8 ms·

It's millions[1] between the number the have been drafted and the number that have fled, and that's taking the Kremlin at their word about how many people they

by eloff 4y ago

It's millions[1] between the number the have been drafted and the number that have fled, and that's taking the Kremlin at their word about how many people they drafted. Also Russia has a brewing demographics collapse, similar to what Japan is experiencing. This is going to royally fuck them for the next 50 years. I think the Ukraine invasion might be the beginning of the end for Russia as we know it, I wouldn't be surprised to see parts of Russia break away going forward. [1] https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/11/25/russia-uzbekistan-kyrgyzstan-putin-mobilization-great-reverse-migration/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/11/25/russia-uzbekistan-kyrgy...

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
A disorderly failure of the Russian state is pretty much one of the nightmare scenarios.
- eloff 4y ago
  Yes. It's a pretty scary possibility given their massive stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction of all kinds.
- rich_sasha 4y ago
  Depends to whom. To countries far away, but wary of, dunno, nukes going into the hands of terrorists, sure. To countries bordering Russia who are intimidated and threatened (or invaded!) on a continuous basis, this is a definite improvement.
  - adamsmith143 4y ago
    Not so sure about this. That a handful of aggressive and hungry Russo-Warlords with Nukes is any improvement over Putin.
    - rich_sasha 4y ago
      Russia seems to be throwing it's entire war machine at Ukraine. It deployed units, and conscripts, from all over Russia, including the Far East (in fact sourcing conscripts predominantly from poorer regions, and preferentially not ethnic Russians). Chop that machine into 4 or 5 pieces and it's far less scary. Even the nukes, scary as they could be, are less of a threat when the individual actors are smaller and weaker. They may not even be able to maintain these nukes. And even if they are capable of using them, they are at a more precarious position than eg. Putin at the helm of Mighty Russia.
      - ceejayoz 4y ago
        > Even the nukes, scary as they could be, are less of a threat when the individual actors are smaller and weaker. They may not even be able to maintain these nukes. And even if they are capable of using them, they are at a more precarious position than eg. Putin at the helm of Mighty Russia. I'm not sure "the people with nukes would be in a precarious position" is the comforting statement you intended it to be.
        rich_sasha 4y ago
        Big, united Russia with lots of nukes can afford to use them much more than 5 small, weak post-Russias, each with some nukes. If nothing else, these post-Russias would struggle to afford even more to upkeep and upgrade the stash of nukes. And would be easier to neutralize too...
        ceejayoz 4y ago
        > If nothing else, these post-Russias would struggle to afford even more to upkeep and upgrade the stash of nukes. Again, not comforting. "Might as well use them on <hated neighbor>!"
      - adamsmith143 4y ago
        >Chop that machine into 4 or 5 pieces and it's far less scary. Ask the people living on the Borders of Latvia, Estonia or Georgia what they think of that. These warlords won't respect borders. >even if they are capable of using them, they are at a more precarious position than eg. Putin at the helm of Mighty Russia. I think they have even more incentive to use them, far less consequences if they do. Losing your position as warlord of some Fiefdom is a lot less scary then losing your position as the Dictator of a nation with a top 10 GDP, a permanent UN Security Council seat and having personal wealth in the Hundreds of Billions?
    - simion314 4y ago
      >Not so sure about this. That a handful of aggressive and hungry Russo-Warlords with Nukes is any improvement over Putin. They will fight between them with their remaining soviet weapons, since they are not competent to fight any large country. Maybe some of those would actually become a democracy.
      - foverzar 4y ago
        > They will fight between them with their remaining soviet weapons Says who? They can just as well harass non-Russian neighbouring states. Or quite likely form some kind of > since they are not competent to fight any large country That doesn't prevent them from trying though. > Maybe some of those would actually become a democracy. Democracy in such states is an illusion. You are either USA with sustainable, refined over time, extremely restricted (2 parties, electors, strong continuity of the government of the selected few) and deeply rooted in tradition mechanisms of democracy, or you are just a vassal to a state with a good propaganda.
        simion314 4y ago
        Ex sovitet/communist states prove that democracy is possible. Go ont hose countries subrteddits and ask them if they feel they are vassals or if they would prefer to be part of USSR, I know imperialists prefer to see the small countries as brainwashed nations that need to be put back in their place and probably this is the reason Putoin is threatening this countries all the time, they show non brainwashed Russians that democracy works, that you can live better then during Stalin or Putin regime, that cooperation works.
        foverzar 4y ago
        Wow, what a rant. You don't really travel much, do you? Given that you srsly experience the world through "countries subreddits". JFYI, Reddit is something rather obscure in ex-soviet states, especially to non-teens. Sorry, but when just a few of many countries had managed to barely setup an election process, but can't go on without some violent political crisis every 10 years, that is hardly a functional and sustainable democracy. What does this have to do with Russians anyway? It's a general principle, which works all ways with all actors. The fact that some west-leaning ex-soviet states are hard on censorship and restriction of Russian media illustrates my point perfectly. Americans loosing sleep over the idea that TikTok is a threat to national security is another good illustration of this general principle. See, one really doesn't have to be an imperialist to assess how popularity-based systems can be hijacked in the era when internet and targeted propaganda exist.
  - vlovich123 4y ago
    I doubt that countries bordering Russia are keen to have failed chaotic states with economic problems on their borders. The refugee situation that will create is pretty intense.
    - elurg 4y ago
      Refugees are easier to handle than tanks.
    - rich_sasha 4y ago
      I will reiterate. Baltic states, Poland, Ukraine, Georgia, are constantly harassed and reminded that Russia doesn't really see them as sovereign states. They fly bombers into their airspaces (oops), deploys military manoeuvres at their borders, rambles about aiming their nukes at the capital cities. It actually invaded Ukraine for the second time in a decade! And even as this is all going on, Russia happily says, "hey Latvia, or Finland, you guys better stand to attention or you are next". Refugees on the border suddenly seems like a nice problem to have.
      - foverzar 4y ago
        > They fly bombers into their airspaces (oops), deploys military manoeuvres at their borders, rambles about aiming their nukes at the capital cities. Your argument would be valid, if this was something exclusive to Russia, and not a common mutual thing between Russia and NATO. NATO bombers just as well fly into Russian airspace, NATO deploys military manoeuvres at Russian borders, and NATO states politicians are just as keen to ramble about nukes as anyone else.
        rich_sasha 4y ago
        Yes I forget. Russia is the bullied one here. And is constantly attacked by NATO, in Georgia, Ukraine... Seriously poor Russia for being so unfairly treated. Even now, if only those pesky Ukrainians would stop shooting back at them, peace could be introduced overnight.
- trasz2 4y ago
  It's also the only scenario that guarantees long-term stability. Also, it's not like we've hadn't been through this twenty years ago already, and the result was quite good.
  - Yoric 4y ago
    How does it guarantee long-term stability?
    - trasz2 4y ago
      By eliminating the main perpetrator - Russia. Smaller countries are manageable.
- euroderf 4y ago
  Isn't that pretty much what happened when the USSR crumbled ? That collapse peeled away an outer ring of subjugated nations. My armchair analysis tells me that there might be coming another round of peripheral nation(alitie)s peeling away. Not such a bad thing. And let the center - the Burkina-Faso-with-nukes - keep the comfort of their nukes, if it's what it takes to keep them from actually using those weapons in fear or in anger.
klooney 4y ago
Something that makes this a little harder to analyze is that there is robust demand for the "Russia will collapse tomorrow" thesis, and pushing back gets coded as pro-Putin stooging. I worry that it makes the public conversation a little unmoored.

by eloff 4y ago

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago

A disorderly failure of the Russian state is pretty much one of the nightmare scenarios.

eloff 4y ago
Yes. It's a pretty scary possibility given their massive stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction of all kinds.
rich_sasha 4y ago
Depends to whom. To countries far away, but wary of, dunno, nukes going into the hands of terrorists, sure. To countries bordering Russia who are intimidated and threatened (or invaded!) on a continuous basis, this is a definite improvement.
- adamsmith143 4y ago
  Not so sure about this. That a handful of aggressive and hungry Russo-Warlords with Nukes is any improvement over Putin.
  - rich_sasha 4y ago
    Russia seems to be throwing it's entire war machine at Ukraine. It deployed units, and conscripts, from all over Russia, including the Far East (in fact sourcing conscripts predominantly from poorer regions, and preferentially not ethnic Russians). Chop that machine into 4 or 5 pieces and it's far less scary. Even the nukes, scary as they could be, are less of a threat when the individual actors are smaller and weaker. They may not even be able to maintain these nukes. And even if they are capable of using them, they are at a more precarious position than eg. Putin at the helm of Mighty Russia.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      > Even the nukes, scary as they could be, are less of a threat when the individual actors are smaller and weaker. They may not even be able to maintain these nukes. And even if they are capable of using them, they are at a more precarious position than eg. Putin at the helm of Mighty Russia. I'm not sure "the people with nukes would be in a precarious position" is the comforting statement you intended it to be.
      - rich_sasha 4y ago
        Big, united Russia with lots of nukes can afford to use them much more than 5 small, weak post-Russias, each with some nukes. If nothing else, these post-Russias would struggle to afford even more to upkeep and upgrade the stash of nukes. And would be easier to neutralize too...
        ceejayoz 4y ago
        > If nothing else, these post-Russias would struggle to afford even more to upkeep and upgrade the stash of nukes. Again, not comforting. "Might as well use them on <hated neighbor>!"
    - adamsmith143 4y ago
      >Chop that machine into 4 or 5 pieces and it's far less scary. Ask the people living on the Borders of Latvia, Estonia or Georgia what they think of that. These warlords won't respect borders. >even if they are capable of using them, they are at a more precarious position than eg. Putin at the helm of Mighty Russia. I think they have even more incentive to use them, far less consequences if they do. Losing your position as warlord of some Fiefdom is a lot less scary then losing your position as the Dictator of a nation with a top 10 GDP, a permanent UN Security Council seat and having personal wealth in the Hundreds of Billions?
  - simion314 4y ago
    >Not so sure about this. That a handful of aggressive and hungry Russo-Warlords with Nukes is any improvement over Putin. They will fight between them with their remaining soviet weapons, since they are not competent to fight any large country. Maybe some of those would actually become a democracy.
    - foverzar 4y ago
      > They will fight between them with their remaining soviet weapons Says who? They can just as well harass non-Russian neighbouring states. Or quite likely form some kind of > since they are not competent to fight any large country That doesn't prevent them from trying though. > Maybe some of those would actually become a democracy. Democracy in such states is an illusion. You are either USA with sustainable, refined over time, extremely restricted (2 parties, electors, strong continuity of the government of the selected few) and deeply rooted in tradition mechanisms of democracy, or you are just a vassal to a state with a good propaganda.
      - simion314 4y ago
        Ex sovitet/communist states prove that democracy is possible. Go ont hose countries subrteddits and ask them if they feel they are vassals or if they would prefer to be part of USSR, I know imperialists prefer to see the small countries as brainwashed nations that need to be put back in their place and probably this is the reason Putoin is threatening this countries all the time, they show non brainwashed Russians that democracy works, that you can live better then during Stalin or Putin regime, that cooperation works.
        foverzar 4y ago
        Wow, what a rant. You don't really travel much, do you? Given that you srsly experience the world through "countries subreddits". JFYI, Reddit is something rather obscure in ex-soviet states, especially to non-teens. Sorry, but when just a few of many countries had managed to barely setup an election process, but can't go on without some violent political crisis every 10 years, that is hardly a functional and sustainable democracy. What does this have to do with Russians anyway? It's a general principle, which works all ways with all actors. The fact that some west-leaning ex-soviet states are hard on censorship and restriction of Russian media illustrates my point perfectly. Americans loosing sleep over the idea that TikTok is a threat to national security is another good illustration of this general principle. See, one really doesn't have to be an imperialist to assess how popularity-based systems can be hijacked in the era when internet and targeted propaganda exist.
- vlovich123 4y ago
  I doubt that countries bordering Russia are keen to have failed chaotic states with economic problems on their borders. The refugee situation that will create is pretty intense.
  - elurg 4y ago
    Refugees are easier to handle than tanks.
  - rich_sasha 4y ago
    I will reiterate. Baltic states, Poland, Ukraine, Georgia, are constantly harassed and reminded that Russia doesn't really see them as sovereign states. They fly bombers into their airspaces (oops), deploys military manoeuvres at their borders, rambles about aiming their nukes at the capital cities. It actually invaded Ukraine for the second time in a decade! And even as this is all going on, Russia happily says, "hey Latvia, or Finland, you guys better stand to attention or you are next". Refugees on the border suddenly seems like a nice problem to have.
    - foverzar 4y ago
      > They fly bombers into their airspaces (oops), deploys military manoeuvres at their borders, rambles about aiming their nukes at the capital cities. Your argument would be valid, if this was something exclusive to Russia, and not a common mutual thing between Russia and NATO. NATO bombers just as well fly into Russian airspace, NATO deploys military manoeuvres at Russian borders, and NATO states politicians are just as keen to ramble about nukes as anyone else.
      - rich_sasha 4y ago
        Yes I forget. Russia is the bullied one here. And is constantly attacked by NATO, in Georgia, Ukraine... Seriously poor Russia for being so unfairly treated. Even now, if only those pesky Ukrainians would stop shooting back at them, peace could be introduced overnight.
trasz2 4y ago
It's also the only scenario that guarantees long-term stability. Also, it's not like we've hadn't been through this twenty years ago already, and the result was quite good.
- Yoric 4y ago
  How does it guarantee long-term stability?
  - trasz2 4y ago
    By eliminating the main perpetrator - Russia. Smaller countries are manageable.
euroderf 4y ago
Isn't that pretty much what happened when the USSR crumbled ? That collapse peeled away an outer ring of subjugated nations. My armchair analysis tells me that there might be coming another round of peripheral nation(alitie)s peeling away. Not such a bad thing. And let the center - the Burkina-Faso-with-nukes - keep the comfort of their nukes, if it's what it takes to keep them from actually using those weapons in fear or in anger.

klooney 4y ago

Something that makes this a little harder to analyze is that there is robust demand for the "Russia will collapse tomorrow" thesis, and pushing back gets coded as pro-Putin stooging. I worry that it makes the public conversation a little unmoored.