Ian Welsh

The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Category: Russia and Eastern Europe Page 10 of 17

The Flynn Pardon Is The Right Thing To Do + Mishandling Russia

By

On November 25, 2020

Comments

So, Michael Flynn has been pardoned by Trump. His crime was lying to the FBI about talking to the Russians before Trump was inaugurated.

Even a man like Trump can do the right thing occasionally, usually for the wrong reasons. It is entirely reasonable and routine for a President-elect’s advisors to talk to foreign governments. Flynn asked the Russians to not retaliate against the US, because Trump did not intend to let the sanctions for Russian election interference stand, once he was President.

This is not a crime. It was prosecuted as one under the Logan act, which has never been used for this purpose. Plenty of other politicians have done this, indeed, as Greenwald points out, Biden is doing so right now.

Next, lying to the FBI about something which is not a crime, should not be a crime. (Honestly, just never talk to the FBI or cops if you aren’t forced to. Ever. For any reason. Remember, they can lie to you.)

You really don’t want it to be the case that you have to tell the truth to any group of police, just because they ask.

There are a great number of tragedies in US foreign affairs under Trump, though less tragic than under Obama or Bush Jr (no Libya, no Iraq). One of the greatest is that, contrary to what you constantly hear, he in fact made US/Russia relations even worse, slamming the Russians with more and more sanctions and withdrawing from nuclear weapon treaties. This is the actual fact, for someone supposedly a Russian “asset” Trump sure acts awfully strange.

“He’s their asset,” I yell, as he kicks them repeatedly in the ribs.

(It’s my annual fundraiser (and going slower than normal this year.) If you value my writing and can afford to, please consider donating.)

The Russians likely had an influence project in the 2016 election, it was minor, and only “cost” Clinton the election in the sense that everything did. They have a smaller economy than California and one-third the population of the EU. Yes, they punch above their weight militarily, but the real threat is just that they still have a lot of nukes. The Russians are only a threat to the West if they are pushed into a corner.

Further, in raw geopolitical terms, what has happened over the past 30 years is that they went from wanting to be Westerners to being China’s key strategic partner. They will be at the core of China’s new alliance, providing muscle and resources.

Acting as if Russia is the USSR is deranged. They aren’t nearly that powerful. Acting as if they are some third world country one can push around is also deranged: they aren’t that weak, they’re still a continental power with high tech and nukes, and they have options like allying with China.

Imagine the geopolitical situation if Russia was a firm western ally. Rather different, isn’t it?

It is probably as well they aren’t, simply because there needs to be a counterbalance to the West. Since the fall of the USSR America and its allies have proved that absolute power in the hands of a sole-superpower will be abused, over and over again. The cold war sucked, but when the USSR was around, it put some limits on Western bullying, only because there were other options.

The China/Russia axis (which will wind up including much of Africa) will provide that alternative again.

In the broader sense, this is a pity, but when Americans “won” the Cold War they decided it meant they were victorious for all time, it was, in Francis Fukuyama’s utterly foolish phrase “The End of History”.

History never ends, imperial arrogance always leads to horrible behavior and stupid mistakes, and here we are, staring down a new cold war.

One of the only smart things Trump appeared serious about at the start was having good relations with Russia. That it didn’t happen is one the bad things about the Trump administration, not one of the good things.

As for Flynn, he had every right to do what he did, and, again, a free standing lie to cops should not be a crime. Hatred of Trump or Russia is not a good reason to normalize anti-civil liberties behaviour or apply a double standard to something like a President-elect’s people talking to foreign countries.

If it is, I look forward to Biden apparatchniks being charged with the same crime.

No?

DONATE OR SUBSCRIBE

USSR/Russia and America’s Record Interfering In Elections

By

On April 30, 2019

Comments

So, who interferes in other countries’ elections more?

Sadly this database is from 1946 to 2000 (pdf), but it’s still interesting.

A total of 117 interventions were made by both countries.

The US made 81; 69 percent of total interventions.

the Russians interfered 36 times, for 31 percent of total interventions.

Overall, 11.9 percent of all elections during the period were interfered with.

Of course, most of this electoral interference happened before the fall of the USSR and before the internet, but I still think it’s interesting that back when the US was the “good guys” and “fighting for freedom,” they interfered in elections more than twice as often.

The same author has a study on whether these interventions were effective (pdf).

It turns out that, yes, in fact they often made the difference in who won. Percentage shifts of five or six percent were common.

I think people need to understand that, US hysteria over the last election aside, the US, since 2000, has also intervened in more foreign elections. Nor does the US always wait for elections, they heavily supported the Ukrainian Maidan protests which overthrew a government, they were behind the color revolutions, and so on.

This is why I always laugh when Americans get so upset about Russia interfering in the 2016 election. It’s like a bully who’s beaten up over a hundred people whining because a smaller bully gets in a good punch one day.

As I’ve said before, the action with integrity on this issue is not to scream, shout, or impose sanctions. It is to negotiate a peace treaty, where both sides promise (and mean) not to interfere in other countries’ elections.

If you think that’s absurd, or impossible, then the US has no standing except self-interest to complain about Russian electoral interference and there is no reason, except perceived self interest, for any non-American to care.

The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Why the USSR Lost the Cold War

By

On April 4, 2019

Comments

There’s a lot of nonsense around this question. I’ve written about the problems with command style economics and their contribution to the USSR’s fall, and I even mostly believe it.

But none of that is necessary. A sociologist by the name of Randall Collins, for example, predicted the USSR’s loss in advance with only two metrics:

  • The USSR controlled less people and resources;
  • The USSR had a central position, where the US had a corner position.

If two countries are opponents and one is larger and has a better strategic position, who’s going to win?

This isn’t rocket surgery, and it doesn’t require lots of running around and squealing about superior systems.

The USSR was surrounded by near enemies. The US had an ocean between it and its enemies.

The US, combined with its allies and subject nations (the distinction is blurred to anyone with sense who notices how many US troops were stationed in “allied” territory) had more population and resources than Russia combined with is allies and subject nations.

Who was going to win this?

Note also that as a result, standard guns and butter economics come into play: the USSR, to remain militarily competitive, had to use more of its resources on its military, leaving less available for its civilian economy. Thus the economy wound up growing slower in the long term.

Then Reagan’s administration, seeing the weakness, piled on military spending that USSR felt it had to match, made Afghanistan into a bleeding sore (a mistake we’ve paid for ever since) and bled the USSR dry.

People reach too far. They want to say “we are better people and our beliefs and system are clearly superior.”

But the simplest explanation is that the US/West started with a superior position and in the long run that position told.

In order for the USSR to win, in fact, their system needed to be clearly superior. It needed to be able to outgrow the West while spending more resources on the military and do so with less population and resources.

There was a time that the orthodox view in the West was that it could do that. This is forgotten. In the early 50s, the USSR’s economy was still growing far faster than America’s and perfectly orthodox economics textbooks noted this.

Didn’t last. I think there’s a bunch of reasons for that, but this isn’t that essay, and in any case, again, all that subtlety isn’t needed. The USSR’s only real chance at winning was to get nukes to a deterrent level, then invade and pray it didn’t turn into a nuclear war. That is to say, in the late 50s.

Probably a good thing they didn’t do that.

The USSR lost because it had less resources and a worse position. Little more is needed.

The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Russia Seizes Ukrainian Ships and Ukraine Declares Martial Law

By

On November 28, 2018

Comments

Russia fired on and seized two Ukrainian gunboats and a tug, near the Kerch Straight. This strait leads from the Crimean Sea into the Sea of Azov. US and Western reaction has been condemnatory, and in this case, I think correctly. The Sea of Azov abuts a lot of the Ukraine, and the 2003 treaty gives the Ukraine the right of access to it.

Of course, the geography of the strait between Crimea and Russia makes it an easily-sealed strait now that Russia controls Crimea, but on the face of it, it appears to be an act of war to seize ships.

The phrase “on the face,” is important, because it is possible that the ships did move into Russian waters. The Ukrainians say they didn’t, the Russians say they did. But if they stuck to the Strait of Kerch, as I understand it, they do have the right of access.

The declaration of martial law, which affects ten border regions, is more interesting. Mind you, a lot of those regions aren’t really under the Ukrainian government’s control any longer, but it gives the military rights to shut down strikes and protests, and, one assumes, to seize people at will.

The Ukraine is screaming that Russia might invade it, but that seems unlikely. If Russia was going to do that, they should have done it during the initial crisis.

The Ukraine is a bleeding wound for Russia, diplomatically, being used to justify all sorts of sanctions and other harmful actions. It is a situation that Russia can’t seem to resolve; invasion would be crazy, and it would precipitate full economic sanctions and a guerrilla war. But withdrawing entirely would lose Crimea and Sevastopol, and probably lead to the Ukraine joining NATO, a Russian red line.

The obvious “deal” which should probably be made is to allow Crimea to stay in Russia (all evidence is that, in fact, most Crimeans do want to be part of Russia, the Crimean Tatars are a minority, and Crimea was part of Russia for far longer than it was part of the Ukraine), stop supporting rebel movements in the rest of the Ukraine, and restore ordinary relationships.

Neither side appears willing to make this deal, nor trust the other side to keep it. And the sides are Russia and the West (US, EU). What the Ukrainian government thinks is a secondary issue: If both sides agree on a deal, the Ukraine will have little choice but to accept it.

So we continue with a bleeding ulcer for Russia. The negative for the West, and particularly for the US, is that Russia is being de-facto pushed into an alliance with China. Compared to that, in realpolitik terms, what is happening in the Ukraine hardly matters.

The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Putin’s Control of Trump and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty

By

On October 23, 2018

Comments

There is a meme in the resistance that Trump is Putin’s “puppet.”

This meme’s explanatory power is weak.

Take Trump’s announcement that he will pull the US out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty: This isn’t something Russia, or Putin, wants.

Trump admires Putin, and Putin provided some support for Trump’s election, hoping that would lead to the reduction or removal of sanctions (spoiler: it didn’t), but Trump doesn’t do everything Putin wants, or not do everything Putin doesn’t want.

What Russia wants, simply put, is a sphere of influence and to feel secure within that sphere of influence. This desire isn’t a particularly comfy desire if you’re near Russia (and weak–Europe is not weak). But it is no worse the US’s desire to have a sphere, as any Caribbean, Latin American, South American, many Asian, European, African, Middle Eastern nations have learned.

In fact, it’s a lot less scary unless you’re close by.

Russia doesn’t have 800 bases around the world. It has invaded, sanctioned, and overthrown less countries than the US in the last 30 years, and so on.

That doesn’t mean Putin is a good guy, or Russia is a “good” nation, but it’s certainly less evil, in terms of external body count and, heck, even internal numbers of people locked up, than the United States.

“Lesser Evil” isn’t much of a rallying cry, as the Democrats refuse to learn, but it does mean that when the US treats Russia as the horrible evil enemy, it falls flat.

The US is in what looks like serious decline. Rather than interfering in every one else’s business, it should mind its own business. If there is a formal defensive alliance: Live up to it. Otherwise, butt out. A great deal of evil in the world would be weakened and likely defeated, if the US would simply stop propping it up. This is true of Saudi Arabia and Israeli apartheid (and yeah, it is now formally apartheid whatever pretense otherwise) as well as many other evils.

A “good” country in the world helps other nations, doesn’t injure other nations and doesn’t support evil nations, but does not, as Adams said, go looking for monsters to slay.

Grant to others the right of self-determination. Do not support evil. Do not interfere in internal affairs. Do defend actual allies. That is all.

The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

How to Stop Russian Election Interference

By

On July 16, 2018

Comments

Let us take as a given that Russia interfered in the last US election (though many of the accusations are unconvincing, some appear to be be true).

I’m pushing this back to the top, for what I assume are obvious reasons. Originally published Feb 1, 2018.

Why did they interfere?

They most likely did so because having a President in charge who was somewhat favorable to Russia is in Russia’s self interest. Remember that Russia is under US-led economic sanctions.

There is a case to be made that what Russia did was simply what Russia should have done: Act in its own self-interests. Russia should do what is in its self-interest.

Moreover, it is the same as the US does to other countries, all the time, including to Russia. When the US thinks that a country should have different leadership, it tries to make sure that happens. Such operations include political support, propaganda, and often support for violence. Money is funneled to opposition factions. The color-revolutions were US supported and so were the Maidan protests which overthrew the elected Ukrainian government and caused the most recent big crisis with Russia. There are many, many examples, including extensive support for anti-government forces in Iran.

The US does this because they think it is in their interest. If they think a democratic party is good for the US, they support it, but they have supported dictators and anti-democratic coups as well.

So what Russia is doing has a lot of precedent. The US is not some trembling innocent suffering some unspeakable crime. The better analogy is a serial bully who got his eye blacked by a past victim.

From the outside, Americans screaming about this look like a bully screaming, “How dare you do to me what I do to everyone else. I’m going to bury you!”

This does not induce sympathy.

Still, we can make a strong case that countries shouldn’t interfere in other countries’ internal political affairs, including–especially including–elections.

I think that the Russians might be willing to agree to that.

So the sane method of dealing with this issue, to which which virtually everyone will agree, would be to begin negotiations towards that end.

Americans and Russians get together and have frank talks, which amount to a peace treaty: We won’t do it to you, if you don’t do it to us.

They might even extend the notion to not doing it to other countries.

This is the actual road out, though it’s laughable because it really seems impossible to imagine. Both the US and Russia have been interfering in many countries for a long time, though the US has been the champion for the last 30 years or so–and by a wide margin.

But if you don’t want someone to hit you, perhaps you shouldn’t hit them?

The problem here is that this can’t stand alone. If the US retains the ability to sanction other countries economically, in ways that are so damaging that they kill vast numbers of those countries’ citizens and impoverish even more, which the US does, who is going to agree to just sit there and take it?

And the US does have this ability, for now, due to its control over the world payments system. The US Treasury can unilaterally sanction countries and firms, and no one can stop them, because banks outside the US feel compelled to obey as any transfer that touches on the US triggers US law, and the payment system is US built and controlled.

Most foreign debts are also subject to either US or British law, as the Argentinians learned to their great detriment.

But then, doesn’t the concept of sanctions fall under the general idea of interfering with other countries? Perhaps the US might also wish to stop sanctioning countries. Almost every case has done more harm than good, and the sanctions almost always hit ordinary people harder than leaders, even when they are targeted at the richest.

The way to have peace, is to leave other people alone.

I know that this runs exactly against the American character which is, “Hurt them until they do what I want.” It runs directly against how the US disciplines its own people, which is, “If you don’t cooperate, you’ll be poor and miserable.” (See how felons are treated after their incarceration for the most direct example.)

But perhaps, just perhaps, the best results in this world rarely come from hurting people until they submit, however long that takes. (See Cuba and Iran for how long it can not work.)

Oh, sure, sometimes it does “work.” The US has overthrown many countries’ governments, and they have gotten many other political parties elected. No one can deny this. But somehow, doing so often leads to even worse situations down the line. It seems that if you hurt people enough, they resist and start hating you, act against you, and try to get a government they like that doesn’t like you, and so on.

Sanity is saying “Okay, okay. Let’s stop this cycle of reciprocally hurting people.”

But that has to start and be credibly initiated by the worst abuser. And though most Americans won’t admit it, that worst abuser is the US.

This has been another episode of “Kindergarten-level Ethics for Adults.”

If you don’t like it when someone does it to you, don’t do it to other people.

The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

 

Russia May Not Have Attempted to Assassinate an Ex-Spy in England (Recently)

By

On March 27, 2018

Comments

So, I’m behind on a lot of stories, but let’s talk about the Novichok story, in which Russia is said to have tried to assassinate ex-spy, Sergei Skripal, using a nerve agent which is part of the Novichok family.

There has been much hysteria over this, because Russia is behind everything these days. The problem is that the Novichok nerve agents probably don’t exist, and if they do, England (nor anyone else) doesn’t know how to detect them.

Craig Murray has been good on this, if you want the chapter on verse on “Novichoks probably don’t even exist” and “No, the Porton Down labs didn’t confirm they were used,” (paraphrasing) go read  him.

The current hysterical tendency to blame Russia for virtually everything is dangerous and stupid. Russia is both very powerful, because it has nukes and a decent army, and really not all that dangerous because it has a GDP less than that of California’s and Russia much weaker than Europe.

The EU’s population is 508 million. When the UK leaves, it will be 447 million.

Russia’s population is 143 million.

Minus Britain, the EU has a GDP of 18.1 trillion (purchasing power parity), Russia has an economy of 3.5 trillion (ppp). Germany alone has a GDP (ppp) of 4.0 trillion.

If Russia is doing all that it is blamed for, it has the most competent government in the world and the West is ruled by incompetent boobs.

(Hmmm. The second part is credible.)

The West’s problems are primarily the fault of the West. Trump, Brexit, whatever it is you want to blame on someone evil, look at home, not to the mysterious East and its scary despot (or whatever).

Further, the West is still rich and powerful and has the wherewithal to fix its problems. That, unfortunately, will require either the kind of surveillance/police state that would make the Stasi blush, or actually letting ordinary people have decent lives with less inequality.

Or, I suppose, we can blame all our problems on a nation that is only a great power because of a disproportionately powerful military and which has far less people and resources than we do.

Oh, we’re going for option ?

Okay, then.

(To be clear, Russia may have killed him. But I don’t consider it proven.)

Update: Story and title edited to correct that Skripal isn’t dead.

The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

China and Saudi Arabia Show Anti-Corruption Is Often About Seizing Power

By

On March 26, 2018

Comments

Recently, the Chinese Communist Party proposed removing the normal ten year limit on how long someone can stay President. Xi Jingping looks likely to be President for life.

Xi is notable for a massive anti-corruption drive, which put a lot of senior party members in jail and terrified many others.

Anti-corruption is good, of course, but in nations where, well, essentially everyone is corrupt, one must watch who is hit for corruption charges and who isn’t. Somehow Xi’s enemies seemed to get hit disproportionately.

Meanwhile, Xi put himself as the leader of every committee of any significance, and lo and behold, he is the indispensable leader now.

And in Saudi Arabia, we have Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Salman is the designated heir, and has been replacing everyone who isn’t loyal to him. Last year, bin Salman took over a Four Seasons hotel, “invited” a number of his relatives and other important people to stay there, then by at least one account (which I find credible) tortured some of them.

Even very powerful Saudi princes, like Alwaleed, the most personally rich of the princes, were not entirely immune.

His release came hours after he told Reuters in an interview at Riyadh’s opulent Ritz-Carlton hotel that he expected to be cleared of any wrongdoing and be freed within days.

A senior Saudi official said Prince Alwaleed was freed after he reached a financial settlement with the attorney general.

“The attorney general has approved this morning the settlement that was reached with Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, and the prince returned home at 1100 a.m. (0800 GMT),” the official told Reuters, without giving details of the terms.

The decision to free him, and the release of several other well-known tycoons on Friday, suggested the main part of the corruption probe was winding down after it sent shockwaves through Saudi Arabia’s business and political establishment.

Alwaleed was careful to make his bow:

Prince Alwaleed, who is in his early 60s, described his confinement as a “misunderstanding” and said he supported reform efforts by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. (my emphasis)

Mohammed has taken some actions that Westerners approve of, like somewhat improving rights for women, but he is also busily committing genocide in Yemen, screwed up by trying to blockade Qatar (which did not bring Qatar to its knees), kidnapped the President of Lebanon, and is proceeding with a vast privatization of money-earning Kingdom assets, which will earn Saudi Arabia money (but which will be insufficient to offset the loss of earning power).

But it appears as though the Crown Prince is more of a dictator than any ruler in ages (even if he isn’t officially king yet). He has the power, internally, to do things that were simply not possible when some consensus was expected among the royal family.

All of this should be reminiscent of what Putin did when he gained power: He broke a number of oligarchs, sent them to jail or into exile, and took most of their fortunes. But he made deals with others, so long as they were loyal. As a result, his “anti-corruption” efforts weren’t about eliminating corruption at all, they were about loyalty to Putin and the state. Russia continues to be a corrupt mafia state (mafia states have rules, they are just mafia rules). This corruption has hurt its economy, though Putin’s policies are still better than those that came before.

In India, what Modi has been doing bears some resemblance to this pattern as well: Consolidating control disguised as anti-corruption.

Anti-corruption is rather different from seizing power by using corruption charges to break one’s enemies or bring them to heel as new, terrified, allies while warning everyone else not to get out of line.

Real anti-corruption goes deep, hits almost everyone, and generally comes with increases in the wages of bureaucrats at the lower and middle levels, as much corruption is a result of inadequate compensation leading to bribes replacing the actual salary.

Much of this critique, minus the strong man bit, could be applied to the US, I might add, but perhaps another day. In the meantime, appreciate the good those seizing power do, when it exists, but recognize their motives and the dark side, as displayed in Yemen, or when Putin very likely set up the second Chechen war.

The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Page 10 of 17

Previous

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén