Today’s video has been made possible by Under Lucky Stars, more about that in just
a minute.
Could it be that the United States is looking forward to Russia's invasion of Ukraine?
Listen up.
Moscow is digging in its heels.
Troops, tanks, missiles and warships from all military districts of the country have
been deployed along the Ukrainian border.
Everything looks set for a major offensive.
The reason?
Supposedly to counter NATO's growing presence in the region.
But .... what if the outcome of this operation were exactly the opposite of what Moscow intended?
VisualPolitik viewers, I am certain that you have all heard a lot about the conflict brewing
between Russia, Ukraine, the United States and the European Union.
However, you may not have asked yourselves a fundamental question: could the United States
be looking forward to Russia's eventual invasion of Ukraine?
No, I assure you that we have not lost our minds.
In this video we take a look at four big reasons why, for Russia, the invasion of Ukraine could
be a tremendous mistake.
A big trap that Vladimir Putin is walking into.
Listen up.
By the way, in an upcoming video we will tell you about Russia's trump cards, so don't forget
to subscribe to VisualPolitik and click on the little bell so you don’t miss any updates.
And now, let's get started.
(UKRAINIAN HORNET'S NEST)
The Republic of Ukraine is not exactly a small country.
With more than 232,000 square miles, that’s 600,000 square kilometers and some 40 million
inhabitants, a full-scale Russian invasion would be tremendously costly.
And I am not only referring to the cost of the invasion but more so to the occupation.
Let me explain.
Everything indicates that the Ukrainian army would not be much of a match against the Russian
troops.
In terms of numbers, arsenal and combat experience, the more than 120,000 soldiers with which
the Kremlin has surrounded Ukraine seem to have everything necessary to accomplish the
mission successfully.
("You have a Ukrainian land army that has become much better, much more capable.
But the Russians would own the air and the sea".
Philip Breedlove, retired US Air Force General)
But wait just a moment, because the difference in forces was always much greater in Afghanistan
and in spite of this, both the Soviet Union and the United States found themselves caught
in a never ending war.
Well, something like that could happen in Ukraine.
Firstly, the invasion could lead to a significant toll and heavy casualties for Russian troops.
Don’t forget that under the Poroshenko and Zelensky governments, the Ukrainian army has
improved considerably; more than 400,000 people have acquired combat experience and the United
States and the rest of the NATO countries have supplied them with a large number of
anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.
In this vein, on 1 January the National Resistance Law came into force with the aim of mobilizing
120,000 reservists, many of them with combat experience, to support the more than 200,000
troops currently enlisted in the Ukrainian army.
Of course it goes without saying that any failure on the front could be disastrous for
Vladimir Putin's political regime.
Secondly, post-invasion occupation could deplete both the Russian coffers and the Russian army's
own forces.
Because let's be clear, any attempt to occupy the country would entail strong resistance
and a lot of activity by insurgent groups.
("Everyone buys weapons to fight the Russians.
We have many clubs where people go every day to train" – Miroslav Gai, ex-combatant on
the Donbass front)
Resistance which, you can be certain, would be financed, trained and supported by NATO
itself.
The objective would always be to maximize the economic, military and political cost
that an invasion would have for Russia.
(US Considers Backing an Insurgency if Russia Invades Ukraine.
NYTimes)
("The sad reality is that Russia can take as much of Ukraine as it wants, but it can't
hold it" Melinda Haring, Deputy Director of the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center.)
And all this, I repeat, is assuming that during the invasion the Russians did not suffer any
complications.
Obviously, the greater the target of the invasion, the greater the risks.
Of course, the possibility of getting into a whole hornet's nest is just one of the risks
that this operation poses for Russia.
Check it out.
But before we get into all that, let me tell you a little about today’s sponsor, Under
Lucky Stars.
Under Lucky Stars makes beautiful personalized star maps showing the unique alignment of
the stars in a place and time chosen by you.
It’s a great gift idea to mark an important moment in your life.
All you have to do is enter the location, date and time of the special moment you wish
to commemorate and they will show you exactly how the stars were aligned at that time in
a beautiful print of a map of the night sky showing you the constellations and positions
of all the stars that were above you during your milestone event.
Under Lucky Stars are the original star maps maker and their proprietary method of locating
the stars is verified by NASA Astrophysicists to ensure their accuracy.
For example, take a look at the map we requested.
It could not have come at a better time.
A few days ago was the fifth anniversary of the launch of VisualPolitik’s English channel,
and this map represents the exact moment when this channel was created on 22 January 2017.
This makes a great gift, especially with Valentine's day around the corner this will definitely
be an original, personal and memorable gift.
Or maybe you want to decorate your home office with a stylish reminder of one of your personal
successes.
What’s more the company is committed to reducing space pollution and is a strong supporter
of the Dark Sky Association.
Under Lucky Stars are giving the VisualPolitik community an exclusive 10% discount to make
this Valentine's Day extra special for you.
Go to underluckystars.com/visualpolitiken and use the code visualpolitiken to get your
loved one or yourself a unique gift.
(WHY TRIGGER A RACE YOU CAN'T WIN?)
Pay close attention to these words from Jens Stoltenberg, NATO Secretary General.
("So if Russia wants less NATO at its borders, they have actually achieved exactly the opposite.
And if they use force again against Ukraine, they will achieve even more NATO at their
borders."
– Jens Stoltenberg, NATO Secretary General)
So far the excuse used time and again by the Kremlin to threaten Ukraine's sovereignty
has been that it wants to curb NATO's expansion on the eastern front.
Well, the outcome of an invasion may be exactly the opposite for three reasons.
Firstly, the invasion of Ukraine may cause at least two new countries, Sweden and Finland,
to ensure their security by joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
At the very least, the cooperation of these two countries with NATO would be strengthened,
which, by the way, is precisely what they have been doing over the last few years as
we have begun to see a more aggressive Russia.
("Sweden and Finland have increased bilateral cooperation with the United States [...] Sweden
became aware of the threat from Moscow on Good Friday 2013, when Russian military aircraft
simulated a large-scale bombing operation flying over Stockholm."
– William Alberque, director of Strategy, Technology and Arms Control at the International
Institute for Strategic Studies)
Secondly, a military operation in Ukraine would bring the majority of NATO members back
together again, especially the Central and Eastern European countries that would unhesitatingly
embrace Washington and the Atlantic security project.
It would be, so to speak, a way to put the Alliance back in shape.
You could say, VisualPolitik fans, that Putin would be to NATO what spinach is to Popeye.
And thirdly, and perhaps the most important factor of all.
The invasion of Ukraine would most likely end up triggering a huge arms race all along
the new Iron Curtain that would form in Eastern Europe.
And that’s a race that Russia cannot win.
European countries have much wealthier economies and access to more advanced technology.
So, if the Soviet Union fell exhausted after a huge arms race with the United States 30
years ago, the same situation may be reproduced again today.
At the moment, countries like Poland, Estonia and Sweden have already announced record military
budgets to rebuild and improve their armed forces.
With an invasion, you could expect much the same from the vast majority of countries in
Europe.
(Sweden To Increase Defense Spending By 40% Amid Russia Fears.
Forbes)
(Poland plans to bolster military amid threats from Belarus, Russia.
The Polish military has announced plans to more than double its troop numbers.
DW)
(Estonian 2022 defence budget will be its biggest ever.
Shepard Media)
And these are just three examples.
Add to all this a greater deployment of troops and equipment from countries such as the United
States and the United Kingdom.
In other words, Putin could manage to achieve what Washington has failed to do in many years:
bring Europe's military budgets above 2% of GDP.
In other words, if Putin's intention was to stop NATO, the outcome of an invasion would
be exactly the opposite.
And do you know what, we have only just begun.
This is far from the end of the potential losses for Russia.
Listen up.
(RUSSIA'S GREAT ASSET THAT MAY DISAPPEAR)
The gas is in our way!
During the Cold War, the Soviet Union did not stop selling gas to Europe, including
Western Europe.
Gas sales have been an important source of foreign exchange for Russia over the past
decades.
And perhaps precisely because of its status as a reliable and cheap supplier, European
countries have had little difficulty in increasing their dependence on Russian gas to record
levels.
Approximately one third of all gas consumed in Europe comes from Russia.
Now, however, that could begin to change.
Reductions in supply and the use of gas for political bargaining purposes could spell
the end of European complacency.
Especially if, following a Russian invasion of Ukraine, tensions between the two sides
escalates.
And take note because this has been a long-standing wish of the United States, which does not
want its NATO allies to be energy hostages of Moscow.
Also, don't forget, the United States aspires to become a major exporter of Liquefied Natural
Gas.
Gas that could partly replace imports from Russia.
("We are collaborating with governments and market operators on supply of additional volumes
of natural gas to Europe from diverse sources around the globe."
– Joint statement by Joe Biden and Ursula von der Leyen)
And so, the immediate consequence of an invasion could be the cancellation of the Nord Stream
2 pipeline and the urgent search for alternative sources.
Sources perhaps more expensive but much better in terms of security.
For example, in the same vein, countries such as Poland and Estonia, have already confirmed
that they want to build new nuclear power plants.
So, in the medium term, if European economies are serious about looking for alternatives
to gas from Russia, even if only partial supply, the blow to the Russian economy would be simply
devastating.
Keep in mind that oil and gas account for two-thirds of all Russian exports and supply
about half of the federal budget.
In such a situation, Russia would have no choice but to make huge investments in order
to sell gas at a bargain price to the Chinese.
In other words, the invasion could end up damaging one of Russia's greatest political
– and current economic – assets.
In ten years, the energy landscape in Europe could be very, very different from what it
is today.
And, by the way, speaking of economic impact.
Check out the fourth major reason why the invasion of Ukraine could be a colossal mistake.
(SANCTIONS, SANCTIONS AND MORE SANCTIONS)
On this occasion, the diplomatic game is basically unfolding as follows:
Moscow threatens to invade Ukraine, and then the response from Washington and the rest
of the European capitals is to threaten more and more economic sanctions.
And it's back to square one.
This is nothing new.
Since Russia annexed Crimea the international community has punished Vladimir Putin's country
with a slew of sanctions.
Basically they fall into three types: financial sanctions, sanctions against oligarchs close
to the Kremlin and some restrictions on the purchase of technology.
This is a strategy put in place by Barack Obama and then expanded by both Donald Trump
and Joe Biden.
There is some debate about the effectiveness of the sanctions with which Russia has so
far been punished.
However, the truth is that since the sanctions were put in place, the Russian economy has
gone from bad to worse.
Since 2014 it has barely grown at an average of 0.3% per year.
And yes, I know what many of you are thinking.
[Name of host], that’s because this time period coincided with the oil price collapse.
Well, yes, but the point is that it's not just about economic growth.
Since the sanctions against the Russian economy were passed, the inflow of foreign direct
investment plummeted by less than half.
To give you an idea, this means that between 2014 and 2019, for example, Russia lost about
$169 billion in productive investments.
And that’s not all.
Add to this the fact that the capital markets were largely closed, both for the government
and especially for Russian companies, and the result is that both investment and productivity
levels have gone from bad to worse.
This is part of the reason why, during this same period, the disposable income of Russians
has plummeted by more than 10% and why the exchange rate of the ruble with the dollar
fell by more than 50%.
But do you want a concrete example?
Well, look at this.
Indonesia, Algeria and Egypt have just pulled out of buying the Sukhoi SU-35S, one of the
jewels of Russian military aviation and one of the key components of the country's military
portfolio.
But, the question is, why are they canceling orders?
Well, precisely due to the sanctions, Russia cannot import vital components for the avionics
and radar of this aircraft, which significantly affects its capabilities.
Nevertheless, the sanctions that have been established so far have been rather modest.
Something that could now change.
The package of sanctions that the United States and the European Union are considering if
Russia finally invades Ukraine goes much further.
For example, there is talk of major export controls, of removing Russian banks from the
international banking communication system – the Swift system –, of completely cutting
off financing to Russian banks and the Russian government, or even, among many other options,
of measures as aggressive as this one:
(Biden Threatens Dollar Ban on Russian Banks The US said it could block Russian financial
institutions from trading in dollars if Moscow invades Ukraine.
Moscow Times)
In other words, the aim is not only to damage the Russian economy, but above all to prevent
its development.
And this is important because, let’s not fool ourselves: in the long run, a country
with fewer resources is a country doomed to be much less powerful.
In Washington they know this and right now may be the perfect opportunity to take such
action.
("It would be a disaster, a nightmare for the domestic financial market."
Sergey Aleksashenko, former First Deputy Chairman of the Central Bank of Russia)
For the time being, international companies that were considering investing in Russia
have frozen or cancelled these projects, the Moscow stock exchange has fallen sharply and
the risk premium has shot up.
These are, so to speak, the first consequences of Moscow's risky gamble.
("Putin has overplayed his hand on Ukraine.
Robert Gates, Former U.S. Secretary of Defense)
Now, does all this mean that there won’t be an invasion?
Not at all.
The diplomatic strategy followed by the United
States and NATO has, in a way, cornered Putin, who will only be left with three options:
Retreat in humiliation.
To reach an agreement that looks convincing but without achieving anything remarkable
and at the same time making concessions to the West.
Or invade Ukraine.
Possibly through a partial invasion, as we have outlined in The Weekly Snapshot, the
newsletter that those of you who support us on Patreon receive.
In this last case, the consequences might be gradual depending on how big the invasion
is.
That is surely the equation being evaluated in Moscow.
Even Russian action could be limited to recognizing the independence of the territories controlled
by pro-Russian forces in the Donbass.
After all, if Putin had really wanted to invade Ukraine, he would have already done so.
Russian troops have been stationed on the front lines for months.
There is no point in waiting for their adversaries to reinforce their defenses.
And keep in mind that this is a theory put forward by the Ukrainian government itself,
which time and again states that they do not see any signs of a real risk of Russia carrying
out a major invasion in the country.
Be that as it may, everything seems to indicate that Washington is willing to play hardball
this time.
Putin, a leader accustomed to making risky bets, may have overestimated his chances of
victory in this whole fiasco.
The result now is that, whatever Moscow does, in almost all scenarios the most likely winner
will be the United States.
A country that has nothing to lose and a lot to gain in this whole story.
This, my VisualPolitik fans, may be the big trap Vladimir Putin is facing.
But that said, it's your turn: do you think Putin has overestimated his forces or do you
think he will get his way in the end?
What do you think Russia stands to gain by invading Ukraine?
What should NATO's response be?
Leave us your opinions here and let's get a debate going.
And now, if you found this video interesting, don't forget to like and subscribe to VisualPolitik.
Thank you very much for watching,
All the best and see you next time.