Stupid Shit in Kyiv

[Jmsuttr]

This is a recent short video clip where Mearsheimer clearly explains the extreme danger of current USA policy. To summarize, there are 2 conditions under which Russia will use nukes: (1) someone uses nukes against Russia first; (2) Russia faces threat to its existence. "Threat to existence" is a fuzzy concept, but that is exactly what the USA cheerleaders seems to be hinting at. In particular, humiliating external military defeat that might lead to internal political disintegration sounds like "threat to existence". If you care about Ukraine, then you cannot be hoping for humiliating Russian defeat because of the possibility this causes escalation to nukes. Painful as it will be to the Ukrainians, they need to accept any reasonable settlement with Russia. Which probably means more of south and east Ukraine under Russian control that before..

Is that it relies on at least one dubious (if not provably false) assumption. And that is that there is any settlement that will satisfy Russia in the long run. They started this war with the aim of taking ALL of Ukraine. They failed mostly because their "intel" that a sizeable portion of the population would greet them as liberators was dead (pun intended) wrong. So what basis is there for a school of thought that Russia will ever be fully satisfied by taking (only) Donetsk, Luhansk, and other such areas? Such a view is naive in the extreme, IMO, or willfully ignorant.

Based on multiple statements by Putin, and others, a better reality-based assessment is that Russian ambition is to reclaim territory they feel is theirs by historical and divine right. Which means that any agreement or armistice that falls short of that goal is likely doomed to failure.

But, but, they have NUKES! Yes, that's absolutely true. And they'll still have nukes if they decide to "denazify" Poland, Finland, or the Baltics. Or maybe start with non-NATO countries like Moldova? The problem with the nuke argument is that it gives the aggressor carte blanche, and Putin knows this and doesn't hesitate to rattle his nuclear saber.

So where does it stop? Mearsheimer seems to believe it's all the fault of NATO and the West and that Russia would play nice if they weren't provoked. I don't think history and evidence back up that position. For one thing, it denies or minimizes Russia's agency over, and responsibility for, its own decisions and actions. The rivalry between the US and the USSR (and now Russia) is such that each has been provoking the other for decades. I'm not defending any specific action by NATO or the West, merely observing that Russia AFFIRMATIVELY chose to invade, and they CHOSE to launch shells and missiles at targets they knew were civilian. Putin and Russia will go down in history as war criminals, and not just because NATO or the US says so. There will be an innumerable number of voices that will join in a chorus of condemnation.

All the above means that Mearsheimer's proposed solution doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of happening. And one ironclad piece of evidence to that effect is that Ukraine will never accept it, and there's no political will to pressure them to do so. And, even if there was, Ukraine would destroy any such pressure in the court of public opinion as they're hugely winning the information warfare battle.

As to how things will actually play out, I'd be foolish to predict since there are so many variables still in play. But I will share an insight that I thought was a good one. And by good I mean that it's based on what's actually happening rather than someone's idea of what "should" happen.

https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/...17-p5alz4.html

The article, authored by a retired Australian general, points out that Ukraine's strategy so far has been one of "corrosion" with respect to Russia's ability to fight. Rather than pushing for overt victories, which they'd probably find difficult to achieve, they're wearing down the enemy while undermining that enemy's ability and will to fight. Will that prove successful over the long haul? Who knows? But it's the kind of low-key strategy that robs Putin of escalation opportunities. His army is grinding to a halt due to its own logistical and leadership failures, and even everyday Russians are starting to recognize that fact. Russian military bloggers, as just one example, have recently savaged the army's botched river crossing, in which they reportedly lost hundreds of vehicles and troops. Nobody's buying the "NATO did that" BS excuse. And at the same time, many conscription offices are being firebombed across Russia.

I think Putin knows he has a weak hand and that's one reason he passed up a prime opportunity to mobilize and escalate, during the recent Victory Day celebration. Instead, he delivered a nothingburger of a speech that left analysts, inside and outside Russia, scratching their heads.

I can't predict the future, and neither can Mearsheimer, but I'm not buying what he's selling.

[Jmsuttr]

Russia has a deep and wide culture. The USA has none, nada.

Venezuela's problems are exasperated by the USA stealing (freezing etc) its financial and other resources.

The rouble is strong, the German economy is in the toilet, all for obeying the USA and its puppets.

Or did you mean to say "exacerbated" and "culture" instead?

Oh well, your illiteracy aside, both Venezuela and Russia are experiencing the consequences of their own actions. And anyone looking for a foreshadowing of likely future effects on Russia would do well to study the toll sanctions have taken on Venezuela's economy. They've both made their geopolitical beds and now are being compelled to sleep in them. If they have problems with that, they should start by taking a look in the mirror.

As far as Russian culture is concerned, it's actually at the root of their current troubles. Russia's hubris and narcissistic world view has its foundation in a delusional self-image. They have disdain for anything non-Russian and a belief they have a God-given right to rule over other nations, especially those with populations predominantly of Slavic origin.

Actually, when it comes to culture, Kyiv has priority over Moscow as it's the older capital by far and it's where "Kievan Rus" originated, not Moscow. So, by any standard of cultural primacy, Moscow should be paying tribute to Kyiv, not the other way around.

As far as the US is concerned, being a young country, built by immigrants from every corner of the world, we're happy to be an amalgamation of many cultures. One of the benefits of that unique history is that it tends to ameliorate, minimize, and eliminate the worst ideas and tendencies of any single culture. Is it perfect? Absolutely not! But there's a reason why there's a waiting line to get in, and it's because many still see it as the quintessential Land of Opportunity.

What opportunity is there in Russia? You're either a member of the St. Petersburg-Moscow elite or you're a peasant who exists for the sole purpose of being used and exploited by that elite. Russia's problem is that, while past leaders (Tsars and USSR dictators) had an ample supply of cannon fodder, that demographic reality no longer exists. Not only are they running short of exploitable military-age men, but they're dealing with a huge exodus of their best and brightest.

Russia, like Putin himself, is sick and getting sicker.

P.S. As far as Germany is concerned, they've been joined at the hip with Russia for years. Serves them right if their economy is suffering as a result. The sooner Europe cuts any lines that tie them to the sinking Russian ship, the better.

[Paulie97]

My hope is time. The more time that passes from the disintegration of the Soviet Union thirty years ago the more Russia will be able to move forward. Hitler launched his war of aggression twenty years after World War II. Many Germans and certainly the German military were all too willing to avenge the defeat of WWI. The difference is older Russians familiar and somewhat satisfied with life under the Soviets is slowly giving way to younger and more modern Russians. Putin himself is a relic of the Soviet system.

I couldn't agree more.

[WyattEarp]

Russia has a deep and wide culture. The USA has none, nada.

Venezuela's problems are exasperated by the USA stealing (freezing etc) its financial and other resources.

The rouble is strong, the German economy is in the toilet, all for obeying the USA and its puppets.

Comrade, you seem to live in a parallel universe.

The United States is a 250 year-old amalgamation of cultures that has the eyes and ears of the world.

Russian culture while amazing hasn't really evolved in 250 years. There is an obvious lack of modernity hindered by a long, long love-hate relationship with the West.

[WyattEarp]

First, whether Putin's overthrow would change things depends on who replaces him. A like-for-like swap is unlikely to have much effect. And, as things stand right now, if he's removed (or dies) it's more probable he'd be replaced by a hawkish nationalist rather than a reformer.
.....................................................

After decades of Putin's autocratic and kleptocratic rule, he's either eliminated or driven out anyone who might be a credible reformer. And even high-profile opposition figures, like Navalny, are still cut from the same Moscow-Saint Petersburg, elite-centric, ethnic-Russian nationalist cloth. One of the reasons Russia seems (IMO) doomed to decades of darkness is that there doesn't appear to be anyone, or any credible movement, capable of leading them toward a different path. And it's my sense that the national mindset has been so conditioned by Putinism that they're incapable, at least at this point in time, of changing course. A rough analogy would be that of an addict who needs to hit rock bottom, with all their lies exposed and rationalizations destroyed, as an essential step toward rebuilding..

This is all very likely, but I'm a bit more optimistic. A Russian nationalist can politically benefit for a few years from putting things back together, stopping the carnage and getting the economy going again.

I think what extreme nationalist leaders like Putin (and Hitler) benefited from was taking over in a period of chaos. There is only one direction to go from chaos and that is up. Interestingly if you look at crude oil price charts starting from Putin's rise to power in 1999, you will see oil at $20 per barrel rising virtually unstoppable to a price of over $100 per barrel in 2014. I also don't think that the invasion of the Ukraine and the rapid rise in oil prices in 2021 are unconnected events.

Getting back to the question of a new Russian leader. There is certainly a real fear that Russia will be in some form of constant belligerency with NATO and the West. I don't think Russian institutions have improved since 1992. Russian institutions certainly don't appear immediately ready to try another attempt at real democratic progress and free market economics.

My hope is time. The more time that passes from the disintegration of the Soviet Union thirty years ago the more Russia will be able to move forward. Hitler launched his war of aggression twenty years after World War II. Many Germans and certainly the German military were all too willing to avenge the defeat of WWI. The difference is older Russians familiar and somewhat satisfied with life under the Soviets is slowly giving way to younger and more modern Russians. Putin himself is a relic of the Soviet system.

The key is to find a way around a humiliating Russian defeat in the Ukraine or at least the appearance of such. Russian reparations are problematic. I'm also not so sure the Ukrainians will now be satisfied with a draw. I'm not convinced the Biden Administration will be adept at managing the peace.

[Kozerog]

To me it seems more likely that Russia, after full or partial defeat in Ukraine, will retreat into isolation, continue on the path of belligerence and NATO-West blaming and, even though exposed as a (conventional) paper tiger, remain dangerous by virtue of their nuclear capability.

Yes, that's the most likely outcome, as cooler heads have been predicting all along, which is why they warned against trying to pull Ukraine into the Western orbit and thus provoke this war. In other words, Russia with be more like North Korea than before, a thorn in the side of the USA and Western Europe and others. Not so crazy and isolated as North Korea, but vastly more dangerous and with enough of an economy and valuable natural resources to cause far more mischief than North Korea. Note that 60+ years of isolation and sanctions have done nothing to break North Korea's (or Cuba's) defiance of the USA.

[Kozerog]

This is a recent short video clip where Mearsheimer clearly explains the extreme danger of current USA policy. To summarize, there are 2 conditions under which Russia will use nukes: (1) someone uses nukes against Russia first; (2) Russia faces threat to its existence. "Threat to existence" is a fuzzy concept, but that is exactly what the USA cheerleaders seems to be hinting at. In particular, humiliating external military defeat that might lead to internal political disintegration sounds like "threat to existence". If you care about Ukraine, then you cannot be hoping for humiliating Russian defeat because of the possibility this causes escalation to nukes. Painful as it will be to the Ukrainians, they need to accept any reasonable settlement with Russia. Which probably means more of south and east Ukraine under Russian control that before.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9YOETL3ICc

Russia has clearly shown they don't care about world opinion, so world opinion will not deter them from using nukes.

[PedroMorales]

Russia has a deep and wide culture. The USA has none, nada.

Venezuela's problems are exasperated by the USA stealing (freezing etc) its financial and other resources.

The rouble is strong, the German economy is in the toilet, all for obeying the USA and its puppets.

American bullshit bla bla, some points responded to for any non American who has a brain

[Jmsuttr]

The problem with this article is it's already 2-month old. Russia has proved that it's capable of weathering the storm for the time being.

For as long as Europe is buying, Russia will be OK. Not fine, but OK. They're getting a billion per day, that's enough to keep them going. Now with time, as Europe is buying less and less, things will get tougher, but that can take up to a couple of years.

Flawed culture. Yes, with faulty leadership being inevitable effect. All leaders are faulty, but in a democracy they don't usually rule too long (with some exceptions, which are balanced by longstanding democratic traditions). But in the Russian tradition, you can take the best of them and watch them desperately try to stick to power no matter what, descending and degrading into madness and absolutism, unless they're murdered along the way.

Nothing will ever change in Russia unless there is a bulletproof Constitutional and enforcement mechanism prescribing and detailing democratic rotation of power.

If Putin left in 2008, as he was supposed to according to the Constitution, he would've been remembered as one of the greatest leaders ever. He wouldn't have deserved it, but that's another story.

Obviously Russia is bigger, with more resources in reserve, and is dealing with a sanctions regime that is recent and still evolving. Oh yes, and they have nukes. But those differences, and I'm sure more could be named, don't negate the usefulness of the analogy.

Venezuela and Russia are both resource-rich countries, yet both depend heavily on foreign companies to provide the technology and expertise to extract those resources. Those essential companies have, due to sanctions and other reasons, mostly abandoned Venezuela, and the same is happening to Russia. From everything I've read, Venezuela's energy industry is limping along. And they don't have to deal with issues like Siberian winters. So the usefulness of the analogy is that it highlights areas to watch, like whether Russia's oil and gas industries will suffer similar difficulties and declines.

Also, Venezuela continues to sell oil but is constrained by sanctions and is in a weakened bargaining position when buyers like China and India demand discounts. And, whatever funds they get for their oil can only be used to purchase non-sanctioned goods and services. Obviously there's a constant dance to evade the sanctions, but the fact that Venezuela is an economic basket-case is pretty good evidence that the years of isolation have taken their toll.

Has Russia fully arrived at a Venezuela-like state yet? Of course not, and my earlier post wasn't intended to imply or argue that they have, only that their paths and trajectories are similar. Russia is only at the early stages of the process that Venezuela has been burdened with for years and, being bigger and richer to begin with, has more "fat" to burn through before needing to consume muscle and bone. But, with a brain-drain of their brightest and best, and no replenishment from outside, they are truly eating their own seed corn.

About Europe buying Russian oil and gas, that's certainly the near-term scenario but, now that everyone understands what it means to be at the mercy of Russia's "weaponized" energy policy, every European country is looking for alternate supply wherever they can find it. Italy's recent deals with Azerbaijan and Algeria are examples of this. So, while the wheels may turn slowly in some circles, they're still all turning in a direction that's not favorable to Russia and will result in further isolation.

And yes, Russia gets billions for its oil and gas. That sounds great but, because of sanctions they're limited as to what they can do with that money. They can't buy needed semiconductors, as just one example, and I recently read that they're having to cannibalize washing machines to repurpose some of the chips for military use. That certainly doesn't sound like an efficient or sustainable practice. Maybe they should get help from Cuban mechanics. After all, in Havana they've figured out how to keep cars from the 40's and 50's on the road.

How a country declines, by virtue of its own flaws + external sanctions and pressures + faulty leadership, is a process rather than an event. In terms of the progress of that process, two months is nothing. What's relevant is the trajectory, and Russia is clearly trending in a downward, Venezuela-like, direction. With every passing day I see more negative straws piling on the back of the camel and I see nothing on the horizon to suggest any relief or change in the landscape.

[Xpartan]

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2...orse-than-1991

The problem with this article is it's already 2-month old. Russia has proved that it's capable of weathering the storm for the time being.

For as long as Europe is buying, Russia will be OK. Not fine, but OK. They're getting a billion per day, that's enough to keep them going. Now with time, as Europe is buying less and less, things will get tougher, but that can take up to a couple of years.

Q: How does a country that is rich in natural resources, and had a high level of positive potential, turn itself into an economic disaster?

A: Flawed culture + faulty leadership..

Flawed culture. Yes, with faulty leadership being inevitable effect. All leaders are faulty, but in a democracy they don't usually rule too long (with some exceptions, which are balanced by longstanding democratic traditions). But in the Russian tradition, you can take the best of them and watch them desperately try to stick to power no matter what, descending and degrading into madness and absolutism, unless they're murdered along the way.

Nothing will ever change in Russia unless there is a bulletproof Constitutional and enforcement mechanism prescribing and detailing democratic rotation of power.

If Putin left in 2008, as he was supposed to according to the Constitution, he would've been remembered as one of the greatest leaders ever. He wouldn't have deserved it, but that's another story.

[Jmsuttr]

- Overthrow Putin

First, whether Putin's overthrow would change things depends on who replaces him. A like-for-like swap is unlikely to have much effect. And, as things stand right now, if he's removed (or dies) it's more probable he'd be replaced by a hawkish nationalist rather than a reformer.

After decades of Putin's autocratic and kleptocratic rule, he's either eliminated or driven out anyone who might be a credible reformer. And even high-profile opposition figures, like Navalny, are still cut from the same Moscow-Saint Petersburg, elite-centric, ethnic-Russian nationalist cloth. One of the reasons Russia seems (IMO) doomed to decades of darkness is that there doesn't appear to be anyone, or any credible movement, capable of leading them toward a different path. And it's my sense that the national mindset has been so conditioned by Putinism that they're incapable, at least at this point in time, of changing course. A rough analogy would be that of an addict who needs to hit rock bottom, with all their lies exposed and rationalizations destroyed, as an essential step toward rebuilding.

- Promise to make nice.

Second, nobody believes or trusts Russia anymore. Which means promises would be insufficient and some kind of guarantee regime would need to be crafted. I have no idea what kind of guarantees would be deemed sufficient by Ukraine and at-risk countries like Poland, the Baltics, etc. While I try to "never say never," achieving a workable level of trust may prove to be an impossible task, at least in the near-to-medium term.

- Turn on the spigots.

Third, while I agree this would be a positive step, it'll be complicated by the need to garnish all or part of the proceeds from energy sales to pay reparations. Lots of moving parts involved and the devil will be in the details.

To sum up, what Russia needs is a radical roots-up reformation. And even with that it'll be decades before any semblance of "normal" relations will return. Sadly, I don't see the necessary antecedent conditions for such a change. To me it seems more likely that Russia, after full or partial defeat in Ukraine, will retreat into isolation, continue on the path of belligerence and NATO-West blaming and, even though exposed as a (conventional) paper tiger, remain dangerous by virtue of their nuclear capability.

[WyattEarp]

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2...orse-than-1991

Q: How does a country that is rich in natural resources, and had a high level of positive potential, turn itself into an economic disaster?

A: Flawed culture + faulty leadership.

P.S. The article also makes some good points as to why countries like India and China, no matter what kind of "help" they may offer, won't be enough to save Russia from its self-destructive path.

A lot can change quickly. Here's one scenario that would greatly benefit Russia and the globe for that matter.

- Overthrow Putin.

- Promise to make nice.

- Turn on the spigots.

[Jmsuttr]

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2...orse-than-1991

Q: How does a country that is rich in natural resources, and had a high level of positive potential, turn itself into an economic disaster?

A: Flawed culture + faulty leadership.

P.S. The article also makes some good points as to why countries like India and China, no matter what kind of "help" they may offer, won't be enough to save Russia from its self-destructive path.

[Jmsuttr]

China's economic miracle over the last thirty plus years is nothing but astounding. As you mention, the Chinese government has had an overly-controlling hand on the economy. Market reforms and capitalism are what brought China prosperity. Xi, however, has arrogantly brought back more government control and intervention in the economy to ride out the rough patch.

Many think of economics as some kind of decadent and imperialistic Anglo-American construct. For those who study it, they know its kind of like the gravity of human commerce. Governments can't avoid the inevitable forces of economics.

When a farmer gives a blacksmith meat, milk, or crops, in exchange for a new plow, that's economics. Individual activity, no matter what gobbledygook and complicated intermediate steps are inserted, remains the foundation or "the gravity of human commerce," as you put it. It's fascinating to me that "experts" try to pretend it's anything more than a social science. If it was truly a hard science, like physics, economic prognosticators wouldn't have such a dismal track record for their predictions.

China's economic miracle is undeniable, but the most significant factors that made it possible have either faded or are altogether gone. Some of that is due to natural trends, such as demographic changes (aging, migration to cities, low birthrate, etc.), some of that is due to changes to Deng-era policies, and some of that is due to reactions from foreign countries and companies as they wake up to the true nature of China's leadership.

Low-cost production in Asia has been moving out of China to places like Vietnam, Indonesia, Cambodia, etc. Supply-chain sensitive products have been moving out since the institution of Trump's tariffs, further exacerbated by pandemic lockdowns and disruptions that continue to this day. Hong Kong, once viewed as a safer way to have a piece of the Chinese market, is now just another CCP-controlled metropolis.

In other words, the tide of positive factors and capital flows that once masked all of the bubbles and economic fragilities of China is steadily going out. Xi is like a child trying to use a toy shovel to keep the water on the beach, only to see every attempt end with the water draining into the sand. The end result is that China is stuck in a middle-income trap, from which there is no easy or short-term solution, if ever.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...le-income-trap#.

Anyone who buys into the current crop of China hype would do well to remember the lessons of 1980's Japan. At that time it was Japan that was experiencing "to the moon" growth and was widely expected to supplant the US as the dominant economic power. And China? At that time China hardly merited a second thought. With 20-20 hindsight we now see how drastically such hype can collapse. Luckily for Japan, they managed to grow wealthy enough, on a per capita basis, to have reached escape velocity from the middle income trap. China is unlikely to be so fortunate. Demographic wheels grind slowly, even if other factors are favorable. China's biggest problem is that their leaders, intentionally or unintentionally, have been removing or undermining many of the favorable factors. And, just as the USSR's centrally-planned economy was opaque to outside observers and projected strength, when the dam cracks and breaks it tends to happen suddenly.

IMHO, one of the reasons China has been relatively subdued with respect to the Russia-Ukraine war, offering mostly only token support, is because they know how much is currently on their plate and can't afford to be distracted or waste resources.

To sum up all of the above, because the individual is at the heart of economics, systems that don't value both the individual and that individual's rights (like Russia, the USSR, or the CCP) will be constantly fighting against the tide and, sooner or later, will inevitably fail.

[WyattEarp]

China, however, has systemic problems that stem from the CCP's need to maintain a narrative that supports Xi's "Mandate of Heaven" irrespective of real economic conditions. And that's reflected in their need to control everything, from capital flows to property sales to stock market levels. But central control is a practical impossibility in an environment where a near-infinite number of variables means that unintended consequences will almost certainly occur. In a world experiencing generally positive growth a lot of those problems never break above the surface. But, like a Ponzi scheme that runs out of new money, at some point the chickens come home to roost. It's hard to know exactly where China's stall-speed point is, since everything is so opaque and they have many ways to keep bad news under wraps. It's my sense that, like the proverbial Minsky Moment, it'll be something that seems relatively small that'll trigger the next crisis.

Oh yes, and all the "whataboutism" finger-pointing at the US won't change a thing about the negative direction, and likely hard landing, of the Russian and Chinese economies.

China's economic miracle over the last thirty plus years is nothing but astounding. As you mention, the Chinese government has had an overly-controlling hand on the economy. Market reforms and capitalism are what brought China prosperity. Xi, however, has arrogantly brought back more government control and intervention in the economy to ride out the rough patch.

Many think of economics as some kind of decadent and imperialistic Anglo-American construct. For those who study it, they know its kind of like the gravity of human commerce. Governments can't avoid the inevitable forces of economics.