Read something of a similar bent here https://theradicalfederalist.substack.com/p/the-regimes-next...

Any suggestions on where in the world will remain relatively stable?

South America. Was peaceful in WW1 and WW2. In US sphere, but far enough away not to be messed about with much.

I will be going to UA, to fight with them.

Not American, but provided US military has an oath towards the Constitution (and not to whatever the government claims), I doubt _all_ of US army would follow (either internally, either externally) such a brutal reversal of duty as well as alliances.

Duty is to the Constitution and the Commander in Chief. And alliances are at the discretion of the President. The military will do whatever they are told in terms of who the have to be friends with.

I know. That's the theory and mostly the practice.

Only, ask your military to return against your just previous allies (at your own initiative) among which the one that helped your very nation to fight for its independence, with which you did cross-training and exercises, for the past 80 years... everyone is in for quite a bumpy road.

I am reminded of North Africa in I think it was 1942.

France over-run by Germany. Gestapo at work, with all its horrors.

UK+US land in French North Africa, part of taking Africa from Germany, part in the long run of liberating France from horrors of occupation.

French soldiers fighting, killing and being killed by UK+US troops.

You mean the _Vichy_ French soldiers? that's quite a different situation than the allied French army :)

And, I was more thinking of the situation on American ground, within the USA and between the USA and Canada. I don't mean it wouldn't happen. I mean that I don't think that would happen with 100% engagement from all US army. The disconnect and reversal of strategy of the US, against its own allies, is too sudden.

They were French army, just as any other, only the part which was in North Africa when France fell.

My thought here was that armies can fight with the most brutal oppressors of their very own country, against those who would liberate it.

Or it doesn't happen like that

How do you think it will play out?

Anyone with a working memory of a couple of years remembers people like you who said a variety of excuses to the tune of "it won't be that bad", "you're exaggerating" and "it won't happen like that".

Of course, all of them were wrong. Short of WW3 between Europe and the US, many awful things that were predicted have come true. DT has severely weakened the USA, weakened the stock market, damaged US reputation and trust in the US army, dismantled many departments, put useless shills in most important positions, pulled out of Ukraine, stopped aid to Ukraine, sucked up to Putin, and turned it all into a country that most people in Europe consider a hostile enemy (myself included).

So. For the sake of your fellow citizens, quit the excuses.

The result, and perhaps the definition, of the polarization problem is that every time something terrible happens, the responsible side would rather say "I love suffering, this feels great" than lose face in an imagined argument with the other side.

The solution should probably be to go in and fight Russia immediately.

I think it's foolish to restrict operations to Ukraine though, and feel that the size of Russia is one of its main weaknesses. If there's to be a war, it should involve incursions into the US proper.

Yes. Right now it's the EU which needs UA, and EU knows it; EU military is weak and has no idea how to fight with drones. UA military is strong and knows how to fight with drones.

If UA goes down, then EU goes down, because RU will attack before EU is ready.

This is why I think we see EU direct involvement in UA fighting; needed to keep UA up, and needed to get up to speed with drones.

> If UA goes down, then EU goes down, because RU will attack before EU is ready.

Do you have any numbers or analysis to back this up, please?

A few counterpoints:

- Russia failed to 'take' a relatively unprepared Ukraine, and arguably has only managed the gains it has made because the support (from Biden US and EU) was drip-fed according to the Biden team's strategy.

- Russia is haemorraging fighters and modern fighting machinery in the current war in Ukraine. It's unknown how much longer the loss of life can be sustained without internal unrest. The absence of modern machinery would obviously make an invasion of Europe less likely to succeed.

- While Russia might now be a "war economy" I've seen reports that they can't economically sustain the war for too much longer.

- While the EU certainty needs to invest in defence, some countries are already strong, and would likely fight to protect the collective.

Overall, this suggests that Russia would fail against a united Europe, were they to extend beyond a defeated Ukraine.

While Russia certainly botched the invasion they probably would have taken all of Ukraine by now without so much western support. Ukraine would of course be in a much better position now if that support had been stronger and not been dribbled in.

Russia's economy is teetering and looks very weak now, but much of that is due to sanctions. Sanctions that trump will probably remove soon, for zero concessions. I'm not sure how effective EU sanctions will be on their own. Soon we will be seeing a much stronger Russia, already on a heavy war footing, start swallowing up a much weaker Ukraine. I don't like what might happen after that plays out.

> While Russia certainly botched the invasion they probably would have taken all of Ukraine by now without so much western support.

But the western support was very small compared to actual western military capability.