3 ms·

The "back on it's feet" in the title corresponds to "it will not lose 15% of the GDP this year as some economists think, and central bank rate is still at 14% w

The "back on it's feet" in the title corresponds to "it will not lose 15% of the GDP this year as some economists think, and central bank rate is still at 14% while capital controls are in place" in the body of the article. I invite everyone commenting to consider how a GDP loss of less than 15% mean that things are fine.

droopyEyelids 5y ago
The context for “fine” is that the western world did everything in its power to destroy Russia’s economy and send them into famine and destitution
- HWR_14 5y ago
  > the western world did everything in its power to destroy Russia’s economy It most certainly didn't. ICBMs, for instance, could grind the Russian economy to a halt in 15(?) minutes. Also, there are still steps to cut off Russian oil and other products that haven't been done because it would cause a lot of suffering. I think the proper characterization would be that western governments have foregone profits and some convenience to break Russia's economy.
  - dmitrygr 5y ago
    > ICBMs, for instance, could grind the Russian economy to a halt in 15(?) minutes that will bring world GDP to zero rather fast. Suggest reading on mutually assured destruction and on second strike capabilities.
    - HWR_14 5y ago
      I didn't advocate for icbm usage. I'm just pointing out it's more effective. Although, while I wouldn't (literally) bet the world on it, I doubt that Russias nuclear arsenal has much second strike capability. Heck, I'm not sure they have functioning first strike capability to significantly damage the US.
      - dmitrygr 5y ago
        > I'm not sure they have functioning first strike capability to significantly damage the US. Happy to suggest some literature to dispel your doubts.
        polotics 5y ago
        Yes please! Information of the kind, considering the current and rare northeasterlies blowing over Europe, would be much appreciated. Happy Mondays everyone!
        HWR_14 5y ago
        Please! Although also please note I said "functioning". I have no doubt but they have the ICBMs to do so built, but I wonder about theirs maintenance status. As I understand it, you cannot just stick them in a silo and have them perform when needed.
        dmitrygr 5y ago
        https://sgp.fas.org/crs/nuke/R45861.pdf https://sgp.fas.org/crs/nuke/R45861.pdf
        procgen 5y ago
        Please do!
- riffraff 5y ago
  > the western world did everything in its power the west for the most part didn't ban russian oil and gas, which is the only thing that would have impacted russia's economy massively, so no, of course they didn't. 90% of the sanctions impact specific people, not industries. You can even still receive money in Russia from abroad, because not even the whole banking system has been disconnected from SWIFT.

droopyEyelids 5y ago

The context for “fine” is that the western world did everything in its power to destroy Russia’s economy and send them into famine and destitution

HWR_14 5y ago
> the western world did everything in its power to destroy Russia’s economy It most certainly didn't. ICBMs, for instance, could grind the Russian economy to a halt in 15(?) minutes. Also, there are still steps to cut off Russian oil and other products that haven't been done because it would cause a lot of suffering. I think the proper characterization would be that western governments have foregone profits and some convenience to break Russia's economy.
- dmitrygr 5y ago
  > ICBMs, for instance, could grind the Russian economy to a halt in 15(?) minutes that will bring world GDP to zero rather fast. Suggest reading on mutually assured destruction and on second strike capabilities.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    I didn't advocate for icbm usage. I'm just pointing out it's more effective. Although, while I wouldn't (literally) bet the world on it, I doubt that Russias nuclear arsenal has much second strike capability. Heck, I'm not sure they have functioning first strike capability to significantly damage the US.
    - dmitrygr 5y ago
      > I'm not sure they have functioning first strike capability to significantly damage the US. Happy to suggest some literature to dispel your doubts.
      - polotics 5y ago
        Yes please! Information of the kind, considering the current and rare northeasterlies blowing over Europe, would be much appreciated. Happy Mondays everyone!
      - HWR_14 5y ago
        Please! Although also please note I said "functioning". I have no doubt but they have the ICBMs to do so built, but I wonder about theirs maintenance status. As I understand it, you cannot just stick them in a silo and have them perform when needed.
        dmitrygr 5y ago
        https://sgp.fas.org/crs/nuke/R45861.pdf https://sgp.fas.org/crs/nuke/R45861.pdf
      - procgen 5y ago
        Please do!
riffraff 5y ago
> the western world did everything in its power the west for the most part didn't ban russian oil and gas, which is the only thing that would have impacted russia's economy massively, so no, of course they didn't. 90% of the sanctions impact specific people, not industries. You can even still receive money in Russia from abroad, because not even the whole banking system has been disconnected from SWIFT.