> Over the last three months, Russia's invasion of Ukraine has shocked agricultural markets
Did Washington's illegal invasions of Iraq, Libya, or Syria shock global energy and food markets, leading to global crises?
No, because a large part of the global economy did not attempt to cut off USA from the global economy following those blatant violations of sovereignty. This real lede is buried deep in the article.
The fact is that the current economic crisis could be partially mitigated by the West undoing its economic punitive measures intended to destabilize Russia and force regime change. While Russia is arguably engaging in a military crisis of choice, Washington (and Brussels) are engaging the world in an economic crisis of choice; primarily because a unaccountable cabal of aging Cold War neocons are fixated on overthrowing Vladimir Putin "at any cost".
Anyways, most of the analysis is correct and useful, but it always bugs me when the causality is obfuscated in the name of pushing a political agenda.
>> Did Washington's illegal invasions of Iraq, Libya, or Syria shock global energy and food markets, leading to global crises?
Not a good comparison in terms of food. Ukraine produces 6% of the world's wheat. Russia produces 17%. The former is unable to export its stockpiles due to the Black Sea blockade by the latter, and the latter is not going to be exporting what it produces because they recognize that they can use it as leverage.
Russia created humanitarian corridors for Ukraine to get wheat out. That 6% will be impacted either way, but is not going to 0%.
Of course Iraq is not a major food exporter.
You didn't explain why major global energy crises didn't start after Washington illegally invaded major producers.
The bottom line: this is an economic crisis of Washington's designs.
Russia and Ukraine got very little from being major food exporters. For Russia it meant that wheat profits are just a dent of oil&gas profits, and for Ukraine it meant perennial poverty and international aid seeking.
Both were getting scolded for slacking economically.
If both countries were to be compensated 'fairly' for the wheat, maybe there would be no war right now. Food prices may never 'recover' to those unsustainable levels.
Ukraine has failed to become economically solvent - it did not even grow to 1991 levels. So it had to cling to somebody else and eventually it tore apart (in 2014)
Putin's army and mercenaries invaded its eastern regions, downed a passenger jet, weaponized criminal gangs, occupied cities and turned them into criminal neo-Stalinist enclaves with executions and torture.
He did it to teach Ukrainians a lesson after they've overthrown a corrupt pro-Putin president who built himself outrageously lavish palaces with golden toilets and private zoos.[1] In the end Yanukovich blocked Ukraine's integration with EU which sparked mass protests. Yanukovich or FSB snipers opened fire on protesters and he fled the country to Russia on a private jet.
First is that it's clearly ineffective. As much propaganda as we hear, Russia's still getting what it wants. Russia pulled out of most of the country the day after Zelensky announced they might not go in NATO after all [1]. The south (which is strategic to Russia - see my other comment[2]) is theirs. The ruble is better than it was before the war even with lifted capital controls and lowered interest rates. Most Russians don't seem to be too effected either.
Second, even if it were effective, it seems like somewhat of a major contradiction to claim that the Russian people are powerless victims of a violent authoritarian regime while at the same time expecting them to go to war with their overclass in order to stop this after starving them into it. It also ignores the fact that they did not do so in nearly a century of brutal repression and, at times, starvation. Are we supposed to wait another 69 years for sanctions to take effect, recalling that the fall of the USSR wasn't even violent regime change or capitulation but rather a decision that benefited the overclass itself?
> Russia pulled out of most of the country the day after Zelensky announced they might not go in NATO after all
They didn't.
The only time they made a major retreat was when they overstretched and Kyiv offensive that was expected to be quick failed.
They've moved batallions to regroup for Donbas offensive leaving behind Bucha and other horrors.
No connection to anything related to NATO. If anything "NATO enlargement" rhethoric is just a coverup. Estonia is part of the NATO and it's bordering Russia with travel distance of 210 km to St. Petersburg.
> The only time they made a major retreat was when they overstretched and Kyiv offensive that was expected to be quick failed.
Yeah, that's false. Google is your friend on this one. Next time pay attention to the war you want to comment on.
> No connection to anything related to NATO. If anything "NATO enlargement" rhethoric is just a coverup. Estonia is part of the NATO and it's bordering Russia with travel distance of 210 km to St. Petersburg.
Also false. Nobody in IR actually believe this propaganda. But yeah, there are many other things Russia also wants. I linked the comment where I outlined some of them.
No I don't support Putin, the fascist, the Russian overclass or any of their fans. At the same time, it's pretty easy to verify what I said. I believe in you, you can do it. It doesn't lend us any credibility to lie or be ignorant about what's actually been happening. We can do our best to present the truth and oppose the Russian state, it's propaganda and it's invasion at the same time. You don't need to choose between the two.
> As much propaganda as we hear, Russia's still getting what it wants. Russia pulled out of most of the country the day after Zelensky announced they might not go in NATO after all.
This is Russian propaganda.
First, NATO does not accept new members while they are in the middle of a military conflict. And Russia is occupying parts of Ukraine since 2014. So it's not like Zelensky's words changed something; he just commented on the obvious.
Second, nope, Russia absolutely didn't get what Putin wants. You may want to read his essay "On the historical units of Russians and Ukrainians". He wants the entire Ukraine to become a part of Russia.
In reality, the Russian army was near Kiev trying to capture it, failed, was pushed back. To save face, Putin now says that this is exactly what he wanted. Except, yesterday he said something different, and no doubt tomorrow he will say something different again.
Oh are Zelensky and The Independent Russian propaganda now? [1] Sorry, I can't keep up with you people. What about The Hill and AP[2]?
> Second, nope, Russia absolutely didn't get what Putin wants. You may want to read his essay "On the historical units of Russians and Ukrainians". He wants the entire Ukraine to become a part of Russia.
So now you buy into Russian propaganda instead of political science. Interesting.
> In reality, the Russian army was near Kiev trying to capture it, failed, was pushed back. To save face, Putin now says that this is exactly what he wanted. Except, yesterday he said something different, and no doubt tomorrow he will say something different again.
Sure thing, buddy, just coincidentally the day after Zelensky announced Ukraine won't go in NATO.
> So now you buy into Russian propaganda instead of political science. Interesting.
There is a difference between believing propaganda and drawing conclusions from the fact that the propaganda exists.
As an example, imagine that there is a guy called Hitler, who writes a book saying "Jews are trying to destroy the world, but I am going to save the world by destroying them". If you read the book and conclude "this Hitler guy is going to save the world", you are believing the propaganda. If you read the book and conclude "this Hitler guy seems to hate Jews", you are drawing a conclusion. In both cases you have read the book and came to a conclusion, but the process was quite different.
Similarly, if a guy called Putin writes a book saying "Ukrainians are not a real nation, they are actually a part of my nation and it's a shame that they have a separate country", then if you conclude "the Ukrainians are not a real nation", you are believing the propaganda, but if you conclude "this Putin guy will probably try to annex Ukraine", you are drawing a conclusion.
Anyway, it's not just the book, it's also the fact that Russian tanks were already approaching Kiev (before they ran out of gas, and were destroyed or stolen by tractors), the news articles celebrating the capture of Kiev that were written in advance and accidentally published, etc. A large part of reality would need to be different to make "actually, Putin never wanted to conquer Ukraine" a plausible hypothesis.
Did Washington's illegal invasions of Iraq, Libya, or Syria shock global energy and food markets, leading to global crises?
No, because a large part of the global economy did not attempt to cut off USA from the global economy following those blatant violations of sovereignty. This real lede is buried deep in the article.
The fact is that the current economic crisis could be partially mitigated by the West undoing its economic punitive measures intended to destabilize Russia and force regime change. While Russia is arguably engaging in a military crisis of choice, Washington (and Brussels) are engaging the world in an economic crisis of choice; primarily because a unaccountable cabal of aging Cold War neocons are fixated on overthrowing Vladimir Putin "at any cost".
Anyways, most of the analysis is correct and useful, but it always bugs me when the causality is obfuscated in the name of pushing a political agenda.