Only the Dead Have Seen the End of War

After a lengthy exquisition on the likelihood of Russia’s war in Ukraine being long and bloody:

The last time I was in Kyiv, in early September last year, I made a bet with the Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker. My wager was that “by the end this decade, Dec. 31, 2029, a conventional or nuclear war will claim at least a million lives.” I fervently hope I lose the bet. But mine was and is not an irrational angst. As I sat in Kyiv, pondering Vladimir Putin’s likely intentions and Ukraine’s vulnerability, I could see war coming. And war in Ukraine has a track record of being very bloody indeed.

which could be summarized as “war doesn’t obey the persistence theory”, Niall Ferguson updates the answers to some questions he asked about the war in a piece at Bloomerberg. They are:

1. Do the Russians manage to take Kyiv and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in a matter of two, three or four weeks or never? He says “never”.
2. Do the sanctions precipitate such a severe economic contraction in Russia that Putin cannot achieve victory? He says “not yet”.
3. Does the combination of military and economic crisis precipitate a palace coup against Putin? He says that is the explicit intention of the Biden Administration.
4. Does the risk of downfall lead Putin to desperate measures (e.g., carrying out his nuclear threat)? He suggests it is pretty likely.
5. Do the Chinese keep Putin afloat but on condition that he agrees to a compromise peace that they offer to broker? He says that China will not act as a peace broker but will continue to support Russia.
6. Does our attention deficit disorder kick in before any of this? Did you know that Will Smith slapped Chris Rock at the Oscars?
7. What is the collateral damage? Certainly increased prices for oil and fertilizer, possibly stagflation.

I don’t think he comes close to outlining a worst case scenario. His bet is not it. Think 1,000 times that and the collapse of one or more great power governments with the attendant chaos.