Stupid Shit in Kyiv

[Paulie97]

Wow a lot of parroting of Kremlin narratives.

That's what he's been doing daily for many months now on the American Politics thread in the ISG "Opinions" forum while calling himself a centrist. He's been debunked from here to Sunday then recently came to this thread to restart even though he's never been to Ukraine. Likely he discovered this discussion by searching the post histories of people he's been going back in forth with on the other thread.

For example he has ignored all that facts that clearly debunk the notion that Russia was given an oral promise regarding no NATO expansion into Eastern Europe. It's plainly false, but even if true only a complete fool wouldn't insist on getting something so important in writing.

https://hls.harvard.edu/today/there-...-enlarge-nato/

https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...reement-again/

https://theconversation.com/ukraine-...he-east-177085

So what can you do with someone who digs in online, ignores all corrections and keeps repeating the same fallacious arguments over and over? Ultimately all you can do is ignore them.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_nauseam

[Xpartan]

Yes, the Slavic Studies Council at the National Securities Archive at George Washington University did debunk your side of the argument hard.

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-b...-leaders-early

And Gorbachev debunked your Council.

The topic of NATO expansion was not discussed at all, and it wasnt brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didnt bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATOs military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Bakers statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context. Kohl and German Vice Chancellor Hans-Dietrich Genscher talked about it.

Firstly if Russia had been on a path to NATO not long after the USSR disintegrated and Yeltsin became president, Putin might never have been elected, or at least his views might be very different today. Yes, it would have been a long process, but well worth it if it had succeeded.

Sure, why not flip a bird to all East European nations by bringing in the same crazy bear they are seeking protection from? I mean, do these people think they matter? Huh!

I might have an even better idea for you. Let's start hiring abusive husbands and boyfriends for Domestic Violence shelters. I'm sure that would work out just fine.

I'm no expert on this. Yuriy Davydov, NATO Research Fellow, was. Perhaps you could debunk what he said. For example, that "voluntary mutual co-operation (with NATO) in the field of security would be a key to assertion of democratic values" in Russia.

So that's what realpolitic is -- pipe dreams galore.

Treat them with respect and they most likely will engage respectfully.

Propagandists are the lowest form of life on this planet. Not happening.

[Tiny 12]

You bring up a poll 3 years before the start of the war? Facepalm! No further comment needed.

Would you trust a poll after the start of the war in "Russian controlled parts of Donetsk and Luhansk," even if conducted by respected Ukrainian institutions like Dzerkalo Tyzhnia?

The expansion of NATO argument has been debunked hard, I can't believe you're bring this up now. Facepalm!

Yes, the Slavic Studies Council at the National Securities Archive at George Washington University did debunk your side of the argument hard.

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-b...-leaders-early

Wikipedia presents both sides of the argument. Mine's more compelling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contro...NATO_expansion

Wow a lot of parroting of Kremlin narratives. In line with the Kremlin narrative you also have neglected to explain why Russia didn't just trade and become an equal partner instead of secretly fucking with everyone and invading it's neighbours. As Kasparov predicted, putting a former KGB agent in charge is not going to work out well.

NATO is setup to counter the "chimpanzee with a machine gun" that is the Russian state. Please explain how admitting Putin into NATO and sharing all of our weapons technologies and strategies would have been a good idea?

Firstly if Russia had been on a path to NATO not long after the USSR disintegrated and Yeltsin became president, Putin might never have been elected, or at least his views might be very different today. Yes, it would have been a long process, but well worth it if it had succeeded.

I'm no expert on this. Yuriy Davydov, NATO Research Fellow, was. Perhaps you could debunk what he said. For example, that "voluntary mutual co-operation (with NATO) in the field of security would be a key to assertion of democratic values" in Russia. Or that "the final outcome of Russia joining NATO would be the establishment of an integrated, structurally formed security system of free and democratic states on the vast territories from Vancouver to Vladivostok. It could contain dozens of states that never fight against each other, thus establishing an extensive peace zone and exerting restraining influence on the surrounding areas. This system could to a certain extent become a model of comprehensive international security system. ".

https://www.nato.int/acad/fellow/98-00/davydov.pdf

You have a lot of disingenuous arguments, but at least try to engage in debate, unlike the other pair of absolute fuckheads. You'll find people here are not completely blind to the realities of what is happening, however it is not constructive to engage in debate with Z propagandists.

Treat them with respect and they most likely will engage respectfully.

https://youtu.be/C3_0GqPvr4U

[VinDici]

Please see this article from 2019.

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/7557

"Only 5.1 percent of people living in the Russia-controlled parts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions want Ukraine to regain control over the territories. Half (50.9 percent) want a union with Russia and another 13.4 percent said the region should accede to Russia with a "special status." For the whole of Donbas, including its Ukraine-controlled areas, 49.6 percent want it to become part of Russia, with another 13.3 percent choosing such a scenario with a "special status" for Donbas. A fifth (19.2 percent) see Donbas as part of Ukraine."

So apparently 50.9% wanted to live in a Russian oblast, and another 13.4% in something like a Russian territory (e.g. like Puerto Rico in the USA). Only 5.1% wanted to live in a Ukrainian controlled oblast.

I don't know much about the referenda.

You bring up a poll 3 years before the start of the war? Facepalm! No further comment needed.

Russia's gotten a lot more than what it bargained for when it decided to invade Ukraine. NATO, the west and Ukraine must have much more credibility in Russia's eyes. Putin is rational. Seeing the cohesiveness of the west and the expansion of NATO to include Finland, he must be less enthusiastic about his adventures outside the Russian republic, or at least those that he believes will attract the west's attention.

I don't know the history of the Budapest memoranda, but suspect they were intended to protect Ukraine from the West more so than from Russia. Russia believes it was betrayed by NATO and the USA, when NATO expanded eastward after 1990, and Putin who's nationalistic and somewhat paranoid has unfortunately looked to correct this. If the USA and UK had committed troops to Ukraine as you apparently suggest we could be dead by now. Probably not, but it's possible.

The expansion of NATO argument has been debunked hard, I can't believe you're bring this up now. Facepalm!

"We could be dead by now" "It's possible".

Given the evidence before our eyes of the Russian army performance versus deprecated NATO arms, if there had been a kinetic war, Russia would have been fucked hard. So yes it's "possible", but in the sense that an asteroid could hit our heads tomorrow.

If the west had pursued friendlier relations with Russia after the breakup of the USSR, maybe even making Russia a part of NATO as proposed by Putin in 2000, the world would be in a lot better shape. Perhaps Russia would look a lot like Hungary today, semi-autocratic but inside the tent instead of outside.

Wow a lot of parroting of Kremlin narratives. In line with the Kremlin narrative you also have neglected to explain why Russia didn't just trade and become an equal partner instead of secretly fucking with everyone and invading it's neighbours. As Kasparov predicted, putting a former KGB agent in charge is not going to work out well.

NATO is setup to counter the "chimpanzee with a machine gun" that is the Russian state. Please explain how admitting Putin into NATO and sharing all of our weapons technologies and strategies would have been a good idea?

OK, you're much more realistic than I thought you were about how long this may last. And maybe I'm an optimist about what the future holds after this war is over. I hope not.

You have a lot of disingenuous arguments, but at least try to engage in debate, unlike the other pair of absolute fuckheads. You'll find people here are not completely blind to the realities of what is happening, however it is not constructive to engage in debate with Z propagandists.

[Xpartan]

Given that the Russians continually lie and also break each and every accord they sign, I would say it is not possible to make any deals with them at all. If they are not completely exterminated from Ukrainian land, they will most likely regroup, and try again as soon as they can, and if they cannot do it via military means, they will employ all their soft power and troll factory resources to destablize Ukraine, and continue trying to sow discord in Europe and the US. This is not an outcome I want to see.

We have seen time and again that appeasement does not work. It will not work here. This conflict may span more years, however during that time, Russia will become more and more of a pariah, and during that time each Western power is doing all they can to remove any dependencies on their resources, which means that income for Russia will only shrink, not matter what the oil and gas price.

Russia as it is now is a dangerous and belligerent state, and I have had my eyes opened and fully agree with my friends in the Baltics and Poland, that they are not to be trusted in any way.

Any peace agreement with Russia other than "please-don't-shoot-at-us-while-we're-getting-out" (like the one that ended the war in Afghanistan) is pointless.

[Tiny 12]

I do not think it is possible for you to conclude that there are parts of Donbass where the majority want to be part of Russia. Where are you getting this information? Was it from the "election" results, what is your opinion on the "referenda" conducted in Donetsk and Luhansk?

Please see this article from 2019.

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/7557

"Only 5.1 percent of people living in the Russia-controlled parts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions want Ukraine to regain control over the territories. Half (50.9 percent) want a union with Russia and another 13.4 percent said the region should accede to Russia with a "special status." For the whole of Donbas, including its Ukraine-controlled areas, 49.6 percent want it to become part of Russia, with another 13.3 percent choosing such a scenario with a "special status" for Donbas. A fifth (19.2 percent) see Donbas as part of Ukraine."

So apparently 50.9% wanted to live in a Russian oblast, and another 13.4% in something like a Russian territory (e.g. like Puerto Rico in the USA). Only 5.1% wanted to live in a Ukrainian controlled oblast.

I don't know much about the referenda.

Allowing Russia to leave this conflict with something more than what they had previously will destroy any credibility for NATO as guarantors of peace. How would this even be possible, when the US and the UK did not step in when Russian broke the Budapest memoranda?

Russia's gotten a lot more than what it bargained for when it decided to invade Ukraine. NATO, the west and Ukraine must have much more credibility in Russia's eyes. Putin is rational. Seeing the cohesiveness of the west and the expansion of NATO to include Finland, he must be less enthusiastic about his adventures outside the Russian republic, or at least those that he believes will attract the west's attention.

I don't know the history of the Budapest memoranda, but suspect they were intended to protect Ukraine from the West more so than from Russia. Russia believes it was betrayed by NATO and the USA, when NATO expanded eastward after 1990, and Putin who's nationalistic and somewhat paranoid has unfortunately looked to correct this. If the USA and UK had committed troops to Ukraine as you apparently suggest we could be dead by now. Probably not, but it's possible.

Ukraine would be dependent on the whims of whoever was in charge and if Trump wins the next election, he has already stated he will try to force Ukraine to cede territory.

Agreed.

It is certainly not up to the likes of you (or me for that matter) to tell Ukrainians what is in their best interests, they have made it clear they want self determination, and the majority of Ukrainians are strongly opposed to ceding territory to Russia.

If the USA and Europeans are mostly funding the war effort they should have a say. And should IMHO push for an end to the war in a way that provides security for Ukrainians.

Given that the Russians continually lie and also break each and every accord they sign, I would say it is not possible to make any deals with them at all. If they are not completely exterminated from Ukrainian land, they will most likely regroup, and try again as soon as they can, and if they cannot do it via military means, they will employ all their soft power and troll factory resources to destablize Ukraine, and continue trying to sow discord in Europe and the US. This is not an outcome I want to see.

Yes, Russia has and probably will continue to employ soft power and troll factories to destabilize Ukraine and sow discord in the Europe and the USA. It didn't have to be this way. If the west had pursued friendlier relations with Russia after the breakup of the USSR, maybe even making Russia a part of NATO as proposed by Putin in 2000, the world would be in a lot better shape. Perhaps Russia would look a lot like Hungary today, semi-autocratic but inside the tent instead of outside.

We have seen time and again that appeasement does not work. It will not work here. This conflict may span more years, however during that time, Russia will become more and more of a pariah, and during that time each Western power is doing all they can to remove any dependencies on their resources, which means that income for Russia will only shrink, not matter what the oil and gas price.

Russia as it is now is a dangerous and belligerent state, and I have had my eyes opened and fully agree with my friends in the Baltics and Poland, that they are not to be trusted in any way.

Should the Federation break up, only then will there be a chance for long term peaceful relations with Russia, but until then we need to give Ukraine everything it needs to defeat the invaders / occupiers / war criminals.

OK, you're much more realistic than I thought you were about how long this may last. And maybe I'm an optimist about what the future holds after this war is over. I hope not.

https://youtu.be/C3_0GqPvr4U

[VinDici]

Your, Zelensky's and others position that this cannot end until Russia withdraws to pre-2014 borders is a recipe for an endless war. And it's not fair to the people of Crimea, and probably some parts of the Donbass, where the majority want to be part of Russia. And, while they may not recognize it yet, it's not in the best interest of other Ukrainians, as it prevents a peace agreement that assures the country's security.

A peace agreement need not call into question the efficacy of NATO. It could involve a side deal with Ukraine where NATO guarantees its security.

I do not think it is possible for you to conclude that there are parts of Donbass where the majority want to be part of Russia. Where are you getting this information? Was it from the "election" results, what is your opinion on the "referenda" conducted in Donetsk and Luhansk?

Allowing Russia to leave this conflict with something more than what they had previously will destroy any credibility for NATO as guarantors of peace. How would this even be possible, when the US and the UK did not step in when Russian broke the Budapest memoranda? Ukraine would be dependent on the whims of whoever was in charge and if Trump wins the next election, he has already stated he will try to force Ukraine to cede territory.

It is certainly not up to the likes of you (or me for that matter) to tell Ukrainians what is in their best interests, they have made it clear they want self determination, and the majority of Ukrainians are strongly opposed to ceding territory to Russia.

Given that the Russians continually lie and also break each and every accord they sign, I would say it is not possible to make any deals with them at all. If they are not completely exterminated from Ukrainian land, they will most likely regroup, and try again as soon as they can, and if they cannot do it via military means, they will employ all their soft power and troll factory resources to destablize Ukraine, and continue trying to sow discord in Europe and the US. This is not an outcome I want to see.

We have seen time and again that appeasement does not work. It will not work here. This conflict may span more years, however during that time, Russia will become more and more of a pariah, and during that time each Western power is doing all they can to remove any dependencies on their resources, which means that income for Russia will only shrink, not matter what the oil and gas price.

Russia as it is now is a dangerous and belligerent state, and I have had my eyes opened and fully agree with my friends in the Baltics and Poland, that they are not to be trusted in any way.

Should the Federation break up, only then will there be a chance for long term peaceful relations with Russia, but until then we need to give Ukraine everything it needs to defeat the invaders / occupiers / war criminals.

[Tiny 12]

It's a bit interesting that you suddenly started posting here after Q stopped and are hugely Pro-Russian.

Since you are pointing out the DPCIMs that the US will provide to Ukraine, I would love to hear your opinion on the extensive and continued use of cluster munitions and more recently chemical weapons by the Russian armies? Also would be very good to know your stance on the kidnapped children, which is reported to be more than 500,000, who have been taken from Ukraine to be "educated" in Russia.

Please enlighten us?

Xpartan is correct, any result other than Ukraine winning back its land back to the 2014 borders at a minimum would be a catastrophic loss for the Western nations and call into question the efficacy of NATO. Russia can withdraw wherever it likes, there is no sword of damocles on the Nation, Putin on the other hand.

Hugely pro-Russian? You completely mischaracterize what I wrote.

Of course I don't approve of the use of cluster munitions, chemical weapons or kidnapping. Yes, you have righteousness on your side. And yes, Russia and the Ukraine have already used cluster bombs on each other, so this is nothing new. As a USA Citizen I don't approve of my country using cluster bombs or providing them to other countries. I also don't approve of capital punishment, although I imagine that analogy is lost on you.

According to the press, one of the reasons the USA is providing cluster bombs is because the USA's supplies of certain other munitions is running low, as a result of military aid to Ukraine. The USA no longer manufactures cluster bombs, and I believe the last time it used them was 20 years ago. We're unlikely to use them in the future, on humanitarian grounds. But apparently it's OK to give them away.

Your, Zelensky's and others position that this cannot end until Russia withdraws to pre-2014 borders is a recipe for an endless war. And it's not fair to the people of Crimea, and probably some parts of the Donbass, where the majority want to be part of Russia. And, while they may not recognize it yet, it's not in the best interest of other Ukrainians, as it prevents a peace agreement that assures the country's security.

A peace agreement need not call into question the efficacy of NATO. It could involve a side deal with Ukraine where NATO guarantees its security.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3_0GqPvr4U

[VinDici]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-Ukraine.html

https://youtu.be/C3_0GqPvr4U

It's a bit interesting that you suddenly started posting here after Q stopped and are hugely Pro-Russian.

Since you are pointing out the DPCIMs that the US will provide to Ukraine, I would love to hear your opinion on the extensive and continued use of cluster munitions and more recently chemical weapons by the Russian armies? Also would be very good to know your stance on the kidnapped children, which is reported to be more than 500,000, who have been taken from Ukraine to be "educated" in Russia.

Please enlighten us?

Xpartan is correct, any result other than Ukraine winning back its land back to the 2014 borders at a minimum would be a catastrophic loss for the Western nations and call into question the efficacy of NATO. Russia can withdraw wherever it likes, there is no sword of damocles on the Nation, Putin on the other hand.

[Tiny 12]

I don't know what it is, your stubbornness, some kind of deep-seated Russophilia, or crypto-admiration of Putin, but you're fundamentally wrong. Betraying Ukraine now when they're winning and helping war criminal Putin survive this calamity he started, would be, first and foremost, our own defeat, and not Ukraine's. Am I happy that Roosevelt wasn't as "fiscally responsible" as you guys.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-Ukraine.html

https://youtu.be/C3_0GqPvr4U

[Xpartan]

Grasping at straws? One of those straws is yours, your Bloomberg link. Another is Hestendk's number. A third is an article from Newsweek, the same source you're quoting. To review, your Bloomberg link estimates the Russian budget deficit will be 3% to 4% of GDP. Hestendk's numbers point towards a budget deficit of 5.7% of GDP. And my Newsweek article says total Russian military spending is 4.4% of GDP.

The consensus is the average analyst's estimate for the USA budget deficit as tracked by Bloomberg. It has nothing to do with Russia.

The $9 trillion estimate for the cost to Russia in one of your links is laughable. The $900 million per day figure may be reasonable, especially if you're including the replacement value of Russia's weapons stockpiles. As I mentioned, I read an article that said Russia was running out of certain munitions and doesn't have the industrial capacity to maintain the pace of its war effort. And 900 million a day, if that's true, will be hard to maintain. It's about 14% of Russian GDP.

So what does that mean, again, if it's true? Russia turns tail and heads home? It starts using tactical nuclear weapons? Hell if I know. The best solution is a cease fire followed by an end to the war.

From what I'm reading, combined military spending by the USA, Europe and Ukraine on the war, including military aid, may be around $120 billion per year. That's $40 billion every 4 months, very close to Hestendk's number for the Russian deficit, the straw you referred to when you quoted my post. If Russia matches the $120 billion in Ukrainian spending and western military aid, it's about 5% of their GDP. Russia can sustain that indefinitely.

1. No, Russia can't sustain that indefinitely. You're referring to GDP as if it's a sacred cow. What is GDP? Tanks are GDP. Aircraft are GDP. Mines, bombs, missiles, big arms, small arms, it's all there, in GDP. If the government spends 30 or 50 percent of their budget on war, heightened security, and hysterical propaganda (all TV stations and periodicals in Russia are owned and financed by the government), the numbers don't matter. GDP can be sky-high just because the economy has shifted from making tractors to making tanks (or, more likely in this case, refitting the old ones that had already been written off on the paper), and with 30 percent of the budget classified -- YOU JUST DON'T KNOW how much exactly the government spends on war. But what anyone in Russia who's not an idiot knows, it's a lot and it's unsustainable.

The quality of the Russian military hardware is also dubious. There are no more legit ways of getting western components, and Russian economy depends on everything. Russian hardware is not just inferior to the West, it's light years behind. They can't build modern tanks or aircraft any longer. They started bringing to front lines T55 -- that's from 1940's! Their bombers and fighters are still superior to Ukraine's, but vastly inferior to even outdated F16 if -- BIG IF -- Ukraine finally gets them. Then it's the reckoning time.

2. The 9 trillion quote was in rubles. At the time of the publication it was $126 billions.

3. "Followed by peace" is not an option. There are two realistic options. To keep supporting Ukraine until they win and to stop supporting them with full understanding that they won't stop fighting. The second option would be a disaster. For us (see #4).

4. I don't know what it is, your stubbornness, some kind of deep-seated Russophilia, or crypto-admiration of Putin, but you're fundamentally wrong. Betraying Ukraine now when they're winning and helping war criminal Putin survive this calamity he started, would be, first and foremost, our own defeat, and not Ukraine's. Am I happy that Roosevelt wasn't as "fiscally responsible" as you guys.

[Tiny 12]

What consensus? One third of Russia's budget is classified, LOL. What do you think they're hiding? Are you trying to convince yourself that Russia is a normal country? It's not.

Russia Spending an Estimated $900 Million a Day on Ukraine War.

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-spen...ne-war-1704383

Putin's War in Ukraine Has a Trillion-Dollar Price Tag.

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-spen...ne-war-1783463

How Putin Cannibalizes Russian Economy to Survive Personally.

https://time.com/6291642/putin-canni...ussian-economy

Grasping at straws? One of those straws is yours, your Bloomberg link. Another is Hestendk's number. A third is an article from Newsweek, the same source you're quoting. To review, your Bloomberg link estimates the Russian budget deficit will be 3% to 4% of GDP. Hestendk's numbers point towards a budget deficit of 5.7% of GDP. And my Newsweek article says total Russian military spending is 4.4% of GDP.

The consensus is the average analyst's estimate for the USA budget deficit as tracked by Bloomberg. It has nothing to do with Russia.

The $9 trillion estimate for the cost to Russia in one of your links is laughable. The $900 million per day figure may be reasonable, especially if you're including the replacement value of Russia's weapons stockpiles. As I mentioned, I read an article that said Russia was running out of certain munitions and doesn't have the industrial capacity to maintain the pace of its war effort. And 900 million a day, if that's true, will be hard to maintain. It's about 14% of Russian GDP.

So what does that mean, again, if it's true? Russia turns tail and heads home? It starts using tactical nuclear weapons? Hell if I know. The best solution is a cease fire followed by an end to the war.

From what I'm reading, combined military spending by the USA, Europe and Ukraine on the war, including military aid, may be around $120 billion per year. That's $40 billion every 4 months, very close to Hestendk's number for the Russian deficit, the straw you referred to when you quoted my post. If Russia matches the $120 billion in Ukrainian spending and western military aid, it's about 5% of their GDP. Russia can sustain that indefinitely.

[Xpartan]

Russia's annual GDP on 3/31/2023 was 2.35 trillion USD. So the 135 billion is 5.7% of GDP. That's not a large amount considering they're in a war. For comparison, the USA budget deficit was 10.6% of GDP in 2021, 5.4% in 2022, and the consensus forecast for 2023 to 2025 is 5.4% to 5.7%.

What consensus? One third of Russia's budget is classified, LOL. What do you think they're hiding? Are you trying to convince yourself that Russia is a normal country? It's not.

Russia Spending an Estimated $900 Million a Day on Ukraine War.

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-spen...ne-war-1704383

Putin's War in Ukraine Has a Trillion-Dollar Price Tag.

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-spen...ne-war-1783463

How Putin Cannibalizes Russian Economy to Survive Personally.

https://time.com/6291642/putin-canni...ussian-economy

[Tiny 12]

Unlike you, I'm not trying to convert anyone, but here is a report (warning: a little technical) about the raise and fall of the insurgency in Ukraine in 1940-1950's. You may want to read at least the post-war part.

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA562947.pdf

That said, I believe that the full withdrawal of Russians from Ukraine will only occur when some kind of a domestic struggle brings Kremlin to its knees.

It's getting late here Xpartan, I'll try to read it at lunch tomorrow. I'm not sure a domestic struggle will bring the Kremlin to its knees during our lifetimes, so that sounds like a gloomy prognosis.

My Ministry is only for Progressives who haven't seen the truth and the light of Classical Liberalism. Since this thread has little to do with economics, I'm not trying to convert anyone.

[Tiny 12]

Birthrate pro Woman is around 1,18 ATM. And its to low, it have to be around 2. If we are thinking the western way.

Ukrain have traditional have had a high unemployment rate, so if ukrain got it up to lets say 1. 8 I think that would be a good target rate, also remember more and more woman in ukrain take less free after a childbirth then before so their AR eincreasing the work capicity.

That's thinking out of the box. And it makes sense.

In Jan-April Russia burned 45 Billions USD mor then they made, they had a budget for 2023 in the Minus of 43 Billions.

Also they are printing money without the market knowing it is the roumor so the budget deficit is bigger then we can calculate.

I had the 60% from other sources that looked everything in.

The total Income Budget for Russia 2023 is 345 Billions, so lets divide that by 12 so every month they should get 28,75 billions in.

The first 4 months they then got 115 Billions in but used 160 Billions So okay that's an overspending of 40% in pure numbers.

Fair enough, that is about 40%, and it's overspending of 45 billion. Say that goes on for a year at the same rate. Then you have 12/4 x 45 = 135 billion in overspending for the year. Russia's annual GDP on 3/31/2023 was 2.35 trillion USD. So the 135 billion is 5.7% of GDP. That's not a large amount considering they're in a war. For comparison, the USA budget deficit was 10.6% of GDP in 2021, 5.4% in 2022, and the consensus forecast for 2023 to 2025 is 5.4% to 5.7%.

Also remember that russia was expecting and calculating with and Gas / Oil price more then 50% higher then what they are getting now.

Good point. Russia is very dependent on oil and gas for tax revenue.

just plain stupidity and planing was done without looking at the facts.

And yes it is interesting that I don't know anyone that died yet.

I know at least 20 people that are in the armed forces and 4 of them at least are in SOF teams.

I belive the russian dead numbers are much higher then 300.000, what I hear from the front is that they just meat and russia not care about their soldiers.

Russia again today been spotted 300 KM from ukrain sending more T55 in.

I read somewhere that Russia had lost a large percentage of its tanks and other armaments in the war, and would be hard pressed to make up the shortfall.

I hope this war ends soon.

Again, thanks for sharing your on-the-ground observations.