How can Russia, a country scarcely any richer than Australia and far less legitimate, get away with what it’s doing?
Look at this chart of GDP in Russia and Australia. They are essentially on par with us — perhaps more when oil revenues are high, less at other times. Russia is not a big force in the global economy. Like us, it has few global brands that matter. Like us, it exports some raw materials. The way it is unlike us is you don’t see us destabilising the global economy by launching cruise missiles at our neighbours.
We could do to PNG — a former Australian dependency — what Russia is doing to Ukraine. But do we? No. We are quiet. We keep our military assets mostly at home (jaunts in Iraq, Afghanistan and perhaps Timor-Leste the exceptions.)
Look at Russia’s place in the world. It is not an exceptional country by population or by GDP. You can see why Joe Biden recently called it “Upper Volta with nuclear weapons”.
The phrase Biden used, by the way, is an updated version of an old Cold War phrase “Upper Volta with rockets”, the exact provenance of which, is, like all good quotes, murky as hell.
Russia was once mighty, and is now run of the mill. But Biden’s quip highlights the key factor — it speaks to the importance of nukes. That’s what makes Russia special. It’s not the overall military spending, which is comparable to many other countries and a fraction of the two big powers.
All the other nuclear-armed countries spend a fair bit on their militaries too. This includes the other four signatories to the non-proliferation treaty — the US, UK, China, and France. Plus India, North Korea, and Pakistan, who make no secret of their nukes. And also Israel, who keep their nukes sort of secret but also want their neighbours to know they have them.
Biden’s quip was supposed to direct scorn at Russia’s underdevelopment and its citizens’ lack of wealth. Ladas and borscht. Grim, grey apartments. But what it does for me is draw my attention to how a binary issue — whether or not you have nuclear weapons — determines a lot of your clout in the world.
When Iraq rolled into Kuwait in 1992, America pushed them back. Iraq didn’t have nukes; it was an easy choice. George H W Bush won that war swiftly. But when Russia rolled into Crimea in 2014, America whistled and looked the other way. Nuclear powers can get away with things. Kim Jong-un knows this. Knew it all along, persevered, won, and is smiling today. Xi Jinping probably knows it but is having the lesson refreshed. The boys at the PLA outposts opposite Taiwan have a spring in their step today.
Aren’t we trying to disarm the world?
The nuclear non-proliferation treaty is a source of increased peace in our world. It is. In general. Four countries have given up their nukes, those being South Africa, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and… oh yeah, one other: Ukraine.
In the aftermath of the USSR, Ukrainian territory had lots of nuclear weapons. They eventually gave them up in exchange for security guarantees. In 1994, the Ukraine president went to Budapest and signed a piece of paper that said his country would join the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and give up its nukes. In exchange, the United States, the Russian Federation and the United Kingdom agreed to assure its sovereignty and territorial integrity.
That deal was not worth a bag of potatoes. The UK and US didn’t abide by it, and Russia crapped all over it. What we discovered this past week was extremely disappointing. Alliances and deals don’t get you very far. Threats of sanctions don’t deter. Countries that want to be safe from nuclear powers need to arm themselves.
This is probably why stock in Lockheed Martin and Raytheon is outperforming the market so strongly in the last month. Bitter lessons are being learned. Might matters. More than GDP, that’s for sure. The cost will be a more dangerous world.
When comparing the fortunes of nations with or without nuclear weapons there is no example more stark than Libya. Its leader Muammar Gaddafi survived in power for decades despite the hostility of Western powers until in late 2003 he agreed to give up his nuclear programme. Did he gain any benefit from this peaceful gesture? On the contrary, he was attacked more than ever. Within a few years forces unleashed by enemy countries ripped his country to pieces and he was murdered with extreme sadistic brutality. Other dictators have learned the lesson.
Gaddafi had a nuclear programme? If so it was not within striking distance of an effective weapon. Does Libya have a single operational reactor let alone any enrichment technology? I vaguely recall it was Libya’s giving up sponsoring terrorism not giving up a nuclear programme that was supposed to get it into the good books. Blair characterising him as “someone we could work with”…
Yes, it was not much of a programme, and as you say, when he gave it up he also made other concessions. It is irrelevant that it was a long way from making working weapons. At some point in the past all the other nations that now have nuclear weapons did not have much of a programme. The point is they pressed on despite all the condemnation. They are now handled with very great care, while Gaddafi accepted the offer from those asking him to stop (yes, Blair was in the thick of it). Gaddafi apparently believed their assurances were sincere and they were acting in good faith. Big, fatal, mistake; not just for Gadaffi but for Libya, which is effectively destroyed. It is effectively replaced by the three provinces it was made from, they are all fighting each other, and it could go on for decades as other regional powers stir the pot for their own reasons.
And it is now the chief funnel of immigrants to Europe via Italy’s Christmas Island, Lampedusa,20sqkms barely 250kms from the coast of Africa – official Libya but in truth southern Tunisa.
“Look at Russia’s place in the world.”
Yes, let’s. Look at all those NATO military allied countries surrounding it. Perhaps if Australia’s geography was different- if we’d found ourselves surrounded by hostile military allied countries right on our borders- we’d be less inclined to keep our military assets at home following 30 years of failed diplomacy, too? Perhaps we’d be a little murderously paranoid?
If you must compare Russia to another country, find another country in similar circumstances. Australia with it’s powerful friend and master ain’t one of ‘em.
And what the hell does “Russia is a far less legitimate country than Australia” even mean? How is delegitimising Russia’s sovereignty helpful?
Russia’s just done that to Ukraine, FFS!
Finally, I can’t believe you only learned that might makes right this past week. Where have you been? The US has been demonstrating it for 77 years. Other members of the big 5 have to, of course, but in a unipolar world what the hegemon says goes.
Great comment. Not trying to legitimize what Russia is currently doing, but we are getting very one sided articles in all Western Media, with lots of relevant balanced information being left out.
The West is very quick to condemn propaganda from Russia or China but engages in exactly the same thing.
Local geopolitical history around this part of Europe is running a very poor second at the moment.
Is Putin really a madman or a psychopath as he is being made out to be, or is he simply retaliating from pledges that were previously made but disregarded by NATO and the USA?
Thanks Peter. I abhor what Russia’s done. My Dad’s surname is Chumak, FFS! My grandmother was Ukrainian and was incarcerated in Auschwitz in WWII because she was Ukrainian, but this invasion is the inevitable outcome of 30 years of NATO encirclement. 30 years of sneering at Russia’s security concerns. 20 years of isolating and alienating Russia. 8 years of sanctions.
A Chinese government official told an Australian reporter back in November 2020 “ China is angry. If you make China the enemy, China will BE the enemy” Our government chose to see it as a threat, rather than a wise tip. We never let Russia stop being the enemy. One of the greatest revolutions in human history and almost bloodless- and we acknowledged their accomplishment by refusing to stop treating them like the Scary Bear. How the hell did we think this was going to pan out?
And here we are, because the US wouldn’t disband NATO because its armaments industry needed new customers back in 1991, and it wouldn’t admit Russia because NATO needed the Scary Bear. Russia did try a few times and the US laughed at them.
The history doesn’t make Russia’s actions any less heinous or criminal, though.
We create what we fear seems to underpin your comments re the invasion being an inevitable consequence of NATO’s presence and actions and re: the gov regarding China’s statements and actions as a threat rather than as a wise tip. There is truth in this proposition at the personal level for sure and it may apply to countries as well as it seems to apply here – and to all parties. My personal view is that Putin is a power hungry despot and that rather than fear of NATO motivated the invasion but assuming it was perception of NATO as a threat that motivated Putin’s invasion of Ukraine the result was, predictably, that NATO armed Ukraine and imposed severe sanctions thereby creating what he feared. It is evident in Germany’s change of policy that this would not have occurred were it not for the invasion. I’m rarely with the gov on issues but “China is angry. If you make China the enemy, China will BE the enemy” sounds like a threat to me too – do what we want or else. At the end of the mess that I wish I could see a way out of but can’t is that attributing responsibility for one’s actions to others doesn’t seem to be a way forward – NATO made me do it? If Ukraine joins NATO invasion of Russia is inevitable?
That’s an interesting point, Kathy Heyne, on its own merits, and doubly so because Australia’s geopolitical context changes over time.
52 years ago, three of our four nearest neighbors were developing nations with tenuous or no global affiliations, limited or no military capabilities, and significant natural resources which had not yet been exploited.
Today, Indonesia’s military outranks Australia’s. Its population of 275 million is fourth in the world.
Indonesia annexed our second nearest neighbor, West Papua, disappeared 40% of its indigenous population, and transformed it into a majority muslim country by translocating 500,000 Indonesians to West Papua. Unlike Putin in Ukraine, Indonesia achieved the annexation with the blessing of the UN General Assembly.
Indonesia has been plundering West Papua’s vast gold and copper reserves for 60 years in partnership with an American company that appointed Henry Kissinger to its board in gratitude for his facilitation of the annexation, and more recently has granted concessions to South Korean firms to strip mine the world’s second largest contiguous rainforest for woodchips and plant palm oil monoculture.
Indonesia’s Trans-Papua Highway infrastructure project stretches 4,325km from Sorong to Merauke and spans 884km out of Indonesia’s land border with Papua New Guinea.
Where is this all leading?
No commentators talk about it.
No foreign correspondents have been allowed to set foot in West Papua for 52 years.
Successive Australian governments of both colors over that time have made pacts with Indonesia to say and do nothing about it. In exchange, Indonesia helps stop the boats.
52 years from now, Ukraine may be a different place. Australia’s favorite TV show might not be Neighbours. If it is, it might not still be set in Ramsay street.
There is merit in your analysis. Look at how the US reacted in the Cuban missile crisis in 1963, which thankfully was resolved DIPLOMATICALLY (something which is desperately short in the Russo/Ukrainian war). No major power wants a hostile and powerful enemy up one’s back side.
The only way forward is a negotiated withdrawal for Russia, involving a complete ceasefire on both sides. Russia gets out and coughs up to help repair the Ukraine with some concessions that Ukraine does more to smother far right attacks complained of in Russian ‘enclaves’ to the east.
The Ukraine remains democratic but an unallied buffer between the US and Russia with conventional weaponry. Nato and the EU kick the can for Ukraine inclusion down the road (and keep kicking it) in the interests of European and global stability.
The world also has more serious concerns to contend with, like the existential threats of climate change and unliveable environments, unsustainable population growth, emerging diseases, and environmental degradation. This will require commitment and cooperation from everybody, especially the major powers. We don’t live in a unipolar power and we never will.
Most Australians aren’t aware that the ‘Cuban Crisis in 1962‘ was resolved by the USA withdrawing its 100 Jupiter ballistic missiles which had been installed in Italy and along the north coast of Turkey.
I forget which way they were pointed…
Are you serious? How can Crikey publish a glib article by @JASEMURPHY that says “We keep our military assets mostly at home” and describes ADF deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan as “jaunts”?
At a time that Russia is raising its nuclear arsenal to high alert, and France’s Foreign Minister is reminding everyone that NATO is a nuclear alliance, how can your economics correspondent suggest “the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is a source of increased peace in our world”? Where are the comprehensive nuclear disarmament negotiations required under NPT Article 6? The horrific invasion of Ukraine has brought lots of armchair generals to the fore, but this takes the cake. It’s disappointing that Crikey publishes such blather.
“the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is a source of increased peace in our world”
I think that statement is a bit rich. The major Countries that still have Nuclear weaponry will never give it up as those Countries see their Nuclear weapons as a means to keep smaller and less heavily armed Countries in check.
Suggesting that “Australia doesn’t attack PNG” as a comparison to Russia’s attack on Ukraine is a little disingenuous – we would act very differently if Chinese forces and weapons were being installed on PNG territory.
How about chinese and russian gold buyers undermining the population with mercury poisoning, low gold prices and the usual illicit trading. Png is more a part of china’s economy, than ours.
How about you actually look at who owns the mines instead?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_in_Papua_New_Guinea#:~:text=With%20the%20exception%20of%20the,(Morobe%20Province)%20commenced%20production.
Not much Russian or Chinese. More Australia/South Africa/Canada and other Western countries.
This zine allows tour agents to write on covid, PR flaks on the environment and an economist to scribble about war.
Makes. Sense….NOT!