|
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 16 2023 00:27 a_ch wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2023 00:20 JimmiC wrote: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
Are you saying mortgages have to have a flat rate in Russia? I would be surprirsed if that's true.
|
Russian Federation240 Posts
On August 16 2023 00:42 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2023 00:27 a_ch wrote:On August 16 2023 00:20 JimmiC wrote: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 Are you saying mortgages have to have a flat rate in Russia? I would be surprirsed if that's true.
-yes, never heard of a mortgage with a floating rate. All rates are fixed, perhaps with exception of corporate loans, which I don't know well
|
On August 15 2023 19:38 Ardias wrote:
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.
[edit after realizing you mentioned it] To elaborate a bit on their dependence on the financial aid they've been receiving to just keep the lights on in the government.
They've basically received their entire GDP in aid and much of it is needed just to provide wages for hospital workers, government and school employees, pensions for the elderly, salaries for public servants, and social programs for the vulnerable.
I can't speak to Ukrainians ability to maintain a prolonged insurgency in such conditions, but there's no question they couldn't maintain the stalemate long if at all, without copious amounts of assistance flooding in.
|
Russian Federation592 Posts
On August 16 2023 00:42 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2023 00:27 a_ch wrote:On August 16 2023 00:20 JimmiC wrote: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 Are you saying mortgages have to have a flat rate in Russia? I would be surprirsed if that's true.
Mortgages do have a flat rate. That's why it's so important to look for a good mortgage program in a particular bank, which can differ greatly. For example one friend of mine has mortgage on an apartment for only 3%, which is very low for Russia, but IIRC it was a program in partnership with the biggest developer in our city who was promoting new large apartment complex being constructed, and my friend took the mortgage when the house didn't even had its' foundation built (mortgage interest rates are quite higher on already finished buildings).
New mortgages (and other loans), are, of course, affected by key rate.
As for the overall policy towards loans - actually people use to take them a lot, and often without proper financial planning. However, Russian law allows for the personal bankruptcy without much of the concequences. You just have to endure about a year living on the minimum wage (only official one counts, so, with abundance of gray salary in Russia, isn't much of a problem), and you have to sell you registered stuff (real estate, except for the apartment/house you live in; cars, vehicles, boats and firearms). Since most regular people don't have more than one apartment/house in property, it isn't a problem as well. Of course I mean only fully owned real estate here, mortgaged one will be taken by a bank.
And then you get rid off all your loans and debts, excluding payments for children, criminal fines and compensations, salary debts (if you wew individual entrepreneur) and couple of other rare stuff. So a lot of people use this option, since the greatest problem is that you aren't able to bankrupt again within five years. You are also banned from being a head of a firm or having chief financial position there, but most people don't care about that.
|
|
|
Let me preface this question with me fulling admitting my ignorance and I apologize if this question is dumb. But lots of folks who are cheering for both sides here seem to be really well versed in war stuff. So I would appreciate it if anyone can help me understand this dynamic:
Can anyone explain why Russia isn't just using a bunch of their long range missiles and/or a bunch of planes to just level a bunch of these positions pushing in the south? My understanding is that Russia has some extremely long range missiles that are able to even reach the US. What prevents Russia from just targeting the entire area pushing in on the south?
My understanding is that within Ukraine, neither side can get air superiority because anti-air is inherently easier to pull off, so a weaker Ukraine is able to deny planes etc within Ukraine. But I have these images in my head of missile silos all over Russia and whatnot to be able to dish out strikes in an actual war situation with the US etc
And I know some of those are nukes, but I imagine they have other types of super big bombs/missiles right? Like what is preventing Russia from just letting it rip and shooting out tons of long range missiles into Ukraine to destroy the offensive?
Forgive the comparison, but isn't it kind of like Russia having siege tanks and Ukraine only has vultures and turrets? So yes, a bunch of air units will get toasted, but since Russia has all these launch sites within Russia well outside of Ukraine's range, why can't Russia just use those?
I know Ukraine has anti-missile defense stuff, but what I am imagining is a situation where Russia characterizes Ukraine's missile defenses, determines they can only shoot down..."100 missiles per hour" as a rough estimate. So then they just shoot 200 missiles per hour, which allows them to overwhelm the Ukraine missile defenses, which allows for a ton of missiles to actually hit, even if extremely inefficiently. Then by doing so, the entire offensive collapses?
|
On August 16 2023 00:42 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2023 00:27 a_ch wrote:On August 16 2023 00:20 JimmiC wrote: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 Are you saying mortgages have to have a flat rate in Russia? I would be surprirsed if that's true.
You can get flat rates everywhere else too. It's just usually way more expensive than dynamic, even if you calculate in a vastly increased interest rate change.
|
United States41470 Posts
The reason banks started blowing up earlier in the year in the US is due to the basic business model being borrowing short (taking deposits from customers) and investing long (selling mortgages/loans) at a higher rate. When interest rates went through the roof they had to mark down all their assets (the loans) to reflect that they were getting paid less than the value of their money due to the fixed rate interest on their loans. That meant they had to report they were technically underwater which triggered a chain reaction and forced the government to step in.
That’s just happened to Russian banks but it’s significantly more severe. However Russia is significantly more dictatorial so they might just tell the banks not to mark their loans to market and put a freeze on withdrawals if a run starts.
Either way though, if you’re a bank paying 10% on deposits and getting 5% on loans you’re going to have a bad time.
|
Russian Federation240 Posts
On August 16 2023 01:45 Mohdoo wrote:
Let me preface this question with me fulling admitting my ignorance and I apologize if this question is dumb. But lots of folks who are cheering for both sides here seem to be really well versed in war stuff. So I would appreciate it if anyone can help me understand this dynamic:
Can anyone explain why Russia isn't just using a bunch of their long range missiles and/or a bunch of planes to just level a bunch of these positions pushing in the south? My understanding is that Russia has some extremely long range missiles that are able to even reach the US. What prevents Russia from just targeting the entire area pushing in on the south?
My understanding is that within Ukraine, neither side can get air superiority because anti-air is inherently easier to pull off, so a weaker Ukraine is able to deny planes etc within Ukraine. But I have these images in my head of missile silos all over Russia and whatnot to be able to dish out strikes in an actual war situation with the US etc
And I know some of those are nukes, but I imagine they have other types of super big bombs/missiles right? Like what is preventing Russia from just letting it rip and shooting out tons of long range missiles into Ukraine to destroy the offensive?
Forgive the comparison, but isn't it kind of like Russia having siege tanks and Ukraine only has vultures and turrets? So yes, a bunch of air units will get toasted, but since Russia has all these launch sites within Russia well outside of Ukraine's range, why can't Russia just use those?
I know Ukraine has anti-missile defense stuff, but what I am imagining is a situation where Russia characterizes Ukraine's missile defenses, determines they can only shoot down..."100 missiles per hour" as a rough estimate. So then they just shoot 200 missiles per hour, which allows them to overwhelm the Ukraine missile defenses, which allows for a ton of missiles to actually hit, even if extremely inefficiently. Then by doing so, the entire offensive collapses?
I'm not a good expert in military stuff, so correct me if I'm wrong. I think that such strategy would result in missiles exhausting much much earlier than the Ukrainian positions, especially if they get some cover. So, some cost-efficiency is required.
Aviation bombs are more abundant, and have recently started to be used in a similar tactics with JDAM-analogue planning modules (the module has been invented after the start of the war). This is risky and is used only near the frontiers
|
On August 16 2023 02:15 a_ch wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2023 01:45 Mohdoo wrote:
Let me preface this question with me fulling admitting my ignorance and I apologize if this question is dumb. But lots of folks who are cheering for both sides here seem to be really well versed in war stuff. So I would appreciate it if anyone can help me understand this dynamic:
Can anyone explain why Russia isn't just using a bunch of their long range missiles and/or a bunch of planes to just level a bunch of these positions pushing in the south? My understanding is that Russia has some extremely long range missiles that are able to even reach the US. What prevents Russia from just targeting the entire area pushing in on the south?
My understanding is that within Ukraine, neither side can get air superiority because anti-air is inherently easier to pull off, so a weaker Ukraine is able to deny planes etc within Ukraine. But I have these images in my head of missile silos all over Russia and whatnot to be able to dish out strikes in an actual war situation with the US etc
And I know some of those are nukes, but I imagine they have other types of super big bombs/missiles right? Like what is preventing Russia from just letting it rip and shooting out tons of long range missiles into Ukraine to destroy the offensive?
Forgive the comparison, but isn't it kind of like Russia having siege tanks and Ukraine only has vultures and turrets? So yes, a bunch of air units will get toasted, but since Russia has all these launch sites within Russia well outside of Ukraine's range, why can't Russia just use those?
I know Ukraine has anti-missile defense stuff, but what I am imagining is a situation where Russia characterizes Ukraine's missile defenses, determines they can only shoot down..."100 missiles per hour" as a rough estimate. So then they just shoot 200 missiles per hour, which allows them to overwhelm the Ukraine missile defenses, which allows for a ton of missiles to actually hit, even if extremely inefficiently. Then by doing so, the entire offensive collapses?
I'm not a good expert in military stuff, so correct me if I'm wrong. I think that such strategy would result in missiles exhausting much much earlier than the Ukrainian positions, especially if they get some cover. So, some cost-efficiency is required. Aviation bombs are more abundant, and have recently started to be used in a similar tactics with JDAM-analogue planning modules (the module has been invented after the start of the war). This is risky and is used only near the frontiers
yeah, you're basically on to it. Ok, so you've used all your fancy missiles to completely quench a push in the south.. now what? Ukraine still has people in reserves, they can just send in more people to keep pushing. And now that you're out of missiles, what are you going to use to stop their artilleries and armor to completely roll over you?
Basically it's a game of numbers and logistics. You try to use your assets where they can make the most impact, holding back as much as you can knowing there will be more situations in the future that also requires it. Worse yet, if you use up all of your missiles, the enemy can just completely ignore their very existence when planning attacks. It's actually more important to have some in reserve and never use them, than to run out completely, because then at least the enemy has to take them into account.
|
Russian Federation592 Posts
On August 16 2023 01:43 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2023 01:35 Ardias wrote:On August 16 2023 00:42 Sent. wrote:On August 16 2023 00:27 a_ch wrote:On August 16 2023 00:20 JimmiC wrote: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 Are you saying mortgages have to have a flat rate in Russia? I would be surprirsed if that's true. Mortgages do have a flat rate. That's why it's so important to look for a good mortgage program in a particular bank, which can differ greatly. For example one friend of mine has mortgage on an apartment for only 3%, which is very low for Russia, but IIRC it was a program in partnership with the biggest developer in our city who was promoting new large apartment complex being constructed, and my friend took the mortgage when the house didn't even had its' foundation built (mortgage interest rates are quite higher on already finished buildings). New mortgages (and other loans), are, of course, affected by key rate. As for the overall policy towards loans - actually people use to take them a lot, and often without proper financial planning. However, Russian law allows for the personal bankruptcy without much of the concequences. You just have to endure about a year living on the minimum wage (only official one counts, so, with abundance of gray salary in Russia, isn't much of a problem), and you have to sell you registered stuff (real estate, except for the apartment/house you live in; cars, vehicles, boats and firearms). Since most regular people don't have more than one apartment/house in property, it isn't a problem as well. Of course I mean only fully owned real estate here, mortgaged one will be taken by a bank. Do you know how it works behind the scenes. Like does the government make up the difference or is that the builder takes the hit on the rate to sell the apartment? Some times car manufacturers do that here, they offer “0%” loans or lower than bank rates but they are basically paying the rates down. In I think 2008 this is why Chrysler financial went belly up.
Some banks are indeed get subsidized by the government (like the one I used to work in, Russian Agricultural Bank, which was recently in spotlight due to grain deal). But in this case I think it's mostly up to the developer. The one I was talking about is the biggest one around, they build huge amount of new apartment blocks, and I guess, they make up for the decreased profits per single mortgage by the sheer number of apartments sold. Especially since they are the biggest fish around with the best apartments they (but this is also a guess), are able to set a price necessary not to lose profit. Apartments are kinda expensive around here, though, of course, not on the level of Moscow and St. Petersburg.
|
Russian Federation592 Posts
On August 16 2023 01:45 Mohdoo wrote:
Let me preface this question with me fulling admitting my ignorance and I apologize if this question is dumb. But lots of folks who are cheering for both sides here seem to be really well versed in war stuff. So I would appreciate it if anyone can help me understand this dynamic:
Can anyone explain why Russia isn't just using a bunch of their long range missiles and/or a bunch of planes to just level a bunch of these positions pushing in the south? My understanding is that Russia has some extremely long range missiles that are able to even reach the US. What prevents Russia from just targeting the entire area pushing in on the south?
My understanding is that within Ukraine, neither side can get air superiority because anti-air is inherently easier to pull off, so a weaker Ukraine is able to deny planes etc within Ukraine. But I have these images in my head of missile silos all over Russia and whatnot to be able to dish out strikes in an actual war situation with the US etc
And I know some of those are nukes, but I imagine they have other types of super big bombs/missiles right? Like what is preventing Russia from just letting it rip and shooting out tons of long range missiles into Ukraine to destroy the offensive?
Forgive the comparison, but isn't it kind of like Russia having siege tanks and Ukraine only has vultures and turrets? So yes, a bunch of air units will get toasted, but since Russia has all these launch sites within Russia well outside of Ukraine's range, why can't Russia just use those?
I know Ukraine has anti-missile defense stuff, but what I am imagining is a situation where Russia characterizes Ukraine's missile defenses, determines they can only shoot down..."100 missiles per hour" as a rough estimate. So then they just shoot 200 missiles per hour, which allows them to overwhelm the Ukraine missile defenses, which allows for a ton of missiles to actually hit, even if extremely inefficiently. Then by doing so, the entire offensive collapses?
As others pointed out, cruise/ballistic missile is way too expensive and hard to come by to be spent on frontline troops (and such missiles could be used only on static target, because too long of a flight time). SC analogy would be trying to drop a nuke on a single marine. Even if it's static, it's a waste of resources, an it can easily run away, making nuke a complete waste.
Russia do use this missiles on targets that are hard to move somewhere. Like bridges, supply depos, big HQs, rear barracks, airfields, ships in harbor, military production etc. Ukraine does the same, though their stuff has less range.
If you want an analogy with SC2, current offensive would be more akin to a siege tank push with limited scans, so Ukraine has to send in marines and some unsieged tanks as well to spot Russian marines and tanks, so sieged tanks of Ukraine could fire their volley (and Russian ones fire back). Russia also use Ravens guided missiles (lancets) and banshees (Ka-52) and both sides occasionaly use yamatos (JDAM bombs), "occasionaly" since both posses OP missile turrets, though without detection (hence useless against banshees).
Also the missiles that supposed to attack US in case of global war are intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), and they are all nuclear. Conventional (though still nuclear capable) stuff like Iskander has much less range
|
On August 16 2023 02:55 Ardias wrote:
Russia do use this missiles on targets that are hard to move somewhere. Like bridges, supply depos, big HQs, rear barracks, airfields, ships in harbor, military production etc.
Schools, hospitals, shopping malls, apartment buildings, grain silos, energy infrastructure, train stations, rescue workers...
|
On August 16 2023 07:14 Jones313 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2023 02:55 Ardias wrote:
Russia do use this missiles on targets that are hard to move somewhere. Like bridges, supply depos, big HQs, rear barracks, airfields, ships in harbor, military production etc.
Schools, hospitals, shopping malls, apartment buildings, grain silos, energy infrastructure, train stations, rescue workers...
The first four you mentioned would be because of malfunctioning air defence Ukraines stocks have depleted enough to force them to use older and poorly maintained missiles. In the last few days they have been causing quite a lot of damage comperatively to civilian structures.
Yes, you can make the argument faulty AD wouldnt be falling on civilian buildings if there werent Russian missiles flying at military accumulations.
Looking at the strikes from the last few days places like Dnepropetrovsk basically dont have any air defence left that can counter cruise missiles. Military repair facilities that should be high priority for defence are not being defended anymore
|
On August 16 2023 00:42 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2023 00:27 a_ch wrote:On August 16 2023 00:20 JimmiC wrote: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 Are you saying mortgages have to have a flat rate in Russia? I would be surprirsed if that's true.
Fixed rate is not uncommon but in most countries that offer fixed rates it's only up to 5 years and after that it becomes variable or you get a new fixed rate. I only know of two countries that offer longer fixed rates and that are the US and The Netherlands. In the US it's 30 years from what I understand and NL usually 10-20 years. But both those countries provide large incentives to pick long fixed rates.
|
On August 16 2023 15:20 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2023 07:14 Jones313 wrote:On August 16 2023 02:55 Ardias wrote:
Russia do use this missiles on targets that are hard to move somewhere. Like bridges, supply depos, big HQs, rear barracks, airfields, ships in harbor, military production etc.
Schools, hospitals, shopping malls, apartment buildings, grain silos, energy infrastructure, train stations, rescue workers... The first four you mentioned would be because of malfunctioning air defence Ukraines stocks have depleted enough to force them to use older and poorly maintained missiles. In the last few days they have been causing quite a lot of damage comperatively to civilian structures. Yes, you can make the argument faulty AD wouldnt be falling on civilian buildings if there werent Russian missiles flying at military accumulations. Looking at the strikes from the last few days places like Dnepropetrovsk basically dont have any air defence left that can counter cruise missiles. Military repair facilities that should be high priority for defence are not being defended anymore https://twitter.com/MyLordBebo/status/1691466881981394944
Civilian targets have been hit since the beginning of the war, with a bombing campaign specifically aimed at civilian infrastructure in between. This is not explained away by bad AA
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/03/23/world/europe/ukraine-civilian-attacks.html
A collage from 17 months ago
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/12/1/lavrov-defends-russian-strikes-on-ukraines-infrastructure
|
On August 16 2023 20:11 schaf wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2023 15:20 zeo wrote:On August 16 2023 07:14 Jones313 wrote:On August 16 2023 02:55 Ardias wrote:
Russia do use this missiles on targets that are hard to move somewhere. Like bridges, supply depos, big HQs, rear barracks, airfields, ships in harbor, military production etc.
Schools, hospitals, shopping malls, apartment buildings, grain silos, energy infrastructure, train stations, rescue workers... The first four you mentioned would be because of malfunctioning air defence Ukraines stocks have depleted enough to force them to use older and poorly maintained missiles. In the last few days they have been causing quite a lot of damage comperatively to civilian structures. Yes, you can make the argument faulty AD wouldnt be falling on civilian buildings if there werent Russian missiles flying at military accumulations. Looking at the strikes from the last few days places like Dnepropetrovsk basically dont have any air defence left that can counter cruise missiles. Military repair facilities that should be high priority for defence are not being defended anymore https://twitter.com/MyLordBebo/status/1691466881981394944 Civilian targets have been hit since the beginning of the war, with a bombing campaign specifically aimed at civilian infrastructure in between. This is not explained away by bad AA https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/03/23/world/europe/ukraine-civilian-attacks.htmlA collage from 17 months ago https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/12/1/lavrov-defends-russian-strikes-on-ukraines-infrastructure
Nytimes article is behind a paywall, can you extract the main points? Cant see anything passed the headline.
Energy infrastructure can be seen as a legitimate target if they are used to power the war effort of that country. They were seen as legitimate targets in most military conflicts during and after the Cold War. Saying this conflict is any different is hypocritical and demagoguery, the precidents were set long before and these attacks were not condemed beyond lip service, nor were the purpetrators brought before international courts of Law.
In the past where smart bombs and the like missed and hit kindergardens, hospitals, civilian trains and private apartments these victums were called collateral damage. Because they were not the target, something else was. When a wedding got drone bombed it was because of that one guy that might have been linked to a terrorist group. The women and children killed are collateral damage, and no one is held accountable. The 'evil regime' of xyz country is to blame. Not the people dropping the bombs.
Usually the civilian death tolls far outmatch military deaths in any war. This one has comperatively very few civilian deaths compaired to military. These numbers are all either overblown or minimised but in any case military death far outweigh civilian deaths
|
On August 16 2023 15:44 RvB wrote:]
Fixed rate is not uncommon but in most countries that offer fixed rates it's only up to 5 years and after that it becomes variable or you get a new fixed rate. I only know of two countries that offer longer fixed rates and that are the US and The Netherlands. In the US it's 30 years from what I understand and NL usually 10-20 years. But both those countries provide large incentives to pick long fixed rates.
I work in the financial sector in Hungary, and getting fixed rates for 10-20 years is also option here. Basically every bank offers fixed rate for 10 year, several of them offer for 20 years. And I remember once I saw one offering for even 25 years.
I doubt Hungary would be part of some elite trio.
I think it's more related to the average financial knowledge or short-sightness of the population. Fixed rates are available for everyone but still 50% of the mortgages are on changing rates from changing every 5 years to changing monthly. Despite our government spent a great effort to make people choose fixed rate or at least changing only every 10 years. And in my experience the primary reason for that the initial interest rate and also the initial monthly payment is lower on frequently changing loans. And for many people that's the only thing they consider. Secondly it's limited by regulations how much monthly payment your verifiable income can take. And if someone tries to over stretch themselves they were able to apply for bigger loans if they went for changing rates. 2 years ago they added lower limits for changing rates but still many people are sitting in those because they got their mortgage before the regulation took effect.
Sorry for derailing comment.
|
On August 16 2023 15:44 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2023 00:42 Sent. wrote:On August 16 2023 00:27 a_ch wrote:On August 16 2023 00:20 JimmiC wrote: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 Are you saying mortgages have to have a flat rate in Russia? I would be surprirsed if that's true. Fixed rate is not uncommon but in most countries that offer fixed rates it's only up to 5 years and after that it becomes variable or you get a new fixed rate. I only know of two countries that offer longer fixed rates and that are the US and The Netherlands. In the US it's 30 years from what I understand and NL usually 10-20 years. But both those countries provide large incentives to pick long fixed rates.
Germany also does fixed. 10 or 20 years are the most common, after 10 years you can 'cancel' and re-negotiate with the bank if you desire.
|
On August 16 2023 20:56 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2023 20:11 schaf wrote:On August 16 2023 15:20 zeo wrote:On August 16 2023 07:14 Jones313 wrote:On August 16 2023 02:55 Ardias wrote:
Russia do use this missiles on targets that are hard to move somewhere. Like bridges, supply depos, big HQs, rear barracks, airfields, ships in harbor, military production etc.
Schools, hospitals, shopping malls, apartment buildings, grain silos, energy infrastructure, train stations, rescue workers... The first four you mentioned would be because of malfunctioning air defence Ukraines stocks have depleted enough to force them to use older and poorly maintained missiles. In the last few days they have been causing quite a lot of damage comperatively to civilian structures. Yes, you can make the argument faulty AD wouldnt be falling on civilian buildings if there werent Russian missiles flying at military accumulations. Looking at the strikes from the last few days places like Dnepropetrovsk basically dont have any air defence left that can counter cruise missiles. Military repair facilities that should be high priority for defence are not being defended anymore https://twitter.com/MyLordBebo/status/1691466881981394944 Civilian targets have been hit since the beginning of the war, with a bombing campaign specifically aimed at civilian infrastructure in between. This is not explained away by bad AA https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/03/23/world/europe/ukraine-civilian-attacks.htmlA collage from 17 months ago https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/12/1/lavrov-defends-russian-strikes-on-ukraines-infrastructure Nytimes article is behind a paywall, can you extract the main points? Cant see anything passed the headline. Energy infrastructure can be seen as a legitimate target if they are used to power the war effort of that country. They were seen as legitimate targets in most military conflicts during and after the Cold War. Saying this conflict is any different is hypocritical and demagoguery, the precidents were set long before and these attacks were not condemed beyond lip service, nor were the purpetrators brought before international courts of Law.
Anything can be seen as a legitimate target if you put enough effort into your justification and don't really worry about ethics. Hospitals treat soldiers who then return to battle. Schools teach people who may become soldiers, or work in the arms industry. Childcare facilities raise the next generation of enemy soldiers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
