The future of Russia and NATO

[Sarmatian]

To be honest, I think Russia is a giant with clay feet. As I already had said in the Ossetian Thread, Russia is impossible to maintain united, given it's gigantic size. Providing war comes, if Russia suffers some setbacks/defeats in the European Front and in the Pacific front (If they make an offensive and that offensive is turned back by NATO), then the most probable outcome would be a military coup, with each side blaming the other for the failure in the war. That would be followed by a polarization of Russian Forces and consequent Civil War. Amongst the chaos, several small nationalistic rebellions would certainly spring up. (The Caucasus would certainly light up in rebellion again), NATO would then start to pick sides (Thus actually allying with the Russians, or a part of them) and eliminate the divided Russian force. No missiles, no nukes. That is what I think it would happen, in general terms.

Just wondering, did you give some thought to this or did a light bulb suddenly appear over your head?

On what facts are you basing this? Do you know that Russian military leadership is divided in several factions? Some generals that are ready to support a coup or a foreign intervention? Are Russians strongly divided as a nation? Who is going to rise in rebellion in Caucasus? Ossetians? Georgia is a separate country, in order to qualify for a rebellion it needs to be a part of Russia.

Antagonism between communists and non-communists was much greater in pre-ww2 Soviet Union than anything you can imagine in modern day Russia and the country still didn't fall apart after several defeats that would probably knock out any other country in the world out of the war. This really has no basis in reality...

[Jolt]

Just wondering, did you give some thought to this or did a light bulb suddenly appear over your head?

For the first question, I suppose it would be a bit of both. As for facts...Well, one can't give very specific facts since I'm predicting the outcome of a war which isn't even close to beginning.

On what facts are you basing this? Do you know that Russian military leadership is divided in several factions?

From what I know of the Russian leadership, from the Soviet period up to this day is that there were a lot of hardliners, and many cling on to a proud Russian state. (An example would be the "Kursk Submarine Incident" where the military dealing with the crisis apaprently preffered letting their own man die than "appearing" weak and calling the West for help. The same antagonism could very well come into effect in case of early defeats.) As well as having apparent tiques of authoritarism (Phreaps a result of the importance of the military in the recent history of Russia's regimes.), which could lead to meddling in political affairs in case the war doesn't go so well.

Some generals that are ready to support a coup or a foreign intervention?

And I meant the coup coming in sequence of Russian defeats. And I know that defeats tend to bring about dissent. I'm pretty sure there was no generals ready support coups or foreign intervention in Germany in the beginning of WW2. I'm sure von Stauffenberg wouldn't plot the assassination of Hitler in case Germany was winning the war.

Are Russians strongly divided as a nation? Who is going to rise in rebellion in Caucasus? Ossetians? Georgia is a separate country, in order to qualify for a rebellion it needs to be a part of Russia.

Rebellion in the Caucasus? Heck, the common example is the Chechens. Then we could mention Dagestani's, Ingush's, etc.

Antagonism between communists and non-communists was much greater in pre-ww2 Soviet Union than anything you can imagine in modern day Russia and the country still didn't fall apart after several defeats that would probably knock out any other country in the world out of the war.

The thing that kept the Soviet Union united in WW2 was the repression regime which Stalin had submitted the general population, the military and his own party into (The entire country, really). I don't doubt even for one second that in case Russia was a democracy by the time Hitler invaded, that the country would wholly collapse before the German advance.

This really has no basis in reality...

Exactly. Because there is no war going on in reality. This really is speculation, based on some basic associations, but it is still a valid opinion of what could happen in my eyes.

[Sarmatian]

From what I know of the Russian leadership, from the Soviet period up to this day is that there were a lot of hardliners, and many cling on to a proud Russian state. (An example would be the "Kursk Submarine Incident" where the military dealing with the crisis apaprently preffered letting their own man die than "appearing" weak and calling the West for help. The same antagonism could very well come into effect in case of early defeats.) As well as having apparent tiques of authoritarism (Phreaps a result of the importance of the military in the recent history of Russia's regimes.), which could lead to meddling in political affairs in case the war doesn't go so well.

What do you know really of the Russian leadership? Did you know a name of at least one Russian general before this conflict? Just a name, not political views, ideology, stances...

And I meant the coup coming in sequence of Russian defeats. And I know that defeats tend to bring about dissent. I'm pretty sure there was no generals ready support coups or foreign intervention in Germany in the beginning of WW2. I'm sure von Stauffenberg wouldn't plot the assassination of Hitler in case Germany was winning the war.

The thing that kept the Soviet Union united in WW2 was the repression regime which Stalin had submitted the general population, the military and his own party into (The entire country, really). I don't doubt even for one second that in case Russia was a democracy by the time Hitler invaded, that the country would wholly collapse before the German advance.

Wrong. What kept Soviet Union united were Hitler's action, if you're looking at outside sources. If you're looking at the sources within, defense of the country against foreign invader was much more important.

So in WW2, you had USSR where people were infinitely more repressed than in Russia now, that had many more different nationalities and religions than in Russia now, that was heavily divided on ideology and the country still didn't fall apart and you're saying there are great chances that Russia would be completely torn apart after a few consecutive defeats (assuming those defeats were to happen)?

When a nation is invaded and under great hardships, it generally tends to unite more rather than the other way around. Been there, seen that. For 78 days Milosevic was the most popular guy in the country...

Exactly. Because there is no war going on in reality. This really is speculation, based on some basic associations, but it is still a valid opinion of what could happen in my eyes.

No problem, just discussing. You have an opinion about a hypothetical case. Nothing wrong, most discussions here are hypothetical, but my opinion is that your opinion doesn't make any sense and that's why I'm challenging it...

[Jolt]

What do you know really of the Russian leadership? Did you know a name of at least one Russian general before this conflict? Just a name, not political views, ideology, stances...

Bleh, do I really need to know the names? I remember some important General Something Barakov from the Chechen Wars. I don't even know the names of my own country's Generals. What I know about the Russian leadership is based on how the Russian generals are regularly portrayed and act like.

Wrong. What kept Soviet Union united were Hitler's action, if you're looking at outside sources. If you're looking at the sources within, defense of the country against foreign invader was much more important.

I beg to differ greatly from that point of view, for the reasons I already said.

So in WW2, you had USSR where people were infinitely more repressed than in Russia now, that had many more different nationalities and religions than in Russia now, that was heavily divided on ideology and the country still didn't fall apart and you're saying there are great chances that Russia would be completely torn apart after a few consecutive defeats (assuming those defeats were to happen)?

Once again, I have already answered that. Purges were conducted by Stalin everywhere, from the military to his own party. That state of fear and intimidation served as a warning for any real traitor wannabe. The entire leadership was forcibly united under Stalin. Now those things do not exist in modern Russia (To my knowledge.), therefore in my opinion it would be quite possible for a coup to happen in Russia in case the war might turn sour fast.

When a nation is invaded and under great hardships, it generally tends to unite more rather than the other way around. Been there, seen that. For 78 days Milosevic was the most popular guy in the country...

As I also said, Russia is a gigantic nation. That blessing (Given that the country stays united) could very well turn into a malus given the great geographical length the army would have to cross to put down revolts and such should the country shatter.