Strategising for the Democrats

The election of George W. Bush in 2004 was incredibly close, Bush beat his Democratic rival, John Kerry, by 2.4%. In terms of the Electoral College, Bush won 35 more votes than Kerry. This means that if a state worth 18 or more votes in the Electoral College had voted for Kerry instead of Bush, the former would have won the election.

Everyone knew that the election would be a close one and so Karl Rove, a senior adviser to the Bush-Cheney campaign devised a plan to boost turnout amongst the Republican Party’s evangelical Christian base. So in eleven states around the country Rove managed to get referendums on same-sex marriage bans on the ballot. The hope was that this would encourage evangelicals to turn out to vote to ban same-sex marriage and at the same time they would cast a ballot for George W. Bush. Amongst those states was Ohio, worth 20 votes in the Electoral College, enough to swing the election. The margin of victory was only 2.1%.

Currently the Democrats have 55 Senators to the Republicans’ 45, which means that a net change of six seats would tip the Senate into the hands of the Republicans. So if the Democrats want to keep the Senate they need to be strategic. One of the ways that they can do this is by copying Rove’s 2004 strategy and get issues on the ballot that increase turnout. The Democrats have two issues which could help them in 2014: the minimum wage and marijuana.

According to a recent George Washington University poll, having marijuana legalisation on the ballot makes 40% of people “much more likely” to vote, whilst it makes a further 30% “somewhat more likely” to vote. This is good news for Democrats as it boosts turnout, particularly amongst young people who are notoriously bad at voting in midterms and a heavily Democratic demographic. Another constituency of the Democratic coalition are poorer people, who have the most to gain from raising the minimum wage. It is a massive encouragement for people to vote if what they are voting for is a basically a raise.

The minimum wage is highly popular and very successful on the ballot. Since referendums on the issue started in 1988 it only failed twice, once in Missouri and Montana, both in 1996. Since 2004 it has averaged 66% in favour and only 34% against. Having such a popular question is hugely beneficial to the Democrat in the same race as it brings the question of the minimum wage to more prominence.

If Democrats want to keep hold of the Senate then they need to make sure that Republicans gain no more than five seats (assuming the Democrats gain none). To do this the Democrats should get marijuana and the minimum wage on the ballot in as many states as possible, especially in ones where a close race is expected. Even in states without a competitive Senate race, it is still a good idea to have these initiatives to help bolster House Democrats. There are attempts to get the minimum wage on the ballot in several states, but so far only Alaska and South Dakota definitely have it on the 4^th of November ballot. Alaska is also the only state with marijuana legislation on the ballot and Florida has medical marijuana on the ballot. Alaska is also one of the states with a good chance of going Republican in November, having both on the ballot should boost Senator Mark Begich’s chances of being re-elected.

Ukrainian Crisis Approaches Boiling Point

The crisis in Ukraine has continued to get even hotter over the past week despite attempts by diplomats to secure a peace deal.

Eastern Ukraine has a large proportion of ethnic Russians, and many Ukrainians who are supportive of Russia. This is why the Kremlin has moved its focus from Crimea to the rest of eastern Ukraine. The series of events which resulted in Crimea joining Russia has begun to play out across the east. Armed men have taken numerous government buildings, erected Russian flags and demanded that they be allowed to join Russia. Just like the armed men in Crimea they are too well-organised to simply be pro-Russian locals. Rather, they are mostly members of the Russian armed forces. Of course Russia denies that the militia are connected to the Russian military, but they made the same statements about the militia in Crimea and have since admitted that they were actually Russian soldiers.

Yet, as I have said in my previous posts, these areas are not like Crimea. They are not majority Russian and hence the Ukrainian government will put up more of a fight for control of the region. Already Kiev had sent troops in to take some key positions back from the Russians.

Despite the chaotic situation in the east, there did seem to be some hope that a peaceful solution might actually be reached! The governments of Ukraine, Russia, the US and EU reached an agreement in Geneva. The agreement called for the dissolving of all illegal military groups, amnesty for all anti-government protesters and that the militias that have taken control of government buildings must leave them. Unfortunately that deal seems dead in the water as one of the spokesmen for the separatists has said that they are not bound by the deal.

This all plays perfectly into Putin’s hand; he gets to look like a sensible diplomat whilst continuing to destabilise eastern Ukraine through these separatists. If you want any more proof that Putin is planning on take eastern Ukraine, all you need to do is watch the press conference he held earlier this week in which he referred to the eastern parts of Ukraine as “new Russia”! If that isn’t a clear sign that he plans to go even further into the territory of Ukraine, I don’t know what could be!

We Need to Talk About Appeasement

When Russia took Crimea from Ukraine the West responded with shock. The reaction in Eastern and Central Europe was very different, for years leaders in those countries had warned that Russia had never lost its imperialistic ambitions. Fear is particularly rife in the Baltic States who, bar a brief period of independence between World Wards, spent several centuries under the rule of Russia.

If we look at demographics they may have a reason to fear Russian aggression. Estonia and Latvia have sizeable ethnic Russian minorities, particularly in the east of their countries. The county of Ida-Viru in north-eastern Estonia is over 70% Russian, even more ethnically homogenous than Crimea! When Putin decided that he was going to invade Crimea he used the excuse that he was only doing it to protect Russians from the new government in Kiev. In Latvia, Russians are frequently treated like second-class citizens. Perhaps Putin could use this as a pretext to invasion?

Yet there are massive differences between Ukraine/Crimea and the Baltic states. The origins of the Crimean Crisis is the debate of whether Ukraine should tie itself closer to Russia or the EU. There is no such debate in the Baltic States, all three are members of the EU and NATO and are fully within the Western fold. Membership of NATO is of key importance here, no sovereign nation has invaded on of its members since its formation in 1949.

Another difference between Ukraine/Crimea and the Baltic states is of demographics and population. Estonia and Latvia have the highest proportions of ethnic Russians of the former USSR with 24.8% and 26.9% respectively. Compare this to Ukraine which has ‘only’ 17.3% ethnic Russians. But comparing country-wide percentages is not being intellectually honest. Russia has not invaded all of Ukraine, only Crimea. In Crimea 58.8% of the people are Russian. The population of these states is also important. Crimea has a population of 2.4 million, larger than both Estonia (1.3 million) and Latvia (2 million), only Lithuania with a population of 3 million is larger than Crimea. Lithuania has also got far fewer ethnic Russians, who make up only 5.8% of the population. There are more Russians in Crimea than the three Baltic States combined. The Estonian county of Ida-Viru has only 140,000 people in it. Would Putin really risk war with the West over an insignificant Estonian county? (no offence people of Ida-Viru county) When looking at the Baltic States Putin would be forced to do a cost-benefit analysis. He would then find the potential costs way too high and the benefits too few. It would seem inconceivable, but Putin has proved to be unpredictably before and will likely be so in the future.

So if the Baltic States will not be his next target, what will? The most commonly talked about are eastern Ukraine and Moldova.

Moldova is a small, landlocked country sandwiched between Ukraine and Romania. The fact that it does not border Russia, or even the sea, makes it seem strange that it might be the next flashpoint in a new Cold War. The fact that only 9.4% of Moldova is ethnically Russian further confuses the situation. Yet, as was the case with Ukraine, the problem is only part of the country. When Moldova seceded from the Soviet Union in 1991 the eastern portion of Moldova, Transnistria, seceded from Moldova. Although no UN member recognises the independence of Transnistria, it has been de facto independent for over 20 years. Another key issue is the demographics of the pseudo-independent state, it is roughly evenly split between Moldovans, Russians and Ukrainians (32, 30 and 29 respectively). Unlike the Baltic States, Moldova is not an EU or NATO member and hence is not well protected from foreign aggression.

Yet the major problem with invading Transnistria would be how could they get there? The most likely scenario would involve going through Ukraine and possibly Moldova. This could further destabilise the situation in Ukraine, especially since it would put Russian troops extremely close to Ukraine’s 4^th largest city, Odessa. Once they had control of Transnistria there would be the issue of what to do next? To move in/out of Transnistria would involve going through Ukraine, or Moldova and Romania. Considering Russia would have violated the sovereignty of the former two, they would be unlikely to willingly help Russia. Another option would be to take more territory, considering Putin’s actions already, it is not unthinkable. One issue that could prevent Russian action in Transnistria is the reaction that the rest of Moldova would have. Moldova is hoping is one day enter the European fold, Russia violating their sovereignty would likely cause them to seek closer ties with Europe sooner.

So if Transnistria is unlikely to happen, what really are the chances of Russia invading eastern Ukraine? As I have explained previously, no Ukrainian Oblast has more than 40% ethnic Russians (other than Crimea). Yet who says that Russia has to take an entire Oblast, perhaps just part of it. The city of Donetsk is 48% Russian, could Putin decide that he would likely to take that city?

Assigning probabilities is pointless as it all depends on how the West acts going into the future. If the West does nothing then the chances of Russia taking action in Transnistria, eastern Ukraine or the Baltic states would increase. If Putin does go further and the West does not take military action then we are taking about appeasement. I know accusing Putin of acting like Hitler seems drastic, but it is true. Hitler took Czechoslovakia and Poland to ‘protect’ ethnic Germans. If Putin takes Ukraine and Moldova to ‘protect’ ethnic Russians then how is he any different?

Chaos in Crimea

So the results of the referendum in Crimea are in and with a turnout of 83%, 96.6% of people voted to join Russia.

If you believe that, then you’ll believe anything. From the minute I heard about this I was convinced that it would be rigged. There’s certainly no way that the election could be considered fair, after all it’s very hard to have a fair election when there are men with guns that demand that you vote in a particular way.

Elections/referendums in which over 90% of the votes of one way are not necessarily rigged, last year the Falklands voted 99% to remain British, and not even the Argentinian government disputes the results. In the case of Crimea it does seem far-fetched that 96.6% of the voters would want to join Russia considering what we know about Crimea. Crimean Tartars are terrified of joining with Russia after how badly they were treated under the USSR. The Ukrainian population is more split, some supporting Kiev and others supporting Moscow.

I fundamentally believe in the right to national self-determination, within certain limits. I believe that if the Crimeans want to join Russia, then they should be allowed to, but it has to be done in the right way. You cannot hold the referendum whilst Russia is occupying the region and you must wait until the political climate cools, so that people can make rational choices.

Crimea becomes the third territory that Russia has taken off a sovereign nation. In 2008 Russia invaded the Caucasian nation of Georgia and took Abkhazia and South Ossetia from it. They have since become pseudo-independent nations that are in reality satellite Russian territories. Now people are wondering if Crimea will be the last territory that Russia steals, what about southern and eastern Ukraine? What about Transnistria, the pseudo-independent state formally part of Moldova?

It is important to note the special case of Crimea, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Crimea I majority Russia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia declared their independence in the early 1990s. This is important to note as no other Ukrainian Oblast has more than 40% ethnic Russians and Transnistria has no border with Russia. Is it possible that Russia will take more of Ukraine? Yes. Is it likely? No.

Source: wikipedia

Offshore Wind Energy - Britain's Future

North Sea Oil has helped to boost the British economy over the past 30 or so years. But as time passes the oil and gas resources will shrink and eventually they will run out. It would therefore seem sensible to assume that as time passes, Britain will become more and more dependent on foreign countries for its energy resources. Yet that is not necessarily true, because Britain has great access to one resource that will never be depleted: Wind

If you live in Britain you know that it can get fairly windy, and hence wind farms seem like a good idea to help Britain achieve energy independence. Unfortunately a lot of people who live near wind farms complain that they are both ugly and noisy. There are also concerns over how it might negatively affect birds. So how can we make use of Britain’s wind energy potential whilst taking into account reasonable objections to wind farms? The solution is simple, build most wind farms offshore. Although offshore wind farms are more expensive to build and maintain, advances in technology are helping to mitigate this. The good news is that Britain has a lot of potential in this area, current estimates suggest that one third of Europe’s offshore wind potential is in British waters!

Already Britain has put this potential to good use as it produces more energy from offshore wind than any other country. Of the top 20 offshore wind farms, half are in British waters, the largest is the London Array off the coast of Kent and has a capacity of 630 Megawatts (MW). In December 2013 10% of Britain’s energy consumption came from offshore wind farms! The good news is that this will rise even further as Britain’s total offshore wind capacity is hoped to rise to a total of 28 Gigawatts (GW) by 2020, a rise of 15GW. There are several wind farms currently planned that would have a capacity of over 1200MW.

According to a report commissioned by the Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult (OREC), if Britain meets its goals and adds 15GW of capacity by 2020, there will be a massive benefit to the British economy. They estimate that £6.7 billion will be added to the British economy which result in 34,000 new jobs directly related to offshore wind and 150,000 new jobs in the wider British economy.

Of course there are major problems with replying on wind energy. Like most renewable energy resources, capacity and actual output are very different. This means that we cannot rely solely on wind energy, offshore or otherwise. We must also invest in other forms of renewable energy such as solar and tidal. Solar, much like wind, is unpredictable as its energy production is significantly reduced when there is significant cloud cover. Tidal energy is extremely regular, which makes it more reliable.

Some people may consider the idea of Britain producing all its energy from renewable sources nothing but a pipe dream, yet they are totally wrong. It is still several decades away but nonetheless is certainly achievable and most of it should come from offshore wind.

To see where the offshore wind farms are located, click here.

London Array, the world's largest offshore wind farm
by capacity (630 MW)
source: Telegraph

Crimean Annexation Imminent & Repeating History

The Crimean Parliament voted yesterday to become part of Russia, pending a referendum. This will further raise tensions between Russia and the West who have been exchanging verbal blows over the crisis. So what will the referendum actually say and when will it be held?

The Crimean Parliament is hoping that it can hold the referendum as the 16^th of March. It will contain the two following questions:

1.       Are you in favour of reuniting Crimea with Russia as a subject of the Russian Federation?

2.       Are you in favour of retaining the status of Crimea as part of Ukraine?

I have an issue with the wording in the first question, the use of the word ‘reuniting’ looks like an attempt to change the result. A better word to use would be joining.  Another problem with the referendum is over it constitutionality. Article 73 of the Ukrainian constitution states that only an all-Ukrainian referendum can change its territory. For a referendum to be called, the following conditions must be met.

1)      President of Ukraine calls for a referendum

2)      The Verkovna Rada (Ukrainian Parliament) calls for a referendum

3)      The people demand a referendum using the following conditions:

i)                    3 million people eligible to vote have signed a petition on the matter

ii)                   Two thirds of Ukraine’s 24 oblasts have at least 100,000 signatories

It is quite clear that these steps have not been followed, but nonetheless the Crimean Deputy Prime Minister, Rustam Temirgalier, denies that the move is unconstitutional. He claims that since the Crimean Parliament does not believe that the government in Kiev is legal, the move is perfectly constitutional. That makes no sense whatsoever.

There is no doubt in my mind that this referendum will be rigged. There is no way that the Crimean Parliament would pull something like this off without talking to Putin first. So think about this: Putin would be absolutely humiliated, both domestically and internationally, if the referendum were to turn out pro-Ukrainian. So he needs to make sure that there is no chance of losing the election, and so he will definitely make sure that it is rigged.

According to the latest Ukrainian census, Russians make up 58% of Crimea, which means that there is a good chance that they could lose this referendum if it was held fairly.

At this point I feel like Crimea may be a lost cause, but we cannot give in to the Russians.

Repeating history:

7^th of March 1936: Nazi Germany remilitarises the Rhineland, contrary to the Versailles Treaty that ended WWI. Other than some angry speeches, Britain and France do nothing.

12^th of March 1938: Nazi troops march into Austria

30^th of September 1938: Czechoslovakia agrees to hand the Sudetenland over to Nazi Germany

16^th of March 1939: Nazi troops take the rest of Czechoslovakia

1^st of September 1939: Nazi Germany invades Poland and WWII officially begins

August 2008: South Ossetia War results in Georgian loss of territory

16^th of March 2014: Crimea votes to join Russia.

??th of ????? 20??: Russia takes more of Ukraine

Fear of War Rises in Ukraine

The crisis in Ukraine is turning out to be the biggest geopolitical crisis in Europe this side of the millennium. The demands of the protesters, in the beginning, was simply a call for President Yanuchovych to turn towards the EU, rather than Russia.

Then everything changed last week.

The protests descended into chaos when the police attempted to take parts of Kiev that had been controlled by the protesters. As the situation got bloodier, a truce was hashed out between the government and the opposition, but it was not to last. The truce was declared on Thursday the 20^th of January, and dead by the 21^st! Friday turned out to be the bloodiest since protests began with an estimated 100 people killed, mostly on the opposition side.

As a result President Yanuchovych promised fresh elections, but it was too late, the Ukrainian Parliament voted unanimously to impeach him and replace him with the Chairman of the Ukrainian Parliament, Oleksandr Turchynov. Almost immediately Yanuchovych fled the country, fearful of his safety.

Unfortunately things have gotten even worse for Ukraine, the country may actually break apart! It has been evident throughout the portests that support for the EU is highest in the north and west of Ukraine, whilst support for Russia is highest in the south and east. This is because there are higher portions of ethnic Russians in the latter. This schism is being most acutely felt in Crimea, which is majority Russian.

Russia is trying desperately to make sure that Ukraine stays within its influence. Before the breakup of the USSR, Moscow held sway over all of Eastern Europe, today only Moldova, Belarus and Ukraine are under its wing. If Russia were to lose Ukraine, it would be a massive blow to its influence in the region. As a result Russian President, Vladimir Putin, is doing everything he can to make sure that he does not lose Ukraine. On 26^th of February, Putin put 150,000 troops along the Ukraine-Russia border ‘on alert’. Two days later armed men took control of several government buildings in Simferopol, Crimea’s capital, and raised the Russian flag. Some suspect that the level of organisations of the men indicates that they had likely been trained and that the Russians were behind them.

To make matters worse, the Upper House of the Russian Parliament voted today, unanimously, to allow troops to be used in Ukraine! This looks like the beginning of the first war in Europe since Kosovo in 1999!

So what should the West do? I say fight fire with fire. We must promise that if Russia invades Ukraine, that we will send in troops to oppose them. I know it sounds drastic, but the only language Putin understands is brute force. By showing him that the West remains strong, he will have no choice but to stand down.