Russia General Discussion

[minionofmidas]

Nobody actually cares about the February Revolution.

Well, I do. Historically, you can't understand October without February.

Well, no one one cares about history.
Seriously, are me and Silent Hunter the only people who knew this?

Ahhem.

[Albus Dumbledore]

The SSSR is proof that idealistic revolutions suck.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

So, how long before Russia becomes a Communist dictatorship again?  I give it 5-10 more years.

[MasterJedi]

So, how long before Russia becomes a Communist dictatorship again?  I give it 5-10 more years.

It won't be Communist, it'll just be a fascist dictatorship.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

So, how long before Russia becomes a Communist dictatorship again?  I give it 5-10 more years.

It won't be Communist, it'll just be a fascist dictatorship.

So who will led it?  Putin, his puppet, or someone new?

[Albus Dumbledore]

Outright fascism? I don't really buy that. Perhaps something on the lines of the mexican PRI(one party state posing as a democracy) with the state also being rather chummy with the oligarchs and the church.

[The Mikado]

Outright fascism? I don't really buy that. Perhaps something on the lines of the mexican PRI(one party state posing as a democracy) with the state also being rather chummy with the oligarchs and the church.

^^^

I agree with this.

[GMantis]

It won't be either a communist dictatorship or a fascist one. While the communists are actually popular (unlike the liberals, much as they're loved by the West), the ruling party has managed to take just enough of their platform to marginalise them. Fascism has many supporters, but little chances of electoral victory. The ruling party will continue to be in power, wining easily semi-free elections (not that they actually need to, at least for now) for a long time - something like Havelock described.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

I also agree for a Russia where oligarch and Church are very important, but then, what it will become?

Hmm, I would say, after they have lost, with others, a war against West, a war which could begin in the Persian Gulf if you know what I mean, I see the Russian Federation exploding to become a sort of European Union composed of most of its ancient home-states and maybe also of some regions from other countries like Ukraine or Belarus...

I go to far?

Maybe, or maybe not...

[dead0man]

Could the west have a war with Russia that doesn't go nuclear?

[Middle-aged Europe]

Russia is not and never will be facist or communist (again). And there won't be a war with "the West" either.

The Putinists and United Russia are gonna continue their present course of "centrist"/technocratic authoritarianism, until they're actually defeated in a election at some point... probably 20 or 30 years into the future or something like that. I think this prediction is also pretty much in line with the aforementioned "Mexican scenario". Boring, isn't it?

[GMantis]

Could the west have a war with Russia that doesn't go nuclear?

The nuclear forces are the best of the Russian armed forces and in enough quanity and quality to offset a missile shield and they're taking steps to improve them. So the answer is no.

[Silent Hunter]

Add to that the fact Russia (or more specifically Moscow) already has a missile shield...

[jokerman]

Let Putin continue his work.  In my opinion it's much more in the interests of the US and the Western World for Russia to remain strong rather than implode and be exploited by China.  If we play our cards right maybe we can even turn Russia into an ally.

[GMantis]

Let Putin continue his work.  In my opinion it's much more in the interests of the US and the Western World for Russia to remain strong rather than implode and be exploited by China.  If we play our cards right maybe we can even turn Russia into an ally.

You had them already as an ally, but you blew it by encouraging (that's how it looked to the Russians) the economic collapse and by treating them as vanquished enemies.

[dead0man]

Add to that the fact Russia (or more specifically Moscow) already has a missile shield...

cite?

[dead0man]

Let Putin continue his work.  In my opinion it's much more in the interests of the US and the Western World for Russia to remain strong rather than implode and be exploited by China.  If we play our cards right maybe we can even turn Russia into an ally.

You had them already as an ally, but you blew it by encouraging (that's how it looked to the Russians) the economic collapse and by treating them as vanquished enemies.

Letting former S.S.R.'s become NATO members didn't hurt either.

[Silent Hunter]

Add to that the fact Russia (or more specifically Moscow) already has a missile shield...

cite?

A-135.

[dead0man]

Add to that the fact Russia (or more specifically Moscow) already has a missile shield...

cite?

A-135.

Ah, I thought you meant they had something that would work

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Let Putin continue his work.  In my opinion it's much more in the interests of the US and the Western World for Russia to remain strong rather than implode and be exploited by China.  If we play our cards right maybe we can even turn Russia into an ally.

You had them already as an ally, but you blew it by encouraging (that's how it looked to the Russians) the economic collapse and by treating them as vanquished enemies.

I agree with both quotes

To defend my scenario:

As long as we have Bush administration at power, I think everything can be possible. I think they can play as bad as they can turn Russia and China and others against West just by striking on Iran

Let Putin continue his work.  In my opinion it's much more in the interests of the US and the Western World for Russia to remain strong rather than implode and be exploited by China.  If we play our cards right maybe we can even turn Russia into an ally.

You had them already as an ally, but you blew it by encouraging (that's how it looked to the Russians) the economic collapse and by treating them as vanquished enemies.

Letting former S.S.R.'s become NATO members didn't hurt either.

I precisely think that the old fight NATO vs. USSR is still in minds of some of the russian administration and if they think they can hurt US if this one seems to be weaker by opening a new hard military front, I think there are chances that they would, especially if they find strong opportunist allies.

To me, the question would be do these countries (Russia, China) would limit them to economic power or would they also want to gain power by force? I personally can't say, I just see chances that to me shouldn't be ignored for the second proposition.

Could the west have a war with Russia that doesn't go nuclear?

To me, here is a very good question. In this sense, pessimist for pessimist, concerning as much the possibility for Europe to be strong by herself as the one for a big conflict to arise, I wasn't really opposite to the shield that US wanted to build in Poland and Czech republic. Last thing I heard about it, is that the project was still on air but suspended.

I also heard, in a youtube clip (such a source!), that there was a doctrine in Pentagone which theorized what could be modern nuclear war, with small nukes (small but 6xHiroshima), and that this one would be used if US see that risks of escalating are too important in a conflict. I don't know much about it, and didn't look further, if someone has informations...

To answer your question. I don't know, but I think that's a really good question.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Could the west have a war with Russia that doesn't go nuclear?

I don't see it.  There are probably plenty of older politicians in Russia who would be more than happy to try and nuke every Western country into the ground, and vice versa.

[Silent Hunter]

Could the west have a war with Russia that doesn't go nuclear?

I don't see it.  There are probably plenty of older politicians in Russia who would be more than happy to try and nuke every Western country into the ground, and vice versa.

Some, maybe, but not that many. The Soviet politicians of the 1980s were rational by and large.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Could the west have a war with Russia that doesn't go nuclear?

I don't see it.  There are probably plenty of older politicians in Russia who would be more than happy to try and nuke every Western country into the ground, and vice versa.

Some, maybe, but not that many. The Soviet politicians of the 1980s were rational by and large.

The powerful ones were, but most of the sane people are now too old, and have retired.  We're left with the people who were unimportant 20 years ago; and we don't know what they would have done.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Could the west have a war with Russia that doesn't go nuclear?

I don't see it.  There are probably plenty of older politicians in Russia who would be more than happy to try and nuke every Western country into the ground, and vice versa.

Some, maybe, but not that many. The Soviet politicians of the 1980s were rational by and large.

The powerful ones were, but most of the sane people are now too old, and have retired.  We're left with the people who were unimportant 20 years ago; and we don't know what they would have done.

I agree

[Albus Dumbledore]

Could be worse though. At least Russia is a sham democracy and not an outright junta...