EPTHow much is 1857727734*1252175891237?
Well, it is either 3*10²⁴, or more than than. Or something else.
Now do that calculation and be amazed that i am correct without a calculator.
Russo-Ukrainian War Thread - Page 902
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
Simberto
Germany11787 Posts
How much is 1857727734*1252175891237? Well, it is either 3*10²⁴, or more than than. Or something else. Now do that calculation and be amazed that i am correct without a calculator. | ||
|
ZeroByte13
785 Posts
Actually amazing how both our answers are correct for any "how much is..." question in history. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11787 Posts
On December 04 2025 22:23 ZeroByte13 wrote: I'd say it's either 3 or more than that or something else. Actually amazing how both our answers are correct for any "how much is..." question in history. We must be either prophets or geniuses. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4744 Posts
| ||
|
Yurie
12076 Posts
On December 04 2025 20:33 ETisME wrote: 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. Agreed. Russia attacking Ukraine has at least these clear short term losers: Russia, Ukraine, EU. It has at least these unclear winners: Iran, North Korea, USA, Moldavia, Azerbaijan, NATO With a clear winner in China. | ||
|
Jankisa
Croatia1312 Posts
I think the biggest losers are the people of Russia and Ukraine. Both of these countries have been throwing insane amounts of money and man power into fighting each other, all of this money could have been used to benefit the denizens of these countries. No matter how corrupt Russia and Ukraine might be, a lot of this money would have trickled down to the people, especially in Ukraine who was on a path to join the West and Russia knew that if this was allowed to happen Russian and Belorussian people would see how much more prosperous Ukraine is becoming, which was one of the biggest reasons for attacking, in my opinion. I don't see how you can put USA into the winner column and EU in the losers, perhaps in the current way things are set up where EU buys USA weapons and gives them to Ukraine that makes sense, but up until Trump got elected USA and EU could either be unclear winners or losers, depending on if you look at them giving money and weapons to Ukraine to keep Russia tangled up and not doing anything else stupid as a good or bad investment. Iran is definitely not a winner in any way, shape or form, if you are saying they are winners because they sold some technology to Russians and got nothing of value back a win, well, I don't know what to tell you, but I'm damn certain that if Ukraine/Russia war wasn't happening Israel would be much, much less belligerent in attacking Iran, they'd have much more AA assets and support from Russia, so they definitely don't belong in the winners column. North Korea, I mean, why? They got some of it's people killed for no reason, they gave a lot of their artillery and rocket stock for Russia and got very little to show for it. Moldavia and Azerbedijan, sure, they did benefit from the eye of Putin being drawn on Ukraine instead of them. NATO? Why is NATO a winner, Trump is using this war to basically make it irrelevant, sure, in the short term it was expanded to Finland and Sweden, but since then it's been shown as extremely ineffective and feckless, with it's "leader" bending over and calling Trump daddy and with them doing absolutely nothing to actually help Ukraine in any real, material way. China, sure, they are the biggest winner, they get a discount on oil and gas, they can pawn off equipment they don't really want to Russia and they have them by the balls forever. | ||
KwarK
United States43799 Posts
NATO clearest winner. It was having an identity crisis and funding crisis. Now it is larger, rearming, and has a clear purpose. 10 years ago people weren’t even sure why NATO existed in a world without the Soviet Union. Today when NATO gets criticism it is for not being strong enough. Assad’s Syria clearest loser. The collapse of a Russian proxy is a clear consequence of the war. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11787 Posts
On December 05 2025 03:27 Jankisa wrote: North Korea, I mean, why? They got some of it's people killed for no reason, they gave a lot of their artillery and rocket stock for Russia and got very little to show for it. I'd be highly surprised if NK didn't get anything worthwhile out of this. They basically had Putin by the balls at the negotiating table. I think it is not unreasonable to assume that they got some advanced soviet rocket tech or some other weapon in the category of stuff that no one was willing to trade them before out of this. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8246 Posts
On December 05 2025 03:29 KwarK wrote: China probably doesn’t like that the western world order has woken up, realized expansionism is happening, and is rearming. Nor that nuclear blackmail is happening and that non proliferation is dead. They would have quite liked to have taken Taiwan as the initial act of breaking the post Cold War peace, it could have taken the west by surprise. Instead Russia was the one to start wars and threaten nuclear retaliation against anyone intervening. NATO clearest winner. It was having an identity crisis and funding crisis. Now it is larger, rearming, and has a clear purpose. 10 years ago people weren’t even sure why NATO existed in a world without the Soviet Union. Today when NATO gets criticism it is for not being strong enough. Assad’s Syria clearest loser. The collapse of a Russian proxy is a clear consequence of the war. I think, even if they themselves don't agree, Russia did China a massive favour by showing them just how badly a quick 3 day occupation of a much smaller nation could turn out. I don't think China has any appetite to invade Taiwan atm, and without being able to know what this alternative timeline would have looked like, I suspect they are better off for it | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4404 Posts
I don't see how you can put USA into the winner column and EU in the losers, USA is clearly a winner.Hundreds of billions of dollars in oil and gas deals to the EU as an alternative supplier to Russia.Drill baby, drill. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-lng-producers-climb-eu-agrees-750-billion-energy-purchases-2025-07-28/ | ||
|
Billyboy
1603 Posts
On December 05 2025 04:34 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: USA is clearly a winner.Hundreds of billions of dollars in oil and gas deals to the EU as an alternative supplier to Russia.Drill baby, drill. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-lng-producers-climb-eu-agrees-750-billion-energy-purchases-2025-07-28/ So with the US being a clear winner from increased sales and an increase oil price because of the war and sanctions. Why would the US be wanting to give Russia a favorable deal to Russia that includes the sanctions being lifted and them being back on the market? You are not suggesting that Witkoff, Kushner and perhaps even Trump himself are putting their personal interests above the USA's, are you? | ||
|
Jankisa
Croatia1312 Posts
On December 05 2025 03:29 KwarK wrote: China probably doesn’t like that the western world order has woken up, realized expansionism is happening, and is rearming. Nor that nuclear blackmail is happening and that non proliferation is dead. They would have quite liked to have taken Taiwan as the initial act of breaking the post Cold War peace, it could have taken the west by surprise. Instead Russia was the one to start wars and threaten nuclear retaliation against anyone intervening. NATO clearest winner. It was having an identity crisis and funding crisis. Now it is larger, rearming, and has a clear purpose. 10 years ago people weren’t even sure why NATO existed in a world without the Soviet Union. Today when NATO gets criticism it is for not being strong enough. Assad’s Syria clearest loser. The collapse of a Russian proxy is a clear consequence of the war. But how is NATO the winner when NATO the organization and NATO the collection of countries with different interests have different stance towards Ukraine and Russia? Hungary and Slovakia are members, they are on daily basis shitting on NATO, Ukraine, EU. Trump is sending signals that he wouldn't respect Article 5, which is the biggest reason to join NATO. What happens if China invades Taiwan, is that NATO's problem? Well, I'm sure different countries would have very different approaches and there would be 0 unity there. To me, NATO is more divided and ineffectual then ever, USA the biggest contributor doesn't really see it's propose being holding back Russia, by making EU pay for the weapons they are selling to Ukraine they are clearly sending the signal this is your problem, Trump has relatively recently expressed that he'd like to take a chunk of Denmark's official territory, I don't seen NATO being in a good shape at all. What is NATO's identity? I'm sure if you asked each country what their stance towards China is you'd get 30 different answers, on Ukraine and Russia you'd get at least 10, that's not an organization that fixed it's identity crisis to me. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43799 Posts
If ten years ago you asked the constituent member nations of NATO the degree to which collective defence of the North Atlantic region played a part in their defence strategy I think you’d get pretty bad answers. Germany would ask what a defence strategy was. France would ask if Africa was in the North Atlantic. Britain would ask if there was any way they could cut spending further. Turkey would ask if NATO could attack Greece and when told “no” they’d ask about Kurds. Spain would ask “collective defence against who?”. The only serious responses you’d get would be from the Baltics. Collective defence as a national defence strategy concept has not only returned to the discussion, it’s the whole of the discussion. Defence policy is a subset of NATO planning. There are new multinational deployments across Eastern Europe, new efforts to assess national level gaps and resources and ensure that any deficiencies in national planning are covered by alliance planning, there’s a lot more money, there’s two new members. NATO matters again. Collective defence matters again. The most undeniable evidence of this is that countries with extremely long standing policies of neutrality reevaluated it and came down firmly on the side of NATO. NATO discussions may not be unanimous with Hungary acting as a spoiler but that is beside the point. Beforehand the discussions weren’t happening, they weren’t important, NATO wasn’t important. I don’t disagree on Trump but that’s separate from the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It isn’t whether NATO got stronger in the last 5 years, it’s whether the Russian invasion strengthened it. American isolationism predates the invasion, Trump predates the invasion. As a direct result of the invasion NATO has gotten larger, better armed, better organized, and has a renewed sense of purpose. Trump’s election is a detractor to NATO strength, but not a part of the discussion about the impact of the invasion. | ||
|
Yurie
12076 Posts
On December 05 2025 03:27 Jankisa wrote: Well, determining who the winners and losers are is very complicated and depends on what you think the alternatives were to this invasion. I think the biggest losers are the people of Russia and Ukraine. Both of these countries have been throwing insane amounts of money and man power into fighting each other, all of this money could have been used to benefit the denizens of these countries. No matter how corrupt Russia and Ukraine might be, a lot of this money would have trickled down to the people, especially in Ukraine who was on a path to join the West and Russia knew that if this was allowed to happen Russian and Belorussian people would see how much more prosperous Ukraine is becoming, which was one of the biggest reasons for attacking, in my opinion. Agreed. On December 05 2025 03:27 Jankisa wrote: I don't see how you can put USA into the winner column and EU in the losers, perhaps in the current way things are set up where EU buys USA weapons and gives them to Ukraine that makes sense, but up until Trump got elected USA and EU could either be unclear winners or losers, depending on if you look at them giving money and weapons to Ukraine to keep Russia tangled up and not doing anything else stupid as a good or bad investment. As answered in other posts. Europe is now bleeding money into the US coffers from weapons to gas. If they had a Biden second presidency to keep the reins instead of Trump they would have put the screws on Europe as a permanent ally while making money. Trump being a garbage president is (mostly) unrelated to the war except perhaps making it more likely to start by making the US position weaker in his first term. On December 05 2025 03:27 Jankisa wrote: Iran is definitely not a winner in any way, shape or form, if you are saying they are winners because they sold some technology to Russians and got nothing of value back a win, well, I don't know what to tell you, but I'm damn certain that if Ukraine/Russia war wasn't happening Israel would be much, much less belligerent in attacking Iran, they'd have much more AA assets and support from Russia, so they definitely don't belong in the winners column. I agree overall with you after considering it. Until the Israel-Iran war happened I think Iran was in the winning column from this war. After they are in the losing column. If Russia collapses due to the war Iran are clearly in the losing column. On December 05 2025 03:27 Jankisa wrote: North Korea, I mean, why? They got some of it's people killed for no reason, they gave a lot of their artillery and rocket stock for Russia and got very little to show for it. North Korea suddenly has a second trading partner apart from China. Which means they can get better deals due to actually having some negotiating power. I assume they gained things they think are worthwhile for that trade which isn't clear to us. I also assume most of the artillery and rockets were surplus stock, they have no use for it and storing and disposing of it costs money. North Korea has no enemies nearby that they need the weapons for, which is not what their news releases would say of course. On December 05 2025 03:27 Jankisa wrote: Moldavia and Azerbedijan, sure, they did benefit from the eye of Putin being drawn on Ukraine instead of them. NATO? Why is NATO a winner, Trump is using this war to basically make it irrelevant, sure, in the short term it was expanded to Finland and Sweden, but since then it's been shown as extremely ineffective and feckless, with it's "leader" bending over and calling Trump daddy and with them doing absolutely nothing to actually help Ukraine in any real, material way. As stated, people were wondering if NATO costed more than it benefited them. Discussions were moving more towards an EU army and would perhaps have landed there in another 30-40 peaceful years. Trump being a politician that is open to being bought and not even hiding it does of course weaken the US part of the alliance. But overall the other NATO members has more money to throw into defense than the US has and they focus it nearer the NATO front due to not caring as much about having active troops near Taiwan, Japan etc while still wanting to support them in other ways. On December 05 2025 03:27 Jankisa wrote: China, sure, they are the biggest winner, they get a discount on oil and gas, they can pawn off equipment they don't really want to Russia and they have them by the balls forever. Agreed. | ||
|
ETisME
12702 Posts
On December 05 2025 03:29 KwarK wrote: China probably doesn’t like that the western world order has woken up, realized expansionism is happening, and is rearming. Nor that nuclear blackmail is happening and that non proliferation is dead. They would have quite liked to have taken Taiwan as the initial act of breaking the post Cold War peace, it could have taken the west by surprise. Instead Russia was the one to start wars and threaten nuclear retaliation against anyone intervening. NATO clearest winner. It was having an identity crisis and funding crisis. Now it is larger, rearming, and has a clear purpose. 10 years ago people weren’t even sure why NATO existed in a world without the Soviet Union. Today when NATO gets criticism it is for not being strong enough. Assad’s Syria clearest loser. The collapse of a Russian proxy is a clear consequence of the war. China is not concerned about it. It has already invaded neighboring nations naval space. Taiwan has suffered more and a major one is happening right now. The west would have never reacted in time, it was always on Taiwan buying time till Asian allies like Japan and SK and eventual US support. Just these two weeks, we have both UK, France asking for more investment/economic ties. Australia PM ans Canada did it a few months ago. France goes as far to ask China to narrow the gap for tech like solar cells, batteries and EV. Oof. So it was never just about the US "betrayal" like some saying, the economic tie with China has already grown too strong. This is all before EU even implemented any kind of import control like China does for all European automotive industries, or US tech firms. Russia holding out against SWIFT and sanctions, and China RMB circulating a lot more with Russia using RMB, makes it a far more legit competitor against the USD. They are directly settling in RMB, not just as a railway. Possibly the first challenger ever. Whether NATO remains a winner is still pending to see. Trump helped to make it relevant again with PURL. But same problem as always, are European allies actually going to step up enough to make it worthwhile? Poland is, the rest hopefully so. Even more concerning is the NATO trained Ukraine troops feedback is the NATO training is already out of date. India being the middleman is definitely the biggest winner. It has the power to tilt the global power balance. | ||
|
ETisME
12702 Posts
https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/britain-is-ready-to-transfer-10-6-billion-1764911165.html Germany is now calling out others to support shared risk for using frozen russian asset. At the same time France is asking China to do more investment in France. Timing is just off lol | ||
|
KwarK
United States43799 Posts
| ||
|
Billyboy
1603 Posts
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/05/russia-planned-war-of-attrition-00672960 | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17707 Posts
On December 06 2025 00:24 Billyboy wrote: This is a pretty interesting article about the Russian recruitment and how it works. Basically they pay big money to desperate people, which are not in short supply. And it appears as long as there is money there will be people for the front. They are paying life changing money to these people (plus other benefits like school for kids, charges dropped and so on). It does not get into how this as impacted inflation or how long term it will impact the economy. But the families of the soldiers are really cashing in. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/05/russia-planned-war-of-attrition-00672960 You misunderstand. Russia is "promising" the money and not always "paying" it. Especially now that over half of their regions have stopped payments of soldier benefits because they're running on a budget deficit and a lot of "black widow" cases being handled by Russian courts recently - there's a new phenomenon where women target lonely alcoholic or drug using men, lure them into quick marriage and signing the military contract to get sent to the front. They're exploiting the system of high payments to the families of the deceased and expedited marriage processes enabled for war. Some of those women are already on their 3rd or 4th marriage this war. There are even realtors encouraging such practices as a way to get a quick downpayment on a house or apartment. | ||
|
Jankisa
Croatia1312 Posts
I guess that shouldn't surprise me since in my country there are ladies who own 3-4 houses form as many marriages, they usually become friends with older, often terminally ill single men, get married, take care of them and then inherit the stuff. This is kind of similar but the war is the terminal illness. | ||
| ||
