What If Ukraine Had Fallen? The Chilling Global Domino Effect of Russia’s “Kyiv in Three Days” Blitz

Clues to what might have followed a swift Russian takeover of Kyiv are found in documents Moscow published in 2021 and 2022. One key example is Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s article On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians, where he explicitly claims that Ukrainians and Russians are one people and that an independent Ukrainian state is an artificial construct.

Later, in April 2022—just after Ukrainian forces liberated Bucha, Irpin, and Hostomel, exposing Russian atrocities including executions, rape, and torture—Russian political strategist Timofey Sergeytsev published What Russia Should Do with Ukraine. Despite the revelations, his blueprint for the occupation and repression of Ukraine was openly published by the state-owned RIA Novosti.

The fate Ukraine would have faced 

The core of Russia’s plan was the eradication of Ukrainian identity and the transformation of Ukraine into a subjugated Russian colony under the guise of so-called “denazification.” The concept of “Ukrainianness” was deemed a Nazi invention, and thus Ukraine was to cease to exist, not just as a state, but as a national idea. Sergeytsev’s vision of “denazification” involved a 20–30 year process of mass re-education, public repentance, and forced Russification. The Russians would impose strict control over education, culture, and the media.

The plan also called for ethnic cleansing: eliminating or terrorizing entire groups such as educators, civil servants, soldiers, and intellectuals. Ukraine was to be carved into parts under direct Russian control. Moscow envisioned the country as a collection of regions with varying degrees of “guilt,” each to be punished accordingly. “Novorossiya” (southern Ukraine) and “Malorossiya” (the Left Bank) were to be fully absorbed into the Russian Federation.

Western Ukraine, labeled “Catholic province” by Sergeytsev, along with parts of the Right Bank, was to become a neutralized buffer zone. Those unwilling to live under Russian annexation would be forcibly relocated there.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and part of his cabinet would be evacuated from Kyiv by an American helicopter. Russian forces would seize key facilities in the capital. Under Russian pressure, the Verkhovna Rada  would install Putin’s friend Viktor Medvedchuk as speaker, effectively making him acting president under Ukraine’s constitution.

Soon after, the former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych might be returned to Kyiv under the slogan “the rightful president returns.” A new government, led by Moscow-backed Mykola Azarov, would issue a manifesto promising “anti-corruption” reforms, renewed ties with Russia, and economic aid from Moscow. Russian troops would begin mass arrests, targeting Ukrainian activists from precompiled lists. Russian and Belarusian forces would advance westward, aiming to cut off arms supplies from Poland and suppress any nascent insurgency.

Even organizing a partisan resistance would be nearly impossible. The West wouldn’t send weapons as there would be no one to send them to. Ukraine would be left to confront Moscow’s war machine alone. At the UN, there would be outrage and condemnation but no action. Zelensky would tour European capitals, met with sympathy and pledges of support, but no concrete plans. Reaching out to Putin would be futile—he would take calls only as a victor.

The end of a united Europe

While France, Germany, and the UK might be anxious, panic would spread across Eastern Europe. The rapid fall of Kyiv would serve as proof to Moscow that it could press further—and it would.

Russia operates by the principle “strike while the iron is hot.” It would seize the momentum on the global stage. Russia’s war has always targeted more than just Ukraine; it is aimed at the West itself. In other words, the dictator’s ambitions extend far beyond the occupation of Ukrainian territory alone.

The full scope of Russia’s ambitions can be seen in another document: the December 2021 Russian ultimatum to NATO, commonly referred to as the “Lavrov  ultimatum.” It comprised two draft treaties on “security guarantees” that the Russian Foreign Ministry sent to the United States and NATO member states.

The demands were sweeping: NATO would have to halt its eastern expansion and roll back to its 1997 borders: withdraw troops and infrastructure from Poland, the Baltic states, Romania, and Bulgaria, effectively dismantling NATO’s eastern flank. The US and NATO would be legally bound not to operate in Eastern Europe without Russia’s consent. Putin sought a return to a “Yalta-style ” world order, with Russia as a co-equal to the US and China. 

When NATO and the US rejected the ultimatum in 2021, the full-scale invasion of Ukraine followed. A swift victory in Ukraine would have allowed Russia to revive that ultimatum by force.

In the wake of Ukraine’s rapid collapse and the installation of a Kremlin-backed “interim government” in Kyiv, Moscow would have moved swiftly to capitalize on the momentum. The Kremlin would issue a “security memorandum” to the governments of Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Romania, and Bulgaria. Delivered through diplomatic channels, the ultimatum would demand the effective neutralization—or “Finlandization ”—of the region. US and NATO forces would be ordered to withdraw.

Russia’s defense minister, Sergei Shoigu, in a warning aimed at deterring potential mobilization, would declare any NATO build-up a strategic threat. Missile systems in Kaliningrad would be placed on high alert. NATO would be given until March 10, 2022, to issue written guarantees. Troops from Ukraine’s front would be redeployed to western Belarus, which would stage high-profile military exercises under the pretext of preparing for “Polish aggression.”

A political crisis would erupt in Warsaw and the Baltic capitals, intensified by Russian hybrid operations: cyberattacks on power grids, GPS disruptions, and provocations at borders. Kremlin propaganda would flood the region with fake messages: “Your governments are playing with fire. Russia doesn’t want war, but it’s ready.”

Paralysis in the West

Uncertainty would paralyze the US and Western Europe. Poland would call for invoking Article 5 of the NATO treaty, but the US and Western European countries would hesitate. While affirming NATO’s commitments in principle, they would reject military intervention. The EU would propose a peace summit to find a diplomatic resolution to the “crisis,” with leaders offering divergent visions for compromise with Russia.

The French President would call for a new European security architecture without the US and Russia, framed as a move toward strategic autonomy. Concessions are proposed, including a freeze on troop deployments to Eastern Europe, demanding that Poland avoid escalation. 

Germany’s chancellor would argue that “Europe mustn’t pay for others’ mistakes,” halting arms shipments to Poland and Estonia, even denying 5,000 helmets. Berlin would oppose new sanctions and greenlight the launch of Nord Stream 2, all in the name of “peace” and compromise with a nuclear power.

Today, this may seem implausible—but remember February and March 2022: Europe hesitated on arms deliveries, prioritized diplomacy, and avoided talking about oil and gas sanctions. European companies lingered in Russia, and some remain fully operational on the ground. Ukraine didn’t receive tanks until a year later, or aircraft until two. Even when Russian missiles and drones fell in Poland and Romania, NATO avoided invoking Article 5 or even acknowledging the incidents.

And what about Washington? President Biden’s guiding principle—“avoid escalation”—prevailed. The White House would signal that the US would not abandon its allies but would stop short of invoking Article 5, insisting the moment “isn’t right.”

NATO unravels, Russia expands influence

NATO’s internal corrosion would become apparent. Governments in the Baltic states and Poland would resign, recognizing that security guarantees have failed. National unity coalitions—so-called “realist” governments—would rise, vowing to prevent a Ukrainian scenario at all costs. National “dialogues” on leaving NATO would begin. Referenda would be scheduled for the summer. Kremlin propaganda would dominate: “The West used us. America is far, Russia is near.”

“Peace experts” would flood Eastern European media, arguing NATO is the problem, not the solution. Terrified by war and repression in Ukraine, Eastern European publics would vote for “Finlandization.” By summer 2022, new bilateral “stability pacts” would be signed with Russia. These agreements commit signatories to:

• not supporting the enemies of the Russian Federation,

• banning NATO troop presence on their territory,

• prohibiting any military exercises without prior Russian approval.

The pacts also include sweeping economic provisions:

• repeal of post-2014 sanctions,

• preferential customs terms for trade with the Eurasian Economic Union,

• reinstatement of long-term gas contracts and reactivation of the Yamal–Europe pipeline,

• negotiations to transfer critical energy infrastructure—pipelines, power plants, fertilizer factories—into Russian ownership.

The consequences

NATO would collapse, and the foundations of EU disintegration would be laid, even without formal exits. The eurozone would falter as Baltic countries experienced capital flight and economic turmoil.

If Ukraine became a Russian puppet, NATO’s eastern flank would lose control over its foreign, defense, and energy policy. Despite its limited military capabilities, Russia would achieve strategic victory: not through conquest, but through fear of war.

Moscow’s shadow would fall over Europe—within months. But that wouldn’t be the end.

A message to the world

The US, Europe, NATO, and the EU—the institutions that shaped the postwar world order—once claimed to uphold global stability, mediate conflicts, and promote a UN-based system rooted in peace and respect for sovereignty. Russia’s actions would shatter that illusion. The world would quickly grasp a brutal truth: crimes would go unpunished, and victims would be left undefended.

Conflicts across Asia and the Middle East would erupt in quick succession. Iran’s “Axis of Resistance ” would act earlier and more aggressively. Only those in a state of constant preparedness would stand a chance of defending themselves.

Emboldened by its success in Ukraine, Russia would deploy even more forces to Africa, projecting power on a scale never before seen.

North Korea would seize the moment to advance its war ambitions against the South—this time with Russian backing. The Indo-Pacific would be left to fend for itself.

Calls from the American president or European leaders to “stop the bloodshed” would fall on deaf ears—they had failed to keep the peace even in Europe.

Although perhaps it has already happened.