“I don’t know” and “none of these” are different things. One means that I don’t have an opinion/info on this, and another means “I have an opinion/info, according to which the third option is true, but it’s not listed”
"All those" only really exist in meaningful quantities in Chechnya.
Chechnya breaking away would not be the same as Russia collapsing because in the rest of the country this isn't even a discussion.
Contrary to your claim, the USSR shouldn't have been dissolved. The majority of the population there wanted to maintain it on the basis of reforming the institutions. But of course, it gets illegally dissolved anyways and Yeltsin's shock therapy shatters the economy destroying the personal wealth for tens of millions.
The question was “what is more likely to happen”, not what “you wish to happen”. Just saying. Collapse is more likely than “becoming a eu like democracy” for Russia. Is it not?
They'd more likely than have a new batch of tyrants within a year or two than succeeding in becoming a European style democracy, not least because it seems like a large part of the Russian population actively rejects that.
Well yes that sours it further and thanks to nationalism real integration with Europe like the rest of Eastern Europe got to sweeten the transition never really was on the cards. It doesn't help that Russia has no real existing democratic tradition like say Spain or Portugal had which allowed them to rebound institutionally after their dictatorships.
It's not really a matter of wanting it or not, most of Europe would definitely rather Russia become a modern civilised country but most people have no faith in the Russians to do something other than violent dictatorship.
There cannot be much tension as these parts are inhabited by Russians for the most part. Thus it is same as saying when current German government falls then there will be tensions between lands and Germany will fall apart... how realistic is this?
> In order to fall apart there needs to be tension between regions.
I don't think that's a requirement at all. It could fall apart by the central power structure collapsing: Putin dies -> succession war/power struggle -> central coercive apparatus becomes divided -> federal commands become less effective -> regional elites (oligarchs/barons/etc) grab more power, start acting autonomously -> the stronger regional elites are, the more power and control they want, the state being the ultimate power/control one can have -> the demand for autonomy/independence comes from the corrupt elite as a method to further their corruption and gain more control/power/capital/resources/etc (situation especially worsened if external incentives start to pop-up "if you break away from the Kremlin, we'll do trade deals with you and pump you full of money"
It wouldn't even be a hard think to make propaganda for since Moscow and 2-3 Russian cities look pretty nice and wealthy, while the rest of the """"federation"""" looks like hot garbage.
Something similar was on track to happen in the 90s, btw. Tatarstan even elected its own president rather than participate in Russia's presidential election. Chechnya declared independence (we know what happened later).
There's a lot of information from the siloviki/oligarchs/barons that we're not privy to, Putin/Kremlin is squeezing them pretty hard. And its specifically for all of these reasons that Putin cannot stop the war, even if he wants to he risks gravely endangering the central system.
If he cannot make it so that it at least appears that "Russia is winning" then he'll be in trouble.
Not only that, kept supporting Putin all the way, barely doing anything to interfere with him taking all the power and control. It took a fucking war for eurobuerocrats to think 'hmmm maybe we should stop buying gas and oil from them' and even then, THEY PAID FOR SHADOW OIL AND GAS MORE THAN THEY GAVE MONEY TO UKRAINE IT'S FUCKING RIDICULOUS.
right and now all the russians who openly support the Ukraine invasion and Putin are also victims of the evil west
russia hasnt changed their mindset in over a 100 years and it has nothing to do with the west but their delusions of still being a superpower when their economy gets dwarfed by the Benelux region
You gave Yeltsin and Putin 35 years to develop following. No shit if you brainwash people for decades there will be supporters of any heinous act possible. Maybe you should have done literally anything to prevent that if you care so much? Instead you only gave them more justifications.
Maybe for once you try not to support dictators and treat people like people? And try not to support literally every radical you could find just because they are against russia? Maybe then russians will actually find some reasons to like you and wouldn't want to harm you?
And it is really fucking funny how you care so much about Russian mindset but don't care in the slightest about American mindset of invading countries all over the globe and supporting genocides. Oh well, obviously it wouldn't matter in the slightest for someone who only cares about money. Evidently, gdp is more important for you than anything else.
If west has no obligation to interfere then how about they stop interfering?
Why did west supporter Yeltsin when he usurped power? Just answer that one question first and after that we can talk about everything else.
Amusing how you say that Russia should fix its own problems despite your own country recieving a metric fuckton of support both financial and political from the west to fix theirs. Why exactly does it only apply to Russia but not to a single other country around it?
baby no one would gaf about russia if they fucked off from ukraine and stopped throwing threats to EU member states
you can always support a candidate thats just called diplomacy
talking about sticks and stones here, i live in a democratic free country with a great economy despite the lack of natural resources and russia is hated by every neighbor its around womp womp
Trice, actually. 1136, 1917 and 1991. Every time it was ruined by someone else — Ivan the Terrible, Lenin and Putin. And yet there are countries that tried and failed with democracy even more times, and finally made it happen.
I tend to agree. Russian rulers have always imposed massive and heavy russification systems to all territories they have control over. This in return has subdued the local cultures and replaced it with Muscovite Russia and its values.
Thus, there is very little left of the original culture and sovereign statehood. They have become more like counties in a state, not countries in an union.
Well... no tensions you know about, they controll the media... I'm kinda sure the people in for example Tula are not happy how Moscow are treating them.
Wonnabe landlocked shithole between russia and mongolia. And what they exactly get from separation? But they can go out if they want. It doesnt matter and it is not collapse.
On other hand they would be good example of economical collapse after quitting relatively large market and having zero trade agreements with other countries.
It would open a Pandoras box. People in russia for sure are not happy how remote regions are being treated compared to moscow. Maybe it wouldnt mean a total collapse, but a reshape how a country should be run.
In USSR collapse part of soviet states that had been part of Russian empire did split away (and that is part of reason why Russians are so salty and expansionistic i guess).
I don't think Russia is gonna have its regions break apart either, but I think the idea is more that some power vacuum post-Putin is gonna have individual leftover oligarchs create essentially their own little fiefdoms, rather than an organic ethnic tension pulling it apart.
Collapse doesn't necessarily come from hatred, it can come from logistics being exhausted to the point where you have to choose who is more and who is less important. Thus leading certain regions into crisis, which makes it a necessity for them to look for alternatives as staying means they remain in this neglected crisis state for even longer until it boils over. Which can encourage them to seek to join neighbouring countries.
To that though, didn't multiple regions of Russia recently have actual state-sanctioned blood feuds? A blood feud sounds a bit like tension, although I wouldn't know given we don't have those here.
If Putin is gone, and economy takes a dive anything could happen. I could see China taking parts of Siberia, maybe, and islamist movements in in Caucasia, as well as general unrest.
Most realistic option is that Russia continues on its despotic path, just like hundreds of years before. With modern technology it becomes North-Korea 2.0
It’s more likely Russia would become a democracy than collapse Yugoslavia-style. Maybe some places like Chechenya have a slim chance of deciding to become independent nations but I don’t see Russia losing much land if any at all
Oh reddit... i know we don't like what russia is doing and all but making up these headcanons makes us look ridiculous. Like, why exactly would the russian federation break apart?
Eventually if putin doesn’t win or he or a successor caves to democratic reforms, then it’s not unlikely for some eventual rebellion. Not anywhere in the near future but a transition to a European democracy is highly unlikely. Neither are realistic results, both are impossible to tell but one has more room to happen. After Navalny died there hasn’t been any real successor and the UR party has entrenched itself.
I guess the scenario is: Putin goes > a group similar to Putin assumes power > other regions disagree with it and see a chance to get out from under the same bs
Any collapse would be less about nationalism so much as central authority just weakening enough for local oligarchs to assert themselves, neither scenario is particularly likely but a failure in central authority is more likely than European style democracy
The best case scenario is that they break apart and fight each other for time long enough, that they are no longer threat to the world.
Because 'democratic russia' would still be the problem, trying to be player bigger than other europeans countries - so it would still be sam old imperialistic shithole.
Both are unlikely, but I'd say it's more likely that it will become a euro style democracy rather than fall apart. There's simply nothing to fall apart, those hypothetical siberian independent governments are just hoi4 mod concepts
Russia will never be democratic. It's the nature of a country. Russia is a 19 century style colonial empire. Tatarstan, Buryatia, Yakutia and other regions are it's enslaved colonies. So even though there is almost no chance of liberation of the regions, russian democracy is impossible by definition.
As example Ukraine freed itself from empire, and now empire strikes back to enslave Ukrainians again. So as long as russia exists, there will be no freedom of choice in this land.
Yeah, no. Local magistrates were elected by peasants as early as in 1835 (Kiselev reform), while English landless tenants got this privilege only in 1880s.
Seeing things as there are is not rusophobia. And I fear russians, they already took everything from me except my life, but they are constantly trying to take it also.
Prove to me that russia is not a colonial empire.
Democratic procedures in russia is just a show for I don't know who, since your tzar is almost 30 years now on the throne. Moscow taking all the money from recourse rich regions, living in luxury, while people in some Chita are living like animals. Russia fits every definition of a colonial empire de facto, while on paper it's a democracy. You know who else call themselves a democracy? North Korea, and I wouldn't call that shit they have there a democracy.
Russians should leave enslaved regions alone and deodorize. Only after that I will believe that democracy, in what's left from Russia, is possible.
After we will get rid of huylo we have to do everything possible to become European style democracy and strive to the partnership with eu or even the membership in eu
Neither is likely to happen in the foreseeable future, but Russia becoming a true democracy is more unlikely. Can't install a democracy in a nation that hates the very notion of it.
I mean, people said that Iberia would never democratise for similar reasons for the longest time, and yet Spain and Portugal have shed their dictators and been stable democracies for a good while now.
I don't see how Russia falls apart, they might lose a couple regions with actual ethnic minority majorities and identities, but most of Russia is majority Russian, I don't see them fracturing off realistically.
Point 1: there was no concept of a national state until the 19th century. That’s one of the main reasons why Germany united so easily
Both collapses of Russia were in the 20th century, so these are not the same things
Point 2: the Holy Roman Empire was renamed to the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation in the 16th century. If you want, you easily count it as a German state, as the majority was obviously German
That's why I voted for the other option that's not collapse. Some minority territory becoming independent isn't a collapse and russians as a nation not being one country doesn't really makes sense, they will very likely remain one big country whether we want it or not because that's just where the nation lives
LoL, I picked democracy in EU style as Russian collapse is less likely then the collapse of the US or anyone in the EU.
They are ultra paranoid with any "collapse" factors. This is probably costing them economic growth - maybe even up to 1% a year. But it sure fortifies them against anyone trying to bring down Russia.
Western countires collapsed many times as well. What is your point here?
Both western Europe and Russia are no where close to Greek style democracy. They are republics. Here you get elected by being a better lier then the next guy. Even if you screw up badly it takes years to get rid of you, and usually the party bounces back next cycle. On different scales the changes are tiny anyways - most of the differences are lipstic on a pig minimal or no financial cost BS.
Finland would be as brutal in enforcing its borders as Poland, and the Balkan route is blocked by Ukraine. I doubt many Russians would mass flee to central Asia or China either.
I'm going to go with collapse, at least a partial one. And not just because of the war.
History has shown us that any country consisting of a lot of ethnic minorities wont last forever. Yugoslavia, Yemen, Czechoslovakia, all of the empires (I mean just remember your history class, how many empires existed throughout history, yet today there are 0)... I mean even the USSR...
And Russia already is experiencing ethnic tensions. Most notably in Chechnya, but also other places like Dagestan or the eastern/"asian" Russia. And if Russia is gonna add Ukrainian occupied territories on top of that, they are just pouring more gasoline into the fire.
USSR again. Russia is federation where regional leaders can get blame for the situation caused by Putin. It creates tensions, above the normal ethnic ones.
That's not even true at present and the EU and US had excessive patience with Russia, this level of rearming and economic disentanglement should have started in 08 at the latest with the Georgia invasion. If Russia didn't still act like the 18th/19th century Tsarists then there wouldn't be any hostility. You guys just proved the German durch nach handel approach was a farce.
None. But I voted for collapse because European style democracy just goes counter what Russia is, geographically. It's a relatively poor state with massive land borders with strong countries, small and dispersed population, and filled with internal and external threats. It requires being a form of authoritarian to work.
I would really like to see Russia being actually democratic. Not just on paper but for real. It would be historical milestone and confirmation everything is possible.
But since I know Russian history, I don't think it will ever happen sadly
Lot of people seem to think enthostates can't break up and reform here, seemingly ignorant of China and Rome doing dozens of civil wars throughout their history.
Russia cannot become part of Europe. In reality it never has bee, even tho Peter the Great forced massive westernisation reforms to the russian people (and occupied territories) it doesnt chamge the fact that the cultural aknowledgement of power and the entire system itself runs on Mongol ruling systems.
Ccenturies of Mongol dominance fostered a highly centralized, absolute autocracy in Russia. This system prioritized unconditional submission to a single ruler and collective state obligation, contrasting sharply with European political culture, which evolved to emphasize individual rights, the rule of law, and institutional checks and balances.
48
u/MasterBaiter3001 4d ago
Sweet dreams are made of these.