231
UK government considers preparing for scenario of unexpected collapse of Russian Federation
(www.pravda.com.ua)
this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2023
231 points (95.7% liked)
World News
32378 readers
438 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
After the events that just strengthened it? Absurd. Anything to avoid actually feeding people, addressing the 33% of children currently in poverty or the constantly declining living standards we have I suppose.
EDIT: God this place has gone south since all the redditors came over.
When a coup fails, it strengthens the existing state. It has told everyone that might rebel that there is too much support in the existing state for it to succeed. See Erdogan doing it intentionally in Turkey to strengthen and consolidate his power if you want another example of this.
I live in the UK. This is absolutely a fucking waste of our time and energy. Nobody gives a damn about this when a third of children in the country live in poverty and cost of living is through the roof. It is entirely a distraction because Brexit, austerity and successive neoliberal governments have systematically gutted the country. Anything to distract from the fact half the country keeps going on strike or actually paying people more.
But did the coup really fail? Prigozhin simply called it off after !another! country negotiated a solution. The coup in Turkey failed because of, seemingly, Erdogan being too powerful and the people loving him. In Russia it failed because of Lukashenko intervening and Prigozhin calling it off. Putin does not look strong currently.
Of course he called it off lmao. He had NO SUPPORT. He was totally isolated.
Compare this to the gang of eight when the communists attempted but failed a coup and you'll see what a real powerful coup attempt looks like. That failed.
Look at who supported and took part in that and compare it to Prigozhin's isolated attempt with absolutely no support, no allies, nothing, while every single other political and military force in the country backed the state.
Prigo grossly overestimated his position. He thought he would get supporters once it was launched, he got absolutely nothing and he backed out at the earliest opportunity with a guarantee of his life being protected in Belarus. This was accepted by state because the alternative would have been a disaster for Russia with thousands of dead in a battle for Rostov and defence of the outskirts of Moscow.
I mean, I agree with your points here. Honestly, I'm wondering why he started in the first place as his life still is in danger.
I just don't agree that this strengthened the state/Putin. In a way, if someone like Prigozhin without any realistic chance tries a coup and gets away with his life (at least for now) doesn't this show how weak Russia currently is?
I think he simply grossly overestimated his support, believing that something more would come of it that did not.
It has embarrassed Russia for sure, the global south in particular supports Russia a lot and there will be some respect lost through it but that's not going to change much about why they support Russia (serves their interests to see a multipolar world emerge) so they'll continue to do so.
While it may have caused foreign embarrassment that's not really important in terms of "strength" of the state. The strength of a state is determined by the political and military powers within it supporting it and its institutions. Literally all of them did so which has ultimately served to resolve the question "is it possible for Russia to collapse?" with a resounding "No" at this time.
By comparison and to do a big whatabout - I would say that the US has a greater amount of division and potential for political and financial factions to attempt to tear it apart. I however don't think that there is anyone quite as bold or stupid as Prigo to overestimate their support or underestimate the size of the support you need to tear apart and successfully coup a country like that though.
Like I keep pointing out, the gang of eight were an incredibly powerful coalition that failed. They serve as an example of the kind of coalition you really need to pull this shit off and they make Prigo look like a bit of a joke by comparison. Part of me wonders if members of the Russian intelligence community deliberately led him on into believing he had support in order to create this outcome, but that's pure speculation. The man isn't entirely stupid though, so I have to wonder what exactly made him think he would have more support.
TBH, I haven't read that much about the aftermath. I only heard some parts (e.g. the secret services) kept quiet for quite some time which suggests for me that they didn't really care either way. If everyone really supported him it does make a coup/collapse less likely. The impression I got was simply:
I also don't think the gang of eight is that diectly relatable because the SU collapsed. Here, it would simply mean replacing one president for another. In theory, a coup is as simple as a successful assasination (ignoring the successor question).
For me, it doesn't look like there is any way out for Putin. Winning the war is unrealistic at this time, would take a long time and would result in a long embargo from the west, destroying the economy even further. Losing the war will probably result in extreme protests with all the casualties that already occurred. We will see whatever happens. I assume that Prigozhin failed not because the elite support Putin but because they are even more afraid of him. I assume everyone with money wants the war to end.
And about the USA, yeah that's a bit of a whataboutism. There is a lot of division there and I think they are one bad president away from significantly worsening the situation. We will see about that too I guess.
I think we're going to end up talking past each other as we disagree and there's a few things we'd just end up repeating over and over so forgive me for skipping a chunk here. I will respond to this though:
"Even further" is an odd choice here. The Russian economy is stronger now than before the war sanctions. The sanctions failed miserably, everything that Russia could no longer get from the west it simply gets from South East Asia (China/India mainly) and the Middle East now. Reddit thinks there was some great economic smashing of Russia but it really horribly failed.
"Winning" here is more a question of when parties will get round a table to negotiate again. The war almost ended in April but Boris Johnson put a stop to the deal that would have done that. It could end quickly, it could also take a long time, dependent almost entirely on how long the west wants to drag it out as a proxy war for. There is also the question of whether the US and EU might pivot to a focus on China, which would also result in getting round a table to end the Ukraine war first as they simply do not have the means to focus on both at once.
It's not really whatabout. It's just useful to have a comparative baseline for "division" to understand what is necessary to create and succeed in a coup. Do you think one would succeed in the US under the current conditions? What factions and groups would need to be involved? This thought experiment is useful for understanding the kind of divisions, alliances and coalitions necessary to making a coup succeed elsewhere. It helps ground your thoughts in a more material reality rather than the fantasies peddled in the media circuit.
You're right, our views differ quite a lot. In your comment I disagree with basically every conclusion. The Russian economy is worse off, the war will end with Russia getting at most Crimea and a coup in the US is completely unrealistic as of now.
Time will tell.
What metric are you using to determine this?
This would require the complete and total collapse of Russia and the formation of a new country. Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk are legally Russia under Russian law. There is no mechanism via which they can be ceded. When everyone eventually sits down at the table they legally can not be put on it by the negotiators that form the Russian side.
I personally think Russia will take everything south of the Dnipro river then hand over the parts that are not Donbass as a political means of showing that the west won against them in some way.
Even if there were a mechanism by which these could be tabled I don't see why they would. They are winning, the counteroffensive is achieving absolutely zero, support is very low across Europe and there is very little evidence that their gains will stop.
What mechanism are you thinking of here? Serious question. How? The only way what you're claiming will happen could possibly occur is via a massive pushback, but that's clearly not happening. You'd need nato to deploy and to kick off ww3 properly.
I know. But the factionalism and divisions make it more likely than in Russia at the present moment in time. That was the point, to highlight that is incredibly unrealistic to expect it to happen in Russia after we've just had a demonstration of failure with almost no division barring the tantrum that occurred.
My comment was intended to highlight how fundamentally our views differ and not to start a discussion. I'm aware that my view is not completely neutral but I feel like your view is too different from mine to productively discuss them.
Yes, the Russian economy is doing better than expected but, obviously, a country at war with embargoes and large amounts of the workforce at the front will suffer. And yes, the current counter-offensive is not going as well as planned but the fact that Ukraine even started it and is making, albeit small, gains shows that they are at least on approximately even footing.
Turns out the Michael Parenti quote applies to any and all enemies of the west, not just to communists. Who knew?
The whole thing reeks of a fake operation now that Lukashenko was the solution AND Biden making a statement that US isn't involved. Neither states are trustworthy narrators. Who knows
First things first, the US is going to deny involvment either way. So this means nothing TBH.
Lukashenko being involved is quite weird to me and makes me wonder if there is something going on there. Does Prigozhin really think that his life is safe now? Or was it simply delayed (e.g. because of assistance by Lukashenko in a future coup?). It doesn't really make sense either way.
The manner in which a coup is stopped makes all the difference. It only enhances the position of the government if the government is seen to deal with the coup attempt promptly and effectively. If the government is not seen to deal with it effectively, then even if the coup is ultimately unsuccessful, it undermines the government.
In this case, Putin was not seen to deal with the coup effectively. Wagner was able to secure the Southern Military District headquarters - the main operational HQ of the war in Ukraine - in Rostov-on-Don with essentially no opposition, then drive most of the way to Moscow with only minor skirmishes along the way. If we believe the widely-disseminated reports, then seven Russian military aircraft were lost to Wagner actions, but only one Wagner truck was lost in return. Putin was not seen or heard from for a long time, and reports surfaced that he had flown to St. Petersburg, and when he did appear, his message was not particularly decisive. When the coup was abandoned, it was done not through force, or by Putin publicly facing down Wagner like Yeltsin did in 1991. It was abandoned due to some back-room deal, brokered by Lukashenko of all people, the details of which have not been made public.
The Russian government's internal security apparatus appears incompetent because it did not consider Wagner a threat, even though Prigozhin had been telegraphing his intentions for days (and probably planning it for months). The Russian military appears weak and overstretched, because it could not protect its operational HQ by force. Putin appears weak because he disappeared at the crucial moments, and large parts of Russia appeared sympathetic to Prigozhin even if they weren't prepared to directly take part. The image of Putin being the supreme ruler in charge of everything looks pretty suspect at this point, and Russians know it because most of the events happened live on Russian state TV.
Putin has a long history of wriggling out of difficult situations, and he might still pull things out of the bag, but I think this is the beginning of the end for him.
This is all "appears" "appears" "appears". You are hung up on appearances. You seem to think that if they just appear a certain way to people then that will magically change the balances of factional power in the country.
Liberals have this bizarre idea about where power comes from. You all seem to believe that the population of the country has power, that if the government simply appears weak then it will magically result in the population doing.... Something... And then the government will be overthrown and the war will be won!
Power is derived by those in hierarchical positions in a country to command various things within their positions to occur. And when enough people all align alongside one another and command things to happen together, if the related organisations follow those commands, they hold power.
I acknowledge in my other comments that this is embarrassing (which is quite a similar interpretation to you saying it hurts appearances). But the bottom line is how it affects power in the country. What factions exist and who those factions are aligning themselves behind.
This attempt did not result in anything like a weakening of the state or Putin. It consolidated all the sources of power in the country behind Putin, into statements of support and actions that back it up.
By what mechanism?
Putin is up for re-election in March 2024. Presidential term limits may have been removed in 2020, but he still needs to go back to the polls. If he cannot be sure of a resounding victory, there's a good chance he will retire rather than seek re-election. He may try to declare martial law and suspend the constitution, but his political capital to do that is a lot more meagre than it was in February 2022. More than any other election since he was first elected in 2000, he will need real support from his political base, and I'm no longer convinced he will get it.
Prigozhin is now in a pretty good position to be kingmaker, even if he won't or can't be a presidential candidate himself.
Of course everyone with any loyalty to the state, or with any future political ambitions of their own has come out in support - at least publicly - of the status quo. To do otherwise would be political suicide. But that doesn't mean they actually support Putin privately.
You're expecting the main opposition - the communist party - to beat him then? Zyuganov?
If that fantasy happened it would split the communist party between the half that is controlled opposition who would see it as "the wrong time" for it to happen and the half who truly want socialist power again. The election would then be redone with a 3 way split between the two factions and Navalny's fascist coalition supported by the euro liberals.
I mean, I would want that outcome as it would result in a real left communist opposition emerging but I think it's incredibly unrealistic. Not to mention that you're expecting the population to boot a leader during the middle of a war? I am not sure how often that has happened, populations understand you keep the same leader during wartime. You would need the population to become against the war for that to occur and uhhh I hate to break it to you but absolutely the support the war and it would take a huge change in the frontline situation to change that - one that I do not think is coming judging by the failures of the counter offensive so far.
I think any serious presidential competitor has yet to emerge - none of the Communist candidates, or Navalny, are credible IMO. 9 months is plenty of time to make a campaign happen though.
It's at least as likely that, off the back of the poor performance in the war, and especially the dismal reaction to the Wagner affair, that Putin will be simply "encouraged" behind the scenes to retire rather than run again, and United Russia will put forward some kind of "interim" candidate who will probably win.
FWIW if you want examples of leadership changes during a war, how about Neville Chamberlain? Or the two revolutions in Russia itself in 1917?
I don't think this is realistic. You're asking for sweeping massive electoral pattern changes that won't happen without a massive crisis functioning as a catalyst. I can't see a source for such a crisis on the horizon though, the frontline isn't going to change while the economic sanctions were resoundingly defeated and hurt we european residents significantly more than Russians.
Chamberlain was not changed by an election of the population of the UK, he was changed by Conservative party infighting leading to the 1922 committee demanding his resignation in a "do it or we'll do it for you" ultimatum, as they have always done. Chamberlain resigned his position as leader of the Conservative party and Churchill took it.
There was no election in the UK between the years of 1935 and 1945.
Generated by an unpopular war in a series of wars that the tsar repeatedly got people killed in for his vanity. This is not an unpopular war though and there is no anti-war movement, it is supported by every political faction of the country. Even the euro liberals don't openly state their opposition and that's not because they would disappear (they wouldn't) but because it would be wildly unpopular and harm their political growth, they are forced into silence through the conditions that currently exist.
This requires factional fighting, which is non-existent at this time. He has broad across the spectrum support both in his party and in opposition groups because they all see him as ushering in a multi-polar world, which is extremely beneficial to the interests of every faction that exists. I still do not see where you think the factionalism exists for this to happen. Who? Why? What faction is going to push him out and for what purpose? With everyone wanting to see the completion of this project there's no faction internally to interrupt it.
So, the two conflicting armies of Russia shooting at each other, the minister of defence not anticipating this although he instigated it, the president running away, both (minister and president) not addressing the nation in a speech for 3 days after the incident, and the revolutionary leaving on his own account without suffering any substantial losses?
The Russian army bombarded Wagner camps, starting the whole affair, Wagner shot down helicopters of the Russian army during the march. Do you think that will strengthen the ties between Wagner troops and the Russian army to cooperate better in the future? Wagner didn't face any notable resistance the first cities they passed through, and that is a show of strength for Putin? Yeah, no. I don't think that makes much sense, sorry.
Putin will have to go full berserker mode now to portrait some strength, make an example of the mayors of those cities, axe the minster of defence for being obviously incompetent here, and arrange a polonium-tea or something for Prigozhin. And while this might help him save his face as strong leader, it will probably lead to more resistance from others.
Why are liberals this delusional?
Mayors? You think 2 mayors not acting quickly enough on shaky unknown information within just hours shows that the state is weak?
The issue is that there was NO support for Prigo. He was totally isolated. Not one single person in a military or political position of power came to his side as he had hoped. Every single actual source of power in the country (and outside of it) backed Putin.
Compare this to 1991 when the communists attempted a coup in the soviet union to (correctly) prevent its eventual dissolution. They had the Gang of Eight which included:
This was a REAL and powerful coup attempt with real political and military support. A true split in the country.
They failed, and no further attempt would occur afterwards, it strengthened the state and the opposition forces that sought to end socialism in the country and bring about the economic hell of Shock Therapy.
You can not possibly argue that this mutiny (calling it a coup compared to past failures is laughable), by one man with literally zero allies, which ended in a single day has done anything other than strengthen the state by showing everyone how there is no political or military division. Not to mention Wagner is being disbanded as well so that only brings that chapter to a close.
You people need to get more realistic.