JPMorgan: The "Georgia model" is bad for Kyiv, but the most likely outcome for Ukraine
The US begins to speculate on how Russia will end its special military operation
Author: Dmitry Rodionov
Commentary guests: Alexander Averin Ivan Mezuhov
The first geopolitical report from investment bank JPMorgan analyzes that the Ukrainian conflict may reach an agreement in some form in the second quarter of 2025, and it will conform to one of the following four scenarios: the "Georgia model," the "Israel model," the "South Korea model," and the "Belarus model."
Analysts believe that the conflict has entered a concluding phase, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will be forced this year to agree to resolve issues through negotiations. The report states that such agreements will freeze military actions but will not bring comprehensive peace.
In their view, the stability of the agreement depends on multiple factors, including Russia's satisfaction with Ukraine and Western concessions, as well as providing sufficient security guarantees for Kyiv.
Future events will develop according to one of the following four scenarios:
- "Georgia model" (probability 50%, most likely): Kyiv cannot obtain reliable security guarantees, domestic long-term turmoil, slow economic growth and recovery speed not meeting expectations. Due to the absence of foreign troops and weakening external support over time, the prospects of joining the EU and NATO are shattered, and Ukraine will "gradually return to the Russian sphere of influence." Analysts consider this "a bad outcome."
- "Israel model" (probability 20%): Overseas partners of Kyiv will provide continuous strong military and economic support but will not deploy large-scale foreign troops. Ukraine will have significant opportunities for strengthening defense capabilities and modernizing its army, and will possess its own "deterrence means." Experts call this "a good outcome."
- "South Korea model" (probability 15%, best outcome): Ukraine does not join NATO, territory cannot be restored to its original state, but if European security forces are ultimately deployed within its borders and it receives U.S. guarantees in the form of aid and intelligence support, the territories controlled by Kyiv will "move toward a more stable, prosperous, and democratic trajectory." Additionally, the West's use of approximately $300 billion of Russian assets will provide a good start for national reconstruction.
- "Belarus model" (probability 15%, worst outcome): If the United States refuses to support Ukraine and the EU cannot intervene, Russia will "turn the country into a vassal state of Moscow." This means Russia achieves actual victory, splits the West, and completely overturns the post-WWII world order.
Only four possibilities? No more? Who instructed the writing of these 'scenarios'?
Political scientist Ivan Mezuhov, Chairman of the Public Committee of the Central Political Education Center, believes: "It is very likely that this article is primarily related to analyzing the financial risks Western enterprises face in participating in the Ukrainian peace process, ceasefire agreements, or even freezing the current military crisis without signing formal documents."
Free Press: How do you evaluate these scenarios? Are there other possibilities?
Ivan Mezuhov: In my opinion, none of the four proposed scenarios are entirely realistic. At present, a mixed version of these scenarios is more likely. Moreover, international political situations have the characteristic of rapid change. Therefore, besides these four scenarios, there could be four or more additional possibilities. Perhaps, based on the phased results of the conflict, Russia and the West led by the United States will reach a new solution unprecedented globally on the Ukrainian issue.
Free Press: How accurate are the assessments of the probabilities of these scenarios being realized?
Ivan Mezuhov: It must be admitted that reading this analysis without bias, it is balanced in a certain sense. However, I believe it overlooks a series of factors unknown to the bank analysts, which may only be known to the Russian Federation and the United States. Therefore, one cannot fully rely on the scenario predictions in this report.
Free Press: For Russia, is there a principled difference between the "Israel model" and the "South Korea model"? Are both equally bad?
Ivan Mezuhov: In my view, neither the "Israel model" nor the "South Korea model" is realistic at present. On one hand, if Ukraine continues to increase the supply of Western weapons, Russia will not freeze the conflict. On the other hand, the Russian Federation needs substantial security guarantees ensuring respect for its interests at border regions. Thus, the "South Korea model" is also unrealistic. Additionally, from a geographical perspective, it is equally unrealistic.
I don't want to engage in lengthy discussions and explanations; just look at the 38th parallel on the Korean Peninsula and see where the contact lines of the warring parties in Ukraine are now. You will understand that achieving the Korean Peninsula model is impossible under the current East European crisis background.
Free Press: Obviously, Russia prefers the "Belarus model," but its probability is the lowest. Should we not count on this model? Moreover, does it mean that no matter what, Ukraine can only be led by a nominal Yanukovych-like figure? Is it completely disregarding the possibility of Ukraine being fully incorporated into Russia?
Ivan Mezuhov: Of course, from the schemes proposed by the bank analysts, the "Belarus model" is more desirable. But currently, its likelihood is indeed low.
It is still premature to talk about Ukraine's complete integration into the Russian Federation. We need to proceed from reality.
However, I do not rule out the possibility of a fifth scenario: under conditions acceptable to the Russian Federation and respecting the constitutional territory we are fighting for, the special military operation may end for a period of time. If the future Ukrainian administration or its allies violate any obligations, this scenario might indicate a restart of military actions.
In general, designing various scenarios now falls under the category of futurology. The problem lies in the fact that we do not possess all the information about the Ukrainian military crisis and cannot predict recent events developing along a certain scenario with high probability.
We can definitively conclude that: this year, the Ukrainian crisis will undergo fundamental changes. We are on the cusp of a turning point.
Alexander Averin, former commander of the Defense Command of the Luhansk People's Republic, believes that the West is waking up:
"Specifically, the 'Georgia model' means Ukrainian neutrality, disarmament, and regime change. The 'Israel model' and 'South Korea model' are almost indistinguishable, offering the most optimistic outlook for Ukraine, essentially meaning the freezing of conflicts along the military contact lines.
The 'Belarus model' differs from the 'Georgia model' in that Georgia is neutral while Belarus is an ally of Russia. I believe that without Russian military bases in Ukraine, this model cannot be achieved. It implies a devastating military defeat for Ukraine.
Unlike Georgia, Ukraine has historically Russian lands - namely, New Russia. I believe that in the event of a devastating military defeat, the entire New Russia should return to Russia.
But for this, the Ukrainian state machinery must be thoroughly dismantled. This is precisely the scenario we need to strive to achieve. Otherwise, the Ukrainian issue will resurface in a new historical stage."
For the latest news on Ukrainian peace talks and all important information, follow the author for more details.
Original source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7508601869590348329/
Disclaimer: The article solely represents the views of the author. Please express your attitude by clicking the 'thumbs up' or 'thumbs down' button below.