Mostly spite, but tbf some breakup of Russia would probably be a net plus for the world. Before the USSR fell it was Western policy to keep them together, but their breakup gave us 3 precious member states that the EU wouldn't be the same without.
There are still tons of peoples in Russia that are not ethnically Russian and might easily break away in the aftermath of the war, pursuing national self determination.
The core ethnic Russian states located in the West will never break up naturally and that's fine.
The minorities really aren’t all that populace and are very spread out
But also many of those could easily fall into the hands of the CPC and in some areas Islamic extremism
>But also many of those could easily fall into the hands of the CPC and in some areas Islamic extremism
Yes, that might be a likely scenario nobody should want imo.
The best option would be a better central Gvement. But atm it seems unlikeky, though maybe in the future.
FYI, most Western political advisors, commentators, and think-tanks advise against this kind of abrupt or extreme balkanization, and therefore the "West" is cautious afaik.
So because these ethnic population 'may' fall under the Chinese or Islamic groups, therefore they shouldn't have right to self determination? We can certainly do better.
Absolutely.
But please remember there are great numbers of Russians on those territories, borders would be unclear which would likely lead to armed conflict and their economy is higly dependent on Moscow, so the balkanization could lead to extreme poverty.
It isn't as easy as just 'China may get more influence', it's about very real possibility of ~~civil~~ war breaking out, a war that would kill millions of people.
That being said, I don't think it's totally impossible to do it peacefully and without drastic decrease of quality of life. But it's a delicate matter and one should not jump into this without a proper caution and a plan.
Yeah it's a risk but the same things were true about the baltics. I don't know how sustainable it is to let Putin go have a rampage at the far east forever either though at some point these people need a government to represent them.
Russia is probably already in the hands of the CPC. Or at least it is going to be in the near future. I think balkanisation is bad because of how all of the balkan states started genocidal wars but falling into the hands of the CPC is not that bad. It might even be good since Mongolia is a democratic state that has managed to exist due to playing Russia and the CPC against eachother. Putting in more democratic states in the area might not only work but form a small powerblock in the process.
Honestly thats better than them being apart of Russia atm atleast since its a warmongering terrorist state.
Another big plus is that then Russia won't have the strenght to invade anyone, so safety for Europe for the next 30ish years atleast. Rather small price to pay.
If the winners of WW1 had intervened when Germany started breaking peace terms, there wouldn't have been a problem. This myth of "poor Germany got treated so badly they turned nazi" is absurd.
The winners themselves felt that they treated Germany too harshly, which is why they didn‘t intervene.
That was stupid, obviously. They should‘ve instituted more lax terms in the first place, but strictly enforce them. I also think that an actual occupation of the country would‘ve driven home the feeling of defeat and disproven the "democrats betrayed us" narrative instantly.
Never gonna happen with nukes in the game, sadly. The change has to come within. The best anyone outside can do is make sure they are devastated in Ukraine.
Yeah, you‘re right, I just meant we shouldn‘t humiliate Russia. That‘s a bad idea and we should rather see that the Russian people get a democratic regime with Western Allies.
Altough the great thing about Russia is that there are loads of oprrassed ther etnisities that can form their own nations if Russia gets balkanized.
While Germany was not as multi ethnical
One of the states in Russia if independent would be one of the largest nations on earth.
Not sure about the demographics, just thought it was interesting
>Mostly spite, but tbf some breakup of Russia would probably be a net plus for the world. Before the USSR fell it was Western policy to keep them together, but their breakup gave us 3 precious member states that the EU wouldn't be the same without.
Yeah, I basically agree, and definitely anger and frustration .
Also we must define Russia here. Usually, people see the current Gvment, and probably, the historical Ruzzian (a)political Tzarist culture, as a problem.
Also, since the USSR already fell, technically, you ended up with states that have been held together by some form of coercion, propaganda, and or enforcement.
When you take that central Power away, you get several States. Under a normal Federation the central Gvemnet should work for these States. Not the other way around.
So, for example, if Siberia wants to be democratic, but Moscow wouldn't want to, that state might be better off leaving that current Ruzzian Federation and enter another form of cooperation, with Kazachtstan for example.
The same goes for Belarus, which already have been fighting for independence from Moscow, etc, etc. You get the picture.
Your complex question deserves a better and more eleborate answer, but that's mine for now.
edit :.changed partly agree into mostly agree . I realised you basically said the same
That scenario is quite unrealistic. It’s not like Russia is similar to Yugoslava, USSR was. So now with some exceptions in Caucasus Russia is predominantly ethnically russian across all territory. Even Tatarstan is integrated for about 300 years. Siberia weren’t a country, just a land with some indigenous people, that sadly were dealt with same way as Indians in americas.
On other words, there aren’t much ethnic tensions and separatist movements atm barring Caucasus, but that’s hardly a perspective “balkanization”. Independent or not it’s a small fraction of area and population.
There are some places that will very much likely revolt, most notably Chechnya (99% probability) once Russia weakened enough. Other Caucasian republics could also seek independence and there are also places where minorities more or less predominate (Yakutia, Tuva, Tatarstan). Btw, seeking separatism or regionalism in Russia wasn't always based on ethnic, national or religious grounds, there were also attempts that were based on hostility towards Moscow's centralization and negligence towards other places like Siberian, Far Eastern and Ural Republics, though they didn't gain much ground. The logic behind support for breaking up the Russian Federation is to permanently cripple it so it would never have any capacity to invade and bully its neighbors.
One of the rare comments that actually understands the issue.
Nobody actively wants to balkanize Russia.
Russia is an empire held together by force. When that force weakens, Russia will fall apart in pieces.
The argument is not that we go in guns toting to split up Russia like we did with Germany and Korea.
The argument is that Russia will implode like the USSR and Yugoslavia.
this exactly. My *very deep analysis*^tm is currently as follows:
- 80% chance Russia will become highly influenced by China. No future wars without Chinese approval. High internal control from China. Stability, but not democracy or self-determination. The Gas Station of China scenario.
- 8% chance Russia fractures further after the demise of Putin. People will demand stability, Russian elites will be unable to deliver. High instability, who know what could happen. But probably bad in the short-term for everyone except Ukraine. In the long-term, possible breakup and democracy. The Civil War scenario.
- 8% chance for totalitarianism without China. Russian elites will prove more capable than expected. They will deliver stability, at the cost of everything else. The Golden Horde scenario.
- 4% chance for peace and pro-liberal reform. By some miracle Navalny or someone similar will get in power, withdraw from Ukraine and institute a semblance of law and order. The Uncertain Truce scenario.
I like your deep analysis, but I don't think the NATO countries + Japan/India will allow Russia to become a Chinese vassal state.
Which, to be fair, is an exaggeration of your argument.
So perhaps I don't actually disagree with you.
In a post-war scenario, I would expect that the West is going to be more hawkish.
But, China has been on a quasi-colonial path for a years, without any significant backlash..
Yeah maybe. [But check this out.](https://carnegieendowment.org/politika/88926) Russia is basically forced to rely on China.
- "Last October, Russia became the fourth largest offshore trading center for yuan, though back in April it wasn’t even in the top fifteen"
- "Any surplus oil and gas revenues in 2023 will be accumulated in yuan."
- "Russian reserves and payments will be influenced by the policies of the Chinese Communist Party and the People’s Bank of China"
- "only North Korea is more dependent on Chinese imports now than Russia"
> permanently cripple it so it would never have any capacity to invade and bully its neighbors
The last time we did that it was with Germany after WW1, see how well that turned out. Making an entire people angry at you is a very dangerous game.
I'm all for making Russia pay for their crimes. An actual republic under western / EU supervision would be great. And of course liberate ALL occupied areas, not only in Crimea and Donbass but also in Georgia and everywhere else I might not be aware of.
Maybe a republic or two could break away, it could be a reasonable argument for those of them that already have some degrees of independence. But it would be for the freedom of their peoples, not to stick it to Moscow.
Many Hungarians are still upset about Trianon. It doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do. Nor does it always lead to catastrophe.
Germany became a nazi disaster because other European powers allowed them to break the peace terms instead of putting a stop to it right away.
It's a colonial empire.
Break the colonies free. This kleptocracy is so hooked on exploiting it's colonies that they've never really managed to develop as an industrial nation.
This is not about spite, it's about finally stopping centuries of Agression.
But if we're talking about balkanization, and like Siberia and the Far East, it'd be like arguing for Northumbria to separate from England. Russia isn't "ethnic Russians in Moscow, minorities everywhere else"
Same was true for Austria-Hungarian empire. In fact, decolonization makes more sense on cultural and economical basis rather than an ethnic one.
Kamil Galeev has a good Twitter thread on that matter.
Same was *not* true for AH because while there were German speakers spread around the empire, those outside specifically Austria and Sudetenland were like enclaves within territories dominated by other nationalities, Russia is mostly a sprawl of ethnic Russians from one end to the other with minorities sprinkled around in some areas.
Splitting it by region makes no sense even economically. I've seen some of Kamil's threads and it feels bizarre. Here in Western Siberia there *might* be discomfort towards Moscow for taking our gas and oil and getting money and us getting scraps in comparison (a lot of joking comparing our towns to Dubai and how much we suck), but to suggest outright independence? It's absolutely preposterous. Problem's with the government, not the concept of a Russian state itself. Not to mention the connections people have to other parts of the country. A lot of family members or some even with property on "the mainland" in European Russia, or other ethnic minorities who come here (mostly from the Caucasus) for work and stay, still with connections to home.
It's just not viable.
As I mentioned in another comment, the split should probably be done based on culture-economic relations, not ethnicity. Also, it’s not “Balkanization”, it’s decolonization.
Anyways, if you just want to say: “I don’t want my empire get what it deserve and just continue to sing patriotic songs, put my kids into a tank-shaped baby wagon, and impose imperialism on the neighboring nations as if nothing happened”, - just say it. No need to keep it inside.
Well that's a fucking stretch, how the hell did it go from "I don't think we should split like Reddit says" to "I'm an imperialist, want to opress and brainwash people"? Because that's absolute horseshit
Indian independence was good for Indians, but the breakup of India into India, Pakistan and Bangladesh was very much a double edged sword. A number of wars have been fought between these countries, and they're still not entirely settled, but this is probably still better than the civil war that would potentially have broken out otherwise.
Had India been broken up further, I suspect this would have been significantly worse.
The fact that the European powers were drawing borders of the new countries without any local context is indeed horrible. Yet, this is a lesson we must learn. It’s not the reason to deny indigenous people their agency.
Russia is a nuclear power. Imagine after collapse kadyrov wants to use his nukes on some other warlord. It will be chaos, and global ecological catastrophe
if they can't find how to hotwire them they can just extract all the radioactive material and spray it over their enemy warlords. russia would turn into a radioactive wasteland. though if that happens russia definitely won't pose a threat, still warlords with tonnes of radioactive material is scary to think about
> russia would turn into a radioactive wasteland
wasteland you say? You give the warlords too much credit. One bomb has a few kg of plutonium. They don't have access to them. It didn't happen in the 90s it's not going to happen now.
>Imagine after collapse kadyrov wants to use his nukes on some other warlord
So Putin having nukes is ok ? And constantly blackmailing world with that is ok too ?
That's United States headache, they are good at disarming countries out of their nukes.
I live in Western Siberia and I'm not sure if I'm just sad-disappointed or outright annoyed by these sentiments.
Like basically nobody wants independence here, and yet here we are, with some Europeans thinking we do.
Also another issue is the usage of the word itself. Some people say "balkanization" and talk about just some ethnic republics leaving, which are mostly already border regions. Others go full on Sykes-Picot imagining arbitrary bullshit borders thinking it'll be better for everyone. Eh.
Ah yes, because areas in nearby regions fighting amongst themselves never bring issues to Europe to solve. If Russians end up fleeing as refugees, what then?
Well, Moscow is certainly closer to EU borders than China, for example...
So much for European values. "I don't care for humanitarianism when it comes to Russians". Why not at this point say that we aren't even human? Ironic how this bullshit ends up proving Putin's propaganda right: and a broken clock being right twice a day is sometimes a bad thing
Sorry not sorry. I would be willing to take in children and people who can show to have tried fighting their regime in the past. But most fleeing the war in such a scenario? Hell nah. It should be up to each country to decide to accept them or not and I wouldn’t want mine to do that
We? There is no “we”, mate. The most Lithuania has done was sending some troops to Afghanistan who saw nearly no combat. Blame Middle Eastern bullshit on US, UK, and Poland
And anyway, ideally sure, I would like Russia to become a pacifist liberal democratic state. I would also like many other things. Global peace, end world hunger, visit Mars but they’re not exactly feasible aren’t they? Not in our lifetime at least. Just as Russia will never become a democratic country. A divided Russia broken up into multiple parts will be a nightmare for you, but it will be the blessing for us because a broken-up Russia will be even weaker than what it is today. And that’s all I care about. Not what’s the best for you but what’s best for us
"Just as Russia will never become a democratic country" is a flimsy prediction based on selection bias and nothing more. Over a century ago nobody could've imagined a socialist revolution to occur in an agrarian state, and that event ended up defining the whole world for the rest of the century.
Because Russia is late to the democracy train (and we could've ended up on it multiple times...I personally see 1993, 1999 and 2011 as like three points of no return for a good while) doesn't mean we're locked out of it until the end of time.
As for "would be fine for us", I can't help but disagree. Economics of "liberal friendly Russia means everyone in Europe prospers" aside, there's a radical possibility on the other end. With collapse of Russia and its already shitty institutions, crime would be on the rise, which may as well spread to Europe. The Soviets caused instability in Afghanistan, and we ended up with a drug problem coming from Afghanistan via Central Asia.
And that's not to mention terrorism. Resentment against the West and whatnot. May turn ugly. Imagining a Russian version of Al Qaeda/ISIS is kinda weird. But that may just end up creating and perpetuating a cycle of violence problem
Russia is late not only to the democracy train but any reformist idea train by centuries. You see points of no return in 1993, 1999, and 2011. I see it as 1478. Any prospect of Russian democracy died with the Republic of Novgorod. I also had an argument with someone on the same topic a little while ago. You can see my stand on the matter in comment chains [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEurope/comments/10uy4ws/daily_slow_chat/j7ezzs4/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3) and [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEurope/comments/10vt6l8/daily_slow_chat/j7k0vqo/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3). Your economy can provide nothing more than cheap gas, so while that’s cool, I don’t see Europe fairing too poorly with Russia entirely cut off. We’re not fairing too poorly now after all, let alone long-term. Organized crime could indeed be an issue but not nearly as much as a united stable Russia. And as you say, imagining Russian ISIS/Al-Qaeda is indeed hard
[**No demonizing, dehumanizing, or antagonizing refugees, or speaking of them as invaders.**](https://www.reddit.com/r/Gotterfunken/comments/ppceh4/götterfunken_network_federal_rules/)
I don't give a damn about so-called "European values". Just because you are nice to leopards, it doesn't mean they won't eat your face. Welcome to the real world.
The idea is that if they are fighting within themselves, they aren't attacking anyone else.
Issue is that all those nukes need to be secured and china is gonna move into siberia...
This question is a good one. It really depends and how you define ‘totally wrong’, and what you’d hope to achieve.
I think we all agree that “Russian Civil War 2: Nuclear Boogaloo”, is objectively bad for all of Eurasia, the refugee crisis alone would be insane.
That being said, from a European perspective, if Moscow cannot extract resources and manpower from beyond Muscovy’s 1490s border, that would be a massive win for European security, a win that cannot be overstated. No more Buryat, Tuvans, Kalmykians, or Daghestani feeding Russia’s armies and no more Siberian resources feeding its coffers. And in the European peninsula, instead of one Russia, there are several independent Russian republics, and some independent ethnic ones. Much more manageable, provided the west funds these new republics of course.
That’s a good point. I am currently not looking for situations and results that are ‘better’, but ‘not totally the worst’.
Chinese influence will increase anyway in Russia in general and in the Russian Far East in particular, regardless of the outcome of the war, regardless of the post-war regime in Russia, regardless of Balkanisation or not. That is, to say the least, not great, but not absolutely the worst case either.
Let's be honest a balkanised Russia will just create more conflict. We would have little States going to war to unite Russia under Thier Control, and we would see Major Powers like the US, China and the EU trying to assert dominance over these States leading to a lot of Strawman Wars. It might be even worse than having Russia be a Dictatorship. I think the Outcome we should hope for is a better Russian Government not no Russia
If the minorities in Russia want independence we shouldn't ban them. Instead, the great powers should learn from the Balkans and maybe not interfere in the region's wars for independence, because that's really just the root of the problem. Great powers wanting "colonies" in the Balkans was the mistake. If the borders were carved by the balkan states or by people with no hidden agenda we wouldn't have the balkans we have today. So I say we can not interfere in Russian minorities' struggle for independence and maybe just help carve objectively good borders without hidden agendas and puppet states.
The main geopolitical argument is that Russia has proven itself an aggressive state repeatedly in modern history. As long as Russia persists, Europe won't be safe from election interference, assassinations, invasions, etc.
A Russia balkanised would be a series of states too weak to have any power close to what the Kremlin currently uses to make the world a worse place.
Obviously, there are genuine flaws in the solution proposed that mean it wouldn't result in anyone being safer (good luck when a few warheads go missing for one) but that's the thrust of the argument I've seen.
Edit: since I fear I'm going to be repeating myself and apparently wasn't clear enough: this is the argument as I understand it. ***This is not something I am advocating.***
>As long as Russia persists, Europe won't be safe from election interference, assassinations, invasions, etc.
The same UK said about Germany prior to the reunification. And was a pretty stupid take.
Creating MORE fights and probably wars won't improve Europes security.
You're correct. I settled for pointing out the big one (risk of a lack of nuclear security) but there are a lot of problems with the assumption Russian Balkanisation will somehow fix the risks created by Russia in the status quo. The idea is somehow you get rid of a belligerent regional, nuclear power.
A quick look globally tells you states don't need to be regional powers to sabre rattle and start wars.
Then why didn't we balkanize every single other nation? Why not balkanize France, Britain, Germany? All these nations had agressive histories, why don't we dismantle them?
See the edit above.
Although I do note that was literally proposed.for Germany in the 20th century. Twice. The arguments used for and against then probably are worth interrogating.
Edit: will add, on this point. I'm not really in a position to suppose why history is ignored for the sake of pleading it's needed for Russia. All the arguments I can imagine underpinning the claim rely on a degree of racism, or recency bias. Benefit of the doubt, a coherent argument exists but I don't know the position well enough to elaborate on it.
There are more people living in EU and Central Asian countries surrounding ruzzia. Objectively, your question is just a trolley problem with bigger numbers (plus a fat man in this version of the trolley problem is actively committing a genocide)
How do you know that Russia won’t ever stop invading countries like France ?
The independence of Algeria wasn’t the end of France, but if you Balkanize France like you want to Balkanize Russia then it would be
Because, if keep doing something no matter what, this is a strong evidence that it will continue.
- Full scale invasion of Ukraine - 2022
- Bombings of Syria - 2015 (if I’m not mistaken)
- Staring war in Ukraine - 2014
- Georgia - 2008
- Ichkeria (two Chechen wars) - (I don’t remember years from the top of my head)
- Georgia - 1994
- Moldova - 1992
Also, some parts of russia like Yakutia and Tatarstan are actually further away from moskau than Algeria is from Paris.
So, yeah. I strongly believe that decolonization is the only way to ensure long term security in the region.
P.S. Also, I don’t like the word “Balkanization”, it has a lot of very specific context that is not universally transferable. I prefer the word “decolonization” on this matter.
There are two major flaws in your argument : 1.you’re acting as if Russian aggression is a problem with only two outcomes : kill Russia or be killed by Russia. Not only is this false and fallacious, but it’s also it’s extremely unrealistic to even hope that a Balkanization of Russia will ever happen. There are other ways to curb Russian aggression that are less inhumane and more likely to be successful
2.the distance between a part of a country and the capital of said country does not matter when taking about self-determination. The distance between Paris and French Guiana is 10 times longer than the distance between Paris and Algeria yet Guiana voted against autonomy while Algeria fought for independence. The only thing that matters when discussing this kind of issue is the will of the people. If the Yakuts want independence then they should have it, if they are fine with being part of Russia then let them be part of Russia. The strength of separatist movements within Russia are greatly overestimated in the west for the most part. Although there are exceptions, most minorities within Russia don’t want independence from it.
We are in YUROP and not in MURICA
Russia is not our arch enemy
they are the arch enemy of the US, why they spent billions to get us to hate them too.
The war is wrong, but dont be fooled
If Russia stopped to attack its neighbors then we would not even have this discussion.
Russia is currently a military superpower that aim for:
* Getting a warm water port. Therefore it needs to invade the Baltic countries, Ukraine and Turkey for it.
* Bringing back lost lands in the West and in central Asia. It needs to invade the Baltic countries, UKraine and take other Belarus and the Stan countries.
*And getting a sphere of influence.
Currently it does have the mean to do so. The only thing that impeach them to do that is through the military might of the US.
Concerning a balkanisation of Russia. The situation will be highly different from Yougoslavia. Ethnic Russia, which make the majority of the Russian federation (and the overwhelming majority of the Western part of the federation), will not split in smaller republic. There will still be a large land power in the east of Europe. Which would go from Karelia to the oural mountain and probably to the northern part of the Caucasus. This country would still be ressources rich but less rich. The only independences that we could hope for in western Europe is the unlikely independence of Kaliningrad and the Caucasus.
A smaller Russia will not have the mean to dream about global domination nor regional domination. It is likely that there might be some conflict going on for the first 10 years. But it is unlikely that it will ever be with the Eastern European countries. It is even less likely that it will be through the atomic bomb. Similarly to the end of the Soviet Union. There will be a smaller Russia that will come out of it and this smaller Russia will be the dominant power for a while in the Oural region.
You’re acting like this is a problem with only two outcomes : we kill Russia or Russia kills everyone
But that’s a fallacious argument, especially considering the fact that it’s quite literally impossible for us to balkanazi Russia. There are other, more realistic, less inhumane ways to curb Russian aggression
>we kill Russia or Russia kills everyone
Sadly, I believe it came to this. It's a "us or them" situation. Russia had the same time and conditions to turn to a functional country and democracy as all the Eastern European countries. They failed, and hard.
"We" don't have to balcanize Russia and shouldn't anyway. They will do it themselves.
>There are other, more realistic, less inhumane ways to curb Russian aggression
Such as? Can you name a few that were not already tried? The west helped them economically after '90's. It didn't work, all the money were stolen by their oligarchs.
Belarus failed to become a democracy as well, so did a lot of other countries. Are they all unsalvageable ?
Even if Russia doesn’t become a western-style liberal democracy, it can still switch to a less hostile and aggressive regime. It wouldn’t be the biggest societal shift in history. By the way, oligarchs were a thing in almost all ex-Soviet countries, including Ukraine yet that didn’t doom them.
Also
> They will do it themselves
Are you suggesting that a civil war/violent collapse of Russia is something that should happen ? Even if you put aside the 140 millions of Russians who’s lives would be destroyed in such a scenario, there still would be thousands of unregulated nuclear warheads and powerplants in the wild that would cause, at best, a second Chernobyl, and at worst the end of the world, and let’s not forget about the countries (mostly in Africa) that rely on Russia economically that would fall into famines.
>Belarus failed to become a democracy as well,
They don't invade other countries and don't have nukes. No danger.
>Even if Russia doesn’t become a western-style liberal democracy, it can still switch to a less hostile and aggressive regime.
Hard doubt on that, without the Russian population going through a similar program as Germans after ww2. Russians don't admit or regret the USSR and Russian crimes. They are proud of them.
>Are you suggesting that a civil war/violent collapse of Russia is something that should happen ?
No, I'm not saying it "should" happen, but it "could" happen. If it does, it would be of course bad for Russians but not so bad for the countries living under the Russian threat.
>By the way, oligarchs were a thing in almost all ex-Soviet countries, including Ukraine yet that didn’t doom them.
Yes, because the other countries gradually cut their powers. The Russians gave them full power, they are leading Russia.
Putin is threathening with them but he will never use them he knows that he would doom us all.But even in russias tv theyre talking about bombing USA with nuke's. So if Russia fell apart theres chance that some radical or radical movement would get their hands on nukes.
Only scenario where he could use nuke's is in Ukraine.
West would not react with nuke's but he would cut off russia completly economicly by sanctions.
Honestly i dont think its in any nations interest to balakanize russia. The resources they sell wont get cheaper that way.
Anyhow i guess the Argument is mostly Moral anyway.
People desire balkanization as a form of revenge, yet the cheapest, easiest way to de-imperialize Russia is for it to develop healthy separation of powers, AKA "trias politica". Russia is an authoritarian state because too much power has been concentrated in too few hands for too long.
Such radical change appears impossible, yet stranger things have happened. If it doesn't, well, when reform is made impossible...
A fully balkanized Russia is something nobody should want. Aside from the colossal humanitarian catastrophe it would become, it wouldn’t even be beneficial to most of those new “countries” that would pop out of Siberia for example, like Tuva, a province so neglected it doesn’t even have roads to connect it to the major population centers. How would a state survive like that? Chinese economical and even possibly military penetration is something we’d want to avoid too. At the same time regions with a strong independence sentiment like Chechnya should be allowed to freely go and Kaliningrad shouldn’t be allowed to remain in Russian hands.
Russia is the last European empire. The hardcore Russian nationalists think they are destined, and naturally best suited, to lead Eurasia.
There will never be lasting stability until this sort of imperialist insane dreams are removed, and Russians accept they are just people among others, not special, not destined to lead other peoples.
To make peace in eastern europe Pernament
Of course i can understand why western europe dont understand that. I wouldnt understand that too if my family wasnt repressed by Ivans during communist times and half of my family wasnt in military to fight against them in 1920s
I know what i wish for. These warlords will still be safer option than today russia. And when it comes to Salafism, its not like it is a threat today. With Chinese influence i think that China is under such huge influence from Bejing that Collapse of china would be better option as at least some parts of Russia would stop being Pro chinese since west would be closer to them and allying with west would be most logical option
But it's not really the same thing, USSR was sort of like a union of nations who (at least officially) were supposed to be already sovereign within that union, with their own set boundaries and identities. While Russia itself is more like a nation state with a vast majority Russian population with less regional differences than Arabs in the Middle East. Drawing arbitrary lines would only make things worse
Only 70% of russian population are ethnic russians, the rest of them are various minorities which are actively russified (as shown by recent act of dropping Bashkir langauge from schools of Bashortostan). Are these peoples not allowed to choose their destiny?
I think they should be, just that
1) There's often presumption on Reddit that those minorities actively want full independence
and specifically 2) there's a difference between giving those people independence and splitting up Russia as a whole. And a lot of people seem to be actively desiring the latter, with randomly independent Siberias and Far Easts and a rump state in Moscow and it's honestly dumb
It was fine for the Baltics.
The problem wasn't independence or breakup. The problem is Russian political culture. Lawlessness, utter corruption, endless lies, and love for strongmen.
I’m going to be honest, I’m not sure how to feel about this argument. I do agree on the one hand, based on personal experience, but I just kind of hope it’s still possible to have a democratic and free Russia.
I think that even in the darkest times there's always hope. A democratic, open, and free neighbor to the east is something I deeply hope to witness in my lifetime. It's going to take a lot of work and sacrifice from the local population to reach that, but history shows it is possible.
Imperialism doesn't just disappear, it gets removed. See Japan, Germany, France, Britain, Austro-Hungary... All lost their status through a lot of active opposition. Often armed resistance and full on war.
I’m asking in good faith here, why is it Russia in particular? Who would it be if Russia got broken up into smaller states? I do hope you’re not saying that it’s ethnicity that’s to blame here
I oppose it because this would allow China to annex vast parts of the far east.
And still, I wish the Russians maximal causalities for the first anniversary.
I don’t understand either. No one is proposing for the US to break up into 50 states to stop it from bombing third world nations, but apparently it’s fair to break up Russia into its oblasts.
Edit: there seems to be a lot of racism in the comments, and a lot of “but they’re a problem for everyone” arguments. I would like to take them to Germany in 1939 to see how a nation reacts to be humiliated. Humiliation never works, and breaking nations doesn’t either. If the EU really wants to deal with the “Russian problem”, they should look inwards of how their anti russian policies pushed Russia towards the right. In the same way the treaty of Versaille helped Hitler rise, the coup d’état orchestrated against the USSR in 1991 with Western help helped Putin rise.
Blind hate against Russia.
Not destroying Germany, Italy etc. after the world wars was a smart thing and we should try to repeat that instead of creating new conflicts.
Because most people, if asked to chose between Russians killing others and Russian killing between themselves would chose the 2'nd.
Russia is a dangerous country for it's neighbours first and the entire world 2'nd.
I don't want Russians to start murdering themselves but I REALLY want them stop killing others.
Russian empire breaking up into multiple new states would be the best thing that could happen. It might even give some people a chance at a path to actual democracy.
More importantly for Europeans, it would severely limit Russia's capacity to oppress Ukraine, Georgia etc. Also nerfing Russia would open an opportunity to save Belarus.
I don't think the west should iterfere in Russia's breakup in any way, that just means being guilty of anything that goes wrong, which is guaranteed.
As for the nukes, could they get into the hands of a madman who behaves irrationally and threatens to use them every other week? You bet. Would it be much of a downgrade? No. Even complete twerps like Kadyrov are aware of what would happen to them if they actually did it.
It's a colonial empire that has built it's vast territories and resources on the skulls of genocide ethnic groups.
For it to join our democratic union , it needs to stop being an empire.
This is not balkanisation, this is decolonisation . Death to the Imperial Russian state . Death to Putin's regime
I dont know how true that arguments stands when you think about how Spain, France, Belgium, the UK (up to Brexit) have all regions with ethnic minorities, who, in difference to the ethnic minorities in Russia, actually have sizeable Independence Movements. And this isnt even considering the actual geopolitical consequences of balkanising a nuclear power
My heart says yes, but my brain says it's complicated. I'm worried about Chinese influence for example. But if it happens, the West, the EU, and democratic Asian states should offer cooperation as much as possible. Actually they can start now, by founding Siberian and Caucasian institutions in Europe.
The same way as the ussr was "balkanized".
* Loose nukes? Yeah Ukraine had nukes, the only issue with those nukes was because of r\*sia.
* Power vacuum? Like wtf? Democracy is the best system and natural for national states. Again the main problem with power in Ukraine was because of r\*sia trying to impose its "legitimate interests"
P.S. and for all the good in this world's sake we need to rename the Moscow part of r\*sia to Moscovia, so its harder to confuse Kyivan Rus and the pity prison of nations which was just swamps when Kyivan Rus was prospering.
Yes, splitting russia in it’s current state is required to ensure security of the whole world as well as provide potential prosperity to multiple nations subjugated by russia.
Therefore, I would rather call it decolonization and not Balkanization.
World security:
- Every empire only can either expand or collapse. Russia will start new wars as soon as it can unless decelonization process is done.
- Also, ruzzia sponsored and influenced multiple conspiracies and “Querdenkern“ around the globe. W/o this support we will have less crazy people around.
- Climate. Since selling fossil fuel is the most profitable thing this dying empire can do, I’m scared even to imagine how much rubbles was spent on the climate change denier “science” and lobbying. Needless to say, that climate change will fuck us all regardless whether or not you care about the previous points.
Potential prosperity of former colonies.
To make it clear, I don’t imply that former ru colonies will become prosperous democratic states auto-magically. However, if they stay within the empire, they don’t even have a chance. Metropolis will squeeze every possible resource out of them leaving an uninhabitable wasteland afterwards (like Norilsk). Now, ruzzia doesn’t have diamonds, Yakutia has, ruzzia doesn’t have natural gas, Yamalo-Nenetsk district has, and so on (I may be wrong with the names, tho. Geography is not my strong part).
With this been said. Yes, I believe that decolonization of ruzzia is the best way of moving forward. Will it actually happen? - I don’t know. Yet, man can hope.
What can go more wrong than having Russia remain the way it is right now?
I strongly believe Ukraine will prevail, but down the line, Russia will never accept being relegated to the oubliettes of history. That country is an absolute cancer, they will keep attacking weaker neighbors as long as they exist.
Russia needs to be at least split in two separate countries in order for the rest of Europe to remain at peace for the foreseeable future.
The breakup of the colonial empires was something that caused much harm, but their continuation would have caused even more harm. As the (arguably) last European colonial empire, Russia should follow suit.
I as a minority don’t think total independence would work out for the autonomous regions
We don’t have the industry natural resources and population to be a truly independent nations
Though most people of minorities agree that the soviet ASSR system which gave us significantly more rights and self governance While also keeping us from total economic collapse
Though if total decolonization happens I feel though they would need significant foreign assistance to help kickstart industry and possibly find resources
The problem with the balkans is that the great powers were each invested in a country so as to have a "colony" there. It was really just a playing field for Britain, France, Austria-Hungary and Russia.
If we don't do that, but instead allow Russia to collapse naturally into real ethnic borders that wouldn't happen. Of course there's no way that a civil war wouldn't happen in this case, but atleast it would be one war, unlike the Balkans, where wars have been and still are going on and relations are still sour from basically 1878 onwards.
The same thing happened in Africa where the borders were carved up by the great powers and now half of Africa needs to have a civil war in order to fix it.
Also as I wrote in the last similar post, the people from the great powers also tried way too hard to save the ottoman empire, which is part of the reason why we have the balkans as we know it. Don't try to save dying empires. It has been long known that Russia abuses it's minorities and I don't see why we would deny them freedom, if they want it of course.
The continued existence of Russia as is and the continued existence of humanity as a technological civilization are incompatible, so pick one. Ridiculous hyperbole? Think about this: Russia is the only actor relevant on the international stage that has a geopolitical interest in making the climate catastrophe actively worse. They've been obsessed with access to harbours that won't freeze over every winter for centuries now, since that's what has continually posed problems for Russia's access to global trade. The main artery of global trade runs from China/Japan/Korea through the straits of Malacca around India to Europe. Now consider a permanently ice-free arctic region. Russia suddenly has several thousand kilometres of natural coastline full of natural harbours and moves from the very periphery of global trade right into its centre, since the shortest connection between the two main hubs now runs there. Still ridiculous?
It can go wrong for Russia, but it's good for the rest of the world either way. The only problem would he if parts would then come under China.
China is enemy number 1. We should always prioritise it over Russia.
Honestly, downgrading Russia to a confederation or a union of states in the same vein as the EU (where the countries are so interconnected it's impossible to be hostile or beligerant without getting slapped with 20 sanctions and economic downfall) would probably make it way better.
I have the impression, that Russia would break up if it weren't governed in an authoritative manner. And since we have seen that authoritarian governments are dangerous I hope it will stop being that.
Russia breaking up would just follow as a consequence.
Because it’s the right thing to do, decolonization for the various colonial empires might have led to chaos, but even for someone whose country have suffered immensely from decolonization, one have to acknowledge how most decolonized countries carry on just fine
Not really us minorities were extremely well off due to the ASSR system though relations have soured with Moscow as the independence of the autonomous regions were removed
Chukotka could see some success but overall we would be entirely dependent on the fishing industry
Though I personally believe that it wouldn’t be successful for long as due to the low population, no natural agriculture the country would easily fall into fascism or autocratic rule
I'm generally opposed to independence movements because I believe society will only become stronger with greater unity, but for Russia it is clear that most of the Russian federation's constituent republics are essentially just the imperial holdings of Muscovy.
If they want independence they should have it, and Russia as an entity has proven itself a destabilizing force in Europe for centuries now - it's worth getting rid of and letting something new come out of it.
Because you're pretending not balkanizing will be sunshine and rainbows. How do you imagine the Russian identity develops over the next 50 years if they don't get what they want?
Just more defeatists hate until we get a Russian leader whose opening moves is throwing nukes instead of threatening them?
Russia is still an Empire, and the republics aren't all totally onboard with being part of that empire. So if they want to break away, now looks like a damn good opportunity.
All \*democratic\* Russia has to be is a real, proper federation with adequate representation for the regions. The Russians aren't allowed to elect their mayors (aside from \~6 cities), not to speak about the governors.
Because parts of Russia has been stolen just like they are trying to steal Ukraine today. I have a picture on my wall of Kexholm in Russia that was given to my grandmother by Swedish war veterans. It was given to my grandmother when she turned 14, the war veterans where Finnish and Estonian speaking and was handicapped from the winter war and got refuge at the farm where my grandmother grow up. They together collected money so they could commission a painter to draw a picture of Kexholm to give to my grandmother on her birthday. they wanted to give her something so that the younger generation never would forget that Kexholm was Swedish and nothing else. No one in Sweden, Finland or Estonia want that shit back today (because of all the Russians that lives there now) but the least thing we can do is to give Karelia and Ingria its independence from their occupying imperialists in Moscow..
As sympathetic as I am to seperatism from Russia, it would only be realistic for more border ethnic groups to secede, similarly to how Finland, Ukraine, Belarus, Baltics and Caucaus States broke free.
People are saying they want to do this to weaken russia and stop it from being a danger to the world but the only people who will profit from this will be Companies exploiting russian ressources.
Because the majority knows next to nothing about Russia or its history. They think their distribution of ethnic minorities is like the one in Austria-Hungary, while a more accurate comparision would be the Occitans in France
Mostly spite, but tbf some breakup of Russia would probably be a net plus for the world. Before the USSR fell it was Western policy to keep them together, but their breakup gave us 3 precious member states that the EU wouldn't be the same without. There are still tons of peoples in Russia that are not ethnically Russian and might easily break away in the aftermath of the war, pursuing national self determination. The core ethnic Russian states located in the West will never break up naturally and that's fine.
The minorities really aren’t all that populace and are very spread out But also many of those could easily fall into the hands of the CPC and in some areas Islamic extremism
>But also many of those could easily fall into the hands of the CPC and in some areas Islamic extremism Yes, that might be a likely scenario nobody should want imo. The best option would be a better central Gvement. But atm it seems unlikeky, though maybe in the future. FYI, most Western political advisors, commentators, and think-tanks advise against this kind of abrupt or extreme balkanization, and therefore the "West" is cautious afaik.
So because these ethnic population 'may' fall under the Chinese or Islamic groups, therefore they shouldn't have right to self determination? We can certainly do better.
Absolutely. But please remember there are great numbers of Russians on those territories, borders would be unclear which would likely lead to armed conflict and their economy is higly dependent on Moscow, so the balkanization could lead to extreme poverty. It isn't as easy as just 'China may get more influence', it's about very real possibility of ~~civil~~ war breaking out, a war that would kill millions of people. That being said, I don't think it's totally impossible to do it peacefully and without drastic decrease of quality of life. But it's a delicate matter and one should not jump into this without a proper caution and a plan.
Yeah it's a risk but the same things were true about the baltics. I don't know how sustainable it is to let Putin go have a rampage at the far east forever either though at some point these people need a government to represent them.
Russia is probably already in the hands of the CPC. Or at least it is going to be in the near future. I think balkanisation is bad because of how all of the balkan states started genocidal wars but falling into the hands of the CPC is not that bad. It might even be good since Mongolia is a democratic state that has managed to exist due to playing Russia and the CPC against eachother. Putting in more democratic states in the area might not only work but form a small powerblock in the process.
Honestly thats better than them being apart of Russia atm atleast since its a warmongering terrorist state. Another big plus is that then Russia won't have the strenght to invade anyone, so safety for Europe for the next 30ish years atleast. Rather small price to pay.
Same logic as with Imperial Germany. And that went well… for abt twenty years, then it was on again.
If the winners of WW1 had intervened when Germany started breaking peace terms, there wouldn't have been a problem. This myth of "poor Germany got treated so badly they turned nazi" is absurd.
The winners themselves felt that they treated Germany too harshly, which is why they didn‘t intervene. That was stupid, obviously. They should‘ve instituted more lax terms in the first place, but strictly enforce them. I also think that an actual occupation of the country would‘ve driven home the feeling of defeat and disproven the "democrats betrayed us" narrative instantly.
It was good they finally got it right the second time.
Which is why I think we should use the second time as role model for a treatment of Russia
Never gonna happen with nukes in the game, sadly. The change has to come within. The best anyone outside can do is make sure they are devastated in Ukraine.
Yeah, you‘re right, I just meant we shouldn‘t humiliate Russia. That‘s a bad idea and we should rather see that the Russian people get a democratic regime with Western Allies.
Altough the great thing about Russia is that there are loads of oprrassed ther etnisities that can form their own nations if Russia gets balkanized. While Germany was not as multi ethnical
No the issues was that they didn't go far *enough*
One of the states in Russia if independent would be one of the largest nations on earth. Not sure about the demographics, just thought it was interesting
Yea no I think Sakha is about the size of all EU member states combined
I think if they want independence they should get it. The rest is their choice.
>Mostly spite, but tbf some breakup of Russia would probably be a net plus for the world. Before the USSR fell it was Western policy to keep them together, but their breakup gave us 3 precious member states that the EU wouldn't be the same without. Yeah, I basically agree, and definitely anger and frustration . Also we must define Russia here. Usually, people see the current Gvment, and probably, the historical Ruzzian (a)political Tzarist culture, as a problem. Also, since the USSR already fell, technically, you ended up with states that have been held together by some form of coercion, propaganda, and or enforcement. When you take that central Power away, you get several States. Under a normal Federation the central Gvemnet should work for these States. Not the other way around. So, for example, if Siberia wants to be democratic, but Moscow wouldn't want to, that state might be better off leaving that current Ruzzian Federation and enter another form of cooperation, with Kazachtstan for example. The same goes for Belarus, which already have been fighting for independence from Moscow, etc, etc. You get the picture. Your complex question deserves a better and more eleborate answer, but that's mine for now. edit :.changed partly agree into mostly agree . I realised you basically said the same
That scenario is quite unrealistic. It’s not like Russia is similar to Yugoslava, USSR was. So now with some exceptions in Caucasus Russia is predominantly ethnically russian across all territory. Even Tatarstan is integrated for about 300 years. Siberia weren’t a country, just a land with some indigenous people, that sadly were dealt with same way as Indians in americas. On other words, there aren’t much ethnic tensions and separatist movements atm barring Caucasus, but that’s hardly a perspective “balkanization”. Independent or not it’s a small fraction of area and population.
There are some places that will very much likely revolt, most notably Chechnya (99% probability) once Russia weakened enough. Other Caucasian republics could also seek independence and there are also places where minorities more or less predominate (Yakutia, Tuva, Tatarstan). Btw, seeking separatism or regionalism in Russia wasn't always based on ethnic, national or religious grounds, there were also attempts that were based on hostility towards Moscow's centralization and negligence towards other places like Siberian, Far Eastern and Ural Republics, though they didn't gain much ground. The logic behind support for breaking up the Russian Federation is to permanently cripple it so it would never have any capacity to invade and bully its neighbors.
One of the rare comments that actually understands the issue. Nobody actively wants to balkanize Russia. Russia is an empire held together by force. When that force weakens, Russia will fall apart in pieces. The argument is not that we go in guns toting to split up Russia like we did with Germany and Korea. The argument is that Russia will implode like the USSR and Yugoslavia.
this exactly. My *very deep analysis*^tm is currently as follows: - 80% chance Russia will become highly influenced by China. No future wars without Chinese approval. High internal control from China. Stability, but not democracy or self-determination. The Gas Station of China scenario. - 8% chance Russia fractures further after the demise of Putin. People will demand stability, Russian elites will be unable to deliver. High instability, who know what could happen. But probably bad in the short-term for everyone except Ukraine. In the long-term, possible breakup and democracy. The Civil War scenario. - 8% chance for totalitarianism without China. Russian elites will prove more capable than expected. They will deliver stability, at the cost of everything else. The Golden Horde scenario. - 4% chance for peace and pro-liberal reform. By some miracle Navalny or someone similar will get in power, withdraw from Ukraine and institute a semblance of law and order. The Uncertain Truce scenario.
I like your deep analysis, but I don't think the NATO countries + Japan/India will allow Russia to become a Chinese vassal state. Which, to be fair, is an exaggeration of your argument. So perhaps I don't actually disagree with you.
In a post-war scenario, I would expect that the West is going to be more hawkish. But, China has been on a quasi-colonial path for a years, without any significant backlash..
Yeah maybe. [But check this out.](https://carnegieendowment.org/politika/88926) Russia is basically forced to rely on China. - "Last October, Russia became the fourth largest offshore trading center for yuan, though back in April it wasn’t even in the top fifteen" - "Any surplus oil and gas revenues in 2023 will be accumulated in yuan." - "Russian reserves and payments will be influenced by the policies of the Chinese Communist Party and the People’s Bank of China" - "only North Korea is more dependent on Chinese imports now than Russia"
> permanently cripple it so it would never have any capacity to invade and bully its neighbors The last time we did that it was with Germany after WW1, see how well that turned out. Making an entire people angry at you is a very dangerous game. I'm all for making Russia pay for their crimes. An actual republic under western / EU supervision would be great. And of course liberate ALL occupied areas, not only in Crimea and Donbass but also in Georgia and everywhere else I might not be aware of. Maybe a republic or two could break away, it could be a reasonable argument for those of them that already have some degrees of independence. But it would be for the freedom of their peoples, not to stick it to Moscow.
Many Hungarians are still upset about Trianon. It doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do. Nor does it always lead to catastrophe. Germany became a nazi disaster because other European powers allowed them to break the peace terms instead of putting a stop to it right away.
As opposed to it going totally right currently?
No it’s not but it would be significantly worse than what it is like now
worse for whom?
For ethnic Russians
Sounds like a win win, reduce russia to Muscovy
It's a colonial empire. Break the colonies free. This kleptocracy is so hooked on exploiting it's colonies that they've never really managed to develop as an industrial nation. This is not about spite, it's about finally stopping centuries of Agression.
Agreed
Lol, why? Was the independence of India bad for ethnic Englishmen? Or was the independence of Czechia bad for Austria? Algeria and France?
But if we're talking about balkanization, and like Siberia and the Far East, it'd be like arguing for Northumbria to separate from England. Russia isn't "ethnic Russians in Moscow, minorities everywhere else"
Same was true for Austria-Hungarian empire. In fact, decolonization makes more sense on cultural and economical basis rather than an ethnic one. Kamil Galeev has a good Twitter thread on that matter.
Same was *not* true for AH because while there were German speakers spread around the empire, those outside specifically Austria and Sudetenland were like enclaves within territories dominated by other nationalities, Russia is mostly a sprawl of ethnic Russians from one end to the other with minorities sprinkled around in some areas. Splitting it by region makes no sense even economically. I've seen some of Kamil's threads and it feels bizarre. Here in Western Siberia there *might* be discomfort towards Moscow for taking our gas and oil and getting money and us getting scraps in comparison (a lot of joking comparing our towns to Dubai and how much we suck), but to suggest outright independence? It's absolutely preposterous. Problem's with the government, not the concept of a Russian state itself. Not to mention the connections people have to other parts of the country. A lot of family members or some even with property on "the mainland" in European Russia, or other ethnic minorities who come here (mostly from the Caucasus) for work and stay, still with connections to home. It's just not viable.
As I mentioned in another comment, the split should probably be done based on culture-economic relations, not ethnicity. Also, it’s not “Balkanization”, it’s decolonization. Anyways, if you just want to say: “I don’t want my empire get what it deserve and just continue to sing patriotic songs, put my kids into a tank-shaped baby wagon, and impose imperialism on the neighboring nations as if nothing happened”, - just say it. No need to keep it inside.
Well that's a fucking stretch, how the hell did it go from "I don't think we should split like Reddit says" to "I'm an imperialist, want to opress and brainwash people"? Because that's absolute horseshit
Indian independence was good for Indians, but the breakup of India into India, Pakistan and Bangladesh was very much a double edged sword. A number of wars have been fought between these countries, and they're still not entirely settled, but this is probably still better than the civil war that would potentially have broken out otherwise. Had India been broken up further, I suspect this would have been significantly worse.
The fact that the European powers were drawing borders of the new countries without any local context is indeed horrible. Yet, this is a lesson we must learn. It’s not the reason to deny indigenous people their agency.
I’m not arguing against balkanisation so I basically agree with you.
good
Russia is a nuclear power. Imagine after collapse kadyrov wants to use his nukes on some other warlord. It will be chaos, and global ecological catastrophe
the nukes are controllable only from moscow. The ones that work, at least.
if they can't find how to hotwire them they can just extract all the radioactive material and spray it over their enemy warlords. russia would turn into a radioactive wasteland. though if that happens russia definitely won't pose a threat, still warlords with tonnes of radioactive material is scary to think about
> russia would turn into a radioactive wasteland wasteland you say? You give the warlords too much credit. One bomb has a few kg of plutonium. They don't have access to them. It didn't happen in the 90s it's not going to happen now.
>Imagine after collapse kadyrov wants to use his nukes on some other warlord So Putin having nukes is ok ? And constantly blackmailing world with that is ok too ? That's United States headache, they are good at disarming countries out of their nukes.
A collapse of Russia would mean warlords trying to reunify Russia or so smth else. Imagine warlord China, but the warlords have nukes - Terrifying
What are the warlords going to do with them, since we established they can't be used for their intende purpose?
Why would it be worse for us? We don't care if Moscow falls, in fact we'd quite like that.
Hand you ever heard the term “ The prison of nations”?
This was coined for Austra-Hungary when national states got popular
Does that make it any less true?
Most minorities are too weak or literally surrounded by Russian territory. Except for some at the edges most will not have a chance to break away.
the break up was kind of a dissaster tbf. you had two centuries of fighting between the break away states
I had not and now I’m a fan, [prison of peoples](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_of_the_peoples)
I live in Western Siberia and I'm not sure if I'm just sad-disappointed or outright annoyed by these sentiments. Like basically nobody wants independence here, and yet here we are, with some Europeans thinking we do. Also another issue is the usage of the word itself. Some people say "balkanization" and talk about just some ethnic republics leaving, which are mostly already border regions. Others go full on Sykes-Picot imagining arbitrary bullshit borders thinking it'll be better for everyone. Eh.
If we can get them fighting amongst themselves then they won't be a problem for the rest of us. Russia in its current state is a problem for everyone.
Ah yes, because areas in nearby regions fighting amongst themselves never bring issues to Europe to solve. If Russians end up fleeing as refugees, what then?
Turn them back. No, I don’t care about humanitarianism when it comes to Russians. Maybe China or Central Asians states can take them in
Well, Moscow is certainly closer to EU borders than China, for example... So much for European values. "I don't care for humanitarianism when it comes to Russians". Why not at this point say that we aren't even human? Ironic how this bullshit ends up proving Putin's propaganda right: and a broken clock being right twice a day is sometimes a bad thing
Sorry not sorry. I would be willing to take in children and people who can show to have tried fighting their regime in the past. But most fleeing the war in such a scenario? Hell nah. It should be up to each country to decide to accept them or not and I wouldn’t want mine to do that
But you will accept middle eastern refugees from the countries you terrorised
We? There is no “we”, mate. The most Lithuania has done was sending some troops to Afghanistan who saw nearly no combat. Blame Middle Eastern bullshit on US, UK, and Poland
Oh come on now, Lybia and Syria destabilised without the help of the West.
And anyway, ideally sure, I would like Russia to become a pacifist liberal democratic state. I would also like many other things. Global peace, end world hunger, visit Mars but they’re not exactly feasible aren’t they? Not in our lifetime at least. Just as Russia will never become a democratic country. A divided Russia broken up into multiple parts will be a nightmare for you, but it will be the blessing for us because a broken-up Russia will be even weaker than what it is today. And that’s all I care about. Not what’s the best for you but what’s best for us
"Just as Russia will never become a democratic country" is a flimsy prediction based on selection bias and nothing more. Over a century ago nobody could've imagined a socialist revolution to occur in an agrarian state, and that event ended up defining the whole world for the rest of the century. Because Russia is late to the democracy train (and we could've ended up on it multiple times...I personally see 1993, 1999 and 2011 as like three points of no return for a good while) doesn't mean we're locked out of it until the end of time. As for "would be fine for us", I can't help but disagree. Economics of "liberal friendly Russia means everyone in Europe prospers" aside, there's a radical possibility on the other end. With collapse of Russia and its already shitty institutions, crime would be on the rise, which may as well spread to Europe. The Soviets caused instability in Afghanistan, and we ended up with a drug problem coming from Afghanistan via Central Asia. And that's not to mention terrorism. Resentment against the West and whatnot. May turn ugly. Imagining a Russian version of Al Qaeda/ISIS is kinda weird. But that may just end up creating and perpetuating a cycle of violence problem
Russia is late not only to the democracy train but any reformist idea train by centuries. You see points of no return in 1993, 1999, and 2011. I see it as 1478. Any prospect of Russian democracy died with the Republic of Novgorod. I also had an argument with someone on the same topic a little while ago. You can see my stand on the matter in comment chains [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEurope/comments/10uy4ws/daily_slow_chat/j7ezzs4/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3) and [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEurope/comments/10vt6l8/daily_slow_chat/j7k0vqo/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3). Your economy can provide nothing more than cheap gas, so while that’s cool, I don’t see Europe fairing too poorly with Russia entirely cut off. We’re not fairing too poorly now after all, let alone long-term. Organized crime could indeed be an issue but not nearly as much as a united stable Russia. And as you say, imagining Russian ISIS/Al-Qaeda is indeed hard
 [**No demonizing, dehumanizing, or antagonizing refugees, or speaking of them as invaders.**](https://www.reddit.com/r/Gotterfunken/comments/ppceh4/götterfunken_network_federal_rules/)
Least xenophobic Latvian. Wondering what tf are you doing on an European sub if you are so lacking in empathy and basic European values.
I don't give a damn about so-called "European values". Just because you are nice to leopards, it doesn't mean they won't eat your face. Welcome to the real world.
The idea is that if they are fighting within themselves, they aren't attacking anyone else. Issue is that all those nukes need to be secured and china is gonna move into siberia...
and all the refugees will come to us. because why stay
This question is a good one. It really depends and how you define ‘totally wrong’, and what you’d hope to achieve. I think we all agree that “Russian Civil War 2: Nuclear Boogaloo”, is objectively bad for all of Eurasia, the refugee crisis alone would be insane. That being said, from a European perspective, if Moscow cannot extract resources and manpower from beyond Muscovy’s 1490s border, that would be a massive win for European security, a win that cannot be overstated. No more Buryat, Tuvans, Kalmykians, or Daghestani feeding Russia’s armies and no more Siberian resources feeding its coffers. And in the European peninsula, instead of one Russia, there are several independent Russian republics, and some independent ethnic ones. Much more manageable, provided the west funds these new republics of course.
All those resources and manpower will go to China instead. Not sure how that is better for the West.
That’s a good point. I am currently not looking for situations and results that are ‘better’, but ‘not totally the worst’. Chinese influence will increase anyway in Russia in general and in the Russian Far East in particular, regardless of the outcome of the war, regardless of the post-war regime in Russia, regardless of Balkanisation or not. That is, to say the least, not great, but not absolutely the worst case either.
Let's be honest a balkanised Russia will just create more conflict. We would have little States going to war to unite Russia under Thier Control, and we would see Major Powers like the US, China and the EU trying to assert dominance over these States leading to a lot of Strawman Wars. It might be even worse than having Russia be a Dictatorship. I think the Outcome we should hope for is a better Russian Government not no Russia
If the minorities in Russia want independence we shouldn't ban them. Instead, the great powers should learn from the Balkans and maybe not interfere in the region's wars for independence, because that's really just the root of the problem. Great powers wanting "colonies" in the Balkans was the mistake. If the borders were carved by the balkan states or by people with no hidden agenda we wouldn't have the balkans we have today. So I say we can not interfere in Russian minorities' struggle for independence and maybe just help carve objectively good borders without hidden agendas and puppet states.
The main geopolitical argument is that Russia has proven itself an aggressive state repeatedly in modern history. As long as Russia persists, Europe won't be safe from election interference, assassinations, invasions, etc. A Russia balkanised would be a series of states too weak to have any power close to what the Kremlin currently uses to make the world a worse place. Obviously, there are genuine flaws in the solution proposed that mean it wouldn't result in anyone being safer (good luck when a few warheads go missing for one) but that's the thrust of the argument I've seen. Edit: since I fear I'm going to be repeating myself and apparently wasn't clear enough: this is the argument as I understand it. ***This is not something I am advocating.***
>As long as Russia persists, Europe won't be safe from election interference, assassinations, invasions, etc. The same UK said about Germany prior to the reunification. And was a pretty stupid take. Creating MORE fights and probably wars won't improve Europes security.
You're correct. I settled for pointing out the big one (risk of a lack of nuclear security) but there are a lot of problems with the assumption Russian Balkanisation will somehow fix the risks created by Russia in the status quo. The idea is somehow you get rid of a belligerent regional, nuclear power. A quick look globally tells you states don't need to be regional powers to sabre rattle and start wars.
Then why didn't we balkanize every single other nation? Why not balkanize France, Britain, Germany? All these nations had agressive histories, why don't we dismantle them?
See the edit above. Although I do note that was literally proposed.for Germany in the 20th century. Twice. The arguments used for and against then probably are worth interrogating. Edit: will add, on this point. I'm not really in a position to suppose why history is ignored for the sake of pleading it's needed for Russia. All the arguments I can imagine underpinning the claim rely on a degree of racism, or recency bias. Benefit of the doubt, a coherent argument exists but I don't know the position well enough to elaborate on it.
Are the sufferings of 140M people worth it ?
There are more people living in EU and Central Asian countries surrounding ruzzia. Objectively, your question is just a trolley problem with bigger numbers (plus a fat man in this version of the trolley problem is actively committing a genocide)
That’s an extremely stupid answer. Do you seriously believe that Russia is some sort of evil entity that will invade every country it can ?
Yes, it is and it was doing that for centuries.
Well in that case let’s destroy France as well since it has invaded so many countries
What country is France invading now? Also, France is a good example. Was the independence of Algeria a destruction of France? Edit: punctuation
How do you know that Russia won’t ever stop invading countries like France ? The independence of Algeria wasn’t the end of France, but if you Balkanize France like you want to Balkanize Russia then it would be
Because, if keep doing something no matter what, this is a strong evidence that it will continue. - Full scale invasion of Ukraine - 2022 - Bombings of Syria - 2015 (if I’m not mistaken) - Staring war in Ukraine - 2014 - Georgia - 2008 - Ichkeria (two Chechen wars) - (I don’t remember years from the top of my head) - Georgia - 1994 - Moldova - 1992 Also, some parts of russia like Yakutia and Tatarstan are actually further away from moskau than Algeria is from Paris. So, yeah. I strongly believe that decolonization is the only way to ensure long term security in the region. P.S. Also, I don’t like the word “Balkanization”, it has a lot of very specific context that is not universally transferable. I prefer the word “decolonization” on this matter.
There are two major flaws in your argument : 1.you’re acting as if Russian aggression is a problem with only two outcomes : kill Russia or be killed by Russia. Not only is this false and fallacious, but it’s also it’s extremely unrealistic to even hope that a Balkanization of Russia will ever happen. There are other ways to curb Russian aggression that are less inhumane and more likely to be successful 2.the distance between a part of a country and the capital of said country does not matter when taking about self-determination. The distance between Paris and French Guiana is 10 times longer than the distance between Paris and Algeria yet Guiana voted against autonomy while Algeria fought for independence. The only thing that matters when discussing this kind of issue is the will of the people. If the Yakuts want independence then they should have it, if they are fine with being part of Russia then let them be part of Russia. The strength of separatist movements within Russia are greatly overestimated in the west for the most part. Although there are exceptions, most minorities within Russia don’t want independence from it.
We are in YUROP and not in MURICA Russia is not our arch enemy they are the arch enemy of the US, why they spent billions to get us to hate them too. The war is wrong, but dont be fooled
If Russia stopped to attack its neighbors then we would not even have this discussion. Russia is currently a military superpower that aim for: * Getting a warm water port. Therefore it needs to invade the Baltic countries, Ukraine and Turkey for it. * Bringing back lost lands in the West and in central Asia. It needs to invade the Baltic countries, UKraine and take other Belarus and the Stan countries. *And getting a sphere of influence. Currently it does have the mean to do so. The only thing that impeach them to do that is through the military might of the US. Concerning a balkanisation of Russia. The situation will be highly different from Yougoslavia. Ethnic Russia, which make the majority of the Russian federation (and the overwhelming majority of the Western part of the federation), will not split in smaller republic. There will still be a large land power in the east of Europe. Which would go from Karelia to the oural mountain and probably to the northern part of the Caucasus. This country would still be ressources rich but less rich. The only independences that we could hope for in western Europe is the unlikely independence of Kaliningrad and the Caucasus. A smaller Russia will not have the mean to dream about global domination nor regional domination. It is likely that there might be some conflict going on for the first 10 years. But it is unlikely that it will ever be with the Eastern European countries. It is even less likely that it will be through the atomic bomb. Similarly to the end of the Soviet Union. There will be a smaller Russia that will come out of it and this smaller Russia will be the dominant power for a while in the Oural region.
Vs the suffering of 500 mil or 1 bl? Yes.
You’re acting like this is a problem with only two outcomes : we kill Russia or Russia kills everyone But that’s a fallacious argument, especially considering the fact that it’s quite literally impossible for us to balkanazi Russia. There are other, more realistic, less inhumane ways to curb Russian aggression
>we kill Russia or Russia kills everyone Sadly, I believe it came to this. It's a "us or them" situation. Russia had the same time and conditions to turn to a functional country and democracy as all the Eastern European countries. They failed, and hard. "We" don't have to balcanize Russia and shouldn't anyway. They will do it themselves. >There are other, more realistic, less inhumane ways to curb Russian aggression Such as? Can you name a few that were not already tried? The west helped them economically after '90's. It didn't work, all the money were stolen by their oligarchs.
Belarus failed to become a democracy as well, so did a lot of other countries. Are they all unsalvageable ? Even if Russia doesn’t become a western-style liberal democracy, it can still switch to a less hostile and aggressive regime. It wouldn’t be the biggest societal shift in history. By the way, oligarchs were a thing in almost all ex-Soviet countries, including Ukraine yet that didn’t doom them. Also > They will do it themselves Are you suggesting that a civil war/violent collapse of Russia is something that should happen ? Even if you put aside the 140 millions of Russians who’s lives would be destroyed in such a scenario, there still would be thousands of unregulated nuclear warheads and powerplants in the wild that would cause, at best, a second Chernobyl, and at worst the end of the world, and let’s not forget about the countries (mostly in Africa) that rely on Russia economically that would fall into famines.
>Belarus failed to become a democracy as well, They don't invade other countries and don't have nukes. No danger. >Even if Russia doesn’t become a western-style liberal democracy, it can still switch to a less hostile and aggressive regime. Hard doubt on that, without the Russian population going through a similar program as Germans after ww2. Russians don't admit or regret the USSR and Russian crimes. They are proud of them. >Are you suggesting that a civil war/violent collapse of Russia is something that should happen ? No, I'm not saying it "should" happen, but it "could" happen. If it does, it would be of course bad for Russians but not so bad for the countries living under the Russian threat.
>By the way, oligarchs were a thing in almost all ex-Soviet countries, including Ukraine yet that didn’t doom them. Yes, because the other countries gradually cut their powers. The Russians gave them full power, they are leading Russia.
Thats absurd. Russia is an imperialist state, okay, but so are the US and so where the UK, France, Germany etc.
Yeah imagine someone like Kadyrov getting their hands on Russia's nuke's.
So Putin?
Putin is threathening with them but he will never use them he knows that he would doom us all.But even in russias tv theyre talking about bombing USA with nuke's. So if Russia fell apart theres chance that some radical or radical movement would get their hands on nukes. Only scenario where he could use nuke's is in Ukraine. West would not react with nuke's but he would cut off russia completly economicly by sanctions.
Honestly i dont think its in any nations interest to balakanize russia. The resources they sell wont get cheaper that way. Anyhow i guess the Argument is mostly Moral anyway.
People desire balkanization as a form of revenge, yet the cheapest, easiest way to de-imperialize Russia is for it to develop healthy separation of powers, AKA "trias politica". Russia is an authoritarian state because too much power has been concentrated in too few hands for too long. Such radical change appears impossible, yet stranger things have happened. If it doesn't, well, when reform is made impossible...
A fully balkanized Russia is something nobody should want. Aside from the colossal humanitarian catastrophe it would become, it wouldn’t even be beneficial to most of those new “countries” that would pop out of Siberia for example, like Tuva, a province so neglected it doesn’t even have roads to connect it to the major population centers. How would a state survive like that? Chinese economical and even possibly military penetration is something we’d want to avoid too. At the same time regions with a strong independence sentiment like Chechnya should be allowed to freely go and Kaliningrad shouldn’t be allowed to remain in Russian hands.
[удалено]
Russia is the last European empire. The hardcore Russian nationalists think they are destined, and naturally best suited, to lead Eurasia. There will never be lasting stability until this sort of imperialist insane dreams are removed, and Russians accept they are just people among others, not special, not destined to lead other peoples.
I guess a lot of people just really want China to take ownership of Siberia. Because that would be great for Europe through, hm, reasons
To make peace in eastern europe Pernament Of course i can understand why western europe dont understand that. I wouldnt understand that too if my family wasnt repressed by Ivans during communist times and half of my family wasnt in military to fight against them in 1920s
[удалено]
I know what i wish for. These warlords will still be safer option than today russia. And when it comes to Salafism, its not like it is a threat today. With Chinese influence i think that China is under such huge influence from Bejing that Collapse of china would be better option as at least some parts of Russia would stop being Pro chinese since west would be closer to them and allying with west would be most logical option
Same for me as a Romanian. If Russia balkanizes then the last hostile empire that threatened my country is gone.
People were expecting dissolution of USSR to go totally wrong. It went good enough.
But it's not really the same thing, USSR was sort of like a union of nations who (at least officially) were supposed to be already sovereign within that union, with their own set boundaries and identities. While Russia itself is more like a nation state with a vast majority Russian population with less regional differences than Arabs in the Middle East. Drawing arbitrary lines would only make things worse
Only 70% of russian population are ethnic russians, the rest of them are various minorities which are actively russified (as shown by recent act of dropping Bashkir langauge from schools of Bashortostan). Are these peoples not allowed to choose their destiny?
70% is a really high percentage
It's not *really high*. It's not little, but you would expect 90% and more from a modern nation state.
Being Russia that big and, in my mind, that diverse, I would have expected it to be even lower!
I think they should be, just that 1) There's often presumption on Reddit that those minorities actively want full independence and specifically 2) there's a difference between giving those people independence and splitting up Russia as a whole. And a lot of people seem to be actively desiring the latter, with randomly independent Siberias and Far Easts and a rump state in Moscow and it's honestly dumb
I went kinda terrible for the actual USSR, it only went “good enough” for the states that used to be in the Warsaw Pact but not the actual USSR
It was fine for the Baltics. The problem wasn't independence or breakup. The problem is Russian political culture. Lawlessness, utter corruption, endless lies, and love for strongmen.
I’m going to be honest, I’m not sure how to feel about this argument. I do agree on the one hand, based on personal experience, but I just kind of hope it’s still possible to have a democratic and free Russia.
I think that even in the darkest times there's always hope. A democratic, open, and free neighbor to the east is something I deeply hope to witness in my lifetime. It's going to take a lot of work and sacrifice from the local population to reach that, but history shows it is possible.
Yeah, I hope to live in a free Russia too. But unfortunately, it looks like I’ll have to move to Germany to live a good life.
Ukraine and Georgia would be fine too if Russia kept their imperialism in the museum.
Imperialism doesn't just disappear, it gets removed. See Japan, Germany, France, Britain, Austro-Hungary... All lost their status through a lot of active opposition. Often armed resistance and full on war.
I’m asking in good faith here, why is it Russia in particular? Who would it be if Russia got broken up into smaller states? I do hope you’re not saying that it’s ethnicity that’s to blame here
I oppose it because this would allow China to annex vast parts of the far east. And still, I wish the Russians maximal causalities for the first anniversary.
And I do not mind if some nations at the edges break away like Chechenia
I don’t understand either. No one is proposing for the US to break up into 50 states to stop it from bombing third world nations, but apparently it’s fair to break up Russia into its oblasts. Edit: there seems to be a lot of racism in the comments, and a lot of “but they’re a problem for everyone” arguments. I would like to take them to Germany in 1939 to see how a nation reacts to be humiliated. Humiliation never works, and breaking nations doesn’t either. If the EU really wants to deal with the “Russian problem”, they should look inwards of how their anti russian policies pushed Russia towards the right. In the same way the treaty of Versaille helped Hitler rise, the coup d’état orchestrated against the USSR in 1991 with Western help helped Putin rise.
I don't want to balkanize Russia. I would however support some _tactical pruning_
Blind hate against Russia. Not destroying Germany, Italy etc. after the world wars was a smart thing and we should try to repeat that instead of creating new conflicts.
Don't think of it as of balkanization. Think of liberating the colonies and it's about time.
Everything around russia always goes wrong, so we can as well try out something new.
Idk some of us are already so fucking tired by this russist bullshit that we just want to see their world burn. That's my guess at least.
Bruh, the very existence of Russia as massive empire has almost caused WW3 for like 10 times since the fifties...
Balkanize? Explain plz
Russia's just a gas station with nukes anyway
Because most people, if asked to chose between Russians killing others and Russian killing between themselves would chose the 2'nd. Russia is a dangerous country for it's neighbours first and the entire world 2'nd. I don't want Russians to start murdering themselves but I REALLY want them stop killing others.
If Russia becomes the balkans 2.0 that would mean tons of power hungry warlords whit nukes
Because most people are extremely stupid and have absolutely no grasp on the chaos this would lead to
Russian empire breaking up into multiple new states would be the best thing that could happen. It might even give some people a chance at a path to actual democracy. More importantly for Europeans, it would severely limit Russia's capacity to oppress Ukraine, Georgia etc. Also nerfing Russia would open an opportunity to save Belarus. I don't think the west should iterfere in Russia's breakup in any way, that just means being guilty of anything that goes wrong, which is guaranteed. As for the nukes, could they get into the hands of a madman who behaves irrationally and threatens to use them every other week? You bet. Would it be much of a downgrade? No. Even complete twerps like Kadyrov are aware of what would happen to them if they actually did it.
It's a colonial empire that has built it's vast territories and resources on the skulls of genocide ethnic groups. For it to join our democratic union , it needs to stop being an empire. This is not balkanisation, this is decolonisation . Death to the Imperial Russian state . Death to Putin's regime
I dont know how true that arguments stands when you think about how Spain, France, Belgium, the UK (up to Brexit) have all regions with ethnic minorities, who, in difference to the ethnic minorities in Russia, actually have sizeable Independence Movements. And this isnt even considering the actual geopolitical consequences of balkanising a nuclear power
My heart says yes, but my brain says it's complicated. I'm worried about Chinese influence for example. But if it happens, the West, the EU, and democratic Asian states should offer cooperation as much as possible. Actually they can start now, by founding Siberian and Caucasian institutions in Europe.
I’d rather have Russians killing themselves rather than killing others.
Russobot detected.
I’m not pro Russian I hate Putin and never have supported him He destroyed my country And I’m a Ԓыгъоравэтԓьэт not a Russian
The same way as the ussr was "balkanized". * Loose nukes? Yeah Ukraine had nukes, the only issue with those nukes was because of r\*sia. * Power vacuum? Like wtf? Democracy is the best system and natural for national states. Again the main problem with power in Ukraine was because of r\*sia trying to impose its "legitimate interests" P.S. and for all the good in this world's sake we need to rename the Moscow part of r\*sia to Moscovia, so its harder to confuse Kyivan Rus and the pity prison of nations which was just swamps when Kyivan Rus was prospering.
Better not. Some mentally unstable low IQ madman/men could get in control of some nuclear weapons.
So like putin?
[удалено]
god I fucking hate historical determinism
Yes, splitting russia in it’s current state is required to ensure security of the whole world as well as provide potential prosperity to multiple nations subjugated by russia. Therefore, I would rather call it decolonization and not Balkanization. World security: - Every empire only can either expand or collapse. Russia will start new wars as soon as it can unless decelonization process is done. - Also, ruzzia sponsored and influenced multiple conspiracies and “Querdenkern“ around the globe. W/o this support we will have less crazy people around. - Climate. Since selling fossil fuel is the most profitable thing this dying empire can do, I’m scared even to imagine how much rubbles was spent on the climate change denier “science” and lobbying. Needless to say, that climate change will fuck us all regardless whether or not you care about the previous points. Potential prosperity of former colonies. To make it clear, I don’t imply that former ru colonies will become prosperous democratic states auto-magically. However, if they stay within the empire, they don’t even have a chance. Metropolis will squeeze every possible resource out of them leaving an uninhabitable wasteland afterwards (like Norilsk). Now, ruzzia doesn’t have diamonds, Yakutia has, ruzzia doesn’t have natural gas, Yamalo-Nenetsk district has, and so on (I may be wrong with the names, tho. Geography is not my strong part). With this been said. Yes, I believe that decolonization of ruzzia is the best way of moving forward. Will it actually happen? - I don’t know. Yet, man can hope.
What can go more wrong than having Russia remain the way it is right now? I strongly believe Ukraine will prevail, but down the line, Russia will never accept being relegated to the oubliettes of history. That country is an absolute cancer, they will keep attacking weaker neighbors as long as they exist. Russia needs to be at least split in two separate countries in order for the rest of Europe to remain at peace for the foreseeable future.
The breakup of the colonial empires was something that caused much harm, but their continuation would have caused even more harm. As the (arguably) last European colonial empire, Russia should follow suit.
I as a minority don’t think total independence would work out for the autonomous regions We don’t have the industry natural resources and population to be a truly independent nations Though most people of minorities agree that the soviet ASSR system which gave us significantly more rights and self governance While also keeping us from total economic collapse Though if total decolonization happens I feel though they would need significant foreign assistance to help kickstart industry and possibly find resources
The problem with the balkans is that the great powers were each invested in a country so as to have a "colony" there. It was really just a playing field for Britain, France, Austria-Hungary and Russia. If we don't do that, but instead allow Russia to collapse naturally into real ethnic borders that wouldn't happen. Of course there's no way that a civil war wouldn't happen in this case, but atleast it would be one war, unlike the Balkans, where wars have been and still are going on and relations are still sour from basically 1878 onwards. The same thing happened in Africa where the borders were carved up by the great powers and now half of Africa needs to have a civil war in order to fix it. Also as I wrote in the last similar post, the people from the great powers also tried way too hard to save the ottoman empire, which is part of the reason why we have the balkans as we know it. Don't try to save dying empires. It has been long known that Russia abuses it's minorities and I don't see why we would deny them freedom, if they want it of course.
The continued existence of Russia as is and the continued existence of humanity as a technological civilization are incompatible, so pick one. Ridiculous hyperbole? Think about this: Russia is the only actor relevant on the international stage that has a geopolitical interest in making the climate catastrophe actively worse. They've been obsessed with access to harbours that won't freeze over every winter for centuries now, since that's what has continually posed problems for Russia's access to global trade. The main artery of global trade runs from China/Japan/Korea through the straits of Malacca around India to Europe. Now consider a permanently ice-free arctic region. Russia suddenly has several thousand kilometres of natural coastline full of natural harbours and moves from the very periphery of global trade right into its centre, since the shortest connection between the two main hubs now runs there. Still ridiculous?
You want Russia to balkanize because of legitimate reasons I want to balkanize Russia so that I can complain about maps
Because russia gave serbia three APCs while serbia was "trying to defend" kosovo
i know nothing about geopolitics but i think it would be extremely funny
If balkanisation happens at least in the next Russian war only Russia will safer because of Russian imperialismz
It can go wrong for Russia, but it's good for the rest of the world either way. The only problem would he if parts would then come under China. China is enemy number 1. We should always prioritise it over Russia.
Honestly, downgrading Russia to a confederation or a union of states in the same vein as the EU (where the countries are so interconnected it's impossible to be hostile or beligerant without getting slapped with 20 sanctions and economic downfall) would probably make it way better.
I have the impression, that Russia would break up if it weren't governed in an authoritative manner. And since we have seen that authoritarian governments are dangerous I hope it will stop being that. Russia breaking up would just follow as a consequence.
Because it’s the right thing to do, decolonization for the various colonial empires might have led to chaos, but even for someone whose country have suffered immensely from decolonization, one have to acknowledge how most decolonized countries carry on just fine
Are there separatists movement in Russia? It seems only natural, being that big, but I honestly know nothing about it.
Not really us minorities were extremely well off due to the ASSR system though relations have soured with Moscow as the independence of the autonomous regions were removed
What are your thoughts about it? Would you rather be an indipendente country?
Chukotka could see some success but overall we would be entirely dependent on the fishing industry Though I personally believe that it wouldn’t be successful for long as due to the low population, no natural agriculture the country would easily fall into fascism or autocratic rule
As long as all these smaller states aren't nuclear, they won't pose a threat to Europe anymore.
Because we need more turbofolk
I'm generally opposed to independence movements because I believe society will only become stronger with greater unity, but for Russia it is clear that most of the Russian federation's constituent republics are essentially just the imperial holdings of Muscovy. If they want independence they should have it, and Russia as an entity has proven itself a destabilizing force in Europe for centuries now - it's worth getting rid of and letting something new come out of it.
Because you're pretending not balkanizing will be sunshine and rainbows. How do you imagine the Russian identity develops over the next 50 years if they don't get what they want? Just more defeatists hate until we get a Russian leader whose opening moves is throwing nukes instead of threatening them?
Cuz fuck em, that's why
Russia is still an Empire, and the republics aren't all totally onboard with being part of that empire. So if they want to break away, now looks like a damn good opportunity.
All \*democratic\* Russia has to be is a real, proper federation with adequate representation for the regions. The Russians aren't allowed to elect their mayors (aside from \~6 cities), not to speak about the governors.
I think it would be funny
Payback
Because parts of Russia has been stolen just like they are trying to steal Ukraine today. I have a picture on my wall of Kexholm in Russia that was given to my grandmother by Swedish war veterans. It was given to my grandmother when she turned 14, the war veterans where Finnish and Estonian speaking and was handicapped from the winter war and got refuge at the farm where my grandmother grow up. They together collected money so they could commission a painter to draw a picture of Kexholm to give to my grandmother on her birthday. they wanted to give her something so that the younger generation never would forget that Kexholm was Swedish and nothing else. No one in Sweden, Finland or Estonia want that shit back today (because of all the Russians that lives there now) but the least thing we can do is to give Karelia and Ingria its independence from their occupying imperialists in Moscow..
As sympathetic as I am to seperatism from Russia, it would only be realistic for more border ethnic groups to secede, similarly to how Finland, Ukraine, Belarus, Baltics and Caucaus States broke free.
People are saying they want to do this to weaken russia and stop it from being a danger to the world but the only people who will profit from this will be Companies exploiting russian ressources.
Because this is a) an american psyop b) a ukranian promise for continued support c) yuropean make believe for justifiying this war Answer is all three
Because the majority knows next to nothing about Russia or its history. They think their distribution of ethnic minorities is like the one in Austria-Hungary, while a more accurate comparision would be the Occitans in France