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 September 25 2024 10:09 zboh wrote: So, if no "western support"... Ukraine is pretty close to disaster. If China decides to finance Russia... Is Ukraine closer to disaster?
Could China play the card of keeping US weapons stockpiles low by prolonging the Ukrainian war? The best trade off for money for China, as someone mention about our investment in Ukraine or against Russia. (A bit like the USSR with the SCW.)
It is a strange concept that of "winning" a war. Being in the less 'worse off' side?
Right now China benefits from cheap ressources from Russia which they can use to manufactur stuff and export to all marktes including US, EU and Russia. If China plays this smart (and they usually do) they will try to keep this status quo for as long as possible. I can see them pouring "some" money into Russia but not enough to alone keep them afloat cause this would antagonzie US/ EU and they would lose a lot more money with losing its main foreign markets
On September 25 2024 04:01 Billyboy wrote: Lots of talk about the Russian Economy, much of it really good. Anders Puck Nielsen goes into more detail for those interested. He talks about how war time economy is not sustainable by definition (if it was it would just be your economy) as well as how the influx of government money, especially in the poorer areas, will have long term consequences.
A lot of it is not that different than what was posted in here in a fair bit of detail. He just does a little further and also I find video easier to digest so maybe some of you do as well.
Honestly, I was somewhat disappointed in the video. It nails down the concepts fairly well, but it provides no specifics, no numbers (besides a quick glance at inflation). There's got to be relatively low-hanging fruit out there like the russian debt and deficit to gdp ratio or defence spending as a % of gdp (along with maybe some world war comparisons).
The video could be substituted with the phrase "war is costly and Russia can't pay for it forever" and while fair enough, it makes no effort to quantify when this will come to head.
That is a fair critique of the video. I think the problem is that lots of the numbers are not public information so you are requiring information from the Russian government which either isn't available or not accurate.
If I do come across something that has more numbers I'll post it as well. As I read and watch more on the economy of war more and more comes up so who knows.
On September 25 2024 04:01 Billyboy wrote: Lots of talk about the Russian Economy, much of it really good. Anders Puck Nielsen goes into more detail for those interested. He talks about how war time economy is not sustainable by definition (if it was it would just be your economy) as well as how the influx of government money, especially in the poorer areas, will have long term consequences.
A lot of it is not that different than what was posted in here in a fair bit of detail. He just does a little further and also I find video easier to digest so maybe some of you do as well.
Honestly, I was somewhat disappointed in the video. It nails down the concepts fairly well, but it provides no specifics, no numbers (besides a quick glance at inflation). There's got to be relatively low-hanging fruit out there like the russian debt and deficit to gdp ratio or defence spending as a % of gdp (along with maybe some world war comparisons).
The video could be substituted with the phrase "war is costly and Russia can't pay for it forever" and while fair enough, it makes no effort to quantify when this will come to head.
That is a fair critique of the video. I think the problem is that lots of the numbers are not public information so you are requiring information from the Russian government which either isn't available or not accurate.
If I do come across something that has more numbers I'll post it as well. As I read and watch more on the economy of war more and more comes up so who knows.
I haven't watched it yet, but Perun recently did a video on Russian Economy at War:
On September 25 2024 04:01 Billyboy wrote: Lots of talk about the Russian Economy, much of it really good. Anders Puck Nielsen goes into more detail for those interested. He talks about how war time economy is not sustainable by definition (if it was it would just be your economy) as well as how the influx of government money, especially in the poorer areas, will have long term consequences.
A lot of it is not that different than what was posted in here in a fair bit of detail. He just does a little further and also I find video easier to digest so maybe some of you do as well.
Honestly, I was somewhat disappointed in the video. It nails down the concepts fairly well, but it provides no specifics, no numbers (besides a quick glance at inflation). There's got to be relatively low-hanging fruit out there like the russian debt and deficit to gdp ratio or defence spending as a % of gdp (along with maybe some world war comparisons).
The video could be substituted with the phrase "war is costly and Russia can't pay for it forever" and while fair enough, it makes no effort to quantify when this will come to head.
That is a fair critique of the video. I think the problem is that lots of the numbers are not public information so you are requiring information from the Russian government which either isn't available or not accurate.
If I do come across something that has more numbers I'll post it as well. As I read and watch more on the economy of war more and more comes up so who knows.
I haven't watched it yet, but Perun recently did a video on Russian Economy at War:
That's a long video though. I think we could find a middle ground between going into every minute detailed detail, and not having any at all, that makes a video watchable for the masses whilst still keeping itself accurate.
Who said anything about "profitable"? Who said anything about "free support"? Harris1st makes much more sense. Russia has a lot of resources for a hungry world.
It seems I was wrong, Kursk is a brilliant idea to lose (fast) the long resistant Vugledar; it's already lost in one map.
"I would recommend our civil society to be morally and psychologically prepared for the fact that the Ukrainian Armed Forces will withdraw from Selidovo, Toretsk and Ugledar. It doesn't have to happen at all. And I would very much like to be wrong. But from the information I have, this is a very likely scenario for the development of events in the near future," Mashovets writes in his telegram channel." Подробнее: https://eadaily.com/en/news/2024/09/23/ukrainians-are-being-prepared-for-the-loss-of-selidovo-toretsk-and-ugledar (Ukrainian military journalist Konstantin Mashovets has been quoted by ISW.)
The deputy of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine Mariana Bezuglaya visited the Donbass and found the situation there terrible for the Armed Forces of Ukraine. "There are no fortifications according to the Yar Clock, Konstantinovka is not prepared for defense. Kurakhovo also. Selidovo inside the city was completely unprepared for defense, now they are frantically trying to do something. There are no frontiers beyond the Coal mine, but created by Syrsky the chaos in the 72 brigade due to the removal of the brigade commander at the peak of the Russian offensive and the non-priority replenishment of the priority unit now makes the loss of Coal a matter of time," she wrote in her telegram channel. eadaily.com
Also... "But Kyiv has long been dependent on receiving target coordinates for strikes with its precision Western weaponry from U.S. military personnel on a base elsewhere in Europe. Without those, the missile is likely to miss its mark, the military official said, and the United States has sometimes declined to provide coordinates for some of Kyiv’s desired targets." washingtonpost.com
Attacking Russia in Ukraine, not attacking Russia. Western weapons, western intelligence (and western money) . I still think Ukraine is closer to disaster than Russia.
CNN says (February) that the situation of Russia is "terrible".
"Russia is entering its third year of war in Ukraine with an unprecedented amount of cash in government coffers, bolstered by a record $37 billion of crude oil sales to India last year, according to new analysis, which concludes that some of the crude was refined by India and then exported to the United States as oil products worth more than $1 billion." https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/19/europe/russia-oil-india-shadow-fleet-cmd-intl/index.html
On September 25 2024 22:49 zboh wrote: Who said anything about "profitable"? Who said anything about "free support"? Harris1st makes much more sense. Russia has a lot of resources for a hungry world.
It seems I was wrong, Kursk is a brilliant idea to lose (fast) the long resistant Vugledar; it's already lost in one map.
"I would recommend our civil society to be morally and psychologically prepared for the fact that the Ukrainian Armed Forces will withdraw from Selidovo, Toretsk and Ugledar. It doesn't have to happen at all. And I would very much like to be wrong. But from the information I have, this is a very likely scenario for the development of events in the near future," Mashovets writes in his telegram channel." Подробнее: https://eadaily.com/en/news/2024/09/23/ukrainians-are-being-prepared-for-the-loss-of-selidovo-toretsk-and-ugledar (Ukrainian military journalist Konstantin Mashovets has been quoted by ISW.)
The deputy of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine Mariana Bezuglaya visited the Donbass and found the situation there terrible for the Armed Forces of Ukraine. "There are no fortifications according to the Yar Clock, Konstantinovka is not prepared for defense. Kurakhovo also. Selidovo inside the city was completely unprepared for defense, now they are frantically trying to do something. There are no frontiers beyond the Coal mine, but created by Syrsky the chaos in the 72 brigade due to the removal of the brigade commander at the peak of the Russian offensive and the non-priority replenishment of the priority unit now makes the loss of Coal a matter of time," she wrote in her telegram channel. eadaily.com
Also... "But Kyiv has long been dependent on receiving target coordinates for strikes with its precision Western weaponry from U.S. military personnel on a base elsewhere in Europe. Without those, the missile is likely to miss its mark, the military official said, and the United States has sometimes declined to provide coordinates for some of Kyiv’s desired targets." washingtonpost.com
Attacking Russia in Ukraine, not attacking Russia. Western weapons, western intelligence (and western money) . I still think Ukraine is closer to disaster than Russia.
I would the main person that claims the war is necessary for Russia, is Putin. I don't think anyone in this forum ever believed otherwise. Everyone know one death in this conflict is already too many.
On September 25 2024 23:06 zboh wrote: CNN says (February) that the situation of Russia is "terrible".
"Russia is entering its third year of war in Ukraine with an unprecedented amount of cash in government coffers, bolstered by a record $37 billion of crude oil sales to India last year, according to new analysis, which concludes that some of the crude was refined by India and then exported to the United States as oil products worth more than $1 billion." https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/19/europe/russia-oil-india-shadow-fleet-cmd-intl/index.html
Okay but that’s both clearly untrue on the face of it and literally not what the article says.
According to an analysis of public data from the Russian finance ministry by RAND economist Howard Shatz, Russian federal revenue and expenditure were both at an all-time high in 2023. Yet Moscow still didn’t balance the books, he said, an indication of the war’s sheer cost, but also of the hit to oil revenue from sanctions.
“Despite the jump in revenues, the federal budget deficit was at its third-highest… larger only in 2022 and 2020,” he said. “Tax on domestic production and imports are both high and effective, which means they are taxing their own population to pay for this war,” he said.
Revenues up, expenses up by far more, big deficit covered by borrowing and selling reserves (foreign currency, gold).
These kind of posts always make me think back to when MTG claimed an elementary school spent billions on teaching critical race theory. You don’t need to research the claim to know it’s bullshit, you literally just need to know what the words mean because it’s so obviously not true that you can stop there. What makes her a moron is not that she didn’t fact check that whatever it was she read that made her think that. It’s that she couldn’t see why it wasn’t true. She didn’t know that a billion is more than a school would spend.
The same applies to you here. The Kremlin is almost four years into a ruinously destructive war. It is at the head of a petrostate that has lost the biggest and most profitable market for its exports (gas to Western Europe). It has been unable to replace those lost revenues with others because the pipeline can’t be rerouted and other markets don’t pay the same price for the product. Its second most important export has suffered under a price cap that, while not impossible to evade, has had a significant impact on revenues. We know interest rates are through the roof and that Russia is struggling to sell its bonds at 18% interest.
And yet here you are declaring that their government surpluses are so high that cash is pouring in and they’re overflowing with it. Despite all the things that you know. Despite the article you’re using as your source declaring that the deficit is the 3rd highest ever, and that the only years worse than it were in two of the previous three years.
You should have yourself tested for whatever MTG has.
And also, while making less money, you also diminish the outlet for efficient money use. Less qualified work for cost more. Basically, you are left with those in Russia that are smart enough to know that they can ask for as much money as they need while knowing they can avoid being drafted...
On September 25 2024 23:06 zboh wrote: CNN says (February) that the situation of Russia is "terrible".
"Russia is entering its third year of war in Ukraine with an unprecedented amount of cash in government coffers, bolstered by a record $37 billion of crude oil sales to India last year, according to new analysis, which concludes that some of the crude was refined by India and then exported to the United States as oil products worth more than $1 billion." https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/19/europe/russia-oil-india-shadow-fleet-cmd-intl/index.html
That's record sales to India because only India and China are buying Russian oil now, and at a discount. Those 2 countries are responsible for consuming vast majority of Russian oil exports.
Another point to the China taking over Russia talk is it does not need to mean actual taking over land it can also just mean taking over crucial industry and infrastructure. China is buying up things at pennies on the dollar because Russia needs cash and they are the only demand.
edit: thanks 2Pacalypse- that is a good video for people who want to get more into the minutia
Billyboy mentioned "profitable" to me, I didn't use that word. He should know what he is talking about, that reference was for him even if I didn't quote him. The same thing about "free support", someone else added the free; not me.
The CNN article is old, first of all. One video, or two, are not going to explain such an easy subject as economy or Russian economy. We are talking about the future, trends now, what and why is happening now and what will happen are going to find more than one, easy, explanation. That was my point, a lot of predictions and, again, estimates. I have a lot of doubts when "things" are easily explained.
I just read about Zelensky in the UN, Just Peace doesn't look to me as Victory. (Yes, I am pessimistic about the Ukrainian situation, like K. Mashovets: even if I am not a colonel.)
Right now, or this winter, Russia can decide to stop advancing, create a no man's land of 3 or 10 km, get some minefields with millions of mines and wait. Russia can retaliate against every successful (or acknowledged) Ukrainian drone attack and wait. Russia can decide to save money and weapons for a couple of years. Is Ukraine going to create a 500.000 men army, supported, paid and maintained by the west to attack, break trough and recover... What towns? How long is that going to take? Even more importantly, how long can Russia and Ukraine maintain that situation?
This would have neen cooler to share at 100, but I'll probably forget by then, so 96 it is. 96 nuclear threats since 2020. Absolute manchildren. Latest one today, for strikes in Russia from Ukraine. I don't think the story of the boy who cried wolf is popular over there
On September 26 2024 07:29 zboh wrote: Right now, or this winter, Russia can decide to stop advancing, create a no man's land of 3 or 10 km, get some minefields with millions of mines and wait. Russia can retaliate against every successful (or acknowledged) Ukrainian drone attack and wait. Russia can decide to save money and weapons for a couple of years. Is Ukraine going to create a 500.000 men army, supported, paid and maintained by the west to attack, break trough and recover... What towns? How long is that going to take? Even more importantly, how long can Russia and Ukraine maintain that situation?
It could happen, but this is not the total victory Putin promised his people so I doubt it. Obviously expenses would go down for Russia if they settle, but they would still be sanctioned by the west. And what would they even do with the grabbed land? Rebuild? They can't afford it and nobody wants to live there anyway. You ask a lot of (good) questions and are decently informed, so what is your opinion how the situation will likely continue?
On September 26 2024 07:29 zboh wrote: Right now, or this winter, Russia can decide to stop advancing, create a no man's land of 3 or 10 km, get some minefields with millions of mines and wait. Russia can retaliate against every successful (or acknowledged) Ukrainian drone attack and wait. Russia can decide to save money and weapons for a couple of years. Is Ukraine going to create a 500.000 men army, supported, paid and maintained by the west to attack, break trough and recover... What towns? How long is that going to take? Even more importantly, how long can Russia and Ukraine maintain that situation?
It could happen, but this is not the total victory Putin promised his people so I doubt it. Obviously expenses would go down for Russia if they settle, but they would still be sanctioned by the west. And what would they even do with the grabbed land? Rebuild? They can't afford it and nobody wants to live there anyway. You ask a lot of (good) questions and are decently informed, so what is your opinion how the situation will likely continue?
Isn't there a bunch of natural gas in the eastern Ukraine? I believed that to be one of the main reasons for going into the area in the first place. They won't be able to make use of it in wartime, but during an extended ceasefire ala Korea, or even just their own pre 2020, they could start making use of it to regain some of their economy
On September 26 2024 07:38 Excludos wrote: https://united24media.com/war-in-ukraine/a-timeline-of-russias-nuclear-threats-against-the-west-947 This would have neen cooler to share at 100, but I'll probably forget by then, so 96 it is. 96 nuclear threats since 2020. Absolute manchildren. Latest one today, for strikes in Russia from Ukraine. I don't think the story of the boy who cried wolf is popular over there
As far as I can remember, in the end, the wolf came. Are you hoping for the wolf to come?
EPT
