Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on March 18, 2014
Orlov: The Madness of President Putin
Of all the various interpretations Western leaders and commentators have offered for why the president of the Russian Federation has responded the way he has to the events in Ukraine over the course of February and March of 2014—in refusing to acquiesce to the installation of a neo-fascist regime in Kiev, and in upholding the right of Crimea to self-determination—the most striking and illuminating interpretation is that he has gone mad. Striking and illuminating, that is, something in the West itself.
In times past, the international landscape reflected a multipolar order, a multiplicity of competing ideologies, alternative schemes of social and economic organization. Back then the actions of another country could be understood in terms of its alternative ideology. Even extreme figures—Stalin, Hitler, Idi Amin, Pol Pot—calling them crazy was an example of hyperbole, an intensified way of describing the brazenness with which they pursued their rationally set political goals. But when Chancellor Angela Merkel asks whether Putin is living “in another world,” echoing a theme in the narrative presented by Western media, the question seems to imply something quite literal.
We question someone’s sanity when we cannot explain their behavior or logic based on a common understanding of consensual reality. They become utterly unpredictable to us, capable of carrying on a normal conversation one moment and lunging at our throats the next. Their actions appear rash and disordered, as if they inhabit a world parallel to but completely different from the one we do. Putin is portrayed as a fiend, and the West acts baffled and scared. The feigned shock with which the West looks on at the developments in Crimea could be seen as a tactic designed to isolate and intimidate Vladimir Putin. The fact that this tactic is not only not working but actually backfiring changes feigned shock into real shock: Western meds aren’t working any more—on itself or anyone else.
The West—that is, the United States and the European Union—have played the role of chief psychiatrist in the world insane asylum ever since the USSR fell apart. Prior to 1990 the world was neatly carved up into two competing ideologies locked in a nuclear standoff. But then Mikhail Gorbachev capitulated. He was a champion of “common human values” and wanted to resolve the superpower conflict peacefully, by combining the best of both systems (all the humanistic victories of Soviet socialism plus all the seductive, consumerist prosperity of American capitalism).
But in effect Gorbachev capitulated; the USSR was dismembered and, over the course of the 1990s, Russia itself came close to being destroyed and dismembered. Although in the West, where he is still a popular figure, Gorbachev is credited with orchestrating a peaceful dissolution of the USSR, the chaotic aftermath of the collapse of the USSR was an extremely traumatic event, with massive loss of life. When Putin calls the collapse of the USSR “the largest geopolitical catastrophe of the century,” he echoes the feelings of many Russians—who, by the way, like to call Gorbachev “Mishka mécheny” (“Mickey the marked”—marked by the devil, that is.)
During the post-collapse period Russia could offer no competing ideology. In fact, it had no ideology at all, except for an implant of Western liberalism which, given a lack of a viable legal framework or traditions of private property and civil society, quickly turned into a particularly brutal brand of gangsterism. But then Putin came along and, using his experience in the KGB and connections with other post-Soviet “power ministeries,” he crafted a new order, which first decimated and either supplanted or absorbed the gangsters, and then imposed what Putin has termed “the dictatorship of the law.” This is the first important piece of the new Russian ideology: law matters and nobody can be above it—not even the United States.
Now, compare the concept of the “dictatorship of the law,” domestic as well as international, as it is promulgated by Putin, to the sort of law which now prevails in the United States. In the US, there are now two categories of persons. There are those who are above the law: the US government and its agencies, including NSA, FBI, DOD, etc.; Wall Street financiers and shadowy government contractors who are never prosecuted for their crimes; the über-rich who are politically connected and can prevail legally against anyone simply by throwing money at lawyers.
And then there are those who are below the law: everyone else. These are some of the most sheepish people in the world, living in constant fear of getting sued and stripped of their savings—or arrested, intimidated into accepting a plea bargain, and locked up. They can now be detained indefinitely without a charge. They can be kidnapped from anywhere in the world, transported to a “black site” and tortured. They can be put on trial without being informed of the charge and convicted based on evidence that is kept secret from them. Their communities can be placed under martial law without cause. Individually, they can be shot on sight with no provocation of suspicion of wrongdoing. Abroad, when wedding parties and funerals are taken out by misguided drone strikes, that’s a war crime—unless Washington is behind it, in which case it is just “collateral damage.”
Thanks to the relentless NSA surveillance, we now have no privacy and can keep no secrets. For example, German Chancellor Merkel is definitely “below the law.” When, thanks to Edward Snowden, she discovered that the NSA was listening in on her cell phone conversations, she was outraged and complained bitterly. The NSA stopped listening in on her phone and… started listening in on the phones of everyone she talks to! Now, isn’t that cute? Notice, however, how Frau Merkel has stopped complaining. Unlike Putin, she isn’t “mad”: she is a willing participant in a consensual reality in which what Washington says is the law, and what she says is just noise, for the benefit of maintaining the illusion of German sovereignty. For her benefit, let’s ask her in her native German: “Frau Merkel, glauben sie wirklich dass die amerikanischen Politiker Übermenschen und die Deutschen und Russen und Ukrainer Untertanen sind?”
Putin’s second innovation is what he calls “sovereign democracy.” It is a system of representative democracy that is completely impervious to foreign political manipultion. Well, not completely impervious: just as it’s good to have a low-level inflammation somehwere once in a while to keep the immune system humming along, it’s considered healthy to have Moscow’s and St. Petersburg’s hipsters—many of whom, in their youthful folly, still worship the West—to go and get themselves roughed up by the riot police periodically. The worship appears mutual, and watching Wetern media worship a bunch of nobodys whose idea of public art is going into supermarkets and stuffing frozen chickens in their vaginas (“Pussy Riot,” that is) provides much-needed comic relief. But the firewall of Russian conservatism remains impervious to Western advances. (As Prof. Cohen recently pointed out, prior to Americans’ gay rights agitation, Russian gays used to be called “faggots”; now they are being called “American faggots,” and gay rights in Russia have taken a giant leap back.)
Again, let’s compare it to the state of affairs that now prevails in the US, where President Obama announced during this year’s state of the union address that, since Congress won’t cooperate with him, he plans to rule by decree (“executive order,” in American bureaucratese). In response, Congress is now drafting legislation that aims to compel the Obama administration to enforce acts of Congress. Apparently, they misplaced all their copies of the US constitution, which already describes this very process in considerable detail. Their studied appearance of endless legislative gridlock appears to be a veil designed to obscure the real work of distributing misappropriated funds among their campaign donors—funds that now run into trillions of dollars a year. Add to this the fact that half of US Congress has pledged allegiance to Israel. In Russian eyes, the US is neither sovereign nor a democracy; it is the festering corpse of a democracy being fed on by the world’s fattest vultures.
In contemporary Russian understanding, Ukraine is not sovereign either (it is open to blatant foreign manipulation) and therefore its government is illegitimate. The December 1991 referendum which gave Ukraine its independence was conducted in violation of the constutition that was in effect at that time, and Ukrainian independence is therefore illegitimate as well. Since the recent armed overthrow of Ukraine’s government was likewise contrary to the Ukrainian constitution, Ukraine no longer has a constitution at all. The Crimean referendum, on the other hand, is a legitimate expression of the will of the people in absence of any legitimate central authority, and therefore provides a solid legal basis for moving forward. The fact that the US government, and others following its lead, have declared the Crimean referendum illegal is neither here nor there: they do not have the power to invent laws on Russia’s behalf, and they are walled off from Russia’s internal politics.
* * *
One could mark the ascension of the US to the role world psychiatrist from around the end of the cold war. The Berlin Wall came down, and Western Capitalism, Democracy and Liberalism appeared to have won. The unified Western view of the way the world works, of what moves society forward, of what is the best and most productive form of economic, social, and political organization had prevailed over the entire planet. Francis Fukuyama published his inadvertently hilarious treatise on “The End of History.” In this context, in denying the Russian Federation the courtesy of allowing it to have a coherent alternative view, the US is attempting to claw back the illusion of its unquestioned supremacy, its absolute hegemony, its role as chief moralizer and arbiter of what counts as normal and abnormal in thought and behavior. Because either the world must have gone mad, or Putin must have. Prior diagnosis appears to have been faulty: “I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country,” said George W. Bush of President Putin at the Slovenia Summit in 2001. The patient expertly deceived the psychiatrist, making him believe that he is sane. And now the patient is running amok, and the West is desperately trying to drag him back into the asylum.
Some sympathy for the wardens of this insane asylum is also due. The developments in Ukraine and Crimea are especially troubling for the West because they violate the West’s linear conception of history. On this account, the advanced first world Western nations are ahead of the pack, and trying, simply out of their great compassion, to encourage stragglers like Ukraine along the path toward EU and NATO membership, monetary union and a slow-moving, controlled national bankruptcy in the hands of the IMF. The fall of the Soviet Union was a key psychological breakthrough in this story they tell themselves. They thrive on this story, for it defines them and gives them their sense of meaning and purpose. Anything that undermines its basic premises and foundations is deeply disturbing. However, many examples of unmitigated failure in the 21st century have been hard to ignore and have made this narrative sound increasingly shaky. With highlights like 9/11, the fiasco in Afghanistan, the ongoing Iraqi civil war, the global financial meltdown of 2008, intractable unemployment and economic stagnation plaguing the West in these first 15 years of the 21st century, and then the serial fiascos in Libya, Syria, Egypt and now Ukraine, and it becomes easy to see the special significance that this particular confrontation with Vladimir Putin has for the fragile Western psyche.
The West’s ascendant trip through linear history appears to be over. The paradox underneath this confrontation is that a situation with such low stakes—Crimea and the political leanings of a minor failed state—has taken on such vast proportions, and this suggests a deeper significance. The political turmoil that has taken root in the fertile soil dividing West and East, in Ukraine, which literally translates as the “borderland,” functions as a powerful symbol of the declining hegemony of the West. This confrontation continues to cast shadows of historical proportions because the authority of the world psychiatrist and world policeman is being openly challenged. The brief illusion of the triumph of the West is cracking. We have not entered into some post-historic phase, some fundamentally new future. The inmates are breaking free, and it looks as if the psychiatrist was the crazy one all along.
Consider the asymmetry. What is Ukraine to the West but an impoverished Eastern European political pawn on the geopolitical chessboard, one that has to be prevented from joining up with Russia in line with the overall trend? But to Russia Ukraine is a historic part of itself, the place of the earliest Russian capital of Kievan Rus (from whence it was moved, eventually, to Moscow, then to St. Petersburg, then to Moscow again). It is a region with which Russia has eleven centuries of joint linguistic, cultural and political history. Half of Ukraine consists of Russian lands capriciously adjoined to it by Lenin and Khrushchev. I grew up thinking Kharkov was Russian (because it is) and was at one point amazed to discover that I would now need a visa to go there—because it got stuck on the wrong side of the border and renamed Kharkiv. (In case you are wondering, to convert to Ukrainian, you take Russian and replace ‘y’, ‘o’ and ‘e’ with ‘i’, ‘i’ with ‘y’, and ‘g’ with ‘h’. To convert back—you ask a Russian.) As of last December, the Russians in Kharkov and other Russian regions of Ukraine have been stuck on the wrong side of the border, as subjects of an unstable, dysfunctional and remarkably corrupt governent, for 22 years. It is little wonder that they are now waving Russian flags with wild abandon.
Even the muddle-headed John Kerry was recently heard to concede that Russia has “legitimate interests” in Ukraine. In challenging Russia over Ukraine the West isn’t just crossing some imaginary “red line” that Obama is so fond of proclaiming again and again. In installing a neo-fascist, rabidly anti-Russian regime in Kiev, it has crossed the double-yellow, guaranteeing a head-on collision. Question is, which side will survive that collision: the Russian tank column, or John Kerry’s limo? The West’s opening gambit is to deny visas and freeze accounts of certain Russian officials and businessmen, who either don’t have bank accounts in the West or have already pulled the money out last Friday (to the tune of a couple hundred billion dollars) and aren’t planning to travel to the US.
Russia promised to respond “symmetrically.” In its arsenal is: popping the huge financial bubble and causing a resumption of the financial collapse of 2008 by any number of means, from requiring gold instead of fiat currency as payment for oil and gas, to dumping US dollar reserves (in concert with China), to putting the EU on a fast track to economic collapse by giving the natural gas valve a slight clockwise twist, to leaving US and NATO troops in Afghanistan (who are about to start evacuating) stranded and without resupply by declaring force majeure on the cooperative arrangement currently in effect, where much of their resupply route is allowed to pass through Russian territory. That’s if Russia chose to act decisively. But Russia could also choose to do little or nothing, and then just the financial contagion from Ukraine’s forthcoming bond default and financial jitters over Ukrainian chaos disrupting natural gas deliveries to Europe could be enough to topple the West’s teetering financial house of cards.
So what remains of Western global hegemony and of the West’s right to play the world’s psychiatrist? Make of it what you will, but some lessons seem quite clear. First, it now appears that, from Russia’s point of view, having good relations with Washington is quite optional, but that Ukraine is quite a bit more important. America is dispensable. Second, the EU isn’t being asked to choose a new master, but slavish obedience to Washington’s dictates has led to mischief and may leave it shivering in the dark come next winter through no fault of Moscow’s, so the EU should start acting in accordance with its obvious self-interest rather than against it.
33 Comments on "Orlov: The Madness of President Putin"
Davy, Hermann, MO on Tue, 18th Mar 2014 1:30 pm
Good recent sources on the Putin and Crimea
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-03-17/putin-did-right-thing-says-marc-faber-fears-china-implications-more
http://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/deep-state-blues/
Well put Orlov
Now, compare the concept of the “dictatorship of the law,” domestic as well as international, as it is promulgated by Putin, to the sort of law which now prevails in the United States. In the US, there are now two categories of persons. There are those who are above the law: the US government and its agencies, including NSA, FBI, DOD, etc.; Wall Street financiers and shadowy government contractors who are never prosecuted for their crimes; the über-rich who are politically connected and can prevail legally against anyone simply by throwing money at lawyers. And then there are those who are below the law: everyone else. These are some of the most sheepish people in the world, living in constant fear of getting sued and stripped of their savings—or arrested, intimidated into accepting a plea bargain, and locked up. They can now be detained indefinitely without a charge. They can be kidnapped from anywhere in the world, transported to a “black site” and tortured. They can be put on trial without being informed of the charge and convicted based on evidence that is kept secret from them.
Arthur on Tue, 18th Mar 2014 1:32 pm
Can’t say how pleasantly surprised I am by this excellent article. By choosing the side of Putin, rather than Nuland/Kerry, Orlov shows that in the deepest sense he is first and foremost Russian after all.
so the EU should start acting in accordance with its obvious self-interest rather than against it.
Could not agree more. Without making an enemy of the US, we should say to Washington that Russia has legitimate interests in the Ukraine, that are none of our business. And yes, I agree that Kharkov and Donetsk should return to Russia as well, preferably without civil war and under guidance of those directly involved: Russia and the EU and nobody else. Since it is likely to be the EU that will be obliged to support a new Kiev-Ukrainian state, without EU, let alone NATO accession.
steveo on Tue, 18th Mar 2014 1:39 pm
Imagine for a moment that there was no deep water harbor in San Diego and that the US Pacific fleet was headquartered 300 miles south in a harbor in Baja by long term agreement with the Mexican government. Over time the area has become English speaking and is largely populated with US expats.
Now imagine that an Arab Spring style revolution puts a highly nationalistic government in Mexico that basically hostile to the US. How long do you think it be before US troops were in the Baja and surrounding this theoretical base?
Putin’s actions are completely rational if you take a moment to view them from Moscow’s stand point instead of Washington’s.
Northwest Resident on Tue, 18th Mar 2014 2:33 pm
“In Russian eyes, the US is neither sovereign nor a democracy; it is the festering corpse of a democracy being fed on by the world’s fattest vultures.”
Whatever one might think about the main thrust of Orlov’s excellent article, you just HAVE to love that one sentence if for nothing else than the really colorful prose.
The world’s fattest vultures are, of course, primarily and almost exclusively American. In other words, you might say that America is eating itself, and you might be correct.
bobinget on Tue, 18th Mar 2014 2:42 pm
The Mexican–American War, also known as the Mexican War, the U.S.–Mexican War, the Invasion of Mexico, the U.S. Intervention, or the United States War Against Mexico, was an armed conflict between the United States and the Centralist Republic of Mexico (which reestablished its 1824 federal constitution during the war, becoming the Second Federal Republic of Mexico) from 1846 to 1848 in the wake of the 1845 U.S. annexation of Texas, which Mexico considered part of its territory despite the 1836 Texas Revolution.
Combat operations lasted a year and a half, from the spring of 1846 to the fall of 1847. American forces quickly occupied New Mexico and California, then invaded parts of Northeastern Mexico and Northwest Mexico; meanwhile, the Pacific Squadron conducted a blockade, and took control of several garrisons on the Pacific coast further south in Baja California. Another American army captured Mexico City, and the war ended in a victory for the United States.
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo specified the major consequence of the war: the forced Mexican Cession of the territories of Alta California and New Mexico to the United States in exchange for $15 million. In addition, the United States assumed $3.25 million of debt owed by the Mexican government to U.S. citizens. Mexico accepted the loss of Texas and thereafter cited the Rio Grande as its national border.
westexas on Tue, 18th Mar 2014 2:57 pm
Speaking of crazy–How about the widespread discussions in the US media about exports of US oil and natural gas production, as a way to reduce Western Europe’s dependence on Russia energy exports, when the US is a net oil and gas importer?
noobtube on Tue, 18th Mar 2014 3:13 pm
It’s refreshing to get another view on world events.
Too often, no matter how seemingly open-minded, the American media justifies anything their government does (9/11, invasion of Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya, torture, mass incarceration, drone strikes on babies) regardless of its effect. As long as they can drive their cars, eat their Big Macs, watch their sports/movies/TV, and go to the mall, the American attitude is “Screw everyone else.” “I got mines… you get yours.”
But, Orlov brings a view that is not mired in American dysfunction, which is extremely refreshing to someone who cannot stomach American propaganda from the State-run media.
By the way, the Republic of Texas was created, by scumbag Americans, to terrorize and enslave black people. Mexico wasn’t going for it and so the United States, holding to its love of slavery, chose to invade a sovereign nation to defend these invaders and spread the wonderful institution of slavery. Texas still has that racist mindset to this day.
Of course, Texans (along with most Americans) don’t want to acknowledge that the Invasion of Mexico was just another war of aggression against a sovereign people. It ruins their self-perception that they have any business meddling in the affairs of the rest of the world (Monroe Doctrine, Manifest Destiny, American Exceptionalism, World Cop, anyone?).
rollin on Tue, 18th Mar 2014 3:16 pm
Orlov can always be relied upon to be anti-American about anything. A lot of hate for the place he lives in.
Few speak the truth about USSRussia.
Orlov’s version of the nuclear ashes scenario is to freeze out Europe by squeezing down the natural gas. How pathetic and cowardly.
Makati1 on Tue, 18th Mar 2014 3:17 pm
Orlov, excellent as always. Too many truths in there to pick out just one for discussion. Who would have guessed this turn of events just 30 years ago, that Russia would be defending democracy against a fascist corporatocracy called America?
Northwest Resident on Tue, 18th Mar 2014 3:28 pm
“…Invasion of Mexico was just another war of aggression against a sovereign people.”
A “sovereign people” composed of the conquerors of the original “sovereign people” (Teotihuacán, Maya, etc…) that the Spanish conquistadors found and subjugated as slaves when they first arrived in the Americas.
noobtube — Just another vehemently anti-American commenter, so filled to the brim with anger and hatred that he just can’t see reality through all the smoke and haze rising from inside him.
DC on Tue, 18th Mar 2014 3:32 pm
Excellent. Should be in the op-ed pages of every amerikan,indeed ‘western’ media outlet. Of course, it wont be, because ‘our’ media does not present information, or anything like the truth. Or to use Mr Orlovs terms, in the asylum, reality is not on the daily activity list. I could link some of the ‘analysis’ articles penned by ‘my’ journos on the issue, but why? You can read the insights of our so-called ‘journalists’ all the time. These days, the anti-Putin\Russia propaganda is flowing so fast and thick its hard to tell where the BS ends and Bull begins.
Thanks again to Mr Orlov. He should submit this to, what is the name of that amerikan propaganda rag, the NYT’s? Or at least post it as a comment there.
noobtube on Tue, 18th Mar 2014 3:36 pm
I don’t understand why so many Americans feel the need to justify their wars of aggression by saying they did it to liberate the people.
The Americans didn’t invade Mexico to liberate the native people. The Americans invaded Mexico to protect the slave traders, flesh peddlers, and those who liked to treat human beings as personal property.
In fact, Americans were waging their own wars against the native peoples (see Andrew Jackson, the Seminole Wars, the Lakota, and the Iroquois, the Wild West, and on and on).
Orlov shows a glimpse of the insanity of American exceptionalism as being a fraud. The United States is no better than anyone else, so who are they to invade someone else’s land under some guise of spreading democracy?
An invasion is an invasion when the country poses no threat to you (as in Mexico, and so many other wars the US has started).
Boat on Tue, 18th Mar 2014 3:52 pm
Mexico at first invited the settlers in and later rejected them.
America will fight for and control parts of the world to promote free trade and prevent expansion by others. I don’t think it’s about democracy.
rockman on Tue, 18th Mar 2014 4:03 pm
“Putin is mad”. And what’s that common definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome. In that sense I would have to say that Putin isn’t nuts because he keeps pulling the same crap over and over again with the same outcome: he wins.
noobtube on Tue, 18th Mar 2014 4:10 pm
Why do Americans always act like people just do things out of the blue when Americans caused the problem?
Mexico didn’t just reject the American settlers for the fun of it. Mexico outlawed slavery in 1829. Then the Americans wanted to reintroduce slavery by bringing in slaves. Mexico told the Americans to get rid of the slaves or get out.
The Americans were such fans of terror and tyranny against the innocent, that instead of spreading freedom by releasing their slaves, they chose to run to the American government to attack Mexico.
That is the modus operandi of the United States since its inception (including its founding, which was a war about slavery).
But, I agree America fights for free trade (which means free for America while everyone else pays) and commercial expansion for the racially approved (see South Africa).
Orlov must see the ridiculous hypocrisy of the United States since he wasn’t indoctrinated and brainwashed by the American school system.
DC on Tue, 18th Mar 2014 4:10 pm
Quite right rockman, he does indeed keep winning, or at least managing to thwart the uS’s aggression. If there is one thing I have noticed over the years, its this. The uS globalist elites, and their various lessor allies, hate losing. Really they do. But there is one thing they hate even more, and thats being beaten at their own game. And in the Crimea, that is in effect, what has happened. And the ‘western’ media has gone into full blown outrage mode over it.
GregT on Tue, 18th Mar 2014 4:15 pm
Some very good comments on yet another good article by Orlov. The western globalists are playing checkers, while Putin plays 3d chess. Let’s just hope for all of our sakes that Putin shows some restraint, and allows the game to continue on for a while longer. Checkmate at this point, would bring our crumbling economies to their knees.
Northwest Resident on Tue, 18th Mar 2014 5:00 pm
“And the ‘western’ media has gone into full blown outrage mode over it.”
Smoke and mirrors. Nobody on the “outside” can clearly determine what all the MSM hype and hoopla is really geared to convey or achieve. All we can do is guess, speculate and try to piece together a coherent theory based on a kaleidoscopic array of bits and pieces.
Davy, Hermann, MO on Tue, 18th Mar 2014 5:34 pm
Friends, Putin is one man he is not Russia. We need to ask is the Russian people winning.
The Russian Federation experienced a surge in death rates of almost 40 percent since 1992, with numbers rising from 11 to 15.5 per thousand
The aging population of Russia outnumbers its working class due to population decline
Russia’s life expectancy in 2009 for men and women was 60 and 73 respectively, well below other European countries’ averages that were as high as 77 in countries such as Germany
After the fall of the Soviet Union, the already lacking health care system saw no improvements and began to deteriorate exponentially
There were two significant economic crises that riveted Russia in the 1990s; the first occurred in 1992, and the second in 1998.
The drop in total fertility in the Russian Federation, by almost 35 percent, solidified the positive correlation between poverty and lowered fertility.
Russia had one of the highest suicide rates of all with 38 per 1000 people. The rates of suicide can be associated with a number of other factors that affect the demography of Russia, e.g., alcoholism and job loss.
Russia ranks amongst the world’s heaviest drinking countries. Binge drinking leads to an increase in deaths related to alcohol consumption, e.g., accidents, violence, and alcohol poisoning.
Infected families have a lowered life expectancy and children born with the disease are prone to increased morbidity (Rigbey, 2009). The increase in drug use, fueled by the illegal drug trade, was one of the pressing issues facing Russian law enforcement. Deaths, related to overdose and drug related complications, added to the already deteriorating demographics of Russia. Nearly 65 percent of newly detected HIV cases were linked to intravenous drug use (Rigbey, 2009). The population of Russia was affected by the HIV/AIDS epidemic by adding to mortality and morbidity numbers (Holochek, 2006). If Russia hopes to avoid the turmoil experienced by other AIDS-ridden regions such as Africa, steps must be taken to avoid a larger backlash in the future.
rockman on Tue, 18th Mar 2014 5:34 pm
DC – From the bits and pieces I’ve been putting together it looks like Putin has made a huge financial gain if nothing else. Assuming of course none of this blows up in his face. Which, at the moment, doesn’t seem likely.
Getting Crimea helps Russia in so many ways. First, they get to control a big chunk of those oil/NG reserves of offshore Crimea. While he also needs the ag and industrial production from the Ukraine he can now swap them with what used to be their own NG. And the Ukraine, which was hurting for NG before they lost Crimea, is in an even worse position trading with Russia: they have to export even more to Russia to make up for the lost oil/NG revenue. Putin doesn’t need to invade any other portion of the Ukraine…he already owns their ass. Unless, of course the EU and US want to buy all the Ukraine exports. But without the Russian NG they have nothing to export to anyone.
And what will be the Ukraine’s other big cash flow source? Shipping Russian NG thru their country to the EU. And who will be paying them? I’m not sure how it’s arranged now but I suspect the Russians would do it the way I would: sell the NG to the EU at the “gate” at the Russian border. IOW once the NG leaves Russia it belongs to the EU. But flowing thru Ukrainian pipelines to get there. The EU pays the Ukraine for the shipping but also has to deal with them on the “leakage issue”: apparently in the pass a lot of NG that entered the Ukraine heading for the EU didn’t make. That’s going to be the EU’s problem…not Russia’s.
The Russian Black Sea port, which they use to lease and pay the Ukraine for in cash and discounted NG prices now comes to them free and clear. And will belong to Russia forever. But there’s also the issue of the South Stream NG Pipeline that was planned to run thru Ukrainian (now Crimean) waters. That project was hung up with the Ukraine govt. Now it ain’t. Part of the importance of South Stream is the timing. The EU was trying to slow South Stream to allow the build out of other NG pipelines from non-Russian sources. The problem for the EU commissioners is that individual countries that buy Russian NG have a different agenda. Here’s a bit of that described:
“The situation around the “South Stream” is getting increasingly tenser. While the EU is looking for leverage over Moscow in light of the developments in Ukraine and Crimea, Gazprom is confidently implementing its “South Stream” project, including land areas of individual EU countries. Of course, such self-confidence of the gas giant is adding fuel to the fire.
The European Union has issued numerous warnings about a potential termination of cooperation with Russia on “South Stream” gas pipeline. These statements are, of course, not particularly realistic because the European Union is too dependent on Russian gas, but we should not forget that Gazprom has quite notable competitors in North Africa, Iran and Azerbaijan. The volume of supply from these countries cannot be compared with the Russian gas giant, however, winter is coming to an end. This was mentioned by the European Commissioner for Energy Gunther Oettinger who stated the possibility of postponing the talks on the gas pipeline (it is tempting to add here “until the next cold season”).”
I wouldn’t try to guess what plans Putin has to deal with this situation. But I’m sure he working on one that will maintain the Russian leverage over the EU. Such as developing a significant NG delivery network to China. Right now some of the EU leadership is talking tough but as the article points out summer is just down the road. We have to wait to see how those EU attitudes change after the first freeze hits them next winter. Russia certainly needs the cash flow from all their fossil fuel exports. But it could survive not selling any NG to the EU for a month or two next winter. I suspect many thousands of Europeans might not.
J-Gav on Tue, 18th Mar 2014 5:39 pm
Orlov is predictably much better than the MSM take on the Ukraine situation. I don’t believe Putin is insane, far from it, just a kleptocrat who knows how to play chess (as Orlov himself has said in previous blogposts). Being sane, I think he will exercise restraint (on natgas for EU and dollar reserves in particular) until such time as his next move is either accepted (however unwillingly) or rejected (however dangerously). That move is likely to include some remodeling of Eastern Ukraine’s status. Then we’ll see if the West goes beyond its toothless rhetoric and “sanctions” on Crimea’s return to the Russian fold. It would be very foolish of them to do so – and they must know that.
DC on Tue, 18th Mar 2014 5:57 pm
Perhaps some of what you say can or will come to pass, but what of it? One cant say President Putin was exactly lusting after an area 99% of North Americans didnt even know existed until 4 weeks ago . Russia wasn’t angling for anyones territory until the uS and its various faux-NGOs operating inside Ukraine handed him and his gov’t this shyt sandwich for him to digest. He has had little choice but to accept the hand he has been dealt. If he does so with a measure of restraint and deftness that outrages the west and its presstitute media, so the much the better imo. To characterize the Crimea as some sort of cash-cow windfall for ‘Putin’ is overstating things a little. When was the last time anyone in your industry called Crimea the go-to place for O+G? Was the Crimea region considered ‘Ukraines’ cash cow prior to this? Hardly.
Northwest Resident on Tue, 18th Mar 2014 6:02 pm
DC — Good point. Russia couldn’t possibly want Crimea for the economic benefit, it has to be other reasons.
“At first glance, Crimea has certain problems – a lack of energy, and more dangerously, freshwater resources. The republic’s annual GDP is only $4.3 billion – 500 times smaller than the size of Russia’s $2 trillion economy.”
zerohedge dot com/news/2014-03-15/crimeas-economy-summarized
Arthur on Tue, 18th Mar 2014 6:11 pm
If Nuland c.s. had not organized the ‘Euro-Maidan’ armed uprising by paying ultra-nationalists from Lvov to go to Kiev, the Crimea would today have remained Ukrainian territory. On the very moment that the coup plotters in Kiev succeeded in their power grab, they announced measures to forbid the use of the Russian language in the Ukraine. That was the tipping point that triggered the action. The uprising carried out by Nuland c.s. was prepared years in advance by clubs like NATO, State Department, NED, see:
http://tinyurl.com/o7xxy4o
keith on Tue, 18th Mar 2014 6:59 pm
I just realized what’s the whole Ukraine things about, its about getting fracking into the EU. Get Russia pissed and force them to turn the spigots off. EU will have no other choice but to embrace fracking and all that American know how.
Northwest Resident on Tue, 18th Mar 2014 8:18 pm
rockman — That is some amazing insight and as far as I can tell, some pretty accurate speculating that you just posted. It seems that no matter how much I read about the situation in Ukraine from different sources, there always end up being more factors involved that aren’t mentioned elsewhere. I guess we could say that even though the Crimea itself isn’t anything close to an economic jewel, there are plenty of connecting pieces that end up making it an extremely attractive target for Russia to acquire — and the fact that it rightfully belongs IN Russia is just icing on the cake.
Davy, Hermann, MO on Tue, 18th Mar 2014 8:45 pm
DC, I read this recently “In short, Ukraine gives more to Crimea than Crimea gives to Ukraine,” says Vasil Yurchishin, the head of the economic programs at the Razumkov Center in Kiev.
Gav said – . That move is likely to include some remodeling of Eastern Ukraine’s status. Then we’ll see if the West goes beyond its toothless rhetoric and “sanctions” on Crimea’s return to the Russian fold. It would be very foolish of them to do so – and they must know that.
Gav, I see a retrained Putin in regards to Eastern Ukraine’s status until the west pushes him further by whatever punishment they dream up. If the west really wanted to defuse this crisis they would back off and accept a Russian Crimea. It can be argued Crimea was always Russia so some face saving can be dreamed up for Obama and others by acknowledging this. Yet, the west may see it in their interest for further escalation. A Ukrainian civil war in the east could be a messy drawn out affair for Russia. It is a wonderful way to embroil Russia in a tar pit. It is a pity these games are being played with so much at stake for the global economy. There are real dangers now for a system that is already unstable. Don’t be concerned for the market numbers currently. Any news good or bad is sending the markets up overall. What I am talking about is a confidence breaking event or events. I would say this Ukraine crisis could constitute a black swan that will shake the foundation of the global economic system if care is not taken. It must be understood the only good news in the global economic system now is the markets. If confidence is lost what other good news is there? The percentage of market bulls has never in history been higher. This should be an ominous sign for herd behavior. The situation could turn on one false move. Unfortunately, we have personalities seeking advantage and self-advancement. So far Putin looks like the star but in these situations he could have egg on his face in a few months. We all remember Bush landing on the Carrier declaring mission accomplished then the hard part started.
Makati1 on Wed, 19th Mar 2014 2:19 am
And if the Market crashes, Davy, so what? It is about time and should have happened sooner. The sooner we end globalization, the better it is for the human species and what is left of the ecology. Billions are going to die over the next few decades anyway, so what if it happens sooner? Kill the vampire squid now!
Davy, Hermann, MO on Wed, 19th Mar 2014 2:29 am
Makati, as a fellow doomer you are speaking the words I roll around in my head. A part of me feels a quick collapse will lead to a better outcome for those left. This may not mean myself or my family but whoever survives. It is like cutting off the gangrene foot to save the leg. The other part of me thinks we need a little more time to build out some lifeboats. I think there is a coalescing of likeminded individuals the world over who are reading the writing on the wall. If we have a little more time these folks may have a chance to get something rolling. The more seeds of survival the better.
GregT on Wed, 19th Mar 2014 3:57 am
Davy,
We are very close to the point of no return for the future of most, if not all life, on the planet Earth. The longer we attempt to keep repairing the antiquated BAU train, the greater the momentum it gains, and the longer it will take to come to a stop. In the mean time, the damage that we are inflicting on the Earth’s ecosystems grows exponentially, in direct relationship to the exponential growth of population, and BAU.
They say that 200 species are going extinct each and every day now. These are the seeds of survival. All species on this planet are intricately linked to one another. Which species will it be that finally causes the domino effect that wipes human beings off of the planet? We are not talking about human technology here, we are talking about chemistry, biology, mathematics, and physics. We should be talking about the laws of nature, which we are bound to just like everything else, but instead we are more concerned with the study of human greed, or if you prefer, economics.
Keith_McClary on Wed, 19th Mar 2014 5:26 am
The US needs to come up with some face-saving, sour-grapes PR about Crimea. Something like this:
Crimea as consolation prize: Russia faces some big costs over Ukrainian region
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/crimea-as-consolation-prize-russia-faces-some-big-costs-over-ukrainian-region/2014/03/15/a807ea20-230e-4f08-8d39-a8f090eb3fba_story.html
Arthur on Wed, 19th Mar 2014 2:01 pm
The US is not interested in ‘face-saving’. The next goal is to provoke Putin to invade the eastern Ukraine to come to the aid of the beleaguered Russians of Kharkow, Donetsk and Lugansk, just like the US did everything it could to ensure that the Germans would cross the Polish border in 1939 to come to the aid of the beleaguered Germans, forced to live in Versailles-Poland:
http://tinyurl.com/6pbwaq2
The goal is WW3 or at least a revival of the cold war and drive a wedge between the Russians and the Europeans.
Arthur on Wed, 19th Mar 2014 2:10 pm
Fascinating video from what’s happening within the Ukraine as we speak:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3c2e-8ooqk
These are Ukrainians, successfully preventing tanks under the command of Banderistan-Kiev, from heading to the east on behalf of the US State Department.
Expect similar scenes to occur in Europe, within months after Putin cuts off oil and gas deliveries. Think of armed civilians surrounding US military basis in Germany.
And expect roadblocks everywhere in the US after the BRICS have collectively dropped the dollar (trade).
We are living in interesting times.