Is It Too Early To Just Call The Game For Putin?

Uncle Volodya says,

Uncle Volodya says, “Hey, John; I had a dream about you. We were racing to see who could be the slowest person on earth. You were winning.”

“…Except in a very few matches, usually with world-class performers, there is a point in every match (and in some cases it’s right at the beginning) when the loser decides he’s going to lose. And after that, everything he does will be aimed at providing an explanation of why he will have lost. He may throw himself at the ball (so he will be able to say he’s done his best against a superior opponent). He may dispute calls (so he will be able to say he’s been robbed). He may swear at himself and throw his racket (so he can say it was apparent all along he wasn’t in top form). His energies go not into winning but into producing an explanation, an excuse, a justification for losing.”

C. Terry Warner, from “Bonds That Make Us Free

You know what makes a good loser? Practice“.

Ernest Hemingway

What’s the state of play in The Great Wreck The Russian Economy Invitational, hosted by the United States with support from Europe (especially the UK), Australia and Canada, having been in play since Euromaidan? Let’s look. Are sanctions having the desired effect?

They are not. In fact, consensus looks to be that sanctions are a dismal failure at everything except causing the income of ordinary Russians to fall for the first time since Putin took over the job of running the country. It’s hard to imagine that results could have been otherwise, given the effort the west put into it. But reducing the incomes of ordinary Russians was not an end in itself. No; they were supposed to blame Putin for their troubles, and rise up in revolution to throw him out. A new revolution in Russia is something the west wants so badly it makes its mouth water. It can almost taste it.

But the sanctions have had the opposite effect.

According to Ivan Nechepurenko, a staff writer for The Moscow Times – no friend of Putin – Putin is as popular among his voters now as he has been since 2008. Rather than blaming Putin for economic upset directed against Russia with a view to pushing its behavior in a direction the west wants it to take, civil society has instead rallied around national pride; “The logic was that as the country’s economic situation worsens, ordinary Russians will direct their anger at the government and at Putin himself, forcing him to withdraw his support for the pro-Moscow insurgents in Ukraine…When 85% of Russians say they approve Putin’s actions as Russia’s president, what they mean is that they approve and support the Russian state as such. According to leading sociologists from the independent Levada Center public opinion organization, by absorbing Crimea last March, Putin has made himself a symbolic figure who is viewed as not directly responsible for the economic perils of the country.”

Who do the Russians blame for their problems? Blame goes squarely where it belongs, to the EU and the United States.  But those entities are unprepared for how deep and how lasting that blame, and its attendant acrimony, will be. Anti-Americanism is at its highest levels ever in the Russian Federation, higher than those seen in the Soviet Union; a fact acknowledged by the Washington Post even as it pooh-poohs the sentiment as groundless and undeserved, since America is not doing anything to Russia and its interference in Ukraine is all in Russians’ heads. Hostility in Russia toward the EU’s leadership is hardly better, down to a paltry 6% approval in summer 2014 and doubtless scraping negative territory by now.

Western sanctions have had the effect of cementing Vladimir Putin’s position as the most powerful leader of his time, with over 85% approval ratings and an electorate among which 74% would vote for him. The efforts to ruin Russia have been blamed on the United States and European Union. What does that mean?

To the United States, not much at present. It now has, as the Washington Post described it, a shrinking pool of friendly faces in Russia, so its ability to influence policy in Moscow is now severely curtailed as being pro-American is viewed with suspicion and hostility. But it means much more to the European Union, which did a lot of trade with Russia and remains dependent upon it for energy supplies. And the EU, too, will come to blame America for the soured relationship with Russia that hurts it directly, which will make it that much harder for the USA to push Europe into a land war with Russia.

The USA’s trade with Russia has worked out to about the same as before, considering it regularly runs a trade deficit with Russia; both exports and imports have fallen steadily since 2011, but the USA continues to have little exposure to Russia. Not so the EU.

In the Eurozone, projected growth of .5% for the quarter is greeted with feverish excitement, the fastest growth in four years. Not only does this signal “the brightest spring in years”, and “a solid pace of expansion”, it will outpace quarterly growth in the USA, which eked out a miserable .1%. That staggering leap in European growth comes on the heels of ECB head Mario Draghi’s committing to a € 1.1 Trillion Quantitative Easing program which will flood Europe with cheap money as the bank prints more euros and buys up its own debt. You can see how well that worked in the USA. Well, maybe you can see it, but the mantra in European financial circles is “trust Mario”.

Is everyone satisfied that they understand what Quantitative Easing, or QE, actually is? No? Well, it’s printing money. No more complicated than that. Typically countries with a strong currency finance their operations by sales of government bonds to other countries, which is another way of saying, “borrowing from other countries”. But when your financial habits begin to get too embarrassing, other countries won’t buy your bonds. So the government just loans money to itself, by printing more. Have you seen that happen before? Yes, you have. And those who have come to know QE better than anyone else say it’s very easy to start, and unbelievably difficult to stop.

There are a couple of lessons there – one, the USA cannot engineer an economic war against Russia without affecting development, and subsequently the pace of economic activity, everywhere. Flooding the world with oil so as to drive down the price has had the effect of paralyzing the American shale extraction industry, which is expensive and not cost-effective in an atmosphere of low prices. Two, the west is in a singularly bad position to launch an economic war at all, considering the western “recovery” from the subprime meltdown is more a matter of inference than substance.

Speaking of recovery, how’s that spunky little star in the Euro-Crown, Ukraine, doing?Oooohh…not good, I am afraid. This BBC article takes a lot of words to say that Ukraine is doomed to living on international handouts for as far as the eye can see unless it (a) gets control of the eastern region, which now hates the Kiev government after months of shelling civilian population centres  and will never accept its rule, and (b) restores its trade with Russia. More cash from the IMF depends on reasserting Kiev’s control over the east, because it is the center of Ukrainian industry and grant money cannot be spent on war, while the EU has already made clear it is not in a position to buy Ukrainian goods which it formerly sold to Russia. The Kiev government has made zero progress against corruption and little progress on the reforms the IMF demands before it approves more grant money, although it has raised the price of gas what it reports as 50% even as the national currency tanks. Good times. But the west continues stubbornly trying to do it without Russia, because it is all about taking Ukraine away from Russia. Which will not be possible unless Russia helps, because the west can’t afford it. What are the chances?

Another unecessarily unanticipated effect of the west’s crusade against Russia has been the cementing of a powerful alliance between Russia and China. There is no way the alliance of the world’s second-largest economy and the world’s largest energy producer can bode well for a west bent on forcing the latter to submit to its will. The Russian and Chinese navies kicked off 10 days of war games in the Mediterranean yesterday, making the LA Times so excited that it forgot Russia and China agreed to a gas price last winter; saying instead that they had not yet agreed on a price, and that this means bad news for Russia because it is in a weak negotiating position. If it were true that they have not agreed on a price – which it isn’t – how would that indicate Russian weakness? Wouldn’t they just take whatever they could get, if their position was weak?

Russia has agreed to two major pipeline deals with China – the “Power of Siberia” line and the “Altai” western route. Between them they will eventually deliver 68 Bcm of gas to China, nearly half what Russia supplies to Europe. That also seemed to excite the LA Times into error, as they announced confidently that there was no way Putin would be able to begin supplying gas to China by the end of 2017. Probably not – good thing the contract, to which the LA Times is somehow not a signatory, says 2019. But you can see why the Times is excited; Gazprom supplied Europe with 161 Bcm of gas in 2013. How does Europe foresee replacing that supply, considering it is insistent it will wean itself off of Russian gas? Not from any suppliers they have identified thus far; not even close. Of the other sources from which Europe currently receives gas, mostly its own member states, only the UK, Poland, Italy and Germany have significantly increased delivery, while most others have declined markedly since 2005, some by nearly half.

Let’s summarize what we have concluded so far: (1) The western sanctions against Russia have failed to mobilize the Russian electorate, and have instead spurred patriotism, disempowered internationalists and made Putin more popular than he has been in the last 7 years; (2) The west is in a poor position to sustain an economic war against Russia, as the Eurozone is experiencing anemic growth – and even that appears to be due to false optimism over Quantitative Easing – while American growth is stagnant for the first quarter; (3) Europe is increasing its debt load markedly by embarking on a program of simply printing and circulating more money, while it will probably hurt the currency in the medium term; (4) Ukraine’s economy is imploding, while the west has insisted on taking responsibility for it although it remains unable to pull it out of its power dive. Kiev has not regained control over Ukraine’s eastern regions, which hate it more than ever. Ukraine will not be able to recover unless it regains access to its Russian markets; (5) The western sanctions have resulted in large-scale market replacement of European goods, and those markets are likely to remain closed to Europe for a generation at least, perhaps forever. Meanwhile, (6) Russia has been pushed into a powerful alliance with China, and has proactively negotiated new markets for its energy exports that depend far less on Europe’s tantrums and foibles. The knock-on effects of economic warfare between Russia and Europe have hurt European economies and resulted in European anger against the USA, making it more difficult for Washington to secure European cooperation.

The west is not winning. Since both sides can not be simultaneously losing, Putin must be winning.

How does the west react to losing? I’m glad you asked. Like this. The Telegraph chuckles uproariously at the antics of Russian soldiers attempting to load a tank onto the back of a flatbed truck. On the third attempt, the vehicle ends up too far to the right, and capsizes onto its roof as it falls off the truck. Oh, those Russians! Probably drunk, as usual.

Except the vehicle is not a tank, it is a self-propelled howitzer, an artillery piece. The source clearly identifies the operation as depicting a Ukrainian unit, and if you look just behind the three guys watching just as the howitzer falls off the truck, you will see an oil drum with a Ukrainian flag standing in it.

The first principle of Gambling For Idiots – when you’re losing, double down.

This entry was posted in China, Economy, Europe, Government, Investment, Law and Order, Military, Politics, Russia, Strategy, Trade, Ukraine, Vladimir Putin and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1,718 Responses to Is It Too Early To Just Call The Game For Putin?

  1. yalensis says:

    In Gay Ukrainian news:

    This coming Saturday, 6 June, Ukainian LGBT movement has planned a “gay equality” parade in downtown Kiev, and has acquired a permit for the parade.

    However, activists from Right Sektor have promised to bust up the parade. A group of anti-gay Right Sektor activists calls themselves the Volunteer Ukrainian Corpos (DUK) has formed to oppose the LGBT movement. DUK calls the LGBT activists “sodomite scum” and claims they (the gays) are financed by Moscow.

    Right Sektor says they will call on the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion to beat up the gay activists on Saturday. Azov spokespersons say they fight for the good of the “white race” as well as against gays.

    The article ends by pointing out, that for a time Right Sektor refrained (for the cause of EU unity) from making anti-gay remarks. But by this point, they are sick and tired of having to wear the “mask of tolerance”.

    • Pavlo Svolochenko says:

      One lot of homosexuals beating up another lot of homosexuals.

      Honestly, it’s probably just some elaborate sex game they’ve cooked up between them.

    • marknesop says:

      The article ends by pointing out, that for a time Right Sektor refrained (for the cause of EU unity) from making anti-gay remarks. But by this point, they are sick and tired of having to wear the “mask of tolerance”.”

      …and because they are aware now that EU membership is just not going to happen, and that all they will ever be granted is – if they’re lucky – an “association” which will make them a market for the EU’s goods. If they ever have any money to buy them, which is why I said “if they’re lucky”. And visa-free travel? You can file that with your picture of you and your Aston-Martin DB-10.

  2. Tim Owen says:

    The Saker on the ominous meaning of Saaskavilli’s (hope I misspelled that) ass-cession to Governor of Ukraine.

    • Tim Owen says:

      Anyone else seeing reports of the Ukrainians building up forces in the West. I read ~ 60 k somewhere?

      • et Al says:

        There’s some sort of provocation being planned. It smells like a trap so I hope Russia has something creative prepared up its sleeve that NATO either hasn’t predicted, has discounted or doesn’t expect.

        It would be interesting to hear western capitals justifying or just ignoring any Uke attack on Transnistria, no doubt warning that if Russia intervenes (I assume there is a security pact), that then NATO would have to intervene.

        Previous attempts to drag Russia in have failed, and the West has only got more desperate since then.

        Plus, things normally go properly wrong in August and it looks like time is finally running out on Greece. Somebody please keep the western retards on a leash.

        • Tim Owen says:

          Aye aye.

          If only…

          If this comes off I will be so beyond disgusted. As if the suffering in the Donbass is not “sufficient” by anyone’s lights.

          • Pavlo Svolochenko says:

            If it happens then we can conclude Washington has deemed all its other plans for the Ukraine to have failed, and has decided to order the Ukraine to commit suicide in hopes of dragging Russia down with them.

      • marknesop says:

        Yeah, I saw that somewhere, too. Same figure. I have not seen any substantiation for it, and there were a lot of reports that the trawls were not bringing in anything like the number of recruits they need. It’s difficult to imagine a burst of martial enthusiasm at this point, and I would be surprised if the departures were not accelerating. Allowing Commanding Officers to legally shoot deserters is probably not the enlistment incentive program the Rada imagines it is. That being the case, it should be difficult for the Ukrainian state to muster an invasion force that size without leaving holes somewhere else.

        • et Al says:

          Maybe they have enticed impressionable youth with the irresistible phrase “it’ll be over by Christmas! Слаба Украïна!

    • marknesop says:

      That is a good article and he makes a good case, but with all due respect, I think The Saker is overanalyzing this one. Granted, it is a complete departure from common sense to appoint that fat toad governor of a major Ukrainian city. However, Saakashvili is much less popular with Ukrainians than he is with the Ukrainian government, and I find it hard to believe the army would follow his direction. Similarly, he proved to be about as superb a military tactician as Rush Limbaugh in the role of marathon runner. “Clueless” is giving him too much credit. Saakashvili is not actually good at anything except nest-feathering and repeating democracy bumper-sticker slogans. Imagining him masterminding a lunge for Tiraspol is a stretch.

      I must say, though, that articles like this one seem to be trying to send Poroshenko a blueprint, and while I doubt very much that the USA wants Odessa for its own – I can’t see how such an arrangement would ever work, and they certainly don’t need anything that would stir up a revolt the way that would – the west seems to be trying to nudge Poroshenko in the direction of doing something stupid. Washington in particular still very much wants a regional war that it could stage-manage from afar and in which there would be few or no American casualties, the U.S. state department merely standing on the sidelines and making encouraging noises, and they have not quite given up hope. Saakashvili still seems a poor choice for such a mission, though, and the only thing he has going for him in such a role is his doglike loyalty to Washington. He’d need to do more than wag his tail and bring Obama his slippers to pull this one off.

  3. Tim Owen says:

    Can anyone comment on the meaning of this:

  4. Tim Owen says:

    A very good “squinty” piece about the nexus between current events (political) and underlying economic problems (overproduction as the other side of under-consumption) from Moon of Alabama.

    • Tim Owen says:

      I hesitate to say this but if the Marx references makes anyone feel faint I would suggest he’s best understood and remembered as a late-Classical economist. There are a lot of concepts from this period that are well worth reviving in my view, the notion of “economic rent” being likely the most useful.

    • marknesop says:

      Yes, economics is complicated, but there are a few simple principles that hold true. One of them is that when the proles don’t have any money, they don’t buy anything, and when they don’t have jobs they don’t have any money.

      • Jen says:

        I think you mean to say when the proles don’t have jobs, they don’t have any money and when they don’t have any money, they can’t buy anything. Even Henry Ford understood that when he elected to pay his workers a decent wage, not because he was a closet Marxist or socialist (far from it) but because he needed people to buy his cars.

  5. Tim Owen says:

  6. Tim Owen says:

    This is good, nuanced propaganda:

    I particularly enjoyed this bit:

    “It suits Blatter. Coming from a small country, he is skilled at accommodating big power brokers such as Putin. Moreover, he thinks like them: Blatter, too, likes legal immunity, motorcades on empty highways, and respectful underlings.”

    Who in the west doesn’t love him some DIS-respectful underling eh?

    It brought to mind this image:

    Then this:

    Spot Putin.

  7. Selman says:

    Appreciating the actual perseverance an individual put into your blog and also thorough info anyone produce.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s