"Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men's stupidity,
but your talent to their reason.", said Rand who saw money not as an
evil but an instrument of peace.
What worries me with talk of "Monetary war" is the transition of money
as means of peace into a weapon.
Mark this, much as I detest Russia today and believe brutal sanctions
are the way, we will all reap tyranny if banks are militarised.
First the central digital currencies will be used to cut-off
"terrorists", then companies who won't play games, and eventually
individuals with inconvenient things to say. Without some form of
"bitcoin" [1] that evades authoritarian control, or a diverse basket
of payments backed by legislation to prevent "cashless hellholes",
you'd better realise your wealth exists only at the whim of some
unseen power.
Sure I get it. Arguments against my "bad things will happen" is "don't
worry they are already happening" :)
That doesn't lessen the case that we can and should work on resilient
money systems that protect the interests of ordinary people.
When the boot is on the other foot, maybe in 10 years when China is
"turning-off the dollar", we'll all be glad we built robust and
democratically controlled means of exchange.
> Sure I get it. Arguments against my "bad things will happen" is "don't worry they are already happening" :)
Fair summary :)
> That doesn't lessen the case that we can and should work on resilient money systems that protect the interests of ordinary people.
>
> When the boot is on the other foot, maybe in 10 years when China is "turning-off the dollar", we'll all be glad we built robust and democratically controlled means of exchange.
I believe that I understand your point.
However, my gut feeling is that "protecting the interests of ordinary people" is what rich oligarchs (from whichever nationality) will eventually tell ordinary people to sell us on the idea of a trans-national, untraceable, currency, but that such a beast will be much more in their interest (tax fraud? money laundering? milking clients with online casinos? good ideas!) than in anybody else's (pay for a X that I'll be buying from a black-market salesperson without attracting the state's attention? not something I do every day, but probably good idea in a dictatorship? – on the other hand, exposing myself to frauds without any recourse because of anonymity? not something I want to deal with on a daily basis).
That's in addition to the issues with PoW (looks like we already agree on this point) and the practical issues with actual decentralization, anonymity, stealth and resilience.
> However, my gut feeling is that "protecting the interests of
ordinary people" is what rich oligarchs (from whichever nationality)
will eventually tell ordinary people to sell us on the idea of a
trans-national, untraceable, currency, but that such a beast will be
much more in their interest (tax fraud? money laundering? milking
clients with online casinos? good ideas!) than in anybody else's
It is incredibly complex isn't it. Those are solid fears you offer.
Perhaps it's a question (formula of moral arithmetic) that extends
beyond money - that given a magic wand that offers equal gains to good
and evil, do you wave it? Do the wrongs of elite corruption cancel
out the freedoms of the working majority?
> buying from a black-market salesperson without attracting the
state's attention?
That's a severe example. But I would just like my 5 year old kid to be
able to buy an ice-cream with the pocket money I give her. That is
_literally_ the reality of how this affects me in real life. And if
this is just the early days of digital economics I really do not want
to see where this road leads. We already have cash, a perfectly
fungible, widely accepted and non-traceable (actually slightly
traceable) peoples' coin. Oligarchs don't trade in bags of cash. So
attacks on cash seem nothing but spite against common economic life.
> frauds without any recourse because of anonymity? not something I
want to deal with on a daily basis).
Don't forget that digital transactions can give recourse against fraud
without actually having to break client anonymity (Taler) or even
vendor anonymity (underwritten/insured escrow systems). Most of take
that risk everyday for smallish sums < $100 when we use cash.
> But I would just like my 5 year old kid to be able to buy an ice-cream with the pocket money I give her.
I realize that this is a problem that needs to be solve by cryptocurrencies to reach mainstream status, but unless I'm missing something, that is not a problem that needs to be solved by established currencies.
Right now, my example of buying things from a black market in case of dictatorship is the only case I can think of from the top of my mind in which I could see myself needing untraceable money. Arguably, making donations to an unpopular political party or to help a persecuted minority may be better examples in dictatorships or near-dictatorships.
While all of these examples sound useful, I'm not convinced yet that it would be terribly difficult for a technologically-oriented dictatorship (or one with a $5 wrench) to obtain all the data through side-channels or to block transactions.
> Don't forget that digital transactions can give recourse against fraud without actually having to break client anonymity (Taler) or even vendor anonymity (underwritten/insured escrow systems).
Good to know. I should take a look at these.
> Most of take that risk everyday for smallish sums < $100 when we use cash.
Rand's idea that money is an instrument of peace has some historical basis but has also been contradicted by history pretty much forever. Cue to thousands of examples, including money-fueled coups in Ancient Rome, public or private wars paid for by banker's money in Renaissance Italy, the Medici ending the Florentine republic by strength of money, bankers bankrolling both Franco and Adolf Hitler, etc.
IMVHO people have completely forgot a thing: money have no tangible value. Money is a unit of measure of a tangible underlying. We choose something symbolic to trade it in place of physical goods being able not only to trade but to always have something anyone is interested in. That's is. Consider money a value by itself is a psychological scam.
Monetary war is just a way to put pressure on an antagonist stating that it have less value than most people think.
Monetary war like this is effectively just defaulting on your debt.
Money is debt. Having a dollar literally means that the abstract they owe you one. One what? That's for the market to decide when you decide to cash in the favor.
It's all based on trust that what you are owed will be paid back in the future. If the US says "hey, I know you thought you had 100 billion favors you could cash in from us at any time, but actually you don't unless you start behaving how we tell you to", then money becomes a mechanism of control.
Sovereigns don't like being controlled by outside forces and will start to look for ways to ascend beyond the control structure, like they always have for all of history.
I think this monetary war is going to get messier than most people want to believe.
Money is debt because of a common and accepted scam, not by nature. Money is debt because years ago some decide that the State should not own money, few private should and they lease them in exchange of an interest, but such scam is vapor: if a country want can easily say "sorry man, there is no debt, we have the army, natural resources etc so shut up and obey or we erase you in a so painful way you'll pry for your own death".
Such "defaults" are just scam skirmish from some who want to say his opponent are not worth what they seems to be, nothing practical. The main point is exactly what people want to believe: if enough people decide that's time to erase private central bank putting monetary control under state control yes that will be a big step toward Democracy all over the world, but that's utopia, most people do not even know that debt it's money, not real debt.
1.Weaponizing money could never happen if the money were still backed by something valuable such as gold or goods
2.The value of money is now based solely on thrust. If FED confiscated Russia's money, this is a major blow to the dollar. Probably China and other countries are beginning to search for alternatives for US dollar for both trade and keeping their reserves. That would diminish again the trust in the value of the US dollar.
> Weaponizing money could never happen if the money were still backed by something valuable such as gold or goods
While weaponizing money may not be so easy, that doesn't mean economic warfare would stop.
Currently the US has declared what amounts to unrestricted warfare against the Russians, including violating our own laws, and the laws of our allies, to effect damage to them. Specifically I am talking about seizing of private property by fiat for no crime. The logical Russian response is to nationalize every Western asset in their territory
Economic warfare may get much worse, since there is power in buying, power in selling, power in being an intermediary, or having the currency of exchange, or the system used for exchange.
Thank you for this. The author may have simply made a mistake. That's quite possible. It's also possible that he was referring to wheat beyond the producer's own need -- exports -- and if this is the case, it appears that Russia and Ukraine produce somewhere in the neighborhood of 30% of the combined total of the top ten producers -- see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wheat_exp...
So, not quite a third, but not much of an exaggeration.
So, our sanctions are again going to cause many thousands of innocent citizens to suffer while it does nothing towwards the leadership of Russia? Just like Iran right?
The sanctions in Iran were effective in pushing Iran to accept a deal that allowed us to inspect their nuclear facilities and ensure that no weapons grade enrichment was going on.
They achieved what they were meant to achieve.
Of course Trump tore up that deal, which made the sanctions mostly worthless in the end, but that's on Trump.
That is copium to the highest degree. The sanctions were meant to prevent Iran from building a nuclear bomb, they were about one year away from having one when the sanctions hit, nowadays I read somewhere (maybe the Economist) that they're maybe one month away only from being able to build one. The sanctions failed.
Later edit: Article from November 2021 about the one-month thing: "Iran one month away from achieving nuclear weapon". [1] As recently as January 2020 the West still thought that Iran was "one or two years" from building a bomb [2]
A large enough quantitative change turns into a qualitative one, when you get only one month away from having a bomb surely people from that general area, like the Israelis, won't be that keen on these syntactic small differences.
The Isrealis haven't been keen since they did even just the smallest amount of work.
The deal is to avoid an all out confrontation with a quid pro quo so iran doesn't finish; it doesn't erase the knowledge & capabilities they now have.
I would guess if the deal fails Isreal would probably attack again and this time I'm not sure it would be with the US and only digital (and probably more than targeted assassinates too).
In the 20th century, Europe tried every strategy to keep the peace.
First, we tried deterrence. Touch a hair on my brother's chin, and I'm going to give you a haircut you won't forget. That didn't work. Blew up in our faces, WW1.
Then we tried appeasement. That didn't work. Blew up in our faces, WW2.
Finally we tried economic cooperation. Make everyone rich and interdependent, and they won't want to go war. That worked spectacularly, and ever since we've been milking that successful strategy for everything it's worth.
People are very eager to talk about how that strategy failed with Putin, but what they forget is that this is the only winning strategy there is.
We are switching over to deterrence now, but we're doing it for lack of a better choice, not because it's a winning strategy. If we had switched over to deterrence (or appeasement) earlier, it would not have fixed anything, it would only have changed the manner in which things went wrong.
"But doux commerce—the notion that money talks, walks, and wants peace—is well and truly buried."
I'm hearing the words of an American who's still at step 1, deterrence.
It may be a long time, but eventually we will need to get back to the winning strategy.
> Finally we tried economic cooperation. Make everyone rich and interdependent, and they won't want to go war.
Economic cooperation only makes a country rich if it is not too corrupted internally. When a country is governed by thieves, all wealth ends up in their pockets, and the average citizen remains poor.
Interdependence does not mean dependence on everyone. A big country can keep doing business with other big countries, while it attacks its smaller neighbors who only provide a negligible fraction of the trade.
I wonder how this article will read if someone just decides to kill Putin. The article is very pessimistic. To be fair, this hasn’t worked in Iran or North Korea.
But those are small nations. The fate of Russia over the next few years could easily determine the next hundred of geopolitics.
A savvy western cohort would keep the pressure on until western friendly policies are enacted. Make a big fuss about democracy and ensuring this never happens again while giving china the evil eye.
Topple Russia backed authoritarian regimes while they’re at it.
Well, you guessed wrong. We are both English although we live outside the UK, one in Norway and the other in France.
I see you are from Tunisia. Did you mean that it is taboo in Tunisia, North Africa, the Mediterranean fringe, or somewhere bigger?
I agree that assassination as an instrument of war is certainly not to be considered. But perhaps a Brutus style assassination would have different consequences than one committed by an external actor.
makes sense as a psyop attack against putin to try and make him paranoid. But do you seriously think putins security is so lax during war time as to leave surface for someone to assassin him in russia? do you think for example a sufficient number of people in his close network are conspiring without him knowing ? to me it does not seem plausible
> I am just wondering why you are not condemning the crimes of the West with the same fermity?
And how do you know that GP isn't? Why do you think that when one wants to condemn something he has to condemn, in the same breath, everything similar that has happened through whole human history?
2018 Macedonian referendum is one example of the contrarian. It was invalid as the turnout was mere 36.89% (most were probably Albanians). And (I think) in non other country that is a NATO member now, there was a referendum.
For a broader perspective: NATO was created to “keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” (from the horse's mouth)
EDIT: For even broader perspective: Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland;
who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;
who rules the World-Island commands the world. — Mackinder, Democratic Ideals and Reality, p. 150
Unless there was foul play involved, if among 36.89% majority voted to join NATO and the rest didn't care enough to vote - isn't that an argument in favor of joining?
That's where more context is needed - was the low turn over a protest vote (or protest lack of vote)? Was it indifference? Was it sabotage by the government (making voting hard)? I think these questions will determine the answer.
There is no open door policy with NATO. Russia and the Soviet union have tried to join NATO at least a few times publicly and were rejected every time.
What's the point of NATO again?
The point of NATO is exactly why Russia fears it - consolidated strength that makes it impossible to pick off member states one by one by a stronger power (namely Russia). Russia and the USSR weren’t invited because they explicitly were the threat.
Wouldn't that explicitly prevent them from doing just that? Also, so far NATO has been used to bomb Yugoslavia and Libya. It appears it's NATO doing the picking off, doesn't it?
In order to join NATO, one of the current requirements is having a liberal democratic government with civilian control over the military. Russia (and the old Soviet Union) didn't meet that requirement.
Perhaps Russia should try transitioning to becoming a liberal democracy first?
This is true, but only in the same sense as shop owners willingly accepting mafia protection as soon as this is "offered". "It would be a shame if something were to happen to your shop".
Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because a country expresses interest to join NATO, the general sentiment must be "my my what a lovely club to join, I feel so safe here". You're literally signing a pact of war. Basically it's "choose which mafia family you prefer" and simply not choosing one is probably the worst choice.
Even western polls show around 54% population support for Ukraine to join NATO [1]. Not by a huge majority. And I suspect the Eastern parts the number is substantially lower. When Ukraine is discussed, a lot of western media assumes east and west in same terms which is really not the case.
I don't think Ukraine was even being seriously considered for NATO until Russia decided to surround the country with its military recently.
It's like punching someone, some guy passing by tells you to stop, then you justify your reason for punching that person because you were worried that the person who told you to stop was going to attack you.
Nobody was going to do anything to say anything to you if you hadn't gone out of your way to attack someone.
> I don't think Ukraine was even being seriously considered for NATO until Russia decided to surround the country with its military recently.
NATO, in a statement from the NATO Summit, explicitly indicated last June (so, before the late 2021 encirclement) the intention that Ukraine would join the alliance through the Membership Action Plan.
This reiterated a 2008 policy statement that had effectively been shelved by the Yanukovych governments anti-NATO position, but never formally restated after a more NATO-friendly government had emerged in Ukraine and sought to advance towards membership.
Do you think Russia's funding of terrorist groups in the eastern portions of Ukraine known for atrocities against civilians could've influenced that decision?
Or maybe going back farther Russia's sudden seizure of Crimea with a fraudulent vote with 97% in support could've been what made Ukraine nervous that they'd be invaded and seek support from other countries?
Or maybe going back a little farther to the USSR's atrocities against Ukraine, including Holodomor--the outright genocide of the Ukrainian people--might've been the thing that makes Ukraine want to ally with literally any country but Russia?
The idea that Ukraine should want to associate with Russia is the most bizarre political claim there ever was. Their history is nothing but being ravaged and literally raped by Russia, so them considering joining NATO is nothing but a big "no shit". Putin deserves to be surrounded for his actions. All he's done is shown that the Russia's intentions to destroy the Ukrainian people haven't changed in 100 years.
A big part of the general population of Ukraine never wanted to do anything with NATO, even at the peak of the crisis western backed poll found the support for NATO only around 54%. Your count of history of Ukraine being raped and ravaged by Russia is generally not supported by large part of Ukrainian population, as supported even the western polls.
> Do you think Russia's funding of terrorist groups in the eastern portions of Ukraine known for atrocities against civilians could've influenced that decision?
What? Eastern Ukraine including Donbass and Crimea has a large majority of Russian speakers with ties with Russia. Ukrainian parliament decided to deny minority languages meant to provoke Russia http://www.iconnectblog.com/2021/04/minority-rights-ukraines...
And opposition to NATO was only 28%. Twice as many people want to join NATO as those who oppose joining.
That's a huge majority and the way you are trying to undersell it means you are either being intentionally misleading or didn't understand how the poll worked.
America has a large portion of English speakers. It historically had a large portion of people with direct ties to the UK. Haiti had plenty of people with ties to France and still has French speakers. Taiwan has Chinese speakers and people with family in China.
There's a clear pattern here. But Russia pays people to pretend that Russian speakers means it's their land to stabilize. When in reality, it's a completely irrelevant statement.
Maybe you read some history? To learn how parts of Russia, Hungary, Romania, Slovacia and Poland were forcefully integrated into Ucrainei along with their respective populations by Soviet leaders?
> Do you think Russia's funding of terrorist groups in the eastern portions of Ukraine known for atrocities against civilians could've influenced that decision?
You are maybe confused with neo-Nazi Azov battalion and co. also funded and trained by the USA, which have committed documented war crimes against civilians.
The very first paragraph of Wikipedia even says Azov formed as a consequence of something.
That reason? To push Russian forces out of their country.
If Russia weren't terrorizing the region, Azov would not exist. Russia pays to astroturf the claim that Azov is some thing that appeared out of nowhere when it's a group that formed directly to keep Russia and its violent militias out.
The Azov Battalion was formed out of at least three groups, Patriot of Ukraine [1], the Social-National Assembley [2] , and Right Sector [3]. Right Sector, or Right Sektor, was the one most talked about in the West PRIOR to any invasion, mainly because they were neo-nazis. While I have spent a good amount of time in Ukraine prior to any of these events, if you want see something on it, watch the VICE Media video on Right Sektor. This issue was not politicized at the time.
Since all of their foundings predate the Russian re-entry into Ukraine, I think your history is a little bit wrong.
When the CIA supported coup happened in Kiev, and a Pro-Russian leader forcefully deposed, Pro-Russian forces in Ukraine were burned alive [4]. This is just one of many atrocities that happened . Given that like half the country is Russian, most of which is on the East, this gave Russia Casus Belli to seize territory that was historically Russian, and to protect the Ethnic Russians in Ukraine.
So, long before Ukraine became a client state of the US State Department, and Rich Oligarchs supported by the US formed nationalist groups into Ukrainian elite units, these neo-fascists existed. Media on the left, center and right confirm this, to deny it is merely convenient revisionism.
I can't help but notice that instead of condemning Azov crimes and recognizing that they too are a terrorizing force in the region, you conveniently blamed their existence on Russia. The hypocrisy here is blaring. We are now at the point of tolerating, hiding and in some extreme cases even justify the crimes committed by these people. All the while forgetting the fact that the US has provided them with military training, money and weapons.
In fact, if the US can interfere in a country that's thousands miles away by funding extremist military groups, I find it way more legitimate for Russia to fund Russian separatists in the Donbas region, which has historically had strong ties with Russia and whose population would rather stay there than join the "Western" side. It's also interesting how everybody always talks about self-determination, but only in the case where people want to "self-determine" themselves in the right direction. I would be interested in knowing why it doesn't apply in this case.
To conclude: the Ukrainian army along with this these neo-Nazi groups (that have been effectively integrated into the army) has destroyed several hospitals, schools and other civilian infrastructure and killed more than 3000 civilians since 2014 in the Donbas. Ignoring this situation and blaming everything on Russia is one of the reason that we are in this situation right now, and surely one very myopic way of assessing what's going on.
>In fact, if the US can interfere in a country that's thousands miles away by funding extremist military groups, I find it way more legitimate for Russia to fund Russian separatists in the Donbas region, which has historically had strong ties with Russia and whose population would rather stay there than join the "Western" side. It's also interesting how everybody always talks about self-determination, but only in the case where people want to "self-determine" themselves in the right direction. I would be interested in knowing why it doesn't apply in this case.
US bombed Yogoslavia into Oblivion for not agreeing to secession of a historical Serbian territory, Kosovo.
Sure, those bombs killed innocent civilians and even children but no one from the West decried those murders.
It's the same as acknowledging that the Taliban wouldn't exist without American and Russian interference in the region.
Azov and the Taliban are bad, yeah. But they appeared because of foreign threats. None of this would happen if Russia didn't repeatedly murder people in neighboring countries then backpedal and retroactively justify their invasion by saying radical defense forces are defending themselves from Russia.
Don't want your country to be attacked by extremists? Don't invade and push people to radical groups. Your paycheck signer deserves the blame for Azov 100%.
If you look at the actions of Russia it seems pretty clear that this conflict is nothing else than a protracted attempt to subjugate and destroy ukraine. All those legions of justifications are just noise to sow dissent so russia can do as it wants.
And yes, if a nation is under constant attack by a far more powerful neighbour that denies its right to exist ugly things and strange bedfellows are bound to happen. The ukraines didnt turn away the Nazis of the Azov and russia is using the Wagner Group Nazis and thugs like Igor Girkin whose people shoot down passenger flights.
Putin is practicing the kind of politics that was the norm for most of human history, there really is no reason to be flummoxed by it.
I think the US is on a long campaign for regime change in Russia.
Part of baking that cake includes ingredients like destabilizing former soviet republics, weakening their borders, utilizing hostile NGOs in Russia, and in former soviet republics, and the economic warfare. Fomenting a coup in Ukraine was part of that plan.
Unfortunately, we've driven Russia rather straight into the arms to China, and set up the conditions for de-dollarization. Russia + China + Pakistan + Venezuela + North Korea + many others have now the means and motive to counterbalance and resist.
Russia invading Ukraine is merely seizing territory before it becomes weaponized against them in the form of an invasion staging ground. Given Russian gaps in incoming missile awareness, and the respective short distance to Moscow, they have reasons to be concerned about a hostile enemy on their border. Given Russian experience and nearness, they are likely to be incredibly scrappy as this is an existential threat to them.
The same with missiles in Cuba for us, and look what we did as a response?
I dont think the west was especially interested in a regime change for the most part.
Why?
Nobody cared. Russia has to sell its ressources anyway and its cleptocracy is unable to transform the economy into a powerful contender. Its going to be fun to see russia as a chinese vassal and how china will put up with Putins paranoia and egomania.
Putin is just like a bigger version of Kim Jong Un who needs to be coddled and given a place on the world stage otherwise he will generate some stink one way or the other.
Those NGOs have been in russia since the fall of the SU and it was the russian state that changed and turned hostile to them. I dont think that this has been anticipated at that time.
Can you please describe a plausible scenario to me where an NATO invasion on moscow generating from ukraine does not end in a nuclear holocaust, same as from the baltics or any other place?
Yep, the US response during the cuba missile crisis was a pretty insane shitshow. Thankfully cooler and wiser heads in the SU were able to defuse the situation.
Putin already told G. W. Bush 2008 that ukraine was no real country and he spent the last 8 years trying to fix that historic mistake.
It seems to me that both sides, through negotiation, arrived at the "correct" answer to the problem, which was withdrawal of missiles from Cuba and Turkey. In what way was the US response considered a shitshow, and why are US negotiators not considered as cool and wise as the SU ones here, considering they had to ultimately arrive at the same place?
But the cuban missile crisis incurred the cost of risking nuclear war.
And what for?
Both parties had sufficient capabilities to achieve total destruction of the enemy, missiles in cuba and turkey or not.
Plus there already were 150+ nuclear weapons on cuba that the US didnt know about and that the SU was prepared to gift to Castro to placate him. But Castro seemed to unstable so the SU retrieved those in the end.
The US response nearly led to a nuclear war for no strategic gain and even then it nearly led to a nuclear armed Cuba on its doorstep.
polling is way higher on EU trade and EU membership though and strong support !== necessarily mean strong opposition.
Just a couple google sources before the invasion put it at 69%, 57%, 58% join EU versus 21% wanting the opposite of an economic union with ussr countries.
IDK xtabs or if there is a poll with strong/lean scale, but a strong plurality above 50% is pretty big regardless see another example last link below showing decent majority strong yes with relatively small no.
Main point is that NATO wasn't even on the table for Ukraine.
The first invasion happened after the Ukrainian people chose a new government because Yanukovych refused to sign the EU trade agreement.
I think a lot of countries in their position (like finland) the citizens were rightly worried about poking the nuclear bear by trying to join NATO.
There are more than a few articles and polls out now showing the sentiment has changed now with this recent war.
Finland for example is now above 53% join nato for while only 28% against.
Another example of lopsided enthusiasm painting a different picture of support.
One point I was trying to make was Russia's actions have galvanized support in the opposite direction Putin wanted.
I don't know why what I contributed is worth downvotes. I provided sources showing a difference in EU support compared to NATO support to parent comment and gave reasonable arguments that even a majority in mid 50s of support does not mean the opposition is -100*-1 it's usually way less.
>Those countries actively bid to join NATO because they feared Russia expanding into Eastern Europe. Turns out their fears were justified.
The same way Cuba bid for the Soviet Nukes to defend them?
What would you say if Mexic and Canada would bid for a military alliance with Russia and China and some tens of thousands of soldiers and tanks, rockets, planes, would sit near the US border?
PS. Before voting down, I am not trying to justify Russia's invasion but merely trying to explain the reasons behind it.
It was no more obviously a troll move than seeing if they could join the EU. If they had been given a “Yes”, even with many, many conditions they’d probably have jumped at it. The prospect of EU membership was a big enough carrot for the Turkish military to relinquish control of the state to the electorate. NATO and EU membership? That would have been massive. Even EFTA membership would have been enormous. There was a brief period when Russia and its leadership sure looked like they wanted to be a normal country. Could have been a con. If not it was an enormous squandered opportunity.
Both of those were troll moves. They don’t come close to meeting or being on track to meet the requirements for either. Their goal is to trick you, personally, into making comments like you just made.
Most of the countries are pretty high on Democracy index. Some higher than US.
Turkey comes to mind as the only standout. There is a general trend towards autocracy in the last years in places like that.
Which is sad and a threat to the world imho.
But even Turkey (which is probably the least democratic nato member?) isn't comparable to Russia. looking at a map the rest of NATO all fits in the green shade on the democracy index.
And also just the basic membership requirement: consensus vote by existing members.
So kind of pointless it's trolling from the start.
Plus respecting borders one of the founding principles lol.
Could look at civ control of military too. turkey is super complicated there. the autocrat definitely does not have control, the opposite. Unlike putin. But in turkey that's also scary and no so comforting for collaboration.
> bid to join NATO because they feared Russia expanding into Eastern Europe
the true root cause, imho, is that the leadership in russia imagines themselves to be the superpower and have the natural right to influence in the region (and the exclusion of other superpower's influence).
I think they must give up this notion. If russia turned into what germany is today after the fall of the USSR, they'd be prosperous. It would mean capitulation (to the "west"). Of course, this would mean that the oligarchs do not get their wealth, so there's no impetus for this course of action from anyone. The US is also not keep to have a "marshall plan" like they had with the post WW2 period to rebuild.
> the true root cause, imho, is that the leadership in russia imagines themselves to be the superpower and have the natural right to influence in the region (and the exclusion of other superpower's influence).
Moscow is actively demonstrating that they are that regional power, and Washington is not.
The real root cause is that the leadership of Washington thinks this exact same way, and this is a contradiction. Only Ukraine is in Moscow's front yard, not Washington's, and has a lot of ethnically Russian people. The case for Ukraine being in Moscow's sphere of influence is far stronger than it being in Washington's.
> Moscow is actively demonstrating that they are that regional power, and Washington is not.
The Russians are willing to go incredibly far to protect their borders from NATO. Because they lack our equivalent situational awareness around missiles, there is a definite logic to their actions.
> The real root cause is that the leadership of Washington thinks this exact same way, and this is a contradiction. Only Ukraine is in Moscow's front yard, not Washington's, and has a lot of ethnically Russian people. The case for Ukraine being in Moscow's sphere of influence is far stronger than it being in Washington's.
Excellent point. I've been amazed how completely Russian the East of Ukraine is.
Just like we protect Mexico & Canada, and we have the Monroe Doctrine around Old European Powers playing in the Western Hemisphere, so also, do other great powers have an obligation to protect their turf. It doesn't mean we have to agree with it. We were willing to blockade Cuba to get our Russian missiles. And yet, our Mainstream Media and Political Class is beating the War Drum to further escalate the situation.
> The Russians are willing to go incredibly far to protect their borders from NATO.
Then it seems like Russia has made all the wrong decisions here. Even after Yanukovych was kicked out of power, the successor government had no interest in NATO until Russia invaded eastern Ukraine in 2014.
Similarly, Finland and Sweden had almost zero interest in NATO until Russia did their full invasion of Ukraine this year.
Russia's actions simply make no sense under the theory that Russia is trying to protect their borders from NATO.
It does if you think like an abusive spouse. ‘Stop looking at the neighbor or I’ll beat you silly’ kinda looks like it works and all, until they sneak away anyway.
>Then it seems like Russia has made all the wrong decisions here. Even after Yanukovych was kicked out of power, the successor government had no interest in NATO until Russia invaded eastern Ukraine in 2014.
Careful, you will get downvoted and flagged if you bring up Realpolitik and international relations on HN. Many idealistic people here get real sensitive about subjects that do not conform to their narrow world view.
But Washington hasn't invaded Ukraine to force it to submit to its domination. In a free world, nations should be free to decide whether they want to be "influenced" by other nations, and to what extent.
No, but US invaded countless other countries. One of the points of the article is that a financial war can produce as much casualties as an old fashioned war. And US can both wage financial wars and threat with such a war. So, no, US does not always need to physically invade another country. It can produce some damage by other means.
But it kind of is. They are basically saying that if we don't deem you as "democratic" according to our standards, we won't allow you to conduct trade.
Even if you blame this on NATO, which I don’t, it seems to have all but crippled Russia. Russia had an economy smaller than Texas. Today it’s economy is potentially smaller than Florida’s or Mexico’s. This was a colossal fuck up by Putin and the western powers didn’t even need to fire a bullet.
It's not entirely painless for the West, given Russia's key position as supplier of wheat, fertilizer, and natural gas. Inflation will be kicking around for a while (even without trillion dollar stimulus programs) and creating economic distress for most.
I don't think we have even started to experience the truly massive food price shocks.
Was listening to a farmer talk the other day about nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. These prices are going through the roof, in some cases, 300% or higher increases.
The price shocks are going to hurt lots of people. Their people. Our people.
In the short term. By short term I mean historical short term. Anything less than 10 years is short and insignificant. Hopefully by then the entire world can be independent of Russia in perpetuity and it can wither away completely isolated from the West for eternity.
> Oil is 30% of Russia's exports but wheat is a wee 2%. What if it grows to 20%, with tenfold price increase?
Oil/Fuel is not the only exports, as many petroleum/gas based products are not fuel [1]
If fertilizer is one of the majority costs of growing food in the US, and we cut out 50% of the world's supply, then our costs will go through the roof. Uneffected suppliers such as our friends to the North in Canada will also raise their prices, as supply/demand curve will change.
While I know most of us technical folks are well compensated, there are lots of poor people working paycheck to paycheck. A big price shock could mean some people starve.
It will also hurt Europe when it comes to migration. Much more expensive food means potential famine in large swaths of Africa and in some places in the Middle East, means people willing to risk it all in order to escape famine, means migration to Europe at any costs.
Considering the US economic & cultural war on Russian citizens is still ramping up, we don't know yet how this will effect the USD status as reserve currency.
Whether Russia wins, or loses this war, in the long run it is clear: The US hegemony is in peril, and China will gain massive benefits from this.
Failing to enact a Marshall-Plan-style reinvigoration of post-Soviet countries was a big mistake.
Allowing Putin to cement the kleptocracy in Russia was a big mistake, consigning Russia to decades of economic stagnation.
Invading the Ukraine was a mistake, but it would also be a big mistake to think that Western alliances with enthusiastic, innovative and productive post-Soviet countries somehow forced Putin to do that.
How would a marshall plan for post-soviet states have been accomplished? The soviet union was not a defeated country that wanted and needed rebuilding. It was a failed state with nuclear weapons that up until 1991 prevented anyone from entering or leaving from/to the West.
I suspect that you are not really familiar with the historical background of the situation, a new "Marshall Plan” is not something AlexCoventry came up with right now in this discussion, but a widely discussed option, which many experts agree would have been helpful, but was mostly not implemented because of the costs involved. I recommend reading a historical book, which goes into more detail than a hacker news discussion could, if you really want to understand the situation at the time.
The following is from Paul D'Anieri, “Ukraine and Russia: From Civilized Divorce to Uncivil War”. The chapters before this are also quite important, but I omitted them, because this got long enough as it is:
The end of communism prompted talk of a new “Marshall Plan,” in
which massive western aid would support rapid and far-reaching economic reform in Russia. The investment bank Morgan Stanley estimated in January 1992 that reforming the post-Soviet economies collectively would require at least $76 billion per year for at least three years to transform sectors such as energy, infrastructure, agriculture, and food.
However, several factors conspired to undermine that hope. First was uncertainty over Yeltsin’s staying power in Russia. While he had defeated the coup, many in Russia strongly opposed the “shock therapy” being advocated. In August of 1992, when the IMF committed $1 billion to help stabilize the ruble, the reform plan of Yegor Gaidar was already faltering, and conservatives in the Congress of People’s Deputies were
already seeking this ouster. Second, there was a significant perception in the United States that with the end of the Cold War, the United States would be able to focus less of its attention overseas. American citizens and politicians hoped for a “peace dividend,” through which money freed up from defense spending could be redirected to domestic spending to combat recession. Third, 1992 was a presidential election year. With the economy struggling, and Bush under attack by a Clinton campaign whose mantra was “it’s the economy, stupid,” it was impossible to muster the support needed to take a really bold and expensive policy.
In March 1992, former president Richard Nixon, who had promoted détente with the Soviet Union, produced a “secret” memo to US leaders, the contents of which were soon leaked to journalists. He warned that the consequences of failure would be that “war could break out in the former Soviet Union as the new despots use force to restore the ‘historical borders’ of Russia.” Bush did not disagree. “Where we might have a
difference, is we’re living in a time of constrained resources. There isn’t a lot of money around. We are spending too much as it already is. So to do the things I would really like to do, I don’t have a blank check for
all that. In April, he proposed what became the Freedom Support Act, which largely repackaged existing commitments and presumed contributions by allies that had not yet been consulted. One important component of that proposal, a $6 billion stabilization fund, never materialized.
Moreover, the Freedom Support Act aid was divided among the fifteen successor states.
In late April, just after Bush announced the Freedom Support Act, Los Angeles exploded into riots, contributing powerfully to the belief that US leaders needed to focus aid efforts domestically, not at Russia. In the New York Times, Thomas Friedman wrote:
“The Russian aid bill’s limbo reflects the ambivalent moment in which American
foreign policy finds itself after the cold war. One day officials and lawmakers say
the United States is the world’s only superpower, and therefore it must lead on
issues, such as Russian aid or peacekeeping in Yugoslavia. The next day, though,
the same officials and lawmakers say that domestic problems should take
precedence, foreign initiatives are too expensive, and therefore Washington
cannot afford to lead. In the wake of the Los Angeles riots in particular, the
latter mood seems to be dominating“
Thank you for an extremely detailed write up, I wasn’t aware of this chapter in post-Soviet history.
It’s interesting to consider, the Soviet economy had endemic corruption which Russia still faces today. Would spending roughly 200 billion in 1991 to support reconstruction in Russia have resulted in any change to the Russian oligarchy? Or would the money have gone in and reappeared elsewhere? Or would the money have supported those who wanted a strong Russian Society and prevented the rise of the oligarchy?
What worries me with talk of "Monetary war" is the transition of money as means of peace into a weapon.
Mark this, much as I detest Russia today and believe brutal sanctions are the way, we will all reap tyranny if banks are militarised.
First the central digital currencies will be used to cut-off "terrorists", then companies who won't play games, and eventually individuals with inconvenient things to say. Without some form of "bitcoin" [1] that evades authoritarian control, or a diverse basket of payments backed by legislation to prevent "cashless hellholes", you'd better realise your wealth exists only at the whim of some unseen power.
[1] we _must_ evolve past PoW