Ukraine's Thriving Enterprise

 Putin makes huge mistake as Trump’s comments backfire | Former senior advisor to Zelenskyy

First, non-native speakers of "American" need to know that "Being in the Disinformation Space" is a synonym for "Shut up, you ignorant fool." So, if the Z-man meant to say that to the President, well, he did. Trump probably gained another million supporters as a result. 

Let's assume Ukraine in the 2020s is not a corrupt Banna Republic, but rather a "poor but honest" nation. They don't want to live under Russian domination (who would?). Their European neighbors need to keep an expansionist Russia from their borders -- in fact, all of NATO shares that interest. As a result, this "Poor but Honest" nation receives massive amounts of aid for its war effort.  Soon, the decent people of this honest nation are employed in industries and businesses whose continued prosperity depends on continued war. Career prospects and promotions become dependent on continued war. The politicians in control have a support network dependent on divvied-up war aid. Would the decent people of this poor but honest nation lean toward the most favorable war aims, even if this means further fighting? Because, yes, while they are decent, they are also human.

Of course, not every person in every nation is decent. Corrupt officials and fraudulent businesses can be found everywhere. Realistically, "Corrupt Banna Republic" is a more accurate descriptor of Ukraine's ruling class -- which is more Kleptocratic than Aristocratic. Unsurprisingly, much of the massive infusion of aid is stolen or misallocated. Peace becomes a threat to prosperity. To get Ukraine on board the "peace train," the rulers need to see the war "gravy train" pulling onto the siding. Promises of peacetime opportunities for graft will, no doubt, be required. Their cooperation cannot be bought, but perhaps it can be rented.

While Ukraine's rulers may face a (financial) loss with the end of fighting, Russia's rulers have much to gain. The ending of sanctions and the unfreezing of assets, for instance. Is it possible that Trumps negotiators sensed a stubborness in Ukraine that was lacking in their discussions with the Russians?

 

Negotiating the Negotiations.

Did Trump Just Betray Ukraine?

President Trump's most vocal supporters are quite anti-Ukraine aid. This goes back to Trump's first impeachment, which was based on his phone call with Z-man.

When the Clinton-Pelosi-Obama team failed to frame him as a Russian Spy, Congressional Democrats and the media launched an Impeachment using a leak by a naturalized Intelligence Staffer from Ukraine. Now, by this time any listener to Conservative talk radio considered Ukraine a money laundering piggy bank for Democrats (ie, Hunter Biden's million-dollar no-show job with the legendarily corrupt Burisima). This colored their perception of the Obama-backed "Color Revolution." The chief witnesses at Pelosi's Kangaroo Impeachment Court did not dispel this impression. One was the rumored Brookings Institution paramour of the KGB ex-agent (if there is such a thing) that made up the infamous Steele Document (created by an ex-MI6 agent). To Trump supporters, the swamp is full of poisonous snakes.

I don't think Trump carries a grudge toward Ukraine but he cannot ignore the hostility of much of his political base. Throwing Ukraine under the first tire of the bus does him no political harm and may free him up to aid Ukraine in the future. Meanwhile, few voters want the US involved in conflicts in the Eurasian land mass. Even the Caucasians don't know where the Caucasus is.

We're Conflicted about our Conflicts

The American Way of War, Pt. 1 -- Michael Shurkin

Shurkin discusses wars of annihilation and wars that are less than annihilating -- and less than won. In the process he misses an important point.

Selling a war to the US population requires a moral justification. A National Interest argument won't do because that would be called "neo-imperialism" and get the anti-colonialists all riled up. This prevents the formulation of clear goals for military actions. Believing your own BS is never a good idea. Our adversaries can pursue their clear interests, which gives them an advantage.

Then there's the "Pottery Barn"  principle, where you go into the pottery barn, smash all the pottery, clean it up, and "make it better" after chasing off the proprietor to a comfortable retirement in Dubai. However, if you have a good reason to smash up the Barn, you can leave it that way. After 9-11, smacking the Taliban made sense but sticking around to build schools was a form of self-flagellation. Let Pakistan and India arm their Afghan proxies after leaving -- that'll be punishment enough.

The Iraq war was a mistake based on faulty intelligence or outright lies, your choice.

China hits Parkinson's Wall

 50% Crash: Shocking Reports on Wages, Land & Debt | Chinese Economy |

Tony, on his China Update YouTube channel, gives quite level-headed assessments of the Chinese economy. So if he headlines "Shocking Reports," then the reports are shocking to, you know, level-headed commentators. Which doesn't include me. For a while I've thought a few "lost decades" (an extended period of slow growth) going forward was the best-case scenario for China.

Back in 1964, my ninth-grade glee club ushered at a lecture by C. Northcote Parkinson, a humorist, satirist, and inventor (discoverer?) of Parkinson's law. Here it is, as far as I can remember:

1. Bureaucracies expand, regardless of the amount of work.
2. Officials seek to multiply subordinates and neutralize rivals while creating work for each other.
3. Work expands to fill the time available.

Well before Hong Kong returned to China I gave it 20 years (out of the agreed-upon 50) as an international financial center. The CCP wouldn't immediately kill the golden goose because, after the first Cultural Revolution, it needed the eggs. Over time, the "private economy goose" would grow into a rival to the CCP's official economy, where inefficiency is in the self-interest of those in charge. Add in the shake-up and uncertainty at the top of the CCP -- the start of a second Cultural Revolution? -- and stemming the flight of international capital is not a high priority (if it's a priority at all). This is not a peaceful period of "Work Expands" but an ongoing  CCP purge and "Survival Demands."

Economists can propose but Parkinson's law will dispose.

Lab-Leak Leak Links Lab to Lab-Leak

Peter Zeihan || COVID: What Really Happened in Wuhan?

Peter Zeihan says the US government bureaucracies that stated, with low confidence, that the SARS-COV2 virus leaked from the Wuhan China lab are not known for their medical expertise.

However, the FBI and the Energy Department weren't providing funds to the Wuhan Lab, whereas some of the more prominent government "lab-leak" deniers were funding-involved. In the early 2000's Congress -- playing to the "superstitious rubes" in the hinterland -- banned gain-of-function research in the US. Is it possible that those whose careers were dependent on this work used the Wuhan lab as a way around the ban? Let me suggest, with low confidence, that yeah, they did.

The evidence in support of the "lab-leak theory" has been around since 2020. Citing the evidence back then got you labeled a conspiracy theorist and a likely right-wing racist. Where Big Science and Big Politics meet, one hand washes the other -- or is it a scrub, clear up to the elbow, with careful attention to under the fingernails?

Them that Are Suck-up-ceptible to Diplomacy

Part of being a bureaucrat is identifying the real enemy.

Wretchard at the Belmont Club discusses one Thomas "give Bush the" Fingar, the very model of the modern and methodical (and very much a prodigal) "impartial intelligence analyst." He's the fellow responsible for the NIE that determined Iran was no longer pursuing Nukes (as discussed in an LA Times piece). He claimed to be creating a "Just the facts, no matter where they lead" environment. They don't promote policy positions over at his place, you see. From the LA Times:

The draft concluded that Tehran was still pursuing a nuclear bomb, a finding that echoed previous assessments and would have bolstered Bush administration hawks. Then, just weeks before the report was to be delivered to the White House, new intelligence surfaced indicating that Tehran's nuclear weapons work had stopped.

New intelligence, eh? So you toss out the first report and quickly whip up a second one. No reason to suspect an ulterior motive there.

But did Mr. Fingar call the Iranians evil, thus compromising his "objectivity"? Let's see. It does sound like he is complaining.

"The unhappiness with the finding -- namely that the evil Iranians might be susceptible to diplomacy -- adroitly turned into an ad hominem assault," Fingar said.

Hmm. Or is that the clever use of irony by Mr. Fingar? Maybe the Iranians -- who've done him no harm -- are not the evil ones; maybe it is the unhappy ones, those who issue ad hominem assaults, who are evil. Perhaps he uses Sarcasm. Which means the Iranians, far from being evil, are susceptible to diplomacy. But this sounds like he is promoting a policy position through the adroit use of sarcasm. Is that allowed? Perhaps we should think of Mr. Fingar as the Shadow National Security Advisor.

Mr. Fingar sounds like a typical left intellectual. They don't have policy preferences, just superior insight and knowledge. They are "the reality based community" because they can make two plus two equal their preferred sum simply by using a clever retort and changing the subject.

Is Mr. Fingar advising the Obama campaign? We'll find out when he's fired for some politically off the mark remark. There will be no whining as he departs. And he certainly will not call Barak Obama a politician.

And now, allow me to flash forward: a year, more or less. I expect less.

In search of peace, President Obama goes to Tehran and says "You had me at 'screw you!'" The Mullahs coax him to wear his new gift: a diamond studded, "Death to America," lapel pin. Does he refuse to wear it because of the empty symbolism involved? Or does he put it on in the furtherance of world peace, the way he would wear any other bit of native costume?

He'll offer them the Zero option: "We'll gladly give up our 12,000 nukes today if you give up yours -- how many you guys got anyways? -- on Tuesday."

They say they will consider this if we give up our missile defense first, as a sign of good faith. He'll say, "Too late, already done that. What else can we do to show our good faith?" They will suggest we withdraw from Iraq. He'll say "Operation skedaddle is already in skedaddle mode. Sorry. Come up with something else." They'll say, give us time to think and we'll make a list. He'll say, can I make suggestions? They'll say, why not?

And he'll think, I cut my teeth facing down US auto executives, US Oil Companies, and US Presidents. These guys are nothing.