[kergonath]

> That's misunderstanding the model of actors. "Russia" isn't "Putin". "Countries" act in the best interests of their power structure, not their leaders.

No, I am not misunderstanding. For all intents and purposes, at the moment Putin’s will is Russia’s will. And it looks like he knows his weaknesses within the country and is willing to let marginal populations bear the weight of his ambitions while keeping his power base comfortable enough. Of course he might end up like Stalin, at which point who knows? But it might not be much better for Ukraine, and in the meantime Putin keeps giving the orders.

> Basically: the way this ends is when the collective will of the power centers (generally the armed forces, though not always) decide that they'll be wealthier and happier with Putin gone than by following more orders.

He can get most soldiers rich enough for this to drag on for quite a long time. They probably would be happier elsewhere, but they don’t have a say. The generals is another problem, but so far Putin is quite effective at finding loyal ones.

[ajross]

"There will not be a coup" is on the tombstone of like every failed leader ever. Economics doesn't change. Countries aren't people, even if the people running them try desperately to make you think so.

I'm not saying that Putin is going to be deposed next week, or year, or even ever. I'm saying that the Russian government is no less susceptible to the circumstances that produce coups than any other failed state, and failed states are the circumstances that produce coups.

At the end of the day, all government is ultimately by the consent of the governed. But predicting how and when that consent will be withdrawn that's is hard part.

[ivan_gammel]

Except that Russia isn’t failed state. It’s politically stable (even more than before war), can mostly serve its population. The fact that it’s currently engaged in an expensive war, changes nothing.