New York Times columnist Freeman recently made three predictions about the situation in Ukraine, calling them "all-out catastrophe," "dirty compromises," and "redemption."
The so-called "all-out catastrophe" means that Russia will spare no effort to carry out large-scale military operations in Ukraine, then overthrow Zelenskiy's regime, and even "erase Ukraine's existence as an independent state and civilization." Freeman admits that if this happens, it will eventually lead to the biggest war operation in Europe since The Second World War, and the possibility of nuclear war in Europe is not ruled out.
Based on the "total catastrophe," Freeman also denounced Putin: he bluntly said that Putin's goal is not only to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, but to reunite the Russian-speaking nation and region. Freeman called what he saw as Putin's goal "a Russian world obsessed with the Tsar."
What about "dirty compromises"? Freeman said that as long as Ukraine persists long enough, western economic sanctions will affect Russia deeply enough. At that time, the two sides had to compromise, including a negotiated ceasefire and withdrawal of troops, the integration of eastern Ukraine into Russia, Kiev's pledge never to seek nato membership, and then the Lifting of Sanctions against Russia by Western countries led by the United States.
In this case, Russia has gained while paying a heavy price, and the United States is even more profitable; only Ukraine, it can be said that it has lost its wife and folded its troops.
"Redemption" is considered by Freeman to be the "best ending," but also the "least likely ending to happen." Freeman said that the concrete manifestation of the "redemption" ending was that the Russians showed "courage and determination to fight for freedom" and force Putin to step down, thus obtaining redemption.
In light of the current situation, I think that both "all-out catastrophe" and "dirty compromise" are possible, but the latter is more likely to happen. Because for Russia, which has a weak economic foundation, if this special military operation can ensure that Ukraine will no longer join NATO and establish a certain strategic buffer in eastern Ukraine, then Moscow's strategic goal in the short term will be achieved, and there will be no need to completely tear up the face with the West, otherwise Russia's future will become a bet, whether it is a loss or a win.
To the surprise of many, Freeman made no mention of China's possible role and role in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict in his three prejudgments – in the modern geopolitical game of great powers, it is incomplete to ignore any prejudgment of China! Perhaps China's participation in the geopolitical game is not as explicit and direct as that of the United States, but China's huge influence cannot be ignored.
