As NATO meets to discuss the tension on the Russian border to Ukraine, and the papers fill with denunciations of Putin’s aggression, I still find it useful to return to the framework I developed in Crashed for analyzing the intersection of geopolitics and economics and the rise of Russia as a challenger.
In other words,. the West doesn't have any really good options here. Sanctions are likely to be ineffective, and there is no military option that ends well. At the same time, take away constant infusions of IMF cash and pipeline revenues, and Ukraine would be in even worse shape than it already is.
At the same time, Biden cannot be seen to back down. In part, this is because the United States is an empire in decline, and any overt weakness might cause vassals to start getting ideas.
But the real reason Biden is out of options here is because of the fundamentally third world nature of contemporary USA politics. Without unduly belaboring the point, if you have ever spent more than a few hours living in a Third World country and you were sort of paying attention during this time, you will note that politics in such a country is a zero-sum game. Anything that helps your opponents hurts you, and anything that helps you hurts your opponents. So even a policy that benefits the country as a whole must be bitterly opposed, if your opponents are for it or it also benefits them. (War and the military seem to be the exception in the United States. Wars that in no way benefit the country enjoy unswerving bipartisan support, rising even to the status of sacred cows that can never be questioned. This is also not an uncommon feature in the third world.)
This means that if Biden calls for anything less than Total Victory, his opponents on Team R will pounce, calling for the fainting couch and rending their garments most piteously while wailing something about "appeasement" and insisting that Trump (or whatever other "leader" Team R tries to foist on us) is the reincarnation of Winston Churchill who would have pushed The Button sooner and better. It doesn't help that Team D was doing the same thing to Trump a year or so ago, pushing wackadoodle conspiracy theories that were contradicted by all available facts and by just about everything that the Trump maladministration did, to boot.
So for Team R, the opportunity to call the other guy an appeaser and weakling acting on behalf of foreign powers is especially sweet.
"if you have ever spent more than a few hours living in a Third World country and you were sort of paying attention during this time, you will note that politics in such a country is a zero-sum game." What you describe sounds more like North American politics, with 2 main parties disagreeing on everything to the detriment of the country. I wonder what third world countries you're referring to? I spent many years in Indonesia, both before and after the downfall of Soeharto. The unfortunate truth is that democracy tends to create this constant 'combative' atmosphere between parties. 'Benevolent dictators', like Soeharto, can do wonders for a country if they genuinely care about the people. Putin similarly turned things around in Russia. Lee Kuan Yew is widely recognized for the successes of Singapore and it certainly wasn't democratic. The switch to democracy in Indonesia was remarkable but the lack of clear leadership and policy since then shows the inherent weakness of democracy.
I also spent a lot of time in Ukraine and was there during the Maidan Revolution in 2014. Democracy was doing well till then and they could have voted out the elected leader a year from them, but they chose violence instead. The country is still paying the consequences of that decision, which was made by a small, nationalist minority with Western support. The best solution now is pretty much the same as it was then: fix your internal problems and quit looking to the West or Russia for help, and don't allow yourself to be a pawn in their chess match. Unfortunately, it's difficult to fix the problems without a strong leader that can make hard decisions and take decisive action. Pre-Maidan, it was often suggested that a Swiss style of government would have been effective in Ukraine. I suspect that is still true but with nationalists in control, that isn't likely to happen.
NATO membership is the key issue and the west (and Ukraine) should not be insistent on this. After the breakup of the USSR, the West promised not to move an inch closer with NATO. It's time the West quit provoking the Russian bear and gave them a measure of respect.
This is old, and a lot has changed, but I couldn't help but respond to this disingenuous post.
" 'Benevolent dictators', like Soeharto," ... "Putin similarly turned things around in Russia" .... In 2020 GDP per capita in Russia was level with 2007 - 13 years later, no lasting growth. Between 2010 and 2020 median income fell 35%. He's alienated most of the developed world. You're right - he's been great.
As for Ukraine's thriving democracy before 2014. What a funny point you chose to pick. The Maidan was the SECOND time the people of Ukraine had to rise up to overthrow the SAME Kremlin backed president. Literally, this guy had already been tossed in a revolution once before. And got back in power. So yeah, all was roses before Maidan you're right. What exactly was wrong with Zelenskyys election? Please, elaborate on how much worse it was than when they elected a guy they had to revolt to throw off a few years before.
Any conversation of democracy in Ukraine or anywhere in the ex-Soviet republics is scarred by the manner in which Russia continues to treat them as satellite states. As long as Russia feels it is their right to determine who is president of other sovereign nations, and uses their military to do so, you will not have true democracy.
The roots of Ukraine's political crises are not domestic. Never have been. The Russian language stuff is nonsense - they LITERALLY HAVE A RUSSIAN SPEAKING PRESIDENT (Zelensky). The genocide claims have never once been backed with any public presentation of evidence - just "Trust me bro" from people who break their word constantly.
When were you in Ukraine? I first went in 2003, then spent a lot of time there from 2009-14. What was most surprising to me was that they didn't 'feel' like a country with a clear border and identity, yet they all got along with each other extremely well (ethnic Russians and Ukrainians). In Canada, we had a clear identity of Ukraine and its borders, which perhaps didn't encompass the large 'Russian' population. After 2014, it was tragic seeing families break apart as everybody had to 'chose a side'.
As for 'empires', the UK has largely put that ambition and heritage to rest and it's time the US did the same.
Hmm, I think for the West (read USA), it is necessary to accept the current situation and who has the most influence. The end of the Cold War was squandered with Russia feeling humiliated (deja vu Versailles ?). I think, reading all the blogs on this subject, Putin (and Russian people) wish to be respected and taken seriously. Empathy is to put yourself in someone else's shoes. Let us remember how the US viewed Cuban military expansion in the 1960s. Some degree of brinkmanship is required in these negotiations, both parties, US and Russia will put in high early bids that they know are unrealistic but a settlement is possible, though unlikely to be popular with Ukraine.
No. As Central European, strongly supporting Ukraine since February, West needs to wake up. We don't care about feeling of Putin or any other russian. We don't want Russia to be appeased, we want it to be defeated, destroyed economically and politically, Putin in Hague, and Russian federation dismantled to pieces, so no other oligarch can try to commit genocide on its neighbors.
, American corporations, with the support of the US government, invested heavily in Russia after the cold war, in hopes of improving life among Russians and developing a better relationship. THAT IS A FACT. And with the hopes that Russia could become more democratic and trustworthy. Instead, the thieving Russian mobster Putin stole as much as he could and rewarded only his cronies in crime against the Russian people. Now this monster has betrayed everyone, the West and all the young people of Russia , who he sends to die, with a vicious war no one else wanted. Don't lecture to us in America about things gone badly, it is totally the work of your dictator.
The military gets 15% of the US budget every penny discretionary (fought over).
Social security and medicare are automatic and non discretionary.
So the so called MIC is very weak and Ike’s speech was actually obsolete by mid 1960s.
Butter is and Debt service 2/3 of the budget.
But the real truth that most don’t realize is the military is NOT the Empire, that is the State Department. Its not the budget its THE POWER. The War Mongers are at Foggy Bottom, not the hapless Pentagon. The Pentagon is really and truly just the worlds largest parts store, it exists to have presence in DC that is seemingly imposing and may impress new Congress creatures. The Pentagon is like Amazon’s largest warehouse and service center- but not Amazon HQ never mind Bezos palace or yacht. The Pentagon exists so we hopefully never run out of everything like we did in WW2 at start , or Korea. The Pentagon fails at this task frequently of course (soldiers are servants with guns in the American pecking order) as it has now.
This is from West Point, Dr.Anthony Kharber is telling the Cadets of 2018 how F they are against Russia.
Wow! For the first time, I feel as though I have a reasonable understanding of what led to this point. Thanks for a thorough - and understandable by ordinary readers! - explanation of the history leading up to this current crisis.
All this talk about "the Ukraine get to decide for themselves." Since when? Ukraine's choice was between integration with Russia or the West. The US's hand in in which direction they would go was quite open and overt. We quite openly and publicly made the choice for them in 2014. The news was so anodyne even the networks played the leaked phone call which plainly stated our intentions there, which all came to pass. US Senator John McCain himself traveled to Kiev and showed up at Maidan Square to hand out cookies, of all things. This is all quite public, US involvement was so open and above board it is thoroughly tiresome to even bring it up. All of this is our doing, all of it. And yet we all must act like we don't know what happened, that the Ukraine made their own minds up, and us "goodhearted Americans" must save them.
Zelensky was elected to make peace by the majority, but he wasn't allowed to do that. The Ukraine nationalists, backed by the US, will not permit peace with Russia. If US citizens really do not want the Russians to invade the Ukraine, they should stop their government from fomenting war.
The Lieven's article in the Nation (i.e. Austria-1955 neutrality of Ukraine via Minsk-III) is preposterous , it simply gives Russia the mandate to keep swallowing Ukraine piecemeal. USSR respected Austrian neutrality because Austria was out of reach anyway, Russia will never honor any deal with respect to Ukraine.
The fact that AT endorses this approach shows that his Russian bias is even stronger than the one shown in the Chartbook (and even that is evident enough). All the talk about Ukrainian attack in Donbass in particular is ridiculous - stop parroting Moscow propaganda!
In the period of 1945-1990 Austria was definitely not "out of reach" - Soviet troops were both in Hungary and Czechoslovakia at the time. As a land power not protected by two vast oceans, it is paramount for security of Russia to have some buffer or perimeter around its core towards the usual direction of invasions - which is from the west, or south-west. This geostrategic need is the same regardless of who is in charge in Russia, a Czar, a Dictator, or a President. To achieve this goal, it is sufficient that the countries bordering Russia are just not overtly hostile and not hosting foreign troops or bases. Neutrality is respected, and gives benefits, such as Soviet troops leaving Austria, or leaving bases in the Baltic and giving them back to Finland.
OK, but why can't Russia just leave Ukraine alone?
I've lived the last 3 years in Ukraine and here is what I see:
* Ukrainians are very, *very* staunch on their independence. The fate of Ukraine can't be decided outside of Ukraine. The events of 2013-2014 have shown that clearly. Even if the West gives in to Russian bullying (and it looks like the author wouldn't mind it), Ukrainians won't accept any outcome that goes against the will of Ukrainians.
* Ukraine is much less divided than the article shows. Yes, there is a small pro-Russian minority, but the degree of polarization is much smaller than the divide between the left and the right in the USA. The two most popular political parties in Ukraine are pro-democracy and pro-West (despite being at odds with each other) and comprise about 70% of the electorate. Ukrainians are more concerned about inflation than language or cultural issues. The Ukrainian/Russian language issue is so minor that even Russia stopped peddling it.
* The average wage in Ukraine is $550/mo (all-time high) and is quickly growing. The average wage in Russia (with all its oil & gas) is $750/mo and has been stagnating the last 4-5 years.
* After the Maidan revolution of 2014, there are many more small businesses around. Corruption is still a big issue, but much less so on the smaller scale and this made private entrepreneurship flourish.
* Ukraine is quickly integrating in the world society from a cultural and business standpoint. Cancelling visas for short trips to Europe and many other countries was a big boon. Russia slipped from being the #1 trade partner of Ukraine to #3. Ukraine has more business with Europe and China than with Russia. Flying for a weekend to Rome or Berlin has become a casual thing among the Ukrainian middle class. News from Russia has all but disappeared from the news - most people don't care about it.
* Lots of immigrants from Middle East and South Asia in Kyiv working as Uber drivers and in food delivery. That's a new thing for Ukraine. It didn't exist 2-3 years ago.
I believe Ukraine is much better off without the Russian crooked influence. Russia behaves towards Ukraine like an abusive ex that was broken up with but still trying to bully.
Don't be fooled, Russia's stability is no better than the stability of Kazakhstan or Belarus. Putin will die eventually, and nobody knows what happens with Russia next.
The Ukrainian currency has collapsed against the US$, while the Ruble has rallied strongly. Rising nominal wages during high inflation can mean falling real wages. If its so "easily verifiable" where are your sources? I have had this gambit tried on me before and when I push for sources I get crickets. Ukraine's GDP per capita PPP is half that of Russia (World Bank Data), and Ukraine has an even worse income inequality issue than Russia!
I don't think there's a sensible reading of the excellent article above from which one can conclude that Russia will, or can, "just leave Ukraine alone".
Russia perceives its security and/or freedom of action to be threatened by things that either Ukrainians want for themselves, or that 'the West' wants for Ukraine (or both), and so finds it impossible to resist interfering. No doubt the Russians would argue that they're only reacting to the provocations of the USA and NATO, and that if they were to keep their hands off then, unless they had a cast-iron assurance to do the same from their rivals, they'd be giving away something for nothing. (Even then, a genuinely independent drift by the Ukrainians towards the West might be unacceptable to Moscow and encourage intervention in some manner in Ukrainian politics.)
I don't think we should pretend that powerful states haven't been doing this since time immemorial. Putin's Russia is not unique in its behaviour - its Tsarist predecessor, the Austro-Hungarians, the French, the British - all have used a mixture of persuasion and coercion in Eastern Europe and elsewhere at various points in the past.
I lived in Ukraine for eight years. The country has done nothing but deteriorate since 2014. Take away foreign largesse and gas transit revenues and it would be far worse.
That said, I am sure that if you polled Germans in 1937 vs. 1927, you would find a touching outburst of sincere nationalistic sentiment. If you prefer a different case, the same could be said about Soviet citizens in 1981, who suddenly got a lot less patriotic in 1991.
You lived in a different country as progress in Ukraine is visible although slow. There is still a lot of work to be done to free the society from corruption, but with help of IMF and EU pressure this will succeed. The only one delaying this process is the pro-Russian part of society which cannot live without corruption and grafting.
Because "pro-Russian" inevitably means you have to be pro-corruption.
Yet this "different country", darling of the west, had some seven years, give or take, but is not able to achieve concrete results, not with respect to corruption or anything else. Just slogans.
Also, explain to me how this "fight against corruption " works, by electing a flagrantly corrupt oligarch, who proves wildly unpopular and who is replaced (over vociferous American objections) by the cutout of an even more wildly corrupt oligarch and is since shutting opposition websites, arresting political rivals, and plumbing similar depths of unpopularity.
These are very unique methods for "fighting corruption " and I wish to study them further.
False statements. Back to the original discussion, ever heard of the Budapest memorandum? The Russian representative at that time signed this guaranteeing the borders of Ukraine. Today's Russia, called Putinstan by some, is the party that actually retreated from its guarantee. Who is the unreliable party ?
Sweet gentleman, i'll let you in on a huge secret here! You see, without the ratification of any document, signed by the president, prime-minister, supreme leader or the master of the universe, by the parliament of the signatory state, said document isn't worth the paper it was written on. And now the funniest part: the only country's parliament that did ratify this pretty controversial and non-binding agreement, was that of the Russian Federation! Although, seeing that no one gives a damn about it, even ukrainians, they've rescinded on this rash deed some time later.
Moreover, i should remind you, that there is another, absolutely same agreement, signed in the same day and in the same place by the already involved "big" countries with.. Belarus! And the agreement, just like the one with the Ukraine, proclaims that unilateral sanctions are.. Well.. Kinda bad. As you well remember, the Us has imposed them in mid 00's, saying in its excuse that the agreement is non-binding and, in any case whatsoever, they're imposing restrictions on the people of Belarus specifically for the good of the people of Belarus and blahblah. Question: do you remember any ukrainian official say anything in protest or even to just appeal to the signatories, to anyone, really, to revise or the unratified non-binding agreement? Well i sure don't!
So what do you want now, after all of this and much more, like Kosovo, has been done?
US and all the other UN SC members also signed UNSC resolution 1244 which guarantees territorial integrity of Serbia, yet that has prevented them to carve out by force an "independent" statelet of Kosovo. Observers back then realized that this was a watershed moment of 21st century because big multiethnic countries (such as Russia and China, but also others) are clearly going to be targeted by US slicing tactic. We also see this in Syria when US is occupying almost a third and eventually wants to create a Kurdish "Kosovo".
Would that be the "Budapest memorandum" that the US declared to be "not legally binding" when they sanctioned Belarus in contravention of that memorandum?
There is no foreign largesse in Ukraine (unfortunately). So nothing to take away.
Gas transit revenue was $2B in 2020 and was projected to be $1.2B in 2021. Compare it to IT export revenue of ($6.8B, 2021), money transfers from emigrants (est.$13B, 2021), base metals export ($16B, 2021), agricultural export ($16B, 2021) and it becomes obvious that losing the gas transit revenue would be an annoyance from an economical standpoint but hardly a disaster. It would have much bigger national security implications, but that's another story.
PS. Your comments don't seem to be well grounded, so I will no longer reply.
Seems to disagree. Then there is the military assistance.
Then there is the IMF, which faced a staff revolt in providing aid to Ukraine in the first place, since the IMF's internal rules forbid it to lend to a country which is unlikely to be able to repay.
Soviet citizens? There were no Soviet citizens, dear. Countries were occupied by Russia but the true citizenship of the people living in those countries was never legally taken away. (E.g. Estonians were always Estonians, never Soviets). Additionally, seems that you lack knowledge of what happened between 1981-1991.
We'll argue semantics later, although it is sort of amusing that you apparently claim that there was no Soviet Union as a matter of law. So where did Ukraine get its borders, then?
And I am abundantly aware of what happened between 1981 and 1991, and in particular, the late 1980s through 1991.
Because Ukraine decided to try NATO, because Zelensky threatened on Feb 19 to get nuclear weapons independently- and has the reactors and knowledge to do it.
Because Ukraine can’t read history and understand that America is fatal to have as friend?
Because Ukraine can’t read a map?
Because you are venal to the core and elected a comedian as President?
He’s our creature you know.
Its too bad the best Ukrainians are dying, but you were collectively suicidal and tried to twist Russia’s arm and our arms too and now you suffer for it.
If things were so hunky-dory in Ukraine, probably it would not have lost 7-8 million people in last 30 years. Poles work in UK or Germany, Ukrainians for one third of that money in Poland, and people from Middle East for 1/3 of that in Ukraine. The wonders of globalization! Pretty much everybody miserable to be forced to leave their country, or seeing their country changed through immigration, but definitely amazing for 1% elites in UK, Poland or Ukraine.
At some point the people in Ukraine will have to wake up and realize that the promises of EU membership they have been sold on will never materialize. First, the EU itself is either in stasis or already started in process of disintegration. Second, there is simply no funds EU could find to support a country of 40+ million - it is like admitting Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia all at once - all of these countries would suddenly (plus many others) from EU fund recipients become EU fund contributors. The political class in 10+ EU countries stays mostly in power because they are able to "bring home pork", and they would be seriously challenged and destabilized if that would no longer be possible. Finally, such a big country with so many "votes" would completely wipe out the ruling German-French axis in the EU. Even having Poland in is a trouble, with Poland and Ukraine both in EU, the existing power structure would change and there is no way whoever is in charge in Berlin or Paris will allow that.
Full-time Uber drivers in Kyiv earn $1000+ per month. Also I doubt that Uber drivers' earnings are accounted in the country average wage stats because Uber doesn't employ drivers and don't pay them a salary.
The distribution diagram of wages in Ukraine and Russia would be highly similar. The point is not about the absolute numbers, but in the trends and rates. Some people heavily influenced by Russian media would rather die than accept that Ukrainians earned in 2021 more than ever, but there is lots of evidence and hard stats that reflect it and available to anyone with an open mind.
Yeah, keep your mind open "and your brains'll fall out." Anyone with an open mind is a wonderfull reservoir for russophobic hysteria and propaganda somebody wants to sell you as an unending quest for the democratic values, amiright?
An additional aspect that should be considered is the geographic structure of Ukraine.
The current Ukrainian territory comprises two quite distinct regions:
1. Territory that pre-1917 was part of the Russian Empire (the East)
2. Territory that pre-1917 was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (the West)
Much of the population in the first region is pro-Russia, and would be quite happy to join Russia and see their living standards move up to the level of their Russian neighbors. That region is also the location of most of Ukrainian industry and mineral resources, and thus produces the bulk of the country's GDP. The population here is well aware that they are subsidizing the rest of the country.
The population in the later (Western) region is adamantly anti Russian (or "nationalist" if you want to use that term). The people are mostly Catholic (as opposed to Orthodox in the East) and have no cultural affinity to Russia at all. The region is also underdeveloped and agricultural, subsisting on subsidies from the central government. For them, a loss of the East would be a loss of the tax revenues that fund those subsidies. Further, a resolution of the conflict would lead to decline in the funds flowing from Europe and the IMF (again impacting the availability of the subsidies).
This means that the "nationalist" parties cannot tolerate a settlement that would be acceptable to either Russia or the Donbass population, because any such settlement would dramatically reduce the funds flowing to the region - thus destroying their political credibility.
The funny thing about the nationalistic western part is that without the hated Soviet and specifically Stalin they would still be either in Poland, Romania, or maybe Hungary or Slovakia, but definitely not in Ukraine:
NATO marched toward Russia, breaking the agreements made at the time of the reunification of Germany. Then pushed Georgia to attack South Ossetia, repelled by the Russians. Then went full in with regime change in the Ukraine and has fully supported the Ukraine's continued abrogation of the Minsk Accords. And keeps attempting to destroy the Russian economy with sanctions, answered with extremely effective counter-measures which include a flourishing agricultural export sector. Then we have the "domestic" issues suddenly in Kazakhstan.
Russia has been working very effectively to nullify issues instigated in its back yard (the Caucasus, Belarus, Kazakhstan), and its ally Syria, and is now letting the West know that no more nonsense will be accepted in the West. This is not the mid-1990s and the US leadership needs to come to terms with the new realities with Russia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Central Asia and China (and ASEANs unwillingness to help the US in hostilities with China) and come to some form of acceptable status quo. The longer it waits, the worse the terms will become.
2) For a long time, I was a single voice in Washington DC stating that the Russian economy is much more stable and is not in tatters, even if oil price is low. Happy to hear you share this point.
3) The biggest problem in Ukraine is unwillingness of country’s elites to promote fast transformation by moving towards the rule of law and fighting corruption. Unfortunately, President Zelensky is drifting towards Putin’s political behavior looking to keep power rather than to transform the country.
4) Nothing will change for Putin in 2024. He is not looking to leave the Kremlin (his amendments to the Constitution allow him to stay in power to 2036). He sees himself as a messiah who should make Russia strong again. And keep it strong. In his view no one among his lieutenants is capable to face the challenges. Moreover, the events in Kazakhstan last week demonstrated him that the gradual transition based on dualism in power doesn’t work. That’s why, he has no propensity to change something in his approach towards Ukraine. the goal of his policy is to make Ukraine unstable and vulnerable. And unsuccessful as a result.
One thing I miss in your analysis is the paper Putin published in July 2021 describing his idea of a greater Russia which would include Ukraine. It seems that this idea developed over time and Putin, Czar Putin, feels that the timing is right to materialize this idea. With time in favour of Ukraine, by restoring its defence forces with modern weaponry like Turkish drones and American javelins, it is now or never for Putin to earn his place in the history books and leave his footprint, a greater Russia, for generations to come.
I suppose Russian people should insist that "Moscow" ever always only be labeled "Moskva" and also Irish people should demand that anyone doing business in Ireland speak only in Irish Gaelic.
The issue here is how the capital of Ukraine is pronounced in English, notsomenationallanguage. If the national language of Russia is Russian, by your logic, Russians ought to be butthurt if you don't call "Moscow " "Moskva".
It's very simple, in English the capital of Ukraine is called Kyiv. The old use of Kiev is based on the translation from Russian, the new Kyiv is based on the translation from Ukrainian.
Sez you. Of course "Moscow " in English is based on the German word "Moskau" but Russians are less thin-skinned about such things. For that matter, Irish people don't demand that Dublin be called "Baile Átha Cliath" in English.
This is the analysis that I have been waiting for.
As people search for a handle with which to get hold of Putin, I'd suggest the oil weapon. As in, the oil demand weapon.
The author notes that Russia can maintain its economy at $44 per barrel. Our goal, then, should be to drive oil below that. The U.S. consumes about 20% of the world's oil. A 10% drop in our demand would be a 2% drop in world demand, which would be a difficult to resolve glut. Demand reduction is a matter of political will, not technology or opportunity. The U.S. could reduce demand by 25% or more through efficiency work without significantly changing lifestyle.
A reasonably fast 2-3% U.S.-driven demand reduction would plunge the price of oil below the $44 threshold and cause financial hardship and uncertainty in Russia. Putin would have to look inward to stabilize the economy and maintain his grip. That foreign exchange reserve would deplete and make Russia more vulnerable to currency shocks.
And no shots fired.
The big obstacle to this, of course, is the capture of the U.S. political system by fossil energy interests.
Why is it Americans can only think of manipulation and spreading general destruction and misery in order to get their desired outcomes? A nation who can't stir a thought beyond this kind of violent fantasizing (even its so-called "liberal" faction) is clearly the kind of small mindedness that has led to its decay. This country is rotting from the top down.
How is it violent and manipulative to use less energy? We need to do it anyway, for all too obvious reasons. By partially disempowering the most anti-democratic human rights abusing governments on the planet we’d be reducing misery and destruction. We’d also be disempowering the most anti-democratic and environmentally destructive forces in the US.
You know as well as everyone that manipulating markets in order to punish a single person (Putin) is going to hit millions of others in the pocketbook around the globe, not just those sinister "Russians" that you liberal-types fear live in the darkest corners under your bed. And it isn't even "Putin" who will be harmed. Everyone knows. The idea is to hit the population hard enough that they blame their leaders (and in this case it will be populations in many countries). That is supposed to pressure Putin into doing what we want. But it doesn't work, everyone can see such strategies merely immiserate populations who do not turn against their leaders, but drive them further into their arms. Just look at Venezuala, Iran, Russia, etc. They know who is responsible. It isn't their leaders, it is YOU who wants to immiserate them.
If we were to "partially disempower" (what a phrase) the most anti-democratic human rights abusing governments on the planet we would have to start with ourselves. It is the US who has overthrown more governments, invaded more countries (usually based of huge lies, see Iraq and Vietnam as the two most troubling examples), intervened in more internal affairs, and don't forget has by far the largest prison population (talking about civil rights), and yet is so forgiving of itself because it knows its always in the right. Gee, we may torture and bomb our way across huge swaths of the planet, but we mean so well, gosh darn it.
The US simply wants to stay top dog, and will do anything including starting wars to accomplish it, and justify its all the while singing about its "virtue" and "moral righteousness." To be so full of violent, pathetic, debased "moral righteousness" is disgusting, quite honestly. You cannot hide the Monstrous actions of our country under such a small pile of b.s. It is in public for everyone to see.
Agreed, but who is this "we"? Which organized political force exactly is going to start, steer and complete this change? Democrats or Republicans certainly won't as they are both obviously beholden to same corporate owners who put them on as sock puppets to entertain and distract the population. The only thing they can agree on (beside war mongering across the globe and never ending pledges of allegiance to Israel) is to prevent by any means possible a rise of independent 3rd party or popular movement.
It is a historically expected behavior for a hegemon in decline desperately trying to stay on top. Dangerous imperial overreach by US elite who believe that a country with 5% of world population and 15% of global GDP can dominate every corner of the world at every moment, while many things are clearly disintegrating at home.
Is that even remotely likely? Gas prices soaring, oil presently $84? And if Russia can't make a profit less than $44 what about Canada, or North Sea or many other producers? Indeed what about US producers of oil and gas? Halving the price of oil - your idea is a non-starter. Also it assumes that Russia is the problem. I would have thought if you'd read this article you'd have a more nuanced understanding. Cheers.
In the past 20 years the price of oil has gone as high as $140 and as low as $11. In 2016 it dropped into the $25-$35 range because of overproduction in the U.S. shale fields. The system is delicately balanced.
Russia isn’t the entire problem, but a major issue is the undue power of oil/gas exporting nations. It distorts both their politics and ours. An oil glut places importing and exporting nations on a more even footing. Right now the EU is cowed by Russia because of their need for natural gas.
Besides, we will eventually have to cut our oil consumption 10%, 20%, 50%, and more, just for geological reasons. Better to do it now on our own terms and reap the other benefits.
We could protect our own oil interests with a strike price tariff on imported oil. That is, a variable tariff that keeps the price at or above a break even level for domestic producers. Let’s say we set it at $55. If the international price of oil goes to $54, it is $1. $53; $2, and so on. It would generate about $1.7 billion per dollar of tariff that could be used for efficiency work.
Wake up. In global terms, Russia in 2022 is now also the biggest exporter of grain and somewhere between the second and fourth largest exporter of agricultural products in the world. That's because in 2015-16, the sanctions the US and EU imposed on Russia simply led the latter to kick off their own little green revolution.
Equally, all the energy supplies that Europe now buys from Russia, Putin can redirect -- not instantly, it's true, but soon enough -- to China, and China will buy them, as it will Russian agricultural exports.
So the West can bluster away about sanctions and Russia being only a 'gas station with nukes,' and, yes, its strategic elite are mostly ignorant and arrogant enough to have drunk their own kool-aid. It'll just be another step down the ladder of geopolitical decline that this elite have managed to descend at historic speed since 1991.
Or alternatively, US could drop sanctions on Venezuela to allow their oil to hit international markets, and/or go back to the JCPOA with Iran. Putting both of these two producers online would definitely drop and stabilize oil prices.
Please reread the last line of my comment. We really need campaign finance reform before any major sensible energy policy is possible. Still, on a state by state basis, some progress is being made. States like NY, California, and Massachusetts have about a third the energy intensity of states like Nebraska and Indiana.
The oil market is global. If consumption drops anywhere, worldwide consumption drops. Russia can sell its hydrocarbons anywhere, but if the world supply exceeds the demand by 2% the world will run out of storage quickly and the price will drop.
So you think you are going to get *world* hydrocarbon usage to drop 2%? Not just the US, but the world?
Again, how do you propose to accomplish that? Let's take the last sentence of your original paragraph as true. OK, how do you fix that, what makes you so sure that it will accomplish the drop in global hydrocarbon demand, and how long will that take?
I didn’t say hydrocarbon, but oil. The US uses ~20% of the world oil supply. If we cut our use by 10%, then 20% x 10% = 2%.
No idea how long it could take, but about 5% of our demand is wasted simply because of people speeding on the highway. Americans could drive the speed limit and cut world oil consumption by 1%. Zero lead time, zero capital investment.
The rest would be straightforward work like weatherization and increased gas mileage standards.
Your piece contributes a lot to my personal understanding of the confusion and mess of the last 30-40 years - thank you. But I'm wondering if there is any part played by the Holodomor in this history (not that Ukraine hasn't been overrun time and time again). Many of the current Russian speakers are descended from the Russian people moved into Ukraine by Stalin as he genocide/starved the Ukrainian population. Doesn't some of the nationalism, particularly in the western portion of the country, stem at least in part, from the 1930's?
Yes it does, but nationalism (read: rabid Russophobia) has been systematically nourished and encouraged through decades of clandestine financing of Ukrainian diaspora by western intelligence agencies, and then later by various NGOs in Ukraine in last 30 years. It is a supreme irony (which I pointed out elsewhere) that the most "hard-core" Ukrainians would now be in Poland, Romania and Hungary instead of Ukraine if not for Stalin's redraw of post-WW2 map in which Ukraine was one of the biggest beneficiary.
Western Ukraine wasn't part of the Ussr at the time. Although the hunger there, as in parts of Poland and Romania, was not a lot less pronounced as in the black earth belt of the Ussr, where all involved nationalities suffered immensely. Putting ukrainians as an ethnicity in the limelight is just ugly propaganda
A very weak summary of the Russia/US/Ukraine situation - one clearly influenced by American and American-paid think tankers.
Russia's rationale for its present actions is the escalation of US troops and dual-capable missiles in Eastern Europe - much as the Cuban missile crisis was prompted by US placement of nuclear capable missiles in Greece and Italy.
Yes, the abrogation of past promises to not extend NATO is a major factor as is US meddling in Georgia and Ukraine, but the trigger is the strategic threats imposed by the above mentioned military activity.
And the consequence is going to be the same as the 1960s: US withdrawal from the INF (not mentioned in this article either) and other actions mean Russia has no reason to respect the Monroe Doctrine this time, either.
Lastly, Russia clearly recognizes that the Ukrainian situation is being exacerbated by European muddling. The Minsk Accords have been entirely ignored, without consequence to Ukraine either in funding or extra-national support (sanctions).
Because the people of Ukraine are ... people? They are allowed to want their own identity? Allowed to look West and see a world they'd rather belong to then the one they see when they look East?
What you're saying about US actions is correct. But you sound like someone who believes they have a right to beat their girlfriend because they're girlfriend wants to leave them for another man. Yes, the other man shouldn't have been sweet talking her and you can be mad at him. But you don't have a right to beat her because she wants someone else.
Well, if the deluded b!+¢h leaves you with a part of your house for a mass murderer that's been harassing you for decades in a hood with no police or court whatsoever, i guess, you just proclaim such a right and take what is yours, while scaring off the the bastard by meddling with his huge harem
And like if da GF is livin in dah crib and be shacking up with da homey dat wants you DEAD (regime change) and he be givin her a gat and sayin shoot dat wigga Vlad Putler then yes you at least have to beat dah GF until she drops the gun.
In other words,. the West doesn't have any really good options here. Sanctions are likely to be ineffective, and there is no military option that ends well. At the same time, take away constant infusions of IMF cash and pipeline revenues, and Ukraine would be in even worse shape than it already is.
At the same time, Biden cannot be seen to back down. In part, this is because the United States is an empire in decline, and any overt weakness might cause vassals to start getting ideas.
But the real reason Biden is out of options here is because of the fundamentally third world nature of contemporary USA politics. Without unduly belaboring the point, if you have ever spent more than a few hours living in a Third World country and you were sort of paying attention during this time, you will note that politics in such a country is a zero-sum game. Anything that helps your opponents hurts you, and anything that helps you hurts your opponents. So even a policy that benefits the country as a whole must be bitterly opposed, if your opponents are for it or it also benefits them. (War and the military seem to be the exception in the United States. Wars that in no way benefit the country enjoy unswerving bipartisan support, rising even to the status of sacred cows that can never be questioned. This is also not an uncommon feature in the third world.)
This means that if Biden calls for anything less than Total Victory, his opponents on Team R will pounce, calling for the fainting couch and rending their garments most piteously while wailing something about "appeasement" and insisting that Trump (or whatever other "leader" Team R tries to foist on us) is the reincarnation of Winston Churchill who would have pushed The Button sooner and better. It doesn't help that Team D was doing the same thing to Trump a year or so ago, pushing wackadoodle conspiracy theories that were contradicted by all available facts and by just about everything that the Trump maladministration did, to boot.
So for Team R, the opportunity to call the other guy an appeaser and weakling acting on behalf of foreign powers is especially sweet.
"if you have ever spent more than a few hours living in a Third World country and you were sort of paying attention during this time, you will note that politics in such a country is a zero-sum game." What you describe sounds more like North American politics, with 2 main parties disagreeing on everything to the detriment of the country. I wonder what third world countries you're referring to? I spent many years in Indonesia, both before and after the downfall of Soeharto. The unfortunate truth is that democracy tends to create this constant 'combative' atmosphere between parties. 'Benevolent dictators', like Soeharto, can do wonders for a country if they genuinely care about the people. Putin similarly turned things around in Russia. Lee Kuan Yew is widely recognized for the successes of Singapore and it certainly wasn't democratic. The switch to democracy in Indonesia was remarkable but the lack of clear leadership and policy since then shows the inherent weakness of democracy.
I also spent a lot of time in Ukraine and was there during the Maidan Revolution in 2014. Democracy was doing well till then and they could have voted out the elected leader a year from them, but they chose violence instead. The country is still paying the consequences of that decision, which was made by a small, nationalist minority with Western support. The best solution now is pretty much the same as it was then: fix your internal problems and quit looking to the West or Russia for help, and don't allow yourself to be a pawn in their chess match. Unfortunately, it's difficult to fix the problems without a strong leader that can make hard decisions and take decisive action. Pre-Maidan, it was often suggested that a Swiss style of government would have been effective in Ukraine. I suspect that is still true but with nationalists in control, that isn't likely to happen.
NATO membership is the key issue and the west (and Ukraine) should not be insistent on this. After the breakup of the USSR, the West promised not to move an inch closer with NATO. It's time the West quit provoking the Russian bear and gave them a measure of respect.
This is old, and a lot has changed, but I couldn't help but respond to this disingenuous post.
" 'Benevolent dictators', like Soeharto," ... "Putin similarly turned things around in Russia" .... In 2020 GDP per capita in Russia was level with 2007 - 13 years later, no lasting growth. Between 2010 and 2020 median income fell 35%. He's alienated most of the developed world. You're right - he's been great.
As for Ukraine's thriving democracy before 2014. What a funny point you chose to pick. The Maidan was the SECOND time the people of Ukraine had to rise up to overthrow the SAME Kremlin backed president. Literally, this guy had already been tossed in a revolution once before. And got back in power. So yeah, all was roses before Maidan you're right. What exactly was wrong with Zelenskyys election? Please, elaborate on how much worse it was than when they elected a guy they had to revolt to throw off a few years before.
Any conversation of democracy in Ukraine or anywhere in the ex-Soviet republics is scarred by the manner in which Russia continues to treat them as satellite states. As long as Russia feels it is their right to determine who is president of other sovereign nations, and uses their military to do so, you will not have true democracy.
The roots of Ukraine's political crises are not domestic. Never have been. The Russian language stuff is nonsense - they LITERALLY HAVE A RUSSIAN SPEAKING PRESIDENT (Zelensky). The genocide claims have never once been backed with any public presentation of evidence - just "Trust me bro" from people who break their word constantly.
You have to identify the problem to solve it.
I also spent many years in Ukraine, among other places.
When were you in Ukraine? I first went in 2003, then spent a lot of time there from 2009-14. What was most surprising to me was that they didn't 'feel' like a country with a clear border and identity, yet they all got along with each other extremely well (ethnic Russians and Ukrainians). In Canada, we had a clear identity of Ukraine and its borders, which perhaps didn't encompass the large 'Russian' population. After 2014, it was tragic seeing families break apart as everybody had to 'chose a side'.
As for 'empires', the UK has largely put that ambition and heritage to rest and it's time the US did the same.
Hmm, I think for the West (read USA), it is necessary to accept the current situation and who has the most influence. The end of the Cold War was squandered with Russia feeling humiliated (deja vu Versailles ?). I think, reading all the blogs on this subject, Putin (and Russian people) wish to be respected and taken seriously. Empathy is to put yourself in someone else's shoes. Let us remember how the US viewed Cuban military expansion in the 1960s. Some degree of brinkmanship is required in these negotiations, both parties, US and Russia will put in high early bids that they know are unrealistic but a settlement is possible, though unlikely to be popular with Ukraine.
No. As Central European, strongly supporting Ukraine since February, West needs to wake up. We don't care about feeling of Putin or any other russian. We don't want Russia to be appeased, we want it to be defeated, destroyed economically and politically, Putin in Hague, and Russian federation dismantled to pieces, so no other oligarch can try to commit genocide on its neighbors.
, American corporations, with the support of the US government, invested heavily in Russia after the cold war, in hopes of improving life among Russians and developing a better relationship. THAT IS A FACT. And with the hopes that Russia could become more democratic and trustworthy. Instead, the thieving Russian mobster Putin stole as much as he could and rewarded only his cronies in crime against the Russian people. Now this monster has betrayed everyone, the West and all the young people of Russia , who he sends to die, with a vicious war no one else wanted. Don't lecture to us in America about things gone badly, it is totally the work of your dictator.
The military gets 15% of the US budget every penny discretionary (fought over).
Social security and medicare are automatic and non discretionary.
So the so called MIC is very weak and Ike’s speech was actually obsolete by mid 1960s.
Butter is and Debt service 2/3 of the budget.
But the real truth that most don’t realize is the military is NOT the Empire, that is the State Department. Its not the budget its THE POWER. The War Mongers are at Foggy Bottom, not the hapless Pentagon. The Pentagon is really and truly just the worlds largest parts store, it exists to have presence in DC that is seemingly imposing and may impress new Congress creatures. The Pentagon is like Amazon’s largest warehouse and service center- but not Amazon HQ never mind Bezos palace or yacht. The Pentagon exists so we hopefully never run out of everything like we did in WW2 at start , or Korea. The Pentagon fails at this task frequently of course (soldiers are servants with guns in the American pecking order) as it has now.
This is from West Point, Dr.Anthony Kharber is telling the Cadets of 2018 how F they are against Russia.
No mines (Princess Di)
No EW (Electronic Warfare)
No Air Supremacy
Far less artillery
https://youtu.be/_CMby_WPjk4
Wow! For the first time, I feel as though I have a reasonable understanding of what led to this point. Thanks for a thorough - and understandable by ordinary readers! - explanation of the history leading up to this current crisis.
All this talk about "the Ukraine get to decide for themselves." Since when? Ukraine's choice was between integration with Russia or the West. The US's hand in in which direction they would go was quite open and overt. We quite openly and publicly made the choice for them in 2014. The news was so anodyne even the networks played the leaked phone call which plainly stated our intentions there, which all came to pass. US Senator John McCain himself traveled to Kiev and showed up at Maidan Square to hand out cookies, of all things. This is all quite public, US involvement was so open and above board it is thoroughly tiresome to even bring it up. All of this is our doing, all of it. And yet we all must act like we don't know what happened, that the Ukraine made their own minds up, and us "goodhearted Americans" must save them.
Zelensky was elected to make peace by the majority, but he wasn't allowed to do that. The Ukraine nationalists, backed by the US, will not permit peace with Russia. If US citizens really do not want the Russians to invade the Ukraine, they should stop their government from fomenting war.
US SenatorS John McCain AND Chris Murphy.
And Who were the snipers killing people in the Maidan?
https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/the-hidden-origin-of-the-escalating-ukraine-russia-conflict
Handing out cookies is fomenting war?
Offering an open hand to integration and the globalized world economy is fomenting war?
Weird examples. The only one that rings true is NATO expansionism. The US should offer NATO membership to Russia to prove this isn't about them.
Did Victoria Nuland not say something about a sum of money, $5,000,000,000 perhaps?
Russia asked for NATO membership in 1998 and Clinton slapped them away, McCain sneered at Putin to his face.
The Lieven's article in the Nation (i.e. Austria-1955 neutrality of Ukraine via Minsk-III) is preposterous , it simply gives Russia the mandate to keep swallowing Ukraine piecemeal. USSR respected Austrian neutrality because Austria was out of reach anyway, Russia will never honor any deal with respect to Ukraine.
The fact that AT endorses this approach shows that his Russian bias is even stronger than the one shown in the Chartbook (and even that is evident enough). All the talk about Ukrainian attack in Donbass in particular is ridiculous - stop parroting Moscow propaganda!
In the period of 1945-1990 Austria was definitely not "out of reach" - Soviet troops were both in Hungary and Czechoslovakia at the time. As a land power not protected by two vast oceans, it is paramount for security of Russia to have some buffer or perimeter around its core towards the usual direction of invasions - which is from the west, or south-west. This geostrategic need is the same regardless of who is in charge in Russia, a Czar, a Dictator, or a President. To achieve this goal, it is sufficient that the countries bordering Russia are just not overtly hostile and not hosting foreign troops or bases. Neutrality is respected, and gives benefits, such as Soviet troops leaving Austria, or leaving bases in the Baltic and giving them back to Finland.
Look at a Map, Polly.
OK, but why can't Russia just leave Ukraine alone?
I've lived the last 3 years in Ukraine and here is what I see:
* Ukrainians are very, *very* staunch on their independence. The fate of Ukraine can't be decided outside of Ukraine. The events of 2013-2014 have shown that clearly. Even if the West gives in to Russian bullying (and it looks like the author wouldn't mind it), Ukrainians won't accept any outcome that goes against the will of Ukrainians.
* Ukraine is much less divided than the article shows. Yes, there is a small pro-Russian minority, but the degree of polarization is much smaller than the divide between the left and the right in the USA. The two most popular political parties in Ukraine are pro-democracy and pro-West (despite being at odds with each other) and comprise about 70% of the electorate. Ukrainians are more concerned about inflation than language or cultural issues. The Ukrainian/Russian language issue is so minor that even Russia stopped peddling it.
* The average wage in Ukraine is $550/mo (all-time high) and is quickly growing. The average wage in Russia (with all its oil & gas) is $750/mo and has been stagnating the last 4-5 years.
* After the Maidan revolution of 2014, there are many more small businesses around. Corruption is still a big issue, but much less so on the smaller scale and this made private entrepreneurship flourish.
* Ukraine is quickly integrating in the world society from a cultural and business standpoint. Cancelling visas for short trips to Europe and many other countries was a big boon. Russia slipped from being the #1 trade partner of Ukraine to #3. Ukraine has more business with Europe and China than with Russia. Flying for a weekend to Rome or Berlin has become a casual thing among the Ukrainian middle class. News from Russia has all but disappeared from the news - most people don't care about it.
* Lots of immigrants from Middle East and South Asia in Kyiv working as Uber drivers and in food delivery. That's a new thing for Ukraine. It didn't exist 2-3 years ago.
I believe Ukraine is much better off without the Russian crooked influence. Russia behaves towards Ukraine like an abusive ex that was broken up with but still trying to bully.
Don't be fooled, Russia's stability is no better than the stability of Kazakhstan or Belarus. Putin will die eventually, and nobody knows what happens with Russia next.
The "average wage" of people working in the US/EU funded "non-profit" and "media" sectors in Kiev is NOT the "median wage" in the country.
The country average (median is not mean) wage stats is openly available and is easily verifiable.
The Ukrainian currency has collapsed against the US$, while the Ruble has rallied strongly. Rising nominal wages during high inflation can mean falling real wages. If its so "easily verifiable" where are your sources? I have had this gambit tried on me before and when I push for sources I get crickets. Ukraine's GDP per capita PPP is half that of Russia (World Bank Data), and Ukraine has an even worse income inequality issue than Russia!
I don't think there's a sensible reading of the excellent article above from which one can conclude that Russia will, or can, "just leave Ukraine alone".
Russia perceives its security and/or freedom of action to be threatened by things that either Ukrainians want for themselves, or that 'the West' wants for Ukraine (or both), and so finds it impossible to resist interfering. No doubt the Russians would argue that they're only reacting to the provocations of the USA and NATO, and that if they were to keep their hands off then, unless they had a cast-iron assurance to do the same from their rivals, they'd be giving away something for nothing. (Even then, a genuinely independent drift by the Ukrainians towards the West might be unacceptable to Moscow and encourage intervention in some manner in Ukrainian politics.)
I don't think we should pretend that powerful states haven't been doing this since time immemorial. Putin's Russia is not unique in its behaviour - its Tsarist predecessor, the Austro-Hungarians, the French, the British - all have used a mixture of persuasion and coercion in Eastern Europe and elsewhere at various points in the past.
I lived in Ukraine for eight years. The country has done nothing but deteriorate since 2014. Take away foreign largesse and gas transit revenues and it would be far worse.
That said, I am sure that if you polled Germans in 1937 vs. 1927, you would find a touching outburst of sincere nationalistic sentiment. If you prefer a different case, the same could be said about Soviet citizens in 1981, who suddenly got a lot less patriotic in 1991.
You lived in a different country as progress in Ukraine is visible although slow. There is still a lot of work to be done to free the society from corruption, but with help of IMF and EU pressure this will succeed. The only one delaying this process is the pro-Russian part of society which cannot live without corruption and grafting.
Because "pro-Russian" inevitably means you have to be pro-corruption.
Yet this "different country", darling of the west, had some seven years, give or take, but is not able to achieve concrete results, not with respect to corruption or anything else. Just slogans.
Also, explain to me how this "fight against corruption " works, by electing a flagrantly corrupt oligarch, who proves wildly unpopular and who is replaced (over vociferous American objections) by the cutout of an even more wildly corrupt oligarch and is since shutting opposition websites, arresting political rivals, and plumbing similar depths of unpopularity.
These are very unique methods for "fighting corruption " and I wish to study them further.
False statements. Back to the original discussion, ever heard of the Budapest memorandum? The Russian representative at that time signed this guaranteeing the borders of Ukraine. Today's Russia, called Putinstan by some, is the party that actually retreated from its guarantee. Who is the unreliable party ?
Sweet gentleman, i'll let you in on a huge secret here! You see, without the ratification of any document, signed by the president, prime-minister, supreme leader or the master of the universe, by the parliament of the signatory state, said document isn't worth the paper it was written on. And now the funniest part: the only country's parliament that did ratify this pretty controversial and non-binding agreement, was that of the Russian Federation! Although, seeing that no one gives a damn about it, even ukrainians, they've rescinded on this rash deed some time later.
Moreover, i should remind you, that there is another, absolutely same agreement, signed in the same day and in the same place by the already involved "big" countries with.. Belarus! And the agreement, just like the one with the Ukraine, proclaims that unilateral sanctions are.. Well.. Kinda bad. As you well remember, the Us has imposed them in mid 00's, saying in its excuse that the agreement is non-binding and, in any case whatsoever, they're imposing restrictions on the people of Belarus specifically for the good of the people of Belarus and blahblah. Question: do you remember any ukrainian official say anything in protest or even to just appeal to the signatories, to anyone, really, to revise or the unratified non-binding agreement? Well i sure don't!
So what do you want now, after all of this and much more, like Kosovo, has been done?
US and all the other UN SC members also signed UNSC resolution 1244 which guarantees territorial integrity of Serbia, yet that has prevented them to carve out by force an "independent" statelet of Kosovo. Observers back then realized that this was a watershed moment of 21st century because big multiethnic countries (such as Russia and China, but also others) are clearly going to be targeted by US slicing tactic. We also see this in Syria when US is occupying almost a third and eventually wants to create a Kurdish "Kosovo".
The United States carved up Serbia, but Ukraine's borders are sacred and inviolate.
Hypocrisy, meet thy maker.
Would that be the "Budapest memorandum" that the US declared to be "not legally binding" when they sanctioned Belarus in contravention of that memorandum?
You are trying to change the subject.
That said, the Budapest Memorandum was predicated upon Ukrainian neutrality.
Not true, no reservations were made at the signing of the Budapest Memorandum.
EU membership is not a panacea for corruption - if anything, it seems to be getting worse: https://www.transparency.org/en/news/gcb-eu-2021-survey-people-worry-corruption-unchecked-impunity-business-politics
There is no foreign largesse in Ukraine (unfortunately). So nothing to take away.
Gas transit revenue was $2B in 2020 and was projected to be $1.2B in 2021. Compare it to IT export revenue of ($6.8B, 2021), money transfers from emigrants (est.$13B, 2021), base metals export ($16B, 2021), agricultural export ($16B, 2021) and it becomes obvious that losing the gas transit revenue would be an annoyance from an economical standpoint but hardly a disaster. It would have much bigger national security implications, but that's another story.
PS. Your comments don't seem to be well grounded, so I will no longer reply.
https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/Ukraine/foreign_aid/
Seems to disagree. Then there is the military assistance.
Then there is the IMF, which faced a staff revolt in providing aid to Ukraine in the first place, since the IMF's internal rules forbid it to lend to a country which is unlikely to be able to repay.
Soviet citizens? There were no Soviet citizens, dear. Countries were occupied by Russia but the true citizenship of the people living in those countries was never legally taken away. (E.g. Estonians were always Estonians, never Soviets). Additionally, seems that you lack knowledge of what happened between 1981-1991.
We'll argue semantics later, although it is sort of amusing that you apparently claim that there was no Soviet Union as a matter of law. So where did Ukraine get its borders, then?
And I am abundantly aware of what happened between 1981 and 1991, and in particular, the late 1980s through 1991.
You Ukrainian or NGO?
Because Ukraine decided to try NATO, because Zelensky threatened on Feb 19 to get nuclear weapons independently- and has the reactors and knowledge to do it.
Because Ukraine can’t read history and understand that America is fatal to have as friend?
Because Ukraine can’t read a map?
Because you are venal to the core and elected a comedian as President?
He’s our creature you know.
Its too bad the best Ukrainians are dying, but you were collectively suicidal and tried to twist Russia’s arm and our arms too and now you suffer for it.
If things were so hunky-dory in Ukraine, probably it would not have lost 7-8 million people in last 30 years. Poles work in UK or Germany, Ukrainians for one third of that money in Poland, and people from Middle East for 1/3 of that in Ukraine. The wonders of globalization! Pretty much everybody miserable to be forced to leave their country, or seeing their country changed through immigration, but definitely amazing for 1% elites in UK, Poland or Ukraine.
At some point the people in Ukraine will have to wake up and realize that the promises of EU membership they have been sold on will never materialize. First, the EU itself is either in stasis or already started in process of disintegration. Second, there is simply no funds EU could find to support a country of 40+ million - it is like admitting Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia all at once - all of these countries would suddenly (plus many others) from EU fund recipients become EU fund contributors. The political class in 10+ EU countries stays mostly in power because they are able to "bring home pork", and they would be seriously challenged and destabilized if that would no longer be possible. Finally, such a big country with so many "votes" would completely wipe out the ruling German-French axis in the EU. Even having Poland in is a trouble, with Poland and Ukraine both in EU, the existing power structure would change and there is no way whoever is in charge in Berlin or Paris will allow that.
Full-time Uber drivers in Kyiv earn $1000+ per month. Also I doubt that Uber drivers' earnings are accounted in the country average wage stats because Uber doesn't employ drivers and don't pay them a salary.
The distribution diagram of wages in Ukraine and Russia would be highly similar. The point is not about the absolute numbers, but in the trends and rates. Some people heavily influenced by Russian media would rather die than accept that Ukrainians earned in 2021 more than ever, but there is lots of evidence and hard stats that reflect it and available to anyone with an open mind.
Yeah, keep your mind open "and your brains'll fall out." Anyone with an open mind is a wonderfull reservoir for russophobic hysteria and propaganda somebody wants to sell you as an unending quest for the democratic values, amiright?
An additional aspect that should be considered is the geographic structure of Ukraine.
The current Ukrainian territory comprises two quite distinct regions:
1. Territory that pre-1917 was part of the Russian Empire (the East)
2. Territory that pre-1917 was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (the West)
Much of the population in the first region is pro-Russia, and would be quite happy to join Russia and see their living standards move up to the level of their Russian neighbors. That region is also the location of most of Ukrainian industry and mineral resources, and thus produces the bulk of the country's GDP. The population here is well aware that they are subsidizing the rest of the country.
The population in the later (Western) region is adamantly anti Russian (or "nationalist" if you want to use that term). The people are mostly Catholic (as opposed to Orthodox in the East) and have no cultural affinity to Russia at all. The region is also underdeveloped and agricultural, subsisting on subsidies from the central government. For them, a loss of the East would be a loss of the tax revenues that fund those subsidies. Further, a resolution of the conflict would lead to decline in the funds flowing from Europe and the IMF (again impacting the availability of the subsidies).
This means that the "nationalist" parties cannot tolerate a settlement that would be acceptable to either Russia or the Donbass population, because any such settlement would dramatically reduce the funds flowing to the region - thus destroying their political credibility.
The funny thing about the nationalistic western part is that without the hated Soviet and specifically Stalin they would still be either in Poland, Romania, or maybe Hungary or Slovakia, but definitely not in Ukraine:
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/cc/6b/40/cc6b404b499810993bbac0cde4aa80a8--maps.jpg
NATO marched toward Russia, breaking the agreements made at the time of the reunification of Germany. Then pushed Georgia to attack South Ossetia, repelled by the Russians. Then went full in with regime change in the Ukraine and has fully supported the Ukraine's continued abrogation of the Minsk Accords. And keeps attempting to destroy the Russian economy with sanctions, answered with extremely effective counter-measures which include a flourishing agricultural export sector. Then we have the "domestic" issues suddenly in Kazakhstan.
Russia has been working very effectively to nullify issues instigated in its back yard (the Caucasus, Belarus, Kazakhstan), and its ally Syria, and is now letting the West know that no more nonsense will be accepted in the West. This is not the mid-1990s and the US leadership needs to come to terms with the new realities with Russia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Central Asia and China (and ASEANs unwillingness to help the US in hostilities with China) and come to some form of acceptable status quo. The longer it waits, the worse the terms will become.
1) Great overview!
2) For a long time, I was a single voice in Washington DC stating that the Russian economy is much more stable and is not in tatters, even if oil price is low. Happy to hear you share this point.
3) The biggest problem in Ukraine is unwillingness of country’s elites to promote fast transformation by moving towards the rule of law and fighting corruption. Unfortunately, President Zelensky is drifting towards Putin’s political behavior looking to keep power rather than to transform the country.
4) Nothing will change for Putin in 2024. He is not looking to leave the Kremlin (his amendments to the Constitution allow him to stay in power to 2036). He sees himself as a messiah who should make Russia strong again. And keep it strong. In his view no one among his lieutenants is capable to face the challenges. Moreover, the events in Kazakhstan last week demonstrated him that the gradual transition based on dualism in power doesn’t work. That’s why, he has no propensity to change something in his approach towards Ukraine. the goal of his policy is to make Ukraine unstable and vulnerable. And unsuccessful as a result.
5) Once again, the great overview!
PS I really like your “The Wages of Destruction”
I'd rather not go into details in public, although we might have crossed paths at times.
You should read Jack Matlock's description of Ukraine. He was former Ambassador to the USSR, so he might have some practical insight.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.krasnoevents.com/uploads/1/1/6/6/116679777/krasno_analysis_-_matlock_ukraine_-_dec._2021.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjKt5yjx4r2AhVkmWoFHXWKDx4QFnoECBIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2RzFJxGsjsSGzPTmtBAEsA
The irony is that the United States would be better off and more powerful if it minded its own business and actually practiced what it preaches.
Great article clearly pointing out all the main issues sorely missing in the general media and public awareness.
Give the Donbass independent & fully sovereign statehood.
One thing I miss in your analysis is the paper Putin published in July 2021 describing his idea of a greater Russia which would include Ukraine. It seems that this idea developed over time and Putin, Czar Putin, feels that the timing is right to materialize this idea. With time in favour of Ukraine, by restoring its defence forces with modern weaponry like Turkish drones and American javelins, it is now or never for Putin to earn his place in the history books and leave his footprint, a greater Russia, for generations to come.
Pieter Hagendoorn, Kyiv (not Kiev), 1/20/22.
I suppose Russian people should insist that "Moscow" ever always only be labeled "Moskva" and also Irish people should demand that anyone doing business in Ireland speak only in Irish Gaelic.
It's up to every state to use the national language and what other countries decide is up to them. For Ukraine Kyiv is Kyiv.
The issue here is how the capital of Ukraine is pronounced in English, notsomenationallanguage. If the national language of Russia is Russian, by your logic, Russians ought to be butthurt if you don't call "Moscow " "Moskva".
It's very simple, in English the capital of Ukraine is called Kyiv. The old use of Kiev is based on the translation from Russian, the new Kyiv is based on the translation from Ukrainian.
Sez you. Of course "Moscow " in English is based on the German word "Moskau" but Russians are less thin-skinned about such things. For that matter, Irish people don't demand that Dublin be called "Baile Átha Cliath" in English.
haha, it actually is based on Mongolian "Moshkva", name of the river, long before any russians would appear there:)
What actually is your problem?
This is the analysis that I have been waiting for.
As people search for a handle with which to get hold of Putin, I'd suggest the oil weapon. As in, the oil demand weapon.
The author notes that Russia can maintain its economy at $44 per barrel. Our goal, then, should be to drive oil below that. The U.S. consumes about 20% of the world's oil. A 10% drop in our demand would be a 2% drop in world demand, which would be a difficult to resolve glut. Demand reduction is a matter of political will, not technology or opportunity. The U.S. could reduce demand by 25% or more through efficiency work without significantly changing lifestyle.
A reasonably fast 2-3% U.S.-driven demand reduction would plunge the price of oil below the $44 threshold and cause financial hardship and uncertainty in Russia. Putin would have to look inward to stabilize the economy and maintain his grip. That foreign exchange reserve would deplete and make Russia more vulnerable to currency shocks.
And no shots fired.
The big obstacle to this, of course, is the capture of the U.S. political system by fossil energy interests.
Why is it Americans can only think of manipulation and spreading general destruction and misery in order to get their desired outcomes? A nation who can't stir a thought beyond this kind of violent fantasizing (even its so-called "liberal" faction) is clearly the kind of small mindedness that has led to its decay. This country is rotting from the top down.
How is it violent and manipulative to use less energy? We need to do it anyway, for all too obvious reasons. By partially disempowering the most anti-democratic human rights abusing governments on the planet we’d be reducing misery and destruction. We’d also be disempowering the most anti-democratic and environmentally destructive forces in the US.
You know as well as everyone that manipulating markets in order to punish a single person (Putin) is going to hit millions of others in the pocketbook around the globe, not just those sinister "Russians" that you liberal-types fear live in the darkest corners under your bed. And it isn't even "Putin" who will be harmed. Everyone knows. The idea is to hit the population hard enough that they blame their leaders (and in this case it will be populations in many countries). That is supposed to pressure Putin into doing what we want. But it doesn't work, everyone can see such strategies merely immiserate populations who do not turn against their leaders, but drive them further into their arms. Just look at Venezuala, Iran, Russia, etc. They know who is responsible. It isn't their leaders, it is YOU who wants to immiserate them.
If we were to "partially disempower" (what a phrase) the most anti-democratic human rights abusing governments on the planet we would have to start with ourselves. It is the US who has overthrown more governments, invaded more countries (usually based of huge lies, see Iraq and Vietnam as the two most troubling examples), intervened in more internal affairs, and don't forget has by far the largest prison population (talking about civil rights), and yet is so forgiving of itself because it knows its always in the right. Gee, we may torture and bomb our way across huge swaths of the planet, but we mean so well, gosh darn it.
The US simply wants to stay top dog, and will do anything including starting wars to accomplish it, and justify its all the while singing about its "virtue" and "moral righteousness." To be so full of violent, pathetic, debased "moral righteousness" is disgusting, quite honestly. You cannot hide the Monstrous actions of our country under such a small pile of b.s. It is in public for everyone to see.
Agreed, but who is this "we"? Which organized political force exactly is going to start, steer and complete this change? Democrats or Republicans certainly won't as they are both obviously beholden to same corporate owners who put them on as sock puppets to entertain and distract the population. The only thing they can agree on (beside war mongering across the globe and never ending pledges of allegiance to Israel) is to prevent by any means possible a rise of independent 3rd party or popular movement.
It is a historically expected behavior for a hegemon in decline desperately trying to stay on top. Dangerous imperial overreach by US elite who believe that a country with 5% of world population and 15% of global GDP can dominate every corner of the world at every moment, while many things are clearly disintegrating at home.
We don’t.
That’s our State Department and DC.
We lost control, perhaps you missed the last few years?
But at least Trump’s gone,!eh?
Is that even remotely likely? Gas prices soaring, oil presently $84? And if Russia can't make a profit less than $44 what about Canada, or North Sea or many other producers? Indeed what about US producers of oil and gas? Halving the price of oil - your idea is a non-starter. Also it assumes that Russia is the problem. I would have thought if you'd read this article you'd have a more nuanced understanding. Cheers.
In the past 20 years the price of oil has gone as high as $140 and as low as $11. In 2016 it dropped into the $25-$35 range because of overproduction in the U.S. shale fields. The system is delicately balanced.
Russia isn’t the entire problem, but a major issue is the undue power of oil/gas exporting nations. It distorts both their politics and ours. An oil glut places importing and exporting nations on a more even footing. Right now the EU is cowed by Russia because of their need for natural gas.
Besides, we will eventually have to cut our oil consumption 10%, 20%, 50%, and more, just for geological reasons. Better to do it now on our own terms and reap the other benefits.
We could protect our own oil interests with a strike price tariff on imported oil. That is, a variable tariff that keeps the price at or above a break even level for domestic producers. Let’s say we set it at $55. If the international price of oil goes to $54, it is $1. $53; $2, and so on. It would generate about $1.7 billion per dollar of tariff that could be used for efficiency work.
Wake up. In global terms, Russia in 2022 is now also the biggest exporter of grain and somewhere between the second and fourth largest exporter of agricultural products in the world. That's because in 2015-16, the sanctions the US and EU imposed on Russia simply led the latter to kick off their own little green revolution.
Equally, all the energy supplies that Europe now buys from Russia, Putin can redirect -- not instantly, it's true, but soon enough -- to China, and China will buy them, as it will Russian agricultural exports.
So the West can bluster away about sanctions and Russia being only a 'gas station with nukes,' and, yes, its strategic elite are mostly ignorant and arrogant enough to have drunk their own kool-aid. It'll just be another step down the ladder of geopolitical decline that this elite have managed to descend at historic speed since 1991.
Soooo would you be so kind as to remind me, in which one of those instances did Russia crawl away with its tail between its legs?
Or alternatively, US could drop sanctions on Venezuela to allow their oil to hit international markets, and/or go back to the JCPOA with Iran. Putting both of these two producers online would definitely drop and stabilize oil prices.
The biggest obstacle is we drive. The modern American nation was built around the automobile.
Electric car is fine as a bicycle- as a adjunct to existing mass transit.
If you really need it you’ll be dead or afoot.
Green is a scam. 60% of Green is Brown.
As for fossil fuel industry capture- that’s Green.
We just need to drive our cars, they don’t need to capture us. We were “captured” by Ford’s Model T 100 years ago.
Not only that but things like plastics and fertilizer all require petroleum.
Unless you plan to live like something out of The Waltons, all for Ukraine, great. But you'd have to make the rest of us live that way, too.
Okay, let us know how you plan to accomplish that.
Meanwhile, Russia can sell hydrocarbons elsewhere. The US is hardly its biggest customer.
Please reread the last line of my comment. We really need campaign finance reform before any major sensible energy policy is possible. Still, on a state by state basis, some progress is being made. States like NY, California, and Massachusetts have about a third the energy intensity of states like Nebraska and Indiana.
The oil market is global. If consumption drops anywhere, worldwide consumption drops. Russia can sell its hydrocarbons anywhere, but if the world supply exceeds the demand by 2% the world will run out of storage quickly and the price will drop.
So you think you are going to get *world* hydrocarbon usage to drop 2%? Not just the US, but the world?
Again, how do you propose to accomplish that? Let's take the last sentence of your original paragraph as true. OK, how do you fix that, what makes you so sure that it will accomplish the drop in global hydrocarbon demand, and how long will that take?
I didn’t say hydrocarbon, but oil. The US uses ~20% of the world oil supply. If we cut our use by 10%, then 20% x 10% = 2%.
No idea how long it could take, but about 5% of our demand is wasted simply because of people speeding on the highway. Americans could drive the speed limit and cut world oil consumption by 1%. Zero lead time, zero capital investment.
The rest would be straightforward work like weatherization and increased gas mileage standards.
Your piece contributes a lot to my personal understanding of the confusion and mess of the last 30-40 years - thank you. But I'm wondering if there is any part played by the Holodomor in this history (not that Ukraine hasn't been overrun time and time again). Many of the current Russian speakers are descended from the Russian people moved into Ukraine by Stalin as he genocide/starved the Ukrainian population. Doesn't some of the nationalism, particularly in the western portion of the country, stem at least in part, from the 1930's?
Yes it does, but nationalism (read: rabid Russophobia) has been systematically nourished and encouraged through decades of clandestine financing of Ukrainian diaspora by western intelligence agencies, and then later by various NGOs in Ukraine in last 30 years. It is a supreme irony (which I pointed out elsewhere) that the most "hard-core" Ukrainians would now be in Poland, Romania and Hungary instead of Ukraine if not for Stalin's redraw of post-WW2 map in which Ukraine was one of the biggest beneficiary.
Here is a high profile member of this "diaspora":
https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/chrystia-freelands-granddad-was-indeed-a-nazi-collaborator-so-much-for-russian-disinformation/
Western Ukraine wasn't part of the Ussr at the time. Although the hunger there, as in parts of Poland and Romania, was not a lot less pronounced as in the black earth belt of the Ussr, where all involved nationalities suffered immensely. Putting ukrainians as an ethnicity in the limelight is just ugly propaganda
One of the more intelligent analyses of the situation I have seen. Thank you.
A very weak summary of the Russia/US/Ukraine situation - one clearly influenced by American and American-paid think tankers.
Russia's rationale for its present actions is the escalation of US troops and dual-capable missiles in Eastern Europe - much as the Cuban missile crisis was prompted by US placement of nuclear capable missiles in Greece and Italy.
Yes, the abrogation of past promises to not extend NATO is a major factor as is US meddling in Georgia and Ukraine, but the trigger is the strategic threats imposed by the above mentioned military activity.
And the consequence is going to be the same as the 1960s: US withdrawal from the INF (not mentioned in this article either) and other actions mean Russia has no reason to respect the Monroe Doctrine this time, either.
Lastly, Russia clearly recognizes that the Ukrainian situation is being exacerbated by European muddling. The Minsk Accords have been entirely ignored, without consequence to Ukraine either in funding or extra-national support (sanctions).
So why exactly should Russia act in good faith?
Because the people of Ukraine are ... people? They are allowed to want their own identity? Allowed to look West and see a world they'd rather belong to then the one they see when they look East?
What you're saying about US actions is correct. But you sound like someone who believes they have a right to beat their girlfriend because they're girlfriend wants to leave them for another man. Yes, the other man shouldn't have been sweet talking her and you can be mad at him. But you don't have a right to beat her because she wants someone else.
Aren't the people of the Donbass also "people" who are "allowed to want their own identity"?
Are you familiar with the old "What is good for the goose ..." proverb?
Well, if the deluded b!+¢h leaves you with a part of your house for a mass murderer that's been harassing you for decades in a hood with no police or court whatsoever, i guess, you just proclaim such a right and take what is yours, while scaring off the the bastard by meddling with his huge harem
Yeah when the GF is colluding with your openly declared mortal enemy to kill you then yes force is justified
Its not about GF, it’s about geography.
And like if da GF is livin in dah crib and be shacking up with da homey dat wants you DEAD (regime change) and he be givin her a gat and sayin shoot dat wigga Vlad Putler then yes you at least have to beat dah GF until she drops the gun.
Lol. You the CIAs new hire?