Ukraine

 Lots of media coverage of the 1-year anniversary of the Russia invasion into Ukraine.

In general I've been in favor of the Biden policy, supporting Ukraine against Russia but avoiding committing US troops. I still am.  But I remember in the early days after 9/11, I had some doubts,never expressed, about the Bush policy. He seemed to have called it right for some time, but now the conventional wisdom says it was a mistake.

In the case of the Ukraine, we forget Russia invaded in 2014, took Crimea and a good portion of eastern Ukraine. Why the new invasion--was it because EU/NATO/US didn't support Ukraine that much in 2014?

My bottom line--it's complicated and I don't see an easy ending.  Biden's making his calls; they seem reasonable today, they may or may not be the right ones when looking back at it from 20 years on.

Kilcullen II

 I blogged previously about David Kilcullen's book.  Not done yet. 

Interesting discussion of the Russia military, particularly in light of their performance in the Ukraine.   One striking bit is the idea of "escalate to descalate"--fast, aggressive strikes to establish a position where resistance is unlikely.  

One example was the Georgian war.  It seems as if the original Russian plan for Ukraine 2022 was the same--a fast strike to decapitate Ukrainian leadership, take Kyviv before NATO could respond.  There's also the possible use of nuclear weapons--small nukes (300 ton TNT equivalent)--use them early betting that retaliation will be hindered by the need for an alliance to coordinate.

Kilcullen describes the evolution of the Russian military since the breakup of the Soviet Union, but might have been surprised that the reforms haven't been as effective in Ukraine as they were thought to be.

Mission Creep in Ukraine

I blogged before about the difficulty of finding a way to a ceasefire in Ukraine.  Since then I think I see signs of mission creep.  

Ukraine seems to be doing much better in resisting Russia than we anticipated.  Ukraine is the underdog being bullied. We're seeing unusual unanimity in Europe about the war.  All these factors can feed into a certain euphoria/animal enthusiasm about the war.  

But I still don't see an obvious middle ground.  Ukraine and its supporters obviously want to repel Russia troops and oust them from their 2022 conquests; ideally they'd like to reverse the Russian gains of 2014. Ukraine also wants compensation for the damage Russia has been inflicting on civilians, housing, infrastructure as well as justice for the war crimes they allege.  Finally they want to remove Russia's ability to invade in the future. 

IMHO the chance Putin would agree to that agenda is nil. So for Ukraine to achieve its war aims they need a palace revolution in Russia.  Unlikely.  Think of Germany at the end of WWI and the "stab in the back". 

Resolving Ukraine

 There's discussion of establishing some sort of international guarantee of neutrality for Ukraine, suggested by the Austrian precedent.  Seems to me there are questions in getting to a resolution:

• how do we assess the balance of forces and the future--who does it favor and how sure are we of our assessment? Do all the parties have the same understanding, and do the publics in the US and EU agree with their leaders' assessment? 
• how does Putin get at least a figleaf for domestic consumption, or does he get more.  The neutrality deal and possible recognition of the two breakaway regions might do it, if Ukraine agrees.
• what happens to the Russian forces now in Ukraine--do they withdraw to Russia?
• what happens to EU/US sanctions?  How do the EU, US, and Ukraine come to a coordinate agreement on time table, etc.
• what about the damages from the war--does Russia pay any reparations?
• what confidence do the parties have in Russia's signature on any agreement? If we don't have confidence do we need to build up Ukraine's military?

It's a complex diplomatic and political situation.

How Serious Would Ukraine Be

 David Brooks on the Newshour has a rosy picture of post-1945 European history.  He said last night on the Newshour that a Russian invasion of Ukraine would be most serious military action since 1945.  

I don't buy it.  Both Russia and the US know they will try to avoid war.  The two nations have learned over the 76 years since WWII they can compete and conflict without going to armed conflict. 

We and the Soviet Union/Russia didn't know that with Berlin in 1948, Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968. We didn't know we could avoid conflict, and we believed that conflict would lead to nuclear war.

Ukraine is serious because of Murphy's law and the likelihood of unforeseen events. But I think we've seen worse, though that may just reflect my advancing age.

Contrarian on Bounties

Big hullabaloo now about the possibility  that Russia has offered bounties to Al Qaeda [Taliban] to kill American soldiers/contractors.

While I bow to no one in my low opinion of the current president, I think remember from the book/movie "Charlie Wilson's War" the degree to which the US government encouraged and aided the Afghan resistance fighters to shoot down Russian helicopters. Distinctions can be made between that effort and the Russian actions as currently reported/suspected, but the similarity is uncomfortable.

A closer example from our history is the use of rewards for [scalps of Native Americans.

Space Is Getting Crowded

Technology Review counts up the upcoming Mars missions. I'm aware of EU and US missions in the past, but who knew these nations would go to Mars:

• Russia!
• China!!
• UAE!!!

Re FBI; Barr Has a Point

Saw in surfing that AG Barr said something to the effect the FBI should not have investigated Trump.

I suspect my fellow liberals and Democrats will be aghast at the idea: no one should be above the law, etc.

But I'm old enough to think he has something of a point.  Apparently the FBI transcripts from their wiretapping of Martin Luther King have just been released, which should serve as a reminder of the power J. Edgar had in his heyday through the suspicion he had files on everyone in DC. 

My point is that investigations are power, and we should have checks and balances applied to the FBI when they investigate possible misdoing by high official, or candidates for high offices.  From what I understand of the background of the FBI investigation into Russian meddling and the involvement of the Trump campaign it was conducted well and had some oversight.  Certainly President Obama was aware of the proceedings and tried to take action.  But that seems to have been based on the judgment of the officials involved, not the operations of any particular legal structure.

To me, the whole Trump-Russian mess raises big questions: what sort of help can/should campaigns accept from noncitizens, from nonresidents, from citizens of friendly nations, from citizens of  possible adversaries, or members of the government of adversaries?  How is that defined in relation to the First Amendment?  To the extent we now have laws against such help, or decide to add them in the future, how should investigations of possible breach of such laws be handled?  We can't leave it to the FBI director--J. Edgar proves that.  We can't leave it to the appointed heads of Justice or the elected head of the government, can we?

A President Who Knows the US Seal!

I'm tempted to suggest that all presidential candidates take an exam on US iconography.  (i.e., what was almost the role of the turkey, what's the significance of the direction the eagle faces, what does it hold in its claws, etc. etc.).

That would be unrealistic, although there is at least one president who could do well on the exam.  Putin has got to be smart.

The Russians Are Coming

Over the last few months I've been mostly absorbed in trying to help my cousin with her forthcoming book, "Dueling Dragons: The Struggle for Ireland 1849-1875".  That work is coming to an end, hence a recent uptick in the words published on this blog.

The lower level of activity has resulted in a decrease in readership.  Never particularly high, it's probably been down by a third or more.  That is, until a couple days ago.  All of  a sudden my daily views have jumped 3-400 percent, all of the increase seeming to come from Russia.

Easy come, easy go, is my motto.

Josh Marshall on Collusion

Yesterday I posted skepticism about the collusion narrative.  Today Josh Marshall at TPM offers a reasoned rebuttal to the more prominent skeptics.

Grain Surpluses

Illinois farm Policy News reports that 2017 is going to be another year of more grain produced than consumed, the fourth year in a row.

And when focusing on U.S. farmers, the Reuters article explained that, “Even as farmers reap bountiful harvests, U.S. net farm incomes this year will total $63.4 billion – about half of their earnings in 2013, according to a U.S. Department of Agriculture forecast.

20 years ago I predicted grain surpluses once the Russians and Ukrainians got going.  So I was right, right, right!  Just didn't realize they'd be so slow about it.

Why the Russians Don't Matter

Sometimes I have kneejerk reactions based on ancient history--that's today's post.  Back in the 50's and 60's conventional wisdom believed that the Soviets wanted Democrats to win presidential elections because they were "softer" on nuclear weapons, test moratoriums, test bans, etc.  This was probably true.  But I felt then and feel now that in principle what the Soviets wanted, what the Russians want, what whoever wants, is basically irrelevant.  It may be the same sort of reaction as the Brits had when Obama spoke in favor of their remaining in the EU.

When we look at foreign policy, it's a question of our values, of our interests, and of the realities.  Now one of the realities may be a nation's attitude, but the real questions lies in our power.

Carolyn Hax is an advice columnist for the Post; one of her refrains in giving advice is to take responsibility for what you control, don't get tortured by what the other people want, do, say. Same applies in foreign affairs: is it wise for us to continue NATO guarantees to the Baltic countries or not? That's a different issue than whether Putin is trying to install in office someone who might not continue NATO guarantees.  We shouldn't react against Trump on the basis of Putin's supposed support for him; we should react against Trump because he would be a bad protector of our values and interests in the midst of world realities (mostly because he doesn't know our values, interests, or the realities.

Big Farm--In Russia, Not Texas

NY Times has an article on American ranchers from Wyoming teaching Russian how to handle cattle. There's an operation with 1.5 million acres*, which seems bigger than any Texas operation (the King ranch is under a million).  The Russians are amazed at how hard the Americans work, and the fact they don't do it on vodka.

*  Granted, this isn't contiguous acres, which makes a bit of difference.

EU Cartels in the Food Chain?

Politico has a piece on the problems which European sanction on Russia are causing for the farmers, particularly French farmers.  (Does anyone here remember the problems Pres. Carter had imposing a grain embargo on the Soviet Union after the invasion of Afghanistan--that and the boycott of the Olympics were the major sanctions we imposed, IIRC?)

It includes this paragraph:

While French industrial purchasers normally agree to absorb a set volume of local production at controlled prices agreed during roundtables, this time some of them balked over the huge difference between the cost of French meat and products from Germany or Spain — around 30 euro cents per kilo.

Some complained that buying French meat at inflated prices would put them at a serious economic disadvantage. The refusal of just two moderately sized groups, Bigard and Cooperl, to buy a certain volume of pork at an agreed price of €1.40 per kilo was enough to upset the tightly-controlled system, shutting down the Brittany pork product exchange for eight days. 

I wonder what "roundtables" means--do the French equivalents of McDonalds, Burger King, KFC, etc. meet together to set volumes and prices of meat they'll buy?  It's what it sounds like.

I sort of assume that the contract growing of livestock in the US extends all the way up.  Jane Doe signs a contract to grow chickens for Tyson, Tyson signs a contract to deliver chicken breasts to KFC.  But how are the prices set--subtle signalling between KFC and McDonalds (like the airlines do)?  When I'm reincarnated I'm going to study economics.

Paragraph of the Day

From a NYTimes article pegged to Russian circuses offering patrons a chance to have pictures of their kids sitting by carnivores, for a fee:

In the 19th century, the author Mikhail Lermontov was so amazed by this quality of fatalism [in Russian society] he created a character in the novel “A Hero of Our Time” who played Russian roulette with a single-shot pistol.

Russian Grain

One of my worst predictions was that after the breakup of the Soviet Union, Russian grain would flood the market as their agriculture improved, driving world prices down.  Generally speaking that's not happened.

There's a Russia Today advertising section included with one of my newspapers pretty regularly.  It seems it's put out by a Russian organization: Russia Beyond the Headlines, at rbth.ru  I'm not sure of who's behind the organization, but many of the articles seem pretty factual and objective.  Here's a recent one on the Russian grain situation.  Three paragraphs:

Russia has almost 300 million acres of arable land, about 50 million acres of which require time to recover after being out of service for some time. The minimum yield is about 1 ton per acre, which by European standards is next to nothing.
Therefore, even assuming minimum yields on all of the 300 million acres of arable lands, Russian land can produce 300 million tons of crops annually, with cereals accounting for two-thirds of the total. This means that Russia is capable of producing 200 million tons of grain annually.
With domestic consumption at around 80 million tons a year, Russia would have more than 100 million tons of spare grain that could be exported. To compare: Last season, the United States –  the global leader in grain exports –  exported 73 million tons of grain, with Argentina ranking second at 32 million tons. Australia and Ukraine each exported 24 million tons of grain, while Russia and Canada sold 20 million tons.

How the World Changes: Stylish Russian Women

The Times had an article today discussing fashionable and rich Russian women.  For some reason I found that amazing; maybe because I remember Nina Khruscheva, Nikita's wife, who for the 1950's and 1960's stood as a model for Soviet women.  Hard to find a picture of her, so I'll steal this from Brown University.

Anyhow "stylish" was never used in connection with Soviet women.  Nor was "fabulous".  As proof, I did Google searches for "stylish Soviet women" and "stylish Russian women".  Six hits for the former, 5600 for the latter.

7000 Pounds of Milk

Post has an article on a Virginia farmer selling Holstein bulls to Russia. Two paragraphs:

Russian farmers are trying to improve dairy herds that produce an average 7,000 pounds of milk per cow each year, said Valery Osipenko, who co-owns Vistar Farms of Mechanicsville, which sold the bulls to Russian farmers for an undisclosed amount. Top-quality American Holsteins produce an average of more than 20,000 pounds of milk per year.

Instead of raising dairy cattle for milk and beef cattle for meat, Soviet collective farms had “dual-use” cattle, which would be milked for a while, then killed for meat, Osipenko said. Those one-size-fits-all cattle may have embodied an egalitarian ideal, but both milk and meat were mediocre, said Osipenko, a native of Ukraine who recalled his mother boiling beef for hours in a fruitless attempt to tenderize it.

Random thoughts: back in the 50's, we were averaging something over 10,000 lbs, maybe more, so Russia is really backwards.

Of course, back in the 1700's dual purpose cattle were the rule in America.  I wonder about the evolution of the industry.  In the 50's we had "registered" Holsteins, tracking the ancestry of our cows.  Used artificial insemination and choose the bull based on the production records of his progeny.  Now Darwin writes about how humans have changed domestic breeds by their selection, but I don't recall he used cows as an example.  I'm vaguely aware Washington and Jefferson imported animals based on their qualities: is it possible sheep can be "dual-purpose" (wool versus mutton)?

If we assume that US dairymen were, in the 19th century, trying to improve the productivity of their herds, then maybe it's also reasonable to assume the same was true in Russia.  So what might have happened? Perhaps the Russian Revolution and the arrival of collective farms meant the freezing of the drive to improve productivity?  Meaning for 70 years the Russian dairy industry was frozen?

Still surprising to me that they haven't progressed faster in the 20+ years since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Russia and McDonalds

The NYTimes has an article on how McDonalds venture in Russia has evolved over the years. It's been there for 20 years, has 235 restaurants, has been able to develop Russian suppliers for 80 percent of its needs, except for French fries.