Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[Habbaku]

https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/chartbook-81-permanent-crisis-or

Adam Tooze has a great article about Ukraine's economic maladies over the last 40-odd years and potential future.

Some of the statistics are...sobering in terms of realizing why they haven't grown as fast as their neighbors:

Though collectivization was brought to an end, as one analyst at Brookings points out, part of Ukraine's agricultural backwardness is due to the fact that 25 percent of the farmland is still in state hands—10.5 million ha of 40.9 million ha of agricultural land with about 8 million ha being arable land. By comparison, Germany's total arable farmland is about 12 million ha.

[DGuller]

Ukraine's economy has two huge problems:  it has no oil to bail it out, and it never managed to monopolize the corruption the way Russia did.  In a way, the big reason Ukraine remained a (very flawed) democracy is because its oligarchs were more clever than the Russian oligarchs, and knew how to play the balance of power game.  Unfortunately, it's much harder to keep the lake populated with fish when it's fished by ten different competing fisheries that all distrust each other.

[Syt]

[Crazy_Ivan80]

One end game could be a Georgia scenario.  You completely demolish the country in an open war, and then get whatever you want in a peace deal.  That would probably mean direct transfers of chunks of Ukraine to Russia, forced Finlandization of whatever remains, and a victory parade on Red Square where Putin rides in on a white horse wearing only a smirk above his belt line.

Isn't that the status quo? Russia already occupies Eastern Ukraine and annexed Crimea. Ukraine is already finlandized to a degree as it cannot join NATO or EU in its current state of partial occupation.

though unlikely it's not unprecedented for a partially occupied country to join the EU.

[Sheilbh]

I don't agree that gaslighting is trolling.  Trolling sounds like something annoying, but ultimately harmless beyond the costs of annoyance.  Gaslighting is a weapon, and one that Russia wields effectively and others struggle to counter. 

Okay. I wouldn't draw the same distinction (I also suspect I've been using gaslighting wrong). I don't think trolling is harmless but is a core part of Russia's whole rhetoric and policy now.

Shoigu doing a big presentation about Ukraine. Lavrov issues statements of concern about the human rights of the opposition in the US because of the "persecution" of the January 6 participants. Offering Poroshenko political asylum in Russia. Or the reference to eastern Europe as the nations "orphaned by the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact". All of it to me seems to be basically trolling (and I'm not the only person who uses that phrase), it's either just pure provocation or it's mimicking the US (Shoigu/Powell, concern about the opposition's human rights/all the Kosovo analogies).

And there's no way to really respond to it that doesn't basically repeat what Russia's just done - make a bald assertion - or get into the nitty-gritty of the differences between this and Kosovo, but you're conceding they have an argument and I think that is what they want. Just like  with trolls.

That's why the  didn't strike me as fitting.

It's laughable - I don't believe it and I'm not posting it sincerely. But point taken.

Adam Tooze has a great article about Ukraine's economic maladies over the last 40-odd years and potential future.

This chart was extraordinary on quite how bad its been compared to its neighbours (also just how catastrophic the 90s were):

[Zanza]

There was another graph in that article which showed that Ukraine was the fifth worst country regarding GDP development since 1990, only surpassed by the likes of Congo or Yemen.

[Zanza]

Why the West's Diplomacy With Russia Keeps Failing
A profound failure of the Western imagination has brought Europe to the brink of war.

By Anne Applebaum

Oh, how I envy Liz Truss her opportunity! Oh, how I regret her utter failure to make use of it! For those who have never heard of her, Truss is the lightweight British foreign secretary who went to Moscow this week to tell her Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, that his country should not invade Ukraine. This trip was not a success. At a glacial press conference he likened their conversation to "the mute" speaking with "the deaf"; later, he leaked the fact that she had confused some Russian regions with Ukrainian regions, to add a little insult to the general injury.

Lavrov has done this many times before. He was vile to the European Union's foreign-policy chief, Josep Borrell, last year. He has been unpleasant at international conferences and rude to journalists. His behavior is not an accident. Lavrov, like Russian President Vladimir Putin, uses aggression and sarcasm as tools to demonstrate his scorn for his interlocutor, to frame negotiations as useless even before they begin, to create dread and apathy. The point is to put other diplomats on the defensive, or else to cause them to give up in disgust.

But the fact that Lavrov is disrespectful and disagreeable is old news. So is the fact that Putin lectures foreign leaders for hours and hours on his personal and political grievances. He did that the first time he met President Barack Obama, more than a decade ago; he did exactly the same thing last week to French President Emmanuel Macron. Truss should have known all of this. Instead of offering empty language about rules and values, she could have started the press conference like this:

Good Evening, ladies and gentlemen of the press. I am delighted to join you after meeting my Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov. This time, we have not bothered to discuss treaties he won't respect and promises he won't keep. We have told him, instead, that an invasion of Ukraine will carry very, very high costs—higher than he has ever imagined. We are now planning to cut off Russian gas exports completely—Europe will find its energy supplies somewhere else. We are now preparing to assist the Ukrainian resistance, for a decade if need be. We are quadrupling our support for the Russian opposition, and for Russian media too. We want to make sure that Russians will start hearing the truth about this invasion, and as loudly as possible. And if you want to do regime change in Ukraine, we'll get to work on regime change in Russia.

Truss, or Borrell before her, could have added just a touch of personal insult, in the style of Lavrov himself, and wondered out loud just how it is that Lavrov's official salary pays for the lavish properties that his family makes use of in London. She could have listed the names of the many other Russian public servants who send their children to schools in Paris or Lugano. She could have announced that these children are now, all of them, on their way home, along with their parents: No more American School in Switzerland! No more pied-à-terres in Knightsbridge! No more Mediterranean yachts!

Of course Truss—like Borrell, like Macron, like the German chancellor who is headed for Moscow this week—would never say anything like this, not even in private. Tragically, the Western leaders and diplomats who are right now trying to stave off a Russian invasion of Ukraine still think they live in a world where rules matter, where diplomatic protocol is useful, where polite speech is valued. All of them think that when they go to Russia, they are talking to people whose minds can be changed by argument or debate. They think the Russian elite cares about things like its "reputation." It does not.

In fact, when talking to the new breed of autocrats, whether in Russia, China, Venezuela, or Iran, we are now dealing with something very different: People who aren't interested in treaties and documents, people who only respect hard power. Russia is in violation of the Budapest Memorandum, signed in 1994, guaranteeing Ukrainian security. Do you ever hear Putin talk about that? Of course not. He isn't concerned about his untrustworthy reputation either: Lying keeps opponents on their toes. Nor does Lavrov mind if he is hated, because hatred gives him an aura of power.

Their intentions are different from ours too. Putin's goal is not a flourishing, peaceful, prosperous Russia, but a Russia where he remains in charge. Lavrov's goal is to maintain his position in the murky world of the Russian elite and, of course, to keep his money. What we mean by "interests" and what they mean by "interests" is not the same. When they listen to our diplomats, they don't hear anything that really threatens their position, their power, their personal fortunes.

Despite all of our talk, no one has ever seriously tried to end, rather than simply limit, Russian money laundering in the West, or Russian political or financial influence in the West. No one has taken seriously the idea that Germans should now make themselves independent of Russian gas, or that France should ban political parties that accept Russian money, or that the U.K. and the U.S. should stop Russian oligarchs from buying property in London or Miami. No one has suggested that the proper response to Putin's information war on our political system would be an information war on his.

Now we are on the brink of what could be a catastrophic conflict. American, British, and European embassies in Ukraine are evacuating; citizens have been warned to leave. But this terrible moment represents not just a failure of diplomacy, it also reflects a failure of the Western imagination; a generation-long refusal, on the part of diplomats, politicians, journalists, and intellectuals, to understand what kind of state Russia was becoming and to prepare accordingly. We have refused to see the representatives of this state for what they are. We have refused to speak to them in a way that might have mattered. Now it might be too late.

Interesting take. I guess the West could do much more to target Russian elites.

[Tamas]

Well, TBF Western diplomacy has not failed yet. I'd argue if Putin cancels the whole thing then Western diplomacy won.

[Oexmelin]

Interesting take. I guess the West could do much more to target Russian elites.

A lot of people I know have been banging on that drum for a while. These are kleptocracies, and their assets are in places where their luxirious lives are better supported than in the places they rob.

What we should also wonder is why that message has not made any headway into our politics. That money doesn't simply buy luxury apartments. It buys friends, allies, and complacent political officials in our own countries.

[mongers]

Interesting take. I guess the West could do much more to target Russian elites.

A lot of people I know have been banging on that drum for a while. These are kleptocracies, and their assets are in places where their luxirious lives are better supported than in the places they rob.

What we should also wonder is why that message has not made any headway into our politics. That money doesn't simply buy luxury apartments. It buys friends, allies, and complacent political officials in our own countries.

It's a powerful fertilizer to bring on the corruption crop in any country, especially as you say in places of luxury lifestyles like London.

[Sheilbh]

A lot of people I know have been banging on that drum for a while. These are kleptocracies, and their assets are in places where their luxirious lives are better supported than in the places they rob.

What we should also wonder is why that message has not made any headway into our politics. That money doesn't simply buy luxury apartments. It buys friends, allies, and complacent political officials in our own countries.

Yeah - and it's not just about foreign policy or corruption it's a moral point. It is wrong for some of the richest countries in the world, like the UK, to have a cottage industry based on enabling theft from low and middle income countries.

There's no doubt there are real practical issues in doing it properly - but in a way Russia's an example of precisely how toothless targeted sanctions are because Russia's been under them (especially Putin and his circle) for most of the last decade. I'm also not particularly sure if it would work - there are precious few examples of sanctions (especially targeted sanctions) pressuring countries into changing their policy.

Though separately I think the ventriloquised bit of what Truss or Obama could say is absurd - it's a neo-con, Love Actually fan fiction and not possible in any real world.

Edit: And worth noting that the day after he landed back in London, Wallace is going back to Moscow for talks - plus, obviously, Scholz is visiting on Tuesday. Both of those will be subject to last minute cancellation but still reason to be hopeful.

[The Larch]

I wonder how feasible would be sanctions that target Putin's inner circle where it hurts, seizing all those London penthouses, Mediterranean villas, yatchs and other luxury baubles they've accumulated over the years with their ill gotten gains. 

Fuck, let's take it to 11, ban Russian companies from operating in the EU, at least state owned ones. Kick Gazprom in the nuts.

[Admiral Yi]

At the very least they have enough bite that Putin lobbied Trump's flunkies to lift them. 

[Sheilbh]

I wonder how feasible would be sanctions that target Putin's inner circle where it hurts, seizing all those London penthouses, Mediterranean villas, yatchs and other luxury baubles they've accumulated over the years with their ill gotten gains. 

Weirdly early in this crisis Putin's yacht moved back to Russia - from Germany. And I cannot understand why the yacht was ever in Germany as opposed to, say, the Med or the Caribbean. I assume he likes Baltic holidays

I don't know in response to your question though. It would be complex for sure because it'll all be complex corporate structures across lots of jurisdictions that is deliberately designed to obscure actual beneficial ownership (unless you take a bit of a sledgehammer approach and authorise expropriation on a lower threshold).

Fuck, let's take it to 11, ban Russian companies from operating in the EU, at least state owned ones. Kick Gazprom in the nuts.

I think there's a case for this. I'm not sure there's much of a genuine Russian private sector that is outside of control of people associated with the state.

[Tamas]

Is it true RT and Russian media in general really ramping up the preparatory propaganda, talking of Ukraine hell-bent on eradicating Russians in their country, building concentration camps etc?