4 ms·

All GDP is not equal. As an example, Ireland’s GDP was ~1/3 tourism, with covid they lost that GDP. Russia GDP is primarily raw goods, commodities. They also h

All GDP is not equal. As an example, Ireland’s GDP was ~1/3 tourism, with covid they lost that GDP. Russia GDP is primarily raw goods, commodities. They also have a decent domestic market for manufactured goods. Look up the global production of wheat, natural gas, oil, etc and look for Russia and Belarus. To put it bluntly, USA GDP is a mix and has everything from commodities to information tech to finance. Russia is a producer of raw goods. Commodity prices are made at the margin, meaning a 1-2% reduction in supply could cause prices to go up 5-10% (similar for the reverse). So Russia has an outsized ability to both weather sanctions (they don’t import as much raw materials, particularly energy) AND the world must continue to purchase their goods and/or dramatically reduce in production themselves. For instance, German energy prices are up 500% (as of feb 2022) when compared to two years prior. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1267541/germany-monthly-wholesale-electricity-price/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1267541/germany-monthly-... It’s now up 1000-1500%, how is German GDP going to be impacted? While Russia’s will maintain much of its GDP, Germans will likely drop substantially, as they’re effectively deindustrializing. Their factories / industries can’t function economically at such high prices. > so the calculus for russia is losing on all fronts I see Russia winning on all fronts tbh. They’re increasing domestic resilience and culture. They’re also winning the war in Ukraine (see Mariupol, Donbas encirclement), and winning the economic war with the west paying them even with the sanctions. What’s their goals? To me it seems they are achieving the objectives Putin laid out at the rambling speech at the beginning of the war (independence from the west and “freeing” Russian sections of Ukraine) I find it so interesting people think Russia is losing. I just don’t see it.

axiosgunnar 4y ago
> I see Russia winning on all fronts tbh. I do not, and anyone else not trying to be contrarian and edgy on the back's of a humanitarian catastrophe does not either. Russia's goal was a blitzkrieg surprise win, measured in hours, taking over the capital and the government, before the West could even muster up sanctions. They have failed abysmally at that, and capturing a few towns in Eastern Ukraine (just a little bit more than they already had captured since 2014) is Putin's attempt to have something in his hands to present as a victory and hope not to get couped to death (a fate all warmongers rightfully deserve). Russia most certainly isn't winning.
- lettergram 4y ago
  > do not, and anyone else not trying to be contrarian and edgy on the back's of a humanitarian catastrophe does not either. Russia's goal was a blitzkrieg surprise win, measured in hours, taking over the capital and the government, before the West could even muster up sanctions. Where does that assumption come from? No Russian source has ever said that. The only sources I’ve seen were the US propaganda arm. Putin said that they were now in a defensive war with the west (his words, not mine). I don’t think they expected that to be over any time soon. But just for fun let’s assume you’re correct. Their objective is to conquer Ukraine..? It still doesn’t change the fact Ukraine isn’t winning. They’ve lost territory, most of the military assets, and the territory they’ve lost thus far is their most productive (industry and agriculture is based around the coast). By no measure is that trending toward victory. Now my position on this — Recall, Ukraine had one of the largest standing armies prior to this war. Order of magnitude more prepared than Iraq in the 90s or 2000s. With better equipment, heavily entrenched and much larger by land mass. I don’t think there’s any way that Russia expected to conquer Ukraine with 50k troops (1/5 the size of Ukraine’s standing army) in 90 days. But I also don’t think Ukraine is the only theater of battle. The real war is the war of logistics and in that, Russia is far better prepared and capable.
  - greedo 4y ago
    To say your "facts" are in error is to say water is wet. Russian started the war with roughly 100 BTGs. These have roughly 1k troops when fully equipped (as you would expect before the start of hostilities). They've added another 10-15 BTGs to replace the 45 or so that have been attritted by Ukrainian forces. So no, they didn't expect to conquer Ukraine with 50K troops, but closer to twice that. RuAF also tried to decapitate Ukraine by seizing Hostomel with airborne troops, and then rushing Kiev with troops located very closely in Belarus. You don't commit airborne troops like this when you don't have a)strategic surprise, b) tactical surprise, c) air supremacy. Russia expected a quick coup de main, and when the VdV got wrecked in Hostomel, they lost the war. Since the invasion in February, Ukraine has recovered most of the territory they lost in the north. In the south, the RuAF has made minimal gains past the lines of the 2014 conflict. You believe that Ukraine has lost most of their military assets? They currently have more tanks than when the war started, due to how many they've captured from Russia. Not to mention what has been contributed by NATO (Poland/Czechia etc.). They still have a well functioning and effective air force that has prevented the Russian air force from exerting control over the battlefield. They even managed to sink the flagship of the Black Sea Fleet. Russia has lost over 30k dead, and roughly 3x that as WIA. Over 1000 tanks. Over 350 aircraft (counting helicopters). Thousands of BMPs, MTLBs, BMDs, artillery, trucks, all destroyed. The RuAF has culminated. All Russia has achieved is shelling indiscriminately. They haven't shown the ability to hold terrain, to resupply their troops, to prevent the Ukrainians from doing anything they want. They couldn't even reduce Mariupol's garrison for three months. Russia's military, outside of it's nukes is a Potemkin affair.
greedo 4y ago
How anyone can look at how the war is going in Ukraine and think that it's any measure of success for Russia is simply not basing this in reality. Russia has already been decisively defeated in Ukraine. Their success is taking Mariupol is like if the US invaded Tijuana and then got stopped on the way to Ensenada. And what Donbas encirclement? The Russians "started" trying to encircle the Donbas in February. They've had no fundamental improvement in their position in the region since then, in fact, their facing their own issues with their defeat in Kharkiv.
- lettergram 4y ago
  > Russia has already been decisively defeated in Ukraine. Ugh, then the war would be over. I think the media creates a large set of biases. Recall, much of the media around this is banned. Here are some channels / people I’d recommend for various insights: - Military and Foreign Affairs network (former American tank operator) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DH6i0fJHLHw https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DH6i0fJHLHw - The Duran (two Greeks, former attorneys and part of ambassador families) https://rumble.com/c/theduran https://rumble.com/c/theduran - Patrick Lancaster (crowd funded American journalist embedded with DPK militia) https://m.youtube.com/c/PatrickLancasterNewsToday https://m.youtube.com/c/PatrickLancasterNewsToday - obviously the CNN, MSNBC, and other three letter news agencies There’s others, but those are some decent alternatives to get a general idea what’s going on.
  - YZF 4y ago
    The war isn't over because Putin doesn't care what the costs are. It's not sustainable though. Ukraine will keep fighting and the west will keep supporting it. What are Russia's options? So sure, not decisively defeated. It's not like the entire Russian army was wiped out and Ukrainians are marching in Moscow. But still defeated for all intents and purposes and all around loss (world status, material etc.). This has got to be the dumbest war ever.
    - lettergram 4y ago
      > What are Russia's options? My prediction is that they’re going to take the Russian speaking portions of the country as they originally laid out. That’s effective up to the middle of the country. If Ukraine keeps fighting they may take Odessa and leave Ukraine without a sea port. That’s something like 60-70% of Ukraine’s GDP btw. Russians have already captured 30% of Ukrainian GDP. I don’t think that’s a loss by any measure. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ukrainian_subdivisions_by_GDP_per_capita https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ukrainian_subdivisio... Wars typically last years, I don’t put much stock into 90 days of conflict. Already 20% of Ukraine is taken, most of its armaments destroyed, Russia has been targeting the west’s attempts to rearm. > all around loss (world status, material etc Russia is making more money than ever. They’re also looking to expand BRICS with China. https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-says-it-wants-expand-brics-bloc-emerging-economies-2022-05-19/ https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-says-it-wants-expa... > This has got to be the dumbest war ever. For whom? I don’t think any war is good, by definition it reduces both sides ability to produce and trade (ie hurting everyone). That said, the Russians have their objectives and clearly thought it worth while. It’s dangerous to underestimate and not understand the motivations of an enemy.

axiosgunnar 4y ago

> I see Russia winning on all fronts tbh. I do not, and anyone else not trying to be contrarian and edgy on the back's of a humanitarian catastrophe does not either. Russia's goal was a blitzkrieg surprise win, measured in hours, taking over the capital and the government, before the West could even muster up sanctions. They have failed abysmally at that, and capturing a few towns in Eastern Ukraine (just a little bit more than they already had captured since 2014) is Putin's attempt to have something in his hands to present as a victory and hope not to get couped to death (a fate all warmongers rightfully deserve). Russia most certainly isn't winning.

lettergram 4y ago
> do not, and anyone else not trying to be contrarian and edgy on the back's of a humanitarian catastrophe does not either. Russia's goal was a blitzkrieg surprise win, measured in hours, taking over the capital and the government, before the West could even muster up sanctions. Where does that assumption come from? No Russian source has ever said that. The only sources I’ve seen were the US propaganda arm. Putin said that they were now in a defensive war with the west (his words, not mine). I don’t think they expected that to be over any time soon. But just for fun let’s assume you’re correct. Their objective is to conquer Ukraine..? It still doesn’t change the fact Ukraine isn’t winning. They’ve lost territory, most of the military assets, and the territory they’ve lost thus far is their most productive (industry and agriculture is based around the coast). By no measure is that trending toward victory. Now my position on this — Recall, Ukraine had one of the largest standing armies prior to this war. Order of magnitude more prepared than Iraq in the 90s or 2000s. With better equipment, heavily entrenched and much larger by land mass. I don’t think there’s any way that Russia expected to conquer Ukraine with 50k troops (1/5 the size of Ukraine’s standing army) in 90 days. But I also don’t think Ukraine is the only theater of battle. The real war is the war of logistics and in that, Russia is far better prepared and capable.
- greedo 4y ago
  To say your "facts" are in error is to say water is wet. Russian started the war with roughly 100 BTGs. These have roughly 1k troops when fully equipped (as you would expect before the start of hostilities). They've added another 10-15 BTGs to replace the 45 or so that have been attritted by Ukrainian forces. So no, they didn't expect to conquer Ukraine with 50K troops, but closer to twice that. RuAF also tried to decapitate Ukraine by seizing Hostomel with airborne troops, and then rushing Kiev with troops located very closely in Belarus. You don't commit airborne troops like this when you don't have a)strategic surprise, b) tactical surprise, c) air supremacy. Russia expected a quick coup de main, and when the VdV got wrecked in Hostomel, they lost the war. Since the invasion in February, Ukraine has recovered most of the territory they lost in the north. In the south, the RuAF has made minimal gains past the lines of the 2014 conflict. You believe that Ukraine has lost most of their military assets? They currently have more tanks than when the war started, due to how many they've captured from Russia. Not to mention what has been contributed by NATO (Poland/Czechia etc.). They still have a well functioning and effective air force that has prevented the Russian air force from exerting control over the battlefield. They even managed to sink the flagship of the Black Sea Fleet. Russia has lost over 30k dead, and roughly 3x that as WIA. Over 1000 tanks. Over 350 aircraft (counting helicopters). Thousands of BMPs, MTLBs, BMDs, artillery, trucks, all destroyed. The RuAF has culminated. All Russia has achieved is shelling indiscriminately. They haven't shown the ability to hold terrain, to resupply their troops, to prevent the Ukrainians from doing anything they want. They couldn't even reduce Mariupol's garrison for three months. Russia's military, outside of it's nukes is a Potemkin affair.

greedo 4y ago

How anyone can look at how the war is going in Ukraine and think that it's any measure of success for Russia is simply not basing this in reality. Russia has already been decisively defeated in Ukraine. Their success is taking Mariupol is like if the US invaded Tijuana and then got stopped on the way to Ensenada. And what Donbas encirclement? The Russians "started" trying to encircle the Donbas in February. They've had no fundamental improvement in their position in the region since then, in fact, their facing their own issues with their defeat in Kharkiv.

lettergram 4y ago
> Russia has already been decisively defeated in Ukraine. Ugh, then the war would be over. I think the media creates a large set of biases. Recall, much of the media around this is banned. Here are some channels / people I’d recommend for various insights: - Military and Foreign Affairs network (former American tank operator) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DH6i0fJHLHw https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DH6i0fJHLHw - The Duran (two Greeks, former attorneys and part of ambassador families) https://rumble.com/c/theduran https://rumble.com/c/theduran - Patrick Lancaster (crowd funded American journalist embedded with DPK militia) https://m.youtube.com/c/PatrickLancasterNewsToday https://m.youtube.com/c/PatrickLancasterNewsToday - obviously the CNN, MSNBC, and other three letter news agencies There’s others, but those are some decent alternatives to get a general idea what’s going on.
- YZF 4y ago
  The war isn't over because Putin doesn't care what the costs are. It's not sustainable though. Ukraine will keep fighting and the west will keep supporting it. What are Russia's options? So sure, not decisively defeated. It's not like the entire Russian army was wiped out and Ukrainians are marching in Moscow. But still defeated for all intents and purposes and all around loss (world status, material etc.). This has got to be the dumbest war ever.
  - lettergram 4y ago
    > What are Russia's options? My prediction is that they’re going to take the Russian speaking portions of the country as they originally laid out. That’s effective up to the middle of the country. If Ukraine keeps fighting they may take Odessa and leave Ukraine without a sea port. That’s something like 60-70% of Ukraine’s GDP btw. Russians have already captured 30% of Ukrainian GDP. I don’t think that’s a loss by any measure. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ukrainian_subdivisions_by_GDP_per_capita https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ukrainian_subdivisio... Wars typically last years, I don’t put much stock into 90 days of conflict. Already 20% of Ukraine is taken, most of its armaments destroyed, Russia has been targeting the west’s attempts to rearm. > all around loss (world status, material etc Russia is making more money than ever. They’re also looking to expand BRICS with China. https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-says-it-wants-expand-brics-bloc-emerging-economies-2022-05-19/ https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-says-it-wants-expa... > This has got to be the dumbest war ever. For whom? I don’t think any war is good, by definition it reduces both sides ability to produce and trade (ie hurting everyone). That said, the Russians have their objectives and clearly thought it worth while. It’s dangerous to underestimate and not understand the motivations of an enemy.