Streetwise Professor

March 4, 2014

Is Putin a Psychopath, or Does He Just Play One on TV?

Filed under: History,Military,Politics,Russia — The Professor @ 6:51 pm

The consensus opinion after Putin’s press conference earlier today is that he has lost his mind.  It was rambling, angry, discursive, and at times just bizarre.

Of course all of the usual Putinisms were there.  Most notably, blaming the West for everything in a stream of whataboutism.  This was accented by claims that the Ukrainian opposition consists mainly of thugs and fascists; that Yanukovych was wrongly ousted and didn’t order any violence against protestors; and that the opposition was very well trained and professional, having passed through training camps in the Baltics and Poland.  (Take this as a very ominous warning, people.)

My dear colleague, look how well trained the people who operated in Kiev were. As we all know they were trained at special bases in neighbouring states: in Lithuania, Poland and in Ukraine itself too. They were trained by instructors for extended periods. They were divided into dozens and hundreds, their actions were coordinated, they had good communication systems. It was all like clockwork.  Did you see them in action? They looked very professional, like special forces. Why do you think those in Crimea should be any worse?

Yes. Those evil Poles and Lithuanians, training crack troops to throw rocks and fashion catapults.  Definitely far more lethal than camouflaged masked men toting AKs.

More broadly, Russia and Putin are always right: the West is always hypocritical and wrong.

Putin also denied the obvious, claiming that there are no Russian troops in Crimea, just local “self-defense forces” which he denies were trained by Russia.

In other words, there is no agreement on the basic facts of the situation, meaning that any attempt at negotiation with him, either by the Ukrainian government or the West, is doomed to failure.  He rejects the legitimacy of the protests,  views the outcome as a fascist coup arranged by the West, and denies that Russia is directly involved in the occupation of Crimea.

These were the substantive elements of insanity (paranoia, specifically) of the conference.  But Putin added various asides that illustrated a man that feels no need to self-censor, but is so convinced of his own brilliance that anything that crosses his mind should be shared with the world.  These “thoughts” were truly bizarre and mendacious, and even more suggestive of madness.

For instance, when discussing the alleged self-defense forces in Crimea, Putin claimed they were just kitted out in store-bought gear:

QUESTION: Mr President, a clarification if I may. The people who were blocking the Ukrainian Army units in Crimea were wearing uniforms that strongly resembled the Russian Army uniform. Were those Russian soldiers, Russian military?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Why don’t you take a look at the post-Soviet states. There are many uniforms there that are similar. You can go to a store and buy any kind of uniform.

They must have some awesome Army-Navy stores in the FSU: not only can you get up to date cammo, you can also pick up the latest AKs and military trucks.

Then he went on to criticize the massive corruption and social stratification in Ukraine, but denied there was anything comparable in Russia:

Corruption has reached dimensions that are unheard of here in Russia. Accumulation of wealth and social stratification – problems that are also acute in this country – are much worse in Ukraine, radically worse. Out there, they are beyond anything we can imagine imagination. Generally, people wanted change, but one should not support illegal change.

Words fail.

In the same breath, he gave a Ukrainian history lesson:

In my opinion, this revolutionary situation has been brewing for a long time, since the first days of Ukraine’s independence.  The ordinary Ukrainian citizen, the ordinary guy suffered during the rule of Nicholas II, during the reign of Kuchma, and Yushchenko, and Yanukovych.

Ordinary Ukrainians guys suffered under Nicholas II, Kuchma, Yushchenko, Yanukovich.  Anybody notice a name missing from that list?   Stalin, maybe?  (Lenin should get honorable mention too.)  The guy who killed one-third of the Ukrainian population via starvation and executions, a total of around 3-8 million people? Think there was a little suffering in 1932-1933? As bad as Yanukovych was, his total body count during the uprising is on the order of the body count every 6 minutes at the height of the Holodomor.

This omission is particularly disgusting given the immense psychological toll that the Holodomor took and continues to take on Ukrainians.  Don’t think that the omission will not resonate deeply in Ukraine.  It is a taunting reminder of how Russians deny, deny, deny the Holodomor, and get incensed-hysterical, actually-at any moral claim made against them by Ukrainians.

The impression of insanity is only reinforced by other actions during the past several days, including a live fire exercise in the Baltic (witnessed by Putin) and today’s launch of an ICBM test.  Put it altogether, and Putin gives the impression of approaching Kim Jung Un or Kim Jung Il levels of aggressive craziness.  (And for those who say these exercises and tests were planned in advance, they could have easily been canceled if Putin wanted to lower the tension level.  The fact he let them proceed tells you all you need to know about his intent and mindset.)

So what are the broader implications of his disturbing display of mental imbalance?  No doubt the Europeans are even more intimidated now, and will be all the more reluctant to challenge a leader with a nuclear arsenal that they view as mad.

And that raises another possibility: that Putin was playing the psycho for effect.  The Slavic version of Nixon’s Madman Theory, and which Machiavelli wrote about centuries earlier: he wrote that leaders can find it “a very wise thing to simulate madness.”

I will say, watching the video, that Putin did a very, very credible impression of a madman, but that’s necessary to make the gambit work, isn’t it?

I don’t know whether he’s truly mad, or merely feigning it, but the effect will likely be the same.  The disturbing display of mental imbalance will work to his favor, and lead the Europeans in particular to back away slowly, letting him keep his current conquests, and prepare for his next move.  He may back off now, but he will be back for more.  And quite possibly not just in Ukraine.  But in the Baltic states and Poland.

Print Friendly

March 3, 2014

A Reprise of a Low, Dishonest Decade

Filed under: History,Military,Politics,Russia,Snowden — The Professor @ 10:28 pm

The pusillanimity of the US in the face of Putin’s aggression is bad enough (spare me any more expressions of “deep concern”), but it pales in comparison with the utter cowardice of the Europeans, especially the Germans and shockingly, the British.

There is only one explanation: they have been cowed by their energy dependency on Russia, and corrupted by dirty Russian money-much of which is merely money Europeans spent on Russian energy, recycled/laundered through European financial institutions.

There are myriad reports that Britain will not support any trade or financial sanctions against Russia. The fig leaf is that such measures will damage the world economy:

However, a document photographed in Downing Street suggested that Britain is concerned about the economic impact of any sanctions against Russia. The paper states that the “UK should not support, for now, trade sanctions … or close London’s financial centre to Russians”.

Seriously?  This gives new meaning to the old phrase “perfidious Albion.”

But what should we expect, really? Britain showed its true colors in its abject refusal to investigate seriously the Litvinenko murder and release any evidence that would make plain the connection between the murderers and the Russian state.  Heaven forfend that real estate in Belgravia take a hit.

Then there’s Germany.  Despite the fact that Merkel herself has all but admitted that Putin is insaneGermany is adamant against taking any measures that will actually inflict pain on Russia.  Indeed, Foreign Minister Steinmeier met with Lavrov in Geneva, and bleated out a statement about the necessity of relying on diplomacy:

Ahead of an extraordinary meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels, Germany’s Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said international diplomacy must prevail to solve the crisis.

“Crisis diplomacy is not a weakness but it will be more important than ever to not fall into the abyss of military escalation,” Steinmeier told reporters.

Steinmeier also suggested a fact-finding mission by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Europe’s main human rights and democracy watchdog, as an initial response.

“We are considering whether it wouldn’t make good sense to create transparency about what is happening on the ground in eastern Ukraine and Crimea instead of being dependent on rumors,” he said.

Yes.  There is so much ambiguity about what is happening on the ground.  We are so starved of facts about what Russia is doing.  Fact finding! That’s what we need!

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Remember that Steinmeier is a SPD leader, and Schroeder’s political protege.  And further remember that Schroeder is Putin’s apologist and waterboy, and has been awarded for his lifetime of service with a sinecure as chairman of the board of Gazprom’s Nordstream pipeline.

If there was ever a more vivid illustration of why I’m damned glad NSA was giving extra special attention to German politicians, I’d be hard pressed to think of what it might be.

Indeed, this seems like a perfect time for a dump of some juicy kompromat on Herr Steinmeier and his ilk in the SPD.

In light of this, thinking of all the condescension and moral superiority directed at the US by German politicians and the German populace in the past 12-13 years is beyond nauseating.

Germany dresses up its cowardice in the garb of moral superiority.  In fact, its cravenness is driven by its dependence on Russian energy and the deep ties of German businesses to Russia.  Germany gets about 1/3 of its gas and about 28 percent of its coal from Russia (h/t @libertylynx).  The European oil market is also highly dependent on Russian supplies.

And of course, Germany has increased its dependency as a result of an insane energy policy, retiring its nuclear generators in a hysterical reaction to Fukushima (lest there be any tsunamis in Bavaria) and forcing a massive reliance on inefficient renewables.

Churchill said that the Germans are either at your throat or at your feet.  It’s quite obvious that the current generation of Germans has an intimate acquaintance with Putin’s taste in footwear.

The Balts and Poles are rightly freaking out.  Just today the Russians conducted live fire exercises in the Baltic.  Yes.  Totally pacific.  Just routine, surely.  But the Germans consider these long suffering victims of Russian (and truth be told-German) oppression as annoyances who are interfering with their desire for Ostpolitik and Ostwirtschaftlich.   Germany stymied the effort by Latvia and Lithuania to invoke Article 4 of the Nato Washington Treaty.  But Poland is having another go.

Ironic, isn’t it, that countries that border the Baltic are the true Atlanticists now?  The original Euro-Atlanticists, the UK and Germany, have been suborned by energy dependency and dirty Russian money. Germany accepted American protection when it faced an existential threat from Russia, but now repays the favor by running interference for Putin when it perceives that only Untermenschen  in eastern Europe are going to be ground under the Russian boot.

The poet Auden called the 1930s a “low, dishonest decade.”  The 2010s are proving to be one of history’s rhymes. The same fecklessness and cravenness in the face of aggression, and this cowardice is yet again dressed up in the language of high principle.

Appalling.

Print Friendly

It Gives Me No Joy, But Yes: I Will Say I Told You So. Seven Damn Years Ago.

Filed under: History,Military,Politics,Russia,Uncategorized — The Professor @ 4:45 pm

In 2007, in my 60th post on SWP, I wrote a post about Putin and the Euros, titled “A Man in a Hurry.”  If you look at Putin’s aggression in Ukraine, and the utterly pusillanimous European response to this aggression, that post from more than 7 years ago is quite clearly prophetic, to the last jot and tittle.

The closing paragraph:

I think that most Europeans, and those few Americans who seem to pay much attention to these issues, are nonplussed by Putin’s audacity in large part because they are projecting their attitudes onto him. They cannot envision why someone would engage in such seemingly short sighted actions. As a recent Newsweek story puts it, they wonder why Putin is risking severe “blowback.” However, their attitudes have evolved and developed in a completely different institutional, economic, and political environment than Russia’s. The Euro-American environment is much more conducive to taking the longer view that the unsettled (and unsettling) environment that characterizes Russia today. So, the Europeans–and Americans–should be ready for more “surprises” from Putin–which shouldn’t be surprises at all.

My main question is why a blogger, and amateur student of Russian politics, could figure this out, but the State Department, the intelligence agencies, the national security community, the vast bulk of think tanks, and the editorial pages of every major US paper couldn’t.  And why they haven’t been able to do so despite all that has happened since.  Georgia.  The castling move whereby Putin resumed the presidency.  The unrelenting crackdown on civil society.  It’s one thing to ignore reality when it’s lying around.  It’s another to ignore it when it is hitting you in the goddam face.

I’m not claiming genius.  Quite the contrary. This shouldn’t have been that hard.  I’m claiming common sense and a willingness to look objectively at reality.

But maybe that’s the problem.  All the king’s horses and all the king’s men were unable to do that for the reason I mentioned in that old post: a dominant mindset in which the bien pensants projected their own self-image onto Putin.  A failure of a navel gazing elite.  (We would be better served by a naval gazing elite, but since history ended that’s apparently so passé.)

This, frankly, is why we are where we are today.  Which is totally f*cked, by the way.

While I’m in this mood, I will also take credit for being among the first to advocate what is now becoming recognized as the only real way to hit Putin and the Russian elite where it hurts: an aggressive investigation of all the dirty money these bastards have squirreled away around the world.

Sadly, although this is widely recommended, the Germans and the British are going to fight this tooth and nail.  More on that later.

Postscript. Speaking of Putin as a Man in a Hurry, imagine my surprise to read Matthew Kaminski’s WSJ piece last night in which he said that Crimea was Putin’s appetizer, and characterized Putin as “a man in a hurry.”  Perhaps it is just coincidence, but more than 24 hours before I had written a post in which I had said that Crimea was Putin’s appetizer, and  that I had long said that Putin was a man in a hurry.  Surely a coincidence, except for the fact that the only references I can find to Putin being a man in a hurry are things I wrote.  Also probably a coincidence that 24 hours after I wrote a post saying that the EU had “midwifed” a deal with Yanukovych and that the ultimate outcome would probably be him ruling over a “rump state” in eastern Ukraine, Andrew Peek in the Fiscal Times uses the exact same words to express the exact same ideas.   It’s not like “midwifed” and “rump state” are everyday expressions.

Sorry.  Perhaps this is self-indulgent.  But this happens with some frequency.  Too often to be purely coincidence.  Citation/acknowledgement is the coin of the realm in academia, and as a result, using without attribution is tantamount to grand theft, which is why it gets under my skin.  But I guess journalism and academia are quite different.  In fact, I don’t guess: I know.  Journalists (and many bloggers) are the biggest lifters of the work of others that I know of.

 

Print Friendly

March 1, 2014

Putin Digs Into the Main Course, Served Up by the Ignominious Failure in the WH

Filed under: History,Military,Politics,Russia,Snowden — The Professor @ 1:24 pm

As I said yesterday, the appetite comes with the eating, and Putin would snap up the rest of Ukraine.  Having finished up the appetizer of Crimea, he is now digging into the main course.  Today the upper chamber of the Russian trained seal show, aka its parliament, approved Putin’s request for authorization to send Russian military forces into Ukraine.  Not Crimea. All of Ukraine.  It was sure a cliffhanger following the debate and vote on Twitter.  The issue was in doubt to the very last vote.

Sorry.  In times like these one needs to find humor where one can, and black humor and sarcasm are about all that work.

Putin’s “request” for authorization included all of the elements laid out by Medvedev and Lavrov and others in the Russian hierarchy in the immediate aftermath of Yanukovych’s fall.  Like I said, they were building the justification for intervention in Ukraine.  This was in the works from the very beginning of the crisis.

Why is Putin moving so quickly?  I think this is overdetermined.  A mixture of personal/subjective and objective/pragmatic considerations.

First, as I said from the very early days of this blog, Putin is a man in a hurry: it is part of his nature.  His impatience was no doubt increased by the burning desire to revenge what he views as a personal humiliation inflicted on him by the Ukrainian revolutionaries at the climax of his Olympic extravaganza.

Second, Ukraine is in a chaotic state, as is every government in the immediate aftermath of a revolution. The military is no doubt reeling and riven by dissent and rivalry.  The government has little idea of which units and commanders it can rely on.  There is no experienced competent authority in place, especially in the defense and interior ministries.  There cannot be a unity of command in such circumstances.  Moreover, parts of the country are ripe for putsches by fifth columns supported and guided by Moscow.  (During the Cold War, Soviet operational plans for an invasion of Europe included extensive provisions for sowing chaos in rear areas, including by fomenting civil unrest.)  A disorganized, chaotic polity is much easier picking than would be the case in a few months, or even a few weeks, when it has had time to get its feet under it.

Third, Putin has taken the measure of his opponents in the West, and found them lacking.  Note the timing.  Within mere hours of Obama’s craven and empty warning, Putin moves to war.  He knows he has nothing to fear from Obama.  Obama’s warning turned out to be less of a deterrent, and more of an invitation.  Obama’s pre-gala dinner act had pretty much the same effect on Putin as Dean Acheson’s neglect to mention that South Korea was in the US security perimeter had on Stalin. And you know that Putin has nothing but scorn for the Euros.

Fourth, knowing the dithering nature of the Western leadership, he wants to get inside their slow decision loop (I don’t call it an OODA loop because there is considerable doubt whether any “Act” would be involved).  By moving fast, he can present them with facts on the ground that will be virtually impossible to reverse.  Possession is nine-tenths of the law.

So here we are.

A couple of other points must be made.

First, this has to be the most complete public humiliation inflicted on any American president ever.  Obama gave what he thought was a stern warning, and within hours Putin defied it with relish.  Such defiance is a sign of complete disrespect.

Second, this represents another utter and abject failure of US intelligence, which evidently had concluded that Putin would not invade.  In this, they were at one with the bien pensant set, epitomized by Dmitri Trenin, but which sadly in this instance included Mark Galeotti, who is usually more wise to Putin’s thuggery.

If I had to guess at a diagnosis, I would say that this is a case of projection and mirror imaging.  Rather than seeing Putin as he is, the intelligence community assumed that Putin is a rational actor not really different from any Western leader.  Putin is a rational actor, perhaps, but his premises, goals, and interests are far different.  By failing to understand him, the IC completely miscalculated and misunderstood.

Then there is one other aspect to this.  Was it an analytical failure only?  Or was there an information failure?  Indulging in some speculation, I wonder if it is possible that information obtained from Snowden allowed the Russians to identify and plug some vulnerabilities in their communications that deprived us of vital information precisely when it was needed.

Regardless.  This whole episode is an utterly ignominious failure by the US and European “leadership.”

Somewhere Chamberlain is smiling.  He has company.

Print Friendly

February 28, 2014

Not to Go All Lenin on You, But: What Is To Be Done? Follow the Money!, That’s What.

Filed under: Economics,Energy,History,Military,Politics,Russia — The Professor @ 8:59 pm

Russia has invaded Crimea-and hence has invaded Ukraine.  No Obamaesque circumlocutions about “uncontested arrivals” can gainsay that very basic fact.  The Russians have occupied a major Ukrainian air base in the peninsula, and have given an ultimatum to all Ukrainian military units to surrender their posts.

Yes.  All unopposed. So I guess that makes it OK.

But what to do about it?

First: a no brainer.  Eject Russia from the G8, and reschedule a meeting of the G7 somewhere far away from Sochi (as is scheduled for June).  But seeing as that it is the Obama administration and various EU factotums that will make the decision, no brainer is probably asking a wee bit too much.

Second: pressure FIFA to strip Russia of the 2018 World Cup.  Even though the thought of Putin blowing another $50 billion on a vanity project has some appeal.

@libertylynx suggests persuading the Saudis to turn on the taps to reduce oil prices, and hit Putin where it hurts.  (Though since Obama has seriously alienated the Saudis with his Syria policy and his dalliance with Iran, there is serious room to doubt whether the Saudis would be at all accommodating.)  Indeed, in 1986, the dramatic increase in oil production by the Saudis struck the USSR a mortal blow, and Putin’s Russia is almost as dependent on oil revenues as the Soviets.  (See Gaidar’s memoirs for a blow-by-blow account of how the collapse in oil prices gutted the USSR.  I’ve often wondered whether the Saudi action was directed against the USSR, rather than OPEC cheaters as was stated publicly, and done at the behest of the Reagan administration.)

There are some differences, though.  In ’86 KSA had about 7 million barrels of spare capacity, at a time when world consumption was on the order of 60 million barrels.  By producing to the max, the Saudis drove the price from around $23/bbl in December, 1985 to under $10/bbl in mid-1986, about a 60 percent drop.  Now Saudi spare capacity is  around 2 million bpd, when world output is around 90 million bpd.  A 2+ percent increase in Saudi output would result in at most a 20 percent price decline.  (Note that other producers would cut back, so that world output would go up by less than 2 percent even if the Saudis produced to their capacity.) Certainly enough to hit Putin hard, but not enough to create the existential crisis that the Soviets faced in the 80s.  But every little bit helps.

Insofar as gas is concerned, the Europeans could cushion the blow of sharply reducing consumption of Russian gas by increasing use of coal, which is in abundant supply in the US because the shale gas boom has displaced large quantities of coal in electricity generation.  But I doubt Europe has the stomach for that, and it could not get along without Russian gas altogether.

This leaves one last thing: crying havoc, and letting loose the accountants of war, a policy I advocated in August, 2008.  There is nothing that would make Putin and his coterie of thieves and thugs freak out more than putting their billions in loot stashed in the West at risk.

The fall of the Yanukovych regime provides a perfect cover for such an operation.  An aggressive search for the boodle of Yanukovych and his spawn would no doubt serendipitously uncover other illicit loot from the FSU: after all, a Hermitage Capital investigation traced connections between Yanukovych-linked companies and the fraud that the martyred Sergei Magnitsky uncovered.

This suggests a potentially fruitful asymmetric attack on Putin.  Loudly and publicly announce a thorough investigation of Yanukovych monies in the West.  Through back channels, tell Putin that unless he backs off-way off, like back to Rostov-on-Don off-that any dirty Russian money (and is there any other kind in Western banks-hell, even Putin pretty much agrees with this) that just so happens to be discovered during the investigation of Yanukovych will go to covering the US national debt.  Then go ahead and investigate anyways, and keep track of the moneys uncovered, for potential use at a later date.

Alas, even though this is a bloodless alternative (though it would drain the blood from Putin’s already pale, Botox-injected face), I seriously doubt Obama has the stomach for it.  In part because he knows Putin would lose his sh*t, and he doesn’t want to deal with that.

But here’s the thing.  There’s really not much reason to be intimated by Putin’s bluster–outside the FSU, anyways.  Russia has economic feet of clay.  Militarily it is a pretend power, fit to intimidate other decrepit post-Soviet militaries in smaller states on its borders, but sadly outmatched against a real power.  So call his bluff. Guarantee full employment for forensic accountants.

Then buy ear protection to guard against the shrieks emanating from points east and north, grab some popcorn, and sit back and enjoy the show.

Print Friendly

I’m Sorry, But “Feckless” Just Isn’t Insulting Enough

Filed under: History,Military,Politics,Russia — The Professor @ 7:19 pm

 

I have repeatedly called the administration’s policies in Syria and vis a vis Russia “feckless.”  This was intended to be a damning insult.  But it just isn’t insulting enough.

Why do I say that?  The White House told CNN that the Russian takeover of Ukraine isn’t an invasion.  Get this: It’s an “uncontested arrival.”

You know, just like the Rhineland, the Anschluss,  the Sudetenland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, etc.

Only Orwell can do justice to such a monstrous formulation:

“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. ”

This administration will stop at nothing to avoid confronting Putin in any way, shape, or form.

Reading such Orwellian formulations as “uncontested arrival,” Putin will conclude that the US will not even put a speed bump in his path, which will only encourage him.  In Ukraine, definitely.  But maybe not just there.  He also itches to settle the Baltics’ hash.

This is very dangerous.  Eventually political pressure or a Jimmy Carter circa December, 1979-like realization will compel Obama to do something, as much as he rebels against the very idea.  This is exactly the way things can spin out of control.  Far better to be stalwart upfront, then reactive later on.

But hey.  Who am I to harsh The One’s happy hour?

Print Friendly

Again With the Lines: Putin’s Appetite Comes With the Eating

Filed under: History,Military,Politics,Russia — The Professor @ 4:41 pm

Putin dramatically escalated the situation in Crimea over the last 24 hours, sending in troops to occupy airports, blockading roads, surrounding Ukrainian border posts, and cutting off phone and internet communications.

Russia denies its troops are involved.  What, is this the Immaculate Occupation?  Or are these aliens that descended on Crimea?  (One story is that these are actually Russian private contractors, rather than military troops.  But they are still taking the Tsar’s ruble.  That’s all that matters.)

And I am sure you will be shocked, but the US response is feckless.

The White House drew another line.  I kid you not:

“We are watching to see … whether or not Russia is doing anything that might be crossing the line in any way,” White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters Friday. “We made clear that the U.S. supports the territorial integrity of Ukraine and the sovereignty of Ukraine. We have made clear to Russia that we believe it would be a grave mistake to intervene in any way. We obviously have and will continue to have direct communication with Russian government officials.”

Again with the lines.  Now Putin knows we’ll do nothing.

Later, Carney even refused to name Russia: he said an “outside country” had occupied parts of Crimea.  Maybe it was Albania. Or Andorra.

Kerry had his 1000th conversation with Lavrov: the first 999 were so productive! Just ask the Syrians.

He tweeted afterwards that he told Lavrov that “territorial integrity and economic stability are in everyone’s interest.” Lavrov-and Putin-quite obviously disagree, if they are the ones violating territorial integrity, and have the track record to prove it.

Later Samantha Power said that the US was gravely concerned.  Gravely is about right, because our credibility is being buried day after day.  Obama then appeared, and read a brief statement.  He didn’t even make it to “gravely”: he is just “deeply” concerned.  He said that Russia faced unspecified costs, and like Kerry, presumed to lecture Putin on what was in Russia’s interests, even though Russia’s actions clearly indicate it takes a very different view of those interests.

In my opinion, Putin is pushing to see how far he can go.  He is getting no pushback, so he will continue to push more.  Obama certainly shows no appetite to push back.

And speaking of appetite, there’s a Russian proverb that the appetite comes with the eating.  He has taken a big bite out of the Crimea, and as of yet, there is nothing to stop him for coming back for seconds and thirds.  Certainly not the US, and certainly not Europe (especially Germany).

As I said throughout.  Ukrainians are on their own.  The feckless West will do nothing of substance to drag Putin away from the table, and he will feast on Ukraine piece by piece in the coming weeks and months.

Update: Obama does have his priorities.  He rushed off after his perfunctory statement (taking no questions), so he could give a speech at the DNC.  Obama: leading his party from the front; leading the world from behind.  Way behind.

 

Print Friendly

February 27, 2014

Do As They Say, Not As They Do

Filed under: Military,Politics,Russia — The Professor @ 11:32 am

The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Twitter timeline has to be read to be believed.  Some words that come to mind: chutzpah, irony, projection.   Some samples: “Russia advises everyone to give up provocative statements on Ukraine.”  ”Russia calls on Ukraine to avoid religion based conflicts.” (Recall the earlier MFA statement about violations of Orthodoxy-meaning that the MFA was injecting religion.) “Lavrov urged OSCE to condemn growing nationalist sentiment in Ukraine.”  ”Russia urges West to realize responsibility for #Ukraine’s failed peace deal.”  (The latter tweet is directed to the German, French, and Polish foreign ministries.)

Print Friendly

February 26, 2014

Autocracy, Orthodoxy, and Nationality: Putin Channels Nicholas I

Filed under: Military,Politics,Russia — The Professor @ 10:39 am

The situation in Ukraine continues to be fraught.  The Rada is quite predictably having difficulties forming a government, even though every moment without one delays the country’s ability to deal with a looming economic crisis.  Many in the Euromaidan movement are deeply suspicious that what will emerge from the legislative haggling will be a case of Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss.  Pro-Ukrainian Tatars scuffled and then routed a group of pro-Russian demonstrators in front of the Crimean parliament.

In other words, the typical chaos of a revolution.

Though Putin remains silent, other Russian rhetoric is vituperative and hysterical.  Most notably, the Foreign Ministry-you know, the entity that is supposed to be where suave diplomats craft high sounding language-more resembles  an agitprop outlet.  You really have to read the whole thing to get the full effect.

One thing jumped out at me:

We are deeply concerned about the actions in the Ukrainian Verkhovna Rada in terms of their legitimacy. Actually referring to the “revolutionary appropriateness” only, they are stamping “decisions” and “laws”, including those aimed at deprivation of humanitarian rights of Russians and other national minorities living in Ukraine.

There are calls to prohibition the Russian language almost fully, lustration, liquidation of parties and organisations, closing of undesirable mass media, removal of restrictions for propaganda of Nao-Nazi ideology.

The course is to suppress those, who do not agree to this, in different Ukrainian regions by dictatorship and even terrorist methods.

There are threats to Orthodox sanctities.

Note the assertion that Russians are a national minority group in Ukraine.  This lays the predicate for future Russian government intervention in the country, in a  sort of Sudetenland strategy.  Also note the invocation of “Orthodox sanctities.”

This is right out of the 1830s, the age of Nicholas I, who stood for Autocracy, Orthodoxy, and Nationality.  There it is, all in one MFA statement.

Nicholas I backed his words with bayonets and sabers, notably in Poland and Bessarabia.  Today Russia rattled sabers, putting troops amounting to about one-third of the Russian Army on alert in the western part of the country.  Notably, the troops included “airborne troops and long-range military transport aircraft,” the very units that would be used to intervene in Ukraine.

I don’t believe anything is imminent.  But nor do I believe Defense Minister Shoigu’s risible statement that the alert has nothing to do with Ukraine.  Using alerts and maneuvers is a time-tested way of sending signals about capabilities and intent.  That’s what is happening here.  It is a way of showing that there are forces to back up the Foreign Ministry’s words.

Given the chaos in Ukraine, Putin has many measures short of war that he can use to influence the situation.  Economic pressure: yesterday Russia invoked health fears relating to African swine flu to threaten an embargo on Ukrainian agricultural imports.  The Russians cast doubt on the ability of the Ukrainian government to maintain safety standards in light of the ongoing chaos.  Gas.  Bribery.  Fomenting civil strife in Crimea and other areas with large populations of Russian speakers.  Fomenting conflict within the Rada (never a difficult task: given the prevalence of fisticuffs there Klitschko should feel right at home).

I anticipate that Russia will engage in a full-spectrum campaign using all of these measures to achieve the long term project of bringing Ukraine to heel.  Military action is not imminent, but the creation of the predicate for intervention and the demonstration of the ability to undertake it is clearly intended to intimidate Ukraine, and to keep it from getting too close to the west and to deter it from acting too aggressively in response to other Russian provocations.

Remember that Russia did not roll into South Ossetia or Abkhazi precipitously.  That only followed a long campaign of active measures within these regions, blood curdling rhetoric directed at the Georgian government, political operations within Georgia, and a steady campaign of military measures short of war (e.g., shooting down Georgian drones, building military roads and railroads to the border of the disputed territories).

Anticipate similar pressures here.  Ukraine is in for a long battle against an implacable foe, one who is no doubt all the more determined to avenge the humiliation suffered at the very time he expected to bask in the glory of a successful Olympics.

Print Friendly

February 24, 2014

Not to be Crude About It: From Bakken to Tarakan

Filed under: Economics,Energy,History,Military — The Professor @ 9:19 pm

Russell Gold has an  interesting piece about Bakken crude, specifically, its highly volatile nature.  This volatility makes it particularly dangerous to transport, especially by rail: due to its volatility, it is prone to explode in the event of a derailment or collision.

Further illustration, as if any were needed, that oil is not all alike.  Crude is a mixture of various hydrocarbons (and impurities), and different crudes are different mixtures.  Some are very light-almost like gasoline.  Some are very heavy-almost like asphalt. Different crudes present different challenges to refine-and different dangers to produce, transport, store, and refine.

My prediction is that this will result in some technical innovation that will make crude more amenable to transportation.  Maybe some sort of processing at the rail terminals.

This also brings to mind (mine, anyways) a historical episode.  In mid-1944, the Imperial Japanese Navy was tethered to bases in Indonesia, due to the ravaging of its tanker fleet by American submarines: fuel was available in Indonesia.

And a very special kind of fuel.  Crude produced on Tarakan Island was sufficiently light that it could be burned in ship boilers without refining.  One problem was that the crude was also sour (i.e., had a high sulphur content) and this corroded boiler tubes.

But the bigger problem was that it was very volatile, due to the large quantity of naphtha in the Tarakan crude.  This proved to be deadly to the IJN carriers Taiho and Shokaku (a veteran of Pearl Harbor) during the decisive Battle of the Philippine Sea (waged during the US invasion of Saipan).  When these ships were torpedoed by American submarines, the highly volatile fuel (and the vapors from aviation fuel leaking from ruptured tanks) eventually ignited, turning the ships into huge infernos.  The fuel eventually exploded, obliterating the huge carriers with massive losses of life. (Poor damage control on Taiho contributed to its destruction.)

Oil is not to be trifled with.  Which makes it all the more amazing how much is transported, stored, and consumed without incident.  Yes, Bakken presents challenges, but I am sure that economic imperatives (liability, the desire to avoid seeing valuable oil go up in flames, and yes, regulation) will result in adequate precautions and technical innovations that will substantially reduce the risks.  Desperation made the Japanese carriers fatal run risks with the oil they burned: we are not so desperate.

Print Friendly

« Previous PageNext Page »

Powered by WordPress