The Collapse of Russia. What happens next?

[Flat Bear]

On 06/03/2023 at 16:30, nightowl said:

How much speculation of either Putin's poor health or an internal coup will see him toppled has there been over that last year? Last time I noticed he was still there and alive, so sounds like wishful thinking and morale boosting for the west to me too, maybe to convince people this war will be over soon so stay with it.

He still is there or sort of is still there. He is reverting to more and more desperate measures and we are in very dangerous times.

3 months on from your post and the pressure on the Putin regime has increased to near breaking point.

There are more and more factions getting the courage to speak out against him and they are finding little or no recourse which will only enbolden all oppostions.

IF, when?, Putin is deposed I do not think there can be a smooth take over and Russia would likely fall into chaos. Suddenly we could see the Russian invasion go into reverse as power struggles and anarchy in the country takes hold. This would be a very dangerous time akin to the fall of the Soviet Union.

[Casual-observer]

14 minutes ago, Flat Bear said:

He still is there or sort of is still there. He is reverting to more and more desperate measures and we are in very dangerous times.

3 months on from your post and the pressure on the Putin regime has increased to near breaking point.

There are more and more factions getting the courage to speak out against him and they are finding little or no recourse which will only enbolden all oppostions.

IF, when?, Putin is deposed I do not think there can be a smooth take over and Russia would likely fall into chaos. Suddenly we could see the Russian invasion go into reverse as power struggles and anarchy in the country takes hold. This would be a very dangerous time akin to the fall of the Soviet Union.

Farcical, where is this breaking point evidence? 

 

[zugzwang]

7 minutes ago, Big Orange said:

I get a feeling WW3 will not be a brief nuke exchange that virtually destroys civilizations and resolved within days/weeks, but something more like the Thirty Years and Hundreds Years War - a messy tedious grind that chips away and eventually dismantles most or all of the advanced nuclear armed nations from both the outside and from within (imagine the US West Coast suffering a terrorist dirty bomb attack carried out by a cartel while a warlord's army is picking over the ruins of the Kremlin).

The US is the greatest debtor nation that the world has ever seen, utterly dependent on financial tributes from its vassal states abroad. Any significant interruption in the flow of those dollars would be the end of America, forever.

[Flat Bear]

15 minutes ago, Casual-observer said:

Farcical, where is this breaking point evidence? 

 

Don't even bother with your sh#t

You are fully aware of the situation unless you do not read or listen to anything.

"Farcical". You are farcical just look at the situation.

I will upload a number of articals for your perusal and education.

[Flat Bear]

 

[Flat Bear]

 

[Flat Bear]

1 hour ago, Casual-observer said:

Farcical, where is this breaking point evidence? 

 

The economics will destroy Russia maybe before the Ukrainians have time to finish throwing the Russians out of their country.

Putins network of power has been eroding for some time with his paranoia and mistrust many of his network of "Oligarchs" he  has fallen out with and they have found themselves falling out of 6th storey apartments or similar and those more powerful are biding their time and waiting such as Gazprom and Wagner who we might find start to become more vocal and emboldened as they vie for a share of power. Watch this space.

 

Edited June 12, 2023 by Flat Bear

[Flat Bear]

The end of Putin’s empire could be sudden

History tells us that foreign humiliation can quickly rob dictators of control. Chaos could soon result

ROBERT TOMBS11 June 2023 • 7:00pm

Experts did not predict the fall of the Soviet empire. Nor did its rulers. Millions of people brought it down by breaking through closed borders and defying what had previously seemed the invincible forces of the state. With hindsight it seems inevitable. But it was unimaginable for most people at the time – until it actually happened. 

This seems the almost invariable pattern, whether in the fall of far-flung empires or in revolutions within single states. No one expected a French Revolution that would bring Louis XVI to the guillotine. No one expected an upper-class rebellion in Palermo in 1848 to turn the whole of Europe upside down. Who thought the suicide of a street trader in Tunisia in 2010 could do the same to the Arab world? The German empire collapsed in 1918 only months after it had nearly won the First World War. Despite emerging victorious from the Second World War, the French and British empires began unravelling just as Paris and London were planning new colonial partnerships.  

During the 1970s, when revolutions seemed on the cards – but weren’t – social scientists tried predictive models. Perhaps if one could identify the tipping point in popular discontent, or look for tell-tale signs of “disappointed expectations”, one could anticipate or prevent political collapse. 

That never truly worked. Lenin, who knew a bit about such matters, gave a clue: “it is not enough for the lower classes to refuse to live in the old way; it is necessary also that the upper classes should be unable to live in the old way”. States – even medieval and early modern states such as Louis XVI’s France – can usually defeat internal dissent. Stone throwing mobs stood little chance against soldiers firing grapeshot, and even less against tear gas, water cannon and tanks. 

So for states and empires to fail, it usually needs an external force that not only undermines their prestige and ability to intimidate, but weakens their repressive capacity. In most cases, this is military failure. Sometimes the effect is clear and direct, as when the Russian and German empires were brought down in 1917 and 1918 by their own soldiers refusing to fight and abandoning their rulers. 

Sometimes it is more indirect, as when the British realised that, after an exhausting war, they could no longer govern a huge, diverse, and decreasingly acquiescent empire. The Viceroy of India, Lord Wavell, concluded in 1946 that “We have no longer the resources, nor I think the necessary prestige and confidence in ourselves”. The French took longer to reach that conclusion, and then it was the unwillingness of conscript soldiers and their families to fight a war in Algeria in the early 1960s that ended visions of a permanent French imperial “community”. 

In all these cases it was not complete defeat or the physical destruction of armed forces that was decisive, but the perception that the struggle was not winnable or not for long. Soldiers and policemen will not willingly risk their lives, or their future careers, for a lost cause and a discredited regime. There comes a moment, often very sudden, when the Emperor’s nakedness becomes apparent, and the game changes. In Lenin’s phrase, the rulers “are unable” to carry on as before. 

Russia seems evidently on that path: but when might the moment of truth come? It has gone through this before. In 1917, the mighty empire was fatally weakened by Germany, and in 1989, by the rigours of the Cold War. Twice it died, but soon resurrected in another form, under another emperor, even if large chunks (the Baltic states, the Central Asian colonies, the Eastern European dependencies) were missing. And now? Will Putin’s attempt to reconquer part of the empire precipitate its final demise? 

China is there to pick up Asian possessions conquered in the 19th century, and Japan, Turkey and others also have claims. The Russian people’s best chance of a brighter future would be as a post-imperial democratic nation-state, rejecting the imperial ambitions of Putin and his like.

A fallen empire nevertheless leaves a long shadow. Part may be positive, as in the case of the Roman empire (and we might like to think, the British): language, culture, laws, infrastructure and institutions. But it also inevitably leaves chaos, violence and struggles for power. There is no painless outcome. 

[DarkHorseWaits-NoMore]

3 hours ago, zugzwang said:

The US is the greatest debtor aggressive TERRORIST nation that the world has ever seen...

Sadly doubly true, should anyone be prepared to honestly look into it. From it's genocidal inception to the current day.

[zugzwang]

2 hours ago, Flat Bear said:

Sometimes it is more indirect, as when the British realised that, after an exhausting war, they could no longer govern a huge, diverse, and decreasingly acquiescent empire. The Viceroy of India, Lord Wavell, concluded in 1946 that “We have no longer the resources, nor I think the necessary prestige and confidence in ourselves”.

Not true. The Americans shut down the British Empire and then usurped its imperial role by forcing Britain to repudiate the sterling debts it had incurred to the empire during WWII. Impoverished and in debt, and with no credit or natural resources to call on, the British were forced to acquiesce. With all sterling receivables cancelled and the postwar US economy in overdrive the colonial powers no longer had a reason to prohibit the sale of American goods.

[jonb2]

1 hour ago, zugzwang said:

Not true. The Americans shut down the British Empire and then usurped its imperial role by forcing Britain to repudiate the sterling debts it had incurred to the empire during WWII. Impoverished and in debt, and with no credit or natural resources to call on, the British were forced to acquiesce. With all sterling receivables cancelled and the postwar US economy in overdrive the colonial powers no longer had a reason to prohibit the sale of American goods.

This is correct.

[warpig]

On 04/03/2023 at 18:45, ChrisSussex said:

If you believe Russia is going to collapse anytime soon then I have a bridge in London to sell you.

^^ THIS. Russia is the most resource-rich country on the planet, the US is in 2nd place but is 40% behind Russia in terms of resources. Countries have been fighting over resources for the last 20 years... and given countries can now print as much money as they want... there's no reason for Russia to go bankrupt and collapse. This whole thread is moronic.

[Staffsknot]

1 hour ago, jonb2 said:

This is correct.

Actually no that isn't correct.

Empires are run on the basis of appearing all powerful, the proof that they could be challenged and had expended much resource fighting, promises made to colonial groups and the fact none of the empires could afford to expend money waging futile wars to hold onto bits of the map, that now saw the imperial powers had been pushed back and in many cases humiliated in front of them, meant the empire days were over.

The US was happy to embrace with money & goods any country to further its aims. They stepped into the vacuum as the powers pulled out and bought themselves influence + used the 'new big power' routine to get countries to be their side of the new East / West divide.

Once ruled countries realise the rulers are fallible and defeatable the end is in sight. That is what happened as that is what always happens.

[shlomo]

6 hours ago, Flat Bear said:

The end of Putin’s empire could be sudden

History tells us that foreign humiliation can quickly rob dictators of control. Chaos could soon result

ROBERT TOMBS11 June 2023 • 7:00pm

Experts did not predict the fall of the Soviet empire. Nor did its rulers. Millions of people brought it down by breaking through closed borders and defying what had previously seemed the invincible forces of the state. With hindsight it seems inevitable. But it was unimaginable for most people at the time – until it actually happened. 

This seems the almost invariable pattern, whether in the fall of far-flung empires or in revolutions within single states. No one expected a French Revolution that would bring Louis XVI to the guillotine. No one expected an upper-class rebellion in Palermo in 1848 to turn the whole of Europe upside down. Who thought the suicide of a street trader in Tunisia in 2010 could do the same to the Arab world? The German empire collapsed in 1918 only months after it had nearly won the First World War. Despite emerging victorious from the Second World War, the French and British empires began unravelling just as Paris and London were planning new colonial partnerships.  

During the 1970s, when revolutions seemed on the cards – but weren’t – social scientists tried predictive models. Perhaps if one could identify the tipping point in popular discontent, or look for tell-tale signs of “disappointed expectations”, one could anticipate or prevent political collapse. 

That never truly worked. Lenin, who knew a bit about such matters, gave a clue: “it is not enough for the lower classes to refuse to live in the old way; it is necessary also that the upper classes should be unable to live in the old way”. States – even medieval and early modern states such as Louis XVI’s France – can usually defeat internal dissent. Stone throwing mobs stood little chance against soldiers firing grapeshot, and even less against tear gas, water cannon and tanks. 

So for states and empires to fail, it usually needs an external force that not only undermines their prestige and ability to intimidate, but weakens their repressive capacity. In most cases, this is military failure. Sometimes the effect is clear and direct, as when the Russian and German empires were brought down in 1917 and 1918 by their own soldiers refusing to fight and abandoning their rulers. 

Sometimes it is more indirect, as when the British realised that, after an exhausting war, they could no longer govern a huge, diverse, and decreasingly acquiescent empire. The Viceroy of India, Lord Wavell, concluded in 1946 that “We have no longer the resources, nor I think the necessary prestige and confidence in ourselves”. The French took longer to reach that conclusion, and then it was the unwillingness of conscript soldiers and their families to fight a war in Algeria in the early 1960s that ended visions of a permanent French imperial “community”. 

In all these cases it was not complete defeat or the physical destruction of armed forces that was decisive, but the perception that the struggle was not winnable or not for long. Soldiers and policemen will not willingly risk their lives, or their future careers, for a lost cause and a discredited regime. There comes a moment, often very sudden, when the Emperor’s nakedness becomes apparent, and the game changes. In Lenin’s phrase, the rulers “are unable” to carry on as before. 

Russia seems evidently on that path: but when might the moment of truth come? It has gone through this before. In 1917, the mighty empire was fatally weakened by Germany, and in 1989, by the rigours of the Cold War. Twice it died, but soon resurrected in another form, under another emperor, even if large chunks (the Baltic states, the Central Asian colonies, the Eastern European dependencies) were missing. And now? Will Putin’s attempt to reconquer part of the empire precipitate its final demise? 

China is there to pick up Asian possessions conquered in the 19th century, and Japan, Turkey and others also have claims. The Russian people’s best chance of a brighter future would be as a post-imperial democratic nation-state, rejecting the imperial ambitions of Putin and his like.

A fallen empire nevertheless leaves a long shadow. Part may be positive, as in the case of the Roman empire (and we might like to think, the British): language, culture, laws, infrastructure and institutions. But it also inevitably leaves chaos, violence and struggles for power. There is no painless outcome. 

A very valuable article 

[70PC]

34 minutes ago, warpig said:

^^ THIS. Russia is the most resource-rich country on the planet, the US is in 2nd place but is 40% behind Russia in terms of resources. Countries have been fighting over resources for the last 20 years... and given countries can now print as much money as they want... there's no reason for Russia to go bankrupt and collapse. This whole thread is moronic.

"Zimbabwe's mining sector is highly diversified, with close to 40 different minerals, and the predominant minerals include platinum, chrome, gold, coal, It has the second largest platinum deposit in the world. Its rich lands are 60% made up of ancient rocks, industrial minerals, mineral resources"

"The direct cause of Zimbabwe's hyperinflation crisis was monetary policy mismanagement by Zimbabwe's president Robert Mugabe and his government. Beginning in the early 1990's, the president instituted a series of economic reforms that proved disastrous."

[warpig]

2 hours ago, 70PC said:

"Zimbabwe's mining sector is highly diversified, with close to 40 different minerals, and the predominant minerals include platinum, chrome, gold, coal, It has the second largest platinum deposit in the world. Its rich lands are 60% made up of ancient rocks, industrial minerals, mineral resources"

"The direct cause of Zimbabwe's hyperinflation crisis was monetary policy mismanagement by Zimbabwe's president Robert Mugabe and his government. Beginning in the early 1990's, the president instituted a series of economic reforms that proved disastrous."

Russia != Zimbabwe

[Riedquat]

54 minutes ago, warpig said:

Russia != Zimbabwe

True, but the point is that just having a load of resources isn't an argument on its own for not falling apart. Especially as the wealthy parts of the world aren't buying them any more.

The resources mean that Russia could be a well-off, stable country, it has what it needs to be to be a success on that front, but political stability is also required, which rarely lasts long in a corrupt dictatorship, especially when a large proportion of the population aren't seeing any benefit. China in comparison has managed to keep the oppressive side going by having at least some of its wealth get to the population, which requires those at the top to be at least marginally less greedy and self-serving, even if they're just as morally bankrupt.

[70PC]

7 hours ago, warpig said:

Russia != Zimbabwe

Apart from the size difference, pretty much yes. Both countries are rich in natural resources and have capable people. The rot comes from the top. 

[jonb2]

10 hours ago, Staffsknot said:

Actually no that isn't correct.

Empires are run on the basis of appearing all powerful, the proof that they could be challenged and had expended much resource fighting, promises made to colonial groups and the fact none of the empires could afford to expend money waging futile wars to hold onto bits of the map, that now saw the imperial powers had been pushed back and in many cases humiliated in front of them, meant the empire days were over.

The US was happy to embrace with money & goods any country to further its aims. They stepped into the vacuum as the powers pulled out and bought themselves influence + used the 'new big power' routine to get countries to be their side of the new East / West divide.

Once ruled countries realise the rulers are fallible and defeatable the end is in sight. That is what happened as that is what always happens.

Damn it, you made me go down another rabbit hole SK.

On checking further, I discovered it was Britain who decided it would honour the full repayment of the US lend-lease debt - finishing in 2006. I had always assumed our hands were forced by the USA. Other countries, like Russia, were never pursued for their $10 billion.

Roosevelt was ironically against all forms of colonialism. I say ironically, because look what happened in the 80 years since the war. There is no doubt America became far more imperial and interfering. Its foreign policy for the last 50 years has been disastrous - arguably because of massively increased unthinking politicization.

He did want to dismantle the British empire and used his leverage to achieve this. IOW, he certainly took advantage of our dire situation.

When Roosevelt Took on Churchill to End British Rule in India
https://www.thequint.com/news/world/franklin-roosevelt-role-in-india-independence-british-rule-churchill

Roosevelt's `Grand Strategy' to Rid the World of British Colonialism: 1941-1945
http://american_almanac.tripod.com/lkffdr.htm

 

There is also the Tizard mission, which I have heard described as one of the worst things we had to do. But we have a record of throwing away our big commercial opportunities (jet tech anyone?). And even today, we are still selling our defence companies to the Yanks.

The Tizard Mission: The Briefcase That Changed World War II | Boundary Stones
https://boundarystones.weta.org/2015/09/24/tizard-mission-briefcase-changed-world-war-ii

Milestones: 1937–1945 - Office of the Historian
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1937-1945/atlantic-conf

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Big Orange]

Also see South Africa and Venezuela go to the dogs despite their rich resources and cutting edge infrastructure in the 1970s (due to utter corruption and incompetence of entrenched officials).

Edited June 13, 2023 by Big Orange

[jonb2]

11 hours ago, warpig said:

^^ THIS. Russia is the most resource-rich country on the planet, the US is in 2nd place but is 40% behind Russia in terms of resources. Countries have been fighting over resources for the last 20 years... and given countries can now print as much money as they want... there's no reason for Russia to go bankrupt and collapse. This whole thread is moronic.

It you twirl your skirt and snap your red shoes together, then one day your wishes will become true twinkle-toes.

[jonb2]

3 minutes ago, Big Orange said:

Also see South Africa and Venezuela go to the dogs despite their rich resources and cutting edge infrastructure in the 1970s (due to utter corruption and incompetence of eblntrenched officials).

... and this is the point. It matters not a fecking fig what resources a country has. If the government is a kleptocratic dictatorship, the wealth stops there and the country fails.

[anonguest]

14 hours ago, zugzwang said:

Not true. The Americans shut down the British Empire and then usurped its imperial role by forcing Britain to repudiate the sterling debts it had incurred to the empire during WWII. Impoverished and in debt, and with no credit or natural resources to call on, the British were forced to acquiesce. With all sterling receivables cancelled and the postwar US economy in overdrive the colonial powers no longer had a reason to prohibit the sale of American goods.

Wow. Is that what they're teaching in Chinese schools? Fascinating.

[Bob8]

46 minutes ago, jonb2 said:

... and this is the point. It matters not a fecking fig what resources a country has. If the government is a kleptocratic dictatorship, the wealth stops there and the country fails.

Yes.

If you run the show, you ideally want an extraction economy. If you have lots of resources and cheap labour, your economy is unlikely to develop much further in a hurry.

If you have few resources, you have to invest in labour and people. It is a dreadful overhead, but leads to people leading better and fulfilling lives.

[Staffsknot]

1 hour ago, jonb2 said:

Damn it, you made me go down another rabbit hole SK.

On checking further, I discovered it was Britain who decided it would honour the full repayment of the US lend-lease debt - finishing in 2006. I had always assumed our hands were forced by the USA. Other countries, like Russia, were never pursued for their $10 billion.

Roosevelt was ironically against all forms of colonialism. I say ironically, because look what happened in the 80 years since the war. There is no doubt America became far more imperial and interfering. Its foreign policy for the last 50 years has been disastrous - arguably because of massively increased unthinking politicization.

He did want to dismantle the British empire and used his leverage to achieve this. IOW, he certainly took advantage of our dire situation.

When Roosevelt Took on Churchill to End British Rule in India
https://www.thequint.com/news/world/franklin-roosevelt-role-in-india-independence-british-rule-churchill

Roosevelt's `Grand Strategy' to Rid the World of British Colonialism: 1941-1945
http://american_almanac.tripod.com/lkffdr.htm

 

There is also the Tizard mission, which I have heard described as one of the worst things we had to do. But we have a record of throwing away our big commercial opportunities (jet tech anyone?). And even today, we are still selling our defence companies to the Yanks.

The Tizard Mission: The Briefcase That Changed World War II | Boundary Stones
https://boundarystones.weta.org/2015/09/24/tizard-mission-briefcase-changed-world-war-ii

Milestones: 1937–1945 - Office of the Historian
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1937-1945/atlantic-conf

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you look at why US was so muddled in Pacific at start of WW2 it was because they were setup to exploit Japanfighting the colonial powers or a warwith biggest threat... Royal Navy.

But empires throughout time have always ended when locals no longer fear the overlord.

The standard setup was identify a minority or group feeling grievance that could be made into the local ally, set them upso they are the local power and hae everything to lose if you are kicked out - see Assad regime in Syria is the prev setup French colonial minority they made regional rulers and colonial helpers.

This is howthings have worked since the ancient empires and how you get post empire strife as the old helpers cling on or are caught up in retribution.

If you are interested in Britain shooting self in foot- lookup Earl of Semple. Flying ace who taught Japan how to do Pearl Harbour + gave state secrets to clear his debts...

Edited June 13, 2023 by Staffsknot