As I have written several times, twice here on the blog (Cogitation #21 and Cogitation #24) but I think that I have been sharing the same ideas on Facebook and/or Twitter, I've been thinking since the early stages that the final outcome of Putin's Invasion of Ukraine would be very positive in the medium-to-long term (i.e. it won't be in the first months after the conflict ends) with overall future improvements for all parties involved, including Russia.
But every now and then, and in particular as a result of certain developments that occur, I'm worry that my positive prediction wont happen and that the World will step back a few decades to a new cold war, or even worse. Although when I think about the worst, I go back to a comment my brother made a few weeks ago, who told me that he thought the omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 was kind of a natural protection that was given to us to gain more immunity to a new super-pandemic that will appear in a few years: him thinking of a new epidemic like the COVID-19 means that most of us will still be here and didn't go to hell in a nuclear holocaust...
But let's go ahead and further develop the positive outcome that I believe will happen all over the world. The biggest focus is given to the European Union, the place where I live but also because it's where I see the biggest impact of all, since of course the war to be happening here and it involves most European countries, directly and indirectly.
So starting with the case of the European Union, we're going to witness the acceleration of the conversion to renewable energies and why? Because this conflict forced the bloc (both the institutions and the different members) to quickly come to the realisation that it has to be self-sufficient, autonomous, in terms of energy resources. The EU cannot continue to depend on external countries/blocs, not even those that are theoretically allies. I'm sure that many people think that the most likely scenario is to simple replace Russia as the main supplier of gas and oil, and although I'm convinced that to some extent this will happen (more details on that below) it is actually not that simple, especially because of the distribution infrastructure. In order to start receiving the bulk of the gas from the West, form the Americas (by sea) or from Africa (Nigeria also by sea or Algeria by pipeline) huge investments in port capacity and new pipelines coming from Portugal and Spain to France and then to the rest of Europe is required. All of this will take a long time and will cost a lot of money and so it is simply faster and cheaper to increase renewable capacity with more wind farms, more solar farms and other clean solutions that have already been adopted or are being tested. Because the process of converting to renewables was already underway, now it will only gain a lot more momentum.
Renewables and other clean energy are mostly used for electricity production and fossil fuels serve more purposes these days, right? Not a problem: For the transportation sector, electric engined vehicles are already replacing internal combustion engined ones and we have a renewed focus from car manufacturers on hydrogen fuel, even if not used as a direct fuel for propulsion (ICE, Internal Combustion Engine, running on hydrogen), it will certainly be a solution for a fuel cell vehicle (generally speaking, an EV with an electric generator running on hydrogen rather than using a large capacity battery pack).
There are already viable projects for electric planes and boats, but obviously it will take much longer for these to become alternatives for the current usages, so these means of transportation sector will continue to use fossil fuels, but with the lower consumption on transportation over land, fossil fuel dependency will be less problematic.
For house heating, probably the most palpable use of natural gas (for the people), heat pumps replace the boilers, as it's already the case in many countries for the new house projects (for instance here in NL, since 2018 new residential buildings shouldn't have a connection for natural gas). And in case of houses one can even add solar water heating to save on electricity for heating. In some cities and municipalities there's also the district heating that in some cases just use the excess heating from plants to keep the warm water (I didn't used directly natural gas when leaving in Amsterdam as the building was connected to district heating, meaning you eliminate links on the chain).
But in reality electricity can be used for all purposes, with the advantage that its equipment and engines are usually much more efficient in the now (there is less waste like when comparing to a ICE where most of the energy produced by the fuel burn is non-usable heat) and I'm sure we'll be able to improve on that efficiency (in the case of electric vehicles for instance). One of these improvements, not directly in the equipment but in this case it's one in the network, it's since the production of energya via renewable sources can be done, and it's done already in many cases, much closer to the end user, that will cause the end of big power plants in centralised locations, of the transformation stations and high voltage substations, as well as the big power lines, where currently there is already a huge loss of energy (here's a link with some values for losses in the US in 2015, just for reference).
An example of this improvement is the case of people generating electricity directly at their homes via solar panels, and for those who have enough terrain can even add additional sources like a (smaller) wind turbine or geothermal energy. And with the cities and municipalities having their own energy production facilities, even small hydro where geography permits it, feeding directly their local energy networks allows for a better autonomy and flexibility in case of major regional or national power losses (there have been cases of millions of people having no electrical power for hours or days when there's a failure at a single point, sometimes even caused by birds!).
And all of this without even considering other solutions, such as nuclear energy (I know there are those who have many doubts about it, and it might be the case that we should completely abandon it, but I haven't reach my own conclusion on this as I've seen very valid arguments on the 2 scenarios so I need to spend some long hours researching and studying the issue in more detail) but also the future of energy production, such as the ITER reactor and its successor project. This future can now be also accelerated, by having the current long term deadlines of the several projects reduced with new interest and additional funding, in a way similar to how the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated a lot the vaccines research projects that were already in progress (such as those based on mRNA).
From the geopolitical point of view, we will see a strengthening of the EU, especially in terms of its cohesion, causing the EU to gain a more important role with greater influence in foreign policy. It's true that there are still divisions currently, both within countries and also between different countries, one example of this being the opposing views of the 2 candidates in the French presidential elections, but since I think Le Pen's chances of being elected are very unlikely, I can only foreseen this particular improvement under Macron's new term. The EU will gain from energy autonomy, as mentioned in the previous paragraphs, but also more autonomy and projection from a diplomatic and even military point of view.
It seems strange to write this, when Putin's Invasion served to strengthen NATO (notice that even Macron himself had said some time ago that the Alliance looked to be in a vegetative state) and this leading to closer ties, and in theory more dependency and reliance, with the US, but I honestly think that the EU becoming stronger and more autonomous is what will really happen, in spite of the relationship with its north-american partners form the other side of the Atlantic also becoming stronger. It is one of the cases of the principle "stronger together" or the view that all those involved in any relationship (whether economic, personal, professional, sports, whatever) only really benefit with the benefit of everyone, as opposed to the idea that one side only gets stronger by making the other weaker.
The EU gaining more influence on the geopolitical level and a greater military power (this is linked to the increase in Germany's defense budget, which will be reflected in other countries, starting with France, which for sure wants to maintain its position as the largest military power in the EU) is a positive thing even for the rest of the world because it will be another global (near) superpower (at all levels) that will serve as a balance between the USA and China, the 2 real opposing superpowers of the near future (1 which is already super, and the another that is almost there, already being super from the economical point of view).
For Ukraine there's initially a mixed outcome but slowly and steadily it will also be a very positive one. First it needs to rebuild a lot and overcome the humanitarian drama, that although being more personal (each one suffers their own tragedies in their own way) will lead to a national effort and rehabilitation. But Ukraine has already gained a few things: it has gained a unity and a newfound identity that was still somewhat unclear; despite the fact that the culture and history of Ukraine and its people is very old, and we only think they are practically Russian due to Soviet and then Russian propaganda, it wasn't easy to overcome the stigma of the USSR times (also because the country was repopulated by ethnic russians and subject to Soviet/Russian re-education). Now it seems clear that the union of the people has been strengthened. And Ukraine has also won the respect of the whole world. It is the country that resisted (and defeated, but we still have to assess how big the defeat will be at the end) the second largest military power in the world (or at least we thought it was). Ukraine will come out of this conflict with the strongest, most experienced and better prepared army (land forces) in the EU, as membership is a done deal for me. It won't have the most powerful Armed Forces due to limitations on Air and Sea, but on Land there won't be any doubts. And in this way the contribution they'll make to the strengthening of the EU's military projection will be a substantial one.
On the social-economic aspect, the country will go through a big reconstruction phase and the life standards will improve in a fairly shortly time, once that phase is completed. I don't like the simplistic comparisons with World War Two but using it as an analogy, what will happen now is similar to what happened in many Western European countries that were in ruins (infrastructure, buildings, industry) but rapidly recovered and went to the top of the quality of life, with their economies recovering and gaining a lot with the rebuild effort and also utilizing the technological advancements that always appear with wars. In this particular case, the Ukrainian defense industry that already produced several interesting equipment will become more appealing for military operators, since their products, even though still in a limited number, were pretty effective against the military equipment from what used to be considered the second best defense/arms industry (Russia).
And then I'm certain that what I introduced in the previous section will occur: Ukraine will (partially) replace Russia in the supply of fossil fuels (gas and oil). Because Ukraine has good natural reserves that are yet to be explored. When the country becomes a EU member, these reserves will become EU's reserves as well and then there won't be a shortage of interest and investment to finally tap into this potential, some of these coming for sure from energy companies that were investing in Russia's energy and have since abandoned the country and their projects over there. So even though there is a big chance for a replacement of fossil fuel provider, I am still convinced that this will not delay the overall conversion to clean energy, but it will allow the EU to also become (more) autonomous for this type of energy source that will still be used for quite some time by the aviation and maritime sectors, as I mentioned above (and it will also be of extreme importance for Defense, since most vehicles and equipment there will continue to use fossil fuels for a longer period). For this scenario, it is mostly required to only invest in the exploration since the distribution infrastructure already exists: most gas and oil pipelines that come from Russia pass through Ukraine, so the only change needed is to create new entry points!
And considering that some nearby countries are much more dependent on Russian gas and that they'll take longer to convert to clean energy when compared to the richer western countries, Ukraine will play a key role in this stopgap solution.
Regarding Russia, Putin wanted to leave as his lasting legacy the creation of a Great Russia, a kind of new version of the Russian Empire or a new version of the USSR, a real global giant and a real superpower that would truly compete head-to-head with the USA. But in reality he will leave the country, which until now was comparable to China, as a simple regional power and with a seriously compromised reputation. And (a large) part of its projected power will only come from their nuclear arsenal!
But for the Russians there are also positive points and good chances of gaining from this whole "mess", namely the end of the current regime and a transition, which will be long and tortuous, to a more standard and representative democracy. Because whatever people say, Putin being in power for more than 22 years is not really normal in a true democratic state. I understand that from multiple examples, in particular in other states of the former USSR, a guy staying in power forever is a normalised situation, but these cases only exist in authoritarian states, in reality dictatorships (when they are not de jure, they are de facto), and we don't see this being the norm in the countries that transitioned from the Warsaw Pact to the EU (although Hungary with Viktor Orbán seems to be taking that same authoritarian path but there are still some noticeable distinctions) and even other former USSR countries that are, some very slowly because the process is complicated, improving their socio-economic conditions (please check out the report Nations in Transit 2021 from Freedom House for a more detailed look at the problems facing the democracies in Europe and Eurasia).
In this same situation, we have the example of Ukraine itself, where we can notice improvements in the socio-economic aspect that have not yet reached a large part of the Russian people; despite the GDP per capita being lower than that of Russia (pre-invasion and pre-sanctions, that will greatly affect the Russian economy), Ukrainians seem to live in better conditions outside the big cities, which is proven by the behaviour of the Russian soldiers, who mainly come from the poorest regions of Russia, and are seen stealing almost everything they find to send to their families, and this is because they have very little themselves (and their families) and they find in the Ukrainian towns and small villages what they cannot acquire back home (recent mobile phones, computers, designer clothes and even electric scooters!). Ukraine has also gone through decades of transition, still searching for its own democratic identity and achieving greater maturity of political institutions. Many of its presidents, including Zelenskyy up until the invasion, were quite contested due to their controversial measures and positions, but we have to recognise that at least, Ukraine has had several elections with different results in the last 3 decades. In Russia the outcome of the elections has been the same since 2000, with Putin having only alternated one term with his bestie Medvedev because it was a legal requirement regarding consecutive terms (and this has since been "corrected").
But going back to the positive outcome, if Russia decides to break away from the Soviet heritage (as well as their past Imperial Russia incarnation) and give up on the illusion of becoming again the world's second real superpower that rivals the USA, this will allow the country and its people to care and focus on what is really important: improving the economy, improving the way of life, achieve real progress like so many others did.
The biggest obstacle to this outcome is that I previously thought this nostalgic mentality affected mainly the current ruling class, a class filled with people who grew up in, and still remember, the old glory days and aspire the return of that status quo. But out of ignorance, I did not take into account the ideology and beliefs of the Russian people itself who, after so many decades, even centuries, may genuinely think that they have to dominate and control the "little russians" and the other neighboring "lesser" people. The idea that Ukraine is not a real nation and that Ukrainians are nothing more than less noble russians does not seem to be exclusive to the Russian elite but actually seems to be more deeply embedded in the Russian population. However this does not only affect the neighbouring countries, but parts of the Russian territory, which is a multi-ethnic nation but with big divisions between different peoples/ethnicities (regions). For this reason, there are those who think that the final outcome will be the division of Russia into several states (a bit like Yugoslavia) although I think this is less likely (but I won't say impossible because to me there are no certainties (note: this linked dissertation is in Portuguese))
If a proper ideological change does not happen in Moscow, with strong popular support, my positive prognosis will fall apart, and then the most certain outcome for Russia is to become like the new Iran, or perhaps even the new North Korea; isolated and disconnected from the international community, regressing more and more in this world that will continue to move forward.
I haven't written much about the other regions of the globe but I also see indirect gains for almost everyone else, and I highlight the following: the improvements I foreseen for Europe will also benefit the rest of the world in particular in the energy sector where the faster transition to renewable sources and new technologies will be a great contribute in our fight against the climate changes.
The world can also benefit from having an Europe that acts as a mediator between the 2 great rivals at the world stage (USA and China) and not because Europe is better than them (to be honest, I believe it is but that is my biased and subjective opinion) nor because it will consider and protect everyone's global interests, but simply because having a third party acting as a referee is better than letting the 2 opposing players using all the tricks up their sleeves to get upper hand in the game.
In Asia, Taiwan should benefit a lot since China already knows right now that attempting a similar "adventure" will be very costly. It is important to know that China still relies a lot on Russian technology and doctrine for their military and so attempting an even greater challenge (Taiwan is an island and is not behind China in terms of military technology, just like Ukraine was in theory behind comparing to Russian) is extremely risky.
And the US will also gain from this, with a stronger NATO being clearly unchallenged and unrivalled in its region of influence, meaning the US can focus (almost) 100% on just one true global adversary: China.
I end with a remark, because I'm usually a very positive person in regards to many delicate issues but I believe I'm also realist at the same time. Yes, I do think that in the end everything will be alright but I recently just received the potassium iodide pills and I have also ran some scenarios of what might happen (350-kt is the most probable and cities are the historical targets, but if they decide to strike the airport and/or the wind is blowing from the East or Northeast, than we're doomed) if it gets as bad as it can get. You can see that from the corner images on the top image collage.
One should be prepared and not be caught by surprise with one's pants down...
No comments:
Post a Comment