11 ms·

Putin’s Challenge to Western Hegemony

everybodyknows 5y ago
> Ukraine’s experience contrasts sharply with that of Russian Federation which since the 1998 crisis has seen much more dramatic and sustained recovery. It also contrasts painfully with the growth trajectory of Ukraine’s neighbors Turkey and Poland.
- xbar 5y ago
  These two sentences are conclusion-free. Is the pain relief a Russian invasion? That's a neat idea. I can say that North Dakota's recovery since 2008 contrasts painfully with that of Texas. Is it time for a Canadian Challenge to Midwestern Hegemony?
  - bee_rider 5y ago
mikewarot 5y ago
Bush Sr promised that NATO wouldn't expand into the former Soviet Union, then we did anyway. Russia can not accept Ukraine joining NATO. We shouldn't have pushed the coup a few years back, and we should leave our mitts off now. Oh, and lets stop starving Afghanistan while we're at it. The last time we screwed them over, Bin Laden came back at us.
- temp 5y ago
  >Bush Sr promised that NATO wouldn't expand into the former Soviet Union Surely that was a decision to be made by the relevant countries themselves and not Bush Sr of the United States.
  - nopenopenopeno 5y ago
    That’s not how empires work
  - hindsightbias 5y ago
    When the $21 Trillion EU puts their big boy pants on and form their own army, they can have agency (Serbia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya, Syria, etc, etc). Until then, the 900# red white & blue gorilla of NATO is driving. Folks don’t like it? Well, time to stop whistling “The Yanks Are Coming” every time they want to tussle with their neighborhood.
  - hollerith 5y ago
    Any NATO member can veto the accession of a new member.
  - GoodJokes 5y ago
- jolux 5y ago
  Under what theory of international relations is it legitimate for one country to invade another because they’re upset that other countries bordering it made treaty agreements with another power?
  - greesil 5y ago
    Bush W's "if they have oil" doctrine. In this case the invasion would be legitimate if it was Ukraine invading Russia and not the other way around.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - DisjointedHunt 5y ago
    So, the US invaded Iraq and walked into Syria, bombing the fuck out of it. What do you propose as punishment?
    - jolux 5y ago
      We’re receiving the punishment now, in that nobody has any good reason to trust us anymore. Still doesn’t justify aggression.
      - DisjointedHunt 5y ago
        Precisely, there is no international coalition of countries threatening war against us, is there? Why is the US or NATO justified in doing the same to Russia then ? [Edit] Since the algo won't let me post too many comments too fast. Sanctions/War/whatever . . . the point is that the actions of the United States in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria are many orders of magnitude worse than anything Russia has done to Crimea or is planning on doing to Ukraine, so any retort saying "We are not going to war, we are applying sanctions" is about as paradoxical as it gets. If those actions justify sanctions or war, surely the US should be first in line to sanction itself?
- kadoban 5y ago
  > Bush Sr promised that NATO wouldn't expand into the former Soviet Union, then we did anyway. Who did he promise, when, and did it make it into a treaty? Because it seems to not basically not exist.
  - bwilli123 5y ago
    ..."In my interviews with Baker and Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze in 1994, Baker acknowledged (and Shevardnadze confirmed) that he told the former foreign minister the United States would not “leapfrog” over a reunified Germany to move closer to the borders of the Soviet Union. There are reports that Baker was willing to put this commitment in writing, but that national security adviser Brent Scowcroft convinced the president not to do so." https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/01/18/bill-clintons-role-in-the-crisis-over-ukraine https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/01/18/bill-clintons-role-i...
    - bvrmn 5y ago
      Baltic countries (NATO members) has been bordered with Russia since 2004. It's a long broken promise.
  - chucksmash 5y ago
    Mikhail Gorbachev's purported view[1] on the matter, according to Russia Beyond[2]. Emphasis mine: > Interviewer: One of the key issues that has arisen in connection with the events in Ukraine is NATO expansion into the East. Do you get the feeling that your Western partners lied to you when they were developing their future plans in Eastern Europe? Why didn’t you insist that the promises made to you – particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East – be legally encoded? I will quote Baker: “NATO will not move one inch further east.” > M.G.: The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a single Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context. Kohl and [German Vice Chancellor Hans-Dietrich] Genscher talked about it. > Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled. The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been observed all these years. So don’t portray Gorbachev and the then-Soviet authorities as naïve people who were wrapped around the West’s finger. If there was naïveté, it was later, when the issue arose. Russia at first did not object. > The decision for the U.S. and its allies to expand NATO into the east was decisively made in 1993. I called this a big mistake from the very beginning. It was definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990. With regards to Germany, they were legally enshrined and are being observed. [1]: https://www.rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbachev_i_am_against_all_walls_40673.html https://www.rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbac... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_Beyond https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_Beyond
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- tomjen3 5y ago
  >Russia can not accept Ukraine joining NATO. And I can't accept the cute redhead turned me down, but just like Putin I will have to suck it up.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Bush Sr promised that NATO wouldn't expand into the former Soviet Union No, he didn't. Gorbachev, one of whose vague comments later about feeling betrayed by NATO expansion into the East beyond united Germany is the origin of the myth, subsequently explicitly clarified that not only was no promise about NATO expansion made, but the issue was never even raised by the USSR. > Russia can not accept Ukraine joining NATO. Well, it should learn to accept that it's not the USSR any more and its sovereign neighbors have the right to make the security arrangements they choose. > Oh, and lets stop starving Afghanistan while we're at it. The last time we screwed them over, Bin Laden came back at us. Bin Laden didn't come at us for anything having to do with Afghanistan (where are policy benefited his interests), but because he was mad that his home country of Saudi Arabia turned to us rather than his network for defense when Iraq invaded Kuwait and threatened SA in 1990.
- the_duke 5y ago
  Most don't like to hear this, but I agree. Obama and Clinton (as Secretary of State) very openly supported Ukraine, and the EU sort of played along, although much more apprehensively. They were playing with fire. In the words of a European ambassador I'm acquainted with: "They don't know what the f** they are doing. This will cause a war.". He said this in 2013. Losing Ukraine as a buffer zone to the west and even the small possiblity for a direct border with a Nato or EU was way too much for Russia to accept, so they acted aggressively. With the assumption that neither the US nor EU countries would be willing to seriously intervene. Which proved correct, apart from some lackluster sanctioning.
  - q1w2 5y ago
    Russia already has a direct border with a number of NATO countries. Ukraine will not be the first. I think it would be the 5th.
dr-detroit 5y ago
DisjointedHunt 5y ago
Much of the coverage i see of "Russia" in the west completely misses the following points that super crucial to the political debate: 1. NATO is a military coalition that sits outside the regular National framework of war making. 2. NATO agreements are fair or ridiculous depending on the outcome one expects. If a member is attacked, that is a declaration of war on ALL members. Consider a rogue state/leader member picking war with a nuclear power and escalating to the point of no return. What then? 3. The objectives that NATO seem to want have become largely aggressive extensions of one political sides policies rather than what is right for "keeping the peace in Europe" or the world. If you disagree with the statements above, i'd ask you to consider that China and her allies, Iran, Turkey, North Korea and Pakistan suddenly moved Radar equipment and denial of airspace missile batteries to Mexico, Canada and Cuba tomorrow. What would the United States consider such an act to be? Defensive? For all the dick waving that Putin has done, the threat of war with severe consequences has been initiated by and continues to be advertised as the only choice by the unelected bureaucrats at NATO. We are all supposed to sit here and watch while these morons pick a fight on the behalf of the world and then give us no choice but to send our kids off to die in another pointless battle?
- ldiracdelta 5y ago
  You got one thing wrong. Not gonna send my kids off to the next war that Washington starts up.
  - awakeasleep 5y ago
    I think you’re simplifying. If nukes fly it doesn’t matter where your kid is. And the government can decide to take your kids to war with or without consent
    - mickotron 5y ago
      Nukes won't fly. Nukes are only useful for deterrence. MAD doctrine is legit.
      - 5y ago
bvrmn 5y ago
> But what generates the cash is global demand for Russian oil and gas. 35% of budget income is from VAT only. I'm not counting other taxes.
- DisjointedHunt 5y ago
  Is budget the same as foreign exchange inflows? That's what the author is pointing out as the bulwark to the international pressure.
  - bvrmn 5y ago
    Russian total trade in 2020 was 550M. Poland has 510M total trade same year. Russian external economy is really very small.
    - rdtsc 5y ago
      And that explains why they are not too worried about sanctions. Sure, it would be unpleasant but they are already under sanctions and Putin is hasn’t lost popularity too much.
      - bvrmn 5y ago
        Putin lost a big chunk of popularity. Support index dropped from 57% in 2018 to 32% in 2021.
        nradov 5y ago
        So Putin now has about the same approval rating as Biden. https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3831 https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3831
thr0mamay888888 5y ago
[flagged]
AnAmericanPOV64 5y ago
shmerl 5y ago
No need for lengthy theorizing. It's simply a protection racket ran by mafia scaled to country size. Nothing more. If you let mafia run things, that's exactly what happens.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  Perhaps, but basic political science tells us that such protection rackets should strive to legitimize themselves as "proper" monarchies or elite oligarchies, and that this move will bring common benefits to both the rulers themselves and the civilian population. Ironically enough, the PRC seems to be rather further along re: that general dynamic. They might even democratize at some point - that's the next step in the game, at any rate.
  - shmerl 5y ago
    Point is, mafia can't think long term, let alone care about population. All it can think of is self profit and grabbing anything it can get hold of. It can't produce, it can only steal from others. It leaves desert after there is nothing more to steal. So this isn't about political science. It's about psychology of a common criminal. That's Putin's level of thinking. Even if some there could think differently, he basically wiped out any kind of alternative ways of doing things in practice.
    - zozbot234 5y ago
      My point is that all polities start out as crude mafias. It's nothing special about Russia itself. And even an actual mafia can be expected to seek "proper" legitimacy for the very purpose of being enabled to think in the longer term.
      - shmerl 5y ago
        In theory that could be the case. Not in practice as long as Putin runs it.
    - publicola1990 5y ago
valyagolev 5y ago
Nord Stream 2 and the new German cabinet are much more important parts of the equation than the article seems to allow. German is the main Russian trade partner in the west, if Germany stops that, Russian stance will have to change too. i’d expect that the threat of cancelling the project would seem more credible to Putin than of a real war. but it’d be hardly good news for us, who live in Germany and already pay a lot of money for utilities
- valyagolev 5y ago
  and on that note the most worrisome part for me, long term, is the continuing refusal of Germany to embrace nuclear energy. without it, Germany will be dependent on the natural gas for longer, and thus locked in this particular relationship
  - wikidani 5y ago
    I am honestly surprised how there isn't a push for bigger energy independence. For how long will the dependency on russian gas is sustainable (politically speaking)
    - valyagolev 5y ago
      there’s such a call… but it’s dominated by petty local prejudices and weird beliefs, like all politics is. germans want to go all wind and solar, but they also don’t want any of this stuff near their homes, and they don’t want nuclear because it’s so dangerous, etc etc
      - croes 5y ago
        Nuclear energy plants are dangerous especially if you think about who is going to build them. The same people who built the Berlin airport would also build the power plants.
        valyagolev 5y ago
steve76 5y ago
mrbadideas 5y ago
rdtsc 5y ago
> I have been trying to figure out is what explains the current escalation to the point in which since the spring of 2021 It’s likely from a perception that the Biden regime is weak, and so, this is the “time to act”. Ukrainians can understand that too and hence are trying to get closer to NATO, to seek protection. Putin sees that in turn as NATO aggression. From Putin’s point of view annexation of Crimea went swimmingly well, internally at least. He sees a golden opportunity to repeat it again. From a propaganda point of view, I think it will be challenging to get Americans to care about Ukraine. With the pandemic, and other domestic issues, worrying about it is not a priority. And, unsurprisingly, Putin understands that as too, which makes him bolder.
- hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
  > From a propaganda point of view, I think it will be challenging to get Americans to care about Ukraine. With the pandemic, and other domestic issues, worrying about it is not a priority. And, unsurprisingly, Putin understands that as too, which makes him bolder. Well, it hasn't played well, has it? The first shipments of weapons landed in Ukraine, and more are to follow, together with training teams. The only thing that Putin gained by his threats is more firepower in Ukraine. The annexation of Crimea went well because most people there were Russians. When I went there some years ago I was surprised everybody was speaking Russian, to the point they called hryvnas (local currency) "rubles"... So before the annexation actually happened you could feel local people would actually welcome it as a chance for a positive change (this is no longer the case and the same people feel betrayed). Also most people in Donbas were Russian. The folks there were very poor. My colleague's family stopped paying their rent, electricity and so on many years ago - and this was the case in many blocks of flats. They felt that any change for them would be a positive one. Now the Ukrainians are extremely motivated. They know that if Putin invades, they will be slaves forever. They are determined to protect their country, and every day have more and more weapons. There is no way Putin could invade Ukraine without extremely high casualties.
  - q1w2 5y ago
    The total amount of new weaponry to Ukraine is not significant given the scale of the invasion he is preparing. ...and I don't think Putin really cares about the additional few Russian soldiers that die. > When I went there some years ago I was surprised everybody was speaking Russian This is true for most of Ukraine. The western rural areas do still speak Ukrainian and there's been some push to keep that culture alive, but the entire east and south are very Russian, and it's by far the most common language used - even among ethnic Ukrainians - even in Kiev. > ...if Putin invades, they will be slaves forever. They probably expect the setup of a puppet Russian client state, similar to Belarus. "Slavery" is a bit hyperbolic. My point is that I'm not sure how many soldiers are willing to die over what seems like an unlikely victory. One of the main problems with Ukrainian defense is that the largest cities, and hence the majority of the population, lives of the population lives in one of a hand full of cities that is within 50-100 miles of the Russia or Belarus border (Kiev, Kharkiv, Donetsk, and Marpiol. Ironically, Odessa is the western most large city - but it has a massive Russia population. If the advance is quick and takes these cities, the Ukrainian will see their capital and the majority of their population under the Russian military. Given that, I think the Ukrainian military will capitulate rapidly. I think the Ukrainians know that as well, so it really demotivates units to stay and fight. I don't think any strategist believes Ukraine can win a fixed conventional battle. In fact, my guess is that the defeat in Armenia due to drone warfare, and the subsequent agreements between Ukraine and Turkey to arm with drone, might have hastened Putin's sense of urgency. But my feeling is that Russia is honestly on the fence between taking all of Ukraine by force, or simply extracting a humiliating negotiated settlement from the west. If I were a psychopath, and I were Putin, I would demand NATO troop withdrawal from the Baltics (maybe offering similar withdrawals on the Russian side), all of the territory east of the Dniper river (+/- some anomolies), formal recognition of the annexations, and a new lucrative Germany natural gas deal. ...and then be willing to settle for just "most" of the land east of the Dniper (but it would need to include the coast and the Crimea water canal).

> Ukraine’s experience contrasts sharply with that of Russian Federation which since the 1998 crisis has seen much more dramatic and sustained recovery. It also contrasts painfully with the growth trajectory of Ukraine’s neighbors Turkey and Poland.

xbar 5y ago
These two sentences are conclusion-free. Is the pain relief a Russian invasion? That's a neat idea. I can say that North Dakota's recovery since 2008 contrasts painfully with that of Texas. Is it time for a Canadian Challenge to Midwestern Hegemony?
- bee_rider 5y ago

mikewarot 5y ago

Bush Sr promised that NATO wouldn't expand into the former Soviet Union, then we did anyway. Russia can not accept Ukraine joining NATO. We shouldn't have pushed the coup a few years back, and we should leave our mitts off now. Oh, and lets stop starving Afghanistan while we're at it. The last time we screwed them over, Bin Laden came back at us.

temp 5y ago
>Bush Sr promised that NATO wouldn't expand into the former Soviet Union Surely that was a decision to be made by the relevant countries themselves and not Bush Sr of the United States.
- nopenopenopeno 5y ago
  That’s not how empires work
- hindsightbias 5y ago
  When the $21 Trillion EU puts their big boy pants on and form their own army, they can have agency (Serbia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya, Syria, etc, etc). Until then, the 900# red white & blue gorilla of NATO is driving. Folks don’t like it? Well, time to stop whistling “The Yanks Are Coming” every time they want to tussle with their neighborhood.
- hollerith 5y ago
  Any NATO member can veto the accession of a new member.
- GoodJokes 5y ago
jolux 5y ago
Under what theory of international relations is it legitimate for one country to invade another because they’re upset that other countries bordering it made treaty agreements with another power?
- greesil 5y ago
  Bush W's "if they have oil" doctrine. In this case the invasion would be legitimate if it was Ukraine invading Russia and not the other way around.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- DisjointedHunt 5y ago
  So, the US invaded Iraq and walked into Syria, bombing the fuck out of it. What do you propose as punishment?
  - jolux 5y ago
    We’re receiving the punishment now, in that nobody has any good reason to trust us anymore. Still doesn’t justify aggression.
    - DisjointedHunt 5y ago
      Precisely, there is no international coalition of countries threatening war against us, is there? Why is the US or NATO justified in doing the same to Russia then ? [Edit] Since the algo won't let me post too many comments too fast. Sanctions/War/whatever . . . the point is that the actions of the United States in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria are many orders of magnitude worse than anything Russia has done to Crimea or is planning on doing to Ukraine, so any retort saying "We are not going to war, we are applying sanctions" is about as paradoxical as it gets. If those actions justify sanctions or war, surely the US should be first in line to sanction itself?
kadoban 5y ago
> Bush Sr promised that NATO wouldn't expand into the former Soviet Union, then we did anyway. Who did he promise, when, and did it make it into a treaty? Because it seems to not basically not exist.
- bwilli123 5y ago
  ..."In my interviews with Baker and Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze in 1994, Baker acknowledged (and Shevardnadze confirmed) that he told the former foreign minister the United States would not “leapfrog” over a reunified Germany to move closer to the borders of the Soviet Union. There are reports that Baker was willing to put this commitment in writing, but that national security adviser Brent Scowcroft convinced the president not to do so." https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/01/18/bill-clintons-role-in-the-crisis-over-ukraine https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/01/18/bill-clintons-role-i...
  - bvrmn 5y ago
    Baltic countries (NATO members) has been bordered with Russia since 2004. It's a long broken promise.
- chucksmash 5y ago
  Mikhail Gorbachev's purported view[1] on the matter, according to Russia Beyond[2]. Emphasis mine: > Interviewer: One of the key issues that has arisen in connection with the events in Ukraine is NATO expansion into the East. Do you get the feeling that your Western partners lied to you when they were developing their future plans in Eastern Europe? Why didn’t you insist that the promises made to you – particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East – be legally encoded? I will quote Baker: “NATO will not move one inch further east.” > M.G.: The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a single Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context. Kohl and [German Vice Chancellor Hans-Dietrich] Genscher talked about it. > Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled. The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been observed all these years. So don’t portray Gorbachev and the then-Soviet authorities as naïve people who were wrapped around the West’s finger. If there was naïveté, it was later, when the issue arose. Russia at first did not object. > The decision for the U.S. and its allies to expand NATO into the east was decisively made in 1993. I called this a big mistake from the very beginning. It was definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990. With regards to Germany, they were legally enshrined and are being observed. [1]: https://www.rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbachev_i_am_against_all_walls_40673.html https://www.rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbac... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_Beyond https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_Beyond
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tomjen3 5y ago
>Russia can not accept Ukraine joining NATO. And I can't accept the cute redhead turned me down, but just like Putin I will have to suck it up.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Bush Sr promised that NATO wouldn't expand into the former Soviet Union No, he didn't. Gorbachev, one of whose vague comments later about feeling betrayed by NATO expansion into the East beyond united Germany is the origin of the myth, subsequently explicitly clarified that not only was no promise about NATO expansion made, but the issue was never even raised by the USSR. > Russia can not accept Ukraine joining NATO. Well, it should learn to accept that it's not the USSR any more and its sovereign neighbors have the right to make the security arrangements they choose. > Oh, and lets stop starving Afghanistan while we're at it. The last time we screwed them over, Bin Laden came back at us. Bin Laden didn't come at us for anything having to do with Afghanistan (where are policy benefited his interests), but because he was mad that his home country of Saudi Arabia turned to us rather than his network for defense when Iraq invaded Kuwait and threatened SA in 1990.
the_duke 5y ago
Most don't like to hear this, but I agree. Obama and Clinton (as Secretary of State) very openly supported Ukraine, and the EU sort of played along, although much more apprehensively. They were playing with fire. In the words of a European ambassador I'm acquainted with: "They don't know what the f** they are doing. This will cause a war.". He said this in 2013. Losing Ukraine as a buffer zone to the west and even the small possiblity for a direct border with a Nato or EU was way too much for Russia to accept, so they acted aggressively. With the assumption that neither the US nor EU countries would be willing to seriously intervene. Which proved correct, apart from some lackluster sanctioning.
- q1w2 5y ago
  Russia already has a direct border with a number of NATO countries. Ukraine will not be the first. I think it would be the 5th.

dr-detroit 5y ago

DisjointedHunt 5y ago

Much of the coverage i see of "Russia" in the west completely misses the following points that super crucial to the political debate: 1. NATO is a military coalition that sits outside the regular National framework of war making. 2. NATO agreements are fair or ridiculous depending on the outcome one expects. If a member is attacked, that is a declaration of war on ALL members. Consider a rogue state/leader member picking war with a nuclear power and escalating to the point of no return. What then? 3. The objectives that NATO seem to want have become largely aggressive extensions of one political sides policies rather than what is right for "keeping the peace in Europe" or the world. If you disagree with the statements above, i'd ask you to consider that China and her allies, Iran, Turkey, North Korea and Pakistan suddenly moved Radar equipment and denial of airspace missile batteries to Mexico, Canada and Cuba tomorrow. What would the United States consider such an act to be? Defensive? For all the dick waving that Putin has done, the threat of war with severe consequences has been initiated by and continues to be advertised as the only choice by the unelected bureaucrats at NATO. We are all supposed to sit here and watch while these morons pick a fight on the behalf of the world and then give us no choice but to send our kids off to die in another pointless battle?

ldiracdelta 5y ago
You got one thing wrong. Not gonna send my kids off to the next war that Washington starts up.
- awakeasleep 5y ago
  I think you’re simplifying. If nukes fly it doesn’t matter where your kid is. And the government can decide to take your kids to war with or without consent
  - mickotron 5y ago
    Nukes won't fly. Nukes are only useful for deterrence. MAD doctrine is legit.
    - 5y ago

bvrmn 5y ago

> But what generates the cash is global demand for Russian oil and gas. 35% of budget income is from VAT only. I'm not counting other taxes.

DisjointedHunt 5y ago
Is budget the same as foreign exchange inflows? That's what the author is pointing out as the bulwark to the international pressure.
- bvrmn 5y ago
  Russian total trade in 2020 was 550M. Poland has 510M total trade same year. Russian external economy is really very small.
  - rdtsc 5y ago
    And that explains why they are not too worried about sanctions. Sure, it would be unpleasant but they are already under sanctions and Putin is hasn’t lost popularity too much.
    - bvrmn 5y ago
      Putin lost a big chunk of popularity. Support index dropped from 57% in 2018 to 32% in 2021.
      - nradov 5y ago
        So Putin now has about the same approval rating as Biden. https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3831 https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3831

thr0mamay888888 5y ago

[flagged]

AnAmericanPOV64 5y ago

shmerl 5y ago

No need for lengthy theorizing. It's simply a protection racket ran by mafia scaled to country size. Nothing more. If you let mafia run things, that's exactly what happens.

zozbot234 5y ago
Perhaps, but basic political science tells us that such protection rackets should strive to legitimize themselves as "proper" monarchies or elite oligarchies, and that this move will bring common benefits to both the rulers themselves and the civilian population. Ironically enough, the PRC seems to be rather further along re: that general dynamic. They might even democratize at some point - that's the next step in the game, at any rate.
- shmerl 5y ago
  Point is, mafia can't think long term, let alone care about population. All it can think of is self profit and grabbing anything it can get hold of. It can't produce, it can only steal from others. It leaves desert after there is nothing more to steal. So this isn't about political science. It's about psychology of a common criminal. That's Putin's level of thinking. Even if some there could think differently, he basically wiped out any kind of alternative ways of doing things in practice.
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    My point is that all polities start out as crude mafias. It's nothing special about Russia itself. And even an actual mafia can be expected to seek "proper" legitimacy for the very purpose of being enabled to think in the longer term.
    - shmerl 5y ago
      In theory that could be the case. Not in practice as long as Putin runs it.
  - publicola1990 5y ago

valyagolev 5y ago

Nord Stream 2 and the new German cabinet are much more important parts of the equation than the article seems to allow. German is the main Russian trade partner in the west, if Germany stops that, Russian stance will have to change too. i’d expect that the threat of cancelling the project would seem more credible to Putin than of a real war. but it’d be hardly good news for us, who live in Germany and already pay a lot of money for utilities

valyagolev 5y ago
and on that note the most worrisome part for me, long term, is the continuing refusal of Germany to embrace nuclear energy. without it, Germany will be dependent on the natural gas for longer, and thus locked in this particular relationship
- wikidani 5y ago
  I am honestly surprised how there isn't a push for bigger energy independence. For how long will the dependency on russian gas is sustainable (politically speaking)
  - valyagolev 5y ago
    there’s such a call… but it’s dominated by petty local prejudices and weird beliefs, like all politics is. germans want to go all wind and solar, but they also don’t want any of this stuff near their homes, and they don’t want nuclear because it’s so dangerous, etc etc
    - croes 5y ago
      Nuclear energy plants are dangerous especially if you think about who is going to build them. The same people who built the Berlin airport would also build the power plants.
      - valyagolev 5y ago

steve76 5y ago

mrbadideas 5y ago

rdtsc 5y ago

> I have been trying to figure out is what explains the current escalation to the point in which since the spring of 2021 It’s likely from a perception that the Biden regime is weak, and so, this is the “time to act”. Ukrainians can understand that too and hence are trying to get closer to NATO, to seek protection. Putin sees that in turn as NATO aggression. From Putin’s point of view annexation of Crimea went swimmingly well, internally at least. He sees a golden opportunity to repeat it again. From a propaganda point of view, I think it will be challenging to get Americans to care about Ukraine. With the pandemic, and other domestic issues, worrying about it is not a priority. And, unsurprisingly, Putin understands that as too, which makes him bolder.

hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
> From a propaganda point of view, I think it will be challenging to get Americans to care about Ukraine. With the pandemic, and other domestic issues, worrying about it is not a priority. And, unsurprisingly, Putin understands that as too, which makes him bolder. Well, it hasn't played well, has it? The first shipments of weapons landed in Ukraine, and more are to follow, together with training teams. The only thing that Putin gained by his threats is more firepower in Ukraine. The annexation of Crimea went well because most people there were Russians. When I went there some years ago I was surprised everybody was speaking Russian, to the point they called hryvnas (local currency) "rubles"... So before the annexation actually happened you could feel local people would actually welcome it as a chance for a positive change (this is no longer the case and the same people feel betrayed). Also most people in Donbas were Russian. The folks there were very poor. My colleague's family stopped paying their rent, electricity and so on many years ago - and this was the case in many blocks of flats. They felt that any change for them would be a positive one. Now the Ukrainians are extremely motivated. They know that if Putin invades, they will be slaves forever. They are determined to protect their country, and every day have more and more weapons. There is no way Putin could invade Ukraine without extremely high casualties.
- q1w2 5y ago
  The total amount of new weaponry to Ukraine is not significant given the scale of the invasion he is preparing. ...and I don't think Putin really cares about the additional few Russian soldiers that die. > When I went there some years ago I was surprised everybody was speaking Russian This is true for most of Ukraine. The western rural areas do still speak Ukrainian and there's been some push to keep that culture alive, but the entire east and south are very Russian, and it's by far the most common language used - even among ethnic Ukrainians - even in Kiev. > ...if Putin invades, they will be slaves forever. They probably expect the setup of a puppet Russian client state, similar to Belarus. "Slavery" is a bit hyperbolic. My point is that I'm not sure how many soldiers are willing to die over what seems like an unlikely victory. One of the main problems with Ukrainian defense is that the largest cities, and hence the majority of the population, lives of the population lives in one of a hand full of cities that is within 50-100 miles of the Russia or Belarus border (Kiev, Kharkiv, Donetsk, and Marpiol. Ironically, Odessa is the western most large city - but it has a massive Russia population. If the advance is quick and takes these cities, the Ukrainian will see their capital and the majority of their population under the Russian military. Given that, I think the Ukrainian military will capitulate rapidly. I think the Ukrainians know that as well, so it really demotivates units to stay and fight. I don't think any strategist believes Ukraine can win a fixed conventional battle. In fact, my guess is that the defeat in Armenia due to drone warfare, and the subsequent agreements between Ukraine and Turkey to arm with drone, might have hastened Putin's sense of urgency. But my feeling is that Russia is honestly on the fence between taking all of Ukraine by force, or simply extracting a humiliating negotiated settlement from the west. If I were a psychopath, and I were Putin, I would demand NATO troop withdrawal from the Baltics (maybe offering similar withdrawals on the Russian side), all of the territory east of the Dniper river (+/- some anomolies), formal recognition of the annexations, and a new lucrative Germany natural gas deal. ...and then be willing to settle for just "most" of the land east of the Dniper (but it would need to include the coast and the Crimea water canal).