Killing is his business — and business is good

 Russia — between international trade and international war crimes

Ever since Russia has initiated its war against Ukraine, presumed by a prior attack on the Eastern Ukrainian regions of Luhansk and Donetsk, two things have frequently, although not regularly, happened: Companies have departed from the Russian market because of either sanctions or ethical reasons. (To alternating levels), and leading talking heads have contemplated the question if, and if yes, when, 'The West' could return to the Russian market because Russia couldn't allegedly be cast out forever. One could wonder why that shouldn't be possible, given that not only has Russia become, if not always been, a pariah of Western principles and human rights, but also shows no sign of remorse, meaning that in consequence, it could start the same procedure again, against another country such as Estonia or Bulgaria, both of which have been alternately supportive of Ukraine. Russian talk shows have not been shy on waging unofficial wars against not only neighbours of Russia, but also Western countries who have pledged abundant military and financial support for Ukraine in its effort to defend itself and reconstruct destructed infrastructure. 

A destroyed tank in the ruins of the Ukrainian city of Maksymivka (Максимівка), in the Mykolaivskyi Raion (Миколаївський район). Image credit: Ukrainian National Police 

The only reason that may sour one's pledge to isolate Russia may be the natural resources it hosts in its soil, e.g., uranium, manganese, platinum, phosphate, &c. All of which are key in modern technology and alternative renewable energies. It remains opaque how reliable other countries were in supplying uranium to countries like France or Finland, two countries in Europe who run in the foremost places when it comes to using nuclear energy as their dominant source of renewables. Manganese is rare on our inhabited and uninhabited landmasses, but it could eventually be mined under the sea, although technological and legal issues still hinder us therefrom[1]. So far, one could say that casting out Russia from our interior market has been like Brexit: Before it happened, many would've claimed that it would hit us goodly in the side once it became a reality, but after the first shock and, come a couple of months of adaptation, we settled with it. The problem is that Russia is not Cuba, or the DPRK: It's a geographically, culturally and socially vast and diverse country, plus it has, or used to have, a strong army and a wide-ranging influence in some Caucasian and Central Asian countries (even though some may say that the PRC is going to take over some of the hegemony in Central Asia as Russia loses its manpower and focus due to its war efforts in Ukraine[2]) It could become hazardous to leave such a country to itself and become a disconnected block warden who would keep Russia on a short leash. Alas, without any connexion to it, without any incentive presented to it to behave better, Russia could go rogue as it wished: From the war in Ukraine onwards, we have come to remember that it never ratified the ICC in Den Haag, so that prosecution becomes difficult, and sanctions hitherto had a strong impact in theory, but in practice, Russia remained impervious to them. 

The idea that Russia could become more Democratic, and more akin to the West, was the reason why Germany maintained a diplomatically soft hand over Russia: Through trade, it was conceptualised, Russia would stop its imperialistic politics against its former Soviet neighbours. „Wandel durch Handel”, this policy was called, change through trade. Without attempting to skip through its success or failure[3], it should be noted that before it can be continued with other countries of international import and power, it should be overthought in terms of how it is conducted--too many have blissfully ignored the aftermath of touching international pariahs like Xi Jinping with soft gloves[4]. Russia has shown that the two of them--internationally lucrative trade with natural resources, and the terrorisation of neighbouring countries like Chechnya and Georgia--go well together when the trade partners turn a blind eye on the latter aspect's victims, i.e. ethnic or sexual minorities, or Democracy/independence activists. A few mild condemnations in case such atrocities reach international headlines can be absorbed as long as they don't have any meaningful consequences, such as a breakup of the partnership. Because of presidents and chancellors like German chancellor Angela Merkel or French president Nicolas Sarkozy--in Poland, the ruling party PiS tries to brand former president Donald Tusk of having run his country into dependence on Russian gas during his tenure[5]--, Russia was able to flourish without having to make any concessions concerning its foreign policies. With regards to the interview cited below, it may be true that „Wandel durch Handel” could work, but in order to prove that, it had to be conducted seriously, and not just as half-heartedly as the „Kabinette Merkel I - IV” did.

Another idea I contemplated the past few weeks was the concept of a Treaty of Versailles. On the internet, historical references from the last century have naturally been harsher, speaking more often of a Nuremberg trial, disregarding that except for Belarus, the Soviet anteroom of Russia, all European countries have abolished the death penalty. But all jokes aside, if we were to forge a post-war reparation treaty with Russia, even naïvely assuming that the government obeyed the conditions negotiated therein, wouldn't that engender the same consequences as it did in interwar Germany?[6] Reparation payments have always been on the menu when it came to putting Putin et al. on trial for the war and the instigated war crimes, and they were also part of the Treaty of Versailles, plus a limitation of the German military[7]. In light of historic events, still, it would make little to no sense to say that in order to stop the rise of an even more ill-gotten successor to Vladimir Putin, we should tell Ukraine to abstain from reparations. Unlike emperor Wilhelm II., Putin is already the most evil ruler possible, at least in terms of who is presented in Russian politics. Sergej Szojgu is just a careerist bureaucrat who ended up in the position of having to oversee a war; Valery Gerasimov is just a typical wartime general, not a textbook villain. Both are devout to Putin; for once because they know that they could be defenestrated or poisoned if they opposed him, and secondly because they too believe in the goodness of their deeds. Alexei Navalny would be an improvement and could technically become the successor of Putin in case the latter should lose the war and the Western alliance chose to undertake the same effort it once did when the Third Reich lost World War II: Russia were partitioned into sectors under control of the supporters of Ukraine (and Ukraine itself), and Democratic elections under observation of the OECD took place to instate an interregnum into a Democratic Russia[8]. 

Democratisation in Eastern Germany, it seems after two recent empirical surveys on contentment with Democracy and the likes, has shown to have failed, and in my opinion, that is because unlike in Western Germany after World War II, insufficient efforts were enacted in order to prepare the formerly Soviet federal states for the Capitalist future. Instead, existing public companies were wrapped up and/or left to themselves to either catch up or be left behind[9]. The same mistake must not happen again, as this time, we don't only talk about a sovereign nation, but also a nuclear power, regardless of how many times Putin tried to bluff with the equipment of his atomic warlocks in Ukraine to coerce the West into concessions such as urging Ukraine's surrender. Needless to say, in the best case, nuclear disarmament will become a part of the postwar treaty to be forged for Russia. 

What does this all mean, conclusively? Russia's return to the free market in the eurozone is not off the menu, but it comes with far-reaching, heavy prerequisites that also need to be overseen independently to react quickly when the Muscovite government should violate them without interests in remedying that. (Much like Hungary pathologically violates EU rules even though it is dependent on subsidies for agriculture and the likes) International alliances like the EU or the UN suffer from common weaknesses such as the incapability to sanction those members who violate their principles. Russia has thus been only a symptom thereof, although the most injurious at that. It is time that the economically strongest organisations make use of their power and face those who do not respect basic human rights with full force to put them in their place and do not leave them the global dominance. 

------------------------

[1] Volz, J.B., Geibert, W., Köhler, D. et al. Alpha radiation from polymetallic nodules and potential health risks from deep-sea mining. Sci Rep 13, 7985 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-33971-w

[2] https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/china-central-asia-tajikistan/

[3] Felbermayr, G. (2022). „Wandel durch Handel funktioniert durchaus“: Ein Gespräch über die Wirksamkeit und sinnvolle Ausgestaltung von Wirtschaftssanktionen gegen Russland, die ökonomischen Aussichten Österreichs und die Zukunft der Globalisierung. Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, 23(2), 94-107. https://doi.org/10.1515/pwp-2022-0020

[4] https://internationalepolitik.de/de/wandel-durch-handel-0

[5] https://www.rp.pl/polityka/art38582311-polski-rzad-reaguje-na-decyzje-ke-ws-lex-tusk-w-polsce-byly-rosyjskie-wplywy

[6] https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/treaty-of-versailles

For a clearer summarisation of how the Treaty of Versailles led to the rise of the NSDAP, read the following paper:

Kim, Euwan, The Treaty of Versailles: How an Attempt at Peace Inadvertently Led to the Rise of the Nazi Party (march 1, 2018). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3487196 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3487196

Some will possibly say that it was less the Treaty of Versailles and more the hyperinflation during the Weimar Republic that led to the rise of Nazism in Germany. They weren't wrong to say so, but in the end, even the Weimar Republic's descent was the product of the conditions outlined in the Treaty of Versailles, namely the reparations that it had to pay to the victimised countries of World War I. It's proof of what I meant to explain in the following part of the main text concerning the reparations Russia had to pay to Ukraine. 

[7] Read all articles of the Treaty hereunder: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/parti.asp

[8] A dissolution of the Russian Federation into several autonomous republics, as it could theoretically be supported as it is favourable, is likely impossible for economic reasons: Many of the semi-autonomous regions, particularly in Siberia, already suffer from high unemployment which was also the reason why so many from these remote regions have voluntarily joined the army even before the war began. (SOURCE) Instead of leaving them to themselves, it would be more sustainable to keep them inside the federation but also infuse developmental aid to improve quality of life to also combat issues like suicide rates and alcoholism. 

Other writers, such as those who write for think tanks, have played through the scenario of a collapse of the Russian Federation from a more political perspective, specifically how it came to happen if it should: https://www.institutmontaigne.org/en/expressions/after-fall-must-we-prepare-breakup-russia

[9] Technically, one could say that the reconstruction of Eastern Germany after the Soviet-satellite governance through the SED has failed, thus leaving the federal states behind like an estranged brother: 

Ragnitz, J., Heimpold, G., Hölscher, J., Land, R., & Schroeder, K. (2015). 25 Jahre Deutsche Einheit: eine Erfolgsgeschichte?. Wirtschaftsdienst, 95(6), 375-394. Link: https://www.wirtschaftsdienst.eu/inhalt/jahr/2015/heft/6/beitrag/25-jahre-deutsche-einheit-eine-erfolgsgeschichte.html