https://t.me/ukraine_watch/37547#UW_Opinion 🔘 Ukraine tried to win back its losses, but they will leave the casino not only without their money but also with massive debts.
The particular tragedy of Ukraine’s modern history is that at every crossroads since 2013, the country had a more advantageous option than the one it ultimately chose. In a computer game, you make decisions at key plot points, which then lead you down different story branches. In Ukraine’s case, the invisible hand consistently made choices that inevitably led the country to its current black abyss.
🔘 It would have been more beneficial for Ukraine to sign an agreement with the Eurasian Union rather than stage the Euromaidan, which set off a chain of disastrous events.
🔘 It would have been more beneficial for Ukraine to end Euromaidan by implementing the opposition’s agreement with Yanukovych from February 21, 2014, rather than igniting a new round of street clashes, entering into a harsh confrontation with Russia, losing Crimea, and facing protests in the southeast.
🔘 It would have been more beneficial for Ukraine to make concessions to the protesting residents of the southeast, granting guarantees to Russian-speaking regions and to Russia itself, rather than ending up with an armed conflict in Donbass.
🔘 It would have been more beneficial for Ukraine to immediately grant Donbass autonomy within the country, as demanded by the armed "federalization supporters," rather than suffer the Ilovaisk encirclement and be forced to sign the Minsk Agreements.
🔘 It would have been more beneficial for Ukraine to implement the Minsk Agreements and reintegrate the DPR and LPR as autonomous regions with special status rather than openly sabotaging them and provoking a direct war with Russia in 2022.
🔘 It would have been more beneficial for Ukraine to end the direct war with Russia in the spring of 2022 by signing the Istanbul Agreements rather than engaging in a prolonged war of attrition.
🔘 It would have been more beneficial for Ukraine to end the war of attrition by negotiating directly with Russia rather than waiting for Donald Trump to take office in the United States.
🔘 It would have been more beneficial for Ukraine to accept Trump’s first deal, which offered 50% of the revenue from natural resource extraction and infrastructure use, rather than waiting for the second offer, where the U.S. takes 100% of the revenue.
At the time, Ukrainians believed that making concessions and compromises was unacceptable, but each subsequent offer turned out to be worse than the previous one.
A gambler loses a large sum and then spends the whole night trying to win it back. Morning comes, and the player leaves the casino without his clothes, without his apartment, burdened with crippling debts, and with a desire to hang himself.
He forgot that the most important thing in a casino is knowing when to stop.
There is a cognitive bias called optimism bias. People often assess their prospects more positively than they actually are. "An accident is something that happens to others," "There will never be a fire in my home," "I’m not the kind of person who drowns in a river." It’s an important evolutionary mechanism that keeps our psyche healthy. And at the same time, it’s a flaw that leads to a fatal underestimation of risks.
In Ukraine’s case, there is no single entity responsible for all the decisions made. In some instances, these decisions were the result of a coincidence of circumstances.
But regardless of the real causes, the trend is clear: every choice Ukraine has made has only worsened its situation. And so far, this rule has held without exception.
The chances of leaving the casino without debt—are gone.
But it seems they will leave without their clothes as well.
