Get 40% Off
🤯 This Tech Portfolio is up 29% YTD! Join Now to Get April’s Top PicksGet The Picks – Just 99 USD

Russia: What Cost Victory?

Published 06/02/2014, 01:02 PM
Updated 07/09/2023, 06:31 AM
Conventional wisdom emphasized the political prowess of Russia's Putin. Popular imagery had the US playing checkers, while Russia played chess. We argued that having to use military means to secure what was a client state was a sign of weakness not strength.

We also rejected the idea that Russia was responding to US weakness. Instead, we noted that the US did not use military force in 1956 when the Soviet Union invaded Hungary, and it was not that General Eisenhower was a weak President. Nor was there a military response when the Soviet Union invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968. The US and Europe did not confront Russia militarily when it invaded Georgia in 2008, and in which it still occupies some territory.

Yesterday, the president of Abkhazia, a break-away region of Georgia supported by Russia, resigned amid popular unrest. Demonstrators had reportedly stormed the presidential administrative building. On Saturday May 31, the local parliament had voted to oust President Ankvab. The head of the parliament (Bganba) was designated the successor. Initially, Ankvab resisted the parliament's action, but later capitulated.

The opposition to Ankvab reportedly stemmed from corruption in the government and the government's failure to boost the economy. Abkhazia is heavily dependent on Russia economic aid and security. Russia helped foster Abkhazia's independence from Georgia in 2008. It is one of the few countries that recognize it as a sovereign state.

The ousting of Ankvab is not necessarily an anti-Russia move. Russia's Foreign Minister Lavrov was quoted in the press indicating that the political crisis was an internal affair. This would seem to suggest that Russia does not intend to send in troops to help secure a friendly government.

Separately, reports suggest Russia's annexation of Crimea is producing a great deal of social and economic dislocation. This too does not mean that Crimea is having second thoughts; rather the cost of securing Crimea may be greater than initially anticipated, although economic considerations were likely tertiary for Putin.

First, Ukrainian banks operating in Crimea froze their business there. This was highly disruptive. For example, 40% of the Crimean population had accounts at Privatbank, which also was patronized by local government entities and many businesses. This has resulted in many workers not being paid, and many residents risk losing their savings. Russia has promised to reimburse up to $20k, according to reports.

Second, residents have to queue up for new passports and bank accounts. ATMs have strict daily withdrawal limits. Reports suggest the hotels are an economic bright spot as Russian officials and journalists swarm to Crimea.

Third, the annexation by Russia has further implications for Crimea. Russia's accounting standards are different and will have to be adopted. Book-keepers and accountants need to take new courses to continue to practice. Law firms are advertising services to help obtain new Russian passports, re-register property and re-register companies. Russia's environmental laws are reportedly different, and companies have to learn the new rules in order to comply.

Fourth, over the next few years, annexing Crimea may cost Russia more than $22 bln, according to some estimates. About 10% will go to the 25% of the Crimean population drawing a pension. Another 10% will be needed to fund Crimea and Sevastopol's 2014 budget shortfalls. There is also a bill for the bridge project to link Crimea with Russia's mainland. This was initially projected to cost $3 bln, but a leaked document puts the cost closer to $6 bln.

Latest comments

Absolutely biased 1st grade article. Do some research.
Serge Bl confuses me for a journalist. I am not. I am a strategist. I am biased. It is called an argument. I argue that the cost of Russia's actions are greater than it expected and greater than many observers seem to appreciate.
You're skewing the facts, that's where the problem is. You have the right to have your own view but don't distort the facts.
BL, which facts am I distorting. My firend, you have not cited a single one.
Oh, US certainly never uses military))) ANd US' ship Captain Cook is just having a vacation near Russia's boarder in Black sea))) And Libya and Iraq never happened... And there are no US forces in Poland...
Anna, I ma not sure where the chip on your shoulder comes from, but the piece was not about the US. It was about the cost of Russia's actions. I fail to see how your comment relates to the analysis I provided. You sinmply want to bash the US. That is your right, but why not simply write your own comment rather than contribute something that is, well , an non sequiter. he topic I chose to write about was the weekend event in a Russian-client state and the cost of its annexation of Crimea. That the Us uses military force and has a presence in the Black Sea or was active in Libya and Iraq does not shed any light on the issue at hand.
Risk Disclosure: Trading in financial instruments and/or cryptocurrencies involves high risks including the risk of losing some, or all, of your investment amount, and may not be suitable for all investors. Prices of cryptocurrencies are extremely volatile and may be affected by external factors such as financial, regulatory or political events. Trading on margin increases the financial risks.
Before deciding to trade in financial instrument or cryptocurrencies you should be fully informed of the risks and costs associated with trading the financial markets, carefully consider your investment objectives, level of experience, and risk appetite, and seek professional advice where needed.
Fusion Media would like to remind you that the data contained in this website is not necessarily real-time nor accurate. The data and prices on the website are not necessarily provided by any market or exchange, but may be provided by market makers, and so prices may not be accurate and may differ from the actual price at any given market, meaning prices are indicative and not appropriate for trading purposes. Fusion Media and any provider of the data contained in this website will not accept liability for any loss or damage as a result of your trading, or your reliance on the information contained within this website.
It is prohibited to use, store, reproduce, display, modify, transmit or distribute the data contained in this website without the explicit prior written permission of Fusion Media and/or the data provider. All intellectual property rights are reserved by the providers and/or the exchange providing the data contained in this website.
Fusion Media may be compensated by the advertisers that appear on the website, based on your interaction with the advertisements or advertisers.
© 2007-2024 - Fusion Media Limited. All Rights Reserved.