The war in Ukraine has reached a new, and very dangerous phase. Not that it wasn’t dangerous before. But the toll of militarism was being paid by the deaths and the sufferings only of soldiers and their communities of Ukraine and Russia.
That’s OK by the shareholders in the U.S. and other weapons companies, and by warhawks and the virtuous Russian-haters of Western culture. But it’s another thing when the deaths and sufferings might now extend to European people, to the British – and heck – to World War 3 and all of us.
The change is that on the 28th of May German Chancellor Friedrich Merz pledged to help Ukraine develop its own long-range missile systems that would be free of any Western-imposed limitations on their use and targets. So Ukraine could hit Moscow. Now Merz did back off on this, a bit, but later suggested that Taurus missiles might be delivered to Uraine. Germany would put up the money.
This would be a revolutionary change in the Western policy on the war in Ukraine. War-monger though he was, President Joe Biden saw the danger in escalating the war in this way, and for over 2 years refused Ukraine’s demand for long-range missiles. He changed his mind on this only at the last minute in December 2024. Then Trump, on taking office, paused weapons shipments to Ukraine. Now, characteristically, Trump has a confusing attitude on this – probably means; “It’s OK as long as Ukraine pays up for them.”
Now, there are lots of impediments to Ukraine actually getting long-range missiles that could strike deep inside Russia. One big impediment is that the USA would have to be involved in missiles from Germany being used – this would necessitate U.S. software and technical support.
Germany’s Taurus Missiles: Approval for Ukraine’s Long-Range Strikes:
So, should we really worry about this bold initiative by the German Chancellor?
I think, yes. It’s a wake-up call. If we all think that it’s now OK for long-range missiles to hit deep inside Russia, well, I guess we don’t mind if Russia sends the same into Ukraine and beyond ?
Is anyone in the West paying attention to the facts on the actual progress of this war? Global Conflict Tracker now says:
“Russia still occupies roughly 20 percent of the country after gaining over four thousand square kilometers of territory in 2024. Russia continues to bombard Ukrainian cities…. Since January 2022, Ukraine has received about $407 billion in aid, including over $118 billion from the United States. Fighting and air strikes have inflicted over 40,000 civilian casualties, while 3.7 million people are internally displaced, and 6.9 million have fled Ukraine. 12.7 million people need humanitarian assistance.”
But never mind. The corporate media is still telling us that Ukraine can, and must, beat Russia. And they’re also telling us that Russia doesn’t want a negotiated settlement.
And why is it that Russia does not seem to want a negotiated settlement?
Well, that’s because the new “Coalition of the Willing”, led by Britain and France, supports Volodymyr Zelensky’s underlying demands for ending the war:
- Ukraine membership of NATO
- return of all Russian-occupied territories, including the Donbass and Crimea
- Western troops in Ukraine for security
- payment of reparations, war crimes trials for the Russian leadership
And these are all unacceptable – especially NATO membership – always a “red line” for Russia.
There have been previous negotiations between Ukraine and Russia. In the Istanbul talks of March-April 2022, the two parties were on the verge of an agreement, in which Russia made concessions, and Zelensky did not insist on NATO membership. The US and UK sabotaged the Istanbul talks by refusing to provide Ukraine with security guarantees and encouraging Zelensky to keep fighting instead.
Now Russia is in a militarily winning position, and has no inclination to submit to those underlying demands, nor to agree to a temporary ceasefire which would allow Ukraine to develop weaponry and troops.
But there is no suggestion from our bold, confident, Western leaders – Sir Keir Starmer, Friedrich Merz, Emmanuel Macron – that it might be best to pay more attention to the actual military situation, and less to the theatrical posturing of Volodymyr Zelensky. An unlikely source of common sense is America’s President Donald Trump, who actually does want peace, with his focus on making himself and his cronies richer, rather than on fighting Russia.
And the general public? Weary of it all, stunned into a sort of mental paralysis as we observe the barbarities going on in Gaza, the West en masse seems to be just sleep-walking into the military and economic disaster of a continuing war in Ukraine.
As with all wars, the media plays a huge role – glorifying that consummate media performer Zelensky, and regaling us with the civilian horrors suffered by Ukrainian civilians. (And they ARE really suffering). Of course, not a word about suffering Russians. Russian atrocities are publicised – both real ones, and fabricated. But if you see any news item about atrocities done by Ukrainians – you assume automatically that it must be a lie.
In fact, I’ve noticed that there is a powerful argument for the untruth of anything that shows any positive activity by Russians. If you mention it to any Westerner, it will be refuted because; “After all, this news is just Russian propaganda.” You see, it doesn’t matter if the news is factual – it must be false, coming from Russia. In reality, of course the Russians are using factual news as propaganda. As well, they do have a sophisticated programme of misinformation. And so do we in the West, in all likelihood, when we consider America’s Central Intelligence Agency and its its long history of disinformation.
So, it is a media mess. It’s tragic that Zelensky, elected on a pledge to honour agreements ensuring the autonomy of the largely Russian-speaking Donbass provinces, quickly went along with Europe and USA’s historic fear and hatred of Russia.
Never mind that Russia was on “our side” in the last big war, and largely won that war in Europe, at the price of some 27 million Russian lives. The Soviet Union did defeat the Nazis in Ukraine. But all that is forgotten, as Western leaders look solemn and statesman-like, pronouncing on Coalition-of-the-Willing plans for a big war in the air, with ever more powerful missiles, ending of course, in a glorious victory over Russia (and sorta bad luck that Ukraine is completely demolished along the way).
I don’t know what it might take for the public to wake up to the suicidal path on which these macho “statesmen” are leading the West, and “helping” Ukraine. A previous Coalition of the Willing” “helped Iraq”, and that hasn’t turned out so well.
It would be a good start if some in the corporate media could get away with telling the facts on the dismal situation of Ukraine in this war. Expanding the war sounds so noble and easy to decide on. Much more difficult would be a measured progress in negotiation, recognising the legitimate needs of each side.
Dear reader, we need your support
Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.
One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.
With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.
Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
How is that it’s ok for Putin to say he doesn’t want Ukraine to join NATO and that’s sufficient justification for an invasion of Ukraine?
The simple fact is Russia invaded.
Why should Ukraine not be allowed to fire missiles ‘far into’ Russia when Russia has been subjecting Ukraine to saturation bombardment anywhere and everywhere. As for Ropaganda, you won’t get any sort of truth out of Russia.
.
RC, recall that well-known observation that the first casualty of war is truth. It applies, of course, to all participants.
No credible western analyst claims Ukraine expects to ‘win’, but demands for Putin’s Russia to stop bombing civilains and go back to where they came from…..preferably pre 2014 invasion borders of a sovereign nation, Ukraine.
More gaslighting of Europe, NATO, ‘the west’ and any support for Ukraine by victim blaming along with the ‘west’, but the invader Russia, nada?
Then claim anyone who supports Ukraine, EU and the west is anti-Russian (to claim victimhood), plus using inflated US financial aid (most spent in US)?
Similar to others in Anglsophere and locally including Kampmark, Kostakidis et al, and the article cites US ‘journalist’ Aaron Maté*; they follow another American grifter masquerading as a geopolitic ‘analysis’, Mearsheimer (Kissinger II?).
The latter promotes the ‘realism’ school ie. big nations can claim spheres of influence, bully smaller nations and then suggestive Orwellian claim that Russia is the victim a la Trump; geopolitical eugenics or ‘survival of the fittest’.
Mearsheimer, followed by the Anglosphere ‘faux anti-imperialist tankie sh*theads of the left’ (Draitser in Counter Punch 2022), is surrounded by fossil fueled right wing oligarchs linked to both Charles Koch and Putin’s Valdai Club, who despise EU, renewables, liberal democracy, regulation/taxes, education and empowered citizens….
*He worked with another (son of a more famous) ‘journalist’ Blumenthal at The Grazyone that supported Assad’s regime, and from Kallioniemi of Finland’s Tampere University’ Russian Disinfo Research Unit
https://x.com/P_Kallioniemi/status/1704058527864569958
To be fair, Maté has “never claimed expertise on Russia, Ukraine, or Syria” & it shows. For example, he’s falsely claimed that Russia was not a signatory to the two Minsk agreements. His dishonest takes on Ukraine have been dissected thoroughly here:
22/24
https://x.com/neil_abrams/status/1593604628603715587
Whole thread of related issues here https://vatniksoup.com/en/soups/284/
While I respect Noel’s argument – and it is a good one and well backed up – I just can’t shake the idea that there’s just one person to point the finger at, and that person is Putin.
He’s a blood-thirsty tyrant.
Once again Mr Smith distorts the truth, this time by excluding relevant details.
He states that Aaron Mate “falsely claimed that Russia was not a signatory to the two Minsk agreements.”
The actual situation is described in some detail by Jacques Baud, who was on the ground in Ukraine monitoring arms movements for NATO.
Some portions from Baud — After its defeat in Ilovaisk in August 2014, the Ukrainian government had to invent the excuse of Russian intervention to justify Western propaganda and mask the undemocratic character of the regime change. This defeat forced the Ukrainians to accept the first Minsk I Agreements (September 2014).
Agreements that Kiev immediately broke after signing them, in order to launch a large-scale offensive called “Anti-Terrorist Operation” (ATO) against rebel forces. The ATO will totally derail the Minsk I Agreements. Supported and advised by NATO officers, the Ukrainian army then suffered another crushing defeat in Debaltsevo in February 2015. This is what will push Ukraine to engage in the Minsk II Agreements (February 2015). Minsk II follows on from the Geneva declaration of April 2014 and endorses the internal nature of the Donbass conflict. (In other words, no Russian involvement as claimed by the West.)
In Europe, where support for the Ukrainian ultra-nationalists and far-right is very strong, the idea that the Minsk Accords were made between Russia and Ukraine predominates. This is a lie, regularly repeated by certain “expert firefighters-arsonists”.
In reality, the agreement concerns the Ukrainian government and the rebel forces of Donbass. We thus had on one side, France and Germany who were the guarantors of the agreement on the Ukrainian side, while, on the other, Russia was that of the Russian-speaking separatists. Russia only played the role of facilitator, because the Ukrainian government then refused to speak to the representatives of the autonomist entities.
The problem is that, with the Ukrainian party refusing to negotiate with the representatives of the autonomists, the Russian ambassador had to affix his signature as guarantor of the commitments made by the representatives of the two self-proclaimed republics.
The next problem, which will lead to the Russian offensive in 2022, is that the two Western guarantors have not kept their word. Instead of pushing Kyiv to implement the agreements, they preferred to side with it to try to replace the Minsk Accords with a bilateral negotiation between Moscow and Kyiv.
Even today, official French and European rhetoric sees in the civil war a direct involvement of Russia that pushed France and Germany to want to negotiate the Minsk Accords with Vladimir Putin. Even François Hollande participated in the genesis of these agreements, being convinced that the Russian troops were in the Donbass. Obviously, he did not understand the nature of these agreements, because neither Minsk I (September 5 and 19, 2014) nor Minsk II (February 12, 2015) involve Russia.
Minsk I is an agreement in principle – accepted by “the representatives of certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions” – and Minsk II takes over the elements of Minsk I and adds certain implementing rules, which are laid down in a resolution of the United Nations (17 February 2015).
As the National Review puts it — “although Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky came forward to find a solution to the conflict with Russia, he could not get Ukraine to implement Minsk II. He ran into fierce objections from far-right Ukrainian nationalist militias, on the one hand, and from international foreign policy circles and the press, on the other. It turned out that no one was ready to help Ukraine end the conflict. Or to help its president overcome the resistance of ultra-nationalists to achieve this .”
In other words, the Western guarantors of Ukraine (France and Germany) as well as our Western media obsessed with Russia, have done the work of the Ukrainian far-right.
Well, well. “No one was ready to help Ukraine end the conflict. Or to help its president overcome the resistance of ultra-nationalists to achieve this.”
Consider that statement for a while.
This is possibly the most significant statement ever made about the Ukraine war anywhere, by any commentator.
But Mr Smith’s raising of the Minsk Accords in this manner gives us an insight into his priorities in this tragedy.
While over a thousand Ukrainian soldiers are being killed every day, his interest is in an argument over the opinion of a journalist. An opinion that is of no consequence.
We see also his obsession with John Mearsheimer, where yet again he engages in a deliberate and sustained effort to damage the reputation and credibility of a respected political analyst, without giving a shred of evidence to support his attack.
Mr Smith looks for authoritative sources in the strangest of places.
He has looked here to Eric Draitser for support.
The same Eric Draitser who in 2014 expressed an opinion on the Ukraine crisis that was elegant, articulate, and insightful.
From “Ukraine, Intervention and America’s Doublethink” Draitser wrote in regard to cries of “invasion” from the West when Russia occupied Crimea,
“First and foremost is the fact that the Russia-Ukraine Friendship Treaty establishes that Crimea, and Sevastopol specifically, represents a strategic national interest for Russia. Moreover, it codifies the fact that the protection of the rights of the people of Crimea is the responsibility of the Ukrainian government. However, what happens when a so called government in Kiev is openly hostile to the region? Who then is responsible for the Russians living there? With Kiev’s putsch government having the backing of the US, NATO and Europe, it seems that no one other than Russia could possibly guarantee the security of Crimea”
And “Considering the openly hostile attitude expressed by the new Security and National Defense Committee leadership in Kiev, it seems clear that Russia’s national security interests would be under threat. There is ample precedent in international law justifying Russia moving to protect its forces in Crimea. Moreover, with Ukraine falling into the hands of Nazi elements, a sound argument could be made that, beyond the Crimea, Ukraine poses a danger to the security of Russia proper”
And “Yanukovich, whatever negative things could be said about him and his government (and there are many), was never defeated in a democratic election. Rather, he was chased out of the country by a violent mob that has now been consecrated by the much touted “international community” (read US-EU-NATO) as the recognized government. This is a blatant violation of Ukraine’s Constitution, not to mention international law and the accepted principles of modern democracy. With Yanukovich having taken refuge in Russia, and still being the legal President of Ukraine, isn’t it fair to say that Russia is acting as the guarantor of international law, rather than its enemy?
And “With international institutions such as the United Nations and International Criminal Court firmly under the “influence” (read control) of the United States, what other institution could possibly enforce international law in Ukraine? Surely not NATO, the alliance that has been angling to bring Ukraine into the fold since the fall of the Soviet Union. And so, it would seem that Ukraine’s fate, and that of Crimea specifically, rests on the shoulders of Russia and Putin. Naturally, all of these nuances are left completely out of the narrative of Western corporate media.”
Wow. That sounds very much as though Draitser, in 2014, supported the use of force. But the important point was “Naturally, all of these nuances are left completely out of the narrative of Western corporate media.”
In a web environment such as The AIMN, where the owners/editors have a permissive attitude towards the free inclusion of comments by the readers of the published matter, there’s an unspoken acknowledgement that direct response by person B to a comment written by person A sets up a paradigm whereby A has been chanced the opportunity to respond to B.
Not all correspondents behave according to this natural paradigm.
Mr Andrew Smith is one such example.
His voluminous tracts, which to some may seem to qualify as rants, regularly attract the attention of Mr Steve Davis (in particular), and accordingly are comprehensively criticised. But, does Mr Smith ever respond to the critical dissection of his essays? Never, it would seem.
This scribe has noted the pattern of language that repeatedly appears in Mr Smith’s offerings. Loaded language, employing the repetitive use of words such as grifter, eugenicist, tankie, faux anti-imperialist, shithead, masquerader, gaslighter.
It seems very few are spared the bitter invective Mr Smith so freely uses, and just as strangely, it’s also noted that Mr Smith never, ever, bothers to respond to the challenges as to the credibility or accuracy of his ‘faux-intellectual’ observations.
I’m reminded of those people who’ve made a career out of getting up at public meetings and speaking gobbledegook to the audience; gobbledegook of such a nature & pattern that it appears as though they are saying something profound, when in fact it’s just rubbish.
Does that sound close to home, Mr Smith? Just rubbish? Perhaps a reveal of your bonafides would assuage the suspicion that in fact it’s you who are the grifter, the tankie, the faux intellectual anti-imperialist gaslighter.
Canga, well noted.
I have no problem with the expression of opinions that differ from mine, in fact, it makes my day.
And that’s what a blog is all about — the stimulation of discussion.
My problem is with opinions that are expressed with no evidence in support. In fact, supported only by an assumed air of superiority.
Smith indulges in a sweeping style of criticism which targets analysts such as Assange and Mearsheimer and Sachs, who display a level of courage that is beyond the appreciation of a sniper such as Smith.
People such as these actually put their lives on the line to keep us informed.
To then be brushed aside with contempt is unforgivable.
While the muSScovite empire has been free to target civilians, hospitals, schools etc with their artillery, bombs, cruise and ballistic missiles, the victim of unprovoked aggression was only allowed to hit military targets within their own temporarily occupied territories until very recently. If the world decides that such aggression should be rewarded, by all means let the belligerent malevolent brutal barbaric backward corrupt empire defeat a sovereign state that gave up its weapons and wanted only peace.
“wanted only peace.”
Except they didn’t want peace.
From above “As the National Review puts it — “although Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky came forward to find a solution to the conflict with Russia, he could not get Ukraine to implement Minsk II. He ran into fierce objections from far-right Ukrainian nationalist militias, on the one hand, and from international foreign policy circles and the press, on the other. It turned out that no one was ready to help Ukraine end the conflict. Or to help its president overcome the resistance of ultra-nationalists to achieve this .”*
In fairness to Zelensky, he tried again a few days after the war began.
He made an agreement with Russia that only needed to be signed.
But the same forces that stopped him in 2019 stepped in again in 2022.
Because it’s a proxy war that one side wants to continue forever.
And they don’t care how many Ukrainians die.
In my opinion, much of this post is a rant rather than considered analysis.
1/. Those opposing Russia aren’t “warhawks and Russia haters”. Most people (like me) understand that most former Warsaw Pact countries chose to seek a prosperous and democratic future, this isn’t available under Russian domination.
When (over a decade ago) Russia sought to join democratic nations in a more prosperous future, many of us embraced and visited Russia.
It is the actions of Putin that has caused many to shun Russia.
We also think it is the right of Ukrainian people to also seek a prosperous future without Russian domination.
2/. Who has, and continues, to say Ukraine is winning? Ukraine says it seeks a just peace. Zelensky has offered an unconditional ceasefire
Many democratic nations support this objective.
Advocating a ceasefire and a just peace isn’t either “winning” or being a “warhawk”
3/. It is the right of Ukrainians to defend themselves and it is reasonable that we support their decision.
It is their choice to surrender or resist, and (thus far) they appear willing to resist.
4/. It is interesting that the author personalised the insults of western leaders but doesn’t bother with addressing the fact that Putin has previously said “Ukraine joining NATO was a matter for Ukraine and NATO”. Putin has completely changed his position in circumstances where no countries territorial claims on Russia.
5/. The Russian apogists that always point to “Russia being on our side during WW2”, but they always ignore the fact that Russia sided with the Nazis at the start of WW2. The Molotov Ribbentrop Pact is rarely discussed.
6/. Also rarely discussed is the fact that (during his tame interview with Tucker Carlson) Putin defended the rationale of the Nazis for starting WW2.
7/. On any reasonable measure, Russia (after decades of Putin) remains significantly underdeveloped. It’s GDP per capita is low, it ranks 112th for life expectancy, it has Europe’s worst outcome on the Gini coefficient, and even before the war it devoted a greater proportion of its GDP to the military than any NATO country.
It ranks alongside Brazil, South Korea and Australia for economic strength.
It only has internal relevance because it is committed to huge military expenditure and maintains nuclear weapons.
No rational and informed people would seek to expand the influence of Russia.
When the US was faced with a similar situation in Cuba in 1963 when Russia were going to put Russian missiles in Cuba the US invaded Cuba, sanctioned Cuba to this day plus have had a military base in Cuba since.
The current situation with Russia is such a depressing contrast to the high hopes for a cordial bilateral relationship and the emergence of a stable, peaceful, and cooperative Europe that marked the demise of the Soviet Union three decades ago. Most Americans blame Moscow, but the United States and its NATO allies are largely responsible for the onset of the current, dangerous confrontation. Tensions have intensified gradually over the past three decades, although some episodes stand out as especially important. George W. Bush’s successful push to expand NATO to include the Baltic republics, and his even more brazen (albeit unsuccessful) effort to gain membership for Georgia and Ukraine, greatly antagonized Russia.
Barack Obama’s administration topped that provocation by assisting demonstrators to overthrow Ukraine’s elected, pro‐Russian president in 2014. Vladimir Putin’s government responded to that gross intrusion into Russia’s security zone by annexing Crimea, thereby guaranteeing continued access to his country’s vital naval base at Sevastopol. Washington’s ongoing campaign to make Ukraine a U.S. military pawn and Moscow’s efforts to thwart that maneuver have brought the renewed East‐West animosity to a climax.
However, one party that has not received sufficient blame for this ugly situation is Bill Clinton’s administration. The arrogant, menacing policies that the Clinton foreign policy team pursued started the tragic descent to a new cold war. The 1990s could have become the decade in which an enlightened US policy facilitated Russia’s political and economic integration into the democratic West. It also could have been the decade in which NATO was given the retirement party it had earned, Western Europe finally took responsibility for its own defense through a new “Europeans only” security organization, and Central and Eastern Europe became a neutral zone that respected Russia’s economic and military interests. Instead, the Clinton administration insisted on not only perpetuating a U.S‑dominated NATO, but pushing the Alliance to expand toward Russia. The latter action violated verbal promises that George H. W. Bush’s administration gave Moscow during the Soviet Union’s final months that NATO would not move beyond the eastern border of a united Germany. Clinton administration officials showed contempt for Russia’s interests in a variety of other ways. Washington not only meddled in the Balkans, but did so in a manner that undermined Russia’s longstanding political and religious client, Serbia. Indeed, the ostentatious U.S.-NATO military interventions seemed calculated to underscore that Moscow had lost the Cold War and, therefore, had to quietly endure whatever humiliations the Western
powers decided to inflict.
Both the Clinton administration and the larger US foreign policy establishment displayed astonishing arrogance in their approach to world affairs generally and relations with Russia in particular. They relished what Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer termed a “unipolar moment” in the international system. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright epitomized the prevailing attitude when she boasted that America was “the indispensable nation,” because we “stand tall and see further than other countries into the future.” The governing elite of the sole remaining superpower, embracing such narcissism, was not about to respect the interests of a weakened Russia, or even show a modicum of respect in its dealings with Moscow.
Clinton’s successor, George W. Bush, found Putin’s support after 9/11 simply “amazing… He even ordered Russian generals to brief their American counterparts on their experiences during their Afghanistan invasion in the 1980s… I appreciated his willingness to move beyond the suspicions of the past.”
On both sides, however, those suspicions never entirely went away. The Warsaw Pact had been dissolved and the Soviet Union no longer existed. “But NATO still exists,” Putin complained. “What for?” From the Kremlin’s standpoint, it was a fair question. “We all say,” he went on, “that we don’t want Europe to be divided, we don’t want new borders and barriers, new ‘Berlin Walls’ dividing the continent. But when NATO expands, the border doesn’t go away. It simply moves closer to Russia.”
https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2018/06/04/how-and-why-the-u-s-government-perpetrated-the-2014-coup-in-ukraine/
https://mronline.org/2022/06/18/western-media-and-politicians-prefer-to-ignore-the-truth-about-civilians-killed-in-donetsk-shelling/
We see from some of the comments above, that the mere mention of “Russia” or “Putin” sends victims of Western propaganda into spasms of erratic thinking.
As in this — “On any reasonable measure, Russia (after decades of Putin) remains significantly underdeveloped.”
A point completely unrelated to the subject of the article, but it does contain these words calculated to strike terror — “Russia” and “Putin”.
I suppose we can be thankful that “Moscow” and “Kremlin” were not included, or we would have quickly descended into the demonic.
But is Russia underdeveloped?
One measure of economic health is the government debt to GDP ratio.
For Australia, government debt is 43.8% of GDP
For UK 95.9%
For US 124%
For Russia, a more than comfortable 16.4%
Another measure is PPP.
According to the CIA rankings of what they refer to as “real GDP” aka purchasing power parity, China is No. 1 in the world, followed by US, India, and Russia at No. 4.
The UK is 10, Australia is 20.
Or there’s this from international banker.com 31.10.24
By June, the World Bank had confirmed that, as per its most recent data release from the International Comparison Program (ICP), Russia had overtaken Germany and Japan to become the fourth-largest economy in the world (using the purchasing power parity [PPP] method of GDP calculation). Soon after, the World Bank also upgraded Russia from “upper-middle-income country” to “high-income country” status…
And there’s this.
The World Population Review has poverty rate figures out for 2025.
Russia 11%
US 18%
The only figure for Australia was 12.6% in 2020 as per OECD. Which begs the question as to why the OECD cannot get current poverty figures for Australia.
But of course all this is irrelevant noise.
All countries have economic problems, some they share with others, some apply only to a few.
And a fact that should be kept in mind is that the larger the economy, the less the impact of particular problems. The US for example, has been running an eye-watering debt for decades but is still chugging along.
But why was this raised?
I think that perhaps some of us are more inclined to exercise our demons than to exorcise them.
It’s always entertaining to see that Steve can’t resist replying to my comment.
I specifically chose to address this issues raised by the author rather than start one of the endless exchanges with Steve, which seems to be a key motivation for him.
However-
1/. The question of the strength and structure of the Russian economy is relevant in the context of whether people would wish to increase Russia’s international influence and standing
It seems this point was too subtly made for Steve to understand.
2/. I’m always intrigued that when people defend the Russia’s economicperformance, invariably they wish to talk about it in PPP terms.
PPP is largely irrelevant to the international strength and influence of an economy. Trading strength has almost no relationship with the ranking of a country in PPP. Tradable commodities (such as a barrel of oil) and trade generally, are pretty we unaffected by a country’s PPP
Countries that rank well on PPP are almost invariably low wage countries.
Hands up everyone that would prefer to improve their economic ranking by low wages?!
(note to self- check whether Steve is consistent with thus position next time there is a discussion about MMT)
3/. Surely a key measure of the success of a government is whether or not the people they govern live longer. As I said, after decades of Putin, Russia ranks 112th. It is educational to review international life expectancy and see the countries that rank around Russia.
4/. I’m no fan of public debt, and I’ve posted plenty of criticism of Australia’s debt. However, it should be noted that analysis shows very little correlation between public debt and the prosperity of a country.
Russia is low debt, and has a record of poor public infrastructure. Perhaps investing in public infrastructure (rather than the military) and accepting greater debt would create a more prosperous society.
5/. Measures and comparison of poverty rates can be fraught. For example, Australia uses a poverty measure (half the median disposable income), this ensures every time the median income increases, so does the poverty line. The immediate result is that more people fall below it and the poverty rate immediately increases. Assertions about relative poverty rates aren’t meaningful unless they use a consistent criteria.
6/. I always like to remind Steve of his claim that economic data, facts and information are “meaninglessness” in a discussion about economics.
He didn’t even bother to say “conditions apply” or “I might later qualify this claim”.
This point- (note to self- check whether Steve is consistent with this position next time there is a discussion about MMT) should have been related to public debt
“The question of the strength and structure of the Russian economy is relevant in the context of whether people would wish to increase Russia’s international influence and standing.”
Quite so.
But I see no evidence of anyone here wanting to increase Russia’s international influence and standing.
If this is a matter of importance to some that’s fine, but all I see here is the author setting the record straight with uncomfortable facts, some quite serious.
If readers want to go off on a tangent that’s fine, but the option there is to submit an article.
It is of some interest however, that badmouthing Russia’s economy has a certain tradition:
Russia’s Collapse – Foreign Affairs, Sep 1, 1999
Russia Is Finished – The Atlantic, May 2001
The Russian Economic Crisis – CFR, Apr 2010
Since the start of the Special Military Operation in Ukraine many outlets joined the above doomsayers of the foreign policy blob.
Since then most reports about Russia’s economy predicted a collapse or at least severe difficulties. Here are some from just the previous few months:
Russia’s economy is signaling a fate worse than recession – Business Insider, Sep 26 2024
Humiliation for Putin as Russia could plunge into ‘economic collapse’ to plug £30bn debt – Express, Oct 7 2024
Putin’s Economy Approaches ‘Burnout Point’ – Newsweek, Oct 8 2024
Russia’s economy is overheating but Putin cannot change course – Atlantic Council, Oct 31, 2024
Russia’s economy is doomed – New Statesman, Nov 28 2024
Russian rouble collapse exposes deep problems in the country’s economy – The Conversation, Dec 3 2024
The Russian Economy Remains Putin’s Greatest Weakness – Foreign Affairs, Dec 9, 2024
Russia’s war economy spirals out of control as 2025 brings looming stagnation – NZZ, Jan 7 2025
Is 2025 the year that Russia’s economy finally freezes up under sanctions? – Atlantic Council, Jan 8 2025
Russia’s war economy is a house of cards – Financial Times, Jan 13 2025
Putin’s war economy is running on fumes as inflation and shortages surge – Kyiv Independent, Jan 15 2025
Don’t Blink Now, Trump. Russia’s Economy Is Cracking. – Bloomberg, Feb 10 2025
Russia’s economy is stagnating – but that won’t force it to end the war – The Conversation, Mar 10 2025
The Russian economy is on the brink of collapse and Putin knows it – Independent, Mar 13 2025
Russia’s economy would struggle to cope with peace – Reuters, Mar 17 2025
Meanwhile the Russian economy is doing well. Its economy is growing faster than most others.
Russia to grow faster than all advanced economies says IMF – BBC, Apr 16 2024
IMF raises forecast for growth in Russia’s GDP by 0.1 pp in 2025 – Interfax, Jan 17 2025
So what’s behind all this concern about the Russian economy?
It’s all about the title of this article.
That is the concern of the Western propaganda machine, and it’s the concern of it’s victims.
Reality is that which persists despite what you want to believe.
from ukraone longe range missiles will hit targets before russia can react so like the septics with cuba in 62 panic is the result.
ps Steve,
2013 when the rabbott was screaming debt and the media showed day after day.
I wrote to labor, and here, that our debt to income ratio was 25%
the pomms, japan and usa were over 90%
the rabbott just bought a $m house and his ratio was 500%
so the rabbott’s ‘debt crisis’ was a furphy sadly nobody understood the message and the rabbott got his bullshit recognised.
Some commenters can display or show conservative attitudes (with a whiff of narcissism and right wing trolling? ) by running protection for corrupt right wing autocrats like Putin (allied with Trump, Netanyahu, Orbán et al)?
Could try offering clear and supported analysis, or rebuttal/counter related to the article?
This is opposed to only responding rudely to commenters who they disagree with, shooting messengers (& experts in public domain), rebutting &/or countering with long and/or unrelated cherry picked historical, Kremlin talking point and/or statistical, but confusing summaries, which lack any clear theme or argument?
Too easy to play the devil’s advocate to protect corrupt authoritarian right wing power vs the enlightenment, educated and empowered society; our own RW MSM and online influencers provide a template.
Worse, it does nothing for civilian victims of Putin and Netanyahu, including Russians, Ukraines, Gazans et al, but maintains a bloody status quo, but for centrist western and Anglo governments to be blamed? Too easy…..