| Forum Index > General Forum |
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23239 Posts
On October 16 2022 23:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Also Israel has decided to provide Military aid to Ukraine. Would have thought they'd be focused on their own illegal occupation and ethnic cleansing campaign. User was warned for this post | ||
|
mcxds
Germany19 Posts
Source | ||
|
pmp10
3325 Posts
On October 17 2022 00:56 Nezgar wrote: The notion that NATO and the West will run out of money or military hardware before Russia does, while Russia is suffering greater losses in man and metal, is completely ridiculous. This is has nothing to do with reality. The only question is whether the West is willing to continue their support of Ukraine, and I think Russia continues to make very strong cases for why they really should. The question was never if there will be support to Ukraine but the amount of it. The west could theoretically subsidize Ukraine to the tune of 100 billions a year, which would guarantee Ukrainian victory (in conventional war at least) but is simply unwilling to. Russians are betting that they care less about their lives then the west cares about its finances. And they might well be right. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Nezgar
Germany534 Posts
On October 17 2022 03:05 pmp10 wrote: The question was never if there will be support to Ukraine but the amount of it. The west could theoretically subsidize Ukraine to the tune of 100 billions a year, which would guarantee Ukrainian victory (in conventional war at least) but is simply unwilling to. Russians are betting that they care less about their lives then the west cares about its finances. And they might well be right. That just doesn't make any sense. They have invested so much into the conflict already, pulling the support halfway through just means that they still had to invest all that money and don't even get anything to show for it. So no, they are not going to pull their support. It would be irrational. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21694 Posts
Sending 300 million worth of artillery cannons doesn't mean you have a bigger deficit on your budget or have 300 million less to spend on education. Its money that was spend years ago and now get removed from storage. Some day those pieces will need to be replaced but that is often years away. By the time that bill comes due the current conflict will be long over. | ||
|
Artesimo
Germany546 Posts
On October 17 2022 04:09 Nezgar wrote: That just doesn't make any sense. They have invested so much into the conflict already, pulling the support halfway through just means that they still had to invest all that money and don't even get anything to show for it. So no, they are not going to pull their support. It would be irrational. Disclaimer, I am not saying or thinking that there is any indication that the west intends to stop supporting ukraine, but "they won't cut their losses and drop it because they already invested so much" is using sunk cost fallacy as an argument. No matter how much you invested in something, there can always be a magic line in the sand where you say 'until here and no further'. The question is how much more does a country think it would have to invest, and how likely is it that it will lead to success. If that estimation is looking grim, either because of success being not likely enough, or because the costs would be too high, you cut your losses. Or you might think that a sunk cost fallacy is a convincing argument and keep on going. Public opinion can also be a threat to support for ukraine, and be a catalyst for deciding that you already spend too much and rather cut your losses. Support for ukraine is not a certainty as much as it is not guaranteed to succeed. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Artesimo
Germany546 Posts
On October 17 2022 05:06 JimmiC wrote: The sunk cost falacy is very often the reason peoplr, governments and companies keep doing things because most of the time it is very hard to math out and we are all imperfect. Yes, as I have pretty much said in the last sentence of the first paragraph. You either don't do sunk cost fallacy or you do. But 'they already spend so much' still is not a convincing argument, which was the whole point. Of my post. Sometimes it happens, other times it doesn't, its only really good as a post hoc rationalisation rather than a prediction for if support continues or not. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
pmp10
3325 Posts
On October 17 2022 03:56 JimmiC wrote: Can you source where you are getting that the west is going to break economically and Russia can continue liek this for ever? I don't think anyone expects EU to go bankrupt, the problem lies in amounts promised and actually paying them out. Regarding Russia - forever is a long time but politically they managed to survive initiation of mass conscription and that is about the most damaging blow they could have been dealt. Economically they are now expected to lose only 3,5% of GDP this year (IMF prediction) when some experts initially expected a loss as high as 15%. I think it's safe to say they can manage for a few years longer. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5563 Posts
| ||
|
Nezgar
Germany534 Posts
On October 17 2022 05:29 Artesimo wrote: Yes, as I have pretty much said in the last sentence of the first paragraph. You either don't do sunk cost fallacy or you do. But 'they already spend so much' still is not a convincing argument, which was the whole point. Of my post. Sometimes it happens, other times it doesn't, its only really good as a post hoc rationalisation rather than a prediction for if support continues or not. That was my point, yes. I am well aware of the sunk cost fallacy and also that governments seem to be magically attracted to those things. I agree that there is a line where you have to pull out, but from other conflicts of the past that line is sometimes measured in decades and trillions. For governments to cut their losses something truly horrific must happen at this point. Russia is losing ground almost daily and "small" disruptions won't make the West reconsider their funding now. On October 17 2022 06:10 pmp10 wrote: I don't think anyone expects EU to go bankrupt, the problem lies in amounts promised and actually paying them out. Regarding Russia - forever is a long time but politically they managed to survive initiation of mass conscription and that is about the most damaging blow they could have been dealt. Economically they are now expected to lose only 3,5% of GDP this year (IMF prediction) when some experts initially expected a loss as high as 15%. I think it's safe to say they can manage for a few years longer. You are basing this entirely on the economy of the country. And I agree that a country that big can sustain quite a lot of damage before it collapses. What Russia cannot sustain is the loss of man and material. At the rate they are losing hardware, they cannot even sustain this for another year. And in an active conflict, that is what ultimately counts. Whether the oligarchs and banks are doing okay is completely irrelevant to the conflict at hand. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13954 Posts
On October 17 2022 04:25 Gorsameth wrote: Additionally a lot of support, while having a financial number tagged to it, doesn't actually cost money from a countries budget in a direct way. Sending 300 million worth of artillery cannons doesn't mean you have a bigger deficit on your budget or have 300 million less to spend on education. Its money that was spend years ago and now get removed from storage. Some day those pieces will need to be replaced but that is often years away. By the time that bill comes due the current conflict will be long over. The dollar value and the actual amount of aid are different things too. Iranian weapons shipments that were seized were sent to Ukraine, cargo flights from Pakistan to Poland have been noted, even artillery shells from Kenya have been found in Ukraine. People talk about the czechia shipments and Baltic soviet stores but Bulgaria has extremely quietly been emptying their warehouses and running their factories 24/7. American men in suits and sunglasses have been traveling across the world to see if anyone still has their soviet era 155mm shell factories and asking how they want to get paid. If you have any sort of soviet stockpile lying around or you can make some you can get cold hard us dollars for them. The united states has spent a lot more money on a lot less effective initiatives to fight Russian influence. And they're allowed to spend money that they don't tell anyone about. | ||
|
pmp10
3325 Posts
On October 17 2022 08:19 Nezgar wrote: What Russia cannot sustain is the loss of man and material. I'm afraid they have plenty to spare of both. If we are going to look at history it took roughly a million casualties for them to call it quits in WW1. Their soviet era equipment stores are said to contain over ten thousand tanks. We might laugh at the 50 year old military hardware being restored but I bet Ukraine wishes it could get their hands on even that. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11519 Posts
On October 17 2022 14:35 pmp10 wrote: I'm afraid they have plenty to spare of both. If we are going to look at history it took roughly a million casualties for them to call it quits in WW1. Their soviet era equipment stores are said to contain over ten thousand tanks. We might laugh at the 50 year old military hardware being restored but I bet Ukraine wishes it could get their hands on even that. I think a core question is how many of these tanks are actually in any condition to make them work,especially with the limited supplies available in Russia. A core observation at the beginning of this war was that a lot of the stuff that Russia has on paper only exists on paper, and is unusable in reality. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4730 Posts
On October 17 2022 08:50 Sermokala wrote: American men in suits and sunglasses have been traveling across the world to see if anyone still has their soviet era 155mm shell factories and asking how they want to get paid. Soviet standard is 152mm. 155mm is NATO standard. | ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Hungary, one of the two NATO member states that have not yet approved the bloc’s expansion, will ratify the protocol on the accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO on October 24, Eero Heinaluoma, a member of the European Parliament and former chairman of the Finnish Social Democratic Party, said on Sunday. The lawmaker said he had received confirmation on this matter from his Hungarian colleagues from the Party of European Socialists (PES) during their two-day meeting in Berlin. “Hungarian lawmakers said that there was firm support for Finnish and Swedish NATO membership and that the parliament would ratify the accessions at its session on October 24,” Heinaluoma told the Ilta-Sanomat newspaper, but declined to reveal the names of these lawmakers. Socialist lawmakers in the Hungarian parliament proposed to hold a vote on Finland and Sweden’s accession to NATO on October 4, but the motion was voted down by the ruling Fidesz party led by Prime Minister Viktor Orban, Hungarian media reported. This past summer, Orban said that the treaties on NATO enlargement would be considered in the fall. Source | ||
| ||
|
|
WardiTV Summer Champion…
RSL Revival
PiGosaur Monday
WardiTV Summer Champion…
The PondCast
WardiTV Summer Champion…
Replay Cast
LiuLi Cup
Online Event
SC Evo League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
