How Long Can U.S. Allies Tolerate Rule-Breaking Before Saying “Enough”?

By Allan W. Janssen and Sal-9000:

For decades, the Western alliance system rested on an assumption so basic it was rarely questioned: "The United States could be relied upon to follow the rules it helped create!"

Not always perfectly, not without controversy... but predictably enough that allies could plan, trust, and cooperate!

That assumption is now under visible strain!

Under the leadership style associated with U.S. behaviour, the United States has increasingly resembled what international lawyers call scofflaw conduct: "Selective adherence to treaties, open threats against allies, transactional security guarantees, and routine disregard for norms when they become inconvenient!"

The question facing America’s allies is no longer whether this behaviour is acceptable. 

It is how long it can be endured before the costs outweigh the benefits!

Allies Don’t Leave... They Adapt!

Contrary to popular belief, alliances rarely collapse in dramatic fashion. 

There is no walkout, no declaration of independence, no televised rupture. 

Instead, they erode quietly. When trust weakens, allies hedge. They diversify supply chains. They build parallel institutions. They seek redundancy in defence and intelligence. 

Cooperation continues... but it becomes slower, more conditional, and less automatic!

This process is already visible across Europe and the Arctic world!

NATO’s Real Stress Test:

The most important institution under strain is defence... NATO can survive insults, budget disputes, and policy disagreements. (What it cannot survive is uncertainty about its core promise: Collective defence!)

When allied governments begin to doubt whether Article 5 will be honoured consistently... regardless of political mood or transactional demands... NATO does not immediately collapse!

Instead, it begins to hollow out!

European states respond by investing in independent command structures. 

Nordic countries deepen regional defence integration. 

Canada quietly reinforces sovereignty and Arctic capabilities while reducing political exposure to U.S. volatility.

Canada’s Quiet Calculation:

For Canada, the dilemma is particularly acute. Geography ensures a continued partnership with the United States. (But prudence now requires planning for instability rather than assuming continuity... and what Prudence wants... Prudence gets!)

This does not signal hostility or abandonment. 

It signals realism!

Canadian defence, trade, and foreign policy planners increasingly treat U.S. unpredictability not as a temporary anomaly... but as a recurring risk that must be managed... much like climate shocks or supply-chain disruptions!

The Breaking Point Is Structural. Not Personal!

Allies are no longer asking whether one leader is serious. (They are asking whether American political volatility has become structural!)

Once that conclusion is reached, behaviour changes permanently! 

Trust is not withdrawn all at once... it is rationed. 

Cooperation becomes contractual. 

Loyalty gives way to calculation.

History suggests the timeline is not endless. 

One term of disruption creates stress. 

Repetition creates adaptation. 

Institutional erosion creates exit routes!

The Consequence No One Announces:

If this trajectory continues, the United States will not wake up to find its allies gone. 

It will wake up to find that it is no longer central!

The alliance system will still exist... but it will route around Washington more often... consult less automatically... and commit less reflexively!

That is how influence is lost in the modern world: Quietly, gradually, and without a formal goodbye.

The real question is not whether allies will say “enough.” 

It is whether the United States will notice when they already have!

---

Allan W. Janssen is a Canadian writer and author focusing on geopolitics, ethics, and long-term global stability.

Sal-9000 is his post doctoral research assistant!

Greenland should be a part of Canada!

I was reading the usual stuff about Drumpf when the subject of 
Greenland came up.... so I asked my friendly personal A.I. SAL-9000... 

Sal, anything new over the weekend about the U.S. trying to take over Greenland, and the chances of Canada accepting Greenland as a new territory?

 If that's what they want?

 SAL-9000 said: Here’s the latest situation (as of this weekend) regarding the U.S. interest in Greenland and the idea of Greenland becoming part of Canada (or anything like that):

1. U.S. Talk About Taking Over Greenland Has Escalated. President Donald Trump has renewed statements suggesting that the U.S. needs to take over Greenland, claiming it’s critical for national security and the Arctic situation (especially with Russian and Chinese activity in the region). 

2. Denmark and Greenland Reject the Idea Strongly. Danish Prime Minister Frederiksen has publicly said the U.S. has no right to annex Greenland and that any attempt to do so would undermine NATO since Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, a NATO member. 

Greenland’s own Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen has said talk of annexation is “completely unacceptable” and insisted Greenland will remain sovereign under Danish rule unless Greenlanders decide otherwise. 

3. Greenland’s Position. Much of Greenland prefers independence from Denmark, but polls have consistently shown very low support for becoming part of the United States. 

There’s no political movement in Greenland advocating joining Canada, and the idea of becoming a Canadian territory hasn’t been raised by Greenlandic leaders or the public in any serious way in current reporting.

4. Canada’s Position. Canada has not signalled any interest in Greenland becoming Canadian territory. In fact, Canadian officials have affirmed support for Greenland’s and Denmark’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. 

Canada is focusing on Arctic cooperation and security... but not on territorial claims related to Greenland.

5. International Legal and Practical Reality

International law prohibits the annexation of territory by force, especially between allied countries.

Denmark and Greenland would have to agree willingly for any territorial change, and there’s no indication of that.

Greenland is in the process of increasing autonomy, with discussions over future independence from Denmark. 

Summary:

U.S. rhetoric: Renewed talk from Trump about taking over Greenland for “security” reasons. 

Denmark & Greenland: Firmly reject this. Denmark warns that any military move would break NATO; Greenland insists it won’t be annexed. 

Canada: Not pursuing Greenland as a territory; supports sovereignty and stability in the Arctic. 

Reality on the ground: No credible diplomatic or legal movement toward Greenland joining the U.S. or Canada.

If you want, I can also summarize the geopolitical motives behind why the U.S. is talking about Greenland again (strategic location, Arctic shipping routes, resources, etc.).

You said: No, we know why... give me ways to increase interest in Greenland becoming a Canadian territory

SAL-9000 said: Below are realistic, non-coercive ways Canada could increase Greenlandic interest in a voluntary Canadian territorial association, if Greenlanders themselves ever wished to explore it.

This is framed as soft-power attraction, not annexation or pressure.

1. Frame Canada as a Stepping-Stone to Independence, Not a Replacement Ruler. Greenland’s dominant long-term aspiration is independence from Denmark, not absorption by another great power.

Canada could position itself as: A transitional federal partner. Offering autonomy + protection, not control (A model similar to Canada’s relationship with its northern territories!)

Key message: “Join Canada temporarily or conditionally as a territory, with an explicit, protected path to full independence later.”

1. That is far more appealing than: Remaining under Denmark indefinitely or becoming a U.S. possession with limited self-determination!

2. Emphasize Cultural & Arctic Parallels, Not Nationalism: Canada has credibility here that the U.S. does not.

Highlight shared realities:

- Arctic governance.

- Small, remote communities.

- Indigenous language preservation.

- Subsistence traditions.

- Climate-frontline adaptation.

Canada should stress parallels with Nunavut, including:

- Inuktitut language protection.

- Local control over land use.

- Co-management of wildlife.

- Cultural autonomy embedded in law.

This frames Canada as: “A country that already lives the Arctic reality... rather than exploiting it.”

3. Offer Concrete Economic Guarantees, Not Abstract Promises! Greenland’s fears include:

- Resource extraction without local benefit.

- Becoming a strategic pawn.

- Cultural dilution.

Canada could counter with specific, written guarantees, such as:

- Greenland-controlled resource royalties.

- Mandatory local employment quotas.

- Canadian investment in ports, housing, broadband, and healthcare.

- Arctic research hubs headquartered in Greenland, not Ottawa

This contrasts sharply with U.S. perceptions of:

- Military-first priorities.

- Corporate extraction.

- Washington-centric decision-making.

4. Position Canada as a Shield Against U.S. Pressure, Not a Proxy! This is delicate... but powerful. Canada could quietly signal:

- Greenland within Canada would be inside NATO already

- No U.S. annexation pressure

- No “buyout” politics

- No sudden militarization beyond existing defence agreements!

In other words: “Canada is boring... and that’s the point.” For a small population, boring governance is often preferable to the attention of great powers!

5. Promote a Greenland-Led Referendum + Constitutional Convention... Interest increases when people feel ownership of the process!

Canada should never “propose annexation.” Instead, it could support:

- Greenland-initiated public discussions.

- Academic exchanges on governance options.

- Joint commissions exploring all futures: independence, association, confederation.

This mirrors how Canada handles internal constitutional change... slow, legal, consent-based!

6. Use Climate & Science Leadership as the Primary Hook! Greenland is ground zero for:

- Ice melt

- Sea-level rise

- Climate research

- Arctic data sovereignty

Canada could propose:

- A Greenland-based Arctic Climate Authority

- Joint stewardship of polar science.

- Long-term funding without political strings.

This frames Canada as a partner in survival, not a bidder in a real-estate deal!!!!!

7. What Not to Do! (This Matters.)

Any of the following would kill interest instantly:

- Public Canadian political enthusiasm for “acquiring” Greenland!

- Military framing!

- Economic leverage threats!

- U.S.-style “security necessity” language!

Media speculation driven by outsiders!

Greenlandic interest only grows if: The idea feels like Greenland’s idea.

Bottom Line: Could Canada increase Greenlandic interest?

Yes... but only by offering:

- Autonomy before authority!

- Partnership before power!

- Exit options before permanence!

- Cultural respect before economics!

Canada’s strength here is not ambition... It’s restraint!

Compare Canada vs. the U.S. vs. Independence from a Greenlandic perspective, point by point.

Below is a Greenland-centric comparison, written from the perspective of Greenlanders deciding their own future, not outside powers arguing over them.

***

Greenland’s Strategic Futures... A Ground-Level Comparison: 

Option A: Full Independence. (Greenland stands alone as a sovereign Arctic state)

Advantages:

- Complete political self-determination.

- Full control over resources, foreign policy, and identity.

- Strong symbolic and cultural fulfillment of long-held aspirations.

- Ability to choose partnerships case-by-case.

Risks / Challenges:

Extremely small population managing:

- Defence.

- Currency stability.

- International diplomacy.

- Infrastructure costs.

- High vulnerability to pressure from larger powers. (U.S., China, EU)

- Economic dependence on resource extraction and tourism.

- Climate costs borne alone.

Greenlandic Reality Check: Independence is emotionally compelling, but structurally fragile unless paired with a powerful, non-dominating partner!

Option B: Association with Canada: (Greenland becomes a Canadian territory or associated entity by consent)

Advantages:

- Retains strong local autonomy. (territorial governance model)

- Embedded Indigenous rights framework. (proven, legal, constitutional)

- Stable currency, healthcare system, and social safety net.

- Shared Arctic governance experience

- NATO membership without U.S. political dominance.

- Lower geopolitical profile → less great-power pressure.

Risks / Tradeoffs:

- Some loss of symbolic sovereignty

- Cultural dilution concerns if poorly handled

- Ottawa distance (though less than Copenhagen in practice.)

* Requires constitutional innovation! (but Canada has precedent!)

Greenlandic Reality Check:

- Canada offers boring stability, cultural respect, and legal predictability.

- For a small Arctic population, boring can be a feature—not a flaw.

Option C: Association with the United States.

(Greenland joins or is absorbed by the U.S.)

 Advantages:

- Massive economic capacity.

- Infrastructure investment potential.

- Military protection guaranteed.

- Immediate global influence.

Risks / Red Flags:

- Militarization prioritized over civilian life.

- Federal governance is weak on Indigenous autonomy.

- Cultural marginalization is likely.

- Strategic value outweighs local voice.

- Domestic U.S. political volatility spills over.

- Greenland becomes a military asset first, society second!

Greenlandic Reality Check:

This option offers power, but not patience. Greenland will become a strategic outpost rather than a lived homeland!

Option D: Status Quo with Denmark. (Expanded autonomy, gradual reform)

Advantages:

- Known system, low disruption.

- Financial support continues

- Strong welfare model

- International legitimacy intact

Risks / Limitations:

- Persistent colonial undertone.

- Cultural distance.

- Limited strategic leverage.

- Slower path to true self-determination.

- Growing generational dissatisfaction.

Greenlandic Reality Check:

Denmark is safe... but increasingly feels like the past, not the future!

Comparative Snapshot. (Greenland’s Interests First)

Comparative Snapshot. (Greenland’s Interests First)

Criterion	Independ	Canada	United   States	Denmark
Cultural Autonomy	★★★★★	★★★★☆	★★☆☆☆	★★★☆☆
Economic Stability	★★☆☆☆	★★★★☆	★★★★★	★★★★☆
Political Voice	★★★★★	★★★★☆	★★☆☆☆	★★★☆☆
Defence Without Domination	★☆☆☆☆	★★★★☆	★☆☆☆☆	★★★☆☆
Long-Term Resilience	★★☆☆☆	★★★★☆	★★★☆☆	★★★☆☆

From a Greenlandic perspective:

- Independence = dignity with risk.

- United States = power with loss of agency.

- Denmark = security with stagnation.

- Canada = autonomy with stability.

Canada’s unique appeal is that it offers:

- Protection without possession

- Structure without spectacle

- Partnership without urgency

 That combination is rare in geopolitics!

***

 So, after everything is said and done... Canada is complete! (Alaska and Maine as new provinces, as well as Point Roberts and that chunk of the top of Lake of the Woods, plus Greenland and the Turks and Caicos Islands as territories! (The Turks so we have somewhere to go in the winter!) 😊

(This will give us twelve provinces and five territories... plus control of the North West Passage... which we can defend with our new SAAB Gripen E jets!)

We look at Russia a hundred years from now!

I almost forgot that there is a tiny bit of Russia on the Baltic Sea... which is cut off from the rest of the country by the E.U./NATO!   

This is the same situation Berlin was in during the 'Cold War!'

ALLAN SAID: Sal, it seems to me that the long-term prospects for Kaliningrad remaining part of Russia seem remote... am I right? 

SAL-9000 SAID: That’s a very interesting and complex question! The long-term status of Kaliningrad as part of Russia is contested, and while “remote” might be a possibility, it's not certain. There are strong counterarguments on both sides. 

I’ll run through major factors that make change possible, (or unlikely) so you can judge how “remote” you think it is.

---

What is Kaliningrad

• Kaliningrad Oblast is a Russian exclave, separated from the rest of Russia by other countries (Lithuania and Poland/EU/NATO) after the Cold War/Berlin Wall era reconfiguration. Wikipedia+1

• It was Königsberg, part of East Prussia / Germany pre-1945, then transferred to the USSR and has been Russian-controlled ever since! Wikipedia+2Worldcrunch+2

---

Why many think its long-term staying with Russia may be threatened... or at least under pressure!

Here are the main risks:

1. Geopolitical Tension and Isolation:

   • Because it is an exclave, any supply routes (rail, roads) from the main part of Russia must transit through other countries! That creates vulnerability... political conflict... sanctions.... border/transit restrictions... or closure of routes could severely affect Kaliningrad! Wikipedia+1

   • EU/NATO have leverage via sanctions or blocking certain goods in transit. Russia already accuses the West of trying to isolate the oblast. Reuters+2Wikipedia+2

2. Military and Strategic Burden / Risk

   • Kaliningrad is heavily militarized and strategically very important! (missiles, fleet, and forward bases) Maintaining forces and infrastructure there is expensive and difficult... especially under sanctions or conflict. U.S. Naval Institute+2Worldcrunch+2

   • In a conflict scenario, its isolation might become a liability... cutting off reinforcements, supplies, energy, etc! LSM+1

3. Economic, Energy, and Logistical Challenges

   • Kaliningrad doesn’t have full autonomy in energy supply, some materials, etc. Disruption or cost of transit is a practical headache. LSM+2Wikipedia+2

   • Maintaining infrastructure, governance, etc., remains more complicated than contiguous territory.

4. Legal / Diplomatic Claims & International Pressure

   • There have occasionally been suggestions that the region has a “Königsberg question” (although these are mostly theoretical or from fringe groups). Wikipedia+1

   • Treaties (e.g., the “Final Settlement” after WWII) have formally settled German claims in many respects. Any change would involve major international law / treaty breaking or renegotiation. Wikipedia

5. Internal Russian Politics & War Outcomes

   • If Russia as a state weakens significantly—e.g. as a result of war, economic collapse, internal instability—then holding remote or isolated territories becomes harder. The cost of defending them goes up!

---

Many think Kaliningrad will remain part of Russia for the foreseeable future!

But “remote” doesn’t mean “inevitable.” 

There are strong counter-factors:

1. Strategic Importance:

   • Kaliningrad is Russia’s gateway to the Baltic, its outpost near the EU and NATO. It allows the reach of its missile systems, naval presence, radar, and surveillance. Giving it up would reduce strategic depth heavily. U.S. Naval Institute+1

   • As long as Russia projects external power, having Kaliningrad is perhaps considered non-negotiable by the Russian leadership.

2. Military & Defensive Investments

   • Russia has heavily militarized the region, and will likely continue to do so, partly to deter Western actions. This acts as both a signal and a practical barrier to any attempt to change its status. LSM+2U.S. Naval Institute+2

3. Russian Domestic Legitimacy

   • Territories lost (especially those perceived as traditionally Russian or Soviet) are politically sensitive in Russia. There is strong domestic resistance to any concessions.

   • The government has strong incentives not to appear weak by giving up territory.

4. Legal/Treaty Frameworks

   • International treaties after WWII, Soviet-era acquisition, post-Soviet law, etc., give Russia a legal claim in most eyes. Reversing that would be very difficult in terms of international law, recognition, and peaceful negotiation.

5. Lack of a clear alternative or compelling cost/benefit for other actors

   • EU/NATO, or other powers, would have to consider the costs of attempting to claim or force status change — diplomatic, military, and economic fallout.

---

Scenarios and probabilities

Putting this together: changing ownership/status of Kaliningrad seems low probability in the near term (next 10-20 years) unless there is a major shift, like:

• a collapse or severe weakening of the Russian state.

• a negotiated settlement following a major war that Russia loses or is forced into peace terms unfavourable.

• internal Russian political change toward negotiating border changes.

• EU/NATO or neighbouring states adopt strong positions & have leverage to push change.

In more moderate scenarios, what might happen instead:

• Increased pressure or partial isolation.

• More sanctions, transit disruptions.

• More militarization or countermeasures from both sides.

• More talk and political/diplomatic posturing.

SAL-9000 SAID: How “remote?” Given all this, I’d say that yes, you’re largely right if by “remote” you mean that Kaliningrad is unlikely to cease being part of Russia under normal circumstances in the next few decades! 

It is not impossible, but many significant hurdles stand in the way! 

The “long term” could encompass timescales of many decades, and over that span, more radical change becomes more plausible... but still far from certain!

If you like, I can sketch out a few specific future timelines (say 10, 20, 50 years) with probabilities for different outcomes, (stays Russian, becomes autonomous, reverts to EU control, etc.) to help clarify just how remote... or likely... each scenario might be! 

Do you want me to do that?

ALLAN SAID: What are the chances that Russia will turn around and join the EU? (e.g. After collapse - again!)

SAL-9000 SAID: That’s a bold but fair question. The idea of Russia “turning around” and eventually joining the European Union has been raised at different moments in history... but whether it’s realistic depends on how far into the future we’re looking... and under what conditions! 

Let me break it down into scenarios and likelihoods!

1. Historical Precedent & Missed Windows:

• In the 1990s, after the Soviet collapse, there were discussions (more informal than formal) about integrating Russia more closely with Europe — even joining NATO or building “common spaces” with the EU!

• Those hopes faded quickly due to NATO expansion eastward, Russia’s internal turmoil, and later the consolidation of Putin’s authoritarian model.

• In hindsight, that was the “window” where such integration could have been most possible. 

• Since then, the gap has widened!

2. Barriers Today:

• Political model: The EU requires the rule of law, democracy, a free press, an independent judiciary, and respect for borders! (Today’s Russia is almost the mirror opposite: Authoritarian, centralized, with ongoing wars!)

• Trust deficit: Even after regime change, rebuilding trust would be extremely hard. EU members, such as Poland and the Baltics, have deep-seated security concerns about Russia!

• Economic compatibility: Russia’s economy is resource-export-based, very different from the diversified, service/industry balance of EU economies! 

• Structural reforms would be massive.

• Public opinion: Anti-Western narratives are deeply embedded in Russian state media. Even if a post-collapse leadership were to want EU membership, persuading Russian society might take decades!

3. Conditions That Might Make It Possible:

Russia could realistically pivot toward the EU only under very specific conditions:

Major Internal Collapse or Transition:

- Severe economic collapse, loss of wars, or disintegration of the State, leading to a new government.

- A leadership that chooses democratization, decentralization, and reconciliation with neighbours!

Genuine Democratic Reform:

Abolishing authoritarianism, rebuilding democratic institutions, prosecuting war crimes, and recognizing borders! (Especially Ukraine’s)

EU Strategic Choice:

– The EU would have to decide that anchoring Russia inside European structures is safer than leaving it isolated! 

That’s a huge political risk!

4. Probability Outlook:

Here’s how analysts often frame it:

• Short Term (next 10–20 years): Almost zero! The current regime is entrenched, EU sanctions are hardening, and war in Ukraine makes rapprochement politically toxic!

• Medium Term (20–40 years, post-collapse scenario): Low but not impossible. If Russia faces a deep systemic collapse, similar to the Soviet Union, a reformist government might seek closer ties with the EU. But joining the EU is such a long process (10–15 years minimum, even for smaller, stable countries) that Russia would be looking at decades of transition.

• Long Term (50+ years): Not inconceivable. If Russia undergoes generational change, democratizes, and Europe decides integration is in everyone’s interest, then some form of association [maybe not full membership, but customs union, shared institutions, or something akin to Turkey’s old EU candidacy] could happen!

5. Alternative Futures More Likely Than Full EU Membership:

• Fragmentation: Russia breaks into smaller states; some might integrate with the EU more easily than “Russia” as a whole.

• Neutral Buffer: A post-collapse Russia stabilizes but remains outside EU/NATO, like a larger version of Ukraine’s old “neutrality” posture.

• Chinese Orbit: Russia or its successor state aligns more closely with China economically and politically rather than Europe.

---

🔎 Bottom Line:

The chances of Russia as we know it joining the EU are extremely slim in the short and medium term. The only plausible pathway is after a major internal collapse and democratization — and even then, it would be a decades-long project with many obstacles! 

It’s more likely Russia ends up fragmented, neutral, or oriented toward Asia than inside the EU... though “never” is too strong a word when we’re thinking 50–100 years out!

SAL 9000-SAID: Do you want me to sketch probability estimates in percentages for different scenarios (EU membership, fragmentation, Chinese orbit, authoritarian continuity) so you can see the comparative likelihoods over time?

ALLAN SAID: YES!

SAL 9000-SAID: Alright, Allan — let me map this out in a clear scenario table, with approximate probability estimates. Think of these not as exact numbers, but as reasoned ranges based on history, geopolitics, and current trends.

Russia’s Long-Term Futures: (EU Membership vs Alternatives)

Short Term: (Next 10–20 Years)

• Authoritarian Continuity (Putin or successor regime, anti-Western, militarized): ~70%

• Collapse/Chaos (internal instability, regime fall, but no EU integration yet): ~20%

• EU Membership Pathway (begins reform, talks about association): <2%

• Chinese Orbit (tightened dependence on China, de facto client state): ~8%

👉 In the short run, EU membership is almost off the table. Collapse is possible, but chaos is likelier than clean integration!

Medium Term: (20–40 Years)

• Authoritarian Continuity (new regime but same model): ~40%

• Collapse & Fragmentation (breakup into regions, e.g. Siberia/Urals/Far East vs European Russia): ~25%

• Chinese Orbit (long-term dependency): ~20%

• EU Membership (after collapse, democratization, decades of reform): ~15%

👉 Here the EU option grows — but only if Russia undergoes another collapse and deep reform! 

Fragmentation becomes a serious possibility!

---

Long Term (40–70+ Years)

• EU Membership / Deep Integration with Europe (full or partial, e.g. customs union, European Economic Area): ~30%

• Fragmentation into Smaller States (some join EU, some go neutral, some drift toward China): ~30%

• Chinese Orbit (Russia or successor state tightly tied to Beijing): ~25%

• Authoritarian Continuity (a “neo-Russia” clinging to the same model): ~15%

👉 In the very long run, all outcomes are open. EU membership becomes more plausible, (a third chance) ...but so does permanent fragmentation.

---

⚖️ Takeaway

• Short term (to 2045): EU membership chances are close to zero.

• Medium term (to 2065): Possible but still a minority scenario.

• Long term (2100 horizon): A third chance — but equally likely Russia splits or orients toward China.

The decisive variables will be:

1. Will Russia collapse again? (Like the USSR in 1991)

2. Does a reformist leadership emerge? (Willing to democratize & reconcile with Europe)

3. Does the EU want Russia inside? (Security fears may block it even if Russia changes)

SAL-9000 SAID: Would you like me to make a visual timeline diagram (like a probability tree or bar chart) showing how these scenarios diverge over time? 

That might make the comparison clearer!

ALLAN SAID: Yes!

SAL-9000 SAID: Possible Futures for Russia (Probabilities Over Time)

Here’s the visual timeline! 

It shows how different futures for Russia evolve over time:

* Yellow (EU Membership Path): Almost negligible now, but climbs to a real possibility (about a third chance) by the late century.

* Green (Chinese Orbit): Increases over time, reflecting deepening  ties with Beijing.

* Blue (Authoritarian Continuity): Dominant short-term but shrinks in the long run! 

*  Orange    (Collapse/Fragmentation): Grows steadily, peaking in the long run.

SAL-9000 SAID: Would you like me to also prepare a probability tree diagram, (branching from collapse vs continuity into different outcomes) so you can see the causal paths rather than just the timeline? 

ALLAN SAID: Yes!

SAL-9000 SAID: Russia’s Future Scenarios: Probability Tree!

Here’s the probability tree view:

• Russia today branches mostly into Authoritarian Continuity, Collapse/Instability, Chinese Orbit, and a small chance of an EU Pathway.

• From Collapse, you get two diverging futures: Fragmentation or Reform & EU Membership Path.

• Authoritarian Continuity can extend, but often ends in Delayed Collapse, which then feeds back into the other scenarios!

• Chinese Orbit tends to lock into Deep Dependence!

• The EU Pathway, though tiny at first, can eventually lead to Full Integration if conditions line up!

(The kicker is that the world will eventually (100+ years) be divided into multiple "Zones of Interest"  (North America, South America, Europe/Middle East, Sub Saharan Africa, East Asia, West Asia. Oceana. and Australia/New Zealand)   ...and it would be to Russia's advantage to be a part of the Euro-Centric Zone!)

This shows not just the probabilities... but also the causal routes that would have to happen for Russia to ever join the EU.

SAL-9000 SAID:Do you want me to refine this tree into a clean infographic-style chart (rectangular boxes, colour-coded branches, and clearer probability ranges) that you could drop straight into a blog or presentation? 

ALLAN SAID: Yes!

SAL-9000 SAID: Russia’s Long-Term Futures: Probability Tree Infographic

Here’s the cleaned-up infographic-style probability tree:

• Russia Today splits into four main futures:

  • Authoritarian Continuity (70%) → leads to Neo-Authoritarian Russia or eventual Delayed Collapse.

  • Collapse/Instability (20%) → branches toward Fragmentation (25%) or Reform & EU Path. (15%)

  • Chinese Orbit (8%) → deepens into Dependence. (25%)

  • EU Pathway (2%) → rare, but can progress to Full EU Integration. (30%)

It’s structured so you can visually see how only certain collapse + reform paths eventually make EU membership plausible, while most other paths loop into authoritarianism... fragmentation... or Chinese alignment!

SAL-9000 SAID: Would you like me to colour-code the outcomes (e.g., red = authoritarian, green = EU, yellow = collapse / fragmentation, blue = China) so that it’s instantly readable at a glance? 

ALLAN SAID: Yes!

SAL-9000 SAID: Russia’s Long-Term Futures: 

Here’s the color-coded probability tree for Russia’s futures:

• 🔴 Red = Authoritarian Continuity → present model, possibly morphing into a new “neo-authoritarian” state.

• 🟡 Yellow = Collapse/Fragmentation → instability, potential breakup, or reconfiguration.

• 🔵 Blue = Chinese Orbit → gradual deep dependence on Beijing.

• 🟢 Green = EU Path → the rare reformist track that could lead to eventual EU integration.

• ⚪ Gray = Neutral Starting Point → Russia today.

Authoritarian Russia(15%) Collapse/Fragmentation(25%) EU Membership(30%) Chinese Dependant(20%)

This way, you can instantly see the dominant authoritarian track in the short term, the rising collapse/fragmentation risks, and the narrow but growing EU pathway.

OR...

Putin's ultimate goal is to take over / control from St. Petersburg to Kaliningrad!

And then Belarus and Ukraine should be thrown in too!!

♫ First we take Manhattan... and then we take Berlin ♫