I suspect that part of the problem of who "controls" what territory is being played out before our eyes. Putin and his siloviki are wealth extractors. His Russia is less efficient at developing wealth in the regions under it's control than many other countries, not because it lacks resources, but because it's a capitalist system without private companies.
While globalism certainly has the potential to spread wealth around, it does matter who holds a particular territory. Ukraine as the breadbasket of Europe was starved by Stalin, no matter its fertile soil and competent farmers. Natural wealth didn't help it avoid the effects of a dictatorial government. Ukraine today - well, 3 months ago - had come out from years of cronyism and corruption into a decent government with Zelensky. If Putin manages to win and hold any territory, that space will again be under a kleptocracy, to no benefit for the inhabitants.
I agree the danger of a return to the corruption of the past is real. Even though I've talked with some experts who tell me that while Ukraine was improving in its attempts to be transparent and less corrupt, the path had many ups and downs. I think the Stalin reference is a bit dated, though. Russian agriculture is healthy and its export potential valued in Russia. The oligarchs are powerful under Putin, but that is not the whole story of Russia today. Are efforts to marginalize Russia, however, may drive things in the wrong direction. It's complicated, as they say. I think we have to understand the world less in terms of nation states competing against each other and more as regions, areas and neighborhoods seeking mutual interests in a world bound together by far more than separated. This is a world that is hard to get one's mind around. When in Malta I could see myself within a Sovreign State and then with a shake of the head as part of many different patterns and structures of political, economic and social realities.,
I suspect that part of the problem of who "controls" what territory is being played out before our eyes. Putin and his siloviki are wealth extractors. His Russia is less efficient at developing wealth in the regions under it's control than many other countries, not because it lacks resources, but because it's a capitalist system without private companies.
While globalism certainly has the potential to spread wealth around, it does matter who holds a particular territory. Ukraine as the breadbasket of Europe was starved by Stalin, no matter its fertile soil and competent farmers. Natural wealth didn't help it avoid the effects of a dictatorial government. Ukraine today - well, 3 months ago - had come out from years of cronyism and corruption into a decent government with Zelensky. If Putin manages to win and hold any territory, that space will again be under a kleptocracy, to no benefit for the inhabitants.
I agree the danger of a return to the corruption of the past is real. Even though I've talked with some experts who tell me that while Ukraine was improving in its attempts to be transparent and less corrupt, the path had many ups and downs. I think the Stalin reference is a bit dated, though. Russian agriculture is healthy and its export potential valued in Russia. The oligarchs are powerful under Putin, but that is not the whole story of Russia today. Are efforts to marginalize Russia, however, may drive things in the wrong direction. It's complicated, as they say. I think we have to understand the world less in terms of nation states competing against each other and more as regions, areas and neighborhoods seeking mutual interests in a world bound together by far more than separated. This is a world that is hard to get one's mind around. When in Malta I could see myself within a Sovreign State and then with a shake of the head as part of many different patterns and structures of political, economic and social realities.,