> can't be caught off guard by China as EU was caught off guard by Russia.
There's always a bigger fish.
The last time nations were obsessed with autarky, we got WW1, and soon after, WW2.
Most countries (i.e. every country not suffering from a drastic case of the resource curse) have the nature that if they trade a lot with another country, either country would lose economic value if they invade the other, _even if_ that invasion goes off stellarly well with almost no losses: The populace doesn't like being subjugated and produces significantly less.
In an inbalanced trade/dependency relationship, such as Saudi Arabia's oil vs. the rest of the world, or Russia's gas vs. europe, it's actually _both_ sides that are dependent on the other. It's the dutch curse all over again.
Go back in time:
* Europe wants more gas to grow its economy, and doesn't have enough on its own soil.
* Russia has more than plenty and is willing to sell it.
* We enter a period of years where europe companies and countries more and more build industry that isn't going to work out without the relatively cheap russian gas. As these industries continue to succeed and russia continues to be a reliable supplier, ever more industry takes the leap and becomes dependent on it.
* This sounds like handing off quite the 'weapon' to your supplier, but, the problem is, that supplier is now just as dependent on this relationship as the consumer is: Russian economy falls apart without the trade of europe-produced goods (a lot of it by industries that run on russian gas), just as fast as europe falls apart without russian gas.
Thus, if russia were to invade europe, russia's economic value falls off a cliff, and the same applies to a lesser extent to europe. The only reason europe could in theory invade russia (assumes a perfect invasion, no nukes, no significant resistance at all, just a dejected populace), is because russia's primary value is not particularly dependent on human capital.
My theory about why this theory didn't work out and russia invades ukraine is a mix of:
* Misunderstanding by Russia of world/Europe response to this invasion.
* Too much power in one person, who, like most people surrounded by yay-sayers for 20 years, has lost grip on reality.
* Most of all, a ticking clock: Europe has stated they want to wean themselves off of fossil fuel within a decade or so. And so they should, but it's a torpedo to the trade dependency relationship between europe and russia.
That last one is the economic argument: Russia had to do something or their economy would fall apart if europe delivers on their plans to rapidly reduce their dependence on (russian-supplied) gas.
Thus, autarky -> war. Because if you're doing economically better than your neighbouring country, you produce more weapons and more people, and just invade em, why not.
We can trade the risk of what happened to europe, or what is likely to happen if china and the west become autarkic relative to each other (namely, that china invades taiwan) - with nukes and MAD. But that's got its own problems.
> The last time nations were obsessed with autarky, we got WW1
Were they? I thought WWI happened in the midst of first huge wave of globalization - to the point that no one thought war was possible, as it would mean collapse of international trade, and huge losses that come with it.
Many thought it was not only possible but inevitable: The Schlieffen plan, French revanchism, general military buildup across Europe, and of course Biskmark's 1888 comment:
"One day the great European War will come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans."
You're both wrong. Many people subscribed to each belief.
The economists, globalists and industry people believed that it could never happen. The military, nationalist and political folks figured it would be inevitable, or at very least if it happened they had to win.
Many people subscribed to the argument of the economists and globalists in more democratic countries because it was a comforting illusion the people in the more militaristic autocracies, believed it was inevitable, and incidentally were the nations that hold the most culpability for WW1, Germany, Russia, Austro-Hungarian empire.
Wait a minute why is all of my description starting to sound terribly and horribly familiar to what is going on now?
Seriously those that will continue to posist that war will not come are foolish and don't realizing that the first steps are already in progress with the information war being waged right now through cyberspace.
Note I don't want a war to happen and think it will be horrible and terrible, but all the elements are in place for it to happen. A shifting balance of power into a multipolar world, multiple nations either facing decline or ascendancy, realpolitik becoming the norm in international relations, it all looks very grim unless some very wise, peace loving and capable leaders emerge on the world stage soon.
Or, like the UK, the days of Russian empire are over and the new bi-polar world will be the NATO/India/AUNZ/Asia vs China/Africa.
So another Cold War for the 21st Century if we continue to rely on a mercantilist attitude in a world where networking is more important than some trade links.
No the cold war required a bipolar world for it's stability with MAD being the keystone that held the arch together. That was the only way for it to be stable and why we didn't have a massive war, with all actions being confined to small proxy wars.
We are in a multi-polar world now, Trump pointed out and many people are starting to agree, about whether or not the US really should be so closely aligned with Europe, NATO will probably stick around but it might not be enough. Meanwhile India has happily agreed to buy all the Russian oil that Europe isn't, which is done to spit in the face of the sanctions imposed on Russia. The mutli-polar world right now is US, India, China, EU, and Russia which is still a regional power, each of which have different interests.
The problem is China and the EU are facing huge demographic shortfalls in the next 30 years that will pose existential threats to their society, Russia is in the same boat. The EU is having this problem addressed to a certain extent through immigration but the nationalistic racist attitudes of the Chinese people make this a less palatable option for them. It is likely that the demographic cliff is going to continue to stress Chinese society to the breaking point until it snaps and begins an international incident that could quickly escalate to a global war. The best thing the US could do to preserve it's interests is do whatever we need to to schmooze up to India and cement an alliance with them, as they represent the best regional challenger to China and if they end up on the side of the CCP will cause huge problems as at that point a Bejing-Delhi alliance will be able to exert control over 1/3 > of the world's population. (This assumes they will be able to control all of Southeast Asia through soft and hard power)
it seems that only our instutions, or big chunks of the whole global trade system, want this war; but this this point, a lot of those systems are automated by rules and regulations and a overly complicated network that become inentelligible to the people 'running' it.
nobody that is alive and sentient (in the traditional sense) wants a war... and yet, we all see it looming.
Sounds a lot like how the assassination of the heir appearant of the Austro-Hungarian Empire led to the UK declaring war on Germany for marching through Belgium.
No one wanted the war, many knew it would be horrible, and yet it led to the most nightmarish collective human experience in human history.
>Europe has stated they want to wean themselves off of fossil fuel within a decade or so.
And to think that in the 80s Regan tried (but opposed by business) to impose sanctions on europe because of the USSR gas pipelines. What a circus. Europe got hooked on USSR gas in less than 20 years, and has been planning to wean off for 10.
Europe after WW2 relied on the US to defend against Russian aggression, and not even 30 years later, in a master class of cleverness played both sides by buying, and then becoming dependent, on Russian gas, only for the Russians to become aggressive again.
Where the cleverness falls apart is that cheap Russian gas was on bought time, and now all the europeans have to show for it is massive debt, expensive social programs, a lack-luster military and closed nuclear plants. Good job...
It’s less that Europe is using more Russian gas than they had insufficient infrastructure to get alternatives to Russian natural gas.
Ukraine was invaded because they have a great deal of oil and natural gas and could therefore significantly impact the Russian economy especially if the world starts to reduce Fossil fuel use.
> Russia had to do something or their economy would fall apart
Ukraine would solve nothing in the Russian economy.
Ukraine would simply secure two things: Crimea (which is essential to Russia and was strategically exposed), and complete control on all main gas infrastructure towards Europe. It's not a coincidence that the invasion was launched when it became clear that the new gasduct to the North was dead in the water (because of American opposition to it): Putin wanted to make gas furniture to Europe strategically independent from other countries (i.e. completely dependent on Russia), one way or the other. The original calculation was probably "You don't give me Nordstream, so I'll take everything else". Obviously it didn't go as planned.
If I created the impression that this invasion was a smart thing, I didn't intend to do that. It's more: Russia is up the creek without a paddle and wanted to do something, on the bizarre but common logic of 'well, doing _something_ is better than _nothing_". Or similarly atrociously reasoned bullpuckey such as 'we have to have a bufferstate because otherwise NATO will attack us. Us, being a state with ICBMs".
"That last one is the economic argument: Russia had to do something or their economy would fall apart if europe delivers on their plans to rapidly reduce their dependence on (russian-supplied) gas."
Putin didn't have to invade! If he was truly worried about Russia's economy he could have (and should have) gone about instituting reforms/policies to encourage economic diversification and growth. I fail to see how even a successful invasion of Ukraine results in economic upside for Russia. They were doomed to fight an insurgency for years which costs money, or they're going to spend resources rebuilding a country they just fought a war in.
> Putin didn't have to invade! If he was truly worried about Russia's economy he could have (and should have) gone about instituting reforms/policies to encourage economic diversification and growth.
Yes, absolutely. Russia, 60m people (or how much is it? More even) notwithstanding, is essentially a petrostate. It was too hard to try to get the population-driven productive elements to compete against the easy resource money.
I mean, Norway is right fucking there. This war is on them, entirely, for failing to prepare for the inevitable day when the natural resources are no longer enough to bankroll the entire state.
But, doing it _now_ is not possible without major political upset, so the major political players, not wanting to be 'upset' out of a window (hey, you live by the sword, you die by the sword, I'm sure the political elite is aware of the usual way to deal with higher ups that need to be lesser higher up: By taking that literally) - start a war.
I don't get the feeling that the majority of the Russian Elite wanted this war. They only started getting suicided after the war started and they criticized Putin. Sure the ex-military, arm-chair warriors and nationalist delusionists wanted this war, but that's a small minority. America has it's share of crazy vocal "bomb, bomb, bomb" folks too - see John Bolton, John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Pompeo etc....
Outside of Putin's delusions of grandeur for an empire that never existed I still fail to see ANY upside for Russia for this war.
There's always a bigger fish.
The last time nations were obsessed with autarky, we got WW1, and soon after, WW2.
Most countries (i.e. every country not suffering from a drastic case of the resource curse) have the nature that if they trade a lot with another country, either country would lose economic value if they invade the other, _even if_ that invasion goes off stellarly well with almost no losses: The populace doesn't like being subjugated and produces significantly less.
In an inbalanced trade/dependency relationship, such as Saudi Arabia's oil vs. the rest of the world, or Russia's gas vs. europe, it's actually _both_ sides that are dependent on the other. It's the dutch curse all over again.
Go back in time:
* Europe wants more gas to grow its economy, and doesn't have enough on its own soil. * Russia has more than plenty and is willing to sell it. * We enter a period of years where europe companies and countries more and more build industry that isn't going to work out without the relatively cheap russian gas. As these industries continue to succeed and russia continues to be a reliable supplier, ever more industry takes the leap and becomes dependent on it. * This sounds like handing off quite the 'weapon' to your supplier, but, the problem is, that supplier is now just as dependent on this relationship as the consumer is: Russian economy falls apart without the trade of europe-produced goods (a lot of it by industries that run on russian gas), just as fast as europe falls apart without russian gas.
Thus, if russia were to invade europe, russia's economic value falls off a cliff, and the same applies to a lesser extent to europe. The only reason europe could in theory invade russia (assumes a perfect invasion, no nukes, no significant resistance at all, just a dejected populace), is because russia's primary value is not particularly dependent on human capital.
My theory about why this theory didn't work out and russia invades ukraine is a mix of:
* Misunderstanding by Russia of world/Europe response to this invasion. * Too much power in one person, who, like most people surrounded by yay-sayers for 20 years, has lost grip on reality. * Most of all, a ticking clock: Europe has stated they want to wean themselves off of fossil fuel within a decade or so. And so they should, but it's a torpedo to the trade dependency relationship between europe and russia.
That last one is the economic argument: Russia had to do something or their economy would fall apart if europe delivers on their plans to rapidly reduce their dependence on (russian-supplied) gas.
Thus, autarky -> war. Because if you're doing economically better than your neighbouring country, you produce more weapons and more people, and just invade em, why not.
We can trade the risk of what happened to europe, or what is likely to happen if china and the west become autarkic relative to each other (namely, that china invades taiwan) - with nukes and MAD. But that's got its own problems.