War In Ukraine: Putin Can’t Win — But the US Can Lose - Alexei Bayer (The Globalist)

 Global Conflict

War In Ukraine: Putin Can’t Win — But the US Can Lose

The destruction of the Kakhovka dam demonstrates that Russia is resorting to increasingly desperate measures. The question is how the West will respond.

The Globalist, June 11, 2023

By Alexei Bayer 

Russia’s latest atrocity – the destruction of the Kakhovka dam – demonstrates that the war in Ukraine needs to end quickly. Because Russia can’t win this war. 

If the fighting goes on even another year, the West may find itself losing – with dramatic repercussions for the United States’ leadership role in the world. Following the three failed early 21st century wars – in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria – the global image of the U.S. was badly tarnished. Its ardent pursuit of global leadership had been dealt a triple blow.

A godsend for the U.S.

Against that backdrop, Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was in many ways a godsend for the United States. 

In addition to tangible economic benefits – such as increased sales of liquified natural gas and arms – the United States has not only seen NATO revived and solidified, but broadened with the addition of Finland (and, soon, also Sweden). 

Given the brutality of the Russian attack, NATO member states are finally expanding their military budgets, which has been Washington’s long-standing demand.

Russia’s military machine completely demystified itself

What’s more, as the U.S. military leadership recognized early on in this conflict the insights gained into the (in)ability of the Russian military from its brutal, but largely inept actions against Ukraine are a tremendous strategic benefit to the West. 

Nobody had ever expected that, absent a major global conflict, the opportunity for such a “live” experiment would ever arise. Russia’s military machine has completely demystified itself.

On top of all that Ukraine’s heroic, battle-hardened military – after its potential victory – could become a highly valuable addition for the Western alliance as.

As if we are back in the early post-World War II era

In sum, the United States’ leadership position in the alliance has been bolstered and, most importantly, the country once more sees itself – and is regarded around vital parts of the world – as a defender of freedom, self-determination and rule of law. 

It is as if we are back in the early post-World War II era, when the United States was viewed with hope by people around the world. 

Vladimir Putin’s blitzkrieg having failed, one thing is for sure: No matter what the Russian propaganda may claim, Putin can no longer defeat Ukraine. 

He not only lacks modern weapons and advanced technology but, equally crucially, the Russian people’s lukewarm desire to wage a war of conquest is no match for the determination of the Ukrainians to defend their country and to liberate occupied territories. 

Towards a war of attrition?

However, unless things on the ground change dramatically, those facts of life do not mean that Putin is lacking the resources to keep on fighting indefinitely.

A war of attrition is what the United States and its allies seem to have in mind as well. Fearing to be drawn into the conflict, NATO under the direction from Washington has been providing weapons by dribs and drabs. 

Accordingly, NATO allies have been favoring defensive armaments and holding back more advanced systems. Even the F-16s, fighter planes developed half a century ago, have not yet been given to Ukraine, to say nothing of more modern sophisticated flying machines.

Considerable restrictions have been placed on the use of Western weapons, especially in attacking Russian territory, for fear of “provoking Putin.”

If Ukraine is not allowed to win decisively and if the war drags on for another year, the United States will risk missing out on the exceptional opportunities provided by Putin’s blunder and squandering many of the benefits it is now enjoying.

How many more atrocities?

In addition to the flooding that destroyed or damaged numerous settlements, the Kakhovka dam and power plant was vital for much of Ukraine’s south. Cities and towns, highly productive farms and industrial plants relied on the water and power from that source. Jobs will disappear and the region will lose a substantial portion of the population.

The destructions of the dam and the massive human, environmental, economic and social calamity it will cause is a warning what the prolongation of the conflict will mean. There will be other atrocities which Putin will commit in his impotent rage against Ukraine which is refusing to submit to his will.

Ukraine’s ability to recover economically

But even if no other comparable war crimes will be committed by Russia, a long war will be a disaster for Ukraine, since it will impair it ability to recover economically. Some eight million Ukrainians are already refugees abroad — mainly women and children since draft-age men are not allowed to leave. 

As the war continues, many will choose to stay where they are rather than return, given that Russian bombings destroy more and more houses and factories in Ukraine. Their kids are already assimilating in their new countries. Exhausted and depopulated, Ukraine may become an enormous failed state in the heart of Europe. 

Many possible scenarios

There are many possible scenarios of what will happen to Ukraine if the war drags on. For example, Volodymyr Zelensky’s pro-Western government may fall and, Ukraine may turn on the West. It may look to form other alliances, notably with China.

Ukrainians know that they are fighting not only for their own independence but for the freedom, democracy and peace in the rest of Europe. To that end, they are losing tens of thousands of their best and brightest young men while the Western world remains on the sidelines. Eventually, this will breed resentment. 

NATO unity will come under strain

Moreover, in a long war, NATO unity will come under strain. As it is, Turkey and Hungary already pursue their own agendas. Right-wing parties have seen their strength grow in other European countries as well, and a Republican may win the White House next year. 

Eventually, the countries in Europe that are further away from the conflict may insist on freezing the conflict. On the other hand, Poland, the Baltic states, Finland and other frontline nations will be concerned with the future fate of Ukraine. 

They have been strong supporters of Ukraine in its resistance to the Russian invasion, but they will certainly not want to see Ukraine become a pauperized failed state in the heart of Europe. Before long, they may feel they need to get involved directly – if only to safeguard their own security.

This may be what former NATO Secretary General Anders Rasmussen had in mind when he warned that some alliance members may have to send troops to Ukraine. 

Conclusion

In short, Washington must make sure not only that Ukraine liberates its occupied territories, but that it does so quickly. Ukraine must get all the modern weapons it needs, including advanced fighter planes and long-range artillery. 

But if the war shows signs of stalling, both Russia and the United States may find themselves losing the war in Ukraine – with dramatic repercussions for U.S. leadership role in the world.

More on this topic

• China’s Fear of the Freedom Virus
• Corruption: The Global Killing Machine
• Sanctions Enforcement Is Urgent To Cripple Russia

The 21st Century Cold War (Trump-USA vs China) - Alexei Bayer (The Globalist)

A China não é a URSS, com o que esse jornalista concorda. Mas ele esquece de mencionar que os EUA entram nessa "guerra" numa defensiva, o que é a pior postura que pode ter um país.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

The 21st Century Cold War

Talk of a new Cold War is becoming ever more pervasive. In its 21st century rendition, it is China, not Russia, that is in the U.S.’s crosshairs.

By Alexei Bayer 

The Globalist, July 15, 2020

Talk of a new Cold War is becoming ever more pervasive. However, in its 21st century rendition, it is China, not Russia, that is in the U.S.’s — not just the Trump Administration’s — crosshairs.

Godless people

As it is turns out, China, still ruled by the same old communist party as at the time of Chairman Mao, is a perfect candidate for a new Cold War.

After all, it fits the template of the old conflict between democracy and godless communism.

China: As if the Soviet vision had actually worked

True enough, today’s China is quite different from the erstwhile Soviet Union. On the economic front, it is communist in name only (“CINO”).

In fact, Marx, Lenin and Mao must be busily spinning in their graves. At the time of Mao’s death less half century ago, pretty much everyone in China still wore identical Mao jackets and hats.

Plus, people aspired to no bigger worldly possessions than a bicycle. Now, the country has nearly 400 billionaires. That puts it second only to that citadel of imperialism, the United States.

Another leader for life

But don’t worry. In many other ways, China’s Xi Jinping proves himself a worthy heir to the communist leaders of the past. Like almost all Communists of yesteryear, Xi is planning to rule his country for life.

Under his leadership, the Chinese government is also becoming a “masterful” (i.e., unflinching) repressor of dissent at home and seeks to put an end to freedoms in Hong Kong.

China’s CCP government censors the internet the same way the Soviets used to jam Western radio broadcasts. It is needlessly secretive, leading most recently to widespread condemnation of its handling of the COVID 19 outbreak.

It ain’t the good old U.S. anymore, either

Of course, the United States is now a very different country, too. During the early post-World War II decades, it could very effectively counter Soviet claims of building a workers’ paradise.

The United States actually had what the Soviet Union always only claimed — strong wages, stable jobs and comfortable lifestyles of its unionized blue-collar workforce.

These days, American unions are in shambles and Americans without a college degree, like true proletarians in the Marxist sense, struggle to make ends meet with no benefits or job security.

Soviet-style leadership at the White House

In the old days, the United States could brag about its fourth estate — the highly respected and even feared free press, reporting the truth and “All the News That’s Fit to Print,” in contrast to communist propaganda hacks.

At least for another five months, the United States has a president who attacks the country’s largest news organizations as purveyors of fake news. And he knows no limits in channeling his inner Uncle Joe Stalin by calling journalists “enemies of the people.”

Of course, sending out the U.S. military on peaceful American protesters — on the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre no less — surely didn’t make for good propaganda material either.

Painful role reversal

But this is only half the problem. The truth is that the roles of the Cold Warrior sides have been reversed. During Cold War I, the Soviet Union was always a sullen bully with a giant chip on its shoulder, claiming to be the victim of capitalist machinations.

Washington, on the other hand, played the adult to Moscow’s teenager. It often yielded to Russia’s unreasonable demands — because the United States was so strong that it could afford to be magnanimous.

The Soviets always threatened aplenty, almost always without following through and thus appeared weak. Meanwhile, the U.S. side worked to engage them and to find the common ground.

Who is the mature power now?

In today’s rendition of the Cold War, with Donald Trump in the White House, it is stunningly often Beijing that is playing the adult to America’s whining, bad-tempered and very short-sighted teenager.

Donald Trump is always ready to complain how China, the bad guy, takes advantage of poor and weak America, whether on trade, technology or now the coronavirus.

China, meanwhile, is working to diffuse tensions. Most recently, when Donald Trump threatened to exclude Chinese airlines from flying to the United States, Chinese officials simply lifted pandemic-related restrictions on foreign flights to China, depriving the Trump Administration of a chance to escalate the conflict.

Trump, the “shoe banger”

During the Cold War, it was the then-Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev who, when angered by something during his speech at the United Nations, took off his shoes and started banging it on the desk.

Today, it is Trump, not Xi, who’s more likely to engage in such a stunt.

Conclusion

The first Cold War was won by the stronger, adult player — meaning at the time the United States.

Whatever we may think of China and the distasteful ways in which it oppresses its own people, we must recognize that, at least for now, it is China that acts like the adult in the room.

That is not a good omen as to the outcome of the second Cold War.

More on this topic

• How Trump Is Tied to China, Literally
• US-China Trade: It’s Politics, Stupid!
• Rare Earths: China’s Strongest Card
• 
  

A Russia perdeu um seculo inteiro (o Brasil vai fazer o mesmo?) - Alexei Bayer

1913-2013: How Russia Botched an Entire Century

Could Russia have been as successful as the United States?

By Alexei Bayer
The Globalist, September 5, 2013

One hundred years ago, shortly before the Bolsheviks seized power in 1917, Russia was on the verge of becoming the China of the day. It had embarked on the path to industrial capitalism two or three decades after the United States and Germany.

By the start of World War I, it was developing dynamically enough to get on track to catch up with the leading industrial powers of the day.

The Russia of that era was an enormous country, even larger than the Soviet Union at its peak, because it included both Poland and Finland within its borders. It also boasted tremendous natural resources and a vast, diversified population.

Russia featured remarkably modern elements. For example, it abolished serfdom in 1861, two years before President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation in the United States.

In the countryside, a class of prosperous peasants was emerging. And in Russia’s southern provinces and in Ukraine, there were large, productive farms — similar to those later found in the American Midwest.

These farms made Russia the breadbasket of the world, accounting for around one-third of the global wheat trade before World War I. In fact, Russia’s early 20th century wheat traders were so sophisticated that they initiated hedging prices and used financial markets in London and New York for their crops.

In the Donetsk region in eastern Ukraine, coal and steel production was expanding, also using British investment and knowhow.

The construction of the Trans-Siberian railway, inaugurated in 1890, linked European Russia with the Pacific Coast. This made the economic development and exploration of Siberia possible, a move from which even today’s Russia benefits most handsomely.

Lagging literacy

At the same time, Russia’s educational system was poor. Around 70% of the population was still illiterate at the start of the 20th century. However, the illiterate were mainly peasants. In cities, primary and secondary schools were being established, benefiting even the urban poor.

Russia also had very modern universities and a substantial scientific research establishment. Mathematician Nikolai Lobachevsky pioneered hyperbolic geometry and chemist Dmitri Mendeleev is credited with creating the first periodic table of elements, both in the 19th century.

Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov was the fourth winner of the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1904, followed by immunologist Ilya Mechnikov in 1908. No Russian has won the prize since.

Professional and technical education, too, was increasingly open to children of lower-ranking officials, workers and even peasants. The ranks of the Russian intelligentsia, the educated class, were swelling. By the start of World War I, the literacy rate rose to 40%.

Despite lagging behind in terms of literacy, Russia managed to develop world-class culture and arts. Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky were probably the most internationally famous and influential fiction writers of their time.

Chekhov’s plays shaped the development of theater throughout the 20th century and Gorky’s plays were performed all over Europe in the years before World War I.

Stanislavsky developed an acting method that is still widely used in Hollywood. The Actors’ Studio and Lee Strasberg, who trained some of the brightest stars of American theater and cinema in the middle of the 20th century, adapted it.

Meanwhile, Stravinsky, Prokofiev and Shostakovich were at the origins of modern classical music, and Diaghilev’s Ballet Russe created modern dance.

In 1913, the Armory Show became a major sensation in New York City. It brought the French post-impressionist art of Van Gogh, Gauguin and others to America for the first time. While Americans were just catching on to these trends, Russian artists had already moved beyond post-impressionism.

Just two years later, in 1915, Kazimir Malevich created his Black Square, the first abstract painting.

An economic boom

While it is hard to assess economic growth in the early 1900s — few institutions collected data back then, any available figures were notoriously unreliable and modern statistical tools had not yet been developed — there is evidence that Russia stormed into the modern era after 1905.

There was rapid urbanization, with men increasingly moving to towns in search of employment. The share of the agricultural sector fell from 58% of the economy in 1885 to 51% before World War I.

Meanwhile, industry, construction and transportation accounted for 32% of the Russian economy, up from 23% in 1885. The rail network increased from 2,000 km to 70,000 km.

Like all rapidly developing nations, including the United States shortly before, Russia was a huge user of foreign capital. In the final decades of the czars’ rule, foreign investment accounted for 40% of all industrial investment, and a substantial portion of agricultural investment as well.

Western Europe, notably England, France and Belgium, provided most of that capital. By the start of World War I, Russia accounted for 15% of all international debt.

Even though Russia was still an underdeveloped country by prevailing Western European standards, it was not as backward as it is commonly portrayed. Just look at Russia’s performance in World War I, when it confronted Europe’s leading industrial power, Germany.

At the start of the conflict, Russia was not only able to mobilize quickly. It also managed to deliver troops and supplies to the front fast enough to start an invasion of Galicia in September 1914.

In fact, Russia was able to help its Western allies by forcing Germany to divert forces out of France in order to use them to assist Austria-Hungary, which was reeling from Russia’s assault.

In World War I, Russians certainly were outmatched by German efficiency and military technology. But the czar’s troops held up a lot better than Stalin’s Red Army did in the summer of 1941.

Soviet failures

After the Bolshevik revolution, the introduction of the command economy did manage to mobilize the Soviet Union. Later on, by channeling much of the country’s immense resources into the military-industrial complex, the communists were able to defeat Nazi Germany. Thereafter, they were able to come close to matching American military prowess for around half a century.

But such a gigantic effort could not be sustained. To get close, the Soviet government wasted and destroyed much of the resources on which Russia’s economic success relied.

First and foremost, it squandered Russia’s human resources. Russia’s population is currently around 140 million. Some demographers believe that natural growth since 1913 should have put its population to almost 200 million or even 225 million.

Two World Wars, fought by Russian commanders without regard for losses, two famines in the early 1920s and the 1930s, purges and social ills brought about by communist mismanagement have resulted in as many as 85 million in today’s Russia “going missing” — not being born at all.

The communists did create a good educational system and achieved nearly 100% literacy, but they managed to waste human capital in other ways. Peasants were herded into collective farms, effectively reintroducing serfdom.

Life expectancy for men in Russia now is an extremely low 64.3 years — on a par with or less than in many countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. Chronic illnesses and alcoholism that often precede an early death rob society of the most productive years of its males.

Moreover, the economic system that prohibited private enterprise kept several generations of Russians from fulfilling their potential and benefiting society as a whole.

While pre-revolutionary Russia was developing into a major global economic power naturally and consistently, the USSR was a colossus with feet of clay.

Today’s Russia still suffers from the disastrous legacy of the Soviet era. Instead of co-leading the world, as its potential suggested at the start of the 20th century, it is, on average, one of the poorest and technologically backward countries in Europe.

In a 19th century kind of way, Russia produces little and survives by selling its vast array of raw materials to the world’s leading industrial nations.

With that as economic strategy, the country itself exists in a serf-like state. The raw material riches benefit small, kleptocratic elites, who shift their assets abroad. Considerable parts of the country’s infrastructure are as if they dated back to the medieval era. Social services are rudimentary and the quality of life is extremely poor.

The United States has spent much of the past 100 years relentlessly developing, perfecting its industrial base and its technological infrastructure and investing into human capital. It has focused on creating optimal conditions for individuals to achieve their potential.

Despite various mistakes and setbacks, the United States still sets the direction of technological innovation and its culture dominates the world.

Russia, in contrast, has wasted its resources, especially human ones. It literally killed off many talented people. Others were able to escape in time and achieved fame in Europe and, especially, in the United States, thus contributing notably to America’s economy and culture.

Choreographer George Balanchine, writer Vladimir Nabokov and, most recently, Google founder Sergei Brin are just a few examples among many.

Russia’s political economy has not moved forward much over the past 100 years. Despite mind-boggling mistakes, mismanagement and crimes of its leaders, Russia even now has much unrealized potential.

Russians may yet rise up and fulfill their human potential. But for that to happen, they will need to change the country’s kleptocratic political system and end their own serf-like mentality. Both are, in so many ways, the direct descendants of the Soviet era.

Alexei Bayer is a contributing editor of The Globalist. His debut novel, Murder at the Dacha, which is set in 1960s Moscow, was published in May.