About Swift -

20220224 Boris Johnson announces ‘largest ever’ set of sanctions against Russia, The Guardian by Jessica Elgot, Heather Stewart & Aubrey Allegretti.

Why is the US reluctant to impose a ban?
One reason is that the impact on Russian businesses might not be so serious.

The head of a large Russian bank, VTB, said recently he could use other channels for payments, such as phones, messaging apps or email.

Russian banks could also route payments via countries which have not imposed sanctions, such as China, which has set up its own payments system to rival Swift.

A ban on Russia using Swift could accelerate a the use of China’s rival Cips system. There is also a fear that it could damage to the US dollar’s status as the global reserve currency, and accelerate the use of alternatives such as cryptocurrencies.
________

Amongst many other sanctions, and after a bit of resistance from Germany and Italy, the European Union, US and UK agreed on Saturday block Russian access to Swift in retaliation for its invasion of Ukraine - KJ

The following link provides access to an interesting analysis from John Pilger, 'War in Europe and the rise of raw propaganda':

http://johnpilger.com/articles/war-in-europe-and-the-rise-of-raw-propaganda

"The first casualty when war comes is truth" - Senator Hiram Johnson (1917)

I am pleased to say that since I wrote this piece the ground has shifted under both Vladimir Putin and me.

First, the Europeans have now sanctioned the exclusion of Russia from the SWIFT system, which will inflict serious pain upon Russia's already beleaguered banking and finance systems.

Second, both the Europeans and the USA are now sending the Ukrainians modern anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons, together with large amounts of ammunition and other supplies. Notably, the hitherto weak kneed German government has decided to send weapons as well.

This outbreak of intestinal fortitude in Europe is to be welcomed.

Third, on the ground in the Ukraine, it is rapidly becoming apparent that the Ukrainian resistance has been unexpectedly severe and effective. It is notable that the Ukrainian President, former comedian Volodymyr Zelenskyy, is turning out to be a courageous and determined leader, actively fighting with his troops. The former President who was thought to be pro-Russian has now joined him in taking up arms.

Fourth, within Russia, it is increasingly apparent that this war does not enjoy wide public support and Putin and his cronies find themselves in an increasingly uncomfortable position.

It seems that Putin at least has gravely misread several things including the will and fighting capacity of the Ukrainians, public sentiment within Russia and, possibly at least, the fighting capacity of his military. Also, it seems that he (as did I) has misread the willingness of Europe and the USA to do more than just ring their hands and make verbal appeals for peace.

They now have imposed real and severe economic sanctions plus provided material support for the Ukrainians. This support, assuming it reaches the Ukrainians soon, may well result in their fighting capacity actually increasing over time or, at a minimum, not being degraded at the rate foreseen by Russia's military planners.

My guess is that Putin thought that the war he has initiated would be short and successful with minimal casualties and incur limited push back from the western powers. In this regard, his reasoning seems likely to have been much the same as Kaiser Wilhelm II in the lead up to World War I and Hitler in World War II. Like them, he has miscalculated very badly and now finds himself enmeshed in a war that could drag on for weeks or months.

The Ukraine is neither a small nor helpless country. In World War II its people proved willing to make enormous sacrifices to defeat the German invaders, a fact that Putin seems to have somehow missed.

So, overall, while the odds would still seems to greatly favour Russia it is getting increasingly difficult to see what exactly will constitute 'mission accomplished'. My guess is that the original thinking was that this would occur when Kyiv was captured and a puppet government installed. This might still occur but will mean little in the overall scheme of things if, as I expect, an ongoing asymmetric guerrilla war ensues which requires a huge Russian army of occupation to prop up the puppet government.

If victory means the utter subjugation of the Ukrainian people then it is clear that the Russian effort is already doomed to failure. It is clear that they will never, ever submit to the Russian yoke, many preferring to die fighting instead.

On a more optimistic note, it is not inconceivable that key players in the Russian political, military and economic systems will decide that Putin is past his use by date and act accordingly. Putin would do well to remember the fate of the last communist leader of Romania, Nicolae Ceausescu, who was first deposed and then publicly executed by his own Secret Service guards.

We must live in the hope that there is an outbreak of common sense amongst the Russian power elite and this mad adventurist is removed from office or otherwise terminated in the near future.

The problem is people have short memories.

There is nothing strange with what is happening in the Ukraine at present, it was easily predictable.

Ukraine has been a pawn in the great scheme of things since time immemorial when it was part of the Persian Empire. Then it was part of the Greek Empire, then the Roman Empire, then the Ottoman Empire.

Remember Florence Nightingale, Lord Cardigan, Balaclava, the Charge of the Light Brigade and all that? That was the Crimean War of 1853-1856 when Tzar Nicholas decided he needed Sevastopol as a warm water port.

Russia has been in need of it ever since and for the same reason. Nothing has changed in this context even when Ukraine first became independent. Russia still then controlled Sevastopol.

What upset the Russian applecart was when Ukraine, horror of all horrors, decided it wanted to join NATO. If it had, Russia would have lost Sevastopol which would have become a NATO naval base.

So what do you expect Russia to have done? In order to retain Sevastopol, it would have to invade Crimea, which it did in 2014.

Unfazed by this, Ukraine continued to want to join NATO, so Russia continues to want to stop it, hence last week's invasion.

The Russians are paranoid about their borders and for good reason. In the last 200 years Russia has been invaded three times. First by Napoleon in 1812, then Germany in 1914 and again by Germany in 1941. In this last invasion Russia lost 20 million people.

Good reason for Russia to be paranoid about borders. Russia's border policy has remained unchanged since the days of the Tzars. It is to maintain a buffer of client states between it and western Europe. Ukraine was part of that buffer until it decided it wanted to join NATO.

So what Russia is doing to Ukraine is the same as the United States would do to Mexico if Mexico decided to join the Russian Federation.

Remember the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962? It is all about maintaining safe borders. No one wants war, especially this one, but it is well to understand why it is happening.

Chris - A succinct and objective analysis of things Ukraine-wise.

The scenario sort of reminds me of the time immediately before World War II when Chamberlain returned home to old Blighty with a piece of paper in his hand declaring peace in our time.

At the time he was criticised for his naivety and apparent disregard for reality, but when one really analyses the issue relating to this gambit, Chamberlain was purely pragmatic as Great Britain realised just how weak were their defence forces relative to Germany's overpowering military; but by applying appeasement Britain could buy a bit of time to allow them sufficient time to re-arm.

Yes, Europe again shows that it lacks any true commitment to being a unified forced to combat military aggression by its neighbours, a flaw driven perhaps by selfishness, greed and apathy.

What is happening now is a wakeup call, but whether they can bite the bullet and accept the opportunity costs involved in improving their defence capabilities is the unknown. We all know everything has a price - and a cost.

I would have to agree with your comments regarding the journalists' response.

I saw a very interesting interview with Stan Grant on the ABC news channel. Although Stan is a first class journalist, he does at times appear to grandstand, perhaps an unwilling and certainly an unfortunate trait that gives the impression he is a bit of a show pony.

In this instance, however, I was quite impressed with his intellect. Stan obviously has a good insight into geopolitical issues and, unlike a lot of journalists lacking knowledge of an issue, just wing it by replying with empty platitudes.

On this occasion, Stan came up with some complex but realistic out of left field alternative scenarios never raised by the so-called experts from the Balkan desk.

In fact, Stan made sense of all this mess.