A Primer on the Situation in Ukraine

By now, everyone knows there is a war going on between Ukraine and Russia.  Some people know more than others, but it is also hard to know for certain what is going on right due to limited communications and propaganda on both sides.  With this blogpost, I hope to maintain an objective portrayal of current events and hopefully give people information to understand the current situation.

Background

Russia and Ukraine are the two largest countries in all of Europe and located in the regions of Eastern Europe close to Asia.  Ukraine sits atop the Black Sea and north of Turkey and Russia is to its East.  Collectively, the two have clashed for millenia over resources and land while developing different languages and cultures.  Allegedly, Kiev, Ukraine’s capital city, was the furthest distance St. Andrew, apostle of Jesus Christ and brother of the first Pope St. Peter, reached and would serve as an important city in the Christianisation of Eastern Europe.

During the early days of the Soviet Union, the newly established USSR took over the country as one of its Republics.  Many atrocities were committed against the Ukranians, especially the Holdomor where Soviet Leader Joseph Stalin caused a genocidal famine that wiped out millions of people.  Unsurprisingly, there has been bitter tensions between the two countries.

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Ukraine once again regained its independence from Russia.  However, Russia still maintained massive influence over the region with the Russian government even receiving support from some leadership.  To this day, the country is largely divided among mostly Ukrainian speaking peoples in the western half of the country and a mix of Ukranian and Russian speaking peoples in the eastern half.

Unsurprisingly, this has led to a divided country which is why the country welcomed a relatively pro-Putin President in 2010 and then overthrew him in 2014.  Ukraine’s Euromaiden protests against and eventual ouster of President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014 played a huge part in souring ties with Russia and being the first domino that led to the current day war.  Since then, Ukraine has been pursuing closer ties with the West that may result in EU and NATO membership.  This primarily is what the current war is about and unpacking this will help explain the international implications.

The Russian Perspective

Historically, NATO was created as an alliance against the Soviet Union and Russia still treats it as a military threat.  Members of NATO include historical enemies (and sometimes allies) such as the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Poland, whom Russia has fought multiple wars with and against (the Crimean, Napoleanic, the Cold, and World Wars being the most obvious) so there is historic resentment towards those respective nations.  A NATO membership for Ukraine would guarantee Western and US troops on Ukrainian soil which pose a national security risk for the Russian Federation.

There is also the desire for Ukraine to join the EU which would put on an economic trajectory closer to the West.  Increased cultural and economic separation from Russia would weaken Russia’s control in the region and since the two share a border, that would be a staging area for a potential invasion.  So to simplify: Russia is fighting to keep NATO troops out of its backyard and to maintain dominance in a region it has historically considered its sphere of influence.

The Problem with the Russian Perspective

Russian President Vladimir Putin has been trying to portray this as a humanitarian excursion to protect the region from nonexistent genocide.  He even went to go as far as claiming that he was denazifying the region, which is weird considering the fact that the President of the country is Jewish and lost family in the holocaust.  They also declared independence for the Donbas region and others which was used as pretext for an invasion far outside of that region.  Overall, Putin is trying to portray this as a humanitarian peacekeeping mission and really what is in his interest.

The Ukranian Perspective

For Ukraine, the biggest issue is sovereignty.  It has long been under direct control of Russia and independence has been an opportunity to pursue self-determination.  As a result, the Ukranians are currently fighting for the right to pursue their own treaties, trade, and military affairs free from control of Russia.

There are multiple reasons for Ukraine to join the EU and NATO.  For the former, such trade and economic reform could greatly increase their economy and help them export vast natural resources that could improve their standard of living.  NATO also does offer protection from its neighbor and could help strengthen its military, though it does also invite increased scrutiny from Russia.  Regardless, such concerns are the business of Ukraine and they are fighting for the right to make those decisions, right or wrong.

The Problem with the Ukranian Perspective

There have been allegations of vast influence from the West to get them to this position.  Some believe the West played a part in the overthrow of Yanukovych.  It does not help as well that Biden offered a $1 billion loan guarantee around the time current Ukrainian President Zelensky changed his mind on whether or not Putin was going to invade.

The West stands to gain a lot financially from trade with Ukraine which is why there has been a lot of push to get the country to join the EU.  Similarly, increased connections have been growing between Ukraine and the West, with the son of current President Joe Biden working for a questionable Ukrainian gas company (of which an investigation was stopped by Joe Biden when he was Vice President under a threat to withhold aid).  Some critics claim that the future of Ukraine is to replace one master with another, which is why some contend that the push for sovereignty is disingenuous.

The Western Perspective

Ignoring financial concerns, leadership in the United States has made the Russian Federation its main antagonist over concerns about the latter's involvement in the US’s 2016 Presidential elections and growing conflicts with Russian allies like Syria, Turkey, and China.  Dragging Russia into a failed war in another country has the potential to put extreme pressure on its economy and military, with the US hoping for a resulting in a collapse the same way the Soviet War in Afghanistan did (which lasted for 10 years so it’s best that doesn’t happen for Ukraine’s sake).  Considering the fact that a member of the Brookings Institution called for regime change in Russia, this only builds on the idea that the US wants Putin gone.

What Seems to be Happening Now

All reporting seems to confirm that Russia is being held back by Ukrainian partisans and military.  They are holding back better than expected while Russia seems to be underperforming with lackluster military planning and equipment.  The Russians have made significant military mistakes to the point that some military analysts are becoming baffled with their decisions.  Meanwhile, an outpouring of military and economic support is crossing the border in hopes to help hold off the Russians.

However, they are still continuing through with taking over the regions they were expected to and still hold the military advantage.  Reports try to portray Ukraine as winning victories, but things are still going in Russia’s favor, even if slowly.  Much of this was predicted by a YouTuber whose analysis has been rather accurate thus far and he said Russia would own half the country so the idea that Russia is losing should be disregarded.  As a result, it would not be too surprising if the narrative suddenly changes soon.

In response, the west is trying to impose economic sanctions to stop Russian advancement and further isolate it from the world in an attempt to slow the invasion.  Already, they have been removed from the SWIFT payment system which allows for financial transactions like credit cards and are looking for alternatives to goods traded with the country.  The Russian stock market has already taken a hit and the Ruble is being devalued so this will greatly hurt its economy.

The Propaganda War

Currently, the narratives being pursued by both countries are actually benefiting both sides.  Right now, there are stories of Ukrainian military men making a bold stance against their invaders and this is being used to rally support and sympathy from the rest of the world.  Unfortunately, many of them (Serpent Island, the Ghost of Kiev, the image of President Zelensky in a military vest) keep turning out to not be true so it is hard to gauge how effective the Ukrainian military is actually fighting back.  Still, this is being used to bolster the message of a heroic Ukraine standing up against the world.

Similarly, Russia needs its actual operations downplayed and low-key.  The invading force is claiming to be working to restore peace to the region, protect minority populations, and stop war crimes (again, this is all a cover).  This is why Russian media is portraying the Ukrainians attacking civilian structures or their populations (whether these are true or not) to demonize their opponents.  They are also posting about foreign weapons being used in the country to further make the Ukrainian government look primarily western backed.

This section is not dedicated to attack either party but to instead highlight the symbiotic relationship between the two narratives.  A strong, heroic Ukrainian military gives the impression of strength and power that limits the idea they are victims, while downplaying Russian success allows their actions to be disregarded and better hidden.  As a result, each is benefiting from the other’s narrative, and those may fall apart soon.

Similarly, it shows no story can be trusted.  Nobody knows what’s actually going on in the region right now, and it’s impossible to tell where lies end and truths begin.  We only know what is being reported from biased media and journalists so that limits the scope.  Everything must be treated skeptically and unproven until it can be independently verified.

International Implications

Outside of Europe, China has been plotting to take Taiwan for years.  The island nation is considered Chinese territory by the PRC government, but the Taiwanese government views itself as independent.  The government of China is watching this to gauge US weakness to see if it could invade the country with limited issues so what happens in Ukraine will impact that.

Likewise, isolating Russia from the SWIFT system will have major implications on the global economy.  Doing so will definitely hurt the Russian economy, but it could also weaken the global financial structure as it will hurt companies that house Russian assets.  Likewise, Russia has been working out a deal with the Chinese government to create an alternative reserve currency so this has the potential to weaken the US as the global world standard and create parallel economies.  Either way, if Russia does go through with this, the world would enter into a new Cold War with both the west and east trying to suck up as many countries as possible to divide the world along economic lines.

Chances of Causing WWIII - Moderate

WWIII is always overstated, but this is probably the best chance something could snowball into a greater war.  This is the first major war on European soil since WWII and there is intense pressure for it to escalate.  There are multiple avenues for that to happen and it seems like there isn’t one where things start to deescalate. 

The best option would be for the situation in Ukraine to end with peaceful negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, but there are major obstacles to pursuing that.  Ukrainian diplomats have said the Russians seem disinterested in actually negotiating and aren’t budging from their positions so it’s unlikely they’ll capitulate.  If they cannot be pursued diplomatically, then a decisive military victory will be necessary to end the war.

Already, Zelensky is pushing for escalation as he asked for a no-fly zone above Ukraine.  For the US to institute that, they would have to likely shoot down Russian plans which would spark a war between the US and Russia.  With some members of the US government like Senator Roger Wicker calling for that and increased discussion growing, that is still possible.

A Chinese invasion of Taiwan would guarantee a war in Asia as well.  Already, China is feuding with its neighbors and losing Taiwan as a source of microchips at a time of microchip shortages would further hurt the global economy.  With China feuding with its neighbors (a territorial dispute with India, historic disputes with Japan and Vietnam, fishing disputes with the Philippines, resource disputes with Australia, etc.), there is plenty of reason to believe a growing coalition could exist to fight China in the future.

In addition, Russia and China do not have the population needed to maintain economic and military growth in the long term.  Despite landmass, Russia has an economy by GDP about the size of Italy and has faces massive population decline.  China is facing similar problems with the country still facing an aging population because of the one child policy.  As a result, they won’t have enough troops to face the rest of the world in the future.

This would suggest the two couldn’t maintain a war, but this is only going to get worse with time as both lose citizens.  They may not have time to wait this out and a war in the current era may reduce the chance they’ll lose one in the future.  That kind of pressure may make them more likely to lash out and drag the world into another war.

Not helped is the fact that Russia seems to be preparing for larger conflict.  They are already preparing their nuclear arsenal and have drafted every medical professional in the country in the need of larger conflict.  They have also made threats to Sweden and Findland.  Whatever is happening right now, Russia is further gearing up for war.

Finally, the decision to cut them off from SWIFT and isolate their economy could only further increase tensions.  Russia and China have been planning a world currency for a decade, and in a way, this gives them the excuse to finally pursue that.  Doing guarantees that there will be parallel economies to the west and the east, and India has already announced it will find ways around the SWIFT system to work with Russia to continue trade.  Also, there has been a push to reduce trade with China so that means China is next on the isolation list. 

Removing Russia and China from the world economy guarantees parallel economies.  Parallel economies reduce dependency and that means that people will be less likely to rely on each other so bad impacts on one will not reverberate on the other.  My paternal grandfather once said “If goods don’t cross countries, then bullets will” so isolation only increases the likelihood for war.

Still, none of this is a guarantee war will break out.  In order for war to happen, the first shot needs to be fired.  So it is possible they choose not to go through with it.

What Needs to Happen

It’s far too late to discuss that now.  To counter Russia, the US needed to increase gas production and guarantee troops would not be stationed near the country, thus never serving as a threat.  Instead, the Biden administration has gone in the opposite direction on both so we are past the point of making up for it.

What Will Happen

I’m not making predictions.  I predicted Putin would not invade Ukraine and that Trump would get reelected.  I got both wrong.  My words are meaningless.

In Conclusion

The purpose of this blogpost has been to contextualize the war, establish the stakes, and discuss possibilities.  Escalation is only likely as a path towards not escalating gets increasingly less likely.  Still, only the leader can determine what of this post matters and what they believe the impact will be.  If this helps in any way, then it has accomplished its purpose.

Will Bob Chapek be Replaced?

  At this point, bad news for Disney CEO Bob Chapek is so normal that no one expects him to get any good news.  It was only last week that I told to someone I know that there’s a chance Disney might try to replace Chapek. Much to my lack of surprise, an article dropped this week that media executives believed that failed Presidential candidate (and former Disney CEO) Bob Iger might be brought back to replace Bob Chapek.  So, not wanting to be disbelieved that I predicted Chapek’s potential fall, I thought I'd give my analysis on reasons why Chapek might be removed, the motivations for the people making the decision, the strengths and weaknesses of Iger as an alternative, and the likely impact on the company regardless of what happens.

It’s no secret Bob Chapek is extremely unpopular as CEO of the company with fans amid growing complaints about leadership.  It takes about two seconds to find negative press and never-ending complaints about his decisions and events going on at Disney, especially in the parks with the decision to make fastpasses a paid service through the Genie+/Lightning Lane controversy and the terrible rollout of the Star Wars hotel fiasco.  It’s not just fans though as negative press has been following him from official Hollywood news services trying to cast him in a negative light, from the controversy over contract negotiations with Scarlet Johansson to the long awaited industry backlash over the company’s handling of Star Wars.  So from Disney’s customers to industry insiders, every walk of the entertainment machine seems to want a piece of him.

This isn’t just going unnoticed as actions by Chapek seem to suggest that this is starting to weigh heavily on him.  The man has been avoiding press events that would give increased chances to take questions or face fan backlash over decisions at the parks.  Likewise, there were reports that he’s extremely upset about his reputation as a “beancounter” so he’s definitely aware of his bad reputation.  It’s not surprising therefore that there are rumors that he might be removed as CEO.

However, though the growing problems with Chapek are superficially easy to find, people may not understand those likely aren’t important to Disney investors.  Firstly, that would be because he’s managed to mostly weather the controversies without massive hits to the company structure.  The Scarlett Johansson lawsuit was settled out of court with Marvel head Kevin Feige claiming Chapek had been underestimated after initial reports of feuding, managed to get positive early reviews for the Genie+ system, and most importantly has been able to get most of proposals instituted such as increased control over creatives to distribution and managing to get price increases.  Overall, he is still getting what he wants which means he has a lot of power.

Secondly, he has the full support of the board for those decisions.  Reports confirm that decisions under Chapek such as prioritizing streaming were being pushed for by board members.  In fact, reporter Kamran Pasha argued that what was doing may have been on behalf of Iger’s successor as Chairman, Susan Arnold, so it may be that Chapek is actually making policies based on what the board wants as opposed to acting independently.  It’s therefore unlikely they’re going to fire him if they are getting what they want.

It’s important to remember that as a company, Disney needs a lot of money to stay afloat and Chapek’s decisions are intended to make Disney more profitable.  Most of the decisions come at a time when Disney has been bleeding cash and needs to get itself back on track for that reason.  As a result, most of Chapek’s financial decisions have made sense purely from a business standpoint and that would make sense as to why it appeals to investors and board members, who are the main point of power Chapek has to worry about.

People may not understand this, but Disney has been taking on massive amounts of debt and doing massive spending sprees in the last decade.  Obviously, the pandemic hit them hard and the had to take on massive loans and face heavy layoffs to stay around.  Making up for that has to be a priority, especially now that the lockdowns are ending and Disney has opportunities to make money at the parks and the box office.

Nevertheless, issues with spending were also a huge problem when Bob Iger was still CEO that will need to be accounted for in the future.  Under his leadership, they spent money like drunken sailors with the company over spending on purchases for Star Wars and Fox.  They even bought two new cruise ships right before the pandemic hit, meaning those went unused.  Keeping in mind he actually said there was no money in video games right before it was revealed the company was considering buying Activision (and dodged a bullet by not doing so), it seems he had one heck of a spending problem.

Likewise, there were other issues with Iger as well, such as his global initiative.  While that had some success in Africa and especially Latin America, neither was really the company’s focus as he was instead interested in China.  From making films primarily for the country to shooting a movie in the Xinjiang region with Chinese concentration camps (and thanking the people running it in the credits), Iger made a priority to expand Disney’s global influence and like most of Hollywood thought the future for global trade was the country with the world’s largest population.  Unfortunately, the business community is pushing to leave China amid souring ties between the US and China with Bob Chapek signaling similar intent, to the point that it was rumored he was considering selling Disneyland Hong Kong and Shanghai, so this only further implies Chapek was picked to undo Iger’s legacy.

This sets the stage then for the idea that the Disney board has no intention of bringing back Iger and will probably keep Chapek in the short term.  It was rumored that Iger was actually forced out by the board and Chapek was their replacement for him despite not being ready for the job (rumors not helped by the joint interview they did).  So since they are supporting his decisions and may have wanted his predecessor gone, it seems unlikely they’d want him back after pushing him out and taking the company in a radically different direction.

For those unaware, this is a product of an existing corporate war between established Hollywood and there growing replacements.  Historically, those heads of Hollywood have run in a different direction than corporate Wall Street.  Recent mergers have put a lot of traditional Hollywood companies under the control of organizations that haven’t been part of their club and that’s changing their model, industry, and organization in ways that will have lasting implications and likely ruin the power of established Hollywood elites.

In recent years, celebrity culture has been on the decline with people getting increasingly sick of decades of scandals, entitled celebrities, and recent pushes for activism, as reflected in declines in viewership for the Oscars, movie theaters and comic book stores closing, and failure in new marketing campaigns to gain traction.  Historically, Hollywood has prioritized good press over making money (to the point that Marvel comics restructured its stories around a comic book series that was well reviewed but financially unprofitable), and that has resulted in repeated financial loses for the industry (such as declining return on investment at the box office, Disney Star Wars films making less than the prequels when adjusted for inflation, toy sale declines, and multiple projects being announced and canceled which implies corporate infighting).  Since a business must be profit first and Hollywood isn’t, inevitably their models must be changed and since they have refused to do that, it’s inevitable they’ll be amalgamated like every other failed industry or company that became outdated.

Keep in mind, Iger allowed company heads like Lucasfilm President Kathleen Kennedy and Marvel President Kevin Feige to have limitless power and multi-year contracts.  As a result, he was well liked by the heads of Hollywood as he gave them what they wanted, even when it was causing fan backlash.  With Chapek in the seat, the focus has been primarily on profit which Hollywood doesn’t want as that could come at the cost of their power and prestige.  It seems unlikely to change though and this will likely be the future of the industry as several other companies in the industry like Warner Brothers are facing mergers and the next chairman of Disney, Susan Arnold, used to work for the Carlyle Group, one of the largest investing firms on Wall Street whose CEO was recently elected Governor of Virginia, so it suggests the new model is here to stay as profit motivation takes over the industry.  Since the old guard in Hollywood is losing power, it’s likely they’ll keep fighting to maintain their power, but they are going out of style and there’s no reason to believe the profit driven focus of the new entertainment industry will be here to stay.

All the same, though the chances of Iger returning are limited and it’s unlikely Chapek’s changes will be undone, that doesn’t mean his position is safe.  Since Chapek’s entire career is about profit as opposed to press, it means he has to start making money for the company to justify his presence.  There are issues with his rollout the company is facing.

Issues that Chapek is facing include stagnant subscriptions to Disney+.  Disney was prioritizing that as its future last year and it still wasn’t projected to start making money until 2022 so that will need to make back a decent amount for Disney’s bottom line.  Since subscriptions have stagnated, that will be a point of concern for his longterm success.

Likewise, other ideas he’s now rolling out need to be successful and we won’t have the financial data for a while.  There are already cancellations for the overly expensive Star Wars hotel Disney is rolling out and the Genie+ system in the Disney parks is extremely unpopular with Disney fans.  In addition, Chapek did see failures as head of Disney Parks such as the magic band system that did not make nearly the money expected, and the underperformance of Galaxy’s Edge in part because he repeatedly slashed the addition’s budget, including cancelling a third ride and live shows that were later added to the Star Wars hotel.  We tragically won’t know how successful his reforms will be, but it could be a while before he sees the data the board and investors want and that could spell doom for his tenure.

There have been rumors he was picked as a scapegoat when the debt Iger put the company in finally hit the fan so that may be Chapek's legacy more than anything else.  He is doing what the board wants at this time (and may even be ordering him to) but Hollywood for now still thrives on press.  Removing him and replacing him with someone else could potentially be a way to rebuild some burnt bridges with fans and the old guard of Hollywood.

However, it’s unlikely his removal would change anything.  If these are the actual policies of the board and have their complete support, then it’s unlikely his replacement will rock the boat significantly and will probably keep everything Chapek has done in place (provided it was profitable).  There may be some minor changes to give the impression of reform, but it will never be significant enough to overhaul the new system of business in any way and won’t be more than enough to reduce negative press.  As a result, the best time to get rid of Chapek would actually be after he’s instituted all desired reforms the board wants, and then replace him with someone who’s essentially the same but won’t have any baggage.  This will keep everything in order as it is while superficially winning back potential customers and the old guard of Hollywood.

As for Iger, it’s unlikely he’d be their first pick unless there was no one else (as is what kept Kathleen Kennedy’s job alive for so long).  It’s possible he comes back, but with significantly reduced authority with most power being held by the company chairman.  Keep in mind, Iger was Chairman and CEO as of 2012 so just bringing him back as CEO won’t fully restore him to power unless Susan Arnold leaves.  As a result, he may be brought back purely as a figurehead for superficial “remember the glory days” nostalgia bait while the company is run differently.  As a result, this establishes the idea that new Chapek Disney is here to stay.

Of course, this is all dependent on Chapek’s reforms failing and Disney not getting the money/success it wants in the way/time it wants.  If things work out, the rattling of angry journalists who are losing power won’t mean anything.  If they don’t, they will instead likely find a way to keep what’s happening now stay the way it is in the future regardless of one man’s dream.  Regardless, it is unlikely there is any reason to remove Chapek so he’ll likely be staying around for a while and if he isn’t, there’s no reason to believe his removal will be a major change.