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. This framework consists of three basic propositions.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Do the editors even bother to read the articles here?
"Then, faced with the niggardly European financial terms, and with a far more lucrative offer from Moscow in hand, it swung abruptly back towards Russia."
Not for nothing, but Russia received a several-billion-dollar IMF facility just before its financial crisis in 1998, in the midst of the 2nd Chechen War.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Do the editors even bother to read the articles here?
"Then, faced with the niggardly European financial terms, and with a far more lucrative offer from Moscow in hand, it swung abruptly back towards Russia."
Don't let BLM or Antifa see that, lol.
Not for nothing, but Russia received a several-billion-dollar IMF facility just before its financial crisis in 1998, in the midst of the 2nd Chechen War.