Thanks for a humanity-centered view of this unfortunate and tragic situation which rightly reminds us who is actually paying the price (and always pays the price). Which is why so much propaganda, sincere and cynical on both sides, is needed to keep the tragedy going. Having to experience all this organized dishonesty, lying and self-deception is one of the additional prices we are all paying. At the same time, it's necessary to also remind ourselves of the cliched but truthful axiom that "War is always an extension of politics," which means that, while the logic of economics and cost-benefit analysis is an important part of the terrible logic of war, other more unruly logics also play key roles. These would include, political "science," human psychology, both group and individual, sociology, culture, historical imagination and spiritual dimensions. It may be that when Putin speaks of the war making Russia stronger he is not primarily thinking in terms of economic strength. The United States completed World War II much stronger economically and militarily than it entered the war, but one can now see that its victory has led to a steady weakening of the unity, fairness and effectiveness of its political and economic system, sense of shared community, positive civic, cultural and spiritual values, emotional stability and satisfaction and sense of optimism. The cynical and debased decades-long campaign of America's foreign policy establishment designed to weaken Russia by luring it into this war is a malign (anti-human) but direct product of its victory in WW II.
There's a companion piece examining the situation from the perspective of Europe and their economic war of attrition against Russia, and I did video podcast presentations of each.
The video pieces are my latest learning curve in how to present data in diverse ways. The two perspectives seemed to be the best way to assess the situation without favoring either side.
Peter. thanks for this immersive account. Seems as though NATO and US have many reasons to extend the conflict as long as Ukraine still has meat for the grinding.
I thought I read maybe through your posts that Russian leaders are nearly mandating a switch to a digital ruble? What kind of bearing would such a move have on the economic situation you described here
As I have observed in a few different Notes, NATO's strategy can be summed up as "NATO will provide the cannon, Ukraine provides the cannon fodder."
Lloyd Austin said as much early on, when he identified NATO's goal as that of degrading the Russian military to the point where it was not capable of invading any other country.
Which is how the war comes to be in its current attritional stalemate. Amazingly, Putin is quite willing to fight on NATO's terms, pressing attritional attack after attritional attack.
It's the same brutal logic that led to the horrific casualties of Verdun and the Somme in WW1, or the Brusilov offensive of 1916, which succeeded in knocking the Austria-Hungarian army out of the war, but incurred so many Russian casualties that the Russian Army was never able to mount another offensive operation for the remainder of the war.
It's a cynical and appalling strategy that is staggering in its lack of morality or humanity. Perversely, it may also ultimately prove successful.
Putin would like nothing better than to persuade the world to ditch the dollar. To that end he has proposed a digital ruble, a ruble notionally backed by gold, and an alternative currency issued by BRICS.
The lunacy of all these proposals is best illustrated by the recent BRICS summit held in Russia where the Russian host (that would be Putin) told the delegates to bring wads of dollars and euros, because China was abandoning the Union Pay payment card integrations with Russia and no other payment mechanism would really work inside Russia. The part he didn't say was that Russia desperately needed the dollars and euros for foreign exchange.
I'd have to circle back around to verify but I don't believe even China has made much headway with their eCNY digital currency. If that's the case, that would tend to prove my thesis that CBDCs are structurally unworkable, owing to their status within the currency universe as "bad currency", which, per Gresham's Law, are not held but are spent as quickly as possible, with "good" currency options being held instead.
I am pretty sure Russia's digital ruble is has reached similar dead end.
Great data, Peter. It sheds more light on the situation than the mainstream media ever provides, so thank you!
One the one hand, any political leader who repeatedly promises “severe consequences” at some point has to carry through on his threat, or he loses all credibility and thus is susceptible to being overthrown. Putin’s precariousness is probably increasing exponentially now.
On the other hand, probably his best bet is to wait another month and negotiate a deal with Trump. Can he wait that long? I’m no expert, so I don’t know. Peter, have you seen any current bets by true Russian experts?
There are those “experts” especially on the cable news shows who are convinced that Putin’s defeat and fall from power is imminent because of the war in Ukraine. And there are those alternative talking heads who think that Ukraine is a military disaster for NATO and the EU.
The prevailing narratives on both sides seem wedded to this notion that the war in Ukraine will somehow be “won” by one side or the other.
As you might surmise from my analyses, I question the premise that any outcome at this point can plausibly constitute “winning”. Ukraine is screwed. Russia is screwed. Europe is screwed.
Those "experts" in the corporate media have been predicting Putin's imminent downfall, and Russia's imminent economic collapse since the spring of 2022, when the initial Russian column heading straight for Kiev stalled out.
That said, I fully agree that this unpleasantness has an immense cost to both sides, both in terms to blood and treasure.
Perhaps the question we should ask ourselves is which side is psychologically equipped to pay that price.
At some point, we have to give peace a chance. And the sooner we do, the lower the cost to everyone.
I am reminded of that scene in Deep Space Nine when Quark schools a Vulcan member of the Maquis on the illogic of their continued efforts at war, using the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition (Third Rule of Acquisition: Never pay more for an acquisition than necessary). When no one has an advantage peace can be had at the lowest possible price.
I'm not sure either side has much in the way of advantage in Ukraine, and by Quark's curiously compelling economic logic that means now is the optimal time to seek a peaceful resolution.
I agree completely! I can see no ‘winning’ scenario. I’m hoping that Trump will very cleverly negotiate an end to hostilities that will preserve face for all parties, even if no one ‘wins’. Grudgingly, but secretly relieved, all will go home - possibly with ‘payoffs’ to certain key politicians, military leaders, and oligarchs.
Thanks for a humanity-centered view of this unfortunate and tragic situation which rightly reminds us who is actually paying the price (and always pays the price). Which is why so much propaganda, sincere and cynical on both sides, is needed to keep the tragedy going. Having to experience all this organized dishonesty, lying and self-deception is one of the additional prices we are all paying. At the same time, it's necessary to also remind ourselves of the cliched but truthful axiom that "War is always an extension of politics," which means that, while the logic of economics and cost-benefit analysis is an important part of the terrible logic of war, other more unruly logics also play key roles. These would include, political "science," human psychology, both group and individual, sociology, culture, historical imagination and spiritual dimensions. It may be that when Putin speaks of the war making Russia stronger he is not primarily thinking in terms of economic strength. The United States completed World War II much stronger economically and militarily than it entered the war, but one can now see that its victory has led to a steady weakening of the unity, fairness and effectiveness of its political and economic system, sense of shared community, positive civic, cultural and spiritual values, emotional stability and satisfaction and sense of optimism. The cynical and debased decades-long campaign of America's foreign policy establishment designed to weaken Russia by luring it into this war is a malign (anti-human) but direct product of its victory in WW II.
There seem to be three versions of this article published?
There's a companion piece examining the situation from the perspective of Europe and their economic war of attrition against Russia, and I did video podcast presentations of each.
The video pieces are my latest learning curve in how to present data in diverse ways. The two perspectives seemed to be the best way to assess the situation without favoring either side.
Ah I did wonder if it was a part work but all the titles seem identical? Maybe it depends on which app/client is being used?
Ok that makes sense, thank you. I guess the right hand side of each title is truncated on my phone client.
The titles you SHOULD be seeing:
The Waste Of Putin’s War
The Waste Of Putin’s War: Europe
The Waste Of Putin’s War (Video)
The Waste Of Putin’s War: Europe (Video)
Peter. thanks for this immersive account. Seems as though NATO and US have many reasons to extend the conflict as long as Ukraine still has meat for the grinding.
I thought I read maybe through your posts that Russian leaders are nearly mandating a switch to a digital ruble? What kind of bearing would such a move have on the economic situation you described here
As I have observed in a few different Notes, NATO's strategy can be summed up as "NATO will provide the cannon, Ukraine provides the cannon fodder."
Lloyd Austin said as much early on, when he identified NATO's goal as that of degrading the Russian military to the point where it was not capable of invading any other country.
Which is how the war comes to be in its current attritional stalemate. Amazingly, Putin is quite willing to fight on NATO's terms, pressing attritional attack after attritional attack.
It's the same brutal logic that led to the horrific casualties of Verdun and the Somme in WW1, or the Brusilov offensive of 1916, which succeeded in knocking the Austria-Hungarian army out of the war, but incurred so many Russian casualties that the Russian Army was never able to mount another offensive operation for the remainder of the war.
It's a cynical and appalling strategy that is staggering in its lack of morality or humanity. Perversely, it may also ultimately prove successful.
Putin would like nothing better than to persuade the world to ditch the dollar. To that end he has proposed a digital ruble, a ruble notionally backed by gold, and an alternative currency issued by BRICS.
The lunacy of all these proposals is best illustrated by the recent BRICS summit held in Russia where the Russian host (that would be Putin) told the delegates to bring wads of dollars and euros, because China was abandoning the Union Pay payment card integrations with Russia and no other payment mechanism would really work inside Russia. The part he didn't say was that Russia desperately needed the dollars and euros for foreign exchange.
I'd have to circle back around to verify but I don't believe even China has made much headway with their eCNY digital currency. If that's the case, that would tend to prove my thesis that CBDCs are structurally unworkable, owing to their status within the currency universe as "bad currency", which, per Gresham's Law, are not held but are spent as quickly as possible, with "good" currency options being held instead.
I am pretty sure Russia's digital ruble is has reached similar dead end.
Great data, Peter. It sheds more light on the situation than the mainstream media ever provides, so thank you!
One the one hand, any political leader who repeatedly promises “severe consequences” at some point has to carry through on his threat, or he loses all credibility and thus is susceptible to being overthrown. Putin’s precariousness is probably increasing exponentially now.
On the other hand, probably his best bet is to wait another month and negotiate a deal with Trump. Can he wait that long? I’m no expert, so I don’t know. Peter, have you seen any current bets by true Russian experts?
Bets? Not as such.
There are those “experts” especially on the cable news shows who are convinced that Putin’s defeat and fall from power is imminent because of the war in Ukraine. And there are those alternative talking heads who think that Ukraine is a military disaster for NATO and the EU.
The prevailing narratives on both sides seem wedded to this notion that the war in Ukraine will somehow be “won” by one side or the other.
As you might surmise from my analyses, I question the premise that any outcome at this point can plausibly constitute “winning”. Ukraine is screwed. Russia is screwed. Europe is screwed.
Those "experts" in the corporate media have been predicting Putin's imminent downfall, and Russia's imminent economic collapse since the spring of 2022, when the initial Russian column heading straight for Kiev stalled out.
That said, I fully agree that this unpleasantness has an immense cost to both sides, both in terms to blood and treasure.
Perhaps the question we should ask ourselves is which side is psychologically equipped to pay that price.
My question is why pay the price at all?
At some point, we have to give peace a chance. And the sooner we do, the lower the cost to everyone.
I am reminded of that scene in Deep Space Nine when Quark schools a Vulcan member of the Maquis on the illogic of their continued efforts at war, using the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition (Third Rule of Acquisition: Never pay more for an acquisition than necessary). When no one has an advantage peace can be had at the lowest possible price.
I'm not sure either side has much in the way of advantage in Ukraine, and by Quark's curiously compelling economic logic that means now is the optimal time to seek a peaceful resolution.
I agree completely! I can see no ‘winning’ scenario. I’m hoping that Trump will very cleverly negotiate an end to hostilities that will preserve face for all parties, even if no one ‘wins’. Grudgingly, but secretly relieved, all will go home - possibly with ‘payoffs’ to certain key politicians, military leaders, and oligarchs.