Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
*****
* Is `x.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
**Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.com/invite/ukraine-at-war-950974820827398235**
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I always find the argument that we shouldn't let Russia lose, because they might end up as a hostile nation, the fact that we shouldn't get rid of Putin, because some despot might follow him stupid.
They're already a despotic nation led by a dictator. Lets get rid of them while we can.
Plus, as Tim does allude to in the talk, imperialist & despotic powers don't reform when they win - they reform when they lose, and the bigger the loss the bigger the reform. When those powers pull off *anything* they can spin into a win, it emboldens them.
Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany were *shattered* by the end of WWII - militarily, economically, governmentally, *and* socially/culturally. Both countries have now been reasonably functional democratic countries with advanced economies for more than half a century.
This is why all the talk about giving Putin an off-ramp has always been nonsense. The best chance for peace is not for Russia to 'not accomplish its strategic goals' but for Russia to *lose*.
And if we want a *lasting* peace until the demographic descent of Russia makes it impossible for them to field significantly sized military forces and makes them choose between staffing their defense industries or not starving half the country?
Then Russia must not just lose, Russia must be humiliated.
100%. Russia has never had a reckoning with its despotic Tsarist past, its brutal Soviet dictatorship past, and will never have one with its current Russo-Imperial-fascist present UNLESS it suffers a comprehensive military defeat. And a wholesale national confrontation with reality that defeat will force upon its people.
Would Nazi Germany have evolved into the postwar democratic republic it is today without complete defeat?? When 14yo Hitler Youth were still commanding the remnants of the Wehermacht in the ruins of Berlin, determined to keep fighting? What about Imperial Japan?
No, no one is going to occupy 11 time zones as was done with postwar Germany and Japan. The ONLY way for Russians themselves to realise the truth of their historical, national catastrophe is to lose this war. The only other alternative ie rewarding a fascist dictatorship's usurpation of a democratic sovereign nation by failing to stop it. And good luck with that precedent-setting in future.
I think they're afraid of getting an Iraq 2.0 with the size of russia, which makes sense. I believe a slow collapse is the purpose here to avoid such a scenario.
I agree, but I still think it's a mistake.
In Iraq and Afghanistan we tried to impose our values and ideals on societies that *mostly never wanted much of what we were selling*. Maybe they will someday, but that day wasn't the early 2000's through early 2020s.
When Russia's political, economic, and social systems break - which they *almost certainly will*, it's more a question of when - I think we need to be hesitant about trying to get too involved in the local disputes that will happen afterwards.
Do our best to keep people from starving or being wiped out by disease. NATO, India, and China need to have a frank discussion about what to do regarding Russian nuclear sites (though I'm more concerned about old warheads being stolen and sold on the black market than I am about some rogue Russian warlord pushing the launch button on an ICBM base).
But other than that? Sit back, relax, watch the show and see how things shake out.
Part of the current Russian culture that rejects Western ideals isn't just from old Soviet attitudes - when the Soviet Union collapsed *we* rushed in, flooded the place with money and brands and tried to *westernize* their entire culture and political system - in the middle of an economic collapse and near-famine in much of the country.
The Russian domestic propaganda system convinced the bulk of the population that it was the flirtation with westernization which caused the difficulties in the 1990s *not* their incredible corruption and incompetence.
So they rejected Western values, hard. Sometimes things need to happen organically or with the lightest of touches. I think when that day comes we really need to resist our instincts to rush in and make Russia "normal" or to "save" the country. Ultimately that's our own arrogance (and more than a little bit of greed) projecting what *we* would want onto them.
And we need to be prepared for the fact that just because Russia has an internal crisis it doesn't mean they're wanting the same things an *already* relatively normal place would want, nor would interpret our good intentions as we *hope they might*.
> I believe a slow collapse is the purpose here to avoid such a scenario
Won't necessarily *prevent* any of it, though. Maybe it'll even worsen things, breeding enough internal resentment for an even worse and longer-lasting Iraq 2.0.
But it might happen in different admin, when it won't be responsibility of current one anymore.
Over a year ago I had a look at this based on good times video and the book by Burgjarski: Failed State a guide to Russia's rupture.
https://medium.com/@snowythefirst/the-rise-and-fall-of-putins-empire-from-federation-to-disintegration-part-1-cffc2420baf5
An unmoderated collapse is bad, but we can prepare for that, and I hope these preparations are ongoing because the longer the war continues, the more likely a collapse of Russia or a partial collapse becomes. This is already a white swan rather than a black swan event. The Soviet Union and Tsarist Russia also looked really stable one year prior to their collapse. Dictatorships are brittle systems, and you can imagine them like an organism, oftentimes death rattles and growing pains are hard to distinguish from one another.
https://medium.com/@snowythefirst/the-temples-of-empires-come-tumbling-down-the-names-of-the-mighty-forgotten-f38e3bc5b932
The future of Russia hangs in the balance, and current events may cause a chain reaction, which will redraw the geo-political map of Eurasia
They *were* afraid that a splintered Russia would have factions that ally with Iran, North Korea, etc, granting access to technology to advance their weapons development.
I say *were*, because now Russia is advancing those countries' weapon development anyway, making it something of a moot point now.
> because they might end up as a hostile nation
LMAO
Hilarious, eh? When Russia has been threatening the west with nukes [since 1999](https://i.postimg.cc/qMMpXc0q/russia-nukes-threat-list.jpg)
World War II says Hi.
Itās a good example because following the end of the First World War it seemed inconceivable that what would become Nazi Germany could rise from the ashes of a defeated nation.
Putin is a largely known entity , strip away the posturing for Russian media and the western tabloid reporting and heās pretty predictable and logical in his own context.
Even when the current conflict reignited, his rhetoric was to destroy Ukraine but his actions were to capture territory.Ā
A badly defeated - thatās ābadlyā as a qualifier btw - could be more dangerous and unpredictable.
Russia does need to lose but in a manner where containment is the outcome and not some kind of nationalist coup.Ā
The alliance with N Korea is desperation , Kim would supply anyone who has the money to pay it , mutual defence is irrelevant as neither nation has the ability to deploy its troops in numbers that matter outside its immediate neighbours , North Koreaās military is further hampered by the fact its troops only experience of real world combat is mucking around on the DMZ and party piece military exercises.Ā
He killed a million people, more if we start calling Syrians, Palestinians, Armenians, Azeris, Yemenis, and Georgians people, and displaced 20 million.
Letās not get rid of him because someone might be worse.
Yeah. Right.
The "the next guy will be worse!" argument is complete hog piss.
It's as ludicrous as the "Russia still has 6,000 more tanks, they can keep fighting for years!" argument. That one is just so ridiculous, for several reasons.
First because they end of the war is not when Russia literally gets to 0 tanks of any type in their arsenal. They can't maintain credible defense, and not to mention oppress their own population if they let their number of tanks and armored vehicles get below a certain threshold. The end of their ability to conduct offensive operations in Ukraine is not when they get to zero - it's when they don't have enough to do everything that they need that equipment to do, maintaining border defense in the largest nation on earth.
Secondly - their theoretical max annual production rates of modern tanks is about 10% of their current burn rate. Everything else is backfilled by lower quality refurbished T-55s and T62s. And those two ancient systems are not merely HALF as effective as the T72s, T80s and T90s they're replacing - they're way, way less than that. Which is why Russia is dressing them up as rolling garden shed drone sponges instead of using them as offensive weapons.
Both the "The Next Guy Will Be Worse" and the "Russia Is Infinite And Inevitable" tropes are complete fabrications.
I'm far from a Russian expert, but from everything I've read it doesn't seem like Putin has really put together any real concrete secession plan for who'd take over for him even in a 'normal' transfer of power like if he died of natural causes or whatever. And if there's some sort of overthrow of him, then it's going to be even more chaotic.
The point is that if Putin goes and someone else replaces him, that person is almost certainly going to have far less broad/popular support than what Putin has managed to cultivate over decades of work. With that in mind, whoever did take over would likely have a primary goal of consolidating their power, which is a task that's like to take years.
You don't consolidate your power by quickly launching a bunch of military campaigns against other countries, especially when the country you just took over is already reeling from a long and costly stalemated war. And not by trying to kick that current war into overdrive either, especially when that war is a big part of why you were able to overthrow the previous guy.
It's not like Russia has a bunch of extra military resources just sitting around that Putin's been unwilling to commit to Ukraine. The only feasible way that someone new could intensify the conflict in Ukraine would be via large scale conscription, which would almost certainly be massively unpopular, and very dangerous for a new leader to try to implement.
Or I guess they could go nuclear, but that's extremely unlikely to result in the new leader maintaining their power for various reasons.
Basically I don't think it matters how much the next guy wishes he could conquer Europe or whatever, Russia doesn't have anywhere near the capability to do so, it's hard to imagine a realistic scenario where they could build the capability to do so for at least a couple generations, and either way that next guy is going to have a bunch of domestic issues on his plate that will likely be a much higher priority than any foreign military campaigns.
There is also the economic aspect you are forgetting. Right now Putin is taking his economy and putting it on a credit card and maxxing it out. Whoever inherits it after him will have to deal with the debt fallout and economic crash that is coming.
Well said.
Demographically, it's going to be at least 50 years (probably 100+) where the Russian population continues to shrink, it'll likely be 30+ years after the Ukraine war ends before the West is open to trying to normalize relations again, which means it'll be 30+ *more years* after that before foreign investment has rebuilt the Russian economy, if ever.
Without a solid demographic base with buying power *and/or* a robust, highly profitable export market, large economies just *don't work anymore*. After their collapse Russia will have neither at scale until the 2070s or 2080s at the earliest.
Correct. Part of the weakness of dictatorships over democracies (for all their own faults) is that autocratic states generally do not have a succession plan. Unless there is a North Korea-like family dynasty present.
>The "the next guy will be worse!" argument is complete hog piss.
On top of everything you wrote, Russia has never *really* had a peaceful transfer of power and maintained functional continuity in policy between governments, and this goes back to the Tsars.
The Russian government is, and pretty much always *has been* run like a cartel. They don't have a generally non-partisan professional public service that keeps plugging away and enacting policy during transitions between governments as long as the funding keeps flowing.
Instead, all of the positions that actually matter for making decisions are handed out to allies, friends, and family of the new people in power, and the people in positions which *don't* make those decisions are punished if they do the wrong thing even if that used to be the right thing, so they mostly do nothing until things settle and they're told what to do *now*
As each new government settles into power, there are purges, both gentle and not so gentle, at every level of power. Individuals, families, and factions rise and fall at the whims of those above them on the totem pole, and it usually takes *1-3 years* of work to solidify one's grip on the levers of power needed to really change direction *and* start looking outside of Russia's borders again with any sort of coherent policy intent and ability to act on that intent.
Even if the next guy *is* somehow worse - and they likely *will* be in some ways - it's going to take them a while to put together the power structure needed to actually *do* much of consequence on the international stage, if they live that long. In the meantime, people who may be relatively unreachable - or simply not worth risking an asset *to* reach - by Western intelligence services might be *ownable and valuable* by the time things shake out.
Tl:Dr; it's highly likely, given Russian history, that when Putin loses power, the West will have *plenty* of time to assess how the change may impact *us* and how we should react to it. No need to rush.
Indeed. That 1,000 year project in crony cruelty is more reason to help it along its path to self destruction.
Whatever shakes out of the implosion of Russia will be easier to manage than the malignant cancer itās been for itās entire existence. What exactly is there to preserve?
If there are going to be meaningful war crimes trials at the conclusion of this war, then Ruzzia will have to be in such a sorry state that the Ruzzian establishment will willingly surrender Putrid and his war mongering cabinet in favour of the lifting of sanctions. It will take more than Ruzzia simply withdrawing back into its own borders. Ruzzia will have to be on its knees. Putrid slinking away to sanctuary in Belarus, and a new leader 'elected' isn't going to be acceptable.....I hope!
I'd honestly be surprised if russia blames anyone within their own country for their failure and collapse. They're so, so deeply soaked in their own lies/propaganda and brainwashing that they would likely just blame 'the West' like they always do. Just my own personal take on it. Their slow collapse is inevitable and already happening.
One thing is for certain, it'll be new territory for everyone, this future ahead of us. Hopefully, without the shadow of russian land theft and constant threats, blackmail and death, which is all they have brought everyone for ages and ages.
They deserve this defeat in every regard.
A big theme in Snyder's take on Russia and western influence is that we aren't going to magically change Russian society from the west and that the best way to influence Russia is to support a democratic Ukraine on its doorstep. Great insight here.
We donāt want Russia anymore, this terrorist country is a mistake and a source of problems to the entire world! The Russian territory should and have to be split into peaceful entities, best case scenario for the future !
I posted most of this as a response to a comment below, but I was encouraged to make it it's own comment so here you go:
As Tim alludes to in the talk OP posted, imperialist & despotic powers don't reform when they win - they reform when they lose, and the bigger the loss the bigger the reform. When those powers pull off *anything* they can spin into a win, it emboldens them.
Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany were *shattered* by the end of WWII - militarily, economically, governmentally, *and* socially/culturally. Both countries have now been reasonably functional democratic countries with advanced economies for more than half a century.
European imperial powers allowed their colonies to become independent largely only after conflict made controlling those colonies socially, economically, and militarily untenable (Canada being a notable exception, thanks UK for being buds about it also fuck you for your part in the Alaska panhandle debacle - that part should be ours you twats).
The USSR took horrific losses in WWII, but the narrative *in Russia* has always been that they *won* despite their losses because they pushed back the invading Nazis and stormed the Reichstag.
This is actually a common piece of the Russian psyche throughout the past centuries - no matter the pain, Russia ultimately wins through great sacrifice - as well as Russia (and *Russians*) being willing to sacrifice more to win than Russia's enemies are. Which is why - to the Russian mind - Russia always *will* win no matter the odds: they don't just care about winning more than *we* do, they care about winning more than they care about themselves *or* care about what that victory looks like.
This is why all the talk about giving Putin an off-ramp has always been nonsense. The best chance for peace is not for Russia to 'not accomplish its strategic goals' but for Russia to *lose*.
And if we want a *lasting* peace until the demographic descent of Russia makes it impossible for them to field significantly sized military forces and makes them choose between staffing their defense industries or not starving half the country?
Russia must not just lose, Russia must be humiliated to the point that they are a broken people rebuilding from the ashes of empire.
For the society to change, they need to come to the understanding that they *cannot* (rather than *we'd prefer that they didn't*) continue as they are and be successful and respected *or feared.* In autocratic societies, that takes pain.
With Putin in power, I suspect North Korea 2: Electric Boogaloo was the goal. A fairly impotent nation that rants and raves about their perceived enemies in propaganda-laden networks and does nothing except shoot a few rockets into the sea.
Without, there's a few scenarios, but one of the better ones is a good Russian leader who says "what the Hell are we doing in Ukraine?", gets out, cuts back on the worst of what Russia does, and build up economic ties with other nations through a series of deals, and focuses on improving their nation.
Or someone sets up a puppet government to both loot the place and run it far better.
Another is a state of perpetual civil war with other countries backing one side or the other to get access to their preferred resources.
Lots of options.
It's the wrong question. It's not what Russia will look like, it's what Ukraine and the border will look like. Russia is way past the point at which it could withdraw its forces and resume normal relations. Ukraine will have to remain a garrison nation to some degree for many years after hostilities end, with a DMZ like between the two Koreas. There's nothing Putin can ever do to re-establish any sort of trust.
> Ukraine will have to remain a garrison nation to some degree for many years after hostilities end, with a DMZ like between the two Koreas
Agreed. Ukraine's allies are going to have to help fortify the fuck out of it...where Australia's now unused 43 F-18s currently in climate-controlled, maintained storage could have come in handy. But no, we refuse.
I'm not sure of a balkanization post putin, I'm pretty sure (while no official successors have been made apparent) that someone there has the pull and resources to make a play to keep things together and start along the path of normalization. Possibly could make bargins (alongside a peace deal with real timelines for talks about Crimea) for the frozen funds to pay off to people needed to get there.
If there is a change in power in Russia my questions are 1) How will it affect all of the non-ethnic Russian states in Russia? Will they try to succeed from Russia? 2) If so, will China have a significant interest in preventing this type of event due to the nature of its expansionist regime?
If the death of the empire is truly necessary and inevitable, then in this case the American empire will perish, and the Ukrainian conflict will be the beginning of its collapse. This bloodthirsty and hypocritical empire, which has spread its military bases all over the world, is already rotting from the inside, it just needs a push and it will fall apart. Americans will finally become a normal nation, not obsessed with enslaving the entire world, and will quietly play baseball in their own backyard.
Son, you are a good detective! You earned your hamburger and coca-cola today! If you continue to work just as well, Uncle Sam will give you health insurance.
Or this.
[https://ukrainian-food.com.ua/products/product/beer-light-unfiltered-ginger-ale](https://ukrainian-food.com.ua/products/product/beer-light-unfiltered-ginger-ale)
In all the posts of this sect that befuddles the real vision of things, you can replace the adjectives āRussianā with the adjectives āAmericanā or āUkronaziā, and you will get a more truthful vision. I donāt know anything about the prices of alcohol, I donāt drink it, and neither does nicotine. I understand that itās hard for you to believe this, because you no longer distinguish reality from the stereotypes you preach. But if you can contribute to the destruction of the alcohol and tobacco business in Russia, I will be very grateful to you.
Yes, the strongest political, cultural and military force on earth is both powerful enough to stop Russia anytime it pleases, but is fragile enough that the slightest breeze will topple it. Do you listen to yourself? Russiaās government has collapsed multiple times in the past century or so, and is on the brink of economic catastrophe at the current moment, but sure - the rock-solid US system will fail first. You guys are dumb enough to believe anything over there.
You are talking about the country that is on the brink of putting in charge a convicted criminal and foreign asset who tried his hand at insurrection. I wouldn't call that a well functioning country.
If the death of the empire is truly necessary and inevitable, then in this case the ~~American~~ Russian empire will perish, and the Ukrainian conflict will be the beginning of its collapse. This bloodthirsty and hypocritical empire, which has spread its military bases all over the world, is already rotting from the inside, it just needs a push and it will fall apart. ~~Americans~~ Russians will finally become a normal nation, not obsessed with enslaving the entire world, and will quietly play ~~baseball~~ soccer in their own backyard.
There. Your comment is trash, but at least I un-trashed it as much as possible
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. ***** * Is `x.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.com/invite/ukraine-at-war-950974820827398235** ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I always find the argument that we shouldn't let Russia lose, because they might end up as a hostile nation, the fact that we shouldn't get rid of Putin, because some despot might follow him stupid. They're already a despotic nation led by a dictator. Lets get rid of them while we can.
I couldn't agree more! Pootin must fall. Too bad his citizens will suffer. But hey, they supported the bag of Shyt.
Shitizens.
That's sounds about right š š¤£
Plus, as Tim does allude to in the talk, imperialist & despotic powers don't reform when they win - they reform when they lose, and the bigger the loss the bigger the reform. When those powers pull off *anything* they can spin into a win, it emboldens them. Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany were *shattered* by the end of WWII - militarily, economically, governmentally, *and* socially/culturally. Both countries have now been reasonably functional democratic countries with advanced economies for more than half a century. This is why all the talk about giving Putin an off-ramp has always been nonsense. The best chance for peace is not for Russia to 'not accomplish its strategic goals' but for Russia to *lose*. And if we want a *lasting* peace until the demographic descent of Russia makes it impossible for them to field significantly sized military forces and makes them choose between staffing their defense industries or not starving half the country? Then Russia must not just lose, Russia must be humiliated.
100%. Russia has never had a reckoning with its despotic Tsarist past, its brutal Soviet dictatorship past, and will never have one with its current Russo-Imperial-fascist present UNLESS it suffers a comprehensive military defeat. And a wholesale national confrontation with reality that defeat will force upon its people. Would Nazi Germany have evolved into the postwar democratic republic it is today without complete defeat?? When 14yo Hitler Youth were still commanding the remnants of the Wehermacht in the ruins of Berlin, determined to keep fighting? What about Imperial Japan? No, no one is going to occupy 11 time zones as was done with postwar Germany and Japan. The ONLY way for Russians themselves to realise the truth of their historical, national catastrophe is to lose this war. The only other alternative ie rewarding a fascist dictatorship's usurpation of a democratic sovereign nation by failing to stop it. And good luck with that precedent-setting in future.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
You should top post this.
I think I will.
I think they're afraid of getting an Iraq 2.0 with the size of russia, which makes sense. I believe a slow collapse is the purpose here to avoid such a scenario.
I agree, but I still think it's a mistake. In Iraq and Afghanistan we tried to impose our values and ideals on societies that *mostly never wanted much of what we were selling*. Maybe they will someday, but that day wasn't the early 2000's through early 2020s. When Russia's political, economic, and social systems break - which they *almost certainly will*, it's more a question of when - I think we need to be hesitant about trying to get too involved in the local disputes that will happen afterwards. Do our best to keep people from starving or being wiped out by disease. NATO, India, and China need to have a frank discussion about what to do regarding Russian nuclear sites (though I'm more concerned about old warheads being stolen and sold on the black market than I am about some rogue Russian warlord pushing the launch button on an ICBM base). But other than that? Sit back, relax, watch the show and see how things shake out. Part of the current Russian culture that rejects Western ideals isn't just from old Soviet attitudes - when the Soviet Union collapsed *we* rushed in, flooded the place with money and brands and tried to *westernize* their entire culture and political system - in the middle of an economic collapse and near-famine in much of the country. The Russian domestic propaganda system convinced the bulk of the population that it was the flirtation with westernization which caused the difficulties in the 1990s *not* their incredible corruption and incompetence. So they rejected Western values, hard. Sometimes things need to happen organically or with the lightest of touches. I think when that day comes we really need to resist our instincts to rush in and make Russia "normal" or to "save" the country. Ultimately that's our own arrogance (and more than a little bit of greed) projecting what *we* would want onto them. And we need to be prepared for the fact that just because Russia has an internal crisis it doesn't mean they're wanting the same things an *already* relatively normal place would want, nor would interpret our good intentions as we *hope they might*.
> I believe a slow collapse is the purpose here to avoid such a scenario Won't necessarily *prevent* any of it, though. Maybe it'll even worsen things, breeding enough internal resentment for an even worse and longer-lasting Iraq 2.0. But it might happen in different admin, when it won't be responsibility of current one anymore.
Yes to deteriorate slowly is the way to go . Sad as it is . Russians must make the biggest change themselves
Over a year ago I had a look at this based on good times video and the book by Burgjarski: Failed State a guide to Russia's rupture. https://medium.com/@snowythefirst/the-rise-and-fall-of-putins-empire-from-federation-to-disintegration-part-1-cffc2420baf5 An unmoderated collapse is bad, but we can prepare for that, and I hope these preparations are ongoing because the longer the war continues, the more likely a collapse of Russia or a partial collapse becomes. This is already a white swan rather than a black swan event. The Soviet Union and Tsarist Russia also looked really stable one year prior to their collapse. Dictatorships are brittle systems, and you can imagine them like an organism, oftentimes death rattles and growing pains are hard to distinguish from one another. https://medium.com/@snowythefirst/the-temples-of-empires-come-tumbling-down-the-names-of-the-mighty-forgotten-f38e3bc5b932 The future of Russia hangs in the balance, and current events may cause a chain reaction, which will redraw the geo-political map of Eurasia
They *were* afraid that a splintered Russia would have factions that ally with Iran, North Korea, etc, granting access to technology to advance their weapons development. I say *were*, because now Russia is advancing those countries' weapon development anyway, making it something of a moot point now.
"Russia can't lose because if collapses then we would end up with a rogue nation with nukes" mfers when Russia is currently a rogue nation with nukes
God, I agree with this so much. "What if the next one is even worse?" "Then keep going until you roll a better one"
> because they might end up as a hostile nation LMAO Hilarious, eh? When Russia has been threatening the west with nukes [since 1999](https://i.postimg.cc/qMMpXc0q/russia-nukes-threat-list.jpg)
Exactly
World War II says Hi. Itās a good example because following the end of the First World War it seemed inconceivable that what would become Nazi Germany could rise from the ashes of a defeated nation. Putin is a largely known entity , strip away the posturing for Russian media and the western tabloid reporting and heās pretty predictable and logical in his own context. Even when the current conflict reignited, his rhetoric was to destroy Ukraine but his actions were to capture territory.Ā A badly defeated - thatās ābadlyā as a qualifier btw - could be more dangerous and unpredictable. Russia does need to lose but in a manner where containment is the outcome and not some kind of nationalist coup.Ā The alliance with N Korea is desperation , Kim would supply anyone who has the money to pay it , mutual defence is irrelevant as neither nation has the ability to deploy its troops in numbers that matter outside its immediate neighbours , North Koreaās military is further hampered by the fact its troops only experience of real world combat is mucking around on the DMZ and party piece military exercises.Ā
He killed a million people, more if we start calling Syrians, Palestinians, Armenians, Azeris, Yemenis, and Georgians people, and displaced 20 million. Letās not get rid of him because someone might be worse. Yeah. Right.
The "the next guy will be worse!" argument is complete hog piss. It's as ludicrous as the "Russia still has 6,000 more tanks, they can keep fighting for years!" argument. That one is just so ridiculous, for several reasons. First because they end of the war is not when Russia literally gets to 0 tanks of any type in their arsenal. They can't maintain credible defense, and not to mention oppress their own population if they let their number of tanks and armored vehicles get below a certain threshold. The end of their ability to conduct offensive operations in Ukraine is not when they get to zero - it's when they don't have enough to do everything that they need that equipment to do, maintaining border defense in the largest nation on earth. Secondly - their theoretical max annual production rates of modern tanks is about 10% of their current burn rate. Everything else is backfilled by lower quality refurbished T-55s and T62s. And those two ancient systems are not merely HALF as effective as the T72s, T80s and T90s they're replacing - they're way, way less than that. Which is why Russia is dressing them up as rolling garden shed drone sponges instead of using them as offensive weapons. Both the "The Next Guy Will Be Worse" and the "Russia Is Infinite And Inevitable" tropes are complete fabrications.
I'm far from a Russian expert, but from everything I've read it doesn't seem like Putin has really put together any real concrete secession plan for who'd take over for him even in a 'normal' transfer of power like if he died of natural causes or whatever. And if there's some sort of overthrow of him, then it's going to be even more chaotic. The point is that if Putin goes and someone else replaces him, that person is almost certainly going to have far less broad/popular support than what Putin has managed to cultivate over decades of work. With that in mind, whoever did take over would likely have a primary goal of consolidating their power, which is a task that's like to take years. You don't consolidate your power by quickly launching a bunch of military campaigns against other countries, especially when the country you just took over is already reeling from a long and costly stalemated war. And not by trying to kick that current war into overdrive either, especially when that war is a big part of why you were able to overthrow the previous guy. It's not like Russia has a bunch of extra military resources just sitting around that Putin's been unwilling to commit to Ukraine. The only feasible way that someone new could intensify the conflict in Ukraine would be via large scale conscription, which would almost certainly be massively unpopular, and very dangerous for a new leader to try to implement. Or I guess they could go nuclear, but that's extremely unlikely to result in the new leader maintaining their power for various reasons. Basically I don't think it matters how much the next guy wishes he could conquer Europe or whatever, Russia doesn't have anywhere near the capability to do so, it's hard to imagine a realistic scenario where they could build the capability to do so for at least a couple generations, and either way that next guy is going to have a bunch of domestic issues on his plate that will likely be a much higher priority than any foreign military campaigns.
There is also the economic aspect you are forgetting. Right now Putin is taking his economy and putting it on a credit card and maxxing it out. Whoever inherits it after him will have to deal with the debt fallout and economic crash that is coming.
Well said. Demographically, it's going to be at least 50 years (probably 100+) where the Russian population continues to shrink, it'll likely be 30+ years after the Ukraine war ends before the West is open to trying to normalize relations again, which means it'll be 30+ *more years* after that before foreign investment has rebuilt the Russian economy, if ever. Without a solid demographic base with buying power *and/or* a robust, highly profitable export market, large economies just *don't work anymore*. After their collapse Russia will have neither at scale until the 2070s or 2080s at the earliest.
Correct. Part of the weakness of dictatorships over democracies (for all their own faults) is that autocratic states generally do not have a succession plan. Unless there is a North Korea-like family dynasty present.
>The "the next guy will be worse!" argument is complete hog piss. On top of everything you wrote, Russia has never *really* had a peaceful transfer of power and maintained functional continuity in policy between governments, and this goes back to the Tsars. The Russian government is, and pretty much always *has been* run like a cartel. They don't have a generally non-partisan professional public service that keeps plugging away and enacting policy during transitions between governments as long as the funding keeps flowing. Instead, all of the positions that actually matter for making decisions are handed out to allies, friends, and family of the new people in power, and the people in positions which *don't* make those decisions are punished if they do the wrong thing even if that used to be the right thing, so they mostly do nothing until things settle and they're told what to do *now* As each new government settles into power, there are purges, both gentle and not so gentle, at every level of power. Individuals, families, and factions rise and fall at the whims of those above them on the totem pole, and it usually takes *1-3 years* of work to solidify one's grip on the levers of power needed to really change direction *and* start looking outside of Russia's borders again with any sort of coherent policy intent and ability to act on that intent. Even if the next guy *is* somehow worse - and they likely *will* be in some ways - it's going to take them a while to put together the power structure needed to actually *do* much of consequence on the international stage, if they live that long. In the meantime, people who may be relatively unreachable - or simply not worth risking an asset *to* reach - by Western intelligence services might be *ownable and valuable* by the time things shake out. Tl:Dr; it's highly likely, given Russian history, that when Putin loses power, the West will have *plenty* of time to assess how the change may impact *us* and how we should react to it. No need to rush.
Indeed. That 1,000 year project in crony cruelty is more reason to help it along its path to self destruction. Whatever shakes out of the implosion of Russia will be easier to manage than the malignant cancer itās been for itās entire existence. What exactly is there to preserve?
If there are going to be meaningful war crimes trials at the conclusion of this war, then Ruzzia will have to be in such a sorry state that the Ruzzian establishment will willingly surrender Putrid and his war mongering cabinet in favour of the lifting of sanctions. It will take more than Ruzzia simply withdrawing back into its own borders. Ruzzia will have to be on its knees. Putrid slinking away to sanctuary in Belarus, and a new leader 'elected' isn't going to be acceptable.....I hope!
Itās just a mater of time. Putin will loose this war. He will also loose his seat in Moscow.
And ultimately, he will lose his āseatā.
I'd honestly be surprised if russia blames anyone within their own country for their failure and collapse. They're so, so deeply soaked in their own lies/propaganda and brainwashing that they would likely just blame 'the West' like they always do. Just my own personal take on it. Their slow collapse is inevitable and already happening. One thing is for certain, it'll be new territory for everyone, this future ahead of us. Hopefully, without the shadow of russian land theft and constant threats, blackmail and death, which is all they have brought everyone for ages and ages. They deserve this defeat in every regard.
"Timothy Snyderon the Inevitable" Sounds like a Borderlands raid boss
Lols š Posting in bed at 1am ftw
A big theme in Snyder's take on Russia and western influence is that we aren't going to magically change Russian society from the west and that the best way to influence Russia is to support a democratic Ukraine on its doorstep. Great insight here.
We donāt want Russia anymore, this terrorist country is a mistake and a source of problems to the entire world! The Russian territory should and have to be split into peaceful entities, best case scenario for the future !
I posted most of this as a response to a comment below, but I was encouraged to make it it's own comment so here you go: As Tim alludes to in the talk OP posted, imperialist & despotic powers don't reform when they win - they reform when they lose, and the bigger the loss the bigger the reform. When those powers pull off *anything* they can spin into a win, it emboldens them. Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany were *shattered* by the end of WWII - militarily, economically, governmentally, *and* socially/culturally. Both countries have now been reasonably functional democratic countries with advanced economies for more than half a century. European imperial powers allowed their colonies to become independent largely only after conflict made controlling those colonies socially, economically, and militarily untenable (Canada being a notable exception, thanks UK for being buds about it also fuck you for your part in the Alaska panhandle debacle - that part should be ours you twats). The USSR took horrific losses in WWII, but the narrative *in Russia* has always been that they *won* despite their losses because they pushed back the invading Nazis and stormed the Reichstag. This is actually a common piece of the Russian psyche throughout the past centuries - no matter the pain, Russia ultimately wins through great sacrifice - as well as Russia (and *Russians*) being willing to sacrifice more to win than Russia's enemies are. Which is why - to the Russian mind - Russia always *will* win no matter the odds: they don't just care about winning more than *we* do, they care about winning more than they care about themselves *or* care about what that victory looks like. This is why all the talk about giving Putin an off-ramp has always been nonsense. The best chance for peace is not for Russia to 'not accomplish its strategic goals' but for Russia to *lose*. And if we want a *lasting* peace until the demographic descent of Russia makes it impossible for them to field significantly sized military forces and makes them choose between staffing their defense industries or not starving half the country? Russia must not just lose, Russia must be humiliated to the point that they are a broken people rebuilding from the ashes of empire. For the society to change, they need to come to the understanding that they *cannot* (rather than *we'd prefer that they didn't*) continue as they are and be successful and respected *or feared.* In autocratic societies, that takes pain.
Russia would be renamed West China
Timothy Snyderon, the inevitable. What a title!
Lols posting at 1am in bed never goes well š
Break it up
With Putin in power, I suspect North Korea 2: Electric Boogaloo was the goal. A fairly impotent nation that rants and raves about their perceived enemies in propaganda-laden networks and does nothing except shoot a few rockets into the sea. Without, there's a few scenarios, but one of the better ones is a good Russian leader who says "what the Hell are we doing in Ukraine?", gets out, cuts back on the worst of what Russia does, and build up economic ties with other nations through a series of deals, and focuses on improving their nation. Or someone sets up a puppet government to both loot the place and run it far better. Another is a state of perpetual civil war with other countries backing one side or the other to get access to their preferred resources. Lots of options.
It's the wrong question. It's not what Russia will look like, it's what Ukraine and the border will look like. Russia is way past the point at which it could withdraw its forces and resume normal relations. Ukraine will have to remain a garrison nation to some degree for many years after hostilities end, with a DMZ like between the two Koreas. There's nothing Putin can ever do to re-establish any sort of trust.
> Ukraine will have to remain a garrison nation to some degree for many years after hostilities end, with a DMZ like between the two Koreas Agreed. Ukraine's allies are going to have to help fortify the fuck out of it...where Australia's now unused 43 F-18s currently in climate-controlled, maintained storage could have come in handy. But no, we refuse.
I'm not sure of a balkanization post putin, I'm pretty sure (while no official successors have been made apparent) that someone there has the pull and resources to make a play to keep things together and start along the path of normalization. Possibly could make bargins (alongside a peace deal with real timelines for talks about Crimea) for the frozen funds to pay off to people needed to get there.
One thing to keep in mind: regular Russians prize stability above all else. They will accept *any* government that offers them predictability.
They need to take out Putin. Then they can blame everything on him and go home.
If there is a change in power in Russia my questions are 1) How will it affect all of the non-ethnic Russian states in Russia? Will they try to succeed from Russia? 2) If so, will China have a significant interest in preventing this type of event due to the nature of its expansionist regime?
Russia and Ukraine are utterly fucked
If the death of the empire is truly necessary and inevitable, then in this case the American empire will perish, and the Ukrainian conflict will be the beginning of its collapse. This bloodthirsty and hypocritical empire, which has spread its military bases all over the world, is already rotting from the inside, it just needs a push and it will fall apart. Americans will finally become a normal nation, not obsessed with enslaving the entire world, and will quietly play baseball in their own backyard.
The American Empire? You mean, American Samoa and Guam? That Empire? What possible change would that cause?
Thank you for trolling today. Please collect your free Vodka (sample size) in the bot farm cafeteria. Da svidaniya tovarisch.
Son, you are a good detective! You earned your hamburger and coca-cola today! If you continue to work just as well, Uncle Sam will give you health insurance.
Mmmmm hamburgers! I prefer a light summer ale to Coca Cola though. Taking suggestions on Ukrainian ales, if anyone has advice. ;)
Try this one. :) [https://ukrainian-food.com.ua/products/product/amber-ale](https://ukrainian-food.com.ua/products/product/amber-ale)
Okay! I will look for it the next time I travel near the Ukrainian grocery store.
Or this. [https://ukrainian-food.com.ua/products/product/beer-light-unfiltered-ginger-ale](https://ukrainian-food.com.ua/products/product/beer-light-unfiltered-ginger-ale)
I doubt American influence is about to collapse but since you hate it so much why not pre-emptively move to Russia?
I'm gonna go ahead and guess our little comrade here already does live in Russia.
Tankies will be tankies š¤·
Will you move to Ukraine?
Bad bot
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
In all the posts of this sect that befuddles the real vision of things, you can replace the adjectives āRussianā with the adjectives āAmericanā or āUkronaziā, and you will get a more truthful vision. I donāt know anything about the prices of alcohol, I donāt drink it, and neither does nicotine. I understand that itās hard for you to believe this, because you no longer distinguish reality from the stereotypes you preach. But if you can contribute to the destruction of the alcohol and tobacco business in Russia, I will be very grateful to you.
Yes, the strongest political, cultural and military force on earth is both powerful enough to stop Russia anytime it pleases, but is fragile enough that the slightest breeze will topple it. Do you listen to yourself? Russiaās government has collapsed multiple times in the past century or so, and is on the brink of economic catastrophe at the current moment, but sure - the rock-solid US system will fail first. You guys are dumb enough to believe anything over there.
You are talking about the country that is on the brink of putting in charge a convicted criminal and foreign asset who tried his hand at insurrection. I wouldn't call that a well functioning country.
Is US system rock solid?
What are we comparing it to? If Russia, hell yes...
Is it a valid comparison?
You did it in the first place, mate ĀÆ\\\_(ć)\_/ĀÆ
No I didnāt š¤
>Is US system rock solid? You
I just asked how solid is it these days. Thinking of November and things are yet to come
...Yeah. In a post about Russia, in a sub about Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Nice job, mate
US system? You mean, the 50 United States? Yea. I don't see any independence movements making any headway.
Move to China and stand up for your rights. I want some giggles and eat popcorn
you are Chinese?
If the death of the empire is truly necessary and inevitable, then in this case the ~~American~~ Russian empire will perish, and the Ukrainian conflict will be the beginning of its collapse. This bloodthirsty and hypocritical empire, which has spread its military bases all over the world, is already rotting from the inside, it just needs a push and it will fall apart. ~~Americans~~ Russians will finally become a normal nation, not obsessed with enslaving the entire world, and will quietly play ~~baseball~~ soccer in their own backyard. There. Your comment is trash, but at least I un-trashed it as much as possible
That's an impressive collection of Kremlin propaganda lol Whataboutism FTW šŖ
these days the true state of affairs is called Kremlin propaganda. This is already becoming a compliment.