Deep Dive on Ukraine (Part 3)

It has taken me so long to collect my thoughts on the current crisis in Ukraine because 1) I never could understand what Putin is trying to accomplish and 2) I don't trust any of the news coming across my various feeds.

For weeks President Biden babbled about the imminent invasion of Ukraine but I never understood why Putin would invade, so I figured it was just an example of a POTUS trying to change the subject (*). The military maneuvers along the Ukrainian border that Biden continually cited are operations that tend to be planned months (if not years) in advance, so it still seemed to me like POTUS was just blowing a relatively ordinary occurrence out of proportion to deflect attention. And when Putin gave a rambling speech (which was filled with talking points that he's been saying for years, not exactly something new) about the territorial history of Russia, it seemed designed to inflame Western pundits rather than a preamble of what was to come, so I still didn't buy that an invasion was coming. 

So when the invasion actually did occur, I was blindsided because, well, I've spent much of my life doubting what I see on TV. 

Initially, it looked like the Russian forces methodically loaded into the eastern territories of Ukraine and simultaneously seized the Kiev airport. But, when Ukrainian forces took the airport back, social media was inundated with news that the Russians were losing and the mighty Ukrainians were on the rise. But, day after day, it felt like the Russians were still slowly but surely accumulating territory. 

One thing I think I can confidently say is that Putin wants to get rid of the pro-Western influence in the Ukrainian intelligentsia. How this invasion is meant to accomplish that...well....I dunno. I don't see how loading in tanks is supposed to change the minds of the resolute pro-Western, anti-Moscow fancy pants set in Kiev. If that crowd escaped to Poland and Romania, wouldn't that be right up Putin's alley? We think of refugees as poor huddled masses and that's true over time; but the first batch of refugees tend to be the rich people, the educated, influential moneyed classes that know when its time to get the heck out of Dodge. Aren't those the people Putin is trying to get rid of? He needn't kill them, seems like escorting them to the Polish and Romanian frontiers would be much easier than trying to militarily subdue the entire nation. 

The peace talks that have sporadically popped up over the last few weeks seem to be really starting in earnest now, seems like this is all winding down. So what did Putin accomplish?

The eastern territories of Donetsk and Luhansk seem to be pretty well out of Kiev's grasp now. And the southern territory along the Sea of Azov seems to be locked down by Russian armaments. The "land bridge" to Crimea seems pretty well intact. And that's really about it. Seems like Putin would've wanted to take all of the Black Sea-adjacent territory to keep that "land bridge" going all the way to Moldova--and perhaps that is still the plan--but for now it doesn't seem like Putin wants to reach past Crimea. From here, I would suggest any other territorial gains will be given back as the Russians recede. 

Okay. So what does Putin get out of that? He has liberated the chunks of Ukraine that were the most pro-Moscow....but doesn't that just make the rest of Ukraine more solidly anti-Moscow? How is that an improvement for Putin? Seems like an awful lot of effort to take what he more or less already had, while further inflaming the parts he didn't have. Furthermore, Zelensky is now in line to give away the districts that didn't vote for him, so hasn't this military action just strengthened Zelensky's hold on the rest of Ukraine?

Was the point to threaten Europe? I don't see how this would accomplish that or why he would want to do that anyway. The most excitable pundits thought that Poland was the next stop on Putin's tour but, dude, he never even came close to Poland. And considering how well the Ukrainians fought back without NATO involvement, how on earth can you think that Poland is in any way threatened by this advance? 

Was the point to completely annex Ukraine? I don't see why he would need to do that or how a column of tanks would get that done. If Putin was under the impression that just loading in some soldiers would cause Ukraine to collapse, well, that didn't work (and since I never thought that would work, I have trouble believing that's what Putin thought). And h's already got a pretty good grip on Ukraine's trade, seems like politically cultivating the pro-Moscow elements in Kiev (there must be some) would be infinitely more valuable more than a full-on invasion (dude, they have bribery in Kiev just like everywhere else, so much cheaper than an invasion). 

Was the point to keep Ukraine out of the EU? I don't think so. When Yanukovych was negotiating for EU acceptance between 2010 and 2013, Ukraine's parliament passed numerous pieces of legislation to appease the Europeans and Putin never did anything to stop it. Indeed, in 2013, Putin was willing to be a part of the negotiations--it was the EU that balked at that suggestion. I don't see that Putin ever did anything to stop Ukraine's admittance to the EU and, again, a column of tanks doesn't really keep that from happening anyway.

Was the point to destabilize NATO and/or the EU? Maybe, but I'm not sure how any of these military moves get that done. And, in fact, seemingly the opposite has happened, since even Finland and Switzerland expressed newfound interest in NATO and the rest of Europe (re: Germany) actually pledged to increase their defense spending (which they have mostly pledged to do in the past, so....maybe not really that big of a deal). (**)

Was Putin defeated? Well, not exactly. He did carve off a hunk of pro-Russian territory that he won't likely give back in negotiations and strengthened his position vis-à-vis Crimea, which won't be going back in any kind of peace agreement. So, Ukraine seems likely to concede territory here. 

Was Putin victorious? Well, not exactly. Again, he carved off some territory for further Russian control, but since those people were already (largely) on Moscow's side, seems like this just weakens his position in the rest of Ukraine. All of that territory was theoretically more valuable to Putin as part of Ukraine (an internal fifth column) rather than as part of Russia. So what was gained? 

Authoritarians fall prey to demanding so much subservience from their People that they never really know what's going on. Mao discovered that in the 1950s: he kept demanding specific targets from the party apparatchiks and meting out such brutal punishments when they failed, that all of his underlings just kept lying to him to save their own hides. (Happens to capitalists, too: all General Electric shareholders will remember the disastrous rule of CEO Jeff Immelt, a dude that just didn't like hearing bad news, so no one bothered to tell him his company was crumbling) If you've got no taste for the Truth, then everyone will gladly lie to you. (***) 

Did Putin simply fall prey to the surrounding himself with toadies? Maybe. On the other hand, this last month may have been a house cleaning (for example, these tales of generals killed in battle...how many of them were shot in the back?) and Putin may have a clearer sense of his military power than ever before. Perhaps the less effective parts of his military machine where sacrificed to make the rest of the machine more ready. (Ehhh, ideally, we'll never find out)

I never thought the invasion was gonna happen. I was mystified when it did happen. I never understood why it was happening. And now that it seems to be winding down, I can't really see what the point of any of it was. 

I think I'll keep going with these Ukraine posts but I have the sneaking suspicion I'm never going to grasp why any of this happened. And the coming posts on this topic will likely be a continuation of my confusion. We'll see, perhaps a clear picture will emerge, but I doubt it. 

(*) Oh, hey, good news: Coronavirus is over! Yeah...Covid-19 is finally the footnote it always deserved to be. 

(**) Yeah, actually that part of it could still be working in Putin's favor: the rhetoric ginned up by Putin's advance will likely turn back the other way (re: even more American involvement in Europe), when the Europeans realize (or tell themselves) that Putin is weak and incapable of being much of a real threat. NATO may well end up weaker rather than stronger by their newfound confidence. Not that any of that was really Putin's doing, but the backward effect of now seeing Russia as even less of a threat could mean even more of a retreat for NATO.

(***) That message was to you, Media-loving Americans: News is not Truth, it is Entertainment. Indulge at your own peril.

Greece-y Kid Stuff

Is Greece about to be put out of the European Union? Does it matter? What are the economic impacts to the World?

China's current stock market meltdown (dude, seems like its down 5-6% every day) caught me off guard because I thought the previous period of meltdown a few months back was enough. That earlier meltdown was because the Chinese Central Bank raised holding requirements for the investment banks which bound to cause tightening. But I assumed in February or so that all that had been properly metabolized by Shanghai and Hong Kong. Weird argument to make: I figure since those markets are moved as much by gov't fiat as investor activity that big ups/downs are potentially more likely and more predictable than western markets. (I could be wrong...I have no reason to think the way I do...but until I am smarter I struggle through dumbness) But the fact that the perturbations--large perturbations at that!--are still...perturbating...indicates that the Chinese market needs more time to absorb gov't-inspired tightening than I anticipated. In other words, the tightening is still tightening.

The reason I bring that up is because now that Greece has finally and formally been spurned by the Europeans (re: Germans), one wonders if China could be a financial backer for the Greeks. But if their markets are ping-pong-ing around like the Knicks' title hopes, I'm assuming Greece will find no succor at the other end of the Silk Road.

Putin has hinted that he'd like a closer relationship with Greece but Russia's finances are not exactly top notch at the moment and Putin's blather has always had a high school cafeteria kinda casual about it, he's just exploiting the media coverage of these events more than the events themselves. In the 1970s Russian overtures to Greece would've been verboten at the upper levels of USA's national security team. But nowadays, Greece don't seem so vital to the American plan. Putin has grown steadily more bellicose in the last few years, he's gearing the war machine up for...something...and splintering Europe might amuse Putin greatly.

Confession: I always kinda liked Putin, for an iron-fisted Russian tyrant he seems unusually enlightened to my eye and has generally allowed the Russian middle class to expand (as best it can) which to my mind is the paramount activity for any head of state anywhere. The last few years have been tough on Putin, he's had to scramble more than usual to hold power, external forces have not been kind to him and internal forces may be gathering strength (hey, baby, its Russia, you know somewhere the long knives are gettin' ready). Putin still has long range bombers, ICBMS and nuclear-tipped subs, he's still dangerous to the USA and the int'l system in general. And so whoever comes after him. USA is probably not better served by antagonizing him, indeed propping him up may well be the best move for peace.

At any rate, Russia is at the breaking point, can't imagine it has much to offer Greece. And I don't see the Greek people or gov't being terribly eager to line up behind Smiln' Vlad.

USA? Heh, heh. Like John Calipari taking the Sacramento Kings gig, I don't see that happening. Americans' need for Greece pretty much ends after freshman year. Can't see Congress agreeing on a bailout for the bloated labor costs of Greece--hell, we've got our own bloated labor costs to ignore. The Greeks voted for Socialism and they just got Socialized.

The IMF is the only show in town for Greece and a 'No' vote today is probably just the next step on that path. This has always been the answer but thanks to a coupla years' worth of media circus, the Greeks have been able to stretch the debt as far as physically possible. The folks in power knew this was going to happen, they more or less even knew when it would happen, but Greece held out as long as they could (only to have the wing nut splinter party holding the bag when the music stopped). To be fair, Germany never looked like they were going to help. They always knew this was headed IMF-ways. The Greek population for generations believed the Socialist message: work for less now and we'll pay you big fat pensions later. Except that the gov't has no way of guaranteeing that they can do that, it was always an empty promise. Like Enron employees, the Greek people were always buying into something that wasn't real. Now the Greeks that have spent a lifetime of making less for the promise of more are gonna get even less. 'Austerity' is when your gov't needs another gov't to save its ass. Austerity is not something you get to vote on, it is something that is imposed upon you.

Back to the original questions: Is Greece gonna get put out of the EU? I'd say yes. Doesn't like they get to stay nor do they want to. The Greeks probably think that being part of the EU did nothing for them but really it allowed the ruling parties of Greece to be stupider than usual, running up debts that didn't build infrastructure. German backing was a windfall that Greece failed to take advantage of.

Does it matter? I'd say what doesn't kill Europe will only make it stronger, if Greece wasn't meant to be in the Union then the Union is better for getting rid of it. And the EU now has a precedent for how to put recalcitrant countries out of the order if need be. So will Portugal, Italy, Ireland and Spain choose austerity from Germany or austerity from the IMF? If Greece makes IMF-style suffering look good then the EU might be in some trouble but I don't see that happening. I suspect the next batch of needy countries will be more accommodating to German demands.

What are the econ impacts? I have no idea. Greece is gonna be in a bad way for a while, gonna be desperately in need of tourist dollars for the foreseeable future. But the rest of Europe may well be better off. The IMF is still European money but its impact is of a different order.

At the heart of the European Union is a need for a European identity, for folks living on the continent to see themselves and their heritage as something larger than just the country they come from. If the EU fails, some say that European-ness fails, that all squabbles of the last 500 years are still festering and could be unleashed if the Euro can't compete. But festering squabbles never really go away even if the Euro is everybody's favorite form of currency, likewise European-ness doesn't fade even if some folks start liking the Drachma (trust me: they won't). This Union isn't the first attempt at a Union and I'm guessing it won't be the last, it'll endure if it fails. But its got some maturing to do and today is the day Europe moved on from the Greece-y kid stuff.