Is this how Russia ends?(the.ink)
the.ink
Is this how Russia ends?
https://the.ink/p/is-this-how-russia-ends
94 comments
There is a better chance of Texas seceding than Russia breaking up. And realistically neither are going to happen.
There's excellent reason to doubt that premise is correct:
Russia has a long history of losing and gaining territory. The last thing Russia has been is stable throughout its history, a break-up is far more likely than the opposite.
Realistically Russia has no future other than being splintered. Nothing can stop that future outcome, it's already being pulled at now. Adding salt into that wound, the world now knows how exceptionally weak and backwards Russia's primary point of power is: their military. The projection of (supposed) immense military power has been integral for many decades in holding big Russia together, through fear, intimidation, and so on. They've burned up enormous resources trying to force it to remain together over time; it has broken their people, it has broken their potential, it has impoverished the Russian people to an extreme. And today we know they don't even have a potent military to show for it. And now the Russian people are being confronted with the consequences, the cost, of trying to force big Russia to remain together (the Russian people had been temporarily sheltered from paying that price for much of the prior two decades, and those days are over).
Russia has to keep burning resources to force big Russia to hold together. That will increasingly come in the form of the Russian people watching their standard of living vaporize, on top of having lost essentially all human rights under Putin's two decade dictatorship. They will soon have nothing to lose, and they will react accordingly (although on a delay): prepare for revolution as an outcome.
Russia has a long history of losing and gaining territory. The last thing Russia has been is stable throughout its history, a break-up is far more likely than the opposite.
Realistically Russia has no future other than being splintered. Nothing can stop that future outcome, it's already being pulled at now. Adding salt into that wound, the world now knows how exceptionally weak and backwards Russia's primary point of power is: their military. The projection of (supposed) immense military power has been integral for many decades in holding big Russia together, through fear, intimidation, and so on. They've burned up enormous resources trying to force it to remain together over time; it has broken their people, it has broken their potential, it has impoverished the Russian people to an extreme. And today we know they don't even have a potent military to show for it. And now the Russian people are being confronted with the consequences, the cost, of trying to force big Russia to remain together (the Russian people had been temporarily sheltered from paying that price for much of the prior two decades, and those days are over).
Russia has to keep burning resources to force big Russia to hold together. That will increasingly come in the form of the Russian people watching their standard of living vaporize, on top of having lost essentially all human rights under Putin's two decade dictatorship. They will soon have nothing to lose, and they will react accordingly (although on a delay): prepare for revolution as an outcome.
I don't see all that many Russia regions trying to split up now.
And to add, there will be no revolution in Russia for years. Revolutions happen only after police, secret service and other similar forces were weak enough for long enough. Russian ones are strong currently. There is no organized opposition to speak of, so even if they became weak overnight, it would still took years till the discontent organizes itself enough to make revolution.
And to add, there will be no revolution in Russia for years. Revolutions happen only after police, secret service and other similar forces were weak enough for long enough. Russian ones are strong currently. There is no organized opposition to speak of, so even if they became weak overnight, it would still took years till the discontent organizes itself enough to make revolution.
Everything is the way it is, until it isn't anymore.
Ok, but revolutions really don't come out of nowhere. It just ... takes knowledge and skills and many people cooperating to produce one. I think the way they are taught through movies and schools makes us naive in a way. We imagine them just spring out of suffering or knowledge of "it is unfair".
1.) But oppressive regimes are proactively squelching them. Long before they can happen and they err on the side of imprisoning/killing/destroying lives of too many people rather then too little.
2.) It takes tons of work to make people react and make them react at the same time. The culture must be ready for it. People must trust someone and must believe there is success ready. The organizers must be ready to take power.
That is reason why politicians, military leaders, intellectuals etc were targetted soon/first (by Stalin by Hitler whatever). Once those with experience of leading are done, others don't know how to do it even when they want to.
1.) But oppressive regimes are proactively squelching them. Long before they can happen and they err on the side of imprisoning/killing/destroying lives of too many people rather then too little.
2.) It takes tons of work to make people react and make them react at the same time. The culture must be ready for it. People must trust someone and must believe there is success ready. The organizers must be ready to take power.
That is reason why politicians, military leaders, intellectuals etc were targetted soon/first (by Stalin by Hitler whatever). Once those with experience of leading are done, others don't know how to do it even when they want to.
> I don't see all that many Russia regions trying to split up now.
There is Chechenia (I know that it is small and there is Kadyrov at the moment but still). And there is 'Free Idel-Ural'.
There is Chechenia (I know that it is small and there is Kadyrov at the moment but still). And there is 'Free Idel-Ural'.
I’m trying to apply the conditions you’re requiring to historical examples and it’s not quite fitting. The American Revolution is one.
The comment you address separately discusses regional separatist movements (which he merely says aren't happening in Russia, without speculation in cause) and revolutions (which he projects won't happen, and suggests a reason). The American “Revolution”, despite the common name, was a regional separatist movement, not a revolution, and so the fact that it occurred without the conditions suggested to be necessary for a revolution doesn't provide counterevidence.
A regional separatist movement is to revolution as a special military operation is to war.
They're chewing through muscle now. The Russian people had already been suffering a decline in standard of living for much of the past decade. That was brutal enough. It's going to get drastically worse. They've lost all human rights, now they're going to lose the veneer of relative prosperity that they temporarily had (which led them to tolerate Putin a lot more than they otherwise would have).
I pointed out it would happen on a delay, because it'll take time to grind them down. The combination (deprived of all human rights and loss of perceived prosperity and forward progress) is explosive to a country as chaotic, unstable, as Russia.
The indications that Russia's fabric is being pulled at are numerous. The decade long decline in standard of living, which is now going to plunge. Protests that were going on prior to recent Ukraine war, as in the east. Their military being fake, an entirely corrupt fraud (the image of which is critical to holding big Russia together). Their leadership being wildly incompetent, including Putin. The image of Putin was as a competent autocrat; there were always indications that that wasn't the case (it's an exceptionally rare outcome to begin with), and now we know Putin is a standard issue incompetent autocrat. The big oil gains that Russia benefited from, due to Bush's wars and the dollar decline, papered over Putin's incompetence and gave him at least an extra runway of a decade to conceal all of that incompetence.
Russia's military being a fraud is a significant example of them being ripped apart because their system requires the constant burning of resources to prop it up, to hold it together. It requires the image of a very powerful, competent military to hold it all together. Holding big Russia together is extremely expensive and can't go on indefinitely, it inherently must collapse as the fuel runs out. It's always a question of at what stage of collapse they're in (and my opinion is they're going through muscle now, and will hit bone sooner than later). One of the sources of fuel is the Russian people, the system eats them (so to speak): big Russia chews up their standard of living, burns up their potential in the name of holding the whole together. The Russian people sacrifice their potential so big Russia can exist. Big Russia can't even maintain an effective, functional military: so yes, they're being ripped apart, it just wasn't so obvious because the projection of power derived from their military hid a lot of that visual.
I pointed out it would happen on a delay, because it'll take time to grind them down. The combination (deprived of all human rights and loss of perceived prosperity and forward progress) is explosive to a country as chaotic, unstable, as Russia.
The indications that Russia's fabric is being pulled at are numerous. The decade long decline in standard of living, which is now going to plunge. Protests that were going on prior to recent Ukraine war, as in the east. Their military being fake, an entirely corrupt fraud (the image of which is critical to holding big Russia together). Their leadership being wildly incompetent, including Putin. The image of Putin was as a competent autocrat; there were always indications that that wasn't the case (it's an exceptionally rare outcome to begin with), and now we know Putin is a standard issue incompetent autocrat. The big oil gains that Russia benefited from, due to Bush's wars and the dollar decline, papered over Putin's incompetence and gave him at least an extra runway of a decade to conceal all of that incompetence.
Russia's military being a fraud is a significant example of them being ripped apart because their system requires the constant burning of resources to prop it up, to hold it together. It requires the image of a very powerful, competent military to hold it all together. Holding big Russia together is extremely expensive and can't go on indefinitely, it inherently must collapse as the fuel runs out. It's always a question of at what stage of collapse they're in (and my opinion is they're going through muscle now, and will hit bone sooner than later). One of the sources of fuel is the Russian people, the system eats them (so to speak): big Russia chews up their standard of living, burns up their potential in the name of holding the whole together. The Russian people sacrifice their potential so big Russia can exist. Big Russia can't even maintain an effective, functional military: so yes, they're being ripped apart, it just wasn't so obvious because the projection of power derived from their military hid a lot of that visual.
> The Russian people had already been suffering a decline in standard of living for much of the past decade. That was brutal enough.
Russia has huge inequality and poverty already. And it was moving toward more authoritarian each year. And the drop last decade is still not as bad as the drop in living standards after 1990. And what that 1990 drop brought us is current situation. The place being poor on itself does not make revolution.
The other question is, revolution toward what and by whom? Revolution by group of oligarchs amount to mafia taking charge and more of the same. Revolution "by people" requires those people to already have some organized opposition groups working on background. It is not happening currently nor has potential to happen as of now. Russian society, seems to me, is characterized by apathy way more then by revolutionary thinking.
> It requires the image of a very powerful, competent military to hold it all together.
I don't think military is key here. It is internal secret service and cops. That is what keeps Russian government in power in Russia. Those are running strong. You can spin military loss to whatever you want to, as long as internal secret service and cops are powerful when suppressing opposite opinion groups.
The Russian military being internally mess is not exactly secret in Russia. There is a reason why those who can avoid military service.
Russia, just like any other country, can be poor, strongly authoritarian and still believe own myth of superiority.
Russia has huge inequality and poverty already. And it was moving toward more authoritarian each year. And the drop last decade is still not as bad as the drop in living standards after 1990. And what that 1990 drop brought us is current situation. The place being poor on itself does not make revolution.
The other question is, revolution toward what and by whom? Revolution by group of oligarchs amount to mafia taking charge and more of the same. Revolution "by people" requires those people to already have some organized opposition groups working on background. It is not happening currently nor has potential to happen as of now. Russian society, seems to me, is characterized by apathy way more then by revolutionary thinking.
> It requires the image of a very powerful, competent military to hold it all together.
I don't think military is key here. It is internal secret service and cops. That is what keeps Russian government in power in Russia. Those are running strong. You can spin military loss to whatever you want to, as long as internal secret service and cops are powerful when suppressing opposite opinion groups.
The Russian military being internally mess is not exactly secret in Russia. There is a reason why those who can avoid military service.
Russia, just like any other country, can be poor, strongly authoritarian and still believe own myth of superiority.
It sounds like a good idea but would this actually work? Russia itself while it pretends not to be is a very ethnically diverse region. The people living in certain sections of this area are very very different. Along with the fact that the population density varies from region to region how would with even give proper representation to those within the northern regions? Suggestions like this should be taken lightly as other nations have undergone similar "democratic" unifications such as ethopia and india which have lead to the further establishment of their systemic castes. In Ethopia we are starting to see the start of their civil war due to these underlying issues. While the current government claims it to be a regional conflict the underlying issues are much more severe.
In the pro-Western Russian circles, until recently, there was a notion of Great Neo-Russia. A supposed liberal democracy that would arise in the same borders, after putting everyone with blood on their hands on trial. It is now shattered to pieces by the tragedy of Ukrainian people. But there aren't any secession movements either (other than Chechnia, a can of worms of its own). We have no idea what awaits us, literally anything is possible.
Maybe…
Something to keep in mind is that land-locked countries experience slower economic growth and have lower GDPs than countries with access to ports. Russia is mostly restricted to their Black Sea ports but they still have something. Break Russia up and you’ll be condemning a lot of people to a lower standard of living long-term.
Something to keep in mind is that land-locked countries experience slower economic growth and have lower GDPs than countries with access to ports. Russia is mostly restricted to their Black Sea ports but they still have something. Break Russia up and you’ll be condemning a lot of people to a lower standard of living long-term.
> Break Russia up and you’ll be condemning a lot of people to a lower standard of living long-term.
That's of course not necessarily true.
You haven't factored in the retardation of economic outcome that the present union is causing because it can only exist through the extreme and persistent application of force (which is very substantially regressive for human development). The reason they keep getting authoritarians century after century is because Russia as it presently stands should not exist, they can only hold it together with force. That comprehensive application of force destroys liberty, creativity, free expression, economic growth, investment, and so on.
You can simultaneously have economic negatives from the lack of a port, in a landlocked Russia spin-off state scenario, and be better off being out from under the forever strangulating authoritarian umbrella of big Russia. That is to say, that's just how horrific and dampening of human potential it is to be under the boot of authoritarian Russia.
There's a good reason so many nations that were formerly dominated by Russia are now exceeding them in GDP per capita.
That's of course not necessarily true.
You haven't factored in the retardation of economic outcome that the present union is causing because it can only exist through the extreme and persistent application of force (which is very substantially regressive for human development). The reason they keep getting authoritarians century after century is because Russia as it presently stands should not exist, they can only hold it together with force. That comprehensive application of force destroys liberty, creativity, free expression, economic growth, investment, and so on.
You can simultaneously have economic negatives from the lack of a port, in a landlocked Russia spin-off state scenario, and be better off being out from under the forever strangulating authoritarian umbrella of big Russia. That is to say, that's just how horrific and dampening of human potential it is to be under the boot of authoritarian Russia.
There's a good reason so many nations that were formerly dominated by Russia are now exceeding them in GDP per capita.
There's a good reason so many nations that were formerly dominated by Russia are now exceeding them in GDP per capita.
“Isn’t ruled by Vladimir Putin” is highly predictive of GDP, but “has a warm-water port” is far more predictive.
Who is doing well? Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Georgia, Azerbaijan.
Who isn’t doing well? Kazakhstan, Kirghizistan, Tajikistan…
There are other variables. “Who has oil”, for example. But “who has unencumbered access to world trade through the sea” is the best.
“Isn’t ruled by Vladimir Putin” is highly predictive of GDP, but “has a warm-water port” is far more predictive.
Who is doing well? Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Georgia, Azerbaijan.
Who isn’t doing well? Kazakhstan, Kirghizistan, Tajikistan…
There are other variables. “Who has oil”, for example. But “who has unencumbered access to world trade through the sea” is the best.
It would be interesting to hear why you think Russia is an authoritarian state. Have you lived there? Have you studied it deeply? Do you have reliable sources to substantiate your claim? You certainly repeat what the western media says, but they are hardly an independent or unbiased source (speaking of authoritarian regimes). To me it looks like you may be making a lot of assumptions without having first hand experience or professional knowledge on the subject.
It's a preposterous notion to doubt that assertion (Russia is authoritarian). I have to believe that is a post by a Russian bot of some kind.
{edit:disambiguate}
It is because I'm Russian, and I can confirm that it's an authoritarian state.
how exactly are you confirming this? Please provide the benchmark.
I'm in complete agreement. Sorry if I was ambiguous.
Not always. Czech Republic has a higher GDP per person than Poland. Poland is much bigger and has sea access. Both countries had a similar starting point after USSR collapse.
Czeckia is in the EU customs union and therefore for the purposes of land-locked or not land-locked, Czeckia has ports at its disposal. In fact Czeckia can use Gdańsk without penalty.
The reason landlocked countries have lower GDP is that they have to negotiate trade agreements at a disadvantage with small numbers of neighbours rather than just shipping goods to the whole world over the seas.
The reason landlocked countries have lower GDP is that they have to negotiate trade agreements at a disadvantage with small numbers of neighbours rather than just shipping goods to the whole world over the seas.
Russia has the #4 longest coastline of any country with access to many seas.
"The coastline of Russia is shared with the Pacific Ocean to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the west, the Arctic Ocean to the north, and the Baltic Sea, Black Sea, Caspian Sea, and Sea of Azov to the southwest."
"The coastline of Russia is shared with the Pacific Ocean to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the west, the Arctic Ocean to the north, and the Baltic Sea, Black Sea, Caspian Sea, and Sea of Azov to the southwest."
Disclaimer, I'm an armchair international relations guy
Access to warm water ports has been a major driver in Russian foreign policy for centuries. Today they have access through Sevestapol and Novorossiysk on the Black Sea, and Mediterranean port access to Tartus in Syria. In the east the major port is Vladivostok which is kept open with ice breakers.
The security and economic consequences of lack of ports is a big problem. One of the major reasons they annexed Crimea was to guarantee access to the port without requiring a pro-Russian regime in Kyiv, but Sevestapol is now on the edge of a warzone with Ukrainian military just dozens of miles away and the administration not backing away from reclaiming their 2014 borders. Access to the Mediterranean requires bypassing Ukrainian security forces and the Bosporus controlled by Turkey, which is not allowing Russian ships through as a result of the war. To get goods or materiel through to Tartus they need to ship by rail through Georgia, Turkey, and northern Syria - again, major security problems.
So the only major port for Russia is Vladivostok which is across Siberia and ices over in the winter. That makes using it as a major shipping and naval hub prohibitive.
These issues have been around since Peter the Great expanded Russia into a global power, and even the Soviets struggled with naval power projection. Russia even more so today, and they're making their lives worse by invading Ukraine.
Access to warm water ports has been a major driver in Russian foreign policy for centuries. Today they have access through Sevestapol and Novorossiysk on the Black Sea, and Mediterranean port access to Tartus in Syria. In the east the major port is Vladivostok which is kept open with ice breakers.
The security and economic consequences of lack of ports is a big problem. One of the major reasons they annexed Crimea was to guarantee access to the port without requiring a pro-Russian regime in Kyiv, but Sevestapol is now on the edge of a warzone with Ukrainian military just dozens of miles away and the administration not backing away from reclaiming their 2014 borders. Access to the Mediterranean requires bypassing Ukrainian security forces and the Bosporus controlled by Turkey, which is not allowing Russian ships through as a result of the war. To get goods or materiel through to Tartus they need to ship by rail through Georgia, Turkey, and northern Syria - again, major security problems.
So the only major port for Russia is Vladivostok which is across Siberia and ices over in the winter. That makes using it as a major shipping and naval hub prohibitive.
These issues have been around since Peter the Great expanded Russia into a global power, and even the Soviets struggled with naval power projection. Russia even more so today, and they're making their lives worse by invading Ukraine.
Everyone prefers more ports and having to use icebreakers costs money. But the question of ending up in the cateogory of land-locked counries if broken up - there are lots of ways you could slice it and still have sea access on at least one coast and probably on coasts outside the arctic as well. If they don't have good ports eg in the eastern side it's probably more lack of investment than access to waters.
(Though in such scenarios it would seem likely they'd still be able to agree to cargo transit through the newly estabilished neighbours)
Here's a map I found: https://www.searates.com/maritime/russia
(Though in such scenarios it would seem likely they'd still be able to agree to cargo transit through the newly estabilished neighbours)
Here's a map I found: https://www.searates.com/maritime/russia
The majority of this coastline spreads across the Arctics, so only Icebreakers can navigate there, the rest of its access to the ocean crosses other countries' territorial waters (Turkey and Japan for example) and can easily be blocked. Which is why Russia has never been a naval power.
The icebreaker story is not really relevant anymore. Old news die slow. Nowadays the Arctic routes are shippable through most of the year without icebreakers.
> Russia has the #4 longest coastline of any country with access to many seas.
Yeah but most of those are frozen for some / most / vast majority of the year.
Russia getting warm water ports has been the source of many conflicts, to include Crimea in 2014.
Yeah but most of those are frozen for some / most / vast majority of the year.
Russia getting warm water ports has been the source of many conflicts, to include Crimea in 2014.
If you look at the geographic economic distribution in Russia, this is already exactly the case. St. Petersburg and Moscow are wealthy. The entire rest of the landmass is quite poor.
What about Switzerland?
Austria is also quite potent economically (ahead of Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Japan in GDP per capita).
Czechia and Slovakia are seeing their affluence rise, they've escaped the middle income trap and are heading into the lower end of the affluent group. Czechia is about as landlocked as it gets and yet their economy has increasingly prospered over the past few decades (they'll probably catch up to Spain in GDP per capita in the coming decade; and they're already roughly 3x that of Russia).
Obviously helps a lot to have many excellent regional trading partners that are affluent.
Czechia and Slovakia are seeing their affluence rise, they've escaped the middle income trap and are heading into the lower end of the affluent group. Czechia is about as landlocked as it gets and yet their economy has increasingly prospered over the past few decades (they'll probably catch up to Spain in GDP per capita in the coming decade; and they're already roughly 3x that of Russia).
Obviously helps a lot to have many excellent regional trading partners that are affluent.
All of these countries save Switzerland are within the EU customs union. Being land-locked is a disadvantage precisely because you have a limited number of countries to negotiate trade with and not much leverage. Countries with a port can have trade relationships with the entire world.
Switzerland has always been able to/had to find a niche like banking or secrecy or regulatory arbitrage to prosper. But in theory they suffer from the same problem - limited trading partners and limited leverage.
Switzerland has always been able to/had to find a niche like banking or secrecy or regulatory arbitrage to prosper. But in theory they suffer from the same problem - limited trading partners and limited leverage.
We saw it in the 90s and in that point of time it didn't make the region any safer. You could buy any soviet weapon everywhere. I think one of the reasons that US, UK and France were happy that Ukraine gave back their nuclear arsenal to Russia was exactly to avoid it being sold in the black market to some third country in the middle east.
What we understand now is that the US (+ allies) should have purchased that arsenal and dismantled it (with Russian oversight), rather than allowing Russia to take it.
yes, that's accurate. It would probably demand different effort and budget however.
"secures the region" from what and for whom? Assuming there is a single point of view from which this is true, and that you share it with the people living there, doesn't sound like less colonialism to me.
From Russia, of course. It is Russia that started the war with Ukraine now, and previously in Georgia and other places. We (Europeans) need a decent neighbor we can collaborate with, not a bully. We can disagree on many things like with Hungary for example, but Hungary is not having a fit over some issue and doesn't invade Romania for example.
Keep the invasions to the middle east and asia where they belong. /s
I believe by now the USA has finally learned that there is no single case where an invasion makes sense. Not only you won't help anyone, you just increase the number of people killed and further destabilize the situation you intended to "fix".
BTW I consider the invasion on Afghanistan and Iraq as a pure fit of Bush over his inability to deal with the circumstances that provoked 9/11.
BTW I consider the invasion on Afghanistan and Iraq as a pure fit of Bush over his inability to deal with the circumstances that provoked 9/11.
Yes, it would be much better for middle east and asia if Russia cleansed Ukrainians out of Ukraine and managed to continue to Poland, Finland, Moldavia, Czech Republic and so on. Somehow, magically, middle east would then became peaceful.
As long as there is no world peace, no other world region has right to care about its security.
As long as there is no world peace, no other world region has right to care about its security.
Either as a joke or chillingly honest, I think this is basically where US and european foreign policy is with this.
>It is Russia that started the war with Ukraine now
Russia certainly invaded, but do you think war started in February?
This conflict has been ongoing for years. We've known for 25 years that NATO encroachment on Russia's borders would guarantee war, even Biden spoke publicly about this in the 90's.[1] And yet the US thought it was a good idea to foment a revolution in 2014 and ensure a pro-US/NATO regime was put in power, triggering a move towards Ukraine NATO membership.[2] Why would anybody not expect war to come from that?
If Mexico joined a "defensive pact" with China, and the Chinese military then set up shop in Juarez do we honestly think the US would let that fly?
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7DbO51Z3Co&t=17s
[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
Russia certainly invaded, but do you think war started in February?
This conflict has been ongoing for years. We've known for 25 years that NATO encroachment on Russia's borders would guarantee war, even Biden spoke publicly about this in the 90's.[1] And yet the US thought it was a good idea to foment a revolution in 2014 and ensure a pro-US/NATO regime was put in power, triggering a move towards Ukraine NATO membership.[2] Why would anybody not expect war to come from that?
If Mexico joined a "defensive pact" with China, and the Chinese military then set up shop in Juarez do we honestly think the US would let that fly?
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7DbO51Z3Co&t=17s
[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
Of course the war started much earlier when Putin realized Ukrainians don't want to be his vassals like Belorussians. This was completely unacceptable for him because he considers Ukraine to be his own territory, not a country with people who can decide about their own fate. That's why whenever people in Ukraine or Belarus protest, they got shot with sharp bullets. But in Euromaidan it turned out the overall feeling to turn away from Russia and form a bond with Europe was too strong to stifle and Putin decided to use soldiers: first, to take over Crimea, which was very easy because most people there were Russians, and then, when he saw no opposition, he decided to take over Donbas. ATthis point Ukrainians realized if they don't do something he will eat their country patch by patch so they started to fight. But Putin never gave up.
The argument he repeats about Mexico is ridiculous because Russia is already bordering with several NATO countries, and none of them would ever think about attacking Russia - you just don't attack a nuclear superpower. It is a convenient excuse he's using all the time but he's a few decades late. He is thinking in terms of ancient tribes fighting about some piece of land - nobody is thinking in this way today. Especially in Europe with increasing integration, freedom of movement, being able to work where you wish, the ancient ideas of getting more and more land for your tribe seem completely outdated (and should be for Russia, too - with so much land and so few people).
The argument he repeats about Mexico is ridiculous because Russia is already bordering with several NATO countries, and none of them would ever think about attacking Russia - you just don't attack a nuclear superpower. It is a convenient excuse he's using all the time but he's a few decades late. He is thinking in terms of ancient tribes fighting about some piece of land - nobody is thinking in this way today. Especially in Europe with increasing integration, freedom of movement, being able to work where you wish, the ancient ideas of getting more and more land for your tribe seem completely outdated (and should be for Russia, too - with so much land and so few people).
Interested to hear your answer to:
If Mexico joined a "defensive pact" with China, and the Chinese military then set up shop in Juarez do we honestly think the US would let that fly?
If not, wouldn't that by your definition make Mexico a vassal state of the US?
If Mexico joined a "defensive pact" with China, and the Chinese military then set up shop in Juarez do we honestly think the US would let that fly?
If not, wouldn't that by your definition make Mexico a vassal state of the US?
You know why the Mexico situation is inadequate? Because the border with the USA is completely different than it is in Europe. In Europe most countries are in NATO, and some of these countries have been bordering with Russia for several decades now. No aggression on the part of any Eropean state towards Russia happened. In the meantime, Russia attacked Chechnya, Georgia and Ukraine. These states didn't attack Russia - Russia was the aggressor in each case. Of course Chechnya is a vassal of Russia now, as are Abkhazia and South Ossetia. NATO didn't attack anybody.
As for the core of your questions, we don't have to speculate because we already know what would happen if someone decided to place nuclear rocket launchers close to American border - we've seen it already during the Cuban crisis. Both countries agreed that land-based nuclear missiles aiming at Russia in Europe will be placed only in France and the UK, and not in Germany, for example, whereas those aiming at Western Europe will be placed in Kaliningrad Special Region. Recently, Putin decided he will move some warheads also to Belarus.
As for the core of your questions, we don't have to speculate because we already know what would happen if someone decided to place nuclear rocket launchers close to American border - we've seen it already during the Cuban crisis. Both countries agreed that land-based nuclear missiles aiming at Russia in Europe will be placed only in France and the UK, and not in Germany, for example, whereas those aiming at Western Europe will be placed in Kaliningrad Special Region. Recently, Putin decided he will move some warheads also to Belarus.
>Both countries agreed that land-based nuclear missiles aiming at Russia in Europe will be placed only in France and the UK, and not in Germany, for example
They also both agreed Ukraine would never try to join NATO, and yet...
They also both agreed Ukraine would never try to join NATO, and yet...
There is no "yet". NATO consistently refused repeated requests of Ukraine to join. Even the Ukrainians themselves weren't too much interested before Putin started the war in 2014 (<30% in 2012, almost 70% five years later).
The situation of Ukrainians is simply tragic, they never had any real choice. They could either become Putin's slaves or face a bloody war. They made their choice hoping he would not attack but were mistaken, and now they have to pay. After the war is over the whole Europe will start rebuilding their country, but nobody will revive the ones killed by Putin's army.
The situation of Ukrainians is simply tragic, they never had any real choice. They could either become Putin's slaves or face a bloody war. They made their choice hoping he would not attack but were mistaken, and now they have to pay. After the war is over the whole Europe will start rebuilding their country, but nobody will revive the ones killed by Putin's army.
>Even the Ukrainians themselves weren't too much interested before Putin started the war in 2014
Why do you think Putin invaded in 2014? Remember they had a coup in Ukraine, and the new regime was very anti-Russia.
Immediately after the 2014 coup the new US-approved government changed the Constitution to the 2004 version which allowed for a vote to join NATO[1]. So then Russia invaded Crimea as a result, since by NATO rule, a country not in control of its borders would not be eligible to join NATO. Then in December 2014 Ukraine voted to abandon neutrality and begin the process of getting into NATO anyway.[2]
Trump's presidency definitely put a pause on this plan, which is why there were no/limited hostilities in those 4 years. But now that Biden is back on top, Ukraine has been pushing towards NATO again. And that isn't to excuse Russia, but we have to be honest about what these triggers are. This isn't happening in a vacuum.
[1] https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/191727.html
[2] https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-parliament-abandons-neutrali...
Why do you think Putin invaded in 2014? Remember they had a coup in Ukraine, and the new regime was very anti-Russia.
Immediately after the 2014 coup the new US-approved government changed the Constitution to the 2004 version which allowed for a vote to join NATO[1]. So then Russia invaded Crimea as a result, since by NATO rule, a country not in control of its borders would not be eligible to join NATO. Then in December 2014 Ukraine voted to abandon neutrality and begin the process of getting into NATO anyway.[2]
Trump's presidency definitely put a pause on this plan, which is why there were no/limited hostilities in those 4 years. But now that Biden is back on top, Ukraine has been pushing towards NATO again. And that isn't to excuse Russia, but we have to be honest about what these triggers are. This isn't happening in a vacuum.
[1] https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/191727.html
[2] https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-parliament-abandons-neutrali...
> Why do you think Putin invaded in 2014?
Because I don't know a single person who believes otherwise. And I doubt he would dare to start the war in Donbas back then if he hadn't been emboldened by his success in Crimea. I talked to my Crimean friends back then, some of them had high hopes related to what would happen if Crimea became Russian. Somehow, none of these hopes materialized. No big stream of rich Russians coming and leaving big stack of rubles there - maybe even less after the annexation.
As for Donbas, I had some Russian friends there; most left in 2014 - and obviously were very pro-Russian back then. They were very bitter about the Ukrainian government and hoped - just like Crimeans - that Putin will magically make everything right, that Kharkiv will become second Saint Petersburg. They soon realized the folks Putin sent were the worst thugs, the scum of the earth. To quote one of my friends, "For these people to kill a man was like spitting". Still, many people had a good opinion of Putin, putting all blame on the Ukrainian government. That is, until the shelling of Kharkiv begun. Then they realized the truth, but it was too late. It is still mind-boggling to me. Why did he decide to start killing his own people? There was so much good will for him in this city, there is none left. Unbelievable.
BTW the aspirations of Ukraine you mention is just one part of the story; Ukraine doesn't decide whether they can join NATO - member states of NATO do. So far, everybody was against, including the USA, France, and Germany. Maybe the war changes it, but I doubt it.
Because I don't know a single person who believes otherwise. And I doubt he would dare to start the war in Donbas back then if he hadn't been emboldened by his success in Crimea. I talked to my Crimean friends back then, some of them had high hopes related to what would happen if Crimea became Russian. Somehow, none of these hopes materialized. No big stream of rich Russians coming and leaving big stack of rubles there - maybe even less after the annexation.
As for Donbas, I had some Russian friends there; most left in 2014 - and obviously were very pro-Russian back then. They were very bitter about the Ukrainian government and hoped - just like Crimeans - that Putin will magically make everything right, that Kharkiv will become second Saint Petersburg. They soon realized the folks Putin sent were the worst thugs, the scum of the earth. To quote one of my friends, "For these people to kill a man was like spitting". Still, many people had a good opinion of Putin, putting all blame on the Ukrainian government. That is, until the shelling of Kharkiv begun. Then they realized the truth, but it was too late. It is still mind-boggling to me. Why did he decide to start killing his own people? There was so much good will for him in this city, there is none left. Unbelievable.
BTW the aspirations of Ukraine you mention is just one part of the story; Ukraine doesn't decide whether they can join NATO - member states of NATO do. So far, everybody was against, including the USA, France, and Germany. Maybe the war changes it, but I doubt it.
>Because I don't know a single person who believes otherwise.
No, I'm saying what do you think the reason was for Russia annexing Crimea? Especially considering the fact that they did it the day after the 2014 Ukrainian coup. I'm curious to hear your thoughts on why it happened.
No, I'm saying what do you think the reason was for Russia annexing Crimea? Especially considering the fact that they did it the day after the 2014 Ukrainian coup. I'm curious to hear your thoughts on why it happened.
> It secures the region while undoing some of the colonisation
It doesn't necessarily secure the region, as now you will have conflicts in the Caucasus and weakening of Central Asian borders esp. with Afghanistan (which were always complemented by Russian forces).
Don't forget, there will also be a lot of hurt feelings along the lines of "we were a large powerful country, look what happened to us, we must gain everything back".
Edit: Also, who gets to keep the nuclear weapons?
It doesn't necessarily secure the region, as now you will have conflicts in the Caucasus and weakening of Central Asian borders esp. with Afghanistan (which were always complemented by Russian forces).
Don't forget, there will also be a lot of hurt feelings along the lines of "we were a large powerful country, look what happened to us, we must gain everything back".
Edit: Also, who gets to keep the nuclear weapons?
> Edit: Also, who gets to keep the nuclear weapons?
Russia will keep the nuclear weapons. From the split there will still be a Russia, it'll hold Moscow and St. Petersburg for example. That new country will still be a significant economy with a large population (Western Russia obviously by far holds most of the nation's population density). Ideally they'd downscale the number of nukes they have (with the US also doing so), but that might be hoping for too much.
The biggest problem with the splintering will be what China and North Korea do in their regions near the present Russian border. China would have to be very tempted to conquer more of Asia (some territory bordering the Sea of Japan and Okhotsk), going up the coast to open up more routes for their navy forces into the Pacific.
Russia will keep the nuclear weapons. From the split there will still be a Russia, it'll hold Moscow and St. Petersburg for example. That new country will still be a significant economy with a large population (Western Russia obviously by far holds most of the nation's population density). Ideally they'd downscale the number of nukes they have (with the US also doing so), but that might be hoping for too much.
The biggest problem with the splintering will be what China and North Korea do in their regions near the present Russian border. China would have to be very tempted to conquer more of Asia (some territory bordering the Sea of Japan and Okhotsk), going up the coast to open up more routes for their navy forces into the Pacific.
> China would have to be very tempted to conquer more of Asia (some territory bordering the Sea of Japan and Okhotsk), going up the coast to open up more routes for their navy forces into the Pacific.
It's interesting to note that this is already kinda the case in economic if not military/political terms: cities like Blagoveshchensk are basically part of Heilongjiang - in that particular case, it is very nearly a direct extension of the Chinese city of Heihe. They do way more trade with China than with the rest of Russia, and in some cases the populations are 30+% Chinese nationals, who often run all the important businesses and, ironically, use the native population as cheap labor.
In these conditions, stepping in more formally would be very trivial in the absence of a robust Russian response.
Info mostly sourced from The Emperor Far Away, Heilongjiang chapters.
It's interesting to note that this is already kinda the case in economic if not military/political terms: cities like Blagoveshchensk are basically part of Heilongjiang - in that particular case, it is very nearly a direct extension of the Chinese city of Heihe. They do way more trade with China than with the rest of Russia, and in some cases the populations are 30+% Chinese nationals, who often run all the important businesses and, ironically, use the native population as cheap labor.
In these conditions, stepping in more formally would be very trivial in the absence of a robust Russian response.
Info mostly sourced from The Emperor Far Away, Heilongjiang chapters.
> From the split there will still be a Russia, it'll hold Moscow and St. Petersburg for example.
Ah yes, the well-known locations of Russia's nuclear weapons, Moscow and St. Petersburg
> That new country will still be a significant economy with a large population (Western Russia obviously by far holds most of the nation's population density)
Population density does not translate into significant economy. Regions that don't receive subsidies from the federal budget are located mostly along the Ural mountains. Rather far from the capital cities.
And you're forgetting that if Russia gets split, most economic ties between the various regions will be be either severed or significantly disrupted. The fall of USSR was only 31 years ago, and apparently people are unable to either remember it, or read up on it.
> China would have to be very tempted to conquer more of Asia
That's a very good observation. China will definitely move in to grab Siberia, aka the source of most of Russia's raw materials such as oil (so no "still significant economy" for the rest)
Ah yes, the well-known locations of Russia's nuclear weapons, Moscow and St. Petersburg
> That new country will still be a significant economy with a large population (Western Russia obviously by far holds most of the nation's population density)
Population density does not translate into significant economy. Regions that don't receive subsidies from the federal budget are located mostly along the Ural mountains. Rather far from the capital cities.
And you're forgetting that if Russia gets split, most economic ties between the various regions will be be either severed or significantly disrupted. The fall of USSR was only 31 years ago, and apparently people are unable to either remember it, or read up on it.
> China would have to be very tempted to conquer more of Asia
That's a very good observation. China will definitely move in to grab Siberia, aka the source of most of Russia's raw materials such as oil (so no "still significant economy" for the rest)
Those are literally the Russian propaganda talking points. I've seen reasonable and intelligent people who used to believe these sincerely. Seems like you are under a similar influence.
Whoever has them gets to keep them. Same with the oil. Seems unlikely that any split of Russia would happen smooth and nicely
I'm a bit puzzled by the matter-of-factness of this comment. You're essentially talking about impinging upon a people's right of self-determination. It has a kind of colonial smell to it. Calling it more democratic seems a stretch at best.
If the main thing is securing the region, deunification is not necessary - denuclearization would do just fine. Currently nobody is helping Ukraine in their tragedy only because of Russian nukes.
What about Ukraine?
Sure. But let's start with the usa
Outer Manchuria & Siberia has been chinese since ancient time moment
It’s certainly how “a Russia” ends. We consider nazi Germany different from Germany, in the sense that nazi Germany ended and a different Germany came along. Let’s hope something like that can happen again.
If imperialism is lindy, Russians have a massive leg up compared to america, which has a much poorer record of integrating its ethnic minorities
Nice interview. I thought one of the most insightful parts was near the end:
AG: The West is aiding Ukrainians while wiring Russia money every day for oil and gas.
MG: Exactly. Biden's speech was not a great democracy speech because it was hypocritical.
The accepted rhetoric of "We don't want to be pulled into a shooting war with Russia" translates as "We feel bad, but we'd rather Ukrainians die than risk the lives of our own citizens." I'm not saying it's completely wrongheaded, but it does undercut any rhetoric of solidarity.
AG: The West is aiding Ukrainians while wiring Russia money every day for oil and gas.
MG: Exactly. Biden's speech was not a great democracy speech because it was hypocritical.
The accepted rhetoric of "We don't want to be pulled into a shooting war with Russia" translates as "We feel bad, but we'd rather Ukrainians die than risk the lives of our own citizens." I'm not saying it's completely wrongheaded, but it does undercut any rhetoric of solidarity.
IIRC, the rationale behind continuing to pay Russia for P&G is that the alternative would hurt Europeans more than it would hurt Russia. Energy prices are pretty bad at the moment, over here in Europe.
beside that, it would undermine the popularity of the support to Ukraine if the consequences from that support are too harsh to the Europeans. I'm not saying that I agree with that, but if Diesel reaches 3 euro/liter, if Gas prices are too high, people will start to demand an end of this War, even if that it means Ukraine must support some not ideal condition (i.e lost of territory)
"We don't want to be pulled into a shooting war with Russia" translates as...
Or...it translates as "We feel bad, but the chance of this escalating to a nuclear exchange with a state who's leader and mouthpieces are throwing around the N-word with abandon would mean far more people, not just Ukranians, are going to be impacted." But that wouldn't fit the narrative being pushed.
Or...it translates as "We feel bad, but the chance of this escalating to a nuclear exchange with a state who's leader and mouthpieces are throwing around the N-word with abandon would mean far more people, not just Ukranians, are going to be impacted." But that wouldn't fit the narrative being pushed.
>The accepted rhetoric of "We don't want to be pulled into a shooting war with Russia" translates as "We feel bad, but we'd rather Ukrainians die than risk the lives of our own citizens." I'm not saying it's completely wrongheaded, but it does undercut any rhetoric of solidarity.
That's not the reason at all. The main reason and also why airspace cannot be closed is that NATO cannot have a boots on the ground for a conflict with a major power like Russia.
Involving NATO in conflict is the ONLY reason why this war would turn nuclear. And very fast.
It would be absurdly stupid to send troops to fight on behalf of Ukrainians.
Biden and his son have investments all over Ukraine and he is just terrified of losing all of them. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/us/politics/biden-son-ukr...
"Among those who had a stake in the outcome was Hunter Biden, Mr. Biden’s younger son, who at the time was on the board of an energy company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch who had been in the sights of the fired prosecutor general."
That's not the reason at all. The main reason and also why airspace cannot be closed is that NATO cannot have a boots on the ground for a conflict with a major power like Russia.
Involving NATO in conflict is the ONLY reason why this war would turn nuclear. And very fast.
It would be absurdly stupid to send troops to fight on behalf of Ukrainians.
Biden and his son have investments all over Ukraine and he is just terrified of losing all of them. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/us/politics/biden-son-ukr...
"Among those who had a stake in the outcome was Hunter Biden, Mr. Biden’s younger son, who at the time was on the board of an energy company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch who had been in the sights of the fired prosecutor general."
This is how Russia separates from the EU/USA/West. It won't end with this. The title presupposed that the West is "indispensible" - it's NOT. As is already being seen as the Petrodollar teeters and other currencies are being adopted for oil. In terms of dollar value - it's a self-created disaster.
> One day, Vladimir Putin will no longer lead Russia.
Putin isn't the first ever russian leader and is not last. Next leader may be Ramzan Kadyrov, for example.
Putin isn't the first ever russian leader and is not last. Next leader may be Ramzan Kadyrov, for example.
This is how it was ending before the push for EU/NATO membership of former Soviet states - a long slow disintegration into independent states run by emergent tycoons and kleptocrats propped up by new markets. For instance, a global mining company promises investment in a region if they can get a new government with favorable policies for them. The old Russian plutocrats get a piece of the business and everybody’s happy.
Now it’s different. Putin’s regime may not survive this crisis, but regardless, ‘the west’ has once again become a threat to all Russians, and the next regime may be a response to that. I’ll accept any recent example of a interventionist war-driven regime change as evidence against this prediction. A nationalist Russian Federation is a lot more dangerous to us than a kleptocracy.
The press loves to characterize Putin as a madman. Same with Saddam Hussein and Muammar Ghaddafi and every other flashy dictator with expensive tastes. This is just stupid. Their thinking is more like an overpaid CEO than fundamentalist zealot. That makes them predictable and controllable. You don’t know what will come with the next regime. Even if you remove all animosity and nationalism, there’s still going to be a fight over resources. Putin had an entire state military apparatus to use against his people to secure those resources for himself. We do too, but the cost will be much higher.
Putin was willing to sell his country just for a little bit of luxury and personal security. I’m not saying that was a good thing, but it was a structure that we knew how to deal with. The military and economic posture to effectively deal with radical populism may be very different. Pontificating on this subject has been all the rage among military theorists since Huntington’s thesis, with trillions spent on the assumption that we knew what we were doing. Now we learn that we didn’t get it quite right.
There’s a lot I don’t understand about the doctrine that guides ‘the west’, and I’m not necessarily skeptical, just uninformed in some ways. I’d like to understand the threat model we are operating under, and the basic strategy to control those threats. Or maybe it’s economic opportunity we are after. For whom? What does the world look like in their best vision of it? Do the nations and people that oppose ‘the west’ have an accurate view of that, or has it been unfairly demonized? Somewhere there is either a legitimate clash of interests, or a severe miscommunication. Perhaps we ought to commit to only killing each other over the former, and keeping track of exactly what that is. Somehow I doubt that wars could be sustained in that circumstance.
Now it’s different. Putin’s regime may not survive this crisis, but regardless, ‘the west’ has once again become a threat to all Russians, and the next regime may be a response to that. I’ll accept any recent example of a interventionist war-driven regime change as evidence against this prediction. A nationalist Russian Federation is a lot more dangerous to us than a kleptocracy.
The press loves to characterize Putin as a madman. Same with Saddam Hussein and Muammar Ghaddafi and every other flashy dictator with expensive tastes. This is just stupid. Their thinking is more like an overpaid CEO than fundamentalist zealot. That makes them predictable and controllable. You don’t know what will come with the next regime. Even if you remove all animosity and nationalism, there’s still going to be a fight over resources. Putin had an entire state military apparatus to use against his people to secure those resources for himself. We do too, but the cost will be much higher.
Putin was willing to sell his country just for a little bit of luxury and personal security. I’m not saying that was a good thing, but it was a structure that we knew how to deal with. The military and economic posture to effectively deal with radical populism may be very different. Pontificating on this subject has been all the rage among military theorists since Huntington’s thesis, with trillions spent on the assumption that we knew what we were doing. Now we learn that we didn’t get it quite right.
There’s a lot I don’t understand about the doctrine that guides ‘the west’, and I’m not necessarily skeptical, just uninformed in some ways. I’d like to understand the threat model we are operating under, and the basic strategy to control those threats. Or maybe it’s economic opportunity we are after. For whom? What does the world look like in their best vision of it? Do the nations and people that oppose ‘the west’ have an accurate view of that, or has it been unfairly demonized? Somewhere there is either a legitimate clash of interests, or a severe miscommunication. Perhaps we ought to commit to only killing each other over the former, and keeping track of exactly what that is. Somehow I doubt that wars could be sustained in that circumstance.
thriftwy(1)
I find Gessen's characterization of Russia as totalitarian confusing. Totalitarianism in particular in the historical sense that Gessen uses when they draw parallels to the 20th century requires complete popular mobilization. The people are united in society, society is united by rulers, the rulers all culminate in the singular dictator, and so forth.
However Gessen correctly points out that loneliness and atomization is everywhere in Russia. It may be repressive, but there's hardly a level of energy, ideology or unification in Russia that could render it totalitarian. The same is true almost anywhere in the modern world. Nowhere are there going to be millions of brownshirts patrolling the streets for the party.
I mean, even today you can argue with Russians on the internet, the country is still as weird as it may seem more liberal right now than it was during any point in the 20th century. There's state television and crazy commentators of course but the reason the war can continue if anything seems to be more indifference than zealous support.
Russia today is a society that runs on fumes, and the grandiose predictions by Gessen like 'nuclear strikes on Poland', or breakups rest on comparisons to the high energy, combustive situation in 20th century Europe. Even characterizing the war as 'big and imperial' seems sketchy when it is downplayed as a special military operation, hidden from the people and being fought by a professional army and private military contractors in a fundamentally 21st century almost hybrid way.
However Gessen correctly points out that loneliness and atomization is everywhere in Russia. It may be repressive, but there's hardly a level of energy, ideology or unification in Russia that could render it totalitarian. The same is true almost anywhere in the modern world. Nowhere are there going to be millions of brownshirts patrolling the streets for the party.
I mean, even today you can argue with Russians on the internet, the country is still as weird as it may seem more liberal right now than it was during any point in the 20th century. There's state television and crazy commentators of course but the reason the war can continue if anything seems to be more indifference than zealous support.
Russia today is a society that runs on fumes, and the grandiose predictions by Gessen like 'nuclear strikes on Poland', or breakups rest on comparisons to the high energy, combustive situation in 20th century Europe. Even characterizing the war as 'big and imperial' seems sketchy when it is downplayed as a special military operation, hidden from the people and being fought by a professional army and private military contractors in a fundamentally 21st century almost hybrid way.
Is "mobilization" really the primary indicator of a totalitarian regime?
I think the root word "total" might be more indicative. When most aspects of a citizen's life are dominated by the party or the state, and alternative or competing non-state institutions don't exist, that's totalitarian.
Russia looks quite totalitarian according to that definition, with everything from local government to media, religion, business and cultural institutions tightly controlled by the the central clique of mafia-style oligarchs. Does any independent civil society exist in Russia?
I think the root word "total" might be more indicative. When most aspects of a citizen's life are dominated by the party or the state, and alternative or competing non-state institutions don't exist, that's totalitarian.
Russia looks quite totalitarian according to that definition, with everything from local government to media, religion, business and cultural institutions tightly controlled by the the central clique of mafia-style oligarchs. Does any independent civil society exist in Russia?
No there isn't much of a civil society but neither is every facet of live in Russia controlled by anyone. If you're an average Russian right now you work in the private sector in a job of your choosing, you have a faith of your choosing and go about your day, there's no party or state to be seen. (what 'party' even, as Russia isn't communist any more).
Oligarchy and totalitarianism are opposed concepts. Russia is indeed pretty corrupt, oligarchic and mafia like, but that means there isn't that much state capacity left as private and public interests are divided and self-interested. Actual totalitarians first annihilate the oligarchs which siphon from the state. Stalin was totalitarian. Mao's red guards were totalitarian. No comparable force exists in modern Russia.
Oligarchy and totalitarianism are opposed concepts. Russia is indeed pretty corrupt, oligarchic and mafia like, but that means there isn't that much state capacity left as private and public interests are divided and self-interested. Actual totalitarians first annihilate the oligarchs which siphon from the state. Stalin was totalitarian. Mao's red guards were totalitarian. No comparable force exists in modern Russia.
> you have a faith of your choosing
Russia is currently persecuting religious minorities
Russia is currently persecuting religious minorities
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Duchy_of_Moscow