Putin - Savior or Tyrant?

I and an uncle of mine, who has varied interests and great knowledge on middle east, had a discussion on Russia's action in the middle east, especially Syria, where the Russians under Putin had taken the fight to ISIS and the Syrian rebels in support of President Bashar al-Assad. While I agree with his assessment that what Russia does is noble and good, I didn't necessarily subscribe to his view that Russia would emerge the next super power from the ashes of World War 3.

It is rather ironic (not that much, this Wired article claims it is common at this time of the year and gives tips on how to win) that the discussion happened on Christmas when the whole world celebrated the birth of Jesus Christ, prince of peace (Oops, not the whole world, many Russian Orthodox churches celebrate it in January). So is Putin a Savior who would restore Russia to former glory or a tyrant who would run Russia to the ground. I have my own reasons, which I discuss below, as to why the latter is more likely to happen though I would love the possibility of the former happening. Who doesn't like a triumphant, underdog story?

Economy

Russia is no longer the heavy weight it used to be among the BRICS nations. In fact most nations including Brazil and China are fighting high inflation and severe slowdown in their economies. The sanctions imposed by the European Union and the USA after the Crimean annexation and subsequent play in Ukraine is also having a negative effect on the Russian economy.

The fall in oil prices, whether it is being orchestrated by Washington, Riyadh or Moscow itself, the fact remains that Russia is suffering along with the other oil economies. Saudi Arabia is likely to raise debt which would help them fill in the void left behind by the plunging oil in their treasuries. Alaska is also proposing to bring in higher income tax rates after nearly three decades to plug dwindling oil revenues. Saudi Arabia (AA-) is better placed than Russia (BB+) in ratings by S&P and hence would have a clear advantage here.

The allies also play an important role here. On Russia's side we have got Syria, Iran and Iraq for now. Syria is still battling ISIS and have conceded large swathes of land to the self proclaimed Caliphate. Iran recently won a diplomatic victory in getting the West remove crippling sanctions against it by agreeing to go slow on its nuclear weapons program and is unlikely to antagonize them again. Iraq is still rebuilding itself from the invasion by the United States and subsequent IS menace. There are other countries such as China on the fence, which is battling its own financial crisis at home and also concerned about USA's involvement with its regional rivals. The other countries are too small or economically weak to bring anything substantial to the table.

Against Russia we have Saudi Arabia and Turkey, two of the most powerful countries in the middle east. Israel can also be counted in as also Pakistan. The United Arab Emirates can bankroll the fight for long. Though these countries are economically sound if push comes to the shove they can be backed by the Americans and the Europeans with their large purses miffed by age old Soviet adversity and recent Russian action in Ukraine and Syria.

Advantage: Anti-Russia coalition

Military

The Soviet Union was a formidable military power but the same cannot be said about the Russians. When the Russians battled Georgia over South Ossetia and Abkhazia their performance was assessed and found to be lacking by both International and Domestic experts. Though their performance had significantly improved during the Ukraine and Syrian conflicts, it is still not the kind that would upset the Anti-Russian coalition. Russia's allies are also not in a very strong position. Iran has dated weaponry and is dependent on Russia for its' supplies. So is Syria and most of their weapons fell into rebel hands when Syrian soldiers defected to join the rebel ranks.

China, who is sitting on the fence on Syria, if it decides to join would be a game changer. China has weapons that are either imported or copies of some of the world's most renowned. However, the question is whether they will enter the war. Chinese economy is already in a slowdown and being a trade economy heavily dependent on exports of finished goods, war is bad news. A slowing economy doesn't augur well for domestic politics either. But if they were to enter despite these they might be aggressively engaged more locally in the South China Sea, Tibet and India. Also entering the middle east in support of the Russians and the Shias against the Sunnis may lead to loss of relationship with the Pakistanis. Moreover, the Uighur problem in Xinjiang may peak considering the fact that Uighurs adhere to Sunni practices.

Contrast this with the Anti-Russia coalition. In the middle east we have Turkey, Saudi and Israel ready to defend against Russian action. The United States and its allies would be ready with arms and ammunition to back them up. Considering that Turkey is a NATO member, any attack on them would invite NATO ire which might affect Russia closer to home than in Syria. Probably the reason why Turkey downing a Russian fighter has more or less received muted response.

While Russian performance have significantly improved since 2008 it still doesn't match its opponent and allies.

Advantage: Anti-Russia coalition

Domestic Politics

A country need stability internally to project power externally. This is important, especially in this age, when the enemy actively uses internal disturbances as a policy to attack. Russia in this front has many active instability factors - separatists, drugs, demographics, corruption, mafia and oligarchs. The fact that Russia lacks any credible opposition to highlight excesses by the Government and most of the fourth estate being owned by the Government or state run companies doesn't help either. Divergent views aren't tolerated, be it from a Journalist, physicist or from that of a Chess Grand master, they are silenced either by assassination or intimidation. In a full scale war these can be put to maximum use to divert  Kremlin's attention from the battle field.

Iran too faced protests soon after elections in 2009 like Russia did after Putin came to power in 2012. The supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, is still a central figure and a force to be reckoned with, known for his fierce anti-west tirade. Though the current Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, is a moderate, who was able to strike the deal with the west on Nuclear energy, he still is very much influenced by the Ayatollah is an open secret. There is a civil war going on in Syria and Iraq isn't exactly peaceful either.

China has a more complicated problem at hand. The bond that holds the Chinese people together is that the economy has been growing, providing opportunities, keeping them busy. So busy that they have never felt the need to fight for government services, labor incentives and freedom. The unraveling economy can have a cascading effect on the cheap labor which might make the local population to raise against the state in protest. Apart from this there is the restive province of Xinjiang with the muslim Uighurs who are fighting against the Han Chinese for autonomy. Tibetans too are protesting the presence of Chinese in their land. All this flash points could be activated if China decides to side with Russia in the war.

On the other side we have dictatorships too - UAE, Saudi Arabia, et cetera. However, these don't have an imminent threat of losing power. Turkey has a vibrant democracy so does Israel and Pakistan, at least on paper. The other American and European powers have a strong mature democracy and institutions to take care of internal issues freeing their leaders to concentrate on the war, should the need arise.

Advantage: Anti-Russia coalition

It is simple to dismiss all the above as western propaganda. But a propaganda targeting whom would be a valid question. If it is to shape public discourse to prepare them for a war then it is not happening. People today are more connected and war averse than before. And in this age of Wikileaks, Snowden, Anonymous and a free press, a propaganda of this scale, if it was one, would have been easily called out as one. Contrarily it is countries like Russia and Iran which have a press high on propaganda.

So is a great war in the offing then? I would say, NO!

Russia, Europe and America are too smart for it. The great powers have more or less understood that war creates more problems than it solves. We have seen Europe, once the world's hot spot for conflicts, kick out all misunderstandings and merging together for good. Russia went ahead and created a trade union combining Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia into an Eurasian Customs Union. USA is consolidating its friendship with Mexico and Canada and is extending a hand of friendship to even former enemies such as Cuba.

So Putin - a savior or tyrant? A savior to his people thanks to the propaganda that is going on in Russia and among the Russian people. A tyrant to the west and all who view Russia as a threat including Ukraine, Georgia, et cetera. What Putin actually is a smart negotiator, a shrewd businessman and a sly fox. His negotiation skills came to the fore when Syria was to be punished by the policeman of the world. He means business when he says he would protect Russian interests (which include ethnic Russian population in other countries) under threat using force. When the heat is on him he turns around, withdraws to negotiate and concludes his business - the French saw it during Georgia, Germany and Europe in Ukraine and the United States probably would see it in Syria.

Disclosures:

• I am a big fan of Russia, the country that demonstrated how Communism (me a fanboi) can work (albeit for a short time with all the inefficiencies).
• I also like spies (have read most works of Tom Clancy, Robert Ludlum and watched most Bond movies) and hence Putin, the KGB agent, naturally commands my admiration.
• I understand that no one can be without bias but I am working on containing mine.

Is 'Uber'ization the answer?

Very few companies can boast of having become so famous that they ended up as verbs, mostly as a jargon in the business circles and a rare few officially. There is a term which defines this - Neologism.

Wikipedia had this to say on Neologism

A neologism (/niːˈɒlədʒɪzəm/; from Greek νέο- néo-, "new" and λόγος lógos, "speech, utterance") is the name for a relatively new or isolated term, word, or phrase that may be in the process of entering common use, but that has not yet been accepted into mainstream language.

Google was one among them with more people replacing the term 'searching' with 'googling'. It was added to the dictionary about a decade back. And Xerox was one of the earliest. Off late, a new word is in vogue -'Uberization'. As you probably know, it comes from Uber, the transportation company that infamously employs more developers of software than drivers of automobiles. Uberization means different things to different people. To some it is just disruption with new technology/processes and to others it is a service part of the nascent yet promising 'on-demand, sharing economy' driven by technological innovation. It is the latter definition I referred to while penning the below content.

Uber was successful in disrupting the market of good old taxis and works as an intermediary in connecting service providers (Cab drivers) and demand (Cab riders). Uber grew fairly quick, thanks to generous funds from the venture capitalists eager to identify the next Google. Incidentally, Google itself is a big investor in Uber through Google Ventures. Uber has been efficient as a service and cost effective too since the majority of the job is done by algorithm with little to no human intervention. They have also been quite aggressive in expanding as expansion to newer territories and scaling up operations took no or negligible effort. The ubiquitous technology infrastructure in the form of smartphones in the hands of the masses and the ability of computer hardware to more or less keep up with Moore's law has made sure the business model remains competitive.

The social reasons were compelling too. When Toyota brought in Just-in-time (JIT) manufacturing it was touted as a game changer and it did prove that it was an efficiency multiplier and waste eliminator. However, the credit for taking JIT from factory floors into personal lives goes to us, the Millennials. We called it On-Demand Services. This was partly because of the lack of patience. It is indeed ironic that we complain of a mundane, robot-like life when we are ready to adopt assembly line techniques in real life.

The logic behind on-demand services, however, is solid. Uber, for example, tries to address the transportation problem for the masses, especially in the USA, where the public transportation system is lackadaisical. Their argument primarily is this - Why own a car when you can demand one at any point of time. It makes massive economic sense for the consumer. A car would spend most of its time parked at home or in office and little time transporting. Moreover, there are also overhead expenses such as service costs, insurance, et cetera associated with ownership not to mention the physical and mental stress while driving. It also adds value in that a single car in the Uber world ends up transporting more people, many times than a single car in its whole life time when they were owned. And there are the usual arguments on pollution, traffic and the likes.

The efficiencies no wonder are making people call for the Uberization of the whole economy. However, that may be a bad idea.

Uber and most other on-demand services treat the service providing professional as a contractor and not an employee (except in California). This helps the company in running lean and also frees them from other conventional employee benefit related expenses. However, it restricts the company’s reach in controlling the contractor behavior. Experience shows such lack of a leash has been exploited to unleash terrible crimes on unsuspecting consumers.

It is likely that the quality of the service would suffer because of the above reason. A contractor is largely not bound by strict employee guidelines and is likely to deviate from moral and social responsibilities in which the company believes in. The market is expected to instill such guidelines through a network of feedback, leader boards which affect the reputation of the contractor but the ease of obtaining a pseudonymous identity would render it worthless. Just plain human tendencies of forgiveness screw the feedback mechanism too.

The contractor has the freedom to be online or go offline at their chosen hour. There are no fixed minimum hours of work expected out of them. While this gives the contractors the freedom it would break the whole system spreading the available resources too thin and insufficient. It would also result in what is known as surge pricing which is discussed below. This was experienced in the recent tragic Chennai floods when most taxi aggregators including Uber were not able to service all customers (though they need to be applauded for their relief efforts).

Demand and supply for a commodity or service affects all businesses. On-demand services try to make the most out of discrepancies in demand and supply. This is because when the demand is high and supply low, the emoluments are attractive and new suppliers get into the system and when the reverse happens, supply is high and demand low, the consumers get a better deal. Free market economics at work. However, Surge Pricing, as it is known, is not embraced by consumers who feel they are being exploited. Moreover, if not done properly any cost optimization achieved earlier may be lost due to surge pricing methodologies.

Surge pricing would also drive up inequality (related), which according to many, is the single greatest threat facing humanity. A free market is an economist's dream come true but very rarely are markets free and ideal. When the fares hit the roof only those with the ability to pay would be able to avail the service and the less fortunate would be left behind to fend for themselves. If the whole economy is Uberized and all services are to be delivered, on-demand with surge pricing then on a rainy day a low income household would probably lose all the saving they accumulated when the sun shone.

Thus I end my argument on why Uberization is not the answer. Comments welcome below.