It’s time for the West to prepare for the growing possibility of Russian defeat in Ukraine, says Daniel Hannan – and for the violently chaotic unravelling of the federal Russian state that could follow.
It might not happen. Perhaps Ukraine’s counter-offensive will fail, or the conflict will end in stalemate. But if Ukrainian troops can break through, reach the Azov Sea and cut Russia’s land corridor to Crimea, the “large Russian garrison there would be kettled, and Ukraine would, to all intents and purposes, have won the war”. Putin and his associates would be finished, and the consequences could be messy. The West must be ready – and, crucially, it should not attempt to stand in the way of Russia’s disintegration.
In 1917, Russian morale at the front collapsed suddenly, and for a time the Russian Empire fragmented into “a series of squabbling successor states”. If something similar happens today, there’s no reason to assume that Russia’s various military units – state, private and territorial m*****as – would all recognise the same command. Nor that all the republics would recognise Vladimir Putin’s successor as “tsar”.
In such a situation, attempts by the West to shore up the status quo would be folly. Already, there are independence movements in Buryatia, Sakha, Dagestan, Chechnya, Kamchatka Krai, Komi, Novosibirsk, Archangel, and Tatarstan. Across the Russian Federation, local elites are “preparing for a clean excision, a chance to join the comity of nations as (in many cases) resource-rich republics”.
The West doesn’t have the power to forestall these secessionist movements. “All we can do is determine whether they start out as our friends” – and work out what we want as the price of recognising new states, from democratisation to denuclearisation.
What of the rump Russian state? It would “need to rethink its identity, rather as Austria and West Germany did after 1945” – a good thing for both Russia and the world. Russia’s great problem is that its national identity is so intimately bound up with expansionism and empire. The reality of defeat and partition might force a smaller Russian successor state, “freed from its imperial burdens”, to think differently. It could learn to define itself not as the successor to Ivan the Terrible and Stalin, but as a modern, democratising, state – rather as Turkey did when it shed the Ottoman Empire. Russia’s dissolution would be “much more of an opportunity than a danger” and “we should not stand in the way” of it happening.
Kevyn wrote:
It’s time for the West to prepare for the growing possibility of Russian defeat in Ukraine, says Daniel Hannan – and for the violently chaotic unravelling of the federal Russian state that could follow.
It might not happen. Perhaps Ukraine’s counter-offensive will fail, or the conflict will end in stalemate. But if Ukrainian troops can break through, reach the Azov Sea and cut Russia’s land corridor to Crimea, the “large Russian garrison there would be kettled, and Ukraine would, to all intents and purposes, have won the war”. Putin and his associates would be finished, and the consequences could be messy. The West must be ready – and, crucially, it should not attempt to stand in the way of Russia’s disintegration.
In 1917, Russian morale at the front collapsed suddenly, and for a time the Russian Empire fragmented into “a series of squabbling successor states”. If something similar happens today, there’s no reason to assume that Russia’s various military units – state, private and territorial m*****as – would all recognise the same command. Nor that all the republics would recognise Vladimir Putin’s successor as “tsar”.
In such a situation, attempts by the West to shore up the status quo would be folly. Already, there are independence movements in Buryatia, Sakha, Dagestan, Chechnya, Kamchatka Krai, Komi, Novosibirsk, Archangel, and Tatarstan. Across the Russian Federation, local elites are “preparing for a clean excision, a chance to join the comity of nations as (in many cases) resource-rich republics”.
The West doesn’t have the power to forestall these secessionist movements. “All we can do is determine whether they start out as our friends” – and work out what we want as the price of recognising new states, from democratisation to denuclearisation.
What of the rump Russian state? It would “need to rethink its identity, rather as Austria and West Germany did after 1945” – a good thing for both Russia and the world. Russia’s great problem is that its national identity is so intimately bound up with expansionism and empire. The reality of defeat and partition might force a smaller Russian successor state, “freed from its imperial burdens”, to think differently. It could learn to define itself not as the successor to Ivan the Terrible and Stalin, but as a modern, democratising, state – rather as Turkey did when it shed the Ottoman Empire. Russia’s dissolution would be “much more of an opportunity than a danger” and “we should not stand in the way” of it happening.
It’s time for the West to prepare for the growing ... (
show quote)
Where did you copy and paste this nonsense from? Ukrainian propaganda site?
Kevyn wrote:
It’s time for the West to prepare for the growing possibility of Russian defeat in Ukraine, says Daniel Hannan – and for the violently chaotic unravelling of the federal Russian state that could follow.
It might not happen. Perhaps Ukraine’s counter-offensive will fail, or the conflict will end in stalemate. But if Ukrainian troops can break through, reach the Azov Sea and cut Russia’s land corridor to Crimea, the “large Russian garrison there would be kettled, and Ukraine would, to all intents and purposes, have won the war”. Putin and his associates would be finished, and the consequences could be messy. The West must be ready – and, crucially, it should not attempt to stand in the way of Russia’s disintegration.
In 1917, Russian morale at the front collapsed suddenly, and for a time the Russian Empire fragmented into “a series of squabbling successor states”. If something similar happens today, there’s no reason to assume that Russia’s various military units – state, private and territorial m*****as – would all recognise the same command. Nor that all the republics would recognise Vladimir Putin’s successor as “tsar”.
In such a situation, attempts by the West to shore up the status quo would be folly. Already, there are independence movements in Buryatia, Sakha, Dagestan, Chechnya, Kamchatka Krai, Komi, Novosibirsk, Archangel, and Tatarstan. Across the Russian Federation, local elites are “preparing for a clean excision, a chance to join the comity of nations as (in many cases) resource-rich republics”.
The West doesn’t have the power to forestall these secessionist movements. “All we can do is determine whether they start out as our friends” – and work out what we want as the price of recognising new states, from democratisation to denuclearisation.
What of the rump Russian state? It would “need to rethink its identity, rather as Austria and West Germany did after 1945” – a good thing for both Russia and the world. Russia’s great problem is that its national identity is so intimately bound up with expansionism and empire. The reality of defeat and partition might force a smaller Russian successor state, “freed from its imperial burdens”, to think differently. It could learn to define itself not as the successor to Ivan the Terrible and Stalin, but as a modern, democratising, state – rather as Turkey did when it shed the Ottoman Empire. Russia’s dissolution would be “much more of an opportunity than a danger” and “we should not stand in the way” of it happening.
It’s time for the West to prepare for the growing ... (
show quote)
Yeah, we're sending so much money to Ukraine, by now they should have been able to bribe Russia to leave!
JFlorio wrote:
Where did you copy and paste this nonsense from? Ukrainian propaganda site?
It is an editorial published by Money Week taken from Conservative Home.
Kevyn wrote:
It’s time for the West to prepare for the growing possibility of Russian defeat in Ukraine, says Daniel Hannan – and for the violently chaotic unravelling of the federal Russian state that could follow.
It might not happen. Perhaps Ukraine’s counter-offensive will fail, or the conflict will end in stalemate. But if Ukrainian troops can break through, reach the Azov Sea and cut Russia’s land corridor to Crimea, the “large Russian garrison there would be kettled, and Ukraine would, to all intents and purposes, have won the war”. Putin and his associates would be finished, and the consequences could be messy. The West must be ready – and, crucially, it should not attempt to stand in the way of Russia’s disintegration.
In 1917, Russian morale at the front collapsed suddenly, and for a time the Russian Empire fragmented into “a series of squabbling successor states”. If something similar happens today, there’s no reason to assume that Russia’s various military units – state, private and territorial m*****as – would all recognise the same command. Nor that all the republics would recognise Vladimir Putin’s successor as “tsar”.
In such a situation, attempts by the West to shore up the status quo would be folly. Already, there are independence movements in Buryatia, Sakha, Dagestan, Chechnya, Kamchatka Krai, Komi, Novosibirsk, Archangel, and Tatarstan. Across the Russian Federation, local elites are “preparing for a clean excision, a chance to join the comity of nations as (in many cases) resource-rich republics”.
The West doesn’t have the power to forestall these secessionist movements. “All we can do is determine whether they start out as our friends” – and work out what we want as the price of recognising new states, from democratisation to denuclearisation.
What of the rump Russian state? It would “need to rethink its identity, rather as Austria and West Germany did after 1945” – a good thing for both Russia and the world. Russia’s great problem is that its national identity is so intimately bound up with expansionism and empire. The reality of defeat and partition might force a smaller Russian successor state, “freed from its imperial burdens”, to think differently. It could learn to define itself not as the successor to Ivan the Terrible and Stalin, but as a modern, democratising, state – rather as Turkey did when it shed the Ottoman Empire. Russia’s dissolution would be “much more of an opportunity than a danger” and “we should not stand in the way” of it happening.
It’s time for the West to prepare for the growing ... (
show quote)
***How should we prepare for the collapse of Russia?
>>>Russia is winning. I'm more worried about whether we prepare for the collapse of America under the democrats.
Troll Alert
Kevyn wrote:
It’s time for the West to prepare for the growing possibility of Russian defeat in Ukraine, says Daniel Hannan – and for the violently chaotic unravelling of the federal Russian state that could follow.
It might not happen. Perhaps Ukraine’s counter-offensive will fail, or the conflict will end in stalemate. But if Ukrainian troops can break through, reach the Azov Sea and cut Russia’s land corridor to Crimea, the “large Russian garrison there would be kettled, and Ukraine would, to all intents and purposes, have won the war”. Putin and his associates would be finished, and the consequences could be messy. The West must be ready – and, crucially, it should not attempt to stand in the way of Russia’s disintegration.
In 1917, Russian morale at the front collapsed suddenly, and for a time the Russian Empire fragmented into “a series of squabbling successor states”. If something similar happens today, there’s no reason to assume that Russia’s various military units – state, private and territorial m*****as – would all recognise the same command. Nor that all the republics would recognise Vladimir Putin’s successor as “tsar”.
In such a situation, attempts by the West to shore up the status quo would be folly. Already, there are independence movements in Buryatia, Sakha, Dagestan, Chechnya, Kamchatka Krai, Komi, Novosibirsk, Archangel, and Tatarstan. Across the Russian Federation, local elites are “preparing for a clean excision, a chance to join the comity of nations as (in many cases) resource-rich republics”.
The West doesn’t have the power to forestall these secessionist movements. “All we can do is determine whether they start out as our friends” – and work out what we want as the price of recognising new states, from democratisation to denuclearisation.
What of the rump Russian state? It would “need to rethink its identity, rather as Austria and West Germany did after 1945” – a good thing for both Russia and the world. Russia’s great problem is that its national identity is so intimately bound up with expansionism and empire. The reality of defeat and partition might force a smaller Russian successor state, “freed from its imperial burdens”, to think differently. It could learn to define itself not as the successor to Ivan the Terrible and Stalin, but as a modern, democratising, state – rather as Turkey did when it shed the Ottoman Empire. Russia’s dissolution would be “much more of an opportunity than a danger” and “we should not stand in the way” of it happening.
It’s time for the West to prepare for the growing ... (
show quote)
Where did you plagiarize this from?
Rose42 wrote:
Where did you plagiarize this from?
I didn’t plagiarize anything, the man who wrote it is mentioned in the first paragraph.
Kevyn wrote:
It is an editorial published by Money Week taken from Conservative Home.
It is the opinion of an i***t that is based on wishes and rainbows. The Ukraine will lose this war. There is NO path to a Ukrainian victory without direct intervention from the west. Anyone who says differently is either delusional or just plain stupid.
The Ukraine has already lost over 400,000 men
Kevyn wrote:
It’s time for the West to prepare for the growing possibility of Russian defeat in Ukraine, says Daniel Hannan – and for the violently chaotic unravelling of the federal Russian state that could follow.
It might not happen. Perhaps Ukraine’s counter-offensive will fail, or the conflict will end in stalemate. But if Ukrainian troops can break through, reach the Azov Sea and cut Russia’s land corridor to Crimea, the “large Russian garrison there would be kettled, and Ukraine would, to all intents and purposes, have won the war”. Putin and his associates would be finished, and the consequences could be messy. The West must be ready – and, crucially, it should not attempt to stand in the way of Russia’s disintegration.
In 1917, Russian morale at the front collapsed suddenly, and for a time the Russian Empire fragmented into “a series of squabbling successor states”. If something similar happens today, there’s no reason to assume that Russia’s various military units – state, private and territorial m*****as – would all recognise the same command. Nor that all the republics would recognise Vladimir Putin’s successor as “tsar”.
In such a situation, attempts by the West to shore up the status quo would be folly. Already, there are independence movements in Buryatia, Sakha, Dagestan, Chechnya, Kamchatka Krai, Komi, Novosibirsk, Archangel, and Tatarstan. Across the Russian Federation, local elites are “preparing for a clean excision, a chance to join the comity of nations as (in many cases) resource-rich republics”.
The West doesn’t have the power to forestall these secessionist movements. “All we can do is determine whether they start out as our friends” – and work out what we want as the price of recognising new states, from democratisation to denuclearisation.
What of the rump Russian state? It would “need to rethink its identity, rather as Austria and West Germany did after 1945” – a good thing for both Russia and the world. Russia’s great problem is that its national identity is so intimately bound up with expansionism and empire. The reality of defeat and partition might force a smaller Russian successor state, “freed from its imperial burdens”, to think differently. It could learn to define itself not as the successor to Ivan the Terrible and Stalin, but as a modern, democratising, state – rather as Turkey did when it shed the Ottoman Empire. Russia’s dissolution would be “much more of an opportunity than a danger” and “we should not stand in the way” of it happening.
It’s time for the West to prepare for the growing ... (
show quote)
Yes I hear the Ukrainian offensive is almost in Moscow
Kevyn wrote:
It’s time for the West to prepare for the growing possibility of Russian defeat in Ukraine, says Daniel Hannan – and for the violently chaotic unravelling of the federal Russian state that could follow.
It might not happen. Perhaps Ukraine’s counter-offensive will fail, or the conflict will end in stalemate. But if Ukrainian troops can break through, reach the Azov Sea and cut Russia’s land corridor to Crimea, the “large Russian garrison there would be kettled, and Ukraine would, to all intents and purposes, have won the war”. Putin and his associates would be finished, and the consequences could be messy. The West must be ready – and, crucially, it should not attempt to stand in the way of Russia’s disintegration.
In 1917, Russian morale at the front collapsed suddenly, and for a time the Russian Empire fragmented into “a series of squabbling successor states”. If something similar happens today, there’s no reason to assume that Russia’s various military units – state, private and territorial m*****as – would all recognise the same command. Nor that all the republics would recognise Vladimir Putin’s successor as “tsar”.
In such a situation, attempts by the West to shore up the status quo would be folly. Already, there are independence movements in Buryatia, Sakha, Dagestan, Chechnya, Kamchatka Krai, Komi, Novosibirsk, Archangel, and Tatarstan. Across the Russian Federation, local elites are “preparing for a clean excision, a chance to join the comity of nations as (in many cases) resource-rich republics”.
The West doesn’t have the power to forestall these secessionist movements. “All we can do is determine whether they start out as our friends” – and work out what we want as the price of recognising new states, from democratisation to denuclearisation.
What of the rump Russian state? It would “need to rethink its identity, rather as Austria and West Germany did after 1945” – a good thing for both Russia and the world. Russia’s great problem is that its national identity is so intimately bound up with expansionism and empire. The reality of defeat and partition might force a smaller Russian successor state, “freed from its imperial burdens”, to think differently. It could learn to define itself not as the successor to Ivan the Terrible and Stalin, but as a modern, democratising, state – rather as Turkey did when it shed the Ottoman Empire. Russia’s dissolution would be “much more of an opportunity than a danger” and “we should not stand in the way” of it happening.
It’s time for the West to prepare for the growing ... (
show quote)
Like we are standing in the way of the Donbas Independence? And standing in the way of peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine?
As for Russian defeat. There is a possibility that the Russian troops in Ukraine might find it difficult to retreat without sustaining massive causalities. Getting back home will be tough without total victory.
Kevyn wrote:
I didn’t plagiarize anything, the man who wrote it is mentioned in the first paragraph.
You did plagiarize because you didn’t include the source.
Ne kinda nice to audit all this money we're borrowing and see where it's going.
Looks like Jew boy Kelensky has fired a bunch of the military leaders.
Caught stealing, I guess.
Kevyn wrote:
It’s time for the West to prepare for the growing possibility of Russian defeat in Ukraine, says Daniel Hannan – and for the violently chaotic unravelling of the federal Russian state that could follow.
It might not happen. Perhaps Ukraine’s counter-offensive will fail, or the conflict will end in stalemate. But if Ukrainian troops can break through, reach the Azov Sea and cut Russia’s land corridor to Crimea, the “large Russian garrison there would be kettled, and Ukraine would, to all intents and purposes, have won the war”. Putin and his associates would be finished, and the consequences could be messy. The West must be ready – and, crucially, it should not attempt to stand in the way of Russia’s disintegration.
In 1917, Russian morale at the front collapsed suddenly, and for a time the Russian Empire fragmented into “a series of squabbling successor states”. If something similar happens today, there’s no reason to assume that Russia’s various military units – state, private and territorial m*****as – would all recognise the same command. Nor that all the republics would recognise Vladimir Putin’s successor as “tsar”.
In such a situation, attempts by the West to shore up the status quo would be folly. Already, there are independence movements in Buryatia, Sakha, Dagestan, Chechnya, Kamchatka Krai, Komi, Novosibirsk, Archangel, and Tatarstan. Across the Russian Federation, local elites are “preparing for a clean excision, a chance to join the comity of nations as (in many cases) resource-rich republics”.
The West doesn’t have the power to forestall these secessionist movements. “All we can do is determine whether they start out as our friends” – and work out what we want as the price of recognising new states, from democratisation to denuclearisation.
What of the rump Russian state? It would “need to rethink its identity, rather as Austria and West Germany did after 1945” – a good thing for both Russia and the world. Russia’s great problem is that its national identity is so intimately bound up with expansionism and empire. The reality of defeat and partition might force a smaller Russian successor state, “freed from its imperial burdens”, to think differently. It could learn to define itself not as the successor to Ivan the Terrible and Stalin, but as a modern, democratising, state – rather as Turkey did when it shed the Ottoman Empire. Russia’s dissolution would be “much more of an opportunity than a danger” and “we should not stand in the way” of it happening.
It’s time for the West to prepare for the growing ... (
show quote)
What a load of crap! 400 obits a day for Ukrainian people! They have lost
Wonttakeitanymore wrote:
What a load of crap! 400 obits a day for Ukrainian people! They have lost
Our money is being laundered thru Zelenskyy and Brandon wake up zombie
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
