|
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 December 03 2025 16:52 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2025 10:36 ETisME wrote:On December 03 2025 04:32 Yurie wrote:
A point made by Anders Puck Nielsen was that Russia retaliating might be good for Ukraine. US flailing around is moving attention away from the war and into Russian favored peace deals to end it. So getting attention back to the war from more actors by increased food prices globally (by Russian actions) is good for Ukraine. Putting the focus on more reasonable short term goals like grain deals.
Not his point: It doesn't matter that much to them if their grain exports get blocked a while, EU is bankrolling the war regardless.
It's all rubbish. If war continues and escalate with the peace deal broke down, then oil price will shoot right back to $80 instead of the $60 ever since Trump started the peace negotiations in Feb. That's not a great result, unless Europe starts committing and put their own men on the ground. Combine that with food price going up, what do you think gonna happen? The pressure will always be put on the losing side, Ukraine. Sweden already calling out about nordic nations paying unfair ratio to Ukraine and unsustainable. Right wing parties popping up in popularity in many Europe nations. That alone put a f ton of social/economic cost to political parties in each European nations. It's also why we had been getting nothing but half assed support from EU. When did we agree that the losing side is Ukraine..? Also, please share proper links. I'm never going to click on random share links I don't know the destination of
Since Europe unable to send their own men.
Here's a full link
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/europe-ukraine-russian-assets-2674359436/#:~:text=At that time, the likely,money won't last forever.
To give you some perspective, ukraine credit rating was graded B pre-war.
|
On December 03 2025 21:07 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2025 16:52 Excludos wrote:On December 03 2025 10:36 ETisME wrote:On December 03 2025 04:32 Yurie wrote:
A point made by Anders Puck Nielsen was that Russia retaliating might be good for Ukraine. US flailing around is moving attention away from the war and into Russian favored peace deals to end it. So getting attention back to the war from more actors by increased food prices globally (by Russian actions) is good for Ukraine. Putting the focus on more reasonable short term goals like grain deals.
Not his point: It doesn't matter that much to them if their grain exports get blocked a while, EU is bankrolling the war regardless.
It's all rubbish. If war continues and escalate with the peace deal broke down, then oil price will shoot right back to $80 instead of the $60 ever since Trump started the peace negotiations in Feb. That's not a great result, unless Europe starts committing and put their own men on the ground. Combine that with food price going up, what do you think gonna happen? The pressure will always be put on the losing side, Ukraine. Sweden already calling out about nordic nations paying unfair ratio to Ukraine and unsustainable. Right wing parties popping up in popularity in many Europe nations. That alone put a f ton of social/economic cost to political parties in each European nations. It's also why we had been getting nothing but half assed support from EU. When did we agree that the losing side is Ukraine..? Also, please share proper links. I'm never going to click on random share links I don't know the destination of Since Europe unable to send their own men. Here's a full link https://responsiblestatecraft.org/europe-ukraine-russian-assets-2674359436/#:~:text=At that time, the likely,money won't last forever. To give you some perspective, ukraine credit rating was graded B pre-war.
You know that the cited needs for Ukraine in terms of money are like 0.1% of EU countries Gross National Income, right? Saying that the EU can't foot this bill is rather far fetched.
|
If all the relevant rating agencies didn't withdraw from rating Russia's credit rating they'd be in the toilet right now, I find it super curious that you, as a self professed "finance" guy spend so much time analyzing Ukraine when you spend no time looking into Russia's crumbling economy.
How long will China finance them, will China at some point say enough is enough, why are we keeping these losers afloat?
We, as Europeans are happy to help finance Ukraine's defense and with EU's approximately $20 trillion nominal GDP no one really cares about putting aside 0.5 % of that for a few more years.
On the other hand, Russia has about $ 2.5 trillion of GDP and it's spending more then 7 % (a very conservative estimate) of that on this war.
Which is more sustainable? EU giving 0.5 % of their money to Ukraine to defend itself against Russia (and spending let's say 2 % instead of the 2.5 % target on military) or Russia burning through insane amounts while selling off it's gold reserves and having declining revenues due to their oil infrastructure being hit every day.
Of course, because you are in a propaganda bubble you will somehow try to twist it, but numbers are numbers and facts are facts, even without the US, EU is more then enough to help Ukraine sustain what they have been doing, if Harris was elected they might have even been able to push back, unfortunately, Putin's biggest investment paid off in November 2024. so we have to wait this moron out.
|
I guess with the lack of success on the front and failure of the RU-US business deal we're now in the denial stage and trying to grasp for straws by pointing out how expensive the war is and that EU countries can't sustain it. First the notion that Sweden was upset because it was contributing more than others (which is false because even if we take just the Scandinavian countries into account Norway and Denmark have contributed more than Sweden, even Estonia contributed more), and now this ridiculous idea that $150b is a huge bill to pay for 28 countries, most of which individually are richer than Russia.
I think it's hard to come to terms that Russia is actually a rather poor country and with their overwhelming military might being humiliated, unveiling its weakness, it doesn't really have anything going for it so no one is really even treating it very seriously when it flails and throws fits of rage.
Truth of the matter is that Russia is currently being pushed into complete international irrelevancy.
|
The reality is that Russia will basically never run out of men they are willing to sacrifice and the west is not going to run out of money. So it’s an Ukraine out of soldiers (equipment) or Russia out of money issue.
As to the speed of the advances. If you google the war in Aug 2024 you will see a bunch of articles about how Pokrovsk is about to fall. Almost a year and half later we are still reading these. I’m still betting Russia runs out of money first, but we have a long way to go.
As to my environmental comment, that’s good that they are not full. But my point was that when people hear that they think about the environment. But it’s so small compared to all fuel spent in the all equipment and jets. All the munitions. And then the massive cost (still talking environmental) of the clean up and rebuild.
|
To add to the ecological tally:
- hundreds of fuel depots blown up, some burning for days
- hundreds of munitions depots blown up (toxic shit blown all over surroundings)
- millions upon millions of mines dispersed
- two dams destroyed and surrounding areas flooded
- every dugout, every shelter, everything is full of trash
- dozens of ships sank to the bottom of the black sea
- a lot of oil refineries blown up, some burning for days before being put out
- destroyed fields, swampland and forests
- streams and rivers filled with destroyed trucks, tanks, ATVs etc., often carrying fuel and other toxic shit
|
On December 04 2025 00:35 Billyboy wrote:
The reality is that Russia will basically never run out of men they are willing to sacrifice
Sure, Russia doesn't care about its people but at the same time it doesn't have an infinite supply of them either. If Ukraine can keep 1:3 losses ratio (some months it's been 1:7 in favor of Ukraine) then their populations will last approximately the same time. Big difference here is that Ukraine specifically set their conscription age high to preserve the younger generation and next generations. Ukrainian fertility rate has been steadily increasing since 2022 while Russia's has been in a decline for quite a while now.
Overall, if the current trends on the front won't change in a long run Ukraine will outlast Russia in regards to population.
|
|
|
Putin is obviously losing more than he is winning at the moment and tage can’t negotiate things that is outside his control such as Kyiv surrender, and Ukraine can’t join NATO in the future so he is just pretending to make a peace deal while his army is down to junk with untrained conscripts on the Ukrainian battlefield. Keep in mind they still only control 19% of Ukraine, less than when the invasion began
|
The other half of it is that any ship that is damaged is likely a failed delivery. If you aren't delivering with the right quantity at the right time you have to offer lower prices for the buyer to be willing to deal with idle capacity.
|
United States43314 Posts
Nations can take far, far higher losses than this and continue to fight if the will remains there. Both Ukraine and the Russian Federation have shown this within the last hundred years. Admittedly Soviet demographics trended far younger with higher fertility rates but Soviet mobilization levels were far, far higher than either Russia or Ukraine have done. If the will to mobilize is there then there is no manpower issue.
Similarly equipment losses aren’t really an issue, or at least not until they become strategic defeats on the ground. Russia exhausted its shell stockpile and simply stopped leveling cities the way it was in 2023. They exhausted their tanks and stopped doing large mechanized assaults. It changes the way that they fight but it doesn’t change the will to fight.
As a defender with their national existence on the line Ukraine will fight to the last. Russia has openly begun the campaign to eradicate Ukrainian language and culture in the occupied territories. The kind of surrender and disarmament Russia continues to demand is simply not viable. A peace with guarantees and a strongly defended Ukraine could be but that isn’t acceptable for Russia. The will to fight in Ukraine remains high and won’t drop because there simply isn’t an alternative. There remains a large pool of men and materiel to be mobilized as needed, it is simply being rationed because each man pushed onto the front is one fewer working in the war economy.
As the aggressor Russia is the party with the most agency. Like Ukraine they are nowhere close to WW2 levels of mobilization and losses. Like Ukraine they have a large pool of men and materiel that could be mobilized to the war effort if they opted for WW2 levels of national struggle. The key difference is the will to mobilize in that way. Ukraine have had this war thrust upon them and their back is against the wall, they have no alternative. Fighting on need not be the preferred option when it is the only option. Russian people may prefer a limited territorial victory and a return to the civilian economy than full mobilization to achieve Putin’s maximalist goals. Certainly Putin has been careful to avoid excessive coercion of the Russian population into the war effort. Out groups like prisoners, East Asian minorities, Indians, North Koreans etc. are being spent but Muscovites are being paid. They’re being paid in their own money, but they’re still being paid. They’re still being given a choice. The implication is that Putin believes full mobilization would be politically destabilizing.
My view remains that Ukraine, funded by the west, will outlast Russia. The resources available to each side are massively unbalanced, Europe is far far richer than Russia and has access to global capital markets with a cost of borrowing that is a fraction of Russia’s. It takes a certain number of people working to sustain each man at the front, both in the military (logistics, armaments etc.) and in the civilian economy (generating value to pay for the war effort). Russia is constrained by their population and resource pool, they can draw upon Russia’s resources only. Ukraine is able to outsource armaments, intelligence, air defence, R&D, and the entire civilian tax paying revenue base to Europe, the ratio favours Ukraine, and not by a little. A fully mobilized Ukraine with a European tail has a much sharper edge than a fully mobilized Russia with a Russian tail.
Their main constraint is that Europe is still not taking this war seriously. But the amendment to NATO that allows whatever aid is given to Ukraine to count as part of the national defence contribution has made a lot of the spending “free”. If you were obliged to spend 3% anyway then you can reallocate existing expenses to Ukraine aid without needing to spend more.
|
Iraq just announced they're going to transfer the biggest Russian foreign asset - a 12bn oil barrel oil reserve belonging to Lukoil - over to the US.
Russia also switched to barter trade with China. Trading wheat and flax for cars, construction materials and home appliances because they're running out of currency and foreign banks/traders don't want rubles.
They're doing the same thing that USSR did back in the 1990. Just saying...
|
|
|
On December 03 2025 22:54 Jankisa wrote:
If all the relevant rating agencies didn't withdraw from rating Russia's credit rating they'd be in the toilet right now, I find it super curious that you, as a self professed "finance" guy spend so much time analyzing Ukraine when you spend no time looking into Russia's crumbling economy.
How long will China finance them, will China at some point say enough is enough, why are we keeping these losers afloat?
We, as Europeans are happy to help finance Ukraine's defense and with EU's approximately $20 trillion nominal GDP no one really cares about putting aside 0.5 % of that for a few more years.
On the other hand, Russia has about $ 2.5 trillion of GDP and it's spending more then 7 % (a very conservative estimate) of that on this war.
Which is more sustainable? EU giving 0.5 % of their money to Ukraine to defend itself against Russia (and spending let's say 2 % instead of the 2.5 % target on military) or Russia burning through insane amounts while selling off it's gold reserves and having declining revenues due to their oil infrastructure being hit every day.
Of course, because you are in a propaganda bubble you will somehow try to twist it, but numbers are numbers and facts are facts, even without the US, EU is more then enough to help Ukraine sustain what they have been doing, if Harris was elected they might have even been able to push back, unfortunately, Putin's biggest investment paid off in November 2024. so we have to wait this moron out.
The current situation is a lot about the funding.
You can throw it all to "propaganda bubble" and shut yourself out to what's actually happening.
Funding is Ukraine one of the most immediate issue, because IMF estimate ukraine needs $68billion external funding in 2026 alone.
EU long term support is 50billion euro over 4 years.
IMF latest loan is $8bn over 4 years.
Biggest donors, UK, germany, Norway all adds up around $27bn.
Limited budget is why EU is actively looking at ways to use the frozen russian asset to fund ukraine.
Report is ukraine needs a solution by early 2026. Not as easy as you are implying, at all.
Russia has already been using barter system since last year, that's well covered in China a while ago.
It has a trade SURPLUS (yes it's shrinking, mostly due to oil price drop which I mentioned) and still very low debt to GDP ratio.
Is this not covered at all in your news feed?
|
Russia has low debt to gdp ratio because it didn't have to borrow money before. Now it does.
|
On December 04 2025 08:49 Manit0u wrote:
Russia has low debt to gdp ratio because it didn't have to borrow money before. Now it does.
Yes, that's not a shock to anyone.
|
On December 03 2025 20:50 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2025 17:03 MJG wrote:On December 03 2025 10:36 ETisME wrote:On December 03 2025 04:32 Yurie wrote:
A point made by Anders Puck Nielsen was that Russia retaliating might be good for Ukraine. US flailing around is moving attention away from the war and into Russian favored peace deals to end it. So getting attention back to the war from more actors by increased food prices globally (by Russian actions) is good for Ukraine. Putting the focus on more reasonable short term goals like grain deals.
Not his point: It doesn't matter that much to them if their grain exports get blocked a while, EU is bankrolling the war regardless.
It's all rubbish. If war continues and escalate with the peace deal broke down, then oil price will shoot right back to $80 instead of the $60 ever since Trump started the peace negotiations in Feb. That's not a great result, unless Europe starts committing and put their own men on the ground. Combine that with food price going up, what do you think gonna happen? The pressure will always be put on the losing side, Ukraine. Sweden already calling out about nordic nations paying unfair ratio to Ukraine and unsustainable. Right wing parties popping up in popularity in many Europe nations. That alone put a f ton of social/economic cost to political parties in each European nations. It's also why we had been getting nothing but half assed support from EU. How is the side who have survived 3+ years longer than expected the losing one? Even if Ukraine were to collapse today, the resulting Russian "victory" would be entirely pyrrhic. The cope is unreal. Losing 20% territory is never a win for Ukraine. But as Dmytro Kuleba said, "The vast majority of wars end either with mutual defeat, or everyone is sure they have won, or other outcomes” Let's wait till you feel ukraine is winning further, then we can close the argument how much Ukraine or russia is winning
Russia was supposed to be a superpower who could waltz into Ukraine, crush their military, and install whatever puppet they wanted into leadership. Compared to that scenario, which Russia was supposed to be able to achieve in less than a week, only losing 20% of their territory after 3+ years of warfare that have severely blunted Russia's future geopolitical ambitions would be a decent result for Ukraine.
I don't think you really understand so I'll make this very simple: Anything less than the complete capitulation of Ukraine into Russian control is a defeat for Russia.
|
On December 04 2025 16:55 MJG wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2025 20:50 ETisME wrote:On December 03 2025 17:03 MJG wrote:On December 03 2025 10:36 ETisME wrote:On December 03 2025 04:32 Yurie wrote:
A point made by Anders Puck Nielsen was that Russia retaliating might be good for Ukraine. US flailing around is moving attention away from the war and into Russian favored peace deals to end it. So getting attention back to the war from more actors by increased food prices globally (by Russian actions) is good for Ukraine. Putting the focus on more reasonable short term goals like grain deals.
Not his point: It doesn't matter that much to them if their grain exports get blocked a while, EU is bankrolling the war regardless.
It's all rubbish. If war continues and escalate with the peace deal broke down, then oil price will shoot right back to $80 instead of the $60 ever since Trump started the peace negotiations in Feb. That's not a great result, unless Europe starts committing and put their own men on the ground. Combine that with food price going up, what do you think gonna happen? The pressure will always be put on the losing side, Ukraine. Sweden already calling out about nordic nations paying unfair ratio to Ukraine and unsustainable. Right wing parties popping up in popularity in many Europe nations. That alone put a f ton of social/economic cost to political parties in each European nations. It's also why we had been getting nothing but half assed support from EU. How is the side who have survived 3+ years longer than expected the losing one? Even if Ukraine were to collapse today, the resulting Russian "victory" would be entirely pyrrhic. The cope is unreal. Losing 20% territory is never a win for Ukraine. But as Dmytro Kuleba said, "The vast majority of wars end either with mutual defeat, or everyone is sure they have won, or other outcomes” Let's wait till you feel ukraine is winning further, then we can close the argument how much Ukraine or russia is winning Russia was supposed to be a superpower who could waltz into Ukraine, crush their military, and install whatever puppet they wanted into leadership. Compared to that scenario, which Russia was supposed to be able to achieve in less than a week, only losing 20% of their territory after 3+ years of warfare that have severely blunted Russia's future geopolitical ambitions would be a decent result for Ukraine. I don't think you really understand so I'll make this very simple: Anything less than the complete capitulation of Ukraine into Russian control is a defeat for Russia.
and ukraine losing 20% of land is not a win neither.
"The vast majority of wars end either with mutual defeat, or everyone is sure they have won, or other outcomes”
|
That quote is incredibly stupid, because it is just a tautology.
"The vast majority of people have a lot of money. Or no money at all. Or other amounts of money."
As we say in Germany: „Wenn der Hahn kräht auf dem Mist, dann ändert sich das Wetter oder es bleibt wie es ist.“
"If the rooster crows on the manure pile, then the weather will change, or stay the same as it is currently."
|
On December 04 2025 18:37 Simberto wrote:
That quote is incredibly stupid, because it is just a tautology.
"The vast majority of people have a lot of money. Or no money at all. Or other amounts of money."
As we say in Germany: „Wenn der Hahn kräht auf dem Mist, dann ändert sich das Wetter oder es bleibt wie es ist.“
"If the rooster crows on the manure pile, then the weather will change, or stay the same as it is currently."
sure, except he's right that not Russia, nor Europe, nor the US, and especially not Ukraine are going to call them a definite winner.
Feeling good enough to close a deal is how we will eventually land a deal.
The sole winner is China, with RMB being circulating in BRICS a lot more now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
