A few months ago, Nigel Farage, the grinning leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party, in one of his many contributions to the gaiety of nations, said – about the time of the annexation by Russia of Crimea – that he “admired” Vladimir Putin. Farage said that he did not admire the goals of VP, oh no, but he did have a sort of admiration for the ruthless determination of the man. (One wonders whether Farage rather liked the idea of having the power to bump off opponents and over-inquisitive journalists. Politicians who grin as maniacally as he does make me nervous.) Those who must abide by the messiness and compromises of Western liberal democracy can sometimes, no doubt, dream of the sort of ruthless power wielded by a Putin, Stalin or a Mao. (We tend to forget, by the way, that even a supposedly tough politician such as a Reagan or Thatcher were more hemmed in by circumstances and debate than some of their more fervent admirers and detractors care to admit.)
Alas, it appears that the image of Putin as this ruthless, chess-playing genius wrongfooting silly old Cameron, Merkel, and the chap with the funny moonface from France is not quite standing up to scrutiny. Here’s a report by Bloomberg:
“The foundations on which Vladimir Putin built his 15 years in charge of Russia are giving way. The meltdown of the ruble, which has plunged 18 percent against the dollar in the last two days alone, is endangering the mantra of stability around which Putin has based his rule. While his approval rating is near an all-time high on the back of his stance over Ukraine, the currency crisis risks eroding it and undermining his authority, Moscow-based analysts said.
In a surprise move today, the Russian central bank raised interest rates by the most in 16 years, taking its benchmark to 17 percent. That failed to halt the rout in the ruble, which has plummeted to about 70 rubles a dollar from 34 as oil prices dived by almost half to below $60 a barrel. Russia relies on the energy industry for as much as a quarter of economic output, Moody’s Investors Service said in a Dec. 9 report.
Now might also be a good time to remind ourselves of the “curse of natural resources”.
It would be worth wondering what are the odds that Putin can last a lot longer in power. That said, a sobering thought is that when regimes are in deep trouble, they can do desperate, crazy things, as Argentina did in 1982 by invading the Falklands. If I were a planner for NATO right now, I’d be having a nervous Christmas and New Year ahead of me.
Really? You seriously wonder about that? How terribly sad for you and your family.
Mr Ed, I was being too generous to him.
I think the drop in oil prices, although it is dropping nearer to where I think it would be naturally, is nevertheless an orchestrated drop, meant to cause problems for Russia. I don’t know how clever Putin is, but even a very clever man would have trouble playing this game with the way the deck is currently stacked against him.
When one reads a post like the above, one can’t help wondering whether the Faragerie’s an opportune embellishment on the subject or the subject an embellishment on the Faragerie.
It may be in every second column of the Torygraph but why’s it spread further. What is it about Nige so upsets people?
Bloke in Spain: I think what folk dislike is NF both trying to be outrageous like some theatre act and then trying to be treated as a serious statesman type. That’s what annoys. And the grin is seriously scary.
Jonathan you’re a fool.
What Nigel Farage was observing was the organised campaign to demonise Russia and push them over the edge.
The drop in the oil price is as a result of a Faustian pact between Saudi Arabia and the US. IN return for curbing ISIS, a Saudi inspired and funded splinter group that has broken its leash, the US via the Oil price fuck over the Russian economy. I have no love for the Russians, but they’ve done fuck all to me.
I’m personally of the opinion that under the covers the west’s banking system is so fucked (and by extension most governments balance sheets) that there is an attempt to flip over the monopoly board. (A lesser version of this is the mass immigration of Muslims into the west – it then becomes paramount to curtail everyone’s freedoms because of terrorism.)
But to look at this situation and see Farage as the issue (rather than the expansionists of the EU) makes you a very misguided fool.
JP
I find Dave, Ed & whatever his name is, particularly the latter, trying to impersonate serious statesmen infinitely more annoying.
The question isn’t so much “How clever is Putin?” as “Are our politicians any cleverer than that?” Personally, I see Obama as a glib dolt.
Happy face?
I hope that probing other countries’ airspace and buzzing their aircraft is as reckless as Putin is going to get, with us anyway. Ukraine is probably still on his menu.
Putin won’t fall because of the bad economy. It was much worse under the communist regime, and communism didn’t fall because of the bad economy (despite Reagan’s claim to the contrary). Stop believing in the Marxist mantra called the materialist interpretation of history. It’s false, like everything else Marx proposed.
Dictators like Putin usually rule until they die – of natural or unnatural causes. It is rare and unpredictable that such a despot decides voluntarily to retire.
Jonny Dub, bollocks to you. I picked on Farage, admittedly a highly tempting target, because his judgement was so stupid in saying he “admired ” this thug. He said it. Also, spare me the Russia Today propoganda about how the evil EU pushed VP into this. You’ll make me cry in a minute. No doubt Putin apologists would line up the same excuse if he tries it on with the Baltic States or Finland or wherever. He did not have to undermine a sovereign Ukraine, however annoying it might have been to have the EU getting closer. It’s like blaming the victim of an attack for wearing nice jewelry.
How much are they paying?
They don’t have to be because power isn’t as concentrated in one idiot as it is in Russia.
I watched this all play out because I have friends in Ukraine. Basically Putin was made to think by USA world was running out of oil a while back. He bought into that, raised production, while gouging trade partners to the west, allowing them to realize his intentions. (To influence his way back in to power over lands previously held by USSR). When USA basically said just kidding dude’s! We’ve got plenty of oil, Putin knew he had been made the fool and only thing he could do is raise prices and make negative propaganda against fracking shale oil…everywhere but inside Russia. He knew USA, EU, let’s not forget Ukraine, knew he was using gas PRICE as weapon against everyone.
That is what this is all about.
And payback for it is 1st: coordinated sanctions, 2nd:oil price collapse, and 3rd: targeting Rouble all at the same time.
=
Something very bad for Putin.
I think you’re using the wrong metrics to judge Putin’s actions. In terms of goals, he has met or exceeded his objectives. He’s personally very popular and he’s reasserting Russia’s military power and the subjugation of her neighbours. He’s slicing off more and more territory for his own nation and getting away with it. Has anything at all happened to suggest he has miscalculated? I suggest it has not. The oil price is an inconvenience for him and Russia but it would be so whether Russia played nice or not. It’s not linked to events in Russia and so cannot be used to judge the wisdom of his actions. Only a purely results based metric, he’s winning, hands down.
Putin has gotten what he wanted. He might not like that the recent ruble crisis will negatively impact Russians, but he really doesn’t care about them anyway. When he’s forced to remove Russian troops from Crimea, stops his support for the Donbas rebels, and Ukraine is able to conduct its affairs without fear of a Russian attack, THEN we can make all the snide remarks about Putin that we want. In the meantime, he’s still ahead.
Russia has had a very weak hand compared to the West for quite some time now. By most standards of relative power, he should never have been able to pocket Crimea or instigate a rebellion in the Donbas or destabilize the Ukrainian government. Yet he has, and until MH-17 was shot down, he paid almost no price for it. Now he’s paying a higher price (for reasons that have little to do with the response by the West), but will still likely keep his gains intact. It is not so much that Putin is such a smart, clever guy, that the leaders in the West are feckless idiots.
Mr. Black, if the ruble turns into rubble, how long will Putin last? Or would Russia try to become a closed, self-supporting system?
I wonder why the USSR did fall apart in that case?
If. When it does, and when it can be directly linked to his military adventures, then the case can be made that he miscalculated. But oil prices move on their own, whether or not the Russian army does. If a crashing energy market brings down the Russians, it has nothing to do with Putin taking the Crimea etc.
The ruble is now 80 to the dollar. That is what? Another 14% fall since the article was written.
Well I just looked and the 80 may have been a blip currently it is 69.67 rubles to the dollar.
If a crashing energy market brings down the Russians, it has nothing to do with Putin taking the Crimea etc.
Maybe. Depends on the reasons for the oversupply. Sometimes it is political.
sanctions are not war?
Sanctions are an alternative to war.
Co-incidentally, in the ‘Libertarian International’ sidebar, someone is discussing a speech which Putin gave recently, about Russia’s place in the international order. He seems to want a balance of power- against the overly-proud US. This might well be a typically Russian viewpoint, which Putin’s successor would also hold, so i recomment reading it. Time to form a nuclear ring around North America, maybe?
Just a brief comment down the thread to reinforce some earlier comments:
What a ridiculous attack on Farage.
‘One wonders whether Farage rather liked the idea of having the power to bump off opponents and over-inquisitive journalists.’
Maybe the writer will say he was using a device of metaphor or mild exaggeration.
I do not accept this.
The possibilities that occur to me are that:
the author is just a bad writer,
he is malicious,
he is an idiot
or
he is insane.
(Possibly a mixture of the above.)
And no, I am not speaking mataphorically or using mild exaggeration.
Sums it all up, really. The question as to whether Farage is set to become one of those leaders in the West does not strike me as interesting as some may think.
Most people are to apathetic to give a fuck.
Spare a thought for poor old Putin, he is just experiencing the sudden shock of the resource rich that the world is a bit more complex than they thought it was, it certainly ain’t 1960, with global trade and global media and global prices, they just can’t do what they like, not because the American world policeman cant do choke holds anymore, but because their policies have real actions that bite back.
The OPEC extortion squad were quite happy to put the squeeze on the West through oil prices, but once food costs started going up it affected their own people first and they reacted quite badly with wide ranging consequences, the US, EU, NATO et al didn’t need to do anything. Russia has the same problem and the upcoming shale gas revolution wont help either, this is revenge for Crimea, and it did not need anyone else to orchestrate anything, lucky for Obama now his red crayon and wooden ruler has gone missing.
Chavez got off lightly, but his successor is now too busy placating the proles to worry about doing something stupid, I believe Putin is going to have too much going on in his back yard to start a war.
Nick (Natural Genius) Gray
December 17, 2014 at 5:19 am
Historically sanctions are an act of war as is a blockade.
I think the drop in oil prices, although it is dropping nearer to where I think it would be naturally, is nevertheless an orchestrated drop, meant to cause problems for Russia.
How? What is the mechanism for this, exactly? The Saudis have not increased production, and their refusal (along with the rest of OPEC) to cut production can be adequately explained by several things completely unrelated to Russia. If the US/EU had the power to cause a 40% collapse in the oil price, there is a good chance they’d have done so long before now.
Mr Black is right. The tanking rouble is a direct consequence of recent steep falls in the oil price, and the fall in the oil price is nothing to do with Russian military or political action.
The oil price has fallen in part as a normal correction: $100/barrel, $120/barrel is well above the usual long-term average, and when prices stay high for a while they stimulate investment in production – in this case, the oil majors greenlight new extraction projects that the continually develop but mothball until economic conditions are favourable. More oil coming onstream means a lower price.
At the same time, new technology in shale has introduced new production in parallel: a great deal of shale oil production is by new players – not the oil majors, but a whole plethora of relative tiny new businesses. Shale wells are characterised by a much smaller capital requirement than conventional drilling, and can move from initial survey to commercial production much faster. The aggregate volume of current shale production in the USA is very substantial, and we can see its effect: today, the US has been largely removed from the international oil market as a net importer. Yet a couple of years ago – when the majors were greenlighting new projects that are coming onstream about now, shale was still a barely proven technology, and would not have affected the decisions of the majors greatly.
Taking these factors together, it is no surprise at all to see the oil price falling substantially. There is no need to postulate secret cabals of anti-Russian market-manipulating gnomes.
So now the second part of the question arises. In evaluating Putin’s effectiveness, and the political cost-benefit calculus Putin uses when deciding upon his military adventurisim, the question is not “What are Putin’s prospects if Russia can’t make huge oil profits?” it’s “Given a steep fall in oil prices and the consequent economic damage to Russia, is Putin better off or worse off as a result of his activities in Crimea, Ukraine etc?”
Sadly, I strongly suspect Putin is much better off politically, that his prospects of survival are considerably enhanced by this background. With the Russian economy tanking, and very serious problems for ordinary Russians to come very soon, they will want someone to blame. If Putin had just got on with running the country as best he could, his people would blame the government for economic chaos. By meddling with neighbours, stirring up concerted international diplomatic action against Russia, and reviving the paranoia of Russians for supposed anti-Russian persecution, Putin has constructed a scapegoat. He can present the evil West as the cause of his citizen’s woes, he conjures up the image of an international cabal working to undermine the Russian economy; and he presents himself, of course, as the saviour of the Russian people, the one man strong enough to stand up to these powerful enemies.
Considering that Russia has a serious problem with alchoholism amongst its working age population, a birth rate that since the 1990s has been below the replacement rate (which will now be starting to impact) and a serious reliance on other people buying natural resources from them, all of which are tied in with an economy that is regularly interfered with (not even managed) by a centralist state (you show me a non-centralist nationalist state…), and I think we can suggest their long-term threat is less than it once was. Most of this was predictable, but Putin’s concern with staying in control (and he has to balance a lot of more extreme demands as well as more moderate ones) perhaps has stopped him taking advantage.
It is worth noting also that much of Russian business, academia, middle class (which tends to be the innovative bit) and even the oligarchy are not interested in conflict with the west, prefering closer relations, for all they may not wish to join the EU. Seeing Russia as a single entity is rather silly in this context.
And considering the populist left-wing instincts arising in UKIP at the moment (nationalise the railways? – the service is bad enough already in the quasi-nationalised system we have…), along with the nationalism and the abandonment of any political theories, with the claim of libertarianism going out the window with opposing gay marriage, I would suggest the power-seeking of Mr Putin is indeed the best model for what UKIP believe: they will support whatever is popular and ignore the fact this sort of mis-management creates dangerous uncertainity and does not allow strong growth of non-government institutions due to repeated meddling. So Jonathan’s comparision is accurate.
There seems to be a view on here that the sanctions are incidental to the problems in Russia, and that the oil price collapse has done all the damage. The fact is, it is the two of them that are causing enormous problems. The sanctions started off toothless, but slowly and quietly have been ratcheted up to the point that many banks and businesses are backing off doing any business with Russian companies lest they face a multi-billion dollar fine from the US DoJ in a few years. This is having a real impact, with several large oil and gas projects either cancelled altogether or struggling to find the cash to keep running. Had the oil price remained high, possibly the Russians could have weathered this, but with the two happening in the same year…well, the collapse of the rouble tells the story. In other words, Putin chose a really, really bad year to piss off the Americans and cut themselves off from the global finance system.
From what I can tell, Putin remains popular largely because most of them genuinely believe that the US was about to build a naval base in Crimea and hence Putin had no choice but to annex the peninsula to stop this. Seriously, this is what most of them believe 100%. Which is just as well, because if they believed Putin took it because he thinks he’s the new Catherine the fucking Great, his chances of survival would be a lot slimmer. But slim his chances are. Russians are already asking themselves if the annexation of Crimea was worth it, and their economic woes cannot be blamed solely on the sanctions: his own failure to reform the economy, and his penchant for rewarding his mates with billions of state funds, will be increasingly called into question. My guess is there are already plots to oust him from young, ruthless, and ambitious FSB or military individuals who stand to lose a personal fortune in the coming period and feel Putin has had his day and now it’s time for somebody else to take charge, simply out of a desire for power. Putin can stay in power only as long as he can pay off those who would seek to replace him, and that will get increasingly difficult. I don’t think there is much to worry about him launching an attack (nuclear or otherwise) – I’m not sure the army would be keen, and I’m also not sure the population would support yet more collapse of their economy: they are hurting badly now, and are seriously concerned about what is going to happen next. We can expect pockets of civil unrest to appear in towns with only one factory, which the police and army will need to suppress. They will struggle to contain unrest at home and the popularity of an operation abroad, and with Putin distracted he is likely to find himself ousted and his replacement – who nobody will ever have heard of – suing for peace with the West amongst promises of reform. And the cycle will happen again.
In spite of claims to the contrary, the Soviet Union did fall because of falling oil prices. The problem started with Stalin’s collectivization of agriculture: that made it necessary to import food, and being unable to sell their cars at a profit, the Soviet Union had to export oil. After the invasion of Afghanistan, the Saudis flooded the market with oil, with the express purpose of destabilizing the Soviet Union. Read it all in Yegor Gaidar’s Grain and Oil, if you have not already done so:
http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/20070419_Gaidar.pdf
What the Saudis are doing now, however, is more likely meant to destabilize Iran than Russia. The result is the same, of course, independently of Saudi intentions.
I am inclined to agree with the thesis that Putin is a fool: even though it was not his Ukrainian policy that led to falling oil prices, Putin should have taken into account the vulnerability of the Russian economy, and focused on making friends abroad and liberalizing the economy, instead of making enemies. And even if he holds on to all his territorial gains and oil prices go up, most of the Ukraine has definitely shifted to the West, which would not be the case if Putin had focused on the economy, instead of foreign adventures.
Later on, i’ll add a few thoughts about Farage.
when prices stay high for a while they stimulate investment in production – in this case, the oil majors greenlight new extraction projects that the continually develop but mothball until economic conditions are favourable.
Sorry, but they don’t. I work for a major in their new project division, and trust me: when we discover something we rush headlong to get it into production ASAP, unless the oil price drops such as to make it uneconomical. There is no project anywhere that has been mothballed because prices are too high. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Putin’s cleverness doesn’t need to be re-thought.
It needs to be thought out properly in the first place.
For all their alleged expertise and insight, the experts, analysts and other commentators who told us of Putin’s cleverness so recently never bothered to tell us he’d be vulnerable to sanctions.
That’s because they had no more clue than the rest of us.
They make it up as they go along.
James Strong exhibits much of the thin-skinned, brittle nature I have come to associate with the sort of UKIP supporters you see lurking in the comment threads of the Daily Telegraph. There is this inability to see the absurdity of what Farage says, or at least not grasp why it bothers people. Perhaps Mr Strong feels annoyed that I drew attention to Farage’s stated admiration for Vlad P. Well that’s too bad.
I am very sane, well-informed and most of the time – unless I am lacking sufficient caffeine – a reasonable writer. The meaning of my blog comment is plain to someone not mentally retarded or drunk: I noted Mr Farage’s admiration for a thug, and reflected on what this might say about what Farage might dream of being able to do, given the chance. I did not say that Farage would of course do such things, only that his admiration is troubling. It assuredly is.
No-one has ever explained to my satisfaction how an obscure Chekist rose without trace to become President of Russia. He cannot have organised the infamous apartment bombings on his own. Was he the frontman for an FSB coup?
However it happened, he has twisted the Russian Constitution to ensure that he will retain power for the rest of his life. The only question is how long that will be. As far as I can see he has no understanding of economics, and his idea of international relations goes along the old Russian line of “be my friend or I will kill you.” The Russian economy was a basket case when he took power, and it is still a basket case. The only thing it had going for it was hydrocarbons, and if they cannot sell those at a profit, they have nothing.
Since Bad Vlad has enriched himself at the expense of the Russian people (some estimates say he is worth $40 billion, but we will never know), he will never give up power. Eventually he will be removed when he becomes too damaging to the interests who put him there. It will probably be blamed on the Chechens, and I expect another charismatic hard man will be lined up to take over. Sadly for Russia, what I doubt will happen is that will become a liberal democratic state under the rule of law. Even the USA cannot manage that trick, Russia has no chance.
JP
Politicians say absurd things. If we we’re to start making a list of absurdities coming out of the mouths of just leading Tory politicians, in the last couple years, we’d be here a very long time.
Apart from Farage’s conditional admiration of Putin – and, to be honest, compared with the limp wristed, metrosexual non-entities infest UK politics there’s something to be admired – Farage, UKIP, Faragic utterances have absolutely nothing to do with oil prices, the rouble or Russia’s internal problems.
Your reference was hopefully just a rather inept attempt to put the passing boot in. Or should we look through the body of the piece for more subtle allegories on the theme of Faragerie?
As for the thin skinnedness & frangibility of UKIP supports…not being one, wouldn’t know. But it’s been enormously amusing to watch the juvenile behavior of many of UKIP’s opponents.
Honestly Jonathan, Nigel didn’t do it. Has anyone seen George Soros lately?
I think the reason that some UKIP supporters get a little ‘thin-skinned’ and ‘brittle’ is the fact that much of the criticism of Nigel and the boys is less than substantive and often made up out of whole cloth, so when they come across some much more reasoned criticism, “He’s got beady eyes and grins a lot. And he once said he admired that Putin”, they tend to go off half-cock in their response.
As for the collapse of the ruble, I notice that there is as much agreement on the question as among any bunch of economic commentators.
@Tim Newman
Sorry, I didn’t explain myself clearly enough. I meant such projects are developed even when prices are low, but mothballed until they prices rise to reach a level that hits a given ROI target. This enables the majors to bring projects onstream quicker when the price rises, because they don’t wait for the price to hit a level before they start developing areas (while recognising that “quicker” is relative; nothing happens overnight).
Over the last few years, with prices over $100/barrel, the majors have been busy bringing projects on stream that were developed years previously, when prices were lower, and anything else they can get their hands on. This is now coming to fruition, at the same time as significant production volumes from US shale, hence the glut. (And also hence why Saudi influence on the price, while significant, is sometimes overstated).
Is that closer to the truth?
What the Saudis are doing now, however, is more likely meant to destabilize Iran than Russia.
More likely intended to prevent destabilising Saudi Arabia, food prices were a factor in the oppressive regimes collapsing around them, and oil and food prices are closely linked in the global economy.
@MaryC
Wouldn’t want to pre-empt Tim on this but this is simple economics. No oil company is going to go looking for resources knowing they’re not economically viable. It’s a very expensive business. If they find something that’d be a go at a higher price but a no-go at a lower – that’s a failure. There are no prizes awarded for maybe oneday’s. But it’s tied into the “resources are infinite” concept. At some price anything becomes a resource. So some failures become successes. And markets. Exploiting that now viable resource will undercut the very price that’s made it exploitable. It’d be hard enough working it out if you were the single player. But competition.
Incidentally, on the subject of oil price slumps, dollar rises and market changes, another economic commentator puts his oar in here:
Some quotes:
And:
So, whadaya think?
Regardless of what is causing the oil/ruble collapse, the sanctions allow Putin to blame Russia’s economic problems on the West, to say that the West is waging open warfare against the Russian people and intends to destroy them.
Germany twice and Japan once went to war because they thought the trends were against them. Russia’s increasing economic problems raise the likelihood of war in Europe. A Russian economic collapse would guarantee war, which would inevitably become nuclear.
I meant such projects are developed even when prices are low, but mothballed until they prices rise to reach a level that hits a given ROI target.
Ah, okay. In which case yes, you’re right: we continue the development studies to a certain point, and then put them aside until the economic conditions improve. Actually we don’t, we run round and round in circles continually discussing the same damned points over and over, racking up costs all the while, but we don’t make any progress, no. 🙂
No-one has ever explained to my satisfaction how an obscure Chekist rose without trace to become President of Russia.
He rose to local prominence in St. Petersburg in the Yeltsin years, was invited into Yeltsin’s entourage, and then was hand-picked by the same man as his successor. Nothing spectacular about it, he just happened to fit the bill: Russian, young, and sober. Could easily have been somebody else.
A Russian economic collapse would guarantee war, which would inevitably become nuclear.
Well, it happened in 1998 and we’re still waiting for the rockets to fly.
“I wonder why the USSR did fall apart in that case?”
Because all dictatorships fall apart sooner or later, holding on to power is not easy, because the (first) capable and shrewd dictator dies, and less capable ones fail to hold on to power, because the mechanism of power transfer from generation to generation was not solved for dictatorships, because of random factors like Gorbachev…
The USSR economy was a failure for 70 years before the communist regime fell…
“Nigel Farage, the grinning leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party, in one of his many contributions to the gaiety of nations, said – about the time of the annexation by Russia of Crimea – that he “admired” Vladimir Putin.”
Okay, if we’re talking about the relevance of bringing up Farage, so did Alec Salmond, who also wanted to found his own little feifdom on oil money. I wonder how that would be going right now if he’d succeeded. No doubt it would all be a diabolical Westminster plot. (Or “revenge”. He started on that line that back in August, on the offchance he did win.)
pete: Spot-on, I think.
The other similarity between Farage and Putin is the starry eyed sycophancy of his admirers, as evidenced on this and a thousand other internet threads.
I think that the ultimate reason Putin is admired by figures such as Farage, Patrick Buchanan and Peter Hitchens is that he is seen as someone resisting an effeminate and decadent western liberalism.
Jacob,
“The USSR economy was a failure for 70 years before the communist regime fell…”
But compared to the hardly free market economies of the west the difference was not that greatly visible until towards the end, when the technological advances of the 60s and 70s started to produce consumer products, and the communist countries slowly realised they did not have these (or working versions anyway). At the same time, the west was finally prepared to challenge the Soviet government to be able to spend what it threatened to by upping the ante militarily.
With better information (and less state control) and with the western governments again upping the ante (in a different field) the comparision here is not with the 1920s Soviet Union but the 1980s one, and possibly the late 80s at that.
It could easily have been another Chekist. But Putin, shrewd as he is, did not plant those apartment bombs himself. I cannot help thinking that the KGB/FSB put their man in place, and engineered a takeover of the state which even Beria could not manage. The grey apparatchiki will have hugely enriched themselves in the process, and I feel it will be the prospect of losing their wealth which will lead to Putin’s demise. He will never be beaten at the ballot box, as he controls who counts the votes. He is very well guarded, and would never be taken out by an outsider (although that is who will be blamed), but it all depends on who the palace guards answer to. Russia is a fascist state, and Putin has to cling on to power until his plane crashes, or however the thing is done.
Churchill on Hitler:
Not so vastly different from what Farage said about Putin. Should we think that Churchill was pro-Nazi?
FWIW, I think Farage has excellent libertarian/Thatcherite instincts. However, he is also ambitious and that has led him to make two mistakes. Firstly, to encumber UKIP with policies other than getting the UK out of the EU. Secondly, he has appealed to disaffected Labour voters. That has pulled the party in a direction that I am not sure even Farage particularly wants.
“The other similarity between Farage and Putin is the starry eyed sycophancy of his admirers, as evidenced on this and a thousand other internet threads.”
Here we go again.
On the non-anti-UKIP/Farage we have 3 commenters who don’t see the oilprice/ruble/Russia issue as a platform for Farage kicking. That makes us “starry eyed sycophantic admirers”
It starts to have the flavour of one of those loony left discussion forums or twatter threads where to fail to adequately & unconditionally condemn an issue is evidence of the Nazi/homophobe/mysogonist in our midst.
FFS
Grow up
Patrick is surely correct about NF’s mistake about trying to woo Labour voters. It has led him to take stances on immigration that go beyond legitimate concerns to peddle stuff about how foreigners are taking our jobs, etc. (Lump of labour fallacy, etc). And some of his comments seems designed to annoy rather than create sympathy. If he is a Thatcherite, he ought to remind us of that occasionally. (And Mrs T. had her blind spots, mind.)
However, let’s back to Russia. Putin’s “patriotic achievement” is limited: he’s managed to create a sort of siege mentality, and thereby make himself popular, although also doing so by ensuring any rivals are frozen out, killed, or cowed.
Sam Duncan: yes, Salmond is also a nationalist and therefore is going to have a sort of admiration for VP, and no doubt hoped to create a sort of petro-state in Scotland. Not quite so easy to persuade people about that with oil falling….
Sam Duncan:
Indeed. I can’t help wondering, as I see these headlines, how they are being received in Scotland.
Anyone here posting from Scotland?
The odds of Putin hanging on to power? Barring sudden freak accidental death, 100%. Let’s call it 98%. The Russian people love him, and there’s nothing they love better than some foreign annexation and a conspiracy theory about how Washington forced them to invade Ukraine. Putin’s approval ratings are through the roof, the Russians pride themselves on dealing well with hardship. He’s going to come out of this in better position than he went in. The Russian economy probably won’t, but Putin will.
As a corollary, back in the ’90s when I was in Russia, the biggest newspaper in the country had a poll: Who was the greatest Russian of the 20th century? It was Stalin in a landslide. Russians have a deep-seated insecurity about their lack of culture and influence which manifests in a maniacal need to see their nation bullying others. They eat that shit up.
I am not sure I agree with you. The USSR did quite well in building up heavy industry at immense human cost, enabling it to build huge numbers of tanks and guns in WWII. But such simple industrialisation did not mean it could develop a consumer economy. Socialism might be all right if the customer is the state, and the state wants tanks, but it completely fails if it is asked to provide goods and services which people actually want. By the 1980s the abject failure of socialism to run a modern economy could not be hidden. The humiliation of Chernobyl was probably the final straw.
The odds of Putin hanging on to power? Barring sudden freak accidental death, 100%. Let’s call it 98%. The Russian people love him…
Your post is sensible, but I don’t understand why you think Putin hanging onto power is in any way related to whether the people love him. The threat will come from an opportunistic individual/s, not a lack of popular support. Plus, history will be rewritten by his successor to show Putin was actually an enemy of the people all along. Russians are good at this.
With oil prices tanking Iran and Libya are in serious shit.
Tim Newman,
I think OPEC has its own reasons, but it doesn’t operate in a vacuum. Someone is allowing them to hurt the American shale industry- an industry people depend on to continue the charade that we have a thriving economy, for a reason. I think one of the reasons is Russia.
But it is an educated guess, and I don’t doubt sanctions and other issues come into play. The EU is likely the real loser because this looks like a nasty fight over who gets to charge them too much for fuel.
Bloke in Spain, the criticsm of Farage admirers doesn’t apply to those focusing on the oil issue.
However, one or two people have taken me to task for daring to suggest Farage was foolish to say he admired VP.
It is not as if I have much time for other politicians either.
As promised above, a few remarks about Mr Farage:
Did Farage blame the fall of the latest Berlusconi government on the EU, or am i confusing him with Dan Hannan?
How is that different from Putin blaming the fall of Yanukovych on the EU?
So it seems to me that Jonathan Pearce’s remarks about Farage, though arguably a bit over the top, are not baseless.
(For those of you who don’t follow Italian politics, not even on the BBC, it would probably have been impossible for Italy to refinance its debt, had Signor B. stayed in power; so it was the financial markets that dethroned him.
Whether the markets are to be blamed or praised for it … well, you are entitled to your own opinions.)
I find not only distasteful, but disturbing, the malevolent, gloating schadenfreude that hangs over about almost all commentary on Russia outside of the far left. It’s narrow-minded, short-sighted, grossly oversimplified and crudely polarised. Does it really need to be said that human beings don’t
fall into two discrete types the goodies and the baddies, they are vastly more complex mixtures of often contradictory personality traits? You wouldn’t know that simple truth is the case to judge by any discussion of Putin and Russia, which are crudely conflated. On a forum like this, to suggest that Putin is not a full 100.0% evil, but only a mere 99.8% evil would attract immediate characterisation of the speaker as a Krembot or a Putin shill.
This is not the behaviour of sophisticated human beings but mirrors the juvenile behaviour of lefties and their immediate labelling of thought miscreants as neocons, dupes of NATO and the like. Farage, I believe, was referring to one aspect of Putin’s behaviour, just as Churchill, as quoted by
Patrick Crozier above, was talking about just one of Hitler’s traits. If someone praises Rommel as a general, or Richard Strauss as a composer, does that make them a sycophant, or a starry-eyed admirer of Nazism?
Any Russian has far more in common with the readers of this blog than do tens of thousands of British citizens, a substantial number of whom live within a few miles of me, who are in effect the enemy within, who despise the values of the society they live in and are willing to do what they can to bring it to an end.
Russians, on the other hand, are culturally European like us, whether or not some of them like to feel they are something apart, and the overwhelmingly majority wish to be accepted as part of Europe. Russia has made colossal contributions to European culture and to world science. Islam makes none. If the criteria for admission to the EU were purely cultural, and not economic and geographic, Russia would be right there in the middle. It is grotesque that an ever more Islamist Turkey, on the other hand, is in line for membership.
The adherents of Islam, on the other hand, have nothing whatsoever to offer the world. In the middle east and elsewhere we – that is, the west – and Russia have a ruthless common enemy who has supporters living under our noses. I have no doubt whatsoever that many, many British, and European Muslims, take the line in private that although ISIS is somewhat over the top, which is bad in PR terms, nevertheless, they are essentially on the right track, and if we and the present leadership of Russia were not so myopic on both sides, we would now be working together to oppose it. On 9/11 Putin, and overwhelmingly, ordinary Russians, expressed solidarity and sympathy with America. In many British and European mosques and Muslim families, there was rejoicing. Russia isn’t Putin.
Putin is no angel, but my knowledge of human beings, and of the Russian mindset in particular, tells me that our attitude contributes to Russia’s dangerous growing estrangement from the world community and is strongly counterproductive in the long term. I believe that ultimately our joint interests must take precedence over all other factors.
Tarrou 5.07: a lot has changed in Russia in 20 years. A whole new generation
has come into being, who post on Facebook, watch YouTube, Skype friends in the west and whose choice in music is overwhelmingly western pop.
Apparently nobody told the Russians that Stalin was not Russian.
I wonder who killed more Russians: Hitler or Stalin?
But maybe Stalin is admired for causing the collapse of the Soviet Union.
BTW it seems that some commenters here continue to entertain fantasies about the cause of the Soviet collapse, in spite of the web link to reality i provided in my 1st comment.
Trofim: you say Russia isn’t Putin. I hope you are right. But he’s in power, is still very popular. There’s no getting away from that.
Why be harsh on Russia? Well, much of its history over the past century has been one of horror. Maybe my current loathing of its regime is bitter disappointment at how post-communist Russia has turned out. If we find nice things to say about Russia we will.
I think OPEC has its own reasons, but it doesn’t operate in a vacuum. Someone is allowing them to hurt the American shale industry…
Who? Because if America can control OPEC, there will be a lot of people wondering why they haven’t done so since the 1970s. Nobody is controlling OPEC; they cannot cut production because:
1) They need the short-term revenue, and
2) They don’t trust one another to actually cut. They all cheat like hell.
Which would leave Saudi alone to cut its production, and they don’t have the clout they used to.
Too much believing in newspapaers.
Wouldn’t that be the perfect time to start a war?
The claim that the collapsing oil price is resulting from a quid pro quo arrangement between the Saudis and the US has been doing the rounds for weeks. However, I can’t see any indication that the Saudis were acting in any capacity other than their commercial self-interest when they refused to cut production and paralysed OPEC. Whether their calculation will work is another matter entirely – they might succeed in driving some frackers and shale oil producers out of business, but whoever purchases the oil producing assets of these distressed companies will do so at a steep discount and thus the cost of production will fall as debt servicing costs are reduced or eliminated. At least that’s what I figure.
However, this is all a matter for Saudi Aramco and the senior princes of the House of Saud. I strongly doubt that the Saudis were motivated to act in response to geopolitical concerns, even though they probably would have been well aware of the detrimental effects that their actions would have on their adversaries and those of their allies when they decided not to pull the trigger at OPEC. A serendipitous side-effect.
Ultimately, the Saudi course has been dictated by events in the USA. I’ve been reading for well over a decade about how the US is a nascent energy superpower, and that the government simply needs to get the hell out of the way for production to explode. Well, that has finally happened to some significant extent, and we are seeing the results. I don’t think we should be viewing the Saudis as kingmakers or even shrewd operators.
As for the Russians – all regimes end when they run out of political, not financial, capital. Economic ruin doesn’t have to presage political collapse; just ask Mugabe, the Kims or any number of tinpot dictators who survived and thrived amidst the destruction of their nations’ economies. Putin seems well-placed to survive (and perhaps prosper from) Russia’s economic decline. I don’t think this makes him a geopolitical grandmaster. If he were really clever, Euromaidan would never have got off the ground and Russia would still have their claws in deep in Kiev. The situation in Ukraine today appears to me to be a consequence of some very clumsy and brutish Russian meddling. Russia feels entitled to act thusly towards the nations that constitute its ‘near abroad’, and this is where that attitude has got them.
Anyway, looking at what’s happened, I don’t see the influence of some strategic genius in Russia’s corner. It’s long been speculated that Russia would not tolerate being ejected from Crimea, which they (with some justification) regard as their territory. The fact that they sent in the tanks after their man was forced out of office in Kiev is no surprise. A miscalculation, I believe, as it’s resulted in strategic failure (Ukraine is further from Russia’s orbit than ever before) whilst putting Russia on a collision course with the rest of the world. If Putin was really as smart as some make him out to be, he could have circumvented all that by opening Russia’s chequebook, writing Ukraine a very very large cheque with enough zeroes on it to make it difficult to refuse, and offering to purchase east Ukraine. Not only would this capitalise the new nation, but it would also decisively address the cultural cleavage that today poleaxes Ukraine to the point of making the nation-state unviable going forward. Such an offer could never be accepted now – it’s too late for that. It seems to me that Russia has not played its hand at all well in Ukraine, which it has probably lost forever.
Regarding Farage, I don’t think it unreasonable to question or perhaps draw conclusions about the political judgement of an aspiring British politician who publicly professes an admiration for Vladimir Putin.
And regarding that opinion poll- how many leaders have they had? Czar Nicholas, Lenin, Stalin, brezhnev, etc… Yep, either Lenin or Stalin could have been predicted in advance as better than all the rest.
Jonathan Pearce is attempting to re-write history.
I did not take him to task for saying that Farage was foolish for expressing admiration for Putin.
My objection was to Mr. Pearce’s suggestion that Farage dreams of killing his opponents.
That objection still stands.
Here is an excerpt from the interview in which Mr Farage discusses Mr Putin. It strikes me that Mr Pearce is at best gliby accepting a Lefty meme about Mr Farage without checking his sources, in which case he is, at the least, easily misled, or he is taking us for fools.
Yep, either Lenin or Stalin could have been predicted in advance as better than all the rest.
Indeed, the performance bar for Russian leaders is set astonishingly low. Putin was considered the best man for the job for years on the grounds that he was sober.
Mr Ed, so he praised Vlad as an operator. This is the “operator” who has presided over the implosion of the Russian economy. So even taken on a purely amoral basis, Farage’s praise for Putin as an operator looks to be foolish, to say the least.
James Strong, nope. Farage, as is shown above, praised Putin as an “operator”. But you cannot say you admire how a person goes about his business without to some degree condoning the methods. It is a bit mealy-mouthed to do so, in my judgement. Saying you don’t like him as a human being does not quite get you off the hook. If Farage had wanted to be clearer, he should have chosen a different word than “admire”.
Better still, Farage would be advised to focus on explaining how Britain can get out of the EU in an orderly manner, and flesh out the details, rather than the sort of antics he engages in. I used to quite like the man.
Would you care to reconcile that with Mr Farage’s comment: “As an operator, but not as a human being, I would say Putin.
“The way he played the whole Syria thing. Brilliant. Not that I approve of him politically. How many journalists in jail now?”
How, exactly, does Mr Farage ‘to some degree’ condone Mr Putin’s methods.
Mr Farage was referring to Mr Putin’s playing of the Syria crisis. That was pure diplomacy.
That was, as noted, a reference to diplomacy, and it was published as a secondary article on 31st March 2014, so (i) your criticism is based on hindsight as to future oil prices and (ii) is completely off topic as Mr Farage was not referring to the economy.
You said: I noted Mr Farage’s admiration for a thug,
You noted Mr Farage’s admiration for the thug’s handling of the Syria crisis, and you either saw his express disapproval of thuggishness, and ignored it, so as to portray Mr Farage in a misleading light, in which case you are dishonest, or you did not read that far, in which case you were careless, pray tell us which, or offer some other explanation.
Your comment and your subsequent attempts at justification call into question your judgment, your maturity, your intelligence and your honesty. I would characterise your post as making a puerile attempt at smearing Mr Farage for who knows what reason.
I have always hoped that posters and commentators on this blog are actually making reasonable propositions in good faith.
Economic ruin doesn’t have to presage political collapse; just ask Mugabe, the Kims or any number of tinpot dictators who survived and thrived amidst the destruction of their nations’ economies.
The difference is that the ordinary North Koreans and Zimbabweans never experienced wealth and freedoms that enabled them to enjoy foreign goods, credit, and foreign travel. Over the past 10 years, tens of millions of Russians have enjoyed the fruits of the global economy, something their parents spent years either dreaming about or being completely unaware of. Today’s middle class Russians consider two foreign holidays per year as something normal, plus the ability to borrow money to buy whatever they want. As of the summer, these Russians were only too happy to be holidaying in Thailand and Turkey in a comfortable, safe job while their President strutted the world stage conquering undefended peninsulas and lying about historical gas deals with China. After all, why not?
But that has all gone to ratshit. The collapsing rouble doesn’t just mean they can no longer afford to go on holiday, for many they have lost the money they’ve already paid: several of the gigantic Russian travel firms have gone bust (most Russians go on holiday through agents, like we used to in the 1980s), owing millions to people who booked months in advance. So for huge swathes of the population used to going to sunny climes in summer and winter, they are now going to find themselves cooped up in whatever shithole town they come from. Which will piss them off considerably. On top of that, their car repairs are going to cost more than they can afford, reliant as they are on imported parts. Household goods like nappies are shooting up in price, as are basic foodstuffs – even the locally produced stuff. What makes matters worse is most Russian consumer spending was done on credit, but not only that. Russians were offered loans in roubles at 15-20% interest, and loans in Euros or USD at 5-10% interest. So many of them chose the latter, and now have to repay hard cash from a salary of roubles. A lot of them will be in the shit.
There is only so much of this Putin can blame on the West. As I said, most Russians believe the Americans were about to set up a naval base in the cul-de-sac Black Sea right beside the Russian one (or in place of it, they don’t go into details) and so Putin had simply no choice but to invade and annex, but one of the complaints I’ve heard from my Russian friends this last few weeks is where is the government right now? They have largely remained silent on the issue of the collapsing currency and the subsequent collapse of the population’s job prospects and quality of life, except to make a few off-the-cuff remarks along the lines of “everything will be fine”. And I doubt too many will have not noticed that Putin seems to be taking care of his buddies’ companies amid the crisis: Rosneft has been “loaned” billions in hard currency, to be repaid in worthless roubles, and the vultures are circling the cash pot of the stabilisation fund and pension fund. Those vultures being Putin’s mates, of course.
So whereas Russians still support Putin’s foreign adventures, the real pain they’re gonna start feeling at home will soon erode any trust they have in him if he doesn’t come up with a plan soon, one with more substance than “it’s all the West’s fault”. This generation of Russians are too young to remember the hardships of the USSR, and might not be so ready to accept them in the name of Putinism. When times are good then yes; but when you’re taking holidays in Murmansk instead of Phuket and the bank is knocking at the door? Not so much, I think.
@Jonathan Pearce
According to the paragraph Mr Ed quotes, Farage didn’t choose the word “admire” himself. But surely the concept of having a grudging admiration for the effectiveness of the more competent of one’s enemies is well established, and established as being compatible with denouncing not only their ends but also their means.
And just so I remain consistent: it matters not one jot to Putin’s survival whether ordinary Russians love him or not. But if ordinary Russians are pissed off, then so will be the extraordinary and dangerous Russians.
Your main point in the article is very good, Mr Putin has ridden the wave of high oil/gas prices but has painted himself into a corner as the Saudis pump out lots of oil. He has risen to where he is from a career in the KGB, at a time when purges as promotion opportunities were presumably scarer than under Stalin. Mr Putin has though, it seems, been operating in a hard vacuum of Western weakness. He is not unlike the Krikkit people in the Hitchhikers Guide, ‘They care, we don’t, they win‘ said Ford Prefect, as true for the Taliban or any other battle.
However, the laws of economics yield to no one, and if costs exceed revenues, something must give. For Mr Putin, renewing a dispute with China would be pointless and he would be up against his own type.
The Soviets did shoot down a Lithuanian airliner in late 1939 (or maybe 1940) as part of the escalation prior to the annexation of the Baltic States. Perhaps a folk memory of this sort of thing creating an air of ‘crisis’ is what they thrive on. Can you really see Mr Obama getting upset enough about Russian adventurism to do anything concrete about it?
What I cannot see is how Mr Putin could fall from pressure from within. The Russian military seems to be totally apolitical and under civil control, the FSB is a KGB engaged in speculation and sabotage without any obvious ‘enemies’ and seems content to sit on the gas spigots and suck like a horde of financial aphids. Where could any change in Russia come from? I imagine Russia as a kind of gigantic bovine Labour voting North of England, but with ice and gas, where no matter what evidence there is of harm from the government, people keep on wanting more of the same.
What I cannot see is how Mr Putin could fall from pressure from within.
Exactly. And that was exactly the case immediately before the fall of Khrushchev and Gorbachev. When change comes in Russia it happens suddenly, violently, and seemingly out of nowhere and a new guy who nobody considered a potential candidate for the top job (again, Khrushchev, Gorbachev, Putin) finds himself in power. Russia just doesn’t go in for the “credible opposition slowly builds pressure on the incumbent” method, it’s usually an individual or small group waiting for the long-serving and increasingly deranged leader to go on holiday to the Black Sea. The challenge will come from within the FSB, somebody young, ambitious, popular with other FSB, and ruthless. They’ll be plenty of candidates.
Mr Ed,
Considering the Baltics are in NATO, President Obama would have no choice but to become involved should Russia be stupid enough to do anything there (or Poland).
And I doubt further military engagement in Georgia or Ukraine would be accepted (and where Mr Putin now lacks popular support is in most neighbouring countries). With China (and presumably therefore Mongolia) ruled out, where does that leave? Belarus is an ally, Finland almost certainly a no-go area (I doubt Sweden or NATO would not promptly support Finland, and it is an EU member anyway) and Alaska belongs to the US. So somewhere in Central Asia would be the only sensible choice for Russian agrandisement now, and that carries all the risks of getting involved in the stans (and the loss of their launchpads for the space programme…). Plus Turkey might be enraged by this – they do seem to see this area as one for them to mentor. So I am not sure where a sensible foreign intervention can happen without being pushed back by external forces or all-out war (which I somehow doubt Mr Putin wants, as he lacks Stalin’s capacity to build tanks and throw people at the problem).
You can barely open your mouth nowadays, but I always assumed that it was
lefties who were waiting turn any innocent remark into a grounds for a full-scale character assassination.
Bryan Ferry was careless enough to point out that the Nazis were good at putting on a show, which they undoubtedly were. Then followed the inevitable apology for praising Nazi Germany to the skies.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6561177.stm
Jonathan Pearce 07.52
My point is that anyone who worries about a Russian threat to the west has got their priorities completely the wrong way round. Apparently there are more young British Muslims fighting for ISIS than are in our armed forces. Fighting for Britain is, after all, seen by a substantial number of Muslims, if not a majority, as fighting for the enemy. Walk through the streets of Sparkbrook, Sparkhill, Small Heath, Alum Rock a stone’s throw from me, and you will undoubtedly rub shoulders with someone who’s planning on joining ISIS, or knows someone who is, or at the very least supports the establishment of a caliphate in Europe. I’m afraid the inability of Islam’s adherents to live peacefully with non-Muslims is a rapidly growing problem of throughout the “West”, with no apparent solution apart from keeping fingers crossed in the expectation that they will assimilate. The 300,000 or so Russians in the UK, incidentally, don’t somehow have the same problem in adjusting to living with us.
I’m afraid libertarian blogs do seem to have the same “the Russkies are coming” problem. They’re not coming, and even if they did, they wouldn’t ban music, pictures, films, books or forbid drinking or the exposure of female flesh. Relax a bit. It’s a mere quarter of a century since Russia discarded centuries of feudal rule, serfdom and 70 years of communist rule. Progress involves 3 steps forward, 1 step back sometimes, before the next 3 steps forward. I studied in the USSR in the late 1970’s. If I could show my Russian friends then what Russia is now, they would have dismissed it as science fiction. Even with Putin’s petty restrictions Russia is incomparably free compared with even 30 years ago. The genie is out of the bottle, the internet exists, Russians Skype, watch YouTube, write blogs, travel abroad, marry foreigners, have dual citizenship etc etc. There is no going back. Just relax a bit.
Watchman,
The Baltics are in NATO but I still can’t see Mr Obama being interested in anything more than tokenism, just to stop Mr Kerry from whining (too much). Belgium is in NATO too, will it send its forces? Greece? How exactly is this ‘no choice’ to be enforced? The UK would send a carrier, but…
Russia and Turkey getting hostile would be a popcorn moment. Putin and Erdogan seem rather similar though. Would anyone care, notice if Russia nosed about in Turkmenistan with its Door to Hell? It might be an improvement.
Russians Skype
#2 son lives in Russia. We Skype with him regularly to keep in touch. Cheaper than a phone call and you get video as a bonus.
Mr Ed,
Not sending forces (note not a full war force) to support a NATO member being invaded, even if unofficially, would surely mark the end of the alliance, and also therefore of the Democrats being regarded as having any concern for security in the US – not a position that even President Obama would be able to defend. I would not suggest a force suitable for war would be needed, as I doubt Putin, his supporters and the various interest groups he balances would see much profit in a war they could not win anyway (I doubt NATO would seek to invade Russia, which is the only way that Russia could win). Furthermore, an actual war would mean the abandonment of Syria (Turkey is NATO as well remember, so would be able to close access and would presumably take the opportunity to do so in lieu of an actual commitment) and an opportunity for the west to put a new government in there (albeit one stuck with the ISIS issue). That is not the sort of calculation that Nigel Farage admired..
Incidentally, why would we need carriers for the Baltics – we could fly off any airstrip in most of Europe (not sure if we have anything much worth flying, but still)?
I have to agree Putin might get somewhere in Central Asia if he wanted. But the anyone who cared may well not even include the Russian people anyway… And quite what a bit of extra empty steppe or desert would achieve is questionable – and I would not put it past Kazakhstan at least to be able to beat off a Russian incursion (I suspect they have invested their oil money slightly better for a start).
I didn’t make any reference to Mr Obama ‘Not sending forces’. The rest of NATO would probably disintegrate at the prospect of a confrontation with a power that could hit back, all sorts of shuffling and staring at feet would occur. If NATO faded away, would (should) Mr Obama really worry?
Sorry if my attempt at humour passed you in the night, the saga of the Royal Navy’s carriers is perfectly explained in that clip, despite it being from some years ago. Airstrips would not be available in Finland or Sweden as neutrals, the Baltic States airstrips would be too close to Russia and Poland’s also what with the current status of Königsberg (as was).
Flying in from Germany would be very demanding, inefficient and also politically difficult. Further afield virtually and the refuelling links would be vulnerable.
“My point is that anyone who worries about a Russian threat to the west has got their priorities completely the wrong way round.”
I wasn’t suggesting that the Russia threat is a top priority, but that is not the same as dismissing it, either. And bear in mind that Western foreign policy regarding Iran, Syria, Iraq, etc, has often had to contend with mischief-making from Moscow. So the idea that Putin should be courted as an ally in dealing with Islamic fundamentalism strikes me as a mistake. Also, let’s not forget that in the past, Western countries that propped up, or at least made deals with, authortarian regimes while they dealt with other threats ended up creating more serious problems down the line.
I’m afraid libertarian blogs do seem to have the same “the Russkies are coming” problem
It all depends with blogs you read. I get the impression that some of them are not particularly exercised about the subject, while most would take a dim view of the authortarian nature of Putin’s regime, as they would any such regime. It’s not personal.
“They’re not coming, and even if they did, they wouldn’t ban music, pictures, films, books or forbid drinking or the exposure of female flesh.”
Up to a point: but do you really think that Putin’s Russia is a deeply liberal place? Seriously?
I studied in the USSR in the late 1970’s. If I could show my Russian friends then what Russia is now, they would have dismissed it as science fiction. Even with Putin’s petty restrictions Russia is incomparably free compared with even 30 years ago. The genie is out of the bottle, the internet exists, Russians Skype, watch YouTube, write blogs, travel abroad, marry foreigners, have dual citizenship etc etc. There is no going back. Just relax a bit.
Anything compared to the mess that was the Soviet Union in the 1970s is probably progress, but let’s try and raise the bar a bit more than that, rather than play down the problems Russia now faces. That said, I agree there is no point in needlessly antagonising the country, or making the plight of people there even worse. I am sure the vast majority of Russians want what Westerners want, by and large. The difficulty is that we have a Moscow regime that burns with resentment at the loss of its old Soviet powers and reach, and seems to be pursuing policies designed to damage Russia’s economy.
The virtue which elevates Putin above Western leaders is that at least he believes in something – unlike, for example, Obama.
Perhaps Mr Putin should face some ridicule, how about some Ukranians making a life-size Putin mould and making a statue of him out of jelly, or would that be setting a dangerous President?
Don’t play the Glasgow Empire.
Putin won’t be removed from office. He controls the media and the gunmen. Most Russians buy the propaganda the state-controlled media (which is pretty much all the media in Russia now) puts out.
Putin and his people tell the most blatant lies and blame everything bad on the evil Westerners. Russians will, accordingly, blame the West for everything bad that happens to the Russian economy. Even if a Russian has to live in a slit trench covered by a sheet of plastic and has only a potato and half a head of cabbage to live on, he will still praise Putin and curse the West.