I thought he was cold and calculating until he attacked Ukraine. This looks downright ham-handed and heedless compared to the maneuvering of the decades leading up to now. He's made a damned fool of himself, if you ask me.
It looks stupid to me too. Which is precisely why I think there's information I'm missing.
Like, I've seen arguments that the whole "Ukraine joining NATO" justification is just a pretext. But if that's just a pretext, what's the actual reason? I haven't seen a good answer yet.
I honestly don't think we'll know the true story for decades.
The reason? Same as most other people with power, more power. It's just dictators like Putin can act on the impulses of their ego and ignore everyone else.
The power gained in this case is attempting to rebuild the Russian empire by "liberating" areas that have since become independent countries and want nothing to do with the Russian rule.
Just copy/paste text.
But overall idea .. "russia is restoring russian world by combining together russian people: greatrussian (russians), small russians (ukranians) and whiterussians... putin took upon himself historic mission of finally solving ukranian question... .. with each year it would have been harder and harder to bring ukraine back to russia... it doesn't means that ukraine as state dissappear but it recharted, restructured and returned to be part of the russian world... etc.. etc.. etc..
well... reading article... she is right on spot. kinda same conclusions as I had a few days ago that made me wish to move away of population centers.
kinda brings up a phrase that was thrown by some russian official or tv person a few years ago: "what's the need in the world that doesn't have russia in it"
you are kind of wrong.
putin been obsessed for years with loss of russian empire/ussr. after 2014 he started to claim that ukraine is not legitimate state. it's common opinion in russia that ukranians are not really nation, but just "variety" of russians and they do not deserve to have their own state. and that ukraine it's west(anglo-saxon) project in order to destroy russia
one extra point: this book is written by somebody who is considered to be putin's guru. wiki article contains summary of the book. go through it and for every bullet point that you find something corresponding in today's reality, get yourself a candy :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics
it's not propoganda. it's just batshit crazy people who are obsessed with rebuilding russian empire. is it so hard to believe when we have qanon on display for past few years ?
I can't think the Russian people are pleased to see war again so close to home. If there were free elections there now I reckon Putin would be hammered. As Karl Popper and other people have said, free elections are the best mechanism for preventing governments from making stupid mistakes. The fear of being removed from power makes them much more cautious in their actions. The best illustration of this in action can be seen by comparing what happened to Churchill and Stalin at the end of WW2. Churchill made some stupid statements about the Labour party being like the Gestapo and he got crushed in the 1945 election. When Churchill got back into power a few years later he did not undo the Labour reforms. Stalin, who had killed millions of his own people in the 1930's and dithered like a frightened child at the Nazi invasion in 1941, stayed in power to kill more of his own people until his death in 1953. The Russian people deserve better.
Technically, cuba working with the soviets caused USA to propose a LOT of sanctions against them (that are still there), and also planed a false-flag attack on US soil to get a 'reason' to attack cuba - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods ..so ukraine joining nato is not that much different.
What putin is doing now is something along the Kosovo playbook... someone has interest in some area somewhere (us in kosovo, putin in donbas/lugansk), they help the separatists, the main country fights back, and then they start war (bombing in case of yugoslavia, this now in case of ukraine), to get what they want. Putin also mentioned weapons of mass destruction in ukraine ("the iraq playbook" USA used), but the theory didn't get a lot of traction.
Also, it's just the beginning of the war, so you can expect the propaganda machines to work 24/7 on both sides, so what the truth is, will probably never be know and will be rewritten by the winners and CNN.
But russia has to stop nato somewhere... it was too weak to do it with the baltics, and it's doing that now.
USA definitely had the plan for a war with cuba, but it luckily didn't happen. They did start many other wars in the meantime, mostly on the other side of the world.
Nato is a defensive alliance, why exactly does Russia need to stop it? NATO would never attack Russia, a nuclear power capable of ending the world as we know it.
> USA definitely had the plan for a war with cuba, but it luckily didn't happen
This is a really weird way to write “USA decided not to fight a war with Cuba”, everybody makes all kinds of plans.
Look... i live in the balkans... i had nato planes flying over my head, bombing a country <300 miles away... say what you want, but nato is far from just defense. Also, who was nato defending in afghanistan? Iraq? ...?
And there's a difference between a "lets prepare, just in case if cuba attacks" and "let's make a false flag attack, and kill our own people, so we can attack cuba".
NATO was defending the USA in Afghanistan. The 9/11 attacks were carried out by a terrorist organization sponsored by the government of Afghanistan. The alliance specifically invoked Article 5 the day after the attack.
Stop lying. NATO didn't conduct any direct action in Iraq for the 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation. Some NATO members independently chose to join the US led coalition but others didn't. The alliance itself played no role. This is a basic matter of historical fact.
Even if you disagree about that, could you really imagine NATO attacking Russia?
E: Unfortunately can’t reply below because of HN throttling, but yes, a month ago I moved several of my employees out of Ukraine because of Russian troop buildup on the border.
Wars don’t start overnight, everyone who hadn’t buried their head in sand knew this was a likely outcome.
He said that he had already pulled out his Ukrainian employees. Not only did he believe, he just said that he believed strongly enough that he took concrete steps affecting other peoples lives.
Well yeah, but the same stands for USA and many other nato countries, that are currently occupying foreign lands... And there are many of them. This is not the good guys vs the bad guys here, this is basically stalin and hitler not agreeing divison of poland.
I live in a small balkan country, and we also have our soldiers in kosovo, syria, libanon etc... what right do we have to point the finger at russia? USA is currently bombing somalia. China is looking greedily at taiwan... etc.
If "everyone else" can do it, why not putin? If not putin, why do we let usa do it? Ukraine is just another equivalent of iraq, afghanistan, etc.
This would be a great time to say "stop" in nato, start acting as just a defensive organization, stop all the nato members meddling abroad, and say "NO" to both putin and USA, and everyone else who wants anything outside their own borders.
This is bordering on dishonest. US is supporting the legitimate Somalian government against a terror group famous for it’s attacks on schools.
You could sort of compare this to Russia supporting the Syrian government, despite their legitimacy being questionable. This is something they have hardly faced international criticism over, beyond downright war crimes.
>>>the Baltics are already in NATO. Ukraine joining would not significantly change the balance of power in the region.
Just look at a map. There's a reason "Turn the map around" is a mantra in professional military officer schools in the West: it's essential to understanding your adversary.
Russia's land border with Estonia and Latvia is ~325km long, straddling Lakes Peipus and Pihkva. This is a small frontage, and fairly easy for Russia's massive army to defend.
There is only 1 MSR/highway (M-9) that leads to Russia from these Baltic States, and the distance is just about 570km. The operational combat range of an M1 Abrams or Leopard 2 MBT is ~450km. So they can't reach Moscow from NATO territory without stopping to refuel a good distance short of the capital.
Now let's add a NATO-member Ukraine to the mix. Not even including Crimea, the Russian-Ukrainian land border is over 1200km long. That is a LOT of frontage to protect. It features 2 MSRs/highways with direct access to Moscow, 3 if you took a detour to secure Voronezh (not an easy task). If you use subsidiary roads from the closest part of Ukraine's border, before merging onto the M-3 highway, you can get to Moscow in about ~475km, JUST about the maximum range for tanks.
So Russia would be risking shorting the invasion distance to their capital by 20%, putting it in range of a mechanized lightning thrust. It would also massively complicate their ability to mass combat power on their border because their NATO front would quintuple in length. It would give the US the option of putting anti-ballistic missiles in eastern Ukraine, closer to potential Russian launch locations and probably making it easier to achieve boost-phase intercepts of ICBMs. That undermines the strategic deterrence balance of power/MAD. US ABMs in Eastern Europe is something Russian leadership has been bitching about for 15 years. For some reason we keep pretending to not consider their concerns legitimate.
That's a WHOLE lotta downsides. What is the UPSIDE, for Russia, of a NATO-member Ukraine, though? Pretty much nothing. So Russia's leadership did some risk mitigation calculus and they figured that immediate economic damage was more acceptable than the highly-negative long term Expected Value of a NATO Ukraine. Even if the probability of NATO attacking is low, the damage potential is astronomical. Keep in mind this is a country who's arguably most important holiday commemorates the war where they lost 25+ million lives fighting off an invasion from a hostile alliance on their western border. That's still in living memory for them.
Where they miscalculated was a) Putin's perceptions of the Ukrainian popular sentiment and b) their military's actual ability to pull off a nearly-bloodless blitz of Kiev to facilitate a regime change. The Russian military is looking hella-incompetent right now. I think if Kiev had fallen in <72hrs, there wouldn't even be sanctions against Russia today.
> But if that's just a pretext, what's the actual reason? I haven't seen a good answer yet.
Because in Putin's mind, "Soviet" and "Russian" are synonyms. In other words, the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991 was to him the breakup of Russia, and as a Russian nationalist he sees that as a great tragedy. He blames it on the Communists for adopting a constitutional structure which contained within it the seeds of separatism; the Communists only ever meant it as lip-service, and as long as they remained in control that was all it was, but as they lost control those seeds began to sprout and 1991 was the result. To him, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Georgians, Armenians, etc, are not neighbouring foreign nationalities, they are Russians, they are traditional ethnic minorities of Russian nationality, just as he views Chechens, Tatars, Tuvans, etc, as being.
He wants to "Make Russia Great Again" by reversing the breakup of 1991, or getting as close to that goal as he possibly can. And annexing large parts of Ukraine and installing one or more puppet governments in the rest is, in his mind, an important step towards that ultimate goal.
To some extent I think the extensive propaganda about numerous political/celebrity figures being great and powerful and capable has been a sham from the beginning. I would call the war on Ukraine 'put up or shut up' time, where reality tests the value of the claims that have been made for many, many years.
I think we've all been told a lot of lies for a long time.
History's monsters so often seem to be dumb, deeply fallible, weak humans in the wrong place at the wrong time, doubling down on wrong decisions. I've seen people being unsettled and afraid and going 'but what if it's a feint and then the REAL Russian Army comes to obliterate everything', in the face of the shitshow we're seeing.
Not an accident: the effort that went into putting forth that narrative has been extensive. But once tested, we see where reality lies.
Many leaders who had the wherewithal to establish themselves in power can then coast on the inertial force of their authority and reputation for years or even decades in a way that makes them continue looking capable. The frequent reality however is that coming to power politically isn't necessarily the same as keeping it or making sound decisions in many other area (such as military strategy). Thus, an established dictator can turn into a complete bumbler, but because of earlier successes in his domestic political arena, people keep thinking he has some sort of clever plan up his sleeve in any other scenario though it might not at all be the case.
Hitler was an example of this. He cleverly came to power, astutely conserved himself in power for years, but then badly fucked up almost from the beginning once he embarked on major military adventures. However, many people kept believing him even militarily clever because of previous political cleverness. I believe something similar is the case with Putin (This is not a comparison of Putin with Hitler in moral terms, just an example)
I commented on this a while back (before things got kinetic) regarding the puzzling framing [by Western leaders and media] of the late December treaty proposals (to US and NATO respectively) published in English by Kremlin. At the time, I assumed the media was directed to focus on Ukraine to allow so-called off-ramps to Putin (so he can save face). You can trivially find these treaties on the net if you search for them.
Today Lavrov again repeated the RF's demands for removal of US's nuclear weapons from Europe.
(And yes, I too believe we are not privy to what has transpired in the past few months, if not past year between the various powers. And there is no way short of collective madness in Russian leadership that this "operation" will be limited to Ukraine.)
They waited 8 years for the Minsk accord to be implemented while ethnic Russians are dying and being displaced. When the Berlin wall was removed they were assured NATO will not arrive on their borders, that was decades ago. Ukraine in NATO was the redline it was communicated for how many years now. Before the invasion Zelensky wanted a nuclear weapon for deterrence and the German foreign minister said the accord it's signed was not legally binding giving a go signal that yes you can develop your own nuclear weapon. The west just don't care and wanted war because it will benefit them. Sadly the Ukrainians and Russians will be the one suffering. Russia will survive for sure it's has vast resource and food supply. We will probably just see the old cold war back again with all the defense company so happy to sell weapons to everybody.
They democratically joined Russia, because of the US sponsored coup d'état. It seems HN readers only believes in democracy when their bombing helpless countries. Ukraine crisis could have been prevented if only the west have common sense but no, the profit on wars and it's so sad to see.
> Before the invasion Zelensky wanted a nuclear weapon for deterrence and the German foreign minister said the accord it's signed was not legally binding giving a go signal that yes you can develop your own nuclear weapon. The west just don't care and wanted war because it will benefit them.
> Does Putin strike you as an overly emotional guy who gets frustrated easily?
He's a hardliner, I would not say that he could be frustrated easily but this absolutely is not an easy situation. His currency has collapsed and his country is on the brink of defaulting on foreign debt. He has no support anywhere but from his puppet dictator Lukashenko.
I think Putin did not expect such coordination and global effort in sanctioning Russia over Ukraine invasion. I believe that he wanted to take over Ukraine in just a few days and was surprised by Ukraine's defence and multiple desertions in his own army. He has decisions to make and choices are poor.
> I believe that he wanted to take over Ukraine in just a few days and was surprised by Ukraine's defence and multiple desertions in his own army.
Everything I have read that isn't heavily biased anti-Russia propaganda says Russia has exercised enormous restraint so far in this invasion. There's no reason I see to believe Putin's been surprised by Ukraine's defenses, it's not as if all of Russia's forces at the border have been deployed and overwhelmed. Last I read not even half had mobilized. It's more like Putin pushed forward what he hoped was enough to compel a low-casualty outcome in his favor.
What happens next seems likely to be substantially more painful for the Ukrainians, but I hope I'm wrong.
While I mostly agree with your assessment you lack to point out that using less troops saves costs, bombing less cities/civilians will make installing a controllable regime to rule there easier. These are all strategic decisions.
Implying Putin held back for the sake of the ukranian people is misleading.
That is more due to those tanks being driven by human beings than any restraint from the leadership. You can tell your tankers to ignore any civilians lying prostrate before their tracks but that does not mean they'll just follow orders - and thank ${deity} for this.
Well its up to 2/3 of the forces he had at the border are now committed within Ukraine. And he has had to ask for help from Belarus. One thing that has been noted is the poor equipment, with vehicles being abandoned. However yesterday I saw a video of Russian MREs that had been captured, they had a use by date of 2015. And today I saw video of some Russian POWs in WWII helmets. This leads to 2 options:
1) He has sent in his shit soldiers and equipment first, to sacrifice it and wear down Ukrainian forces.
2) All of his equipment and soldiers are of equal shitness.
If it is 1, then he could not have expected a quick win in Ukraine if he was sending in sacrificial troops first. If he did expect a quick win then 2 is the most likely option.
However this raises the question about his air force, they have not been involved and would surely have made a huge difference to their objectives. So again there are a few main reasons:
1) They are not as good as they should be (some reports of pilots having around 100 hours annual flight time, vs RAF and US Air Force where they pilots complain that less than 200 flight hours per year is not enough to remain combat ready).
2) He needs the for stage 2 of the plan which would mean fighting NATO when he tries to invade Poland or other neigbouring Baltic state (There is no way he can get his forces from Ukraine to Finland without Finland having lots of notice and preparing... posssibly by joining NATO anyway)
3) It might be “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.” If his air force flew and we saw they were in as much dissaray as his land troops there goes any concern over Russian air superiority.
>Western intelligence agencies have good visibility into Putin right now and are closely watching his moves for any significant behavioral changes, several current and former officials said. Four U.S. officials said there is no intelligence saying he is mentally unstable, but they said he has displayed a different pattern of behavior from in the past.
>The U.S. has solid intelligence that Putin is frustrated and directing unusual bursts of anger at people in his inner circle over the state of the military campaign and the worldwide condemnation of his actions, one former and two current U.S. officials briefed on the intelligence said.
>That is unusual, they say, because Putin, a former intelligence officer, usually keeps his emotions in check.
> Does Putin strike you as an overly emotional guy who gets frustrated easily?
I mean... yes, clearly! Obviously, there's the Ukraine thing, but even before that, look at photos and footage of him when slighted at conferences and so on. He's not as emotionally open as a Trump or a Burlusconi, but he's no stoic as politicians go.
It's safe to assume this operation was in the planning at least since 2014. 8 years. It had weeks of operations at the border to sort out the logistics. And it had overwhelming military/intelligence superiority and access to the front from 3 sides.
It should have taken hours to break through. The operation was a shamble, even if it might succeed over time.
Either he's gone full potato, or he's still very calculating but everyone around him is feeding false information upwards to "look nice" and because they can't say no. Neither scenario bodes extremely well for his chances of success.
The picture he had portrayed of him doesn't match reality.
Just look at how scared he is of catching COVID. Since 2 years, almost no one is allowed near to him.
The amount of COVID tests his bodyguards and others need to do daily is pretty insane too. Everyone he sees/greets needs to be in isolation for 2 weeks upfront.
Yes, he and especially his fans have been working on establishing the image of a strategic mastermind.
But in reality, he's just a short, puffy old man, living in ridiculous kitschy palaces, sitting on ridiculous long tables because he's afraid of even his most loyal underlings.
With attacking Ukraine, he made a huge mistake. He simply counted on the west doing nothing, as usual, but this time he went too far. But because he's just a powerful man, not a great man, he's unable to admit that.
Enumerating the effect of the sanctions is not. We do not need a thousand articles stating that companies have complied with the law. We already know all of this.
A donation of $2m for humanitarian aid is similarly not noteworthy, for exactly the reasons described above.
> Jesus sat down opposite the treasury and saw how the multitude cast money into the treasury. Many who were rich cast in much. A poor widow came and she cast in two small brass coins, which equal a quadrans coin. He called his disciples to himself and said to them, “Most certainly I tell you, this poor widow gave more than all those who are giving into the treasury, for they all gave out of their abundance, but she, out of her poverty, gave all that she had to live on.”
— Mark 12:41–44
The coinage in question was about 1/64 of a labourer’s daily pay, in current terms in the vicinity of $2, depending on where you are.
Fifty years ago, the dollar had value because America was the one-stop-shop for everything. Cars, electronics, appliances, all of it.
Nowadays, that's China. China makes everything, or the parts to make everything, and increasingly to a higher standard than can be produced in the US. Go watch Project Farm and think on those results.
The dollar has value now because it functions as a medium of exchange. That's it. The machinery of international purchasing and banking works in dollars, but that's not a given.
Kicking Russia out of SWIFT undermines that entire system. Doesn't matter if it's expedient or warranted or if you just really fucking hate Ivan. It is now very clear to every single bank on the planet that the USG is willing to use commercial entities as a weapon against your country. Not just banks, either: technology companies, medical suppliers, all the rest.
That has very real long-term consequences, and I wouldn't be surprised if China and Russia jointly rolled out a competing standard within the next decade. The combination of "you're using this if you want to buy from us" and "can you really trust the Americans?" is not going to have good consequences for the USD.
All valid points, but...using military force to seize control of another sovereign, democratic nation also undermines the entire economic system.
I don't see this as driven by the US government and as something that will be held against the USD, it is just as much motivated by the Europeans and the Euro. The point of these sanctions is to say - a country is not allowed the benefits of integration with the global economy if they are willing to use military force against it.
> All valid points, but...using military force to seize control of another sovereign, democratic nation also undermines the entire economic system.
History disagrees.
> The point of these sanctions is to say - a country is not allowed the benefits of integration with the global economy if they are willing to use military force against it.
What happens when that country is no longer interested in the trade-offs required to "integrate into the global economy"?
Interesting to note that the two pariah states both have advanced space programs. Less than a dozen countries in the world have orbital capability, North Korea among them.
50 years ago the dollar had value because of a massive and extremely temporary economic opportunity while the rest of the world played catch up from world wars, civil wars, and imperialism. Now we're closer to a level playing field and America doesn't get to play on easy mode.
Regardless, manufacturing isn't the primary measure for economic strength anyway.
I mean arguably I'd want a country that cares more about human rights in the world than it's own currency on an open market, without even saying that this is what the US is doing here.
But the US also couldn't act unilaterally in these sanctions so I'm not sure that comes into play so much
It's not like everyone woke up this week and realized these economic levers exist. Look at Huawei, the EUV blockade, Russia using gas for politics, etc. SWIFT is a relatively weaker lever in that the US is not able to unilaterally impose this, it took EU signing off - and pre-war, this wasn't a very likely outcome.
Assuming dollar hegemony forever without using it as a weapon also isn't very truthful. With the rise of China that you point out and with the decline over long timescales of oil, it's going to wane in importance without more levers like silicon.
I don't agree with the analysis here, through and through.
Russia may buy things from China, but they need to sell energy and goods to Europe. In particular, it is difficult for Russia to send a good chunk of their energy output to China. Energy is a bulk good, and thus sensitive to transport costs.
China and Russia are not liberal economies. A side effect of that is that their own markets do not offer enough liquidity to support an alternative exchange medium. It really is as simple as that. China has advanced in strides, but it will take true liberalization before it can wield economic weapons on a global scale. Its society will need to mature more before that happens, and then it will be a different day.
I'm not going to rah-rah let's beat Russia – or China – those are nationalistic attitudes I won't partake in. At the same time, I really am very negatively against this war, and just as much, I believe the systems should be impartial as they can be. With all that said, your analysis simply does not hold weight, and given the European consensus behind blocking the Russian government from SWIFT, I don't think the legitimacy or effectiveness of that system is significantly compromised either, for all practical purposes.
I see this "Chinese production + Russian... (I guess just oil) = superior economic system" argument before, but I suspect these people have never opened a history book on Sino-Soviet relations. Because of decades of undermining and backstabbing, the trust between these two societies is pretty close to zero despite "communism". The only thing they really have in common is that they are both autocratic governments, so not exactly beacons of stability and cooperation. So the USD doesn't doesn't have to be the best, just the least worst.
That does not seem to be the case. The leadership of China has been rather quiet the last few days. China Daily is not spouting a pro-Putin line at all. The party line may be to sit this one out.
It seems like China is in a great position to "buy" Russia: an embarassed Putin can't go to the people who sanctioned him and say "I'm sorry, I was wrong, I'll stop now, can we go back to the way we were before", but when he does retreat after declaring "Mission accomplished!" he can still go to Xi and say "My friend Xi!".
Maybe Russians will get AliPay and WeChat in the near future...
I don’t know their calculations, but they are without a doubt forging closer ties, and those ties are driven by the west acting counter to both nations interests.
If this isn’t obvious you’re either not paying attention, or you are missing key info.
Yep, same thing that happened to British Pound Sterling. The Industrial Revolution and the British Empire made it the global reserve currency; war losses, the dismantling of the Empire, and the decline of British industry handled the mantle to the American Dollar. Nothing truly protects USD from the same forces.
China and Russia won't succeed at launching a competing standard though. Autocracy may promote economic growth at home, but it cannot credibly protect the financial interests of foreigners from its own impulsive and selfish desires. You deposit funds into Russian and Chinese banks at your own risk.
CIPS is about getting money to Chinese banks (effectively the only members). The commenter is suggesting that having money in those banks is not a desired outcome for most institutions due to the fact that Chinese finance does not run on the same premises as institutions used to doing business with the west.
It’s going to take a long time for international companies to get the yuan/cips/China bank corridor working, those relationships don’t get built quickly and most places that aren’t dealing directly with China don’t bank there (as opposed to the UK, Ireland or other countries that act as banking nexus’.
Those Chinese banks can’t even be used for traditional style fx management because you’ll have to double fx from local currency to yuan and yuan to ruble. The yuan fx scene is much less efficient and liquid as well.
What this more likely does is set Russian & Chinese firms to trade with each other. That looks a lot like the North Korea relationship.
If I’m a modern treasury that needs to do business in Russia the China corridor requires me to fx to yuan and the fx yuan to ruble. As of now both of those currencies are hard to fx. It’s also hard (relatively) to setup Chinese accounts.
I work in the industry and have seen Chinese banking normalize a bit especially in Africa but comparatively it is tiny and hard to manage. Singapore for instance is a more likely spot to setup banking operations for most companies.
The issue is that these are long term trends. It will take decades to make China a finance nexus on the order of modem banking centers in the west and that presumes China continues to liberalize their currency and finance regime which is not the current trend.
SWIFT is a Belgian corporation that is not tied to a specific currency. Kicking them out of SWIFT has nothing to do with USD hegimony. China and Russia do have a competing system, it's used by China and Russia.
Moreover, Russias currency and market have been in a downfall for a month, not a week - that its actions _have_ long term consequences is exactly the point.
Now, please remember, there's a whole planet out there, and Russia has a GDP that equals _Italy_ or Benelux - it's just, in the grand scheme of things, not important enough to justify its repeated demands to be able to invade soverign nations without consequences.
Russia is still free to settle its debts through the thing it has: physical goods. SWIFT is a messaging system - not a payment system - they're still free to use faxes and carrier pigeons. The world need not let you participate in modern conveniences if you're just a bully.
Measuring Russia by GDP is like measuring a bank robber by their tax return.
They have a shit ton of dark money that isn't calculated as part of GDP. Their economy is also in much better shape even with the smaller official calculations, having external debt equal to 38% of GDP compared to 102% for the US.
You think so? I am not an expert but afaik it's not that Russia does a lot of things it needs internally and not paying debts doesn't really seem viable if you want to get a currency with which you can pay your procurements?
That's fair in the context of businesses, but since we're also talking about a war context:
I've seen people point out that when discussing the conflict, it makes more sense to use PPP adjusted GDP. The rationale is that for a lot of stuff needed for state security, the production is done internally, and thus the currency exchange rates don't matter as much. (This is particularly true for Russia, since they build a lot of their weapons, compared with other european countries which buy weapons from the US)
Anecdotally: Russian outdoor equipment has gotten seriously acceptable in the past few years, and that's not a bad proxy for their military gear. Laugh all you want, but ten years ago, I wouldn't have trusted Ivan to build a tent that didn't (a) weigh several tons; and (b) fall over in a light breeze.
Looking at the gear they're fielding, they're maybe a generation behind NATO on everything except NVOs (the US is 2-3 generations ahead there), and the Russian military has massively more inland combat experience than anybody else in Europe save the French, and likely as much UW/FID experience as the US. Difficult to assess where Russia lies in terms of training and tactics given all the noise, but they appear to be far more competent than I expected.
People are seriously underestimating what Russia can bring to the table, sort of like how folks laughed at the strides made by Chinese manufacturers.
In a different context, for sure, but this was about SWIFT and finance. Even still, comparing army sizes isn't that useful either -- number of raw bodies only tells a fractional story; Where they're fighting makes a huge difference (home turf advantage), morale, motivation, equipment, training, non-human resources.
Numbers are useful when they're qualitatively comparable, but in this context, I'm not sure what number of troops should say you're allowed to bank wherever you want.
>SWIFT is a Belgian corporation that is not tied to a specific currency. Kicking them out of SWIFT has nothing to do with USD hegimony.
Not in this case given that Belgium and the rest of Europe also wants it.
...but I distinctly remember us not wanting to ban Iran from SWIFT and bowing to US pressure on the matter
All i'm getting from China is cheap disposable garbage. The rest is made in the West and merely packaged in China, because robots have not been developed enough to put phone in box on their own, and nobody wants to do this job.
Fifty years ago the US and allies forced Japans arm exactly because the US was not the one-stop-shop for everything and the US had trouble and a massive trade deficit with japan which was experiencing the reverse.
Forced technology transfers, bad monetary policy, quotas for US tech, cars, etc in their domestic market.
Japan was forced to take it all as they had no comparable export market to switch to (the USSR and co were a nono, china and such poor), no independent army and foreign policy of their own and all in all no way to resist and was thus very susceptible to a tradewar.
Not only does Russia have its own financial interchange system but they have their own credit card network as well. Visa and MasterCard were forced to integrate with them early on in order to get a toe hold in the country. This will do more to hurt MasterCard then Moscow.
Hindsight being perfect, one of the worst blunders the US ever made was turning their backs when the Soviet Union collapsed. That was their one chance to jump in and shape things in their favor, instead they opened Pizza Huts.
I think this is a naive reading of historic events. The US didn't "open pizza huts" but collaborated vigorously and enthusiastically in the looting of Soviet state assets post-collapse.
Bonus round 2 right before our eyes! assuming Putin doesn't nationalize stuff. Everyone else is literally helping you have diamond hands because you cant sell until the sanctions are lifted haha, which I mean, they will eventually. Undervalued, revenue producing assets aren't going to be ignored for long. BTFD.
Just assume that you're going to the front lines soon unless you have enough money to donate enough to an Ivy League school for admission and draft deferral, like last time. The people that couldn't afford have no lineage as their bloodline ended, and the people that could afford it are current politicians and Presidents on all sides and their genes and ideas do pass on. Makes it easy to rationalize taking asymmetric financial bets during a time when people think they don't want to talk about it.
There is no way that a state that nationalizes everything and then has to sell it all in a yet-to-be-birthed private economy has the ability of doing it amicably and for the people. There is no market depth, there is no liquidity, and there will always be people close to the decision makers or an international market of people willing to exchange, racing against the domestic people.
The folly was the communism, the unbridled accumulation of revenue producing asset was just waiting for the communism to fall apart, I think it is shocking I also think I do not have sympathy for it.
Time to do it again. Cheap revenue producing assets.
This, imho is eerily similar to the mistake of punishing Germany ruthlessly at the end of WWI, which basically created the perfect underlying conditions for Nazis and WWII.
Expect Russia to retaliate against MasterCard. If this is your sole credit card you might want to look for alternatives in case their computers go down.
I interpreted the parent comment as how to react if the Mastercard network goes down worldwide when Russia retaliates by trying to hack them.
Payments networks inside Russia is another matter altogether, but I assume like most countries they also have a local card network. In that case, the issue will arise only when trying to use russian cards outside Russia.
great. this is why india is furiously pushing for "rupay" card system that they ingenuously developed rather than just lapping up whatever visa/mastercard offer.
they can do 30/50% less fees than incumbent visa/MC and still operate in the ecosystem because all local gateways and tech stack has been built to incorporate Rupay card system same as visa/MC.
the end result is, suppose tomorrow USA orders visa to quit india, beyond a few hiccups, there is a good chance india can weather these american companies leaving the domestic ecosystem. that way, the indirect control USA has over the financial infrastructure of entire nations is reduced to a great extent.
seems russia has done the same so this is moot now but think of it this way.
visa/MC often cry to mommy USA about unfair advantage to rupay cards in india and the US tries to intervene. suppose india bans Visa tomorrow, why is the US government so inclined to intervene in that case? unless this is their way of maintaining a degree of control
China has UnionPay and Russia has MIR. Neither comes close to competing with VISA and MasterCard.
The thing is that these cards only work domestically and are literally impossible to pay for things online (unless the payment processor specifically caters to your market).
Unless RuPay can be used painlessly internationally, it won't be of much use.
yes. my point exactly for these cards working domestically. you imagine if russia or china or india does not have their own cards what would happen "within" that country? their entire infrastructure would collapse if visa/MC decides to quit or are forced to. that is what these locals cards offer. a hedge against american rugpull.
I don't know about Mir, but UnionPay works just fine internationally in many places, especially in markets that cater(ed) to Chinese tourists many if not most merchants accept it. There's even UnionPay card-issuing banks outside Mainland China, for example in Thailand.
I don't agree with many of your statements, but I agree very hard with one thing.
Every country needs to stop letting US tax all the transactions. Not because sanctions - if you act like North Korea you'll be treated like North Korea - but because it's just stupid policy.
You seem like a kind soul and the horrible situation is undoubtedly having an effect on you. That said, the best thing to do is to write to your government representative to request they support a de-escalation of this situation, and then switch off the news and social media.
Unfortunately, the war machine is in overdrive and lots of wicked parties are using media propaganda to escalate emotions amongst people. The only outcome of this high temperature is more war and suffering for all, which again benefits the wicked parties (military corporations and others), while regular people everywhere will suffer.
So write to your government, turn off the media, and if you believe, pray for peace. That is the best way to help.
"Support peace" here means "make sure invasion of sovereign nation goes unpunished".
The best anyone can do to make the world better place is support the world again the Russian aggressors and war criminals. People "asking for peace" and "deescalating" are just on the side of the aggressors and war criminals.
I'm going to assume you are genuine in your anger and not a shill for the chickenhawks and MIC. Russian people are not the aggressors here, just like all Muslims were not responsible for 9/11 nor all Americans responsible for Afghanistan/Iraq and all other similar situations.
Don't behave like the real world is a Marvel movie filled with heroes and supervillains. If you truly want to help, write to your govt representative. Anything else you do as a civilian or private business is vigilantism, and will have no impact on the actual conflict at hand.
Going by history sanctions do tend to entrench authoritarian rulers. I still think there isn't any choice. He used the "Nuclear" word and now I think Europe's policy will containment for a very long time.
I don't think we tried to push for Ukraine as neutral state, like Finland, did we?
Does EU/NATO really NEED Ukraine to join them?
Seems like it would be a simple peaceful discussion worth having rather than risking more suffering.
Discussion might not work... but the fact it's not even on the table is absolutely insane.
The "Ukraine as a neutral state" angle sounded plausible maybe 5 years ago. But the fact is that Putin started a war despite no significant recent change in Ukraine's relationship with NATO or EU.
> The "Ukraine as a neutral state" angle sounded plausible maybe 5 years ago. But the fact is that Putin started a war despite no significant recent change in Ukraine's relationship with NATO or EU.
Escalated an existing war that has lasted more than 5 years, and which certain NATO members have been very clear is why Ukraine wasn't being allowed to advance in its quest for membership.
If you're implying that Ukraine has recently escalated "a war lasting 5 years" then that's fundamentally ridiculous and you should be extremely embarrassed. But maybe I read that wrong? In that case I apologize.
Aggression is very very clearly ONLY coming from the Putin inner circle thugs who sacrifice Russian lives to kill Ukrainians and unlawfully attack a sovereign state, recognized as such by the entirety of the UN.
All under the guise of idiotic lies that stink to the Moon. It's incredible how any Russian still listens to Putin, Lawrow and the rest of these thugs. They must fear a lot of repercussions. Russia could be rich, connected and prosperous instead.
> If you're implying that Ukraine has recently escalated
The subject of the sentence that I posted the correction to was “Putin”, not “Ukraine”, and the correction was to the verb phrase, from “started a war”, to “escalated a war...”, not to the subject.
So, no, I’m directly stating that Putin escalated war he’s been waging since 2014, not “implying” that Ukraine escalated anything.
During this period, our politics underwent 'Finlandization', basically giving USSR veto powers over our internal policies. It probably was a necessity to avoid an invasion, but certainly nothing you'd recommend to anyone.
> I don't think we tried to push for Ukraine as neutral state, like Finland, did we? Does EU/NATO really NEED Ukraine to join them?
Yours is an imperialistic attitude. The question is not, how could EU or US or NATO or Russia push Ukraine about. The question is, what do the Ukrainians themselves want or need.
I think its too late for that. Think Ukraine will push for Putin to have consequences, but I don't think they have enough leverage for that just yet.
The situation is incredibly complicated, but I see a few scenarios:
- Russia succeeds in their siege and installs puppet government, however with a lot of casualties. The west and NATO probably convey their disappointment, continue with sanctions and the diplomatic divide. Ukraine will be split. At least with LDR / DNR with Russian interpretation.
- Ukraine succeeds in holding off the pressure, NATO involves themselves more directly (already partially happening). Russia will unleash their anger - this is the worst case which comes with a lot of unpredictability in terms of destruction and casualties.
- Ukraine / Russia come to an agreement of neutrality. This is becoming highly unlikely as Ukraine will seek revenge for what has been happening till now, Russia will have to remove some of the officials and install theirs - this will never happen under current rule. So the above two scenarios are more likely :(
You misunderstand. A coup by the people on the streets is tremendously unlikely, but the odds of a palace coup grows every day.
The people most hurt by these sanctions are those closest to Putin, the people who have made themselves fabulously wealthy by maintaining close ties to the government. Their quality of life has been most severely impacted by this move.
The Russians are keeping Putin in power. If sanctions motivate them to do something about him, good. If they just serve as punishment for supporting that monster, good enough.
> So if all these sanctions are there to frustrate people to create a coup and a revolution - its currently working in the opposite direction.
I do not believe that is the purpose. I think the idea is to make it costly for Putin to go forward. Sadly this is at the cost of the well-being of the russian population.
And I cannot send donations from Russia to Meduza.io - Lativan based Russian speaking media targeted at Russia mostly. And other Russian people connot do this too.
Since Meduza was declared a "foreign agent" by Russian authorities (there's such a heavily burdening law here), they lost most advertisement and changed their model to donations.
I'm afraid they wouldn't survive this.
And government-owned media will continue to receive their subsidies from a country budget.
I feel like some things done these days are inflicting more collateral damage than supposed effect.
This is what the Fiat system do: war, censorship, cancellation, did, education, more destruction and collateral damage. A great book on the topic is called The Fiat Standard, highly recommended.
I just wanted to add another view on some sanctions effects from inside the country that attacked their neighbour (I still have a problem beleiving this).
BTW: Putin seems to be able to defend the Ruble for now at the 1 cent mark. This seems quite hight to me and I'd be concerned for how long they can hold this if I'd be holding RUB...
P.S. I do not want to be cynical. I understand that this will be a very hard time for people living in Russia -- just at the moment it seems much worse for people living in Ukraine, and there seem to be few non-violent options to stop this apart from sanctions. Meduzza looks like a legitimate site and I have donated EUR 100 to them on your behalf.
P.P.S: Please note that the payment setting on the site defaults to monthly.
Literally the first point of the blog you linked to:
> The crypto project has had 13 years to try and find a problem to solve. It has not found one.
You've posted this link under the news article to which crypto has proven to be THE solution (non-censorable, cannot be weaponized).
The other points from the blog post are equally hilarious. You can't shout "It's not money!" and hope that it doesn't become one. If people value it, find use in it enough to accept it, it can be treated as money.
I understand your point, those services might be used by Russians against the war, but they can also be used by Russians who support the war. There's nothing good about any of this, the harm being done to ordinary Russians by sanctions isn't good, or desirable, or even deserved. Nobody in the west wants to be doing this. It is necessary though, unfortunately.
The state will have access to both anyway. Inconveniences like these are significant for individuals but trivial for organizations, especially those not bound by law.
reply