No, it’s not the Cold War: Ukraine and the paradigm shift

Have you felt the paradigm shift?  It’s happening all around us.  But I’m not sure most Western pundits have realized what they’re sensing (or perhaps even begun to sense it yet).

George Will’s column from the past week has stood out in my mind.  He’s by no means the only one, but he’s been one of the most categorical, putting the Ukrainian crisis in the terms of the Cold War.  “Ukraine’s ferment,” he suggests, “is an emphatic, albeit redundant, refutation of Marxism.”

I don’t think I’m alone in recognizing that that formula has been overtaken by events.

Ukrainians not going quietly into that good night

It was a minor blip on the American radar screen when Ukraine’s president, Viktor Yanukovich, announced on 21 November – in a significant policy reversal – that Ukraine would forego economic and political agreements with the European Union in favor of closer integration with Russia.

For Ukrainians, the blip was anything but minor.  Yanukovich’s political opposition mounted a no-confidence vote in the Ukrainian parliament, which his government survived today (Tuesday 3 December).  More dramatically, thousands of protesters have thronged the streets of Kiev since the 24 November announcement from Yanukovich.  At least 100,000 flooded Independence Square on Sunday to demonstrate in opposition to Yanukovich’s policy (some estimates are as high as 350,000). 

Get real: With Obama and Iran, It’s Deal AND No Deal

Those TV commercials emphasizing the word “and” rather than “or” are the key to understanding the basic proposition in the current P5+1 negotiations with Iran.

In the commercials, ecstatic consumers prefer to get x and y, as opposed to getting x or y.  If it costs the same, who wouldn’t?  Certainly, it’s what Iran would prefer, in the current series of humorously named “negotiations”: relief from sanctions, and the opportunity to continue preparing for a nuclear breakout, with as few concessions to the P5+1 or a UN monitoring program as possible.  Ideally, there would be another “and” in the mix:

Cyprus: When law and order prescribe theft

Who will shoulder the pain from the Cyprus bailout deal?

The first-order sufferers will be small businessmen (mostly Russian) and upper-middle Cypriots and foreign residents with their money in Cypriot banks.  But the whole region will take a longer-term blow from the loss of Cyprus as a place for upstart businesses to park capital.  Capital that can’t be parked cheaply in the EU won’t be invested in the EU – at least not by the smaller, less financially “connected” entrepreneurs who drive economic dynamism and growth.

The big Russian firms that bank with the Russian Commercial Bank in Cyprus have protection in the deal,

Cyprus: The EU, out of ideas

The Pax Americana continues to disintegrate, and the crack-up continues to circle around the “Great Crossroads,” the junction of Asia, Europe, and Africa where everything affects everything else.  The latest chapter in the saga features Cyprus, where a stand-off between the EU and German voters has closed banks and ATMs to Cypriots, who would like to withdraw their cash before it is subjected to a 6.75% or 9.9% confiscation.  The Cypriot parliament voted on Tuesday against accepting the EU/IMF deal to restructure the nation’s debt.

The issues are (a) that Cyprus needs a bailout (due to catastrophic bank losses through financial exposure in the Greece bailout); (b) the German taxpayer is not enamored of paying for yet another bailout for an EU basket case; and (c)