|
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 August 15 2023 17:14 pmp10 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2023 06:54 sertas wrote:
Legitimate peace talks aren't likely to happen since Russia want's to keep their land corridor and Ukraine can still fight for another 5+ years so neither side will budge on that unless defeated millitarily Ukraine certainly cannot fight multiple years if western support diminishes over time. That's why they are so afraid of 'peace talks' - it's just a pretense to start freezing the conflict. As things stand Russia withstood all soft-power pressure and militarily Crimea remains unthreatened. This allows them to push for an ambiguous, unenforceable cease-fire which they can turn semi-permanent. That means they will not only keep all held territory but also reinvade whenever next opportunity present itself. Effectively Russia winning the peace and 'salami-slicing' Ukraine in the coming decades.
Ukraine held and effectively created a stalemate without western support. To argue that now, if support dries up, they wouldn't be able to continue their war effort, is fairly absurd. You can't make such a prediction.
|
There is also no actual indication of support drying up. F16 training is just starting and countries are still supplying Ukraine with new weapons.
|
Also most of the support i've seen is covered up until 2025 or 2027, so that's a long time before new decisions about more weapons need to be made by politicians, and they will probably just make a new decision end of 2025 to support ukraine for another 3 years, russia has no one donating money to them while ukraine has basicly everyone.
Sure russia can gamble that eu will stop helping 2026 but can russia even sustain that long at this rate?
|
On August 15 2023 17:30 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2023 17:14 pmp10 wrote:On August 15 2023 06:54 sertas wrote:
Legitimate peace talks aren't likely to happen since Russia want's to keep their land corridor and Ukraine can still fight for another 5+ years so neither side will budge on that unless defeated millitarily Ukraine certainly cannot fight multiple years if western support diminishes over time. That's why they are so afraid of 'peace talks' - it's just a pretense to start freezing the conflict. As things stand Russia withstood all soft-power pressure and militarily Crimea remains unthreatened. This allows them to push for an ambiguous, unenforceable cease-fire which they can turn semi-permanent. That means they will not only keep all held territory but also reinvade whenever next opportunity present itself. Effectively Russia winning the peace and 'salami-slicing' Ukraine in the coming decades. Ukraine held and effectively created a stalemate without western support. To argue that now, if support dries up, they wouldn't be able to continue their war effort, is fairly absurd. You can't make such a prediction.
I don't think that is true. Pretty much anyone I heard speak on the matter seems to agree that western support was absolutely critical both at the beginning of the war and right now. Not just weapons support, but also ukraines financials, and humanitarian.
Claiming they would have gotten to a similar stalemate without western support seems highly optimistic at best, but at least something that can be debated. Saying they did get here without it is some zeo tier delusion.
|
On August 15 2023 18:12 Artesimo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2023 17:30 Magic Powers wrote:On August 15 2023 17:14 pmp10 wrote:On August 15 2023 06:54 sertas wrote:
Legitimate peace talks aren't likely to happen since Russia want's to keep their land corridor and Ukraine can still fight for another 5+ years so neither side will budge on that unless defeated millitarily Ukraine certainly cannot fight multiple years if western support diminishes over time. That's why they are so afraid of 'peace talks' - it's just a pretense to start freezing the conflict. As things stand Russia withstood all soft-power pressure and militarily Crimea remains unthreatened. This allows them to push for an ambiguous, unenforceable cease-fire which they can turn semi-permanent. That means they will not only keep all held territory but also reinvade whenever next opportunity present itself. Effectively Russia winning the peace and 'salami-slicing' Ukraine in the coming decades. Ukraine held and effectively created a stalemate without western support. To argue that now, if support dries up, they wouldn't be able to continue their war effort, is fairly absurd. You can't make such a prediction. I don't think that is true. Pretty much anyone I heard speak on the matter seems to agree that western support was absolutely critical both at the beginning of the war and right now. Not just weapons support, but also ukraines financials, and humanitarian. Claiming they would have gotten to a similar stalemate without western support seems highly optimistic at best, but at least something that can be debated. Saying they did get here without it is some zeo tier delusion.
They provably did get to a stalemate without western support. When Kyiv didn't fall, Russia's advance was almost completely halted. Only a few weeks later they had to withdraw from the North. That was not accomplished by western aid.
|
On August 15 2023 18:20 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2023 18:12 Artesimo wrote:On August 15 2023 17:30 Magic Powers wrote:On August 15 2023 17:14 pmp10 wrote:On August 15 2023 06:54 sertas wrote:
Legitimate peace talks aren't likely to happen since Russia want's to keep their land corridor and Ukraine can still fight for another 5+ years so neither side will budge on that unless defeated millitarily Ukraine certainly cannot fight multiple years if western support diminishes over time. That's why they are so afraid of 'peace talks' - it's just a pretense to start freezing the conflict. As things stand Russia withstood all soft-power pressure and militarily Crimea remains unthreatened. This allows them to push for an ambiguous, unenforceable cease-fire which they can turn semi-permanent. That means they will not only keep all held territory but also reinvade whenever next opportunity present itself. Effectively Russia winning the peace and 'salami-slicing' Ukraine in the coming decades. Ukraine held and effectively created a stalemate without western support. To argue that now, if support dries up, they wouldn't be able to continue their war effort, is fairly absurd. You can't make such a prediction. I don't think that is true. Pretty much anyone I heard speak on the matter seems to agree that western support was absolutely critical both at the beginning of the war and right now. Not just weapons support, but also ukraines financials, and humanitarian. Claiming they would have gotten to a similar stalemate without western support seems highly optimistic at best, but at least something that can be debated. Saying they did get here without it is some zeo tier delusion. They provably did get to a stalemate without western support. When Kyiv didn't fall, Russia's advance was almost completely halted. Only a few weeks later they had to withdraw from the North. That was not accomplished by western aid.
By that time the country had already been flooded by handheld anti tank weapons which definitely had a big impact.
|
On August 15 2023 18:26 Artesimo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2023 18:20 Magic Powers wrote:On August 15 2023 18:12 Artesimo wrote:On August 15 2023 17:30 Magic Powers wrote:On August 15 2023 17:14 pmp10 wrote:On August 15 2023 06:54 sertas wrote:
Legitimate peace talks aren't likely to happen since Russia want's to keep their land corridor and Ukraine can still fight for another 5+ years so neither side will budge on that unless defeated millitarily Ukraine certainly cannot fight multiple years if western support diminishes over time. That's why they are so afraid of 'peace talks' - it's just a pretense to start freezing the conflict. As things stand Russia withstood all soft-power pressure and militarily Crimea remains unthreatened. This allows them to push for an ambiguous, unenforceable cease-fire which they can turn semi-permanent. That means they will not only keep all held territory but also reinvade whenever next opportunity present itself. Effectively Russia winning the peace and 'salami-slicing' Ukraine in the coming decades. Ukraine held and effectively created a stalemate without western support. To argue that now, if support dries up, they wouldn't be able to continue their war effort, is fairly absurd. You can't make such a prediction. I don't think that is true. Pretty much anyone I heard speak on the matter seems to agree that western support was absolutely critical both at the beginning of the war and right now. Not just weapons support, but also ukraines financials, and humanitarian. Claiming they would have gotten to a similar stalemate without western support seems highly optimistic at best, but at least something that can be debated. Saying they did get here without it is some zeo tier delusion. They provably did get to a stalemate without western support. When Kyiv didn't fall, Russia's advance was almost completely halted. Only a few weeks later they had to withdraw from the North. That was not accomplished by western aid. By that time the country had already been flooded by handheld anti tank weapons which definitely had a big impact.
Then I assume we were probably just talking past each other. I would argue that Ukraine was, by itself, strong enough to hold off the invasion. Where we might differ is how much territory Russia could've captured without Ukraine receiving western aid. I think it would've resulted in a prolonged stalemate regardless, just with greater territorial losses. But that's somewhat speculative.
|
On August 15 2023 17:30 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2023 17:14 pmp10 wrote:On August 15 2023 06:54 sertas wrote:
Legitimate peace talks aren't likely to happen since Russia want's to keep their land corridor and Ukraine can still fight for another 5+ years so neither side will budge on that unless defeated millitarily Ukraine certainly cannot fight multiple years if western support diminishes over time. That's why they are so afraid of 'peace talks' - it's just a pretense to start freezing the conflict. As things stand Russia withstood all soft-power pressure and militarily Crimea remains unthreatened. This allows them to push for an ambiguous, unenforceable cease-fire which they can turn semi-permanent. That means they will not only keep all held territory but also reinvade whenever next opportunity present itself. Effectively Russia winning the peace and 'salami-slicing' Ukraine in the coming decades. Ukraine held and effectively created a stalemate without western support. To argue that now, if support dries up, they wouldn't be able to continue their war effort, is fairly absurd. You can't make such a prediction.
The stalemate might have been created independently in the first few months but it's being maintained thanks to the west.
In terms of munitions alone we are talking of millions of shells being delivered and we also have to consider the effect of HIMARS, cruise missiles and barrel artillery systems that have been provided.
Of course that support won't disappear over night, but if we are thinking in terms of a forever-war then we have to consider how much that assistance will diminish in 2024 and many years beyond.
|
On August 15 2023 18:20 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2023 18:12 Artesimo wrote:On August 15 2023 17:30 Magic Powers wrote:On August 15 2023 17:14 pmp10 wrote:On August 15 2023 06:54 sertas wrote:
Legitimate peace talks aren't likely to happen since Russia want's to keep their land corridor and Ukraine can still fight for another 5+ years so neither side will budge on that unless defeated millitarily Ukraine certainly cannot fight multiple years if western support diminishes over time. That's why they are so afraid of 'peace talks' - it's just a pretense to start freezing the conflict. As things stand Russia withstood all soft-power pressure and militarily Crimea remains unthreatened. This allows them to push for an ambiguous, unenforceable cease-fire which they can turn semi-permanent. That means they will not only keep all held territory but also reinvade whenever next opportunity present itself. Effectively Russia winning the peace and 'salami-slicing' Ukraine in the coming decades. Ukraine held and effectively created a stalemate without western support. To argue that now, if support dries up, they wouldn't be able to continue their war effort, is fairly absurd. You can't make such a prediction. I don't think that is true. Pretty much anyone I heard speak on the matter seems to agree that western support was absolutely critical both at the beginning of the war and right now. Not just weapons support, but also ukraines financials, and humanitarian. Claiming they would have gotten to a similar stalemate without western support seems highly optimistic at best, but at least something that can be debated. Saying they did get here without it is some zeo tier delusion. They provably did get to a stalemate without western support. When Kyiv didn't fall, Russia's advance was almost completely halted. Only a few weeks later they had to withdraw from the North. That was not accomplished by western aid.
Western aid is exactly what let Ukraine get to the stalemate in the first place. Without US intelligence about the invasion, and the numerous Javelins that Ukraine had at first purchased, and then received for free, there is very little chance they would have been able to stand up for themselves like they did.
|
Russian Federation605 Posts
Ukraine has an abundance of manpower, but without western support they would simply run out of artillery shells within half a year, if not faster, since they have very little production of their own and were reliant on old Soviet stocks (partially depleted by cruise missile strikes). No HIMARS - no threat to Kherson bridgehead and supply depots, which would mean much more rapid and massive Russian artillery fire. No western AT munitions - and Ukraine would rapidly run out of these as well. No vehicle supplies - no Kherson and Kharkov offensives. Not to say that Western aid allowed to equip at least 200 000 soldiers with even basic rifles and protection gear (and that were numbers from last year), and western funding basically keep Ukrainian economy afloat. No western intelligence - and Ukraine would have much, much harder time planning their strikes and movements.
TLDR I believe that with no Western aid Ukraine would have ammo and equipment for effective combined arms operations for 6-7 months most. Though in this case Russia would not trigger their own mobilization most likely, so the Russian offensive progress would indeed be slow due to the lack of infantry.
|
|
|
On August 15 2023 21:37 JimmiC wrote:Holy crap we go .5 percent at a time and Russia just went up 3.5% in a day. This should stop the currency free fall, but are the people freaking out? People here are about their mortgages, car loans and credit cards. That is a massive overnight change at a time that no change was scheduled. https://ca.yahoo.com/finance/news/russias-central-bank-makes-huge-074652550.html
Jesus. If our rate was at 12%, I'd have to start selling my car or house, and probably get really bad prices for them too as everyone else would be doing the same
|
Russian Federation240 Posts
On August 15 2023 21:37 JimmiC wrote:Holy crap we go .5 percent at a time and Russia just went up 3.5% in a day. This should stop the currency free fall, but are the people freaking out? People here are about their mortgages, car loans and credit cards. That is a massive overnight change at a time that no change was scheduled. https://ca.yahoo.com/finance/news/russias-central-bank-makes-huge-074652550.html
-this is not the highest; at the start of the war the key rate has been increased approx. from 10 to 20%, and a similar thing has occured in 2014 - Volcker moments).
Generally, interest rates in Russia are significantly higher than in the west; some loan rates (like mortgages) are subsidized by the state.
|
Turkey and Hungary have higher rates. It's bad but not "I must leave the country asap" bad, though you do need to hope your government will manage to stabilize the situation in a year or two.
|
I guess it all depends on what you're used to an have budgeted for. Rates that high would ruin me, but I budgeted for a maximum of 5% when I took up my house loan (At which point I will have to take actions, but it could even go a bit higher before I'd be in trouble). But if I knew the rate would be that high to begin with, I'd likely not take a loan nowhere near as big (or at all for that matter).
It seems Russia have always had high interest rates (and varying wildly, from 5 to 15% in 2015), so a high rate might not be as much of a killer for people there as it would be over here, as people have likely taken a lot smaller loans to budget for it.
|
On August 15 2023 23:04 a_ch wrote:-this is not the highest; at the start of the war the key rate has been increased approx. from 10 to 20%, and a similar thing has occured in 2014 - Volcker moments). Generally, interest rates in Russia are significantly higher than in the west; some loan rates (like mortgages) are subsidized by the state.
Same in Brasil
|
Russian Federation240 Posts
On August 15 2023 23:31 Excludos wrote:
I guess it all depends on what you're used to an have budgeted for. Rates that high would ruin me, but I budgeted for a maximum of 5% when I took up my house loan (At which point I will have to take actions, but it could even go a bit higher before I'd be in trouble). But if I knew the rate would be that high to begin with, I'd likely not take a loan nowhere near as big (or at all for that matter).
It seems Russia have always had high interest rates (and varying wildly, from 5 to 15% in 2015), so a high rate might not be as much of a killer for people there as it would be over here, as people have likely taken a lot smaller loans to budget for it.
Yes, and all asset prices are significantly lower here. A 100 m2 housing in Moscow outskirts costs around 150 k$
|
|
|
They do but you're supposed to have savings for rare situations like this. The governments are aware it can be a heavy burden and they often step in when the situation gets too hard.
|
Russian Federation240 Posts
On August 16 2023 00:20 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2023 23:04 a_ch wrote:On August 15 2023 21:37 JimmiC wrote:Holy crap we go .5 percent at a time and Russia just went up 3.5% in a day. This should stop the currency free fall, but are the people freaking out? People here are about their mortgages, car loans and credit cards. That is a massive overnight change at a time that no change was scheduled. https://ca.yahoo.com/finance/news/russias-central-bank-makes-huge-074652550.html -this is not the highest; at the start of the war the key rate has been increased approx. from 10 to 20%, and a similar thing has occured in 2014 - Volcker moments). Generally, interest rates in Russia are significantly higher than in the west; some loan rates (like mortgages) are subsidized by the state. Do people have variable mortgages? Like did they wake up today with significantly higher payment/ (or less principal being paid off). Or is it just people with new loans and lines of credit that are effected? Are people not that stressed because the rates often pinball all around?
-no variable mortgages. In the past there've been cases with people taking loans in USD - for a lower %, and then ruble depreciating, but AFAIK this is not common now.
When the rates are high, business people start complaining in the news, but I'm less familiar with this side of economics here
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
