After all, Putin is trying to RECONSTITUTE IT, isn’t he?  At least some version of it.

From the VISUAL CAPITALIST:

The USSR in the Late 1930’s

The Original Lineup

“The USSR was set up as a federation of constituent union republics, which were either unitary states, such as Ukraine, or federations, such as Russia.”

Another Map of the Soviet Union

“While nominally a union of equals, in practice the Soviet Union was dominated by the Russian Republic (RSFSR). This massive republic contained most of the country’s economic and political power, as well as the largest population and landmass. As shown below, its borders weren’t vastly different from the modern day Russian Federation.”

The USSR in 1962

The USSR in 1989

Major Regions that Seceded from the USSR

How much — IF ANY OF THIS — can Putin RETAKE?

We’ll see.

The articles on this are now coming fast and furious.

This one is from OilPrice.com via AgMetal Miner:

The True Cost of the Green Energy Boom Is Now Being Realized

Bottom line — as stated in arrow point three at the piece’s opening:

“It is becoming increasingly clear that fossil fuels will remain a key part of the energy mix for years to come.”

This was always TOTALLY OBVIOUS to all but CLIMATE-ALARMIST ZEALOTS.

FASCINATING!

James Taylor about John Lennon

From Charles Hugh Smith — and I quote:

• Conventional geopolitics concentrates wealth and political power in a giant dam on the biggest river.
• Unbeknownst to the mainstream, the world has entered an era of scarcity.
• In an era of scarcity, power flows not from coercion but from needing less by consuming less . . . .
• The conventional mindset is dead set on maintaining . . . waste and friction, as if it was positive rather than negative . . . .
• Consider food, which is rising in price. Yet we continue to throw out a staggering percentage of food at every stage of production, shipping and consumption.
• The goal of conventional geopolitics is to strip-mine the planet to support our misguided desire to continue wasting 40% of everything we touch.
• The goal of conventional geopolitics is to rely ever more heavily on centralized power and coercion.
• The Geopolitics of Degrowth holds that real power flows not from waste, centralization and coercion but from decentralization, relocalization and the free flow of value . . . .

Here’s the piece in its entirety. 

Geopolitics and Degrowth

Excerpts from a piece by Rabobank’s Michael Every — plus my comments — on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Every argues that we’re seeing from Putin two new ways of waging war:

METHOD 1

• “First, defense analysts argue Putin is demonstrating the stability/instability paradox that knowing he has nukes, and so does the US, the door is opened, not closed, to conventional warfare.
• “Hypothetically, as military planners have long done, imagine Putin were to roll towards the Baltics or the Suwalki Gap between Poland and Lithuania to carve a path to the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad. Could NATO stop him on the ground? No. Could the US nuclear umbrella, or that of France? Yes. But what if Putin threatened to nuke New York or Paris?
• “Who would blink first: America and France, over the Baltics, or Putin – who also seems to be doing a good version of the ‘madman’ theory . . . .
• “Do you really think they [NATO] would agree to bleed, or risk nuclear attack, for smaller members?” 

TUDOR PLACE: There’s also a corollary to this which Every doesn’t cover.  What role might Putin assign CYBER? 

Not only has Russia shown a willingness to employ cyber warfare, BUT ALSO, EVEN AS THE THREAT OF NUCLEAR WAR MAY OPEN THE DOOR TO CONVENTIONAL WAR, AN ACT OF CYBER WAR MIGHT NECESSITATE NUCLEAR WAR. 

Because, FUNCTIONALLY SPEAKING, what’s the difference between a NUCLEAR ATTACK and DISABLING A COUNTRY’S ENTIRE “EVERYDAY-LIVING” INFRASTRUCTURE TO THE POINT THAT IT CAN’T BE REASSEMBLED?  Such an attack would almost “REQUIRE” a nuclear response, assuming one were still possible.

Of course, HUMAN LIFE MIGHT THEN END.

The other question Every skips is WHAT IF THE WEST RESPONDS IN KIND?  And comes to Ukraine’s aid militarily?  WOULD PUTIN USE NUKES FIRST ON NATO?  If he weren’t mad or impossibly cornered, he most likely wouldn’t.  Just as I imagine we wouldn’t in the Baltics.

Because once nukes start flying, IT’S OVER.

And do you know who gets this?

CHINA.

Which is why they’re urging Putin to NEGOTIATE.  Of course, they may see it differently later when the country in the crosshairs — THEIR CROSSHAIRS — is TAIWAN.

METHOD 2

• “The West has rich digital economies based on the ‘output’ of on-line influencers, pet therapists, yoga and Pilates classes, mobile gaming, YouTubers, lifestyle planning, Marie Kondo helping people get rid of their too-much-stuff, asset bubbles –and selling tranches of said bubbles to each other– all book-ended by endless central-bank liquidity.
• “It’s a society where the middle-class lives in a comfortable bubble, never wondering where things like food and electricity, or physical goods, actually come from. Yet for now they still control the ‘rules of the game’, such as finance; hold the commanding heights of technology, despite terrible education systems and not paying engineers or scientists a decent wage; and collectively still have the world’s largest military – albeit very unevenly distributed and fading in relative power terms where it matters most.
• “The ‘revisionist’ powers like Russia are much poorer, more physical economies driven by raw materials (energy, metals, agri commodities), or, in China’s case, taking those materials and transforming them into too many goods – in short, controlling industrial supply chains.
• “Their collective financial power is rising, aided by the West; their technology is improving, aided by the West; and their military power is rising, aided by the West.”

TUDOR PLACE: The US, in particular, must opt for one of three scenarios:

• Scenario 1 — We return to economic, political and geopolitical basics.  We reunite our country in pursuit of a common purpose — our REBIRTH AS A NATION, for instance; rebuild our infrastructure and restore our HARD POWER.  Should we believe strongly that America’s values are superior, then we continue to export them as peaceably as possible. In short, we remain on what’s — geopolitically speaking — the “evangelical” course we’ve followed since the end of WWII if not WWI as well.
• Scenario 2 — We accept what is essentially the REEMERGENCE of China and Russia — but now as a highly advantaged EURASIAN ECONOMIC JUGGERNAUT — and attempt to negotiate sustainable GROUND RULES FOR A MULTIPOLAR WORLD in the hope that we won’t wind up looking at a BIPOLAR one with China and Russia staring back at us while brandishing political, economic and military weapons of every description and dimension.
• Scenario 3 — We continue to flounder in the obscene self-indulgence of a toxic DIGITIAL-TOYS-ECONOMY designed to charm and delight PRETEENS while turning every last one of us who isn’t one back into one.  In other words, we go full-on Japan where absurdity is no longer seen as ABSURD but rather as the inevitable result of gadgetry prosperity and, ergo, essential to OUR KIND OF LIFE — DECADENCE.  In which case, our run may soon end.

THERE’S MORE TO THIS THAN UKRAINE.

It’s a little smaller than Texas.

For now.

As per Luke Gromen . . .

China is no longer buying Treasuries.  It’s buying ports around the world and US EQUITIES.

In effect, INCREASING ITS OWNERSHIP STAKE IN BOTH A) THE US AND B) KEY GLOBAL RESOURCES.  This is EXTREMELY DANGEROUS.

Unless we DITCH THE DOLLAR AS THE WORLD’S RESERVE CURRENCY and start settling in a “neutral reserve asset,” we’re going to finance a CHINESE LBO of the US/GLOBAL ECONOMY.

THIS MAKES ZERO STRATEGIC SENSE.

WATCH THIS TEN-MINUTE-AND-CHANGE INTERVIEW:

China Locking Up Key Global Resources by Exploiting US Dollar

More than a gas pump with nukes . . . but still much weaker economically.

And this from the Mises Institute:

“Russia’s actions in Ukraine are not the actions of a strong state with the capability of extending its power over vast new frontiers. Rather, the Ukraine situation is the result of the West’s refusal to take seriously Moscow’s concerns over extending NATO closer to the Russian heartland. The West’s repeated dismissal of Russian concerns has forced the relatively weak Russian state to take greater risks. 

“This is what is now at work in eastern Ukraine. But none of this means Russia is a great power in the same league with the US, or even with Western Europe.”

I’D CALL THAT A REASONABLE ANALYSIS.  YET, RUSSIA CAN STILL FRACTURE THE “GLOBAL ORDER” AND POSSIBLY BEYOND ITS ABILITY TO FUNCTION AS IT DOES CURRENTLLY.

AT THE VERY LEAST, RUSSIA HAS REINTRODUCED THE CONCEPT OF LARGE-STATE NATION-STATE ANNEXATION AND SUBJUGATION, I.E. SUPPRESSING, VIA AUTHORITARIAN MEANS, THE RIGHT OF ENTIRE FOREIGN POPULATIONS TO THEIR SOVEREIGN RIGHT OF DEMOCRATIC SELF-DETERMINATION.

THIS IS PRE-WWII BEHAVIOR. AND TO THAT EXTENT, THE GLOBAL ORDER HAS BEEN FRACTURED ALREADY.

Yes, do as I tell you, not as I do.

And given the latest round of US sanctions (as well as those that will follow), the result of Russia’s invading Ukraine, the pace will, most likely, accelerate.

From Bloomberg:

“A byproduct of the sanctions is that they are likely to force Russia to further reduce the role of the dollar in its economy, a move that started when the West imposed restrictions following the Crimea annexation eight years ago. The dollar’s share of Russia’s foreign-currency reserves, currently at $640 billion, has declined to 16% in 2021 from 46% in 2017. In comparison, the yuan’s share rose to 13%, from less than 3%, while the euro’s gained to 32% from 22%.”

Note as well the increase in GOLD RESERVES from 17.2% in 2017 to 21.7% in 2021.

Then there’s this:

“The de-dollarization trend is more clear in Russia’s trade with China, its second largest trading partner after the EU. The dollar’s share in Russia’s export to China has declined from nearly 100% in 2013 to about 40% currently, according to UBS. Its import share also dropped from 90% to 60%.”

Bloomberg concludes:

“The current geopolitical crisis puts Beijing in a delicate situation as it seeks to support Russia against the U.S. while also portraying itself as a responsible global power. And as Natixis’s economists Alicia Garcia Herrero and Jianwei Xu noted, a closer trade relationship with China isn’t likely to fully offset the impact of increasing decoupling from EU. Still, Russia may be testing grounds for Beijing’s push to internationalize the yuan.

What does this all mean?

THIS:

THE US MAY BE HEADING TOWARDS A MULTIPOLAR WORLD MUCH QUICKER THAN IT IMAGINED AND WHETHER OR NOT IT WISHES TO.  THE LIMITS OF ITS POWER ARE REAL.

FOR EXAMPLE, CAN IT PREVENT WHAT’S NOW HAPPENING IN UKRAINE?

NO.

WHAT MORE IS THERE TO KNOW?