@kravietz
As much as I hate do admit it, I think this is one of the rare occasions when he's speaking the truth.
> Putin is Russia and Russia is Putin, so Putin’s strategic failure spells the end of Russia as we know it today
Sadly, that IS so — that's the result of hierarchy he had himself built. Currently, all the disputes are resolved through him, there are no institutions to replace him with — he had eliminated them all.
@kravietz
If he fails to deliver on the battlefield, the so-called "vertical of power" might start faltering.
True, there is Prime Minister, there is Parliament, there is Security Council even — but do those have any power over actors like Kadyrov? I highly doubt that!
The outcome of him losing authority might indeed be very unpredictable. The international community — every other state in fact, including China even, is probably interested in preserving Russia's statehood.
@kravietz
: it's easier to hold negotiations when there is one point of authority, not when there are dozen of them — and last, but not least, there is smaller risk of someone unpredictable (yes, even more unpredictable 🤭) taking control over the nuclear arsenal…
But I'm not sure it's such a good idea — it would probably get messy if Russia dissolves, it might become a total clusterfuck… But at least with time there is a chance for proper decentralisation and strong local governance.
@kravietz
I have zero hope for this happening gradually — it didn't happen with the dissolution of USSR and now that the state institutions are in an even more dire condition.
And if so — the centralisation will return with time and history will repeat itself. But… parts of USSR that became independent — sure, most didn't become wealthy countries, but they aren't that bad either (again, at least most aren't waging wars on their neighbours 😏).
So… Is historical Russia even worth preserving? 🤷
