ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • Europe Political & Social Issues

Putin's Adventures in Crimea and Ukraine: Armed Invasion versus Economic Sanctions

Updated on April 3, 2014

Napoleon Bonapate I (photo from Internet April 3,2014)

Comparative figures of USA, NATO and Russia

Will investors in Putin's adventures in Crimea and Ukraine profit?

Vladimir Putin, president of Russia, has virtually added Crimea, a province of Ukraine. He threatens to take the whole of Ukraine.

With the use of force Russia can add Ukraine if Ukraine were left to fight for itself alone.

How to stop Russia from doing that?

In the short run, Russia cannot be stopped except by a commitment by North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). That is, in terms of conventional war.

Take a look at the comparative figures in the table above. (Source: Adam Taylor. How scary is Putin’s Russia compared to the Soviet Union? Digg. Internet. April 1,2014)

The Ukraine adventure is not decided in terms of armed forces alone, however.

How much is Putin willing to spend for the Ukraine adventure?

Rather the question is: how much are the financiers of the Ukraine adventure willing to commit?

Will they gain from such commitment?

To clarify further. Those willing to finance the Ukraine adventure are merchant bankers. Will they gain from their investments?

It is being bruited about that there are about five big industrialists around Putin willing to invest. Putin himself is investing some resources.

The West, or rather Pres. Barack Obama, is aware of this. That is why, Obama is striking back at the industrialists or merchant bankers. So far he has approved economic sanctions against them.

How will we assess the Ukraine situation?

Let us take a look at the use of armed forces and at the financial side.

The parallel is the allied forces commanded by the Duke of Wellington in Waterloo and the French army commanded by Napoleon Bonaparte I.

The forces of Napoleon were divided, one force stationed in Spain, about 250,000 to maintain the reign of Joseph Bonaparte, his brother. Another force was maintained in France to contain the rebelling loyalists. A third force confronted the allies in Waterloo. Still, the forces of Napoleon was superior in number to that of the Allied forces in place in Waterloo. There was a wild card in favor of Wellington: the Prussian army. This army spelled a difference in battle in favor of the allied forces against the French forces.

True, the French army in Waterloo was superior in number but the troops were battle weary. Besides, the commanders of Napoleon did not carry out his commands faithfully. The force that was supposed to augment Napoleon’s troops to frontally destroy Wellington’s was late in arriving in the battle area by three hours. By the time the support forces arrived, the army under Napoleon’s command already was scampering away from lost will to fight. They failed to break Wellington’s squares. Napoleon himself escaped, and again abdicated. He was exiled to St. Helena where he died. With Waterloo the French European conquest was buried.

What sustained Wellington’s army in Waterloo? An investment provided by a merchant banker named Nathan de Rothschild.

Insider trading

Nathan’s gain from his investment in Waterloo rolled twice over. Wellington won the Peninsular war. Nathan won the stocks game.

When Nathan learned from his courier whom he sent in the company of Horatio Nelson, English admiral who commanded the naval forces in the English channel, he went to see the concerned British minister to divulge the news that battle in Waterloo was won by Wellington. However, the minister’s butler would not wake up his minister. So, Nathan failed to deliver the news that he got from his courier.

Early in the morning Nathan sold a lot of his stocks. Other stock players were amazed but they surmised that the battle of Waterloo must have been lost and Nathan was avoiding further financial disaster. Why, Nathan was the financier of the Peninsular war! They followed suit, selling their stocks. So the price of stocks plummeted.

When the price of stocks was low enough, Nathan began to buy back his stocks and a lot more of the stocks of other stock players. When Wellington came back and the British and allies celebrated the victory in Waterloo, the price of stocks soared. Nathan was in possession of a lot of stocks.


It is said that about five investors are behind Putin’s territorial adventures. Russia's oil and gas export to Europe passes through Ukraine. Besides, there is a lot of natural gas to be had in Ukraine. Europe gets about half of its energy supply from Russia. However, will it be enough to pay off with profits the investments for the invasion and control of Ukraine?

A new election had been held in Ukraine. However, the new president does not seem to favor Russia. There is a need for a Russian collaborator in Ukraine. An occupation army might be necessary to control Ukraine. How much will that cost in the long run?

All financial costs are being factored in. In the long run the markets of exports of the industrialists will shrink. Europe is now developing alternative sources of energy to fossil fuels in addition to reduction in fuel consumption.

If ever, it will be an armed confrontation between NATO and Russia. It will not be a proxy war like in the Cold War. A protracted armed conflict will not prosper.

Remember the American civil war? The South used cotton as an economic and political weapon against the North. The South imposed a virtual embargo of cotton export to France and England as a strategy to force these nations to intervene in the civil and turn it into an international war. That way, the tide of the war would turn to the side of the South. However England promoted the growing of cotton in Egypt to supply the needs of its garment industry. .


Submit a Comment

  • conradofontanilla profile image

    conradofontanilla 3 years ago from Philippines

    Let me correct myself. I just read a Hub by pacampabasso where he has this entry: "A resolution passed by the The United Nations General Assembly on March 27 also opposed Russia's actions in Crimea by affirming Ukraine’s territorial integrity and criticizing the Crimean secession as being "illegal". 100 members voted in favor, while 11 opposed and 58 abstained."

  • conradofontanilla profile image

    conradofontanilla 3 years ago from Philippines

    grand old lady,

    I also wonder what the United Nations is doing. I have not read about it these days. Does Russia exercise its three votes in the UN? In the Teheran conference in February 1945 when the Big Three (Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt of USA; Prime Minister Winston Churchill of Great Britain and Premier Joseph Stalin of Russia) decided the fate of the world after WWII, Stalin got three votes to one of USA, UK, France and all other countries. That is, Russia has three votes in the UN that was yet to be organized.

  • grand old lady profile image

    Mona Sabalones Gonzalez 3 years ago from Philippines

    Very interesting. I wonder how this will all turn out in the end.