One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
We are Watching the Final Collapse of the Soviet Empire
Page 1 of 4 next> last>>
Jan 25, 2023 00:17:13   #
dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA
 
We are Watching the Final Collapse of the Soviet Empire
Posted Saturday, January 21, 2023
AMAC Exclusive – By Ben Solis

Following the downfall of the USSR in December 1991, Moscow’s primary objective has been to continue to exert Russian influence over the old Soviet republics. But Putin’s war in Ukraine has revealed that mission to be a failure and has furthered the collapse of Russia as a great world power.

The history of post-Soviet central Eurasian politics helps clarify the stakes of the Russia-Ukraine war. Once the Soviet regime fell, the immediate question became what would happen to Russia, which had always been the predominant cultural and political force within the USSR.

The Clinton administration, which came into office just one year after the Soviet Union’s collapse, adopted a policy of supporting the Russian state in an attempt to preserve some stability in the region – particularly given Russia’s status as a nuclear power. According to one advisor to former President Yeltsin, President Clinton saved Russia’s status as a superpower by granting it rights to be the only nuclear-armed state of the former Soviet Union. With The Highly-Enriched Uranium and Low-Enriched Uranium program (HEU-LEU) U.S. taxpayers financed the Russian nuclear industry for 20 years. The U.S. paid Russia approximately $17 billion for 14,446 tons of low-enriched uranium up through 2013.

This fact was a great concern for a few Russian specialists, including the former National Security Agency Director for President Reagan, Lt. General William E. Odom. In Fall 2001, General Odom stressed that the West’s generosity and kindness toward Russia was pointless, since it was highly unlikely Russia would ever become a great power aligned with the West. “Treating it like one is neither in Russia’s interests nor the West’s,” he prophetically stated. But Odom’s opinion was rather isolated at that time, since most Western security “experts” mostly praised Russia, although its foreign policy was supported by expansionary wars.

For Russian leaders, however, the chief priority was always continuing to exert influence in the old empire – by force if necessary. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia created the Commonwealth of Independent States, promising to protect former republics and be a judge in often-heated border disputes like those between Azerbaijan and Armenia. The goal was to establish Russia as the predominant power in the region to stave off Western encroachment.

Ukraine, which has many cultural and historical bonds with Russia, was a centerpiece of this strategy. Former Russian President Boris Yeltsin told his Ukrainian counterpart that Kyiv will always be in “the system of Russia’s strategic interests.”

This Clinton administration’s approach, which was largely adopted by the Bush and Obama administrations, led to years of Russian provocations in places like Crimea, as well as proxy wars with the West in places like Syria. It was only President Donald Trump who broke with conventional wisdom on Russia. Unsurprisingly, he became the first U.S. president in the 21st century under whom Putin did not seize more territory. Unlike Washington bureaucrats, Mr. Trump became a classic business problem solver: first by recognizing Ukraine’s right to Crimea, secondly by arming Kyiv with modern anti-tank missiles, and thirdly by supporting Russian-Ukrainian negotiations.

But despite heightened tensions throughout the last several decades, Russian political and military leadership had also recognized the major risks associated with embroiling Russia in a major prolonged armed conflict with one of its neighbors – particularly Ukraine. Devoting a significant amount of resources to such a war, they feared, would cause Russia both to lose influence in other areas and provoke a harsh backlash from the West.

A strategic advisor to Mikhail Gorbachev, Alexander Yakovlev, observed that if Russia decided to wage war against Ukraine, “it would be its last war that would result in the country’s disappearance from the political map for decades.” A month before the current war, Colonel-General Leonid Ivashov, chairman of the All-Russian Officers Assembly, said that, according to international law, Russia “might be punished with the loss of statehood for an invasion of independent Ukraine.”

But in recent years that dynamic began to shift, to where Putin began to view an invasion of Ukraine as a show of strength to prevent post-Soviet states from falling out of Russia’s sphere of influence. Subsequent U.S. administrations had artificially preserved Russia’s great power status, but a weakened economy had also left Moscow feeling vulnerable. As a result, Putin apparently felt incentivized to invade Ukraine to preserve Russian influence in central Eurasia.

The warnings of prior Soviet leaders have proven prescient, however. With its focus on Ukraine, Russia has failed to fulfill its treaty obligations to other countries like Armenia, leading its Prime Minister to conclude that Russia’s military presence in the country threatens Armenia’s security.

Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan’s relations with Moscow have changed forever after they joined Turkic Council, with headquarters in Istanbul and opposite priorities from those of Russia, including capitalization and fortification of their borders.

Even the Russian state has become unstable. The Republic of Tatarstan, officially part of the Russian federation but with a predominantly Muslim population of 3.5 million, is now demanding more autonomy from Moscow. Last month, the Tatarstan Parliament replaced the president’s title with the historic name of an Islamic leader. The Kremlin had previously granted Tatarstan privileged status since it was their bridge to other Islamic-dominated regions, but now fractures are beginning to show.

Similarly, Dagestan in Kavkaz and Buryatia in Siberia, the regions that have suffered the most significant losses of servicemen in the war against Ukraine, recently demonstrated more resolve, denying Moscow further military recruitment of its young people.

Amid this bubbling turmoil, analysts have started to discuss potential scenarios of Russia’s complete downfall. Dr. Janusz Bugajski, a fellow at the Jamestown Foundation, has urged American policymakers to prepare for the imminent collapse of the Russian Federation. “We are witnessing an ongoing revolution in global security for which Western policymakers are unprepared,” he says. Similarly, analysts at the European Parliament anticipate Russia’s fall.

There is also concern inside Russia about this potential scenario. An independent Levada Center poll indicated in December that 82 percent of Russians were highly concerned or somewhat concerned about the Ukraine war. Nearly 50 percent expected unrest in Russia in 2023.

Most scenarios presented by experts presume that Russia falls into totalitarianism, with Soviet-style ideological control over citizens and a hyper-centralized government that will inevitably be unable to make informed decisions.

If this occurs, Western leaders should, as General Odom wisely recommended, not make the mistake of treating Russia as a great power again. Instead, they should let the Soviet empire die once and for all.

Reply
Jan 25, 2023 02:26:12   #
Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall
 
dtucker300 wrote:
We are Watching the Final Collapse of the Soviet Empire
Posted Saturday, January 21, 2023
AMAC Exclusive – By Ben Solis

Following the downfall of the USSR in December 1991, Moscow’s primary objective has been to continue to exert Russian influence over the old Soviet republics. But Putin’s war in Ukraine has revealed that mission to be a failure and has furthered the collapse of Russia as a great world power.

The history of post-Soviet central Eurasian politics helps clarify the stakes of the Russia-Ukraine war. Once the Soviet regime fell, the immediate question became what would happen to Russia, which had always been the predominant cultural and political force within the USSR.

The Clinton administration, which came into office just one year after the Soviet Union’s collapse, adopted a policy of supporting the Russian state in an attempt to preserve some stability in the region – particularly given Russia’s status as a nuclear power. According to one advisor to former President Yeltsin, President Clinton saved Russia’s status as a superpower by granting it rights to be the only nuclear-armed state of the former Soviet Union. With The Highly-Enriched Uranium and Low-Enriched Uranium program (HEU-LEU) U.S. taxpayers financed the Russian nuclear industry for 20 years. The U.S. paid Russia approximately $17 billion for 14,446 tons of low-enriched uranium up through 2013.

This fact was a great concern for a few Russian specialists, including the former National Security Agency Director for President Reagan, Lt. General William E. Odom. In Fall 2001, General Odom stressed that the West’s generosity and kindness toward Russia was pointless, since it was highly unlikely Russia would ever become a great power aligned with the West. “Treating it like one is neither in Russia’s interests nor the West’s,” he prophetically stated. But Odom’s opinion was rather isolated at that time, since most Western security “experts” mostly praised Russia, although its foreign policy was supported by expansionary wars.

For Russian leaders, however, the chief priority was always continuing to exert influence in the old empire – by force if necessary. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia created the Commonwealth of Independent States, promising to protect former republics and be a judge in often-heated border disputes like those between Azerbaijan and Armenia. The goal was to establish Russia as the predominant power in the region to stave off Western encroachment.

Ukraine, which has many cultural and historical bonds with Russia, was a centerpiece of this strategy. Former Russian President Boris Yeltsin told his Ukrainian counterpart that Kyiv will always be in “the system of Russia’s strategic interests.”

This Clinton administration’s approach, which was largely adopted by the Bush and Obama administrations, led to years of Russian provocations in places like Crimea, as well as proxy wars with the West in places like Syria. It was only President Donald Trump who broke with conventional wisdom on Russia. Unsurprisingly, he became the first U.S. president in the 21st century under whom Putin did not seize more territory. Unlike Washington bureaucrats, Mr. Trump became a classic business problem solver: first by recognizing Ukraine’s right to Crimea, secondly by arming Kyiv with modern anti-tank missiles, and thirdly by supporting Russian-Ukrainian negotiations.

But despite heightened tensions throughout the last several decades, Russian political and military leadership had also recognized the major risks associated with embroiling Russia in a major prolonged armed conflict with one of its neighbors – particularly Ukraine. Devoting a significant amount of resources to such a war, they feared, would cause Russia both to lose influence in other areas and provoke a harsh backlash from the West.

A strategic advisor to Mikhail Gorbachev, Alexander Yakovlev, observed that if Russia decided to wage war against Ukraine, “it would be its last war that would result in the country’s disappearance from the political map for decades.” A month before the current war, Colonel-General Leonid Ivashov, chairman of the All-Russian Officers Assembly, said that, according to international law, Russia “might be punished with the loss of statehood for an invasion of independent Ukraine.”

But in recent years that dynamic began to shift, to where Putin began to view an invasion of Ukraine as a show of strength to prevent post-Soviet states from falling out of Russia’s sphere of influence. Subsequent U.S. administrations had artificially preserved Russia’s great power status, but a weakened economy had also left Moscow feeling vulnerable. As a result, Putin apparently felt incentivized to invade Ukraine to preserve Russian influence in central Eurasia.

The warnings of prior Soviet leaders have proven prescient, however. With its focus on Ukraine, Russia has failed to fulfill its treaty obligations to other countries like Armenia, leading its Prime Minister to conclude that Russia’s military presence in the country threatens Armenia’s security.

Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan’s relations with Moscow have changed forever after they joined Turkic Council, with headquarters in Istanbul and opposite priorities from those of Russia, including capitalization and fortification of their borders.

Even the Russian state has become unstable. The Republic of Tatarstan, officially part of the Russian federation but with a predominantly Muslim population of 3.5 million, is now demanding more autonomy from Moscow. Last month, the Tatarstan Parliament replaced the president’s title with the historic name of an Islamic leader. The Kremlin had previously granted Tatarstan privileged status since it was their bridge to other Islamic-dominated regions, but now fractures are beginning to show.

Similarly, Dagestan in Kavkaz and Buryatia in Siberia, the regions that have suffered the most significant losses of servicemen in the war against Ukraine, recently demonstrated more resolve, denying Moscow further military recruitment of its young people.

Amid this bubbling turmoil, analysts have started to discuss potential scenarios of Russia’s complete downfall. Dr. Janusz Bugajski, a fellow at the Jamestown Foundation, has urged American policymakers to prepare for the imminent collapse of the Russian Federation. “We are witnessing an ongoing revolution in global security for which Western policymakers are unprepared,” he says. Similarly, analysts at the European Parliament anticipate Russia’s fall.

There is also concern inside Russia about this potential scenario. An independent Levada Center poll indicated in December that 82 percent of Russians were highly concerned or somewhat concerned about the Ukraine war. Nearly 50 percent expected unrest in Russia in 2023.

Most scenarios presented by experts presume that Russia falls into totalitarianism, with Soviet-style ideological control over citizens and a hyper-centralized government that will inevitably be unable to make informed decisions.

If this occurs, Western leaders should, as General Odom wisely recommended, not make the mistake of treating Russia as a great power again. Instead, they should let the Soviet empire die once and for all.
We are Watching the Final Collapse of the Soviet E... (show quote)


I'm going to disagree...
It was exactly the stance of "not treating Russia las a super power" that got us to where we're at..

Reply
Jan 25, 2023 04:46:33   #
Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...
 
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
I'm going to disagree...
It was exactly the stance of "not treating Russia as a super power" that got us to where we're at..

I agree with you, Canuckus,

in the sense that we have consistently disrespected and disregarded Russia, never attempting to make them a friend, unable and/or unwilling to acknowledge the end of the Cold War... or needing a perpetual enemy for propaganda's sake.

The U.S. government, for some inexplicable reason suffered Soviet brain freeze, and never processed the information that the USSR collapsed in 1991.

During the ensuing thirty two years, they have consistently behaved as if their No. 1 enemy on earth remained that non-existent Russian conglomerate... the military industrial complex has used them as a phantom with which to justify exorbitant over pricing of the research and development of new weapons.

Yes, we need a strong military, but not with Russia as our main focus. There are many equal opportunity seekers of that designation.

The USSR imploded under the unenviable failure of it's Marxist ideology. Vladimir Lenin, the first Soviet leader, was in poor health when the USSR was formed and died little more than a year later.

On January 1, 1991, the Soviet Union was the largest country in the world, covering some 8,650,000 square miles (22,400,000 square km), nearly one-sixth of Earth’s land surface. Its population numbered more than 290 million, and 100 distinct nationalities lived within its borders.

It also boasted an arsenal of tens of thousands of nuclear weapons, and its sphere of influence, exerted through such mechanisms as the Warsaw Pact, extended throughout eastern Europe.

Within a year, the Soviet Union had ceased to exist. While it is, for all practical purposes, impossible to pinpoint a single cause for an event as complex and far-reaching as the dissolution of a global superpower, a number of internal and external factors were at play in the collapse of the U.S.S.R.

Soviet defense spending accelerated dramatically in response to the presidency of Ronald Reagan and proposals such as the Strategic Defense Initiative. The SDI was first proposed by President Ronald Reagan in a nationwide television address on March 23, 1983.

The state lost control of both the media and the public sphere, and democratic reform movements gained steam throughout the Soviet bloc.

Mikhail Gorbachev was named general secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) on March 11, 1985, his primary domestic goals were to jump-start the moribund Soviet economy and to streamline the cumbersome government bureaucracy.

He instituted the policies of glasnost (“openness”) to foster dialogue and perestroika (“restructuring”) to introduce quasi free market policies to government-run industries. Glasnost opened the floodgates to criticism of the entire Soviet apparatus. The state lost control of both the media and the public sphere, and democratic reform movements gained steam throughout the Soviet bloc.

Gorbachev’s reforms and his abandonment of the Brezhnev Doctrine hastened the demise of the Soviet empire. By the end of 1989 Hungary had dismantled its border fence with Austria, Solidarity had swept into power in Poland, the Baltic states were taking concrete steps toward independence, and the Berlin Wall had been toppled. The Iron Curtain had fallen, and the Soviet Union did not long outlast it... except in the mind of succeeding U.S. Administrations and State Department bureaucrats.

Reply
 
 
Jan 25, 2023 06:45:31   #
ACP45 Loc: Rhode Island
 
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
I'm going to disagree...
It was exactly the stance of "not treating Russia las a super power" that got us to where we're at..


I second that! I think that Victor's reader comment best summarizes this content!



Reply
Jan 25, 2023 12:32:13   #
dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA
 
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
I'm going to disagree...
It was exactly the stance of "not treating Russia las a super power" that got us to where we're at..


You can disagree all you want but I disagree with your erroneous opinion. What in particular in this essay did you disagree with? This is where we ARE at today. Putin is a holdover from the Soviet Era. Russia has been reverting back to the Soviet Union style of leadership under Putin. The Soviet Union IS showing signs of its' last gasp, not Russia. When Russia starts electing its leaders democratically which respects the rights of its citizens and stops acting like the cold war is still in progress, they will join the fold of free nations.

Reply
Jan 25, 2023 17:04:39   #
Marty 2020 Loc: Banana Republic of Kalifornia
 
dtucker300 wrote:
You can disagree all you want but I disagree with your erroneous opinion. What in particular in this essay did you disagree with? This is where we ARE at today. Putin is a holdover from the Soviet Era. Russia has been reverting back to the Soviet Union style of leadership under Putin. The Soviet Union IS showing signs of its' last gasp, not Russia. When Russia starts electing its leaders democratically which respects the rights of its citizens and stops acting like the cold war is still in progress, they will join the fold of free nations.
You can disagree all you want but I disagree with ... (show quote)


Gog of Magog will attack Jerusalem.
With hooks in his jaws, he’ll be pulled down to Israel.
Not Rosh/Russia?

Reply
Jan 25, 2023 19:49:59   #
Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall
 
dtucker300 wrote:
You can disagree all you want but I disagree with your erroneous opinion. What in particular in this essay did you disagree with? This is where we ARE at today. Putin is a holdover from the Soviet Era. Russia has been reverting back to the Soviet Union style of leadership under Putin. The Soviet Union IS showing signs of its' last gasp, not Russia. When Russia starts electing its leaders democratically which respects the rights of its citizens and stops acting like the cold war is still in progress, they will join the fold of free nations.
You can disagree all you want but I disagree with ... (show quote)


Putin is not a holdover..For starters...
The rest is all just fictional conjecture after that...

Reply
 
 
Jan 25, 2023 21:48:43   #
dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA
 
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
Putin is not a holdover..For starters...
The rest is all just fictional conjecture after that...


What part is fictional conjecture? Why is Putineska not a Soviet? You still haven't answered what it is about the essay you disagree with.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/01/24/putin-ukraine-war-legitimacy-support/
Are We Seeing The Beginning Of The End Of Putinism?
by Michael McFaul via The Washington Post
The Russian president will never recover from his disastrous war in Ukraine.

Reply
Jan 25, 2023 21:56:03   #
dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA
 
Zemirah wrote:
I agree with you, Canuckus,

in the sense that we have consistently disrespected and disregarded Russia, never attempting to make them a friend, unable and/or unwilling to acknowledge the end of the Cold War... or needing a perpetual enemy for propaganda's sake.

The U.S. government, for some inexplicable reason suffered Soviet brain freeze, and never processed the information that the USSR collapsed in 1991.

During the ensuing thirty two years, they have consistently behaved as if their No. 1 enemy on earth remained that non-existent Russian conglomerate... the military industrial complex has used them as a phantom with which to justify exorbitant over pricing of the research and development of new weapons.

Yes, we need a strong military, but not with Russia as our main focus. There are many equal opportunity seekers of that designation.

The USSR imploded under the unenviable failure of it's Marxist ideology. Vladimir Lenin, the first Soviet leader, was in poor health when the USSR was formed and died little more than a year later.

On January 1, 1991, the Soviet Union was the largest country in the world, covering some 8,650,000 square miles (22,400,000 square km), nearly one-sixth of Earth’s land surface. Its population numbered more than 290 million, and 100 distinct nationalities lived within its borders.

It also boasted an arsenal of tens of thousands of nuclear weapons, and its sphere of influence, exerted through such mechanisms as the Warsaw Pact, extended throughout eastern Europe.

Within a year, the Soviet Union had ceased to exist. While it is, for all practical purposes, impossible to pinpoint a single cause for an event as complex and far-reaching as the dissolution of a global superpower, a number of internal and external factors were at play in the collapse of the U.S.S.R.

Soviet defense spending accelerated dramatically in response to the presidency of Ronald Reagan and proposals such as the Strategic Defense Initiative. The SDI was first proposed by President Ronald Reagan in a nationwide television address on March 23, 1983.

The state lost control of both the media and the public sphere, and democratic reform movements gained steam throughout the Soviet bloc.

Mikhail Gorbachev was named general secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) on March 11, 1985, his primary domestic goals were to jump-start the moribund Soviet economy and to streamline the cumbersome government bureaucracy.

He instituted the policies of glasnost (“openness”) to foster dialogue and perestroika (“restructuring”) to introduce quasi free market policies to government-run industries. Glasnost opened the floodgates to criticism of the entire Soviet apparatus. The state lost control of both the media and the public sphere, and democratic reform movements gained steam throughout the Soviet bloc.

Gorbachev’s reforms and his abandonment of the Brezhnev Doctrine hastened the demise of the Soviet empire. By the end of 1989 Hungary had dismantled its border fence with Austria, Solidarity had swept into power in Poland, the Baltic states were taking concrete steps toward independence, and the Berlin Wall had been toppled. The Iron Curtain had fallen, and the Soviet Union did not long outlast it... except in the mind of succeeding U.S. Administrations and State Department bureaucrats.
I agree with you, Canuckus, br br in the sense t... (show quote)


Our number one enemy is China.

Reply
Jan 26, 2023 00:05:00   #
Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall
 
dtucker300 wrote:
Our number one enemy is China.


Opponent...
Not enemy...
But yes, I agree with this statement...
Although, there are called number of ME nations that are more likely to attack if they had the capability...

Reply
Jan 26, 2023 06:15:10   #
ACP45 Loc: Rhode Island
 
dtucker300 wrote:
We are Watching the Final Collapse of the Soviet Empire
Posted Saturday, January 21, 2023
AMAC Exclusive – By Ben Solis

Following the downfall of the USSR in December 1991, Moscow’s primary objective has been to continue to exert Russian influence over the old Soviet republics. But Putin’s war in Ukraine has revealed that mission to be a failure and has furthered the collapse of Russia as a great world power.

The history of post-Soviet central Eurasian politics helps clarify the stakes of the Russia-Ukraine war. Once the Soviet regime fell, the immediate question became what would happen to Russia, which had always been the predominant cultural and political force within the USSR.

The Clinton administration, which came into office just one year after the Soviet Union’s collapse, adopted a policy of supporting the Russian state in an attempt to preserve some stability in the region – particularly given Russia’s status as a nuclear power. According to one advisor to former President Yeltsin, President Clinton saved Russia’s status as a superpower by granting it rights to be the only nuclear-armed state of the former Soviet Union. With The Highly-Enriched Uranium and Low-Enriched Uranium program (HEU-LEU) U.S. taxpayers financed the Russian nuclear industry for 20 years. The U.S. paid Russia approximately $17 billion for 14,446 tons of low-enriched uranium up through 2013.

This fact was a great concern for a few Russian specialists, including the former National Security Agency Director for President Reagan, Lt. General William E. Odom. In Fall 2001, General Odom stressed that the West’s generosity and kindness toward Russia was pointless, since it was highly unlikely Russia would ever become a great power aligned with the West. “Treating it like one is neither in Russia’s interests nor the West’s,” he prophetically stated. But Odom’s opinion was rather isolated at that time, since most Western security “experts” mostly praised Russia, although its foreign policy was supported by expansionary wars.

For Russian leaders, however, the chief priority was always continuing to exert influence in the old empire – by force if necessary. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia created the Commonwealth of Independent States, promising to protect former republics and be a judge in often-heated border disputes like those between Azerbaijan and Armenia. The goal was to establish Russia as the predominant power in the region to stave off Western encroachment.

Ukraine, which has many cultural and historical bonds with Russia, was a centerpiece of this strategy. Former Russian President Boris Yeltsin told his Ukrainian counterpart that Kyiv will always be in “the system of Russia’s strategic interests.”

This Clinton administration’s approach, which was largely adopted by the Bush and Obama administrations, led to years of Russian provocations in places like Crimea, as well as proxy wars with the West in places like Syria. It was only President Donald Trump who broke with conventional wisdom on Russia. Unsurprisingly, he became the first U.S. president in the 21st century under whom Putin did not seize more territory. Unlike Washington bureaucrats, Mr. Trump became a classic business problem solver: first by recognizing Ukraine’s right to Crimea, secondly by arming Kyiv with modern anti-tank missiles, and thirdly by supporting Russian-Ukrainian negotiations.

But despite heightened tensions throughout the last several decades, Russian political and military leadership had also recognized the major risks associated with embroiling Russia in a major prolonged armed conflict with one of its neighbors – particularly Ukraine. Devoting a significant amount of resources to such a war, they feared, would cause Russia both to lose influence in other areas and provoke a harsh backlash from the West.

A strategic advisor to Mikhail Gorbachev, Alexander Yakovlev, observed that if Russia decided to wage war against Ukraine, “it would be its last war that would result in the country’s disappearance from the political map for decades.” A month before the current war, Colonel-General Leonid Ivashov, chairman of the All-Russian Officers Assembly, said that, according to international law, Russia “might be punished with the loss of statehood for an invasion of independent Ukraine.”

But in recent years that dynamic began to shift, to where Putin began to view an invasion of Ukraine as a show of strength to prevent post-Soviet states from falling out of Russia’s sphere of influence. Subsequent U.S. administrations had artificially preserved Russia’s great power status, but a weakened economy had also left Moscow feeling vulnerable. As a result, Putin apparently felt incentivized to invade Ukraine to preserve Russian influence in central Eurasia.

The warnings of prior Soviet leaders have proven prescient, however. With its focus on Ukraine, Russia has failed to fulfill its treaty obligations to other countries like Armenia, leading its Prime Minister to conclude that Russia’s military presence in the country threatens Armenia’s security.

Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan’s relations with Moscow have changed forever after they joined Turkic Council, with headquarters in Istanbul and opposite priorities from those of Russia, including capitalization and fortification of their borders.

Even the Russian state has become unstable. The Republic of Tatarstan, officially part of the Russian federation but with a predominantly Muslim population of 3.5 million, is now demanding more autonomy from Moscow. Last month, the Tatarstan Parliament replaced the president’s title with the historic name of an Islamic leader. The Kremlin had previously granted Tatarstan privileged status since it was their bridge to other Islamic-dominated regions, but now fractures are beginning to show.

Similarly, Dagestan in Kavkaz and Buryatia in Siberia, the regions that have suffered the most significant losses of servicemen in the war against Ukraine, recently demonstrated more resolve, denying Moscow further military recruitment of its young people.

Amid this bubbling turmoil, analysts have started to discuss potential scenarios of Russia’s complete downfall. Dr. Janusz Bugajski, a fellow at the Jamestown Foundation, has urged American policymakers to prepare for the imminent collapse of the Russian Federation. “We are witnessing an ongoing revolution in global security for which Western policymakers are unprepared,” he says. Similarly, analysts at the European Parliament anticipate Russia’s fall.

There is also concern inside Russia about this potential scenario. An independent Levada Center poll indicated in December that 82 percent of Russians were highly concerned or somewhat concerned about the Ukraine war. Nearly 50 percent expected unrest in Russia in 2023.

Most scenarios presented by experts presume that Russia falls into totalitarianism, with Soviet-style ideological control over citizens and a hyper-centralized government that will inevitably be unable to make informed decisions.

If this occurs, Western leaders should, as General Odom wisely recommended, not make the mistake of treating Russia as a great power again. Instead, they should let the Soviet empire die once and for all.
We are Watching the Final Collapse of the Soviet E... (show quote)



If you really want to get a handle on the Russia/Ukraine situation, I suggest you review the following:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/war/germany-has-declared-war-on-russia/

https://behind-the-news.com/russia-putin-the-west-part-1-of-a-2-part-series%ef%bf%bc/

https://behind-the-news.com/russia-putin-the-west-part-2-of-a-2-part-series/

Reply
 
 
Jan 26, 2023 08:30:56   #
Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall
 


He doesn't...
Oddly enough...
He's usually rather open minded

Reply
Jan 26, 2023 08:58:35   #
ACP45 Loc: Rhode Island
 
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
He doesn't...
Oddly enough...
He's usually rather open minded


Yes, he usually is. Maybe, just maybe, he will take a read.

Reply
Jan 26, 2023 09:12:44   #
Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall
 
ACP45 wrote:
Yes, he usually is. Maybe, just maybe, he will take a read.


To be fair, it took a pretty big push to get me to change my mind concerning Assange..

Reply
Jan 26, 2023 11:36:37   #
dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA
 
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
Opponent...
Not enemy...
But yes, I agree with this statement...
Although, there are called number of ME nations that are more likely to attack if they had the capability...


As long as Biden is President, China is a real threat, as well as others.

Reply
Page 1 of 4 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2023 IDF International Technologies, Inc.