I was very disappointed by Andrew Korybko’s post at Asia Times, “How Trump can break China’s tightening grip on Central Asia”. In the piece, Mr. Korybko successfully made a case for why the U. S. should want to “break China’s tightening grip, etc.” but IMO fell short of explaining how that could be accomplished. Here’s the tactics he proposes:

Rescinding certain sanctions, extending waivers to European companies or declining to threaten secondary sanctions in response to violations – any or all of which could be part of a package deal with Russia on Ukraine – could bring greater economic clarity about Central Asia’s actual present trade.

That’s imperative to better understand the EU’s competitive advantages there vis-a-vis China, which could then be more effectively leveraged.

The second tough choice concerns the continued granting of sanctions waivers to India for its trade with Afghanistan (and presumably also Central Asia) via Iran’s Chabahar port.

That’s it.

I’m afraid Mr. Korybko needs to connect the dots for me. I don’t see a straightline connection between the means and the ends.

I do, however, see why the U. S. would not be particularly interested in taking the actions he proposes. Contrary to Mr. Korybko I think what is emerging is a multipolar, “spheres of influence” global order and not only is there not a great deal we can to to forestall it much of what we’ve done over the last decade or so has encouraged it. And Central Asia, as Mr. Korbyko documents sufficiently and as should be obvious from a glance at the map, is not in the U. S. sphere of influence.

As you may or may not be aware the U. S. economy has recovered faster than the Eurozone’s, China’s, Japan’s, Canada’s, or just about anyone else’s after COVID. This graph, sampled from the Federal Reserve, illustrates the difference:

See the Fed post for more examples.

A number of explanations have been proffered for that including things we’ve done right and things we haven’t done wrong, e.g. Bidenomics, reductions in power-intensive manufacturing, etc., depending on the writer’s point-of-view.

I’d like to suggest one additional alternative: foreign direct investment. Consider this chart, sampled from IMF Blog:

The original is a fun GIF which you can view by clicking on over to the link.

That in turn raises all sorts of follow up questions. Why are we receiving so much FDI? Who is it coming from? Much of it is from Japan, Canada, and the United Kingdom. I suspect that some of it is our ongoing historic bull market. Another explanation is that investment opportunities are better here than at home.

One test of that might be to check how the Netherlands’s economic is doing. Maybe I’ll try tracking that down if I have the energy.

1. Is Russia expansionary?

The remaining questions assume that the answer to the first question is “Yes”.

2. In 2024 Denmark spent 2.37% ($9 billion) of its GDP on defense. Its military resources devoted to Greenland consist of a handful of patrol vessels. What percentage of its GDP would Denmark need to spend to defend Greenland against a Russian invasion?
3. In 2024 Canada spent 1.37% ($30 billion) of its GDP on defense. Its military resources devoted to Nunavut, its northernmost territory, consists of an alert station, a training facility, an airport, and a naval facility. What percentage of its GDP would Canada need to spend to defend Nunavut against a Russian invasion?
4. Germany spends 2.12% ($98 billion) of its GDP on defense. Given the present state of its military, how much would Germany need to spend to defend itself against a Russian invasion?
5. Is it just or equitable for our NATO allies to freeride on the United States?
6. Assuming that our NATO allies continue to freeride on the U. S. and depend on U. S. military deterrence, how much would the U. S. need to spend on defense to provide an adequate deterrence?

I don’t believe in colonialism whether we’re talking about Denmark’s colonies or U. S. colonies. I think that all colonies including Greenland and Puerto Rico should be given their freedom.

I think there are several possible reasons for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. One is that it is expansionary. Another is it considers an anti-Russia Ukraine that is a member of NATO an unacceptable risk to Russia itself and ethnic Russians in Ukraine. Yet another is economic which I think is farfetched.

Omar Abdel-Baqui reports at the Wall Street Journal:

KHIRBET AL-MA’ZAH, Syria—When Sunni Islamist rebels toppled Bashar al-Assad’s regime, many residents of this rural village were elated by the end of a half-century of oppression even though they belonged to the same Muslim sect as Syria’s deposed dictator.

The residents, members of the Alawite minority, now say their excitement has been replaced by fear. Masked men have terrorized the village, beating people, looting homes and using anti-Alawite slurs. Some community members have been missing for days after the attacks and are feared dead.

Khodr Ibrahim, a 22-year-old resident of the village, said he was playing videogames in a shop when he and his 24-year-old brother were pulled outside by armed men. They pointed their rifles at the Ibrahims, cursing their Alawite backgrounds, staging mock executions and striking the elder brother until several older women in the village persuaded the militants to stop, the family and other townspeople said.

“I thought for certain they would kill us,” Ibrahim said.

You may recall that is very much what I expected. Although Syria’s Alawites were not to blame for the Assads’ tyranny, they are being held to account. I will be greatly surprised if Syria stays together in the form it has been.

The wildfires in Southern California are in their sixth day. NBC News reports:

Fueled by powerful winds and dry conditions, a series of ferocious wildfires erupted Tuesday and roared across the Los Angeles area, destroying hundreds of homes and killing at least 16 people, including some who died trying to prevent the fires from engulfing their homes.

A Los Angeles County fire official said an untold number of significant injuries were linked to two of the fires, and a city official in Los Angeles described Tuesday night as “one of the most devastating and terrifying” that she had seen in her corner of the city.

I found this post by Keely Covello, “Why Los Angeles Is Burning”, interesting.

The historic fires in Southern California continue to spread, out of control. Austin Turner reports at KTLA:

LOS ANGELES (KTLA) – The Palisades Fire, the most destructive wildfire in Los Angeles history, continued to spread with limited containment on Friday.

According to a Cal Fire update issued at 1:57 a.m., the blaze had scorched 19,978 acres in the Pacific Palisades, Malibu and elsewhere in the Santa Monica Mountains. The fire erupted Tuesday morning and, fanned by hurricane-force Santa Ana winds, quickly ripped through residential and commercial areas.

More than 5,000 structures have been lost, many of them homes and businesses.

Damage is believed to be in the tens of billions of dollars.

Tens of thousand of people remain under evacuation orders or warnings. The evacuation order extended throughout the Pacific Palisades to the Pacific Ocean and included areas of Santa Monica, Malibu and Topanga. Residents and businesses in Calabasas remained under an evacuation warning on Friday.

It is my understanding that California Gov. Newsom has called out firefighting units of the state’s National Guard to assist in fighting the fires. I hope that governors of other states have offered similar resources and Gov. Newsome accepts since I see no way that the fire will not continue to spread without additional resources.

I note that partisans and ideologues continue to attempt to frame the fires in ways favorable to their points-of-view. I consider such moves ghoulish while the fires rage. There will be plenty of time for that later. I did, however, want to take note of a piece at American Prospect from Harold Meyerson asserting that the fires were completely predictable:

Mike Davis told us what would happen to those homes and, when the winds reached their apogee, as predictably they would, to the shops and homes and apartments on the flatlands, too. The Chumash and early-19th-century seagoers knew what would happen. Only we denied it.

I recommend you read this “open letter for Ukraine and Russia” by Keith D. Dickson and Yurij Holowinsky at Small Wars Journal. I think it’s a pretty good summary of the U. S. position. Here’s the meat of the piece:

• Ukraine has become the strategic bulwark of the West. Ukraine’s ultimate survival and regeneration is now a priority for the long-term security of Europe.
• Any cease-fire or peace arrangement will only be temporary. There will be another war in three to five years. Putin will use this time to rearm and correct mistakes. The West must understand that this period represents strategic breathing space to prepare Ukraine to fight and win against another Russian assault employing economic, informational, military (land, air, and missile forces), and cyber capabilities. This means significant investment in airpower, ballistic missile defense, a fully equipped, NATO standard heavy division, several light infantry brigades, and a robust special operations capability.
• There is no formal NATO membership in Ukraine’s future. Instead, Ukraine becomes for all intents and purposes, a shadow member without Article V guarantees, but with all the benefits of NATO training and interoperability.
• Zelensky will have to accept territory lost to Russia is permanent, but it allows for a definable zone of separation and allows Putin to declare his pyrrhic victory.
• The West must look carefully at the leaders who will emerge after Zelensky. Ukraine’s shaky political history over the past 20 years is an essential factor to consider in this assessment.
• The post-war truce will require strong and visionary leadership to prepare the country for the next war, while building close ties with the EU and NATO as a shadow member. How the Western leaders guide this transition will determine the future of peace in Europe.
• Putin must be made to realize that Russia is trapped in a war that requires a demonstratable victory. Yet, this victory ultimately has no benefit. Putin’s goal of defeating the Ukrainian armed forces in open combat and occupying any more Ukrainian territory is a strategic impossibility and will result in disaster.
• The 1994 Trilateral Statement is dead. The nuclear weapons that Ukraine turned over to Russia most likely now threaten its existence. The security assurances agreed upon by Russia, the U.S., and Great Britain became null and void when Russia seized Crimea and the Donbas. Ukraine could assert that because it once was a nuclear power, it can become one again. This possibility should not be ruled out.
• Sanctions must remain in place as a guarantee of good faith in any negotiated outcome. If Russia shows an actual interest in long-term peace, the sanctions can be selectively lifted.

I think it makes a better case for ongoing support for Ukraine than most of the other statements I’ve read recently. It also has some significant internal contradictions, e.g. on the one hand it concedes that Russia has won but on the other it asserts an unsatisfied need for Putin to realize a “demonstrable victory”.

We’ve been watching the coverage of the fires in Los Angeles. My heart goes out to those who’ve lost their homes and everything they own. I suspect that what’s unfolding is the greatest disaster in the city’s history.

There will be plenty of time for blame and recriminations later.

KTLA’s coverage has been excellent, it can be accessed via the Internet, and there’s a Roku app for it.

If anybody wonders why I keep harping on government corruption, keep in mind that I live in Chicago in the state of Illinois. Since 1960 Illinois has had 11 governors, six Democrats and five Republicans. Of those one Republican (20%) and three Democrats (a whopping 50%) have been convicted of charges relating to corruption. As I speak the longest-service speaker of a state legislature (and, coincidentally, chairman of the Illinois Democratic Party) is one trial for corruption. I doubt that anybody doubts that he’s corrupt but I have no idea whether he’ll be convicted or not.

Illinois Policy provides a rundown of corruption in Illinois.

And that’s just the stuff that’s against the law. Practices may be corrupt without being against the law. For example, present Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker is on tape discussing trading for a Senate seat with then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich. He didn’t report the conversation to the authorities. That’s not against the law but it is corrupt. Public employees unions contributing to political campaigns is a corrupt practice. “Pay-for-play” even if there is no quid pro quo is a corrupt practice. I could go on practically indefinitely.

Here’s IP’s conclusion:

Government corruption cost Illinoisans $550 million in lost economic activity every year, with a $9.9 billion total loss from 2000 to 2017. Chicago is even worse.

Chicago was ranked as the most corrupt metropolitan area in America for a fourth consecutive year in 2023. It led the nation with an average 41 corruption convictions per year from 1976 to 2021.

Whether in treasure or trust, corruption costs Illinois. Vigorous federal prosecution can help curb it, but not much will change until state leaders get serious about ethics reforms.

It’s not just ethics reforms. Failing to provide the necessary contributions to public employee pension funds is a corrupt practice.