Is this how Russia ends?
the.ink
the.ink
It doesn't necessarily secure the region, as now you will have conflicts in the Caucasus and weakening of Central Asian borders esp. with Afghanistan (which were always complemented by Russian forces).
Don't forget, there will also be a lot of hurt feelings along the lines of "we were a large powerful country, look what happened to us, we must gain everything back".
Edit: Also, who gets to keep the nuclear weapons?
Russia will keep the nuclear weapons. From the split there will still be a Russia, it'll hold Moscow and St. Petersburg for example. That new country will still be a significant economy with a large population (Western Russia obviously by far holds most of the nation's population density). Ideally they'd downscale the number of nukes they have (with the US also doing so), but that might be hoping for too much.
The biggest problem with the splintering will be what China and North Korea do in their regions near the present Russian border. China would have to be very tempted to conquer more of Asia (some territory bordering the Sea of Japan and Okhotsk), going up the coast to open up more routes for their navy forces into the Pacific.
Ah yes, the well-known locations of Russia's nuclear weapons, Moscow and St. Petersburg
> That new country will still be a significant economy with a large population (Western Russia obviously by far holds most of the nation's population density)
Population density does not translate into significant economy. Regions that don't receive subsidies from the federal budget are located mostly along the Ural mountains. Rather far from the capital cities.
And you're forgetting that if Russia gets split, most economic ties between the various regions will be be either severed or significantly disrupted. The fall of USSR was only 31 years ago, and apparently people are unable to either remember it, or read up on it.
> China would have to be very tempted to conquer more of Asia
That's a very good observation. China will definitely move in to grab Siberia, aka the source of most of Russia's raw materials such as oil (so no "still significant economy" for the rest)
It's interesting to note that this is already kinda the case in economic if not military/political terms: cities like Blagoveshchensk are basically part of Heilongjiang - in that particular case, it is very nearly a direct extension of the Chinese city of Heihe. They do way more trade with China than with the rest of Russia, and in some cases the populations are 30+% Chinese nationals, who often run all the important businesses and, ironically, use the native population as cheap labor.
In these conditions, stepping in more formally would be very trivial in the absence of a robust Russian response.
Info mostly sourced from The Emperor Far Away, Heilongjiang chapters.
Russia has a long history of losing and gaining territory. The last thing Russia has been is stable throughout its history, a break-up is far more likely than the opposite.
Realistically Russia has no future other than being splintered. Nothing can stop that future outcome, it's already being pulled at now. Adding salt into that wound, the world now knows how exceptionally weak and backwards Russia's primary point of power is: their military. The projection of (supposed) immense military power has been integral for many decades in holding big Russia together, through fear, intimidation, and so on. They've burned up enormous resources trying to force it to remain together over time; it has broken their people, it has broken their potential, it has impoverished the Russian people to an extreme. And today we know they don't even have a potent military to show for it. And now the Russian people are being confronted with the consequences, the cost, of trying to force big Russia to remain together (the Russian people had been temporarily sheltered from paying that price for much of the prior two decades, and those days are over).
Russia has to keep burning resources to force big Russia to hold together. That will increasingly come in the form of the Russian people watching their standard of living vaporize, on top of having lost essentially all human rights under Putin's two decade dictatorship. They will soon have nothing to lose, and they will react accordingly (although on a delay): prepare for revolution as an outcome.
And to add, there will be no revolution in Russia for years. Revolutions happen only after police, secret service and other similar forces were weak enough for long enough. Russian ones are strong currently. There is no organized opposition to speak of, so even if they became weak overnight, it would still took years till the discontent organizes itself enough to make revolution.
I pointed out it would happen on a delay, because it'll take time to grind them down. The combination (deprived of all human rights and loss of perceived prosperity and forward progress) is explosive to a country as chaotic, unstable, as Russia.
The indications that Russia's fabric is being pulled at are numerous. The decade long decline in standard of living, which is now going to plunge. Protests that were going on prior to recent Ukraine war, as in the east. Their military being fake, an entirely corrupt fraud (the image of which is critical to holding big Russia together). Their leadership being wildly incompetent, including Putin. The image of Putin was as a competent autocrat; there were always indications that that wasn't the case (it's an exceptionally rare outcome to begin with), and now we know Putin is a standard issue incompetent autocrat. The big oil gains that Russia benefited from, due to Bush's wars and the dollar decline, papered over Putin's incompetence and gave him at least an extra runway of a decade to conceal all of that incompetence.
Russia's military being a fraud is a significant example of them being ripped apart because their system requires the constant burning of resources to prop it up, to hold it together. It requires the image of a very powerful, competent military to hold it all together. Holding big Russia together is extremely expensive and can't go on indefinitely, it inherently must collapse as the fuel runs out. It's always a question of at what stage of collapse they're in (and my opinion is they're going through muscle now, and will hit bone sooner than later). One of the sources of fuel is the Russian people, the system eats them (so to speak): big Russia chews up their standard of living, burns up their potential in the name of holding the whole together. The Russian people sacrifice their potential so big Russia can exist. Big Russia can't even maintain an effective, functional military: so yes, they're being ripped apart, it just wasn't so obvious because the projection of power derived from their military hid a lot of that visual.
Russia has huge inequality and poverty already. And it was moving toward more authoritarian each year. And the drop last decade is still not as bad as the drop in living standards after 1990. And what that 1990 drop brought us is current situation. The place being poor on itself does not make revolution.
The other question is, revolution toward what and by whom? Revolution by group of oligarchs amount to mafia taking charge and more of the same. Revolution "by people" requires those people to already have some organized opposition groups working on background. It is not happening currently nor has potential to happen as of now. Russian society, seems to me, is characterized by apathy way more then by revolutionary thinking.
> It requires the image of a very powerful, competent military to hold it all together.
I don't think military is key here. It is internal secret service and cops. That is what keeps Russian government in power in Russia. Those are running strong. You can spin military loss to whatever you want to, as long as internal secret service and cops are powerful when suppressing opposite opinion groups.
The Russian military being internally mess is not exactly secret in Russia. There is a reason why those who can avoid military service.
Russia, just like any other country, can be poor, strongly authoritarian and still believe own myth of superiority.
There is Chechenia (I know that it is small and there is Kadyrov at the moment but still). And there is 'Free Idel-Ural'.
1.) But oppressive regimes are proactively squelching them. Long before they can happen and they err on the side of imprisoning/killing/destroying lives of too many people rather then too little.
2.) It takes tons of work to make people react and make them react at the same time. The culture must be ready for it. People must trust someone and must believe there is success ready. The organizers must be ready to take power.
That is reason why politicians, military leaders, intellectuals etc were targetted soon/first (by Stalin by Hitler whatever). Once those with experience of leading are done, others don't know how to do it even when they want to.
BTW I consider the invasion on Afghanistan and Iraq as a pure fit of Bush over his inability to deal with the circumstances that provoked 9/11.
As long as there is no world peace, no other world region has right to care about its security.
Russia certainly invaded, but do you think war started in February?
This conflict has been ongoing for years. We've known for 25 years that NATO encroachment on Russia's borders would guarantee war, even Biden spoke publicly about this in the 90's.[1] And yet the US thought it was a good idea to foment a revolution in 2014 and ensure a pro-US/NATO regime was put in power, triggering a move towards Ukraine NATO membership.[2] Why would anybody not expect war to come from that?
If Mexico joined a "defensive pact" with China, and the Chinese military then set up shop in Juarez do we honestly think the US would let that fly?
The argument he repeats about Mexico is ridiculous because Russia is already bordering with several NATO countries, and none of them would ever think about attacking Russia - you just don't attack a nuclear superpower. It is a convenient excuse he's using all the time but he's a few decades late. He is thinking in terms of ancient tribes fighting about some piece of land - nobody is thinking in this way today. Especially in Europe with increasing integration, freedom of movement, being able to work where you wish, the ancient ideas of getting more and more land for your tribe seem completely outdated (and should be for Russia, too - with so much land and so few people).
If Mexico joined a "defensive pact" with China, and the Chinese military then set up shop in Juarez do we honestly think the US would let that fly?
If not, wouldn't that by your definition make Mexico a vassal state of the US?
As for the core of your questions, we don't have to speculate because we already know what would happen if someone decided to place nuclear rocket launchers close to American border - we've seen it already during the Cuban crisis. Both countries agreed that land-based nuclear missiles aiming at Russia in Europe will be placed only in France and the UK, and not in Germany, for example, whereas those aiming at Western Europe will be placed in Kaliningrad Special Region. Recently, Putin decided he will move some warheads also to Belarus.
They also both agreed Ukraine would never try to join NATO, and yet...
The situation of Ukrainians is simply tragic, they never had any real choice. They could either become Putin's slaves or face a bloody war. They made their choice hoping he would not attack but were mistaken, and now they have to pay. After the war is over the whole Europe will start rebuilding their country, but nobody will revive the ones killed by Putin's army.
Why do you think Putin invaded in 2014? Remember they had a coup in Ukraine, and the new regime was very anti-Russia.
Immediately after the 2014 coup the new US-approved government changed the Constitution to the 2004 version which allowed for a vote to join NATO[1]. So then Russia invaded Crimea as a result, since by NATO rule, a country not in control of its borders would not be eligible to join NATO. Then in December 2014 Ukraine voted to abandon neutrality and begin the process of getting into NATO anyway.[2]
Trump's presidency definitely put a pause on this plan, which is why there were no/limited hostilities in those 4 years. But now that Biden is back on top, Ukraine has been pushing towards NATO again. And that isn't to excuse Russia, but we have to be honest about what these triggers are. This isn't happening in a vacuum.
[1] https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/191727.html
[2] https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-parliament-abandons-neutrali...
Because I don't know a single person who believes otherwise. And I doubt he would dare to start the war in Donbas back then if he hadn't been emboldened by his success in Crimea. I talked to my Crimean friends back then, some of them had high hopes related to what would happen if Crimea became Russian. Somehow, none of these hopes materialized. No big stream of rich Russians coming and leaving big stack of rubles there - maybe even less after the annexation.
As for Donbas, I had some Russian friends there; most left in 2014 - and obviously were very pro-Russian back then. They were very bitter about the Ukrainian government and hoped - just like Crimeans - that Putin will magically make everything right, that Kharkiv will become second Saint Petersburg. They soon realized the folks Putin sent were the worst thugs, the scum of the earth. To quote one of my friends, "For these people to kill a man was like spitting". Still, many people had a good opinion of Putin, putting all blame on the Ukrainian government. That is, until the shelling of Kharkiv begun. Then they realized the truth, but it was too late. It is still mind-boggling to me. Why did he decide to start killing his own people? There was so much good will for him in this city, there is none left. Unbelievable.
BTW the aspirations of Ukraine you mention is just one part of the story; Ukraine doesn't decide whether they can join NATO - member states of NATO do. So far, everybody was against, including the USA, France, and Germany. Maybe the war changes it, but I doubt it.
No, I'm saying what do you think the reason was for Russia annexing Crimea? Especially considering the fact that they did it the day after the 2014 Ukrainian coup. I'm curious to hear your thoughts on why it happened.
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20220226224717/https://ria.ru/20...
Something to keep in mind is that land-locked countries experience slower economic growth and have lower GDPs than countries with access to ports. Russia is mostly restricted to their Black Sea ports but they still have something. Break Russia up and you’ll be condemning a lot of people to a lower standard of living long-term.
That's of course not necessarily true.
You haven't factored in the retardation of economic outcome that the present union is causing because it can only exist through the extreme and persistent application of force (which is very substantially regressive for human development). The reason they keep getting authoritarians century after century is because Russia as it presently stands should not exist, they can only hold it together with force. That comprehensive application of force destroys liberty, creativity, free expression, economic growth, investment, and so on.
You can simultaneously have economic negatives from the lack of a port, in a landlocked Russia spin-off state scenario, and be better off being out from under the forever strangulating authoritarian umbrella of big Russia. That is to say, that's just how horrific and dampening of human potential it is to be under the boot of authoritarian Russia.
There's a good reason so many nations that were formerly dominated by Russia are now exceeding them in GDP per capita.
“Isn’t ruled by Vladimir Putin” is highly predictive of GDP, but “has a warm-water port” is far more predictive.
Who is doing well? Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Georgia, Azerbaijan.
Who isn’t doing well? Kazakhstan, Kirghizistan, Tajikistan…
There are other variables. “Who has oil”, for example. But “who has unencumbered access to world trade through the sea” is the best.
"The coastline of Russia is shared with the Pacific Ocean to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the west, the Arctic Ocean to the north, and the Baltic Sea, Black Sea, Caspian Sea, and Sea of Azov to the southwest."
Access to warm water ports has been a major driver in Russian foreign policy for centuries. Today they have access through Sevestapol and Novorossiysk on the Black Sea, and Mediterranean port access to Tartus in Syria. In the east the major port is Vladivostok which is kept open with ice breakers.
The security and economic consequences of lack of ports is a big problem. One of the major reasons they annexed Crimea was to guarantee access to the port without requiring a pro-Russian regime in Kyiv, but Sevestapol is now on the edge of a warzone with Ukrainian military just dozens of miles away and the administration not backing away from reclaiming their 2014 borders. Access to the Mediterranean requires bypassing Ukrainian security forces and the Bosporus controlled by Turkey, which is not allowing Russian ships through as a result of the war. To get goods or materiel through to Tartus they need to ship by rail through Georgia, Turkey, and northern Syria - again, major security problems.
So the only major port for Russia is Vladivostok which is across Siberia and ices over in the winter. That makes using it as a major shipping and naval hub prohibitive.
These issues have been around since Peter the Great expanded Russia into a global power, and even the Soviets struggled with naval power projection. Russia even more so today, and they're making their lives worse by invading Ukraine.
(Though in such scenarios it would seem likely they'd still be able to agree to cargo transit through the newly estabilished neighbours)
Here's a map I found: https://www.searates.com/maritime/russia
Yeah but most of those are frozen for some / most / vast majority of the year.
Russia getting warm water ports has been the source of many conflicts, to include Crimea in 2014.
Czechia and Slovakia are seeing their affluence rise, they've escaped the middle income trap and are heading into the lower end of the affluent group. Czechia is about as landlocked as it gets and yet their economy has increasingly prospered over the past few decades (they'll probably catch up to Spain in GDP per capita in the coming decade; and they're already roughly 3x that of Russia).
Obviously helps a lot to have many excellent regional trading partners that are affluent.
Switzerland has always been able to/had to find a niche like banking or secrecy or regulatory arbitrage to prosper. But in theory they suffer from the same problem - limited trading partners and limited leverage.
The reason landlocked countries have lower GDP is that they have to negotiate trade agreements at a disadvantage with small numbers of neighbours rather than just shipping goods to the whole world over the seas.
AG: The West is aiding Ukrainians while wiring Russia money every day for oil and gas.
MG: Exactly. Biden's speech was not a great democracy speech because it was hypocritical.
The accepted rhetoric of "We don't want to be pulled into a shooting war with Russia" translates as "We feel bad, but we'd rather Ukrainians die than risk the lives of our own citizens." I'm not saying it's completely wrongheaded, but it does undercut any rhetoric of solidarity.
That's not the reason at all. The main reason and also why airspace cannot be closed is that NATO cannot have a boots on the ground for a conflict with a major power like Russia.
Involving NATO in conflict is the ONLY reason why this war would turn nuclear. And very fast.
It would be absurdly stupid to send troops to fight on behalf of Ukrainians.
Biden and his son have investments all over Ukraine and he is just terrified of losing all of them. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/us/politics/biden-son-ukr...
"Among those who had a stake in the outcome was Hunter Biden, Mr. Biden’s younger son, who at the time was on the board of an energy company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch who had been in the sights of the fired prosecutor general."
Or...it translates as "We feel bad, but the chance of this escalating to a nuclear exchange with a state who's leader and mouthpieces are throwing around the N-word with abandon would mean far more people, not just Ukranians, are going to be impacted." But that wouldn't fit the narrative being pushed.
Putin isn't the first ever russian leader and is not last. Next leader may be Ramzan Kadyrov, for example.
Now it’s different. Putin’s regime may not survive this crisis, but regardless, ‘the west’ has once again become a threat to all Russians, and the next regime may be a response to that. I’ll accept any recent example of a interventionist war-driven regime change as evidence against this prediction. A nationalist Russian Federation is a lot more dangerous to us than a kleptocracy.
The press loves to characterize Putin as a madman. Same with Saddam Hussein and Muammar Ghaddafi and every other flashy dictator with expensive tastes. This is just stupid. Their thinking is more like an overpaid CEO than fundamentalist zealot. That makes them predictable and controllable. You don’t know what will come with the next regime. Even if you remove all animosity and nationalism, there’s still going to be a fight over resources. Putin had an entire state military apparatus to use against his people to secure those resources for himself. We do too, but the cost will be much higher.
Putin was willing to sell his country just for a little bit of luxury and personal security. I’m not saying that was a good thing, but it was a structure that we knew how to deal with. The military and economic posture to effectively deal with radical populism may be very different. Pontificating on this subject has been all the rage among military theorists since Huntington’s thesis, with trillions spent on the assumption that we knew what we were doing. Now we learn that we didn’t get it quite right.
There’s a lot I don’t understand about the doctrine that guides ‘the west’, and I’m not necessarily skeptical, just uninformed in some ways. I’d like to understand the threat model we are operating under, and the basic strategy to control those threats. Or maybe it’s economic opportunity we are after. For whom? What does the world look like in their best vision of it? Do the nations and people that oppose ‘the west’ have an accurate view of that, or has it been unfairly demonized? Somewhere there is either a legitimate clash of interests, or a severe miscommunication. Perhaps we ought to commit to only killing each other over the former, and keeping track of exactly what that is. Somehow I doubt that wars could be sustained in that circumstance.
However Gessen correctly points out that loneliness and atomization is everywhere in Russia. It may be repressive, but there's hardly a level of energy, ideology or unification in Russia that could render it totalitarian. The same is true almost anywhere in the modern world. Nowhere are there going to be millions of brownshirts patrolling the streets for the party.
I mean, even today you can argue with Russians on the internet, the country is still as weird as it may seem more liberal right now than it was during any point in the 20th century. There's state television and crazy commentators of course but the reason the war can continue if anything seems to be more indifference than zealous support.
Russia today is a society that runs on fumes, and the grandiose predictions by Gessen like 'nuclear strikes on Poland', or breakups rest on comparisons to the high energy, combustive situation in 20th century Europe. Even characterizing the war as 'big and imperial' seems sketchy when it is downplayed as a special military operation, hidden from the people and being fought by a professional army and private military contractors in a fundamentally 21st century almost hybrid way.
I think the root word "total" might be more indicative. When most aspects of a citizen's life are dominated by the party or the state, and alternative or competing non-state institutions don't exist, that's totalitarian.
Russia looks quite totalitarian according to that definition, with everything from local government to media, religion, business and cultural institutions tightly controlled by the the central clique of mafia-style oligarchs. Does any independent civil society exist in Russia?
Oligarchy and totalitarianism are opposed concepts. Russia is indeed pretty corrupt, oligarchic and mafia like, but that means there isn't that much state capacity left as private and public interests are divided and self-interested. Actual totalitarians first annihilate the oligarchs which siphon from the state. Stalin was totalitarian. Mao's red guards were totalitarian. No comparable force exists in modern Russia.
Russia is currently persecuting religious minorities