This requires a long response. But I'll start with dropping few theses:
1. Revolutionary changes proceed iteration by iteration, agenda and goals mutating on each step
2. Many (most?) independent movements do not look like one on iteration 1. Think about the American revolution
1. Revolutionary changes proceed iteration by iteration, agenda and goals mutating on each step
2. Many (most?) independent movements do not look like one on iteration 1. Think about the American revolution
https://twitter.com/McFaul/status/1615839449845501953
3. Many independence movements (including your own), did not start as such. They aimed for very moderate goals. Or at least we nowadays retrospectively see them as moderate. Their agenda was pronouncedly loyalist. There was little open separatism except for a handful of radicals 
4. Many independence movements (including your own) were not led by some cartoonish "regime fighters". They were led by the moneyed, landed, influential individuals who had been *successfully integrated to the previous regime*. Think about Washington or Franklin
5. Counterintuitively, Soviet disintegration may serve as a bad model for understanding the potential Russian disintegration. Hommes de lettres, humanitarian intelligentsia played a huge role in the Soviet collapse (I strongly recommend this book). This won't be the case now
6. When you think about the potential disintegration of Russia, do not think about humanitarian intelligentsia led mass movements 1989-1991 style. Paradoxically, it may be very much closer to the original American scenario
7. A plausible scenario of Russian disintegration is not some "regime fighters" taking power. It is moneyed regional interest groups successfully integrated into the previous regime deciding that:
a) the center grew too weak
b) costs >>> benefits
Neither a) nor b) happened yet
a) the center grew too weak
b) costs >>> benefits
Neither a) nor b) happened yet
8. Therefore, the key predictors of potential disintegration would be:
a) growing weakness of the center
b) increasing costs to benefits ratio
a) growing weakness of the center
b) increasing costs to benefits ratio
9. The key predictor of *where* it could happen (or start) is the existence of highly influential moneyed interest group that had already resisted the will of the center in the recent past. Which is:
a) Far East
b) Urals
a) Far East
b) Urals
10. The key reason why interest groups tend to be very compliant is that Moscow will "send the doctors" in case of disobedience. A protracted war in Ukraine makes a scenario where no doctors will come more and more plausible. Which changes the costs to benefits ratio dramatically
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
