Ukraine Megathread: Crimea River Part Deux

[Byzantium Imperial]

Rushka will not be attacked millitarly. There is a lot of decent people that are waiting to start a democratic revolution, like the one in Georgia and Kyrgistan. The only issue is who will replace Putin. Whether that be Ksenia Sobchak or Navalny, there are to many candidates.

Im honestly scared of the possibility of Putin being forced out via revolution. If Russia were to fall into complete chaos, the consequences are almost unimaginable.

[Geilinor]

Rushka will not be attacked millitarly. There is a lot of decent people that are waiting to start a democratic revolution, like the one in Georgia and Kyrgistan. The only issue is who will replace Putin. Whether that be Ksenia Sobchak or Navalny, there are to many candidates.

Im honestly scared of the possibility of Putin being forced out via revolution. If Russia were to fall into complete chaos, the consequences are almost unimaginable.

If something happens it won't be until 2024, when Putin has promised to step down.

[Dortmundia]

Yes, the EU funds projects that are idiotic from an economic perspective. The EU is pushing for austerity and open borders, these aren't great economic minds we're dealing with here. And my source said that it'll almost double, irrespective of the new construction.

The EU has more specialised people on that issue, people who knoe thing better than you and I. Also, Lithuania build a LNG terminal just to avoid russian gas. It pays less for gas than before buying from Gazprom.

If that were the case, then Russian GDP would've fallen massively by now. That hasn't happened. Why do you continue to argue against the facts with such ferocity, Dortmundia? The whole "hurr durr Rusha Gaz Dependant" myth of idiocy was debunked by the current situation, where the oil price fell dramatically and Russia's economy didn't.

Actually not, because the oil prices have not falled so drastically, and even after some time the prices were just like before. So, it was not enough to bankrupt Russia but is clearly showed that her economy is to dependant.

If you are right, how come that Russia is in recession for a year now, which started at the same time when the oil prices dropped? How comes that Russia still despite the normalisation of oil price cannot recover from the oil shock?

You said Eastern European countries, and in Eastern Europe, in quite a few places, Orthodoxy is prevalent, but you seem to be unable to grasp the difference between correlation and causation. If Orthodoxy was such a "vile economic virus" how come did Russia thrive economically, just as Orthodox Faith increased in Russia?

Let us nitpick, shall we. The Orthodox faith in Rushka started to prevail in the early 90s, interestingly in the same time when Yeltsin started to mismanage russia. Also, tell me how come there is no economic successful orthodox country, besides russia (which again its success can thank to oil)?

That's classic fearmongering, especially when your so factless and desperate that you have to bring up Stalin, only to fail to comprehend that we fought against Nazi Germany, which was trying to commit actual genocide against us, and Stalin was an ally. Against Nazis, we would've allied with anyone, even Churchill. Oh wait, we did.

I am not making this up. Russia cannot make any normal election without fraud, it is clear that it is not able to have democracy due to its illiberal mentality. That is normal considering the history of russia. Also, the Russians just love a father figure as president, so that I why I brough up Stalin. But hey he is not the only example, look the Tsars or Putin.

[Dortmundia]

Rushka will not be attacked millitarly. There is a lot of decent people that are waiting to start a democratic revolution, like the one in Georgia and Kyrgistan. The only issue is who will replace Putin. Whether that be Ksenia Sobchak or Navalny, there are to many candidates.

Im honestly scared of the possibility of Putin being forced out via revolution. If Russia were to fall into complete chaos, the consequences are almost unimaginable.

Please, do not fear monger. Nothing especially would happen. Sure there will be some great news coverage, but since the Russians are to fond in a father figure they would love the new leader if he do what they expect to do.

[Byzantium Imperial]

Im honestly scared of the possibility of Putin being forced out via revolution. If Russia were to fall into complete chaos, the consequences are almost unimaginable.

Please, do not fear monger. Nothing especially would happen. Sure there will be some great news coverage, but since the Russians are to fond in a father figure they would love the new leader if he do what they expect to do.

Your implying a new strongman comes into power (which wouldnt change a god damn thing mind you). The other alternative is that in the chaos of revolution, republics start breaking off from the federation, including those with large industrial resources or nuclear weapons, and the central government tries to use military force to get them back in.

If you think I'm fearmonger im not, because Russia has a very unfortunate past when it comes to revolutions turning for the worse, and also in the past 20 years has experienced armed seperatism and general anarchy in a state of democratic chaos. Given how centralized Russia has become around Putin, it is a very scary possibility what would happen if Putin left before a proper succession could be arranged.


Also mind you, the most democratic leader in Russian history was Boris Yelstin. He still ordered his tanks to open fire on the Duma, which in most countries is the sign of a sham democracy

[The balkens]

Please, do not fear monger. Nothing especially would happen. Sure there will be some great news coverage, but since the Russians are to fond in a father figure they would love the new leader if he do what they expect to do.

Your implying a new strongman comes into power (which would change a god damn thing mind you). The other alternative is that in the chaos of revolution, republics start breaking off from the federation, including those with large industrial resources or nuclear weapons, and the central government tries to use military force to get them back in.

If you think I'm fearmonger im not, because Russia has a very unfortunate past when it comes to revolutions turning for the worse, and also in the past 20 years has experienced armed seperatism and general anarchy in a state of democratic chaos. Given how centralized Russia has become around Putin, it is a very scary possibility what would happen if Putin left before a proper succession could be arranged.


Also mind you, the most democratic leader in Russian history was Boris Yelstin. He still ordered his tanks to open fire on the Duma, which in most countries is the sign of a sham democracy

Which explains Post-soviet Russia. Figures.

[Byzantium Imperial]

Your implying a new strongman comes into power (which would change a god damn thing mind you). The other alternative is that in the chaos of revolution, republics start breaking off from the federation, including those with large industrial resources or nuclear weapons, and the central government tries to use military force to get them back in.

If you think I'm fearmonger im not, because Russia has a very unfortunate past when it comes to revolutions turning for the worse, and also in the past 20 years has experienced armed seperatism and general anarchy in a state of democratic chaos. Given how centralized Russia has become around Putin, it is a very scary possibility what would happen if Putin left before a proper succession could be arranged.


Also mind you, the most democratic leader in Russian history was Boris Yelstin. He still ordered his tanks to open fire on the Duma, which in most countries is the sign of a sham democracy

Which explains Post-soviet Russia. Figures.

The Russian people seemed to have agreed that when faced with many bad options, just go with the easy and less bad one

Im honestly scared of the possibility of Putin being forced out via revolution. If Russia were to fall into complete chaos, the consequences are almost unimaginable.

If something happens it won't be until 2024, when Putin has promised to step down.

Well, at least he has time to plan a succession then. Thats good

[Geilinor]

Which explains Post-soviet Russia. Figures.

The Russian people seemed to have agreed that when faced with many bad options, just go with the easy and less bad one

If something happens it won't be until 2024, when Putin has promised to step down.

Well, at least he has time to plan a succession then. Thats good

Assuming that he really does step down.

[Dortmundia]

Your implying a new strongman comes into power (which wouldnt change a god damn thing mind you). The other alternative is that in the chaos of revolution, republics start breaking off from the federation, including those with large industrial resources or nuclear weapons, and the central government tries to use military force to get them back in.

If you think I'm fearmonger im not, because Russia has a very unfortunate past when it comes to revolutions turning for the worse, and also in the past 20 years has experienced armed seperatism and general anarchy in a state of democratic chaos. Given how centralized Russia has become around Putin, it is a very scary possibility what would happen if Putin left before a proper succession could be arranged.


Also mind you, the most democratic leader in Russian history was Boris Yelstin. He still ordered his tanks to open fire on the Duma, which in most countries is the sign of a sham democracy

The only reason why Russia had unfortune with past revolution is that all of them were led by corrupt leader with unhonest plans and second when revolution happened in Russia usually the rest of the world was also not in a good shape.

But now, if such thing happens I am sure Russias neighbour like the EU and China will help her because nobody is in interest to have a sick Russia. Sure there is Chechnya but is a to small area to influence the whole country.

Yes, Boris Yeltsins first term is legitimate. One day when russia democrtise he will be known as a reformed and will be celebrated in whole russia. Also, do you really want to Putin plan his successor, that will mean russia is turning into a monarchy?

[Estruia]

Which explains Post-soviet Russia. Figures.

The Russian people seemed to have agreed that when faced with many bad options, just go with the easy and less bad one

If something happens it won't be until 2024, when Putin has promised to step down.

Well, at least he has time to plan a succession then. Thats good

Less, Putin is definitely the less-bad option. Forget the fact that under Putin, Russia has continually isolated itself from the rest of the world, has acted as an agitator with multiple countries, has threatened other countries with missiles and oversaw the largest downturn in Post-Soviet Russia's economy. Sure, Russian Nationalism is at an all-time high, but the Russian Nominal GDP per capita isn't set to rebound to pre-sanction levels until 2019.

If anything, Putin has set Russia down a path of further isolation and animosity with the power players who actually matter. Iran and Syria have proven to be such great allies, amirite?

[Geilinor]

The Russian people seemed to have agreed that when faced with many bad options, just go with the easy and less bad one



Well, at least he has time to plan a succession then. Thats good

Less, Putin is definitely the less-bad option. Forget the fact that under Putin, Russia has continually isolated itself from the rest of the world, has acted as an agitator with multiple countries, has threatened other countries with missiles and oversaw the largest downturn in Post-Soviet Russia's economy. Sure, Russian Nationalism is at an all-time high, but the Russian Nominal GDP per capita isn't set to rebound to pre-sanction levels until 2019.

If anything, Putin has set Russia down a path of further isolation and animosity with the power players who actually matter. Iran and Syria have proven to be such great allies, amirite?

Putin is better than the other major candidates. Neo-Soviet Gennady Zyuganov and ultra-right fascist Vladimir Zhirinovsky.

[Byzantium Imperial]

Your implying a new strongman comes into power (which wouldnt change a god damn thing mind you). The other alternative is that in the chaos of revolution, republics start breaking off from the federation, including those with large industrial resources or nuclear weapons, and the central government tries to use military force to get them back in.

If you think I'm fearmonger im not, because Russia has a very unfortunate past when it comes to revolutions turning for the worse, and also in the past 20 years has experienced armed seperatism and general anarchy in a state of democratic chaos. Given how centralized Russia has become around Putin, it is a very scary possibility what would happen if Putin left before a proper succession could be arranged.


Also mind you, the most democratic leader in Russian history was Boris Yelstin. He still ordered his tanks to open fire on the Duma, which in most countries is the sign of a sham democracy

The only reason why Russia had unfortune with past revolution is that all of them were led by corrupt leader with unhonest plans and second when revolution happened in Russia usually the rest of the world was also not in a good shape.

But now, if such thing happens I am sure Russias neighbour like the EU and China will help her because nobody is in interest to have a sick Russia. Sure there is Chechnya but is a to small area to influence the whole country.

Yes, Boris Yeltsins first term is legitimate. One day when russia democrtise he will be known as a reformed and will be celebrated in whole russia.

And your seriously expecting the next time to be different? Especially given that most political/economic power is held by an oligarchical structure? Especially in a country that long ago accepted autocratic rule as legitimate and necessary (for better or worse)? You really think it's going to be better next time?

The EU and the US didn't do anything useful last time Russia was in need. They just watched from afar and took advantage of her weakness by picking at her allies (yugoslavia, then serbia) and extending NATO all the way to her borders.It wouldnt be any different in a rerun

Also, China, encourage democracy in it's large neighbor? Hah, your funny. That would be completely against Chinese interests, policy, or history. They would be far more likely to help the Pro-Putin/Putinst faction maintain power through military force.

And Boris Yeltsin's democratic legitimacy didn't make him a good president. The Russian Federation very well nearly collapsed under him

[Byzantium Imperial]

The Russian people seemed to have agreed that when faced with many bad options, just go with the easy and less bad one



Well, at least he has time to plan a succession then. Thats good

Less, Putin is definitely the less-bad option. Forget the fact that under Putin, Russia has continually isolated itself from the rest of the world, has acted as an agitator with multiple countries, has threatened other countries with missiles and oversaw the largest downturn in Post-Soviet Russia's economy. Sure, Russian Nationalism is at an all-time high, but the Russian Nominal GDP per capita isn't set to rebound to pre-sanction levels until 2019.

If anything, Putin has set Russia down a path of further isolation and animosity with the power players who actually matter. Iran and Syria have proven to be such great allies, amirite?

In 2001, with Russia still unstable and still on the brink of collapse with a garbage economy, falling life expectancies, and with a complete failing of the central government's ability to keep the republics in line, Putin was not only the less bad option: He was a Godsend.

Regardless of you opinions of his current performance, in the early 2000's Putin was exactly what Russia needed. Arguably, he is still better then any of his competitors from the Communist left or the Nationalist right (and yes, there are far more conservative elements then putin)

[Estruia]

Less, Putin is definitely the less-bad option. Forget the fact that under Putin, Russia has continually isolated itself from the rest of the world, has acted as an agitator with multiple countries, has threatened other countries with missiles and oversaw the largest downturn in Post-Soviet Russia's economy. Sure, Russian Nationalism is at an all-time high, but the Russian Nominal GDP per capita isn't set to rebound to pre-sanction levels until 2019.

If anything, Putin has set Russia down a path of further isolation and animosity with the power players who actually matter. Iran and Syria have proven to be such great allies, amirite?

Putin is better than the other major candidates. Neo-Soviet Gennady Zyuganov and ultra-right fascist Vladimir Zhirinovsky.

How sad... With all Putin has done to Russia's image, he's still considered the less-smelly of the three turds.

[Byzantium Imperial]

Putin is better than the other major candidates. Neo-Soviet Gennady Zyuganov and ultra-right fascist Vladimir Zhirinovsky.

How sad... With all Putin has done to Russia's image, he's still considered the less-smelly of the three turds.

It is depressing, but we are talking about a country that has had only two successful political factions in its entire long and sad history.

[Dortmundia]

And your seriously expecting the next time to be different? Especially given that most political/economic power is held by an oligarchical structure? Especially in a country that long ago accepted autocratic rule as legitimate and necessary (for better or worse)? You really think it's going to be better next time?

Yes, because unlike you I firmly believe Russians are rational people and not savages who need an autocrat to control their instincts. Hopefully you would agree with me? Also, that were the 20th century and civilisation went further and the condititons of russians are not better than during soviet and tsarist time.

The EU and the US didn't do anything useful last time Russia was in need. They just watched from afar and took advantage of her weakness by picking at her allies (yugoslavia, then serbia) and extending NATO all the way to her borders.It wouldnt be any different in a rerun

Oh please, the West tried to save Yugoslavia by the end of the year of 1991 (see James Baker landing in Belgrade) yet Milošević screwed it up (you seem to be also from othodox countries).

Also, Russia nor Yeltsin were not against the first NATO enlargment back in 1999. The Problem was Putin who was evil and provoked the Baltics to beg to join in NATO. If Putin and Russia were not bullies with all the "Ruskies opreesed in Baltics" toward the Baltics, there would never be a need for Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania to join in.

Also, even after that NATO offered Putin membership yet he rejected it because he did not want peace. There was an opportunity for Russia to control NATO yet he refused.

Also, China, encourage democracy in it's large neighbor? Hah, your funny. That would be completely against Chinese interests, policy, or history. They would be far more likely to help the Pro-Putin/Putinst faction maintain power through military force.

China needs a stable Russia, and I am sure they would accept anybody who could provide stability.

And Boris Yeltsin's democratic legitimacy didn't make him a good president. The Russian Federation very well nearly collapsed under him

I agree. If Yeltsin was not an asshole than Putin would never came to power.

[Padnak]

Putin is love

Putin is life

I personally doubt that Russia would be able to find a good replacement for Putin; his handling of foreign affairs in the last few years has gone terribly 'cold warry' but his domestic policies have been at least somewhat sensible compared to his potential replacements and he seems like he's fairly levelheaded, if entrenched in a cold war view of the world he sees no reason to leave

just my two cents

[Geilinor]

And your seriously expecting the next time to be different? Especially given that most political/economic power is held by an oligarchical structure? Especially in a country that long ago accepted autocratic rule as legitimate and necessary (for better or worse)? You really think it's going to be better next time?

Yes, because unlike you I firmly believe Russians are rational people and not savages who need an autocrat to control their instincts. Hopefully you would agree with me? Also, that were the 20th century and civilisation went further and the condititons of russians are not better than during soviet and tsarist time.

The problem is the question of who'll take over after Putin. Unless there's a revolution, his successor will probably be hand-picked by him.

[Padnak]

I really hope there isn't a revolution

that'll only end terribly

[United Marxist Nations]

Putin is better than the other major candidates. Neo-Soviet Gennady Zyuganov and ultra-right fascist Vladimir Zhirinovsky.

How sad... With all Putin has done to Russia's image, he's still considered the less-smelly of the three turds.

Generally, increases in standard of living matter more than image.

[Byzantium Imperial]

And your seriously expecting the next time to be different? Especially given that most political/economic power is held by an oligarchical structure? Especially in a country that long ago accepted autocratic rule as legitimate and necessary (for better or worse)? You really think it's going to be better next time?

Yes, because unlike you I firmly believe Russians are rational people and not savages who need an autocrat to control their instincts. Hopefully you would agree with me? Also, that were the 20th century and civilisation went further and the condititons of russians are not better than during soviet and tsarist time.

The EU and the US didn't do anything useful last time Russia was in need. They just watched from afar and took advantage of her weakness by picking at her allies (yugoslavia, then serbia) and extending NATO all the way to her borders.It wouldnt be any different in a rerun

Oh please, the West tried to save Yugoslavia by the end of the year of 1991 (see James Baker landing in Belgrade) yet Milošević screwed it up (you seem to be also from othodox countries).

Also, Russia nor Yeltsin were not against the first NATO enlargment back in 1999. The Problem was Putin who was evil and provoked the Baltics to beg to join in NATO. If Putin and Russia were not bullies with all the "Ruskies opreesed in Baltics" toward the Baltics, there would never be a need for Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania to join in.

Also, even after that NATO offered Putin membership yet he rejected it because he did not want peace. There was an opportunity for Russia to control NATO yet he refused.

Also, China, encourage democracy in it's large neighbor? Hah, your funny. That would be completely against Chinese interests, policy, or history. They would be far more likely to help the Pro-Putin/Putinst faction maintain power through military force.

China needs a stable Russia, and I am sure they would accept anybody who could provide stability.

And Boris Yeltsin's democratic legitimacy didn't make him a good president. The Russian Federation very well nearly collapsed under him

I agree. If Yeltsin was not an asshole than Putin would never came to power.

You sorely mistake my intentions if you think im calling the Russian people savages. I merely point out that unlike most other European democracies, Russia is, um to put it lightly, rather large. Perhaps a little too large. And unlike other large democracies like the United States, while there is a shared history there are also different histories: simply, not everyone in Russia is a Russian. Given there are 154 recognized and distinct ethnicity in the Russian Federation, many with their own republics and areas of the country, this is no small matter. Its REALLY hard to keep a democracy together with these factors. India only somewhat manages, and theirs is deeply flawed and has held them back enormously due to its flaws.

And just because we may be a few years into the future doesn't make history irrelevant: history is very important. Put simply, Russia doesn't have a history of successful democracy. Russia's institutions have not changed dramatically from the Soviet era, and some of them (espessialy the judiciary) dont seem likely to change very much without trully radical change: the radical change that, in many other nations, sparks bloody revolution and civil war.

The west tried to save Yugoslavia only after realizing it made a terrible mistake in trying to support croatian activists, who while democrats also had seperatist intentions. And no one can doubt that the NATO moves into Eastern Europe were a dangerous advance into what had been Russian interests. Yelstin didn't oppose it because what was he going to do about it? he hardly had control of Russia as it was. Everyone knew at the time that NATO membership was going to be a nonstarter for Russia, and it should have been obvious that an alliance whose original purpose had been to oppose Russia should never have incorporated states that bordered Russia.

China, quite simply, wouldn't want to run the risk of promoting democracy in a foreign country. It would promote dissent in China at a time when the party is having difficulties in keep their own population under check. A democratic success story in Russia would almost certainly produce mass unrest in China: something the Party will pay any price to avoid. It would be more advantageous for them to have an autocrat in power, or just no one period. Anything but a democracy

[Dortmundia]

You sorely mistake my intentions if you think im calling the Russian people savages. I merely point out that unlike most other European democracies, Russia is, um to put it lightly, rather large. Perhaps a little too large. And unlike other large democracies like the United States, while there is a shared history there are also different histories: simply, not everyone in Russia is a Russian. Given there are 154 recognized and distinct ethnicity in the Russian Federation, many with their own republics and areas of the country, this is no small matter. Its REALLY hard to keep a democracy together with these factors. India only somewhat manages, and theirs is deeply flawed and has held them back enormously due to its flaws..

I think you are wrong. 80% of russias population is etnic russians while the smaller etnicities make only 20%. In almost all republic russians make the majority. Even if the etnicities want to separate they can because they have no the demographic capacitiy to do so. The only sole exepction of all this is Checnya which indeed would be the problem.

And just because we may be a few years into the future doesn't make history irrelevant: history is very important. Put simply, Russia doesn't have a history of successful democracy. Russia's institutions have not changed dramatically from the Soviet era, and some of them (espessialy the judiciary) dont seem likely to change very much without trully radical change: the radical change that, in many other nations, sparks bloody revolution and civil war.

It is true, that is why changes will come after the justice system in russia starts to tackle corruption. Unfortunarly, that would recquire to charge Putin. So to put it is a cursed circle.

The west tried to save Yugoslavia only after realizing it made a terrible mistake in trying to support croatian activists, who while democrats also had seperatist intentions. And no one can doubt that the NATO moves into Eastern Europe were a dangerous advance into what had been Russian interests. Yelstin didn't oppose it because what was he going to do about it? he hardly had control of Russia as it was. Everyone knew at the time that NATO membership was going to be a nonstarter for Russia, and it should have been obvious that an alliance whose original purpose had been to oppose Russia should never have incorporated states that bordered Russia.

No, the West tried to save Yugoslavia from the begin, firstly by putting the embargo on request of Yugoslavia. After M. disredit themself in the war campaign they burned him the back. And really, the main republic Serbia started to whole shit in the 1980s not croatia or slovenia, so please get your facts...

But how could the West known that Russia is against if since Yeltsin was directly elected. The West though Yeltsin voiced the true voice of the russian people. If Putin did not threatened the Baltics than they would not join NATO.

China, quite simply, wouldn't want to run the risk of promoting democracy in a foreign country. It would promote dissent in China at a time when the party is having difficulties in keep their own population under check. A democratic success story in Russia would almost certainly produce mass unrest in China: something the Party will pay any price to avoid.

Are you sure about this? I doubt China is so culturally depended on Russia...

[Kubra]

Rushka will not be attacked millitarly. There is a lot of decent people that are waiting to start a democratic revolution, like the one in Georgia and Kyrgistan. The only issue is who will replace Putin. Whether that be Ksenia Sobchak or Navalny, there are to many candidates.

Im honestly scared of the possibility of Putin being forced out via revolution. If Russia were to fall into complete chaos, the consequences are almost unimaginable.

I'm praying for the revival of war trains in such a civil war

[Byzantium Imperial]

You sorely mistake my intentions if you think im calling the Russian people savages. I merely point out that unlike most other European democracies, Russia is, um to put it lightly, rather large. Perhaps a little too large. And unlike other large democracies like the United States, while there is a shared history there are also different histories: simply, not everyone in Russia is a Russian. Given there are 154 recognized and distinct ethnicity in the Russian Federation, many with their own republics and areas of the country, this is no small matter. Its REALLY hard to keep a democracy together with these factors. India only somewhat manages, and theirs is deeply flawed and has held them back enormously due to its flaws..

I think you are wrong. 80% of russias population is etnic russians while the smaller etnicities make only 20%. In almost all republic russians make the majority. Even if the etnicities want to separate they can because they have no the demographic capacitiy to do so. The only sole exepction of all this is Checnya which indeed would be the problem.

And just because we may be a few years into the future doesn't make history irrelevant: history is very important. Put simply, Russia doesn't have a history of successful democracy. Russia's institutions have not changed dramatically from the Soviet era, and some of them (espessialy the judiciary) dont seem likely to change very much without trully radical change: the radical change that, in many other nations, sparks bloody revolution and civil war.

It is true, that is why changes will come after the justice system in russia starts to tackle corruption. Unfortunarly, that would recquire to charge Putin. So to put it is a cursed circle.

The west tried to save Yugoslavia only after realizing it made a terrible mistake in trying to support croatian activists, who while democrats also had seperatist intentions. And no one can doubt that the NATO moves into Eastern Europe were a dangerous advance into what had been Russian interests. Yelstin didn't oppose it because what was he going to do about it? he hardly had control of Russia as it was. Everyone knew at the time that NATO membership was going to be a nonstarter for Russia, and it should have been obvious that an alliance whose original purpose had been to oppose Russia should never have incorporated states that bordered Russia.

No, the West tried to save Yugoslavia from the begin, firstly by putting the embargo on request of Yugoslavia. After M. disredit themself in the war campaign they burned him the back. And really, the main republic Serbia started to whole shit in the 1980s not croatia or slovenia, so please get your facts...

But how could the West known that Russia is against if since Yeltsin was directly elected. The West though Yeltsin voiced the true voice of the russian people. If Putin did not threatened the Baltics than they would not join NATO.

China, quite simply, wouldn't want to run the risk of promoting democracy in a foreign country. It would promote dissent in China at a time when the party is having difficulties in keep their own population under check. A democratic success story in Russia would almost certainly produce mass unrest in China: something the Party will pay any price to avoid.

Are you sure about this? I doubt China is so culturally depended on Russia...

Fair enough, but this didn't stop some from trying (Tartaria, with Kazan, was on the verge of breaking away). And the differences dont neccesarily have to be ethnic: the Ural republics could easily break off, as lets be honest Vladivostok probably would do just fine outside of Moscow's reach.

And yes, we both agree on this. The current situation does need change, dont get me wrong. I just think revolution is the wrong path forward.

Well the mainshitholl in Yugoslavia was started by the Serbian-Kosovo dispute yes, but it is after this point that the Croats, tired of the serbs, attempted to breakoff. We supported this manouever. Everything after that is well.... that was just a disaster for everyone involved

I dont think you quite understand what Im getting at: Yeltsin was incapable of standing up to NATO at this time. He could only watch helplessly as it happened, for if he tried to speak up he woulc have lost "valuable" support in the west.

[Neoconstantius]

Rushka will not be attacked millitarly. There is a lot of decent people that are waiting to start a democratic revolution, like the one in Georgia and Kyrgistan. The only issue is who will replace Putin. Whether that be Ksenia Sobchak or Navalny, there are to many candidates.

There will be no "revolution" in Russia. This is a wishful prediction.