Many news reports are saying that there are more than 100,000 Russian troops on the Ukrainian border. Some news reports are saying around 90,000.

So, does this mean an invasion of The Ukraine is imminent?

I would say: certainly not. The Russians are positioning themselves to take advantage of possible opportunities. Russian troops moving into the Ukraine, en masse, is certainly more likely than it was a year ago, but it may not come in the form of an invasion and will not happen at all unless global and local conditions present a compelling opportunity.

First: The Why?
Why would Russia want to take possession of The Ukraine?

Because in many Russian minds, and almost certainly in Russian President, Vladimir Putin’s mind, The Ukraine is Russian territory. The very first historical mentions of a Russian people and state come from tales of the ‘Kievan Rus’. Kiev was the first capital of the Russians. Today, Kiev is the capital of The Ukraine. Many Russian’s don’t see The Ukraine as just a lost province; they see it as their historical heartland. They strongly desire to see The Ukraine re-united with the rest of Russia.

Second: The Why Now?
Why is it far more likely that the Russians might make a play for taking back The Ukraine now, rather than a year ago?

Because they have finished the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea, which means that they can now pump natural gas direct to Germany and the rest of Western Europe. Previously, their gas, which provides an enormous income stream, had to pass through The Ukraine to reach Western Europe. So, naturally, the fear was that any aggressive moves toward The Ukraine could see the Ukrainians shut down the gas pipelines and hamstring the Russian economy from the very beginning of the war. Now, the Ukrainians can no longer play this card. So, the price the Russians would have to pay for aggression against The Ukraine has been substantially lowered. Not only that, but the Russians now have leverage over many of the European nations who might otherwise have supported The Ukraine against Russia. Now, the Germans, for example, know that if they support The Ukraine against Russia, they risk losing the natural gas upon which their economy currently depends. Previously, the Germans would have lost the gas immediately that the war started so the Russians could not have used the restriction of supply as a threat to keep them out of the conflict.

So, the Russians are highly motivated to regain The Ukraine and they have already created infrastructure and political levers that would significantly lower the expected cost of an invasion of The Ukraine. So why wouldn’t they go ahead and invade?

The main reason why the Russians would limit military actions against The Ukraine as much as possible is precisely because they see themselves as the one people. They would like to re-unify the country peacefully if they can. Many think that the Ukrainian identity is weak and does not have deep historical roots for many Ukrainian citizens, they hope that a well-managed crisis might bring many Ukrainian citizens around to wanting to re-integrate with Russia. President Putin is also surely aware that a brutal invasion may well be something which could inspire a stronger sense of Ukrainian identity than that which already exists. To draw an historical example, one might say that the inhabitants of the former Portuguese colony of East Timor had no strong sense of a national identity at the time when the Portuguese abandoned that colony, however, after a brutal Indonesian invasion, the East Timorese identity became extremely strong.
So, the Russians are hoping that The Ukraine will soon find itself in such economic or governmental difficulties that a re-unification with ‘Greater Russia’ will be welcomed by the populace. Of course, now that the Ukrainian government can no longer stop them exporting gas to Western Europe the Russians are able to tighten the economic screws on The Ukraine in a way they never have before. They have already banned exports of coal to The Ukraine, it remains to be seen if they are going to shut off the oil and gas as well this winter. There are various ways that the Russians can manipulate circumstances within The Ukraine to try and bring on a crisis. It is not the purpose of this article to try to detail them all. What I would like to emphasize, however, is that there are some potential global events which Russia might be watching or even waiting for.
Imagine, for example, that China began implementing its plans to take control of Taiwan. Such activity, whether it be a blockade or a military assault, would likely take a great deal of American attention. Would that not present a perfect opportunity for an old-fashioned military invasion of The Ukraine? Is it not possible that there might not already be a deal between China and Russia such that if China begins an attack on Taiwan then Russia should attack The Ukraine, to divide the attention and resources of America and its allies? Certainly, such a deal would make perfect sense. Indeed, the deal might even go the other way. It might read that ‘if Russia attacks The Ukraine then China should begin its attack on Taiwan.
Remember, such attacks would not be seen by either country as an act of aggression against a sovereign state. China would see an attack on Taiwan as simply the final chapter in a long-running civil war. Certainly, that civil war has been cold for many decades now, but, nonetheless, Taiwan is the last holdout of the Chinese Communist Party’s opponents in the battle to control China. Taking control of Taiwan would be for them an act of national reunification. For the Russians, with The Ukraine, it is the same. They too would see an invasion of The Ukraine as an attempt to reunify their country. Both Russia and China are very conscious, however, that the USA and the West would represent their actions differently and are worried about what they would do against them. Seen from this vantage point it would seem strange if there is not a deal between these two countries to co-ordinate their attacks on Taiwan and The Ukraine.

So ...

Right now, the Russians are in a strong position to move on The Ukraine; they have removed their economic vulnerability; global fossil fuel prices are high, boosting their economic strength and making their customers less likely to want to seek other suppliers; they have a strong leader with good domestic support and the US administration is focused on China and domestic discord and the American people are tired of foreign engagements. If an opportunity appears, the Russians may well move on The Ukraine.

However ...

For the Chinese, the current moment does not appear so compelling. The US is watching them closely and they do not want to get into a hot war with the Americans. However, their hand might be forced. My feeling is that the Chinese will continue to keep trading with the US for as long as they can, and the American administration will go along with this for as long as it can too. However, American domestic opinion might eventually force the administration to cease engagement with China. Just on the 2nd of December, 2021, the World Tennis Association has ceased any engagement with China over the Peng Shuai affair. One can imagine that outrage over what is reportedly happening in Sinkiang (Xinxiang) might shortly follow. At some point trade between China and The West might come to an abrupt halt and at that point China might feel it has much less to lose by attacking Taiwan. Indeed, attacking Taiwan might become a necessary, even the only, face-saving move left to a Chinese leader who is faced with the West’s anti-Chinese actions.

So, if Russia chose to make moves on The Ukraine this winter, it is quite likely that Chinese would not act on Taiwan but rather choose to wait till their own circumstances were more compelling. However, if China does move on Taiwan this northern winter then I think it very likely that Russia would initiate some actions against the sovereignty of The Ukraine.
 
Summary:
Russia is presently very well set up to intervene in The Ukraine, more so than at any period since The Ukraine Crisis began back in 2013-2014 with the toppling of a democratically elected pro-Russian government. The Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline has made Russia far less vulnerable to Ukrainian economic retaliation and simultaneously given the Russians more economic control of several Western European countries (most significantly, Germany). Consequently, the Russians are far more likely to intervene in the Ukraine than they have been previously, and they have stationed their military in a manner that would allow them to intervene very quickly should an opportunity arise. The Russians are probably working to manufacture such an opportunity, with moves like banning coal exports to The Ukraine, but other opportunities could arise without their meddling, an example of such being a Chinese play for Taiwan. Other opportunities, though, can be imagined, such as a poor response to the pandemic within The Ukraine causing  economic or administrative failure. Despite their strong position a Russian invasion is not a given, however, as the Russians would like to avoid alienating the majority of Ukrainians. They would prefer to intervene in the country in a situation where their intervention would be welcomed by, at least, a significant number of Ukrainians. However, if something like an invasion of Taiwan was begun by the Chinese the Russians may well think that the international circumstances were so favorable that they should take advantage of the situations and launch an invasion of The Ukraine regardless.
​Such are the precarious circumstances in which we find ourselves at the moment.

I have not been watching the world for a while. Having been buried in my own personal projects, family and occupation I only now put my head up and look around at the world.
So what do I see?

1. I see that oil prices are high and have been that way for a while.
2. I see that Turkey, is finally flexing its military muscles and is slowly, carefully and quietly conquering parts of northern Syria.
3. I see that there are moves being made within Saudi Arabia to purge any possible sources of opposition to the king and the crown prince.
4. I see that neither the EU nor the Eurozone have collapsed, but the governments and politicians that oppose it seem to be gaining influence not losing it.
5. I see that President Xi of China is gathering enormous powers to himself.
6. I see that Donald Trump is meeting the President of North Korea in Singapore.
7. I see that Russia is hosting a World Cup, a bare four years after hosting a Winter Olympics

So what do I make of it all?

1. That with the rebound in oil prices Russia and Saudi Arabia are doing much better than many expected two years ago.
2. With Turkey moving into Arab territory there is an extra incentive for Arabs to unify and that there will be support for a strong Arab leader if one emerges.
3. Saudi Arabia could be strengthening itself internally in preparation for taking on a more aggressive role in its region.
4. The EU is already fraying politically. There is no need for it to disappear; countries can just stop doing what it says and it will simply become less and less important. Hungary and Poland are already flouting its directives, and they are flouting their flouting. The Eurozone can’t simply fade away. It will either continue to function more-or-less as-is or countries will leave it. I think some countries will eventually choose to leave.
5. The fact that 6. Is occurring despite 5. Suggests that Xi is extremely concerned by China’s relative strength vis-à-vis USA and is willing to be very nice to the USA and help them with North Korea so as to dissuade the USA from totally devastating the Chinese economy as they could do if they launched a trade war.
6. I see the American President’s meeting with the North Korean President as more of a reflection of the state of mind of the Chinese President than anything else.
7. Having weathered western sanctions and now showing an expected budget surplus for this year, Russia will be able to use the World Cup to show the world that reports of its imminent demise were vastly premature.

Extra observations:
The USA has recently started taking steps to act in its own economic interests and despite some bad press has found the process less politically painful than many expected. As their first small steps succeed, their appetite for putting America first will probably increase.
It has become clear to me that Russia has probably offered the US a grand bargain/threat on Ukraine, which would run something like ‘Ukraine stays out of NATO and the EU and you stay out of Ukraine or we let the tanks role.’ The Donbas Republics are key to this strategy because if Ukraine joined NATO and Russia attacked then all of NATO would be duty bound to go to war with Russia – and they probably would in the case of such a clear attack. If, however, Ukraine joined NATO and then the Donbas Republics suddenly had some extremely successful offensive thrusts in their on-going civil war, then technically no NATO members would be ‘duty bound’ to intervene. This would explain why so little has been done for Ukraine by the West since its ouster of the pro-Russian government.

If we stand back and look at the map of Asia we see three giants, China, India and Indonesia. The most strategic ground between them is Malaysia and ‘lo and behold’ the population of Malaysia is made up of Malays (the same ethnicity as Indonesians) Chinese and Indians. All three countries would like to control this territory. The Europeans sailed from the other side of the world to do just that and fought wars amongst themselves for the benefit.  Malacca, Malaysia’s most notable city of 500 years ago, has a history of having been ruled by the Portuguese, then the Dutch and then the English. The Europeans were interested in Malaysia because it controlled the shortest shipping route between China and India, through the Malacca Strait, and that strait was at the same time the safest route into the riches of the Indonesian archipelago.

All three of the Asian giants have large populations of their ethnic brethren living in Malaysia. Can anyone see the potential for conflict?

All sides already have form.
 
The Chinese
Malays/Indonesians populate the lands on both sides of the Malacca Strait, so one might assume that they were its typical rulers prior to the arrival of the European naval empires. Malacca’s pre-European history, however, centres around the tales of the great warriors Hang Tua and Hang Jabat and of the Babanonya – the princess and her 100 handmaidens who all arrived from the sea. All are now thought by many to have been ethnically Chinese; Hang being a form of Han. Thus suggesting that Malacca’s heyday as the dominant city on the Straits was a period when it was actually ruled by a Chinese elite. Certainly, there is no doubt that Chinese traders have been long established both in Malacca and throughout the Strait's major port cities.

A more striking example of the Chinese’s ability to gain influence in the Straits is Singapore. In 1800 Singapore was nothing but a swampy island with a few Malay villages on it. Sir Stamford Raffles, the British colonial administrator par excellence, however, identified it as the perfect spot to establish the Straits' next power city. The Chinese flooded in and became the dominant population of the island, then, after Malaysia’s independence from Great Britain, they broke away and formed their own independent country. Consequently, Singapore is a clear case of Malay-ruled territory being taken over and subsequently ruled by Chinese.
 
The Indians
India too has an ongoing history of involvement in Malaysia. Under the British, Malaysia was ruled from Calcutta, but the most significant influences of India in Malaysia are, like the Chinese, not the result of any officially stated government policy, but rather the result of their people’s movement (whether that be irrespective of, or as a result of, specific government policies is a matter for another article). The potential for the ‘innocent’ migration of economic immigrants to have nation changing effects has already been seen in the case of Singapore, but an Indian example can be seen in the shape of the Tamils. An Indian ethnic group, hailing from Tamil Nadu, the Tamils, migrated to Sri Lanka, the island nation which was just across the Palk Straits from their homeland. Initially, it was poor fishermen who arrived, setting up villages on the coast. The indigenous Sinhalese allowed them to stay. With the passage of years and the growth of their population, however, the Tamils eventually declared their own independent republic in the north of Sri Lanka and a decades long civil war ensued before the Tamil republic was eventually crushed. In this case, the Indian (Tamil) immigrants were unsuccessful in establishing an independent state for themselves, unlike the Chinese of Singapore, but during the long years of civil war many of those Tamils fled the fighting to settle in Malaysia, where they are now the largest of the Indian minorities. An ethnic group with a record of migrating into an area and then trying to establish their own Independence might certainly be considered a threat by the indigenous Malay population.
 
The Indonesians/Malays
So, the Chinese have taken Singapore and the Indians bear watching, but for most of the second half of the 20th century I would say the Malays have been the ones gaining ground. While it is true that Singapore gained its independence in this period. It is the case that the massive influx of Chinese to Singapore occurred under British rule. British rule was also friendly to the immigration of Indians into Malaysia. Since Malaysia gained Independence from Britain in 1957, the welfare and relative demographics of the native Malay populations have risen significantly vis-à-vis their two large immigrant communities. Indeed, part of the reason why Malaysia let Singapore go relatively amicably was because the Malays knew that if Singapore stayed in their federation then the immigrant populations would out-number the Malays. By letting Singapore leave they ensured that they would at least be able to maintain control of what was left of the country through a democratic majority. Ever since, the Malay led government of Malaysia has been pursuing policies which ‘positively discriminate’ in favour of Malay citizens. These policies have succeeded in growing the wealth and numbers of the Malay population. Malaysia has also prospered economically, such that it now has a GDP per capita which is much higher than all of its three neighbouring giants. Such success could mean that if there were ever a federation of Indonesia and Malaysia it may well be led by Malaysia rather Indonesia. That uniting the Malays into one homeland is an idea with a serious political following has been known since Indonesia's President Sukarno endeavoured to make the dream a reality, by force, during the period from 1963 to 1966. A Malaysian led initiative would be more likely to succeed peacefully, however, given that until now it is Malaysia who has resisted the idea through fear of complete domination from Jakarta. That such a possibility is increasingly likely is due to Malaysia's growing wealth, which gives it an increasingly strong position vis-a-vis its much larger neighbour: a time might come when Malaysian politicians might think that some sort of federation might present more opportunities than risks.
 
The state of play
If we stand back and look at the map, particularly an ethnic or demographic map, we see that the pieces are on the board and they are changing position (the game is in play). The Malays/Indonesians (a nation of chess lovers) are ahead, but everyone is still in the game.
In a sense there is a sort of ‘Cold War’ going on in Malaysia in the form of a battle between ethnicities for influence and power. On the ground the battle is waged every day through such acts as the Chinese sending their children to private Chinese schools rather than government ones and Indian communities turning local caves into Hindu shrines.
 
Could there be a ‘hot’ conflict in Malaysia?
Certainly, the conditions exist in Malaysia for the slow fuse of ethnic tensions to be ignited into a ‘hot’ conflict. All that is needed is a spark. And the great danger of a 'hot' conflict in Malaysia is that it has the potential to draw in all three Asian giants.
 
Potential sparks
Both the Chinese and Indian ethnicities are already positively-discriminated against in Malaysia. The discrimination has generally been accepted as ‘positive’ by the world and many Malaysians on account of the fact that when it began Malays were by far the poorest and most under-privileged segment of Malaysian society. On average they may still be less wealthy than the Indian and Chinese communities, but at what point does 'positive discrimination' become just 'discrimination'? At what point do discriminated-against minorities feel that enough is enough? Will there be a point in the future where large, globally significant countries like China and India decide that they can no longer abide having Malaysia discriminate against their ethnic diaspora?
At the other end of the stick, could an increase in Malay nationalism lead to a Pan Malay movement that would seek to unify Malaysia with the other Malay homeland of Indonesia? How would the large minorities of Chinese and Indians react to such an event? Would such an event lead to more, or less, discrimination.
 
China’s push into the South China Sea shows a growing willingness on behalf of China to make plays for increased control of its important seaways? Where does that end? There have been similarities drawn between China’s current policies and the US moves from the 19th century to control the Carribean Sea. Those moves ended in US control of the Panama Canal, the World’s 3rd most important sea route. The Malacca Straits are the World’s second most important sea route. The USA controls the Panama Canal but does not directly control Panama so the Chinese may not need to physically control Malaysia, but the US does involve itself in Panamanian affairs; the deposition of Manuel Norriega being one notable example.
 
In conclusion
Malaysia is already an ethnic battleground, albeit a very civilized one at the moment. There are, however, shifts in power and influence amongst the main ethnic groups in Malaysia and with each ethnic group having a giant nation at their back the potential for conflict, even large scale international warfare exists.

The Malays have the homeground advantage and recently the game has been on their terms, but Singapore demonstrates that there have been periods of history where they have lost ground, literally, demonstrating that their current control cannot be taken for granted.

China has made a recent aggressive surge into the nearby waters of the South China Sea, and there are suggestions that the currently embattled prime minister of Malaysia, Abdul Razak, might be susceptible to taking Chinese money and support if it helps him stay in power.
​
Meanwhile, India, calmly sitting back, might be the one to win influence by not making enemies.

My feeling is that Indonesia, or some Malay based power, will be the ultimate winner in Malaysia, so long as they have better than competent leadership (certainly not a given) but the real question is not so much who will win but whether the battle to control the strategic Malay Peninsular might turn violent, leading to the involvement of one, or more, of the Asian Giants in an armed conflict.