I didn’t make this map and it isn’t based on what I think. I put it up because reader GrimJim sent it to me and I think it’s well done and a good place to start a conversation.
Tag: Ukraine War Page 6 of 7
It’s consensus in the West now that Russia’s military sucks.
Does it?
As Scott Ritter pointed out and as I find it shocking that almost no one else pointed out, Russia invaded with a lot less men than Ukraine has. Regular forces, plus reserves, plus border guards, plus miscellaneous other groups, Ukraine had about 600K. With allies from the Republics, Russia had about 190K.
Russia has air superiority, but not air supremacy over Ukraine, but the bottom line is that they invaded with about a 1/3 ground force disadvantage.
When you look at it that way, the narrative that NATO trained troops are so much better than Russian ones starts looking questionable. Say what you will about the Russians, they have pushed the Ukrainians back and I very much doubt the Western casualty figures are accurate. Perhaps Russian troops are actually superior to NATO ones. It’s certainly at least as viable as a narrative.
There are two important things to note here:
First, the number of troops supports the Russia claim that they never have intended to conquer and occupy the entire country, because even if they thought Ukrainian morale was weak, in no way is a 1/3 outnumbered ground force sufficient to do so.
Second, Ukrainian forces in the east are not getting significant resupply. All roads aren’t held by the Russians, but because of Russian air superiority they are closed to significant supply convoys. As I understand it, Ukrainian forces in the East are down to about 9 days of supply.
If Russia keeps them out of resupply, and keeps them unable to move (fleeing down those roads means Russia’s air force gets a turkey-shoot) then when they run out of supply, they’ll collapse and be captured or killed en-masse.
I don’t know if this the correct picture of the war, I’m not a military analyst and it’s not an area of significant interest to me.
But let’s say this assessment is correct. The entire narrative we’ve been fed about the war will turn out to be false, and will be proven false in a way which cannot be denied.
We’ll know soon enough. It’s hard to be sure. Ukraine is effectively refusing to negotiate, so they think they still stand a chance and they may know something we don’t.
I’ll place one market in the ground, though: if a claim is made that Russia used chemical weapons I will not believe it without incontrovertible evidence. They have no reason to do so. If they want to increase their military force, they can do so easily enough with conventional weapons. Despite rhetoric they haven’t been using strategies like level bombing; they’ve only used a few of their most dangerous missiles and so on. They can ramp up force with causing the sort of backlash chemical weapons will cause. So if there’s a claim, I will suspect it is false flag.
Cui Bono
Finally, as I have stated many times before, the analysis has nothing to do with any preferences of mine about who should win. I want the war over and civilians safe, and I was a critic of Putin back when liberals thought he was their man in Moscow.
So, as many readers will have heard, Russia has said it will only accept rubles in exchange for its exports to “hostile nations” — which is to say, those nations who have sanctioned it over Ukraine.
The main thing to understand is that the West froze hundreds of billions of dollars of Russian reserves on account in the West. They sold us stuff for Euros and dollars and we will now not let them use those dollars or Euros. Sanctions mean that even the dollars and euros they have cannot buy many, perhaps most things, in most Western countries and Japan.
So selling us anything in dollars and euros doesn’t make much sense: they can’t use them without exchanging them for other currencies, and our sanctions make that difficult, since they’re closed out from our banking system.
Thus, rubles. An additional advantage of this is that it increases the value of the ruble, which had collapsed under sanctions.
In order to buy Russian oil and gas, Europeans will have to get rubles. Russians are unlikely to want a lot of euros or dollars because they’re almost impossible to spend, so Europe will probably have to buy Yuan and Rupees, then trade those currencies for Rubles. Paying with gold isn’t really practical, because it would have to be physically shipped to Russia or on account with a country they trust (China, India, a few others). Obviously gold in Western banks is not safe.
Russia’s main exports are oil, gas, wheat and minerals. There are usually other sources, but without Russia there aren’t enough to satisfy world demand. Sanctions on Russia, because they are such a big wheat exporter, may wind up killing a few million people in the global South, more than will be killed in the war.
From the point of view of the West, this is a continuation of de-dollarization. If Saudi Arabia also sells oil to China in Yuan, it will be a big deal. Prices are still set in dollars, but I expect that may end fairly soon.
Payment systems are being set up, and the world will split into two different trade areas. China wants another five to ten years before the big (inevitable) split with the West, they may or may not get it, but if they have any sense they won’t allow Russia to be choked out. They certainly aren’t going to cooperate with US sanctions, and that means they need to cleanly separate their financial system from ours, so that funds can’t be seized in transit, executives can’t be locked up and so on.
The Russians didn’t expect this, they were taken by surprise. Probably because, in fact, it’s a weapon that can only be used against a country like Russia (as opposed to Venezuela or Iran or Afghanistan), once. No one outside the West can now trust the West’s system, and everyone with sense will want their reserves kept elsewhere.
This is mostly a good thing, the West has terribly abused its currency primary to hurt other nations, even before the abuse of sanctions which largely accelerated under Clinton. Control of dollars was part of the arsenal used to keep the South poor and the US in control. China was able to get around this because of American greed and stupidity, and now that it has, it has a veto. Since Russia being taken out will lead it to be surrounded by enemies, it is going to use that veto. Again, Russia cannot be choked out by financial and economic sanctions if China does not permit.
I have been writing about this for almost 20 years now, it was clear it would happen eventually but exactly when and how were unclear. For a few years I’ve been saying we were moving to a Cold War world, and we are.
The difference is that unlike in 1950 or 2000, the West is not clearly stronger than the coalition against it. The USSR was always weaker economically, and though for much of the 50s and 60s they had higher growth (something forgotten today), in retrospect and for some of the smarter people at the time, the outcome was never in doubt, it just needed to be managed so it didn’t turn into World War 3.
This time the outcome is in doubt, and I think the smart money would bet slightly against the West, maybe 3/2. The wild card is climate change, which will hit China very hard, but could also do great damage to Europe and America.
Putin was foolish to get into this situation, reserves should have been withdrawn, but this is a smart move. It’s also going to hurt Europe a lot and damage German industry, whose costs will skyrocket (I have little sympathy, given that Germany has used the Euro to basically de-industrialize most of the rest of the EU.)
The post-American hegemony world isn’t quite here, but it’s being born. Welcome to the Age of War and Revolution and the Twilight of the Neoliberalism.
In the Melian dialogue, the Athenians have sent a military force to the city of Melos. The Athenians urge the Melians to submit. If they don’t, the men will be killed, the children and women taken for slaves. The Athenians say, “The strong do as they will, and the weak suffer what they must.”
In other words, “Take the deal, or you’ll get even worse.”
This is, in essence, what Putin said to Ukraine, and Ukraine, like the Melians, refused. It is at the heart of most of US interactions with “enemy” nations since WWII, and especially since the end of the Cold War. Even if they didn’t promise destruction, enemies were told, “Resist, and we’ll destroy your economy with sanctions, and millions will suffer or die.”
There are two corollaries to this, however. The first is pointed out by the Melians:
But do you not recognise another danger? For, once more, since you drive us from the plea of justice and press upon us your doctrine of expediency, we must show you what is for our interest, and, if it be for yours also, may hope to convince you: Will you not be making enemies of all who are now neutrals? When they see how you are treating us they will expect you some day to turn against them; and if so, are you not strengthening the enemies whom you already have, and bringing upon you others who, if they could help, would never dream of being your enemies at all?
This is what the US did to many countries — these countries may not have declared their enmity, but they do not consider the US a friend. They view the US as a threat, and when the day comes that they can get their revenge, they will do so.
It is at the heart of what is happening in Europe: Rearmament. By using his military, Putin has convinced other nations, especially Germany, to rearm.
But there is a third side, mentioned by neither the Melians nor the Athenians.
“If the powerful can do this, if I do not do it, I am not powerful.”
A great deal of why Russia is doing what it is, and why it created all the little semi-states around itself, was in reaction to the US. “If the US can violate international law, create Kosovo, and go to war with other nations who are weaker than it, if we don’t, we admit we are not powerful.”
Powerful nations can violate international law. If Russia does not violate international law in the same ways as the US and its favored vassal states does, then Russia is admitting it is weak.
The massive sanctions response is a test. Is the West still strong enough to largely limit massive violations of international law to itself and its vassals, or is Russia capable of withstanding those sanctions, and therefore one of the strong?
This question has yet to be answered. It will take time. In large part, as I have pointed out repeatedly, it depends on China. Probably Russia isn’t strong enough; but China + Russia are.
And notice the key allies who are sitting this out: Israel, three of the four Gulf states, the Saudis, and to a large extent, Turkey.
“There is no difference to us between Ukraine and Iraq or various other violations of international law. We aren’t your allies because we are your friends.”
Meanwhile, the US is asking China, their declared #1 enemy for the past twelve years or so, to undercut Russia, because the real question isn’t about Russia, it is about China.
“The strong do as they will, and the weak suffer what they must.” Who are the strong in our world?
First: To my knowledge, sanctions have never lead to regime change. They didn’t in Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Libya, or anywhere else — not even North Korea and Cuba, which are still under some seriously savage sanctions.
Second: The targeted country’s leadership can still have pretty much whatever they want, it’s the population which suffers.
Third: While, in most ways, Russia is weaker than the USSR, it has a food surplus, while the Soviets always struggled. You can’t starve them out. It also has a fairly decent medical industry and access to Chinese and Indian medicines. Also, if sanctions continue, they will break our IP.
Fourth: The USSR didn’t have the largest industrial nation in the world as its ally (that would be China, not the US).
Fifth: China and Russia are synergistic. What China needs (food (desperately), oil, and minerals), Russia has. What Russia needs (consumer goods, medium to high-ish tech), China has. Plus, for China, having Russia as an ally mitigates the whole “US Navy cutting off supplies at the Straits of Hormuz” situation that every Chinese leader since Deng has stayed up nights worrying about.
Sixth: The logical response for Russia and China is to link their payments systems and to create an alternate monetary system. Because the West has repeatedly stolen billions of dollars from countries foolish enough to keep them on reserve in the West and then get on the West’s bad side, a lot of nations will move over to that system. Honestly, I’d trust China more than I would trust US not to steal my reserves, at this point.
Nobody seems to be thinking this forward. If sanctions don’t take out Russia and force it to collapse and/or have a government we like, what are we going to do next?
And as sanctions have never taken out a government, what’s our plan? Right now, it seems like the only alternative is to have a long guerilla war in Ukraine and bleed Russia dry. This strategy might work, though the human cost will be monstrous. (But then, why would the West care? We’re fighting to the last Ukrainian, after all.)
But if sanctions don’t work, and the guerilla trap doesn’t, what’s our Plan C? It’s particularly important because these sanctions are going to do a lot of damage to ourselves including, very likely, destroying the IP system that makes our rich so rich. (I, personally, look forward to Russia, and later China, breaking our IP system, but I don’t imagine high tech firms and/or Disney are as thrilled.)
Again, what’s our Plan C?
- Ukraine is not morally worse than Iraq, Yemen, or many other wars.
- Russia is not more evil in its foreign affairs than the US.
- Neither fact is whataboutism.
The general cases of these also apply. Most countries that seem good are not good. They are weak, and if they were powerful, they would not continue to act good. (The personal application of that principle will be the subject of another post.)
The point here is that there is NO ethical case for treating the US and Russia differently in terms of sanctions and response. Iraq was just as bad a war crime as Ukraine. So what is happening is not about ethics, it’s about other things. For many Europeans, it’s about fear (that’s another post), but for the US and its allies, this mostly about power: The actual “principle” is “our wars and annexations are good,” and “you can’t do to white, blonde Europeans who we consider part of Western civilization what you do to brown people who aren’t part of Western civilization.”
This is NOT an argument that what Russia has done is not an evil war crime. But countries who are not Western allies, like India, China, and most of the global south, even if they will condemn the actions, do not see this as anything worse than many actions taken by the US and its allies and see no reason to cooperate with sanctions unless those sanctions also benefit them, as they know that this is not about justice, but about power.
Justice applies equally to all. It commands respect. When the ICC declares it is opening a war crimes investigation against Russia, but didn’t against the US, everyone who isn’t a Westerner (and many of us, too) laugh bitterly. Why didn’t the ICC try Cheney and Bush and so on? Because the US threatened to invade if they did. (No, I am not kidding. Look it up.)
Next: Deals made when a nation is weak, do not hold if they are not actually in the country’s self-interest. This is at the heart of the China/US conflict, by the way. The “rules-based” world order was created when China was weak, by the people who put the boots to China for over a century. The Chinese don’t see why they should respect it. They will do so for as long as it is in their interest, and not one second further.
“Don’t keep deals that are bad for you,” is also why Russia is likely to break all Western IP. The only reason why they wouldn’t is that oil and wheat exports are still not subject to sanctions. Do that, and the IP goes. Then China helps Russia reverse engineer and manufacture Western goods, while smiling and denying, since they too hate Western IP. (In WWI, the US broke German patents. The core of the American chemical industry is based on this fact. After the war was over, they did not say, “Okay, we’ll go back to respecting them.”)
I remember the run up to and first period of the Iraq war. Then, as now, pointing out inconvenient truths was regarded as traitorous, and people said, “But Iraq is an evil dictatorship and Saddam, Saddam, Saddam.” Saddamn was an evil dictator, but Iraq was still a war crime (as is Ukraine).
Those same truths, by the way, were acknowledged by almost everyone as true ten years later when it didn’t matter, and many of those people are making the same mistakes now.
This is Great Power politics. The decisions on both sides are not being made for reasons of justice or ethics. That does not mean there isn’t an ethical case, but you can’t say, “We get to have wars, and everyone who isn’t our ally doesn’t.” That’s just the argument of a bully who says, “Only I get to beat people up!” and everyone who is ethical and not ruled by the emotions of the moment knows it.
A world at peace will happen (if it ever does) when powerful nations hold themselves to the same rules they hold the weak to, and not before.
I’d really hate to be China’s leadership right now. This is rock/hard place for them. If they don’t keep Russia alive, they will have no ally when it’s their turn, but the US and Europe are likely to put a ton of pressure on them for sanctions & that will start the cold war earlier than they wanted (for them — it’s already started for Russia).
Obama famously pivoted to China, calling it the biggest threat. Trump slapped on sanctions and used a ban on semiconducters to absolutely savage Huawei, the flagship Chinese tech company, whose phones were rivaling Apple and Samsung, and whose 5G technology was the most advanced and ready-to-deploy in the world.
They put immense pressure on Europe to not use Huawei 5g tech and largely succeeded.
When Biden came in, he removed none of Trumps sanctions.
In effect, the US has been declaring China its enemy for about 12 years now, through both Democratic and Republican administrations, and over the last few years, anti-China sentiment in DC has solidified. As far as I can tell, it is truly bipartisan.
China has known that a cold war with the US was inevitable for a couple of years now, though they suspected it before. They had hoped to keep Europe as a neutral customer, but Europe has bowed down to the US whenever push comes to shove, so China, like Russia, appears to regard Europe as an American satrapy — a subject state who will do what the US says.
The US and Europe will now put immense pressure on China to comply with sanctions on Russia and to not help Russia get around them.
My guess is that China will not, substantially, comply. The calculus is simple: Cold war with the US is coming, and if they let Russia get taken out, they lose a powerful ally and will then be surrounded, rather than having most of their Western flank covered by another Great Power.
Russia has repeatedly told the West to go fuck itself with regards to sanctions. They regarded, even before this war, more sanctions as inevitable. All that the war has done, they believe, is move the sanctions forward. China is likely to have the same calculus: sanctions, tariffs, and so on are never removed, only increased over time.
Both China and Russia have their own SWIFT alternatives. They will hook together and be offered to the rest of the world. As non-US allies have seen, with Venezuela, Iran, and now Russia (among others) that the US will even freeze reserves, they will join the Chinese and Russian systems and settle trade in Yuan. They will move reserves out of the US/European system.
This is, however, a huge hit to both China and the US. The US cannot currently decouple from China — it’s impossible. The US actually needs China more than China needs them. Remember, China is the largest industrial power, not the US.
It’s still a terrible trap, though, and the Chinese will, I think, play to mitigate. The US will not slap the worst sanctions on just yet, but will rush to move production to low-cost US allies.
There is an alternative, of course. China could buckle, agree to join the “rules-based order,” and play by American rules. The issues here are threefold.
First: This means China is not allowed to take control of value chains, which provides much of the real profit. Probably 15 percent or so of the value in a value chain comes just from that. They will have to keep paying US intellectual property fees, which amount to another ten to 15 percent in a lot of industries.
Intellectual property, if it’s not obvious, is on the table. Certainly Russia will stop paying these fees, that’s almost certain.
Second: Playing by Western rules means, the Chinese believe, staying stuck in the middle income trap and not making it to high income. This is one of those places which is a genuine trap: Decoupling will be a huge hit, but staying in the system and playing by the rules set up to favor the US and its allies means being in a system which keeps China from becoming a rich nation.
Third: There is an emotional component. As much as many Europeans, especially eastern Europeans, hate and fear Russia, China has a deep resevoir of hate for Europe, and the US for the “century of humiliation,” for Taiwan (to them a rebellious province which they would have retaken years ago if the West didn’t support it), and of course, a lot of hatred for Japan, the West’s primary Asian ally, for its invasion, occupation, and atrocities before and during WWII.
Emotionally, the Chinese are primed to tell the West to go fuck itself. They didn’t see why they should’ve play by rules made even when they were at their weakest. The “rules-based international order” to them is nothing but a set of rules set up by people who don’t want them to be a great, rich nation again. Rhetoric from the US has solidified this impression, and I think more correctly than not.
So the “cut a deal and compromise” really means “accept the current world order and play by rules that China thinks are unfair to them, and are made without their input.”
My guess is that China will do whatever it takes to keep Russia alive and to stop Western sanctions from achieving their declared aim: To collapse the Russian economy and cause regime change. Viewed pragmatically, I think that is the right call if you are the Chinese leadership, because the other two options (acquiescing to Western rules or letting Russia collapse and facing the West w/o Russia) seem worse.
I would guess, and it is just a guess, that this takes about four to eight years, because the US would be insane to decouple now, and China also wants time to prepare. But emotions are running high and a lot of policies have been made without clearly thinking through their consequences lately, so I while I think it’s odds on, I won’t be surprised if emotions rule instead. The decoupling may happen sooner.
Welcome to the new Cold War. Remember, in this one, the world’s biggest industrial power and most populous nation is on the other side. This isn’t 1950 or even 2000. China is the biggest trade partner of more nations than the US, not the other way around.
And China needs what Russia has: wheat, oil, and mineral resources.
Cold War 2.0 isn’t one in which the West are necessarily the favorites to win.
Ok. Deep breath.
Is what is happening in Ukraine worse than what happened in Iraq?
Why was the US not hit with crippling sanctions, like is being done to Russia?
Think this stuff through on your own, and if you get it, your belief that anything happening is being driven by ethical considerations will go away, and you’ll be able to think clearly.
Now, let’s talk sanctions. They’re more severe than initial indications, and Russian reserves have been blocked, as was done to Venezuela and Afghanistan (this, plus sanctions, is what is starving Afghans to death this winter, by the way).
Now, put yourself in Putin’s shoes. Assume the sanctions really are severe enough to collapse Russia and kill millions and, not incidentally, remove you from power at which point you, your family, and everyone close to you, will be killed. (That’s what is most likely if Putin loses power.)
You are a nuclear superpower with a Great Power military. What do you do? Do you just sit there? Or do you try and use that military to force the return of your reserves and some reduction in the worst sanctions?
(I don’t think the sanctions are quite that severe, but I could be wrong; I’m still thinking it through. However, many commenters — and even politicians — are clear that this is what they want: To collapse Russia under sanctions. But Russia is not Venezuela, or Iran, or Afghanistan.)
Put yourself in Putin’s shoes, and remember, he’s been known to raze entire cities.