Putin’s Challenge to Western Hegemony

https://adamtooze.com/2022/01/12/chartbook-68-putins-challenge-to-western-hegemony-the-2022-edition/

30 98 5 years ago

Ukraine’s experience contrasts sharply with that of Russian Federation which since the 1998 crisis has seen much more dramatic and sustained recovery. It also contrasts painfully with the growth trajectory of Ukraine’s neighbors Turkey and Poland.

xbar• 5 years ago

These two sentences are conclusion-free. Is the pain relief a Russian invasion?

That's a neat idea. I can say that North Dakota's recovery since 2008 contrasts painfully with that of Texas. Is it time for a Canadian Challenge to Midwestern Hegemony?

mikewarot• 5 years ago

Bush Sr promised that NATO wouldn't expand into the former Soviet Union, then we did anyway. Russia can not accept Ukraine joining NATO.

We shouldn't have pushed the coup a few years back, and we should leave our mitts off now.

Oh, and lets stop starving Afghanistan while we're at it. The last time we screwed them over, Bin Laden came back at us.

temp• 5 years ago

Bush Sr promised that NATO wouldn't expand into the former Soviet Union

Surely that was a decision to be made by the relevant countries themselves and not Bush Sr of the United States.

nopenopenopeno• 5 years ago

That’s not how empires work

hindsightbias3• 5 years ago

When the $21 Trillion EU puts their big boy pants on and form their own army, they can have agency (Serbia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya, Syria, etc, etc).

Until then, the 900# red white & blue gorilla of NATO is driving. Folks don’t like it? Well, time to stop whistling “The Yanks Are Coming” every time they want to tussle with their neighborhood.

hollerith• 5 years ago

Any NATO member can veto the accession of a new member.

jolux6• 5 years ago

Under what theory of international relations is it legitimate for one country to invade another because they’re upset that other countries bordering it made treaty agreements with another power?

greesil• 5 years ago

Bush W's "if they have oil" doctrine. In this case the invasion would be legitimate if it was Ukraine invading Russia and not the other way around.

DisjointedHunt7• 5 years ago

So, the US invaded Iraq and walked into Syria, bombing the fuck out of it.

What do you propose as punishment?

programmarchy2• 5 years ago

structural realism [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offensive_realism

disambiguation• 5 years ago

If you were dictator for a day, and the only thing standing between you and your enemies was one "neutral" country, and your two choices are to either invade and consolidate, or let them ally with your enemies.. then one outcome is obviously more of an existential threat than the other.

"legitimate" is a loaded word, but the game theory strongly supports one of these options.

dragonwriter4• 5 years ago

Under what theory of international relations is it legitimate for one country to invade another because they’re upset that other countries bordering it made treaty agreements with another power?

“Might makes right”.

Though, to be fair, it's not the most popular theory of legitimacy in international relations.

q1w26• 5 years ago

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

kadoban• 5 years ago

Bush Sr promised that NATO wouldn't expand into the former Soviet Union, then we did anyway.

Who did he promise, when, and did it make it into a treaty? Because it seems to not basically not exist.

bwilli123• 5 years ago

..."In my interviews with Baker and Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze in 1994, Baker acknowledged (and Shevardnadze confirmed) that he told the former foreign minister the United States would not “leapfrog” over a reunified Germany to move closer to the borders of the Soviet Union. There are reports that Baker was willing to put this commitment in writing, but that national security adviser Brent Scowcroft convinced the president not to do so."

https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/01/18/bill-clintons-role-i...

chucksmash• 5 years ago

Mikhail Gorbachev's purported view[1] on the matter, according to Russia Beyond[2]. Emphasis mine:

Interviewer: One of the key issues that has arisen in connection with the events in Ukraine is NATO expansion into the East. Do you get the feeling that your Western partners lied to you when they were developing their future plans in Eastern Europe? Why didn’t you insist that the promises made to you – particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East – be legally encoded? I will quote Baker: “NATO will not move one inch further east.”
M.G.: The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a single Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context. Kohl and [German Vice Chancellor Hans-Dietrich] Genscher talked about it.
Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled. The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been observed all these years. So don’t portray Gorbachev and the then-Soviet authorities as naïve people who were wrapped around the West’s finger. If there was naïveté, it was later, when the issue arose. Russia at first did not object.
The decision for the U.S. and its allies to expand NATO into the east was decisively made in 1993. I called this a big mistake from the very beginning. It was definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990. With regards to Germany, they were legally enshrined and are being observed.

[1] https://www.rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbac...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_Beyond

tomjen3• 5 years ago

Russia can not accept Ukraine joining NATO.

And I can't accept the cute redhead turned me down, but just like Putin I will have to suck it up.

dragonwriter4• 5 years ago

Bush Sr promised that NATO wouldn't expand into the former Soviet Union

No, he didn't. Gorbachev, one of whose vague comments later about feeling betrayed by NATO expansion into the East beyond united Germany is the origin of the myth, subsequently explicitly clarified that not only was no promise about NATO expansion made, but the issue was never even raised by the USSR.

Russia can not accept Ukraine joining NATO.

Well, it should learn to accept that it's not the USSR any more and its sovereign neighbors have the right to make the security arrangements they choose.

Oh, and lets stop starving Afghanistan while we're at it. The last time we screwed them over, Bin Laden came back at us.

Bin Laden didn't come at us for anything having to do with Afghanistan (where are policy benefited his interests), but because he was mad that his home country of Saudi Arabia turned to us rather than his network for defense when Iraq invaded Kuwait and threatened SA in 1990.

the_duke• 5 years ago

Most don't like to hear this, but I agree.

Obama and Clinton (as Secretary of State) very openly supported Ukraine, and the EU sort of played along, although much more apprehensively. They were playing with fire.

In the words of a European ambassador I'm acquainted with: "They don't know what the f** they are doing. This will cause a war.". He said this in 2013.

Losing Ukraine as a buffer zone to the west and even the small possiblity for a direct border with a Nato or EU was way too much for Russia to accept, so they acted aggressively. With the assumption that neither the US nor EU countries would be willing to seriously intervene. Which proved correct, apart from some lackluster sanctioning.

q1w26• 5 years ago

Russia already has a direct border with a number of NATO countries. Ukraine will not be the first. I think it would be the 5th.

DisjointedHunt7• 5 years ago

Much of the coverage i see of "Russia" in the west completely misses the following points that super crucial to the political debate:

1. NATO is a military coalition that sits outside the regular National framework of war making.

2. NATO agreements are fair or ridiculous depending on the outcome one expects. If a member is attacked, that is a declaration of war on ALL members. Consider a rogue state/leader member picking war with a nuclear power and escalating to the point of no return. What then?

3. The objectives that NATO seem to want have become largely aggressive extensions of one political sides policies rather than what is right for "keeping the peace in Europe" or the world.

If you disagree with the statements above, i'd ask you to consider that China and her allies, Iran, Turkey, North Korea and Pakistan suddenly moved Radar equipment and denial of airspace missile batteries to Mexico, Canada and Cuba tomorrow. What would the United States consider such an act to be? Defensive?

For all the dick waving that Putin has done, the threat of war with severe consequences has been initiated by and continues to be advertised as the only choice by the unelected bureaucrats at NATO.

We are all supposed to sit here and watch while these morons pick a fight on the behalf of the world and then give us no choice but to send our kids off to die in another pointless battle?

rowathay• 5 years ago

Invading and annexing the territory of another country is a it more than “dick waving.”

jterrys• 5 years ago

Especially when it violates a treaty you signed promising that if the country you invaded disarms itself that you would protect it.

DisjointedHunt7• 5 years ago

Okay, and compared to the myriad of other problems the world has right now and the US has right now. . .how is it our problem and what do you suggest we do about it?

Should we nuke them? Surely not?

Let Europe handle her political disagreements. We have no place there. The present breathless escalation of tensions only leads to one place and it's not good at all.

Why is the United States taking the lead at all in a conflict between countries with a history of conflict longer than the US has been around? European powers routinely engage financially with Russia in the form of pipeline contracts, friendly coordination on multiple other areas such as environmental protection etc.

This is all just a proxy fight for the natural resources (Oil) in Crimea and Ukraine and that's disgusting.

selivanovp3• 5 years ago

You missed the part where USA baked the second coup in that country in a decade and put in power people, that were intended to kick Russian army and fleet away from Crimea bases.

bvrmn8• 5 years ago

Your points can be valid in alternative reality where Putin is not ruling poor country with 3% GDP and Russia is not hybrid regime for 20 years raw.

scythe2• 5 years ago

2. NATO agreements are fair or ridiculous depending on the outcome one expects. If a member is attacked, that is a declaration of war on ALL members. Consider a rogue state/leader member picking war with a nuclear power and escalating to the point of no return. What then?

Everyone talks about Article 5, but you can't forget about Article 1:

The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

A state in violation of Article 1 might not be granted Article 5 protections.

The situation in Ukraine currently is that Russia violated the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances by fomenting a rebellion in Crimea in 2014:

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

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov basically admitted violating the Memorandum when he lied about its content:

In February 2016, Sergey Lavrov claimed, "Russia never violated Budapest memorandum. It contained only one obligation, not to attack Ukraine with nukes."

https://twitter.com/RussianEmbassy/status/692321689254830080

Of course this is not consistent with the actual text:

The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine

Now if Russia wanted to argue that admitting Ukraine into NATO would violate the BMSA, they might have a decent argument... if, that is, they hadn't flagrantly ignored it and denied that it even says anything about independence in the first place.

dragonwriter4• 5 years ago

A state in violation of Article 1 might not be granted Article 5 protections.

Article 5 standing on its own only commits members to actions within the scope of individual and collective self-defense as permitted under Article 51 of the UN Charter, anyway.

selivanovp3• 5 years ago

Once again, Budapest memorandum has never had any power, as was never ratified neither by USA, nor by Russia and not by Ukraine.

And no, Lavrov didn't lie about what's said in the document, you just need to read its text, not interpretations in mass media.

ldiracdelta• 5 years ago

You got one thing wrong. Not gonna send my kids off to the next war that Washington starts up.

awakeasleep• 5 years ago

I think you’re simplifying. If nukes fly it doesn’t matter where your kid is. And the government can decide to take your kids to war with or without consent

dragonwriter4• 5 years ago

NATO is a military coalition that sits outside the regular National framework of war making.

False.

If a member is attacked, that is a declaration of war on ALL members

Also false.

Consider a rogue state/leader member picking war with a nuclear power and escalating to the point of no return. What then?

Sucks to be the rogue state, but assuming you meant for the rogue state to be a NATO member, I don't see even a theoretical problem for NATO, but perhaps instead of posing a question you’d like to actually make an argument that makes sense given the actual text of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty and the scope of the right of self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter.

The objectives that NATO seem to want

Well, “seem to want” is rather amorphous and subjective, and so is your description, which doesn't even say what objectives you think NATO “seem to want”.

For all the dick waving that Putin has done, the threat of war with severe consequences has been initiated by

...Russia, each time they've actually invaded another section of Ukraine. Which isn't just a threat of war with severe consequences, but an actual war, and crime of aggression, with severe consequences.

That’s not just “dick waving”, which is a better metaphorical description of the NATO response to date than the Russian action.

unelected bureaucrats at NATO.

The top decision-makers at NATO are the heads of government of the members, who are, though indirectly in some cases, all elected.

alkonaut• 5 years ago

i'd ask you to consider that China and her allies, Iran, Turkey, North Korea and Pakistan suddenly moved Radar equipment and denial of airspace missile batteries to Mexico, Canada and Cuba tomorrow.

This would be seen as extremely destabilizing. But the key for me is: who agrees to uphold international law, respect borders?

The reason Russian missiles in Mexico should worry Americans but NATO forces in Lithuania should not worry Russia is simple: NATO doesn’t have a history of annexing countries. This is no trivial difference.

The dialog playing out is really

Ru: promise to stop putting forces on our borders

NATO: would you promise to never move a border by force in these neighbors?

Ru: No. We don’t really recognize “borders” or “sovereignty” of other countries.

No war is going to be started here until someone crosses a border.

mickotron2• 5 years ago

Cuban Missile Crisis, anyone?

calyth2018• 5 years ago

If you disagree with the statements above, i'd ask you to consider that China and her allies, Iran, Turkey, North Korea and Pakistan suddenly moved Radar equipment and denial of airspace missile batteries to Mexico, Canada and Cuba tomorrow. What would the United States consider such an act to be? Defensive?

We don't need to imagine it. Just look at the Cuban missile crisis, which can trace its roots by putting nuke-tipped missiles in Turkey and Italy, stone's throw from the USSR.

When the USSR parked its nukes 90mi away from the US, US committed an act of war by blockading Cuba, wordsmithed it to a quarantine; dropped signalling depth charge on a Russian submarine in international waters, which had nuclear-tipped torpedoes. The world's lucky that someone senior on that boat vetoed the launch.

I'm not saying one has to like Russia for its moves, but the west should at least look at itself in the mirror for once. Admitting Ukraine and Georgia into NATO amounts to blocking off the warm water port for Russia. That alone should explain why they would react against it.

DisjointedHunt7• 5 years ago

Agreed. It is frankly ridiculous how much of our politicians time and effort goes toward picking and fermenting these personal vendettas over international issues that have no bearing or meaning to "US" - The country's interests, but suddenly get clumped into the "Foreign Policy established objectives" . . .

Why?? Because some idiot picked a fight we have no part in. The Bush Dynasty and the endless wars of the middle east, The Clintons and Europe/Russia. Right now in the present, the bi partisan scum skirting the laws of our nation to send Troops and armaments to places like Syria and killing and displacing MILLIONS of people that we as a nation have to carry on our conscience.

This should disgust everyone regardless of nationality, political affiliation or any form of "justification" they may have formed as being the international keeper of peace.

Creating what is essentially a Shell Company in the form of NATO with ridiculous amounts of warmaking powers, whatever cosmetic protections there may be to guard against abuse, and then allowing that entity to run feuds and foreign policy of the United States WELL PAST THE POINT of an administrations tenure should never be allowed.

International treaties should NEVER be allowed to derive in perpetuity, the constitutional powers and duties entrusted to National institutions. And this is precisely what is and has been happening so far.

bvrmn8• 5 years ago

But what generates the cash is global demand for Russian oil and gas.

35% of budget income is from VAT only. I'm not counting other taxes.

DisjointedHunt7• 5 years ago

Is budget the same as foreign exchange inflows? That's what the author is pointing out as the bulwark to the international pressure.

bvrmn8• 5 years ago

Russian total trade in 2020 was 550M. Poland has 510M total trade same year. Russian external economy is really very small.

shmerl6• 5 years ago

No need for lengthy theorizing. It's simply a protection racket ran by mafia scaled to country size. Nothing more.

If you let mafia run things, that's exactly what happens.

zozbot2346• 5 years ago

Perhaps, but basic political science tells us that such protection rackets should strive to legitimize themselves as "proper" monarchies or elite oligarchies, and that this move will bring common benefits to both the rulers themselves and the civilian population. Ironically enough, the PRC seems to be rather further along re: that general dynamic. They might even democratize at some point - that's the next step in the game, at any rate.

shmerl6• 5 years ago

Point is, mafia can't think long term, let alone care about population. All it can think of is self profit and grabbing anything it can get hold of. It can't produce, it can only steal from others. It leaves desert after there is nothing more to steal.

So this isn't about political science. It's about psychology of a common criminal. That's Putin's level of thinking. Even if some there could think differently, he basically wiped out any kind of alternative ways of doing things in practice.

bvrmn8• 5 years ago

Hybrid regimes aren't interested in civilians. They don't depend from elections and can mostly ignore civilian issues. Since 2011 Russia has been had a constant decline in economy development and standard of living.

SkyMarshal• 5 years ago

They might even democratize at some point.

No government ever willingly gives up power.

q1w26• 5 years ago

I love that this comment can be applied to both Russia and Ukraine.

valyagolev5• 5 years ago

Nord Stream 2 and the new German cabinet are much more important parts of the equation than the article seems to allow. German is the main Russian trade partner in the west, if Germany stops that, Russian stance will have to change too. i’d expect that the threat of cancelling the project would seem more credible to Putin than of a real war. but it’d be hardly good news for us, who live in Germany and already pay a lot of money for utilities

valyagolev5• 5 years ago

and on that note the most worrisome part for me, long term, is the continuing refusal of Germany to embrace nuclear energy. without it, Germany will be dependent on the natural gas for longer, and thus locked in this particular relationship

wikidani• 5 years ago

I am honestly surprised how there isn't a push for bigger energy independence. For how long will the dependency on russian gas is sustainable (politically speaking)

rdtsc3• 5 years ago

I have been trying to figure out is what explains the current escalation to the point in which since the spring of 2021

It’s likely from a perception that the Biden regime is weak, and so, this is the “time to act”. Ukrainians can understand that too and hence are trying to get closer to NATO, to seek protection. Putin sees that in turn as NATO aggression.

From Putin’s point of view annexation of Crimea went swimmingly well, internally at least. He sees a golden opportunity to repeat it again.

From a propaganda point of view, I think it will be challenging to get Americans to care about Ukraine. With the pandemic, and other domestic issues, worrying about it is not a priority. And, unsurprisingly, Putin understands that as too, which makes him bolder.

hdjjhhvvhga2• 5 years ago

From a propaganda point of view, I think it will be challenging to get Americans to care about Ukraine. With the pandemic, and other domestic issues, worrying about it is not a priority. And, unsurprisingly, Putin understands that as too, which makes him bolder.

Well, it hasn't played well, has it? The first shipments of weapons landed in Ukraine, and more are to follow, together with training teams. The only thing that Putin gained by his threats is more firepower in Ukraine.

The annexation of Crimea went well because most people there were Russians. When I went there some years ago I was surprised everybody was speaking Russian, to the point they called hryvnas (local currency) "rubles"... So before the annexation actually happened you could feel local people would actually welcome it as a chance for a positive change (this is no longer the case and the same people feel betrayed).

Also most people in Donbas were Russian. The folks there were very poor. My colleague's family stopped paying their rent, electricity and so on many years ago - and this was the case in many blocks of flats. They felt that any change for them would be a positive one.

Now the Ukrainians are extremely motivated. They know that if Putin invades, they will be slaves forever. They are determined to protect their country, and every day have more and more weapons. There is no way Putin could invade Ukraine without extremely high casualties.

q1w26• 5 years ago

The total amount of new weaponry to Ukraine is not significant given the scale of the invasion he is preparing. ...and I don't think Putin really cares about the additional few Russian soldiers that die.

When I went there some years ago I was surprised everybody was speaking Russian

This is true for most of Ukraine. The western rural areas do still speak Ukrainian and there's been some push to keep that culture alive, but the entire east and south are very Russian, and it's by far the most common language used - even among ethnic Ukrainians - even in Kiev.

...if Putin invades, they will be slaves forever.

They probably expect the setup of a puppet Russian client state, similar to Belarus. "Slavery" is a bit hyperbolic. My point is that I'm not sure how many soldiers are willing to die over what seems like an unlikely victory.

One of the main problems with Ukrainian defense is that the largest cities, and hence the majority of the population, lives of the population lives in one of a hand full of cities that is within 50-100 miles of the Russia or Belarus border (Kiev, Kharkiv, Donetsk, and Marpiol. Ironically, Odessa is the western most large city - but it has a massive Russia population.

If the advance is quick and takes these cities, the Ukrainian will see their capital and the majority of their population under the Russian military. Given that, I think the Ukrainian military will capitulate rapidly. I think the Ukrainians know that as well, so it really demotivates units to stay and fight. I don't think any strategist believes Ukraine can win a fixed conventional battle.

In fact, my guess is that the defeat in Armenia due to drone warfare, and the subsequent agreements between Ukraine and Turkey to arm with drone, might have hastened Putin's sense of urgency.

But my feeling is that Russia is honestly on the fence between taking all of Ukraine by force, or simply extracting a humiliating negotiated settlement from the west.

If I were a psychopath, and I were Putin, I would demand NATO troop withdrawal from the Baltics (maybe offering similar withdrawals on the Russian side), all of the territory east of the Dniper river (+/- some anomolies), formal recognition of the annexations, and a new lucrative Germany natural gas deal. ...and then be willing to settle for just "most" of the land east of the Dniper (but it would need to include the coast and the Crimea water canal).

rdtsc3• 5 years ago

Well, it hasn't played well, has it? The first shipments of weapons landed in Ukraine, and more are to follow, together with training teams. The only thing that Putin gained by his threats is more firepower in Ukraine.

I think it's going to play very well in the hands of Putin in the end. The more equipment lands the more he will capture. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War the "Equipment losses and cost". I remember them making a big spectacle of driving the captured American Humvees. Here one such segment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcH02Z4DYO8

Now don't get me wrong, I am not on Putin's side. I want Ukraine to stay independent and want it to win. I just don't see it easily happening and am starting to see the same thing as with the Georgian war happening again.

Putin’s Challenge to Western Hegemony

Related Stories