9 ms·

Some economic perspective. The Russian economy is 10x the size of the Ukrainian. The US economy is 14x larger than Russia's. The Canadian economy is larger th

by reddog 5y ago

Some economic perspective. The Russian economy is 10x the size of the Ukrainian. The US economy is 14x larger than Russia's. The Canadian economy is larger than Russia's. The combined economy of all of NATO is 25x the size of Russia's. This does not even include Pacific allies like Japan and ANZUS. For historical perspective, when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor the US economy was 7x larger than theirs. At the end of WW2 the red army had 12 million soldiers in uniform compared to the estimated 120K Russian soldiers now invading Ukraine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...

Cthulhu_ 5y ago
A country's economy may be a good indication of how long a battle of attrition would last, possibly, but at the same time, money is not really that important if you mobilize a country and have the raw resources. Or if you already have nukes ready to go.
lordnacho 5y ago
What you seem to be saying is that we should be willing to fight, but it's not been long since our last involvement. How big is the Afghan economy in relation to the West?
- phkahler 5y ago
  >> What you seem to be saying is that we should be willing to fight... Who is this "we"? For all the condemnation and claims about sanctions, everyone saw this coming and did not a damn thing. If sanctions actually are imposed, Putin can just turn off the gas to Europe. If anyone wants to engage militarily (and Europeans rightly had enough of that) they have to worry about nuclear weapons. I see this as a big eye opener to the other European "Union" countries when they see nobody actually has Ukraine's back.
  - DFHippie 5y ago
    Ukraine is in neither the EU nor NATO. That was what this whole conflict ostensibly was about: Ukraine gaining allies and support outside Russia's control.
    - machiaweliczny 5y ago
      But AFAIK they have some protection “guarantees” by UK and US for disarming nuclear forces. Yet another lesson for the naive and meek
      - robotnikman 5y ago
        They are probably wishing right now that they had secretly kept some
        jessaustin 5y ago
        Keeping nuclear weapons "secretly" really undermines their deterrence aspect. “Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday machine is lost if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world?” -- Dr. Strangelove
programmarchy 5y ago
In the era of industrialization economic size was a proxy for the capability of a state to mobilize its industrial capacity for war. Does that still hold true?
- hotpotamus 5y ago
  To me, the real question is what's the ROI on intervening to defend Ukraine?
  - programmarchy 5y ago
    This is missing the point, grossly.
    - hajile 5y ago
      It seems like a valid point to me. When your friend or relative comes back in a pine box, do you want to know it was just another bad decision with nothing good coming of that sacrifice? That said, I think the US has options here. We don't need to "occupy" Ukraine as they have plenty of troops. What they need is air superiority. We should consider establishing a no-fly zone around all of Ukraine (and maybe Crimea). The risk to American lives would be as minimal as possible while still severely restraining Russia's ability to wage war..
    - hotpotamus 5y ago
      I believe I understood the point. In spite of all the post-industrial service economy and outsourcing we hear about, my understanding is that the US military industrial complex is still quite domestic; built and maintained by US citizens in the US at great expense for reasons that must seem obvious these days. But ROI is all I can see that actually drives the US these days - why do you think the phrase "run the government like a business" is so ingrained? Personally, I'd prefer to run the government like a government, but I'm just one voter out of what... 150 million or so?
      - programmarchy 5y ago
explaingarlic 5y ago
The count of soldiers doesn't matter; you can only fit so many on a battle line anyway and a war in which you run through a full battle line of infantry is so costly that even that insane regime wouldn't go for it. The red army required millions of soldiers because it ran through them so quickly due to their battle doctrine. This conflict will be nothing like World War 2. The size of the economy doesn't so much matter, either - there's a limit to how much aid economic power can provide to a nation at war, especially one with such deep connections to illicit markets like Russia. It's really anyone's game if war breaks out over central Europe.
- adventured 5y ago
  It matters at least in the sense that Russia's modest forces are so hyper exposed right now. The US and NATO could trivially cripple Russia's army in the field. They're entirely unprepared for it and they're going to be operating far from their optimal protection (embedded in Russia where defenses are far greater). The question is, when would Putin throw the nuclear card on the table. I'm in favor of the US and NATO (or just the US by itself) immediately attacking Russia's forces inside of Ukraine and destroying the Belarus command structure, including assassinating Lukashenko and pushing a revolution there by any means necessary. Russia is weak militarily outside of their borders and the US could trivially defeat them. It would take most of 2022 for Russia to regroup for a full force projection into Ukraine if they're under attack from the US while doing it, and I doubt they have the manufacturing capabilities right now to sustain (that would take time to enhance).
  - ocdtrekkie 5y ago
    Basically the problem is any action the US takes might prompt nuclear war, and Putin is gambling the US won't pull that card. It's political suicide to start a war with a nuclear power, and Putin doesn't have to worry about the votes.
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      > It's political suicide to start a war with a nuclear power... The war's already started. It could also a be a slower kind of suicide to let that nuclear power invade and take territory piece by piece, unmolested.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ekianjo 5y ago
> At the end of WW2 the red army had 12 million soldiers in uniform Poor comparison. This was total war at the time.
tablespoon 5y ago
> Some economic perspective. The Russian economy is 10x the size of the Ukrainian. This is the fact that matters. > The US economy is 14x larger than Russia's. The Canadian economy is larger than Russia's. The combined economy of all of NATO is 25x the size of Russia's. This does not even include Pacific allies like Japan and ANZUS. That doesn't matter. Many countries may have larger economies than Russia, but none of them have been willing to translate that into anything that can counter Russia's actions. IIRC, the US gives far more military aid to Israel than it has to Ukraine, and it's too late to change that. Germany sent Ukraine 5,000 hats for its defense.
- judge2020 5y ago
  > but none of them have been willing to translate that into anything that can counter Russia's actions. It gives perspective to how Russia knows not to mess with anyone with a larger military or economic presence. These countries aren't getting involved because doing so means they have a lot more economic prosperity to lose compared to Russia.
- giardini 5y ago
  tablespoon says >Germany sent Ukraine 5,000 hats for its defense.< Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko said the helmet offer had left him “speechless”: “What will Germany send next? Pillows?” https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/27/a-joke-germany-mocked-over-plan-to-send-helmets-to-ukraine https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/27/a-joke-germany-mock... There's a good joke in there somewhere: I'll settle for "Hats off to Ukraine's new [if short-lived] fearless leader, Vladimir Putin!" "THE BEST 68 PUTIN JOKES": https://jokojokes.com/putin-jokes.html https://jokojokes.com/putin-jokes.html
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by reddog 5y ago

Cthulhu_ 5y ago

A country's economy may be a good indication of how long a battle of attrition would last, possibly, but at the same time, money is not really that important if you mobilize a country and have the raw resources. Or if you already have nukes ready to go.

lordnacho 5y ago

What you seem to be saying is that we should be willing to fight, but it's not been long since our last involvement. How big is the Afghan economy in relation to the West?

phkahler 5y ago
>> What you seem to be saying is that we should be willing to fight... Who is this "we"? For all the condemnation and claims about sanctions, everyone saw this coming and did not a damn thing. If sanctions actually are imposed, Putin can just turn off the gas to Europe. If anyone wants to engage militarily (and Europeans rightly had enough of that) they have to worry about nuclear weapons. I see this as a big eye opener to the other European "Union" countries when they see nobody actually has Ukraine's back.
- DFHippie 5y ago
  Ukraine is in neither the EU nor NATO. That was what this whole conflict ostensibly was about: Ukraine gaining allies and support outside Russia's control.
  - machiaweliczny 5y ago
    But AFAIK they have some protection “guarantees” by UK and US for disarming nuclear forces. Yet another lesson for the naive and meek
    - robotnikman 5y ago
      They are probably wishing right now that they had secretly kept some
      - jessaustin 5y ago
        Keeping nuclear weapons "secretly" really undermines their deterrence aspect. “Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday machine is lost if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world?” -- Dr. Strangelove

programmarchy 5y ago

In the era of industrialization economic size was a proxy for the capability of a state to mobilize its industrial capacity for war. Does that still hold true?

hotpotamus 5y ago
To me, the real question is what's the ROI on intervening to defend Ukraine?
- programmarchy 5y ago
  This is missing the point, grossly.
  - hajile 5y ago
    It seems like a valid point to me. When your friend or relative comes back in a pine box, do you want to know it was just another bad decision with nothing good coming of that sacrifice? That said, I think the US has options here. We don't need to "occupy" Ukraine as they have plenty of troops. What they need is air superiority. We should consider establishing a no-fly zone around all of Ukraine (and maybe Crimea). The risk to American lives would be as minimal as possible while still severely restraining Russia's ability to wage war..
  - hotpotamus 5y ago
    I believe I understood the point. In spite of all the post-industrial service economy and outsourcing we hear about, my understanding is that the US military industrial complex is still quite domestic; built and maintained by US citizens in the US at great expense for reasons that must seem obvious these days. But ROI is all I can see that actually drives the US these days - why do you think the phrase "run the government like a business" is so ingrained? Personally, I'd prefer to run the government like a government, but I'm just one voter out of what... 150 million or so?
    - programmarchy 5y ago

explaingarlic 5y ago

The count of soldiers doesn't matter; you can only fit so many on a battle line anyway and a war in which you run through a full battle line of infantry is so costly that even that insane regime wouldn't go for it. The red army required millions of soldiers because it ran through them so quickly due to their battle doctrine. This conflict will be nothing like World War 2. The size of the economy doesn't so much matter, either - there's a limit to how much aid economic power can provide to a nation at war, especially one with such deep connections to illicit markets like Russia. It's really anyone's game if war breaks out over central Europe.

adventured 5y ago
It matters at least in the sense that Russia's modest forces are so hyper exposed right now. The US and NATO could trivially cripple Russia's army in the field. They're entirely unprepared for it and they're going to be operating far from their optimal protection (embedded in Russia where defenses are far greater). The question is, when would Putin throw the nuclear card on the table. I'm in favor of the US and NATO (or just the US by itself) immediately attacking Russia's forces inside of Ukraine and destroying the Belarus command structure, including assassinating Lukashenko and pushing a revolution there by any means necessary. Russia is weak militarily outside of their borders and the US could trivially defeat them. It would take most of 2022 for Russia to regroup for a full force projection into Ukraine if they're under attack from the US while doing it, and I doubt they have the manufacturing capabilities right now to sustain (that would take time to enhance).
- ocdtrekkie 5y ago
  Basically the problem is any action the US takes might prompt nuclear war, and Putin is gambling the US won't pull that card. It's political suicide to start a war with a nuclear power, and Putin doesn't have to worry about the votes.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > It's political suicide to start a war with a nuclear power... The war's already started. It could also a be a slower kind of suicide to let that nuclear power invade and take territory piece by piece, unmolested.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ekianjo 5y ago

> At the end of WW2 the red army had 12 million soldiers in uniform Poor comparison. This was total war at the time.

tablespoon 5y ago

> Some economic perspective. The Russian economy is 10x the size of the Ukrainian. This is the fact that matters. > The US economy is 14x larger than Russia's. The Canadian economy is larger than Russia's. The combined economy of all of NATO is 25x the size of Russia's. This does not even include Pacific allies like Japan and ANZUS. That doesn't matter. Many countries may have larger economies than Russia, but none of them have been willing to translate that into anything that can counter Russia's actions. IIRC, the US gives far more military aid to Israel than it has to Ukraine, and it's too late to change that. Germany sent Ukraine 5,000 hats for its defense.

judge2020 5y ago
> but none of them have been willing to translate that into anything that can counter Russia's actions. It gives perspective to how Russia knows not to mess with anyone with a larger military or economic presence. These countries aren't getting involved because doing so means they have a lot more economic prosperity to lose compared to Russia.
giardini 5y ago
tablespoon says >Germany sent Ukraine 5,000 hats for its defense.< Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko said the helmet offer had left him “speechless”: “What will Germany send next? Pillows?” https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/27/a-joke-germany-mocked-over-plan-to-send-helmets-to-ukraine https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/27/a-joke-germany-mock... There's a good joke in there somewhere: I'll settle for "Hats off to Ukraine's new [if short-lived] fearless leader, Vladimir Putin!" "THE BEST 68 PUTIN JOKES": https://jokojokes.com/putin-jokes.html https://jokojokes.com/putin-jokes.html

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]