Great work, again - thanks Tomas. A lot of the logic of nations and strength seems to revolve around owning land - either for agriculture (in previous articles) or as a buffer in case of Russia. Empires needed land to produce food which was the primary source of energy. However in today's industrial & information technology world is this view still right? Why would a country want to "conquer" another territory with infantry taking over land? Is there a new logic for warfare?
One of my goals with these geohistory articles is to highlight exactly that: the clash we’re living right now between a past anchored in geography and our future untethered by it. As a result, most of our mindsets are stupidly rooted in the past for no good reason… although who owns the gun is still the one that prevails in the end.
Who owns the gun in a technology world though?
Of all the drafts I’m working on, the one about the future of violence is the hardest. I’ve tackled it a couple of times already but it’s too complex for now. Hopefully soon.
The question could be "who controls the violence?", but perhaps "what happens when the violence becomes uncontrolled?" is worth considering too. It is a factor in considering the pros and cons of nuclear power as well: it can be vulnerable to twin towers style attacks.
My apologies but your comments don’t really make any sense. They seem to ramble without any actual evidence or conclusion. More like an emotional response.
Hi BDaddy, thanks for commenting: Candid and constructive feedback is appreciated in this community.
Yours is candid but not constructive though, because it's generic, which makes it into an opinion. A better way to achieve this would be with a comment like: "I can't make sense of XXX you say because you don't substantiate it"
You're also making an assumption on Mark's motives (emotional response), which is unfair (maybe he was tired? Maybe he didn't express clearly his rational thoughts?).
Apology accepted. As Tomas says, it is difficult to respond or explain if I'm not sure whether you are referring to this comment or my comments in general
The future of violence and control or lack thereof IS the most interesting topic.
Control of discourse.
Visual + written communication media give semblance of control to the reader, nowadays. Polarization can only be defeated with more intelligent synthesis than "majority likes" and/or frankly stupid "recommendation systems" based on nothing more than "majority likes" densities.
Another angle to approach it form is where the biggest GAP is between "price is what you pay and value is what you get"... and how that gap resolves in the next 1-10 years. Technology SHAPES ideologies and power... and unfortunately I do think that smarter guns make the users less of a "sharp shooter".
Perhaps another angle is that PRODUCTION POWER is in the hands of Ranking Algos and where they will "techno-naturally" flow is toward DECENTRALIZATION. The greatest revolution of today will be when all "domains" lose that power over their data almost overnight... except it's not really THEIR data in the first place.
It seems that the reasons are quite clear (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Purchase). Russia knew that it could not hope to defend Alaska against the US nor against Britain, either one would grab it eventualy. Britain was more of a rival at the time (cf the Great Game etc), the US were seen as a lesser evil and were willing to pay for it ...
I understand it is not clear. But can you really extrapolate what a nation wants based on its strategy hundreds of years ago ? France thought at some point that it was good to build a physical defense line against Germany (the Maginot line), then when it failed in WW2, pivoted the model to build a cooperation so strong with Germany that it renders war virtually impossible (the EU).
Even further back in time, France thought at some point it was good to military unify all Europe (Napoleon). Does it still want that because it wanted it at some point of its history ?
I'm sure there are many other examples like this of old strategies being abandoned or pivoted by nations.
The question is : do the people in the Russian government really think they need so much land as a buffer ? Or do they just dislike having the military forces of a competitor close to their borders... like everyone else ? (see China when it intervened in the Korean war, the Cuba missiles crisis, etc.)
Every neighbor was against him and wanted to eliminate him because they were all monarchies. So he had to attack them first.
Strategies get abandoned, but the pbm is that this one is still not outdated, as very clearly proven by Russia with Crimea, Georgia, and Ukraine. If they can do it, others can too.
In any case, more factors in the premium article this week (eg demographic)
Nuclear weapons is the "last resort", you won't fire missiles in case of a local conflict, so the thinking is to have the whole spectrum of "answers" for threats of different degrees. Furthermore, the Ru government doesn't see itself as "aggressively expanding", it argues that it merely replies to convention weapons getting closer to Russia's border. After all, the former Eastern Bloc isn't really a demilitarized zone: apparently, the Western countries also believe it's good to keep some forces there.
Really excellent summary of an impossibibly broad subject. Kudos.
Now then, does Russia have a legitimate right to live with threat from its closest neighbours? Although NATO was initiated as a defense treaty, has it not become a provocative, offensive agreement when missiles are stationed at boundaries of Russia? Is the situation fundamentally different than missiles in Cuba? or Canada? Your geographic-climatic-historical summary is a foundation for an answer to those questions.
Indeed. I get into that in the next article. It does become provocation from the Russian perspective. From another side, I can understand it given Russia’s aggressive stance towards its neighbors (which again, is fueled by its geography).
We get into an impossible vicious cycle.
It took france and Germany a WW2 to get away from that cycle. Can the US and Russia become Allie’s without one?
In late 90s-2000s there was a strong movement in Russia towards lifting visa restrictions with EU. Unfortunately, then-EU leadership turned out to be somewhat hostile. It was also considered somewhat slandering that several former Eastern Bloc countries got such a deal, but not Russia (I am talking about, e.g., Romania -- they weren't a part of EU back then).
I wish that were easy. Europe is defended by the US—and the US also takes advantage of that. Would Russia want to fall under the US’ hegemony? Would the US not want some sort of advantage from it, at least boasting? Would the EU accept 150M more ppl? A border with China?
The core of the theory is that Russians are afraid Moscow will be invaded. However, since and after the fall of the Berlin Wall, there has never been a threat to Moscow, from any country. No one wants to invade Moscow. Plus, Russian now have nuclear weapons. I do not believe that Putin is afraid of Moscow being invaded or of an aggression from NATO. Putin thinks he is powerful and intelligent, and is playing games with what he believes to be his property. He really needs to go or things will just get worse.
I agree. Russia is poor so why would anyone want to invade it? Russia wants to expand in order to avail itself of raw materials.....not to protect itself as Pueyo claims.
China may want to invade Russia from the East. In the 1970s, the Soviet government started building the Baikal–Amur Mainline (BAM) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baikal%E2%80%93Amur_Mainline to facilitate deliveries in case of a war with China.
Can’t help but wonder if the US response is partially driven by AIPAC, as there’s talk of Israel supplying Europe with gas by way of Turkey. I mean it’s nice to have that leverage, but climate change…
Nobody wants anything that Russia has that Russia isn't happy to sell. Get over it, Putin, Russia is boring to the world unless it picks on its little neighbors. Stop acting like a juvenile delinquent.
I never understood why the EU did not take advantage of the 90s situation to negotiate the end of military dependence on the USA and seek a rapprochement with Russia (which is more European than the USA) and whose natural resources are more necessary than foreign military bases on its territory. ¿Do you think it was possible?
Maybe. I think Europe has been comfortable ceding its defense to the US though. That would have required a rearming just during the "end of history"... Unlikely. It would have taken a level of statesmen that these democracies haven't had in a long time. And also stopping to push for other priorities like education, healthcare, economic growth...
How do you not mention LNG? US is interested in selling it to Europe, too. Using dirty shipping instead of letting Russia supply it via pipelines as directly as the can.
Mention Burisma.
In any case, US doesn't want to get into Ukraine and THEN have limited options for Taiwan. So they re-raise Russia with Kazakhstan...but Kazakhstan is even less dense... And a whole 51% Russian speaking, so that speaks volumes.
Now US foreign policy is suffering for Hillary's old school NFL thinking.
Looking forward to it. Don't worry, I subscribe. I'm a little surprised how blatantly anti-Russia this blog is however, and that's coming from a Ukrainian. Kiev used to be the capital of Rus...
Tone that bias down a lot, if you want to differentiate from mainstream "news" wrt uncharted... Ukrainian corruption, any soviet republic, Libya dictatorship... USSA needs to be really careful for USSA is a child of the world.
I assure you, for any non-American reader, starting with the title and then at least 50% of the time Russia is referenced - it reeks of an anti-Russian "narrative", let alone "bias". Of course, that's not exactly an unpopular point of propaganda to send around nowadays is it.
It's "telling" when you zoom back and forth between 1300 and now and drop something like "Russia needs to be authoritarian to control all these ethnicities" blatancy. That's an absurd statement whether you look at (1) multicultural pods of democracy OR
(2) dictatorships around the world that have 1-3 major ethnicities.
Russia is not "oppressing" other ethnicities in Russia. They couldn't care less. Russian has been the official language of most regions for 100+ years. Remember you blog about English in non-English countries. Same concept, different language. That's on language alone. It's not "authoritarian", it's simply the history of "indoctrination" and well natural "SPHERE OF INFLUENCE". There, I said it - NATURAL.
Organized crime in Russia, Ukraine, US, Germany, Denmark, China, and the UK is all about the same thing. Money and power. THAT is what makes the 0.1% make deals with 0.1% BETWEEN countries' "elites"... who divide an conquer us based on a meaningless flag and simplistic ritualistic/archetypical stories.
Take it easy on the mountain and ocean protections/shapes. You of all people know "the Medium is the message" in modern warfare. ;) Now don't be a hammer and dance the truth or you will be swept into the mainstream irrelevancy.
To keep it balanced, why don't you touch on etymology of the word SLAVE (from SLAV).
It might resonate with American issues that are artificially made black'n'white every election cycle, cause of course Americans aren't really taught - they WERE indoctrinated into "labor" and "consumerism":
Poverty and serfdom is the reason "failed" states are "held together" by dictators (approved by higher powers that be). Funny enough, Czar released the serfs before American's released their salves in 1860's. And funny enough, American "intelligence" has been screwing up installed dictatorships and failed states for a few decades now. Yes, USSR was going to fail and failed, but no, that means very little about what USA ought to do or HAVE done when they had the "unipolar" "free markety" moment 1991-2000... pre-subprime housing prop job.
____
Ukrainians and Russians are SLAVS and always will be. They can be in a dictatorship together or in guerilla warfare or in just plain old siphoning corruption/embezzlement. Whose oil is it? Russia's. Game, set, and match. Nordstream 2 is a private project. There can be no reasonably justification for FORCING Russia to send their gas through Ukraine. It's as absurd as absurd gets. Again, coming from a 1979 Kiev-born russian-speaking "Ukrainian".
Now how the Bidens and Burisma found their way THERE is a whole other interesting story and that IS the story, in fact. American leaders are supposed to be clean as a whistle and instead we have Hunter the next gen idiot... and decades of insider trading by the "lifetime" senators, god bless their commitment to the cause.
The only thing that matters for US wrt Russia is the petrodollar evolution in a world where US is all of a sudden wants to turn into an oil exporter. Meanwhile China is releasing M0 "internal" e-CNY with a 0% interest rate. China is clearly leapfrogging US due to LACK of status quo powers/"infrastructure". They're the new capitalist cabal in fact... And US is THE country mired in obsolete rulers, like Hillary, who have been there SINCE BEFORE Putin was part of ruling Russia...
You will not find real "truth" in geopolitics unless you get deep into propaganda, psychoanalysis/PR, and communication mediums.
The truth is in communication media algos - simple enough. That's the mountain ranges, oceans, and atmospheric rivers flooding the global village. And again, don't go blaming Russian/Chinese hackers, as if US isn't all up in that. 0.1% that is all. (1) Upward mobility to middle income and (2) upward mobility from MIDDLE to ELITE... the elite doesn't really get the rinse cycle, now does it? AT BEST, one could argue that every 4-8 years good cop is bad cop.
Now US has abandoned mass education if it ever had it and now the pool of labor and consumers aren't exactly "firing on all cylinders".
Now here's the punchline to consider - it's the USSA that "needs" to be authoritarian. (1) that suits Russia and China in the long-enough run anyways - deals easier to make. (2) And it suits the US elites - they get to stay in power and make deals. As long as "Hunters" types can keep it together and not be such an obvious sham. Not exactly clickbait, but it's closer to the truth on many fronts than "Will Russkies invade us" McCarthyisms!
And now you're working for the European/Chinese retailer/brand model. Us non native-born Americans, we just read between the lines and vote with our feet. Hope you help retailers figure out what products are selling in other locales. Get that 6" Subway our of La'Rambla, please. ;)
Jan 11, 2022·edited Jan 11, 2022Liked by Tomas Pueyo
I am an American born in the Soviet Union. My responses below are based on my experiences:
1. Russian and Ukrainians are Slavs, but they are different. For example, many ethnic Russians have Mongolian blood; the Ukrainians don't. Antisemitism is greater among the Ukrainian population than among the Russians.
2. Some of the worst fighting is among people and peoples who are the closest. Civil wars are bloodier than wars between states. Family members, neighbors, and coworkers are more violent than strangers.
3. I did not find Tomas's article hostile to Russia. I did find your criticism of the U.S. full of exaggerations and mostly irrelevant to the to the topic of the article.
I believe Putin has clearly understood what are the new battlefields to keep his (country) interest high.
One of them is the internet and Russians are playing an active role in trying to pull the course of history through their own interests. Brexit and US elections among other recent « battles » are good examples.
The other face of this same thing is playing an active polarization against western countries through geopolitics. Syria and Afghanistan are some of those fronts.
Summarizing, I believe that for Russia to exist in today’s world’s top players list it does not need to be big (as it was the case in former centuries) it needs to have an awful power of influence and « creating troubles » is one way to achieve it. Invading Ukraine (or just the prospect of it) is one of them.
Aside from the geographic/historic predicament of Russia outlined in this post, how much weight do you put on Putin as a (main) source of its revitalized expansionary and aggressive stance towards the former USSR states and the build up of forces around eg Ukraine? (Asopposed to some sort of inevitable trend of history and geography)
"...starting with the farthest from Moscow, Germany."
No, it started with the 'Solidarnost' movement (Solidarity — Lech Walesa) in Poland.
Great work, again - thanks Tomas. A lot of the logic of nations and strength seems to revolve around owning land - either for agriculture (in previous articles) or as a buffer in case of Russia. Empires needed land to produce food which was the primary source of energy. However in today's industrial & information technology world is this view still right? Why would a country want to "conquer" another territory with infantry taking over land? Is there a new logic for warfare?
One of my goals with these geohistory articles is to highlight exactly that: the clash we’re living right now between a past anchored in geography and our future untethered by it. As a result, most of our mindsets are stupidly rooted in the past for no good reason… although who owns the gun is still the one that prevails in the end.
Who owns the gun in a technology world though?
Of all the drafts I’m working on, the one about the future of violence is the hardest. I’ve tackled it a couple of times already but it’s too complex for now. Hopefully soon.
The question could be "who controls the violence?", but perhaps "what happens when the violence becomes uncontrolled?" is worth considering too. It is a factor in considering the pros and cons of nuclear power as well: it can be vulnerable to twin towers style attacks.
My apologies but your comments don’t really make any sense. They seem to ramble without any actual evidence or conclusion. More like an emotional response.
Hi BDaddy, thanks for commenting: Candid and constructive feedback is appreciated in this community.
Yours is candid but not constructive though, because it's generic, which makes it into an opinion. A better way to achieve this would be with a comment like: "I can't make sense of XXX you say because you don't substantiate it"
You're also making an assumption on Mark's motives (emotional response), which is unfair (maybe he was tired? Maybe he didn't express clearly his rational thoughts?).
Hope that makes sense!
Apology accepted. As Tomas says, it is difficult to respond or explain if I'm not sure whether you are referring to this comment or my comments in general
The future of violence and control or lack thereof IS the most interesting topic.
Control of discourse.
Visual + written communication media give semblance of control to the reader, nowadays. Polarization can only be defeated with more intelligent synthesis than "majority likes" and/or frankly stupid "recommendation systems" based on nothing more than "majority likes" densities.
Another angle to approach it form is where the biggest GAP is between "price is what you pay and value is what you get"... and how that gap resolves in the next 1-10 years. Technology SHAPES ideologies and power... and unfortunately I do think that smarter guns make the users less of a "sharp shooter".
Perhaps another angle is that PRODUCTION POWER is in the hands of Ranking Algos and where they will "techno-naturally" flow is toward DECENTRALIZATION. The greatest revolution of today will be when all "domains" lose that power over their data almost overnight... except it's not really THEIR data in the first place.
In 1867, Russia sold Alaska to the US. Was it due to
(1) lack of geopolitical value in defending Moscow (the main thesis of this article)?
(2) inability to administer a remote land?
(3) pure shortsightedness?
(4) something else?
These sound like reasonable hypotheses based on the article, esp 1 and 2.
I’d add a belief that it was impossible to hold given the US expansion. At that time they were super aggressive in their expansionism
Wasn't the real reason was because Russia hoped giving it to America would screw over the British?
How? Because of Canada, British at the time?
That might be a reason to justify who they ceded it to, but not the reason to decide they have to give it away
It seems that the reasons are quite clear (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Purchase). Russia knew that it could not hope to defend Alaska against the US nor against Britain, either one would grab it eventualy. Britain was more of a rival at the time (cf the Great Game etc), the US were seen as a lesser evil and were willing to pay for it ...
Do you really need land as a buffer against invasions, when you have nuclear weapons ?
That’s the thing, the current thinking is anchored into centuries of past thinking.
On one side; this is probably the thinking that led Russia to its current shape after the USSR’s disintegration.
On the other, Russia itself proves that conventional force still wins arguments, Eg in Ukraine, Georgia.
So it’s not so clear.
I understand it is not clear. But can you really extrapolate what a nation wants based on its strategy hundreds of years ago ? France thought at some point that it was good to build a physical defense line against Germany (the Maginot line), then when it failed in WW2, pivoted the model to build a cooperation so strong with Germany that it renders war virtually impossible (the EU).
Even further back in time, France thought at some point it was good to military unify all Europe (Napoleon). Does it still want that because it wanted it at some point of its history ?
I'm sure there are many other examples like this of old strategies being abandoned or pivoted by nations.
The question is : do the people in the Russian government really think they need so much land as a buffer ? Or do they just dislike having the military forces of a competitor close to their borders... like everyone else ? (see China when it intervened in the Korean war, the Cuba missiles crisis, etc.)
Napoleon didn't want to unify Europe.
Every neighbor was against him and wanted to eliminate him because they were all monarchies. So he had to attack them first.
Strategies get abandoned, but the pbm is that this one is still not outdated, as very clearly proven by Russia with Crimea, Georgia, and Ukraine. If they can do it, others can too.
In any case, more factors in the premium article this week (eg demographic)
Nuclear weapons is the "last resort", you won't fire missiles in case of a local conflict, so the thinking is to have the whole spectrum of "answers" for threats of different degrees. Furthermore, the Ru government doesn't see itself as "aggressively expanding", it argues that it merely replies to convention weapons getting closer to Russia's border. After all, the former Eastern Bloc isn't really a demilitarized zone: apparently, the Western countries also believe it's good to keep some forces there.
Really excellent summary of an impossibibly broad subject. Kudos.
Now then, does Russia have a legitimate right to live with threat from its closest neighbours? Although NATO was initiated as a defense treaty, has it not become a provocative, offensive agreement when missiles are stationed at boundaries of Russia? Is the situation fundamentally different than missiles in Cuba? or Canada? Your geographic-climatic-historical summary is a foundation for an answer to those questions.
Indeed. I get into that in the next article. It does become provocation from the Russian perspective. From another side, I can understand it given Russia’s aggressive stance towards its neighbors (which again, is fueled by its geography).
We get into an impossible vicious cycle.
It took france and Germany a WW2 to get away from that cycle. Can the US and Russia become Allie’s without one?
Drone swarms and cyber warfare are game changers.
Russia could always be sensible and join the EU.
In late 90s-2000s there was a strong movement in Russia towards lifting visa restrictions with EU. Unfortunately, then-EU leadership turned out to be somewhat hostile. It was also considered somewhat slandering that several former Eastern Bloc countries got such a deal, but not Russia (I am talking about, e.g., Romania -- they weren't a part of EU back then).
I wish that were easy. Europe is defended by the US—and the US also takes advantage of that. Would Russia want to fall under the US’ hegemony? Would the US not want some sort of advantage from it, at least boasting? Would the EU accept 150M more ppl? A border with China?
Not that obvious
The core of the theory is that Russians are afraid Moscow will be invaded. However, since and after the fall of the Berlin Wall, there has never been a threat to Moscow, from any country. No one wants to invade Moscow. Plus, Russian now have nuclear weapons. I do not believe that Putin is afraid of Moscow being invaded or of an aggression from NATO. Putin thinks he is powerful and intelligent, and is playing games with what he believes to be his property. He really needs to go or things will just get worse.
I agree. Russia is poor so why would anyone want to invade it? Russia wants to expand in order to avail itself of raw materials.....not to protect itself as Pueyo claims.
China may want to invade Russia from the East. In the 1970s, the Soviet government started building the Baikal–Amur Mainline (BAM) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baikal%E2%80%93Amur_Mainline to facilitate deliveries in case of a war with China.
Russia's national sport is Chess; ours is the NFL.
What about the Vikings' role in establishing the early core of Russia?
Can’t help but wonder if the US response is partially driven by AIPAC, as there’s talk of Israel supplying Europe with gas by way of Turkey. I mean it’s nice to have that leverage, but climate change…
Nobody wants anything that Russia has that Russia isn't happy to sell. Get over it, Putin, Russia is boring to the world unless it picks on its little neighbors. Stop acting like a juvenile delinquent.
I never understood why the EU did not take advantage of the 90s situation to negotiate the end of military dependence on the USA and seek a rapprochement with Russia (which is more European than the USA) and whose natural resources are more necessary than foreign military bases on its territory. ¿Do you think it was possible?
Maybe. I think Europe has been comfortable ceding its defense to the US though. That would have required a rearming just during the "end of history"... Unlikely. It would have taken a level of statesmen that these democracies haven't had in a long time. And also stopping to push for other priorities like education, healthcare, economic growth...
How do you not mention LNG? US is interested in selling it to Europe, too. Using dirty shipping instead of letting Russia supply it via pipelines as directly as the can.
Mention Burisma.
In any case, US doesn't want to get into Ukraine and THEN have limited options for Taiwan. So they re-raise Russia with Kazakhstan...but Kazakhstan is even less dense... And a whole 51% Russian speaking, so that speaks volumes.
Now US foreign policy is suffering for Hillary's old school NFL thinking.
Oil & Gas in the premium article this week!
Looking forward to it. Don't worry, I subscribe. I'm a little surprised how blatantly anti-Russia this blog is however, and that's coming from a Ukrainian. Kiev used to be the capital of Rus...
Tone that bias down a lot, if you want to differentiate from mainstream "news" wrt uncharted... Ukrainian corruption, any soviet republic, Libya dictatorship... USSA needs to be really careful for USSA is a child of the world.
Sorry I didn't mean to be anti-Russia, especially in this article.
I'm anti-authoritarianism, but the point of this article, among other things, was to explain why Russia is authoritarian.
Happy to improve. Can you give me specifics on anti-Russia bias you see?
Thx!
I assure you, for any non-American reader, starting with the title and then at least 50% of the time Russia is referenced - it reeks of an anti-Russian "narrative", let alone "bias". Of course, that's not exactly an unpopular point of propaganda to send around nowadays is it.
It's "telling" when you zoom back and forth between 1300 and now and drop something like "Russia needs to be authoritarian to control all these ethnicities" blatancy. That's an absurd statement whether you look at (1) multicultural pods of democracy OR
(2) dictatorships around the world that have 1-3 major ethnicities.
Russia is not "oppressing" other ethnicities in Russia. They couldn't care less. Russian has been the official language of most regions for 100+ years. Remember you blog about English in non-English countries. Same concept, different language. That's on language alone. It's not "authoritarian", it's simply the history of "indoctrination" and well natural "SPHERE OF INFLUENCE". There, I said it - NATURAL.
Organized crime in Russia, Ukraine, US, Germany, Denmark, China, and the UK is all about the same thing. Money and power. THAT is what makes the 0.1% make deals with 0.1% BETWEEN countries' "elites"... who divide an conquer us based on a meaningless flag and simplistic ritualistic/archetypical stories.
Take it easy on the mountain and ocean protections/shapes. You of all people know "the Medium is the message" in modern warfare. ;) Now don't be a hammer and dance the truth or you will be swept into the mainstream irrelevancy.
To keep it balanced, why don't you touch on etymology of the word SLAVE (from SLAV).
https://www.etymonline.com/word/slave
It might resonate with American issues that are artificially made black'n'white every election cycle, cause of course Americans aren't really taught - they WERE indoctrinated into "labor" and "consumerism":
Poverty and serfdom is the reason "failed" states are "held together" by dictators (approved by higher powers that be). Funny enough, Czar released the serfs before American's released their salves in 1860's. And funny enough, American "intelligence" has been screwing up installed dictatorships and failed states for a few decades now. Yes, USSR was going to fail and failed, but no, that means very little about what USA ought to do or HAVE done when they had the "unipolar" "free markety" moment 1991-2000... pre-subprime housing prop job.
____
Ukrainians and Russians are SLAVS and always will be. They can be in a dictatorship together or in guerilla warfare or in just plain old siphoning corruption/embezzlement. Whose oil is it? Russia's. Game, set, and match. Nordstream 2 is a private project. There can be no reasonably justification for FORCING Russia to send their gas through Ukraine. It's as absurd as absurd gets. Again, coming from a 1979 Kiev-born russian-speaking "Ukrainian".
Now how the Bidens and Burisma found their way THERE is a whole other interesting story and that IS the story, in fact. American leaders are supposed to be clean as a whistle and instead we have Hunter the next gen idiot... and decades of insider trading by the "lifetime" senators, god bless their commitment to the cause.
The only thing that matters for US wrt Russia is the petrodollar evolution in a world where US is all of a sudden wants to turn into an oil exporter. Meanwhile China is releasing M0 "internal" e-CNY with a 0% interest rate. China is clearly leapfrogging US due to LACK of status quo powers/"infrastructure". They're the new capitalist cabal in fact... And US is THE country mired in obsolete rulers, like Hillary, who have been there SINCE BEFORE Putin was part of ruling Russia...
You will not find real "truth" in geopolitics unless you get deep into propaganda, psychoanalysis/PR, and communication mediums.
https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-century-of-the-self/
The truth is in communication media algos - simple enough. That's the mountain ranges, oceans, and atmospheric rivers flooding the global village. And again, don't go blaming Russian/Chinese hackers, as if US isn't all up in that. 0.1% that is all. (1) Upward mobility to middle income and (2) upward mobility from MIDDLE to ELITE... the elite doesn't really get the rinse cycle, now does it? AT BEST, one could argue that every 4-8 years good cop is bad cop.
Now US has abandoned mass education if it ever had it and now the pool of labor and consumers aren't exactly "firing on all cylinders".
Now here's the punchline to consider - it's the USSA that "needs" to be authoritarian. (1) that suits Russia and China in the long-enough run anyways - deals easier to make. (2) And it suits the US elites - they get to stay in power and make deals. As long as "Hunters" types can keep it together and not be such an obvious sham. Not exactly clickbait, but it's closer to the truth on many fronts than "Will Russkies invade us" McCarthyisms!
And now you're working for the European/Chinese retailer/brand model. Us non native-born Americans, we just read between the lines and vote with our feet. Hope you help retailers figure out what products are selling in other locales. Get that 6" Subway our of La'Rambla, please. ;)
I am an American born in the Soviet Union. My responses below are based on my experiences:
1. Russian and Ukrainians are Slavs, but they are different. For example, many ethnic Russians have Mongolian blood; the Ukrainians don't. Antisemitism is greater among the Ukrainian population than among the Russians.
2. Some of the worst fighting is among people and peoples who are the closest. Civil wars are bloodier than wars between states. Family members, neighbors, and coworkers are more violent than strangers.
3. I did not find Tomas's article hostile to Russia. I did find your criticism of the U.S. full of exaggerations and mostly irrelevant to the to the topic of the article.
I believe Putin has clearly understood what are the new battlefields to keep his (country) interest high.
One of them is the internet and Russians are playing an active role in trying to pull the course of history through their own interests. Brexit and US elections among other recent « battles » are good examples.
The other face of this same thing is playing an active polarization against western countries through geopolitics. Syria and Afghanistan are some of those fronts.
Summarizing, I believe that for Russia to exist in today’s world’s top players list it does not need to be big (as it was the case in former centuries) it needs to have an awful power of influence and « creating troubles » is one way to achieve it. Invading Ukraine (or just the prospect of it) is one of them.
Aside from the geographic/historic predicament of Russia outlined in this post, how much weight do you put on Putin as a (main) source of its revitalized expansionary and aggressive stance towards the former USSR states and the build up of forces around eg Ukraine? (Asopposed to some sort of inevitable trend of history and geography)
I fear they are connected. Putin is the authoritarian leader that Russia thinks it needs to keep together a sprawling empire with many ethnicities.
I talk in the premium article this coming week about what it would take for another leader to change the situation
And you haven’t mentioned US agri-business. Russia will never allow its breadbasket to fall into US corporate hegemony. For good reason.