The collapse of Putin

Why the West is not interested in the dismemberment of Russia, and who actually contributes to this

Why did the USSR break up? Different people will call different reasons. Many will say that this happened by chance, and this is partly true: if it weren’t for the coup, not to go, the map was in a different way, the USSR could have been preserved in full or partially. But there is one main reason because of which the USSR broke up.

Namely: he did not have a capable army. Yes, he had a huge army. The whole economy worked for this army. But precisely because this army was huge, its generals, as representatives of any influential group of interests, were engaged in multiplying their own privileges and an increase in their own incompetence. And the army did not know how to react to the real challenges that stood before the USSR.

When the national outskirts rained down, when Tbilisi, Vilnius, Ferghana, Baku, Sumgait began, it turned out that the army was unsuitable for solving these problems. And the USSR collapsed: in other cases - under the pressure of peoples who wanted to gain independence, in others - under the pressure of local tsarks, who wanted to have no boss over them.

Here is the fate of man: from the French noble family, which had long settled in the Russian Empire, a hereditary military, his father served in the General Staff, the family lived in Sukhumi. The son graduated from the Academy of the General Staff with a gold medal in the year, when the USSR broke up, and went to serve in the army of Georgia. The Georgian troops shot his father for this in Sukhumi. Retreating from Sukhumi, the son saw Russian planes, on a shocking flight, shooting columns of refugees. Now he is an officer of Ukraine. The USSR would not break up - he would have served in the General Staff now.

Bad or good that the USSR broke up? It was disgusting by the state, but it is such a thing: when national states come to replace the empire, they begin problems with ethnic minorities. Especially in the Caucasus, which remains a zone of under -formed states.

The story with Abkhazia, if anyone does not remember, began almost the same as the story with Donbass. Eduard Shevardnadze sent Mhedrioni there - quasi -free volunteer formations, which in fact always consist of bandits. Of the Georgian motorists and demons, which from now on robbed not by any of anyone, but the enemies of the Georgian people. Whoever is robbed is the enemy.

And then Basaev hurried to the Abkhazam to the rescue, and his people played the cuts of Georgians in football. And then Russia fit for Abkhazov. And Russian planes shot at the shocking flight of civilian refugees leaving through the Kador Gorge. In Abkhazia, we will not forget, there were 250 thousand Georgians for 90 thousand Abkhazians. Some Georgians lived there for centuries. Stalin settled the other part in the place of Armenians and Greeks sent from Abkhazia after the war: Georgians in the Caucasus under Stalin partially played the same role that the Russians throughout the USSR.

The zone of non -formed states, as was said.

And a country that did not have an army to prevent national conflicts.

Let us now ask ourselves in a simple question: have Russia such an army has appeared in these thirty years?

We all see not. Exactly the opposite. During these thirty years, this army has even more degraded, and the process of degradation has reached its climax under Putin. If earlier in the General Staff of the USSR, even the colonels were smart, now you will not find a major.

During this year, we learned everything about the Russian army. Columns that are advancing without covering from the air are 15–20% of armored vehicles, which are breaking by themselves, a Moscow general, who over and sends a column behind the column for the storm of Ukrainian artillery over and over again. It is easier for him to spend 130 units of armored vehicles than to report upstairs, that the sequence’s order is not executed. For the first - they will reward, for the second - they will punish. The question of what to choose is not worth the general.

The USSR broke up because the local elites realized: the army - no. And power - lying in dust, take it and raise. Question: What will be kept from the collapse of the Russian Federation at the end of this war?

Then Putin stated that the West seeks to dismember Russia - to scax, as he put it. This is a lie. The West does not strive for the dismemberment of Russia for the same reasons why it did not seek to dismember the USSR. Exactly the opposite: American officials traveled to the republics of the USSR and begged not to separate ( the main reason was associated with the fear of the uncontrolled spread of nuclear weapons in the event of the collapse of the USSR. - approx. Ed. ).

But there is a force that struggles contributes to the possible collapse of Russia. This is Putin himself and the system he created. The ultimate incompetence. The maximum absence of feedback. Mine corruption.

I will briefly explain why neither the United States nor Europe is striving for the collapse of Russia. Firstly, this war is waged for returning to the legitimate borders, which are considered the boundaries of the Union republics of 1991, and the legitimate borders of the Russian Federation include by definition Tatarstan, Chechnya, Vyatichi, Krivichi, etc. The idea of ​​the collapse of the nuclear state, where the Ryazan region will clarify relations with the Moscow region of nuclear weapons or at least nuclear blackmail, frightens the United States and frighten the US Europe is trembling, and was the main reason for their fluctuations in the issue of assistance to Ukraine.

Secondly, no Ukrainian army will go to the liberation of Tatarstan. Armed Forces are heroes in the eyes of the whole world because they protect the homeland from uninvited "denazifiers". If they themselves decide to “denact” Pskov from the “Muscovite invaders” - they will receive exactly the same thing from the international community that Russia is now receiving.

Third. As we have already said, the collapse of the Russian Federation will be accompanied by widespread massacre - just like in Nagorno -Karabakh, Kosovo, Baku, Sumgait, Sukhumi in 1991, etc. This, unfortunately, is the main difference between the supranational and mononational states. The boundaries of the national state in the stage of its formation are rarely determined, and are invariably accompanied by massacres, the expulsion or repression of national minorities.

For example, Latvia and Estonia, after obtaining independence in the 1920s, first carried out land reform, which de facto confiscated land with German landowners, and at the beginning of the Second World War from Latvia they voluntarily and condo sent to Faterland.

In the same way, the emergence of independent Poland after the collapse of the Russian Empire was accompanied by the violent assimilation of the Ukrainian population in Eastern Galicia and, as a result, the appearance of Stepan Bandera and terror from the OUN.

Take Tatarstan. In Tatarstan, of the 3.8 million population of the Republic of Tatars, they amount to 1.8 million, and the Russians - 1.6. 48% of Russians and 47% of Tatars live in Kazan. In Naberezhnye Chelny - 47% of Tatars and 44% of Russians. If Tatarstan turns into a national Tatar state, then the fate of the Ostsee Germans awaits Russians in it at best, and in the worst - Sumgait Armenians. At the same time, the total number of Tatars in Russia is 6 million people. Two -thirds of them live outside Tatarstan, and everything that will happen to the Russians, Chuvash and Bashkirs within Tatarstan will occur with the Tatars and Russians in Chuvashia, with Tatars and Chuvash in Perm, etc. The population of Russia is about 140 million. The collapse of Russia means 30–40 million people who pour in the same Europe. Europe considers such a script as hypercatastrophic.

There is one more simple consideration why for the USA, Europe and Ukraine the collapse of the Russian Federation will be a disaster.

The fact is that the only guarantee of aggression by the neighbor is its democratic device. Over the past hundred years, no democracy attacked a neighbor to pull off his piece.

But in the case of the collapse of Russia, by definition, most of the fragments will be by no means peaceful democratic territories, but the estates of local kings or the Girkins, Kadirov and Motorol, and no economy is possible in these estates, and the only way is up to violence-something like evil, cowardly, and pseudo-fanatic dictators of the Middle East. One Big Putin will break into dozens of small and evil Putin with his gold and gold pistols. Putin Russia will be perceived as a wonderful one past, the division will be experienced as painful as the fragmentation of Germany.

This division will end with only one - reunion, and at the head of a reunited country will be a character, in comparison with which Girkin and Prigozhin will seem to be a kindergarten. Then the world will really see what the passionate Russian Taliban is: not the current sluggish imitation of the grooved elite, but the real military elite, who came to power through the war and violence, because in such a country as in medieval Europe, the path to the elite by definition lies through war and violence.

All these scenarios are absolutely catastrophic. But, unfortunately, with the level of incompetence and corruption that Putin's regime demonstrates, they are quite real. Before the war in Ukraine both in the West and Russia, the elites thought that Putin had an army. And now we all see that the army is not. There are generals who throw cannon fodder into a meat grinder, there are security officers who do not react to reports about armed people in Bryansk border villages for four hours. It would be necessary to tell the Chekists that there is a man in the middle of the village and holds a poster “No to war” - here they would come right away.

So yes, there is a force that leads Russia to decay, and this power is Putin himself. If, of course, it cannot be stopped in time.

There is Putin - there is no Russia.