Hit the like button at the top or bottom of the page to like this entry. Use the share and/or re-stack buttons to share this across social media. Leave a comment if the mood strikes you to do so.
This ends the two part series on a subject that many of you have asked me to write about, in order to see where I stand on this conflict in its current phase.
I hope you enjoy it! Lots of research and effort went into this two-parter.
And please do me the favour of spreading this series around. Send it to everyone who you think might enjoy it.
“Moscow is also importing arms from North Korea and Iran and has access to consumer items that contain technology that it can repurpose for military uses.”
Are you (your source) referring to the repurposing of advanced microchips? If so I’m all ears for more detail if available.
Ukraine is the biggest loser but higher energy prices for Europe are not going away. German industrial production has declined 7 months in a row. It is hard to disaggregate all the factors hurting economy growth. It could be terrible public policy, the decline of the combustion auto industry, weakness in trade partners, but Olaf Scholz is toast because his economy is in the crapper. And as Germany goes, so does Europe. That has been the thinking since the rebuilding of West Germany after World War 2. So it is possible we will have two big losers, and two winners.
Very nicely written. Two random comments that came to mind in my reading that I would love some insights on:
1. I still don't see how this ends. There is no trust anymore. Also with Russia's war production outpacing everyone else will they decide to just continue? This would only make sense if war really broke out in the Middle east and the US really does get over stretched (and throw in some big deal happening in Taiwan for good measure).
2. I still struggle to see this as a big win for the US, at least long term. Short term everything you have said is true. Everything depends on how much the south can unify and create true multipolar world. But it seems to me a true multipolar world, which many observers think is coming, would be a loss for the US overall. The US seems to be at it's strongest and weakest point in my lifetime (all post cold war). It has bases everywhere and influence with it, but I've never been less impressed with the leadership and I don't see that improving anytime soon (and there is that curious case of record high debt which may or may not matter for all I can tell).
Just a thought regarding your view of USA being a big winner. I follow the logic but could this be a pyhrric victory?
In the greater game, might not Taiwan be looking on aghast at the USA actions and having second thoughts on whether they want to be placed in the position of being Sacrificial Lamb v 2.0 ?
Allow me however to question the assessment of winners and losers.
When assessing outcomes in economics but also in politics, it s important to ask oneself what is the baseline. Is Russia a winner against a baseline in which Ukraine would have been integrated in NATO in its pre-war borders? Even at the cost of turning the Baltic into a NATO lake, losing grip on other parts of its hinterland, and becoming an economic dependency of China? If Russia is a small winner against the baseline of Ukraine being integrated into NATO, how is the US a big winner against the same baseline? Or do the gains for the US rather stem from the reassertion of its hegemony in Europe? If so, however, would not an inward turn of the US under a new Trump administration mean throwing away such gains?
Perhaps because my background is more in economics than in politics I find that economics is given too little attention in your analysis. Russia may have weathered economic sanctions better than expected, but its economic trajectory is likely to be worse under the current scenario than the any baseline I can think of. The losses of manpower in the war are compounded by those of qualified workers leaving the country (itself a telltale sign of the economic prospects of the country), the loss of the European markets for its resource-based economy and the sealing off from the technological frontier. Moreover, a larger share of a smaller economy will have to be devoted to military instead of civilian expenditure. In economic terms at least, Russia seems to be a loser, possibly even relative to Ukraine in its current borders, if this integrates into the European economy. Are the benefits of keeping Ukraine out of NATO and adding a few provinces (likely to indefinitely burden the budget) to Russia worth all these economic costs?
Thank you for your thoughts but I think you are still very incorrect in your analysis. The US has won in the sense of making the EU more dependant on it for......... about everything. But the weakness of the US in terms of manufacturing has been exposed. (the inability to make enough shells) Our expensive weapons have been shown to be no better than the Russians. The Russian military is now much larger and more powerful than it was before. We have strengthened the alliance of China and Russia. The rest of the world, except for Europe and the Anglosphere, is more and more in support of a multipolar world. The US and its allies are now becoming somewhat isolated. The "rest of the world" (which to Washington means Europe and Australia and Canada) is beginning to see the limits of the US empire. The dollar has lost some of its power and this will continue to slide. The failure of sanctions is very telling. And, really, did you have to mention the absurd trope about using chips from consumer products? (the old washing machine to missile story). No, I am afraid the US is the big loser here. Russia is much more than a gas station with nuclear weapons. Now everybody knows that----except the West with its maniacal Russophobic, jingoistic press corps.
An outstanding analysis...unsentimental, contrarian and focused on fact.
Turbo America gambled big and will leave the table with substantial gains at the expense of Europe (above all the collapse of EU dreams of strategic autonomy and enhanced EU dependency on American natural gas).
But it remains to be seen how this plays out in Western, South and East Asia. There is no shortage in shrewdness across Asia. Governments there can see for themselves how the US has behaved towards Ukraine and the EU. They will draw their own conclusions about the reliability of the US as an ally and as an arms supplier.
It also remains to be seen what fall-out occurs within the US itself. The US Deep State's obsession with Putin, Russiagate and the many links between Washington and Kiev guarantee further complications. The US will open its doors to its fifth column in Ukraine which includes people with backgrounds in policing, security and the military all of whom will be available for suitable employment in their new homes. Given the existing potential for enhanced repression within the continental US this is unlikely to end well.
"The only threat to it that I can envision is the following: a complete collapse of the UAF that allows the Russians to seize Kiev and move across the Dnieper towards Vinnitsa and Zhitomyr. This would change my calculus, as such a chain of events would result in not just an overwhelming Russian strategic military victory, but would also negatively impact the USA’s standing globally, because such a catastrophe would be viewed as the USA being an unreliable ally (more than it is at present), shaking NATO to its very core."
This outcome is far more likely than you give credit. There's little question the Russians can achieve it if they want and from what they've been saying -- and the reality that if they don't take Kiev/Odessa and at least up to the Dniepr they will surely be fighting a new Ukrainian army within 5 years -- it will happen once they are ready to move forward which could be as soon as this coming summer. I predict Russia can live with nothing less than total capitulation and capture of Ukraine with the exception of the far western regions, which will likely be absorbed by Poland, Romania, etc. once Russia completes its objectives. This will be a total disaster for the US and once and for all put to bed the notion that NATO is anything but a fake and impotent force.
I've been wrong before but I think this time such an outcome is inevitable.
How to avoid elderly pensioners crisis; send them to the Russian Front. Average age 43.
“Under the new law, the minimum conscription age will be lowered to 25, from 27. Summonses will be sent online and distributed in person. All new recruits will be trained for two to three months, while those aged 18 to 24 will be obliged to undergo five months of military training.” - Spectator UK
Hit the like button at the top or bottom of the page to like this entry. Use the share and/or re-stack buttons to share this across social media. Leave a comment if the mood strikes you to do so.
This ends the two part series on a subject that many of you have asked me to write about, in order to see where I stand on this conflict in its current phase.
I hope you enjoy it! Lots of research and effort went into this two-parter.
And please do me the favour of spreading this series around. Send it to everyone who you think might enjoy it.
"The purpose of a system is what it does" and 100K++ dead Ukranians (likely) leads one to thinking in some dark places.
"but Ukraine faces a funding shortfall of 40 Million USD this year alone!"
Billion?
Great synopsis, thank you.
“Moscow is also importing arms from North Korea and Iran and has access to consumer items that contain technology that it can repurpose for military uses.”
Are you (your source) referring to the repurposing of advanced microchips? If so I’m all ears for more detail if available.
Ukraine is the biggest loser but higher energy prices for Europe are not going away. German industrial production has declined 7 months in a row. It is hard to disaggregate all the factors hurting economy growth. It could be terrible public policy, the decline of the combustion auto industry, weakness in trade partners, but Olaf Scholz is toast because his economy is in the crapper. And as Germany goes, so does Europe. That has been the thinking since the rebuilding of West Germany after World War 2. So it is possible we will have two big losers, and two winners.
Very nicely written. Two random comments that came to mind in my reading that I would love some insights on:
1. I still don't see how this ends. There is no trust anymore. Also with Russia's war production outpacing everyone else will they decide to just continue? This would only make sense if war really broke out in the Middle east and the US really does get over stretched (and throw in some big deal happening in Taiwan for good measure).
2. I still struggle to see this as a big win for the US, at least long term. Short term everything you have said is true. Everything depends on how much the south can unify and create true multipolar world. But it seems to me a true multipolar world, which many observers think is coming, would be a loss for the US overall. The US seems to be at it's strongest and weakest point in my lifetime (all post cold war). It has bases everywhere and influence with it, but I've never been less impressed with the leadership and I don't see that improving anytime soon (and there is that curious case of record high debt which may or may not matter for all I can tell).
Very good.
Just a thought regarding your view of USA being a big winner. I follow the logic but could this be a pyhrric victory?
In the greater game, might not Taiwan be looking on aghast at the USA actions and having second thoughts on whether they want to be placed in the position of being Sacrificial Lamb v 2.0 ?
A comprehensive and perceptive analysis.
Allow me however to question the assessment of winners and losers.
When assessing outcomes in economics but also in politics, it s important to ask oneself what is the baseline. Is Russia a winner against a baseline in which Ukraine would have been integrated in NATO in its pre-war borders? Even at the cost of turning the Baltic into a NATO lake, losing grip on other parts of its hinterland, and becoming an economic dependency of China? If Russia is a small winner against the baseline of Ukraine being integrated into NATO, how is the US a big winner against the same baseline? Or do the gains for the US rather stem from the reassertion of its hegemony in Europe? If so, however, would not an inward turn of the US under a new Trump administration mean throwing away such gains?
Perhaps because my background is more in economics than in politics I find that economics is given too little attention in your analysis. Russia may have weathered economic sanctions better than expected, but its economic trajectory is likely to be worse under the current scenario than the any baseline I can think of. The losses of manpower in the war are compounded by those of qualified workers leaving the country (itself a telltale sign of the economic prospects of the country), the loss of the European markets for its resource-based economy and the sealing off from the technological frontier. Moreover, a larger share of a smaller economy will have to be devoted to military instead of civilian expenditure. In economic terms at least, Russia seems to be a loser, possibly even relative to Ukraine in its current borders, if this integrates into the European economy. Are the benefits of keeping Ukraine out of NATO and adding a few provinces (likely to indefinitely burden the budget) to Russia worth all these economic costs?
Thank you for your thoughts but I think you are still very incorrect in your analysis. The US has won in the sense of making the EU more dependant on it for......... about everything. But the weakness of the US in terms of manufacturing has been exposed. (the inability to make enough shells) Our expensive weapons have been shown to be no better than the Russians. The Russian military is now much larger and more powerful than it was before. We have strengthened the alliance of China and Russia. The rest of the world, except for Europe and the Anglosphere, is more and more in support of a multipolar world. The US and its allies are now becoming somewhat isolated. The "rest of the world" (which to Washington means Europe and Australia and Canada) is beginning to see the limits of the US empire. The dollar has lost some of its power and this will continue to slide. The failure of sanctions is very telling. And, really, did you have to mention the absurd trope about using chips from consumer products? (the old washing machine to missile story). No, I am afraid the US is the big loser here. Russia is much more than a gas station with nuclear weapons. Now everybody knows that----except the West with its maniacal Russophobic, jingoistic press corps.
So far Tucker is wishing he scripted the Interview…
An outstanding analysis...unsentimental, contrarian and focused on fact.
Turbo America gambled big and will leave the table with substantial gains at the expense of Europe (above all the collapse of EU dreams of strategic autonomy and enhanced EU dependency on American natural gas).
But it remains to be seen how this plays out in Western, South and East Asia. There is no shortage in shrewdness across Asia. Governments there can see for themselves how the US has behaved towards Ukraine and the EU. They will draw their own conclusions about the reliability of the US as an ally and as an arms supplier.
It also remains to be seen what fall-out occurs within the US itself. The US Deep State's obsession with Putin, Russiagate and the many links between Washington and Kiev guarantee further complications. The US will open its doors to its fifth column in Ukraine which includes people with backgrounds in policing, security and the military all of whom will be available for suitable employment in their new homes. Given the existing potential for enhanced repression within the continental US this is unlikely to end well.
Zaluzhny gone.
You should do a post on the Tucker and Putin interview.
Putin turned down releasing a journalist held by Russia.
However not for nothing...
... matter being discussed between special services.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/08/business/media/tucker-carlson-putin-evan-gershkovich.html
BTW Tucker would be in jail or on his way without backing, unlike say Peter Navarro ... Trump can’t and doesn’t protect his people.
"The only threat to it that I can envision is the following: a complete collapse of the UAF that allows the Russians to seize Kiev and move across the Dnieper towards Vinnitsa and Zhitomyr. This would change my calculus, as such a chain of events would result in not just an overwhelming Russian strategic military victory, but would also negatively impact the USA’s standing globally, because such a catastrophe would be viewed as the USA being an unreliable ally (more than it is at present), shaking NATO to its very core."
This outcome is far more likely than you give credit. There's little question the Russians can achieve it if they want and from what they've been saying -- and the reality that if they don't take Kiev/Odessa and at least up to the Dniepr they will surely be fighting a new Ukrainian army within 5 years -- it will happen once they are ready to move forward which could be as soon as this coming summer. I predict Russia can live with nothing less than total capitulation and capture of Ukraine with the exception of the far western regions, which will likely be absorbed by Poland, Romania, etc. once Russia completes its objectives. This will be a total disaster for the US and once and for all put to bed the notion that NATO is anything but a fake and impotent force.
I've been wrong before but I think this time such an outcome is inevitable.
How to avoid elderly pensioners crisis; send them to the Russian Front. Average age 43.
“Under the new law, the minimum conscription age will be lowered to 25, from 27. Summonses will be sent online and distributed in person. All new recruits will be trained for two to three months, while those aged 18 to 24 will be obliged to undergo five months of military training.” - Spectator UK
That’s saving the young for the “comeback.”