|
Dwesa posted:He is 63 and full of botox to make him appear younger, I guess we will see what happens soon.
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 20:01 |
|
|
Deteriorata posted:It's specifically labeled "economy" so I don't think criticizing it for not properly representing Russian geopolitical power is proper. Lumping is in as "1940s" is in bad taste, though, given what was going on in the first half of the decade.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:It's specifically labeled "economy" so I don't think criticizing it for not properly representing Russian geopolitical power is proper. The stand the bear is balancing on its label "economy" but how did the Soviet Union "topple over" during the 1940s though? You could easily say the economy was poo poo because half of it was destroyed by Nazis but the Soviets expanded their power immensely during that period. I know the point is hoping the Russians will collapse but it doesn't make any sense beyond the fact the Soviet Union fell apart. OddObserver posted:Lumping is in as "1940s" is in bad taste, though, given what was going on in the first half of the decade. Summing up the death of 10+ million people as an "economic collapse" seems nutty as well. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 17:22 on Aug 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
Isn't Kadyrov seen as the most likely successor, if only because he has the highest likelihood of being the last man standing once the bodies stop dropping? Also, if anyone's got some solid, well-documented rebuttals to the legitimacy of Stephen Cohen as a Russia commentator, I could use some to enlighten someone. Just from observing the conflict in Ukraine over the last few years, he appears to be regularly trotted out on RT and other Russian state media whenever they need a credentialed Westerner to decry the "coup" in Ukraine and apologize for poor, plucky little Russia's self-defensive belligerence in the face of a NATO expanded to its borders (boy, why oh why do those silly Baltic states feel the need for NATO protection??)
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
Watching Kadyrov trying to run the entirety of Russia would be the greatest sitcom ever if it wasn't real life.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:Isn't Kadyrov seen as the most likely successor, if only because he has the highest likelihood of being the last man standing once the bodies stop dropping? There's no way in the world the Moscow elite would hand over the presidency to a Muslim from Chechnya. He's too useful to them where he is to give that up anyway, though he'd make a solid ally for anybody who did want to be president. Ethnic background and religion aside, there's also no way in the world they'd risk a new Stalin. Putin's an authoritarian, but he plays by a set of rules they understand. Kadyrov doesn't at all. Dr Kool-AIDS fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Aug 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:Isn't Kadyrov seen as the most likely successor, if only because he has the highest likelihood of being the last man standing once the bodies stop dropping? Cugel the Clever posted:Also, if anyone's got some solid, well-documented rebuttals to the legitimacy of Stephen Cohen as a Russia commentator, I could use some to enlighten someone. Just from observing the conflict in Ukraine over the last few years, he appears to be regularly trotted out on RT and other Russian state media whenever they need a credentialed Westerner to decry the "coup" in Ukraine and apologize for poor, plucky little Russia's self-defensive belligerence in the face of a NATO expanded to its borders (boy, why oh why do those silly Baltic states feel the need for NATO protection??) cinci zoo sniper fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Aug 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
Emanuel Collective posted:The only real hardline group in Russia is Zhirinovsky's faction, which exists for two reasons: 1) to give Russia someone so extreme that it makes Putin look reasonable, and 2) to give Russia someone so far-right that it can gauge public opinion to see, for example, if Russians would be down with invading Ukraine
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
Dwesa posted:Zhirinovsky is a clown. I meant someone like Aleksandr Dugin.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
Zhirinovsky is the court Jester in the Kremlin. As others have said he plays the role of the idiot to make Putin look good, while also flying kites, that if they catch enough wind can be quietly passed over to United Russia. Medvedev is a quiet nobody who has no network of his own and no sector backing him. This is why he was given the reins briefly as he could be relied upon to take orders and not rock the boat. With Putin gone then so is he probably. However do keep in mind that Putin got the first go to begin with because Oligarch backers thought they could control him, so maybe they'd try the same again with Medvedev. Kadyrov is the mountain ork who is paid off and kept comfortable because he keeps the Caucasus locked down. There is absolutely zero chance of Chechen making it to the Kremlin. As to alternative leaders, there are none because United Russia/The State has done it's best to co-opt (Zhirinovsky) and/or destroy (insert list of murdered journalists here) any challengers to their power, large or small.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
Zhirinovsky as a joke has lost quite a bit of its humor now that Trump is a thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Zhirinovsky as a joke has lost quite a bit of its humor now that Trump is a thing. The difference is that Russia has a "managed democracy" and if Zhirinovsky tries to go all out, some "Kompromat" will be released or another "Crazy Chechen" will kill him just like Nemtsov. Xerxes17 fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Aug 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:Kadyrov is the mountain ork who is paid off and kept comfortable because he keeps the Caucasus locked down. There is absolutely zero chance of Chechen making it to the Kremlin. I don't necessarily disagree, just trying to flesh things out. kalstrams posted:Kadyrov is Putin's pocket warlord otherwise treated as "muslim savage from the mountains", he's got a one way ticket reserved for him the moment Putin's out, should he refuse the highest bidder. He has his own political leverage due to brutal reinforcement of stability in Chechnya, but I'm ready to bet anything and everything that greater Russia will throw Chechnya under the bus, if need be.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:
So this won't really answer your question re:Cohen, but as a leftist Ukrainian-American (and thus extra-annoyed at the drivel he produces) , this bit of commentary I stumbled on on Twitter on certain left-wingers and Syria strikes very familiar cords: 
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:Having just dismissed the other principal alternatives, what exactly impedes him from leveraging his substantial power base (in terms of both paramilitaries and state security connections) to take what he wants? Who is the person the oligarchs/bureaucrats coalesce behind that would be able to rally a sufficient response to Kadyrov's play? Because the people who are his connections in the security apparatus would have their own (ethnically Russian) lads who'd they'd rather back. I'd also wager that United Russia wouldn't want to lose the support of the ultra nationalists that they've absorbed/co-opted by putting a Caucasian forward as their candidate. Edit: Sorry forgot to answer the 2nd half. Who would the oligarchs/bureaucrats rally behind? No idea as Putin doesn't allow for any proteges because if there are none, then they can't get any ideas. But do remember that Putin before the 2000 election basically didn't exist. If need be they can manufacture a new candidate in a similar fashion with propaganda. Hell this time it would probably be even easier. Xerxes17 fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Aug 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
Any potential scenario where Putin dies/retires/is ousted in the next few years would likely involve someone within the current power structure taking over. Igor Sechin or Sergei Shoigu are two names floated often, and they both control sizeable military/paramilitary forces, whether directly or indirectly. Of course, people said the same thing about Ivanov until last Friday, too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Dwesa posted:What do you mean? Then softer version of NK. Or maybe I should've said Eastern Bloc II or Nazi Germany II. Barbed wires and patrols at borders. Propaganda, jamming of foreign media and persecution of dissidents. All that stuff, it has been done before, it can be done again. China already employs firewalls for the internet connection for example, so that can be done. Nazi Germany held together for less than 13 years, and never was all that big in direct control even at the height of its conquests, which only lasted a very short time within there. The Eastern Bloc was held together by the economic and military might of a superpower, and it fell apart as soon as that power started to break up. Russia is an unmanageable large country to do all of that sort of stuff when their economy remains in the shitter. That's why "North Korea Lite" can't really happen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
Russia will remain coherent as long as the Muscovite center prevents the other regions from developing parallel institutions capable of taking over. The Nazis as well as the Soviets lost control over their periphery more or less because they allowed local elites to operate with some autonomy. Putin seems to realize that, and work to limit federal powers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:Having just dismissed the other principal alternatives, what exactly impedes him from leveraging his substantial power base (in terms of both paramilitaries and state security connections) to take what he wants? Who is the person the oligarchs/bureaucrats coalesce behind that would be able to rally a sufficient response to Kadyrov's play? Edit: Optimus Prime Rib posted:Any potential scenario where Putin dies/retires/is ousted in the next few years would likely involve someone within the current power structure taking over. Igor Sechin or Sergei Shoigu are two names floated often, and they both control sizeable military/paramilitary forces, whether directly or indirectly. Of course, people said the same thing about Ivanov until last Friday, too. cinci zoo sniper fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Aug 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Rukeli posted:One day Strelkov will run for elections and then we're all hosed.  if you think Strelkov will come to power through democratic elections. That's a guy who will become some sort of "emergency manager" after a coup or something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
Lavrov seems like a capable guy, providing he's not too old by the time Putin leaves for whatever reason.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
I spent tonight binging on Wikipedia articles to do with Russian politics. Wiki is poo poo I know, but I have honestly poor general knowledge in this area and wanted to get the gist of things. The gist is: completely fukt. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
Yes, it's unlike anything West of Russia. Well, maybe like in some of the developing countries in Africa or South America.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Isg5hMdbva4
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
man Estonia is real into adding music to bureaucracy http://heli.er.ee/helid/2586461.mp3
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 07:41
|
|
|
slavatuvs posted:man Estonia is real into adding music to bureaucracy Wow, I now wish to simply sit in an airport in Estonia and wait for a flight for 24 hours just so I would be able to listen to this song. I wish they had all of the interactions like that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 08:40
|
|
|
kalstrams posted:Yes, it's unlike anything West of Russia. Well, maybe like in some of the developing countries in Africa or South America. Little bloody wonder there is such a market for English lessons here. I feel terrible for the Russian people 
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 13:11
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:I spent tonight binging on Wikipedia articles to do with Russian politics. Wiki is poo poo I know, but I have honestly poor general knowledge in this area and wanted to get the gist of things. And of course, as fate would have it, it is kind of by far the single most powerful country in Europe and is from time to time very fond of "exporting" its magic to other countries.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 13:29
|
|
|
Fabulous Knight posted:And of course, as fate would have it, it is kind of by far the single most powerful country in Europe and is from time to time very fond of "exporting" its magic to other countries. Huh?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 15:51
|
|
|
The three remaining working MiGs aren't exactly threatening to any developed western european country I'd think, and france/britain have their own nuclear deterrents too so yeah. I think that's a bit of a stretch. If they were the single most powerful country in europe by far, they'd just walk into ukraine and take it, sanctions be damned.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
Russian military is enough to kick all NATO countries in EE combined. I'd rate their chances pretty high even with Germany included. Please remember they are pretty battle hardened and have a big personnel reserve for protracted engagement.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
I do think it's safe to say Russia has the strongest military of any European country, but it isn't inevitable that it should remain that way, and scaring Western Europe is a really good way to upset that balance. Russia has by far the largest population, which is more than double any country's but Germany (or Turkey if you count them), but it's a poor country which could be easily outspent if anyone cared enough to do so. The US is still the single most powerful country in the world by far too, and wouldn't be happy to see the demise of Ukraine, though it would still be crazy for the US to actually go to war over it. More importantly, having the strongest military doesn't mean you're really capable of taking and holding territory anymore in the way that it used to, and economies are more vulnerable to sanctions. If the Russian people fully supported it, Russia could probably digest Ukraine, but the cost and consequences would be staggering.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
And where are you getting this information from...? I mean, yeah, Russia has a large army, but just the logistics of deploying it further west would be a total nightmare, not to mention the accounts of just how advanced their tech is vary wildly. I've even read (Western) claims that loving Poland would be able to stop a Russian advance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
alex314 posted:Russian military is enough to kick all NATO countries in EE combined. I'd rate their chances pretty high even with Germany included. Please remember they are pretty battle hardened and have a big personnel reserve for protracted engagement. Russia's military isn't anywhere near "battle hardened" enough to make the term somehow more than utterly meaningless in the face of protracted engagement on a wide front against multiple nations that would receive without question support from the US in such a scenario. Like what does "battle hardened" even mean here? Just because they've managed to bumblefuck around in eastern Ukraine, take Crimea away from a country that was in no way capable of keeping it or even contesting it, or embarrass themselves in Chechnya twice over the course of two decades and change, means precisely gently caress all for actual military capability.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
alex314 posted:Russian military is enough to kick all NATO countries in EE combined. I'd rate their chances pretty high even with Germany included. Please remember they are pretty battle hardened and have a big personnel reserve for protracted engagement. Unless Russia is willing to commit to a full World War-like war, their personnel reserves don't mean much. The conflicts they've been involved with in the recent past have been counterinsurgencies and quick smash and grabs on their neighbors, not drawn out wars with casualties in the millions. Any kind of hypothetical war with NATO nations would either need to be repeats of Georgia or Ukraine where they grab a small strategic regions using a small number of soldiers, or a giant unpredictable WWIII. As for battle hardening, even if that meant anything, by that standard they're about as battle hardened as the Polish army is from Iraq.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
I absolutely love when my troops have PTSD. That's what battle hardened means these days right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
fivegears4reverse posted:Russia's military isn't anywhere near "battle hardened" enough to make the term somehow more than utterly meaningless in the face of protracted engagement on a wide front against multiple nations that would receive without question support from the US in such a scenario. I would claim that "battle hardened" means "well-disciplined". Which, of course, looking at how often a bunch of Russian conscripts have blown OPSEC to the point that we can track a single BUK missile launcher from Russia, across the Ukrainian border and back again, they aren't even capable of even that simple principle.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
It's also very possible that any kind of extended war would be a terrible strain on the Russian economy. Pretending that they're not covertly invading Ukraine is one thing, but outright steaming across the border to capture Poland and restart the Warsaw Pact would bring out a level of resistance from NATO that they just couldn't handle.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:It's also very possible that any kind of extended war would be a terrible strain on the Russian economy. Pretending that they're not covertly invading Ukraine is one thing, but outright steaming across the border to capture Poland and restart the Warsaw Pact would bring out a level of resistance from NATO that they just couldn't handle. That might even cause Europe to stop buying Russian oil and gas!
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 20:01 |
|
|
What ever happened to no clancy chat?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:44
|
|