According to internal assessments within the UK government, the UK should prepare for the scenario of an unexpected collapse of the Russian Federation so that such events do not take London by surprise.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
FWIW if you want examples of leadership changes during a war, how about Neville Chamberlain?
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.
Or the two revolutions in Russia itself in 1917?
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.
that Putin will be simply “encouraged” behind the scenes to retire rather than run again
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.
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.