Short of Everything: the Coming Collapse of Russia

 

Photo Credit

The Russian Federation is eroding militarily, financially, economically, demographically, and culturally (societal values).  Its collapse is inevitable because it is set on a course of self-extinction.  In the five areas mentioned, Russia is expending more than it can replace.

Whether your point of reference is Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson's Why Nations Fail, or Peter Heather and John Rapley's Why Empires Fall, or Peter Zeihan's The End of the World is Just the Beginning.

Militarily, Russia is losing more than it can replace in terms of vehicles and personnel.  It may perhaps have yet enough to lay waste to a greater portion of Ukraine, but its diminishing military resources will never be enough to conquer all of Ukraine, and it will never rebuild its military due to its overall decline. 

Financially, Russia is spending far more than it has.  Many regional governments in Russia are bankrupt, and at the federal level, there is not enough money to bail out the regional governments because energy exports have collapsed due to sanctions and Ukraine's missile and drone attacks on Russian energy production and distribution.  No other nation, even China, is going to bail out Russia because they are all watching and calculating the slow financial collapse of Russia.

Closely related to Russia's financial crisis is its economic decline.  Other than oil and gas and agricultural production, Russia doesn't produce anything that the world buys.  Its manufacturing and technical capacity is too limited and often out-of-date--Russian oil and gas production is heavily dependent on foreign technology.

Demographically, Russia is in rapid decline.  The additional impact of the war on Russian demographics is substantial.  Over 1 million Russians have died or have been severely wounded.  These casualties are the working-age men (and women) that Russia relies on to drive the economy.  

Culturally (societal values), Russia has a growing problem.  The people of Russia are growing impatient with Putin's war as the consequences affect them; for instance, through gasoline shortages and blackouts.  Leading former supporters of the special military operation (war) are beginning to express frustration.  And as the hundreds of thousands of war veterans return home, the Russian government will not be able to meet their expectations.

I've chosen not to rehash the particulars of each of the points above that will erode and eventually--sooner rather than later--collapse the Russian state.  But here are some of recent articles that explore each of the areas that I wrote about.

Kost Elisevick--https://kostelisevich.com/2025/09/23/putins-end-of-days/

Reuben F. Johnson the Director of Research at the Casimir Pulaski Foundation -- https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/the-collapse-of-russia-has-just-begun/ar-AA1J475i

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marktemnycky/2025/10/08/how-the-war-in-ukraine-has-sparked-a-demographic-crisis-in-russia/

Foreign Affairs--https://www.foreignaffairs.com/russia/cracks-russias-war-economy#

National Security Journal--https://nationalsecurityjournal.org/the-collapse-of-russia-has-just-begun/

Mikhail Khodorkovsky--https://www.msn.com/en-ie/politics/international-relations/i-m-a-russian-dissident-living-in-london-putin-knows-the-end-is-coming-soon/ar-AA1Pr497?ocid=BingNewsVerp

Stupid People Make Stupid Government--And There's A Law For That

You know, I'm just going to leave this here.  It's obvious what is going on.

There is a federal regulation that covers things like this (see below).

 

In case you wonder how political partisanship by US government employees/appointees is supposed to be dealt with, there's this below (from AI Gemini).  The US Office of Special Counsel (osc.gov), mentioned at the bottom, explains it and is responsible for investigating and prosecuting violations like these.

AI Gemini on Political Partisanship in the US government

The core US policy aimed at limiting political partisanship within the federal government is the Hatch Act of 1939 (amended in 1993 and 2012).   

The purpose of the Hatch Act is to ensure that federal programs are administered in a nonpartisan fashion, protect federal employees from political coercion in the workplace, and ensure employees are advanced based on merit rather than political affiliation.   

---

Key Provisions of the Hatch Act

The Hatch Act applies to most employees in the executive branch of the federal government (excluding the President and Vice President) and certain state and local employees whose positions are federally funded.   

Prohibited Activities (Generally Applies to All Covered Employees)

Federal employees may not engage in partisan political activity:   

• While on duty (this includes teleworking).   

• In any federal room or building or while wearing an official uniform or insignia.   

• While using a federally-owned or leased vehicle or federal property/resources (like work computers or email).   

• They may not use their official authority or influence to interfere with or affect the result of an election.   

• They are prohibited from being candidates for public office in partisan elections.   

• They may not solicit or receive political contributions for a partisan political party, candidate, or group (with limited exceptions).   

Permitted Activities

Most federal employees are considered "less restricted" and may engage in partisan political activities while off duty, outside of a federal facility, and not using federal property, including:   

• Voting and expressing their opinions about candidates and issues.   

• Contributing money to political campaigns, parties, or groups.   

• Attending and being active at political rallies and meetings.   

• Campaigning for or against candidates, referendums, or ordinances.   

• Being a candidate in a nonpartisan election.

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) is the independent agency that investigates and prosecutes alleged violations of the Hatch Act. Penalties for violations can include removal from federal employment, reduction in grade, suspension, or civil fines.

Making Clear the Absurdity of the Russian Position on Peace

 

Dylan Combellick is an online commentator on Russia's war on Ukraine.  His background, including living in Ukraine, gives him a grounded perspective on the war in Ukraine.  Here's his profile on Medium.com,

But his special expertise is making clear in simple terms what issues are at stake on the battleground and in geopolitical terms.

Below is a quote from his latest article that illustrates the absurdity of Russia's demands for a negotiated peace agreement.

Especially his last, simple sentence sums up nicely the absurdity of Russian claims.

"I wrote about how to win the war against Russia using Russian tactics. I left out one of the most important, negotiations.

"When entering negotiations with Russia, do what they do — demand the insane, then offer “concessions” and settle for the merely absurd.

"Thus, Ukraine’s opening position should be the annexation by Ukraine of all traditionally Ukrainian lands, including Sochi and Primorye, Rostov, Kursk, and Belgorod. Next to that would be complete nuclear disarmament of Russia and strict limits to conventional arms. Then, Russia should not be allowed to join any alliances that would threaten Ukraine's security, like BRICS or defensive pacts with Iran, North Korea, or other nations that have supplied arms or manpower to Russia. Putin’s legitimacy as leader is in question, as there have never been open and fair elections in Russia, and the press is tightly controlled. Religions are harshly suppressed in Russia, with many churches having been banned entirely.

"Below is a map from a Soviet-era textbook showing the outlines of “nationalities of the USSR.” Note how most of the Rostov and Kursk regions are Ukrainian.

Press enter or click to view image in full size

‘Concessions’ in the Russian style can then be made. “We will allow you to keep twelve nuclear weapons if you agree to pay $500 billion in reparations.” “We will allow Putin to remain in his illegitimate post as leader if you surrender two hundred other war criminals.” “If you will allow the open practice of Mormonism and pay for the construction of Mormon churches, then we will allow your refineries to be rebuilt.” … and so on.

"Demand what you have no right to demand, pretend ownership of things that are not yours, assume rights that are not possessed, and negotiate from a position of absurdism."

didact's journal: A journal that provides moments of insight from diverse—and sometimes surprising--sources to provoke your thinking.  Each insight opens the door to deeper understanding and to connections among science, culture, history, mathematics, business, and personal mastery.

didact's journal first lines: Books that open well immediately capture our attention. This journal contains many of the best of countless compelling openings. Have fun exploring.

The Illusion of a Ukrainian Peace Through a Flawed Negotiation Process

Photo Credit

Mike Pompeo, Trump's former CIA Director and Secretary of State during Trump's first term, has an opinion piece in this weekend's FT about the Ukrainian peace process that, while correct in it's thrust that Ukraine needs credible and robust security guarantees, opens unconsciously with just what is wrong with the American approach under Trump.

Pompeo writes in his opening,"The president [Trump] is marshaling American strength to build the coalition necessary to secure Ukraine's future--exactly the kind of leverage Putin fears."  Pompeo's obsequious praise of Trump may be necessary to ingratiate Pompeo with Trump, but it is an absurd characterization of Trump's effectiveness in negotiating with Putin.

In the same edition of FT, Trump critic and historian, Timothy Snyder, writes in an article titled, The Myths that Made Putin's War, a more  realistic appraisal of Trump's effectiveness.  Timothy Snyder--writing in the context of Russia's mythical past that justifies, in Muscovy's (Moscow's) mind, its war on Ukraine--writes,

"Russia is now engaged in a war in eastern Europe.  And, apropos of this war, it is dominating the court of its stronger rival, the US.  The Trump administration surrenders position after position.  No longer, under Trump, need Putin fear condemnation for his illegal invasion and Russia's extensive war crimes.  Standard means of deterring future wars, such as trials, reparations and troop deployments, are conceded in advance, in exchange for nothing.  US military aid to Ukraine has been stopped twice and, to all appearances, will be allowed simply to run out."

Pompeo writes that the Ukrainian people are "exhausted by years of bloodshed and destruction" and "peace will probably require difficult compromises." But that is for the Ukrainian people and their leaders to decide.  Ukraine did not choose this moment or this circumstance.  Indeed, they have no choice.

The US negotiating separately with Putin, and in bad faith, is not a substitute.

According to a Lawfare Survey, Most Americans Support Ukraine And The Number Is Growing

Photo Credit

 Lawfare Blog:

"Nearly two-thirds of Americans polled, 64 percent, say they sympathize more with Ukraine compared to two percent who say they sympathize more with Russia. This support for Ukraine constitutes an increase of five percent from 59 percent the last time we conducted a similar poll in March 2025. Notably, most of the increase came from Republicans whose sympathy went up from 45 percent in March of 2025 to 55 percent in the latest poll, while Democratic support remains nearly the same at 83 percent compared to 82 percent in March 2025. Sympathy with Russia has remained nearly non-existent at 2 percent—a constant since July 2024—with practically no Democrats sympathizing more with Russia and only 3 percent of Republicans saying the same."

Lawfare Blog is a non-profit multimedia publication dedicated to “Hard National Security Choices.” They provide non-partisan, timely analysis of thorny legal and policy issues.  They strive to achieve academic-level depth with magazine-level readability at the pace of news...with a relentless focus on substantive issues that matter.  Their areas of coverage range from national security law, threats to democracy, cybersecurity, executive powers, content moderation, domestic extremism, and foreign policy, among many others.

The term "Lawfare" is the use of legal systems and institutions to affect foreign or domestic affairs, as a more peaceful and rational alternative, or as a less benign adjunct, to warfare. Wikipedia

Media Bias/Fact Check rates Lawfare Blog as,

• Overall, we rate Lawfare Blog Least Biased based on evidence-based balanced reporting. We also rate them Very High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and for being used as a resource for verified fact-checkers.

One Small Step Anyone Can Do To Counter Russia's Narrative

A clever initiative by Brian Iselin on Medium.com

Essentially, using Russia's tricks against it.

For those looking for practical, small steps to counter Russia, this is one.

Renaming Kaliningrad to Konigsberg and Moscow to Muscovy: NATO's Smartest Move Yet (1/2)

Our Cartographic Counter-Offensive: It’s Time to Redraw Russia’s Mental Borders (2/2)

From Königsberg (Kaliningrad) to Haishenwai (Vladivostok), coordinated naming campaigns will chip away at Russia’s narrative dominance — city by city.

(To read the article you have to be a member of Medium.com, but it's simple and well worth it)

Trump and Putin's Unreal Expectations for Their Meeting on August 15

photo credit

Trump has invited Putin to meet in Alaska on Friday, August 15, to discuss a "peace agreement" between Russia and Ukraine.  Reportedly, the framework for an agreement includes, in Trump's words, "some swapping of territories" between Russia and Ukraine.

News and social media have largely panned the initial, vaguely expressed terms of an agreement.  Any agreement on these terms is seen as putting Ukraine at risk of further Russian aggression and undermining the US's credibility, given the US's previous guarantee to protect Ukraine's territorial integrity under the Budapest Memorandum.

An additional consideration is that, although the US is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court (ICC), the ICC has issued an arrest warrant for Putin due to human rights violations for Russia's forced transfer of Ukrainian children from the Ukrainian territories occupied by the Russian military.  The optics of Putin, an indicted war criminal subject to arrest, visiting American soil (and former Russian territory) are anything but good.

Here is The Economist's take on the sudden development,

"Donald Trump had billed August 8th as deadline day for Vladimir Putin: stop fighting or face crippling sanctions.  But as the day wore on, it seemed the ultimatum had come and gone without event.  Then, around 6pm, the White House announced there would be a summit between Mr. Trump and Mr Putin on August 15th in Alaska.  Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine's president, apparently will not attend.  Mr. Putin seems to have achieved this diplomatic triumph simply by skillfully playing his recent negotiations with American envoys.  It was a familiar pattern for Mr. Trump--hard rhetoric, then soft climbdown and more breathing space for the Kremlin."

Other prominent commentators were even more dismissive.  Shankar Narayan on Medium.com writes on the purported framework, "The optics alone would hand the Kremlin a propaganda victory — the image of a U.S. president conceding part of Ukraine to secure a handshake with Putin...Trump is likely walking into his August 15 meeting with Putin believing he can force an agreement and claim the title of dealmaker. Putin, by contrast, enters with every option open. He can agree to stop the war and simply restart it when it suits him. He can secure sanctions relief while demanding Ukrainian territories that improve Russia’s military position for the next round. He can refill his dwindling National Wealth Fund until the U.S. midterms are over — and then send “little green men” back across the border.

Another commentator, Dylan Combellick, also on Medium.com, was even more dismissive: "According to the Wall Street Journal, Trump seems to have agreed to surrender to Putin...Putin, a war criminal, will fly to Alaska to accept the full and unconditional surrender of Donald Trump and the West, and will even be granted territory in return for his ‘reasonableness.’ If this happens, this will be the date that we will look back on in a hundred years and say, “This was the end of the West.”

...

"Trump is promising Russia something that it doesn’t have any right to have stolen, giving it more that it doesn’t have, and getting nothing in return. Ukraine has signed dozens of cease-fires with Russia, and Russia has violated every single one of them. From a historical perspective, this looks more and more like Chamberlain meeting with Hitler in 1938, giving Germany the Czech land, and declaring “peace in our time.”

So much for initial reactions.

With Zelenskyy and Western Europe out of the picture, the August 15 meeting between Trump and Putin seems a doomed initiative.  Any draft agreement would be dead on arrival and could greatly complicate more realistic peace initiatives that respect Ukraine's boundaries and future prospects as an independent country.

We all wait to see what Trump and Putin come up with and whether they can sell.