I haven't read that article, but I suspect it's similar to other analyses that I've seen. The idea that Putin will be overthrown and replaced by a liberal democrat who tries to reintegrate Russia into the international system is a Western fantasy. Anyone with a powerbase within Russia is a hard-right nationalist, the crazy clips you see from Russian tv are those people positioning themselves as being tougher than their rivals for power. They don't believe most of the stuff they say, but they know that the only way to survive is to be a more strident nationalist than everyone else. So, whoever takes over from Putin will have succeeded by being an extremist, not a moderate. They will struggle to adopt more moderate positions because there will be a crowd of rivals looking for any opening to make their own move. Signing a peace treaty with Ukraine will be political suicide for any Russian leader for the next few decades.
I don’t think it’s as either or as you describe.
Did Trump’s actions lead to European countries upping their defence spending?… Yes.
Did Trump’s rhetoric and general stance towards NATO encourage Putin?.. Yes.
We'll never know on the second point 🙂
On the Taleb theme, it is dangerous to look for too much cause and effect, outcomes and intentions are different things but rash actions can and often do lead to random consequences.
Like your Swan Lake analogy though!
Again, we don't currently know because Christo Grozev said that there isn't a hidden meaning. He hasn't tweeted for a couple of days
"SOFIA, Dec 29 (Reuters) - Bulgaria protested to Russia on Thursday for putting Bulgarian investigative journalist Christo Grozev on a wanted list, with its prime minister criticising the move as an intimidatory tactic designed to muzzle free speech" https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/bulgaria-summons-russian-envoy-over-bellingcat-journalist-grozev-2022-12-29/
That’s behind a paywall…can you summarize?
Basically it’s saying, the replacement options are worse.
Patrushev has long called for Russia to have the right to use nuclear weapons in local conflicts on a ‘first strike’ basis. He seeks an even larger mobilisation of the Russian population – and has stressed the war will only end when Ukraine’s ‘Nazism’ has been ‘100 per cent’ eradicated.
However, the article focuses pretty much solely on Patrushev, and gives little room for anyone not as Hawkish.
His chances of succeeding Putin rest on two pillars: at the moment, the ousting of Putin by hardline nationalists appears more likely than a coup by peace-seeking doves
Which from another article I’ve read misses out a faction, that although not peace loving doves may offer a different route out if the conflict and are arguably better placed than Patrushev. (Caveat being, that was another “opinion” piece)
To a degree, the article is/may be focused on clicks rather than an honest assessment. But y’know, that’s just my opinion.
What I am certain of, is there are no “good” options. Russias problems during, and after the war, will be pinned on the West by whoever is in charge. Even if it’s someone “moderate” rearmament will still be top of their agenda, as will trying to destabilise and weaken the west. And we’ll be dealing with a hostile neighbour for the foreseeable future. It’s the main reason I view the return of pre war energy imports from Russia as something that will never recover.
It is possible that a successor doesn't command enough support which leads to another coup and then another until the whole lot collapses. That could be a route to a complete reset with a more moderate leadership.
That could be a route to a complete reset with a more moderate leadership.
Russia hasn't experienced democracy. Ever. They went straight from serfdom to communism. There's no weight of social historical norms to fall back on that will result in "moderate leadership" In the late 90's when the race was to replace Yeltsin, one of the contenders who very nearly got to power, was openly promising to folks that a vote for him meant that you wouldn't have to bother with all that voting nonsense again, as he's ban it. He was pretty popular
There’s no weight of social historical norms to fall back on that will result in “moderate leadership”
I'd love to be proved wrong but this is the way I see it too
So, whoever takes over from Putin will have succeeded by being an extremist, not a moderate
This seems the far more likely scenario to me. Which makes the US policy in Ukraine the smart move so far- depleting Russian military capability so that when the next tyrant grabs power they are less able to cement their powerbase with an expansionist agenda
That Telegraph article in full. It’s an opinion piece by their foreign affairs editor
On 21 February 2022, General Nikolai Patrushev advised Vladimir Putin to hold back. The bald, thin-lipped head of Russia’s security council was one of few top officials at a televised meeting in the Kremlin who did not call for the immediate recognition of Donetsk and Luhansk as ‘independent’ republics, a step that would presage war with Ukraine. Instead, Patrushev, 71, suggested one more round of negotiations directly with Joe Biden.
As rumours swirl that Putin may lose his grip on power next year on the back of the poor progress of the war, this scene has drawn fresh examination. Could Patrushev, touted as a possible successor, be the man to sit down for peace negotiations with Ukraine next year? Indeed Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6, has suggested that Putin will be consigned to a sanatorium before the year is out.
Unlike the other members of Putin’s inner circle, Patrushev is not a close personal friend of the Russian president; he does not play hockey with him, or wrestle on judo mats. The two share a bond forged in the Federal Security Service (FSB), Russia’s intelligence service. Patrushev ran the body from from 1999 to 2008 – one of five jobs over his career in which he has directly succeeded Putin. In 2016, the UK Government concluded that the 2006 FSB operation to kill Alexander Litvinenko was probably approved by Patrushev and Putin; numerous coups have followed, from the successful (Crimea, 2014) to the less so (Montenegro, 2016).
What most concerns Western observers, however, is Patrushev’s zealotry. Mark Galeotti, an expert on Russian politics, has described him as ‘the most dangerous man’ in the country, the ‘devil on Putin’s shoulder’. For years Patrushev has promoted the narrative that Russia is locked in an existential conflict with America (‘they spit in our eye, and call it God’s dew’). Among a raft of conspiracies he promotes is the claim that the US is pursuing a policy of population control called the ‘golden billion’ (wherein a cabal of one billion global elites seek to hoard the world's wealth and resources); is harvesting the organs of Ukrainian orphans; and trying to seize Siberia (this latter germinated from a mind-reader employed by the FSB to look into US officials). Even at the February 21 meeting, he ended on an often overlooked note: negotiations with the US were doomed to fail, he said.
Since the war began Patrushev has emerged as one of the most prominent hawks, alongside Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov and the mercenary Wagner Group’s founder Yevgeny Prigozhin. His chances of succeeding Putin rest on two pillars: at the moment, the ousting of Putin by hardline nationalists appears more likely than a coup by peace-seeking doves. And as a representative of the so-called “KGB clan”, Patrushev knows how to work the Kremlin’s internal politics to his advantage, unlike the other two who are loudmouth, martial outsiders.
Should he win out, the war will only worsen. Patrushev has long called for Russia to have the right to use nuclear weapons in local conflicts on a ‘first strike’ basis. He seeks an even larger mobilisation of the Russian population – and has stressed the war will only end when Ukraine’s ‘Nazism’ has been ‘100 per cent’ eradicated. The doll beneath Putin’s may be a fresh face, but it is perhaps an uglier one still.
As said above by piemonster, the likely scenario is that if/when Vlad takes the fall (hopefully quite literally), somebody at least as right wing headbanger will take over.
Scary thing about this guy that is that he may actually believe a lot of the more far out stuff. I’d take a cynical political player over an outright nutter every day of the week.
All this also poses the question of what happens to the wider Russian Federation. There is a tendency to see Russia as Moscow and St Petersburg and other bits West of the Urals, but of course the significant majority is in the East and is controlled by what is being exposed as the military myth. If that all collapses then the unrest will be enormous and prolonged
Russia hasn’t experienced democracy. Ever. They went straight from serfdom to communism. There’s no weight of social historical norms to fall back on
Every democracy has to experience it for the first time once. What you say does probably mean that they are more likely to accept non-democratic rule but it is also plausible that this war and subsequent isolation will precipitate a major change.
Every democracy has to experience it for the first time once.
Yep, look at Ukraine.
Like you say, not impossible, just less likely
Lots of media reports that US is going to transfer Bradley IFVs to UAF. They have 7000, with 2800 in storage, and the UAF have asked for 700 vehicles.
Bradley’s use a 25mm canon, and 2 ATGMs, plus machine guns. With a much bigger range than a tank, It is perfectly suited to the mobile Cossack Cavalry approach UAF like and can take out any RF armoured vehicle.
UAF are already using APCs thatvus3 the Bradley Chassis, so int3gration would be straightforward.
Every democracy has to experience it for the first time once
The change from control by Communist party to something approaching "democracy" was handled so badly (largely because of the very aggressive extreme capitalism as promoted by the Chicago School economists, and others) in the 1990's that I think still it would strike most Russians - who can remember the early 90's; as unwelcome. Even if there was a move towards it, I think it would be decades and decades before any like a multi party parliament/senate with peaceful corruption free elections would be the norm.
I don't think overthrowing/replacing Putin will automatically result in an up-swelling of popular democracy and withdrawal and peace negotiations
No, neither do I.
The thing is that global trade and integration has been increasing and some Russians saw the benefits of this. What happened with the fall of Communism? From what I understand (which is not a lot) the people got fed up of missing out on the good life, as they saw it, and when they got a sympathetic leader who made concessions it snowballed. Given time, that could happen again, and could be easier a second time around. Or harder.
Putin's going to get dead and his successor will be further to the right and extremist. It'll take things getting worse for the russian people before the ordinary russian is prepared to do anything about it. Eventually someone a bit more liberal and friendly to the west will come into power. That's when we'll see them integrate with the rest of the world but realistically that's a minimum of 5-10 years away.
Putin's trying to keep people in line at the moment with the assassinations but he always enabled oligarchs because it was a way of keeping powerful people on side. At some point the rich and powerful will realise they can't stay rich and powerful with Putin in place. Once his successor is in place we'll likely see some more failed military exercises, Russia's standard of living dropping, even more middle class Russians leaving Russia and eventually the russian people will get sick of it. They a great capacity for suffering but they do still have a limit.
Eventually someone a bit more liberal and friendly to the west will come into power.
That already happened in 1990 with Mikhail Gorbachev and the Russians didn't exactly sieze the opportunity. Its been 125 years since the Bolshevik Revolution so don't pin your hopes on the ordinary Russian.
If you haven't watched it this documentary is a great explainer of how Russia ended up so fuct
Russia 1985-1999: TraumaZone, Series 1: 1. Part One - 1985 to 1989: www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p0d3kjmp via @bbciplayer
Who could replace Putin?
Look what happened when we got rid of Boris Johnson...
Putin is seen by many Russians as having saved the country from falling of a cliff after the Yeltsin years and he has been trading off of that ever since. Any replacement wont have that gravitas so Russia woild become extremely unstable.
Realistically, the best we can hope for is a neutered Russia. I'd love to see a literal neutering of Putin but I don't see that happening!
The country having nukes is always going to make it and Putin a global problem though.
It's still an anathema to me that one man, one single human being, can cause such devastation.
I'm really not sure humanity is going to come out the other end of this century. A perfect storm brewing.
Realistically, the best we can hope for is a neutered Russia
Yep, I'd say this is the safest bet
That already happened in 1990 with Mikhail Gorbachev and the Russians didn’t exactly sieze the opportunity.
As I understand it, Gorbachev was not the liberal democrat that people in the West assume. He wanted some limited reforms in order to strengthen the Soviet Union, he didn't intend to dissolve it and set up a democracy.
Once the Soviet Union imploded, a bunch of democratic parties formed but they disagreed on policies so they never managed to form any workable democratic alliance. This allowed the authoritarian right-wingers to retain power and then to crush the splintered democratic opposition.
Ukraine is democratic because there was a popular uprising against the former authoritarian leader and he fled the country when he realized that he couldn't retain power by force. Russia won't become a stable democracy until there is popular support for it. A new leader can't just impose a democratic system on a country that isn't committed to it because democracy requires that the people currently in power agree to share power with groups that they disagree with. The Russian security services are not going to just hand over power to liberal democrats so it will probably be decades, not years, before things in Russia improve.
Unherd have an article on Gorbachev that’s relevant
https://unherd.com/thepost/how-gorbachev-tried-to-save-the-ussr/
Gorbachev did not idly stand by as the Soviet Union collapsed. In most former Soviet territories, his legacy is shaped by the violence that proliferated at the end of his rule, particularly in the Baltics and the Caucasus. He fought to retain the Soviet Union, cracking down on pro-independence protests.
The change from control by Communist party to something approaching “democracy” was handled so badly (largely because of the very aggressive extreme capitalism as promoted by the Chicago School economists, and others) in the 1990’s
Do you have a source for this? I’m asking as there’s more than one narrative I’ve seen.
Cheers Nick, I’ll take a better read of that.
A quick scan read suggests it’s a lot more complicated than just “extreme capitalism” even going by a paper written at the time, and not something written after the dust has settled. The bungled implementation of economic reform always looked to be one part of what went wrong to me, and possibly not even the chief part which I still have as numerous power grabs in the turmoil.
I’m aware I have some preconceptions there so I’ll try and set that aside and read through thoroughly later.
I think his successor will be from his current cronies. With all the corruption they won’t want that being uncovered by an outsider so will want to maintain the status quo
A quick scan read suggests it’s a lot more complicated than just “extreme capitalism”
Yes. Although I think the Soviets concentration of economic reforms at the cost of [nearly] everything else was [in most of the academic studies I've read at least] mostly to blame. Look up Yegor Gaidar as the main "architect of reform" Alhough many now have relegated him to either the role of spokesperson, or the unfortunate soul who last handled the ticking time bomb.
I think his successor will be from his current cronies. With all the corruption they won’t want that being uncovered by an outsider so will want to maintain the status quo
"You can't always get what you want" as they say. Conditions seem ripe for a military coup, led by someone who can present themself to the ranks as not responsible for getting them into this mess, and present the military to the people generally as the saviours of Mother Russia, as they have always been. Putin may still have the security services on his side, surely the military will be least keen on him and least reviled by the people.
Looking at the new year speeches and more from Poopy-tin and cronies, I think Russia has truly become the new North Korea.
Again, let's hope 2023 brings an end to fighting.
Sadly, I think we will see things drag out for months if not years, a huge destabilising in Russia leading to more unrest among countries under or close to Russian influence.
I think we are also looking at a long period of time where Russia will have few friends, no resources, a grinding poverty and Western companies trying to pick off the natural resources.
Putin may still have the security services on his side, surely the military will be least keen on him and least reviled by the people.
That's just wishful thinking. Putin has been very careful to balance different power factions against each other and ensure that they can't threaten him. The Russian military is not run by professional soldiers like in the West, it's run by political appointees who owe their positions to Putin.
Yes, but in wartime the military become more powerful, which might upset the balance.
Yes, but in wartime the military become more powerful
Unless of course you lose a significant proportion of your fighters, a greater proportion of your vaguely competent leadership, a majority of your serviceable weapons and already have the inability to coordinate across your different forces, including one which is a private offering in search of wealth and power....
Look up Yegor Gaidar as the main “architect of reform”
"Russia 1989-1999" TraumaZone" on BBC iPlayer covers this and more rather well.
Yes. Although I think the Soviets concentration of economic reforms at the cost of [nearly] everything else was [in most of the academic studies I’ve read at least] mostly to blame. Look up Yegor Gaidar as the main “architect of reform” Alhough many now have relegated him to either the role of spokesperson, or the unfortunate soul who last handled the ticking time bomb.
Cheers, I was already broadly familiar with him, tbh having read that paper it’s just reaffirmed my position that the attempted reforms wouldn’t have fairer any better even if the Russians hadn’t tried something so far from the Soviet system. The conditions needed to implement large and rapid reforms were simply not met.
Never be the first to stop clapping smiling.
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1609719192596381696
Russia received some New Year fireworks courtesy of HIMARS. Who thought it would be a good idea to pack hundreds of conscripts into a building next to the front lines situated in the middle of a field so no chance of collateral damage? Edit: The same person also thought it would be a good idea to store ammunition in the same building and park some undisguised military vehicles round it. What could possibly go wrong?
https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1609764123633659904?s=20&t=Z0BYrt-4cS-9OfQIRk56Kw
Russia received some New Year fireworks courtesy of HIMARS.
Ukraine are reporting 400 Russian casualties, not sure how they counted that though!
Russian bloggers seemingly agree casualties in the multiple 200s.
https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1609851068598427648?s=20&t=gY0Cy854HqLDGYe2tpALsQ
I'm no expert on military strategy and tactics, but surely dispersing your forces is just commonsense. Russia just doesn't seem to learn from past mistakes, still concentrating ammo dumps and vehicle depots where they are within range of Ukrainian fire.
Russian bloggers seemingly agree casualties in the multiple 200s.
Not quite. '200s' and '300s' are Russian military slang/shorthand for killed in action and wounded in action respectively. 5 x 200s for example would refer to 5 individual KIA, not 1000!
I’m no expert on military strategy and tactics, but surely dispersing your forces is just commonsense.
Me neither but according to that Twitter thread they are concerned that the "recruits" would wander away if not kept firmly under observation. It also says that they have been making some efforts to disperse ammunition. Some improvement in No Smoking signage would obviously have helped 🙂
Russian bloggers seemingly agree casualties in the multiple 200s.
While the human cost is awful, in the 'shades of horror' this event keeps up pressure and hopefully hasteneds an end of hostilities.
I really cant understand the whole thing with Germany and what they will/wont send to Ukraine. Why is a tank a problem but not a PZH self propelled gun??
We all need to stop pissing around with this and give them what they need.
I really cant understand the whole thing with Germany and what they will/wont send to Ukraine. Why is a tank a problem but not a PZH self propelled gun??
We all need to stop pissing around with this and give them what they need.
Not just Germany. No one, including the US, UK has sent modern, Western built MBTs to Ukraine. Germany gets unfair stick about tanks IMO, though they have dragged their feet in other areas.
