Russia’s Permanent Bases in Ukraine: A Failed Prediction

Is the Russian incursion over? The prediction that didn't reach 2023

Will the Russian incursion into Ukraine end with the fall of the Kyiv government and the installation of permanent military bases? That was the initial forecast: it predicted the government's collapse and the establishment of durable Russian bases, marking the end of the "NATO game." Time has disproven this claim. What remains is a trail of reposts recalling that the prediction failed in 2023, assuming it will also fail in 2024.

The thesis: permanent bases to guarantee compliance

The argument wasn't improvised. It relied on an analysis attributed to Rob Lee, stating that the core issue was that the Minsk Agreement was never implemented, so Russia would demand stronger mechanisms to ensure Ukrainian compliance. Among these, the analysis cited two options: permanent Russian military bases in Ukraine or short-to-medium-term military occupation of part of the country.

This is the crux: the debate wasn't about whether there would be a ceasefire, but what guarantees would uphold it if signed paper isn't enough. Proponents insist no power sends tanks into a country just to sign a document.

The real implication was different: if Moscow consolidates a stable military presence, the "NATO game" ends, as per the original message.

From Mariupol's fall to the Pentagon's warning

Initial responses were outright rejections. Critics called talk of durable bases ridiculous, asking if Russians were already parading down Kyiv's destroyed avenues. Another line assumed Mariupol's fall would end the war and that Europe would quietly make peace.

A counterpoint emerged: the Pentagon does not share this scenario, linking to a Fox News report.

Who rebuilds Donbas and who keeps the land

The discussion quickly shifted to economics. A recurring argument states that spending money to destroy a region you must later rebuild is bad business; if the EU funds Donbas reconstruction, the next invader will simply raze it again. This leads to the idea of the zone becoming no man's land, a dystopian scenario few admit openly.

Monetary layers also appeared. One popular forecast claims today over 80% of global trade settles in dollars and that an empire without this currency is unsustainable, predicting internal US fractures within a year. These are risky bets time will confirm or refute.

Domestic effects were noted too: warnings that Spain will face energy and food rationing, arriving ironically as victory is proclaimed. The thread drifted into historical comparisons—NATO entry, gold myths, Spanish politics from half a century ago—slippery ground largely unrelated to the debate.

From rationing to Yanukovych's return

Some parts turned to domestic issues. Warnings that Spain must tighten its belt drew sarcastic replies claiming the other side lives in abundance, inviting critics to leave first. Two incompatible certainties coexisted in one paragraph.

Political speculation arose, suggesting former President Yanukovych might return. None of this was backed by data; they were heat-of-the-moment hypotheses, not verified facts.

The repost: the prediction that expired silently

When the topic resurfaced, the tone shifted from analysis to mockery. Comments noted the message sounded like "2022," the prediction failed in 2023, wouldn't happen in 2024, and urged proponents to find new narratives. Responses often included all-caps insults without arguments.

This is revealing: a once-inevitable forecast became archaeological curiosity. Not because data disproved it—the core remains open—but because time, the stubbornest judge, turned pages without permission.

Consolation for doom predictors: if the NATO game hasn't ended, neither has the habit of reposting old predictions as time passes. Next time, check the calendar before setting a collapse date. Or don't: without these failures, reposts lose their charm.