|
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. |
On January 11 2023 09:00 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2023 08:32 maybenexttime wrote:On January 11 2023 07:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 11 2023 06:35 maybenexttime wrote:On January 11 2023 06:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 11 2023 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 11 2023 00:59 KwarK wrote:On January 10 2023 23:53 plasmidghost wrote:On January 10 2023 21:14 Magic Powers wrote:This Russian economist Sergej Guriew states that the damage to the Russian economy caused by the sanctions is "very good" (i.e. severe). https://www.msn.com/de-at/nachrichten/politik/russischer-ökonom-sanktionen-gegen-russland-funktionieren/ar-AA169RRZ?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=0e1b726290d5485bb924827c0a48d539Lately I've been thinking about the war a bit differently. The main goal people have in mind is for Ukraine to win, typically defined as Russia withdrawing behind Ukrainian borders pre-2022 and ideally also surrendering Crimea. While that is also my hope and I've been focusing my attention on that, in my view it's important to focus also on winning the war as convincingly and swiftly as possible - aiming for complete domination of the Russian forces, if that is at all realistically doable. Simple reason: greater domination minimizes damage to Ukraine, and that's ultimately the true goal. The tanks that were withheld but are now - hesitantly and limited - being sent are symbolic for current and future allied support. In my opinion support is still very much lacking, and I say that not because I'm skeptical of victory, but because I think Ukraine needs to win harder. Much harder. The goal should be to minimize damage, and we achieve that with increased domination from every angle. Much greater allied support is needed. Putin has revealed his cards, he's not going to use nukes in Ukraine or against allied nations as long as foreign troops don't enter the war. It's time to break his spell of fear. The US should send much longer range missile systems. European nations should send battle tanks. Bombers and other aircraft should also definitely be on the table. I've read into potential mindsets of the Western countries supplying weapons to Ukraine and one thing I've seen that makes sense is hat the West wants to bleed Russia dry by supplying just enough to keep Ukraine superior while still getting fresh Russians into the country to be killed. If this is the case, it's fucked beyond belief that Ukrainians are paying that price in blood. I want to see ATACMS and actual tanks go to Ukraine asap This is tankie propaganda. + Show Spoiler +We swamped Ukraine with actual tanks, the US found every country that had ever bought a Soviet style main battle tank and begged, bribed, and promised until they sold them. Then it delivered all those to Ukraine. That’s what all the ring transfers were last year, countries gave up their Ukraine compatible tanks immediately and the US promised to backfill their tank battalions with improved American ones.
Same thing with aircraft. It’s just war is hard and preparing for war while you’re already at war is hard. Ukraine didn’t have the crews for the hardware we already gave them, they needed to train more pilots etc. on that stuff even though it was the equipment they were familiar with already. It’s not as disruptive as requiring everyone relearn all their jobs from scratch but mechanics used to maintaining 10 jets can’t suddenly do 50. They need to train their new coworkers. Though at least it’s stuff that they’re equipped to train people on, the factories producing the parts already make the parts, they just need to make more.
It was assessed that replacing the entire military establishment in Ukraine with NATO standard stuff while in the middle of a war wasn’t going to be viable. Better to grow the existing infrastructure than uproot it and try and build a new one from scratch.
Anything that could be readily incorporated into existing infrastructure was donated though. Russian or American or British or German or whatever. Vehicles that take easily available parts and run on normal fuel. HARMs that could be adapted for Russian jets. MANPADS that take minimal training.
The west isn’t holding back equipment. The question “why won’t the west send main battle tanks” is answered with “actually they did, and lots of them, immediately”, not “they want Ukraine to get into a quagmire to destroy Russia”. Just for clarity as someone politically closest to "tankies" The west is trying to bleed Russia dry militarily and economically. The west is willing to sacrifice Ukrainian (and innocent Russian civilian) lives to make that happen. Ukraine has to keep fighting or its government collapses under outstanding obligations. Putin has to keep fighting or he loses his head. How weapons play into that is a bit more complicated. I personally don't think the west has to or is trying to prolong the war by restricting arms sent to Ukraine. They can send everything they reasonably can and still get the stalemate they want while holding out hope for Russia to collapse. On January 11 2023 06:01 maybenexttime wrote:
@GH
Do you have any evidence for that? For what specifically? That the West is sacrificing Ukrainians and "innocent" Russian civilians to bleed Russia's military dry or that the West seeks a stalemate. There is literally zero evidence for any of that. The West "sacrificing Ukrainians" would imply that we are somehow making Ukrainians fight. That's nonsense. This is an existential war for them and they have the will to win it. They are sacrificing their own lives for that. The West "sacrificing innocent Russian civilians" would imply that there is some collateral damage on the Russian side. There isn't. Unless by "innocent civilians" you meant mobilized soldiers. In that case, they are neither civilians nor innocent. There is also no evidence that the West wants a stalemate. As pointed out earlier, in the US Congress, there are two camps - neither of them is interested in a prolonged conflict. In Europe, there are all sorts of points of view. The majority supports Ukraine and wants the war to end as soon as possible. Some want to go back to business as usual, and then there are the Putin bootlickers. Again, nobody is advocating for a prolonged conflict. I think Gor covered it. I'd add that obviously the west (MIC's influence and their profits notwithstanding) wants Russia to just lose, Putin to be removed from power and to start the scramble for breaking off pieces of Russia to bring under western influence. A stalemate (one the US-MIC is certainly profiting from) sacrificing Ukrainian lives is just the "best" they can hope for given the circumstances (most of which were foreseeable about a month into the war). I've made clear before that I don't mean Ukrainians are being forced (other than reasonably by circumstance and will) to fight and die, just that the west's integral support isn't contingent on them being able to win, or Ukrainians ending up with a better life, or limited by a magic body count, but on it costing Russia more of it's "disposable" blood and treasure than the west's (or at least setting Russia on a path to run out first), Ukraine continuing to fight (even if their population grows weary of war) , and it remaining viable politically in the US. As for the innocent Russian civilians, I'm talking about their exacerbated immiseration through sanctions. You said that the West is sacrificing Ukrainian lives. Words have meaning, you know. Saying that the West is sacrificing Ukrainian lives means that we are somehow making them fight. It strips the Ukrainians of agency. + Show Spoiler +
As for the sanctions, they were specifically designed to not hurt the general population. An average Russian was hardly affected by them. Also calling losing Netflix or higher than expected inflation "being sacrificed" is ridiculous. ;-)
And I'm still waiting for any evidence regarding the West supposedly wanting a stalemate
. No, it doesn't. People can sacrifice themselves and be sacrificed by a third party simultaneously. If someone puts a gun to lover's head and says "it's you or your lover" you can both agree on sacrificing you without stripping anyone of agency (beyond the existential threat) as a simple example. Your lover isn't making you sacrifice yourself (it's a reasonable response to your circumstances), but they are consciously sacrificing you. Poverty kills and we know sanctions exacerbate poverty, this is especially true when applied to authoritarian regimes. afaik the crowd willing to still argue this isn't the case is ever dwindling. It's generally accepted that regardless of stated intentions: Show nested quote +Economic sanctions lead to an increase in the poverty gap and deprived sections of the population feel the most impact.
For the most part sanctions fail to achieve their aims and elites manage to negotiate the adverse effects to a far greater level than poorer citizens.
Sanctions have a damaging effect on income inequality and impact ordinary people more than the sanctioned country’s leaders.
Sanctions tend to harm rural and non-industrialised areas more, as resources are refocused in power and production centres.
Between 1976 and 2012 UN sanctions led to a 25.5 percent aggregate decline in GDP per capita of the sanctioned countries (Neuenkirch & Neumeier, 2015).
The negative impact that sanctions have on economic growth affect women, minority communities and other marginalised groups to a greater extent.
Sanctions have a significant negative impact on the living standards and humanitarian situation of the population in the sanctioned state. gsdrc.org
That's still a shit take. You have given exactly zero evidence that we are somehow making Ukraine fight this war. The West has very clearly stated that it is up to the Ukrainians to decided whether they want to end this war on the battlefield, through negotiations or even surrender. That is the very opposite of what you're claiming.
The Russian government has enough tools to shield the population from the sanctions. They choose to spend the money on killing Ukrainians instead, though. It's also a bad joke that you're accusing the West of sacrificing Russian lives when it is Russia which started all of this. The West gave them numerous warnings. They knew the consequences and the blame is solely on them. Also, the Russian society is not innocent. Most Russians support the war, they are complicit.
And the study you linked seems completely irrelevant. The sanctions against Russia are primarily targeting Russia's ability to wage war. Experts tend to agree that they are working quite well.
|
Russian Federation610 Posts
On January 11 2023 07:45 0x64 wrote:
Wagner antagonizing Russian forces is a stupid calculation.
If the Russian forces stop providing them weapons, they are dead.
The Russian military is the most likely party to turn if the stars align.
Also Wagner have large numbers, being a prisoner does not make you a fighter, or a war hero.
Wagner will collapse by betrayal. I wonder how many officer of Wagner has to be eliminated to render those 10's of thousands of prisoners absolutely useless, even borderline comedic situation where Russian forces would be ordered to take them into their units...
Wagner isn't much dependant on MoD. Weapons production is being run by separate entities, plus rumor is Wagner has strong ties with External Reconaissance Service (Russian CIA equivalent), hence their active work in Africa and Middle East with all necessary supply lines and cooperation with the locals, as well as with FSB, hence their ability to pull out thousands of convicts for recruitment.
On January 11 2023 08:32 maybenexttime wrote:
You said that the West is sacrificing Ukrainian lives. Words have meaning, you know. Saying that the West is sacrificing Ukrainian lives means that we are somehow making them fight. It strips the Ukrainians of agency.
As for the sanctions, they were specifically designed to not hurt the general population. An average Russian was hardly affected by them. Also calling losing Netflix or higher than expected inflation "being sacrificed" is ridiculous. ;-)
And I'm still waiting for any evidence regarding the West supposedly wanting a stalemate.
I would have to agree on this one. While sanctions had their toll on some parts of the population, who lost their jobs or, for example, don't have access to some foreign medicine or medical treatment, for a regular Ivan it didn't changed much. There are still a lot of jobs, economy is working, financial and other IT services are working, prices on some general commodities went up, but in general - not terribly so, that it would made them completely unaffordable. Bars, clubs and restaurants are full on weekends.
As example, I'll give a check that I got couple days ago from store. Will put it under spoiler for those who are interested, since it may be a bit off topic.
+ Show Spoiler +I bought a bunch of different products for different meals, not restricting myself on anything (though some of those were on sales). To be fair, I deliberately bought some stuff I don't usually eat to check out the pricing. It costed me around 30 dollars for a non-budget diverse food, which would be enough for week and a half, or even two.
I am using exchange rate of 70 rubles per 1 dollar. If something goes by weight, and not by package, I would also put price of 1 kilo, so you could compare easier.
Also bear in mind that these are prices for a kinda remote northern city (though still a 300k+ regional center), though it's in European part of Russia, so not as remote as some towns in Russian Far East, of course. But food prices somewhere in Krasnodar are generally quite lower, especially on veggies.
Sourcream, 19% fat, 200g - 0,96 USD
Dry broth, 8 small bricks (recommended usage - 2 per litre of water) - 0,57 USD
Smoked-boiled pork brisket - 1,86 USD per 290g, or 6,43 USD per 1 kg
Boiled sausage (mixed meat, I guess mostly chicken) - 1,64 USD per 400g pack (this was on sale, original price was around 2,57 USD per 400g)
Half-smoked sausage (beef/pork) - 1,93 USD per 350g pack (also on sale, original price was around 2,86 USD per 350g)
4 dry ramen packs, 75g each - 0,45 USD per each or 1,8 USD overall
Spagetti, 400g - 0,71 USD per pack
Butter, 82,5% fat, 160g - 1,86 USD per pack
White potato - 0,72 USD per 2 kg - 0,36 USD per 1 kg
Red onion - 0,61 USD per 0,48 kg - 1,29 USD per 1 kg
White onion - 0,43 USD per 0,85 kg - 0,5 USD per 1 kg
Cucumbers - 1,04 USD per 0,35 kg - 2,86 USD per 1 kg (these are expensive in winter, but like 3 times cheaper in summer)
Tomatoes - 1,04 USD per 0,42 kg - 2,57 USD per 1 kg (same as cucumbers)
Pickled cucumbers (the best you could get here) - 3,63 USD per 700g
Black olives - 1,14 USD per 300g can
Tomato paste - 1 USD per 70g can
Toast bread - 0,57 USD per 250g package
Canned pork - 2,2 USD per 325g can
Feta cheese - 2,86 USD per 250g package
Maasdam cheese (Belarus) - 2,5 USD per 0,22 kg - 11 USD per 1 kg
Kiwi - 1 USD per 0.45 kg - 2,29 USD per 1 kg
So 30,07 USD overall
To compare earnings and spending - my salary is around 550 USD a month, and that's not a great one by any means (though not the lowest as well).
|
On January 11 2023 09:27 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2023 09:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 11 2023 08:32 maybenexttime wrote:On January 11 2023 07:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 11 2023 06:35 maybenexttime wrote:On January 11 2023 06:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 11 2023 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 11 2023 00:59 KwarK wrote:On January 10 2023 23:53 plasmidghost wrote:On January 10 2023 21:14 Magic Powers wrote:This Russian economist Sergej Guriew states that the damage to the Russian economy caused by the sanctions is "very good" (i.e. severe). https://www.msn.com/de-at/nachrichten/politik/russischer-ökonom-sanktionen-gegen-russland-funktionieren/ar-AA169RRZ?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=0e1b726290d5485bb924827c0a48d539Lately I've been thinking about the war a bit differently. The main goal people have in mind is for Ukraine to win, typically defined as Russia withdrawing behind Ukrainian borders pre-2022 and ideally also surrendering Crimea. While that is also my hope and I've been focusing my attention on that, in my view it's important to focus also on winning the war as convincingly and swiftly as possible - aiming for complete domination of the Russian forces, if that is at all realistically doable. Simple reason: greater domination minimizes damage to Ukraine, and that's ultimately the true goal. The tanks that were withheld but are now - hesitantly and limited - being sent are symbolic for current and future allied support. In my opinion support is still very much lacking, and I say that not because I'm skeptical of victory, but because I think Ukraine needs to win harder. Much harder. The goal should be to minimize damage, and we achieve that with increased domination from every angle. Much greater allied support is needed. Putin has revealed his cards, he's not going to use nukes in Ukraine or against allied nations as long as foreign troops don't enter the war. It's time to break his spell of fear. The US should send much longer range missile systems. European nations should send battle tanks. Bombers and other aircraft should also definitely be on the table. I've read into potential mindsets of the Western countries supplying weapons to Ukraine and one thing I've seen that makes sense is hat the West wants to bleed Russia dry by supplying just enough to keep Ukraine superior while still getting fresh Russians into the country to be killed. If this is the case, it's fucked beyond belief that Ukrainians are paying that price in blood. I want to see ATACMS and actual tanks go to Ukraine asap This is tankie propaganda. + Show Spoiler +We swamped Ukraine with actual tanks, the US found every country that had ever bought a Soviet style main battle tank and begged, bribed, and promised until they sold them. Then it delivered all those to Ukraine. That’s what all the ring transfers were last year, countries gave up their Ukraine compatible tanks immediately and the US promised to backfill their tank battalions with improved American ones.
Same thing with aircraft. It’s just war is hard and preparing for war while you’re already at war is hard. Ukraine didn’t have the crews for the hardware we already gave them, they needed to train more pilots etc. on that stuff even though it was the equipment they were familiar with already. It’s not as disruptive as requiring everyone relearn all their jobs from scratch but mechanics used to maintaining 10 jets can’t suddenly do 50. They need to train their new coworkers. Though at least it’s stuff that they’re equipped to train people on, the factories producing the parts already make the parts, they just need to make more.
It was assessed that replacing the entire military establishment in Ukraine with NATO standard stuff while in the middle of a war wasn’t going to be viable. Better to grow the existing infrastructure than uproot it and try and build a new one from scratch.
Anything that could be readily incorporated into existing infrastructure was donated though. Russian or American or British or German or whatever. Vehicles that take easily available parts and run on normal fuel. HARMs that could be adapted for Russian jets. MANPADS that take minimal training.
The west isn’t holding back equipment. The question “why won’t the west send main battle tanks” is answered with “actually they did, and lots of them, immediately”, not “they want Ukraine to get into a quagmire to destroy Russia”. Just for clarity as someone politically closest to "tankies" The west is trying to bleed Russia dry militarily and economically. The west is willing to sacrifice Ukrainian (and innocent Russian civilian) lives to make that happen. Ukraine has to keep fighting or its government collapses under outstanding obligations. Putin has to keep fighting or he loses his head. How weapons play into that is a bit more complicated. I personally don't think the west has to or is trying to prolong the war by restricting arms sent to Ukraine. They can send everything they reasonably can and still get the stalemate they want while holding out hope for Russia to collapse. On January 11 2023 06:01 maybenexttime wrote:
@GH
Do you have any evidence for that? For what specifically? That the West is sacrificing Ukrainians and "innocent" Russian civilians to bleed Russia's military dry or that the West seeks a stalemate. There is literally zero evidence for any of that. The West "sacrificing Ukrainians" would imply that we are somehow making Ukrainians fight. That's nonsense. This is an existential war for them and they have the will to win it. They are sacrificing their own lives for that. The West "sacrificing innocent Russian civilians" would imply that there is some collateral damage on the Russian side. There isn't. Unless by "innocent civilians" you meant mobilized soldiers. In that case, they are neither civilians nor innocent. There is also no evidence that the West wants a stalemate. As pointed out earlier, in the US Congress, there are two camps - neither of them is interested in a prolonged conflict. In Europe, there are all sorts of points of view. The majority supports Ukraine and wants the war to end as soon as possible. Some want to go back to business as usual, and then there are the Putin bootlickers. Again, nobody is advocating for a prolonged conflict. I think Gor covered it. I'd add that obviously the west (MIC's influence and their profits notwithstanding) wants Russia to just lose, Putin to be removed from power and to start the scramble for breaking off pieces of Russia to bring under western influence. A stalemate (one the US-MIC is certainly profiting from) sacrificing Ukrainian lives is just the "best" they can hope for given the circumstances (most of which were foreseeable about a month into the war). I've made clear before that I don't mean Ukrainians are being forced (other than reasonably by circumstance and will) to fight and die, just that the west's integral support isn't contingent on them being able to win, or Ukrainians ending up with a better life, or limited by a magic body count, but on it costing Russia more of it's "disposable" blood and treasure than the west's (or at least setting Russia on a path to run out first), Ukraine continuing to fight (even if their population grows weary of war) , and it remaining viable politically in the US. As for the innocent Russian civilians, I'm talking about their exacerbated immiseration through sanctions. You said that the West is sacrificing Ukrainian lives. Words have meaning, you know. Saying that the West is sacrificing Ukrainian lives means that we are somehow making them fight. It strips the Ukrainians of agency. + Show Spoiler +
As for the sanctions, they were specifically designed to not hurt the general population. An average Russian was hardly affected by them. Also calling losing Netflix or higher than expected inflation "being sacrificed" is ridiculous. ;-)
And I'm still waiting for any evidence regarding the West supposedly wanting a stalemate
. No, it doesn't. People can sacrifice themselves and be sacrificed by a third party simultaneously. If someone puts a gun to lover's head and says "it's you or your lover" you can both agree on sacrificing you without stripping anyone of agency (beyond the existential threat) as a simple example. Your lover isn't making you sacrifice yourself (it's a reasonable response to your circumstances), but they are consciously sacrificing you. Poverty kills and we know sanctions exacerbate poverty, this is especially true when applied to authoritarian regimes. afaik the crowd willing to still argue this isn't the case is ever dwindling. It's generally accepted that regardless of stated intentions: Economic sanctions lead to an increase in the poverty gap and deprived sections of the population feel the most impact.
For the most part sanctions fail to achieve their aims and elites manage to negotiate the adverse effects to a far greater level than poorer citizens.
Sanctions have a damaging effect on income inequality and impact ordinary people more than the sanctioned country’s leaders.
Sanctions tend to harm rural and non-industrialised areas more, as resources are refocused in power and production centres.
Between 1976 and 2012 UN sanctions led to a 25.5 percent aggregate decline in GDP per capita of the sanctioned countries (Neuenkirch & Neumeier, 2015).
The negative impact that sanctions have on economic growth affect women, minority communities and other marginalised groups to a greater extent.
Sanctions have a significant negative impact on the living standards and humanitarian situation of the population in the sanctioned state. gsdrc.org That's still a shit take. You have given exactly zero evidence that we are somehow making Ukraine fight this war. I haven't made that claim, though they certainly couldn't fight it without the west.
The West has very clearly stated that it is up to the Ukrainians to decided whether they want to end this war on the battlefield, through negotiations or even surrender. That is the very opposite of what you're claiming. + Show Spoiler +The Russian government has enough tools to shield the population from the sanctions. They choose to spend the money on killing Ukrainians instead, though. It's also a bad joke that you're accusing the West of sacrificing Russian lives when it is Russia which started all of this. The West gave them numerous warnings. They knew the consequences and the blame is solely on them. Also, the Russian society is not innocent. Most Russians support the war, they are complicit.
And the study you linked seems completely irrelevant. The sanctions against Russia are primarily targeting Russia's ability to wage war. Experts tend to agree that they are working quite well.
On January 11 2023 09:39 Ardias wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2023 07:45 0x64 wrote:
Wagner antagonizing Russian forces is a stupid calculation.
If the Russian forces stop providing them weapons, they are dead.
The Russian military is the most likely party to turn if the stars align.
Also Wagner have large numbers, being a prisoner does not make you a fighter, or a war hero.
Wagner will collapse by betrayal. I wonder how many officer of Wagner has to be eliminated to render those 10's of thousands of prisoners absolutely useless, even borderline comedic situation where Russian forces would be ordered to take them into their units... Wagner isn't much dependant on MoD. Weapons production is being run by separate entities, plus rumor is Wagner has strong ties with External Reconaissance Service (Russian CIA equivalent), hence their active work in Africa and Middle East with all necessary supply lines and cooperation with the locals, as well as with FSB, hence their ability to pull out thousands of convicts for recruitment. Show nested quote +On January 11 2023 08:32 maybenexttime wrote:
You said that the West is sacrificing Ukrainian lives. Words have meaning, you know. Saying that the West is sacrificing Ukrainian lives means that we are somehow making them fight. It strips the Ukrainians of agency.
As for the sanctions, they were specifically designed to not hurt the general population. An average Russian was hardly affected by them. Also calling losing Netflix or higher than expected inflation "being sacrificed" is ridiculous. ;-)
And I'm still waiting for any evidence regarding the West supposedly wanting a stalemate. I would have to agree on this one. While sanctions had their toll on some parts of the population, who lost their jobs or, for example, don't have access to some foreign medicine or medical treatment, for a regular Ivan it didn't changed much. There are still a lot of jobs, economy is working, financial and other IT services are working, prices on some general commodities went up, but in general - not terribly so, that it would made them completely unaffordable. Bars, clubs and restaurants are full on weekends. As example, I'll give a check that I got couple days ago from store. Will put it under spoiler for those who are interested, since it may be a bit off topic. + Show Spoiler +I bought a bunch of different products for different meals, not restricting myself on anything (though some of those were on sales). To be fair, I deliberately bought some stuff I don't usually eat to check out the pricing. It costed me around 30 dollars for a non-budget diverse food, which would be enough for week and a half, or even two.
I am using exchange rate of 70 rubles per 1 dollar. If something goes by weight, and not by package, I would also put price of 1 kilo, so you could compare easier.
Also bear in mind that these are prices for a kinda remote northern city (though still a 300k+ regional center), though it's in European part of Russia, so not as remote as some towns in Russian Far East, of course. But food prices somewhere in Krasnodar are generally quite lower, especially on veggies.
Sourcream, 19% fat, 200g - 0,96 USD
Dry broth, 8 small bricks (recommended usage - 2 per litre of water) - 0,57 USD
Smoked-boiled pork brisket - 1,86 USD per 290g, or 6,43 USD per 1 kg
Boiled sausage (mixed meat, I guess mostly chicken) - 1,64 USD per 400g pack (this was on sale, original price was around 2,57 USD per 400g)
Half-smoked sausage (beef/pork) - 1,93 USD per 350g pack (also on sale, original price was around 2,86 USD per 350g)
4 dry ramen packs, 75g each - 0,45 USD per each or 1,8 USD overall
Spagetti, 400g - 0,71 USD per pack
Butter, 82,5% fat, 160g - 1,86 USD per pack
White potato - 0,72 USD per 2 kg - 0,36 USD per 1 kg
Red onion - 0,61 USD per 0,48 kg - 1,29 USD per 1 kg
White onion - 0,43 USD per 0,85 kg - 0,5 USD per 1 kg
Cucumbers - 1,04 USD per 0,35 kg - 2,86 USD per 1 kg (these are expensive in winter, but like 3 times cheaper in summer)
Tomatoes - 1,04 USD per 0,42 kg - 2,57 USD per 1 kg (same as cucumbers)
Pickled cucumbers (the best you could get here) - 3,63 USD per 700g
Black olives - 1,14 USD per 300g can
Tomato paste - 1 USD per 70g can
Toast bread - 0,57 USD per 250g package
Canned pork - 2,2 USD per 325g can
Feta cheese - 2,86 USD per 250g package
Maasdam cheese (Belarus) - 2,5 USD per 0,22 kg - 11 USD per 1 kg
Kiwi - 1 USD per 0.45 kg - 2,29 USD per 1 kg
So 30,07 USD overall
To compare earnings and spending - my salary is around 550 USD a month, and that's not a great one by any means (though not the lowest as well).
It's important to note that I wasn't making a claim about the "average" Russian but the people already most oppressed/exploited by Russian society/government before the sanctions.
|
On January 11 2023 09:27 maybenexttime wrote:
Most Russians support the war, they are complicit.
I'd say many (many more that I expected unfortunately) but not most.
Surely not true for younger people, under 35-40. Most people I know who supports it are 50+.
Vast majority of my friends/colleagues (who are mostly 25-35) are terrified and do not support it at all.
|
On January 11 2023 10:20 GreenHorizons wrote:
I haven't made that claim, though they certainly couldn't fight it without the west.
Yes you have. Even in your analogy you said "you can both agree on sacrificing you". You are clearly saying that both Ukraine and the West are choosing to sacrifice Ukrainians. That is not the case. There is no both here. The West has repeatedly told Ukraine that it's up to them whether they continue fighting, negotiate a ceasefire/peace or even surrender.
You are just back-tracking now. And if not, explain what you meant by "the West sacrificing Ukrainians".
provided they understand that without US approval of a deal, the funds they depend on to keep the government running and pensioners alive will be gone. It's not like the US government is going to keep funding the government of Ukraine if it's under the thumb of Russia.
The West would likely keep supporting Ukraine under any of these scenarios except for a complete surrender. A failed state at EU's borders would be bad for us.
It's important to note that I wasn't making a claim about the "average" Russian but the people already most oppressed/exploited by Russian society/government before the sanctions.
And you haven't provided any evidence for your claim. Not to mention the fact that you're shifting responsibility for the consequences from Russia to the West. The West very clearly communicated what would happen if Russia invaded.
On January 11 2023 17:28 ZeroByte13 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2023 09:27 maybenexttime wrote:
Most Russians support the war, they are complicit.
I'd say many (many more that I expected unfortunately) but not most. Surely not true for younger people, under 35-40. Most people I know who supports it are 50+. Vast majority of my friends/colleagues (who are mostly 25-35) are terrified and do not support it at all.
Are you from a large city, by any chance?
|
On January 11 2023 18:04 maybenexttime wrote:
Are you from a large city, by any chance? No, I'm from a medium-size city (700k) but I also have many friends in my hometown (100k) and also in Moscow and St. Peterburg.
But I'm a software developer, and most of the people I talk to are quite intelligent and relatively progressive, not "chavs".
As I said I might be not very representative. Still it's a huge "layer", dozens of millions of people who are not warmongers.
And it's sad to see them being lumped together with the warmongers. I understand why it's inevitable but it's still sad.
|
Many people believe in the idea that, if every single soldier put down their guns, war would end and warmongers would cease to exist.
I strongly oppose this view, because I believe open public support and opposition for war is highly unreliable in oppressed societies. Also, there is no such thing as a collective mind. There are only individuals with their own views and with varying degrees of susceptibility.
People have many things to worry about, including their physical and emotional well-being, and other things - both of themselves and others - when openly voicing their views on war and acting accordingly in public. There is often - mostly in authoritarian states - insufficient collective agreement between oppressed people - not because they disagree with one another on the idea of an uprising, but due to the systematic oppression of their communication, which prevents them from openly voicing their agreement to rise up. This is why the Russian people couldn't rise up even if they wanted to. They may have their heroes, a few frontrunners, who they silently support, but they can't support them publicly because they can't count on others doing the same. And reality proves them right, this is exactly the situation. Due to insufficient communication the required momentum for an uprising can't be gathered - until it does eventually, completely spontaneously, like in Iran right now. The people as individuals do not control these spontaneous events. Russians can't, ahead of an uprising, lay down their weapons, or shoot their own commanders, and expect to be spared before the uprising takes place. They wait, and wait, and wait, until an uprising happens. Because getting ahead of themselves can get them jailed or even killed.
|
On January 11 2023 18:04 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2023 10:20 GreenHorizons wrote:
I haven't made that claim, though they certainly couldn't fight it without the west. Yes you have. Even in your analogy you said "you can both agree on sacrificing you". You are clearly saying that both Ukraine and the West are choosing to sacrifice Ukrainians. That is not the case. There is no both here. The West has repeatedly told Ukraine that it's up to them whether they continue fighting, negotiate a ceasefire/peace or even surrender.
You are making it sound as if the west is not affecting Ukrainian decisions by delivering aid.
Or that they are unaware that said aid will never suffice to beat Russia.
'sacrifice' is a strong word but they know well enough they are putting Ukraine in position with no good outcomes.
|
Norway28672 Posts
No, Russia put Ukraine in a position with no good outcomes. The west, here, is giving them a chance for an outcome Ukraine seems to vastly prefer, even if it's going to be very costly.
|
On January 11 2023 21:00 pmp10 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2023 18:04 maybenexttime wrote:On January 11 2023 10:20 GreenHorizons wrote:
I haven't made that claim, though they certainly couldn't fight it without the west. Yes you have. Even in your analogy you said "you can both agree on sacrificing you". You are clearly saying that both Ukraine and the West are choosing to sacrifice Ukrainians. That is not the case. There is no both here. The West has repeatedly told Ukraine that it's up to them whether they continue fighting, negotiate a ceasefire/peace or even surrender. You are making it sound as if the west is not affecting Ukrainian decisions by delivering aid. Or that they are unaware that said aid will never suffice to beat Russia. 'sacrifice' is a strong word but they know well enough they are putting Ukraine in position with no good outcomes.
We saw two big successful offensives by Ukraine in the very same year that they lost much of their territory, starting only half a year after the initiation of the invasion. In total, around half of the territory occupied or contested by Russia has been reclaimed by Ukraine. Or in other words three major withdrawals by Russian troops have been observed, and not even one by Ukrainian ones. Most of Russia's big successes came from their initial push, then it has slowly declined, and it's been almost radio silence for months with the exception of frequent terrorist strikes. The weather is certainly among the main reasons why we haven't yet seen a third major Ukrainian offensive, and that's with the many tactical and technological limitations that they have.
From that observation it's more than just a stretch to claim that Ukraine can't beat Russia with the current stream of aid. How is that conclusion even remotely logical? Quite the opposite, the question of victory as defined by Ukrainian leadership is not so much an "if" but rather "how soon". That's one of the reasons why Ukrainian morale is high and perhaps rising, while Russian morale is low and perhaps deteriorating.
No one outside of Russia and its allies is putting Ukraine in a bad position. That'd be like saying boxers get put into a bad position by their fans and coaches. If anything the fans motivate them to do better and get hit less often, while hitting their opponent more.
|
Here's a video on the current situation in Soledar. Some takeaways:
Claims of no Russian progress since last night
Claims of Ukraine still having control of supply lines
Drone video shown of how Wagner operates: Groups of ~10 moving from house to house
Overall situation is that Ukraine still has it under control and that there have been no orders to retreat, nor are they surrendering
|
Poland's transferring Leopard tanks to Ukraine. I didn't see an exact number, but probably around 14. I assume with this, they both got permission from Germany and other countries like Finland may follow suit soon
|
On January 11 2023 22:15 plasmidghost wrote:Here's a video on the current situation in Soledar. Some takeaways: Claims of no Russian progress since last night Claims of Ukraine still having control of supply lines Drone video shown of how Wagner operates: Groups of ~10 moving from house to house Overall situation is that Ukraine still has it under control and that there have been no orders to retreat, nor are they surrendering https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1613127223384444931
Apparently Wagner Group had some successes in Soledar using the tactic of sending squads of 8-10 prisoners and monitoring their progress. If they died, they adjust and send another group of prisoners via a slightly modified route. If they succeed in reaching some objective they send in professional Wagner troops to fortify the position.
In other words, they're using recruited prisoners as meat shields that probe the Ukrainian lines in search of weak points that could be exploited by their soldiers.
|
On January 11 2023 23:16 plasmidghost wrote:Poland's transferring Leopard tanks to Ukraine. I didn't see an exact number, but probably around 14. I assume with this, they both got permission from Germany and other countries like Finland may follow suit soon https://twitter.com/WarMonitor3/status/1613176621288099841
Finally. I heard on the radio today that Britain was about to say fuck it, we're going to deliver some Challenger 2's and thought, that'll get things rolling. Way too late but good news. I'm confident training and planning logistics already happened.
|
On January 11 2023 23:43 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2023 22:15 plasmidghost wrote:Here's a video on the current situation in Soledar. Some takeaways: Claims of no Russian progress since last night Claims of Ukraine still having control of supply lines Drone video shown of how Wagner operates: Groups of ~10 moving from house to house Overall situation is that Ukraine still has it under control and that there have been no orders to retreat, nor are they surrendering https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1613127223384444931 Apparently Wagner Group had some successes in Soledar using the tactic of sending squads of 8-10 prisoners and monitoring their progress. If they died, they adjust and send another group of prisoners via a slightly modified route. If they succeed in reaching some objective they send in professional Wagner troops to fortify the position. In other words, they're using recruited prisoners as meat shields that probe the Ukrainian lines in search of weak points that could be exploited by their soldiers.
I've seen the convict mercs walking over the bodies of other mercs that were killed just before them and I have no idea what kind of drugs they're on to be able to suppress their self-preservation instincts
|
Turkey is sending Cluster munitions to Ukraine after the US refused to do so.
|
On January 11 2023 21:37 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2023 21:00 pmp10 wrote:On January 11 2023 18:04 maybenexttime wrote:On January 11 2023 10:20 GreenHorizons wrote:
I haven't made that claim, though they certainly couldn't fight it without the west. Yes you have. Even in your analogy you said "you can both agree on sacrificing you". You are clearly saying that both Ukraine and the West are choosing to sacrifice Ukrainians. That is not the case. There is no both here. The West has repeatedly told Ukraine that it's up to them whether they continue fighting, negotiate a ceasefire/peace or even surrender. You are making it sound as if the west is not affecting Ukrainian decisions by delivering aid. Or that they are unaware that said aid will never suffice to beat Russia. 'sacrifice' is a strong word but they know well enough they are putting Ukraine in position with no good outcomes. We saw two big successful offensives by Ukraine in the very same year that they lost much of their territory, starting only half a year after the initiation of the invasion. In total, around half of the territory occupied or contested by Russia has been reclaimed by Ukraine. Or in other words three major withdrawals by Russian troops have been observed, and not even one by Ukrainian ones. Most of Russia's big successes came from their initial push, then it has slowly declined, and it's been almost radio silence for months with the exception of frequent terrorist strikes. The weather is certainly among the main reasons why we haven't yet seen a third major Ukrainian offensive, and that's with the many tactical and technological limitations that they have. From that observation it's more than just a stretch to claim that Ukraine can't beat Russia with the current stream of aid. How is that conclusion even remotely logical? Quite the opposite, the question of victory as defined by Ukrainian leadership is not so much an "if" but rather "how soon". That's one of the reasons why Ukrainian morale is high and perhaps rising, while Russian morale is low and perhaps deteriorating.
I think you know that most Ukrainian victories were won before Russia completed first stages of mobilization.
With both countries mobilizing the simple disproportion in resources means that Ukraine is in for a bad time, especially if the war is going to drag-out.
Western powers are perfectly aware of that, it just doesn't change much from their perspective.
|
Wow, these things are unfolding much more rapidly now with tanks, and now even cluster ammo? Certain key people must've done a lot of communication work. Good stuff, lets keep it up!
|
On January 12 2023 00:13 pmp10 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2023 21:37 Magic Powers wrote:On January 11 2023 21:00 pmp10 wrote:On January 11 2023 18:04 maybenexttime wrote:On January 11 2023 10:20 GreenHorizons wrote:
I haven't made that claim, though they certainly couldn't fight it without the west. Yes you have. Even in your analogy you said "you can both agree on sacrificing you". You are clearly saying that both Ukraine and the West are choosing to sacrifice Ukrainians. That is not the case. There is no both here. The West has repeatedly told Ukraine that it's up to them whether they continue fighting, negotiate a ceasefire/peace or even surrender. You are making it sound as if the west is not affecting Ukrainian decisions by delivering aid. Or that they are unaware that said aid will never suffice to beat Russia. 'sacrifice' is a strong word but they know well enough they are putting Ukraine in position with no good outcomes. We saw two big successful offensives by Ukraine in the very same year that they lost much of their territory, starting only half a year after the initiation of the invasion. In total, around half of the territory occupied or contested by Russia has been reclaimed by Ukraine. Or in other words three major withdrawals by Russian troops have been observed, and not even one by Ukrainian ones. Most of Russia's big successes came from their initial push, then it has slowly declined, and it's been almost radio silence for months with the exception of frequent terrorist strikes. The weather is certainly among the main reasons why we haven't yet seen a third major Ukrainian offensive, and that's with the many tactical and technological limitations that they have. From that observation it's more than just a stretch to claim that Ukraine can't beat Russia with the current stream of aid. How is that conclusion even remotely logical? Quite the opposite, the question of victory as defined by Ukrainian leadership is not so much an "if" but rather "how soon". That's one of the reasons why Ukrainian morale is high and perhaps rising, while Russian morale is low and perhaps deteriorating. I think you know that most Ukrainian victories were won before Russia completed first stages of mobilization. With both countries mobilizing the simple disproportion in resources means that Ukraine is in for a bad time, especially if the war is going to drag-out. Western powers are perfectly aware of that, it just doesn't change much from their perspective.
Russia would have to raise not only the army size but also equipment and increase training to get an overall proportional increase in army effectiveness. That is not possible to a sufficient degree for a sort of victory. So the only thing greater mobilization does is delay the inevitable.
On the Ukrainian side, Zelensky demonstrated this when he said there is no further mobilization required for the time being. He wouldn't say this if more mobilization could actually help win the war. It's the same on the Russian side.
Ukraine is only worried about Russian mobilization insofar as it means that there will be human waves sent for intelligence purposes, as it is being done in the Bakhmut region for example. It's not going to win Russia the war though, at best they can capture a few additional cities in the very long run. Therefore if Ukraine can win the war without significant Russian mobilization, they can just as well win it with significant Russian mobilization. It makes no difference except for pyrrhic victories of sorts.
|
United States42700 Posts
On January 11 2023 21:00 pmp10 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2023 18:04 maybenexttime wrote:On January 11 2023 10:20 GreenHorizons wrote:
I haven't made that claim, though they certainly couldn't fight it without the west. Yes you have. Even in your analogy you said "you can both agree on sacrificing you". You are clearly saying that both Ukraine and the West are choosing to sacrifice Ukrainians. That is not the case. There is no both here. The West has repeatedly told Ukraine that it's up to them whether they continue fighting, negotiate a ceasefire/peace or even surrender. You are making it sound as if the west is not affecting Ukrainian decisions by delivering aid. Or that they are unaware that said aid will never suffice to beat Russia. 'sacrifice' is a strong word but they know well enough they are putting Ukraine in position with no good outcomes.
Let’s say Ukraine’s preference order is
1) Fight and win
2) Be occupied and genocided
3) Be occupied and genocided after the cities are destroyed by fighting
You’re arguing that by delivering aid we’re allowing them to choose option 1 whereas without that aid they’d prefer 2 to 3. But option 1 is still their preference, nobody is making them try that.
It’s a dumb argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
