Chris Gilmour reminds us of the famous words of Winston Churchill as he takes a closer look at the conflict in Ukraine and its impact on the world.
As the war in Ukraine drags on past 100 days, many observers are asking how long the conflict is likely to continue. If one can get a handle on this, it may be possible to get a sense of how long inflation will remain in an unanchored situation, especially with respect to fuel and food prices.
The current situation is playing havoc with financial markets but it has the potential to go much farther than that into the real world of starvation and famine.
In 1939, before he became prime minister, Winston Churchill famously described Russia as “a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma,” and those words spoke eloquently to the western sense of Russia as being altogether different – something else entirely. As the New York Times describes it, an inscrutable and menacing land that plays by its own rules, usually to the detriment of those who choose more open regulations.
That is pretty much the situation today, even though Churchill was referring to the Soviet Union rather than Russia in those days. The current incumbent of the Kremlin, president Vladimir Putin, is a well-known Russian nationalist and shares the same degree of paranoia about Russia being invaded that was common among the Czars as well as the leaders of the Soviet Union. All Russian leaders going back many hundreds of years have had to contend with invasions on many fronts and have all used the same strategy of establishing buffer states to protect the motherland.
In this regard, Putin is no different.
Gateway territories
According to geopolitical economist Peter Zeihan, all of these invasions have occurred through gateway territories – nine gaps that link Russia to the rest of the world. When the Soviet Union collapsed in late 1991, that number had reduced to a single gap. Since then, with various incursions by Russia into areas such as Kazakhstan, Georgia and Crimea, Putin has gradually been filling those gaps by re-taking what he believes to be historical Russian territory, regardless of their sovereign standing in the world.
The current war in Ukraine is part of that process, in order to solidify gains made in 2014 in the east of the country in the Donbas region and in the south in Crimea. At that time, the western powers hardly made any noises at all and Putin must have thought, quite reasonably, that they would be equally acquiescent if he mounted a full-scale invasion of the country.
Putin was also encouraged by the limp-wristed withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan in August 2021.
But there’s another, demographic reason why Putin had to act on Ukraine when he did. Stalin industrialized the Soviet Union very successfully from the 1930s onwards, but the Lewis Turning Point phenomenon, which results in economic growth suddenly drying up as population growth falters, arrived in Russia decades ago. The movement of cheap labour from the rural areas to the cities dried up long ago, even in the Stalin era. Russia went from having seven children per family in the Stalin era to a figure of around 1.4 today. This has ramifications for the economy in general but for the military especially.
Demographically, this is just about the last time that sufficient people in their twenties and thirties can be relied upon to have a conscription-based military. One must remember that internal military strength is required in a country the size of Russia in order to control such vast swathes of countryside and different ethnic, language and religious groups. Additionally, if Russia was to ever completely overrun Ukraine, it would require a massive army presence inside Ukraine itself to guard against internal sabotage and associated activities.
So, it must have come as no surprise to seasoned Russia-watchers that Putin eventually mounted a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February this year. His end-game was to overrun the country and install a puppet government in Kyiv.
However, two things have gone badly awry with Putin’s strategy. Firstly, he didn’t reckon on the resistance of the Ukrainians being anywhere near as fierce as it has turned out to be. Secondly, the solidarity of the western powers in applying sanctions against Russia and supplying armaments to Ukraine was a surprise to him. He expected a toughening of sanctions but nothing on the scale that has eventuated.
So, where to from here?
There is no doubt that the Russian military involvement in Ukraine has turned out to be an unmitigated fiasco. Russia has lost thousands of soldiers and equipment in a vexatious campaign that it can only win in a Pyrrhic sense. Had his Ukrainian adventure gone according to plan, he could well have been looking at his next moves, perhaps in Poland, Moldova, Finland or the Baltic States. But those aspirations have now evaporated, at least for the time being. His best hope lies in some sort of negotiated settlement with the Ukrainians and the western powers, but anything that involves secession of territory from Ukraine to Russia will be unacceptable to Ukraine.
That is why a protracted stand-off, with Russia continuing its illegal occupation of Ukrainian territory, appears to be the most logical conclusion.
Until recently, Putin had two weapons at his disposal: energy and food.
The energy part is waning rapidly, as most EU countries with the exception of Hungary have chosen to stop using Russian oil and gas by the end of this year. Even if there are a few cracks in the alliance of countries boycotting Russian energy, the net result will be a severe diminution of energy receipts for the Kremlin.
The other weapon is food in the form of grains, both in Ukraine and Russia itself, little or none of which have been able to be exported from Black Sea ports due to the war. Russia and Ukraine combined produce around 30% of the world’s wheat and much of that is exported via Black Sea ports such as Odessa in Ukraine. Almost all of Ukraine’s wheat is winter wheat, planted in the autumn and harvested from late June through July and August. But Ukraine’s grain silos are largely full and unless this grain can be exported before the wheat harvest begins, there is a very real danger of the wheat rotting in the fields. This would have huge ramifications for hungry people, notably in north Africa, which imports huge volumes of Ukrainian wheat.
Food prices have risen largely exponentially in the past couple of years, due initially to the supply chain disruption caused by the Sars-CoV-2 pandemic but more recently by the war in Ukraine.
If the Ukrainian and Russian wheat cannot be exported soon, and if Ukraine’s winter wheat cannot be fully harvested due to war, then the outlook for global cereal supplies is bleak indeed. According to the US State Department, Ukraine is the world’s fourth-largest exporter of corn and the fifth-largest exporter of wheat.
Some of the most vulnerable and least-developed countries in the world rely heavily on Russian and Ukrainian grains for survival. Additionally, north African countries such as Egypt also import huge quantities of wheat from both countries. We should remember that one of the catalysts behind the Arab Spring uprising in north Africa in 2010 was widespread food shortages.
A possible short-term solution to Ukraine’s grain export problem exists but that involves Ukraine, Russia and Turkey all coming together and allowing Ukrainian exports to leave via the Black Sea port of Odessa. This would require Russia removing its military blockade of the Ukrainian coastline, Ukraine de-mining the waters surrounding Odessa and Turkey allowing free passage of naval escort ships into and out of the Black Sea via the Bosphorous.
A tricky diplomatic exercise if ever there was one!
The US is looking at the possibility of using temporary silos to store the winter wheat harvest and is also examining the possibility of using rail lines to export Ukraine’s wheat. But this would be a desperate measure and would only be attempted if and when widespread famine was becoming a realistic outcome.
Thank you for such an informative and interesting article Chris. It has really helped me to understand the situation!
Great article. Informative and very readable. Thank you.
No comment on sympathetic African Nations, incl. BRICS partners.
These are Nations that detest what is/has happened to Palestinians. Have a longstanding association with Russia and China. Lament the Western interventions and unlawful invasions of Libya, Syria, Ethiopia, Soudan, Iraq, the Baltic States etc. The historical economic grip of European Countries on the African continent is a painful reminder of the injustices of these States, with the meddling of the US and Israel on the African continent becoming all to clear of late. Thankfully, the UN and its proxies are being scrutinised with a healthy dose of scepticism., although it has cost Africa the lives of four of its more outspoken leaders in the past 2 years.
@Ivan. Your insight and observation is superb. The writer chose to ignore these African Nations’ stance and the necessary scrutiny of the UN. There is also the issue of the slight shift within the NATO/EU signalled by the concessions to the demands by Hungary and Turkey on the one side.
Interesting and informative. However, “When the Soviet Union collapsed in late 1991, that number had reduced to a single gap. Since then, with various incursions by Russia into areas such as Kazakhstan, Georgia and Crimea, Putin has gradually been filling those gaps …” What gaps? You have just said the “number had reduced to a single gap”.
Am I missing something?
No not at all. I was careful to refer to Russia. Russia has made these incursions from the early 1990s onwards. I am thinking Chechnya (two wars these about a decade apart) and of course more recently South Ossetia in Georgia and now Ukraine. Putin has been in charge during all of these . So by late 1991 as the USSR collapsed, those gaps had fallen to a mere one. Now it’s back to four or five, depending n what you include in the mix. He has at least another four to go.
I suspect where you are getting confused is in my use of the word “gaps”. In fact, I am referring to historical gateways into Mother Russia that were used by invaders-gaps such as the Bessarabian Gap for example. Now the USSR had plugged all of these gaps during its reign but when it collapsed, eight of those “plugs” no longer existed. In other words, immediately post the collapse, the number of plugged gaps had reduced to one.
It is interesting to note the amount of sympathy that Russia gets in social media and elsewhere in Africa. Some of this relates to a liberation movement past that received training in the Soviet Union. Many ANC operatives are included here. As you know, the Soviet Union expanded into Africa during the 1960s, 70 and 80s, as did China, although to a much more limited extent. If you look at Cuba’s involvement in Africa, especially Angola, that was largely driven by Soviets and East Germans. However, with the extermination of communism in Europe, there was a massive domino effect all round the world. Cuba suddenly found itself with no big brother and Soviet/Russian expansion in Africa all but evaporated. But the ANC and their cohorts remained in a time warp, slavishly using terms such as “comrade” from their old communist party past and “Viva” from the Cuban campaigns in Africa. So even today, they are often unable to comprehend that the Soviet Union no longer exists, that communism is dead and that Russia is a gangster state that relies heavily on the sale of hydrocarbons for its continued existence. There is another reason why some African governments are sympathetic towards Russia, of course and this relates to their continued funding from Moscow.
Apparently Russia is a mystery. Part of Europe yet close to Asia in terms of alliances. Some may not be aware that it sold Alaska to USA creating an awkward American state north of sovereign Canada. It went to space first and one of its citizens created a killing machine AK47 which is both a symbol of freedom and carnage. Who wants a unipolar world where world decisions are made in one capital, which of course will be biased towards a specific culture and values. The prospect of Russia being completely swallowed by the west does not scare only the Chinese or Koreans but anyone who is neutral in world affairs.
Most interesting. Thank you.
What’s more interesting is how condescending you sound towards Africans in general. Somehow in your wisdom those who sympathize with Russia are stuck in a time warp. How very thoughtful of you!
The truth is not condescending. Putin’s war on Ukraine is evil. So if somebody comes to your house and kills your family and takes your house that is ok with you. Nice guy
Not condescending in the slightest. Just expressing an opinion. Look at the recent voting in the UN on resolutions involving Russia and Ukraine. African countries either abstained or actively supported Russia. I engage with many people of opposing views on Russia and other subjects as I believe it is important to understand other peoples’ opinions. However, on the Russian issue, I am utterly gobsmacked by how loyal most Africans with whom I engage are to Russia. Even when I show them incontrovertible evidence of Russian atrocities in Ukraine, they deflect by descending to “whatabout Yemen” or “whatabout Sudan” etc. Two wrongs don’t make a right. And the war in Ukraine is not only hurting the pockets of everyone around the world but it has the potential to result in widespread famine. All of this is completely avoidable but it won’t change unless Putin is dragged to the negotiating table. And he won’t do that if he feels he has the backing of so-called “non-aligned” countries in Africa and elsewhere.
The late Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu often spoke out against injustice and I am sure if he were still alive he would be very vocal against this Russian invasion. Let me leave you with one of his famous quotes “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse, and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality. “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse, and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”
Great Article, history summed up in 5 minutes.
Thank you. Informative and factual.
I take your points which are very valid. However, look at what happened immediately post WW2. The Americans created a system known as Pax Americana whereby all countries could trade with whomsoever they wanted when they wanted and where they wanted. The only pre-condition was that they came onside with the US against the USSR and later the CCP in China. However, with the ending of the cold war, that all changed. Successive American presidents from GHW Bush onwards have all been isolationists. They are not interested in being the global policeman any more. Even the present incumbent of the White House, Joe Biden, puts America first. On the other side of the cold war, the Russians have watched their fortunes dwindle. They were forced to the negotiating table as a direct result of the massive drop in the oil price in the late 80s, engineered to a large extent by Ronald Reagan and Saudi Arabia. By the late 90s, their banks were closing and the economy was teetering on the edge. It has come back to an extent but it is a relatively small economy and makes a lot more noise than it deserves, given its size. But it also has the world’s largest arsenal of nuclear weaponry and Putin is playing that card regularly now. I do not believe for a moment that he would dare use a tactical nuclear bomb but the west doesn’t want to test the hypothesis.
China of course had an economic miracle from the late 1970s onwards. Thanks to the disastrous one-child policy put in place by Deng Xiao Ping in 1979 and only revised to 2 and more recently 3 children, China now has the world’s worst demographics by far. It is in deep deep trouble and no amount of fiddling the economic books will disguise that. By the year 2050, their population will likely halve from current levels. Economic growth is faltering and the CCP is terrified, and rightly so.
So to your point about not wanting a unipolar world. I agree. India is the big up and coming country to be reckoned with and its population will surpass China’s within 20 years. Mexico, too is looking good. Ironically, the US is the only developed country to experience net population growth and by 2025 will probably have a population of around 400 million people. What we need to understand is that the “old order” for want of a better expression is evaporating. Fossil fuels are part of the old order. So we have an autocratic state in Russia that relies for its very existence on fossil fuel exports stomping all over democratic sovereign states, regardless of the cost in terms of human misery. That cannot be condoned by anyone, regardless of political affiilation…surely?