150 years of history show how invaders have sunk economically

“York Times”

And despite the extraordinary heroism of the people of Ukraine, it is still more likely that the Russian flag will be placed between the ruins of Kiev and Kharkivi. But even if that happens, the Russian Federation will emerge from this weaker and poorer war than it was before the invasion. The invasion never brings benefits to the conqueror. Why? If you return to history, you will see many examples of powers rich through their military abilities. The Romans certainly benefited from the conquest of the Hellenistic world, as did Spain with the invasion of the Aztecs and Incas in America. But the modern world is different, and with “moderne” I mean at least the last century from here. British writer Norman Angel published in 1909 his famous abandoned “The Great Endowment”, arguing that war is an obsolete means of enriching a state.

His book was widely misinterpreted, saying that war could not happen again. A hypothesis that proved to be terribly wrong over the next two generations. But what he actually said was that even the winners in war could no longer make any profit from their success.

And of course he was right. We are all forever grateful to the Allies who triumphed in World War II. But Britain later emerged as a weakened power, and experienced for years economic austerity measures, as it faced many difficulties overcoming the lack of currency exchange.

Even after the war, the United States faced more problems than many today may think. She experienced a period of price hikes that led her to a time of inflation rate of over 20 percent. And vice versa, even the complete chapter did not prevent Germany and Japan from achieving unprecedented development later.

Why and when did conquest become useless? Angel says that everything changed with the birth of a vital “interdependence” among the nations “which devalued international borders”, and according to him it was “essentially a work of the past 40 years”, beginning around 1870. And it seems that his argument is.

The year 1870 was about a time when railways, steam ships, and telegraphers made it possible to create what some economists call the first global economy. In such a global economy, it is difficult to conquer another country without breaking that country apart, but also itself from international work sharing, not to mention the international financial system at great cost.

We can see this dynamic in Russia today. Angel also stressed the limits of annexing a territory in a modern economy. You couldn't sequestron the industrial assets of a country just like pre-industrial invaders invaded territories. After arbitrary seizure destroys the incentives and sense of security that an advanced society needs to remain productive. Again, history confirmed his analysis. For a time, Nazi Germany was able to keep up - to - date lands with a prewar joint Bruto product.

But despite ruthless exploitation, occupied territories seem to compensate only about 30 percent of the cost of the German military campaign, in part because many of the economies that sought to exploit the Hilter were brought under collapse.

Is it not as remarkable as being in a situation where Hitler's economic failures tell us useful things about future prospects? But here we are. Thanks to Putin! I would add two more factors to explain why conquest is a futile undertaking.

The first is that modern warfare uses an extraordinary amount of resources. Pre-modern armies used limited quantities of ammunition, and could live to some extent from the surrounding environment. In 1864 Union General William Tecumseh Sherman was able to break off his supply lines and march through Georgia with rations for only 20 days.

But modern armies require large quantities of ammunition, spare parts, and, above all, fuel for their vehicles. In fact, recent estimates by the British Defence Ministry say Russian progress in Kiev has temporarily stalled “possibly as a result of continuing logistical difficulties”.

This means to potential invaders that the conquest, even if successful, is extremely expensive, and it is unlikely that we can ever pay off the costs spent on it. Second, we live today in a world of passionate nationalism.

Ancient and Middle Eastern villagers may not care who exploited them; but modern workers do. Putin's attempt to invade Ukraine seems to be based not only on his belief that there is no such thing as the Ukrainian nation but also on the assumption that Ukrainians themselves can be persuaded to consider themselves Russian.

That seems very unlikely to happen. So even if Kiev and other large Ukrainian cities fall, Russia will find itself spending many years trying to control a hostile population.

So the invasion is a lost bet. This has been true for at least a century and a half. It has been clear to anyone who has seen the facts of the past 100 years. Unfortunately, there are still crazy and fanatics who refuse to believe this, and some of them lead nations and their armies.

Note: Paul Krugman, renowned American economist, winner of the 2008 Nobel Economics Prize.