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 February 26 2023 19:08 SC-Shield wrote: Regardless of above points, we still see immediate effects of sanctions. E.g. reports that Russian soldiers extract chips from fridges, washing machines, etc. Lower oil price will definitely hit Russia as a very big chunk of Russia's economy is energy export. EU and US have already hit sector. Just because some sanctions take time to come into full effect we shouldn't declare them useless. If the goal is to break Russia completely, I don't think they'll do, they're just complementary to weapons aid to Ukraine, i.e. "every little bit helps" but not a silver bullet.
So lets say sanctions are not useless but won't stop Russia either. What other tool does the west use to save Ukraine? If Russia cannot be deterred or stopped today then what will stop them from launching more invasions 5/10/15 years from now? Essentially - what is to force Russia into a permanent peace if the economic costs have failed.
Battlefield costs. Ukraine is insanely expensive for Russia. They have a large demographic problem and are making it much worse. They will not be in a position to run another war due to manpower shortages on the frontline and production sides.
If they open up the borders the brain drain they are suffering from will become worse as well. If you are in an aggressive state that might draft you then you don't even need more money to move out.
Basically the long term costs are very high, disregarding direct economics.
Same argument can be made about Ukraine's demographic difficulties, they could be even worse as they are a smaller country and are suffering worse migration. Aside from that, Russian military reserve is estimated to be around 2 milion. It sounds harsh but numbers-wise they can do this for a generation. I doubt Putin cares for as long as they obey.
Yes it is worse for Ukraine. Smaller country with the war happening inside the country. That does not mean it isn't a grinding long term loss for Russia. I subscribe to the assessment that winning the war tomorrow would still have been a loss for Russia. 2014 was when they started the current loss by going the middle line leading to the current conflict.
I think this video makes most of the points for me:
So there are reports that Ukraine has launched several counter attacks in Bakhmut, going as far as getting behind the flankers. But the situation is still fluid, and very high risk.
On February 26 2023 19:08 SC-Shield wrote: Regardless of above points, we still see immediate effects of sanctions. E.g. reports that Russian soldiers extract chips from fridges, washing machines, etc. Lower oil price will definitely hit Russia as a very big chunk of Russia's economy is energy export. EU and US have already hit sector. Just because some sanctions take time to come into full effect we shouldn't declare them useless. If the goal is to break Russia completely, I don't think they'll do, they're just complementary to weapons aid to Ukraine, i.e. "every little bit helps" but not a silver bullet.
So lets say sanctions are not useless but won't stop Russia either. What other tool does the west use to save Ukraine? If Russia cannot be deterred or stopped today then what will stop them from launching more invasions 5/10/15 years from now? Essentially - what is to force Russia into a permanent peace if the economic costs have failed.
Battlefield costs. Ukraine is insanely expensive for Russia. They have a large demographic problem and are making it much worse. They will not be in a position to run another war due to manpower shortages on the frontline and production sides.
If they open up the borders the brain drain they are suffering from will become worse as well. If you are in an aggressive state that might draft you then you don't even need more money to move out.
Basically the long term costs are very high, disregarding direct economics.
Same argument can be made about Ukraine's demographic difficulties, they could be even worse as they are a smaller country and are suffering worse migration. Aside from that, Russian military reserve is estimated to be around 2 milion. It sounds harsh but numbers-wise they can do this for a generation. I doubt Putin cares for as long as they obey.
Yes it is worse for Ukraine. Smaller country with the war happening inside the country. That does not mean it isn't a grinding long term loss for Russia. I subscribe to the assessment that winning the war tomorrow would still have been a loss for Russia. 2014 was when they started the current loss by going the middle line leading to the current conflict.
I'd say that is one long video that misreads the Russian objective and announces their defeat on that faulty premise. The point always was to stop Ukraine becoming a functional, secure, western state and Putin has made it very clear in his invasion address. Conquest and direct control might not longer be possible in the short term, but they will still call devastating Ukraine over time a win.
On February 26 2023 19:08 SC-Shield wrote: Regardless of above points, we still see immediate effects of sanctions. E.g. reports that Russian soldiers extract chips from fridges, washing machines, etc. Lower oil price will definitely hit Russia as a very big chunk of Russia's economy is energy export. EU and US have already hit sector. Just because some sanctions take time to come into full effect we shouldn't declare them useless. If the goal is to break Russia completely, I don't think they'll do, they're just complementary to weapons aid to Ukraine, i.e. "every little bit helps" but not a silver bullet.
So lets say sanctions are not useless but won't stop Russia either. What other tool does the west use to save Ukraine? If Russia cannot be deterred or stopped today then what will stop them from launching more invasions 5/10/15 years from now? Essentially - what is to force Russia into a permanent peace if the economic costs have failed.
Battlefield costs. Ukraine is insanely expensive for Russia. They have a large demographic problem and are making it much worse. They will not be in a position to run another war due to manpower shortages on the frontline and production sides.
If they open up the borders the brain drain they are suffering from will become worse as well. If you are in an aggressive state that might draft you then you don't even need more money to move out.
Basically the long term costs are very high, disregarding direct economics.
Same argument can be made about Ukraine's demographic difficulties, they could be even worse as they are a smaller country and are suffering worse migration. Aside from that, Russian military reserve is estimated to be around 2 milion. It sounds harsh but numbers-wise they can do this for a generation. I doubt Putin cares for as long as they obey.
Yes it is worse for Ukraine. Smaller country with the war happening inside the country. That does not mean it isn't a grinding long term loss for Russia. I subscribe to the assessment that winning the war tomorrow would still have been a loss for Russia. 2014 was when they started the current loss by going the middle line leading to the current conflict.
I'd say that is one long video that misreads the Russian objective and announces their defeat on that faulty premise. The point always was to stop Ukraine becoming a functional, secure, western state and Putin has made it very clear in his invasion address. Conquest and direct control might not longer be possible in the short term, but they will still call devastating Ukraine over time a win.
When this war eventually ends Ukraine is going to get flooded with Western investment. Lots of companies will be wanting a piece of all those natural resources.
On February 26 2023 19:08 SC-Shield wrote: Regardless of above points, we still see immediate effects of sanctions. E.g. reports that Russian soldiers extract chips from fridges, washing machines, etc. Lower oil price will definitely hit Russia as a very big chunk of Russia's economy is energy export. EU and US have already hit sector. Just because some sanctions take time to come into full effect we shouldn't declare them useless. If the goal is to break Russia completely, I don't think they'll do, they're just complementary to weapons aid to Ukraine, i.e. "every little bit helps" but not a silver bullet.
So lets say sanctions are not useless but won't stop Russia either. What other tool does the west use to save Ukraine? If Russia cannot be deterred or stopped today then what will stop them from launching more invasions 5/10/15 years from now? Essentially - what is to force Russia into a permanent peace if the economic costs have failed.
Battlefield costs. Ukraine is insanely expensive for Russia. They have a large demographic problem and are making it much worse. They will not be in a position to run another war due to manpower shortages on the frontline and production sides.
If they open up the borders the brain drain they are suffering from will become worse as well. If you are in an aggressive state that might draft you then you don't even need more money to move out.
Basically the long term costs are very high, disregarding direct economics.
Same argument can be made about Ukraine's demographic difficulties, they could be even worse as they are a smaller country and are suffering worse migration. Aside from that, Russian military reserve is estimated to be around 2 milion. It sounds harsh but numbers-wise they can do this for a generation. I doubt Putin cares for as long as they obey.
Yes it is worse for Ukraine. Smaller country with the war happening inside the country. That does not mean it isn't a grinding long term loss for Russia. I subscribe to the assessment that winning the war tomorrow would still have been a loss for Russia. 2014 was when they started the current loss by going the middle line leading to the current conflict.
I'd say that is one long video that misreads the Russian objective and announces their defeat on that faulty premise. The point always was to stop Ukraine becoming a functional, secure, western state and Putin has made it very clear in his invasion address. Conquest and direct control might not longer be possible in the short term, but they will still call devastating Ukraine over time a win.
But why is Ukraine in itself important for Russia?
What overarching goal does the war fulfil and has that been achieved or would be by winning the war?
Yes Ukraine is getting wrecked by the war but why does that matter to Russia?
Assuming Ukraine wins the war, has it served Russian long term interests?
On February 26 2023 19:08 SC-Shield wrote: Regardless of above points, we still see immediate effects of sanctions. E.g. reports that Russian soldiers extract chips from fridges, washing machines, etc. Lower oil price will definitely hit Russia as a very big chunk of Russia's economy is energy export. EU and US have already hit sector. Just because some sanctions take time to come into full effect we shouldn't declare them useless. If the goal is to break Russia completely, I don't think they'll do, they're just complementary to weapons aid to Ukraine, i.e. "every little bit helps" but not a silver bullet.
So lets say sanctions are not useless but won't stop Russia either. What other tool does the west use to save Ukraine? If Russia cannot be deterred or stopped today then what will stop them from launching more invasions 5/10/15 years from now? Essentially - what is to force Russia into a permanent peace if the economic costs have failed.
Battlefield costs. Ukraine is insanely expensive for Russia. They have a large demographic problem and are making it much worse. They will not be in a position to run another war due to manpower shortages on the frontline and production sides.
If they open up the borders the brain drain they are suffering from will become worse as well. If you are in an aggressive state that might draft you then you don't even need more money to move out.
Basically the long term costs are very high, disregarding direct economics.
Same argument can be made about Ukraine's demographic difficulties, they could be even worse as they are a smaller country and are suffering worse migration. Aside from that, Russian military reserve is estimated to be around 2 milion. It sounds harsh but numbers-wise they can do this for a generation. I doubt Putin cares for as long as they obey.
Yes it is worse for Ukraine. Smaller country with the war happening inside the country. That does not mean it isn't a grinding long term loss for Russia. I subscribe to the assessment that winning the war tomorrow would still have been a loss for Russia. 2014 was when they started the current loss by going the middle line leading to the current conflict.
I'd say that is one long video that misreads the Russian objective and announces their defeat on that faulty premise. The point always was to stop Ukraine becoming a functional, secure, western state and Putin has made it very clear in his invasion address. Conquest and direct control might not longer be possible in the short term, but they will still call devastating Ukraine over time a win.
But why is Ukraine in itself important for Russia?
What overarching goal does the war fulfil and has that been achieved or would be by winning the war?
Yes Ukraine is getting wrecked by the war but why does that matter to Russia?
Russia wants to show that no one inside their sphere of influence is allowed to leave. As well as the potential delusion from Putin wanting to restore the USSR.
On February 26 2023 19:08 SC-Shield wrote: Regardless of above points, we still see immediate effects of sanctions. E.g. reports that Russian soldiers extract chips from fridges, washing machines, etc. Lower oil price will definitely hit Russia as a very big chunk of Russia's economy is energy export. EU and US have already hit sector. Just because some sanctions take time to come into full effect we shouldn't declare them useless. If the goal is to break Russia completely, I don't think they'll do, they're just complementary to weapons aid to Ukraine, i.e. "every little bit helps" but not a silver bullet.
So lets say sanctions are not useless but won't stop Russia either. What other tool does the west use to save Ukraine? If Russia cannot be deterred or stopped today then what will stop them from launching more invasions 5/10/15 years from now? Essentially - what is to force Russia into a permanent peace if the economic costs have failed.
Battlefield costs. Ukraine is insanely expensive for Russia. They have a large demographic problem and are making it much worse. They will not be in a position to run another war due to manpower shortages on the frontline and production sides.
If they open up the borders the brain drain they are suffering from will become worse as well. If you are in an aggressive state that might draft you then you don't even need more money to move out.
Basically the long term costs are very high, disregarding direct economics.
Same argument can be made about Ukraine's demographic difficulties, they could be even worse as they are a smaller country and are suffering worse migration. Aside from that, Russian military reserve is estimated to be around 2 milion. It sounds harsh but numbers-wise they can do this for a generation. I doubt Putin cares for as long as they obey.
Yes it is worse for Ukraine. Smaller country with the war happening inside the country. That does not mean it isn't a grinding long term loss for Russia. I subscribe to the assessment that winning the war tomorrow would still have been a loss for Russia. 2014 was when they started the current loss by going the middle line leading to the current conflict.
I'd say that is one long video that misreads the Russian objective and announces their defeat on that faulty premise. The point always was to stop Ukraine becoming a functional, secure, western state and Putin has made it very clear in his invasion address. Conquest and direct control might not longer be possible in the short term, but they will still call devastating Ukraine over time a win.
This is some weird rewriting of history that forgets that Russia's plans for the quisling government, the seizing of power, the legitimization of the annexations, the push into Moldova and so forth all got leaked. Also you wouldn't do a hail mary play to seize the capital all or nothing if you wanted to just sow chaos.
We know what Russia's plan was and it wasn't to get bogged down in an unwinnable war while government revenues dry up, fossil fuel exports go down 50%, a price cap is imposed on their revenues, foreign investment goes to zero, and a quarter million men are killed or wounded. They made the media announcements in advance assuming the plan would work.
On February 26 2023 19:08 SC-Shield wrote: Regardless of above points, we still see immediate effects of sanctions. E.g. reports that Russian soldiers extract chips from fridges, washing machines, etc. Lower oil price will definitely hit Russia as a very big chunk of Russia's economy is energy export. EU and US have already hit sector. Just because some sanctions take time to come into full effect we shouldn't declare them useless. If the goal is to break Russia completely, I don't think they'll do, they're just complementary to weapons aid to Ukraine, i.e. "every little bit helps" but not a silver bullet.
So lets say sanctions are not useless but won't stop Russia either. What other tool does the west use to save Ukraine? If Russia cannot be deterred or stopped today then what will stop them from launching more invasions 5/10/15 years from now? Essentially - what is to force Russia into a permanent peace if the economic costs have failed.
Battlefield costs. Ukraine is insanely expensive for Russia. They have a large demographic problem and are making it much worse. They will not be in a position to run another war due to manpower shortages on the frontline and production sides.
If they open up the borders the brain drain they are suffering from will become worse as well. If you are in an aggressive state that might draft you then you don't even need more money to move out.
Basically the long term costs are very high, disregarding direct economics.
Same argument can be made about Ukraine's demographic difficulties, they could be even worse as they are a smaller country and are suffering worse migration. Aside from that, Russian military reserve is estimated to be around 2 milion. It sounds harsh but numbers-wise they can do this for a generation. I doubt Putin cares for as long as they obey.
Yes it is worse for Ukraine. Smaller country with the war happening inside the country. That does not mean it isn't a grinding long term loss for Russia. I subscribe to the assessment that winning the war tomorrow would still have been a loss for Russia. 2014 was when they started the current loss by going the middle line leading to the current conflict.
The point always was to stop Ukraine becoming a functional, secure, western state and Putin has made it very clear in his invasion address. Conquest and direct control might not longer be possible in the short term, but they will still call devastating Ukraine over time a win.
Uniting NATO and the West and pushing Sweden and Finland into NATO seems like a steep price to pay for disarming and devastating Ukraine, which it is still far from certain that they will manage to do. I'm not so fond of that video either, though, by the way.
On February 26 2023 19:08 SC-Shield wrote: Regardless of above points, we still see immediate effects of sanctions. E.g. reports that Russian soldiers extract chips from fridges, washing machines, etc. Lower oil price will definitely hit Russia as a very big chunk of Russia's economy is energy export. EU and US have already hit sector. Just because some sanctions take time to come into full effect we shouldn't declare them useless. If the goal is to break Russia completely, I don't think they'll do, they're just complementary to weapons aid to Ukraine, i.e. "every little bit helps" but not a silver bullet.
So lets say sanctions are not useless but won't stop Russia either. What other tool does the west use to save Ukraine? If Russia cannot be deterred or stopped today then what will stop them from launching more invasions 5/10/15 years from now? Essentially - what is to force Russia into a permanent peace if the economic costs have failed.
Battlefield costs. Ukraine is insanely expensive for Russia. They have a large demographic problem and are making it much worse. They will not be in a position to run another war due to manpower shortages on the frontline and production sides.
If they open up the borders the brain drain they are suffering from will become worse as well. If you are in an aggressive state that might draft you then you don't even need more money to move out.
Basically the long term costs are very high, disregarding direct economics.
Same argument can be made about Ukraine's demographic difficulties, they could be even worse as they are a smaller country and are suffering worse migration. Aside from that, Russian military reserve is estimated to be around 2 milion. It sounds harsh but numbers-wise they can do this for a generation. I doubt Putin cares for as long as they obey.
Yes it is worse for Ukraine. Smaller country with the war happening inside the country. That does not mean it isn't a grinding long term loss for Russia. I subscribe to the assessment that winning the war tomorrow would still have been a loss for Russia. 2014 was when they started the current loss by going the middle line leading to the current conflict.
I'd say that is one long video that misreads the Russian objective and announces their defeat on that faulty premise. The point always was to stop Ukraine becoming a functional, secure, western state and Putin has made it very clear in his invasion address. Conquest and direct control might not longer be possible in the short term, but they will still call devastating Ukraine over time a win.
When this war eventually ends Ukraine is going to get flooded with Western investment. Lots of companies will be wanting a piece of all those natural resources.
That's not exactly incompatible with failing to become a functional, secure, western state. Moreover Ukraine isn't getting all this help for free, it's not uncommon for western nations to use instability/debt/conflict and inability to meet existing/future obligations as leverage to force austerity and raise profits of western investors.
Ukraine could win and quickly discover why winning a war isn't always all it's cracked up to be. They can't afford to rebuild on their own (and the devastation is massive) so they will be at the mercy of some rather unsavory characters.
On February 26 2023 19:08 SC-Shield wrote: Regardless of above points, we still see immediate effects of sanctions. E.g. reports that Russian soldiers extract chips from fridges, washing machines, etc. Lower oil price will definitely hit Russia as a very big chunk of Russia's economy is energy export. EU and US have already hit sector. Just because some sanctions take time to come into full effect we shouldn't declare them useless. If the goal is to break Russia completely, I don't think they'll do, they're just complementary to weapons aid to Ukraine, i.e. "every little bit helps" but not a silver bullet.
So lets say sanctions are not useless but won't stop Russia either. What other tool does the west use to save Ukraine? If Russia cannot be deterred or stopped today then what will stop them from launching more invasions 5/10/15 years from now? Essentially - what is to force Russia into a permanent peace if the economic costs have failed.
Battlefield costs. Ukraine is insanely expensive for Russia. They have a large demographic problem and are making it much worse. They will not be in a position to run another war due to manpower shortages on the frontline and production sides.
If they open up the borders the brain drain they are suffering from will become worse as well. If you are in an aggressive state that might draft you then you don't even need more money to move out.
Basically the long term costs are very high, disregarding direct economics.
Same argument can be made about Ukraine's demographic difficulties, they could be even worse as they are a smaller country and are suffering worse migration. Aside from that, Russian military reserve is estimated to be around 2 milion. It sounds harsh but numbers-wise they can do this for a generation. I doubt Putin cares for as long as they obey.
Yes it is worse for Ukraine. Smaller country with the war happening inside the country. That does not mean it isn't a grinding long term loss for Russia. I subscribe to the assessment that winning the war tomorrow would still have been a loss for Russia. 2014 was when they started the current loss by going the middle line leading to the current conflict.
I'd say that is one long video that misreads the Russian objective and announces their defeat on that faulty premise. The point always was to stop Ukraine becoming a functional, secure, western state and Putin has made it very clear in his invasion address. Conquest and direct control might not longer be possible in the short term, but they will still call devastating Ukraine over time a win.
When this war eventually ends Ukraine is going to get flooded with Western investment. Lots of companies will be wanting a piece of all those natural resources.
That's not exactly incompatible with failing to become a functional, secure, western state. Moreover Ukraine isn't getting all this help for free, it's not uncommon for western nations to use instability/debt/conflict and inability to meet existing/future obligations as leverage to force austerity and raise profits of western investors.
Ukraine could win and quickly discover why winning a war isn't always all it's cracked up to be. They can't afford to rebuild on their own (and the devastation is massive) so they will be at the mercy of some rather unsavory characters.
I wouldn't really demonize it all that much. Poland went through several rebuilding efforts (during WW2 some of our major cities were leveled to the ground) with help from both the West and Russia. Overall things only started getting really good once we got help from the EU (we're still pretty big beneficiaries of EU help) so we could get modernized and enter the 21st century basically.
Sure, no one is going to be altruistic about it but debt reduction (instead of squeezing every ounce of it) and such have happened. Most countries operate under debt so they know you can't be too hard on it or your investment (loan) won't pay off in the long run. It's in everyone's interest that the country benefiting from loans and other help can actually grow and improve, even if it means lowering interest rates, forgetting about debt payments for a while etc.
The EU is altruistic. Source: I was born in 86 and that is also the year Portugal entered the EU and started getting bajillions in EU funds every year.
If Ukraine wins the war and establishes a secure position, reducing the risk of a future war with Russia, the EU has the moral duty to integrate Ukraine as fast as possible. To not do that would be a monumental failing on our part. Once in the EU, structural funds and foreign investment will start flowing for the rebuild, and that would be a great thing.
On February 27 2023 08:37 Manit0u wrote: It appears that Ukrainians are not leaving eastern side of Bakhmut but are actually counter-attacking and getting into Russian rear.
Letting your opponent overextend before counterattacking into the flanks is a tactic as old as time, which is why any news of side X being pushed back (like we've seen in the past few pages here) in a short term attack should be taken with a giant grain of salt.
The sanctions are harming Russia far more than they are harming the EU and especially Germany.
Was the top Union official in Germany lying then when he stated last month that the countries aluminium, glass and chemical industries could permanently collapse if the gas situation with Russia is not fixed? With costs rising so fast it becomes uneconomic at some stage no?
"Entire industries are in danger of collapsing permanently because of the gas bottlenecks: aluminum, glass, the chemical industry," Fahimi, the head of the German Federation of Trade Unions, told Bild am Sonntag. "Such a collapse would have massive consequences for the entire economy and jobs in Germany."
The country's energy crisis is already driving inflation to record highs, which threatens social stability, Fahimi told Bild am Sonntag.
Russian state gas giant Gazprom has already cut gas flows to Germany via the key Nord Stream 1 pipeline by 60% from last month, citing an equipment hold-up in Canada as a result of sanctions over the war in Ukraine.
Under the country's emergency plan, industry would be first in line for supply cuts. The move could devastate the economy and lead to job losses, Germany business leaders and unions have said.
Habeck said natural-gas rationing would likely hit factories not connected to the residential networks first, per Bloomberg.
I am happy to revisit this topic once the German economy is collapsing. So far in 2022 it's been growing, while the Russian has been contracting. We don't have any reliable figures for how much. The study I linked estimates anywhere between 5 and 15 percent just this year. Anything in the double digits would be just catastrophic for any economy.
The IMF recently released their economic estimates, Russian economy likely shrank -2.2% in 2022, not the -5 to -15% laughably claimed previously from more biased sources.
Additionally they estimate Russian GDP growth of 0.3% in 2023, while they're predicting 0.1% growth for Germany in 23', down from 1.9% in 2022.
As previously stated, the sanctions have failed and are hurting the EU far more than Russia.The trends in the IMF data make this clear now if it wasn't before.
You should take into the account that Russia increased its military spending in 2022 from about 2.5% of GDP to about 5% of GDP. Whatever they're spending, they are squandering in Ukraine. It could be argued that the real contraction is closer to 4-5%.
There are clear indications that Putin's war chest is running dry. Russia's deficit reached 60% of the value planned for the entire 2023 already in January. Russia's budget revenues in 2023 are predicted to decrease by around 30% due to oil and gas sanctions. The wheels are clearly coming off. It took longer than predicted, but the signs are there.
I think it's true that Russia's economy is and will continue to suffer greatly and that over the next 20 years or so they will be reduced to something like Iran - lots of smart people but without the industrial or scientific infrastructure to undertake any remotely difficult projects. I also think that that people should not delude themselves into thinking that the sanctions have any particular impact on the war itself. In WW2 the allies flat out bombed the German economy for a year and the war machine kept running. It only stopped with physical occupation of the country. The sanctions the west are leveraging on Russia are obviously minuscule compared to large scale carpet bombings of industrial centers and I think it is foolish to except them to have any real impact on the next few years of the war. That said, I also think people should be careful about proclaiming victory in the energy war. Europe made it through this winter by permanently shutting down a lot of heavy industry. The worries expressed in the earlier links in this quote chain are all very real. To add some more to the examples given, Intel has reversed/paused their decision of building a new fab in Germany, and BASF is shutting down ammonia production in Europe. This will presumably continue over the next few years as energy costs stabilize at several-x times the price in the US or China. The outlook is made hilariously worse by the US Inflation Reduction Act which promises immense subsidies for companies to relocate emerging green industries to the US, which the EU has neither the political unity nor fiscal power to counter. The question should not be whether this war is hurting Russia or Europe more, the answer is obviously Russia, but rather what can be done by the EU or its member states to maintain future prosperity rather than falling into middle income stagnation as this war makes industry structurally noncompetitive on the continent in the long term. Personally I am quite pessimistic. So yea, Russia might become Iran or even North Korea in a decade or two, but Schadenfreude is not a particularly good substitute for prosperity. Of course the war is not a choice, but the true victory condition is much much harder than 'doing better than Russia'. I think much more urgency needs to be put on making a European economy without Russia viable in the long term. Shutting down industry and then celebrating as gas storage levels are high is amazingly dumb.
On February 26 2023 19:08 SC-Shield wrote: Regardless of above points, we still see immediate effects of sanctions. E.g. reports that Russian soldiers extract chips from fridges, washing machines, etc. Lower oil price will definitely hit Russia as a very big chunk of Russia's economy is energy export. EU and US have already hit sector. Just because some sanctions take time to come into full effect we shouldn't declare them useless. If the goal is to break Russia completely, I don't think they'll do, they're just complementary to weapons aid to Ukraine, i.e. "every little bit helps" but not a silver bullet.
So lets say sanctions are not useless but won't stop Russia either. What other tool does the west use to save Ukraine? If Russia cannot be deterred or stopped today then what will stop them from launching more invasions 5/10/15 years from now? Essentially - what is to force Russia into a permanent peace if the economic costs have failed.
Battlefield costs. Ukraine is insanely expensive for Russia. They have a large demographic problem and are making it much worse. They will not be in a position to run another war due to manpower shortages on the frontline and production sides.
If they open up the borders the brain drain they are suffering from will become worse as well. If you are in an aggressive state that might draft you then you don't even need more money to move out.
Basically the long term costs are very high, disregarding direct economics.
Same argument can be made about Ukraine's demographic difficulties, they could be even worse as they are a smaller country and are suffering worse migration. Aside from that, Russian military reserve is estimated to be around 2 milion. It sounds harsh but numbers-wise they can do this for a generation. I doubt Putin cares for as long as they obey.
Yes it is worse for Ukraine. Smaller country with the war happening inside the country. That does not mean it isn't a grinding long term loss for Russia. I subscribe to the assessment that winning the war tomorrow would still have been a loss for Russia. 2014 was when they started the current loss by going the middle line leading to the current conflict.
I'd say that is one long video that misreads the Russian objective and announces their defeat on that faulty premise. The point always was to stop Ukraine becoming a functional, secure, western state and Putin has made it very clear in his invasion address. Conquest and direct control might not longer be possible in the short term, but they will still call devastating Ukraine over time a win.
When this war eventually ends Ukraine is going to get flooded with Western investment. Lots of companies will be wanting a piece of all those natural resources.
That's not exactly incompatible with failing to become a functional, secure, western state. Moreover Ukraine isn't getting all this help for free, it's not uncommon for western nations to use instability/debt/conflict and inability to meet existing/future obligations as leverage to force austerity and raise profits of western investors.
Ukraine could win and quickly discover why winning a war isn't always all it's cracked up to be. They can't afford to rebuild on their own (and the devastation is massive) so they will be at the mercy of some rather unsavory characters.
The sanctions are harming Russia far more than they are harming the EU and especially Germany.
Was the top Union official in Germany lying then when he stated last month that the countries aluminium, glass and chemical industries could permanently collapse if the gas situation with Russia is not fixed? With costs rising so fast it becomes uneconomic at some stage no?
"Entire industries are in danger of collapsing permanently because of the gas bottlenecks: aluminum, glass, the chemical industry," Fahimi, the head of the German Federation of Trade Unions, told Bild am Sonntag. "Such a collapse would have massive consequences for the entire economy and jobs in Germany."
The country's energy crisis is already driving inflation to record highs, which threatens social stability, Fahimi told Bild am Sonntag.
Russian state gas giant Gazprom has already cut gas flows to Germany via the key Nord Stream 1 pipeline by 60% from last month, citing an equipment hold-up in Canada as a result of sanctions over the war in Ukraine.
Under the country's emergency plan, industry would be first in line for supply cuts. The move could devastate the economy and lead to job losses, Germany business leaders and unions have said.
Habeck said natural-gas rationing would likely hit factories not connected to the residential networks first, per Bloomberg.
I am happy to revisit this topic once the German economy is collapsing. So far in 2022 it's been growing, while the Russian has been contracting. We don't have any reliable figures for how much. The study I linked estimates anywhere between 5 and 15 percent just this year. Anything in the double digits would be just catastrophic for any economy.
The IMF recently released their economic estimates, Russian economy likely shrank -2.2% in 2022, not the -5 to -15% laughably claimed previously from more biased sources.
Additionally they estimate Russian GDP growth of 0.3% in 2023, while they're predicting 0.1% growth for Germany in 23', down from 1.9% in 2022.
As previously stated, the sanctions have failed and are hurting the EU far more than Russia.The trends in the IMF data make this clear now if it wasn't before.
You should take into the account that Russia increased its military spending in 2022 from about 2.5% of GDP to about 5% of GDP. Whatever they're spending, they are squandering in Ukraine. It could be argued that the real contraction is closer to 4-5%.
There are clear indications that Putin's war chest is running dry. Russia's deficit reached 60% of the value planned for the entire 2023 already in January. Russia's budget revenues in 2023 are predicted to decrease by around 30% due to oil and gas sanctions. The wheels are clearly coming off. It took longer than predicted, but the signs are there.
I think it's true that Russia's economy is and will continue to suffer greatly and that over the next 20 years or so they will be reduced to something like Iran - lots of smart people but without the industrial or scientific infrastructure to undertake any remotely difficult projects. I also think that that people should not delude themselves into thinking that the sanctions have any particular impact on the war itself. In WW2 the allies flat out bombed the German economy for a year and the war machine kept running. It only stopped with physical occupation of the country. The sanctions the west are leveraging on Russia are obviously minuscule compared to large scale carpet bombings of industrial centers and I think it is foolish to except them to have any real impact on the next few years of the war. That said, I also think people should be careful about proclaiming victory in the energy war. Europe made it through this winter by permanently shutting down a lot of heavy industry. The worries expressed in the earlier links in this quote chain are all very real. To add some more to the examples given, Intel has reversed/paused their decision of building a new fab in Germany, and BASF is shutting down ammonia production in Europe. This will presumably continue over the next few years as energy costs stabilize at several-x times the price in the US or China. The outlook is made hilariously worse by the US Inflation Reduction Act which promises immense subsidies for companies to relocate emerging green industries to the US, which the EU has neither the political unity nor fiscal power to counter. The question should not be whether this war is hurting Russia or Europe more, the answer is obviously Russia, but rather what can be done by the EU or its member states to maintain future prosperity rather than falling into middle income stagnation as this war makes industry structurally noncompetitive on the continent in the long term. Personally I am quite pessimistic. So yea, Russia might become Iran or even North Korea in a decade or two, but Schadenfreude is not a particularly good substitute for prosperity. Of course the war is not a choice, but the true victory condition is much much harder than 'doing better than Russia'. I think much more urgency needs to be put on making a European economy without Russia viable in the long term. Shutting down industry and then celebrating as gas storage levels are high is amazingly dumb.
No, Russia will not become Iran or North Korea, Russians were smart enough to get out of communism once. They got overwhelmed by corruption and democracy got stolen by a dictator. But that doesn't mean that the new generation is ok with what is happening... It is just safer right now to wait for the shit to collapse by itself.
You do remember the protests, imagine the size of those if there was no risk in showing your opinion.
People often forget that collapses takes years because you usually just stop putting resources in maintaining expensive but non-urgent things (Roads, Powerplants, public buildings), no one notice if a school has shitty paint one more year.
The problem is that the maintenance "debt" keep the collapsing state for decades because you never have the manpower to repair everything.
EPT
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/S9QyXA7.jpg)
