Posted on 12/13/2014 1:33:23 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
Russian President Vladimir Putin is so easy to dislike because he really is a bad guy and there are few things more pleasurable than contemplating his fall from power. It is reasonably clear that might just happen.
Even though he continues to be widely popular in his own country, there are several reasons why he could be brought down. The principle ones are the fall in oil prices and the financial crisis brought on by the sanctions imposed by the West. There are many others: a 40 percent decline in the value of Russian currency; an impending recession; the cost of defending his expansionist foreign policy; inflation rising by 9 percent; slowing or postponement of domestic goals of higher wages, better healthcare and cheaper housing (he has already closed 28 clinics and dismissed 10,000 medical staff in Moscow alone); and his personal failings. The last of these combines hubris with an inability to flexibly adapt to hardship.
Putin's machismo is probably the first sign that elicited enmity. The bare-chested horseman was a symbol that immediately resonated as he began attacking his fellow oligarchs and journalists and moved to consolidate both political and economic power while silencing opposition of any kind. While there is no direct proof linking him to a variety of suspicious deaths, it seems a reasonable proposition to assume that his KGB background made assassination a part of his program. All the while this was proceeding, his popularity soared domestically as average salaries increased tenfold from 2000 to 2013 and oil production and oil prices kept rising in an economy where 60 percent of exports were oil and gas and these accounted for 50 percent of the burgeoning government's revenues. The prosperity enabled the reconstruction of a credible military and more goods and services for citizens. The U.S. and European allies' pugilistic approach to post-Cold War territorial issues allowed Putin to call upon the nationalistic fervor as both he and Russians felt increasingly embattled and surrounded by a vengeful Europe.
Putin has blasted the West for what he feels is a U.S.-Saudi alliance to depress oil prices and place pressure on him to step away from the expansionist stance he has taken in Ukraine; the implied threats to Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria and Estonia; and naval excursions into the North Sea, the Atlantic and the Caribbean. Whether or not there was such a conspiracy, it certainly advantages the West to encourage a prolonged depression of oil prices because Putin's strategy is to tough it out, using part of the $429 billion currency reserve built up over the past 15 years to supplement a governmental budget that requires $96 a barrel pricing to function at its current level.
While his reserves may allow for some staying power for government budgets (the current estimate is two years), it will not protect vital industries. As noted in The New York Times: "Nearly $700 billion is owed to Western banks, economists said, much of it by the giant state-run companies that constitute the heart of the Russian economy. But sanctions imposed by the United States and Europe over Russia's annexation of Crimea and adventurism in southeastern Ukraine have blocked access to Western financing."
While these industries can default on debt in defiance of Western sanctions, the West will be able to garnish oil payments and disrupt virtually every type of financial transaction of Russian oligarchs if they attempt to interact with the West. The prospects of refinancing major Russian companies could and mostly likely will cause an international financial crisis, causing further declines in the ruble and disruptions in oil exports.
It is widely speculated that the financial elements of Putin's problems will create the greatest difficulty as he does or doesn't adapt to Russia's shifting circumstances. Since 66 percent of Russian assets are owned by the 1 percent, it is only a matter of time before Putin's allies begin questioning his leadership. The easiest move for Putin would be to step back from his aggressive foreign policy, step away from the support provided Ukrainian separatists, negotiate some sort of detente regarding Crimea and press for the financial sanctions to be removed.
The other adjustment would be to cut government spending by as much as 30 percent to address the reality of falling oil prices. While it is difficult to ascertain how such cuts would be achieved, it is clear that significantly cutting military budgets would be a starting point. He has already announced the abandonment of a $19 billion pipeline that would have allowed him to keep pressure on Ukraine.
To achieve either or both of those moves requires a certain level of humility as Russia adjusts to a period of hardship unlike any that Putin has had to face the in the 16 years of his control. The question is whether or not he will exhibit either humility or flexibility going forward. His current stance quite clearly indicates a reluctance to do so. In fact, his most recent announcement addressing the economic issues has been "more of the same," a conventional effort of proposed tax and legal amnesty for those repatriating capital along with a four-year moratorium on tax increases. These measures, according to Moscow analysts, contain "a whiff of panic."
Oil price declines were a principle contributor to the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. There is gleeful speculation that falling prices will do the same for Putin. Where would threats to his control come from? Most likely it will be his oligarchic friends. It is estimated that Russian overseas wealth exceeds $1 trillion. Trade with the West has become a way of life. Combine sustained low oil prices with the pressure of financial sanctions and you have the proper stew for a coup.
There is no question that the combined forces of economics and financial sanctions have weakened the Russian leader. The White House can hasten his departure by consciously encouraging the continuation of the oil surpluses. It is probably a coincidence that OPEC's decision to maintain oil production and protect its market share has driven oil prices below $70 per barrel. Given that the operating cost of U.S. and Canadian oil is between $40 and $42 per barrel, this war for market share will likely be extended for two years or more. The question is whether or not that is long enough to bring down the Russian leader.
Most people would bet against it. However, there is a good chance they are wrong.
So in other words he may get throw back in a car take off Siberia right like overthrow Russia tsar
Say what you want but Putin makes me feel safe. He’s a good calculater of risk unlike like our affirmative action thug.
Safer like this:
“For the second time this year, a Russian military aircraft turned off its transponders to avoid commercial radar and nearly collided with a passenger jet over Sweden ....’
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2014/12/13/world/europe/ap-eu-baltic-skies.html?ref=world&_r=0
In the long run it can hurt the Saudis too as other countries pump more oil at lower prices to maintain needed cash flow.
Putin hates our country, hates our Constitution and he would love to see our country in ruins.
How does that make you feel safe?
~Question for someone who knows about Russia...
Who would be in line to seize power and force him out?~
There are numerous variants but if the economy to worsen any further it is most likely the communists.
We are playing extremely dangerous game with him. Geographically Russia is much closer to the Middle East than we are. Logistically if they were to make a move on the Middle East they would be able to support their supply lines a lot easier than we would.
Simply, yet eloquently stated. Well done!
And thank you for your service, based upon a presumption I've drawn from your FR name...
That may well be true, and I suspect it reflects the sentiment of legions of America's enemies. It is to be expected. Not expected is that the very same sentence accurately describes our own elected president: "Obama hates our country, hates our Constitution and he would love to see our country in ruins." But there is no "Obama Could Be Finished" headline at thehill.com.
Others are close too. For example, if push comes to shove, we call the Italians and they put Putin’s Black Sea fleet on the bottom, something they (the Italians) can still do without much of a problem. We could actually supply the Ukrainians with good weapons. And so on...
On the flip side - having his back to the wall may also have some serious consequences - depends on who has what loyalties.
“In the long run it can hurt the Saudis too as other countries pump more oil at lower prices to maintain needed cash flow.”
Yes, but it’s cheaper and cleaner than a war fought with military weapons.
Agree. But what happens if the House of Saud falls?
If we go down, its game over.
No more billions in aide to shit hole countries to siphon off, the defense industry bottoms out, the energy industry world wide is gone, no more exports from the U.S., China folds as it cannot export to its largest customer anymore; it ripples throughout the world and Russia falls with it.
Yes, Putin would “like” to see our ideology in ruins, but realistically our country in ruins means many nations are no more, including his. Communism and dictatorships survive as a check point against America sold by those “leaders”; without us what do they have to sell?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.