Home » Saboteurs hard at work

Comments

Saboteurs hard at work — 61 Comments

  1. On the vexed topic of the war, all are encouraged to read two recently-posted and thought-provoking pieces, Alexander Markovsky’s “The Ukraine War and National Interests” at AmericanThinker and Josh Hammer’s “The U.S. Needs To Change Course Right Now in Ukraine” at Newsweek (a mostly worthless rag). Both are well-argued correctives to the steady drum-beat towards ever more involvement in the current quagmire and to the increasingly dangerous rhetoric (often insanely bellicose and belligerent) from some of the most corrupt swamp-dwellers in DC.

  2. This is a significant escalation in that it both targets critical infrastructure and from Russia’s perspective is an attack upon ‘the Motherland’. It therefore is a strategic escalation of the conflict and in Russia’s view, justifies full scale war upon the Ukraine.

    It is now confirmed that US Special Operations forces are on the ground in Ukraine and have been for some time.

    That ratchets the conflict closer to an outright war between the US and Russia. War between the two most heavily armed nuclear forces in the world should give anyone concern. As it’s ludicrous to imagine that an initially limited use of tactical nukes could not escalate into a full scale use of strategic nuclear arms. In which case, neither side survives. It might even result in a worldwide “nuclear winter”.

  3. Honestly on this front I think the simplest explanation re: the Crimean Bridge is the best. Whereas the NordStream blasts are a riddle wrapped in a mystery over whether this was sabotage or accidental and if sabotage who did it and who benefits (which might not be the same one), the bridge blast is a lot harder to explain. And I have no reason to believe the Kremlin would willingly devastate one of its critical supply lines in order to have a false flag (and for what benefit?). And of course the Ukrainian government claims responsibility, which keeps in line with strikes on Russian infrastructure in the occupied Crimea, even if this seems to be done by a different method than artillery or missiles.

    Germany is a lot harder to explain and could be caused by almost literally anyone or anything (even possibly an accident or incompetence; never let us doubt that German and other Western pols, bureaucrats, and workers don’t lie to make themselves look better if they think they can get away with it). Russian spies are certainly possible, but I would probably look closer to home, such as Islamists in Germany or Greenie fanatics. But of course I don’t know and those are only guesses.

  4. Vlad “annexed” Crimea in 2014 and Vlad considers the Crimea part of The Motherland so all you other “mothers” better not touch his bridge. Note that his bridge was essential for the conquest of southern Ukraine, which progressed (metastasised) from Crimea. Vlad has plans to completely annex the entirety of Ukraine’s Black Sea coast, best laid plans Geoffrey.

    So the Ketch bridge is at least temporarily compromised, good news for Ukrainian “territorial aggression” in Kerson, eh Geoffrey? After all, those Roosians who were freed from the Nazi Ukrainians just voted to rejoin The Motherland, eh Geoffrey?

  5. It is now confirmed that US Special Operations forces are on the ground in Ukraine and have been for some time.

    By the usual ‘anonymous sources’ stewed through Antiwar.com and the World Socialist Website.

  6. Both are well-argued correctives

    Actually, Hammar’s piece is largely sh!t, riddled with errors, omissions, and non sequiturs. That’s the substantive portion, which is less than half the verbiage.

  7. It might even result in “dogs and cats living together.”

    Hold it, I thought climate change was the ultimate exestential crisis! Thus a full on nuclear war would undoubtablly cause irreversible immediate climate change, that would dispoportionally harm LGBTQ+? from the BIPOC community.

    Because Science!

  8. Full scale war with a Potempkin Army (Z).

    Roosia gets what Roosia wants.

    “Everyone has a plan, until they get punched in the face.”
    Mike Tyson

  9. ‘well I wouldn’t say we wouldn’t get our hair mussed’ if the saboteurs in academia, media, and corporate america, were not entirely in on this project, i’d be more sanguine,

    i

  10. @Geoffrey Britain

    This is a significant escalation in that it both targets critical infrastructure and from Russia’s perspective is an attack upon ‘the Motherland’. It therefore is a strategic escalation of the conflict

    No, it really isn’t. Unless you ignore the fact that the Ukrainians have been striking “critical infrastructure” in “the motherland” for months by this point.

    https://iwpr.net/global-voices/ukraine-strikes-russian-danger-belt

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd9zx0QaVEI

    The second in particular is very important because absolutely nobody except some of the rather fantasy driven map makers denies that Belgorod is lawfully Russian territory rather than territory annexed by force from its neighbors. And of course a fuel depot is critical infrastructure.

    The truth is that this is a difference in magnitude- especially since the Crimean Bridge is a lot more unique and important than any given fuel depot- but ultimately not in kind from other attacks the Ukrainians have launched on critical infrastructure in the Russian Motherland.

    and in Russia’s view, justifies full scale war upon the Ukraine.

    No, it really doesn’t. See above.

    If the Russian government wished to justify full scale war on Ukraine (and again Geoffrey, NO THE) on the basis of limited attacks on critical infrastructure in the Russian Motherland, it had months in which to do so. Rather than do that the Kremlin dragged its feet and is only instituting partial mobilization now.

    Strikes like this will make it easier to justify ramping up the mobilization further and intensifying the war, but the Kremlin and Russian public alike- even those who largely support the war- so not seem to think this justifies full scale war.

    It is now confirmed that US Special Operations forces are on the ground in Ukraine and have been for some time.

    Which is unsurprising for those of us who have been paying attention for the last few years.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/ukrainian-special-ops-forces-double-in-size-during-us-training-2022-6?amp

    The question is if they are doing anything beyond training and if said “anything beyond” can be proven.

    And this isn’t so new. What a lot of people forget is that Ukraine sent combat troops to help us throughout the first decade of the century, and so the institutional cooperation goes deeper than many expect. It just didn’t get as much attention since this wasn’t seen as inherently exclusive with ties to Russian military at the time and of course there wasn’t a war of this scale going on in Ukraine.

    That ratchets the conflict closer to an outright war between the US and Russia.

    On this much we agree, though that particular ratchet was done at least months ago and so I would not rate it as particularly flammable.

    Especially given the obvious logistics involved.

    War between the two most heavily armed nuclear forces in the world should give anyone concern. As it’s ludicrous to imagine that an initially limited use of tactical nukes could not escalate into a full scale use of strategic nuclear arms. In which case, neither side survives.

    Agreed with the caveat that this depends a bit on how we define “full scale” in “full scale use of strategic nuclear arms.” Russian strategic doctrine has been a lot more comfortable with limited escalation and the use of nukes than ours has for decades, and even then an unlimited firing of nukes was viewed as excessive, hence the “Bounce the Rubble” moniker given to those situations.

    It might even result in a worldwide “nuclear winter”

    UNLIKELY. It is at this point that I point to how Nuclear Winter was largely brought to you by the same dim bulbs who predicted a New Ice Age and are now breathlessly talking about Glowbull Warming in spite of repeated failed predictions. And who are overly reliant on modeling in order to further the claim.

    It is at this point that I note that the epicenter of above ground nuclear testing also had at best marginal results on the temperature. In the event of a full scale nuclear exchange there’s likely be noticeable cooling but by no means a “winter” and it’s probably going to be one of the lesser problems humanity would suffer from in that case.

  11. however I have a few questions,

    if the offensive in kherson was successful, I would have thought the ukrainians would move across into the island, conversely, the Russian contingent could move north if their supply operation was effective,

    I would think the eastward push would be most effective, as long as the supply lines don’t go two far into the steppes, (the lands grossman, depicted in love and fate,

    tretyakov,* the svr operative that peter early ghosted his memoir, had a wry chuckle about how the kgb got sagan to buy the ttaps, (nuclear winter) claptrap,
    just like anything strobe talbott got in his bag of magic beans
    *tretyakov, died on the day that the chapman cell, returned to moskva via vienna

  12. Russia lobs missiles at Ukranian cities every day but Ukraine attacking a bridge in what Russia claims is its own territory is “escalating”? This is war to the knife, not some academic exercise in the pedantic.

  13. @Dwaz The thing is, Russian accusations that this is escalating are rather muted in comparison to how Geoffrey portrayed. This is a somewhat novel attack, but Ukrainian attacks on “critical infrastructure” on Russian Soil (whether occupied Ukrainian territory or actual, pre-war Russian soil recognized by everybody) are nothing new, though the shift to car and truck bombs does seem to be a change.

  14. @miguel cervantes

    its hard to take any security services affirmations seriously,

    https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1578589232972431362?cxt=HHwWhICg2eWio-grAAAA

    Agreed. The main reason I am inclined to give this much credit is because it fits in to a pattern of Ukrainian strikes on infrastructure in Russia and territories occupied by it, and it was admitted as such, as opposed to being denied.

    however I have a few questions,

    if the offensive in kherson was successful, I would have thought the ukrainians would move across into the island, conversely, the Russian contingent could move north if their supply operation was effective,

    I think part of it depends on how much either side would want to actually advance at this point. I do think the Ukrainian interest on advancing is stronger due to the political pressure to try and crush or overturn the Kherson “Referendum” and to help cut the land bridge to Crimea (especially in concert with the “convenient” destruction of the Crimea Bridge), but I figured they would want to more or less fight-in-place for a period of time, forcing Russian forces to continue reinforcing the area and wearing them down until they advance. In contrast I imagine the Russians have little incentive to make much in the way of offensive actions or drastic changes at this point since they have incentive to consolidate their positions and lock things down to safeguard control over the “seceded” oblasts and to help prepare the way for reinforcements in the callup.

    I would think the eastward push would be most effective, as long as the supply lines don’t go two far into the steppes, (the lands grossman, depicted in love and fate,

    That would make sense, though I’d need to check it.

    tretyakov,* the svr operative that peter early ghosted his memoir, had a wry chuckle about how the kgb got sagan to buy the ttaps, (nuclear winter) claptrap,
    just like anything strobe talbott got in his bag of magic beans
    *tretyakov, died on the day that the chapman cell, returned to moskva via vienna

    Agreed indeed. This as a whole shows the flaws of modeling and the incompetence or even aggressive dishonesty of many “intellectuals”, Sagan Included.

  15. Seeing Russia in Ukraine reminds me strongly of Germany in the Sudetenland (rescuing our citizens from foreign domination). I wonder what the world would look like if the other Western countries had acted with firmness at that time. Would Hitler have been deterred from further adventures? Probably not, but…

    Oh well, we’ll never know.

  16. @j e

    I read both pieces, and frankly they are bad if read with a critical eye. Quite Bad, to be bluntly honest. Art Deco singles out Hammer for attack, but I think this gives Markovsky way, WAY too much of a pass.

    So let’s start.

    The Ukraine War and National Interests
    By Alexander G. Markovsky:

    Donald Trump’s “America First” doctrine encountered stormy weather in the American globalists’ community, which characterized it as a mix of nationalism, unilateralism, and xenophobia.

    However, “my country first” doctrine was not a new approach to international order. It was originated in the 17th century by a Frenchman, Armand-Jean du Plessis, known as Cardinal de Richelieu.

    Agreed to this point, if only for the fact that the idea of My Country First if anything dates back well before Richelieu, to the point where in the aftermath of the Battle of Montaperti between Italian political factions (with a Guelph party who had most of its army drawn from the city of Florence and a Ghibelline party who had most of its troops drawn from anti-Florence outlying cities and Germany that ended with the Ghibellines crushing their enemies), the victorious Ghibellines briefly considered razing Florence only to be rebuked by Florentine Ghibelline (and army commander) Farinata degli Uberti, who declared that he was a Florentine and could not condone the destruction of his nation regardless of politics.

    This was in the 1260s. So clearly the idea was around WELL before Richelieu, and I could draw from other examples that go well before this.

    That said, on the subject of Richelieu he is a fascinating figure who I regret is mostly known as the villain of Three Musketeers (and often in adaptations that make him an actual villain, in contrast to his actions in the book). I have studied him often and even wargamed and in one case roleplayed as him, and he is a very wise model for statecraft.

    Which is IMPORTANT, because the way Markovsky is going to invoke him is practically a desecration, being “very convenient” and ignoring the fact that Richelieu’s driving focus as statecraft were the twin objects of strengthening France’s central government and doing everything to weaken the Habsburg Dynasty(/ies), up to the point of waging wars of such a scale and devastation that make the current one in Ukraine look absolutely pitiful.

    Richelieu offered a revolutionary concept to create stability in the international system, later known as raison d’état or national interests.

    This is ironic, because Richelieu’s career was DEFINED by being a wrecker of stability in “the international system” previously dominated by the Habsburg Dynasty after its victory in the Italian Wars and which- at the time of Richelieu’s birth- seemed to be on the cusp of creating a Universal Catholic Monarchy. Richelieu’s life was dedicated to throwing as many monkey wrenches in this as possible. Monkey wrenches doused in gunpowder and then set alight with fuses.

    Which is why he took advantage of the Habsburgs’ overplaying their hands in attempts to break down resistance inside the Holy Roman Empire and cow or crush other electorates in the Empire (leading to the Thirty Years War) by providing a much-needed source of relief to the Habsburgs’ enemies, such as the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, exiled Bohemians, and others.

    The fact that most of these powers were non-Catholic Protestants or Reformed Christians who had been bitterly opposed to Richelieu’s own Catholic Church mattered less to him than the greater cause of weakening Spain and the HRE in order to break France out of its envelopment. Which is why he pursued a two pronged approach of trying to goad Huegenot hardliners into ill-advised action that could be used to stomp on them while pursuing alliances with anti-Imperial factions like England, the Netherlands, Sweden, etc.

    He ultimately died in the process of this “creative destruction” in 1642, six years before the Peace Treaties of Westphalia and more than a decade and a half before the Peace of the Pyrenees between France and its allies on one hand and Habsburg Spain on the other. His successes would ultimately be expanded upon by his successors such as Cardinal Mazarin.

    Now, why do I go into such detail here? Is it just because Turtler likes writing or seeing themselves type?

    Well, no, not primarily. But because it is important to remember that Richelieu EMBRACED ruthless power politics on a level few of us can comprehend, and he helped wage some of the most devastating wars in human history, with his sponsorship of “his guys” in his own proxy wars being on a scale well above even the West’s current one. Had he viewed Russia as he viewed the Habsburgs, he would probably be seriously considering the actions almost nobody seriously considers, such as a No Fly Zone.

    All of this is worth keeping in mind, because Markovsky- whether through incompetence, ignorance, or dishonesty- “conveniently” doesn’t when it suits his preferred narrative.

    So, what is raison d’état for the major players involved in the Ukrainian conflict?

    Russia; Either subjugate Ukraine as a whole or weaken it by dismembering its hold over the South and East and starting yet another one of the umpteen Frozen Conflicts that the Kremlin loves.

    Ukraine: Retain the post-revolution government, repulse all Russian attempts to do so, and ideally reconquer the “separatist” areas in whole or in part.

    The West: Punish Russia for its aggression and violations of previous realpolitik agreements by supporting Ukraine in its efforts, in order to cow Russia, convince it of the lack of wisdom behind confronting the West again, and so forth.

    I could go on, but this is a decent summary for the national level players; individual and group ones being a bit harder.

    But I digress.

    America, unlike the rest of the world, claims that its foreign policy is not guided by national interests, and often does act on idealistic values. American foreign policy is supposed to be guided by superior principles – the proliferation of democracy and individual rights. America’s inability to define its national interests – indeed, its refusal to accept the validity of such a concept — produced many of this country’s tragedies.

    Were it not due to principle and my opposition to the sham show the FBI has turned into, I would consider reporting Markovsky on suspicion of conducting illegal interstate commerce in straw. As it is, I must note that is QUITE the strawman.

    And I will note that even the Leftist Democrats like Obama have never purely claimed their policies were animated by idealistic or ideological principles, with Obama claiming the US would act when its interests meshed with its principles (a formulation I actually quite like; it’s just a shame Obama was not sincere in it). Obviously, a lot of this is chaff and deflection by habitually corrupt and anti-American zealots or other self-interested hacks, but the point is important: that very few people have ever publicly claimed the US’s foreign policy is solely determined by idealism.

    This time, we witness a radical reversal of American policy.

    Uh What?

    A “radical reversal of American policy” HOW?!?!

    Because some of us have paid attention to things like the Helsinki Final Act, the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, and so on. The US’s policy have been REMARKABLY consistent on these points for decades and flowed naturally from what came before, even if not purely so. It was also at least broadly supported by both sides, with Trump supporting Ukraine diplomatically and with lethal aid.

    In reality, the war that is fought ostensibly to protect Ukraine’s democracy and territorial integrity is a war in pursuit of American national interests and a domestic agenda.

    And this is supposed to be a bad thing why?

    I’ll also note that Ukrainian democracy and territorial integrity have been long VIEWED as important to American national interests and many domestic agendas, including conservative ones. This is why at least in these senses, the different Administrations (of both parties and often VERY DIVERGENT beliefs policies, and integrity) have followed a rather consistent line.

    This is particularly true in light of the Crimeaschluss of 2014 underlining (once again) the futility of trying to appease Putin by “resetting” relations and acknowledging his prior conquests.

    If Markovsky believes that Ukrainian democracy and territorial integrity are not part of America’s National Interests, he should at least openly argue as such by addressing matters like the Budapest Memorandum of 1994.

    Also, I will note that the war in Ukraine is in a very direct way being waged AGAINST UKRAINIAN TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY AND DEMOCRACY rather than “for” it, as Putin is by any sane metric the aggressor and invader.

    It is to keep the “evil empire” case alive, justify NATO’s existence

    As someone who was alive and conscious on 9/11 and 2008, this sort of bullshit actively ENRAGES me.

    “Keep the evil empire case alive and justify NATO’s existence”? Yeah, uh… I dunno how to tell you this Markovsky but Russian governments have done a MORE THAN SUITABLE job of both. Indeed, I point to the continued existence of NATO as depending to a large degree on the number of Late-and-post-Soviet scares and wars such as the Hardliner Coup in Moscow, the Transnistrian War, and the Yugoslav Wars.

    It also ignores the fact that a cornerstone of American foreign policy was an attempt to shuck the “evil empire” paradigm in favor of embracing our traditional strategic and ideological rivals or enemies, sometimes to a dangerous degree. The ramifications of this with the PRC are decently well understood and documented, but another thing that is infuriating about this is how people ignore the consistent courting of Putin for cooperation by just about every incoming POTUS for longer than I have been conscious.

    Results that usually were disappointing.

    and support the military-industrial complex.

    Translation: Markovsky doesn’t know what the military-industrial complex is or how it is being “supported.” Because if Markovsky did, he would note that the Left’s Domestic Agendas have been QUITE UNSUPPORTIVE Of the military-industrial complex as a whole, as shown by the massive cuts to defense spending and the overstretched military.

    The left is willing to enact policies that indirectly or even directly benefit the military-industrial complexes, but it does not view them as a primary goal of said policies. Which is unsurprising.

    But the main objective is to make the European Union, which has built its prosperity on cheap Russian gas, less competitive. The prime target is the European powerhouse, Germany.

    And this is how I understand Markovsky is a fundamentally unsound, unserious person.

    The EU was already RELATIVELY prosperous before cheap Russian gas was prevalent, in large part due to the well-understood peace dividend of having the US foot the bill for most of the continent’s defense and foreign power projection. And many US governments- especially the current Brandon administration- have been monumentally uninterested in undercutting the EU even in ways that are easy, such as supporting the Israeli-Cypriot pipeline or Trump’s own Drill Baby Drill policies.

    This smells like raw delusion, and worse, delusion made in an attempt to avoid the Occam’s Razor. That US policies on the Ukrainian War are centered at the repulse of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the weakening of the Kremlin- policies that have significant support by everybody from Teh One to Neo.

    But to acknowledge this would involve talking about the actual genesis of the Ukrainian War and Russian conduct. Which I doubt Markovsky is willing to do precisely because it militates so heavily against his narrative.

    To our great relief, the best part is that after decades of bringing our children home in coffins, Ukrainians are dying instead.

    Whatever tertiary truth this drivel has is more than outmatched by how macabre and offensively in poor taste it is.

    “INSTEAD?!?!” I hate to tell this clown, but Ukrainians have fought and died alongside us long before the 2014 start of this war. Fortunately not many, but it is still disgraceful to ignore their contributions.

    https://www.army.mil/article/15056/ukrainians_complete_mission_in_iraq

    Secondly: The US as a whole (outside of the most corrupt or hawkish) would much prefer if no Ukrainians or Russians were dying. But most would prefer that to be obtained by the end of the Russian invasions and occupations.

    Which is the rub.

    Although Europeans subordinated their sovereignty and national interests to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels’s European Union headquarters, their history’s complexity precludes them from a shared view of national purpose.

    Indeed, Europeans have no vital interests in the war. What unites them against Russia is the burden of revenge.

    This is aggressively stupid and dishonest on a monumental level. I am REALLY supposed to believe that “Europeans have no vital interests in the war” taking place in one of the world’s great breadbaskets- and source of European food stores for centuries, whose importance was long recognized by strategists from Richelieu (who was in fact quite active diplomatically in the Black Sea and Eastern Europe, albeit as a secondary focus by supporting his Swedish and Turkish allies and trying to dethatch the Polish-Lithuanians from supporting his Habsburg enemies) ?

    And this is before we get into territorial or legal niceties like those that have defined European peace for the past decades, or how Putin’s stated casus bellis for war in Ukraine could easily be turned against them?

    Yeah, pull the other one. This is simply delusional.

    It also ignores that well before there was a widespread or united goal for “Revenge”, the importance of Eastern European stability and tolerable relations with whoever ruled Ukraine was of continental if not global importance.

    The governments of Russia have fought a huge number of wars and there are few European countries that have not been involved in a war with Russia at one point or the other. The historic memory dies hard.

    Agreed to some degree, but I note that Markovsky’s “historic memory” is framed very lop-sidedly. Especially when you realize that the dictatorships to govern in the Moscow Kremlin and St. Petersburg have actively weaponized the historical memory since at least the Soviet period if not earlier, with Putin nurturing a cult of the Great Patriotic War that involves whitewashing Stalin’s atrocities and Molotov-Ribbentrop. And earlier you had people like Mazepa and Martha the Mayoress outright excommunicated as Heretics for opposing Moscow’s autocrats.

    One reason memory dies hard is because the Kremlin has consistently loved to rip open the old wounds so it can dab new blood on the bloody shirts it enjoys waving. This is particularly true after the establishment of Russian dominance over Central Asia and Siberia meant that memories of Russian struggles with the Mongol Khans and other steppe peoples were no longer quite as potent as ideological weapons (and in the view of people like Dugin and other Eurasianists could be counterproductive). Ergo the doubling down on demonizing Russia’s old European and Turkish enemies.

    Sweden cannot forget Poltava,

    Funny, because last I checked Sweden happily fought in an alliance with Russia against Prussia during the Seven Years’ War (within a generation or two of Poltava, where some survivors or families of survivors might well have been alive), and would pointedly avoid seeking conflict with Russia ever after with the exception of Gustav III’s war in 1788-1790, whose dishonorable origins and narrow avoidance of catastrophe in conclusion reinforced the wisdom of good relations with Russia.

    Which Swedish governments have consistently retained up until now, even in the face of Russian aggression in 1809 in one of Sweden’s last wars.

    So clearly Swedes are more willing to “forgive” or at least accept Poltava than Markovsky is willing to admit.

    I wonder why?

    Turkey its loss of Crimea,

    Honestly Turkey is butthurt about a lot more than the loss of Crimea. Especially when you remember that Crimea was always a vassal state and one the Turks ultimately gave up, in sharp contrast to the massive diminishment of the Ottoman Empire proper in the 1700s and 1800s, and in particular the massive bloodshed and refugee crises following 1878 (which helped spark what I call the Late Ottoman Genocides that among other things included the Armenian Genocide).

    France a victory parade of 160 000 Russian troops on the outskirts of Paris after the defeat of Napoleon,

    CITATION. NEEDED.

    Especially when you realize that France was and is one of the most pro-Russian of European nations, with Napoleon III actively courting Russian support in the 1860s, the Franco-Russian Alliance being the roots of the Entente, and so forth.

    So in short, all of this seems to be desperate, dishonest attempts by Markovsky to deflect from the origins of hostility to Putin’s dictatorship and its policies (especially invasions) by resorting to pseudo-historical mysticism. Of course, this very conveniently ignores points about how even those European countries that have had GOOD RELATIONS with Russia historically such as Greece and Serbia have generally disapproved of Putin’s actions here. As have the likes of India (even if they are engaged in fencesitting).

    It also counts on the reader not having a great idea of European history or Russia’s relations with other nations beyond the “highlights” like Poltava, 1812, 1814, WWII, and so on. Because knowing otherwise such as Napoleon III (nephew of the Emperor who was ruined by his failed campaign to Moscow) and his ultimately futile attempts to triangulate with Russia against first Austria and then Prussia would weaken the cornerstone of Markovsky’s argument that this is fundamentally about revenge for historic wrongs in the past rather than practical and very real concerns in the present.

    The fact that such contemporary practical and sentimental concerns are not exclusive with nursing historical grievances and hunger for revenge in quite the same way they were for-say- France in 1907 is just the icing on the cake.

    Germany a red flag planted over the Reichstag, Poland the partition of the country and communist slavery, Baltic states for being part of the Russian empire and later suffering the fate of Poland and so on.

    GEE, WHY MIGHT THESE COUNTRIES BE SO HOSTILE TO RUSSIA TODAY?!?! MIGHT IT HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE PUTIN DICTATORSHIP’S CONSISTENT JUSTIFICATIONS OF ANY AND ALL ACTIONS DONE IN THESE CASES, INCLUDING AIRBRUSHING HIDEOUS ATROCITIES LIKE THE SACK OF BERLIN??!?!!

    Markovsky is being very selective.

    Europeans have confused historical grievances with national interests.

    Dubious at best.

    In particular, Richelieu existed at a time long before France can realistically be said to have had any real grievances against Muscovy/Russia, but he STILL took notable interest in balancing the power in Eastern Europe so that neither Russia nor its rivals could be entirely vanquished or dominant in the region. In part because of things like the importance of food imports from the “wild fields” and the value of timber and ores from around the Black Sea for his policies and what he saw as France’s national interests.

    And if an Early Modern cleric and Royalist living in a much less globalized world with a history that saw Russia on much less antagonistic terms with the West as a whole saw that as important, what do you think today’s Europeans might think?

    The fact is that European borders East of the Elbe were sculpted in blood and bonesaw by the Soviets, with millions dying and millions more being displaced after Hitler was burnt to a crisp. Putin is now reasserting that he has the ability to do similar today, in violation of agreements he signed to the contrary.

    Does it REALLY take an obsessive fixation on history for European countries to NOT WANT THAT TO HAPPEN?!!?

    Britain, on the other hand, cannot take off the shackles of nostalgia for the lost imperial glory. But, with the German economy weakening, Britain has a shot at mastering Europe.

    All very nice and very, very irrelevant to the outbreak of the war in Ukraine.

    Since Ukraine gained independence, the country has acted consistently against its national interests.

    According to WHOM, Markovsky?!?

    The Ukrainian economy was a vital part of the Soviet Union’s economy. Ukraine produced tractors, locomotives, airplanes, stream turbines, electrical motors, and a variety of military equipment, including airplanes, tanks, rocket lunches, and much more. Although the products were outdated by Western standards, they were reliable and cheap. Russia was the natural market for Ukrainian goods and services. Ukraine, however, decided to join the EU. It failed and lost the Russian market.

    Yeah, about this Markovsky.

    Ukraine was indeed a key part of the Soviet economy. That is because it was a key part of the Russian Empire’s economy, with Moscow’s subjugation of the reason in the 17th century catapulting it to the status of Great Power. AND THAT CAN BE A BAD THING because it was used IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY the idea that “the Ukraine” was an integral and inalienable part of Russia, rightfully subservient to Moscow’s autocrats, and that Ukrainians were just provincial Russians.

    So TOO MUCH integration with the Russian economy was in fact NOT in the national interests of Ukraine in the interests of asserting its independence. PARTICULARLY when you realize that even before the war, Ukraine- LIKE MOST COUNTRIES IN RUSSIA’S “NEAR ABROAD”- suffered from protracted and seemingly insolvable tariff conflicts with Russia.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20160114014539/http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/25980.html

    It is at this point that I note that even the Kremlin’s preferred candidate in Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych (the guy who eventually was toppled by Euromaidan in 2014), won election by promising to negotiate an association agreement with the EU in order to triangulate better on Ukrainian national trade interests with Russia. And his caving to the Kremlin’s pressure after being elected kicked off the Euromaidan protests and basically set the stage for the war we see.

    Extreme dependency on a foreign power or its market, no matter how “natural”, is injurious to national interests. Just ask Serbia in its “Pig War” with the Habsburgs. When said foreign regime openly questions the legitimacy of your nationhood and if you aren’t all just a part of them, that is moreso.

    Ukraine, however, decided to join the EU. It failed and lost the Russian market.

    Let’s summarize WHY it failed to join the EU. Because Putin arm-twisted Yanukovych into rescinding the process in favor of token concessions, and the backlash and Yanukovych’s eventual illegal attempts to quash them and ultimate removal from office for said led to PUTIN INVADING THE COUNTRY IN 2014.

    KIND OF important parts of the story Markovsky is ignoring, donchyathink?

    As a result, independent Ukraine has never been able to support itself and exists dependent on the USA and Western Europe.

    This just in: dependent nations wracked by war and partial invasion by a larger, hostile neighbor tend to need help. Film at Eleven.

    To secure a continuing revenue stream, Ukraine became NATO’s mercenary.

    Dear God, this is deluded.

    To the extent that Ukraine “became NATO’s mercenary” it did so years ago, when it sent troops with us to Iraq. And even then a couple thousand troops fighting Islamists is hardly comparable.

    I’ll also note that in this case, Ukrainians decided to fight against an illegal, invading neighbor to defend their sovereign soil- whose right to it they were guaranteed with independence and things like the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, and which was reaffirmed in many other things like the Astana Accords of 2010- against said invading power’s interest in partitioning it.

    “Mercenaries” serve foreign masters, usually abroad and in said master’s colors. A national military fighting a war of self-defense with significant foreign backing is not “mercenary.”

    As such, Kiev demands $7 billion per month in financial aid and $750 billion for reconstructing Ukraine after the war. Securing foreign aid became Ukraine’s national purpose.

    GEE, WHY DO YOU THINK?!?!

    IT’S ALMOST AS IF COUNTRIES THAT ARE INVADED AND PARTIALLY OCCUPIED BY VASTLY SUPERIOR ENEMIES AND ARE FIGHTING TEND TO RELY ON FOREIGN SUPPORT AND SEEK IT OUT.

    Just ask the British about Lend-Lease.

    As for Russia, its raison d’état emanates from its geography and history.

    Maybe, but how it is carried out is dependent upon the ambitions and views of the people in charge of it. Nations may live, but they do not breathe. They do not eat. They do not hold guns and physically kill. And above all, they are Comprised of Men. They are RULED by Men.

    Spanning eleven time zones with very few natural defensive barriers,

    Oh for Fuck’s sake, not this cliche again.

    HOW DO YOU THINK RUSSIA GOT TO THE SIZE OF THOSE ELEVEN TIME ZONES?!?!

    It certainly wasn’t BORN that way. At the time of the Baptism of the Rus it had maybe a third of those. MAYBE. So guess how that changed?

    Here’s a hint. It by and large did not happen peacefully.

    Also, its “natural defenses” tend to be undervalued. The climate itself is a monumental bear (if you’ll forgive my terminology) to begin with, as are the distances. And the truth is a majority of the country wasn’t and in many cases still isn’t very well populated, so Russians can AND HAVE withdrawn into their country behind fortified cities or the bogs of places like Pripet and the Novgorod Swamp to grind down invaders.

    Russia has always acted with some degree of paranoia. Given its tragic history, Russia’s paranoia is not without merit.

    Ah yes, the classic “Russia is paranoid because of its tragic history” yarn.

    This is true but overstated.

    The fact of the matter is that what we now know as Russia originated as a fusion between the cultures and people of Scandinavian Vikings on one hand and the Slavic and Baltic peoples living in the vast rivers of what is now Central European Russia.

    And “the Rus” first appear in wider history as a vast Viking armada sailing to raid (Eastern) Roman(/Byzantine) cities in the Black Sea, culminating with a raid on Constantinople- by far the largest city in Europe- in the 860s.

    Which brings me to the other point that the “poor Russia” narrative tends to ignore. That Russian government culture- long before it is recognizable as “Russian”- was AGGRESSIVE and Arrogant even more than it was paranoid and traumatized. Russia may be a nation of honest, godly peasants but it is also a nation of iron-willed autocrats and elite who carved their nation out by the sword land can trace a history of military expeditions and conquests to before Temujin was a twinkle in his father’s eye on the Eastern Steppe.

    And it annoys me how selectively this history is remembered.

    In the 13th century, Russia was invaded by Mongols, who erased Kiev and imposed almost three hundred years of suzerainty.

    This is very true, though again it came centuries after the flowering of the Rus and their aggressive autocrats, and slightly after that in border wars with other steppe peoples like the Cumans (and indeed one of the first warnings the Rus had of the Mongols was how their old enemies fled in terror and warned them of such, begging for alliance).

    I also note that the modern Russian government emerged from Muscovy, whose Grand Princes aggressively sought collaboration with the Mongols by promising tribute, husbanding their resources until they essentially replaced the Mongols as autocratic suzerains over the Rus. This is why you see so many Russians ranging from Navalny to Dugin point (with approval or disapproval) to the way the modern Russian government has been influenced by the Mongol heritage.

    In the 19th century, Napoleon’s Grande Armée drove the Russians all the way to Moscow.

    True. Though long before this Russian forces had driven deep into Central Europe in the 1760s, nearly destroying Prussia before turning to carve up a friendly Poland. And of course they repaid Napoleon with interest by driving him all the way to Paris and marching through it.

    In the 20th century, the German invasion cost Russia 20 million lives.

    It’s way higher than that.

    I’ll also note that it came after the Germans were aided by the Soviets in military rearmament and joined hands to partition the independent nations of Central and Eastern Europe in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

    The geography and history epitomize Russia’s reaction to the prospects of Ukraine joining NATO.

    No, its history and the political culture of its authoritarian, aggressive, habitually expansionist leadership determine it. That and an added note of duplicity, since the Kremlin openly admitted (though not in as many words) that Ukraine and all other countries had the right to join NATO, the EU, or any other alliance they chose in things like the Astana Accords in 2010.

    I have long argued that Putin is more a symptom of many Russian political maladies than he is a source, but I have also pointed he has his own agenda and agency and is more than happy to shuck Russian history or traditions when it suits his interests (as his sponsorship of Kadyrov’s mini-emirate in Chechnya demonstrates).

    If Ukraine joined NATO, it would put the military alliance within striking distance, about 500 miles, from Moscow

    Which is not why the Kremlin invaded Ukraine, because there was no prospects of Ukraine joining NATO in the immediate or even intermediate future. The war started over a conflict about the EU ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT (ie not even joining the EU, but just having an associate or observer status), not NATO. Emphasizing NATO may be convenient for the Kremlin and those who uncritically accept its drivel, but it is a very poor way to actually understand the history involved or why the Kremlin did what it did.

    After 30 years of trying to resolve the issue amicably, this irrevocable fact of geography made the invasion of Ukraine an elemental necessity.

    “Amicably.”

    Putin has been unable to resolve tariff disputes with Lukashenko’s Belarus- by far the most slavishly loyal and pro-Russian, pro-Putin government in Eastern Europe- for 30 years. In large part due to both sides stepping on each others’ toes. And if Lukashenko and his “Union State” regime found Moscow to be less than amicable, why would we assume any Ukrainian government would?

    Also, HOW ON FUCKING EARTH WAS THE INVASION OF UKRAINE AN “ELEMENTAL NECESSITY” WHEN UKRAINE WAS NOT A PART OF NATO OR AT THREAT OF BECOMING ONE?!?!

    Ah, there’s the rub.

    Of course, it was not.

    And on some level Markovsky probably understands this. Which is why he has torturously warped and twisted history and foreign affairs in order to emphasize anti-Russian hostility throughout Europe while ignoring far more relevant cases such as Ukraine’s well-founded fears about being dependent on Russia going back to 1656, or Moscow’s desire to dismember nations in its “Near Abroad” in order to exert its power.

    It is utterly evil and thoroughly dishonest.

    Another elemental necessity is maintaining mutually beneficial arrangements with Europe, especially with Germany.

    Yeah, good luck with that.

    Indeed, while cheap gas sustained the German economy, it was also a major source of revenue for the Russian state. It is not in Russia’s national interest to kill the goose that lays golden eggs.

    Putin deems it even LESS in Russia’s national interest to permit the development of an independent Ukraine that can establish itself and its abundant resources as being permanently outside of Moscow’s orbit, and in this he would find good company among leaders of the Empire he inherited ranging from Ivan IV to Lenin.

    Which is the rub.

    Russia’s predicament is having two national interests in conflicting currents.

    No, its predicament is that its leadership tried to “resolve” this issue by launching an utterly illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine to either force its subjugation or dismember as much of it as possible.

    At this juncture, most American objectives have been achieved. The war, the sanctions, and the massive hit that put the North Stream pipelines out of commission did the job. Secretary Blinken recently admitted that the explosion was “tremendous opportunity” to decouple Europeans from Russian gas.

    None of which address the greater objective the US had of maintaining Ukrainian territorial integrity and US prestige tied to it, especially in the light of an openly pro-US government in Kyiv.

    But that would deny Markovsky the ability to peddle his nakedly pro-Kremlin whitewash.

    This means that for the foreseeable future, Germany will depend on American LNG,

    This assumes that the Brandon Government and other cliques associated with it are willing to empower American LNG. Which as we’ve seen with his appeasement of the Leftie Greens and attempts to get production from others like OPEC and even Venezuela is dubious.

    and its economic growth will be constrained.

    In the immediate future, but if this supposedly miraculous Biden-endorsed flow of American LNGs intensifies?

    In any case, the number of sane or at least competent US politicians who thought that Germany’s relatively decent (by the standards of the EU West anyway) economy was one of the US’s defining foreign policy problems was low.

    Europe is already an economic basket case, and major companies are moving production to the US.

    Like they have been for decades, if not more than a century.

    Gotcha.

    NATO got a new lease on life, and the military-industrial complex for which war is a cash cow is overwhelmed with orders.

    Thank Putin for that. Especially since his actions- like those of Russian or Russian-aligned regimes a generation before- are what caused it.

    Russia is deprived of a major source of revenue and gets to keep the title of “evil empire.”

    Both of which are well-deserved, given the base criminality and dishonesty with which the Kremlin acted. That and the apparently poor workmanship on much of its much-advertised products in its own Military-Industrial Complex.

    (Funny how people determined to whitewash Putin’s dictatorship and attribute the war to just about everything BUT it while complaining about the West’s MICs ignores that, huh?).

    America’s motives may not be entirely honorable, but raison d’état is not a concept based on morality; it is a cold-blooded principle of self-interest.

    Agreed, but in this case it is reasonably honorable. And it is based on grounds that Richelieu would have recognized. That is frankly no reason to allow an avowed strategic enemy to break agreements with you without repercussions.

    British Prime Minister Palmerstone famously said, “We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”

    Perhaps, but there are enemies and allies of said interests that- if not eternal- will at least remain so for a long time.

    It is ironic that Trump’s “America first” is being implemented under the leadership of a president whom Trump detests.

    I wish I were so surprised. But I do think in this case it is more a case of face-saving and possibly using the crisis as an excuse to demonize and prosecute domestic opponents like us. Certainly, much of Biden etc. al.’s policies reveal that he is not approaching the Ukrainian War with “America First” in mind.

  17. The only credible suspects responsible for the sabotage of the Crimean Bridge are Ukraine, UK and US forces.

    No doubt that the Ukrainians see the Russians as having attacked their critical infrastructure. However justified, in attacking the Russian’s critical infrastructure, from the perspective of the Russians it escalates the war.

    Regardless of what the world may think, once Russia annexes land, they see it as part of Russia. Americans who object to Russia’s annexations, if consistent in principle should be in support of returning Texas, California and Hawaii… since they too were ‘annexed’ through violence, only differing in quantity.

    Despite Western and Ukrainian propaganda, the Russians have mostly limited their attacks to military targets in the areas they have sought to remove from Ukraine. They have not attacked Ukraine’s infrastructure west of the Dnieper river, that is now likely to change.

    “It is now confirmed that US Special Operations forces are on the ground in Ukraine and have been for some time.” GB

    “By the usual ‘anonymous sources’ stewed through Antiwar.com and the World Socialist Website.” Art Deco

    https://www.businessinsider.com/ukrainian-special-ops-forces-double-in-size-during-us-training-2022-6?amp

    All that antiwar.com did was cite the Intercept’s reportage; “US special operations forces are on the ground in Ukraine as part of a broad covert operation that includes CIA personnel, The Intercept reported on Wednesday, citing unnamed US intelligence and military officials.”

    However socialist the Intercept’s bias may be is not evidence that US intelligence and military officials did not share that information with them. Nor is a desire for anonymity unreasonable by those purported sources, as the FBI’s treatment of whistle blowers has demonstrated.

    Turtler,

    “No, it really isn’t. Unless you ignore the fact that the Ukrainians have been striking “critical infrastructure” in “the motherland” for months by this point.”

    The Ukrainians have been striking “critical infrastructure” in the breakaway, revolting Ukrainian regions. Not in land that the Russian legal system considered an official part of Russia.

    Prior to the plebiscite in the Donbas and the process culminating in the Russian Parliament voting to accept the Donbas’ petition to join Russia, that region was again, NOT formally considered part of “the motherland”. It now is, as far as the Russians are concerned. The Zelensky government obviously disagrees. Tragically, until peace talks are held, the disagreement will be settled through the force of arms.

  18. Regardless of what the world may think, once Russia annexes land, they see it as part of Russia.

    Chuckles. I’m looking forward to your next-door neighbor ‘annexing’ your side yard.

  19. Geoffrey:

    Are you a clown?

    Roosia has been “limiting its strikes to areas they sought to remove from Ukraine.”

    Areas to be removed,
    Kharkhiv and Kyiv. Why?

    Roosia wants!

    Odessa. Why?

    Roosia wants!

    Any other place. Why?

    Roosia wants!

    Your Vlad apology game had no lower limit of debasement.

  20. The same people who presided over our humiliation in afghanistan who have managed to alienate every one of our key allies from brazil to india and force an iron clad alliance with china

    The same people who empty every drop of our strategic reserve all our military storehouses who are driving ablebodied soldier and sailors and airmen out of the service.

    The swedes dont remembet poltava or why vyborg is in Russian hands but Russians do

  21. @j e

    I thought Markovsky was bad. And he was. But this is pretty competitive.

    “The U.S. Needs To Change Course Right Now in Ukraine, by Josh Hammer”

    We are now more than seven months removed from Vladimir Putin’s regrettable incursion into eastern Ukraine and Crimea.

    By that we mean “8 years.” Especially given Crimea. We’re seven months removed from Putin escalating that with his “special military operation.”

    I suppose I should be grateful that Hammer is paying lip service to Putin’s illegal invasion of a neighboring country and attempt to dismember it being “regrettable”, which is more than what Markovsky could admit.

    But despite that elapsed time and all the various developments since then, the United States’ formal position on the conflict has changed markedly little.

    As is proper, since longstanding policies should not be changed when there is no reason to do so, and the US’s interests and stances have remained remarkably consistent on Ukraine since 1994.

    That overly simplified and Manichaean position, in short, is one of Ukrainian maximalism: Putin is evil, Volodymyr Zelensky is noble, and—here is the big logical leap—the United States will thus support the Ukrainian effort to retake every square inch of territory in the Donbas and Crimea from its nuclear-armed adversary, seemingly no matter the cost to the U.S. taxpayer.

    And how is this “overly simplified and Manichaean”?

    Especially when you remember that the “Ukrainian maximalist” position is one that the Russian government itself bound itself to with the 1994 Budapest Memorandum and that the US and UK accepted, committing themselves to defend Ukraine’s territorial integrity as decided on independence in exchange for Ukraine’s voluntary de-nuclearization.

    An agreement that was made a mockery of by this invasion by Putin, and which actively challenges the US.

    This points to issues that well transcend whether or not Zelenskyy is really “noble” (a fact I frankly do not really care about, at least on this issue), since Zelenskyy is an elected head of state rather than an “elected” strongman, who took power by rising from the opposition in an election and who should be able to be removed in such a way. The fact of the matter is that Ukraine as a matter of law, principle, and US interests should be able to reclaim every square micrometer of its soil.

    I also note that the US’s policies were not always so “overly-simplified” or “Manichaean”, having supported Minsk I and Minsk II. Neither were Zelenskyy’s for that matter, with him openly being willing to broach a demilitarized plebiscite to partition the Donbas. One which was ignored by the Kremlin.

    Gee, why do you think the US and Ukrainian stances have hardened lately?

    The formal White House “readout” of President Joe Biden’s Tuesday call with Zelensky aptly summarizes the U.S.’ position: “President Joseph R. Biden, Jr., joined by Vice President Kamala Harris, spoke today with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to underscore that the United States will never recognize Russia’s purported annexation of Ukrainian territory. President Biden pledged to continue supporting Ukraine as it defends itself from Russian aggression for as long as it takes…” (Emphases added.)

    I despise Brandon and his regime and their attempts to “fundamentally transform” the US, but this is a stance I can accept, especially since it stands on healthy and traditional strands of US Foreign Policy principles going back to at least James Monroe, through to Lincoln funding and arming Mexican republicans fighting the French, to the Stimson Doctrine.

    Translation: We will defend your war to retake every square inch of historically contested and ethnically mixed territory no matter what the people living there say they want, no matter the cost, and despite the fact that the fate of Zelensky’s regime in Kyiv is secure.

    There’s something disgusting about this attempt to make a fundamentally just and legal stance sound bad.

    Especially when you remember that- AGAIN- Zelenskyy was far more receptive to hearing “what the people living there say they want” than almost any other actor. As I point out again here:

    https://euromaidanpress.com/2019/05/29/zelenskyi-team-proposes-referendum-on-peace-deal-with-russia-heres-why-thats-a-problem/

    That’s an English-Language Ukraine-centered Soros Mouthpiece complaining about Zelenskyy proposing a referendum to decide “what the people living there” in the Donbas “want.” And in a way that could not be rigged by either Russian or Ukrainian Loyalist bayonets. And for this stance he was roundly criticized even by his supporters, and contemptuously ignored by the Kremlin.

    So please spare me all talk about “what the people living there say they want”, because it is painfully obvious that this never, Ever entered into Putin’s calculations except as a matter of practicality for how his plan would go rather than whether to do said plan.

    Moving on from that, just about every iota of land on Earth- including Antarctica- and inch of sea has been “historically contested.” It is quite meaningless on the grand scale of things, and so I will afford no meaning to it here.

    Now as for “ethnically-mixed.” This much is very true. But the war in Ukraine is fundamentally not an ethnic one as the Kremlin and its apologists wished, with Zelenskyy being a native Russian speaker and many ethnic Russians and native Russophones signing up to fight the invasion (and a few Ukrainophones fighting for the Separatists).

    The prevalence of ethnic Russians among the much-and-rightly condemned Right Sector should blow this out of the water.

    Which brings us back to the fact that these territories WERE NOT Legally contested at the time of the 2014 invasions. Very much the opposite, as outlined in this.

    https://www.pircenter.org/media/content/files/12/13943175580.pdf

    Confirm the following:
    1. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.

    2. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in selfdefense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

    3. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.

    4. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a nonnuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.

    Gee, that sounds rather “absolutist” doesn’t it? But it has been US policy since 1994.

    At this stage in the war, virtually all of this pablum is asinine and counterproductive to the actual U.S. national interest in these contested areas.

    I disagree, especially in light of the nature of US interests as acknowledged by all US administrations and both major parties (and most minor ones) as per the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, quoted above.

    Our national interest in the Ukrainian theater is not coterminous with Zelensky’s absolutist stance;

    Again, disagreed. See above. Indeed, Budapest as well as our sacred self-interest commits us to supporting such an absolutist stance in order to deter other malcontents from sewing more chaos and weakening the Pax Americana greater. Which is bad enough given the problems of Current Year and the Brandon Regime.

    our interest is for de-escalation, detente, and peace.

    CITATION NEEDED.

    Especially since this would be a LOT more convincing if it didn’t come after Minsk II, Minsk I, Astana, and the Reset button that have underlined how often “de-escalation, detente, and peace” have amounted to “being taken to the cleaners by a dishonest megalomaniac in the Kremlin in a way that helps set the stage for yet more wars in the Near Abroad.”

    The “Fool me once, Fool Me Twice” adage applies. Putin is now up to something like Fool Me Fifty, and at some point it is worth acknowledging that Peace and Detente are unlikely with him in power, as Mark Steyn prophesized well over a decade ago in America Alone.

    But if we want to achieve those ends—

    This brings me to another issue. WHY should we “want to achieve those ends?”

    After all, we supposedly did so in Minsk I and Minsk II, and what benefit did we derive from those? Not much.

    especially as the threat of nuclear warfare is bursting out into the open,

    Uniformly on the side of Putin’s government.

    many in the West recklessly double down on calls for Ukraine’s ascension to NATO,

    Which I do admit is unwise at present, and in any case untenable under NATO’s terms. Though if and when that is sorted, who thinks it would be wise for Ukraine to NOT join NATO, especially given what an objective failure Ukraine’s attempts at Constitutional Neutrality were.

    and the war-hungry Zelensky is himself calling for a NATO-led “preemptive strike” against Russia—

    Which I agree was wrong and makes me like Zelenskyy A LOT LESS. But also is not that surprising or likely to result in escalation in comparison to Putin’s actions.

    Biden needs to recognize reality and change strategic course immediately.

    Good luck on that.

    From day one of Russia’s incursion, this column has argued that (1) Ukraine, like Russia, is a deeply corrupt and oligarchic country, and Zelensky is a highly flawed leader; but (2) despite his myriad flaws and status as a pawn of the Davos/NGO globalist class, Zelensky remaining in power in Kyiv is preferable to the obvious alternative of a Belarusian/Alexander Lukashenko-style Moscow puppet state.

    Okay, and on that much I agree fully.

    But Russia, with the exception of few nearby flare-ups here and there, retreated from Kyiv and its surrounding areas all the way back in May. Put another way, it is clear beyond any reasonable doubt, at this point, that Zelensky isn’t going anywhere; he and his government are here to stay. The fate of Kyiv is secure.

    Oh you sweet, naive summer child.

    It took the best part of a century for Moscow’s Tsars to fully conquer and digest the “Wild Fields” of what is now Ukraine as well as the Crimean Khanate, which it largely did by incrementally expanding its territory in alliances with weaker vassals like Khmelnitsky’s Hetmanate and treaties with enemies like the Ottomans and Poland-Lithuania. And so by advancing the borders sometimes at the pace by which forts could be built, they eventually conquered all.

    It took less time for the Soviets to do it since they conquered it all over the span of about 20 years (and most of that in the span of 2-4 years) and took about another thirty to fully subjugate it, but still.

    The fact is, Ukraine is unlikely to be any stronger than it is now in our lifetimes or that of the next generation and generation after that. To accept a “compromise” or “de-escalation” by accepting an illegal Russian partition of Ukraine’s territory and occupation of it, we not only weaken our diplomatic and legal standing but leave any future Russian regime with a better starting point to start again.

    Put simply, do you trust the Kremlin to keep the peace when it could not do so with Minsk I and Minsk II? And do you think it will learn Literally Nothing from the failed Kyiv Thunder Run if it tries for another round?

    At this juncture, the fighting—and in Russia’s case, the recent (likely sham) annexations—is taking place in four far-eastern subregions of Ukraine, and, to a lesser extent, Crimea. Those are the disputed lands that the Biden administration, and “liberal Western democracy” types more broadly, have deemed to be so existentially important to Ukraine and the integrity of “the West” that reconquering them is worth seemingly any military, economic, and humanitarian cost—up to, and very much including, the harrowing specter of open nuclear warfare between NATO and Russia.

    Except these weren’t just determined by the “Liberal Democracy” Globalists, but also by conservatives like President Trump and indeed Russia’s government itself.

    AGAIN, I point to the Budapest Memorandum, in which the Russian government waived all conflict with and claims on Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty. And now is trying to do a takesie-backsies.

    Even worse, when it comes to the disputed lands themselves, reputable Gallup polling from 2014—the year Putin first marched into Crimea—showed that 73.9% of Crimeans thought becoming a part of Russia would improve their lives and their families’ lives (only 5.5% disagreed).

    Whoop de doo.

    Firstly: I’m sure we all know that Gallup Polling is never, ever wrong. Especially not in authoritarian regimes.

    Secondly: Even granting it is true, THERE ARE LEGITIMATE WAYS TO SEEK SUCH A UNION. VIOLENTLY ANNEXING THE PENNINSULA BY SPETZNAZ UNDER FALSE FLAG AND HOLDING A SHAM REFERENDUM IS NOT SUCH A WAY.

    To be honest I’m not even that committed to Ukraine’s territorial borders being those it regained independence with, and have no real principled objections to Crimea or parts of the Donbas joining Russia. What I DO have a principled objection to is the utterly criminal fashion in which this has been done, and why I do not believe such aggression should be rewarded any more than the Kwantung Army or Napoleon III were.

    As for the various enclaves of the Donbas, such as Luhansk and Donetsk, they are very much divided between ethnic Ukrainians and ethnic Russians; Luhansk, for instance, has a nearly even, 50-50 demographic split.

    And demography does not equal loyalty, as the Kharkhiv offensive, Zelenskyy himself, and the host of Ethnically Russian Ukrainian Loyalists show. So this is misdirection.

    If we are truly concerned about the will of these people, have both sides lay down arms and conduct a vote like Zelenskyy proposed.

    But that isn’t going to happen, first and foremost because the Russian dictatorship is not interested in such a test.

    Let’s be as clear as possible: The median American citizen does not, and should not, care whether an ethnically divided, strategically unimportant, historically contested Slavic subregion or two in eastern Ukraine ultimately takes orders from Kyiv or Moscow.

    I’m reminded of Chamberlain’s unwise quote about nations in distant quarrels that we know not of. The truth is the median American citizen should care about such a thing, not only because of American interests bound up in it but also what this says about wider American principles.

    Elon Musk, in a much-criticized tweet earlier this week, had the right idea: “Ukraine-Russia Peace,” he argued, can best be achieved by “Redo[ing] elections of annexed regions [such as Luhansk and Donetsk] under UN supervision,” and “Russia leaves if that is will of the people”;

    Again, THIS IS WHAT ZELENSKYY PROPOSED, as the Soros Op-Ed at Euromaidan Press I linked showed. And he was laughed off.

    So he has unsurprisingly lost stomach for that, especially now that the invasion is on the backfoot. Who is willing to trust Putin for this now?

    “Crimea formally part of Russia, as it has been since 1783 (until Khrushchev’s mistake)”;

    This is another meme I hate. Khruschev didn’t really “make a mistake.” He pointed out quite acidly how the Russian Soviet bureaucracy had failed to administer Crimea, and how this had contributed to the degradation of the peninsula, its fall to Nazi and Romanian occupation in WWII, and an anemic recovery. He also considered the case very seriously with the rest of party leadership in the Central Committee.

    He was not interested in national rights or interests, but he was concerned about administration. And on an objective level that worked; the Ukrainian Soviets (though just as despotic and illegitimate as their Russian counterparts) administered it better.

    “Water supply to Crimea assured”;

    No real objections.

    and “Ukraine remains neutral [between Russia and NATO].”

    WHY!?!?

    It WAS neutral between Russia and NATO in 2014, and LOOK AT WHAT THAT GOT IT. The truth is that very, very few people in Ukraine have incentive to trust Russia or to want to revert to Constitutional Neutrality now. And why should they?

    Musk’s tweet was well intentioned, but fundamentally ignorant. It is almost like a time capsule of what Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian doves were offering a decade ago, before the escalation on their watch soured them. As the escalation should have.

    One can certainly quibble with Musk’s details—the United Nations, for instance, cannot be a trusted, neutral arbiter or supervisor of anything.

    Agreed.

    But this is certainly the right idea for what the U.S., and by extension the West, should be doing and should be aiming toward.

    No, no it is not.

    The West has an obligation to try and avoid a world war, especially a nuclear world war, but it has no obligation or incentive to try and kick Ukraine back over the fence (after being handed it by Putin’s brutality) into the Kremlin’s orbit or some tendentious and contentious “neutrality-as-defined-by-Moscow.”

    Moreover, the stance of the West as articulated in 1994 remains foundationally solid.

    The Biden administration, if it had any common sense, would use any and all leverage to get Zelensky and Putin to the negotiating table as soon as possible,

    Again, that’s more or less what happened (not with Zelenskyy but similar idea) in 2015.

    How did that work out?

    Oh wait, it didn’t.

    thus unequivocally taking the threat of nuclear catastrophe off the table and extricating the United States and NATO from the harrowing prospect of something no Cold War-era president would have ever countenanced: open and direct military confrontation with the world’s largest nuclear arsenal.

    See above. I have no interest in the US directly intervening in Ukraine in a combat role, but I have no reason to want to reward Putin’s aggression either.

    That certainly involves disavowing the possibility of NATO membership for Ukraine.

    Why should it?

    In any case, even if the US did so Ukraine’s current generation of leadership would almost certainly continue seeking it, AS WELL THEY SHOULD in light of their nation’s recent history.

    That our present ruling class demonstrates no interest in common sense de-escalation,

    Is this “common sense de-escalation” like the “common sense gun control” they keep blathering about? Forgive me if I am less than fond of “common sense” per se.

    and instead demonstrates a seemingly interminable interest in escalation and Ukrainian territorial maximalism, speaks volumes about how out of touch that ruling class is.

    There’s a LOT that is out of touch with our elite, but I do not see this being one of them. After all, such “interminable interest in… Ukrainian territorial maximalism” (aka “Ukraine does not expand but keeps what is legally and internationally recognized as its territory circa 1994 and 2013”) is outlined in black and white in Budapest 1994.

    If nothing else, hopefully the American people speak up and begin to rein in our sordid, war-hungry ruling class at the ballot box next month.

    I can say the same for the Russian people. After all, the US and Western elite are not what caused this war. Hopefully, they will not be what ends it.

  22. Putin was encouraged by obama and biden and yet was restrained under trump pacem et bellum he could not have fuelled his campaign without the advantage he gave putin by shutting down the oil extraction industries

    The eu is at war with poland and hungary because they didnt allow the mass influx of middle eastern refugees that has swamped germany and france and italy

  23. When the Soviet Union was a real idealogical threat we were nevet this cavalier there was some movement on the periphery now that we have a Soviet apparat in most of Western Europe vs a White Russian revanchist with 6000 nuclear weapons

  24. @Geoffrey Britain

    The Ukrainians have been striking “critical infrastructure” in the breakaway, revolting Ukrainian regions. Not in land that the Russian legal system considered an official part of Russia.

    OBJECTIVELY, PROVABLY WRONG!!! AS I POINTED OUT.

    AGAIN:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd9zx0QaVEI

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/09/17/ukraine-belgorod-putin/

    For those who cannot do rudimentary research on basics such as what side of Ukraine the port of Odessa is on, let me provide a brief overview of where “Belgorod” (to name just one) is.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgorod

    Belgorod (Russian: ????????, IPA: [?b?e???r?t]) is a city and the administrative center of Belgorod Oblast, Russia, located on the Seversky Donets River 40 kilometers (25 mi) north of the border with Ukraine. Population: 339,978?(2021 Census);[15] 356,402?(2010 Census);[8] 337,030?(2002 Census);[16] 300,408?(1989 Census).[17]

    So in short, the Russian legal system considers Belgorod an official part of Russia, AS DOES ALMOST EVERY OTHER LEGAL SYSTEM ON EARTH.

    And it’s been hit multiple times by Ukrainian military strikes.

    Nor is it the only one.

    Which was my point in my previous post.

    I’m not even going to address the second part of your paragraph, because it is irrelevant to my fundamental point that the Ukrainians have happily struck at what they deem strategic targets in Russia Proper (and that everybody agrees are part of Russia) as well as Crimea (which Russia considers to be Russia proper) for months.

    The only credible suspects responsible for the sabotage of the Crimean Bridge are Ukraine, UK and US forces.

    Really Geoff? In a neighborhood with Chechnya- including those parts of Chechnya that have not accepted it- and Ukrainian paramilitaries? And more than a few nutbars even the Kremlin is embarrassed to have on its side?

    I agree Ukraine is by far the most likely candidate, but it is far from the only one.

    No doubt that the Ukrainians see the Russians as having attacked their critical infrastructure. However justified, in attacking the Russian’s critical infrastructure, from the perspective of the Russians it escalates the war.

    Again, untrue as I pointed out before regarding Belgorod. Or rather, it did “escalate the war” but did so months ago with the aforementioned.

    Regardless of what the world may think, once Russia annexes land, they see it as part of Russia.

    True but irrelevant for the reasons I mentioned.

    Americans who object to Russia’s annexations, if consistent in principle should be in support of returning Texas, California and Hawaii… since they too were ‘annexed’ through violence, only differing in quantity.

    This is stupid on multiple levels, and also nakedly false in one case.

    Hawaii and California are the only places where this remotely holds true. California saw the outbreak of the US-Mexican War due to Texas’s negotiated annexation (more on that later) lead to a bunch of American militias taking over the colonial government in California, defeating the Mexicans, and proclaiming a “Bear Flag Republic” that then negotiated annexation to the US, who moved in and quashed the remaining Mexican guerillas.

    Hawaii saw a white supremacist junta overthrew the monarchy, formed a “Republic of Hawaii”, and negotiated for annexation to the US after years of inactivity and an initial attempt to depose the “Republic” under Cleveland in order to return to a constitutional, Hawaiian Monarchy.

    But Texas was the result of an independent revolt by Texan Mexican citizens (in concert with about half of Mexico) in defense of their constitutional rights, which they succeeded in defending only to find themselves isolated, at which point they democratically elected a government that negotiated annexation to the US..

    In ALL three of these cases, the US Government acted through consenting negotiation with governments established independent of itself (albeit with varying degrees of legitimacy). In all cases annexation was a diplomatic process. In no cases were US troops deployed in false flag or under false pretenses. In no cases were US troops guarding the ballot boxes with fixed bayonets during the vote (when there was such a vote) of annexation.

    Despite Western and Ukrainian propaganda, the Russians have mostly limited their attacks to military targets in the areas they have sought to remove from Ukraine.

    And how would you know, Geoffrey?

    You apparently don’t know that BELGOROD IS INDISPUTABLY PART OF RUSSIA.

    You also didn’t know which side of the GODDAMN COUNTRY Odessa was on.

    So you are obviously unqualified to assess the truth of the statement you have made.

    They have not attacked Ukraine’s infrastructure west of the Dnieper river, that is now likely to change.

    Again, provably false.

    For the record Geoffrey: Odessa is West of the Dnieper and the port facilities and residential areas there are “infrastructure.” As is a decent chunk of Kyiv.

    And for that matter is Lviv (which indeed is in the far West of the country).

    https://crisis24.garda.com/alerts/2022/06/ukraine-russian-missile-strike-in-lviv-region-causes-casualties-june-25

    This is where we get into one of the issues I find most frustrating about what you write, Geoffrey. It isn’t merely a difference of opinion, but staggering ignorance and unwillingness to research. You’ve repeatedly shown yourself to be quite ignorant about basic facts of Ukrainian and Russian Geography, among other things. There is no serious justification in claiming that Russia has not attacked Ukrainian infrastructure West of the Dnieper River. None whatsoever, and indeed even most pro-Kremlin pundits acknowledge this.

    Likewise the strikes on Belgorod and its status as an uncontested and sovereign part of Russia.

    I’m going to skip past the part regarding US Spec Ops training Ukrainian forces while in-country, because that is true. But I will reiterate: Do More Homework.

    Because whatever “sources” you are using thus far suck. Badly.

  25. It was the origin of the kharkiv offensive in 43 and 44 rarely do they do something as the assault on kiev soecially in the spring but gerasimov thought hybrid warfare is an encantation out of harry potter nearly as foolish as our miscalculations about what it would take to hold iraq or afghanistan

    Of course green berets and sas and gign and ksk are embedded with ukrainian forces that is the name of the game

  26. You dont think every remaining Russian officer doesnt know this and yet they have been restrained on third party targets

  27. For the West, this is latgely ‘the phony war’ if we can wax godwin much weapons have been expended but few casualties on this side of the ledger there were a few sas trainers at the outset what happened in mariupol mostly stayed in mariupol

  28. Btw why havent they tried to take back mariupol i long thought putins ambitiona were too big and his means too limited

    You seize the mineral and industrial resourced in the east…hearts and minds will follow but he had extraordinary goals

  29. The bridge attack “justifies”? Justifies to whom? Is there a board someplace to which Putin can appeal for permission on grounds of “justifies”?
    About the only thing this can do, and not necessarily this time, is unify the population. But this bridge is not Pearl Harbor.

  30. So whats the goal of striking belgorod does it really discourage movement west because they will come after kharkiv again when they are fully mobilized

    One looks at the american experience in afghanistan and iraq going over the same cursed ground again and again

  31. Miguel:

    Except Roosia isn’t the USA and Ukraine isn’t Afghanistan or Iraq. Other than those minor details you make perfect (sarc) sense.

  32. Peter Zeihan’s comment on this stuff, without pointing fingers, is that it’s a big deal if we’ve arrived already at the juncture in which destroying key economic infrastructure is standard operating procedure.

    That supports the point of his latest book, “The End of the World is Just the Beginning.”

    Globalization is going away and this is further proof. It’s a very different world on the other side, when infrastructure is fair game for disruption.

  33. So which comes next the mediterranean data cable or the transatlantic maybe an oil platform in the north sea tit for tat

  34. And a few weeks ago in the Netherlands a 380KV electricity line broke without warning, causing 2 provinces to be without power for a while until power could be rerouted and closing a major freeway and several railway lines because the cables lost tension and were dangerously close over the ground.

    No statement was ever released as to the cause, but I’m sure it’s under investigation as such things just don’t fail (this is the first time I’ve ever heard of one failing here in my lifetime of over 50 years).

  35. Here is something interesting, perhaps connected with that German railway incident: a major demonstration supported and perhaps in whole or in part organized by the AfD to take place in Berlin right around the time that this highly exceptional service shutdown of the German rail system in the northern parts of the country turns up. A most interesting coincidence, in the eyes of some.

    See this report from the German blog scene.

  36. Ed Morrissey’s later post at Hot Air is informative about the history and importance of the bridge.
    https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2022/10/08/just-the-beginning-kerch-bridge-explosion-sets-off-battle-for-crimea-n501902

    Almost all the stories (and comments) I’ve read include pessimistic estimates about how long it would take Russia to restore service on the bridge, so I draw attention to the Tweet by Clint Ehrlich that Miguel linked earlier:

    Russia has almost finished restoring rail service over the bombed Crimean Bridge.

    This is video of the first train transiting the repaired bridge span.

    The combination of restored rail and car service makes the strategic consequences of the bombing negligible.

    I would like to know how they did it that fast (obviously no environmental impact statements or union contract negotiations were involved), and if the bridge is actually structurally sound or if it will collapse on its own sometime soon.

  37. @AesopFan Agreed. Russia is still a significant power and has been famous for quickly (arguably too quickly in many cases) finishing infrastructure projects. And the Crimean Bridge is very important to their logistics. I am not surprised if they have already restored access.

  38. They appear to have restored one of the two higway bridges. The railroad bridge had a burning train but no dropped spans.

    From Denys Davidov a Ukrainian blogger:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Zhe0xpk_qTw

    Sounds like others can send messages to Vlad, ‘your special bridge isn’t safe.’ Can a bridge feint?

    Roosia gets.

  39. So whats the goal of striking belgorod

    I’m no expert, but it was a central depot for dispatching Russian supplies into Ukraine before Kupyansk and Izium were liberated. The region south of the of the city is filled with ammo dumps and other such.

  40. in force 10 from navarone, they blew the dam at the neretva river, and that collapsed the bridge, a similar tack to the original guns of navarone, where they sabotaged the heavy guns on leros, that prevented british transit through the straits,

  41. When the British and the Norwegians sabotaged the Norsk Hydro heavy water production plant it took three attempts to deprive Nazi Germany of the deuterium (heavy water) production facility and inventory. Two attempts on the plant and one to sink the stockpile leaving the plant on a ferry. Not fiction, Miguel.

    See ” The Winter Fortress” by Neal Bascomb.

    https://www.amazon.com/Winter-Fortress-Mission-Sabotage-Hitlers/dp/0544947290?asin=0544368053&revisionId=&format=4&depth=1

    Roosia gets. The Nazis got.

  42. operation crossbow about the raids on peenemunde*, directed by duncan sandys

    yes the same peenemunde that von braun was the manager

  43. Regarding conventional 155mm artillery rounds, the US military has found that Excallubur smart (precision) rounds enable far fewer shots to service (kill, destroy) the target.

    Roosia doesn’t do precision.

    But Brandon is still what he is.

  44. Russia is still a significant power and has been famous for quickly (arguably too quickly in many cases) finishing infrastructure projects.

    No, Russia isn’t a significant power. It’s Nigeria with bad weather and nuclear bombs.

    Russia has an economy the size of Italy’s, but it is an unsophisticated one, built on agriculture and primary resources, so has been losing ground to the West. Take the oil and gas out, and it’s about as powerful as Belgium.

    It’s just that Italy and Belgium get on with their neighbours, so don’t spend very much money on their armed forces.

    Putin dreams that Russia is a great power, but it really is not. The oil money allows him to spend on a stupidly large army, while most of his population live in poverty. Even the Nigerian politicians aren’t that bent.

  45. Now thats not the problem the oligarch pattern of organization poorly distributes economic power (we have oligarchs but we dont call them by that name) they are more symbolic analysts than builders of material thing

  46. This is largely through all of central europe from georgia to turkmenistan
    Eastern europe didnt really have that problem

  47. doesn’t the Green Party like trains?
    In Germany, there’s some recent polemics which pin the abrupt skyrocketing of energy costs on the Green Party for eagerly abolishing all of the ‘traditional’ energy sources possible, BEFORE there’s any demonstration of an adequate year-round source of power. But that shouldn’t be a reason to damage a train system, unless you want to ‘get even’ with train-lovers.

  48. Russia has an economy the size of Italy’s, but it is an unsophisticated one, built on agriculture and primary resources, so has been losing ground to the West. Take the oil and gas out, and it’s about as powerful as Belgium.

    1. The gross domestic product of Russia assessed at purchasing-power-parity was in 2019 $4.4 tn. That of Italy was $2.65 tn.

    2. The distribution of Russia’s value added between sectors in 2019 was as follows: services, 64.3%; manufacturing, 13%; agriculture, 3.5%; extractive industries / construction / utilities, 18.2%.

    3. Over the period running from 1999 to 2019, the annual growth rate in real per capita gdp at purchasing power parity averaged as follows: Italy, 0.14%; the United States, 1.25%; Russia, 3.7%.

    4. The share of nominal domestic product attributable to fuel and mineral exports was as follows in 2019: the United States, 1.3%; Italy, 1.4%; Australia, 10%; Russia, 14%; Norway, 15.9%; Saudi Arabia, 26.3%.

    5. If you bracket out the share attributable to fuel and mineral exports, Russia per capita product was in 2019 about 38% of that of the United States. The United States experienced a 2.6-fold increase in real per capita product over the period running from 1965 to 2018. Russia is a middle income country.

  49. Great deal of recent history above.
    With apologies, it’s irrelevant.
    This about the combination of what Putin wants, what he thinks is objectively achievable, and what he thinks he can get away with.
    There are few people I can think of who are less bound by earlier undertakings by others.
    And coming up through the secret police, he is trained in manipulation. This makes it especially difficult to read his mind.

  50. Art Deco: nice try, but no cigar.

    You can’t take PPP for GDP. Because Russians are poor, things are cheap, so PPP increases their relative GDP.

    Their *actual* GDP — their ability to buy things outside Russia — is below Italy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

    (If you want a nicer PPP statistic, how about their GDP per capita. 57th in the world. )

    The distribution of Russia’s value added between sectors what a ridiculous statistic to use! Are you trying to get us to believe only 3.5% of Russia’s economy is oil and gas? The value added *between sectors* is 3.5% for extractive industries precisely because Russia does nothing with it — it gets sent out straight away. An advanced economy would do something with it.

    Russia’s GDP by sector is
    agriculture: 4.7%
    industry: 32.4%
    services: 62.3%
    with an astonishingly large part of industry being extractive.

    And their growth rate since 1999 looks good. Because they started from the Soviet base. It would be hard not to look good from that base.

    By comparison Poland, same crappy base, has had 6% p.a. since 1999. Russia has actually fallen behind the better economies of the Warsaw Pact and USSR.

  51. @Chester Draws

    I thought I had replied to this earlier. Oops.

    No, Russia isn’t a significant power. It’s Nigeria with bad weather and nuclear bombs.

    Not the best example to use, since Nigeria is unquestionably one of Africa’s Great Powers. Which sounds like damning with faint praise- and is- but doesn’t change the fact that it has a hugely outsized influence politically, militarily, and economically both in its own continent and in the world stage. It probably has more of an actual impact on the world than half of the countries in Europe,.and (unlike Russia) was generally making progress until Buhari returned to power and gave so much sanction to his Fulani Allie’s’ misdeeds it is destabilizing the country.

    And of course nuclear weapons are no trifling matter; especially when you have the world’s largest arsenal (at least hominally) and the ability to deploy them anywhere on Earth.

    Honestly the Nigeria and Russia comparisons are more astute than one might thing. Large, corrupt, authoritarian countries, but proud ones with a global footprint and more influence than one might think, especially with a formidable (if third world) military and natural resources. They should not be overestimated, but they should also not be underestimated.

    Russia has an economy the size of Italy’s, but it is an unsophisticated one, built on agriculture and primary resources, so has been losing ground to the West.

    Oh agreed, and I never claimed otherwise. It is also telling that many of the feats of rapid Russian construction or development are built on foundations of sand, like the shoddy first makes of the Trans-Siberian Railrod.

    Take the oil and gas out, and it’s about as powerful as Belgium.

    I disagree. Belgium is more powerful than many think, but it does not have nuclear weapons or the kind of massive political clout, more or less independent diplomatic ties, and MIC Russia has. It is a much more efficiently run and humane country, but we are not talking about efficiency and still less humanity.

    It’s just that Italy and Belgium get on with their neighbours, so don’t spend very much money on their armed forces.

    Agreed. But that also means they had issues.

    Putin dreams that Russia is a great power, but it really is not.

    To which I would reply: compared to what?

    The oil money allows him to spend on a stupidly large army, while most of his population live in poverty. Even the Nigerian politicians aren’t that bent.

    Agreed. But the degree of bentness does not always mean lack of greater power. Putin’s problem in this case was not so much that he was corrupt or even that he was ruling over a farce that deserved the title of Potemkin Village even more than any of the (probably authentic TBH) villages Potemkin built, but that he doubled down and showed his hand, humiliating himself.

    But that does not mean that Russian engineers cannot rebuild military bridges or other infrastructure quite quickly (in some cases too quickly) when the Tsar decrees.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>