The State of Affairs in Russia

[Gaijin de Moscu]

It's an attempt at a revolution sure. Revolution don't require a modern ideology like liberalism or communism. There can be theocratic revolutions, tribal uprisings, etc. Coherent ideologies are not required, simply mass participation by enough of the population to take it beyond level of court infighting with the aim of tearing down the powers that be and replacing them.

I think that the French Revolution is a textbook example of a revolution that got out of hand, what with the terror and the quarter century of great power warfare that followed and the country was still better off after all of that.

Even the Russian Revolution, with a terrible communist regime that killed millions of its own people was arguably a net positive, because I don't see that the Czarist regime that they replaced would have had any chance in defeating the Nazi invasion and preventing the ensuing genocide of the Russian people.

Very interesting.

Yep also believe the Communist revolution had the only positive of mobilising the old, crumbling Russian Empire to a state where it could defeat the Nazis.

Still... a horrible thing to happen. Tens of millions of people dead, empire chopped up into hostile nation-states... basically, on par with the Mongol invasion, in terms of throwing Russia back into the dark ages.

Anyway, what's happening in Kazakhstan isn't a revolution, as it doesn't meet any definitions of a true revolution. Just an unsuccessful diversion, IMHO.

[garbon]

Anyway, all I'm saying is that's just one possible scenario. One out of many.

[Josquius]

The idea that the West has the resources, assets and capabilities to stage this kind of violent conflict in Central Asia is absurd.

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR3000/RR3063/RAND_RR3063.pdf

It's all out in the open access. See page 6 for the contents.

An interesting read.

These are all recommendations, not operations.  None of them propose trying "to stage this kind of violent conflict in Central Asia."  It's interesting that you try to fly this document as support for your argument.

Sure, of course.

Chapter 4, Measure 5: Reduce Russian Influence in Central Asia (page 121).

It's all part of the old Big Game. The British Empire, then the US, have actively pursued this policy for centuries. Of course, Russia pursues the mirror strategy just as actively. Why deny the obvious?

This Game will never end... just a part of life.

Anyway, all I'm saying is that's just one possible scenario. One out of many.

He's right. This is a super hawkish private think tank. By nature its always going to be encouraging America to be aggressive internationally.
That it says America should be seeking to undermine Russian influence in these ways I'd say is evidence America ISN'T doing this rather than evidence it is.

[Solmyr]

I love how you all are seriously arguing with a Russian conspiracy theorist.

[Eddie Teach]

But you repeat yourself.

[Tamas]

I love how you all are seriously arguing with a Russian conspiracy theorist.

I obviously disagree with him but it also cannot be denied that he has a closer understanding of the main actor (Russia) and probably the area of the world. I fondly remember, for example, how Sheilbh and a couple of others here considered Erdogan's initial attacks on secular laws as a proof he was a modern liberal, and thought I was wrong to identify that as the action of an opposite kind of politician. 

More importantly, right or wrong I think Gaijin's view of the event and also his overall resignation to the so called benefits of Putin's quasi-feudal autocracy must be shared by a lot of other people. I know they are in Hungary. So I don't think it benefits me or him to just yell at him instead of trying to explain why I think he is wrong.

[garbon]

I love how you all are seriously arguing with a Russian conspiracy theorist.

I obviously disagree with him but it also cannot be denied that he has a closer understanding of the main actor (Russia) and probably the area of the world. I fondly remember, for example, how Sheilbh and a couple of others here considered Erdogan's initial attacks on secular laws as a proof he was a modern liberal, and thought I was wrong to identify that as the action of an opposite kind of politician. 

More importantly, right or wrong I think Gaijin's view of the event and also his overall resignation to the so called benefits of Putin's quasi-feudal autocracy must be shared by a lot of other people. I know they are in Hungary. So I don't think it benefits me or him to just yell at him instead of trying to explain why I think he is wrong.

So like how Mono was a window into China and it was valuable to show him how he was wrong.

[jimmy olsen]

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/12/30/russias-excess-death-toll-hits-930k-a75964

Saw this in a covid thread. 929k excess deaths since the beginning of the pandemic through December in Russia. Insane number given the overall population 144 million.

[Sheilbh]

I obviously disagree with him but it also cannot be denied that he has a closer understanding of the main actor (Russia) and probably the area of the world. I fondly remember, for example, how Sheilbh and a couple of others here considered Erdogan's initial attacks on secular laws as a proof he was a modern liberal, and thought I was wrong to identify that as the action of an opposite kind of politician. 

I never said he was a liberal - but I wouldn't say that to my worst enemy, though those were liberalising laws - I said he was a democratic Islamist or a Muslim democrat. And I think that's still broadly true for his first two terms that were generally very good and positive (same goes for Putin). The people I was arguing against were generally taking the view that there was something inherent in Islam that made it incompatible with democracy unless they impose very strict secular rules and game the system (which is about as democratic as Erdogan is now) - which I still fundamentally disagree with.

But after the first two terms I always said he was becoming more authoritarian especially after he moved to a Presidential system, but that his authoritarianism was in the Putin/illiberall democracy mould rather than something to do with Islam (which was normally the point of view I was arguing against). There is nothing about Erdogan's system right now that is because of his Islamism as opposed to the same factors of corruption, crony capitalism etc that drives Putin. The defining feature of Erdogan's regims is not it's Islamic characteristics.

And again I think the 2023 election is going to be very interesting because Erdogan now has a consistent disapproval rating of about 15-20%, while the AKP are still the most popular party their coalition partner is below the threshold and the two or three main opposition parties are collectively at about 50%. It's opening up what's, from my understanding, Putin's nightmare scenario of a result that means you either lose power or there has to be very obviously falsified results which has, elsewhere, provoked protests and "colour revolutions".

It's all part of the old Big Game. The British Empire, then the US, have actively pursued this policy for centuries. Of course, Russia pursues the mirror strategy just as actively. Why deny the obvious?

Isn't it more or less over though in Central Asia? Where could the US operate from?

Turkey's a player in their own right so not likely to provide a base for meddling Americans, Iran and Afghanistan are not options, I don't think the US is really an ally with Pakistan any more, which leaves China. I think it's now probably more of a game between the Chinese and the Russians for influence, though sometimes (as in Kazakhstan right now) their interests will align.

[Tamas]

I love how you all are seriously arguing with a Russian conspiracy theorist.

I obviously disagree with him but it also cannot be denied that he has a closer understanding of the main actor (Russia) and probably the area of the world. I fondly remember, for example, how Sheilbh and a couple of others here considered Erdogan's initial attacks on secular laws as a proof he was a modern liberal, and thought I was wrong to identify that as the action of an opposite kind of politician. 

More importantly, right or wrong I think Gaijin's view of the event and also his overall resignation to the so called benefits of Putin's quasi-feudal autocracy must be shared by a lot of other people. I know they are in Hungary. So I don't think it benefits me or him to just yell at him instead of trying to explain why I think he is wrong.

So like how Mono was a window into China and it was valuable to show him how he was wrong.

Gaijin hasn't even got close to Mono's vile, don't be unfair. we see Russia everywhere he sees the US everywhere, it balances out.

[garbon]

I love how you all are seriously arguing with a Russian conspiracy theorist.

I obviously disagree with him but it also cannot be denied that he has a closer understanding of the main actor (Russia) and probably the area of the world. I fondly remember, for example, how Sheilbh and a couple of others here considered Erdogan's initial attacks on secular laws as a proof he was a modern liberal, and thought I was wrong to identify that as the action of an opposite kind of politician. 

More importantly, right or wrong I think Gaijin's view of the event and also his overall resignation to the so called benefits of Putin's quasi-feudal autocracy must be shared by a lot of other people. I know they are in Hungary. So I don't think it benefits me or him to just yell at him instead of trying to explain why I think he is wrong.

So like how Mono was a window into China and it was valuable to show him how he was wrong.

Gaijin hasn't even got close to Mono's vile, don't be unfair. we see Russia everywhere he sees the US everywhere, it balances out.

[grumbler]

Why do you say that?

The old conservative/monarchist wing in Germany got behind him.

Because Tsarist Russia was allied with France, to prevent exactly the scenario that eventuated:  Germany defeats France, and then attacks Russia.

Hitler would certainly have attacked Russia after defeating France.  That's what Hitler was all about: the continuation of the thousand-year-old German Drang Nach Osten.

[grumbler]

The idea that the West has the resources, assets and capabilities to stage this kind of violent conflict in Central Asia is absurd.

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR3000/RR3063/RAND_RR3063.pdf

It's all out in the open access. See page 6 for the contents.

An interesting read.

These are all recommendations, not operations.  None of them propose trying "to stage this kind of violent conflict in Central Asia."  It's interesting that you try to fly this document as support for your argument.

Sure, of course.

Chapter 4, Measure 5: Reduce Russian Influence in Central Asia (page 121).

It's all part of the old Big Game. The British Empire, then the US, have actively pursued this policy for centuries. Of course, Russia pursues the mirror strategy just as actively. Why deny the obvious?

This Game will never end... just a part of life.

Anyway, all I'm saying is that's just one possible scenario. One out of many.

  Did you read the section you want to use as evidence that " the West has the resources, assets and capabilities to stage ... violent conflict in Central Asia?"

Conclusion
Reducing Russian influence in Central Asia would be very difficult and could prove costly, and Russia's influence might be reduced there in the long term without this measure. China will continue to expand there through its Belt and Road Initiative, and Japan and India have also engaged with the region, all of which could reduce Russia's dominance.
The main reason for increasing U.S. engagement in the region would be to benefit the United States: gaining modest help in implementing U.S. foreign policy goals, creating new opportunities for U.S. businesses, and channeling China's outward efforts in directions amenable to the United States. Without great cost, however, increased engagement would
be unlikely to extend Russia much economically, and backlash would need to be guarded against.

The conclusion is that "the Game," as you call it, is not worth playing.  The Russian conspiracy theory that they are victims of "the Game" will never end... just a part of life.

[Gaijin de Moscu]

He's right. This is a super hawkish private think tank. By nature its always going to be encouraging America to be aggressive internationally.
That it says America should be seeking to undermine Russian influence in these ways I'd say is evidence America ISN'T doing this rather than evidence it is.

This is an interesting take, thank you

[Gaijin de Moscu]

Gaijin hasn't even got close to Mono's vile, don't be unfair. we see Russia everywhere he sees the US everywhere, it balances out.

I like the US. I like Russia, too. And China is one of my fav countries.