As long as the West continues to impose sanctions...and leaves them in place, Putin has already lost. Every building he knocks down; every piece of infrastructure he destroys, his economy...whatever is left of it will have to pay to restore. The only question now is will his reign end with him alive or dead. That will be up to Russia to determine.
Now that Russia has also turned to straight terror bombing of civilians, is it not time to at least debate the notion of making Ukraine a NATO patrolled no-fly zone? Is that not what NATO did in Kosovo? Yes, it's a major escalation.....or balancing of the playing field that Russia won't appreciate. Putin has already played his biggest threat card; I wonder how he'd respond to open discussion of the idea? I am quite comfortable with the notion that Western airpower can overcome anything Russia might choose to reply with. But I'm equally concerned that relying on Russian generals to take away Putin's nuclear option(as America's generals did to Trump); should he demand it, is a little less certain. But surely they have noticed what is happening to their economy and why, and that there's a better way out of this than ending humanity. I'm not sure Putin does...(see Al Pacino in Scarface). But I'd love to hear others' thoughts.
While it's unfair to the athletes, I'd also like to see Russian and Belorussian athletes expelled from the coming Paralympics. WTA...it's time to tell them to go home as well. No Russian athlete of any stripe should be exempted. It's all about applying pressure to Putin. He's losing. Every government should be doing their best to speed that process. Go after the rest of the oligarchs today...take away their properties outside of Russia. They can live on what they have in Russian banks. They enabled this...they need to fix it.
David: I spoke with a friend who was in the CAF and who has a good grasp of the issues, having spent time in the past as a deployed soldier in Germany and also with peacekeepers in Bosnia. His view was that imposing a fly zone would be more than an escalation--it would likely end up being the thin edge of the wedge (he used the term "mission creep"). He also reminded me that in exercises he participated in (while in Germany), five times out of five the end game was a nuclear exchange.
I didn't like his message, but I bow to his his wisdom (and that of other well-seasoned students of the Cold War and Russia's post-Cold War journey from tottering mess to Putinesca dictatorship).
That would be my fear too, and I would certainly defer to their opinion, but it makes for an interesting debate. I take comfort that no one from NATO or DND is going to call and ask my opinion. Perhaps, tragically for Ukraine, this won't be the "hill we're going to die on".
Jen - I enjoy reading and learning from everything The Line posts. I listen most often to what Prof. Stephen Kotkin has to say re Communism/Russia/Stalin/China, etc. But I've recently heard of John Mearsheimer; he takes a somewhat different stance on Russia he blames the US for creating this problem. Mearsheimer thinks Ukraine should remain neutral re establishing a close relationship to either the west and to Russia. This would reduce Russia's concern re NATO and western expansion into the east. https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-john-mearsheimer-blames-the-us-for-the-crisis-in-ukraine
Others including Kotkin, share similar views that the USA/west should have created better diplomatic relationships with Russia after the USSR dissolved, in order to contain /appease Russia more. Our main priority should be focusing on what China is up to more.
I find keeping up with geopolitics dizzying, but necessary in order to be a good citizen.
The idea that Ukraine should remain neutral was plausible until about 8 days ago. The choice to invade has radically re-shuffled the deck chairs. It's possible we should have done more to create positive diplomatic relations with Russia -- they were actually quite good until 2014, remember!. As for whether this is the US's fault etc. we will be addressing some of those arguments in this week's dispatch. JG
No matter what Ukraine did or didn't do, including throwing Putin a bone it would not matter. Putin walked into Crimea, set up two Russia-backed satellite states and other than some sanctions the world did little. There were the Minsk Agreements but no one understands the various interpretations apparently. Nothing Ukraine does would move Putin an inch.
I think the idea is no longer possible.....but it was. How does Switzerland stay neutral? 1941 gave Russia a permanent paranoia about an invasion from the west, so I can understand why they would want a buffer. Ukraine, and Belarus for that matter, could have been allowed their own self-defence forces but agreed not to align militarily with anyone. In the same way Kennedy ended the Cuban missile crisis, a quiet background agreement between the 2 sides might...I emphasize might have been a possible starting point. That's off the table now.
For Putin, it's over. Belarus will be his puppet buffer state, but he won't have an economy until a democratically elected government rules Ukraine...who will likely soon be in the EU (with a lot of things to clean up), and most likely NATO. Putin couldn't have played this worse. At best it will cost him his job. I don't think it will be that long until we find out his fate.
Here's my own opinion as someone who is keen to understand more but will always be an amateur in this area. None of the 'experts' I''ve listened to are predicting nuclear war or a total take over of Ukraine. Yes it would have been better earlier on if Ukraine had not shown interest in joining the EU or being part of NATO. This would have appeased Putin, even if it meant Ukraine giving up Crimea and the two eastern areas of Ukraine. (The history of Ukraine and Russia is closely felt by both countries, with many mixed marriages going back a long time. Putin is afraid of the USA and China, but he is still convinced Russia can be a unique 1st level power/influence in the world.)
Just because a country wants to be more democratic doesn't mean they have to be part of organizations like the EU and NATO
There are many variations of democracy in the world. None are perfect as yet and never will be. Plus look at how Singapore and South Korea operate. They are not what many westerners would want to live in but they sure are impressive with how far they have come in the past 100 years. Examples include how both countries have more respect/faith in their political leaders and didn't push back on the Covid restrictions. Plus Singapore has a mix of Chinese, East Indians, Malay, etc. practicing Christianity/Catholicism, Islam, Buddhism, etc. I don't recall hearing Islamists setting off bombs in Singapore or pulling down statues because of who controlled the area (Japanese, British) throughout their history.
After the word appeased you lost me except for the line— "Just because a country wants to be more democratic doesn't mean they have to be part of organizations like the EU and NATO."
Ukraine is NOT part of the EU or NATO, and yet, Russia is invading. Putin could stop being a sociopath and a megalomaniac and the world would be a better place, Ukraine included.
Coulda, shoulda, didn't. There will be time in the future for historians to debate the balance of culpability WRT events leading to this barbaric violation of Ukraine's sovereignty (and clear threat to its very existence).
The fact is that, right now, Russian soldiers are raining fire down on the heads of Ukrainians (civilians and soldiers alike). This is no longer an academic debate.
So true. I'm sickened by the toll the Ukrainians will have to bear. My heart also goes out to young Russian soldiers and their families, as I'm sure some or possibly many don't want to be fodder in a cause they don't support, but can't escape from.
I think we in the West need to start considering what our ideal goal is here. People are getting justifyably angry, but are jumping to ideas (a no-fly zone, for example) that will serve to escalate the conflict, not end it.
So, here's what I think. The ideal is that Ukraine retain its right to exist, with security. It should be able to determine its own future without having to kowtow to the wants of Russia. Whether that's with Crimea and the 'breakaway' regions or not -- honestly, I don't understand the underlying elements here enough to comment. And, I think that's up to Ukraine to negotiate as part of a peace agreement.
But, a reformed Russia is much better than a beaten and angry Russia. What is the path back to the international order for Russia and its people? I think the sanctions have been a brilliant way to illustrate the benefits of the rules-based international order -- and the downsides to unilaterally defying that order. But, isn't our goal to give Russia a road back? The sticks are critically important, but so are the carrots. That too will be an important lesson for China and they are no doubt watching how this progresses.
Ideally, I think, we need to make the cost of just invading a country -- because you can -- high enough that there are simply better ways to thrive as a global power (innovation, better governance, etc). Might cannot make right.
I think the hardest thing about this conflict is it will involve patience in the face of horror -- mostly for the Ukrainian people, but also for those of us who watch and wish we could do more to bring this to a quick end. But, rashly escalating the war out of that impluse, I think, is a mistake that will ultimately just make the horror last longer.
I will say after watching the pettiness and growing stupidity of our domestic political debate, watching Ukraine react to this crisis -- with skill, courage and savvy -- has been inspirational.
I think everything you've said is spot on. But the time to give Russia a road back begins when Russian armour starts backing up. There are no questions that the lessons of the Versailles Treaty must be remembered when this is over.....but only Russia can make that decision. Until they do, I'm firmly in favour of a "sanction-a-day" strategy.
Glad you mentioned the impact of the1919 Versailles Treaty, with Russia being excluded from negotiations and loosing 30% of it's territory, as I understand it.
I was thinking more about the reparations that so backed Germany into a corner that Hitler's rise to power became an unstoppable solution. I don't believe Russia was involved in any way. Germany did lose significant territory.
I was born in 1948 and grew up in Hamilton Ontario among the steel mills.
Starting when I was about 10, more and more of my new school acquaintances were Ukrainian or Polish. Their parents were Cold War refugees from behind the Iron Curtain. I remember how different their family perspectives were from mine. Their peaceful hard-working parents had been violently uprooted, had fled their beloved mother country with children in tow, and had started over again in a new world. There was no joy in those families, at least in the early days, but plenty of grim acceptance of their fate.
What I see now is the same tragedy playing out. My adult son asks me about today's ghastly scene (his questions are matter-of-fact -- what might one side do now, why doesn't the other side do such-and-so?) but all I can think about are the families who will manage to get out only to spend the rest of their lives tearful over their loved ones who didn't. It breaks my heart to see this happening.
I heard that the Ukrainians had set up a hotline where Russians mothers could phone to check on their sons. (I'm assuming most of the soldiers going into the Ukraine are male.)
I hope this story is true because, as a strategy, it's both useful and humanitarian. It will likely win the hearts of Russian families, while more broadly undermining the Russian appetite for Putin's goals.
An excellent op-ed, Jen. It was also a pleasant shift from some of the less cogent fare we've seen here of late (excepting, of course, the always compelling material from Matt Gurney). Thank you.
Ukraine has been successful in more areas than propaganda. They have rallied both world leaders and global business - Oracle, Microsoft, Elon Musk are examples. The speed of assembling such a wide coalition of partners has been breathtaking. The Ukrainian VP’s Twitter feed is fascinating.
I have no idea what will happen next - aside from the relentless shelling of Ukraine. But if Ukraine falls it will not be for lack of courage or intelligence.
Yep, we've all seen all those clips you mentioned, because everybody is watching the same 12 clips every day, no matter which station they turn to.
So frustrating to be unable to do anything (except mail over Trudeau's rockets), except take money away from oligarchs. It would be great for The Line to ask what more Canada can do to confiscate stored assets that were stripped from illiberal regimes we do business with - Russia, China, and yes, Ukraine. Mr. Zelensky's patron, Kolomoisky, diverted nearly all of $2B in IMF aid straight into 54 firms in the Privat group of companies, in Caribbean, American, and Cypriot jurisdictions, never to help Ukraine. This was in the open, not some shadowy story, the watchdog groups ANTAC and Nashi Groshi were able to watch every transaction in court registers. We've basically treated it as legal, and our Paradise Papers winners use it too.
Isn't it time we stopped? If the Paradise tax havens were given the same treatment as if they started stamping out $1 Blu-Rays of the latest Hollywood, claiming their sovereignty to do so, they'd be shut down in a week.
I'd like to know (maybe a guest columnist for The Line?) the power players of the Russian government: the 'oligarchs', Vladimir Putin, the Foreign Intelligence Service (formerly KGB), the media ecosystem, and what are the relationships amongst all the above?
This might give some insight into who is making/supporting the decision to do all this, and what sort of buttons the West can push to stop it
Have you seen the videos of Putin and his "cabinet". Putin sits behind a table about half a football field away from his oligarchs, ministers, whoever they are. The ceilings are up in the mists, it's every inch a room set for a Tzar. The Kremlin truly is a palace. No one gets anywhere near him. They are clustered in a bunch with the camera crews. A small crowd is all. Putin speaks and they know how to respond. He smilingly repeats what he wants to hear from them if he doesn't get it the first time. It's terrifying. There will be no satisfying this man. He takes what he wants.
I figured that Putin has consolidated power into himself; he's basically a Kim Jong Un of Russia. However, who are these 'oligarchs' we keep hearing about, and how are they supposed to restrain Putin, as various news chatter seems to suggest? Even in an absolute dictatorship, there may be more to the power structure than meets the eye
I don't think I have ever read a more pathetically selfish and insane comment than, "While we empathize with the plight of Ukraine we also have to connect with the realities we are facing and do so courageously and honestly."
You lost me at "warmongering political elites". Is George W. involved here? Donald Rumsfeld? the global economy shut down. Inflation is the consequence of demand outdoing supply. This isn't permanent, but we'd better address the realities of how weak our supply chains, like our healthcare systems, really are.
I would suggest that the west may not have gone far enough in defending Ukraine...partly because it still has a lot of corruption issues to overcome.
I would suggest that Russia's pain is Canada's opportunity in terms of filling Germany's needs. One can hope that we have a standard harvest on the prairies this year, and we can meet a lot of those demands as well.
Let Russia trade with China...in the western world, we're long overdue to start paying more attention to the "Made in" labels and adjusting our purchasing accordingly.
The UN didn't let Saddam walk over Kuwait. How is this any different?
"American corporate elites" already had access to Russia's vast natural resources via joint ventures with their energy firms. Almost all of those are suspended as of now.
What most multinational corporations seem to want are: market access, market stability and the opportunity to lock out competitors (ideally via very complex markets that make is advantagous to be large). Russia pre-2014 provided all that in spades. Sanctions from Crimea dampened the opportunity; today's sanctions make it virtually impossible to do business in Russia for the foreseeable future. So -- how does this benefit America's corporate elites? Even defense contractors don't really get a huge push here, certainly not at the Iraq/Afganistan levels.
Frankly, that's why so many smart people assumed this war would not happen. There just aren't very many winners in this, including Russia itself. Maybe it negotiates a peace settlement that allows it to retain Crimea and the breakaway regions with all sanctions dropped. But, there were probably far easier (and faster) ways to get to that outcome. Russia will pay huge costs -- to its reputation, econony, lives lost. Ukraine is paying with lives and its physical infrastructure. But, as you point out, the world economy will take a hit as well. Very much a lose-lose-lose proposition. Hubris on Putin's part that we're all going to pay for.
First video that came up was her about to give a speech at CPAC. For someone talking incessantly about the Constitution, someone should tell her that the people she's speaking to are determined to shred it. If she ran, I wonder which party it would be for?
It ain't surreal over here in Ukraine. Thanks for your support. Slava ukrainii, geroum slava
God bless. -JG
As long as the West continues to impose sanctions...and leaves them in place, Putin has already lost. Every building he knocks down; every piece of infrastructure he destroys, his economy...whatever is left of it will have to pay to restore. The only question now is will his reign end with him alive or dead. That will be up to Russia to determine.
Now that Russia has also turned to straight terror bombing of civilians, is it not time to at least debate the notion of making Ukraine a NATO patrolled no-fly zone? Is that not what NATO did in Kosovo? Yes, it's a major escalation.....or balancing of the playing field that Russia won't appreciate. Putin has already played his biggest threat card; I wonder how he'd respond to open discussion of the idea? I am quite comfortable with the notion that Western airpower can overcome anything Russia might choose to reply with. But I'm equally concerned that relying on Russian generals to take away Putin's nuclear option(as America's generals did to Trump); should he demand it, is a little less certain. But surely they have noticed what is happening to their economy and why, and that there's a better way out of this than ending humanity. I'm not sure Putin does...(see Al Pacino in Scarface). But I'd love to hear others' thoughts.
While it's unfair to the athletes, I'd also like to see Russian and Belorussian athletes expelled from the coming Paralympics. WTA...it's time to tell them to go home as well. No Russian athlete of any stripe should be exempted. It's all about applying pressure to Putin. He's losing. Every government should be doing their best to speed that process. Go after the rest of the oligarchs today...take away their properties outside of Russia. They can live on what they have in Russian banks. They enabled this...they need to fix it.
We will be addressing the no-fly zone proposal in this week's dispatch. JG
Really curious about your thoughts on this.
David: I spoke with a friend who was in the CAF and who has a good grasp of the issues, having spent time in the past as a deployed soldier in Germany and also with peacekeepers in Bosnia. His view was that imposing a fly zone would be more than an escalation--it would likely end up being the thin edge of the wedge (he used the term "mission creep"). He also reminded me that in exercises he participated in (while in Germany), five times out of five the end game was a nuclear exchange.
I didn't like his message, but I bow to his his wisdom (and that of other well-seasoned students of the Cold War and Russia's post-Cold War journey from tottering mess to Putinesca dictatorship).
That would be my fear too, and I would certainly defer to their opinion, but it makes for an interesting debate. I take comfort that no one from NATO or DND is going to call and ask my opinion. Perhaps, tragically for Ukraine, this won't be the "hill we're going to die on".
Putin doesn't care.
Madmen don't....but it usually turns out poorly for them.
A poignant and effective analysis. Thank you Ms. Gerson.
Jen - I enjoy reading and learning from everything The Line posts. I listen most often to what Prof. Stephen Kotkin has to say re Communism/Russia/Stalin/China, etc. But I've recently heard of John Mearsheimer; he takes a somewhat different stance on Russia he blames the US for creating this problem. Mearsheimer thinks Ukraine should remain neutral re establishing a close relationship to either the west and to Russia. This would reduce Russia's concern re NATO and western expansion into the east. https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-john-mearsheimer-blames-the-us-for-the-crisis-in-ukraine
Others including Kotkin, share similar views that the USA/west should have created better diplomatic relationships with Russia after the USSR dissolved, in order to contain /appease Russia more. Our main priority should be focusing on what China is up to more.
I find keeping up with geopolitics dizzying, but necessary in order to be a good citizen.
The idea that Ukraine should remain neutral was plausible until about 8 days ago. The choice to invade has radically re-shuffled the deck chairs. It's possible we should have done more to create positive diplomatic relations with Russia -- they were actually quite good until 2014, remember!. As for whether this is the US's fault etc. we will be addressing some of those arguments in this week's dispatch. JG
Great! I look forward to hearing from you. 'The Fog of War/geopolitics is well, so very foggy."
No matter what Ukraine did or didn't do, including throwing Putin a bone it would not matter. Putin walked into Crimea, set up two Russia-backed satellite states and other than some sanctions the world did little. There were the Minsk Agreements but no one understands the various interpretations apparently. Nothing Ukraine does would move Putin an inch.
"Ukraine should remain neutral"? How exactly, Sandra, do you suggest that Ukraine could accomplish that?
I think the idea is no longer possible.....but it was. How does Switzerland stay neutral? 1941 gave Russia a permanent paranoia about an invasion from the west, so I can understand why they would want a buffer. Ukraine, and Belarus for that matter, could have been allowed their own self-defence forces but agreed not to align militarily with anyone. In the same way Kennedy ended the Cuban missile crisis, a quiet background agreement between the 2 sides might...I emphasize might have been a possible starting point. That's off the table now.
For Putin, it's over. Belarus will be his puppet buffer state, but he won't have an economy until a democratically elected government rules Ukraine...who will likely soon be in the EU (with a lot of things to clean up), and most likely NATO. Putin couldn't have played this worse. At best it will cost him his job. I don't think it will be that long until we find out his fate.
Here's my own opinion as someone who is keen to understand more but will always be an amateur in this area. None of the 'experts' I''ve listened to are predicting nuclear war or a total take over of Ukraine. Yes it would have been better earlier on if Ukraine had not shown interest in joining the EU or being part of NATO. This would have appeased Putin, even if it meant Ukraine giving up Crimea and the two eastern areas of Ukraine. (The history of Ukraine and Russia is closely felt by both countries, with many mixed marriages going back a long time. Putin is afraid of the USA and China, but he is still convinced Russia can be a unique 1st level power/influence in the world.)
Just because a country wants to be more democratic doesn't mean they have to be part of organizations like the EU and NATO
There are many variations of democracy in the world. None are perfect as yet and never will be. Plus look at how Singapore and South Korea operate. They are not what many westerners would want to live in but they sure are impressive with how far they have come in the past 100 years. Examples include how both countries have more respect/faith in their political leaders and didn't push back on the Covid restrictions. Plus Singapore has a mix of Chinese, East Indians, Malay, etc. practicing Christianity/Catholicism, Islam, Buddhism, etc. I don't recall hearing Islamists setting off bombs in Singapore or pulling down statues because of who controlled the area (Japanese, British) throughout their history.
After the word appeased you lost me except for the line— "Just because a country wants to be more democratic doesn't mean they have to be part of organizations like the EU and NATO."
Ukraine is NOT part of the EU or NATO, and yet, Russia is invading. Putin could stop being a sociopath and a megalomaniac and the world would be a better place, Ukraine included.
Coulda, shoulda, didn't. There will be time in the future for historians to debate the balance of culpability WRT events leading to this barbaric violation of Ukraine's sovereignty (and clear threat to its very existence).
The fact is that, right now, Russian soldiers are raining fire down on the heads of Ukrainians (civilians and soldiers alike). This is no longer an academic debate.
So true. I'm sickened by the toll the Ukrainians will have to bear. My heart also goes out to young Russian soldiers and their families, as I'm sure some or possibly many don't want to be fodder in a cause they don't support, but can't escape from.
I think we in the West need to start considering what our ideal goal is here. People are getting justifyably angry, but are jumping to ideas (a no-fly zone, for example) that will serve to escalate the conflict, not end it.
So, here's what I think. The ideal is that Ukraine retain its right to exist, with security. It should be able to determine its own future without having to kowtow to the wants of Russia. Whether that's with Crimea and the 'breakaway' regions or not -- honestly, I don't understand the underlying elements here enough to comment. And, I think that's up to Ukraine to negotiate as part of a peace agreement.
But, a reformed Russia is much better than a beaten and angry Russia. What is the path back to the international order for Russia and its people? I think the sanctions have been a brilliant way to illustrate the benefits of the rules-based international order -- and the downsides to unilaterally defying that order. But, isn't our goal to give Russia a road back? The sticks are critically important, but so are the carrots. That too will be an important lesson for China and they are no doubt watching how this progresses.
Ideally, I think, we need to make the cost of just invading a country -- because you can -- high enough that there are simply better ways to thrive as a global power (innovation, better governance, etc). Might cannot make right.
I think the hardest thing about this conflict is it will involve patience in the face of horror -- mostly for the Ukrainian people, but also for those of us who watch and wish we could do more to bring this to a quick end. But, rashly escalating the war out of that impluse, I think, is a mistake that will ultimately just make the horror last longer.
I will say after watching the pettiness and growing stupidity of our domestic political debate, watching Ukraine react to this crisis -- with skill, courage and savvy -- has been inspirational.
I think everything you've said is spot on. But the time to give Russia a road back begins when Russian armour starts backing up. There are no questions that the lessons of the Versailles Treaty must be remembered when this is over.....but only Russia can make that decision. Until they do, I'm firmly in favour of a "sanction-a-day" strategy.
Glad you mentioned the impact of the1919 Versailles Treaty, with Russia being excluded from negotiations and loosing 30% of it's territory, as I understand it.
I was thinking more about the reparations that so backed Germany into a corner that Hitler's rise to power became an unstoppable solution. I don't believe Russia was involved in any way. Germany did lose significant territory.
Very well said Tony. Thank you.
I was born in 1948 and grew up in Hamilton Ontario among the steel mills.
Starting when I was about 10, more and more of my new school acquaintances were Ukrainian or Polish. Their parents were Cold War refugees from behind the Iron Curtain. I remember how different their family perspectives were from mine. Their peaceful hard-working parents had been violently uprooted, had fled their beloved mother country with children in tow, and had started over again in a new world. There was no joy in those families, at least in the early days, but plenty of grim acceptance of their fate.
What I see now is the same tragedy playing out. My adult son asks me about today's ghastly scene (his questions are matter-of-fact -- what might one side do now, why doesn't the other side do such-and-so?) but all I can think about are the families who will manage to get out only to spend the rest of their lives tearful over their loved ones who didn't. It breaks my heart to see this happening.
I heard that the Ukrainians had set up a hotline where Russians mothers could phone to check on their sons. (I'm assuming most of the soldiers going into the Ukraine are male.)
I hope this story is true because, as a strategy, it's both useful and humanitarian. It will likely win the hearts of Russian families, while more broadly undermining the Russian appetite for Putin's goals.
An excellent op-ed, Jen. It was also a pleasant shift from some of the less cogent fare we've seen here of late (excepting, of course, the always compelling material from Matt Gurney). Thank you.
Ukraine has been successful in more areas than propaganda. They have rallied both world leaders and global business - Oracle, Microsoft, Elon Musk are examples. The speed of assembling such a wide coalition of partners has been breathtaking. The Ukrainian VP’s Twitter feed is fascinating.
I have no idea what will happen next - aside from the relentless shelling of Ukraine. But if Ukraine falls it will not be for lack of courage or intelligence.
Yep, we've all seen all those clips you mentioned, because everybody is watching the same 12 clips every day, no matter which station they turn to.
So frustrating to be unable to do anything (except mail over Trudeau's rockets), except take money away from oligarchs. It would be great for The Line to ask what more Canada can do to confiscate stored assets that were stripped from illiberal regimes we do business with - Russia, China, and yes, Ukraine. Mr. Zelensky's patron, Kolomoisky, diverted nearly all of $2B in IMF aid straight into 54 firms in the Privat group of companies, in Caribbean, American, and Cypriot jurisdictions, never to help Ukraine. This was in the open, not some shadowy story, the watchdog groups ANTAC and Nashi Groshi were able to watch every transaction in court registers. We've basically treated it as legal, and our Paradise Papers winners use it too.
Isn't it time we stopped? If the Paradise tax havens were given the same treatment as if they started stamping out $1 Blu-Rays of the latest Hollywood, claiming their sovereignty to do so, they'd be shut down in a week.
I'd like to know (maybe a guest columnist for The Line?) the power players of the Russian government: the 'oligarchs', Vladimir Putin, the Foreign Intelligence Service (formerly KGB), the media ecosystem, and what are the relationships amongst all the above?
This might give some insight into who is making/supporting the decision to do all this, and what sort of buttons the West can push to stop it
Have you seen the videos of Putin and his "cabinet". Putin sits behind a table about half a football field away from his oligarchs, ministers, whoever they are. The ceilings are up in the mists, it's every inch a room set for a Tzar. The Kremlin truly is a palace. No one gets anywhere near him. They are clustered in a bunch with the camera crews. A small crowd is all. Putin speaks and they know how to respond. He smilingly repeats what he wants to hear from them if he doesn't get it the first time. It's terrifying. There will be no satisfying this man. He takes what he wants.
I figured that Putin has consolidated power into himself; he's basically a Kim Jong Un of Russia. However, who are these 'oligarchs' we keep hearing about, and how are they supposed to restrain Putin, as various news chatter seems to suggest? Even in an absolute dictatorship, there may be more to the power structure than meets the eye
Well said
I don't think I have ever read a more pathetically selfish and insane comment than, "While we empathize with the plight of Ukraine we also have to connect with the realities we are facing and do so courageously and honestly."
Connect with realities? Start with yourself.
You lost me at "warmongering political elites". Is George W. involved here? Donald Rumsfeld? the global economy shut down. Inflation is the consequence of demand outdoing supply. This isn't permanent, but we'd better address the realities of how weak our supply chains, like our healthcare systems, really are.
I would suggest that the west may not have gone far enough in defending Ukraine...partly because it still has a lot of corruption issues to overcome.
I would suggest that Russia's pain is Canada's opportunity in terms of filling Germany's needs. One can hope that we have a standard harvest on the prairies this year, and we can meet a lot of those demands as well.
Let Russia trade with China...in the western world, we're long overdue to start paying more attention to the "Made in" labels and adjusting our purchasing accordingly.
The UN didn't let Saddam walk over Kuwait. How is this any different?
"American corporate elites" already had access to Russia's vast natural resources via joint ventures with their energy firms. Almost all of those are suspended as of now.
What most multinational corporations seem to want are: market access, market stability and the opportunity to lock out competitors (ideally via very complex markets that make is advantagous to be large). Russia pre-2014 provided all that in spades. Sanctions from Crimea dampened the opportunity; today's sanctions make it virtually impossible to do business in Russia for the foreseeable future. So -- how does this benefit America's corporate elites? Even defense contractors don't really get a huge push here, certainly not at the Iraq/Afganistan levels.
Frankly, that's why so many smart people assumed this war would not happen. There just aren't very many winners in this, including Russia itself. Maybe it negotiates a peace settlement that allows it to retain Crimea and the breakaway regions with all sanctions dropped. But, there were probably far easier (and faster) ways to get to that outcome. Russia will pay huge costs -- to its reputation, econony, lives lost. Ukraine is paying with lives and its physical infrastructure. But, as you point out, the world economy will take a hit as well. Very much a lose-lose-lose proposition. Hubris on Putin's part that we're all going to pay for.
First video that came up was her about to give a speech at CPAC. For someone talking incessantly about the Constitution, someone should tell her that the people she's speaking to are determined to shred it. If she ran, I wonder which party it would be for?
She ran for 2020 but did very badly. Almost embarresing.
Tulsi...to what end?