Over the past year, Russia’s military failures in Ukraine have prompted much debate about the possible collapse and break-up of the Russian Federation into a number of de facto statelets, and the potential dangers – or opportunities – that could present. This speculation has come from Western and Ukrainian voices, but also from nationalistic Russians such as Igor Girkin and, more recently, Vladimir Putin himself.
None of this is new. Mikhail Khodorkovsky and the strategic analysts at Stratfor were making similar remarks back in 2015. But while hopes for democratic reform of Russia within its existing borders are still (somewhat implausibly) held by the likes of Khodorkovsky and Alexei Navalny, it’s not difficult to see why Moscow’s continuing rule over the vast Russian lands might be in jeopardy.
Russia has a mix of ethnic groups across its many regions, but is still over 70% ethnic Russian – although that population is in fairly steep decline, partly due to fertility and mortality rates, but (perhaps more tellingly) because fewer are willing to identify as ethnic Russian on the census. It has a highly centralised and corrupt Government, run by ethnic Russians for the benefit of an avaricious and predatory criminal elite (the silovikí, literally “strongmen”), propped up by its only real exports: hydrocarbons and guns. This is hardly a recipe for long-term stability. But a key unifying factor for the past quarter of a century has been Putin, whose personal popularity – and ruthlessness – make him a figure not unlike Yugoslavia’s Marshal Tito.
However, because of the war in Ukraine, the cracks inside Russia are beginning to show. Western sanctions and poor military performance have caused Russian hydrocarbon profits to suffer, and weapons exports are looking pretty shaky (part of a longer-term trend). Western sanctions are also affecting individuals inside Russia – and not just the “oligarchs” (a term rightly rejected by Khodorkovsky, since they have no real power). Roughly 700,000 of Russia’s brightest and best have already left the country, which might seem a relatively small number, but which is indicative of a deeper malaise, exemplified by the increasingly desperate efforts to find fighting-age men willing to die in Ukraine. Putin has broken the pact between the people and the elite: that the people would be left alone, and in return they would allow the elite to get rich and handle foreign policy. Putin dare not order a general mobilisation.
There is also the ever-present instability in Russia’s North Caucasus region, with anti-mobilisation protests having exposed the lack of control of Kremlin-appointed leaders. Other ethnic groups inside Russia are starting to grumble more openly. There have been reports of firebombings of recruiting stations, the killing of recruiting officers, small-scale attacks on military bases and the widespread insubordination and desertion of Russian soldiers. Reports of increasing numbers of mysterious fires abound. And while I don’t believe the National Republican Army really exists, and view the assassinations of Darya Dugina and Maxim Fomin (aka Vladlen Tatarsky) as more likely the result of elite infighting, it’s hard to ignore the signs of trouble.
Add to this a decisive battlefield defeat (such as the loss of Russia’s beloved Crimea, as Gen. Ben Hodges thinks is plausible this summer) and with a demoralised and dissatisfied soldiery returning home, it’s hard to see how Putin could remain popular, or how his regime could then survive a determined challenge. But I take the view that a successful challenge to Putin would not come directly from the people, but from within the silovikí. The apparatus of state control of the populace is just too entrenched and too brutal for it to be likely that Moscow or St Petersburg will see the kinds of protests that happened in Kyiv in 2013–14, or that these wouldn’t be put down immediately. Furthermore, the internal security forces look – on paper, and at least for now – to be powerful enough to crush any but the most well-organised and determined insurrection. It’s often said that control of a populace can be maintained as long as the political leadership has the willingness to use its monopoly of violence, and the silovikí know full well the history of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the ‘colour revolutions’ – where acquiescence led to overthrow. (It’s also worth noting that Russian gun control laws are relatively strict.)
That is not to say that parts of the North Caucasus might not become ungovernable or break away as a result of a distracted Moscow elite, or that Buryatia or Tuva (which have provided much of the manpower for the Ukraine war) wouldn’t at least become troublesome. It’s also quite conceivable that China would, in the end, find itself with more influence in the far east – perhaps even reigniting previous disputes. But in that kind of scenario, which could take years to unfold, Russia would still maintain control over the big gas and oil fields, and over its nuclear weapons.
In short, while a decisive Ukrainian victory this summer is looking increasingly likely, the prospects for a catastrophic and potentially dangerous collapse of the Russian Federaration are easily exaggerated.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
… and then I woke up.
I’m not really following the war – I don’t have time to look at the all various sources and form an opinion. But I had the impression that we were more or less at a stalemate. A quick glance at the BBC news website doesn’t suggest an imminent Ukrainian “victory”. Isn’t by far the most likely outcome that at some point both sides will lose interest in wasting money on this and dig in?
He won’t ‘lose’.
It will be a long, drawn out, meat grinding stalemate.
Putin will die of disease before then another will take his place.
Meanwhile Zelensky enrichens himself with hundreds of millions of ‘aid’ as his people suffer.
Britain has no strategic vital national interest in this slavjc blood feud.
The Forever War will continue, whether in Ukraine or elsewhere, as long as there are weapons to test, stockpiles to replenish, taxpayers to fleece and money to be stolen.
And while our governments (as instructed by supra-national entities like the UN) carry out a proxy war against Russia – China continues to take over the world.
Appreciate the parody, Ian. It’s always good to have something to laugh about on a Monday morning.
Ridiculous article, unworthy of DS. Where are you getting your information from, the Daily Telegraph?
Tobias Elwood
An amazing amount of information gleaned from one’s arm chair.
I saw some pictures of some Ukrainian soldiers leaving a British army camp after some ‘training’. The Ukrainians were being saluted by British soldiers as they drove back to the meat grinder. It reminded me of the old latin Avē Imperātor, moritūrī tē salūtant
When I was in the RN I worked with the army for a while. It did not take me very long to realise that it takes years to be a competent soldier and I was heavily reliant on my army peers to stop me making a mistake that would either end up me being dead or killing one of them.
lol..theres one born every minute
More total nonsense from the imagination of Ian Rons.
“Russia’s military failures”?
Ukraine threw everything they had at Kharkiv, including many Western Nato “volunteers” as commanders of Ukrainian troops, against sparsely defended areas of a 800km front line. Every third soldier was foreign and from a Nato country. It is also reported that the Neo-Nazi Azov Regiment led the Kharkiv offensive in Ukraine and that the former Blackwater Group were also involved.
Russia lost very few pieces of hardware or manpower.
Ukraine lost at least 800+ men per day just for territorial gain, not as many as they lost in the failed attempts at taking Kherson.
Russia have consolidated their troops and hardware in a more defensible area allowing better control over the “liberation” of the remaining parts of the Donetsk Oblast.
Ukrainian troops around Kharkiv were in the open and were easy prey for the superior Russian artillery and airforce who killed tens of thousands of Ukrainians.
Ukraine were unable to advance any further in that area.
The withdrawal from Kherson makes perfect military sense when Ukraine were trying to blow up the Kakhovka Dam which would isolate 20,000 stranded Russian soldiers under feet of water.
Hundreds of thousands of citizens of Kherson had already been evacuated. A few thousand decided to remain who support the neo-Nazi Ukrainian government.
750,000 voters were able to take part in the referendum. 571,001 voted with 497,051 supporting Russia which shows the scale of the evacuation.
Ukraine have notoriously taken reprisals against any citizens favourable to Russia in other areas so there was a mass exodus from Kherson to safer Russian controlled areas.
Moving back to a well fortified defensive position with good supply lines with minimal loss of life and equipment was the correct strategy.
It may appear to some as a battle lost but will bring nearer the inevitable Russian victory.
Ukraine have not been able to advance any further in that area.
“a decisive Ukrainian victory this summer is looking increasingly likely”?
The Ukrainian Spring offensive has now become, in Ian Rons mind, a Summer Offensive.
Ukraine have lost so many men and equipment in the cauldron of Bakhmut, deliberately created by Russia to neutralise tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops and equipment, that the Spring offensive has been put back and possibly may never occur.
The chances of a Russian defeat is minimal as Russia knows they are fighting for their very survival against the US and Nato in their proxy war against Russia which has been planned for decades.
Ukraine lost at least 800+ men per day just for territorial gain
Considering the territorial scale of this conflict and the number of people involved, this means that the Ukrainian forces experienced virtually no casualties as result of fighting.
Russia have consolidated their troops and hardware in a more defensible area allowing better control over the “liberation” of the remaining parts of the Donetsk Oblast.
And despite of this, Russian forces have not only abandoned attempts to conquer more parts of Ukrainian territory but where forced to withdraw to the original core invasion zones.
NB: I don’t claim this is true. I’m just trying to highlight how poorly constructed this text is.
If you think Ukraine losing up to 500,000 troops killed or wounded is experiencing “no casualties” then you are deluded.
Russia haven’t “abandoned” attempts to conquer more territory. They have “delayed” them until the two stated goals of their SMO are achieved which are in Putin’s own words ……
“The purpose of this operation is to protect people who, for eight years now, have been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kiev regime. To this end, we will seek to demilitarise and denazify Ukraine, as well as bring to trial those who perpetrated numerous bloody crimes against civilians, including against citizens of the Russian Federation.”
Ukraine had 8 years to prepare defenses due to the duplicity of Merkel on the Minsk agreements and it is going to take time for Russia to break through these heavily fortified positions, zig zag trenches and Ukrainian snipers in many derelict civilian buildings.
Russia are slowly pushing the Ukrainians back to less fortified positions.
Whilst all the time Russia are achieving their main goal of “demilitarising” the Ukrainian army (and Nato “volunteers” and weapons) by inflicting heavy losses as Russia deliberately ignores territorial gain for a war of attrition via artillery which is decimating the hapless Ukrainians in this proxy war by Nato against Russia.
If you think Ukraine losing up to 500,000 troops killed or wounded is experiencing “no casualties” then you are deluded.
I was commenting on your losing 800 soliders per day statement. That’s light or even ultra-light casualties, certainly not something which can be anyhow associated with heavy fighting of large groups of soldiers.
Losing 800+ a day was their Kharkiv offensive which as I said was less than what they lost in their Kherson offensive.
Wagner PMC have recently stated that Ukraine are losing 11,000 per month in Artyomovsk/Bakhmut alone.
You seem to have missed the fact that Russian troops are moving forward across the entire Donbass front, and that they are now using aircraft virtually without risk to launch substantially larger munitions than most rockets and artillery cannot deliver.
I was commenting on a text.
Another click-bait article completely unworthy of DS.
It seems to me the United States is more likely to break up than the Russian Confederation, particularly if Trump loses in 2024 to Emperor Cerebrum Vacuus.
If Russia loses the war in Ukraine? What does Russia losing look like? And if ‘losing’ would prompt a break up, might that not be a guarantee that Russia just can’t let itself lose.
It seems many commentators think Putin is the only player in Russia.
….I agree, the USA and Europe are much more divided and more likely to ’break-up or break-down than Russia.……
The influential academic and US economist Lawrence H Summers, who was US Secretary to the treasury , and an ex director of the National Economic Council recently said in an interview……”..there’s growing acceptance of fragmentation, and maybe even more troubling- I think there’s a growing sense that ours may not be the best fragment to be associated with..”
LOL!
Russia is not losing; moreover Russia cannot afford to lose, & has strategy to this effect.
More complete and total B.S from Ian Rons.
Please tell him to go write nonsense
like this for the half dozen (brain dead) Guardian “readers”.
“…a decisive Ukrainian victory this summer is looking increasingly likely…” I don’t think so. They’re just about to lose a strategic town in the Donbas. And Russia is starting to mobilise its air power. The Ukrainians are talking about peace talks but the Yanks and the Brits won’t have it. I’m very disappointed by the DS’s deep state line on Ukraine. Including swallowing the propaganda on Nordstream.
Eh? Am I reading the DS or the DT? As far as I am aware, this is total BS. Mr Rons where are you getting this info? Do you have a hotline to Zelensky or NATO? Weird.
Often Ian Rons comes into Comments to justify his articles. I notice he’s stayed away from trying to justify this nonsense.
‘propped up by its only real exports: hydrocarbons and guns.’
Russia is the largest exporter or wheat in the world, exporting more than the whole of the EU combined.
Ian Rons is a disingenuous writer whose hysterical response to the war in Ukraine leads to nonsense delusional writing. Why does DS continue to publish this drivel?