Comments by "Ash Roskell" (@ashroskell) on "Kyiv Post"
channel.
-
3
-
I think people should recall the case of Nikita Khrushchev, when they’re thinking about this question. Khrushchev presided over Russia’s biggest, most undeniable, most abject and total defeat of the entire Cold War: The Cuban Missile crisis. It was so politically damaging at home, let alone such a massive victory for the west, that it crushed Khrushchev’s career on the spot.
But what interests me about that was the way it just, “happened,” over night, with barely a rumble among the people at large. The government could not white wash the fact that they had backed down in a game of nuclear chicken and the west had retained supremacy over the western hemisphere by getting Russian nukes out of Cuba.
So, Khrushchev was simply replaced and went into, “early retirement,” or whatever, but it was, “business as usual,” thereafter so far as the Russian population was concerned. Brezhnev took charge in 1964 after Khrushchev was formally, “dismissed,” for, “reasons,” but it was all pretty smooth.
I raise this point because it seems to me that Russia has the political infrastructure and experience, as well as the inbuilt demographic habitat, to accept a sudden change of leadership as the cultural norm, don’t you think?
I would have like to see how your guest would have answered that question, or reflected on that (and other) historical experiences in Russia?
3
-
3
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Word spreads, slowly at first, but increasingly, exponentially, until all of Russia will know that they were never fighting the, “monsters,” their leaders lied to them about. And, as the cost of the war grows in Russia, as more and more POW’s get home and spread that word, the people will grow increasingly restive, wanting answers. Some moral victories are worth as much as military ones.
Wars are not just fought on the battlefield but in the hearts and minds of the soldiers who fight them and the populations who support them.
Slava Ukraine!
1
-
1