Krugman: "War makes you poorer and weaker, even if you win."

[kpete]

........ there is a still-powerful political faction in America committed to the view that conquest pays, and that in general the way to be strong is to act tough and make other people afraid. One suspects, by the way, that this false notion of power was why the architects of war made torture routine — it wasn’t so much about results as about demonstrating a willingness to do whatever it takes.

...........


Neocon dreams took a beating when the occupation of Iraq turned into a bloody fiasco, but they didn’t learn from experience. (Who does, these days?) And so they viewed Russian adventurism with admiration and envy. They may have claimed to be alarmed by Russian advances, to believe that Mr. Putin, “what you call a leader,” was playing chess to President Obama’s marbles. But what really bothered them was that Mr. Putin was living the life they’d always imagined for themselves.

The truth, however, is that war really, really doesn’t pay. The Iraq venture clearly ended up weakening the U.S. position in the world, while costing more than $800 billion in direct spending and much more in indirect ways. America is a true superpower, so we can handle such losses — although one shudders to think of what might have happened if the “real men” had been given a chance to move on to other targets. But a financially fragile petroeconomy like Russia doesn’t have the same ability to roll with its mistakes.

I have no idea what will become of the Putin regime. But Mr. Putin has offered all of us a valuable lesson. Never mind shock and awe: In the modern world, conquest is for losers.

the rest:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/22/opinion/paul-krugman-putin-neocons-and-the-great-illusion.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0

[Skink]

1. War profiteering is all it is.

[Doctor_J]

3. yep, this is just another way to transfer money from the working class to the 1%

Stop trying to read too much into it

[pampango]

2. "...modern warfare impoverishes the victors as well as the vanquished. Putin never got the memo. And

neither did our own neocons, whose acute case of Putin envy shows that they learned nothing from the Iraq debacle.

Look at what passes for a Putin success, the seizure of Crimea: Russia may have annexed the peninsula with almost no opposition, but what it got from its triumph was an imploding economy that is in no position to pay tribute, and in fact requires costly aid. Meanwhile, foreign investment in and lending to Russia proper more or less collapsed even before the oil price plunge turned the situation into a full-blown financial crisis.

Which brings us to two big questions. First, why did Mr. Putin do something so stupid? Second, why were so many influential people in the United States impressed by and envious of his
stupidity? The answer to the first question is obvious if you think about Mr. Putin’s background. Remember, he’s an ex-K.G.B. man — which is to say, he spent his formative years as a professional thug. Violence and threats of violence, supplemented with bribery and corruption, are what he knows.

The answer to the second question is a bit more complicated, but let’s not forget how we ended up invading Iraq. ... there is a still-powerful political faction in America committed to the view that conquest pays, and that in general the way to be strong is to act tough and make other people afraid.

Neocon dreams took a beating when the occupation of Iraq turned into a bloody fiasco, but they didn’t learn from experience. (Who does, these days?) And so they viewed Russian adventurism with admiration and envy.

Our neocons: "conquest pays, and that in general the way to be strong is to act tough and make other people afraid." Russia's neocons: "Violence and threats of violence, supplemented with bribery and corruption" are what works.

It is no small wonder that our neocons view "Russian adventurism with admiration and envy." And our neocons undoubtedly do not view an imploding economy - whether it is in the US or in Russia - as a problem as long as their aggressive foreign policy is 'successful'.

[Orsino]

4. Impoverishes the victors?

Only if you include the troops and ordinary citizens nominally on the victors' side.

The OP recognizes that war is ordered by the extremely wealthy, and they are enriched by it. We chumps are among the losers; we were just dumb enough to cheer (or to kill and die) for Big Money.

[pampango]

5. In almost all cases the 1% does benefit while the 99% are impoverished.

In the past the 1% would benefit from the fighting of the war and later from the financial plunder they could extract from the vanquished. Now the 1% have to be content with the profits to be made preparing for and fighting wars.

It seems to me that Krugman is making the case that the opportunities for postwar plunder are not what they were in centuries gone by. The US 'conquest of Iraq' is one example. Russia's 'conquest' of Crimea is another.

The 99% have always fought the wars for the 1%. Some things never change.

[Orsino]

6. I guess the profiteers have pulled off some incredible sleight-of-hand...

...making nominal peace nearly indistinguishable from declared war, and nearly as profitable.

[Igel]

8. The Crimea wasn't a stupid decision.

It was wise in terms of short-term politics. It helped Putin's ratings. A lot. It was an expression of national pride and triumphalism, as well as probably intended to help keep a large buffer state neutral or allied. (It backfired, but let's not confuse hindsight with prior intent.)

It will save money on base rental. No more giving billions to another country. Or letting Russian naval facitilies "fall into" hostile NATO hands. (Lavrov keeps saying that NATO shouldn't consider Russia a foe, but enough quasi-official Kremlin spokesfolk continue to bill NATO as a kind of fifth column, a large military force whose goal is to knock off Russia, an existential threat to Russia and Russian ambitions: And this not just in the last 10 months but over the last 15 years. It's classic: As we think of you as an enemy and plan accordingly, please retract your claws and think of us not as a tiger but as a little purring pussy cat. That way as we curl up in your lap we can ready our plans to use our razor sharp claws to cut off your junk.)

Short term there are problems with Crimea. It will need assistance. It has electricity problems, some of Russia's own making--having the LNR shell the Schasttya thermoelectric plant and cripple the national grid can't help but reduce electricity available to Crimea. It also has had water problems. But mostly it's going to have provisioning problems, as so much of the supply line for the military bases and also for the civilian population required Ukr rail and roads. Now they're restricted to ferries and sea transport. Having the DNR and LNR de facto cut rail transport from Russia and even from the Russophile-occupied Donbas can't help, either.

Long term, though, it projects power forward and guarantees a large Soviet naval presence in the Mediterranean without the need to spend many billions building a port over near Taganrog. It will be a useful near-Mediterranean outpost for a Eurasian economic union, if it can work out how to get materials to Crimea. It gave Putin's buddies a very large dose of Black Sea natural gas and right-of-way over a lot of seafloor that might eventually provide transport for natural gas from other parts of the Union or other countries.

Of course, there was more to it than Crimea. People in Donetsk behind the takeover there have expressed surprise that Luhans'k and Donets'k didn't happen the way they planned. Like it did in Crimea.

Had Putin stopped with his cronies in Crimea, by now the sanctions would be weakening significantly as they did not long after S. Ossetia. But materiel continues to pour into the Dumbas. Those who were in a panic over Right Sector death squads are quiet as "rebel" shelling kills children and teens. There's the occasional shelling of Ukr forces in LNR-Ukr border areas from the Russian side of the Ukr-Russian border. MH17 happened, with rhetorically useful but fairly unenlightening leaks from various sides. (The latest being from, IIRC, Poroshenko, that the bodies contained shrapnel that could only support the conclusion that a surface-to-air missile was used.)

[pampango]

9. Krugman argues that it was a stupid 'economic' decision. Neocons care about the military, national

pride and the politics effects of aggression, not so much about its economic consequences.

While Putin may spend some time these days wondering how to deal with an imploding economy, I doubt he has any regrets about Crimea or eastern Ukraine in general. Similarly, American neocons have no regrets about Iraq in spite of all the problems that were created by its invasion. A weakened domestic economy is not something that neocons lose much sleep over whether they are the American or the Russian version.

I agree that the takeover of Crimea is useful to Russia in terms of military "power projection", promoting national pride and has been a great boost to Putin's domestic popularity. Those are all goals that any neocon can embrace wholeheartedly.

It gave Putin's buddies a very large dose of Black Sea natural gas and right-of-way over a lot of seafloor that might eventually provide transport for natural gas from other parts of the Union or other countries.

Another reason why Putin has no regrets about Crimea.

Thanks for your analysis. It is interesting to contemplate what would have happened if Putin had stopped with Crimea. It is probable that the passage of time would weaken and eventually end sanctions. That did not seem to happen with South Africa but Russia is a much bigger economic player.

Perhaps it is one feature of the neocon mindset to never know when to stop. "If it worked here - Iraq/Crimea - why not do it somewhere else?" It must be hard to abandon what you perceive to be a successful (if aggressive) foreign policy.

[Baitball Blogger]

7. A Pyrhrric Victory.

[Jim Lane]

10. Usually, but not always

A war of aggression can benefit an amoral victor when it really is a cakewalk against a much weaker foe. An example is China's invasion of Tibet.

[Arugula Latte]

11. Not the profiting corporations, though, and, really, aren't they the only things that matter?