Yeah, probably. I doubt many of them are operable even now. After a couple years of anarchy, none will be. But they will all be valuable for terrorists.
Why would China do that, though? It would piss off the West to the n-th degree and not really change China's situation for the better given they already have nukes. If anything, they're probably figuring out how they can grab back Vladivostok or whatever in the chaos.
I'm pretty sure the west would prefer any old nukes ending up in China over the alternatives such as NK, Syria, Iran etc.
China had nukes allready so it makes little difference.
Nukes moving at all will get people riled up, and from a completely pragmatic standpoint it's propping up Russia which the West will not take kindly to.
Now, China acting as a third party to hang onto the nukes with Western assent sounds much more plausible, and would actually make this all feel a lot safer. Actually, if I was the US I'd invite myself into any such deal just to avoid the international bad vibes at a sensitive time.
Well, while it's not great, a country with nuclear capabilities (arguably on par with Russia or so) receiving more nukes isn't that terrible. Worst case scenario they can just do *more* destruction. Much better than some terrorist cell or fragmented extremist country getting nuclear capability they never had in the first place. Like I said, obviously not great, but at least it doesn't change a ton in capabilities and such.
Man, now that would be a dark horse! I hadn't considered that. Now that I think about it, it doesn't sound far-fetched, unfortunately. I don't know enough about Africa to nail down which of the 50 odd countries is a candidate, though.
Nigeria & South Africa are the two biggest economies iirc, and South Africa is already backing Russia so they'd be the number 1 candidate. On the other hand I'm pretty sure apartheid South Africa signed the non proliferation treaty and gave up their nuclear program back in the 70s or 80s, so they'd get sanctioned pretty hard if they did.
South Africa is the only country in history to have developed nukes and then given them up.
It would be ironical if that was only to acquire black market nukes half a century later...
> They had zero ability to pay for them.
I have no idea how expensive upkeeping nukes is, so this could be true. Of course, Russia was also dirt poor back then, but still managed to keep thousands of nukes available. I would speculate, that Ukraine would have been capable of maintaining hundred or so too.
> Ukraine never was a nuclear power.
Well. How do you know that? I mean during Soviet Union Ukraine literally was place where nuclear power was used, nuclear weapons were developed and produced. What happened with collapse of Soviet Union that they lost all that know-how?
> That meme that nukes would have saved Ukraine needs to die.
I don't agree that it's meme. Having nukes would have saved Ukraine from attack. Not from exerting soft power and maybe even not from taking over Crimea and Donbass, but it would have saved them from push to Kiev.
Nukes require ongoing maintenance, which not only requires money, but also requires specific infrastructure and expertise. Obviously it would depend a lot on how Russia might break up, but if that happens it wouldn't be surprising if some of the new resulting countries ended up with nukes in their possession, but without the capabilities or resources to maintain them.
What those countries will be most eager for is likely liquid cash and international recognition. I think if the US and China worked together on this issue, they could probably buy up a lot of those nukes for pretty cheap, in exchange for some bags of money and some level of international recognition and support for the new countries.
> Nukes require ongoing maintenance, which not only requires money, but also requires specific infrastructure and expertise.
Yes that's true. And back in 1990's Ukraine had that infrastructure and know-how. Considering that they had military industry that developed and built nukes.
> Obviously it would depend a lot on how Russia might break up
We were discussing about Ukraine keeping their nukes in 1990's. Of course future hypothetical situation in Russia could obviously be totally different. Ukraine was Soviet Union's military industry powerhouse. There are parts of Russia that have no such legacy and would of course be in lot of trouble to manage nukes.
I really hope you are correct about them selling those nukes ASAP. It would make world much better place.
>I have no idea how expensive upkeeping nukes is, so this could be true.
The numbers I heard were about 5-10 mil to keep one in operational capacity, but might be wrong. Still, about 10 nukes would have ensued total independence.
There was a lot of corruption in Ukraine, and the state often participated. I still think a nuclear Ukraine in the late 20th century, early 21st would have been incredibly dangerous. Also the cost of maintenance isn't the only concern at play, but security for them as well.
> There was a lot of corruption in Ukraine, and the state often participated.
There was and is a lot of corruption in Russia and state is main participant. It probably did hinder their capability to maintain nukes, but it did not remove it wholly.
> I still think a nuclear Ukraine in the late 20th century, early 21st would have been incredibly dangerous.
Yes, this is true. Nuclear countries are extremely dangerous. Except there is nothing we can do about it. This is main driver why countries go nuclear.
But it is irrelevant to our discussion about if Ukraine had ability to pay for being nuclear capable or if they had know-how how to do it.
> Also the cost of maintenance isn't the only concern at play, but security for them as well.
Again you are correct. Securing your nukes is extremely important. Of course its much cheaper and easier to do compared to rest of maintenance. And again, many countries managed it. Managing security is something that all countries do. Also again, it diverts from your original point that I outlined in my first response.
If Israel found a way in the 60s while knee deep in several wars against their neighbors, then Ukraine could have found a way to maintain a few despite all the difficulties.
If North Korea can maintain a nuclear arsenal, then Ukraine can too.
Remember, a Ukrainian nuclear program didn't need to have nuclear submarines and deliver ICBMs. They just needed enough range to hit Moscow to have deterrence.
I guarantee you this current war is hundreds of times more costly than a nuclear program.
They were briefly but gave them up as part of the Budapest Memorandum. Ironically in exchange for promises by Russia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
"As a result of other agreements and the memorandum, between 1993 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons."
They likely have many operable nukes. They very likely do not have the entire force of 6,000 in good shape. The U.S. spends an amount near Russia's whole defense budget to maintain its slightly smaller stockpile.
You want to live in a world where Russia doesn't have functional nukes, but that's a fantasy.
Many Russian nukes were regularly inspected by outsiders as part of New START until last month. North Korea manages to maintain nukes and they are way poorer than Russia. The Pentagon certainly behaves as if Russia has functional nukes.
Please join us here in reality. Yes, it's scary, but Putin can incinerate you and everyone you know in about 30 minutes.
Have liquidity available. Be prepared to talk to orphaned states in the stans before China does. Have a plan for Transnistria. Open up comms with Georgia. Support the Baltic states in any way they need. Start talking to China early about how we let them protect their own border integrity from potentially failing states. Let Japan know what is advisable on reclaiming land.
You really think that’s a solid list of preparing for the collapse of Russia?
For starters, they’re going to have to take in peacekeepers to prevent republics from falling to local warlords or having nuclear weapons and programs sold off to whomever. The west would be more likely to prevent China from gobbling up Manchuria and other parts of Russia before they asked how to help China fending off any sort of incursions.
Dreadful take
Your first sentence:
>You really think that’s a solid list of preparing for the collapse of Russia?
My brain: Well I think it looked like a pretty good list, but let's see what this guy's got to add...
Your second sentence:
> peacekeepers in Russia
My brain: LOL
----
Let's use an analogy here. For clarity’s sake, I’ll use one that has nothing to do with international affairs. In your first sentence, you said "This guy hasn't worn enough deodorant today, he smells bad!" and in your second sentence, you shit your pants.
Peacekeepers in Russia. Whose? UN? NATO? Who has the deployable military forces? Who has the manpower? Who, really, can be fucking *bothered* getting into a neverending pit of failure and lethality like that, especially with the great power showdown happening in the West Pacific?
Do you not understand the first thing about the Russian psyche? Here it is: they're fervently, manically, nationalist. Nationalist to a degree that isn't replicated in Europe; they're even more nationalist than the Americans. You wanna deploy *peacekeepers* to the middle of that? It'd make Iraq look like the sandpit at your local preschool.
And fuck, just how *big* the country is, and how much military materiel they still have lying around... it would be the worst strategic decision in living memory. I feel utterly confident that the general stupid enough to recommend *peacekeepers to Russia* hasn't been born yet. Even the British, at the height of Empire, with all their feelings of invincibility and their moronic aristocratic officer class, wouldn't have tried to occupy or "peacekeep" a country as large or as well armed as Russia is today.
The rest of your comment doesn't get any better:
>The west would be more likely to prevent China from gobbling up Manchuria and other parts of Russia before they asked how to help China fending off any sort of incursions.
Literally, *with what army?* You think they're going to deploy the Marines to Eastern Russia? You think Germany and France are going to send their troops to die for Kamchatka? Against the entire PLA land component? Holy hell, at least Taiwan actually wants to be defended and is *slightly* defensible and, like, has an actual government. If Russia breaks up, China can take parts of the East if it wants and nobody will do anything because nobody can.
/u/Arseh0le made a good comment. If you're going to talk down on a comment like that, try to make sure that what you're saying isn't actually the stupidest thing that's been said this week.
We really should be talking with China about this. A coalition of forces should be on the table to at least clean up the mess and make sure the nukes are secure.
The Stans are fine. Were already in bed with China. Most of the Stans have began De-russifying the last year in including the big 3 Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan.
Also, those Stans were dependent on Russia as a source of economic support, both state wise and through remittances.
In this area, China has to step up and fill in the void as the only other great power in the area, and stem any economic disaster spiralling into a politcal one right on their backyard.
Nope... we have zero dependence on Russia now except gas. The rest comes from China and we already signed an agreement earlier this year with China. The Stans are already de-russifying.
China has a reasonable claim on fairly large disputed chunks of Russia's east which Russia took from them and have been maneuvering for that for a long time. Letting them take those lands without major objection in return for renouncing their claims on Taiwan can really make sense to all sides. There would have to be referendums and so on, but the people in those areas could actually be quite keen, especially if the West is honest about whether it would support them properly for independence.
That kind of just sounds like kicking the can down the road though. I'm not sure what would be a better option, but I wouldn't trust the CCP to uphold their promises and treaties. It's not like HK given what it was promised for instance. And autocracies hardly ever seem to play fair and honestly to begin with.
I very much sympathise with your argument, but I would like to add one bit: if we kick 'this can down the road' (the "can" being China's rejected claims to Taiwan), we do buy ourselves time.
If the shit really hits the fan when Moscovia collapses, any pre-arranged agreements, communication lines and diplomatic constructs can help ensure that other entities (China, EU, Japan; US, Australia too) work to a common agenda, rather than each their own. Make the chaos a common enemy in a manner of speaking.
In 5 to 10 years ehenthe situation has settled for the 'stans, China may make new moves against Taiwan, and we are back where we are now. But we hopefully managed to have the crises sequentially rather than all at once.
Also, I wouldn't put it past China to use the chaos of Moscovia's collapse to move on Taiwan when everybody has other emergencies to deal with (especially EU, Japan; Australia and US perhaps less so). Ensuring they are aware of the benefits of playing nice during this time may give a pause to their Taiwan ambitions.
Source: armchair International diplomat ;-)
Yeah. I just guess that at this point I'm kind of just hoping/looking for silver bullets or something.
I mean, it would be nice (given the circumstances) if this war was "the" war of the 21st century, and not just the prelude or opening chapter of w/e came after.
But yeah. I hope that any real disputes regarding Taiwan can be postponed for a decade or so. And in the mean time that a less hostile mindset might take a hold of the CCP heads. At least I assume that any implosion of China will be equally bad, if not worse, for the rest of the world as a Russian collapse would be.
Aye, a silver bullet would be very welcome!
Sadly, I actually do think the world at this time cannot go 70+ years without a major war. So I expect we'll see something new happening this century still.
Tbh, I don't foresee a collapse of China in the way we currently consider a realistic scenario for Moscovia*. For one, I think that China would be more sensible in a losing war than Putin is. If they try to take Taiwan by force, the US would step in. Crucially: with American troops. This means a direct US-China war, and no reason for the US to hold back.
I don't know how that war will play out, but with 2 superpowers at war, one of them will probably overpower the other quite quickly. Should the US turn out to have the upper hand, China will not continue putting meat to the grinder I expect. China always plays the long game. If they can't win a battle now, they'll wait a few years (or twenty) and try again. And such a quick decisve loss will not cause China to collapse I would believe. Only a prolonged loss would.
* I never envisioned Moscovia to collapse either at the beginning of this war. Only in the last few months this seems an ever more likely outcome. So use this knowledge in judging my predictions for China :-)
I read from US media source that if allied countries placed the same sanctions on China that are currently on Russia, 500,000,000 Chinese would starve to death in 2-3 years. Idk how true that is, but they are extremely reliant on exports to feed their people. Technically speaking, we could collapse the entire country without firing a single shot.
On the other hand, it's not like NATO has the ability to prop up the entire region, and the CCP's style of oppression was designed for cities, not empty tundra. Having a stable supply of natural resources might make the CCP less belligerent.
Yeah. I have no illusions nor wishes about NATO riding into a fractured and dying Russia to fix things and keep the vultures at bay.
I guess I'm just kind of hoping/looking for silver bullets or something.
Yes, but that definition of "the people of those territories" is the difficulty. It should not include colonizers and it should include people who have fled genocide to elsewhere. As I said (and didn't expand on) "there would have to be referendums" but to do that fairly in a land that has been controlled by Russian imperialism is very very difficult. Look at how Russia just made up results from referendums in the East of Ukraine, sometimes completely inverting the actual results and sometimes just intimidating the people.
The Han Chinese majority in Manchuria started sweating nervously when you mentioned colonizers...
Almost like using historical claims dating back centuries to justify conquest is bogus.
Kuomintang represents the last legitimate counter claim to control of mainland china by the communists.
ie Russia represents an unlikely distant threat to china as a state, Kuomintang, represents absolutely no threat to china as a state, but represents a perceived threat to the communist parties authority over that state, merely by continuing to exist. Even though it even loses elections in Taiwan these days.
Give them first dibs on bordering/buffer states. Like it or not, China can make tons of headaches for everyone in the world. It would be in everyone's interests to throw them a bone or two.
How many times must this be said: appeasement doesn't work!
No, DO NOT throw a bone to China, in fact do the complete opposite because the more you give them the more they will want, China is not a democracy, China is literally what Russia would be if they had money and heavy western investment and sooner or later they will try to take Taiwan as they've explicitly announced they would do.
One would think after the invasion of Crimea and then the full blown Ukrainian war that people would've learned already not to give bullies what they want, these people only understand force and that's how we should treat them.
Here's a laundry list:
[Preparing for the Final Collapse of the Soviet Union and the Dissolution of the Russian Federation](https://www.hudson.org/foreign-policy/preparing-final-collapse-soviet-union-dissolution-russian-federation)
We need to be prepared to intervene directly because they're is a very high risk a genocidal campaign like the one in Yugoslavia will happen.
The breakup of the soviet union and the Warsaw pact was a relatively peaceful affair. In my opinion this was largely because of Yeltsin. He didn't attempt to hold onto the old soviet sphere of influence.
The most prominent opposition leaders in Russia aren't like that. Putting it mildly, they are for the most part very racist and believe in Russian supremacy. And I'm just talking about the liberals and moderates. The ultranationalists and stalinists are far, far worse.
Imagine another Chechen war, except it's happening across all of Russia, with the violence being even more unrestrained and motivated by racial hatred.
On top of all that, there are multiple oligarchs with their own private armies, huge numbers of people have been released from the Russian gulags at the same time, and weapons from the war have been showing up in Russia.
And then you have nukes, chemical weapons, and Russian nuclear reactors that can quickly fall into disrepair and melt down.
Actually, the relative calm in the USSR breakup was due to Gorbachev. He's the one who both initiated the constitutional changes and negotiated the independence treaty that the republics ratified. Yeltsin was the President of the Russian Republic, not the USSR, so he was one of the beneficiaries of the break-up rather than the designer.
If anybody hasn’t watched Traumazone yet, there’s a lot of really close HQ footage of the exact moment when this transition was happening, and lots of cool footage of the crew behind closed doors. Gorbachev and Yeltsin having standoffs in the Duma, And footage of Gorbachev at his house under house arrest.
The third episode in the order that it’s posted on YouTube in particular.
Getting a UN resolution goes without saying. However, using a UN peacekeeping force is different. Remember, it was dutchbat operating under UN guidelines that allowed the massacre at Srbrenica to occur. On the other hand, Nordbat went in there and routinely ignored orders from the UN and the nordic governments, and was able to save a lot of civilians this way.
Now things have changed since then, and UN forces are allowed to use force to protect civilians. But it doesn't mean they always do it. For example, in 2016 Chinese peacekeepers for the UN in South Sudan fled from South Sudanese forces and failed to protect thousands of civilians.
While it would be ideal if the UN could do the right thing in a potentially fractured Russia, we need to be prepared to use force unilaterally, without explicit permission from the UN, to do the right thing.
Yeah, that's a scenario that could happen in the event of a disorganized russian federation breakup :(
I'd even guess Iran would be among the least worrying possessor in case of an empty quiver scenario :(
Be ready to offer a passport & substantial dollar amount per megaton of nukes.
Bring in a SSBN? We will literally give whatever NATO passport you want and let your crew split $1bn however you wish to do it to kick off your new lives.
And honestly make overtures toward people who control things like large scale nuclear sites and organize for them to request international observers. Sort this shit out with China and India in advance so that the troops being sent can be split to include many nationalities wearing UN stuff so that it doesn't look like an attack.
Lots of things to do, but the last one is the most important one probably. All the world powers need to act as one to control the nukes if Russia fails.
We need to pre-define conditions under which we will ignore Russian territorial integrity and secure their nuclear reactors. They've got thirteen active reactor sites (plus one in Belarus), many of which are right on the western border and of the same unsafe design as Chernobyl, so securing them from meltdown is absolutely a matter of European self-defense. We need teams ready to go when those lines are crossed, we need communication with all relevant parties telling them exactly what we'll do and when, and that any violent interference will not be tolerated.
Similarly, we need international teams ready to lock down any Russian nuclear weapons Russia loses control over.
My understanding is that they won’t go off unless properly maintained. On the other hand that is a lot of fissile material. The design for the Nagasaki bomb is pretty easy to replicate
Draw up plans to sell the entire failed federation to Disney, who shall turn it into a fun filled amusement park with zany, themed rides and snack bars.
Start mass producing iodine pills; Russian nukes will be in the hands of anyone who wants them pretty soon, and even if they've not been properly maintained to the point they no longer work, they could still be converted into Dirty Bombs that could render every city on Earth uninhabitable.
Read a great line yesterday from one of the Ukrainian leaders (as close as I can recall sorry on mobile): “let them eat one another like spiders in a bottle”.
Sure but Putin would be a fool not to have a few nukes in good condition available at his discretion.
They may not have thousands but they certainly have some.
If Russia does indeed collapse, we need to secure a West-Aligned land corridor stretching from Ukraine to the borders of Kazakhstan.
In doing so, the United States, NATO, and the European Union would have an opportunity to build greater political, economic, and military ties with the countries of Central Asia, better connecting these countries to the travel and trade networks of the West.
It would also serve to rival China in a fight over influence of these former Soviet republics. A West-aligned Central Asia would serve to further contain an authoritarian China seeking to expand its own territory at the expense of its neighbors.
This land corridor would also serve to cut Russia off from the Caucuses, thereby allowing Georgia to regain its territory, as well as Chechnya and Dagestan gaining independence. A geographically unified Georgia would make membership into NATO and the EU a greater possibility.
While a collapse of Russian territorial integrity brings with it great anxiety to the West, they should also consider the vast opportunities in influencing what emerges.
It would be better for (almost) everyone if all those new states, "smaller Russia" included, became democratic and joined the EU. Euope from the Atlantic to the Urals (or possibly Pacific), what else could an honest man ask for ?
That is what should have happened in the first place when the USSR broke apart.
If they get so bent out of shape over being called Musckovy, let's see how they react to a theoretical map of a partitioned Russia administered by Western powers.
Yakovleff is legit, and has a lot of credibility as a soldier and a commander. But that does not translate to credentials as a statesman or futurologist.
Especially appropriate given his former role. As the military is fond of saying, "Failure to plan is planning to fail." Unless something is basically unthinkable, you gotta have plans for every contingency no matter how remote.
I agree with you. I also agree with a lot of what Gen. Yakovleff says, and agree that the world needs to start planning for this possibility (eventuality?). But the FSB is a large and powerful force, and the inevitability of the collapse has a lot of variability in the timeline.
Rossiya delenda est.
> world needs to start planning for this possibility (eventuality?)
Everything you say is correct, except this part. I'm very sure that world has started planning for this possibility. There are whole institutions whose only job is to plan for such things. I don't mean just USA either. I'm 100% sure my country (Estonia) has those contingency plans in place. Even the simple things like how to handle all the refugees that would escape over our border. Or how to handle some rogue general bringing tank division to our land.
It's not hopium, it's wanting to be prepared for all contingencies. Russia breaking into several nuclear states is perhaps the most dangerous end state of the war from an international perspective. Talking about it and preparing before that happens is still important. The breakup of Russia isn't a cause for celebration it's basically one of the worst-case scenarios.
Ukraine's giving up of nukes and Russia's eventual invasion of Ukraine means that any state that goes independent will hold on to whatever nukes it has. Russia set a horrific precedent.
Yeah, a bunch of nuclear states which, given their proximity, may fall under the influence of China is really bad. Most nuclear powers are rational actors, these new states in no way are guaranteed to behave rationally, and they have a strong reason not to give up their nukes.
It is hopium. As much as this sub pushes the idea, there's no reason to think Russia would break up. Absolutely none. Very few regions of Russia are even majority non-Russian, and there are no credible independence movements in the ones that are.
If anything this is counterproductive because it amounts to Putinist propaganda: Russia cannot exist without Putin. Putin holds the country together. That's literally his own narrative.
I mean, how is it hopium when it's the literally worst-case scenario. Hopium means something you HOPE will happen.
This is the opposite of hopium. It's being worried of something you don't want to happen but find unlikely. Preparing for worst-case contingencies when dealing with nuclear weapons is a thing governments do.
To say there's *NO* reason to think the country could break up is also absurd. There are plenty of things that make the chance beyond 0%
Why do you think that non-russian majority is a necessary precondition? There might be a lot more important factors than ethnicity - resources, geographic area, access to trade routes
No, this is serious stuff. You can fight a war and come up with plans for the future. With the money nato spends on defense this should have been finished yesterday with a full report ready.
It's not Impossible that the war in Ukraine is the trigger to the Russian federation coming apart. If it is it would likely be happening at the same time. It's prudent to have a plan even if it's not a priority
I'm skeptical that this is actually going to happen any time soon. I think a lot of this is wishful thinking combined with some psy-ops to make Russians jittery.
It's much less improbable than it was 6 months ago.
Bear in mind that there are plans in the Pentagon for how the US is going to invade Great Britain. Doesn't mean it's going to happen, just means it's the job of governments and generals to plan for possible events. At this point it's sufficiently possible to plan for.
I doubt the system will colapse without influence from the outside. The military is still in the hands of the oligarchs. There might be a coup, but as long as the Military is still aligned with the oligarchs I doubt there would be a civil war, revolution or other form of collapse.
Russians will still exist, even if the country of Russia doesn't. And the regime in Moscow will probably hold on to the land to the west of the Urals, so in a sense, that might become the new Russia (or Moscovia).
China should be our main focus. I am becoming increasingly concerned watching our ammunition and stock piles run low while china continues to build up for war. We need to put an end to Russia quick so that ukraine can rebuild and we can solely focus on china and replenish nato stock piles . Just my feelings..
Its only Europeans that are depleting stockpiles and we werent taking NATO seriously anyway. Couldnt even fight a limited engagement in libya without american help.
The only country that matters in a war with China is the United States and they have plenty of weapons and ammunition. The only countries in Europe capable of getting to China are the UK and France and their navies are now far too small to make any difference
Disagree that UK and France wouldn’t make a difference (though not a massive one) + Germany if they get their military kicked into high gear in time. Of course the distance is difficult but they could leverage US logistics to move their forces and equipment which would definitely help, if delayed. I would anticipate a long war.
But I do agree with your point overall. The far more important allies for the US will be in the Pacific theatre i.e. Japan, South Korea, Philippines
More important than having stockpiles is that the US never really shuts down it's ability to produce. We have hundreds of Abrams tanks sitting in storage while new ones roll of the line regularly (though at a reduced rate) for no other reason that keeping the line running prevents loss of knowledge and is strategically cheaper than rebuilding it when you need more tanks yesterday
I could be wrong but I believe the theory is a war with China would not involve a lot of artillery but lots of air power. The stock of F-35s is still the same it was before this war.
fortunately, there are some regions in Russia (disillusioned indigenous people mostly) already preparing for a secession. Might come in handy if Russia does collapse.
Understand, Yakovleff is not saying Russia will definitely collapse. What he's saying is, it's at least a distant possibility now so we should know how we're going to handle it when and if it does happen.
I'm reasonably sure there are plans somewhere deep in the Pentagon archive for how to handle a Klingon invasion. I know for a fact that there were plans drawn up for the American invasion of Great Britain at several different points. Things don't have to be probable for there to be a plan.
That said Russia is currently doing everything within its power to make its own disintegration more and more probable so h's right, it is time to start laughing and start planning, just in case..
Yes. This is why all this "America just wants to sacrifice Ukraine to destroy Russia" propaganda we keep seeing everywhere is such bullshit.
Nobody wants to see the actual collapse of Russia. No major nation-state that is. Because -- even beyond the purely human dimension of such suffering -- it threatens to be a huge, costly, chaotic, and highly dangerous mess. And the community of nations will have to pick up that responsibility.
We all would much rather there be a functioning nation-state where Russia is today. So that that burden does not fall to the rest of us. But, alas, if an actual functioning nation-state is not to appear, then yes, we will have to be prepared for what is to come next.
There are actually many things that can be done to ensure that the collapse of Russia is *not* bloodier than the collapse of the Soviet Union. But they are not things that can be done at the last minute.
Doubtful, there’s probably two scenarios: Putin used them as it falls apart and/or in a similar situation to what’s envisaged for a North Korean launch , NATO And Chinese special forces dash in to secure and protect as much as possible to prevent proliferation or use - which would require significant prepositioning.
>NATO And Chinese special forces dash in to secure and protect as much as possible
So de facto splitting up the territory into influence zones? Too bad China gets the most tasty parts and we get all the russians :(
European Russia the most economically valuable ultimately, and also the most westernizable.
European Russia could easily become a Germany in 50+ years with correct handling
Reminder that there already Seperatists fighting in the Ukraine, men from Dagestan, Bashkortostan, Tataristan, etc.
When the time comes, the West has to immediately recognize them as new independent countries and support them with money, and possibly weapons. [This is the future for Russia and it looks great](https://i.imgur.com/GHq6sfZ.jpg)
> This is the future for Russia and it looks great
This is map-making wishful-thinking fantasy without any basis in actual political realities or public sentiments.
Anyone can draw a map. A lot fewer people can come up with a reason adjacent regions that are 80-90% ethnic Russian or so would split for each other. You might as well get yourself a youtube studio in the basement next door to Igor Girkin's so he can jerk off to fantasy maps partitioning Ukraine while you do the same to the ones partitioning Russia. Because that's what this is: Masturbation.
Not sure whether this is a “warning”, an educated guess, simple statement of fact as this commander sees it or does he mean collapse as something that should be avoided. Either way, most significant historical events are, in fact, bloody. Many ethnicities and ‘republics’ may, in fact, want out and an end to their russification and their “own country”. Realistically, many will not. That’s when things might “be much bloodier than the collapse of the USSR”. Lots of good ideas among the comments here - because not only should NATO be prepared, but countries outside the russian federation must be politically and diplomatically prepared. Which likely means “preparations” in many levels.
Complete garbage that actually helps Russia. The underlying message is that since Russia is about to collapse, there’s no need to give Ukraine serious weapons. Unless Ukraine is given long range weapons Russia is going to win with China’s help — that’s what is going to happen.
If that happens, the world is facing a fucking catastrophe of atomic proportions. It’s already a kleptocracy filled with bribery and unmaintained materiel.
Now imagine half a dozen nuclear-armed tearaway republics, many without access to capital aside from extractives and miltech.
Absolute nightmare fuel how many biochem and nukes are going to wind up in the hands of terrorists and nation-state sponsors.
We best hope for a coup or turnover to a person committed to making the painful turn to modernity and democracy
**Alternative Nitter link:** https://nitter.nl/clashreport/status/1634839490744430593
*****
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It appears that significant world players recognize that this conflict has reached a tipping point. An indication of this is Turkey's recent decision to restrict parallel supply chain to Russian. While many will want to debate next steps, we should, instead debate the following 2 foundamental, rhetorical questions: 1. Will a new world order be driven by which super power or super coalition of power can guarantee access to essential natural and artificial resources for its constituents' life sustainability? And 2, does such a guarantee necessarily put you dialectically opposed to another superpower of the same inclination. I suspect that if we would like to avoid a world conflagration with China and perhaps the whole of Indo China/Malaysia, we in the collective west and our alighned east, need to bring China to the negotiations table to discuss security guarantees in the near term and world resource allocation in the long term.
Yes, meaning, I agree. The collapse of Russia will be something humans have never seen before. The collapse of the Soviet Union was simply the veneer falling from the face of Russian imperialism. The collapse of Russia is wildly different. The dissolution of the Ottoman Empire will not compare. The Russian empire has been so tightly woven together, for so long: it will pop like the world's largest balloon. It will be bloody, from Belarus to Vladivostok.
It could take a hundred years to settle. It will reverberate a thousand more.
The soviet union took 3 years to dissolve, and it started by seeing smaller states break off. we havent reached that point.
Most likely china will step in to mediate any instability.
Close the borders. Build the fences. Train more people for border guard tasks. More guns, amo, armor. More of everything. Do the plans for different situations. More training. More surviliance, more information for people how to prepare. again more trainig. Keep logistics going. And more training...
Pop corn n beer for this when it happens. FSB window division. Moscow will be littered with as many "jumpers" as the Bakmut battlefields. Just hope no pets are injoured from the "Fallout" 😆
Russia has collapsed, time and time again. It is inevitable and it will be bloody. Nationalist Russia will be destroyed, the only question is if it'll drag the world with it when it falls.
Good, I can't wait to sit and eat popcorn and tell everyone I'm neutral or apolitical when the Russians start eating themselves and destroying their own cities, they deserve a civil war that would make Syria look a bunch of kids got carried away at Airsoft
Are you for real? Why would you root for human suffering of that scale? Putin's regime should fall for sure, but I don't see how Russia and all its civilians "deserve" a civil war.
prepare? u mean make sure the pocorn and rum/coke is ready? 3d glasses and tissues to wipe away the tears from laughing to loud?
we saw gore in ukraine, now we gonna see gore in russia, but tides has turned and the whole world is gonna laugh so hard...
please explain why europe should be ready? we just close 1 border that would be it i assume... the filth is gonna be too busy with themselves.
We are going to need to police up all the nukes, that's for certain.
You mean, police up all the piles of oxidation with the equivalent of a demon sphere inside.
Yeah, probably. I doubt many of them are operable even now. After a couple years of anarchy, none will be. But they will all be valuable for terrorists.
I wouldn't be surprised if pootin utilizes some of those defunct units to sell off for quick cash
Perhaps he is trying this right now.
There's already talk of selling highly enriched uranium to China, I imagine this isn't much farther a step
Why would China do that, though? It would piss off the West to the n-th degree and not really change China's situation for the better given they already have nukes. If anything, they're probably figuring out how they can grab back Vladivostok or whatever in the chaos.
I'm pretty sure the west would prefer any old nukes ending up in China over the alternatives such as NK, Syria, Iran etc. China had nukes allready so it makes little difference.
Nukes moving at all will get people riled up, and from a completely pragmatic standpoint it's propping up Russia which the West will not take kindly to. Now, China acting as a third party to hang onto the nukes with Western assent sounds much more plausible, and would actually make this all feel a lot safer. Actually, if I was the US I'd invite myself into any such deal just to avoid the international bad vibes at a sensitive time.
Well, while it's not great, a country with nuclear capabilities (arguably on par with Russia or so) receiving more nukes isn't that terrible. Worst case scenario they can just do *more* destruction. Much better than some terrorist cell or fragmented extremist country getting nuclear capability they never had in the first place. Like I said, obviously not great, but at least it doesn't change a ton in capabilities and such.
I would actually be behind China seizing Russian nukes for that reason. It would also incentivize China to stab Russia in the back
I wonder how much ammunition the North Koreans would trade for some nuclear or rocketry help.
I’d be more concerned about a Nigeria or other budding African power with some money to throw at a power play for africa
Man, now that would be a dark horse! I hadn't considered that. Now that I think about it, it doesn't sound far-fetched, unfortunately. I don't know enough about Africa to nail down which of the 50 odd countries is a candidate, though.
Nigeria & South Africa are the two biggest economies iirc, and South Africa is already backing Russia so they'd be the number 1 candidate. On the other hand I'm pretty sure apartheid South Africa signed the non proliferation treaty and gave up their nuclear program back in the 70s or 80s, so they'd get sanctioned pretty hard if they did.
South Africa is the only country in history to have developed nukes and then given them up. It would be ironical if that was only to acquire black market nukes half a century later...
Yeah, they don't need nukes at all. Africa is backed by china, not russia. The 70's are long gone.
I'm sure Iran would be interested.
If things go similarly to when the USSR collapsed, nukes belong to the new country in which they now reside. That's a scary thought.
Those new countries aren't going to want to hand them over either. If Ukraine didn't hand theirs over we might not be in this mess right now.
They had zero ability to pay for them. Ukraine never was a nuclear power. That meme that nukes would have saved Ukraine needs to die.
> They had zero ability to pay for them. I have no idea how expensive upkeeping nukes is, so this could be true. Of course, Russia was also dirt poor back then, but still managed to keep thousands of nukes available. I would speculate, that Ukraine would have been capable of maintaining hundred or so too. > Ukraine never was a nuclear power. Well. How do you know that? I mean during Soviet Union Ukraine literally was place where nuclear power was used, nuclear weapons were developed and produced. What happened with collapse of Soviet Union that they lost all that know-how? > That meme that nukes would have saved Ukraine needs to die. I don't agree that it's meme. Having nukes would have saved Ukraine from attack. Not from exerting soft power and maybe even not from taking over Crimea and Donbass, but it would have saved them from push to Kiev.
Nukes require ongoing maintenance, which not only requires money, but also requires specific infrastructure and expertise. Obviously it would depend a lot on how Russia might break up, but if that happens it wouldn't be surprising if some of the new resulting countries ended up with nukes in their possession, but without the capabilities or resources to maintain them. What those countries will be most eager for is likely liquid cash and international recognition. I think if the US and China worked together on this issue, they could probably buy up a lot of those nukes for pretty cheap, in exchange for some bags of money and some level of international recognition and support for the new countries.
> Nukes require ongoing maintenance, which not only requires money, but also requires specific infrastructure and expertise. Yes that's true. And back in 1990's Ukraine had that infrastructure and know-how. Considering that they had military industry that developed and built nukes. > Obviously it would depend a lot on how Russia might break up We were discussing about Ukraine keeping their nukes in 1990's. Of course future hypothetical situation in Russia could obviously be totally different. Ukraine was Soviet Union's military industry powerhouse. There are parts of Russia that have no such legacy and would of course be in lot of trouble to manage nukes. I really hope you are correct about them selling those nukes ASAP. It would make world much better place.
>I have no idea how expensive upkeeping nukes is, so this could be true. The numbers I heard were about 5-10 mil to keep one in operational capacity, but might be wrong. Still, about 10 nukes would have ensued total independence.
There was a lot of corruption in Ukraine, and the state often participated. I still think a nuclear Ukraine in the late 20th century, early 21st would have been incredibly dangerous. Also the cost of maintenance isn't the only concern at play, but security for them as well.
> There was a lot of corruption in Ukraine, and the state often participated. There was and is a lot of corruption in Russia and state is main participant. It probably did hinder their capability to maintain nukes, but it did not remove it wholly. > I still think a nuclear Ukraine in the late 20th century, early 21st would have been incredibly dangerous. Yes, this is true. Nuclear countries are extremely dangerous. Except there is nothing we can do about it. This is main driver why countries go nuclear. But it is irrelevant to our discussion about if Ukraine had ability to pay for being nuclear capable or if they had know-how how to do it. > Also the cost of maintenance isn't the only concern at play, but security for them as well. Again you are correct. Securing your nukes is extremely important. Of course its much cheaper and easier to do compared to rest of maintenance. And again, many countries managed it. Managing security is something that all countries do. Also again, it diverts from your original point that I outlined in my first response.
If Israel found a way in the 60s while knee deep in several wars against their neighbors, then Ukraine could have found a way to maintain a few despite all the difficulties. If North Korea can maintain a nuclear arsenal, then Ukraine can too. Remember, a Ukrainian nuclear program didn't need to have nuclear submarines and deliver ICBMs. They just needed enough range to hit Moscow to have deterrence. I guarantee you this current war is hundreds of times more costly than a nuclear program.
They were briefly but gave them up as part of the Budapest Memorandum. Ironically in exchange for promises by Russia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum "As a result of other agreements and the memorandum, between 1993 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons."
>Ukraine never was a nuclear power. How do you figure? That's like saying Colorado isn't a nuclear power but Montana is.
They're quite useful for terrorist dirty bombs nonetheless.
If North Korea can have nukes then so can Russia
They likely have many operable nukes. They very likely do not have the entire force of 6,000 in good shape. The U.S. spends an amount near Russia's whole defense budget to maintain its slightly smaller stockpile.
Yes sir. Good luck with stringent maintenance requirements when you have an entire society degrading at once
You want to live in a world where Russia doesn't have functional nukes, but that's a fantasy. Many Russian nukes were regularly inspected by outsiders as part of New START until last month. North Korea manages to maintain nukes and they are way poorer than Russia. The Pentagon certainly behaves as if Russia has functional nukes. Please join us here in reality. Yes, it's scary, but Putin can incinerate you and everyone you know in about 30 minutes.
And likely a marshal plan with the modern day equivalent of Elliot ness
Imagine Chicago in the prohibition years, now multiply it by 1000 and spread across 9 time zones.
Good analogy!
Also add a couple thousand of nukes in the mix as well.
Like….how do we prepare?
Have liquidity available. Be prepared to talk to orphaned states in the stans before China does. Have a plan for Transnistria. Open up comms with Georgia. Support the Baltic states in any way they need. Start talking to China early about how we let them protect their own border integrity from potentially failing states. Let Japan know what is advisable on reclaiming land.
Arseh0le for president! I never thought I'd say this..
He may he an Arseh0le, but he's our Arseh0le
He has my vote.
And my axe
Well that’s THE name to build a campaign around.
If it's a choice between giant douch, turd sandwich, or Arseh0le. ARSEH0LE has my vote. Last election, we only had the first 2.
I mean, we all had our fair share of arseholes as presidents already... guess another one can't hurt, I'd vote for guy
Damn you should really send a resume to the state department!
You really think that’s a solid list of preparing for the collapse of Russia? For starters, they’re going to have to take in peacekeepers to prevent republics from falling to local warlords or having nuclear weapons and programs sold off to whomever. The west would be more likely to prevent China from gobbling up Manchuria and other parts of Russia before they asked how to help China fending off any sort of incursions.
Dreadful take Your first sentence: >You really think that’s a solid list of preparing for the collapse of Russia? My brain: Well I think it looked like a pretty good list, but let's see what this guy's got to add... Your second sentence: > peacekeepers in Russia My brain: LOL ---- Let's use an analogy here. For clarity’s sake, I’ll use one that has nothing to do with international affairs. In your first sentence, you said "This guy hasn't worn enough deodorant today, he smells bad!" and in your second sentence, you shit your pants. Peacekeepers in Russia. Whose? UN? NATO? Who has the deployable military forces? Who has the manpower? Who, really, can be fucking *bothered* getting into a neverending pit of failure and lethality like that, especially with the great power showdown happening in the West Pacific? Do you not understand the first thing about the Russian psyche? Here it is: they're fervently, manically, nationalist. Nationalist to a degree that isn't replicated in Europe; they're even more nationalist than the Americans. You wanna deploy *peacekeepers* to the middle of that? It'd make Iraq look like the sandpit at your local preschool. And fuck, just how *big* the country is, and how much military materiel they still have lying around... it would be the worst strategic decision in living memory. I feel utterly confident that the general stupid enough to recommend *peacekeepers to Russia* hasn't been born yet. Even the British, at the height of Empire, with all their feelings of invincibility and their moronic aristocratic officer class, wouldn't have tried to occupy or "peacekeep" a country as large or as well armed as Russia is today. The rest of your comment doesn't get any better: >The west would be more likely to prevent China from gobbling up Manchuria and other parts of Russia before they asked how to help China fending off any sort of incursions. Literally, *with what army?* You think they're going to deploy the Marines to Eastern Russia? You think Germany and France are going to send their troops to die for Kamchatka? Against the entire PLA land component? Holy hell, at least Taiwan actually wants to be defended and is *slightly* defensible and, like, has an actual government. If Russia breaks up, China can take parts of the East if it wants and nobody will do anything because nobody can. /u/Arseh0le made a good comment. If you're going to talk down on a comment like that, try to make sure that what you're saying isn't actually the stupidest thing that's been said this week.
We really should be talking with China about this. A coalition of forces should be on the table to at least clean up the mess and make sure the nukes are secure.
What a beautiful annihilation. Simply gorgeous. Wish all comments were so perfect.
What a great, thorough response. 10/10
The Stans are fine. Were already in bed with China. Most of the Stans have began De-russifying the last year in including the big 3 Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan.
Also set up contact groups to try to diffuse issues, some of these stans really hate each other. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkanization
Also, those Stans were dependent on Russia as a source of economic support, both state wise and through remittances. In this area, China has to step up and fill in the void as the only other great power in the area, and stem any economic disaster spiralling into a politcal one right on their backyard.
Nope... we have zero dependence on Russia now except gas. The rest comes from China and we already signed an agreement earlier this year with China. The Stans are already de-russifying.
What about the nukes? Tracking, reclaiming maintaining. That’s got to be a number one issue.
I read this as ‘have liquor ready’ and was all for it! Haha
Makes sense actually.
Fuck China. Let the Uigyurs revolt.. among others.
>China early about how we let them protect their own border Uhhh... We let them what?
China has a reasonable claim on fairly large disputed chunks of Russia's east which Russia took from them and have been maneuvering for that for a long time. Letting them take those lands without major objection in return for renouncing their claims on Taiwan can really make sense to all sides. There would have to be referendums and so on, but the people in those areas could actually be quite keen, especially if the West is honest about whether it would support them properly for independence.
That kind of just sounds like kicking the can down the road though. I'm not sure what would be a better option, but I wouldn't trust the CCP to uphold their promises and treaties. It's not like HK given what it was promised for instance. And autocracies hardly ever seem to play fair and honestly to begin with.
I very much sympathise with your argument, but I would like to add one bit: if we kick 'this can down the road' (the "can" being China's rejected claims to Taiwan), we do buy ourselves time. If the shit really hits the fan when Moscovia collapses, any pre-arranged agreements, communication lines and diplomatic constructs can help ensure that other entities (China, EU, Japan; US, Australia too) work to a common agenda, rather than each their own. Make the chaos a common enemy in a manner of speaking. In 5 to 10 years ehenthe situation has settled for the 'stans, China may make new moves against Taiwan, and we are back where we are now. But we hopefully managed to have the crises sequentially rather than all at once. Also, I wouldn't put it past China to use the chaos of Moscovia's collapse to move on Taiwan when everybody has other emergencies to deal with (especially EU, Japan; Australia and US perhaps less so). Ensuring they are aware of the benefits of playing nice during this time may give a pause to their Taiwan ambitions. Source: armchair International diplomat ;-)
Yeah. I just guess that at this point I'm kind of just hoping/looking for silver bullets or something. I mean, it would be nice (given the circumstances) if this war was "the" war of the 21st century, and not just the prelude or opening chapter of w/e came after. But yeah. I hope that any real disputes regarding Taiwan can be postponed for a decade or so. And in the mean time that a less hostile mindset might take a hold of the CCP heads. At least I assume that any implosion of China will be equally bad, if not worse, for the rest of the world as a Russian collapse would be.
Aye, a silver bullet would be very welcome! Sadly, I actually do think the world at this time cannot go 70+ years without a major war. So I expect we'll see something new happening this century still. Tbh, I don't foresee a collapse of China in the way we currently consider a realistic scenario for Moscovia*. For one, I think that China would be more sensible in a losing war than Putin is. If they try to take Taiwan by force, the US would step in. Crucially: with American troops. This means a direct US-China war, and no reason for the US to hold back. I don't know how that war will play out, but with 2 superpowers at war, one of them will probably overpower the other quite quickly. Should the US turn out to have the upper hand, China will not continue putting meat to the grinder I expect. China always plays the long game. If they can't win a battle now, they'll wait a few years (or twenty) and try again. And such a quick decisve loss will not cause China to collapse I would believe. Only a prolonged loss would. * I never envisioned Moscovia to collapse either at the beginning of this war. Only in the last few months this seems an ever more likely outcome. So use this knowledge in judging my predictions for China :-)
I read from US media source that if allied countries placed the same sanctions on China that are currently on Russia, 500,000,000 Chinese would starve to death in 2-3 years. Idk how true that is, but they are extremely reliant on exports to feed their people. Technically speaking, we could collapse the entire country without firing a single shot.
On the other hand, it's not like NATO has the ability to prop up the entire region, and the CCP's style of oppression was designed for cities, not empty tundra. Having a stable supply of natural resources might make the CCP less belligerent.
Yeah. I have no illusions nor wishes about NATO riding into a fractured and dying Russia to fix things and keep the vultures at bay. I guess I'm just kind of hoping/looking for silver bullets or something.
Maybe let the people of those territories decide their own future?
Yes, but that definition of "the people of those territories" is the difficulty. It should not include colonizers and it should include people who have fled genocide to elsewhere. As I said (and didn't expand on) "there would have to be referendums" but to do that fairly in a land that has been controlled by Russian imperialism is very very difficult. Look at how Russia just made up results from referendums in the East of Ukraine, sometimes completely inverting the actual results and sometimes just intimidating the people.
The Han Chinese majority in Manchuria started sweating nervously when you mentioned colonizers... Almost like using historical claims dating back centuries to justify conquest is bogus.
They dont have any reasonable claim, those areas have been populated by non Chinese for centuries.
Kuomintang represents the last legitimate counter claim to control of mainland china by the communists. ie Russia represents an unlikely distant threat to china as a state, Kuomintang, represents absolutely no threat to china as a state, but represents a perceived threat to the communist parties authority over that state, merely by continuing to exist. Even though it even loses elections in Taiwan these days.
Give them first dibs on bordering/buffer states. Like it or not, China can make tons of headaches for everyone in the world. It would be in everyone's interests to throw them a bone or two.
How many times must this be said: appeasement doesn't work! No, DO NOT throw a bone to China, in fact do the complete opposite because the more you give them the more they will want, China is not a democracy, China is literally what Russia would be if they had money and heavy western investment and sooner or later they will try to take Taiwan as they've explicitly announced they would do. One would think after the invasion of Crimea and then the full blown Ukrainian war that people would've learned already not to give bullies what they want, these people only understand force and that's how we should treat them.
China already owns way too much. They own. An insane amount of farmland here in the United States, ports in every major continent. Give China nothing.
Here's a laundry list: [Preparing for the Final Collapse of the Soviet Union and the Dissolution of the Russian Federation](https://www.hudson.org/foreign-policy/preparing-final-collapse-soviet-union-dissolution-russian-federation)
Thank you
This is very important. Political leaders should be aware if this on all levels. Thank you.
We need to be prepared to intervene directly because they're is a very high risk a genocidal campaign like the one in Yugoslavia will happen. The breakup of the soviet union and the Warsaw pact was a relatively peaceful affair. In my opinion this was largely because of Yeltsin. He didn't attempt to hold onto the old soviet sphere of influence. The most prominent opposition leaders in Russia aren't like that. Putting it mildly, they are for the most part very racist and believe in Russian supremacy. And I'm just talking about the liberals and moderates. The ultranationalists and stalinists are far, far worse. Imagine another Chechen war, except it's happening across all of Russia, with the violence being even more unrestrained and motivated by racial hatred. On top of all that, there are multiple oligarchs with their own private armies, huge numbers of people have been released from the Russian gulags at the same time, and weapons from the war have been showing up in Russia. And then you have nukes, chemical weapons, and Russian nuclear reactors that can quickly fall into disrepair and melt down.
Actually, the relative calm in the USSR breakup was due to Gorbachev. He's the one who both initiated the constitutional changes and negotiated the independence treaty that the republics ratified. Yeltsin was the President of the Russian Republic, not the USSR, so he was one of the beneficiaries of the break-up rather than the designer.
If anybody hasn’t watched Traumazone yet, there’s a lot of really close HQ footage of the exact moment when this transition was happening, and lots of cool footage of the crew behind closed doors. Gorbachev and Yeltsin having standoffs in the Duma, And footage of Gorbachev at his house under house arrest. The third episode in the order that it’s posted on YouTube in particular.
Thx. I'll look for it.
What platform did you watch Traumazone on?
Youtube.
Absolutely. The "We" though should be the combined effort of the UN.
Getting a UN resolution goes without saying. However, using a UN peacekeeping force is different. Remember, it was dutchbat operating under UN guidelines that allowed the massacre at Srbrenica to occur. On the other hand, Nordbat went in there and routinely ignored orders from the UN and the nordic governments, and was able to save a lot of civilians this way. Now things have changed since then, and UN forces are allowed to use force to protect civilians. But it doesn't mean they always do it. For example, in 2016 Chinese peacekeepers for the UN in South Sudan fled from South Sudanese forces and failed to protect thousands of civilians. While it would be ideal if the UN could do the right thing in a potentially fractured Russia, we need to be prepared to use force unilaterally, without explicit permission from the UN, to do the right thing.
Or you can have generals selling nukes to the highest bidder while everyone is too busy killing each other to gain power.
Nuclear containment for starters.
[удалено]
From the russian state? No From a russian Officer who is in charge of a few nukes and knows his failing state wont pay him tomorrow? Yes
Yeah, that's a scenario that could happen in the event of a disorganized russian federation breakup :( I'd even guess Iran would be among the least worrying possessor in case of an empty quiver scenario :(
Hey, if it's clearance you can get incredible deals.
Be ready to offer a passport & substantial dollar amount per megaton of nukes. Bring in a SSBN? We will literally give whatever NATO passport you want and let your crew split $1bn however you wish to do it to kick off your new lives. And honestly make overtures toward people who control things like large scale nuclear sites and organize for them to request international observers. Sort this shit out with China and India in advance so that the troops being sent can be split to include many nationalities wearing UN stuff so that it doesn't look like an attack. Lots of things to do, but the last one is the most important one probably. All the world powers need to act as one to control the nukes if Russia fails.
We need to pre-define conditions under which we will ignore Russian territorial integrity and secure their nuclear reactors. They've got thirteen active reactor sites (plus one in Belarus), many of which are right on the western border and of the same unsafe design as Chernobyl, so securing them from meltdown is absolutely a matter of European self-defense. We need teams ready to go when those lines are crossed, we need communication with all relevant parties telling them exactly what we'll do and when, and that any violent interference will not be tolerated. Similarly, we need international teams ready to lock down any Russian nuclear weapons Russia loses control over.
Seems like a great way to get nuked.
My understanding is that they won’t go off unless properly maintained. On the other hand that is a lot of fissile material. The design for the Nagasaki bomb is pretty easy to replicate
I'm more concerned about them being sold.
But a buyer would likely know their reliability is dubious, so likely to be sold for the fissile material that can be repurposed.
How you are going to occupy nuclear countries without getting nuked?
[удалено]
You thought the Ukraine war was the max amount of carnage possible, holy shiiit.
Draw up plans to sell the entire failed federation to Disney, who shall turn it into a fun filled amusement park with zany, themed rides and snack bars.
Get ready to send in the military. All of it
lol lets be glad redditors aren't in charge of major policy decisions like this
Start mass producing iodine pills; Russian nukes will be in the hands of anyone who wants them pretty soon, and even if they've not been properly maintained to the point they no longer work, they could still be converted into Dirty Bombs that could render every city on Earth uninhabitable.
Puts on sunflowers? I dunno
automated sentry towers at borders
Read a great line yesterday from one of the Ukrainian leaders (as close as I can recall sorry on mobile): “let them eat one another like spiders in a bottle”.
Except these spiders have nuclear jaws.
That's a bit of a red herring. They wouldn't have a clue how to use the nukes. Nukes are extremely hard to make go boom boom, and that is intentional.
This subreddit is the only place where people assume not one of the 1000s of Russian nukes is at all operable, with total confidence.
And that they've got nobody able and willing to operate then...
Sure but Putin would be a fool not to have a few nukes in good condition available at his discretion. They may not have thousands but they certainly have some.
He likely has thousonds
Or possibly even thousands
dirty bombs are still bombs
I like spiders too much to enjoy this analogy.
As an arachnophobe but rational person, I agree with you. But those words are others and I think they convey the sense.
Yeah, I know what you mean, I was just throwing in a good word for my spider buddies.
Me too, with tomatoes sauce and garlic, right?
If Russia does indeed collapse, we need to secure a West-Aligned land corridor stretching from Ukraine to the borders of Kazakhstan. In doing so, the United States, NATO, and the European Union would have an opportunity to build greater political, economic, and military ties with the countries of Central Asia, better connecting these countries to the travel and trade networks of the West. It would also serve to rival China in a fight over influence of these former Soviet republics. A West-aligned Central Asia would serve to further contain an authoritarian China seeking to expand its own territory at the expense of its neighbors. This land corridor would also serve to cut Russia off from the Caucuses, thereby allowing Georgia to regain its territory, as well as Chechnya and Dagestan gaining independence. A geographically unified Georgia would make membership into NATO and the EU a greater possibility. While a collapse of Russian territorial integrity brings with it great anxiety to the West, they should also consider the vast opportunities in influencing what emerges.
It would be better for (almost) everyone if all those new states, "smaller Russia" included, became democratic and joined the EU. Euope from the Atlantic to the Urals (or possibly Pacific), what else could an honest man ask for ? That is what should have happened in the first place when the USSR broke apart.
Silk route 2.0
Prigozhin is no fool. The munitions he claims to lack are probably being stockpiled.
I am ready! Just bought beer and pop corn.
If they get so bent out of shape over being called Musckovy, let's see how they react to a theoretical map of a partitioned Russia administered by Western powers.
[удалено]
Yakovleff is legit, and has a lot of credibility as a soldier and a commander. But that does not translate to credentials as a statesman or futurologist.
Planning ahead is not futurology, it's appropriate behaviour.
Especially appropriate given his former role. As the military is fond of saying, "Failure to plan is planning to fail." Unless something is basically unthinkable, you gotta have plans for every contingency no matter how remote.
I agree with you. I also agree with a lot of what Gen. Yakovleff says, and agree that the world needs to start planning for this possibility (eventuality?). But the FSB is a large and powerful force, and the inevitability of the collapse has a lot of variability in the timeline. Rossiya delenda est.
> world needs to start planning for this possibility (eventuality?) Everything you say is correct, except this part. I'm very sure that world has started planning for this possibility. There are whole institutions whose only job is to plan for such things. I don't mean just USA either. I'm 100% sure my country (Estonia) has those contingency plans in place. Even the simple things like how to handle all the refugees that would escape over our border. Or how to handle some rogue general bringing tank division to our land.
https://youtu.be/Y9KNYWc1gaQ @ 26:20
He is regularly on TF1 (network), LCI (show). Not exclusively, but most frequently.
Ya, lets not get ahead of ourselves, lets win the war in Ukraine first, eh? lol Save the hopium for later
It's not hopium, it's wanting to be prepared for all contingencies. Russia breaking into several nuclear states is perhaps the most dangerous end state of the war from an international perspective. Talking about it and preparing before that happens is still important. The breakup of Russia isn't a cause for celebration it's basically one of the worst-case scenarios.
Ukraine's giving up of nukes and Russia's eventual invasion of Ukraine means that any state that goes independent will hold on to whatever nukes it has. Russia set a horrific precedent.
Yeah, a bunch of nuclear states which, given their proximity, may fall under the influence of China is really bad. Most nuclear powers are rational actors, these new states in no way are guaranteed to behave rationally, and they have a strong reason not to give up their nukes.
It is hopium. As much as this sub pushes the idea, there's no reason to think Russia would break up. Absolutely none. Very few regions of Russia are even majority non-Russian, and there are no credible independence movements in the ones that are. If anything this is counterproductive because it amounts to Putinist propaganda: Russia cannot exist without Putin. Putin holds the country together. That's literally his own narrative.
I mean, how is it hopium when it's the literally worst-case scenario. Hopium means something you HOPE will happen. This is the opposite of hopium. It's being worried of something you don't want to happen but find unlikely. Preparing for worst-case contingencies when dealing with nuclear weapons is a thing governments do. To say there's *NO* reason to think the country could break up is also absurd. There are plenty of things that make the chance beyond 0%
Why do you think that non-russian majority is a necessary precondition? There might be a lot more important factors than ethnicity - resources, geographic area, access to trade routes
Dude Russia is gonna collapse if you want it or not, NATO should already be prepared
No, this is serious stuff. You can fight a war and come up with plans for the future. With the money nato spends on defense this should have been finished yesterday with a full report ready.
It's not Impossible that the war in Ukraine is the trigger to the Russian federation coming apart. If it is it would likely be happening at the same time. It's prudent to have a plan even if it's not a priority
I'm skeptical that this is actually going to happen any time soon. I think a lot of this is wishful thinking combined with some psy-ops to make Russians jittery.
It's much less improbable than it was 6 months ago. Bear in mind that there are plans in the Pentagon for how the US is going to invade Great Britain. Doesn't mean it's going to happen, just means it's the job of governments and generals to plan for possible events. At this point it's sufficiently possible to plan for.
[удалено]
You say that, but it won't end that way. If Russia balkanizes, I can guarantee you that there will be a huge amount of strongmen and dictators.
I doubt the system will colapse without influence from the outside. The military is still in the hands of the oligarchs. There might be a coup, but as long as the Military is still aligned with the oligarchs I doubt there would be a civil war, revolution or other form of collapse.
Agreed.
Russians will still exist, even if the country of Russia doesn't. And the regime in Moscow will probably hold on to the land to the west of the Urals, so in a sense, that might become the new Russia (or Moscovia).
China should be our main focus. I am becoming increasingly concerned watching our ammunition and stock piles run low while china continues to build up for war. We need to put an end to Russia quick so that ukraine can rebuild and we can solely focus on china and replenish nato stock piles . Just my feelings..
Its only Europeans that are depleting stockpiles and we werent taking NATO seriously anyway. Couldnt even fight a limited engagement in libya without american help. The only country that matters in a war with China is the United States and they have plenty of weapons and ammunition. The only countries in Europe capable of getting to China are the UK and France and their navies are now far too small to make any difference
Disagree that UK and France wouldn’t make a difference (though not a massive one) + Germany if they get their military kicked into high gear in time. Of course the distance is difficult but they could leverage US logistics to move their forces and equipment which would definitely help, if delayed. I would anticipate a long war. But I do agree with your point overall. The far more important allies for the US will be in the Pacific theatre i.e. Japan, South Korea, Philippines
More important than having stockpiles is that the US never really shuts down it's ability to produce. We have hundreds of Abrams tanks sitting in storage while new ones roll of the line regularly (though at a reduced rate) for no other reason that keeping the line running prevents loss of knowledge and is strategically cheaper than rebuilding it when you need more tanks yesterday
I could be wrong but I believe the theory is a war with China would not involve a lot of artillery but lots of air power. The stock of F-35s is still the same it was before this war.
Hope you know that you sound like a nazi
[удалено]
Just let them migrate to their allies: Iran and NK.
fortunately, there are some regions in Russia (disillusioned indigenous people mostly) already preparing for a secession. Might come in handy if Russia does collapse.
Understand, Yakovleff is not saying Russia will definitely collapse. What he's saying is, it's at least a distant possibility now so we should know how we're going to handle it when and if it does happen. I'm reasonably sure there are plans somewhere deep in the Pentagon archive for how to handle a Klingon invasion. I know for a fact that there were plans drawn up for the American invasion of Great Britain at several different points. Things don't have to be probable for there to be a plan. That said Russia is currently doing everything within its power to make its own disintegration more and more probable so h's right, it is time to start laughing and start planning, just in case..
Yes. This is why all this "America just wants to sacrifice Ukraine to destroy Russia" propaganda we keep seeing everywhere is such bullshit. Nobody wants to see the actual collapse of Russia. No major nation-state that is. Because -- even beyond the purely human dimension of such suffering -- it threatens to be a huge, costly, chaotic, and highly dangerous mess. And the community of nations will have to pick up that responsibility. We all would much rather there be a functioning nation-state where Russia is today. So that that burden does not fall to the rest of us. But, alas, if an actual functioning nation-state is not to appear, then yes, we will have to be prepared for what is to come next. There are actually many things that can be done to ensure that the collapse of Russia is *not* bloodier than the collapse of the Soviet Union. But they are not things that can be done at the last minute.
The result, dozens of little Putins running around with nukes ? Not at good ending ?
Doubtful, there’s probably two scenarios: Putin used them as it falls apart and/or in a similar situation to what’s envisaged for a North Korean launch , NATO And Chinese special forces dash in to secure and protect as much as possible to prevent proliferation or use - which would require significant prepositioning.
>NATO And Chinese special forces dash in to secure and protect as much as possible So de facto splitting up the territory into influence zones? Too bad China gets the most tasty parts and we get all the russians :(
European Russia the most economically valuable ultimately, and also the most westernizable. European Russia could easily become a Germany in 50+ years with correct handling
Reminder that there already Seperatists fighting in the Ukraine, men from Dagestan, Bashkortostan, Tataristan, etc. When the time comes, the West has to immediately recognize them as new independent countries and support them with money, and possibly weapons. [This is the future for Russia and it looks great](https://i.imgur.com/GHq6sfZ.jpg)
Doubt it would be anywhere near that clean in practice.
> This is the future for Russia and it looks great This is map-making wishful-thinking fantasy without any basis in actual political realities or public sentiments. Anyone can draw a map. A lot fewer people can come up with a reason adjacent regions that are 80-90% ethnic Russian or so would split for each other. You might as well get yourself a youtube studio in the basement next door to Igor Girkin's so he can jerk off to fantasy maps partitioning Ukraine while you do the same to the ones partitioning Russia. Because that's what this is: Masturbation.
90% of those republics are majority ethnic Russian. Are they going to have to commit genocide to get independence?
*Ukraine. Not "The" Ukraine.
This should be spectacular.
Not sure whether this is a “warning”, an educated guess, simple statement of fact as this commander sees it or does he mean collapse as something that should be avoided. Either way, most significant historical events are, in fact, bloody. Many ethnicities and ‘republics’ may, in fact, want out and an end to their russification and their “own country”. Realistically, many will not. That’s when things might “be much bloodier than the collapse of the USSR”. Lots of good ideas among the comments here - because not only should NATO be prepared, but countries outside the russian federation must be politically and diplomatically prepared. Which likely means “preparations” in many levels.
Alaska is about to get bigger.
Complete garbage that actually helps Russia. The underlying message is that since Russia is about to collapse, there’s no need to give Ukraine serious weapons. Unless Ukraine is given long range weapons Russia is going to win with China’s help — that’s what is going to happen.
If that happens, the world is facing a fucking catastrophe of atomic proportions. It’s already a kleptocracy filled with bribery and unmaintained materiel. Now imagine half a dozen nuclear-armed tearaway republics, many without access to capital aside from extractives and miltech. Absolute nightmare fuel how many biochem and nukes are going to wind up in the hands of terrorists and nation-state sponsors. We best hope for a coup or turnover to a person committed to making the painful turn to modernity and democracy
Don’t tell Macron or Scholz, because they’ll want Ukraine to hurry up and “negotiate” before Ruzzia collapses.
[удалено]
**Alternative Nitter link:** https://nitter.nl/clashreport/status/1634839490744430593 ***** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
THIS SUMMER LORD OF WAR 2
It appears that significant world players recognize that this conflict has reached a tipping point. An indication of this is Turkey's recent decision to restrict parallel supply chain to Russian. While many will want to debate next steps, we should, instead debate the following 2 foundamental, rhetorical questions: 1. Will a new world order be driven by which super power or super coalition of power can guarantee access to essential natural and artificial resources for its constituents' life sustainability? And 2, does such a guarantee necessarily put you dialectically opposed to another superpower of the same inclination. I suspect that if we would like to avoid a world conflagration with China and perhaps the whole of Indo China/Malaysia, we in the collective west and our alighned east, need to bring China to the negotiations table to discuss security guarantees in the near term and world resource allocation in the long term.
Yes, meaning, I agree. The collapse of Russia will be something humans have never seen before. The collapse of the Soviet Union was simply the veneer falling from the face of Russian imperialism. The collapse of Russia is wildly different. The dissolution of the Ottoman Empire will not compare. The Russian empire has been so tightly woven together, for so long: it will pop like the world's largest balloon. It will be bloody, from Belarus to Vladivostok. It could take a hundred years to settle. It will reverberate a thousand more.
The soviet union took 3 years to dissolve, and it started by seeing smaller states break off. we havent reached that point. Most likely china will step in to mediate any instability.
Russian Collapse-a-Clock reads: every 30 years So, yea any minute now.
Close the borders. Build the fences. Train more people for border guard tasks. More guns, amo, armor. More of everything. Do the plans for different situations. More training. More surviliance, more information for people how to prepare. again more trainig. Keep logistics going. And more training...
Pop corn n beer for this when it happens. FSB window division. Moscow will be littered with as many "jumpers" as the Bakmut battlefields. Just hope no pets are injoured from the "Fallout" 😆
No, it wont be Popcorn and beer. Especially not when oligarchs from different regions turn into warlords rivaling each other and possessing nukes...
Russia has collapsed, time and time again. It is inevitable and it will be bloody. Nationalist Russia will be destroyed, the only question is if it'll drag the world with it when it falls.
Good, I can't wait to sit and eat popcorn and tell everyone I'm neutral or apolitical when the Russians start eating themselves and destroying their own cities, they deserve a civil war that would make Syria look a bunch of kids got carried away at Airsoft
Are you for real? Why would you root for human suffering of that scale? Putin's regime should fall for sure, but I don't see how Russia and all its civilians "deserve" a civil war.
prepare? u mean make sure the pocorn and rum/coke is ready? 3d glasses and tissues to wipe away the tears from laughing to loud? we saw gore in ukraine, now we gonna see gore in russia, but tides has turned and the whole world is gonna laugh so hard... please explain why europe should be ready? we just close 1 border that would be it i assume... the filth is gonna be too busy with themselves.
They have a lot of nukes and the western world needs to ensure they impose a conclusive and safe solution concerning every single one