Russian civil war in the 90s?

[James G]

The 90s were a terrible time for Russia.

I've read that Russians consider the 90s to be what Europeans see the 30s as in regards to how things fell apart.
Yeltsin led them into war in Chechnya and there were the other terror issues in the Caucasus.
He put down a rebellion in 1993 and only by massive fraud did he win reelection against a resurgent communists in 1996. He was a drunk and a humiliation. Russia was seen as being raped by foreigners when it got a taste of Western 'freedom and democracy'. Poverty, runaway inflation, war, political crisis, loss of superpower status. It all occurred.

Could this have gone further though, into civil war? How would the world react to a nuclear-armed country engaged in civil war (I don't mean the use of such weapons but the possibility) when it was one like Russia? What sides could have occurred?

[lordroel]

Nov 11, 2018 20:14:51 GMT James G said:

The 90s were a terrible time for Russia.

I've read that Russians consider the 90s to be what Europeans see the 30s as in regards to how things fell apart.
Yeltsin led them into war in Chechnya and there were the other terror issues in the Caucasus.
He put down a rebellion in 1993 and only by massive fraud did he win reelection against a resurgent communists in 1996. He was a drunk and a humiliation. Russia was seen as being raped by foreigners when it got a taste of Western 'freedom and democracy'. Poverty, runaway inflation, war, political crisis, loss of superpower status. It all occurred.

Could this have gone further though, into civil war? How would the world react to a nuclear-armed country engaged in civil war (I don't mean the use of such weapons but the possibility) when it was one like Russia? What sides could have occurred?

Would that not bee called the 2nd Russian Civil War

[robertnorth]

I think the same that happened in the original time line would happen here when it comes to western reaction. To try and get as much economic gain out of each side. And as the country was looted you would have people on TV in the west talking about all these armed conflicts and the possibility of it spreading but at the same time hardly mentioning the massive economic theft commited by western companies. So as in the original time line.

And if one side tried to get some type of regulation or give back the property to the people, that side would have gotten a very negative spin on TV.

[James G]

Nov 11, 2018 20:21:21 GMT lordroel said:

Nov 11, 2018 20:14:51 GMT James G said:

The 90s were a terrible time for Russia.

I've read that Russians consider the 90s to be what Europeans see the 30s as in regards to how things fell apart.
Yeltsin led them into war in Chechnya and there were the other terror issues in the Caucasus.
He put down a rebellion in 1993 and only by massive fraud did he win reelection against a resurgent communists in 1996. He was a drunk and a humiliation. Russia was seen as being raped by foreigners when it got a taste of Western 'freedom and democracy'. Poverty, runaway inflation, war, political crisis, loss of superpower status. It all occurred.

Could this have gone further though, into civil war? How would the world react to a nuclear-armed country engaged in civil war (I don't mean the use of such weapons but the possibility) when it was one like Russia? What sides could have occurred?

Would that not bee called the 2nd Russian Civil War

It would be that indeed.

[lordroel]

Nov 12, 2018 12:22:19 GMT James G said:

Nov 11, 2018 20:21:21 GMT lordroel said:

Would that not bee called the 2nd Russian Civil War

It would be that indeed.

So whe would see this but a lot more and more violently spread across Russia.

[raunchel]

In the case of such a civil war, I expect the whole world to be watching in absolute horror at the idea of it. Russia still was a major military power, and despite everything, well, they have mountains of nukes.

Another fear would be various groups getting their hands on such weapons and them ending up abroad. This would be the perfect time for some to go missing without anyone noticing until it's too late. Another issue is spillover, it's far too easy for other countries to be dragged in, if only by threats.

[lordroel]

Nov 13, 2018 19:38:45 GMT raunchel said:

In the case of such a civil war, I expect the whole world to be watching in absolute horror at the idea of it. Russia still was a major military power, and despite everything, well, they have mountains of nukes.

Another fear would be various groups getting their hands on such weapons and them ending up abroad. This would be the perfect time for some to go missing without anyone noticing until it's too late. Another issue is spillover, it's far too easy for other countries to be dragged in, if only by threats.

Wonder if the United Nations would get involved, like securing the nuclear launch sites for Russian ballistic missiles.

[raunchel]

Nov 13, 2018 19:41:54 GMT lordroel said:

Nov 13, 2018 19:38:45 GMT raunchel said:

In the case of such a civil war, I expect the whole world to be watching in absolute horror at the idea of it. Russia still was a major military power, and despite everything, well, they have mountains of nukes.

Another fear would be various groups getting their hands on such weapons and them ending up abroad. This would be the perfect time for some to go missing without anyone noticing until it's too late. Another issue is spillover, it's far too easy for other countries to be dragged in, if only by threats.

Wonder if the United Nations would get involved, like securing the nuclear launch sites for Russian ballistic missiles.

I guess that wouldn't happen. None of the various sides would tolerate such a thing, and they're the ones in control over the weapons. Even trying it is a very good way to wildly escalate the situation.

[James G]

You want to end a Russian civil war? Put UN troops - foreign invaders! - in.
Missing nukes, even the possibility of them, would drive the West - and most of the world too - in a manic panic.

[stevep]

Nov 13, 2018 21:02:56 GMT James G said:

You want to end a Russian civil war? Put UN troops - foreign invaders! - in.
Missing nukes, even the possibility of them, would drive the West - and most of the world too - in a manic panic.

  Would agree.  Other than any groups who were losing no Russian factions are likely to welcome foreign intervention.  Possibly the only practical measure the west could take, which still might not work, is a warning that any faction that using nukes outside the contesting Russian groups gets repaid in spades.

[raunchel]

Nov 13, 2018 23:11:42 GMT stevep said:

Nov 13, 2018 21:02:56 GMT James G said:

You want to end a Russian civil war? Put UN troops - foreign invaders! - in.
Missing nukes, even the possibility of them, would drive the West - and most of the world too - in a manic panic.

  Would agree.  Other than any groups who were losing no Russian factions are likely to welcome foreign intervention.  Possibly the only practical measure the west could take, which still might not work, is a warning that any faction that using nukes outside the contesting Russian groups gets repaid in spades.

That would be about the maximum of what can be achieved I guess. You can at least try to stop some of the nuclear spillover. I think that such weapons would be used internally. Civil wars are notoriously uncivil, and when one side or the other is losing, they will feel the temptation to at least take their murderous enemies with them, or to try to turn the tables. You just don't want to be the losing leadership in a civil war.

[stevep]

Nov 14, 2018 8:52:26 GMT raunchel said:

Nov 13, 2018 23:11:42 GMT stevep said:

  Would agree.  Other than any groups who were losing no Russian factions are likely to welcome foreign intervention.  Possibly the only practical measure the west could take, which still might not work, is a warning that any faction that using nukes outside the contesting Russian groups gets repaid in spades.

That would be about the maximum of what can be achieved I guess. You can at least try to stop some of the nuclear spillover. I think that such weapons would be used internally. Civil wars are notoriously uncivil, and when one side or the other is losing, they will feel the temptation to at least take their murderous enemies with them, or to try to turn the tables. You just don't want to be the losing leadership in a civil war.

  Well the other thing, which has been done at times is for nations to offer sanctuary for fleeing leaders from such conflict.  It can be controversial if their been brutal or committed war crimes but if it stops them fighting to the bitter end, especially if that may include nukes it can save a lot of lives.  Just expect to be really in the bad books of whoever takes over in Russia however.  Of course it doesn't help those down on lower levels as their likely to facing a nasty purging/re-education.

[raunchel]

Nov 14, 2018 11:01:16 GMT stevep said:

Nov 14, 2018 8:52:26 GMT raunchel said:

That would be about the maximum of what can be achieved I guess. You can at least try to stop some of the nuclear spillover. I think that such weapons would be used internally. Civil wars are notoriously uncivil, and when one side or the other is losing, they will feel the temptation to at least take their murderous enemies with them, or to try to turn the tables. You just don't want to be the losing leadership in a civil war.

  Well the other thing, which has been done at times is for nations to offer sanctuary for fleeing leaders from such conflict.  It can be controversial if their been brutal or committed war crimes but if it stops them fighting to the bitter end, especially if that may include nukes it can save a lot of lives.  Just expect to be really in the bad books of whoever takes over in Russia however.  Of course it doesn't help those down on lower levels as their likely to facing a nasty purging/re-education.

That's true. So that might help a bit against the nukes flying. The temptation will however be there, and I deeply pity any moderately successful group without such weapons.