The catastrophic economic consequences of the 'western' proxy war with Russia are setting in. As a result the high inflation, caused by supply side constrains due to sanctions and a far too much spending, will ruin the middle classes of many countries.

To those who did not wear blinders and who knew of the real economies of the 'west' and Russia this was very predictable and predicted:

"The U.S. is pushing its European 'allies' to commit economic suicide by sanctioning everything Russia. The U.S. should be more careful. It is one of the biggest buyers of Russian oil and its aircraft industry depends on titanium from Russia. Russia surely knows who is trying to hurt it the most and it surely knows how, and has the means to, hurt back."

The hurt has not at all reached its peak. This winter will be very difficult for Europe. Poor countries are even worse off. Many will experience hunger crises and riots.

Today the Russian president Vladimir Putin held a speech at the Petersburg economic forum. The transcript isn't out yet but here are excerpts from a Twitter thread: [...]

Every word of that is true. Maybe Putin reads Moon of Alabama as I have made many of those points again and again.

It will not only be the current elite of Europe that will be replaced. The U.S. will see similar changes. Biden and the Democrats are toast:

"The survey of 1,541 U.S. adults, which was conducted from June 10-13, found that if another presidential election were held today, more registered voters say they would cast ballots for Donald Trump (44%) than for Biden (42%) "

"Since Biden took office, no previous Yahoo News/YouGov poll has shown him trailing Trump (though Biden’s most recent leads have been within the margin of error, like this one is for Trump). One year ago, Biden led Trump by 9 percentage points. In 2020, Biden won the White House by more than 7 million votes."

"Yet Biden’s job approval rating has been atrophying for much of the last year, and the new survey shows that it has never been weaker. A full 56% of Americans now disapprove of the president’s performance — the highest share to date — while just 39% approve. Three weeks ago, those numbers were 53% and 42%, respectively."

At Asia Times David Goldman sees signs of Biden changing course on Ukraine:

"A compromise in Ukraine with significant territorial concessions to Russia – the only conceivable way to end the war – would humiliate Washington.

A negotiated solution to the Ukraine war, though, is not impossible. Washington could continue to portray itself as the defender of Ukraine’s sovereignty while encouraging European leaders to do the dirty work and force Ukraine into negotiations with Moscow.

A possible hint in this direction came on June 14 from the US Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Colin H. Kahl, who declared: “We’re not going to tell the Ukrainians how to negotiate, what to negotiate and when to negotiate. They’re going to set those terms for themselves.” "

...

But today, without any announcement, the British prime minister Boris Johnson, undoubtedly on order of Biden, appeared in Kiev to lobby for more war just like he did at the end of March when he told Ukraine's president Zelensky to ditch the negotiations with Russia.

That is why I fear that Michael Brenner is right and that Biden will escalate the war by attacking somewhere else:

"Necessity is the mother of invention — or so it is said. However, grasping what is “necessary” can be a very slippery business. An actual recasting of how one views a problematic situation normally is a last resort. Experience and history tell us that, as do behavioral experiments.

So, you are stuck with the albatross of a truncated, bankrupt Ukraine hung around your neck. There is nothing that you can do to cancel these givens — except a direct, perhaps suicidal test of force with Russia. Or, perhaps, a retaliatory challenge elsewhere. The latter is not readily available — for geographic reasons and because the West already has expended its arsenal of economic and political weaponry.

Over the past year, the U.S. attempted to foment Maiden style regime changes in Belarus and Kazakhstan. Both were foiled. The latter was with the connivance of Turkey, which deployed a contingent of bashi bazouks from the stock of Syrian jihadis it keeps on call in Idlib (to be deployed as President Recep Erdogan did more successfully in Libya and Azerbaijan).

There remains one conceivable sensitive target: Syria. There, the Israelis have become increasingly audacious in goading the Russians by airstrikes against Syrian infrastructure as well as military facilities.

Now, we see signs that Moscow’s tolerance is wearing thin, suggesting that further provocations could spark retaliation which Washington then could exploit to ratchet up tensions. To what avail? Not obvious — unless the ultras in the Biden administration are looking for the kind of direct confrontation that they’ve avoided in Ukraine, until now.

The implication is that the denial option and the incremental adjustment option are foreclosed. Serious rethinking is in order — logically speaking.

The most worrisome scenario sees the frustration and anger and anxiety building in Washington to the point where it encourages a reckless impulse to demonstrate American prowess. That could take the form of an attack on Iran in the company of Israel and Saudi Arabia — the region’s new odd couple.

Another, even grimmer prospect would be a contrived test of wills with China. Already we see growing evidence of that in the bellicose rhetoric of American leaders from U.S. President Joe Biden on down."

The Pentagon is not ready for a war on China. Iran is too strong and would respond to an attack by launching its huge missile arsenal on Israel and U.S. allies in the Gulf. This leaves Syria. It is unlikely by chance that the Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that the U.S. is coordinating Israeli airstrikes in that country:

"WASHINGTON—Israel secretly coordinates with the U.S. on many of the airstrikes it carries out in Syria as the allies face a battlefield crowded with militant groups, Iranian-backed militias and foreign militaries, according to current and former U.S. officials."

I expect those airstrikes, like last week's attack on the airport of Damascus, to intensify with the hope to divert Russian attention from Ukraine.

In 1942, Winston Churchill tried to ready the British people for a long conflict. “This is not the end,” he said, referring to the Allied victory in Egypt. “It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.” When we think in those terms, what phase are we witnessing in the war in Ukraine?

We are likely in the middle, explains Gideon Rose, a scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of an excellent book, “How Wars End.” He points out that every war begins similar to a chess game, with a dramatic attack and a defense. If those opening salvos do not produce a decisive victory, the war enters a middle phase, in which both sides try to slog it out to gain advantage on the battlefield. “During the middle phase,” he told me, “neither side is interested in negotiating because each side is trying to win outright, enhance their position on the battlefield, and thus have a stronger position from which to negotiate.” This is the period when emotions run high, making it hard to compromise.

Finally, at some point, the combatants enter the final phase through one of two paths: Either the tide of war turns irreversibly in one side’s favor (as happened in 1918 and 1944), or an exhausted stalemate emerges (as in Korea in mid-1951). “At that point, the parties enter the endgame, and they start jockeying over the final settlement,” Rose noted.

In this middle phase that we’re in, the West must help Ukraine strengthen its position. Kyiv needs more weapons and training. While there are real limits to how much the Ukrainians can absorb, Washington (and its allies in Europe and elsewhere) must redouble their efforts. They also need to help Ukraine break the Russian blockade around Odessa. People have focused on the collapse of the Russian economy, which will probably shrink by about 11 percent this year. But Ukraine’s economy is likely to contract by a staggering 45 percent in 2022. Unless the country can export its grain out of its Black Sea ports, it could face economic calamity for years to come.

Most likely, this middle phase of the war will last for a while. Neither Russia nor Ukraine has the capacity to win decisively, and neither is likely to surrender easily. In the short term, this favors Russia. It has taken control of much of Donbas. And because the West hasn’t completely banned Russia’s energy exports, the Russian government has actually profited during this war. Bloomberg projects Russia’s oil and gas revenue for this year will be about $285 billion, compared with $236 billion last year. Meanwhile, it can now thwart Ukraine’s ability to export. In the longer term, one has to hope that the sanctions will hit Russia harder as the war goes on. At the same time, Ukraine has massive Western assistance, high morale and a willingness to fight to the end.

Even though we’re not in the final stages yet, it would be smart for Ukraine to start thinking about the endgame. That way, it can develop a coherent position, align its strategy around it and gain international support. Former secretary of state Henry A. Kissinger was criticized for suggesting that Kyiv should not seek to go beyond the pre-Feb. 24 lines on the battlefield. In fact, at this point it appears highly unlikely that Ukraine would even be able to regain all that territory by force, though it should keep trying. But it does seem wise to make that its goal — to reverse Russia’s territorial gains from this year. Then Kyiv can try to get back territories lost before that in 2014 through negotiations. President Volodymyr Zelensky has several times suggested something similar. And that goal — a return to the pre-Feb. 24 lines — would also be one that would garner the most international support.

In the final phase of the war, the West — and the United States in particular — become the pivotal players. Right now Russia is battling Ukraine directly. But if and when the conflict becomes something of a stalemate, the real struggle will be between Russia and the West. What will Russia give to get a relaxation of sanctions? What will the West demand to end Russia’s isolation?

So far, Washington has punted on this, explaining that it is up to the Ukrainians to decide what they want and that Washington will not negotiate over their heads. That’s the right message of public support, but Ukraine and its Western partners need to formulate a set of common war aims, coordinating strategy around them, gaining international support and using all the leverage they have to succeed. The goal must be an independent Ukraine, in full control of at least as much territory as it had before Feb. 24, and with some security commitments from the West.

The alternative to some kind of negotiated settlement would be an unending war in Ukraine, which would further devastate that country and its people, more than 5 million of whom have already fled. And the resulting disruptions to energy supplies, food and the economy would spiral everywhere, with political turmoil intensifying across the globe. Surely it is worth searching for an endgame that avoids this bleak future.

Top military leaders from the United States and China met last weekend at a forum in Singapore, where they attempted to manage mounting tensions between the superpowers. But throughout Asia, there’s growing fear that China’s drastic military expansion will soon result in Chinese regional military superiority, which could embolden Beijing to start a war over Taiwan.

That sense of urgency was palpable at last week’s Shangri-La Dialogue, an annual conference of diplomats, officials and experts from across Asia, organized by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies. Over three days of discussions, a common sentiment emerged: China is racing to become the dominant military power in Asia in the next few years — and if it succeeds, Beijing is likely to use force to attempt to subdue Taiwan’s democracy. Russia’s attack on Ukraine has dispelled any notion that revisionist dictatorships can be deterred by anything short of a superior opposing military force.

In recent years, Chinese President Xi Jinping has said that China plans to achieve military parity with the United States in Asia by 2027. As the Chinese military advances in both technology and territorial presence, leaders in the People’s Liberation Army are now openly threatening to attack Taiwan and promising to fight anyone who attempts to intervene. Beijing is speeding up its plans, and the United States risks falling behind.

In Singapore, I interviewed Adm. John C. Aquilino, the head of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, who described what he’s seeing as “the largest military buildup in history” — with growing Chinese arsenals of both conventional and nuclear weapons. Aquilino said Beijing is attempting to establish regional hegemony and change the international order in Asia. China wants to be in a position to dictate the rules and use its military without fearing any constraints.

“I only see their efforts accelerating,” he said. “I see advanced capabilities that are being delivered more quickly than we would have expected. … Their goal is to have parity with the United States to ensure that they can’t be deterred.”

China is building the capability to use nuclear blackmail to deter a U.S. intervention if it invades Taiwan, following Russia’s model. China’s regional military presence is expanding, including a secret naval base in Cambodia and a secret military cooperation agreement with the Solomon Islands. China has developed new technologies, including hypersonic missiles and antisatellite lasers, to keep the U.S. military at bay in a Taiwan scenario. And now, China no longer recognizes the Taiwan Strait as international waters.

China’s increased military confidence is reflected in its ever-more-belligerent rhetoric. After meeting with Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin in Singapore, Chinese Minister of Defense Wei Fenghe gave a speech in which he promised, “China will definitely realize its reunification” with Taiwan. If anyone tries to stand in the way, he went on, “we will not hesitate to fight. We will fight at all costs.”

In his speech, Austin attempted to reassure the region that the United States was committed to maintaining its leadership in Asia. But diplomats and experts in Singapore could not help noticing a gap between what the United States is saying and the resources Washington is committing to the effort.

New research investments the Pentagon is making today won’t bear fruit for several years. U.S. shipbuilding plans are woefully underfunded. The United States’ new trilateral alliance with Australia and the United Kingdom (known as AUKUS) won’t result in providing Australia with nuclear submarines until the late 2030s.

...

Maintaining the U.S. military advantage in the Indo-Pacific region will be neither easy nor cheap. Urgent tasks include dispersing more equipment and personnel to more places, hardening existing outposts such as Guam, increasing training and equipping of allies, and drastically increasing military support to Taiwan for its self-defense.

Meeting military escalation with escalation brings real risks that must be managed, not ignored. But the costs of war if China concludes it can take Taiwan easily would be exponentially higher. The United States doesn’t have the luxury of waiting until the next decade to counter China’s military expansion in Asia. As George Washington said in his first speech to Congress in 1790, “To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.”