Bracing read. Good thing we’re taking the threat seriously instead of committing so much political energy to culture war and other wedge issues…
Maybe a more salient external threat will act as a force of cohesion within Western countries? We just took that test the last few years though and the results in the end didn’t seem that great.
Great post as usual. But I wonder about your point that "China is not an ideological, proselytizing power; its ideology, basically is just 'China'” -- I think there *is* an ideological component to this, regarding the importance (or relative unimportance) of the individual, which China believes the US worships to the nation's detriment. I read Chinese state news daily and this is the leitmotif. I think this is what you mean by China's ideology is 'China,' yes. And I wonder about Russian ideology in comparison -- you spend a bit less time on it.
I think they do have ideology, but it's not a proselytizing ideology like Soviet communism. The Soviets wanted you not just to obey them, but to set up your society along similar lines. China doesn't care how you set up your society, as long as you obey.
The most rigid proselytizing ideology in Earth today is Western, secular, liberalism (both the economic and social form). We push it with diplomatic pressure. We push it with economic sanctions. We push it with bombs and guns. It's less overtly murderous than communism, but the last 30 years of US behavior has dented the American moral pedestal considerably.
To those of us who live in the West, we think of liberal democracy as "freeing people". To the people who live in conservative societies (of all forms) who face gay pride flags on US embassy buildings, economic blackmail to get them to alter their laws, and outright war should be decide we dislike them enough... it doesn't feel "benign" or "freeing" at all.
It's been 150 years since Commodore Perry sailed into Tokyo Bay to "free" the Japanese markets. Our ideology has been proselytized this way for a very long time.
Kind of, but China has also explicity said it offers a development model to the West and to the U.S. And Xi has said, "...we must diligently prepare for a long period of cooperation and of conflict between these two social systems in each of these domains." And ends that speech by saying China must lay "the foundation for a future where we will the initiative and have the dominant position." That being said, much of what you write makes sense in terms or our being more pragmatic in our policies rather than ideological. Will write more in a general reply comment. Always appreciate your blog posts
Russian ideology currently is mostly about protecting ‘national interests’, based on various high-ranking (including the highest-ranking) officials’ statements. There really is not much to ideology in the same sense as had been the case prior to the 90’s, when ideology as a concept was obliterated. But resisting “Western-imposed” values and promoting traditional values is a leitmotif that has gained steam esp. in the last couple of years. There is a trend toward establishing patriotic education in schools these days, though still in the early stages. Certainly, presenting history in a specific way is a part of this broader trend.
Oh, Russia certainly has an ideology - Russiky Mir - and it is chillingly close to Hitler's fascist fantasies.
"Putin believes an invasion of Ukraine is a righteous cause and necessary for the dignity of the Russian civilization, which he sees as being genetically and historically superior to other Eastern European identities."
It has _declarations_ of an ideology, but, unlike in Hitler's case, they don't seem _conceptually married_ to it and are afraid of internal "turbopatriots" that are.
"Seems" is the key word. The aim (judging by the means used) was clearly "generate a quick victory for uptick in ratings and power" not whatever was proclaimed, and when this failed, Putin found he had no return but still chose his favourite tactics of mostly sitting aside and waiting till the dice fall in his favour (mobilization was an exception but note how Putin, while not officially ending it, turned to more "stealthy" methods of recruitment rather than drive it up to eleven). Compare his actions to what various Z-headed "military correspondents" suggest.
Also, even at the official declarations, it's not really about ethnic purity - it's about "Russia ending nowhere". Putin's effective position on ethnicity is "if you speak Russian, you're Russian and I have the right to rule over you". (Damn, look at Shoygu's face: he's Tuvin, this is about as Asian as one can get. And he doesn't get any flack from it.)
For the sake of accuracy, John, I referred to the premise of @Anecdotal’s question, which was (in my interpretation) about internal official (or at least semi-official) ideology (“in comparison”). What you refer to can be objectively called a concept or (to some) a doctrine to justify expansion, but it’s not an ideology for internal use or consumption in the same way the “(un)importance of the individual” vs. nation in China was presented by Noah (or asked about by Hollis).
Of course, the definition of ideology and its reach can be debated, but will pass on this here as it wasn’t the point of the OP’s comment. Just noting that Wikipedia editors also make an effort to not call it an ideology in the lede, in either the English or the Russian version. It’s not unrealistic that in the future the legal perception of this concept will objectively transform into ideology, but at present that is not the case. (I think keeping in mind this distinction is important, before anyone mentions splitting hairs, at the least for the purpose of drawing accurate historical parallels.)
Call it what you want, Russiky Mir is real and it is the motivating factor for the invasion of Ukraine which is the historic heart of the formation of the Rus people. Call it what you want, a sovereign nation has been savagely attacked and people killed and displaced. There is a dark ideology buried deep in the Russian psyche and it needs to be brought to light and attended to.
The ideology was formulated by Alexander Dugin; he made news last year when his daughter was assassinated. Putin formally incorporated Duginism into Russia's military doctrine but forced Dugin himself out as a courtier.
Steve Bannon is a friend and correspondent of Dugin's, so Bannon is an import-export business of Dugin's "fourth political theory."
Perhaps you are right about 2023, but the ongoing demographic collapse of both China and Russia will be the story of the next 10 years. Also, the dependence of China on imported energy and imported materials needed for industrial agriculture will become clearer. A blockade of China would bring them to their knees in a matter of months. China is a true paper tiger. Russia is simply dying.
The conscriptable Ukrainian population added through territorial occupation to date is fairly negligible: Russia was not able to capture territory where the population mostly resides, and most of conscription age wisely fled.
Based on births in 1987-1992, vs 2004 to 2008, the number of Russian men of military age (roughly 25 million) will decline between 400K and 500K each year for the next few years.
The number actually potentially available for military combat dropped through 2022 from 8.1M to 7.4M due to demographics, emigration and war casualties.
Almost 1.5M are already committed. Deeper into the well, conscription efforts become increasingly difficult, with lower quality results.
I don't have the data broken out for Ukraine from the Soviet period, nor the numbers on military-age males who emigrated from Ukraine in 2022. It's also hard to estimate how many foreign nationals have entered the AFU - any published figures are likely lower than actual.
The comparison would be apples and onions anyway. The big difference is Ukraine's populace is operating in a mode of total war, unlike Russia. If you visit St. Petersburg today, you don't know there's a war on. Visit a Ukrainian city - even one far from the front - and the entire economy is wrapped up in war.
So it's time to start doodling on the napkin.
Obviously, with only 28% of the population of Russia, Ukraine has less men of prime military age. But due to total war, the addition of men of non-prime military age, and a portion of women, make this more balanced than the population difference alone would imply. Notably, conscription hasn't been needed in Ukraine, although able-bodied men are not allowed to leave the country. If conscription becomes necessary in Ukraine, it will not have the same political costs.
So given this differential, AFU likely has about 55%-65% of human resources that Russia can muster for the war.
The important take-away is that Russia of 2022 is demographically not the Russia of 1942, and it can't throw bodies at this war for 3 years, the way it did then. It can't afford to lose forces at 5:1 on attack like in Bakhmut, and it sure as heck can't lose forces at 3:2 when defending (like Stalingrad). To do so would effectively give Ukraine numerical superiority, along with home, tech, log, and leadership advantages.
Ukraine also has maintained mandatory military service at a time when European nations abolished theirs. This has meant that Ukrainian civilians have been made more conflict-ready (e.g. see the images of elderly men and women in cities and countrysides taking up arms) through the basic training received from mandatory service.
A couple of thoughts/wrinkles - though I do agree with the general trajectory:
1. It's easy to overestimate Russia-China cooperation from events like these. Russia has a long history - dating to the USSR - of treating China as a junior partner that just doesnt hold up anymore. A careful look at the choreography of the event shows Putin forcing Xi to come to him to stand in front of the flags for the photoshoot, and a distinct look of annoyance on Xi's face. There is significant economic cooperation for reasons of geography, but the two leaders do not get along.
2. Regarding Russia avoiding outright defeat and the US assessments - US assessments have been chronically downbeat on Ukraine since day 1, and repeatedly underestimated their capabilities/determination and ability to learn new systems. There are real resupply problems and allied coordination issues, but Ukraine's overall combat effectiveness has been significantly higher than Russia's. Russia is also facing real force generation and training challenges.
A brief recommendation - I know you're not a fan of podcasts, but if you don't mind longer-term presentations, I can't recommend Perun's YouTube channel enough. He has a finance and IR background and works in defense procurement, does excellent and accessible analysis of the challenges facing Ukraine, and sees reason to be optimistic.
I mean, you can’t point out Russian issues in training and force generation without acknowledging the even greater Ukrainian difficulties in this regard. Think of it this way: Ukraine has probably undergone double digit numbers of mobilizations, and they’re *still facing manpower shortages.* There are plenty of videos on social media showing how Ukraine is now forcing men off the street and into the drafting houses. It’s a dire situation. Meanwhile Russia has only undergone a single wave of mobilization, and most analysts have concluded that Ukraine no longer holds the manpower advantage it held at the beginning of the war (manpower imbalance was the main reason they were able to take back Kharkiv).
So the current US assessments really aren’t surprising because they’re exactly what you’d expect after a year-long war of attrition against a larger foe. Perhaps minor gains can still be made, but to be super optimistic makes no sense when Ukraine lacks advantages in both manpower or materiel.
China's AMORAL diplomacy? Like partnering with Saudi Arabia is a moral thing? Toppling 4 governments in a raw (Irak, Syria, Lybia, Afganistan) for no reason and no result (good job!) is a moral thing?
On which planet do you live?
Aren't you supposed to provide independant opinions, instead of repeating the bullet points of the "morally superior west"?
What a joke.
So much arrogance.
The truth is, the biggest challenge of the 21st century is going to have all westerners wake up to the fact that their moral superiority is nothing but thin air carried by MSM propaganda and White House speakers and that instead of blindly following it they should start accomodate a new multipolar moral order. On that task, you are not helping.
Certainly the west in general and the US in particular has failed morally any number of times. However, embracing cynicism and failing to recognize the very real differences in degrees of bad behavior between the West and China/Russian represents a lack of nuanced thought on the topic.
I would much rather be an ethnic or sexual minority in the US. Or have any kind of dissenting though or just be different. The consequences of dissent/difference in ChiNa or Russia are very real.
I can agree on that. As a westerner, you value the "right to be different". So do I.
How great it is! Western societies are better at... what they value the most.
On the other hand, if you were Indian or Chinese or Russian or muslim, chances are you might value *other" cultural specificities / civil rights / societal caracteristics much more than the *right to be different" (how surprinsing!)
That IS called cultural multilateralism (and also : genuine mental openess)
Now if you don't mind, as we move towards WWIII, I will let you and your fellow self-righteous "moral is on my side" co-religionists define what is morally superior together and I will move to South America.
Wish you good luck in your cultural exchanges with the Russians and the Chinese!
I do not think my the time of my last post was self-righteous. I am the first to admit that the west is imperfect and that the US has made countless morally questionable acts (see the post above).
It is not just being different that I am talking about. It is about a general respect for human rights. For instance. If a politician sexually abused a pro tennis play and that person complains they do not disappear until retracting the statement. It’s not that people do not do horrible things…or that the system is perfect (it is very flawed). It ks just that some level of protections exist.
Again the west is flawed. The US attempted cultural genocide against Native Americans. A horrific act. Just because the US did that (and still treats many minorities terribly) does not mean that China sterilizing Uyghurs today should be ignored.
I’m terms of an approaching WW3 I will point out that the US ignoring Nazi aggression and explaining it away (much like you are doing now) is what lead to WW2. As a counter point, US engagement post WW2 lead to an unprecedented period of global prosperity. Literally hundreds of millions of individual lives lifted out of extreme poverty (the plurality of those lives are Chinese). I think arguments to contrary tend to be nihilism disguised as a kind of moral equivalency and are the most direct path to a new world war.
Wow, thank you for opening our eyes. Everyone is equally amoral, corrupt. Every pound of progress is outweighed by every ounce of mistakes. Add it all up and... screw it, don't do that, just focus on the bad stuff.
Time for Ukraine to lay down its arms and accept they are part of the one true Russia. Living in the EU v Russia - what's the difference anyway? Plus it's kind of rude to resist Russia when our allies in the UK and US have made so many mistakes in the past. Probably just as bad as Stalin, more or less. Whatever.
Why not give on up on independence and give China a shot at running Taiwan? I mean, look at Hong Kong, are a few curbed civil liberties really so bad?
The joke is telling people fighting for their freedom that they're fighting for nothing. If you get out from behind your laptop such a joke would probably end with a punch in the face.
Punch in the face? Are you referring to what experienced the 50+ heads of states or so who got assassinated, kidnapped or deposed by the CIA and its affiliated cronies over the last 50 years on 4 or 5 continents?
About one per year on average. Such a performance is sure impressive.
Now go lecture the Russians, if you dare. As a westerner, I sure woudn't.
I know. That is what hate looks like. If you are Ukrainian, I understand and feel sorry for you.
If you are not, get back to your senses. Real politic is everywhere. US was built on Indians murder. Monroe doctrine. Catalunya still Spanish. etc. Millions of deaths from US military invasions over the last 20 years. Where is the justice? And you feel hate for Russia? You should be submerged by hate for human governments in general.
I am very worried at the level of insanity I see on an everyday basis. Really worried.
Celebrating Russias invading, raping, pillaging “army” getting obliterated while trying to take over a peaceful neighbor is the opposite of hate. It’s the satisfaction of a bully finally getting hit back. It’s the same as cheering Nazi Germany’s defeat. It’s the self-inflicted defeat of a terrible force of evil in the world. We’ll worth celebrating.
Respecting the agency of the Russians and the Chinese would start with dealing with their governments with respect and consideration. Last time I checked, the approval ratings of Xi and Putin were (much) higher than the approval ratings of Biden and Macron.
Now if you don't mind, as we move towards WWIII, I will let you and your fellow self-righteous "moral is on my side" co-religionists define what is morally superior together while I will move to South America. You can sure send me the executive summary, which will undoubtly look something like a "let's put Snowden and Assange in jail" NYT or Washington "democracy dies in darkness - parody is dead" editor's opinion article. Ah, the sweet perfume of freedom...
I sure wish you good luck in your (high degree of openess) cultural exchanges with the Russians and the Chinese!
Go out of the West, choose a country in Africa, or in Asia, and stay there. Learn the culture. Learn the language. Understand what matters for people outside of your little cultural underworld.
Then come back.
You will then be able to lecture me about cultures and morality, and what a good government is when you belong to a tribal society where same family intermarriage rate is close to 30%.
No I don’t but I have learned to distrust the BBC and NYT. I know however for a fact most Chinese support their government and are not pro democracy. I embrace different point of views, and cultures, and will not support the century long tradition of having the west interfere with countries that belong to other civilizations than mine. This is, I believe, wisdom, and respect, based on my life-on-the-ground observations, and not on some edito from a journalist sitting in his sofa in Paris or NY:)
Conflating Russia and China is a big problem in this analysis. Russia might be bigger than Ukraine, but that's not saying a lot. In economic terms, it's insignificant, and the war has largely dissipated its stockpiles of conventional arms.
On the other hand, Putin has committed massive international crimes, while Xi (while terrible domestically) has not.
The closest analagy to Russia now is North Korea - an impoverished client state of China, dangerous because they have nukes.
Conflating maybe the wrong term, but the references to "Russian and China" in the post reads to me as if Russia is one of the empires that is on the way back, rather than a failed state, dangerous because of nukes and its willingness to fight pointless wars, but essentially irrelevant.
"Xi Jinping doesn’t care whether you have elections and protect civil rights or send minorities to the death camps, as long as you support Chinese hegemony abroad."
This is a critical point that US diplomats are missing.
The Africans are being very clear about this. Rod Dreher has covered this as did Bari Weiss recently. African countries are turning away from the USA and toward China. They won't say why publicly, but diplomats pressed privately all say something akin to this: "Chinese aid comes with a promise for us not to screw up China's goals, but otherwise China leaves us alone. US aid is conditional on us changing our own laws on abortion and sexuality in ways that our populations find abhorrent."
The 21st century's fastest growing market is pivoting toward China due mostly to the ideological strings own State Dept puts on our foreign aid. The US government has decided it wants to advance universal liberalism (grievance studies, abortion, gender identity, sexual equality) at the expense of concrete US foreign policy objectives. This is a radical departure from our behavior during Cold War I, when we were far more pragmatic.
We saw in Afghanistan how ineffective Western liberationist theories are in 3rd world, tribal societies. Former State Dept FSO Peter Van Buren has chronicled 20 years of trying to convince conservative Afghan women that they should want to wear miniskirts and own businesses. They took our money but never bought our ideology (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdrvpSfJM1w - watch the eyes of the woman at 0:32 as she decides the Americans are crazy). And we haven't learned. Our leaders are still trying to export abstract liberal ideology instead of protect concrete US interests.
I feel the same way, TJ, but it's not about your preferences or mine. It's about whether the hoops we're making our supposed allies jump through are politically unpleasant enough (for them) that they will consider dumping us and in favor of our adversaries who attach fewer strings.
We overlooked lack of schooling for women and criminalizing of gays for 20 years in Pakistan. Why? Because we needed them in the Afghanistan war. (Turns out they were playing both sides, but that's a different problem.)
In Africa, you're not even talking about anything that extreme though. You're talking about allowing countries to not celebrate gay pride parades, to limit abortion, and to not have to pretend that men can get pregnant. If our State Dept stopped making those conditions of American partnership, they might well alter the foreign policy alignment of the entire continent.
This is the kind of thing I'm talking about: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-61678929 If we want Kuwait's help as an ally, we ought to have enough respect for their cultural views not to do this. This sort of stuff turns off a lot of people in traditional societies around the world. Do we have a right to defend our liberal ideals? Sure! But when we repeatedly tell allies that we think their beliefs make them stupid, backward hicks... don't be surprised when they look for new allies.
Interesting and helpful post as always. The U.S. does need to be more practical rather than ideological in working with friends, allies and other countries around the world. Rather than saying ally with us to counter China, we should say here's some win-win things we can do together. This is important in working with countries from Vietnam, France or Ghana. Nonetheless, it is an ideological cold war in the sense that we would not, or at least should not, worry about the rise of China except for the fact it became increasingly authoritarian and expansionist. If China was liberalized politically we undoubtedly would have some disagreements but there would be no need for a cold war with China. I expand on this idea in a Substack post from a while back: https://samintn.substack.com/p/our-foreign-policy-goal-for-china
"The United States may be rushing into an overly narrow conception of geopolitics, obsessed with China and (to a lesser degree) Russia, treating a vital set of middle powers as necessary adjuncts to those rivalries rather than as strategic actors in their own right. The emerging system is likely to end up not so much as two great magnets pulling the world into a binary system, but rather as one with multiple great-power gravitational centers operating amid an increasingly influential, self-confident, and independent set of middle powers. Such a world will be governed by a different dominant-system dynamic than that of the Cold War. Both in terms of the risks of conflict and instability, and the global alignment of influence, middle powers could well prove to be the center of gravity for world politics and critical force multipliers from a U.S. perspective. The U.S. approach to the challenges of the coming decades should reflect this complex reality."
I appreciate the emphasis on China's enduring manufacturing advantages, and would be happy to learn more. The degree of 'friendshoring' that actually takes place is very much a great question of the next 3-5 years. I'd also like to know your thoughts on whether Chinese credit can continue/resume expansion, or whether those days are over, and what effects that will have.
It's true that Russia will not have as bad a year this year, in the sense that it won't repeat its worst geopolitical blunder in generations. However, I'm not at all convinced that Russia is going to have a good year, or that it will find any meaningful footing, unless that simply means it retains some or all of last year's territorial gains. This year already saw the turning point of the war in January, when the West switched from wanting Ukraine to not lose, to committing to Ukraine's success. Time is now on Ukraine's side, although the war will not be concluded this year.
Fiscally, things have gotten a lot worse for Russia in 2023. Although the effect of sanctions have not been as swift as naive observers anticipated, they have been more effective more quickly than is historically normal. And their efficacy is still growing. Worse still, Russia is now very dependent upon no disasters at sea, in port or along pipelines to prevent much of its oil production being shut in long term. Russia can withstand great privation, but that is exactly what it is headed for - much of its industrial and economic infrastructure has been rendered brittle and on borrowed time.
Will China recover its footing? It's likely. The rate of leadership blunders should return to the mean some time, and a number of traps remain. China's leadership is clearly subject to major blunders, and that is likely now structural, while Xi remains. By now, China's competitors probably realize this, and some may be more prepared to capitalize when they occur than previously.
Nice analysis although I would challenge your point about the US doing the R&D for wind power. IMO, Denmark did most of that during the last 30 years and almost all the big players (outside of China) are basically old Danish companies that were bought or merged. The only major US player is GE.
Good piece, thanks, though I don’t see much evidence that China has an image problem in the emerging world. They have slathered about $200 billion on those countries and are actively working on important projects.
The IMF and the World Bank view Chinese lending as a fiasco, but borrowing from abroad is what EM does, and China pays more bribes to pols and industries than Eurobond issuers or the Paris club banks do, in addition to directly backing visible projects.
Citizens of these countries are used to cycles of debt, inflation and austerity. Does it matter to them where the lenders that facilitate this come from? Yes- there are some countries like Sri Lanka where a prior government was exposed for corruption and over borrowing from China and there was quite a backlash, and then the next government came in and nearly starved people to death and killed the ag industry. Those cycles of corruption and incompetence make for short memories.
The US and Europe need to be much more hands on in EM. The US does a pretty good job with military engagement/cooperation across Africa, but politically and economically we’d rather send a small cheque accompanied by a large lecture. From my limited observations, China is winning friends in Latam and along the Silk Road. In Africa where China has been directly involved longer, the pro-China sentiment probably peaked some years ago (and it is true a couple of Silk Road friends are getting squeezed by debts, though Afghanistan is a new friend).
We’ve also seen key EM countries (and even India) take a flexible view toward Russia. To your point about “rules based order” sceptics, let’s remember the US appeased and rewarded Putin in 2009 after the 2008 invasion of Georgia and partition of disputed territories. Then post 2014-Crimea the US passed some mild sanctions but entreated Russia in Syria and with Iran. Biden was part of both those efforts. It is wonderful that the Dem base is now convinced that Putin is Hitler and Ukraine was the hero of Trump’s impeachment, but given the recent history we should forgive the developing countries for a cynical “sure, we’ve always been at war with Oceania” view.
I’m sorry but I don’t believe a word of this. It reeks of the conventional wisdom that serves as a smokescreen for what’s really going on. Number one any argument the west made about its “moral” rationales are believed only by the clueless useful idiots who need to believe in order to carry out power goals of the Atlantic alliance. Second, the west is not by any stretch engaging in actual democracy. Nor is there a clear division between authoritarian countries and the west. We just do our authoritarianism a bit differently with covert influence campaigns to bully the public into buying into the goals of empire. It might be the west against the rest but not because we’re superior. In fact our elites are busy dumping every western tradition that made us strong to begin with.
Bracing read. Good thing we’re taking the threat seriously instead of committing so much political energy to culture war and other wedge issues…
Maybe a more salient external threat will act as a force of cohesion within Western countries? We just took that test the last few years though and the results in the end didn’t seem that great.
War has been around much longer than capitalism, and the past 80 years since WW2, capitalism’s heyday, have been the least war-torn in human history.
Great post as usual. But I wonder about your point that "China is not an ideological, proselytizing power; its ideology, basically is just 'China'” -- I think there *is* an ideological component to this, regarding the importance (or relative unimportance) of the individual, which China believes the US worships to the nation's detriment. I read Chinese state news daily and this is the leitmotif. I think this is what you mean by China's ideology is 'China,' yes. And I wonder about Russian ideology in comparison -- you spend a bit less time on it.
I think they do have ideology, but it's not a proselytizing ideology like Soviet communism. The Soviets wanted you not just to obey them, but to set up your society along similar lines. China doesn't care how you set up your society, as long as you obey.
The most rigid proselytizing ideology in Earth today is Western, secular, liberalism (both the economic and social form). We push it with diplomatic pressure. We push it with economic sanctions. We push it with bombs and guns. It's less overtly murderous than communism, but the last 30 years of US behavior has dented the American moral pedestal considerably.
To those of us who live in the West, we think of liberal democracy as "freeing people". To the people who live in conservative societies (of all forms) who face gay pride flags on US embassy buildings, economic blackmail to get them to alter their laws, and outright war should be decide we dislike them enough... it doesn't feel "benign" or "freeing" at all.
It's been 150 years since Commodore Perry sailed into Tokyo Bay to "free" the Japanese markets. Our ideology has been proselytized this way for a very long time.
Kind of, but China has also explicity said it offers a development model to the West and to the U.S. And Xi has said, "...we must diligently prepare for a long period of cooperation and of conflict between these two social systems in each of these domains." And ends that speech by saying China must lay "the foundation for a future where we will the initiative and have the dominant position." That being said, much of what you write makes sense in terms or our being more pragmatic in our policies rather than ideological. Will write more in a general reply comment. Always appreciate your blog posts
Russian ideology currently is mostly about protecting ‘national interests’, based on various high-ranking (including the highest-ranking) officials’ statements. There really is not much to ideology in the same sense as had been the case prior to the 90’s, when ideology as a concept was obliterated. But resisting “Western-imposed” values and promoting traditional values is a leitmotif that has gained steam esp. in the last couple of years. There is a trend toward establishing patriotic education in schools these days, though still in the early stages. Certainly, presenting history in a specific way is a part of this broader trend.
Oh, Russia certainly has an ideology - Russiky Mir - and it is chillingly close to Hitler's fascist fantasies.
"Putin believes an invasion of Ukraine is a righteous cause and necessary for the dignity of the Russian civilization, which he sees as being genetically and historically superior to other Eastern European identities."
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/06/russia-putin-civilization/
It has _declarations_ of an ideology, but, unlike in Hitler's case, they don't seem _conceptually married_ to it and are afraid of internal "turbopatriots" that are.
Invading Ukraine to rout imaginary Nazis and to reclaim Slavic ethnic purity seems pretty “conceptually married.”
"Seems" is the key word. The aim (judging by the means used) was clearly "generate a quick victory for uptick in ratings and power" not whatever was proclaimed, and when this failed, Putin found he had no return but still chose his favourite tactics of mostly sitting aside and waiting till the dice fall in his favour (mobilization was an exception but note how Putin, while not officially ending it, turned to more "stealthy" methods of recruitment rather than drive it up to eleven). Compare his actions to what various Z-headed "military correspondents" suggest.
Also, even at the official declarations, it's not really about ethnic purity - it's about "Russia ending nowhere". Putin's effective position on ethnicity is "if you speak Russian, you're Russian and I have the right to rule over you". (Damn, look at Shoygu's face: he's Tuvin, this is about as Asian as one can get. And he doesn't get any flack from it.)
For the sake of accuracy, John, I referred to the premise of @Anecdotal’s question, which was (in my interpretation) about internal official (or at least semi-official) ideology (“in comparison”). What you refer to can be objectively called a concept or (to some) a doctrine to justify expansion, but it’s not an ideology for internal use or consumption in the same way the “(un)importance of the individual” vs. nation in China was presented by Noah (or asked about by Hollis).
Of course, the definition of ideology and its reach can be debated, but will pass on this here as it wasn’t the point of the OP’s comment. Just noting that Wikipedia editors also make an effort to not call it an ideology in the lede, in either the English or the Russian version. It’s not unrealistic that in the future the legal perception of this concept will objectively transform into ideology, but at present that is not the case. (I think keeping in mind this distinction is important, before anyone mentions splitting hairs, at the least for the purpose of drawing accurate historical parallels.)
Call it what you want, Russiky Mir is real and it is the motivating factor for the invasion of Ukraine which is the historic heart of the formation of the Rus people. Call it what you want, a sovereign nation has been savagely attacked and people killed and displaced. There is a dark ideology buried deep in the Russian psyche and it needs to be brought to light and attended to.
The ideology was formulated by Alexander Dugin; he made news last year when his daughter was assassinated. Putin formally incorporated Duginism into Russia's military doctrine but forced Dugin himself out as a courtier.
Steve Bannon is a friend and correspondent of Dugin's, so Bannon is an import-export business of Dugin's "fourth political theory."
Dugin and Bannon... quite the pair of Adolf wannabes.
Perhaps you are right about 2023, but the ongoing demographic collapse of both China and Russia will be the story of the next 10 years. Also, the dependence of China on imported energy and imported materials needed for industrial agriculture will become clearer. A blockade of China would bring them to their knees in a matter of months. China is a true paper tiger. Russia is simply dying.
Belt and Road gives them an alternate supply route. That is the whole idea
But Belt and Road is an expensive failure already.
Is that what Xi said?
A blockade of China would lead to an immediate WW3. The last thing the world needs is more superpower chest thumping.
The conscriptable Ukrainian population added through territorial occupation to date is fairly negligible: Russia was not able to capture territory where the population mostly resides, and most of conscription age wisely fled.
Based on births in 1987-1992, vs 2004 to 2008, the number of Russian men of military age (roughly 25 million) will decline between 400K and 500K each year for the next few years.
The number actually potentially available for military combat dropped through 2022 from 8.1M to 7.4M due to demographics, emigration and war casualties.
Almost 1.5M are already committed. Deeper into the well, conscription efforts become increasingly difficult, with lower quality results.
I don't have the data broken out for Ukraine from the Soviet period, nor the numbers on military-age males who emigrated from Ukraine in 2022. It's also hard to estimate how many foreign nationals have entered the AFU - any published figures are likely lower than actual.
The comparison would be apples and onions anyway. The big difference is Ukraine's populace is operating in a mode of total war, unlike Russia. If you visit St. Petersburg today, you don't know there's a war on. Visit a Ukrainian city - even one far from the front - and the entire economy is wrapped up in war.
So it's time to start doodling on the napkin.
Obviously, with only 28% of the population of Russia, Ukraine has less men of prime military age. But due to total war, the addition of men of non-prime military age, and a portion of women, make this more balanced than the population difference alone would imply. Notably, conscription hasn't been needed in Ukraine, although able-bodied men are not allowed to leave the country. If conscription becomes necessary in Ukraine, it will not have the same political costs.
So given this differential, AFU likely has about 55%-65% of human resources that Russia can muster for the war.
The important take-away is that Russia of 2022 is demographically not the Russia of 1942, and it can't throw bodies at this war for 3 years, the way it did then. It can't afford to lose forces at 5:1 on attack like in Bakhmut, and it sure as heck can't lose forces at 3:2 when defending (like Stalingrad). To do so would effectively give Ukraine numerical superiority, along with home, tech, log, and leadership advantages.
Ukraine also has maintained mandatory military service at a time when European nations abolished theirs. This has meant that Ukrainian civilians have been made more conflict-ready (e.g. see the images of elderly men and women in cities and countrysides taking up arms) through the basic training received from mandatory service.
Impressive analysis!
A couple of thoughts/wrinkles - though I do agree with the general trajectory:
1. It's easy to overestimate Russia-China cooperation from events like these. Russia has a long history - dating to the USSR - of treating China as a junior partner that just doesnt hold up anymore. A careful look at the choreography of the event shows Putin forcing Xi to come to him to stand in front of the flags for the photoshoot, and a distinct look of annoyance on Xi's face. There is significant economic cooperation for reasons of geography, but the two leaders do not get along.
2. Regarding Russia avoiding outright defeat and the US assessments - US assessments have been chronically downbeat on Ukraine since day 1, and repeatedly underestimated their capabilities/determination and ability to learn new systems. There are real resupply problems and allied coordination issues, but Ukraine's overall combat effectiveness has been significantly higher than Russia's. Russia is also facing real force generation and training challenges.
A brief recommendation - I know you're not a fan of podcasts, but if you don't mind longer-term presentations, I can't recommend Perun's YouTube channel enough. He has a finance and IR background and works in defense procurement, does excellent and accessible analysis of the challenges facing Ukraine, and sees reason to be optimistic.
I mean, you can’t point out Russian issues in training and force generation without acknowledging the even greater Ukrainian difficulties in this regard. Think of it this way: Ukraine has probably undergone double digit numbers of mobilizations, and they’re *still facing manpower shortages.* There are plenty of videos on social media showing how Ukraine is now forcing men off the street and into the drafting houses. It’s a dire situation. Meanwhile Russia has only undergone a single wave of mobilization, and most analysts have concluded that Ukraine no longer holds the manpower advantage it held at the beginning of the war (manpower imbalance was the main reason they were able to take back Kharkiv).
So the current US assessments really aren’t surprising because they’re exactly what you’d expect after a year-long war of attrition against a larger foe. Perhaps minor gains can still be made, but to be super optimistic makes no sense when Ukraine lacks advantages in both manpower or materiel.
China's AMORAL diplomacy? Like partnering with Saudi Arabia is a moral thing? Toppling 4 governments in a raw (Irak, Syria, Lybia, Afganistan) for no reason and no result (good job!) is a moral thing?
On which planet do you live?
Aren't you supposed to provide independant opinions, instead of repeating the bullet points of the "morally superior west"?
What a joke.
So much arrogance.
The truth is, the biggest challenge of the 21st century is going to have all westerners wake up to the fact that their moral superiority is nothing but thin air carried by MSM propaganda and White House speakers and that instead of blindly following it they should start accomodate a new multipolar moral order. On that task, you are not helping.
Certainly the west in general and the US in particular has failed morally any number of times. However, embracing cynicism and failing to recognize the very real differences in degrees of bad behavior between the West and China/Russian represents a lack of nuanced thought on the topic.
I would much rather be an ethnic or sexual minority in the US. Or have any kind of dissenting though or just be different. The consequences of dissent/difference in ChiNa or Russia are very real.
I can agree on that. As a westerner, you value the "right to be different". So do I.
How great it is! Western societies are better at... what they value the most.
On the other hand, if you were Indian or Chinese or Russian or muslim, chances are you might value *other" cultural specificities / civil rights / societal caracteristics much more than the *right to be different" (how surprinsing!)
That IS called cultural multilateralism (and also : genuine mental openess)
Now if you don't mind, as we move towards WWIII, I will let you and your fellow self-righteous "moral is on my side" co-religionists define what is morally superior together and I will move to South America.
Wish you good luck in your cultural exchanges with the Russians and the Chinese!
I do not think my the time of my last post was self-righteous. I am the first to admit that the west is imperfect and that the US has made countless morally questionable acts (see the post above).
It is not just being different that I am talking about. It is about a general respect for human rights. For instance. If a politician sexually abused a pro tennis play and that person complains they do not disappear until retracting the statement. It’s not that people do not do horrible things…or that the system is perfect (it is very flawed). It ks just that some level of protections exist.
Again the west is flawed. The US attempted cultural genocide against Native Americans. A horrific act. Just because the US did that (and still treats many minorities terribly) does not mean that China sterilizing Uyghurs today should be ignored.
I’m terms of an approaching WW3 I will point out that the US ignoring Nazi aggression and explaining it away (much like you are doing now) is what lead to WW2. As a counter point, US engagement post WW2 lead to an unprecedented period of global prosperity. Literally hundreds of millions of individual lives lifted out of extreme poverty (the plurality of those lives are Chinese). I think arguments to contrary tend to be nihilism disguised as a kind of moral equivalency and are the most direct path to a new world war.
Wow, thank you for opening our eyes. Everyone is equally amoral, corrupt. Every pound of progress is outweighed by every ounce of mistakes. Add it all up and... screw it, don't do that, just focus on the bad stuff.
Time for Ukraine to lay down its arms and accept they are part of the one true Russia. Living in the EU v Russia - what's the difference anyway? Plus it's kind of rude to resist Russia when our allies in the UK and US have made so many mistakes in the past. Probably just as bad as Stalin, more or less. Whatever.
Why not give on up on independence and give China a shot at running Taiwan? I mean, look at Hong Kong, are a few curbed civil liberties really so bad?
The joke is telling people fighting for their freedom that they're fighting for nothing. If you get out from behind your laptop such a joke would probably end with a punch in the face.
Punch in the face? Are you referring to what experienced the 50+ heads of states or so who got assassinated, kidnapped or deposed by the CIA and its affiliated cronies over the last 50 years on 4 or 5 continents?
About one per year on average. Such a performance is sure impressive.
Now go lecture the Russians, if you dare. As a westerner, I sure woudn't.
I wouldn’t dare lecture the Russians. Very content to watch them get obliterated instead.
I know. That is what hate looks like. If you are Ukrainian, I understand and feel sorry for you.
If you are not, get back to your senses. Real politic is everywhere. US was built on Indians murder. Monroe doctrine. Catalunya still Spanish. etc. Millions of deaths from US military invasions over the last 20 years. Where is the justice? And you feel hate for Russia? You should be submerged by hate for human governments in general.
I am very worried at the level of insanity I see on an everyday basis. Really worried.
Celebrating Russias invading, raping, pillaging “army” getting obliterated while trying to take over a peaceful neighbor is the opposite of hate. It’s the satisfaction of a bully finally getting hit back. It’s the same as cheering Nazi Germany’s defeat. It’s the self-inflicted defeat of a terrible force of evil in the world. We’ll worth celebrating.
Very black and white, I wish I had as many certainties, it certainly helps to live :)
To embrace the truth, one sometimes need to deal with uncertainty and ambiguity. Godbless.
Respecting the agency of the Russians and the Chinese would start with dealing with their governments with respect and consideration. Last time I checked, the approval ratings of Xi and Putin were (much) higher than the approval ratings of Biden and Macron.
Now if you don't mind, as we move towards WWIII, I will let you and your fellow self-righteous "moral is on my side" co-religionists define what is morally superior together while I will move to South America. You can sure send me the executive summary, which will undoubtly look something like a "let's put Snowden and Assange in jail" NYT or Washington "democracy dies in darkness - parody is dead" editor's opinion article. Ah, the sweet perfume of freedom...
I sure wish you good luck in your (high degree of openess) cultural exchanges with the Russians and the Chinese!
You do realize that you take the valid points in your argument and then dive over the edge into crazy?
I’d love to see you finish your arguments instead of losing your mind....
That’s where I think we all learn something
Xi and Putin don't need approval ratings.
Go out of the West, choose a country in Africa, or in Asia, and stay there. Learn the culture. Learn the language. Understand what matters for people outside of your little cultural underworld.
Then come back.
You will then be able to lecture me about cultures and morality, and what a good government is when you belong to a tribal society where same family intermarriage rate is close to 30%.
Democracy. Sure. You will tell me about it.
Thanks :)
No I don’t but I have learned to distrust the BBC and NYT. I know however for a fact most Chinese support their government and are not pro democracy. I embrace different point of views, and cultures, and will not support the century long tradition of having the west interfere with countries that belong to other civilizations than mine. This is, I believe, wisdom, and respect, based on my life-on-the-ground observations, and not on some edito from a journalist sitting in his sofa in Paris or NY:)
Conflating Russia and China is a big problem in this analysis. Russia might be bigger than Ukraine, but that's not saying a lot. In economic terms, it's insignificant, and the war has largely dissipated its stockpiles of conventional arms.
On the other hand, Putin has committed massive international crimes, while Xi (while terrible domestically) has not.
The closest analagy to Russia now is North Korea - an impoverished client state of China, dangerous because they have nukes.
They were not conflated; they were analyzed in completely separate sections of the post.
Conflating maybe the wrong term, but the references to "Russian and China" in the post reads to me as if Russia is one of the empires that is on the way back, rather than a failed state, dangerous because of nukes and its willingness to fight pointless wars, but essentially irrelevant.
"On the other hand, Putin has committed massive international crimes, while Xi (while terrible domestically) has not."
If you consider the Ugyhurs and Tibetans an internal matter.
The US, China and all other relevant governments do, which is what matters in this context.
"Xi Jinping doesn’t care whether you have elections and protect civil rights or send minorities to the death camps, as long as you support Chinese hegemony abroad."
This is a critical point that US diplomats are missing.
The Africans are being very clear about this. Rod Dreher has covered this as did Bari Weiss recently. African countries are turning away from the USA and toward China. They won't say why publicly, but diplomats pressed privately all say something akin to this: "Chinese aid comes with a promise for us not to screw up China's goals, but otherwise China leaves us alone. US aid is conditional on us changing our own laws on abortion and sexuality in ways that our populations find abhorrent."
The 21st century's fastest growing market is pivoting toward China due mostly to the ideological strings own State Dept puts on our foreign aid. The US government has decided it wants to advance universal liberalism (grievance studies, abortion, gender identity, sexual equality) at the expense of concrete US foreign policy objectives. This is a radical departure from our behavior during Cold War I, when we were far more pragmatic.
We saw in Afghanistan how ineffective Western liberationist theories are in 3rd world, tribal societies. Former State Dept FSO Peter Van Buren has chronicled 20 years of trying to convince conservative Afghan women that they should want to wear miniskirts and own businesses. They took our money but never bought our ideology (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdrvpSfJM1w - watch the eyes of the woman at 0:32 as she decides the Americans are crazy). And we haven't learned. Our leaders are still trying to export abstract liberal ideology instead of protect concrete US interests.
I feel the same way, TJ, but it's not about your preferences or mine. It's about whether the hoops we're making our supposed allies jump through are politically unpleasant enough (for them) that they will consider dumping us and in favor of our adversaries who attach fewer strings.
We overlooked lack of schooling for women and criminalizing of gays for 20 years in Pakistan. Why? Because we needed them in the Afghanistan war. (Turns out they were playing both sides, but that's a different problem.)
In Africa, you're not even talking about anything that extreme though. You're talking about allowing countries to not celebrate gay pride parades, to limit abortion, and to not have to pretend that men can get pregnant. If our State Dept stopped making those conditions of American partnership, they might well alter the foreign policy alignment of the entire continent.
This is the kind of thing I'm talking about: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-61678929 If we want Kuwait's help as an ally, we ought to have enough respect for their cultural views not to do this. This sort of stuff turns off a lot of people in traditional societies around the world. Do we have a right to defend our liberal ideals? Sure! But when we repeatedly tell allies that we think their beliefs make them stupid, backward hicks... don't be surprised when they look for new allies.
This was excellent.
Interesting and helpful post as always. The U.S. does need to be more practical rather than ideological in working with friends, allies and other countries around the world. Rather than saying ally with us to counter China, we should say here's some win-win things we can do together. This is important in working with countries from Vietnam, France or Ghana. Nonetheless, it is an ideological cold war in the sense that we would not, or at least should not, worry about the rise of China except for the fact it became increasingly authoritarian and expansionist. If China was liberalized politically we undoubtedly would have some disagreements but there would be no need for a cold war with China. I expand on this idea in a Substack post from a while back: https://samintn.substack.com/p/our-foreign-policy-goal-for-china
Thank you for this, Noah. Your China posts are very important. Some other good recent posts:
Tim Sweijs and Michael J. Mazaar make the same point Leonard does from a different angle in the April 4th article on War on the Rocks, Mind the Middle Powers (https://warontherocks.com/2023/04/mind-the-middle-powers/?__s=wrzazez9ax99mg12t05z)
"The United States may be rushing into an overly narrow conception of geopolitics, obsessed with China and (to a lesser degree) Russia, treating a vital set of middle powers as necessary adjuncts to those rivalries rather than as strategic actors in their own right. The emerging system is likely to end up not so much as two great magnets pulling the world into a binary system, but rather as one with multiple great-power gravitational centers operating amid an increasingly influential, self-confident, and independent set of middle powers. Such a world will be governed by a different dominant-system dynamic than that of the Cold War. Both in terms of the risks of conflict and instability, and the global alignment of influence, middle powers could well prove to be the center of gravity for world politics and critical force multipliers from a U.S. perspective. The U.S. approach to the challenges of the coming decades should reflect this complex reality."
Manoj Kewalramani explains China's strategy on the All Things Policy podcast episode "GDI, GSI & GCI: What's driving China's New Initiatives": https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/all-things-policy/id1166552728?i=1000608113752. Great insights here.
And Orville Schell makes the point in this great China Talk podcast, "Schell on the Long Arc US-China and Long Reach of Leninism" (https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/chinatalk/id1289062927?i=1000608917283) that Xi's vision has grown, in isolation, really, from a deeply Maoist and Leninist foundation. He makes some of the same points in this Project Syndicate post: https://www.project-syndicate.org/onpoint/xi-jinping-china-tragedy-by-orville-schell-and-irena-grudzinska-gross-2023-03
Thanks, Bill!
Super helpful as always.
I appreciate the emphasis on China's enduring manufacturing advantages, and would be happy to learn more. The degree of 'friendshoring' that actually takes place is very much a great question of the next 3-5 years. I'd also like to know your thoughts on whether Chinese credit can continue/resume expansion, or whether those days are over, and what effects that will have.
It's true that Russia will not have as bad a year this year, in the sense that it won't repeat its worst geopolitical blunder in generations. However, I'm not at all convinced that Russia is going to have a good year, or that it will find any meaningful footing, unless that simply means it retains some or all of last year's territorial gains. This year already saw the turning point of the war in January, when the West switched from wanting Ukraine to not lose, to committing to Ukraine's success. Time is now on Ukraine's side, although the war will not be concluded this year.
Fiscally, things have gotten a lot worse for Russia in 2023. Although the effect of sanctions have not been as swift as naive observers anticipated, they have been more effective more quickly than is historically normal. And their efficacy is still growing. Worse still, Russia is now very dependent upon no disasters at sea, in port or along pipelines to prevent much of its oil production being shut in long term. Russia can withstand great privation, but that is exactly what it is headed for - much of its industrial and economic infrastructure has been rendered brittle and on borrowed time.
Will China recover its footing? It's likely. The rate of leadership blunders should return to the mean some time, and a number of traps remain. China's leadership is clearly subject to major blunders, and that is likely now structural, while Xi remains. By now, China's competitors probably realize this, and some may be more prepared to capitalize when they occur than previously.
Nice analysis although I would challenge your point about the US doing the R&D for wind power. IMO, Denmark did most of that during the last 30 years and almost all the big players (outside of China) are basically old Danish companies that were bought or merged. The only major US player is GE.
Good article! I also like your title -- I’m a Star Wars fan myself.
Good piece, thanks, though I don’t see much evidence that China has an image problem in the emerging world. They have slathered about $200 billion on those countries and are actively working on important projects.
The IMF and the World Bank view Chinese lending as a fiasco, but borrowing from abroad is what EM does, and China pays more bribes to pols and industries than Eurobond issuers or the Paris club banks do, in addition to directly backing visible projects.
Citizens of these countries are used to cycles of debt, inflation and austerity. Does it matter to them where the lenders that facilitate this come from? Yes- there are some countries like Sri Lanka where a prior government was exposed for corruption and over borrowing from China and there was quite a backlash, and then the next government came in and nearly starved people to death and killed the ag industry. Those cycles of corruption and incompetence make for short memories.
The US and Europe need to be much more hands on in EM. The US does a pretty good job with military engagement/cooperation across Africa, but politically and economically we’d rather send a small cheque accompanied by a large lecture. From my limited observations, China is winning friends in Latam and along the Silk Road. In Africa where China has been directly involved longer, the pro-China sentiment probably peaked some years ago (and it is true a couple of Silk Road friends are getting squeezed by debts, though Afghanistan is a new friend).
We’ve also seen key EM countries (and even India) take a flexible view toward Russia. To your point about “rules based order” sceptics, let’s remember the US appeased and rewarded Putin in 2009 after the 2008 invasion of Georgia and partition of disputed territories. Then post 2014-Crimea the US passed some mild sanctions but entreated Russia in Syria and with Iran. Biden was part of both those efforts. It is wonderful that the Dem base is now convinced that Putin is Hitler and Ukraine was the hero of Trump’s impeachment, but given the recent history we should forgive the developing countries for a cynical “sure, we’ve always been at war with Oceania” view.
I’m sorry but I don’t believe a word of this. It reeks of the conventional wisdom that serves as a smokescreen for what’s really going on. Number one any argument the west made about its “moral” rationales are believed only by the clueless useful idiots who need to believe in order to carry out power goals of the Atlantic alliance. Second, the west is not by any stretch engaging in actual democracy. Nor is there a clear division between authoritarian countries and the west. We just do our authoritarianism a bit differently with covert influence campaigns to bully the public into buying into the goals of empire. It might be the west against the rest but not because we’re superior. In fact our elites are busy dumping every western tradition that made us strong to begin with.