John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Great article that is spot on IMHO. Sadly, political leadership in the West is mostly missing and the finances of some NATO members are poor, Canada being one of the worst in both categories.
Russia - General Discussion.
- Thread starter Feanor
- Start date
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
While I greatly enjoy Prof. Bronk’s articles and trust his expertise, I disagree with his assessment of the situation. Rather disagree with some of it. Also remember, this is just one guy’s assessment. Yes, there are others who assess the current state of affairs similarly. However, their main argument is for the European continent to arm itself accordingly to deter Russia. No one is arguing that there is an inevitable conflict that is going to happen if Europe continues in the manner it had been. This is just common sense and anyone who argues against the appropriate deterrence is either not serious or simply doesn’t understand the concept of how the world (unfortunately) works.
I will again ask here, has there ever been any indication that the Russians Federation has an ambition to attack or capture any land every inch of which is currently covered by the Treaty? I believe the answer to this question is a no; however, it is a work of strategists to plan for such an event and ideally prevent it, which why he is talking about deterrence in case someone gets any ideas in the future (as you suggested, things aren’t static). This, however, is not relevant here because the proposal in my previous post was that there exists an uncertainty that the NATO membership being a sufficient enough deterrent to a potential attack by a hostile state and Russia in particular. This is further supported by the argument Prof. Bronk puts forward. Furthermore, as Biden and other mostly American politicians suggest, this uncertainty exists even with full readiness and involvement of the United States in the potential conflict.
Therefore, what I was and am suggesting is that the insistence on the admission of Ukraine to the Alliance in order to provide a bombproof (pun not intended) security for the country is at the very least misleading and otherwise outright dangerous. The latter has been clearly proven by the recent past and ongoing present. This insistence, based on the faulty argument behind it, again, led to a great conflict and otherwise destabilised the entire world. I mean this isn’t even debatable at the moment as it was accepted by all sides, including Ukraine, that that was the main reason for the current events. We can argue about it till our noses bleed, but I am fairly certain that the facts are on my side of that debate.
Furthermore, this very conflict led to the very argument Prof. Bronk is making, proposing that Russia may not stop at Ukraine and continue its opportunistic aggression trying “to seize symbolic areas of Alliance territory and challenge Article 5 without effective military recourse in the coming years.”
He also argues that any negotiated ceasefire would not last because Russia would take this opportunity to regroup and fix the logistics issues and resume its offensive from a much stronger position. While I do not necessarily disagree with this, the timeline of 3 to 6 months that he mentions is not realistic. His comparison to Syria and Chechnya is not appropriate either. In fact, he is referring to Chechnya as country and that is conceptually false because Chechnya was never one and neither was Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. I would also suggest a counter argument at this point (which I already mentioned previously in the other thread): Russia is not likely to agree to a ceasefire, in my opinion, but some negotiated permanent settlement of the conflict in order to end it to their satisfaction. Furthermore, I would also argue that at this point it would be more beneficial to Ukraine to take a pause and regroup, rest the troops, wait for more military assistance to arrive, give us (the backers) more time to work out the production and procurement issues of the artillery munitions and other ammunition/equipment, and so on. Russia doesn’t currently have any of this issues to the extent that Ukraine suffers from; it also has initiative at many (most or all?) areas of the front, it currently has an upper hand which it may very well hold on to for the foreseeable future, etc. Therefore, the proposal of a ceasefire to greatly benefit the Russians today is nonsense, with all due respect to Prof. Bronk. You can probably add to this point that just recently Ukraine has achieved in over 6 months what they planned to do in one day of their offensive - I don’t care who you are, but no one recovers from this quickly and I don’t even need to mention the equipment and personnel losses. In addition, they are now switching to defense for the most part for which they aren’t necessarily ready. It is just a very weak argument to suggest that Russia would be a great benefactor of any ceasefire right now. I am actually quite surprised that he proposed it in the first place. I was going to provide a summary to the following article later today, but I guess this is a good place to mention it:
Kyiv’s forces are now digging in for what could be an extended period of just trying to stop any more Russian advances. Western diplomats and military strategists say a depleted Ukraine needs time to rebuild, and that it may not be able to mount another significant counteroffensive until 2025.
Troubled by a Resurgent Russia and Bickering Allies, Ukraine Hunkers Down
Kyiv is preparing for adversity on many fronts as doubts build over the prospect of more U.S. arms and EU money.
www.wsj.com
So yes, I believe this was a very poor reasoning on his part.
I agree with him entirely that “Russian aims have hardened, but not changed and Kremlin’s will to grind on can be seen in its clear preparations for a long war and continued offensive action […]”. This is pretty clear and I talked about it in the other thread as well: the best chance Ukraine had was negations last year. Well, the better chance, I believe, was before the invasion even began. The next best chance was to negotiate after the “lightning” counteroffensive last fall. That didn’t happen. The stakes are significantly higher now and the “investment” from Russia is quite immense into this war; hence, it would be illogical to assume that they would agree to anything remotely close to what they would in the beginning and while having an upper hand as they do currently and I do not believe that there is much can be done to reverse the situation and significantly so. I really do not believe that the Russians will stop until there is a more or less (and likely more) permanent resolution. It would make no sense for them to do so.
Prof. Bronk also states that “what little disagreement is visible in Russian political and media circles is largely over how rather than whether to continue the war, with many critics calling for greater escalation or even direct conflict with NATO.” This, again, supports my argument that NATO membership does not guarantee security and very specifically so in case of Ukraine.
Another thing Prof. Bronk mentioned is that the current level of Russian investment into their military is very sustainable for the foreseeable future and he put the number at 6.5% of the GDP for 2024. While this is true, the Ukrainian 2024 defence budget is planned at 20.4% of the GDP that is 10 times smaller.
Ukraine plans big rise in defence spending in 2024 draft budget
The number they are providing is likely significantly lower and probably does not include direct military aid from the partners. They are also expecting a budget deficit of $43 billion in 2024 (significantly more than 25% of their GDP).
Will Western aid plug Ukraine's gaping budget deficit in 2024?
So sustainment is a very relative term here. Note that the article also indicates that “Ukraine spends all its revenue on the defence sector and army, while budget sector overheads have been largely covered by Western aid.”
Not sure if there is anything else I did not address from his article at this point. One other note to make, Prof. Bronk’s assessment regrading the not if but how to continue the war and some critics calling for escalation with NATO suggests, and this for some reason seems counterintuitive to many, that we are better off with Putin at the helm for as long as possible at this point. Incidentally, and “unexpectedly”, Putin announced he would be running for president again next year, lol.
Putin sends message to world with 'spontaneous' election announcement
So, Vivendi, to use your language, I would suggest that you find an article that actually counters my proposals or bring forward your own ideas and then get back to us/me? Haha. Seriously though…
NATO membership in itself is not a sufficient enough deterrent, but no NATO membership is sure to make small East European states, in particular the Baltics, easy preys for Russia.
NATO is not just a treaty it's also sharing military technology and upgrading to the most modern weaponry.
Now everything depends on the credibility of NATO. If NATO loses in Ukraine (because Ukraine became a challenge for NATO) or if the West gives up the war effort in Ukraine and let Russia win, Putin may think that the Baltics are ripe for another Special Military Operation.
He could bet that, despite being in NATO, the various countries in the alliance will be reluctant to go fully at war against Russia to defend these peripheral territories.
In Russia, the EU is seen as deeply decadent, presiding on gay parades instead of military parade and therefore unable to fire a single bullet without the help of the Americans. It's important to oppose this image and in this respect, to show that we are able to counter the Russian army, to show resolve.
The EU, it's true, needs to seriously wake up.
Ukraine's NATO membership is irrelevant now. There won't be any talk of membership as long as the conflict is ongoing. However cooperation with NATO will only grow stronger and closer as the conflict extends. I think that the recent events show that NOT BEING in NATO is not a guarantee that a country won't be invaded by Russia.
About negotiations with Russia on ceasefire or more permanent resolution: This is very difficult to imagine how they could start while Russia is firing cruise missiles and Shahed drones daily on the entire territory of Ukraine.
Not just once in a while but daily. And not just the front line, but Odessa, Kiev, Ivano-Frankyvsk, etc.
If Russia was striking strictly the frontline, one could think that the territories along the frontline could be up to negotiations as it was in 2013.
The way it is now, it's irealistic because Ukraine is in survival mode. I mean physical survival.
I will try to explain: If a burglar enter you home at night and you catch him red handed, you can still offer him to give back what he stole and escape, and both of you will avoid physical contact. But if 3 guys burst into your home and start shooting at you immediately, you don't have much possibility for talking. And your only way out is firing with your hand gun if you have one.
This is the situation Ukraine is right now. What could they negotiate? Stopping cruise missile attacks? That's ridiculous.
Everything depends on what Putin will do. IMO Ukrainians will start taking immediately and could give up the Donbass and Crimea (despite what Zelensky is saying) if Putin decides to stop, at the very least, aerial attacks and multiple rocket fires. IMO this is the bare minimum.
After that, yes, there is the hanging question of Putin rebuilding his forces to attack one more time. But, this is also the case with Ukraine. Ukraine will be far better prepared one or two years after the ceasefire than Russia will. And it will be suicide for Russia to try again. The time to rebuild forces plays in Ukraine's advantage IMO. But this is only possible if Russia stops firing at Urkaine.
Russia declared NATO an enemy several back in 2008 (or was it even earlier). Russia has been launching cyber-attacks against several NATO countries for many years. Russia has also made it clear that they consider several NATO countries to be part of the Russian empire. It seems quite clear they have an ambition to expand their empire into countries like the Baltics. However so far NATO deterrence has worked out quite well, and Russia has been deterred from launching attacks on any NATO country. We need to keep it that way.
The war in Ukraine is about expanding Russia's territories, according to a statement given by Putin in 2022. Putin undermined his own rationale for invading Ukraine, saying that the war is to expand Russian territory (yahoo.com)
Of course, just as Russia claimed on February 21 that they had absolutely no intention of launching a full-scale invasion of Ukraine (i.e., they lied about it) they will of course not admit if/when they are going to launch an attack on the Baltics. Although some Russian officials are not mincing words sometimes. Kremlin Official Openly Calls For ‘Return’ of Baltic States Using ‘Russian Weapons’ (kyivpost.com)
NATO is not perfect but it's the best we've got. The more European countries in NATO the better. Hopefully Sweden will join early next year, it will make it easier to stabilize the Baltic region and deter from Russian aggression in the region.
Ukraine obviously cannot join until the war ends, but after the war they should join, their contributions to NATO will be significant, once the war ends and they rebuild their economy while moving in a less corrupt and more democratic direction. All that is still into the future, probably 20 years or more.
Dara Massicot, an analyst that I rate very highly, has concluded that given the current situation and possible future development it's her duty to provide a warning to "those making choices on security assistance to Ukraine". Recommended reading. I think she is spot-on.
Thread by @MassDara on Thread Reader App
The same, but on Twitter (if the link above does not work):
Thread by @MassDara on Thread Reader App
The same, but on Twitter (if the link above does not work):
@Vivendi I fully agree with her. However I don't think that Russians feel that overconfident at the moment and even in the case they win in Ukraine. Because their losses is way above what they expected. Their result on the ground too. And when the full extent of their losses will be known, they will feel even worse.
And this while NATO hasn't fired a single bullet at Russia.
The truth is that if we give up now in a short-minded fashion, the effect will be devastating. It's high time Europe spend a bit more than 1.8% of GDP in military expenditures.
And this while NATO hasn't fired a single bullet at Russia.
The truth is that if we give up now in a short-minded fashion, the effect will be devastating. It's high time Europe spend a bit more than 1.8% of GDP in military expenditures.
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
Ekaterina Duntsova was disqualified from running as a presidential candidate in the March election in Russia.
Members of the central electoral commission voted unanimously to reject her candidacy, citing "numerous violations" in the papers she had submitted in support of her bid.
Putin's critics said the decision showed that no one with genuine opposition views would be allowed to stand against him next March in the first presidential election since the start of the 22-month war. They see it as a fake process with only one possible outcome.
To be fair, only one outcome is possible here whether she runs or not: Putin will be elected and my guess is he will get somewhere between 75 and 80% (could be more, but that would be my minimal guess) in fair-run elections, if such thing existed. This is my personal opinion.
There is another candidate that is still to submit his papers, so we are yet to see what happens with him:
In a separate development, Russian news outlets said Boris Nadezhdin, an opposition politician who has been critical of Putin and the war, was put forward as a candidate on Saturday by the centre-right Civic Initiative party. They said he planned to register with the electoral commission on Dec. 25.
Here is an interesting tidbit: often, if not always, when someone in Russia runs against Putin, they are presumed to be a “Kremlin project” in order to provide a sense of competition and this case wasn’t an exception:
When Duntsova said last month that she wanted to stand, commentators had variously described her as crazy, brave, or part of a Kremlin-scripted plan to create the appearance of competition.
Of course, this Reuters article should be taken with high degree of caution because it cites an unnamed Russian news outlet (second quote above), as well as references to TASS:
Meanwhile the Communist Party, which has finished a distant second to Putin at every election since 2000, named 75-year-old Nikolai Kharitonov as its candidate.
Kharitonov stood previously in 2004 and won 14% of the vote to Putin's 71%. TASS news agency quoted him as saying he would not find fault with the Kremlin leader.
"He is responsible for his own cycle of work, why would I criticise him?" Kharitonov said.
Here is another funny part re Russian elections:
One of the nominal opposition parties in parliament, the A Just Russia - For Truth party, said on Saturday it would support Putin at the election, state news agency RIA reported.
Caution again should be taken here because they are citing RIA. One would think Reuters is a reliable outlet (it is!), but citing three various Russian news organizations and one of them is completely bonkers (RIA), should make one wonder (it shouldn’t!).
Source:
Members of the central electoral commission voted unanimously to reject her candidacy, citing "numerous violations" in the papers she had submitted in support of her bid.
Putin's critics said the decision showed that no one with genuine opposition views would be allowed to stand against him next March in the first presidential election since the start of the 22-month war. They see it as a fake process with only one possible outcome.
To be fair, only one outcome is possible here whether she runs or not: Putin will be elected and my guess is he will get somewhere between 75 and 80% (could be more, but that would be my minimal guess) in fair-run elections, if such thing existed. This is my personal opinion.
There is another candidate that is still to submit his papers, so we are yet to see what happens with him:
In a separate development, Russian news outlets said Boris Nadezhdin, an opposition politician who has been critical of Putin and the war, was put forward as a candidate on Saturday by the centre-right Civic Initiative party. They said he planned to register with the electoral commission on Dec. 25.
Here is an interesting tidbit: often, if not always, when someone in Russia runs against Putin, they are presumed to be a “Kremlin project” in order to provide a sense of competition and this case wasn’t an exception:
When Duntsova said last month that she wanted to stand, commentators had variously described her as crazy, brave, or part of a Kremlin-scripted plan to create the appearance of competition.
Of course, this Reuters article should be taken with high degree of caution because it cites an unnamed Russian news outlet (second quote above), as well as references to TASS:
Meanwhile the Communist Party, which has finished a distant second to Putin at every election since 2000, named 75-year-old Nikolai Kharitonov as its candidate.
Kharitonov stood previously in 2004 and won 14% of the vote to Putin's 71%. TASS news agency quoted him as saying he would not find fault with the Kremlin leader.
"He is responsible for his own cycle of work, why would I criticise him?" Kharitonov said.
Here is another funny part re Russian elections:
One of the nominal opposition parties in parliament, the A Just Russia - For Truth party, said on Saturday it would support Putin at the election, state news agency RIA reported.
Caution again should be taken here because they are citing RIA. One would think Reuters is a reliable outlet (it is!), but citing three various Russian news organizations and one of them is completely bonkers (RIA), should make one wonder (it shouldn’t!).
Source:
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
Here is an interesting article discussing the effect of sanctions on the Russian industry and the auto industry in particular. Customary caution should be taken because .ru.
Via Google translate:
Two years after the imposition of sanctions, half of Russian car factories are still idle. Although almost all sites that once belonged to foreign automakers have successfully changed ownership, this has not helped much in relaunching them. Car production in Russia in 2023 significantly lagged behind demand, which is recovering quickly.
At the time of the outbreak of hostilities in Ukraine, there were 21 large automobile plants operating in Russia, which produced a wide range of models in all segments, from mass to premium. Including ten sites were controlled by automakers from countries later recognized as “unfriendly”, and six more factories, including AvtoVAZ and Avtotor, assembled models from such manufacturers.
By the time sanctions and restrictions were introduced, car factories were at different stages: some had already managed to recoup their investments in the Russian Federation, while others, like Mercedes or Avtotor with a site for BMW, had not. The sanctions led to the suspension of almost all production for some time, even the assembly of the domestic Lada. The production of Russian models soon resumed, and almost all of the empty sites of foreign players were subsequently acquired by local investors. However, it was possible to establish machine production at these factories only in isolated cases.
Almost two years after the outbreak of hostilities in Ukraine, half of the 22 automobile plants (including Motorinvest, launched in the fall of 2022) are still idle. The volume of car production in the Russian Federation is now much lower than the level of the previous crises of 2009–2010 and 2015–2016, although car sales in the country, taking into account imports, had already reached the level of 2016 by the end of 2023 […]
This is a pretty clear example of the effect of sanctions and “western expertise” leaving the country. One might winder how this affected other industries.
Via Google translate:
Two years after the imposition of sanctions, half of Russian car factories are still idle. Although almost all sites that once belonged to foreign automakers have successfully changed ownership, this has not helped much in relaunching them. Car production in Russia in 2023 significantly lagged behind demand, which is recovering quickly.
At the time of the outbreak of hostilities in Ukraine, there were 21 large automobile plants operating in Russia, which produced a wide range of models in all segments, from mass to premium. Including ten sites were controlled by automakers from countries later recognized as “unfriendly”, and six more factories, including AvtoVAZ and Avtotor, assembled models from such manufacturers.
By the time sanctions and restrictions were introduced, car factories were at different stages: some had already managed to recoup their investments in the Russian Federation, while others, like Mercedes or Avtotor with a site for BMW, had not. The sanctions led to the suspension of almost all production for some time, even the assembly of the domestic Lada. The production of Russian models soon resumed, and almost all of the empty sites of foreign players were subsequently acquired by local investors. However, it was possible to establish machine production at these factories only in isolated cases.
Almost two years after the outbreak of hostilities in Ukraine, half of the 22 automobile plants (including Motorinvest, launched in the fall of 2022) are still idle. The volume of car production in the Russian Federation is now much lower than the level of the previous crises of 2009–2010 and 2015–2016, although car sales in the country, taking into account imports, had already reached the level of 2016 by the end of 2023 […]
This is a pretty clear example of the effect of sanctions and “western expertise” leaving the country. One might winder how this affected other industries.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Probably but relocating workers might be an obstacle depending on how far apart auto and military plants are.
Atomic Warrior
New Member
If the US provides less or no military aid to Ukraine, it could impact Ukraine's ability to defend itself against Russian aggression, obviously. Here are some thoughts I have on the impact of reduced aid or a cut off of aid from US will have on Ukraine:As conflicts rage overseas, a divided Congress struggles to meet historic global challenges:
As conflicts rage overseas, a divided Congress struggles to meet historic global challenges
Congress is not expected to return for two weeks while continued aid for Ukraine has nearly been exhausted. Still, congressional leaders are trying to rally members to address global challenges they say are among the most difficult in decades.www.pbs.org
Ukraine aid particularly militarily seems to be on a knifes edge. This could dramatically change the dynamics in the Ukraine war saddly.
1. **Limited Training:** A reduction in aid could effect the preparedness and training of Ukrainian military, diminishing their effectiveness on the battlefield.
2. **Financial Strain:** Military operations are expensive. Reduced aid might force Ukraine to divert more of its limited resources to defense, potentially affecting other critical areas such as infrastructure, economy, and social services. Should be noted Ukraine hasn't entirly mobilized its population nor is its economy in a complex war footing either.
3. **Decreased Deterrence:** Advanced military capabilities act as a deterrent. If Ukraine's military strength is compromised, it may embolden Russia, escalating the conflict and diminishing the prospects for a diplomatic resolution.
In summary, less or no more military aid from the US will prolonging the conflict and increasing the human and economic toll on Ukraine.
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
I haven’t seen any discussion worth mentioning in regard to the subject. I guess like John Fedup mentioned, likely depends on the location of the previous place of employment. I know of a few auto factories’ locations and a few MIC related plants, but definitely not enough to speculate on the subject.
Having said that, unemployment rate in Russia is at all time low, hovering around 2.9% and trending downwards (ie, expected to fall further), so all those people must be finding employment they are satisfied with. There is a problem of shortage of workers from what I read over the past year or two, which is also and especially true for the MIC (I believe I posted about it previously in this thread). I guess, a few hundred thousands at the front and in reserves, as well as however many people leaving the country after the invasion, would partially (or mainly?) explain such a problem.
Source for the unemployment rate:
Russia Unemployment Rate
Unemployment Rate in Russia remained unchanged at 2.40 percent in July. This page provides - Russia Unemployment Rate - actual values, historical data, forecast, chart, statistics, economic calendar and news.
tradingeconomics.com
Atomic Warrior
New Member
I can't imagine we could even come close to true number of people who have fled Russia since their mobilization for the war against Ukraine. Any numbers that we have to work with are from Russia which are obviously falsified.
BUT I am hearing that Russia is putting out flyers in predominantly rich or wealthy districts or cities within Russia for recruitment to the military. It would be similar if the United States were to put up recruitments flyers up in the cities or towns of say Martha's Vinyard or Key West Florida. Which shows how desperate Russia is to recruit people.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #2,376
Well... that's one possible explanation. Another is that some agency has a contract to put up flyers, and the bigger the area they can cover, the more they get paid. So they paste them all over the place including places where it makes no sense. I don't know which neighborhoods you're referring too so if you could provide context that would be helpful.
On a side note, Russia is definitely trying hard to recruit more people. But currently it doesn't appear Russia is desperate for manpower. Russia is on the offensive in multiple areas.
Atomic Warrior
New Member
Follow up on my comment:
- YouTube
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
youtube.com
Atomic Warrior
New Member
Yes in my post above I gave the source in which I found or read these flyers being put up in relatively wealthy Russian cities. Without much doubt of their validity.
Edit: As the source of the flyers are coming directly from the Russian government nor any denial from Russian government of the flyers as the information/flyers came from them as repetitive as that sounds seems to be true...
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #2,379
This is messy. Russia currently has a shrinking population due to low birth rates and high mortality. Russian population could have shrank by 600k in the past ~2 years all by itself with nobody leaving. And of course many people have left the country. Hundreds of thousands is probably right in my opinion. Russia is currently ramping up production of many defense goods and having to do some import-replacement manufacturing. Shortages of skilled workers in significant industries are to be expected, and low overall unemployment makes sense. How much of it is due to people being in uniform, how much due to population leaving, and how much due to general poor demographics is unclear but I suspect all 3 are significant contributing factors.
This clarifies it but doesn't support your assertion. Nizhniy Novgorod is a city of 1.2 million. He quotes it as having an unemployment rate of 4.7% (1.8% higher then the 2.9% national rate cited above). If both figures are accurate it actually has unusually high unemployment. You'll notice they're offering salaries of 250k roubles per month. Rosstat has the average salaries in Moscow at 110k roubles. In Nizhegorodskaya region it's 48k. So they're offering 5 times the regional average salary in posters in a city of 1.2 million people. Nizhniy Novgorod certainly isn't the equivalent of San Francisco (center of the Bay Area, one of the most expensive cities in the world, massive tech industries based in and around the city) like the video says. It most certainly is not Martha's Vineyard as you are claiming. That assertion is ridiculous.Follow up on my comment:
- YouTube
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
Зарплата в России в 2023 году: средние значения по регионам и городам
Разница между доходами жителей страны всегда была важной темой для обсуждения. Какова средняя зарплата в России в 2023 году по городам и регионам и в какой отрасли лучше работать, рассказывает "КП"
www.kp.ru
Средняя зарплата в России в 2024 году: данные Росстата по годам и регионам
Официальные данные Росстата по средней зарплате в 2024 году - по месяцам, по кварталам. Описание методики расчета средней заработной платы.
gogov.ru
Last edited:
Atomic Warrior
New Member
Your right. I got the facts misconstrued. I only vaguely remember watching that video the other day. But remember looking through the sources he posted. It may not be Martha's Vineyard, **but it is telling**. Thank you for your clarification of my assertion earlier. I have no problem admiting I was wrong.This is messy. Russia currently has a shrinking population due to low birth rates and high mortality. Russian population could have shrank by 600k in the past ~2 years all by itself with nobody leaving. And of course many people have left the country. Hundreds of thousands is probably right in my opinion. Russia is currently ramping up production of many defense goods and having to do some import-replacement manufacturing. Shortages of skilled workers in significant industries are to be expected, and low overall unemployment makes sense. How much of it is due to people being in uniform, how much due to population leaving, and how much due to general poor demographics is unclear but I suspect all 3 are significant contributing factors.
This clarifies it but doesn't support your assertion. Nizhniy Novgorod is a city of 1.2 million. He quotes it as having an unemployment rate of 4.7% (1.8% higher then the 2.9% national rate cited above). If both figures are accurate it actually has unusually high unemployment. You'll notice they're offering salaries of 250k roubles per month. Rosstat has the average salaries in Moscow at 110k roubles. In Nizhegorodskaya region it's 48k. So they're offering 5 times the regional average salary in posters in a city of 1.2 million people. Nizhniy Novgorod certainly isn't the equivalent of San Francisco (center of the Bay Area, one of the most expensive cities in the world, massive tech industries based in and around the city) like the video says. It most certainly is not Martha's Vineyard as you are claiming. That assertion is ridiculous.
Зарплата в России в 2023 году: средние значения по регионам и городам
Разница между доходами жителей страны всегда была важной темой для обсуждения. Какова средняя зарплата в России в 2023 году по городам и регионам и в какой отрасли лучше работать, рассказывает "КП"Средняя зарплата в России в 2024 году: данные Росстата по годам и регионам
Официальные данные Росстата по средней зарплате в 2024 году - по месяцам, по кварталам. Описание методики расчета средней заработной платы.
