How Globalization is Affecting U.S. Businesses

The Russians' actions against Ukraine have stunned the globe. Putin has ordered his country's enormous "military-industrial complex" to either win the conflict or cause maximum harm to Ukraine. Despite the bravery of Ukraine's warriors, a prolonged battle will be more destructive to Ukraine than to Russia. And as long as the combat isn't fought in Russia, Putin can keep the war going indefinitely while their war factories stay unharmed. So, how will the fight end? According to Stephen Kotkin, a historian and foreign affairs expert, the outline of a peace agreement may be forming.During his March visit to Moscow, Xi Jinping submitted a twelve-point peace plan that was swiftly rejected by NATO leaders, particularly Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Nonetheless, the offer represented the potential start of a peace strategy. Why would China want to stop the war when they can benefit from cheap Russian oil while the US depletes its military equipment, including Javelin anti-tank missiles?China has two motivations for pursuing peace: to demonstrate to the world that it is a major diplomatic actor and to quell rising anti-China sentiments around the world, particularly in Europe. China's international prestige will only rise if it is perceived to have put an end to the killing. Xi has already achieved a diplomatic win by brokering a deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and he now wants to do the same with Israel and the Palestinians.

Now that China is Russia's senior partner

and its primary international backer—it is the only country capable of guaranteeing the conditions of any armistice or peace accord. A deal with Putin alone would be worthless since he couldn't be trusted to uphold his half of any agreement.Kotkin, on the other hand, contends that if a deal with NATO and Ukraine is secured and backed by Beijing, Putin would be unlikely to violate its terms. Xi is the last person Putin would want to insult now that he has turned over his country's economic rescue to China. Given the two countries' adversarial past, this is a remarkable change of events.The Ukrainians could force the Russians to leave their area, albeit this is quite improbable. This would be a type of victory, but not a permanent peace. The Ukrainians can achieve peace by obtaining two things they have long desired: the freedom to join the West and the removal of themselves from Russia's hold in exchange for a security guarantee. That is what the 2004 Orange Revolution was all about. Henry Kissinger now endorses the idea that Ukraine has earned the right to join NATO.Kotkin believes this is a horrible idea. He believes Ukraine will not receive the support of all NATO countries, particularly Germany. Russia saves face by holding area presently seized by Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the Donbas region, as well as Crimea, which appears to be a lost cause for Ukraine. When Ukraine declared independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, Boris Yeltsin requested the restoration of Crimea.

The most effective solution is an 

armistice with a demilitarized zone. This strategy has maintained peace on the Korean Peninsula for 70 years, transforming South Korea into an economic powerhouse. The same might happen in Ukraine.Kotkin cautions us that things can change before a peace accord is fully implemented, such as Putin experiencing the same destiny as Ceausescu in Romania. But that is a hope, not a plan. The question is whether the US administration will engage with China on a peace treaty now that there are severe tensions over trade and Taiwan.China has a great motive to get Putin to the bargaining table. It seeks to restore its soiled reputation in the West, particularly after COVID, and show the world that it is a power comparable to the United States. Will the United States get on board and persuade Zelenskyy to negotiate? The United States is also motivated to deny the Sino-Russian alliance a propaganda win. For the time being, America's financial and public support for Ukraine is substantial, but it is not unlimited.The German government has postponed a final vote by the European Union to prohibit the sale of new CO2-emitting vehicles in 2035. It turns out that, despite their zeal to finance and require the "electrification of everything," politicians in Europe and elsewhere are unable to overturn unchangeable natural rules.For more than a century, electric vehicles have been more expensive, less safe and reliable, and had a shorter range than vehicles powered by internal combustion or diesel engines. 

They take much longer to charge

operate badly in adverse conditions, have lower lifespans, and have a restricted load capacity. Their batteries often make them twice as heavy, resulting in more severe tire wear and potentially jeopardizing the structural stability of multi-story parking lots. A much larger fleet of electric vehicles will necessitate a significant increase in power generation, delivery, and charging infrastructure, as well as new mining activities on a massive scale.According to electric car supporters, the economic and environmental costs are justified if the electricity is generated by solar panels and wind turbines. Unfortunately, the sun and breeze have always been unreliable, intermittent, and inconsistent. As Karl Marx saw long ago, wind power had to give way to water and steam power because it was "too inconstant and uncontrollable." The introduction of electricity did not address these grave shortcomings. At best, they can be masked by using more expensive water, coal, and natural gas to generate electricity.