There is a chronic and yawning gap between our collective awareness of major social, environmental, political and economic problems, the capacious way in which we address those problems in policy discourse and the resources that are actually mobilized to meet the challenges we can clearly see ahead of us.
I'm not interested in the gap... I'm interested in my country ceasing to overthrow governments and caused civil wars that require their neighbors to react by installing governments that are openly hostile to them on their borders and that abuse, murder and discriminate against 50% of their own population. America is on the wrong side of the civil war in Ukraine. Point blank. Nothing else to be said.
And what's more tragic is America caused the escalation of these tensions to war by funding and arming the right wing extremist and Nazis within that country since World War II because they wanted to destroy the Soviet Union. Which, by the way, meant they were funding them INSIDE of the Soviet Union until 1991. Only the most disgusting human beings in the world would fund the war criminals who committed mass genocide against the Soviets because they think their ability to profit might be affected. Our CIA has a lot to answer for. They should be disbanded and tried in international courts for their crimes against humanity.
This is obviously an article written by an economist and Mr. Tooze suffers from one of the ills he himself mentions in this and the FT article.
The west has provided all the military aid available in Eastern Europe, the one that was meaningfully useful to Ukrainians. Western military aid was in short supply and now is in even shorter supply. Americans have admitted that they cannot provide long range missiles because they don't have enough for themselves.
Also studies have shown that military productive capacity in the west is inexistent, at least for what Ukraine would need. So, even if Ukraine were to receive all the money in the world, that cannot buy anything, no new tanks, no artillery, no shells, no precision shells, nothing. Similarly, no amount of money could buy all those destroyed transformers and other parts of the electrical grid.
The spending for other wars by the west and Americans being so much larger in the past is perfectly explained by the personnel costs that US/West put on the ground in those places. And the contractors that came with, as remoras follow sharks...
Then is the cost that Europe had to put up to pacify its population after cutting its nose to spite its face, sorry, I meant to say after cutting itself of Russian cheap energy and raw materials. That would need to be considered as well, no? The home front?
So the analyses presented here are all very flawed and useless. Why don't we go with all the tanks and other systems provided to Ukraine (include also what Ukraine had to start with as an army) and see how the tally (including personnel) compares with the tally in Iraq, Kuwaiti, Afghanistan. Adjust for salaries payed to soldiers and contractors as well as for supporting the respective governments (adjust for the differences in costs as well).
Thus the comparison has to include material things (tanks vs tanks, etc.) salaries vs salaries, refugees supported vs refugee supported (i.e. how much Turkey got for sheltering Syrian refugees compared to how much was spent for sheltering the Ukrainian refugees) per capita? So all that is actually material put as it is, and then talk about funds sent to Ukraine (Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwaiti, etc.) to prop up governments budgets.
Then we can talk. Until then this is not even toilet paper because it cuts the bum...
Fact: IF there is anyone who can see the shortfall between the cultured-pearl-idea of "massive support to Ukraine" (which we in the west rest our mind-space on ) and ground reality, it's Zelensky.
Fact: We are told the go no-go decision pursuing this war is under Zelensky's command. NATO only provides support, subject to his wish.
Given the above 2, why is Zelensky continuing war? Why is he not agreeing security guarantees to Russia and be done with it. Of course the goalposts may have shifted, but it doesn't appear to be so: I can only infer from Russia having not sent missile barrages on Kyiv, or the like (ostensibly to keep the population on board for a future peace). What about Zelensky's "agency problem" in this war?. How long does he stick to his principle of a holistic ideal Ukraine, versus reality? [Was Ukraine that united from the Azov view, going-in, even pre-maidan?] How much sacrifice will he choose for his country?
Instead, I only see the theater widening: China is circling the event horizon (once it's crossed, it's crossed, with weapons sales to Russia); Moldova is asking to have their resident businessmen ("oligarchs") arrested(!). There is talk of bombing Crimea to smithereens.
Clearly the facts are not what they've been presented, and also, Zelensky is not being rational?.
"The reality gap closing under the pressure of crisis, rather than as a result of strategic foresight and leadership." Do you really expect "foresight and leadership" from Jake Sullivan, Blinken, Nuland, Baerbock, Liz Trust, Boris Johnson et al?!
I would love to know what percentage of the supposed trillion dollar aid packages to Ukraine, is made up of outdated military equipment, which had, up to then, been languishing for years in warehouses, and accounted for in these packages at top dollar.
Like many people I know, I sent a (small) monetary contribution to Kiev, but stopped when I heard of those trillions being sent. I didn't realize that it was all on paper and far from reality.
American aid to Ukraine has in part been sold as a great "Bang for our Buck," a position I find morally offensive since the most important "cost" is death and suffering and grief.
As well, we have to take into account the bill to reconstruct and repair the devastation to Ukraine. In a fair world, Russia would pay, but I don't see that happening. No one can predict what that bill will be, but a trillion dollars is not a bad guess.
I wrote a short post about this, in case anyone is interested.
1) Is there any reason to think anyone knows how the war is progressing, really? Why are people here so certain of their estimates? This seems absurd though of course it is not absurd to say that Putin has the capacity to keep this going for quite some time. This doesn’t generally tell you much when it comes to invasions and the desire of people being invaded to resist that invasion. It can go on as long as people are willing to let it go on. How long they are willing to go on is not knowable. 2) What we can know are the things AT has mentioned---what is being supplied and whether it is adequate to prevent greater territorial gains by Russia. The statistics are incredibly eye-opening, and this should make us circumspect about believing what we hear about the war. I wish more people would run the numbers, as they say. It tells us something, maybe the only thing that we can be told. 3) Some of the comments here are ridiculous. I suppose this is a feature of comments generally.
The news is never reliably accurate. Due to conflicts of interest,reports of such war's are always exaggerated and distorted. The End product is barely a semblance of the truth.
The wars are not comparable. You’re comparing wars where Americans fought directly with Ukraine. But the correct compactors are other proxy wars -- eg, the Mujahideen war. If you compare with that effort, the support for Ukraine emerges very favorably.
Moreover, there are limits to how many weapons, ammo and dollars we can send over that have nothing to do with our constraints. Rather they have to do with the absorption capacity at the receiving end.
Finally, we’ve sent so much that we’re running dangerously low on munitions stocks. That’s a direct constraint on how much help can be furnished. What if China assaults Taiwan? The longer this goes on the more tempting this gets for the Chinese.
Once you understand that the principal beneficiaries are western contractors, everything makes sense.
I'm not interested in the gap... I'm interested in my country ceasing to overthrow governments and caused civil wars that require their neighbors to react by installing governments that are openly hostile to them on their borders and that abuse, murder and discriminate against 50% of their own population. America is on the wrong side of the civil war in Ukraine. Point blank. Nothing else to be said.
And what's more tragic is America caused the escalation of these tensions to war by funding and arming the right wing extremist and Nazis within that country since World War II because they wanted to destroy the Soviet Union. Which, by the way, meant they were funding them INSIDE of the Soviet Union until 1991. Only the most disgusting human beings in the world would fund the war criminals who committed mass genocide against the Soviets because they think their ability to profit might be affected. Our CIA has a lot to answer for. They should be disbanded and tried in international courts for their crimes against humanity.
This is obviously an article written by an economist and Mr. Tooze suffers from one of the ills he himself mentions in this and the FT article.
The west has provided all the military aid available in Eastern Europe, the one that was meaningfully useful to Ukrainians. Western military aid was in short supply and now is in even shorter supply. Americans have admitted that they cannot provide long range missiles because they don't have enough for themselves.
Also studies have shown that military productive capacity in the west is inexistent, at least for what Ukraine would need. So, even if Ukraine were to receive all the money in the world, that cannot buy anything, no new tanks, no artillery, no shells, no precision shells, nothing. Similarly, no amount of money could buy all those destroyed transformers and other parts of the electrical grid.
The spending for other wars by the west and Americans being so much larger in the past is perfectly explained by the personnel costs that US/West put on the ground in those places. And the contractors that came with, as remoras follow sharks...
Then is the cost that Europe had to put up to pacify its population after cutting its nose to spite its face, sorry, I meant to say after cutting itself of Russian cheap energy and raw materials. That would need to be considered as well, no? The home front?
So the analyses presented here are all very flawed and useless. Why don't we go with all the tanks and other systems provided to Ukraine (include also what Ukraine had to start with as an army) and see how the tally (including personnel) compares with the tally in Iraq, Kuwaiti, Afghanistan. Adjust for salaries payed to soldiers and contractors as well as for supporting the respective governments (adjust for the differences in costs as well).
Thus the comparison has to include material things (tanks vs tanks, etc.) salaries vs salaries, refugees supported vs refugee supported (i.e. how much Turkey got for sheltering Syrian refugees compared to how much was spent for sheltering the Ukrainian refugees) per capita? So all that is actually material put as it is, and then talk about funds sent to Ukraine (Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwaiti, etc.) to prop up governments budgets.
Then we can talk. Until then this is not even toilet paper because it cuts the bum...
Excellent once again!
Fact: IF there is anyone who can see the shortfall between the cultured-pearl-idea of "massive support to Ukraine" (which we in the west rest our mind-space on ) and ground reality, it's Zelensky.
Fact: We are told the go no-go decision pursuing this war is under Zelensky's command. NATO only provides support, subject to his wish.
Given the above 2, why is Zelensky continuing war? Why is he not agreeing security guarantees to Russia and be done with it. Of course the goalposts may have shifted, but it doesn't appear to be so: I can only infer from Russia having not sent missile barrages on Kyiv, or the like (ostensibly to keep the population on board for a future peace). What about Zelensky's "agency problem" in this war?. How long does he stick to his principle of a holistic ideal Ukraine, versus reality? [Was Ukraine that united from the Azov view, going-in, even pre-maidan?] How much sacrifice will he choose for his country?
Instead, I only see the theater widening: China is circling the event horizon (once it's crossed, it's crossed, with weapons sales to Russia); Moldova is asking to have their resident businessmen ("oligarchs") arrested(!). There is talk of bombing Crimea to smithereens.
Clearly the facts are not what they've been presented, and also, Zelensky is not being rational?.
"The reality gap closing under the pressure of crisis, rather than as a result of strategic foresight and leadership." Do you really expect "foresight and leadership" from Jake Sullivan, Blinken, Nuland, Baerbock, Liz Trust, Boris Johnson et al?!
I would love to know what percentage of the supposed trillion dollar aid packages to Ukraine, is made up of outdated military equipment, which had, up to then, been languishing for years in warehouses, and accounted for in these packages at top dollar.
Like many people I know, I sent a (small) monetary contribution to Kiev, but stopped when I heard of those trillions being sent. I didn't realize that it was all on paper and far from reality.
I wish the media would be more honest.
We can only hope this war is ended soon - and the quickest way is that Russia should prevail.
Or maybe the declared intentions are not the real intentions
And I hope they put Victoria Nuland in there right alongside them.
American aid to Ukraine has in part been sold as a great "Bang for our Buck," a position I find morally offensive since the most important "cost" is death and suffering and grief.
As well, we have to take into account the bill to reconstruct and repair the devastation to Ukraine. In a fair world, Russia would pay, but I don't see that happening. No one can predict what that bill will be, but a trillion dollars is not a bad guess.
I wrote a short post about this, in case anyone is interested.
https://robertsdavidn.substack.com/p/the-pottery-barn-rule
Would have loved to see more about the political economy of these. The relative spending decision reflects voters preferences.
1) Is there any reason to think anyone knows how the war is progressing, really? Why are people here so certain of their estimates? This seems absurd though of course it is not absurd to say that Putin has the capacity to keep this going for quite some time. This doesn’t generally tell you much when it comes to invasions and the desire of people being invaded to resist that invasion. It can go on as long as people are willing to let it go on. How long they are willing to go on is not knowable. 2) What we can know are the things AT has mentioned---what is being supplied and whether it is adequate to prevent greater territorial gains by Russia. The statistics are incredibly eye-opening, and this should make us circumspect about believing what we hear about the war. I wish more people would run the numbers, as they say. It tells us something, maybe the only thing that we can be told. 3) Some of the comments here are ridiculous. I suppose this is a feature of comments generally.
The news is never reliably accurate. Due to conflicts of interest,reports of such war's are always exaggerated and distorted. The End product is barely a semblance of the truth.
The wars are not comparable. You’re comparing wars where Americans fought directly with Ukraine. But the correct compactors are other proxy wars -- eg, the Mujahideen war. If you compare with that effort, the support for Ukraine emerges very favorably.
Moreover, there are limits to how many weapons, ammo and dollars we can send over that have nothing to do with our constraints. Rather they have to do with the absorption capacity at the receiving end.
Finally, we’ve sent so much that we’re running dangerously low on munitions stocks. That’s a direct constraint on how much help can be furnished. What if China assaults Taiwan? The longer this goes on the more tempting this gets for the Chinese.
Excellent commentary . I might add that much of this analysis fits project management in general .