Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
What’s at Stake in Ukraine? What’s an Acceptable Outcome and for Whom?
What is at stake in Ukraine?
For the Ukrainian State? For the inhabitants of Eastern Ukraine and Crimea?
For the US? For European countries? For Russia? For the rest of us?
I think the answer for each of these would be a bit different — and that would inform what an acceptable outcome to the conflict would be.
So, the surface issues:
Territorial integrity and the agreement that countries cannot invade each other just to change their borders. Post-WWII stability has sort of hung on this principle, though there are some instances of this happening, de facto if not de jure. But still — undermine this principle and you open a Pandora’s Box.
Self-determination. People should live in a state whose government is representative. This is harder to argue. There are a lot of non-representative governments around and they aren’t denied diplomatic legitimacy on that basis. It’s also more problematic — what if self-determination for a minority is at odds with the territorial integrity of a state? It’s a relevant question from Donbas to Kashmir (and it’s relevant to the Maidan revolution itself).
Sovereignty. States have the right to join, or not join, any alliance or organisation that they want if it wants them to. Again, sound in principle but less upheld in practice. Ukraine has the legal right to apply to join NATO and the EU. Germany has the legal right to buy oil and gas from Russia. But can they really?
Of course, all of these are mediated, in the real world, by power. The principle is one thing. The practice, the possibility, another. As the conflict has progressed, some murkier issues have come to the fore — and predictably they aren’t about principle but about power:
Which country’s interests will dominate NATO and the EU? Which country’s interests will be sacrificed? Based on? And what does that mean for the future of NATO and the EU? What will the political/geostrategic outcome from the use of force (overt and covert, imho likely to be internal to countries) to maintain these hierarchies of interests be?
US prosperity depends, in part (how significant?), on the dollar serving as the international reserve currency, in turn, a function of the petrodollar. Russia is bucking the petrodollar by demanding payment for energy exports in Rubles. If this sets a trend and undermines the petrodollar, is that actually a bigger deal for the US than Ukraine and NATO? What about the impact of the US basically confiscating the contents of Russia’s US bank accounts? How will that impact the US dollar’s status as a global reserve, and what impact will that have on US prosperity? Where will capital accumulate in the future?
A big takeaway from this for the Global South is that depending on imported food makes you vulnerable — not least because some of the first exports from Ukraine went to Britain for animal feed rather than Africa to feed people. How will that affect poor countries’ interactions with the World Bank and the IMF, whose development model hinges on industrial development at the expense of agricultural development? How about the allocation of capital in the Global North?
All of these seem to be expressions of whatever you call the version of empire we live in today. And while it is bizarre that Putin, invading Ukraine to annex part of it and to dominate the rest, has something to say about it, it’s still thought-provoking. From his (rather long) speech on Friday:
When the Soviet Union collapsed, the West decided that the world and all of us would permanently accede to its dictates. In 1991, the West thought that Russia would never rise after such shocks and would fall to pieces on its own. This almost happened. We remember the horrible 1990s, hungry, cold and hopeless. But Russia remained standing, came alive, grew stronger and occupied its rightful place in the world…
The West is ready to cross every line to preserve the neo-colonial system which allows it to live off the world, to plunder it thanks to the domination of the dollar and technology, to collect an actual tribute from humanity, to extract its primary source of unearned prosperity, the rent paid to the hegemon. The preservation of this annuity is their main, real and absolutely self-serving motivation. This is why total de-sovereignisation is in their interest. This explains their aggression towards independent states, traditional values and authentic cultures, their attempts to undermine international and integration processes, new global currencies and technological development centres they cannot control. It is critically important for them to force all countries to surrender their sovereignty to the United States.
Basically: is the war in Ukraine about preserving the West’s, and especially the US’, global domination?
(If it is, I’m really not looking forward to the conflict with China.)
Which question appears pertinent (or crazy) depends on who and where we are. But the most relevant question to you will also be the one whose answer will lead to what you think is an acceptable outcome in Ukraine (and why).
Ricochet, what are your thoughts on this?
Published in General
Not sure. We might have to wait 2 weeks to find out.
Which is why you and your family are moving to Putin’s Russia, right?
Or maybe you don’t actually believe what you are saying.
No, I’m saying that Ukraine’s claim to democracy is fragile, so ‘defending democracy’ is not a believable cause to support them.
There may be other reasons, which is what this post is about discussing.
The people who are in Ukraine’s parliament and other political leadership offices are there because they participated in elections in which people could openly discuss competing ideas regarding public policy issues.
That’s representative government.
In Putin’s Russia, if you express your views too openly, you end up like Alexei Navalny: In prison.
So, your analysis seems about as incorrect as it can be.
It’s a global market, so if a certain amount of oil is purchased in Rubles that drives up demand for the Ruble (which has happened) and decreases demand for the dollar. I don’t know how much of an impact this will have either – especially as so many countries have their savings in Treasury Bonds, so at this point keeping the dollar inflated is in their interest, and this will affect their decisions going forward. Not quite a ponzi scheme, but similar?
If Russia were the only nation in the world that had energy resources, then perhaps this would be a consideration. But there are lots of nations that have energy resources.
Could they really discuss a pro-Russian position freely and equally?
Could they advocate for this while seeking votes?
Banning political parties and closing down media houses which are critical of the Government’s policies tell me no.
So the form, but not the substance, of democracy.
Russia is certainly no better, but at this point it’s a fight between two authoritarian governments.
Not saying there are no reasons to support one over the other, just want to discuss what those reasons are.
Defending democracy is not a valid reason beyond domestically aimed propaganda.
Zelensky wasn’t in any political office when he ran for president and won. That’s not an authoritarian government. That’s representative government.
Sorry. Your analysis is badly flawed. You seem unable to discern the difference between representative governments and dictatorships.
When I was in London the smart set thought they would muddle through. By basically cancelling all their contracts with the rest of Europe and using the north sea oil/gas for themselves.
I have about 500 dollars I made shorting the Euro.
I think the currencies are too strong and they need to be weakened so that long term wise they can become export economies.
Germany is going to have the worst unrest, apparently Saxony and Thuringia are talking about succession. Certainly telling Berlin to pound sand. The unrest begins in the spring. Like it did during the Arab spring. People will be to busy surviving the winter. Though all those millions of Muslim refugees will riot.
The Germans are making steps to try and declare martial law to control the situation. But they dont have enough men to control it. They have spent the last 30 years destroying their army. You think the USA army has gotten bad? The stories I have from German officers are fun if not sad.
Remember the Germans are officially looking at an 8 percent contraction, thats from before the pipelines were destroyed. So new calculations will have to be made. But like all official ‘guesses’ I am going to say 15 percent is likely the most generous result.
Germans are a sophisticated welfare society, but they wont be able to pay for any of that, without any factories to employ people. So people are going to be stuck at home, watching their living standards fall and going to go out in the streets with nothing better to do.
Do you think German cops are going to die for the likes of Schultz and Von Der Krazy?
Your bunk on regular font- rebuttals in italics
Countries which ban political parties and close down opposition friendly media houses are democracies in name only at best. Explain why that is not the case.
Edited to add:
Let’s try and keep it civil and not personalise it. I value discussions with people who disagree with me, there’s no reason for a discussion to become an argument, and it can trend that direction when it becomes about ‘you’. Reasonable request?
Sure. I just think you are completely wrong to say that the Ukrainian government and the Russian government are both authoritarian. One holds multi-party elections in an environment where people can discuss public policy issues openly (Ukraine) while the other (Russia) does not.
Perhaps you think that North Korea and South Korea both have authoritarian governments?
Did you think that both West Germany and East Germany both had authoritarian governments?
Well that might keep them warm, but what does pauperising their major customers do to their economy?
(Yes, yes, writ small, but nonetheless….)
Will the Euro survive? Countries who retained their own currencies (Hungary) may have an advantage in this?
Just them, or other people as well? Do you think there will be a difference between how people react in the East and the West?
Couldn’t they hire more people? Riot police, for eg?
I prefer Uschi, but no, I doubt anybody is keen to do that.
And….will this affect party policy platforms and vote share? I’m guessing Green down AfD up, but??
But with political parties banned and opposition friendly media houses closed down they can’t really, can they?
A purge of the security agencies (of traitors) also doesn’t look like something that happens in a democracy.
I am talking about representative government, where people hold political office because they competed in an election in which the voters could choose among multiple options.
If that’s not representative government, then maybe need to find a new word to describe the governments of Estonia, South Korea, Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom and Ukraine.
I don’t care what word we use. But we need some words so that we can demonstrate the substantive difference between the government of Ukraine and the government of Russia, sort of like how we needed some words to distinguish between the government of West Germany and the government of East Germany.
Like Egypt? You’re really narrowing this down to exclude political freedom (so no banning opposition parties) and freedom of expression (so no banning opposition friendly media houses). Why is that?
Edited to add:
So long as the words we use don’t obscure the similarities, or lend either side more democratic legitimacy than they properly deserve.
I don’t think the West is “supporting” Ukraine because it’s a democracy, though the form (even without the substance) gives the West a good domestic propaganda point. I believe the West is “supporting” Ukraine for other reasons, which are quite interesting in themselves. That’s mnsho.
Fine.
But do you think that if someone were to say that South Korea has a representative government while North Korea has a dictatorship that this would be obscuring the similarities between North and South Korea?
How about West Germany and East Germany? Do you think that describing the West German government as representative and the East German government as a dictatorship was obscuring the similarities between the two?
Do you think Ukraine is a democracy like the UK, for example?
If not – why use the same word to describe both? Doesn’t that obscure the truth?
Zafar to Bob: How do you see the nationalist/corporatist divide in the Ukraine conflict?
The Russians are motivated by some sort of national interest. Are you saying the West and NATO is motivated by corporate interests rather than US or German national interest?
The Biden Administration answers to the Corporatist State in Davos. The WEF is the puppeteer; Biden is the puppet. As Columbo commented in an earlier post, don’t confuse the interests of the Biden Adminstation with the interests of America or the West; they are clearly not the same.
The WEF Corporatist State is likely the real culprit in the sabotage of the Nordstream 1 and 2. The Nationalists( who are often not in charge) in virtually every other state with the possible exception of Ukraine were hurt by that sabotage. The WEF wants a protracted war to grind down the European and American economies; The WEF will do anything to create more chaos and strife; chaos is their friend. Peace and tranquility are not.
Heavy Water: “The people who are in Ukraine’s parliament and other political leadership offices are there because they participated in elections in which people could openly discuss competing ideas regarding public policy issues. “
I guess you haven’t been paying attention. Dissent is strongly squashed now in the Ukraine; what once might have been an open Parliamentary system is now gone. While I can’t say Putin is less a dictator, he may be more willing to allow dissent if he felt his grip on power was strong enough. Not so with Zelensky.
How were American nationalists hurt by the sabotage? Seems like the opposite? The fewer options Europe has the more dependent it is on the US, the stronger the US position is when it comes to imposing its will on its allies in NATO.
?
What would the WEF gain from ground down European and American economies? Aren’t they dependent on these economies for their own prosperity?
See my #84 comment. The rich don’t suffer materially from economic downturns.
I think “representative government” is a more accurate term to describe both the UK and Ukraine because, in both countries, the voters elect representatives to the parliament/legislature to form a government.
Does the United States have a representative government? Yes. This despite the fact that each state, regardless of the state’s population, gets 2 US Senators, despite first past the post voting (which exists in the UK and in Canada as well).
I still don’t see what they would gain. Arms sales profits is the only thing I could think of, but crashing the economy to get those seems like killing the golden goose. And I can see an American Nationalist advantage from Nord Stream, but not from crashing Europe’s economy like this beyond very very short term.
By that yardstick, do you think Egypt has representational government? Seems a very broad term, and perhaps not always that meaningful (if you take away freedom of speech and freedom of association [in a political party]).
Representative [in form] doesn’t always mean legitimate.
Let me repeat: this is not a reason to withhold support for Ukraine. It just doesn’t seem like it’s the reason to support Ukraine, I’m not sure why we’re discussing it. ?
I don’t know much about Egypt’s government. Back when Hosni Mubarak was president of Egypt, the joke was that Egypt has been transitioning towards democracy for the last 2,500 years. Currently, El-Sisi is the President. If I remember correctly, El-Sisi was put in power by the Egyptian military.
Ukraine seems much more like a representative government than Egypt.
Putin was a KGB agent in the Soviet Union. Zelensky was a comedian before he was elected president. I just think you are determined to ignore the difference between the two regimes.
You can continue to ignore the differences and the differences in legitimacy that result from these differences. But I think when you make this mistake, it distorts all of the other analysis you do with respect to this conflict.
If you get this issue of representative government vs dictatorship wrong, then you will have a distorted view of what is motivating many people and nations involved, directly and indirectly, in the conflict.
Take the issue of North Korea and South Korea. What if someone said, “You know, North Korea and South Korea should unite under a single government.”
If one didn’t know that North Korea is a dictatorship (where one family has ruled for nearly a century) and that South Korea has a representative government, one might wonder why there are any obstacles at all to unification. One might think that the border between North Korea and South Korea could be removed easily.
But if these two countries were to be unified, it could have huge implications as to whether the Koreans live under a dictatorship or under a representative government. If you don’t mind living under a dictatorship, then it’s not a big deal. But to many people, representative government is hugely important. People want to have some say in how they are governed.
So, in a conflict between Ukraine and Russia, to just say “Ah, they are both authoritarian regimes” is a huge assertion. It’s best to step back and acknowledge that the way Zelensky came to power, from being a comedian, is quite different from the way Putin came to power, from being a KGB agent.
Et voila:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Egypt
But how do they function today?
Yes, we disagree. I don’t think whether the Ukrainian regime is good or bad is dispositive, it’s whether it’s useful to and controllable by the West that are.
But that’s irrelevant now! See, no one expects any political freedom from Putin, because that would be silly. Zelensky, on the other hand, is obliged in the middle of a war to permit parties with direct lines to Moscow to advocate various flavors of treason, because (insert reasons here). Isn’t it obvious?
James, he isn’t obliged to do anything, but shutting down the opposition tells me (1) his support is shaky [and far less than universal] and (2) perhaps he would be better occupied implementing policies which have broader support than the ones he is currently committed to?
I know, easy to say and the man is in the middle of a war, but worth considering? US support for opposing Russia is fine, but if you made that conditional on building a workable consensus at home in Ukraine that support would be more effective. Otherwise even if Zelensky completely wins the war he has won a completely divided country – which is what Russia took advantage of in the first place.
Personal anecdote, fwiw: I work with a woman from Slovakia, who had to go home for a family emergency. She spent about two months there in her family’s village, in Eastern Slovakia, about two km from the Ukrainian border. She saw, and interacted with, many refugees from Ukraine who were passing into Slovakia. Because her village’s dialect is similar to Ukrainian, she was able to have conversations with many of them.
Surprise take away: the majority blamed Zelensky for the situation. Not Putin, Zelensky. They weren’t convinced that the EU deal was better than what Russia had offered Ukraine pre-Maidan. They weren’t committed to this ‘all or nothing’ approach – they would have preferred compromise to war. Now it’s obviously a small sample, perhaps they’re totally unrepresentative? But what struck me is that this is never an opinion we hear when Ukrainian refugees are being interviewed for broadcast to the West. Never. Not once. Yet my colleague reported that this was the majority opinion that she heard, from Ukrainian speaking refugees from the West of the country. Makes one wonder what other parts of reality are being curated out to build our ‘malleable’ consensus.