Russia - General Discussion.

[ImperatorOrbis]

And yes, there are undoubtly cases of warcrimes in Ukraine, but that Russia wants to exterminate the Oekraïnians doesn't make sense at all.

Rusification has literally been the main policy of Russia for 500 years and many cultures were lost or are disappearing because of it.

You already have mass child abduction going on and a couple generations ago Holodomor happened so there is some sense in it.

 

[John Fedup]

Rusification has literally been the main policy of Russia for 500 years and many cultures were lost or are disappearing because of it.

You already have mass child abduction going on and a couple generations ago Holodomor happened so there is some sense in it.

The only sense is assholes subjecting their will. Holodomor is indeed a good example of that. Joe didn’t tolerate dissent, including his own military leadership. A good case could be made that these actions were counter productive. As for mass child abduction, that’s different. This is proof Russian demographics are horrible and men fleeing to the West and battlefield losses explain this action, along with the vodka problem.

 

[Rob c]

There is an old saying that "TWO WRONGS DONT MAKE A RIGHT" and that applies in this case, yes Iraq and Afghanistan were wrong in my opinion but that does not make Ukraine any less wrong. Russia should not be there at all and there should not have been any necessity for a Minsk agreement.
,

 

[Feanor]

Posts regarding general Russian topics and relations between Russia and the west, as well as historical discussion have been moved here.

 

[John Fedup]

This article seems to be good summary of the hole Putin finds himself in. He has nobody to blame but himself.

What Impact has Prigozhin's Mutiny really had on Putin?

Cipher Brief Expert and former CIA Acting Director John McLaughlin considers the impact Prigozhin's mutiny has had on the Russian President

www.thecipherbrief.com

 

[ngatimozart]

Rusification has literally been the main policy of Russia for 500 years and many cultures were lost or are disappearing because of it.

You already have mass child abduction going on and a couple generations ago Holodomor happened so there is some sense in it.

Be nice and understand that there is more than one opinion. You don't have to agree with that opinion but don't get into denigrating the individual posting it. We expect people to play nice. We have a saying in rugby, play the ball not the player.

 

[swerve]

I don't think UN will ever recognize annexed territories. Did UN ever in recent history ratify a conquest or an illegal anexation of terittory?

Define 'recent'.

China invaded Tibet. China claimed that it was recovering a rebellious province. Tibetans disagreed.

India invaded Portuguese colonies in 1961: Goa, Daman, & Diu. It occupied & annexed Sikkim in stages, starting with controlling its external affairs from Indian independence in 1947, to full annexation in 1975.

 

[contricusc]

I mentioned before, though some refuted my posts with their opinions, but it isn’t cheap in comparison to anything to keep this going. The current cost of this war (and I am talking about the last couple of years tops) is probably in trillions of actual dollars spent, as well as lost opportunities (some estimates suggest that the loss of income worldwide was as high as $2.8 trillion half a year ago because of this war: Opinion | What the War in Ukraine Has Truly Cost Us).

While the numbers may look high, they are peanuts compared to the cost of the Covid pandemic. If the world has accepted economic losses of a much higher magnitude for a flu, it will have no problem to accept the cost of this war.

Here are some estimates of the costs of Covid:

$114 trillion for the world economy:

Covid-19 has so far cost the world as much as $114-trillion — and counting

It’s tempting to rely on pure economic statistics, like GDP, to assess the damage wrought on the global economy because of the Covid-19 pandemic so far. But there are other profound health and social costs that will be clear only in five to 10 years — or even decades’ time. What do we know now...

www.dailymaverick.co.za

$14 trillion for the US economy:

The COVID-19 pandemic cost the U.S. economy $14 trillion, new research finds

At the height of the pandemic, the survey indicates that airline travel fell by nearly 60%, indoor dining by 65% and in-store shopping by 43%.

fortune.com

If you compare the costs of Covid with the costs of this war, the war has been very cheap. Just dividing the $114 trillion estimate of Covid with the $2.8 trillion estimate for the war and you get a difference of 40 times! This means that the world can afford 40 more years of this war just to equal the costs of a flu…

My point is, if people accepted such outrageous losses for a flu, they will surely accept a lot more for a war, which is a much more serious issue.

@contricusc
The COVID-19 virus is not an influenza virus and such claims by anti vaxxers and others are misinformation. Try introducing such claims on here again will result in you facing a probable permanent ban.

Ngatimozart.

 

[Morgo]

While the numbers may look high, they are peanuts compared to the cost of the Covid pandemic. If the world has accepted economic losses of a much higher magnitude for a flu, it will have no problem to accept the cost of this war.

Here are some estimates of the costs of Covid:

$114 trillion for the world economy:

Covid-19 has so far cost the world as much as $114-trillion — and counting

It’s tempting to rely on pure economic statistics, like GDP, to assess the damage wrought on the global economy because of the Covid-19 pandemic so far. But there are other profound health and social costs that will be clear only in five to 10 years — or even decades’ time. What do we know now...

www.dailymaverick.co.za

$14 trillion for the US economy:

The COVID-19 pandemic cost the U.S. economy $14 trillion, new research finds

At the height of the pandemic, the survey indicates that airline travel fell by nearly 60%, indoor dining by 65% and in-store shopping by 43%.

fortune.com

If you compare the costs of Covid with the costs of this war, the war has been very cheap. Just dividing the $114 trillion estimate of Covid with the $2.8 trillion estimate for the war and you get a difference of 40 times! This means that the world can afford 40 more years of this war just to equal the costs of a flu…

My point is, if people accepted such outrageous losses for a flu, they will surely accept a lot more for a war, which is a much more serious issue.

This is off topic but those numbers are total garbage.

Global GDP is only around $100 trillion, and the impact of COVID is somewhere between USD2trn - USD7trn on the upper end, depending on what you believe trend GDP in 2020 would have been had COVID not happened.

Global GDP 1985-2028 | Statista

 

[contricusc]

Global GDP is only around $100 trillion, and the impact of COVID is somewhere between USD2trn - USD7trn on the upper end, depending on what you believe trend GDP in 2020 would have been had COVID not happened.

Both the numbers for the economic losses caused by the war and by Covid are just calculations based on extrapolations of various things that happened which are given an economic value. My point was, the exaggerated numbers for Covid are 40 times higher than the exaggerated numbers for this war.

The truth is that the measures taken during the pandemic were affecting the economy much higher than the effects of this war which are almost intangible outside of the countries directly involved.

Anyway, while this might be a bit off-topic, my point is that societies are willing to take a lot of economic pain if they are convinced it is worth it. The economic pain caused by this war is practically nothing for the Western countries, so they could continue like that for decades without any problem.

 

[rsemmes]

While the numbers may look high, they are peanuts compared to the cost of the Covid pandemic. If the world has accepted economic losses of a much higher magnitude for a flu, it will have no problem to accept the cost of this war.
Here are some estimates of the costs of Covid:
$114 trillion for the world economy:

Covid-19 has so far cost the world as much as $114-trillion — and counting

It’s tempting to rely on pure economic statistics, like GDP, to assess the damage wrought on the global economy because of the Covid-19 pandemic so far. But there are other profound health and social costs that will be clear only in five to 10 years — or even decades’ time. What do we know now...

www.dailymaverick.co.za

$14 trillion for the US economy:

The COVID-19 pandemic cost the U.S. economy $14 trillion, new research finds

At the height of the pandemic, the survey indicates that airline travel fell by nearly 60%, indoor dining by 65% and in-store shopping by 43%.

fortune.com

If you compare the costs of Covid with the costs of this war, the war has been very cheap. Just dividing the $114 trillion estimate of Covid with the $2.8 trillion estimate for the war and you get a difference of 40 times! This means that the world can afford 40 more years of this war just to equal the costs of a flu…

My point is, if people accepted such outrageous losses for a flu, they will surely accept a lot more for a war, which is a much more serious issue.

Besides "accepting" a pandemic, what were the options?
I am no that "sure" about people.
I don't live in Poland, this is not serious and I don't think Russia is going to invade Poland; WW3 would be serious. I don't live in Sudan, either.
Next Sunday's football match is serious, for the "people". US citizens got tired of the Vietnam "Special Operation" after a while, "people".
Yes, this is way off-topic.

Maybe we could go back to Staromaiorske. I read one reference about being retaken by Russia, but then I haven't been able to find any other mention. Is it still in Ukrainian hands?

 

[KipPotapych]

While the numbers may look high, they are peanuts compared to the cost of the Covid pandemic. If the world has accepted economic losses of a much higher magnitude for a flu, it will have no problem to accept the cost of this war.

Here are some estimates of the costs of Covid:

$114 trillion for the world economy:

Covid-19 has so far cost the world as much as $114-trillion — and counting

It’s tempting to rely on pure economic statistics, like GDP, to assess the damage wrought on the global economy because of the Covid-19 pandemic so far. But there are other profound health and social costs that will be clear only in five to 10 years — or even decades’ time. What do we know now...

www.dailymaverick.co.za

$14 trillion for the US economy:

The COVID-19 pandemic cost the U.S. economy $14 trillion, new research finds

At the height of the pandemic, the survey indicates that airline travel fell by nearly 60%, indoor dining by 65% and in-store shopping by 43%.

fortune.com

If you compare the costs of Covid with the costs of this war, the war has been very cheap. Just dividing the $114 trillion estimate of Covid with the $2.8 trillion estimate for the war and you get a difference of 40 times! This means that the world can afford 40 more years of this war just to equal the costs of a flu…

Not sure what covid and flu (they are not the same) have to do with it, but since you brought it up, let’s make it relevant to the discussion and my post you replied to. Here is an excerpt from the Covid Recovery Plan for Europe: Recovery plan for Europe

The EU’s long-term budget, coupled with NextGenerationEU (NGEU), the temporary instrument designed to boost the recovery, form the largest stimulus package ever financed in Europe. A total of €2.018 trillion in current prices* are helping rebuild a post-COVID-19 Europe. It will be a greener, more digital and more resilient Europe.

The funds are being used to address the most important challenges before Europe and support those in need. In the aftermath of Russia’s aggression on Ukraine, the EU budget was mobilised to provide emergency assistance and support, in Ukraine and in the EU countries, and to alleviate the humanitarian consequences of the war.

This is budgeted for the years 2021 through 2027. As my example above outlined, they burned through a good chunk of this money (a solid guess would be about half or more by now) in a year and a half on paying subsidies on fossil fuel alone! And that was during mostly some of the warmest weather on record for the appropriate time of the year.

So yes, this war is neither peanuts nor very cheap at all, but extremely expensive, like I said, in comparison to anything, covid inclusive.

The number your article provides is pretty nuts, but someone had already mentioned it I see. I talked of no such thing and provided reality; otherwise, I could probably also find something (most) outrageous and plug a link. I prefer the former though - that is, reality.

My point is, if people accepted such outrageous losses for a flu, they will surely accept a lot more for a war, which is a much more serious issue.

Which one is more serious is highly debatable as far as most of the world is concerned. This is actually a pretty weird statement, in my opinion. But I will not discuss this any further because it has no relevance to the subject at hand.


On a different note, Yermak says Ukraine and the US started talks about security guarantees for Ukraine:

Ukraine, US start talks on security guarantees, official says

Ukraine and the United States started talks on Thursday aimed at providing security guarantees for Ukraine, President Volodymyr Zelenskiy's chief of staff said, a follow-up to pledges by G7 countries at last month's NATO summit.

www.reuters.com

 

[koxinga]

Anyway, while this might be a bit off-topic, my point is that societies are willing to take a lot of economic pain if they are convinced it is worth it. The economic pain caused by this war is practically nothing for the Western countries, so they could continue like that for decades without any problem.

The points that you highlighted, flu, pandemic, these are natural disasters, which cannot be realistically avoided.

The ability of any economy to "tolerate" those costs doesn't mean a willingness to spend. Otherwise, what is the point of governments passing yearly budgets, since technically, government can print as much money they want and their reserves as XX billion USD? It doesn't work like that.

 

[koxinga]

We also know from history that no government can fund a war effort for "decades" indefinitely, without political cost.

- Vietnam war, from US entry in 1965 to 1975 Paris Peace Accord, 10 years, depending on which source, in 2022 dollars, almost 1 trillion USD
- Afghanistan, 2001 to 2019, 2.3 trillion USD, depending on which sources
- Iraq War, 2003 - 2010, 2 - 3 trillion, depending on which sources

The Costs of Major U.S. Wars - Federation of American Scientists

U.S. military spending on the war in Iraq has nearly matched the cost of the war in Vietnam, according to a new Congressional Research Service analysis (pdf) of the financial costs of wars throughout U.S. history. And total post-9/11 U.S. military spending has exceeded the cost of Vietnam by a...

fas.org

Human and Budgetary Costs to Date of the U.S. War in Afghanistan, 2001-2022 | Figures | Costs of War

The Costs of War Project is a team of 35 scholars, legal experts, human rights practitioners, and physicians, which began its work in 2011. We use research and a public website to facilitate debate about the costs of the post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

watson.brown.edu

The Costs of War in Iraq | Costs of War

The Costs of War Project is a team of 35 scholars, legal experts, human rights practitioners, and physicians, which began its work in 2011. We use research and a public website to facilitate debate about the costs of the post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

watson.brown.edu

While Afghanistan was close to two decades of funding, that was a slow burn insurgency campaign conducted against a crafty but largely light infantry equipped foe.

Ukraine is markedly different as it is a true conventional contest between two armies and the level of intensity is high. No one has fired more artillery rounds since the WWs, nor fired more MANPADS, ATGMS, guided munitions in such a short duration. (Syria might come close, but that has also tapered off). This is also reflected in the US spend (excluding Europe) within just 1.5 years of war is more than USD 100 billion

How much money has the US given to Ukraine?

A year into the conflict, some are wondering where the money goes - and if the aid is worth the cost.

www.bbc.com

How Much Aid Has the U.S. Sent Ukraine? Here Are Six Charts.

America's billions in aid to Ukraine isn’t charity, but it can't be wasted

This op-ed by Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) and Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) first appeared in USA Today on June 2, 2023. The Ukrainian military is gearing up for a spring offensive fueled by two recent allocations from President Joe Biden totaling $675 million. We hope this funding will help Ukraine...

www.kennedy.senate.gov

 

[seaspear]

In the past N.A.T.O members budgets would have been set in consideration of the size of Russian forces , it must be considered that there might be considerations in future budgets not being stretched in such because of heavy Russian losses in material and ammunition stockpiles decades old

 

[vonnoobie]

Not sure what covid and flu (they are not the same) have to do with it, but since you brought it up, let’s make it relevant to the discussion and my post you replied to. Here is an excerpt from the Covid Recovery Plan for Europe: Recovery plan for Europe

The EU’s long-term budget, coupled with NextGenerationEU (NGEU), the temporary instrument designed to boost the recovery, form the largest stimulus package ever financed in Europe. A total of €2.018 trillion in current prices* are helping rebuild a post-COVID-19 Europe. It will be a greener, more digital and more resilient Europe.

The funds are being used to address the most important challenges before Europe and support those in need. In the aftermath of Russia’s aggression on Ukraine, the EU budget was mobilised to provide emergency assistance and support, in Ukraine and in the EU countries, and to alleviate the humanitarian consequences of the war.

This is budgeted for the years 2021 through 2027. As my example above outlined, they burned through a good chunk of this money (a solid guess would be about half or more by now) in a year and a half on paying subsidies on fossil fuel alone! And that was during mostly some of the warmest weather on record for the appropriate time of the year.

So yes, this war is neither peanuts nor very cheap at all, but extremely expensive, like I said, in comparison to anything, covid inclusive.

The number your article provides is pretty nuts, but someone had already mentioned it I see. I talked of no such thing and provided reality; otherwise, I could probably also find something (most) outrageous and plug a link. I prefer the former though - that is, reality.

The support to public and business in relation to energy prices is an entirely separate program to the COVID recovery program meaning it has its own budget so it is at best misleading if not an out right lie to claim they have burned through half or more of it on subsidies for the energy crisis.

The energy crisis program was enacted in various forms at various times from September 2021 onwards. Depending on the source (I have read a few) support from January 2021 until December/January 2022/2023 was between 758 and 792 billion euro's.

National fiscal policy responses to the energy crisis

Since that time prices for electricity, natural gas etc have exploded but also crashed.

EU: monthly electricity prices by country 2023 | Statista
EU Natural Gas - 2023 Data - 2010-2022 Historical - 2024 Forecast - Price - Quote

The conditions that caused the energy crisis in 2021/22 are not the same today, costs have fallen faster then they rose and will likely stay down if not lower for quite some time. Gas storage is at or near peak capacity, new suppliers, trade routes etc are now well established. while there will likely be an uptick in gas prices come winter it wont be nearly as severe or long lasting.

 

[contricusc]

The points that you highlighted, flu, pandemic, these are natural disasters, which cannot be realistically avoided.

Natural disasters cannot be avoided, but the economic costs incurred during the pandemic were self inflicted. The economic damage of Covid would have been very limited if countries didn’t resort to extreme measures like closing their borders and lockdowns. Most countries voluntarily shut down big parts of their economies with the only purpose being for the politicians to show they are doing something.

My point was, if the society accepted such insanity just because they were intoxicated with lies and fear mongering from the media, it could be easily convinced to accept the costs of sustaining this war as well.

The ability of any economy to "tolerate" those costs doesn't mean a willingness to spend. Otherwise, what is the point of governments passing yearly budgets, since technically, government can print as much money they want and their reserves as XX billion USD? It doesn't work like that.

It doesn’t work like that, but we are seeing an unprecedented spending spree from governments in the last few years. The debt is balooning everywhere because those yearly budgets are always much higher than the governments income. The so called “money printing“ has been abused lately, and this is why we see high inflation now. Since governments are very irresponsible when it comes to the economy, they will have no problem to spend money they don’t have to sustain a war if they think it is worth it.

 

[contricusc]

As my example above outlined, they burned through a good chunk of this money (a solid guess would be about half or more by now) in a year and a half on paying subsidies on fossil fuel alone! And that was during mostly some of the warmest weather on record for the appropriate time of the year.

The money they paid in subsidies on fossil fuel is not the cost of the war. This is money that governments spend in order to please voters by shielding them from the ups and downs of energy prices that are natural in a market economy. Since most European governments are extremely populist in nature, they didn’t allow the market forces to shape demand by allowing retail prices to reflect the economic reality of higher oil and gas prices. The subsidies are a political choice, not a necessity or a cost of the war.

The real economic cost of the war is the money spent on weapons, military training and direct economic help for Ukraine (which would continue to be needed even after the war stops). That’s why I said Europe can easily afford it.

 

[KipPotapych]

The support to public and business in relation to energy prices is an entirely separate program to the COVID recovery program meaning it has its own budget so it is at best misleading if not an out right lie to claim they have burned through half or more of it on subsidies for the energy crisis.

The energy crisis program was enacted in various forms at various times from September 2021 onwards. Depending on the source (I have read a few) support from January 2021 until December/January 2022/2023 was between 758 and 792 billion euro's.

National fiscal policy responses to the energy crisis

Since that time prices for electricity, natural gas etc have exploded but also crashed.

EU: monthly electricity prices by country 2023 | Statista
EU Natural Gas - 2023 Data - 2010-2022 Historical - 2024 Forecast - Price - Quote

The conditions that caused the energy crisis in 2021/22 are not the same today, costs have fallen faster then they rose and will likely stay down if not lower for quite some time. Gas storage is at or near peak capacity, new suppliers, trade routes etc are now well established. while there will likely be an uptick in gas prices come winter it wont be nearly as severe or long lasting.

Yes, of course. The Recovery Plan budget was simply referenced to indicate the magnitude of spending. I can see now the way I worded it wasn’t the best, sorry for the confusion. And appreciate the catch and clarification.

In regards to the price fluctuations and spikes, the risk is still significant and there was a bit of talk about it in the past couple of months. If next winter proves to be anything but “warm”, there could be trouble. They have been debating the use of UA gas storage facilities to mitigate the risks as well. Just to provide an idea (and a coveted source), a month or so old article (first relevant result Google search provided), but there are more recent and maybe better articles as well: Ukraine gas storage: EU needs more capacity – DW – 06/27/2023

The money they paid in subsidies on fossil fuel is not the cost of the war. This is money that governments spend in order to please voters by shielding them from the ups and downs of energy prices that are natural in a market economy. Since most European governments are extremely populist in nature, they didn’t allow the market forces to shape demand by allowing retail prices to reflect the economic reality of higher oil and gas prices. The subsidies are a political choice, not a necessity or a cost of the war.

The real economic cost of the war is the money spent on weapons, military training and direct economic help for Ukraine (which would continue to be needed even after the war stops). That’s why I said Europe can easily afford it.

Sorry, but this is a real economic cost of this war to any particular European nation and the Union as a whole. In fact, any money any particular individual or a group of individuals, if you will (or a government, otherwise stated), paid that they would not if the conflict didn’t exists is exactly what economic cost of this war (or any war, for that matter) is. I am not sure why some or many have difficulties with this concept. I mean it is right in the term itself that you chose to you use “economic cost of war”: the budgets need to be changed, additional spending allocated for the expenditures that weren’t planned on, the debt load has to be increased significantly, economic forecasts adjusted, both short and long term, and so on. Literally, economic costs of a conflict.

Regardless, I believe I made the point I was trying to make and it seems we are getting off topic. Agree or disagree, it is what it is. Last thing I will say on the subject is that “can easily afford it” is not true for obvious reasons, one of the main ones being the exact aforementioned economic costs are simply not sustainable. In other words, there is no separate surplus or cash reserves to pay for these costs along side of what you consider to be “real economic costs of war”, including military, financial, humanitarian, etc assistance.

OK, before I bow out for the evening, I reread your post again just to make sure I didn’t miss anything. Sorry but the entire post makes zero sense whatsoever. The most obvious example is the last sentence of the first paragraph: The subsidies are a political choice, not a necessity or a cost of the war. This is a complete… rubbish, really. The subsidies (particularly and especially in this case) are a necessity because they eliminate or, rather, reduce the severity of the shock to the economy and functioning of the society. These that you do not consider to be costs are going to have to be repaid by the same society (perhaps a different generation(s)) and in multiplied terms due to the borrowing rates. However, these subsidies allowed this society to move through, over, and forward (at least for the time being anyway because this could be debated further) because the “government” is a single entity that is large enough and has the ability to borrow this astronomical amount of money on behalf of the said society. There could be questions about the use (or redistribution) of the funds and so on, but I do believe questioning the necessity or excluding these as costs is simply silly.


Anyway, I forgot what I came to actually post, lol. One bit is that Politico reported that a few Ukrainian pilots are ready to begin the F-16 training: Eight Ukrainian pilots ready to train on F-16s. The article states that there are only 8 pilots that are currently ready to go through the training because they are fluent in English. There are about 20 more that are ready to start English courses in the UK and the article hints that this might be the actual meaning of the start of the “F-16 training” that Zelensky referred to because there was no drafts/proposals by any participating nations that had yet been submitted to the US for approval, which is a process on its own. The total number of pilots they are aiming for and that are currently suitable is 32, according to the article. Not sure what to make of this bit:

U.S. officials insist the F-16s are for the yearslong defense of Ukraine, to make Russia think twice about enhancing its invasion of the country.

 

[rsemmes]

Natural disasters cannot be avoided, but the economic costs incurred during the pandemic were self inflicted. The economic damage of Covid would have been very limited if countries didn’t resort to extreme measures like closing their borders and lockdowns. Most countries voluntarily shut down big parts of their economies with the only purpose being for the politicians to show they are doing something.

My point was, if the society accepted such insanity just because they were intoxicated with lies and fear mongering from the media, it could be easily convinced to accept the costs of sustaining this war as well.

It doesn’t work like that, but we are seeing an unprecedented spending spree from governments in the last few years. The debt is balooning everywhere because those yearly budgets are always much higher than the governments income. The so called “money printing“ has been abused lately, and this is why we see high inflation now. Since governments are very irresponsible when it comes to the economy, they will have no problem to spend money they don’t have to sustain a war if they think it is worth it.

Are you wearing a tinfoil hat? I am only saying that, because one of my dates was saying just that and she was proud of her tinfoil hat.

Remember the Maine! Yes, you can sell a lot of things. We don't know what could have happen, we only know what actually happened. On the other hand, you could look at death's statistics to see what happened, like with heatwaves.