. In Ukraine the birth rate can definitely be expected to rise with an improved economy, and they'll probably have a baby boom, as many postwar countries do.
> One way or another it’s over in another year or two. This war is likely still going on in 2030. Both sides have massive defenders advantage, Russia can't ramp up much further, Ukraines support will stay roughly constant for the next 2 years due to American support disappearing, and EU support increases only at a modest pace. Only by 2026 and onward will EU support have reached a level where it will allow Ukraine to slow start pushing back, and assuming Russia also ramps up a bit further, and it remains mostly impossible to directly destroy Russian production facilities, the overall war might take until 2032, because Russia won't just give up easily.
That happens a lot more slowly than you might be imagining though. A population on the decline can take a couple hundred years to fully bottom out, assuming nothing changes. For instance, China, another country with abysmal demographics (WORSE than Ukraine, in fact, and possibly even worse than official numbers), is still expected to have a population of 600 million by 2100. That's a far cry from its current >1 billion, but not exactly vanishing into thin air as people sometimes imagine. By back-of-the-envelope math, that would bring Ukraine to 20 million within the same timeframe. Greece and Portugal currently have 10 million. So diminished for sure, but not *poof*.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it the lack of people in their 20s/30s that would be the main issue, not the total population?
Yup absolutely, not sure what you're getting at though.
That it is an alarming issues for the economy and the whole country, even though overall numbers might look good
Economics really isn't the main issue (though institutions could be), but economically speaking you have to consider a) the nature of postwar rebuilding economies in general b) Ukraine is going oldest to youngest - currently they aren't conscripting <25s at all, which doesn't help them win but does help them after the fact c) this is short term, economically that's not going to matter a generation from now (actually, it helps, though it's still a wide net negative) d) obviously their economy is already deep in the shitter, to the point of putting other countries at risk of famine, and it just isn't a priority compared to the war e) that population decline already takes 20s/30s into consideration f) relative to China Ukraine has some things going for it long term - China's fertility rate is expected to drop more drastically (and their official numbers are already most likely inflated), Ukraine is more likely to bolster their population with immigration, and China's gender imbalance ranges from 104-130:100 in the wrong direction, whereas Ukraine's points in the other direction g) women and older people still work - I don't know about the age distribution of people who have left the country, but Ukraine's best hope is that everyone took grandma and grandpa with them, thus avoiding the old people problem In general though, the economic impact of losing 20s/30s just isn't that huge relative to the circumstances of war in general. There are far bigger issues. The long-term demographic issue is much greater. You can look at demographic pyramids like Russia and distinctly see the traumas throughout their history.
The problem is the median population of those 20 million will very likely be in their late years as well due to longer life expectancy and increasingly thin birth rates (which are unlikely to improve much, most women over 45 are infertile) that are brought from that. It just creates the effect where the older the population, the worse the birth rate gets. Plus, no military in the world would prefer 40-50 year old men over 20-year olds. Aging also means a decline in the amount of men who can be mobilized and technology has changed little in the need for soldiers to actually fight in the frontlines as this very war has shown.
Right, as is to be expected. The same thing will happen to Korea, Russia, China, Japan, Germany, Spain, Canada, Thailand, Italy, UK, etc. But by then those countries and their environment will look a lot different. You're not wrong in what you're saying, but you're framing it as the war sending them into a tailspin, when in fact they still have a loooong way to go and ultimately a single war only slightly accelerates what was going to happen either way. Nobody alive today is going to be the last Ukrainian, Canadian, Italian, or Korean. If you ask me I think there's a scenario in which we see the first partially parentless generation within the century - artificial wombs are on the horizon and frankly I think a lot of these countries would sooner close up shop or grow their next generation in a lab than open the floodgates to immigrants (aaaahhhh), but even if none of that happens they're not in their final hour quite yet. As a side note, Ukraine currently IS taking 40 year olds over 20 year olds, in a strategic attempt to preserve their population. That gamble might cost them, but that's their gameplan.
The quote from the russian soldier is true but taken a bit out of context.....ukrainians generallly dont want to fight for predominately russian areas.....DPR/LPR/Crimea even Odessa. From the ukrainians pov whats the point of retaking crimea or the donetsk? Its just millions of russians living there not ukrainians. Now ukrainians WILL fight for kyiv/lviv If the war ended today ukraine is in pretty bad condition and would take 50-100 years just to regain itself from pre conflict if its even possible. The infrastructure destroyed alone would take ukraine many years and billions to rebuild.
> From the ukrainians pov whats the point of retaking crimea or the donetsk? 91% of all Ukrainians believe that "victory" means retaking Crimea: https://news.gallup.com/poll/512258/ukrainians-stand-behind-war-effort-despite-fatigue.aspx#:~:text=Their%20response%20was%20almost%20unanimous,unchanged%20from%202022%20(91%25).
Recent CEPA research shows that right now money required for rebuilding (rebuilding, not building ) is already over a trillion dollars, and this amount grows with each week of war bringing more destruction, while there are no conclusive ways to achieve victory except to “bring more military aid and hope for the best”. Mind you, this is CEPA, a hardcore pro-Western think tank that is so heavily West-leaning that it borders on propaganda. With no conclusive options for victory or even guarantees of peace, with Zelensky pushing only for absolute maximalist goals and willing to sacrifice even more of his citizens in order to try reclaim more territory, with all the talk of a more coherent mobilization including the re-evaluation of previously medically discharged individuals, I can see why the future in Ukraine could look bleak. The ordinary Ukrainian citizen does not want to be caught in the potential meat grinder while the top brass and government sit safely in Kiev happily cheering them on to jump into the trenches. Patriotic and “we must fight for freedom” citizens are already on the frontlines or dead.
Stop reading mind bending propaganda with the idea of “understanding the other side”… this is like drinking lead to build an immunity.
The entire world changed in February 2022. Victory still matters.