Keith Kellogg’s stupid statement that Russia’s war in Ukraine would end very quickly if Beijing withdrew its support for Moscow. He made the comments at a security conference in Kiev. He called Russia the “junior partner” to China and said it is losing the war in Ukraine. Such a statement is just insane. Like Iraq, nobody ever asked, if Ukraine defeats Russia, what would happen in Russia? This would be like saying What if Mexico invaded the USA and won?
After Germany lost World War I, there was a revolution that overthrew the monarchy, and the Weimar Republic was born, which then ended in hyperinflation. Even the Russian Revolution of 1917 was enabled by Russia’s disastrous performance in WWI, including massive casualties and economic collapse, which sparked widespread strikes and mutinies. The Tsar abdicated in March 1917, ending 300 years of Romanov rule; the Bolsheviks then seized power in November, leading to civil war and the Soviet Union.
Austria collapsed in 1918 after losing World War I. The empire’s multi-ethnic collapse after defeat led to ethnic revolts and declarations of independence in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and elsewhere. The monarchy ended in November 1918, fragmenting into nation-states amid famine and military desertions.
The collapse of the Ottoman Empire also took place after World War I. The Turkish War of Independence and the abolition of the sultanate (1919–1923) unfolded. Allied occupation post-armistice fueled nationalist resistance led by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. The sultanate was abolished in 1922, and the caliphate in 1924, birthing the Republic of Turkey after revolutionary reforms.
Xinhai Revolution (1911) followed the defeat in the First Sino-Japanese War of 1895. Humiliating territorial losses to Japan exposed the dynasty’s weakness, sparking anti-Manchu sentiment and Sun Yat-sen’s republican movement. The last emperor abdicated in 1912, ending over 2,000 years of imperial rule and ushering in the Republic of China.
Franco-Prussian War of 1870 saw the Paris Commune and fall of the empire (1870–1871). Napoleon III’s defeat led to the Third Republic’s proclamation. Radical workers then revolted in the Paris Commune, which was brutally suppressed, but the monarchy was permanently ousted.
These modern historical events illustrate a pattern without having to catalogue all the countless such events throughout human history. Wars drain resources, erode legitimacy, and amplify grievances (e.g., food shortages, casualties), creating fertile ground for revolutionaries. Not all post-war unrest leads to full regime change—e.g., Bulgaria’s monarchy survived WWI initially, only falling later in 1944. Nonetheless, these are clear instances of direct causation between revolution and the loss of a previous war.
In a post on his Telegram channel, Medvedev made the realistic statement that granting NATO members permission to down Russian drones operating in Ukrainian airspace would mean “war between the Alliance and Russia.” His comments followed growing calls in Europe and NATO to intervene in the war, demanding stronger Western action against Russia for its drone incursions while supporting Ukraine to use Western long-range missiles to attack even Moscow. On Sept. 12, Bundestag Defense Committee Chair Thomas Röwekamp urged NATO to begin intercepting Russian drones over Ukraine.
I have repeatedly stated that the psychological war tactic is that you MUST claim that an adversary has attacked you to get people to sign up. The support hasn’t been this low since 2022. This is why false flags are so important. They are used to claim you have been attacked, and then the common people will sign up to die on the battlefield for a noble cause.
That works on all sides. A new poll made by the independent Russian institute Levada shows that the Russians are growing tired of the war in Ukraine. The poll showed that 66%, or roughly two out of three, of the participants want the Kremlin to engage in peace negotiations with Ukraine. That is the highest number since 2022, when the war began. If NATO attacks Russia using a false flag, this will support the Rally Around the Flag for Russia. Let’s face it. Russians are treated with disdain as were the Jews before World War II. That is not a scenario that implies world peace lies ahead.
Senior military leaders from NATO member states have publicly assessed that the alliance would prevail in a conventional war against Russia relatively quickly due to overwhelming advantages in personnel (over 3.4 million active troops vs. Russia’s 1.3 million), aircraft (22,000+ vs. 4,000), ships (1,100+ vs. 400), defense spending (3.5 times Russia’s), and GDP (20 times larger).
In a February 2024 speech, UK Chief of the Defence Staff Admiral Sir Tony Radakin stated that “NATO would defeat Russia quickly,” citing Russia’s struggles in Ukraine as evidence of its military weaknesses and NATO’s growing strength with the addition of Finland and Sweden. Similarly, analyses from outlets like Al Jazeera and The Week conclude that NATO’s integrated command, superior training, and equipment would lead to a “quick” conventional victory. However, they warn that this could escalate to nuclear risks if Russia faces total defeat. As I have said, if I have a gun and you break into my house and threaten to kill me, I think I may shoot back.
Sensational claims, such as NATO submarines “destroying Russia in 30 seconds,” appear in YouTube videos and informal discussions but stem from hyperbolic speculation about nuclear scenarios, not official statements. Recent X posts echo debates on NATO’s superiority but often tie it to broader geopolitical tensions without referencing its past defeats. Overall, while NATO officials project confidence in deterrence, they prioritize avoiding direct war over public victory projections.
This push for war with Russia leaves out TWO critical factors
(1) China will support Russia because it knows it will be next, as they plainly told Kallas.
(2) This will turn nuclear, and Europe, with all its conventional power, can be turned to dust in minutes, not days.
“Europe is ready to take a step forward. We are ready to take control of the changes that are inevitable. Because we can’t let history push us around. This means that it is necessary to act now. Acting on a large scale is an indispensable condition for speed, scale and strength by 2030 … By 2030 Europe should have a strong European defense structure,” Ursula said.
This drone shot down in Poland from EVERY source I have states that this is a FALSE FLAG and there is no evidence that this every invaded Polish airspace. They desperately need to create a False Flag, get gullible people to sign their own death wish, so these failed EU leaders can keep their pensions. Ursula told the EU Parliament with great theatrics:
“Battle lines for a new world order based on power are being drawn right now,” von der Leyen told the European Parliament in her annual State of the EU address.
“So, yes, Europe must fight. For its place in a world in which many major powers are either ambivalent or openly hostile to Europe,” she said.
Putin is the smartest and responsible world leader at the table today. Remove him, and we will get an emotional leader like Medvedev. Speculating on a post-Putin Russia is inherently uncertain, as the regime’s opacity and Putin’s tight control over security services make a smooth transition debatable. An overthrow—whether via coup, elite infighting, or sudden death—would likely trigger a power struggle among siloviki (security elites), oligarchs, and technocrats, potentially leading to instability or even fragmentation. I would emphasize that no apparent clear heir exists, and the outcome depends on the circumstances: a managed handover (unlikely in an overthrow) versus chaotic removal.
I would list the potential replacements, prioritize loyalty to the current system, hawkish stances on Ukraine/NATO, and control over key institutions like the FSB, military, or economy, which will all come into play. Dmitry Medvedev is indeed a contender due to his proximity to Putin, but he’s not the top pick—his role is often seen as that of a “bad cop” provocateur rather than a unifying leader. Perhaps, but we are looking at an outright statement from the EU that Russia must be defeated and obliterated. We are not talking about just pushing Russia out of Ukraine.
Kaja Kallas, a ruthless Neocon, openly calls for the total destruction and breakup of Russia. This is the total destruction of the country. That is not something that should be taken lightly. That is the justification for nuclear war. Kallas is a greater threat to the EU than Putin.
MY LIST OF CONTENDERS:
Mikhail Mishustin, Prime Minister
Nikolai Patrushev, Deputy Chair, Security Council (former FSB head)
Sergei Sobyanin, Moscow Mayor
Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chair, Security Council
Andrei Belousov, Defense Minister
Alexei Dyumin, Tula Governor (ex-bodyguard)
Sergei Kiriyenko, First Deputy Chief of Staff
Medvedev’s name surfaces due to his history (tandem with Putin in 2008-2012) and recent high-profile positioning him as a “nuclear-ready” hardliner who could rally nationalists. X discussions often call him the “natural successor” for stability. However, he’s rarely ranked #1 in expert assessments—his provocative style (e.g., 2025 threats sparking U.S. sub deployments) makes him a Kremlin mouthpiece, not a consolidator. Others see him as a fallback, not a frontrunner, due to reputational damage from past “liberal” image and scandals. In an overthrow, elites might prefer Mishustin or Patrushev for their institutional grip.
Keep in mind that Khruschev was overthrown in a coup, and he was usurped by Bresnev because of his reckless handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Post-Stalin USSR saw infighting; a similar “vicious struggle” would be likely if Russia were defeated in Ukraine, with FSB vs. military clashes. No democratic shift should be expected. Any successor would most likely double down on authoritarianism and anti-West policies, and any hope of world peace will be completely obliterated.
Then, for a coup, any replacement inherits a quagmire; hardliners like Patrushev or Medvedev might escalate, while technocrats like Mishustin seek de-escalation for economic relief.
In summary, Mishustin or Patrushev edge out as most probable for their balance of competence and control, but Medvedev remains a wildcard—loyal enough for continuity, radical enough for drama. Russia after Putin looks more like Putinism 2.0 than reform. This is all upset if NATO pushes its agenda to destroy Russia and break it up, strip mining its assets. This goal, as articulated in part by Kallas, warrants a fight to the death with nukes, and in this case, I would put my money on Medvedev, who has the high-profile that would become more valuable when confronted with the destruction of Russia, not with just pushing it out of Ukraine.
