22:15
@tony I would say, it's complicated. If the army is completely demoralised, then maybe lightly armed revolutionaries or insurrectionists can overrun it.
Otherwise, a revolution can take place if the government hardly wants to resist at all, as in 1989.
But, against an actually army that actually fights, you need at least large, trained, organised groups of people, with heavy weaponry such as tanks and artillery and anti-air guns, and a great supply chain.
Americans do not have such things outside the army. I would therefore think that a revolution could only take place there if either the army had no will to fight, or of substantial parts of the army defected to the revolutionary cause.
Maybe some of the most heavily armed elements of the police could put some resistance to the army, but I doubt it.
The underdog Vietnamese and the 18th-century Americans had large armies.
The army of Assad had no will to fight, everybody hated his régime.
Ukraine had a large army with abundant heavy weaponry before the grand invasion.
@tony Perhaps if he replaced a very large number of high officers. Indeed, we shall see.
@tony Right, Russia won't give up any land, I think.
I hope Europe will step up enough. Perhaps what Trump wants is for Europe to fund the weapons that America will then keep sending to Ukraine.
