4 ms·

I'm playing the devil's advocate now, but: - economically Russia has been doing surprisingly well since the war started. The EU sanctions drove the gas price t

I'm playing the devil's advocate now, but: - economically Russia has been doing surprisingly well since the war started. The EU sanctions drove the gas price through the roof last year so Russia could make billions selling it to countries like India and China - the earlier invasion of the Crimea went pretty smoothly and there were hardly any repercussions - one of Putin's arguments for starting the war, was that it was to stop the Nato from expanding towards its borders. This argument is not new, Russia also brought it up in 2008 when there was talk about Georgia joining Nato. At that time Russia was able to succesfully overthrow the Georgian government and invade it for a 'peace mission'. So why not do the same thing again? (This one backfired badly to Putin of course, with Finland and probably also Sweden joining Nato)

Etherlord87 3y ago
> - economically Russia has been doing surprisingly well since the war started. The EU sanctions drove the gas price through the roof last year so Russia could make billions selling it to countries like India and China The counter argument to that seems so obvious I'm surprised I have to write it down: If you're a government official and pass a law that in a month a cinema will be demolished - the cinema is going to increase its revenue a lot in that month. There are multiple reasons why, for example: 1) People who planned to go to a cinema two months later have to go there sooner. russian resources are cheap, and so people rushed to buy them BEFORE the sanctions will in effect. 2) The cinema might be selling popcorn cheaper in order to sell all its stock. Plus it's not buying new resources for the following months, so operation costs lower. In case of russia, they were incentivized to sell the resources cheaply; this doesn't necessarily mean cheaper than before, but normally at a surge of demand you increase prizes and that didn't happen here. Understanding this is just a temporary surge, and moreover, the trade might fall down considerably below the before-surge times, russia likely scaled its resource industry down, not up. So it was good for russia in the short term, but everyone, even in russia that is full of propaganda, recognized hard times are coming. > - the earlier invasion of the Crimea went pretty smoothly and there were hardly any repercussions Look at the history of USD to RUB exchange. > - one of Putin's arguments for starting the war, was that it was to stop the Nato from expanding towards its borders. This argument is not new, Russia also brought it up in 2008 when there was talk about Georgia joining Nato. Georgia has an order of magnitude smaller population than Ukraine. I think what's even more important is size and logistical problems. Was it really so hard to see that before the war?
- misja111 3y ago
  Again, I'm not in any way defending Putin's actions. But unfortunately your view on the state of the Russian economy doesn't match reality. According to IMF, in 2023, so one year after the invasion, it grew by 3%. And the IMF forecast for 2024 is 2.6% growth. Not many countries in the EU or even the US can match those figures. See e.g. https://www.ft.com/content/21a5be9c-afaa-495f-b7af-cf937093144d https://www.ft.com/content/21a5be9c-afaa-495f-b7af-cf9370931...
  - Etherlord87 3y ago
    I didn't have an impression you're defending russia, I was just making cold arguments. As per your latest argument: I'm not an economist, but isn't it the case that "war boosts economy" because military spending counts towards GDP? Isn't it a broken window fallacy? I'd think everyone by now understands war is terrible for economy long-term, unless the spoils of war are worth it. There's also a matter of "creative accounting" typical for immoral regimes. Could you explain to me just *how* would russian economy thrive despite hundreds of thousands of people dying, contracts cancelled, resources being sold for less to China and India and with a mass emigration of intellectual workforce outside of the country? Some things come to mind: - prisoners sent to war dying and therefore less upkeep costs for prisons - people willing to pay higher taxes for war efforts, be paid less, pay higher prices for products... In general the war justifying exploitation of people. In first case, I'm skeptical this could grant significant savings, as well as I wonder: if it was beneficial, why wouldn't a member of the empire of evil not just kill the prisoners en masse - and if the answer is that it would cause a civil unrest, then maybe we're going to see such anyway - which will yet cause some damage in future. In second case I wonder: is hardship good for your society? "Hard times create strong men", but on the other hand easy times generate sensitive men; it's hard to be an intellectual if you struggle to satisfy the bottom of Maslow's triangle. And as I already mentioned: some people simply escape to a country that grants them a higher standard of life.
    - misja111 3y ago
      Just so we're on the same page: the article I linked is from the Financial Times, and it's quoting a report from the IMF. There is no creative accounting here. For sure there could be creative accounting when the Russian government publishes figures, and indeed those figures are even higher than the ones mentioned by the IMF. About your other points: I'm not sure why you're mentioning them if you already knew that I'm not defending Russia. I'm against their war, against their government and against how they are treating people, including their own. On the other hand, this is no excuse to close your eyes to reality. The EU sanctions that were supposed to hurt the Russian economy, ideally by so much that support for the war would stop, don't have the desired effect. In fact they might even have boosted the Russian economy at some point, and also they are driving Russia into the arms of China.

Etherlord87 3y ago

> - economically Russia has been doing surprisingly well since the war started. The EU sanctions drove the gas price through the roof last year so Russia could make billions selling it to countries like India and China The counter argument to that seems so obvious I'm surprised I have to write it down: If you're a government official and pass a law that in a month a cinema will be demolished - the cinema is going to increase its revenue a lot in that month. There are multiple reasons why, for example: 1) People who planned to go to a cinema two months later have to go there sooner. russian resources are cheap, and so people rushed to buy them BEFORE the sanctions will in effect. 2) The cinema might be selling popcorn cheaper in order to sell all its stock. Plus it's not buying new resources for the following months, so operation costs lower. In case of russia, they were incentivized to sell the resources cheaply; this doesn't necessarily mean cheaper than before, but normally at a surge of demand you increase prizes and that didn't happen here. Understanding this is just a temporary surge, and moreover, the trade might fall down considerably below the before-surge times, russia likely scaled its resource industry down, not up. So it was good for russia in the short term, but everyone, even in russia that is full of propaganda, recognized hard times are coming. > - the earlier invasion of the Crimea went pretty smoothly and there were hardly any repercussions Look at the history of USD to RUB exchange. > - one of Putin's arguments for starting the war, was that it was to stop the Nato from expanding towards its borders. This argument is not new, Russia also brought it up in 2008 when there was talk about Georgia joining Nato. Georgia has an order of magnitude smaller population than Ukraine. I think what's even more important is size and logistical problems. Was it really so hard to see that before the war?

misja111 3y ago
Again, I'm not in any way defending Putin's actions. But unfortunately your view on the state of the Russian economy doesn't match reality. According to IMF, in 2023, so one year after the invasion, it grew by 3%. And the IMF forecast for 2024 is 2.6% growth. Not many countries in the EU or even the US can match those figures. See e.g. https://www.ft.com/content/21a5be9c-afaa-495f-b7af-cf937093144d https://www.ft.com/content/21a5be9c-afaa-495f-b7af-cf9370931...
- Etherlord87 3y ago
  I didn't have an impression you're defending russia, I was just making cold arguments. As per your latest argument: I'm not an economist, but isn't it the case that "war boosts economy" because military spending counts towards GDP? Isn't it a broken window fallacy? I'd think everyone by now understands war is terrible for economy long-term, unless the spoils of war are worth it. There's also a matter of "creative accounting" typical for immoral regimes. Could you explain to me just *how* would russian economy thrive despite hundreds of thousands of people dying, contracts cancelled, resources being sold for less to China and India and with a mass emigration of intellectual workforce outside of the country? Some things come to mind: - prisoners sent to war dying and therefore less upkeep costs for prisons - people willing to pay higher taxes for war efforts, be paid less, pay higher prices for products... In general the war justifying exploitation of people. In first case, I'm skeptical this could grant significant savings, as well as I wonder: if it was beneficial, why wouldn't a member of the empire of evil not just kill the prisoners en masse - and if the answer is that it would cause a civil unrest, then maybe we're going to see such anyway - which will yet cause some damage in future. In second case I wonder: is hardship good for your society? "Hard times create strong men", but on the other hand easy times generate sensitive men; it's hard to be an intellectual if you struggle to satisfy the bottom of Maslow's triangle. And as I already mentioned: some people simply escape to a country that grants them a higher standard of life.
  - misja111 3y ago
    Just so we're on the same page: the article I linked is from the Financial Times, and it's quoting a report from the IMF. There is no creative accounting here. For sure there could be creative accounting when the Russian government publishes figures, and indeed those figures are even higher than the ones mentioned by the IMF. About your other points: I'm not sure why you're mentioning them if you already knew that I'm not defending Russia. I'm against their war, against their government and against how they are treating people, including their own. On the other hand, this is no excuse to close your eyes to reality. The EU sanctions that were supposed to hurt the Russian economy, ideally by so much that support for the war would stop, don't have the desired effect. In fact they might even have boosted the Russian economy at some point, and also they are driving Russia into the arms of China.