Why Russia Will Collapse After The War Ends (1917 Warning)

Episode Overview

• The episode analyzes Russia's historical pattern of experiencing domestic political change following failed offensive military operations.
• The speakers debate the long-term viability of Vladimir Putin's regime after the Ukraine war, considering the immense economic and human costs of the conflict.
• The discussion explores the potential for a "reckoning" within Russia and how a weakened Russian state could reshape the global geopolitical landscape, creating a new multipolar environment.

Key Concepts

• Historical Precedent: The conversation frequently uses historical analogies—such as the Crimean War, the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905, World War I, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan—to argue that Russia's current situation follows a predictable pattern.
• Pyrrhic Victory: The concept that even if Putin secures some territory and declares victory, the cost will be so high that it will lead to the eventual downfall of his regime.
• Regime Instability: The core idea that failed or costly offensive wars create severe internal economic and social pressure that authoritarian regimes often cannot survive in the long run.
• The "Sick Man of Eurasia": The idea that Russia is becoming a declining great power, creating a power vacuum and a new "Eastern Question" where other powers (like China, Turkey, and the US) will compete for influence.
• Shifting Alliances: The discussion posits that the world is moving toward a more fluid, multipolar state where alliances are tactical and based on specific issues rather than rigid, permanent blocs.

Quotes

• At 00:01 - "Russia has an incredibly long history of effectively losing offensive military operations and having political change afterwards." - Marco introduces the central theme of the discussion, framing the current war in Ukraine within a larger historical context.
• At 00:59 - "Tsar Nicholas II lasted after he got his ass whopped by the Japanese in 1904-1905... lasted another 12 years." - Jacob uses the Russo-Japanese War as a historical example to illustrate that regime collapse after a military defeat is not always immediate and can take over a decade to materialize.
• At 04:11 - "It's not just like analogies. At some point, it becomes like, 'This is what happens to Russia.'" - Marco argues that the pattern of military failure leading to political change is so consistent in Russian history that it's less an analogy and more a recurring, predictable outcome.

Takeaways

• Military performance is a key indicator of authoritarian stability. A regime's success or failure in offensive wars directly impacts its domestic political survival. Sustained, costly campaigns create a high probability of internal upheaval.
• Expect a protracted and uncertain transition in post-war Russia. History suggests that even after a military failure, a regime's collapse can be a slow process. The subsequent power vacuum may not be filled by a moderate government but potentially by an even more nationalist and aggressive one.
• Geopolitics is shifting toward fluid, issue-based alliances. The decline of a major power like Russia creates a more complex, multipolar world. Nations are increasingly likely to form temporary alliances based on specific strategic interests, making international relations less predictable.