Russia is the largest country in the world. It also has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons with the largest combined destructive power in the world. But, in other ways, Russia is tiny.
Russia's population is tiny. At 140 000 000 people, Russia is 9th in the world in terms of number of people, just above Mexico and below Bangladesh. Russia's totals over half of the population of Brazil, Nigeria, Pakistan and Indonesia, but Russia's people are much older.
For example, compared to Russia, Nigeria has just under 4 times more people under 14 than Russia, just over 3 times more people in the 15-24 years range, and slightly more working adults (24-54). In other words, Nigeria might have more of a future than Russia. Russia has just over twice as many older adults (55-64) than Nigeria and slightly over three times more retired people (over 64).
Afghanistan has more than half as many children than all of the Russian Federation. Yet it is these precious few children that are now turned into cannon fodder, killed and left to rot in the marshes of Ukraine. Russia has precious few of them.
Not only has Russia relatively few people, but Russia's people are also poor. Before the sanctions, in terms of GDP per capita, Russians were about as poor as people in Romania, Turkey, Oman, Croatia, Malaysia, Panama or Kazakhstan, Chile or Taiwan.
Before the invasion, Russians earned about twice as much as Ukrainians, making the conquest of Ukraine not a very attractive option. Ukrainians earn about the same as people living in Cuba, Iran, Moldova, Paraguay, Egypt, Albaina, Columbia or Brasil.
The western strategy in the war with Russia is now clear: Bleed them dry. Aim for the weakest points: money and people. Be gentle. Take the people away if you can. Ukraine now offers each deserting Russian soldier 5 million rubles, considerably more than I proposed in my earlier letter to the president and blog post.
The EU is considering giving soldiers who choose to desert asylum with unemployment benefits and the right to stay. It might follow up by giving all Russians refugee status, the right to immigrate and settle in the EU alongside the Ukrainians and be friends again. Among the Russian and Ukrainian people I know, the situation never changed. They stayed friends, and were brought closer together by the common desire to have no war in Europe.
The Nuclear Threat: A chance for Victory?
These measures make Russia more Russian. More empty. More Poor. All that will be left is Putin and his nuclear bombs. Hopefully, without the technology to deploy them into populated cities in Western Europe and the US.
The Russian strategy should be to steer the conflict towards a battlefield where Russia has a strategic advantage. To my mind, that means nuclear war. Russia's leadership isn't concerned about its people dying. They are far less sensitive to the danger of atomic bombs being used against them because it's a huge country with relatively low population density and so it will survive a nuclear attack better that Western Europe. This war can be viewed, after all, very much like a suicide mission for Putin. Die together with his Russia, not alone.
Thus, it may be in Russia's interest for the war to escalate quickly and bend the truth in some way to justify using atomic bombs pergolas, I think, against the West. Then it will end in a few days or weeks at most.
We can only hope that Russia's methods for delivering the bombs to their targets aren't working. We can only hope that their planes and rockets are old and can be shot down from the sky. Or that their nuclear submarines can't come close to a large city like Los Angeles and destroy it.
Russia has a reasonable chance to emerge victorious from a Third World War. It has no chance in a conventional one. Its economic losses and loss of status cannot be easily reversed. Thus, Putin's Russia, as long as Putin exists, may well be on a one way road to a world war.
Diplomatic Agreement, followed by retirement?
The alternative is for Putin to end the war through an agreement with Zelensky and then retire to let the opposition have a chance at leading Russia. The next president could be Vladimir Kara Murza, who recently visited Washington to discuss the future of Russia and Ukraine. Russians have been known for being kind to their politicians: e.g., Boris Yelten and Mikhail Gorbachev have had a good life after renouncing leadership (ok, there was Anastasia and her family, but this was before presidents and she was a woman after all). George W. Bush is happily painting in a well-earned retirement after his invasion of Iraq. Even Joseph Stalin, who is believed to be the most murderous dictator in world history, died at 74 in his own bed after a stroke.
It may be a question of what Putin wants: a place in history next to Stalin or a quiet old age with his mistresses and children and of what he can get. If the politicians and oligarchs who support him lose their money, it might not be a problem for Putin, but it does set a precedent for a form of neo-fascism that makes investors feel unsafe since very few of the very rich can justify their gain. I don't think staying in power and continuing this proxy war for years is an option at this point, but I could be wrong. I think it has to end in weeks or at most months. Yes, Russia's economy is tiny, but all of Europe's satellites have been launched by them, and, of course, there is the gas and the oil that can't be shed off in weeks. So, Russia does have what to negociate with, and Putin is no stranger to sales that result in loss for his own country -- after all he began his political career by selling $93 millions worth of metals for some trucks of food that never arrived -- and so he might not be the patriot that everyone considers him to be. If the war turns nuclear, it still ends quickly, it just destroys so much more.
No comments:
Post a Comment