File this post under “speculation”. This morning my wife asked me how the developments in Ukraine would affect us personally. I answered, truthfully, that I did not know but I had some suspicions. I think it depends largely on how stupid our political leadership is.
If our political leadership is very stupid, the worst case scenario is nuclear apocalypse—everybody dies.
If they’re not stupid at all, the U. S. will impose stricter economic sanctions on Russia but not a great deal else. The price of gas at the pump will rise between $.20/gallon to $1.00/gallon practically overnight. That will have its own economic consequences. An increasing price of gas will increase other prices, incorrectly referred to as “inflation”.
There is some chance that there will be an onslaught of cyberattacks against the United States. That could throw our banking systems, electrical distribution systems, first responders, healthcare, etc. into chaos. After all the Russians (along with the Israelis) are probably the world’s champion black hat hackers.
It could get messy. If people start panicking it will get even messier. How adept is Joe Biden at soothing nervous Americans?
I would welcome speculations from my readers. Informed speculations are, of course, the best.
Update
Peter Zeihan thinks Russia’s invasion of Ukraine portends a global famine. Our low wheat harvest this year could contribute to that.
Right now the best case scenario would seem to be the creation of a new country east of the Dnieper and including the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasti. If that country extended all the way to the Black Sea it would leave the rump Ukrainian state landlocked. Not much of a best case scenario either for us or the Ukrainians.
Not just oil and gas. Wheat, potash (i.e. fertilizer), and various industrial metals (aluminum) are all going to jump. Food prices will likely soar in the fall.
Combined with already high inflation — the Fed has to make a tough decision soon. Raise rates high enough to keep overall prices down and cause a deep recession (and all the domestic turmoil that would ensue); or don’t raise rates and accept very high inflation.
Remember, governments tend to force interest rates artificially low during hostilities to make it easy to fund the military / budget deficits.
All fertilizers, actually—potash, nitrogen. The prices of platinum and related metals and copper are likely to jump, too.
BTW, one of the other stupid scenarios involves trying to offset price increases with additional federal handouts. And if the Fed doesn’t “get tough” now it may never. Maybe just not as tough as it might have been absent the week’s developments.
Well, John Kerry is concerned the Ukraine invasion may distract everyone’s attention away from the dangers of climate change and higher emissions
China, in the meantime, is eying Taiwan with a more assured eye of their own takeover possibilities. As for many democrats, they are caught up in who to blame for this travesty, just like they did following the Afghan debacle. Their answer is to point fingers at Trump, like they do for most of the missteps happening under their watch. Putin, however, is having his own problems trying to keep Russian dissenters to this invasion in line. As for the Ukrainian people, they are in chaos and confusion over Putin’s cyber warfare, where communications have been diminished, credit cards don’t work, robo calls are coming in to demoralize the populace. Speculation is brewing how such a cyber takedown could create havoc here without firing a shot. As for joe Biden’s presidential guidance – who knows…..
That best case assumes one thing; Ukrainians won’t pursue partisan warfare (esp in urban areas) — it should be pointed out the Russians expected much of southern Ukraine to join the separatists in 2014, instead the separatists ended with only a portion of the Donbass.
One thing having the conflict broadcast worldwide over CNN/Al Jazeera/etc is most of the world has never seen a major war involving a non-US/NATO major power (Russia/China/India) really unleashing their military on another nation state.
I bet there will be a seismic reevaluation of military budgets across Asia, Middle East, and Europe.
I think it actually assumes a number of things—what you mentioned plus no kinetic participation by any other parties, for example.
I got nothing on speculations, just an observation that our current need for our leaders to be less stupid is a vain hope. They’re not only hopelessly stupid, they’re venal. It’s that combination that has brought us here and it sure as hell isn’t going to get us out.
May God help us.
Also, I’m not trying to be snarky or provocative but how would that “best case†differ substantively from the cessation of Sudetenland in the Munich Agreement?
I get that you’re not endorsing the idea, but to even present it as the least worst option seems problematic to me unless you really don’t believe that Putin has expansionist goals.
I believe that Putin has irredentist goals. He doesn’t want to rebuild the Soviet Union. He wants to rebuild Imperial Russia. What would that mean?
Georgia and Ukraine are definitely in the crosshairs and maybe the Baltic countries as well. Poland, Hungary, Germany, aren’t. You will also note that I pointed out that the best case is pretty bad.
How could we do better than the best case? We’d need a Wayback Machine. Do the opposite of nearly every foreign policy decision over the period of the last 30 years. Russia should have been brought into the EU and NATO. We shouldn’t have invaded Iraq. We shouldn’t have tried to do whatever we were trying to do in Afghanistan. I could go on.
Thanks for the response. I don’t really disagree and don’t see any way to create a better scenario either, but I don’t see any possibility of the conflict ending if the Dobas region were to be ceded.
See you again seem to believe that Russia has no agency. Everything they do is in response to someone else. After all, they would never do anything like invade Afghanistan.
Steve
“Mongolia has proposed that 13th century borders, when Russia was part of their empire, be reinstated.”
Steve
That’s an odd interpretation. I’m explaining how they see it. But I do think that people and countries respond to events.
I think the problem with explanations of how countries (or individuals or terrorist groups or what have you) react to our actions is that they are often using these grievances as pretexts for acts of aggression that they want to carry out for other reasons. Take away one or more of those grievances and they’ll find or manufacture a different pretext.
That’s not to say we shouldn’t consider it at all, but the concern is often overstated IMO.
Everything you have written comes across as an explanation for why it is OK for Russia to invade. Not a word about past actions by Russia/USSR like invading Afghanistan, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and all the wars it fostered during the Cold War. (Yes, I know the US played a part in those too but the point here is that Russia is not some innocent which is the impression you are giving.)
Still, in a way, none of that matters. Russia has decided that it is entitled/ deserves to control Ukraine because it is entitled to have a buffer zone. Ukraine’s sovereignty does not matter at all. Rather than achieve a buffer zone by being a good partner, negotiating, maybe cutting a deal on oil and gas or whatever, it has decided to take over Ukraine by force. Because it can and no one is going to stop them. Best that can be done is to hurt them after the fact. Maybe. In 5 years or so per above.
So while you call US actions in the past stupid (some have been) lets call out the Russians for what they are doing. They want Ukraine as a buffer and they want Ukraine as an economic vassal state and they are willing to use force because they have the power to do so and Ukraine does not.
Steve
Russia is not the USSR. Putin is not Stalin. I think we deserve some accountability for our own actions—but not Britain’s.
Once again I don’t think many Americans understand that the Russians’ view of events is drastically different from what Americans tend to have been taught and believe and I’m trying to convey that understanding.
That’s exactly right. It’s definitely a security issue for them. The question is whether it’s a legitimate security issue. In the context of U. S. invasions and meddling in countries in Russia’s “near abroad” with neither legal nor legitimate pretexts that they consider it legitimate should not be surprising. That doesn’t exculpate the Russians. It explains them.
And maybe, just maybe we need to adjust how we’ve been conducting our foreign policy so as not to render such concerns legitimate security concerns.
I was generally in agreement with Steve’s comment but was surprised that he only listed USSR aggressions- so I think Dave’s rebuttal is apt.
BUT….if we only examine Russia since the dissolution of the USSR it is easy to find examples… Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea, Eastern Ukraine since 2015, etc. In light of that history it’s quite a strain to see Russia’s claims as true security concerns rather than attempts to recreate their former empire. At some point it tilts into support of propaganda to even acknowledge the interpretation as security concerns.
“I think the problem with explanations of how countries (or individuals or terrorist groups or what have you) react to our actions is that they are often using these grievances as pretexts for acts of aggression that they want to carry out for other reasons. Take away one or more of those grievances and they’ll find or manufacture a different pretext.”
I would say that the US should be aware of, and factor in cause and effect when it comes to foreign policy. Which we didn’t do here.
We dangled NATO membership for years which Russia opposed through various means The primary purpose of the low-level civil war in Eastern Ukraine for the last decade was to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO. That hasn’t worked, and neither have the other options they tried, so Russia was in the position of accepting a hostile alliance is what it considers to be its core territories or war to prevent it. The unjust and illegal nature of this war falls entirely on Russia, but as an analytical matter, it’s easy to see how the US brought about the conditions where Russia faced that choice.
Let’s take Taiwan as another example. One way to ensure that a Chinese attack on Taiwan would occur is for the US to dangle the possibility of formal diplomatic recognition and a formal military alliance in front of Taiwan. That wouldn’t make the Chinese attack legitimate or legal, but the US couldn’t avoid US responsibility for the role it would play in setting the conditions that would strongly incentivize a Chinese attack.
That was the massive US policy failure in Ukraine – the longstanding and consistent failure to see, or to willfully ignore, Russia’s red lines. And now Ukraine is paying the price. Instead we stupidly assumed that Russia would just roll over or be forced, as Bill Clinton put it in the 1990’s, to eat another plate of American-provided shit.
This is what happens when foreign policy is driven by an American Exceptionalist ideology that ignores or downplays geostrategic realities.
I agree with that comment completely, Andy.
The key point is that other countries have interests of their own. That will always be the case and we can’t do anything about it. We should just recognize that it’s a fact.
I don’t disagree with most of that but the emphasis matters in terms of degrees of culpability -the obvious analogy being rape victims and their attire.
My point in the comment above is that women can’t actually prevent most or all rapes by dressing modestly.
On the other hand though, I agree with the criticisms of US policy and would even go further. Not only was the NATO invitation foolhardy, but we also got caught cheerleading for the election of a pro-Western government in Ukraine and we gave high fives to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church when it split from Russia.
Plenty to criticize there but Russia alone is responsible for its many acts of aggression on its neighbors. Our culpability lies in the provocations when we should have known Putin was capable and even likely to respond this way.
The key point is that other countries have interests of their own.
Agree but it’s hard not to read statements such as this without inferring the word “ legitimate†modifying “interests.â€
And any liberal world order has to account for how to deal with nations that assert self-interest that is not legitimate, that is, those interests that encroach on their neighbors or threaten regional or global instability.
CStanley,
Looking at cause and effect or the realities of action vs predictable reaction in the real world is not the same thing as apportioning blame after the fact.
One can, for example, point out that certain behaviors are likely to increase the chances of being raped – I do not think pointing that out transfers blame from the rapist to the victim. I see these as separate. My daughter, for example, is going to college next year and I’ll repeat the advice I’ve given her before – don’t go to parties where there is drinking and drugs alone with a lot of men around. In an ideal world, she should be as safe as a man doing that, but we don’t live in an ideal world and the reality is that, as a woman, she needs to take precautions that men do not have to take.
Another example from history is the Versaille Treaty after WWI. Pointing out that it was an unwise treaty that was a significant factor in promoting the conditions that led to WWII does not absolve Hitler or the Nazi government from any of their crimes.
Or another example is how federal law enforcement changed how it approached right-wing domestic extremism. Incidents like Waco and Ruby Ridge, at the very least, set the conditions for the Oklahoma City bombing. The federal government isn’t to “blame” for the Oklahoma City bombing because of mistakes at Waco or Ruby Ridge, but even federal law enforcement came to realize that the aggressive tactics they had been using were causing – or at least promoting – violent, counterproductive reactions, so they changed their tactics. Which was a good thing!
Or another example. Let’s say you want to make some controversial religious art. If the subject is Jesus you’re going to anger some Christians. If, on the other hand, your subject is the Prophet Mohammed, you will very likely be murdered or forced into hiding. Even though the content of the controversial art would be the same, the effect would be much different. In deciding what to do, one must consider the reality of a situation and likely outcomes.
In my view, all of these examples are the same with Ukraine or Taiwan. The US isn’t to “blame” for Russia invading Ukraine, but we were stupid not to realize that our policy choices would greatly increase the chances of that happening. That is my criticism of US foreign policy WRT to Ukraine (and other places).
No disagreements there, Andy. The rape analogy is often used, and as a woman and a mother of girls I follow the same advice that you give your daughter. Part of this is timing and manner in which comments are made though- the discussions I’d have with daughters as they go off to college are different than those I’d have if, God forbid, one of them was preparing to testify against an attacker. There would be a sensitivity in the latter case that isn’t there during the normal time discussions, and the same sensitivity during the very recent and horrifying events raises my hackles if people aren’t clearly prefacing remarks about US actions with clarity about where the blame lies.
I have said several times that our actions in the past have not been well considered. Could it have played some role in Russia’s decisions? Sure. But what I keep reading from Dave is that they are the only reasons. Never any balance. Everything Dave keep pointing out is actually several years in the past.
“your subject is the Prophet Mohammed, you will very likely be murdered or forced into hiding.”
You are aware of the cartoon Jesus and Mo?
https://www.jesusandmo.net/comic/women2/
Steve
CS is right that there are more recent examples but Russia ruled the USSR so not really buying that distinction. How about other factors?
The Russian economy did very well during Putin’s fist term. His second time around? Not so great. How about the conflict they were supporting since 2014 in East Ukraine? Dragging on and on. Note how his favorability ratings went way up in 2014 when they started. Down since then. You keep harping on security issues but ignore the economic ones. Pretty clear that Russia doesnt want the EU/US to be Ukraine’s trading partners.
Query- Besides Putin what about Russia’s own internal politics? When I se people say that we should just had Russia join NATO I wonder if Russia’s hardliners would have accepted that.
Steve
“You are aware of the cartoon Jesus and Mo?”
Are you aware of Charlie Hebdo? Have you heard of Salman Rushdie?
Maybe you could run an art exhibition where you bring back “piss Christ” and then add “piss Mohammed” and see what happens?