Because resistance offers a chance to live – surrender offers none
MAY 26, 2025
The Center for Geopolitics recently launched by JPMorganChase, an American multinational finance corporation, has produced its first report that focused on the Russian-Ukrainian war and the “future of Europe”.
The report argues that Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky “will likely be forced to accept a negotiated settlement with Russia sometime this year that freezes the fighting but stops short of a comprehensive peace agreement. […] Putin will aim to cut a deal that is favorable to his overall goal to eventually control Kyiv. 2025 was always going to be the year of negotiation, and the endgame is here”.
The report then lists four possible outcomes of the “endgame”, referring to four different countries:
Best case: “South Korea” scenario, odds: 15%
Ukraine is unlikely to achieve NATO membership or full territorial restoration, but securing a European military presence in Ukraine, backed by US security and intelligence support, could stabilise and strengthen the 80 percent of the country still under Kyiv’s control.
Still OK: “Israel” scenario, odds: 20%
Robust long-term support without foreign troops could help Ukraine fortify itself and build deterrence, but the threat of war would persist. Putin would still require economic incentives and improved US relations to be deterred.
Not great: “Georgia” scenario, odds: 50%
Without foreign troops or strong military support, Ukraine would face instability, hindered recovery, declining international backing, and a stalled path to Western integration, risking a slow return to Russia’s sphere of influence.
Worst case: “Belarus” scenario, odds: 15%
If the US abandons Ukraine and Europe does not compensate, Russia will push for total Ukrainian capitulation, achieving victory, fracturing the West, and overturning the post-WW2 international order.
Unfortunately, JPMorgan’s Center for Geopolitics seems to fail to grasp the significance of the war for both Russia and Ukraine, which results in presenting the “Georgia” scenario as the most likely “endgame”.
Why Russia wages the war and will not stop voluntarily, despite – as the report suggests – “Putin’s losses [being] far from sustainable”:
Putin sees the very existence of the Ukrainian nation-state as an instrument of the West’s eternal war against Russia. In this sense, the current war is merely an episode of that perennial conflict. He considers the destruction of Ukraine both as an objective in itself and as a way to strike back at the West without confronting it directly.
Putin’s views on the West and Ukraine were shaped during the Cold War – long before the fall of the Soviet Union, the emergence of Ukraine as an independent state in 1991, or NATO’s enlargement. The war against Ukraine is an indispensable part of Putin’s psychological identity, and his will to continue fighting will only be broken by superior firepower or his own physical demise.
Why Ukraine fights back and will keep on doing so: Ukraine has no other choice.
Consider one particular practice of the Russian troops: it has now become a systemic practice for Russian forces to execute Ukrainian soldiers and officers who are forced to surrender.
Killing prisoners of war (PoWs) is not only a grave violation of international humanitarian law but also a highly irrational act. From a rational perspective, Russia could interrogate Ukrainian PoWs for battlefield intelligence, exploit them for forced labour, use them in prisoner exchanges, or even attempt to indoctrinate them to switch sides or act as spies in future operations. Last but not least, the systematic execution of PoWs increases the risk of reciprocal violations, putting captured Russian soldiers in greater danger.
We can safely dismiss the notion that the execution of surrendered Ukrainian troops is driven by the “rage of battle”. Cases documented by Ukrainian military authorities paint a consistent picture of deliberate decisions made by Russian officers, who order their subordinates to execute Ukrainian PoWs – or to “nullify” (обнулить) them, as the Russians say.
What does the systematic execution of Ukrainian PoWs reveal? It points to the deliberate dehumanisation of Ukrainians, a strategy aimed at instilling terror, demoralising Ukrainian society and the armed forces, and signalling that this is a war without moral or legal limits. These actions suggest that Russia’s objectives in Ukraine extend beyond traditional imperialist or occupation aims: they indicate an intent not merely to dominate, but to annihilate Ukraine as a political and national entity.
JPMorgan’s reference to Georgia in its “most likely” scenario is deeply mistaken. Putin does not consider the existence of the Georgian state problematic – in his perspective, unlike Ukraine, the mere existence of Georgia is not part of the imagined West’s perennial war against Russia. The stakes are very different in the cases of Georgia and Ukraine. For Putin, accepting Ukraine as Georgia – that is, allowing Ukraine to survive – would mean betraying his core beliefs, something he will not do voluntarily, regardless of the human cost to Russia.
As Vladimir Medinsky, Putin’s representative at the recent so-called “Russia-Ukraine talks” in Istanbul, stated: Russia is prepared to wage war against Ukraine “however long it takes” – “Russia is prepared to fight forever”. This is not an exaggeration.
This explains why the Russian genocidal war against Ukraine differs dramatically from the Russian war against Georgia in 2008, or even the Soviet occupation of Central and Eastern European states after the Second World War. The Soviets never attempted to destroy the Hungarian nation in Hungary, the Germans in East Germany, or the Czechs in Czechoslovakia. Soviet control over Central and Eastern Europe was about political and ideological domination, not eradication.
What Ukraine faces is not traditional occupation or ideological subjugation, but elimination. Put simply, Ukraine’s choices are to fight back and risk being killed, or to surrender and be killed. By fighting back, Ukraine has a chance; by surrendering, it has none – making surrender not a viable option.
Russia is not trying to build a “Russia-friendly Ukraine” in the Ukrainian regions it occupies and annexes. It is attempting to build “Russia” itself there – through systematic and open de-Ukrainisation manifested in mass expulsions, ethnic cleansing, and brutal Russification.
Thus, broadly speaking, there are two possible outcomes of the Russian–Ukrainian war: (1) the destruction (and potential partition) of the Ukrainian nation-state, or (2) the survival of a Ukrainian rump state firmly embedded in the West. For the second scenario to be realised, three conditions must be met: Ukraine must be heavily armed, secured by ironclad guarantees from several NATO member states, and fully integrated into the EU.
All other intermediate scenarios are merely transitional phases that, in the absence of these conditions, ultimately lead toward the first outcome.
© 2025 Anton Shekhovtsov
Outstanding Comment from :
The Russians have demonstrated their intentions towards Ukrainians with their actions.
“When Russian forces enter residential areas in Ukraine, they kill for three principal reasons:
1. They Murder for Pleasure:
The killing of elderly civilians and ordinary people walking the streets has been widely documented as routine behavior. Intercepted phone calls and audio recordings show that, for many Russian soldiers, killing civilians is treated as sport—something recreational.
2. They Murder for Zachistka (Cleansing):
Call it genocide or ethnic cleansing—either term fits. Captured communications and testimony from prisoners reveal that Russian troops systematically execute innocent civilians, including women, children, babies, and the elderly, as part of a purge to eliminate Ukrainian identity.
3. They Murder Indiscriminately for “Self-Defense”:
Russian troops often assume that any living Ukrainian is a potential threat. At street crossings like the one shown in my video above, they preemptively kill everyone in sight—civilians included—to secure their own movement and safety.”
Abhcan comments that :
“Intercepted phone calls and audio recordings show that, for many Russian soldiers, killing civilians is treated as sport—something recreational.”
Their foul social media backs this up, but it’s even worse than that :
sickening, gloating “jokes” are plastered all over their social media whenever putler murders children.
Intercepted phone calls also have orc wives laughing and egging their husbands on to commit as much rape as possible.
Inconvenient truths for the likes of Krasnov, Carlson, Krasnov Jr, Greene, Kennedy, Musk etc etc.
The KP just now :
“Putin is preparing to demand a formal written promise from the West that NATO will not expand eastward — Reuters
Among Russia’s other demands: a neutral Ukraine, the lifting of sanctions, the unfreezing of Russian assets, and “protection” for Russian-speaking Ukrainians.”
Back to square one.
None of this kremkrapp is even remotely acceptable. The surrender document put out in April of last year by Captain Cornflake inspired the putinaZis to make even more outrageous demands.
You can’t negotiate with fucking savages.
Thanks a lot Krasnov.