In The Accidental Superpower I noted that while the Chechens will always be a thorn in Russia’s side, that a different Muslim ethnic group — the Tatars — are the ever-present dagger to Russia’s heart.
Unlike the Chechens who are a semi-cloistered mountain people nestled in the Caucasus and so rarely leave their homeland, the Tatars are modern and cosmopolitan. They sit at the merger of the Oga and Volga rivers — the pair of navigable waterways elevate Russia to something more than just a wide-ranging country endowed with resources. As Accidental readers know, navigable waterways are the bedrock of economic success. They enable a people to establish internal trade, build their own capital, and move up the value-added scale organically.
Both the Oga and Volga are Russian rivers, but their junction is at the Tatars’ homeland. The Tatars also happen to live atop most of the major infrastructure that connects Russia to Siberia. Should the Russians ever lose control of the Tatars, they cease being a regional power, much less a global one.
In the past couple of years, Tatarstan has been simmering. Economic breakdowns, Kremlin confiscations of the regional oil company (Tatneft), and more recently a banking crisis. It’s been on my list to write about, but last night my former employer, Stratfor, beat me to the punch. Strat and I differ on many things of course, but they’re a great one-stop-shop for international news, analysis and intelligence that is so obviously lacking in national global media these days.
I’m happy to say that Stratfor was lost without me when I left back in 2012, but I’m even happier to say that they seem to have found their way in the years since — and are once again churning out some great work. This article, IMO, is emblematic of that.
EU’s institutions are rearranging the Titanic’s deck chairs during a Godzilla attack with a tsunami on the horizon.
President Donald Trump entertained his first foreign dignitary Friday, January 27: UK Prime Minister Theresa May. The primary outcome of their trip? The two pledged to work towards the formalization of a “quick trade deal.”
This takes us all kinds of interesting places.
First, from a strategic point of view anything that binds the United Kingdom closer to the United States is phenomenal for U.S. power. Britain maintains the world’s third-most powerful navy, and soon will float the only functional supercarriers in the world not in the U.S. fleets. London is the world’s second-largest financial hub, and the chief route out for capital fleeing Continental Europe. London has centuries of bred-in experience manipulating political and economic systems the world over. Add in a wealth of preexisting bilateral political, economic and cultural ties, and if there is one country that is a natural complement to American power projection, it is Britain.
Second, the EU is spotlighting the path to its own end with a bizarre sort of enthusiasm. Technically, the May-Trump summit is illegal; under EU law only the European Commission — the EU’s executive — can engage in trade talks on behalf of its members, and the UK’s exit negotiations haven’t yet begun. Just to be sure that the Europeans know that this isn’t an accidental oversight, May has also announced the commencement of trade talks with Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Turkey and India.
The Commission and EU Parliament are bubbling with fury about how this won’t be allowed to stand, will poison the UK’s pending Brexit talks with the EU, and that Britain will be punished for it. But considering May has indicated that she prefers simply walking away from the EU to any sort of divorce deal that doesn’t serve London’s interest, the EU is absolutely bereft of leverage.
If there was an issue that could prove that the EU had some flexibility, a flat-out Brexit negotiation was it. It will be a negotiation that is predominantly economic in which the EU has lots of leverage and for which the EU has lots of options to choose from. This should be easy.
Guess not.
Such obstinacy pretty much dooms the EU in its grappling with its far larger problems: the EU faces a demographic implosion, a sovereign debt crisis that only increases by the year, anemic-at-best economic growth, a rising banking crisis, an aggressive Russia, an increasingly belligerent Turkey, waves of refugees as Mideast countries crumble, and so on. Rather that start reimagining the Union or getting on with the very real work ahead, the EU’s institutions are doing the equivalent of rearranging the Titanic’s deck chairs during a Godzilla attack with a tsunami on the horizon. Britain is already moving on, yet it looks like Brexit will consume all the EU’s emotional bandwidth for months (years?). Such ossification makes it scarily easy to predict how this will all go: everything that happens in the EU is now an institutional crisis.
Third, after decades of Continental military downsizing, the UK and U.S. are Europe’s security policy. May still went through the motions of pledging her support for NATO, which literally earned no more than a curt nod from the new American president — a man that, since his election, has made no secret of his belief that the alliance is already over. So long as Europe cannot come to terms with Brexit, it is a mighty reach to assume that the UK will continue going to bat with Trump for the sake of the Continent. Expect American drawdowns of its warfighting capabilities in Europe to begin in the not-too-distant future. The only question now is whether this is done in league with evolutions in U.S.-Russian relations or not.
Where does this leave Europe? Trump probably put it best by calling the EU a “vehicle for Germany.” That may sound harsh. After all, the EU is nothing if not a constant multi-lateral tug of war among all the EU’s 28 members. But consider what’s happened in the past year: The Brits are leaving. NATO is all-but-gone. There’s political stall — if not outright breakdown — in Italy, Spain, Austria, Belgium and the Netherlands. Poland and Hungary are wallowing in their moves away from democracy. Like it or not, planned or not, Germany is the center that holds.
And a quick glance through history indicates that a German center to Europe never holds for long.
I’m happy to announce that The Absent Superpower: The Shale Revolution and a World Without America is finally in print and in stock. Here is a link to the purchase page on Zeihan.com. We will have a digital version ready by February 1st. Additionally, book format issues limit me in terms of graphics capacity to only black & white images but many of the topics I write about are in screaming color, so here is the map room for The Absent Superpower.
Which brings me to my next announcement: the Zeihan on Geopolitics website has had a face lift for the New Year. We’ll be populating it with more material during the next few weeks, particularly as the Know Your World section expands. Feel free to explore.
And if all that wasn’t tease enough, in lieu of a New Year’s newsletter, we’ve instead opted to share the introduction for The Absent Superpower…
INTRODUCTION
The Journey to The Absent Superpower
EVERYTHING IS CHAOS!
At least, that’s what it seems like every time you turn on your TV, radio, computer, or smart phone.
The European Union is falling apart, Syria is in meltdown, cybercrime is an hourly occurrence, the Chinese economy is gyrating wildly, Russia is on the march, the election of Donald Trump has Americans of all political stripes wondering what comes next, and the Kardashians get more press time than Congress. It’s enough to give anyone a panic attack.
Well, not quite anyone. Unlike the average person, all this craziness puts me in my happy place. Where most see the world turning itself upside down and inside out, I see a long-overdue shift in the global order. New trends emerging. New possibilities unfolding. For me, change is good for business.
That’s because my job is a bit…different than the standard. You see, I’m a geopolitical strategist. That’s a fancy way of saying I help organizations understand what challenges and opportunities they will be grappling with across the world in the years to come. As such I’m sort of a professional apprentice, rarely a master of any particular craft but needing to be able to hold my own in conversations about manufacturing and transport and health care and finance and agriculture and metals and electricity and education and defense and such. Preferably without pissing off anyone whose living is based off of manufacturing or transport or health care or finance or agriculture or metals or electricity or education or defense.
In many ways those conversations make me who I am. From the Air Force to the Pickle Packers, every interaction gives me a good hard view of the world, yet each of these interactions originates from a radically different perspective. Combine all those angles and interactions and perspectives and the unique information that comes from them with my private intelligence experience, and I’m granted the privilege of seeing something approximating the full picture — how the world’s myriad pieces interlock — and catch some telling future glimpses to boot. More than anything else, what I sell is context.
That picture and those glimpses and that context formed the bones of my first book, The Accidental Superpower, which was published in November 2014. In Accidental I made the case that the world we knew was at a moment of change: The Americans who had created, nurtured, enabled, maintained and protected the post-WWII global order were losing interest. As they stepped back the world we know was about to fall to pieces.
At any time in history such a shift would have had monumental consequences, but the American retrenchment is but one of three massive shifts in the global the order. The second is the rapid greying of the entire global population. Fewer people of working age translates directly into anemic, decaying economies — enervating global trade just as the Americans stop guaranteeing it. Third and finally, the American shale revolution has changed the mechanics — if not yet the mood — of how the Americans interact with the energy sector. Surging petroleum output within the Lower 48 is pushing North America toward outright oil independence; in the past decade the total continental shortfall has narrowed from roughly 10 million barrels of oil per day (mbpd) to about 2mbpd.
In the two years since Accidental published, I’ve had ample opportunity to re-examine every aspect of my work — some of my critics have been (over) eager to assist in such endeavors — and I fear that I may have been off the mark on a couple of points.
First, the American shale sector has matured far faster and more holistically than I could have ever expected.
Despite a price crash in oil markets, despite ongoing opposition to shale among a far from insignificant portion of the population, despite broad scale ignorance about what shale is and what shale is not, shale has already overhauled American energy.
In 2006 total American oil production had dropped to 8.3mbpd while demand was touching 20.7mpbd, forcing the United States to import 12.4mpbd, more than Japan and China and Germany combined. By 2016 U.S. oil output had breached 15mbpd. Factor in the Canadians and Mexicans, and total American imports of non-North American oil had plunged to about 2mbpd — and that in the teeth of an oil price war. And that’s just oil specifically. Take a more comprehensive view and include everything from bunker fuel to propane, and the continent is less than 0.8mbpd from being a net energy exporter.
The end of American dependence upon extra-continental energy sources does more than sever the largest of the remaining ties that bind America’s fate to the wider world, it sets into motion a veritable cavalcade of trends: the re-industrialization of the United States, the accelerated breakdown of the global order, and a series of wide-ranging military conflicts that will shape the next two decades.
This book’s opening section contains the long and the short of this Shale New World, the greatest evolution of the American industrial space since at least 1970. For the financiers and accountants and policy wonks out there, this was written with your geeky brains specifically in mind.
Second, the isolationist trickle I detected in American politics has deepened and expanded into a raging river. Of the two dozen men and women who entered the 2016 presidential race, only one — Ohio Governor John Kasich — advocated for a continuation of America’s role in maintaining the global security and trade order that the Americans installed and have maintained since 1945. The most anti-trade candidate on the right won his party’s nomination, while the most anti-trade candidate on the left finished a close second in the Democratic primaries to the Clinton political machine. Last night (now President) Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton met in New York to debate economic policy. What struck me as self-gratifying and horrifying in equal measure was that their core disagreement on trade issues wasn’t whether trade was good or bad for the United States, but how much to pare it back and which reasons for paring cut it the most with the electorate. (The pair of them obviously disagreed — colorfully, vehemently and often — on other issues.)
The world has had seven decades to become inured to a world in which the Americans do the heavy lifting to maintain a system that economically benefits all. The world has had three decades to become inured to a world in which the Americans do not expect anything of substance in return. As the Americans back away, very few players have any inkling of how to operate in a world where markets are not open, transport is not safe, and energy cannot be secured easily.
The stage is set for a global tailspin of epic proportions. Just as the global economy tips into deflation, just as global energy is becoming dangerous, just as global demographics catastrophically reduce global consumption, just as the world really needs the Americans to be engaged, the United States will be…absent. We stand on the very edge of the Disorder.
The Disorder’s defining characteristic is, well, its lack of order. Remove the comfortable, smothering American presence in the world and the rest of humanity has to look out for its own interests. As many of those interests clash, expect devolutions that are deeply-felt and disastrous in equal measure. Part II breaks down the breakdown. I’m equally proud and terrified to report that some of the darker shades in Accidental are happening sooner rather than later. For generals — armchair or otherwise — who prefer jumping directly into the fight, Part II is what you’re after.
In the final section we will circle back at take a good hard look at the United States. Energy independent, economically robust, physically secure, and — above all — strategically unfettered, the United States will be taking a break from the world writ large for the most part.
Yet “for the most part” is a far cry from a full divorce from all things international. The Yanks will still find bits of the world worth their time, effort, money and ammunition. Section III explores the American Play: where the Americans will still be found, why they will be there, how they’ll act, and what they’ll be up to.
It may be small comfort, but the acceleration of the shale revolution as well as the American political shift towards populism has illuminated a great deal, sharpening my view of the future. The various glimpses that made up Accidental have somewhat merged, lingering to the point that they now constitute a bit of a roadmap.
That roadmap is the core of this book.
Peter Zeihan September 27, 2016 Somewhere over Kentucky
Something happened yesterday with the Trump transition that worried me. By “worry” I mean it is great for me personally, but as I’m a bit of a purveyor of doom and gloom, everyone else should perhaps be a bit concerned.
It is probably not what most of you are thinking.
Many assert that Trump’s push for a deep bench of billionaires in his cabinet is generating the most serious conflicts of interest in modern history. (I find it adorable that some folks think self-interest is new to Washington.) Just look at it in context. Obama’s first cabinet had a combined 122 years in government experience and only five in the private sector. Un-shockingly, the Obama administration proved rather inept when it came to having conversations with people, while proving a champ at enacting regulations. Trump is simply the inverse. We’ve had a change in rulership, which will mean a change in policy and a change in approach. No biggie from my point of view.
No, I’m more concerned about something that was almost glossed over. President-elect Donald Trump announced Peter Navarro, a professor at the University of California (Irvine), would be in charge of trade policy. Specifically Navarro will run a new office called the National Trade Council.
Now I don’t have major concerns about Navarro in general. To put him in what I hope is not an unfair nutshell, Navarro is an anti-China agitator whose most notable book is “Death by China.” He advocates, among other things, a broad-scale economic, strategic, and political confrontation to sever exploitive economic exposure to China completely and, if need be, forcibly break the entire Chinese political and economic system. (Like I said, doom and gloom = good for Peter.)
My concern isn’t so much about his views as his likely style.
Shanghai, People’s Republic of China
Putting an academic in a policy position bears risks. Unlike bureaucrats, they don’t know how systems work. Unlike military officers, they think “chain of command” simply means everyone does what they say. Unlike business people, they have no practical experience in making decisions or compromises or making things happen with limited resources. What sounds great in the classroom sometimes shatters upon contact with hard realities, and it is far from unheard of for academics to then look for what’s wrong with the world rather than reevaluate their theories. As such academics’ record in government service is unsurprisingly patchy. A couple of examples:
Robert McNamara brought in a bunch of quantitative analysis professors to put numbers into the planning of the Vietnam war. The idea was to be able to have metrics for assessing how pacification was progressing, and how hearts and minds could be won. Unfortunately, the methods of the “whiz kids” couldn’t be reconciled with the facts in the jungle, and the profs were unwilling to admit that their formulas were unworkable. The war ended up being far more brutal and bloodier than it needed to be.
More recently, President Barack Obama put Stanford professor Michael McFaul in charge of Russia policy. McFaul’s views of Russian society and governance offended everyone in the Kremlin with breathtaking efficiency, effectively walling off the entire American diplomatic apparatus from Russia. The result was the fastest, deepest slide in any two countries’ relations in recent history that did not end in war, contributing to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Russia’s participation in the Syria war. Geopolitics may all but dictate Russia’s efforts, but (bad) diplomacy certainly sets the course and timing. Reset indeed.
My goal here isn’t to crap on academics. Lord knows I know plenty of academics who are utterly essential to many in and out of government, myself included. I’m simply pointing out that the culture of academia often does not necessarily mesh well with the culture of governance … and we now have a vehemently anti-China academic overseeing America’s primary interface with the rest of the global system. Combine that with Trump’s statements on Taiwan and I think it is pretty clear that a broad-scale competition with the Chinese is now not just baked into the system, but that on the American side it will be incredibly visceral, aggressive and fueled by personal vitriol. And thats before one considers the President-elect’s personality. Things are about to get decidedly lively (again, good for Peter).
If I’m right on this, an uber tradewar with the Chinese is just around the corner. I’ve dealt with many of the likely futures for China in previous newsletters and in The Accidental Superpower so I’ll just hit the highlights here and spend most of my typing on follow-on effects:
China faces an internal political crisis. Southern China is far more economically viable than the rest of China, far more exposed to foreign trade, and far more culturally willing to work with foreigners. The portions of China that will suffer the most also are the most likely to not look to Beijing for leadership. Traditionally, secession threats are a very big deal in China. They are about to be once again.
Foreign investors in China — especially U.S. investors or investors in interior China — stand to lose everything. The rough translation of “joint venture” in Mandarin is “you pay for everything and we’ll steal all your tech.” Anyone who still has any trade secrets left is about to lose them all, and the Chinese will confiscate your entire physical plant in the name of national security. Time to work on those exit contingencies and shareholder explanations. Might want to start with plans for any key employees of Chinese ethnicity as Beijing doesn’t consider foreign citizenship a barrier to arrest on charges of sedition.
Northeast Asia faces massive upsets. Fully half of the world’s manufacturing supply chain steps are in the region, with most of those dependent upon Chinese links. Any meaningful Chinese-American trade conflict breaks many (if not most) of them. The country likely to get the worst of it is Taiwan, since the country’s companies are on the small side (most sell into a single supply chain) and the local market is but 23 million people.
The inverse is true for North America’s I35 corridor — in particular from Mexico City to Oklahoma City — which is the piece of the world most likely to pick up manufacturing capacity that will need to relocate. Easy regulation, the large Texas population, good infrastructure, cheap land, underpriced but high-skilled labor, and cheap and reliable energy all add up to short- and long-term manufacturing booms. (Navarro is not known to have particularly blistering opinions on Mexico.)
The biggest loser beyond the immediate region likely will be Australia. The Aussies have bet the farm on the Chinese industrialization process and their raw materials exports will flatly collapse. This is hardly the end of Australia, but their golden generation of economic growth is about to go into screeching reverse — and they have a lot of fat to cut.
The oil exporters of the Persian Gulf are also about to get hit hard. Anything that crimps Northeast Asian economic activity is going to prove crushing to them, since Northeast Asia takes more than half of the Persian Gulf’s collective oil exports.
It is unthinkable that the Americans will take the Chinese to task in a spat of statism, protectionism, and populism; and the far more statist, protectionist, and populist Europeans will not pile on. Expect France and Italy to lead the charge for broad-scale European trade sanctions on China.
Today, Russia’s ambassador to Turkey, Andrei Karlov, was giving a speech at the opening ceremony of a photo exhibit when an assailant, who has since been identified as a standing police officer, opened fire, killing Karlov. Karlov had served in his ambassadorial role to Turkey since July 2013. He previously served as Russia’s ambassador to North Korea.
There are two relevant bits here. First, Russian politics.
I don’t mean to sound trite here, but politics in Russia are nothing like politics in the United States. In the United States there are dozens of routes to political power. The Clintons came out of local government. The Bushes out of business. Carter out of agriculture. Obama out of academia. Reagan out of Hollywood. An economically rich geography fosters a strong civil society which provides myriad paths to political power.
That’s not how things fly in Russia. The geography and political system are so hostile there is only one way to national leadership: first be a senior intelligence officer. These folks are the only ones who have a sufficiently accurate and complete view of the country that they can even attempt a national role. This makes Russia’s leadership much more intelligent and competent than the American leadership, but it also makes the Russian leadership thin and brittle. (Technically, Karlov was a career diplomat, but mere functionaries aren’t appointed ambassador to countries as politically prickly and strategically sensitive as North Korea.)
The American political class probably has around two million people. The Russian political class has but 200. With the death of Karlov they have one less. This would be bad enough under normal circumstances, but circumstances in Russia are far from normal.
Red Square in Moscow, Russia
Between the Soviet breakup and the subsequent collapse of the Russian healthcare system, the Russian population is one of the fastest aging and most diseased in the world. By 2050 the Russian population will have shrunk by one-quarter, with ethnic Russians no longer the majority. For a country where oppression of minorities is the cultural equivalent of baseball, this will prove a swampy problem.
Back to the issue of the moment, replacing skilled diplomats is hard enough. Skill sets like Karlov’s which include language competency in Russian, English, Korean and Turkish are hard to develop. Factor in Russia’s demographic hollowing out and Karlov is utterly irreplaceable.
The second issue regards Russia’s relationship with Turkey.
According to initial reports, Karlov’s assassin shouted condemnations of Russia’s policy in Syria in general and Aleppo in specific. It was just the sort of high-profile action that puts a spotlight on political policies and inspires militants of various stripes. (Imagine the fallout had a Mountie killed the American ambassador to Canada during the Iraq War.)
As regards the Turks, Turkey has been in a bit of a geopolitical deepfreeze since its catastrophic defeat in World War One. For most of the time since, the Turks farmed out control of their foreign policy to the United States in exchange for economic access and strategic cover. Of late the Turkish government has begun emerging from its self-imposed shell and started to form opinions as to what its independent strategic posture should be.
At first Ankara assumed that everyone in its neighborhood would do whatever it wanted because Turkey is so inherently awesome. This included expectations that the Israelis would pay for a fully independent Palestinian state, that revolutionary Egypt would model its government after Turkey’s ruling party, that Baghdad would subjugate its foreign and civil policy to Turkish norms, that the Syrian government would overthrow itself, and that U.S. troops would deploy to Syria to carry out Turkish desires. Needless to say, things didn’t exactly work out as the Turks predicted.
Istanbul, Turkey
Instead, Turkey found itself in a panicked argument with the Russians when a Turkish air defense battery shot down a Russian jet operating in Syria. After an initial bout of Turkish bombast, Ankara was faced with the harsh reality that they were diplomatically out of practice, utterly bereft of meaningful allies, and on the verge of a very real war with the Russians.
Enter Karlov, who has a record of successfully manipulating people as testy as North Korea’s Kim Il Sung. The result was Turkey’s ignoble Karlov-managed climbdown. Part of that climbdown was admitting (unofficially) that the Russians owned Syria and any meaningful Turkish policy there required Russian sign-off. After all, the Russians were willing to bomb anyone they thought needed bombing, and the Turks were not.
Karlov’s assassination drags Turkey’s capitulation, Turkey’s (non-)position in the Syrian war, and the broader Turkish-Russian relationship all back into the spotlight. All these things and more are now back at the top of the Turks’ internal to-debate list. It also creates a rare window. With Russia’s man in Turkey gone, the Turks have a moment to have these debates with less outside interference.
Which way will the Turks go? No idea. The Balkans hold more economic opportunity but expansion there would clash with Europe. The Caucasus hold more cultural opportunity but expansion there would clash with Russia. Syria holds more immediate military and political opportunity but expansion there means wading into a thankless civil war.
Turkey’s neighborhood is messy. For 70 years, Turkey’s quiescence has kept the region’s biggest and most capable power from participating. Don’t bet on that continuing.
This is the first in a short series that discusses recent events as they relate to the analysis developed in The Accidental Superpower. Each of these developments — and dozens more — are symptoms of an underlying change the global order.
Part 1: Shale and the Breakdowns to Come
The Russian economy is a mess. The ruble keeps plumbing new lows, lending across the country has all but stopped, sanctions (and counter-sanctions) are raising the specter of Soviet-style goods shortages, and even the Russian government now predicts 2016 will bring with it the worst recession since at least 1998.
Many — rightly — see the economic carnage being wrought in Russia as an outcome of the Putin government’s adventures in Ukraine and subsequent economic sanctions against Moscow. But that is only part of the story.
In Russia the core issue isn’t so much Ukraine as it is shale. U.S. energy output has skyrocketed and North America has already achieved functional energy independence. The consequent shockwaves through global energy markets are hiving what used to be the largest importing market — the United States — off of the global market. One consequence among many is collapse in oil prices. Russia has never — in any age — managed to maintain a strong economic structure without robust commodity export income. The ruble crash is still only in the very early stages. Cascading defaults are now inevitable.
Nor will the carnage be short lived. U.S. shale is – somewhat unbelievably – still in its infancy. The merging of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing technologies is really only a decade old and technological improvement is only now reaching critical mass. As of December 2015 full-cycle break-even costs in the three main U.S. shale oil basins — Bakken, Permian and Eagleford — are for the most part below $45 a barrel. Stunning new technologies are being developed, bundled into packages, and deployed as companies seek to find ways to produce more from fewer wells to save money.
And “full-cycle cost” is no longer a good measure of the total cost to drill a well as it includes everything from the drilling rights to the cleanup. As lower energy prices force consolidation, the remaining U.S. shale operators will acquire the single most expensive aspect of their operations — those drilling rights — at steep discounts. The dizzy year-on-year expansion in U.S. oil output is slowing, but it shows few signs of reversing.
Base Week: September 30, 2005
More broadly, there is not a single oil producer anywhere in the world that has budgeted for an oil price below $50, with most — and most notably, Russia, Iran and Venezuela — requiring prices to be roughly double their current level. Many of these countries’ spending is so high because they have come to rely on petrodollars to fund social programs or military funding that stabilizes their political systems. While it may take some time, civil breakdowns and economic meltdowns are the new normal for a vast raft of commodity-based countries
Financial sanctions; diplomatic isolation; peer pressure – these are the tools the West is using to convince the Putin government that it should abandon its “Ukraine adventure.”
They are the wrong tools for the wrong job. The Russians are not in the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine to boost Putin’s popularity at home or out of a fit of pique that Ukraine had a revolution. Russian power is in motion as part of the first stage of an extended effort to secure the Russian homeland. Moscow will continue until the European Union and NATO either form an unbreakable wall of opposition or crumble.
Russian territory is part of an endless flatland unparalleled in the world. The open portions of the Eurasian steppe are nearly as large as the entirety of the US Lower-48. Web-working infrastructure across its arid plains proved so expensive that even the strategic-minded, price-insensitive Soviets sharply circumscribed their efforts. Even today, only one road and two rail corridors venture east of the Urals to lay claim to Siberia. Russia is a place where only a manpower-heavy military capable of swarming over vast tracks of land can rule effectively. Let’s call it the Hordelands.
Key to ruling the Hordelands is the ability to limit outsiders from entering them; once they do, any defender becomes locked in a war of mobility and attrition. The trick is to reinforce all nine of the lands’ access points: the Tien-Altay Gap, the Central Asian Corridor, the two Caucasus coastal approaches, the Crimea, the Bessarabian Gap, the Polish Gap, the Baltic coast and the White Sea coast. Failure transforms the Hordelands into a bloody buffet. The Soviet Union once controlled all nine. The day the Soviet Empire fell in 1992, those holdings were reduced to two. With Russia’s reacquiring of the Crimea in February, Moscow now is up to three.
That explains why, but not why now? The Russian resurgence began almost fifteen years ago, shortly after which Russia rationalized its finances and debt. As early as 2006, high energy prices granted the Kremlin more cash than it could spend. Russia proved it could implement complex and sustained intelligence and military operations as early as 2008. Why now, in 2014, is Moscow finally moving?
Simply put, it is running out of people.
Immediately after the Cold War’s end, the bottom fell out of the Russian birth rate, gutting the lower ranks of the Russian population structure. A quarter of a century later, there are more 50-somethings than teenagers. In five short years, those teenagers will prove inadequate to fill the Red Army’s ranks. If Russia is to use that army to re-anchor the Hordelands’ access points, it needs to do so while it has enough soldiers.
Instead, a would-be engineer must first apprentice with an established engineer for several years. Technical training in Russia collapsed before the Soviet fall, and now the youngest cadre of engineers who have the full suite of technical skills has entered their 50s. In chauvinist Russia, nearly all are men, and according to the last non-politicized data that escaped the Federal State Statistics Service, male mortality is only 59. Maintaining the Russian system — which includes everything from the national rail network to the natural gas fields to Moscow’s steam tunnels to the Red Army to the nuclear missile forces — for a territory as expansive as the Hordelands requires a huge skilled labor pool that Russia simply no longer has. In a few short years, Russia will degrade from having a very small and expensive skilled labor pool to not having one at all, forcing the Russians to choose which bits of their system to not maintain.
If the re-anchoring is not achieved soon, Russia will lose the ability to even try, which would condemn it to wither from within. While the overall Russian demography is failing, the damage is almost wholly concentrated among ethnic Russians. There are many minorities — largely Muslim minorities such as the Tatars and the Chechens — whose demographics are as young, healthy and growing as the Russians are aging, sick and shrinking. Adding Ukrainians and more to the mix will certainly make managing Russia’s “internal” issues more complicated, but intimidating minorities into compliance is a bit of a national pastime. Russia has been doing it — and doing it with frightening effectiveness — so long as there has been a Russia. Maintaining control over such diverse groups in a country with secure external borders is feasible. Doing it with exposed borders is not.
And so the Russians are coming. Coming for Crimea, and Donetsk and Torez and Luhansk and Slovyansk and Odessa. And not just for Ukraine, but for Georgia and Armenia and Azerbaijan and Moldova and Belarus. And when that is done Romania and Estonia and Lithuania and Latvia and Poland. In an era when there enough Russians to man Russia, Moscow thinks of the independence of all of these places as a disturbing academic exercise. In an era where Russia is running out of Russians, the independence of all of these places is a mortal threat. The Russians will not stop until either they re-anchor or are made to stop, and there currently simply isn’t a recognition in Europe that this has already gotten very real.
Which brings us to two outcomes: one financial, one strategic.
Financially, the Russians have far more room to maneuver than most think. They have $1 trillion saved in various funds — one of the upsides of a demography that is dying young is that retirement funds can be used for other things — and can survive any sanctions the West can throw at them. The Russians also are making a gambit for survival, and if pushed willing to walk away from everything – partnerships with ExxonMobil, debt payments, shipments of nickel, even long-term natural gas sales. Russia is happy to continue to sell the world its wares — and certainly prefers to — but if a choice is forced between Russia’s expansion to defensible borders and a few hundred billion in annual economic gains, bet on gritty austerity rather than capitulation to sanctions.
Strategically, three of the Hordelands’ access points — Bessarabia, Poland and the Baltic — will require the Russians challenging EU and NATO members. Aside from a few hundred troops rotating through NATO’s border states, there currently is no indication that any EU or NATO country is taking the Russian advance seriously. Moreover, the European countries — and this includes the five NATO/EU members that face the direct threat — have had 25 years to wean themselves off of Russian energy, but have instead moved in the opposite direction. Their strategic policy is to rely on Russia to keep the lights on, and to rely on America to protect them from Russia. The result of those (in)actions is a painfully uncomfortable question: will the Americans bleed for those who have proven unwilling to raise anything but the pitch of their voices in their own defense?
Those curious can find the answer to that question and the world that unfolds in its aftermath in The Accidental Superpower, available November 4, 2014.
