[HN Gopher] Russia risks becoming ungovernable and descending in...
___________________________________________________________________
Russia risks becoming ungovernable and descending into chaos
Author : DocFeind
Score : 35 points
Date : 2022-12-05 20:34 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.economist.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.economist.com)
| damagednoob wrote:
| Why does this feel like Iraq all over again? You oust Putin but
| what of the power vacuum that is left behind? I can't help but
| this is a common gambit of dictators: You think I'm bad? Wait
| until you see what comes after me. With nukes.
| jfengel wrote:
| Iraq, as bad as is, has a functional government -- despite the
| US's best efforts to botch nation-building.
|
| There was a terrible civil war that killed far more people than
| the actual invasion, supported by a lot of outsiders and
| targeted at civilians. But as shaky as it was, the government
| remained.
|
| Russia wouldn't have the dubious benefit of American nation-
| building, but honestly is probably better off without it. The
| fact that there are nukes on the line is awful, but in the end
| the next dictator would face the same mutually-assured-
| destruction math that Putin does.
|
| A scarier scenario is Afghanistan, where the government we set
| up failed the instant we left. It was replaced by the same guys
| we kicked out in the first place, and is now fighting its own
| terrorist insurgency (who are also our enemies, for that
| matter). If there were nuclear weapons in Afghanistan they
| would almost certainly have been used already -- against each
| other.
|
| Russia is, hopefully, a bit more like Iraq. They have the
| outline of a functional government. It may or may not fall to a
| dictator; that would depend on the circumstances of Putin's
| downfall. But the biggest thing to fear there is a failed
| nuclear state, even more than the specifics of who runs it.
| sfusato wrote:
| Has the West's propaganda gotten so low these days? I mean, come
| on, The Economist used to have a higher standard, deep
| investigative articles. This is on par with _Russians soldiers
| have no shoes this winter_. I 'm more concerned with the EU
| becoming _ungovernable and descending into chaos_ given the last
| 3 years. I bet we 're more close to the tipping point than Russia
| is for what is worth.
| elzbardico wrote:
| This is basically propaganda. Have several friends from Russia,
| and much to the dismay of some of them, Putin's popularity is
| widespread, the economy, while not stellar, is in good shape, and
| the general population has rallied around the government as a
| result of the sanctions.
|
| People tend to forget that not all of Putin's claims are
| propaganda and that Russia had some legitimate security concerns.
| The situation of ethnic Russians in the Donbas was a legitimate
| pain point for the Russians.
|
| Of course, I will be downvoted and flagged like there is no
| tomorrow. But maybe some of you will start asking questions that
| the western governments would prefer you don't ask, just like
| with WMDs in Iraq.
| orbital-decay wrote:
| _> Have several friends from Russia, and much to the dismay of
| some of them, Putin's popularity is widespread, the economy,
| while not stellar, is in good shape, and the general population
| has rallied around the government as a result of the
| sanctions._
|
| This is largely the picture they want to see, choosing to
| ignore the reality. The USSR crash was also a surprise to
| unreasonable amount of its citizens. What's actually happening
| under the hood is massive wealth redistribution and a
| fundamental crash of the political system, and what comes out
| from the rubble won't be pretty, especially because a lot of
| passionate people fled the country. Something clicked in the
| heads of many people, this is not the usual frog boiling,
| demons are really out this time.
|
| _> The situation of ethnic Russians in the Donbas was a
| legitimate pain point for the Russians_
|
| No, it never was. The reason Donbas is somehow special at all
| is just that the FSB-led coup succeded in 2014 there, unlike
| similar attempts in Kherson, Odessa, Kharkiv etc which failed.
| Mariupol (at which the 2014 invasion had been stopped) is also
| Donbas and had no troubles post 2014 at all. (until 2022...)
| Had they succeed in other cities, the same point would have
| been made about those by the propaganda. Nobody cared about
| "the situation in Donbas" (whatever it is) pre 2014, neither
| did people really care about Crimea, it's all smoke and mirrors
| set up by Kremlin.
|
| If something ever was a pain point for ethnic Russians as well
| as everybody else, it's regimes that were installed in
| Donetsk/Luhansk. These are man-eating systems. There's no
| Donbas anymore. Donbas is destroyed. Donetsk, once a thriving
| city, is largely depopulated at this point. And not due to
| "Ukraine attacking it for 8 years", mind you.
|
| (context: I'm also Russian who followed all this not from the
| mainstream media, probably unlike some of your friends)
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Putin 's popularity is widespread_
|
| Most sources agree on this. Even the war _per se_ remains
| popular.
|
| > _the economy, while not stellar, is in good shape_
|
| The data do not show this, but sure. The harm is in long-term
| capital and workforce degradation, not anything acute.
|
| > _situation of ethnic Russians in the Donbas was a legitimate
| pain point for the Russians_
|
| Ethnic Russians are well treated by Moscow. Nobody predicts
| they'll create problems for the Kremlin. This article name
| drops the Caucusus. But there are various Turkic, Chechen and
| Siberian populations who would be the first to be expected to
| break from the Kremlin, albeit not imminently.
|
| None of what you've said contradicts the article's thesis. The
| Russian state is weakening, and, if it continues on this
| trajectory, will lose control of its peripheries.
| [deleted]
| WeylandYutani wrote:
| This does not make sense Russia has lost huge parts of their
| military how is the Ukraine invasion addressing their security
| concerns? Putin has single handedly put 20 years of accumulated
| oil money on fire.
| yks wrote:
| > The situation of ethnic Russians in the Donbas was a
| legitimate pain point for the Russians.
|
| Russians don't care about other Russians as a general
| principle, caring is a government's job, that's like Russian
| society 101. For example, that's why volunteer movement in
| support of the military is basically non-existent in Russia
| while massive in Ukraine. Also Russian mobilized citizen end up
| in quite horrific living conditions and used up in human wave
| attacks, which also bothers barely anyone apart from some odd
| wives and mothers.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| The 1420 YT channel is a very young Russian guy walking the
| streets of Moscow etc. and just asking questions.
| https://youtube.com/@1420channel
|
| Based only my viewings, it seems there are a lot of Russians
| scared that America will take over Russia and that they have to
| win the war.
|
| There are also many who know it is not safe to say their true
| feelings because they could get arrested.
| netsharc wrote:
| > Based only my viewings, it seems there are a lot of
| Russians scared that America will take over Russia and that
| they have to win the war.
|
| Well, if I was talking with one of those Russians, I wonder
| how they think the 2 pathways would pan out. If Putin hadn't
| invaded, I think NATO would've left Putin/Russia alone and be
| satisfied with the status quo (with Putin supplying cheap
| energy to Europe, who cares if he's a corrupt jackass in his
| own country).
|
| Now that invasion has happened and no time machines, what
| would a Putin victory look like? Even if he conquers Ukraine,
| the sanctions won't stop, i.e. even if the Ukranians laid
| down their arms, that would just end the shooting war but not
| the economic one.
|
| Meanwhile, what would defeat look like? Even if Russia laid
| down their arms and left Ukraine, the economic sanctions
| won't stop either, until..? A Putin regime change? NATO
| wouldn't be satisfied if he just got a puppet to replace him.
| Meanwhile for the average Russian, Putin not being in power
| would be like what this article portrays - separatist
| conflicts; or Russia being under Western (or Chinese?)
| control.
|
| So I can see why they'd prefer a NATO surrender rather than a
| Putin surrender...
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| Does Putin have cancer and parkinson's?
|
| Does Russia have the military strength to keep Belarus in the
| fold and keep control over Georgia, Chechnya, etc, and keep
| Kazakhstan, Armenia, Azerbaijan under their influence?
|
| And Ukraine now has a national identity, patriotism, and a very
| modern army, and deep roots of cooperation and trust with the
| west. The US has always wanted a major influence satellite by
| Russia (besides Turkey), and holy crap do they have one with
| Ukraine. Ukraine will be the beneficiary of military and
| foreign aid for decades now.
|
| If this was 100 years ago (as in no nuclear weapons), Ukraine
| would be a direct threat to Moscow. You chew up the best
| regular forces your enemy (whose capital Moscow is, what, a
| couple hundred miles away?), and you make them dip into
| reservists, while you build out a superior, better equipped,
| better trained, better motivated army, you know what happens
| historically?
|
| Without nuclear weapons, I wouldn't be predicting Ukrainian
| victory in terms of repulsing the current invasions. I wouldn't
| be predicting they retake Crimea.
|
| I would be predicting Ukraine would take Belarus, Moscow,
| complete control of the Black Sea, and all of Moscow's
| imperial, uh, Federation Members would break away. And likely
| all of Russia would become a vassal state of Ukraine.
| 2devnull wrote:
| Isn't that our current goal? (Our meaning NATO/Ukraine.)
|
| Sounds like we're getting the closer to our mission accomplished
| moment.
| warinukraine wrote:
| No, the goal of NATO is to unite together smaller countries, so
| that Russia can't as easily pick them off as the czarist
| Russian Empire, then the Soviet Union, then the Russian
| Federation.
|
| It's easy to get confused given their strong propaganda, but if
| you want to be dispassionate about the subject, this isn't a
| recent development, it goes back 300 years before NATO.
|
| As a european, I'm glad that NATO is backing Ukraine, otherwise
| it might've been going the way of Georgia or Chechnia just to
| mention a couple in recent times.
| WeylandYutani wrote:
| Hardly, we need a regime that can extract and sell us their
| resources.
| avmich wrote:
| Less and less, as we switch to other resources or other
| sources of them.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _as we switch to other resources or other sources of
| them_
|
| Russia is a major producer of cobalt, nickel, copper,
| molybdenum, bauxite and uranium [1].
|
| [1]
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_industry_of_Russia
| joecot wrote:
| While I of course condemn Russia invading, and support the US
| and NATO funding Ukraine's defense, a very cynical read of the
| situation would conclude exactly this.
|
| US and NATO diplomats were crystal clear that after the USSR's
| fall, the former Soviet states should not be invited into NATO.
| And later that they should not be invited into the EU. Even
| with USSR gone, they were in Russia's sphere of influence, and
| making those overtures would be provocative.
|
| The US pushing for a military alliance with Ukraine is what
| initially set Putin on trying to take control of Ukraine. That
| is a mighty long border to share with a US ally. Everything
| went downhill from there.
|
| So a very, very cynical read of this situation would be that
| the US and NATO goaded this war specifically so that Putin
| would play his hand, and the entire world would watch as Russia
| crumbled. That their entire military was a front for crumbling
| soviet era technology and resources. The problem with building
| a society where the powerful steal everything not nailed down
| is that they also do that to the military. US and NATO
| intelligence likely knew this.
|
| And given how brazenly the US and NATO have supported Ukraine
| through this, I would also hazard a guess that they know that
| most if not all of Russia's nukes won't actually fly.
|
| EDIT since multiple responses have asked about a source[1] on
| the nato comment:
|
| > The present crisis has its roots in a long-brewing contest
| over Ukraine's geopolitical alignment. After the Soviet Union
| collapsed, Ukraine became independent but for decades joined
| neither with Russia nor with the West. The United States, for
| its part, expanded its NATO alliance but initially sidestepped
| Ukraine. It recognized that Russia, sharing deep ties and a
| 1,426-mile land border with Ukraine, might oppose such a move
| by force. "Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all
| redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin)," William J.
| Burns, then U.S. ambassador to Russia and current CIA director,
| cabled from Moscow in 2008. "I have yet to find anyone who
| views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge
| to Russian interests."
|
| 1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/12/23/ukraine-
| ta...
| avmich wrote:
| > US and NATO diplomats were crystal clear that after the
| USSR's fall, the former Soviet states should not be invited
| into NATO. And later that they should not be invited into the
| EU.
|
| Can you provide the source for this, please?
|
| > The US pushing for a military alliance with Ukraine is what
| initially set Putin on trying to take control of Ukraine.
|
| Why do you think so? Can't there be another reason for
| invasion?
| joecot wrote:
| > Can you provide the source for this, please?
|
| Sure[1]. If you google you will find the direct quote in
| this paragraph in many places.
|
| > The present crisis has its roots in a long-brewing
| contest over Ukraine's geopolitical alignment. After the
| Soviet Union collapsed, Ukraine became independent but for
| decades joined neither with Russia nor with the West. The
| United States, for its part, expanded its NATO alliance but
| initially sidestepped Ukraine. It recognized that Russia,
| sharing deep ties and a 1,426-mile land border with
| Ukraine, might oppose such a move by force. "Ukrainian
| entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the
| Russian elite (not just Putin)," William J. Burns, then
| U.S. ambassador to Russia and current CIA director, cabled
| from Moscow in 2008. "I have yet to find anyone who views
| Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge
| to Russian interests."
|
| 1.
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/12/23/ukraine-
| ta...
| chippytea wrote:
| >US and NATO diplomats were crystal clear that after the
| USSR's fall, the former Soviet states should not be invited
| into NATO. And later that they should not be invited into the
| EU.
|
| Do you have a source for this? All I could find was the
| Warsaw and Budapest pacts. I'm not trying to nitpick. I share
| the same view but when I explain this to people they alway
| say these are soviet lies.
| Aaargh20318 wrote:
| > Even with USSR gone, they were in Russia's sphere of
| influence, and making those overtures would be provocative.
|
| What is provocative about joining NATO ? It is a purely
| defensive alliance. They are absolutely no threat to Russia.
| The only reason to be against anyone joining NATO is if you
| were planning to invade them. And guess what happened ?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Isn't that our current goal? (Our meaning NATO /Ukraine.)_
|
| No. It's to get Russia out of Ukraine. Cleaning up a failed
| nuclear state is in nobody's interest.
| ningunoynadie wrote:
| How do we juxtapose this with countless South American,
| Asian, Middle East, African coups with seen over the decades
| from the US?
|
| Seems in the play book, overthrow of unfriendly regime by any
| means.
| warinukraine wrote:
| You see guys, this is called whataboutism. It's a Soviet
| propaganda strategy so well known it has a name.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
|
| Or how-do-we-juxtaposeism.
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| Anybody know why this article has a byline?
| ajoberstar wrote:
| I believe it's because it's from The World Ahead issue, which
| iirc always has bylines unlike the normal weekly paper.
| networkid wrote:
| The same can be said about US, EU,China... Where social
| polarization already so close to the red line so it could bring
| the states into ungovernable, militarized, chsotic formations...
| badRNG wrote:
| The US has seen _far_ worse periods of social polarization. And
| not even that far in the distant past: the red scare(s), the
| Civil Rights Movement(s) and the anti-war movement during
| Vietnam were periods of far worse internal strife. And to be
| frank, even Russia today doesn 't have anything near the level
| of internal dissent the US had during the height of anti-
| Vietnam protests.
| avmich wrote:
| > Russia today doesn't have anything near the level of
| internal dissent
|
| Today's Maxim Katz video argues that "the war party" exists
| only in Kremlin, and with fall of Putin and his closest
| allies, everybody else in Russia won't be interested in war,
| which is good.
| freddymilkovich wrote:
| https://archive.ph/w5C9Y
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-05 23:01 UTC)