An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
Okay I'm going to wade in here, despite adding more fuel to Tom's already burning fire of conspiracy theories and global intrigue. I'm sort of disappointed that he missed this point so here goes.
To pay back loans, Ukraine will eventually have to settle debts in foreign currency which means Ukraine has to sell exports, sell assets or sell domestic currency/financial assets for foreign. Ukraine primarily exports farm goods. Wheat sells for ~$250/metric ton. $40 billion ~ 160 million metric tons. Annual production in Ukraine will probably be greater than 25 million tons. If when the wars end and US and Europeans prevail, western biotech helps them to increase production. They maybe able to get 30-50% more than current yields. But assuming they don't, 40 billion is almost 5 years of the total value of grain produced. Currently they have to sell their food to Russia for lower prices, but again, assume US & Europe prevail and Russia pays full price. So it is almost certain that Ukraine will have to sell assets and create new sources of economic growth. Their currency is plunging and has become basically worthless internationally so no one will lend money to Ukraine in Hryvnia.
They have one massive undeveloped asset. Gas and Oil. Their "depleted" gas fields aren't really and are actually exceedingly undeveloped and valuable with better technology. The part that I'm afraid to point out to Tom, is that Ukraines best shale fields are: Off Crimea extending in the sea. And you guessed it, Donetsk Dniepr fields along Russias border. So if I were a betting man, I'd guess that Putin is less concerned about Russian speakers in Ukraine than maybe resources. But I'd hate to rain on the parade of rhetoric and framing that we've built up about ideological issues and drag it down into the grotesque and base level of resources.
Not mutually exclusive. Lots of factors involved. But the stuff I am reading points more overtly to politics than economics, although Michael Hudson has been saying for some time that Western interest in Ukraine is heavily economic, and I agree with that view.
Almost everything that an empire does is economic at bottom. Empires don't want to control territory for its own sake but for the benefits like the collection of tribute aka economic rent.
The geopolitics is about economic dominance as much as political and military. Political and military dominance are chiefly for economic reasons, and almost all political conflict historically can be traced to economic interests in one way or another.
Even the conflict in Syria in which the empire is heavily involved is closely related to pipeline routes, as Pepe Escobar has been reporting about for some time. He calls the whole area of the MENA and Central Asia "Pipeline-istan.
Geopolitically, Russia could not let the naval base at Sevastopol go to NATO. That would have been game over in the Black Sea, a strategic disaster for Russia, and lose of the resources of the region to the empire. So the pretext was defending the Russian population of Crimea but obviously more was involved geostrategically and economically.
So to clarify, geopolitics and geostrategy is always related to economics, e.g., control of territory is about control of resources and denying resources to potential opponents since military power grows out of economic power and is used to extend economic power.
BTW, this was fundamental to Marx's analysis. He saw economic infrastructure as foundational, and ruling elite compete for control using workers for production economically and as foot soldiers (cannon fodder) militarily.
2 comments:
Okay I'm going to wade in here, despite adding more fuel to Tom's already burning fire of conspiracy theories and global intrigue. I'm sort of disappointed that he missed this point so here goes.
To pay back loans, Ukraine will eventually have to settle debts in foreign currency which means Ukraine has to sell exports, sell assets or sell domestic currency/financial assets for foreign. Ukraine primarily exports farm goods. Wheat sells for ~$250/metric ton. $40 billion ~ 160 million metric tons. Annual production in Ukraine will probably be greater than 25 million tons. If when the wars end and US and Europeans prevail, western biotech helps them to increase production. They maybe able to get 30-50% more than current yields. But assuming they don't, 40 billion is almost 5 years of the total value of grain produced. Currently they have to sell their food to Russia for lower prices, but again, assume US & Europe prevail and Russia pays full price. So it is almost certain that Ukraine will have to sell assets and create new sources of economic growth. Their currency is plunging and has become basically worthless internationally so no one will lend money to Ukraine in Hryvnia.
They have one massive undeveloped asset. Gas and Oil.
Their "depleted" gas fields aren't really and are actually exceedingly undeveloped and valuable with better technology. The part that I'm afraid to point out to Tom, is that Ukraines best shale fields are: Off Crimea extending in the sea. And you guessed it, Donetsk Dniepr fields along Russias border. So if I were a betting man, I'd guess that Putin is less concerned about Russian speakers in Ukraine than maybe resources. But I'd hate to rain on the parade of rhetoric and framing that we've built up about ideological issues and drag it down into the grotesque and base level of resources.
Not mutually exclusive. Lots of factors involved. But the stuff I am reading points more overtly to politics than economics, although Michael Hudson has been saying for some time that Western interest in Ukraine is heavily economic, and I agree with that view.
Almost everything that an empire does is economic at bottom. Empires don't want to control territory for its own sake but for the benefits like the collection of tribute aka economic rent.
The geopolitics is about economic dominance as much as political and military. Political and military dominance are chiefly for economic reasons, and almost all political conflict historically can be traced to economic interests in one way or another.
Even the conflict in Syria in which the empire is heavily involved is closely related to pipeline routes, as Pepe Escobar has been reporting about for some time. He calls the whole area of the MENA and Central Asia "Pipeline-istan.
Geopolitically, Russia could not let the naval base at Sevastopol go to NATO. That would have been game over in the Black Sea, a strategic disaster for Russia, and lose of the resources of the region to the empire. So the pretext was defending the Russian population of Crimea but obviously more was involved geostrategically and economically.
So to clarify, geopolitics and geostrategy is always related to economics, e.g., control of territory is about control of resources and denying resources to potential opponents since military power grows out of economic power and is used to extend economic power.
BTW, this was fundamental to Marx's analysis. He saw economic infrastructure as foundational, and ruling elite compete for control using workers for production economically and as foot soldiers (cannon fodder) militarily.
Post a Comment