In April of 2021, the Russian former politician and journalist Alexander Nevzorov made various predictions about the possibility of a Russian invasion of Ukraine.
It is now observed one year later that his predictions that once seemed so outrageous turn out to be amazingly accurate.
However, there are two predictions that as of yet have not come to fruition, which are:
- a military coup in Russia, followed by
- the breakup of Russia.
.
Nevzorov’s predictions are based on his observations about contemporary Russian history.
For instance, by his account, Russia’s war with Chechnya has all the hallmarks of a war in which it was Russia that was conquered (including a massive annual tribute paid to Chechnya).
This might tell us something about the nature of predictions.
From the outside, his predictions seem both improbable and yet uncannily accurate when they do come true.
But as a former Minister of Parliament and popular journalist, Nevzorov is an insider with deep and broad knowledge — and a skeptical attitude.
That is, he knows more about Russian politics than the average Russian, and he is not blinded by ideology.
Thus, Nevzorov possess a very counterintuitive and yet accurate foundation of knowledge from which he can make predictions that are … counterintuitive and accurate.
.
If and when Russia does break up, the Japanese are going to want the Kuril Islands back.
In fact, they want it back right now and have said as much.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuril_Islands
Someday, the USA just might get Wrangel Island, which is rich in natural resources — and which was discovered by an American sea captain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrangel_Island
.
Predictions.
Can’t live with ’em.
Can’t live without ’em.
There are so many Americans making the prediction that the USA is headed toward another civil war.
However, if you step away from the media for a few minutes, it’s pretty clear that America is actually remarkably stable.
And that stability might be the greater problem.
There is a widespread criticism that the USA is stagnant, and the decision-makers are incompetent and out of touch with reality.
American “leaders” are the equivalent of the clueless, complacent Ivy-League MBAs that Elon Musk complains about.
Life in America has become so stable and safe that Americans:
- have become safety obsessed and freak out at superficial chaos and, alternatively
- don’t do anything when there really is a danger.
.
As for the possibility of a major civil war, it would be China that has the characteristics of a country headed toward major internal upheaval.
The very brittle regime in Beijing that seems to go out of its way to alienate its neighbors is now outraging its own population — and, again, for no good reason.
Even from a passing, glancing, superficial view of global politics, China conforms to the pattern of Soviet collapse.
This is when a seemingly indestructible, micromanaged, and rigid society suddenly crumbles overnight.
It’s not a prediction so much as an observation that China fits a pattern of state failure that it has obsessively been trying to avoid for three decades.
Indeed, that obsessive paranoia — with all of its overreaction and rigidity — seems to be driving the regime toward its downfall.
It’s like something out of a Greek tragedy.
.
What would China look like after state collapse?
The alternative for China would not be American-style “democracy” — which is actually British-style mixed government.
This Anglo model would arguably lead to in China what it led to in Russia — which is:
- economic collapse,
- kleptocracy, and
- a dictatorship of the KGB that dominated and absorbed the mafia and adopted the attitudes and beliefs of the extreme right-wing.
What China needs today is the rule of law, and not the British-inspired form of mixed government that takes generations to build.
Alas, China does not have the rule of law now.
Everything in China today is based on the whims of one paranoid man.
However, China does have order, which is the foundation of both economic development and the rule of law.
Moreover, lacking the consistency of the rule of law, China may eventually lose some of its order and growth.
The proper political model for China and other developing countries would be Singapore, not America.
Like the USA, the Singaporean state can trace its lineage back to the British state — yet Singapore arguably has more law and order than the USA does.
Singapore just may be the hope and beacon of the developing world.
.
But what of further predictions about Russia?
It might be better to forgo predictions and discuss possible scenarios and their specific consequences that now seem unthinkable.
For example, if Russia breaks up into various countries, what will happen to Russia’s seat at the United Nations?
There could arise a “two popes” scenario with two Russian governments claiming to be the legitimate state — much as there has been with China and Taiwan.
This would have ramifications for Russia’s membership at the United Nations.
Importantly, Russia, like China, has one of the five permanent positions on the powerful UN Security Council.
These seats went to the victors of WW2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council
The Security Council consists of fifteen members, of which five are permanent:[5]China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. These were the great powers that were the victors of World War II (or their successor states). Permanent members can veto (block) any substantive resolution, including those on the admission of new member states to the United Nations or nominees for the office of Secretary-General, but there is no veto right in emergency special sessions of the General Assembly. The other ten members are elected on a regional basis for a term of two years. The body’s presidency rotates monthly among its members.
.
There have been calls to reform the permanent membership of the Security Council.
The countries which have made the strongest demands for permanent seats are Brazil, Germany, India and Japan.
These four countries are known as the G4.
They back each other’s claim for a permanent place on the Security Council.
This would expand permanent membership to a total of nine nations.
These four countries are either very large or very wealthy.
This is why their inclusion in the Security Council is opposed by smaller states.
Small and medium-sized states prefer expanding the non-permanent seats to representatives who would be elected.
Italy, another main defeated power in WWII and now the UN’s sixth-largest funder, leads a movement known as the Uniting for Consensus in opposition to the possible expansion of permanent seats. Core members of the group include Canada, South Korea, Spain, Indonesia, Mexico, Pakistan, Turkey, Argentina and Colombia.
Their proposal is to create a new category of seats, still non-permanent, but elected for an extended duration (semi-permanent seats). As far as traditional categories of seats are concerned, the UfC proposal does not imply any change, but only the introduction of small and medium size states among groups eligible for regular seats. This proposal includes even the question of veto, giving a range of options that goes from abolition to limitation of the application of the veto only to Chapter VII matters.
.
Again, the purpose here is not to predict the future.
The goal is to contemplate the scenario of Russia’s collapse and its effect within the structure of the UN leadership.
- If the war drags on long enough, and
- there is a coup in Russia, and
- Russia divides into multiple states,
- Russia just might lose its seat on the Security Council.
However, if Russia does lose its seat, the permanent membership of the Security Council might not expand its membership from five to nine members.
Most of the members of the UN do not want to be dominated by more big, wealthy countries like Germany, Japan, India, and Brazil.
.
But here there might be a need and opportunity for moderate, pragmatic innovation.
Russia’s place on the UN Security Council would be taken up by the Eurasian Economic Union, which encompasses the countries of:
- Russia,
- Armenia,
- Belarus,
- Kazakhstan, and
- Kyrgyzstan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Economic_Union
On the one hand, there should be consequences for unethical behavior, or else that behavior will be repeated in the future (“moral hazard”).
Thus, the argument by the President of Ukraine that Russia must be stripped of its Security Council seat is compelling.
On the other hand, there is no need to impoverish and humiliate Russia any more than it has managed to impoverish and humiliate itself in its invasion of Ukraine.
As Winston Churchill wrote:
“In War: Resolution,
In Defeat: Defiance,
In Victory: Magnanimity
In Peace: Good Will.”
Again, the greater context is that in the future, Russia might cease to exist in its present form.
However, Russians would still be given a global voice via the UN — within the Eurasian Union.
.
Likewise, perhaps the number of non-permanent seats on the UN Security Council could be expanded to admit certain trade blocs.
In particular, two new seats would go to the trade blocs of the EU and ASEAN.
This would provide representation for Germany and Japan, yet dilute their power.
Basically, trade blocs would pay a huge premium to have a non-permanent seats on the Security Council.
The dues paid by a trade blocs to the UN for representation would be much more expensive than the annual contributions made by nation states that are on the Security Council.
They could remain in those non-permanent seats as long as they pay their big bills.
When they cease to pay, those non-permanent positions would revert to nations that were elected into the Security Council by the assembly as a whole.
The trade blocs could regain those non-permanent seats once they came up with the funds.
Among other things, this might solve some of the UN’s financial problems.
