3 ms·

Look at Russia in 1917, and what caused the Tsar to abdicate. Sanctions on Russia can recreate these conditions.

watwut 5y ago
Russia now does not really resemble the monarchy back them. Russia 1917 was Russia after years of internal instability and violence. It had established revolutionary movements. And it ended with civil war that ended up being won by the worst fraction of those available.
- romwell 5y ago
  I beg to disagree. * An out-of-touch autocrat? Check! * Established revolutionary movement? Navalny. Check! * Instability? Did you miss the protests and martial law starting tomorrow (in spite of no fighting going on on Russian land)? Check! * Global flu pandemic? Check! * Food shortages? Give 'em a week. And the civil war was the outcome of the second "revolution", which was, in reality, a coup. The real revolution started with a Women's March on March 8th (yes, the same thing that's still happening every year), and ended with the establishment of the Provisional Government [1]. Which, admittedly, wasn't the best and fell to the Bolshevik coup. But it did end autocracy in Russia for a while. And USSR, before Stalin took over, introduced: * universal suffrage * no-fault divorces * ban on ethnic discrimination * all higher education available to women * all jobs open to women That's not justifying the red terror in any way, just that they were hardly "the worst". And they did pull out of WW1 (unlike the Provisional gov't). Which brings me back to the original point: ongoing unpopular war + hunger = end of regime. Worked twice in Russia: with Tsar Nicholas II, and with Kerensky. Oh, make it thrice: Afghan war + empty shelves in grocery stores gave us Gorbachev's Perestroika. Putin's turn now. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_Revolution
  - watwut 5y ago
    > Established revolutionary movement? Navalny. Check! No it does not. Russia back then had multiple active revolutionary groups. Some of them active and violent too - effectively terrorist groups. The serious attempts to reform Russia were going on for years at that point too. > Food shortages? Give 'em a week. Russia back then had food shortages for years. Not for, like a week or so. > Global flu pandemic? Check! I dont think that was much factor back then, but would not be now either? > * universal suffrage * no-fault divorces * ban on ethnic discrimination * all higher education available to women * all jobs open to women Yeah, women movement in Russia had advantage of pushing for women voting rights around the time when male voting rights were question too. But, that has zero to do with uprising. > Which brings me back to the original point: ongoing unpopular war + hunger = end of regime. It primary takes weak regime. Otherwise no, as pretty much any dictator hanging on power in war torn country shows. Plus, this war is nowhere near the destruction WWI caused - unless you live in Ukraine.
    - romwell 5y ago
      Commenting 1 week in to note that Russia's top oligarch now sees the parallels where you have failed to observe them: https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/11/business/russia-potanin-putin-warning/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/11/business/russia-potanin-putin...
    - romwell 5y ago
      Well, look back on this conversation in 2023. For history's sake.

Russia now does not really resemble the monarchy back them. Russia 1917 was Russia after years of internal instability and violence. It had established revolutionary movements. And it ended with civil war that ended up being won by the worst fraction of those available.

romwell 5y ago
I beg to disagree. * An out-of-touch autocrat? Check! * Established revolutionary movement? Navalny. Check! * Instability? Did you miss the protests and martial law starting tomorrow (in spite of no fighting going on on Russian land)? Check! * Global flu pandemic? Check! * Food shortages? Give 'em a week. And the civil war was the outcome of the second "revolution", which was, in reality, a coup. The real revolution started with a Women's March on March 8th (yes, the same thing that's still happening every year), and ended with the establishment of the Provisional Government [1]. Which, admittedly, wasn't the best and fell to the Bolshevik coup. But it did end autocracy in Russia for a while. And USSR, before Stalin took over, introduced: * universal suffrage * no-fault divorces * ban on ethnic discrimination * all higher education available to women * all jobs open to women That's not justifying the red terror in any way, just that they were hardly "the worst". And they did pull out of WW1 (unlike the Provisional gov't). Which brings me back to the original point: ongoing unpopular war + hunger = end of regime. Worked twice in Russia: with Tsar Nicholas II, and with Kerensky. Oh, make it thrice: Afghan war + empty shelves in grocery stores gave us Gorbachev's Perestroika. Putin's turn now. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_Revolution
- watwut 5y ago
  > Established revolutionary movement? Navalny. Check! No it does not. Russia back then had multiple active revolutionary groups. Some of them active and violent too - effectively terrorist groups. The serious attempts to reform Russia were going on for years at that point too. > Food shortages? Give 'em a week. Russia back then had food shortages for years. Not for, like a week or so. > Global flu pandemic? Check! I dont think that was much factor back then, but would not be now either? > * universal suffrage * no-fault divorces * ban on ethnic discrimination * all higher education available to women * all jobs open to women Yeah, women movement in Russia had advantage of pushing for women voting rights around the time when male voting rights were question too. But, that has zero to do with uprising. > Which brings me back to the original point: ongoing unpopular war + hunger = end of regime. It primary takes weak regime. Otherwise no, as pretty much any dictator hanging on power in war torn country shows. Plus, this war is nowhere near the destruction WWI caused - unless you live in Ukraine.
  - romwell 5y ago
    Commenting 1 week in to note that Russia's top oligarch now sees the parallels where you have failed to observe them: https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/11/business/russia-potanin-putin-warning/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/11/business/russia-potanin-putin...
  - romwell 5y ago
    Well, look back on this conversation in 2023. For history's sake.