#Putin says #Russia “strategic defeat in the war means end of its statehood”. I’ll admit that I don’t quite understand what exactly Putin is playing at here.
https://video.echelon.pl/w/4dAbTBPusBUzN63YQvmkwM
Either this is a mechanical application of some kind of mirror image tactic, which Russian propaganda often applies - “we know we invaded them, but we will continue saying we were invaded”. If this sounds stupid, then it’s because you’re apparently not the target audience - inside Russia plenty of people actually wiped Putin’s fateful words “I decided to start the special military operation” from February 2022 and honestly believe it was Russia who was invaded by #Ukraine.
Or maybe he’s actually presenting a multi-layered geopolitical narrative where Putin is Russia and Russia is Putin, so Putin’s strategic failure spells the end of Russia as we know it today?
In any case, under international law, the defeat of Russia on the battlefield, the withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine and the payment of $500 billion in reparations is in no way the same as the ‘end of the Russian state’, however you look at it.
🤔
@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? 🤷
