Is Putin actually right on Syria?

With the conflict in its second year and a death toll that now may well be on track to hit 100,000 (refugee numbers already estimated at 1 million), there has been renewed discussion about should the West get involved and how it might do this.

Ignored however in all this dialogue is the role of Russia, one of the few remaining allies of Assad, which has continued to insist that negotiations take place with no preconditions and have used their military and UN prowess to ensure that the old regime has survived far longer than anticipated.

The interesting question however is why. Russia has been damaged internationally for its association with the regime and undoubtedly has lost influence in the wider Middle East for this. Of course the clichéd defences (of which I have used before as well) that Russia is propping up Assad for its naval base (Tartus) and to maintain its anti-American axis in the Middle East, have been the stock responses of Western analysts, but this is a mistake.

In short there are 6 reasons why Western leaders should re-consider opening peace negotiations without any demands for Assad to step-down:

  1. The flood of refugees and fatalities is reaching critical and the other methods to resolve this conflict are not working.
  2. Only Assad’s regime has any kind of resemblance of the state infrastructure necessary to prevent a state collapse like that seen in Libya and Iraq (2003).
  3. Assad is still popular with a significant and influential portion of the nation who have tied their fate to his.
  4. The countries Chemical Weapons cannot be secured by Rebel groups[1] (who have no intention of handing them over to the UN or Western nations) nor can they be secured by Western (and Israeli) special forces. Assad must be involved.
  5. Syria is becoming a jihadist training ground for Western born radicals who will return home with combat training and international terrorist contacts.
  6. When Secular dictatorships have been rapidly replaced in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and among the Syrian FSA (or more accurately anti-government forces[2]) the biggest losers on the ground are the Secularists and those who believe in women’s right and equality.

Of course these points all could merit extensive essays in their own right and I am certain that many would debate them, but the key is to ask the question:

“Would Syria and the Syrian people actually be better off today if Assad stood down and left the country than if they negotiated with Assad right here and now?”

Any deal with Assad here and now has several inherent advantages, not only does it ensure that there is actually a central figure who has the full support of the regimes elements who can actually negotiate a peace that will be accepted, but it also would ensure that any peace deal would have support from the whole international community and more particularly, the UN Security Council.

Assad does not have to stay on as leader after a peace deal, in fact I doubt that many of Assad’s supporters really believe this is feasible, but I sincerely doubt that any other figure in the Syrian government would have the necessary backing from the regimes supporters domestically and internationally, to sign a deal for peace.

The longer the fighting continues the greater the regional overspill and threat to security not only along the borders with Israel and Turkey, but also the fall-out in Lebanon which is threatening to upset the fragile state further. The continued conflict is also damning a generation of Syrians with poverty, lack of education, psychological scars and allowing radical Islamists to recruit and train the next generation of fighters to further destabilise global security.

There is no easy answer to Syria, but arming rebels, no-fly zones, direct ground forces, or peace talks without Assad will not work and may do more harm than good. We may not like Assad, nor do we have to, but the Russians have a point to make and it is worth listening to.

Perhaps sometime soon Western diplomats may listen. Then again, probably not.


[1] It is worth highlighting that the UN investigation into this attack unusually will not be tasked with assigning who used the Chemical weapons (if they were used) and nor has the Western media reported the full details that the Syrian government have given on how rebels may have obtained them. To me it would be unusual for Assad to admit that A.) He lost chemical weapons and B.) allow the UN to investigate their use, if he had ordered their use. At any rate it seems clear the issue is more complex than has been reported.

[2] Following an exceptionally well written piece by Aron Lund I have decided that I will refer to the Syrian Free Army as a collective term for anti-government forces as opposed to a central organisation with a clear structure and hierarchy of command:


When Economies of Scale fail

Oversized shipping in the 21st Century:

So as a relative neophyte in the world of Maritime studies I thought I might share some of my recently imparted observations and knowledge to those with even less experience and in particular what I want to share is what “Too big to fail” means in the shipping world.

You see, when we say “Too big to fail” in the context of banks, what we really mean is “The cost of them collapsing is more expensive than the cost of us rescuing them”. In shipping “Too big to fail” really means “If this happens we are so f***ed”.

Two particular cases in point for this are as follows: The Costa Concordia and the Emma Maersk:

The Costa Concordia:

The Titanic may have had the great romance and mythical status that no other Cruise ship has had, but the honour for the most expensive mistake (financially just to clarify) is without question the Costa Concordia. Firstly the vessel itself is a right off or in Insurance terms “A Total Loss”. Secondly you have compensation claims to the families of the 30 individuals who tragically died and lastly you have the cost of cleaning the whole thing up.

Currently it is estimated that if the latest salvage attempt works and then compensation is paid out in the manner that is currently anticipated, then the total direct cost to the Protection and Indemnity clubs (Shipowners mutual Insurance Companies), will be just shy of $2 billion. If…….

The salvage of the Costa Concordia is the most ambitious Salvage attempt ever made of a vessel that size. To understand the scale of this project look no further than the description from the salvors of what they plan to do:

  • The vessel will have an entire underwater support structure built onto the seabed with cables attached from the Costa all along the support structure underwater.
  • The vessel will then be pulled upright onto this structure with float supports on either side to prevent the vessel from tilting.
  • Once on the platform the vessel will then have all the damage to its hull re-welded by teams of underwater divers and when that is finished, they water will be pumped from the vessel.

If all those stages go to plan, the vessel will then be floated into port on the Italian mainland and broken up. Oh and this will take two years. Cost $400 million. And they have one attempt. One. If it doesn’t work, they start again…..

Then there is the implications for Insurance as a whole. The world’s largest Insurance programme for the Non-Energy, Marine sector had its toughest renegotiation and renewal in memory for many brokers and the insurance companies have increased their fee’s for this year between 5-15%. This not only hits the bottom line of cruise companies and their affordability but it also has ramifications for the design and training of all new cruise vessels potentially costing millions more.

The Emma Maersk:

For some photos of the vessel check out this site (having technical issues with putting them in this post)

The Emma Maersk is the latest addition to the Danish giant’s arsenal and can carry an estimated 13,000 Teu (twenty foot unit equivalent containers). It is currently the largest container vessel in existence but will be surpassed in the next 3-4 years by the Maersk C-Class vessels which are planned to be capable of carrying 18,000 Teu.

So what’s the problem with this? Where do we even start!

Lets start with the vessel herself. In less than 1 full year of service the vessel has had numerous engineering faults and structural failures, most spectacular of which (and chronically under-reported!), was the fact that the Emma Maersk was towed into port in Panama (not the canal) with 9 metres of sea water in her engine room. Yes that’s righ, 9 METRES!.

Now in this case the vessel is safely in port and undergoing repairs but lets imagine for a moment that either of those two alternative (and highly plausible scenarios) had occurred:

  1. The sea water had caused the vessel to list (Marine term for tilt), to either side.
  2. The vessel had lost power while taking on water in the middle of a major waterway: i.e. the Malacca straits, the straights of Gibraltar or the English channel.

In scenario 1 we have a serious problem. The modern design of containerships is that their structure allows cranes in a port terminal to easily access and remove the containers, which are neatly stacked, at a highly efficient level. For this to work effectively however the vessel has to be balanced for the cranes to work. Now when the vessel is tilted the containers have to be removed manually, a process that can be as slow as 6 per hour. On a vessel with 13,000 containers that is a problem. Not only may any perishable goods be long gone before they are emptied, but the cost in man hours to extract all those containers would also be staggering.

Next let’s look at scenario 2. Under old international laws a vessel did not have to be recovered provided that it did not sink in an international waterway and therefore provide a danger to other vessels on that route. That law has now (or imminently will have) changed and exempting a vessel sinking in the middle of the Atlantic or Pacific it will have to be recovered from the sea (or the company will have to prove it is technically impossible to do so).

The problem of course in this is scale. We mentioned the cost and technical difficulties of removing the Costa Concordia in relatively shallow water, where at least 40% of the vessel was out of the water and there were no container units. Conceptually even trying to guage the cost in environmental damage, loss of goods, increased Insurance premiums, delays in trade, etc, etc of a “Emma Maersk”-esque vessel sinking in a key strategic waterway is an example of how these vessels have become “Too big to fail”.

The most ridiculous thing however in my personal perception is that vessels of the scale we are seeing under construction, The Emma Maersk to name just one, are actually the final nail in the coffin of many players in the shipping industry. The shipping industry is currently experiencing one of its toughest periods in memory, with former ship-finance banking giants like Commerzbank leaving the industry entirely (though still with huge loans on its books). The key problem of course being an oversupply of vessels and insufficient demand, which as every Business Studies and Economics student can tell you: When supply outstrips demand, prices will fall and fall they have.

Whether its OSX (World’s 6th largest fleet), filing for chapter 6 in the USA or the comments by Maersk’s CEO that they will scale back their shipping services due to poor returns, the industry is in the doldrums over this supply side problem. And its about to get worse. Even if older, smaller vessels are scaled out (which is already happening) you then have accessibility problems. Few ports can handle these vessels currently and to do so requires significant (if not cost-inefficient) investment.

Concluding Comments:

The old cliché that size matters still holds significant weight in the Maritime world, as long as the cost-per-unit declines or cost per passenger declines, then the “Economies of Scale” will seem irresistible. The concerns of course are also enormous but the problem is people are only beginning to realise this now.

Gordon Geco is often cited for his phrase “Greed is Good”, but perhaps on this particular scenario businesses in the maritime sector should consider more the implications of an RDS (Realistic Disaster Scenario) actually occurring, rather than focusing on the “Cost per unit” side.

Much Ado About Nothing

Why the results of the Eastleigh by-election don’t matter.


Last week the results of the hotly contested by-election finally came in, and to no-one’s surprise the Liberal Democrats won. Well, not everyone thought it was so clear cut, but that is a more a reflection on political commentators and pundits than it was a reflection of facts on the ground. You see the key thing about the Eastleigh by-election was how nothing did really change as opposed to the Nick Clegg narrative of a “Stunning Victory” or David Cameron’s “Disappointing” Result for the Conservatives.

Firstly let’s remember the facts:

Eastleigh was a Liberal Democrat held seat in 2010 with nearly a 4,000 vote majority on a 69% turnout, totalling 46% of the vote. Furthermore, of Eastleigh’s 44 Councillors, 40 are Liberal Democrat and 4 were Conservative.

Next let’s remember the time and tested rule of British politics:

During the mid-term of an unpopular government the governing party will always do worse than in a General Election. Except in Eastleigh the only two major parties were both in government.

So in summary:

The party with the overwhelming local support base won the election. The only other major party who could have taken votes was also in government and therefore took a relatively equal share of the blame. Recognising then that the Labour party only took 9% in 2010 and actually received 1,000 less votes in 2013 than in 2010 made it almost certain that the only party who would benefit from the so-called “Protest vote” had to be UKIP, who duly did benefit (albeit better than was initially expected).

The key therefore from Eastleigh is to recognise the message of a “No change” vote rather than look for changes to provide that meaning. What the Eastleigh by-election did, which has been poorly reported, is to show that the UK public do not see any significant differences in the 3 main parties and they do not think that their votes can make a real difference.

Since 1997 the UK general election voter turnout has never passed the 70% mark that had always existed before the creation of “New Labour”. In Eastleigh this was the real story. Nearly every major UK politician and news outlet canvassed the public incessantly for weeks and yet at vote time the turnout was 52.7%. 52.7% of people in the middle of a parliament, with all the media coverage, attention and with a Lib Dem cabinet seat up for grabs decided to vote. 47.3% didn’t even bother. In fact in 3 years the number of registered voters in Eastleigh who felt their vote could make a difference fell from 69.3% to 52.7%.

In short Eastleigh is not a Lib Dem win, a Tory disappointment, a UKIP breakthrough or a Labour set back. What Eastleigh does show us is a warning. A warning that the UK electorate do not see a difference in voting. They do not see a party or group with ideas they will vote for and they are not happy with any of the offers they are being presented with. In short Eastleigh was a vote for the status quo (in light of any alternatives).

If Eastleigh told us anything then surely Eastleigh’s message was: Go back to the drawing board and come back with something different. The challenge is to the parties in Westminster now is how to do that.