swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,030
- Jun 25, 2013
In 1917? It certainly looked like Lenin and the Bolsheviks would be better than the czar; it may have been difficult to have been much worse.The people's answer may have been different in 1925 or 1930, but maybe not.Rubbish. I know this will trigger our resident contrarians, but Russia's economy is growing, its total Ukraine losses are less than a bad month of WW2, and Russia continues to hold and gain territory.
Why Is Russia’s Economy Still Growing?
Western sanctions over the war in Ukraine have had limited impact.foreignpolicy.com
Russia can keep bleeding tanks and other equipment like it has been in Ukraine for at least another 2 to 3 more years, war analysts say
Russia's military is losing tanks, armored vehicles, and more, but it can probably sustain these losses for years, a new analysis says.www.businessinsider.com
Until the Russian people, elites or military rise up and throw out Putin in a Ceaușescu-like rebellion, the man is not done. And then the worry is what replaces Putin. Czar Nicolas II and the Romanov dynasty was terrible for Russia and its people, but were Lenin and Stalin any better? Perhaps the praetorians or revolutionary committee that replaces Putin decides to double down on Ukraine.
While it may be fun to speculate about a popular rising or a palace coup displacing Putin, neither is particularly likely to succeed: from everything I've read, Putin still has the support of the security services (military, police, etc). He's dealing with dissidents with the same gentle methods[1] used by monarchs and autocrats throughout history, while being reasonably careful to avoid seriously inconveniencing most of the populace.
============
[1] You know, the usual: exile, political show trials, judicial murder, torture, bills of attainder, secret courts, ....