[Goose]

Honest question.  Why do so many people assume Putin couldn't retain power if Russia retrenches back to Crimea?  I've seen nothing in the last 20 years which suggests his power is that brittle.  In fact I've seen quite the opposite.

I suppose this could be like the Hemingway (mis) quote:  "How do you lose power?  Two ways, Gradually and then suddenly" but I don't see any evidence of "gradually".  If anything his hold on power looks stronger.

People keep claiming he couldn't retain power but rarely support the claim.

Hopefully honest answer :-). Obviously predicting what will happen in Russia is a very inexact science. However, the belief that Putin would have serious problems retaining power if the Ukraine war ended without something that looks like "victory" is based on fairly solid ground IMO.

It is indeed true that Putin has done a great job removing potential competitors for the post of running the Russian Federation. One serious problem that he has not solved is the "minority problems" inside the Russian Federation. One of Putin's main accomplishments was suppressing the rebellion in Chechnya. The situation there is not stable and the accommodation operating today is based on Russia being a "success". If Russia starts to be viewed as "weak", there are plenty of local religious and political leaders that would be more than happy to rule an independent Chechnya. These leaders have no interest in taking over Russia. They are "local" forces that are not easily reached by Putin's Russia.

Unfortunately for Putin there are quite a few other minorities in Russia that would very much like to leave the Russian federation. Many of these groups have provided a disproportionate share of soldiers for Putin's war in Ukraine. Despite high casualties many soldiers make their way "home". Most of them have no job prospects and are embittered by their experience in the Russian military. They do know how to fight. Again, if Russia is seen as "weak" the formation of "Freikorps" is inevitable. These groups may have both a political and a kleptocratic motive. The rebellion started by Prigozhin rattled Putin to the core. Worthy of note also is that the rest of the military did not rush to suppress the coup attempt. They wanted to be on the "winning" side.  Imagine several such happening at once in different places.

When the war in Ukraine ends, Russia will have to demobilize a lot of troops that have not exactly been treated well. These troops will be a problem in the best of times. Even today crime by ex-serviceman is problematic. Imagine if that demobilization is the 500,000 combat troops fighting in Ukraine ATM. If the demobilization takes place after a "less than successful" end of hostilities for Russia it is very probable lots of bitter, violent men will be unleashed in Russia contemporaneously. Unrest is inevitable. The ramp down of military production will also create lots of job losses in the military-industrial sector. There are plenty of articles on the internet forecasting inevitable economic problems for Russia when the war ends, even if it is a "victory".

Putin holds on to power in Russia by providing, first and foremost, stability. Relative Economic prosperity is very useful but not essential. Russians don't complain much if things are "stable". The above scenario is anything but stable. Even if many of these "rebellions" aren't really a major threat, suppressing them while demobilizing an army that fought "for nothing" won't be easy or pretty. The true scale of the personnel losses in Ukraine will also start to filter out into public view. This instability will be the thing that motivates the "Russian majority" to support the replacement of Putin with a leader, any leader, that brings back their stability. Putin will have demonstrably disqualified himself from retaining that job. "If not Putin, who?" will finally be answered with "almost anybody else would be better".

[Goose]

Honest question.  Why do so many people assume Putin couldn't retain power if Russia retrenches back to Crimea?  I've seen nothing in the last 20 years which suggests his power is that brittle.  In fact I've seen quite the opposite.

I suppose this could be like the Hemingway (mis) quote:  "How do you lose power?  Two ways, Gradually and then suddenly" but I don't see any evidence of "gradually".  If anything his hold on power looks stronger.

People keep claiming he couldn't retain power but rarely support the claim.

Hopefully honest answer :-). Obviously predicting what will happen in Russia is a very inexact science. However, the belief that Putin would have serious problems retaining power if the Ukraine war ended without something that looks like "victory" is based on fairly solid ground IMO.

It is indeed true that Putin has done a great job removing potential competitors for the post of running the Russian Federation. One serious problem that he has not solved is the "minority problems" inside the Russian Federation. One of Putin's main accomplishments was suppressing the rebellion in Chechnya. The situation there is not stable and the accommodation operating today is based on Russia being a "success". If Russia starts to be viewed as "weak", there are plenty of local religious and political leaders that would be more than happy to rule an independent Chechnya. These leaders have no interest in taking over Russia. They are "local" forces that are not easily reached by Putin's Russia.

Unfortunately for Putin there are quite a few other minorities in Russia that would very much like to leave the Russian federation. Many of these groups have provided a disproportionate share of soldiers for Putin's war in Ukraine. Despite high casualties many soldiers make their way "home". Most of them have no job prospects and are embittered by their experience in the Russian military. They do know how to fight. Again, if Russia is seen as "weak" the formation of "Freikorps" is inevitable. These groups may have both a political and a kleptocratic motive. The rebellion started by Prigozhin rattled Putin to the core. Worthy of note also is that the rest of the military did not rush to suppress the coup attempt. They wanted to be on the "winning" side.  Imagine several such happening at once in different places.

When the war in Ukraine ends, Russia will have to demobilize a lot of troops that have not exactly been treated well. These troops will be a problem in the best of times. Even today crime by ex-serviceman is problematic. Imagine if that demobilization is the 500,000 combat troops fighting in Ukraine ATM. If the demobilization takes place after a "less than successful" end of hostilities for Russia it is very probable lots of bitter, violent men will be unleashed in Russia contemporaneously. Unrest is inevitable. The ramp down of military production will also create lots of job losses in the military-industrial sector. There are plenty of articles on the internet forecasting inevitable economic problems for Russia when the war ends, even if it is a "victory".

Putin holds on to power in Russia by providing, first and foremost, stability. Relative Economic prosperity is very useful but not essential. Russians don't complain much if things are "stable". The above scenario is anything but stable. Even if many of these "rebellions" aren't really a major threat, suppressing them while demobilizing an army that fought "for nothing" won't be easy or pretty. The true scale of the personnel losses in Ukraine will also start to filter out into public view. This instability will be the thing that motivates the "Russian majority" to support the replacement of Putin with a leader, any leader, that brings back their stability. Putin will have demonstrably disqualified himself from retaining that job. "If not Putin, who?" will finally be answered with "almost anybody else would be better".