It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
We have all been watching the goings-on in Ukraine and Russia with intense interest the last few months. It's been debated to death. But one thing hasn't been debated yet; one question has not been asked.
Let us suppose that we all wake up tomorrow to the wonderful news: Ukraine has won. All disputed territories, including Crimea, are back under Ukrainian control. The Russian troops have fled in retreat to deep inside Russia. Putin has announced that he is cancelling the offensive entirely. Everything we wanted to happen has come to pass. It's over and the good guys won.
What happens next?
In the wake of all this, Europe still has lost the Nord Stream pipelines. The Ukrainian pipelines are all that's left to Russia, and I seriously doubt even a defeated enemy will be quick to somehow resume operations. Besides, all of Russia's assets are frozen, so they can't be paid and they cannot pay for pipeline use. So Europe is still looking at a long, dark, cold winter.
Russia is going to continue to sell LNG and oil to China. The pipelines are there and we have made sure there is no one else they can sell to. So that alliance is going to grow. China is going to gain economic power as they take advantage of Russia's disability.
And, lest anyone forget, if Putin were to resign... a definite possibility since he is showing signs of bad health and any leader who loses militarily will always lose political support... who would replace him? The position of President of Russia will not simply dissolve away into some fairy-tale mist. It will still exist, and someone will fill it. Who?
I found this page: After Putin: 12 people ready to ruin Russia next. First in line, and according to Politico the most likely to replace Vladimir Putin, is Nikolai Patrushev:
Should Putin accept that his position has become untenable, Kremlin watchers see Nikolai Patrushev as his most likely successor. The former head of the FSB spy agency, now secretary of the Security Council of Russia, has the advantage of sharing a worldview with Putin — one that is shot through with hostility toward the West in general, and toward the United States in particular
If anything, Patrushev’s views are more extreme: In a Security Council meeting days before Putin ordered troops into Ukraine in February, Patrushev accused Washington of pursuing a hidden agenda to bring about “the collapse of the Russian Federation.” It’s a familiar trope: Patrushev years ago accused former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright of saying that Siberia and the Far East should not belong to Russia. This allegation had no known basis in fact, leading to speculation that it originated in a top-secret project where Moscow spies hired mindreaders to tap into the thoughts of Western leaders.
Sounds like he would make Putin look less like Hitler and more like Mother Teresa by comparison.
Mikhail Mishustin is presently the Russian Prime Minister, and the Russian Constitution specifies that the sitting Prime Minister will fill the role of President should it become vacant. So it's likely that he would assume power, but such power is intended to be quite temporary. The Prime Minister does not become President... he simply fulfills the role of President while a new one is chosen. Besides, Mishustin is a tax guy. If he even wanted the position, it is doubtful he would be able to effectively fill it.
So what can we expect from Nikolai Patrushev?
Nikolai Platonovich Patrushev (Russian: Никола́й Плато́нович Па́трушев; born 11 July 1951) is a Russian politician, security officer and intelligence officer who has served as the secretary of the Security Council of Russia since 2008. He previously served as the director of the Federal Security Service (FSB) from 1999 to 2008. Belonging to the siloviki faction of president Vladimir Putin's inner circle, Patrushev is believed to be one of the closest advisors to Putin and a leading figure behind Russia's national security affairs. He is considered as very hawkish towards the West and the US and has promoted various conspiracy theories. Patrushev is seen by observers as one of the likeliest candidates for succeeding Putin.
"Very hawkish towards the West"... doesn't sound like a good team player for the rest of the planet. What about his political views?
In December 2000, on the anniversary of the founding of the Bolshevik secret police, the Cheka, an interview with him was published in a Russian national daily. In defence of the emerging trend of co-opting officers in the security and intelligence apparatus into high government posts, Patrushev noted that his FSB colleagues did not "work for money [...] [they] are, if you will, modern 'neo-nobility'." The term "new nobility" gained currency afterwards, as in the eponymous book The New Nobility.
Ben Noble, Associate Professor of Russian Politics at University College London, describes Patrushev as "the most hawkish hawk, thinking the West has been out to get Russia for years". He was quoted as saying, "The Americans believe that we control [our natural resources] illegally and undeservedly because, in their view, we do not use them as they ought to be used." Patrushev has referenced "Madeleine Albright’s claim 'that neither the Far East nor Siberia belong to Russia.'" According to the New York Times, this remark can be traced back to a psychic employed by the FSB who claimed to have read the thoughts in Albright's mind while in a state of trance.
Patrushev believes in various conspiracy theories and often gives interviews to state-controlled media in Russia. He claimed that the West is seeking to reduce "the world's population in various ways," including creating "an empire of lies, involving the humiliation and destruction of Russia and other objectionable states." Mark Galeotti, an expert in the field of Russian politics and security, said that Patrushev, one of Putin’s closest advisers, is the "most dangerous man in Russia" because of his "paranoid conspiracy-driven mindset."
"The most dangerous man in Russia."
The instigator of the Ukraine conflict.
A man who hates... hates... the West, with the Russian nuclear arsenal at his command. What could go wrong?
Is it possible to lose by "winning"?
TheRedneck
originally posted by: vNex92
a reply to: TritonTaranis
Furthermore Ukrainian President isn't even Ukrainian.
But lets not go there.
They should have gotten rid of him years ago. Having the same guy in charge for decades is risky, as we have seen.
originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: vNex92
Furthermore Ukrainian President isn't even Ukrainian.
But lets not go there.
No please, let's do go there.
What is he then?
originally posted by: Phantom423
originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: vNex92
Furthermore Ukrainian President isn't even Ukrainian.
But lets not go there.
No please, let's do go there.
What is he then?
He's insinuating the typical antisemitic rhetoric. Zelensky is a Jew. But he's also Ukrainian. Stupid comment by vNex921. Everyone sees right through it.
originally posted by: ufoorbhunter
originally posted by: vNex92
a reply to: TritonTaranis
Furthermore Ukrainian President isn't even Ukrainian.
But lets not go there.
Have a look at your own Prime Minister before throwing that around Pots and Kettles vNex
originally posted by: TritonTaranis
originally posted by: Phantom423
originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: vNex92
Furthermore Ukrainian President isn't even Ukrainian.
But lets not go there.
No please, let's do go there.
What is he then?
He's insinuating the typical antisemitic rhetoric. Zelensky is a Jew. But he's also Ukrainian. Stupid comment by vNex921. Everyone sees right through it.
That’s what they’re insinuating
The Khazerian conspiracy BS was also dropped by the same member
We’re getting pretty close to the disgusting core values of much of the pro Russia voices on this board
Step 1 - Russians defeat in Ukraine
Step 2 - Russias Color revolution
Step 3 - Russias territorial dismantling
He's insinuating the typical antisemitic rhetoric.
originally posted by: Cutepants
a reply to: TheWhiteKnight
Yeah. But I was replying to OP who asked if it would be good or bad to replace Putin with another person.
There is a lot wrong with your assessments
They just don't seem insane to me, I disagree.
Wouldn't be the first time a king gets fooled by his advisor.