Russia-Ukraine War Political Discussion

[History Learner]

Don't we?
Starve ourselves?
WTF are you smoking?
Did NATO and Russia suddenly exchange their economies when i wasn't looking?
Reminder that Soviet Union lost the Cold War arms race, back when it had all the places Putin is taking or wishes he could take, and the west wasn't even trying very hard, nevermind starving themselves. Only North Korea goes that far.

Define how the USSR lost the arms race and yes the West was by every stretch of the term. Today Russia still controls the core of the old Soviet Empire and have an economy in which 35% of its GDP is from industry; when you adjust this into PPP terms, you begin to realize Russia is actually Germany in size.

 

[LordsFire]

Yes, they should. They're not going to win by any stretch of the imagination.

I'm still trying to figure out what you base this confidence on.

 

[History Learner]

I'm still trying to figure out what you base this confidence on.

The immense amount of reporting from Ukrainian officials that their losses have skyrocketed, their logistics have effectively collapsed and desertion is becoming a serious issue? Russia has about 4x the population and a Pre-invasion economy about 10x the size of Ukraine; basic math dictates the end result of such a conflict all on its own.

 

[Zachowon]

Yes, they should. They're not going to win by any stretch of the imagination.

And Russia is going to be so badly hurt they are going to be owned by China.
But Ukraine has 300k in reserv3s

 

[Bacle]

You're forgetting that it's not a matter of "retaking" Crimea. Or the Donbass region for that matter. The people there are going to resist an invading force from western Ukraine with pretty much the same fervor as the latter has been resisting Russia, admittedly with not nearly as much external support. Even if they succeed, they're going to have to be treated like hostile occupied territory for at least a generation, until they've managed to "reeducate" the populace.

Also, we kinda don't have the logistics to support Ukraine in a prolonged conflict; not unless you want us to sacrifice ourselves (and by us, I don't mean our governments; I mean us as in you and me starving ourselves to death) for Ukraine. Things are a lot worse than our governments pretend they are, and you can only keep borrowing against the future for so long before the bill comes due. And that bill? Keeps getting bigger and bigger.

I get that you feel that protecting Ukraine is the right thing to do; I don't agree, but I get it. Regardless though, you'll never convince me that I have to become a martyr for them.

I think you are vastly over exaggerating how much control Russia has, or how popular Russia truly is in the occupied areas of Ukraine, given the gov of the DPR resigned in protest against Moscow's using DPR units are cannon fodder. You would know this if you bothered to look into the War Room threads about the conflict.

Our logistics chain isn't in great shape, that I will admit; but the military items needed for supplying Ukraine aren't really dual use or affecting the civie market much. Thinking that the Ukraine war is responsible for our domestic supply issues, instead of Biden's purposeful destruction of US domestic energy and meat industries and the after effects of the Wu Flu lockdowns, is disingenuous.

I am not trying to convince you to become a martyr for Ukraine either, and the fact you think supporting Ukraine logistically means such is part of the problem. You seem to have a hyperbolic narrative about Ukraine and Russia and it's affects on the US built up in your mind that doesn't seem to jive with the realities on the ground in the US or Ukraine, or the actual causes of the problems.

Do I need to remind you about last time we had a debate about Ukraine and you admitted you are massively cynical about it, because of what happened with the Maidan and how it spiraled from there. But none of what happened justified what Russia is doing, and you should be blaming Biden's fuck ups for our situation, not Ukraine deciding it's not going to roll over for Moscow.

 

[Marduk]

Define how the USSR lost the arms race and yes the West was by every stretch of the term. Today Russia still controls the core of the old Soviet Empire and have an economy in which 35% of its GDP is from industry; when you adjust this into PPP terms, you begin to realize Russia is actually Germany in size.

I do not understand what kind of voodoo economics are you even engaging in here.
The west won the arms race in technology and by getting Soviets to spend so much on trying to (barely) keep up that their whole polity collapsed, and no, the west wasn't starving in the 80's, i don't know what kind of crazy alternate history are you basing that claim in.
Russia has slightly less than half of Soviet Union's population, and even if industry was all that counts in an economy (hint: it doesn't), Russia's 35% is nothing special. Germany has respectable 28% too, and note that this still much more industry per capita, as Russia has to support a lot more people with theirs, including in some parts of the world that are very harsh on infrastructure and would become pretty much uninhabitable without this support. PPP has a huge amount of caveats in its applicability to such calculations because for example, say, no one cares what's their difference between nominal and PPP is, if they want to, say, buy some of these super expensive electronics for top of the line missiles, radars or the like from Taiwan, they still have to pay a competitive price in very nominal USD.
Or these days few times that from some black market scheme more likely.

And to mercy kill your whole argument, Russia's massive energy sector is counted under industry too, that's exactly how Saudi Arabia gets an awe inspiring 67% of its GDP from industry, yet no one fawns over its industrial prowess and how Germany and Japan have nothing on those Arabs engineers. If you correct for that, and account for Russia's monstrous corruption, there is a slight hope you will get over your fanboyism and understand why people joke about Russian economy.

 

[Bassoe]

And Russia is going to be so badly hurt they are going to be owned by China.

Don't you think this might be a worse outcome for America than an independent Russia which can be played against or potentially even allied with against China?

 

[Marduk]

Don't you think this might be a worse outcome for America than an independent Russia which can be played against or potentially even allied with against China?

>can
Considering what we know now, pure hypothetical mostly for Russian use to play the west.
Theoretically they could, in reality they won't agree to it. They need to have the west as an enemy because its a far softer enemy, willing to give concessions, who is also an ideological threat, with all their democracy and corruption hate, so increased isolation based on enemity is a benefit in itself.
Meanwhile China is an opponent as brutal as they are, yet no ideological threat. There is nothing for Russia to gain fighting them. So they side with them against the west instead.

 

[Terthna]

I think you are vastly over exaggerating how much control Russia has, or how popular Russia truly is in the occupied areas of Ukraine, given the gov of the DPR resigned in protest against Moscow's using DPR units are cannon fodder. You would know this if you bothered to look into the War Room threads about the conflict.

I have checked in there once or twice since I last spoke about the subject, so I am aware that their relationship with Russia is heavily strained; that said, that doesn't mean they'd be inclined to get all chummy with western Ukraine. They're just learning that the enemy of their enemy is often just another enemy.

Our logistics chain isn't in great shape, that I will admit; but the military items needed for supplying Ukraine aren't really dual use or affecting the civie market much. Thinking that the Ukraine war is responsible for our domestic supply issues, instead of Biden's purposeful destruction of US domestic energy and meat industries and the after effects of the Wu Flu lockdowns, is disingenuous.

Forget the military equipment; what about the money? Our government is already thirty trillion dollars in debt, and yet they decided to add fifty-four billion dollars on top of that (most of which will probably be embezzled, considering how strongly our establishment resisted the idea of implementing any oversight to ensure that it wouldn't). Someone has to pay for that, and it's going to be us in the form of raised taxes and the cutting of government services; just as the price of everything continues to skyrocket.

I am not trying to convince you to become a martyr for Ukraine either, and the fact you think supporting Ukraine logistically means such is part of the problem. You seem to have a hyperbolic narrative about Ukraine and Russia and it's affects on the US built up in your mind that doesn't seem to jive with the realities on the ground in the US or Ukraine, or the actual causes of the problems.

Do I need to remind you about last time we had a debate about Ukraine and you admitted you are massively cynical about it, because of what happened with the Maidan and how it spiraled from there. But none of what happened justified what Russia is doing, and you should be blaming Biden's fuck ups for our situation, not Ukraine deciding it's not going to roll over for Moscow.

Oh trust me; I do blame Biden, his handlers, and the establishment as a whole. But thanks to them, we have no surplus with which to support Ukraine. Every cent sent their way ought to have been spent undoing the damage they've done to this country, and shoring up our ability to keep the upcoming recession from turning into an outright depression.

 

[History Learner]

I do not understand what kind of voodoo economics are you even engaging in here.
The west won the arms race in technology and by getting Soviets to spend so much on trying to (barely) keep up that their whole polity collapsed, and no, the west wasn't starving in the 80's, i don't know what kind of crazy alternate history are you basing that claim in.

Defense spending played no role in the Soviet collapse, that's the consensus opinion of economical and historical circles. However, putting that to the aside, you didn't answer my question: by what metric did the West beat the the Soviet Union in the Arms Race?

As for the West starving, that's a nice strawman, but I didn't claim that and I didn't see anyone else say it either.

Russia has slightly less than half of Soviet Union's population, and even if industry was all that counts in an economy (hint: it doesn't), Russia's 35% is nothing special. Germany has respectable 28% too, and note that this still much more industry per capita, as Russia has to support a lot more people with theirs, including in some parts of the world that are very harsh on infrastructure and would become pretty much uninhabitable without this support. PPP has a huge amount of caveats in its applicability to such calculations because for example, say, no one cares what's their difference between nominal and PPP is, if they want to, say, buy some of these super expensive electronics for top of the line missiles, radars or the like from Taiwan, they still have to pay a competitive price in very nominal USD.
Or these days few times that from some black market scheme more likely.

So does this mean the United States with 330 Million people and Industry at 18% of GDP would get absolutely bodied by Russia with 148 Million and Industry at 35% of GDP? That's your logic here, as you put it, with the "as Russia has to support a lot more people with theirs"?

Or, can we acknowledge the fact you don't understand how the relevant measurements work? It's either or here.

And to mercy kill your whole argument, Russia's massive energy sector is counted under industry too, that's exactly how Saudi Arabia gets an awe inspiring 67% of its GDP from industry, yet no one fawns over its industrial prowess and how Germany and Japan have nothing on those Arabs engineers. If you correct for that, and account for Russia's monstrous corruption, there is a slight hope you will get over your fanboyism and understand why people joke about Russian economy.

Um...

Industry (including construction), value added (% of GDP) in Saudi Arabia was reported at 41.36 % in 2020, according to the World Bank collection of development indicators, compiled from officially recognized sources. Saudi Arabia - Industry, value added (% of GDP) - actual values, historical data, forecasts and projections were sourced from the World Bank on June of 2022.​

​

I don't think you understand the "relative" aspect of these economic statistics here, nor even the base data to begin with.

 

[Zachowon]

Don't you think this might be a worse outcome for America than an independent Russia which can be played against or potentially even allied with against China?

Why would Russia go against China when they share a border and a pretty undefended pme

 

[History Learner]

And Russia is going to be so badly hurt they are going to be owned by China.
But Ukraine has 300k in reserv3s

And Russia has 20 million...

Specific to the China bit though, that's why I constantly say a lot of the thought process behind Ukraine boosters here doesn't make sense to me. Why would you want to push them into China's arms? Your specific wording here, "they are going to", implies its not the case yet so why go through with giving Russia no options but to do what you claim? I could also quibble over that assertion in of itself, but I'll refrain in favor of talking about the idea at large.

For example, I've seen a lot of you here assert Biden is "Beijing's man" or that China had something to do with the 2020 election. Does that mean the U.S. is already controlled by China and thus Russia is the only one of the Big Three not? In such a case, why should I side against Russia? Or, we can take this a step further; if China is pulling the strings in the U.S. now, but are not as of yet in Russia as your wording implies, why should I have any concern for Ukraine when both I and my Russian counterpart are the victim of a plot not of our own making? Why should I support sending weapons to Ukraine to kill innocent Russians who are just as much victims of circumstance as I?

There's a lot of ways to take this argument and I don't think any of them are conclusions you would like, given your stated views, unless you're willing to admit the priors that initiated the thought process are wrong...which force a re-evaluation of said views. It's schizo thinking, tl;dr.

 

[Marduk]

Defense spending played no role in the Soviet collapse, that's the consensus opinion of economical and historical circles.

Who are your "economical and historical circles", a circle of voodoo shamans?

Why Did the Soviet Union Collapse?

There were many factors that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union, including political policies, economics, defense spending, and the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. Find out more about how this political entity dissolved.

www.britannica.com

The military factor

It is a widely held belief that Soviet defense spending accelerated dramatically in response to the presidency of Ronald Reagan and proposals such as the Strategic Defense Initiative. In fact, the Soviet military budget had been trending upward since at least the early 1970s, but Western analysts were left with best guesses in regard to hard numbers. Outside estimates of Soviet military spending ranged between 10 and 20 percent of GDP, and, even within the Soviet Union itself, it was difficult to produce an exact accounting because the military budget involved a variety of government ministries, each with its own competing interests. What can be said definitively, however, is that military spending was consistently agnostic of overall economic trends: even when the Soviet economy lagged, the military remained well-funded. In addition, the military took priority when it came to research and development talent. Technological innovators and would-be entrepreneurs who could have helped support Gorbachev’s partial transition to a market economy were instead funneled into defense industries.

However, putting that to the aside, you didn't answer my question: by what metric did the West beat the the Soviet Union in the Arms Race?

By fucking common sense...
The west has developed superior military technology, including stuff like stealth aircraft and tanks of such expensive and complex design that Russia is only now trying to come up with something competitive to them in form of T-14, practical application of AESA radars, starting out on missile defense technology that Russia cannot even dream of matching to this day, computer technology with all its military applications and so on and so on. And to make the defeat stick it did that with an easily sustainable fraction of the crushing effort Soviets took to try keep up as described above.

As for the West starving, that's a nice strawman, but I didn't claim that and I didn't see anyone else say it either.

If you want to white knight for someone else, don't bullshit me, i will mock you for it.
If you don't, don't butt in into conversations you don't track properly.

So does this mean the United States with 330 Million people and Industry at 18% of GDP would get absolutely bodied by Russia with 148 Million and Industry at 35% of GDP? That's your logic here, as you put it, with the "as Russia has to support a lot more people with theirs"?

Or, can we acknowledge the fact you don't understand how the relevant measurements work? It's either or here.

Or we can agree that this is a valid way to compare military potential of countries for 14 year old nerds. Correction, most 14 year old nerds would probably think it too simplistic on second thought. Yet you are proposing it here, and i am laughing at you.
Of course its a completely pointless analogy because these are countries with vastly different industries, economies, political systems and per capita GDP and wealth.

Um...

Industry (including construction), value added (% of GDP) in Saudi Arabia was reported at 41.36 % in 2020, according to the World Bank collection of development indicators, compiled from officially recognized sources. Saudi Arabia - Industry, value added (% of GDP) - actual values, historical data, forecasts and projections were sourced from the World Bank on June of 2022.​

​

I don't think you understand the "relative" aspect of these economic statistics here, nor even the base data to begin with.

What funding do you think prompts a whole lot of this construction?
What does building oil extraction, refining and transfer infrastructure count as?
What do you think oil refining counts as?
What companies are famous for doing all of the above?

This is a direct parallel to Russian industry's major automotive sector having a considerable contribution from such Russian companies as Renault and Volkswagen.

 

[Zachowon]

And Russia has 20 million...

Specific to the China bit though, that's why I constantly say a lot of the thought process behind Ukraine boosters here doesn't make sense to me. Why would you want to push them into China's arms? Your specific wording here, "they are going to", implies its not the case yet so why go through with giving Russia no options but to do what you claim? I could also quibble over that assertion in of itself, but I'll refrain in favor of talking about the idea at large.

For example, I've seen a lot of you here assert Biden is "Beijing's man" or that China had something to do with the 2020 election. Does that mean the U.S. is already controlled by China and thus Russia is the only one of the Big Three not? In such a case, why should I side against Russia? Or, we can take this a step further; if China is pulling the strings in the U.S. now, but are not as of yet in Russia as your wording implies, why should I have any concern for Ukraine when both I and my Russian counterpart are the victim of a plot not of our own making? Why should I support sending weapons to Ukraine to kill innocent Russians who are just as much victims of circumstance as I?

There's a lot of ways to take this argument and I don't think any of them are conclusions you would like, given your stated views, unless you're willing to admit the priors that initiated the thought process are wrong...which force a re-evaluation of said views. It's schizo thinking, tl;dr.

20 million?
Why hasn't Russia mobilized yet?

 

[Bacle]

I have checked in there once or twice since I last spoke about the subject, so I am aware that their relationship with Russia is heavily strained; that said, that doesn't mean they'd be inclined to get all chummy with western Ukraine. They're just learning that the enemy of their enemy is often just another enemy.

I think they are learning there is more corruption and malice towards them in Moscow, than Kyiv.

If Moscow keeps acting as they are, the LPR/DPR may decide life under Kyiv wasn't so bad, and that would have interesting effects for the Russians plans.

Forget the military equipment; what about the money? Our government is already thirty trillion dollars in debt, and yet they decided to add fifty-four billion dollars on top of that (most of which will probably be embezzled, considering how strongly our establishment resisted the idea of implementing any oversight to ensure that it wouldn't). Someone has to pay for that, and it's going to be us in the form of raised taxes and the cutting of government services; just as the price of everything continues to skyrocket.


Oh trust me; I do blame Biden, his handlers, and the establishment as a whole. But thanks to them, we have no surplus with which to support Ukraine. Every cent sent their way ought to have been spent undoing the damage they've done to this country, and shoring up our ability to keep the upcoming recession from turning into an outright depression.

Well, the simple fact is, the money sent to Ukraine is helping domestically, because if we weren't sending aid to Ukraine, Russia would be rolling over them badly and end up controlling the resources in Ukraine to use against us later, and now with them applying to the EU, it looks like Europe can likely take over larger amounts of the aid.

The fact is, supporting Ukraine in this war is the least bad option for us domestically and internationally, because we'd be feeling the pain worse and longer if we let Putin have his way. We're going to feel the pain no matter what, but if Russia was allowed to do as they wished with Ukraine, the Russians would have that much more leverage over food and oil supplies/prices going forward.

 

[Arch Dornan]

The die is cast if the translation is right. Now we shall see in the years to come who will bend the knee.

 

[King Arts]

Dude 5 dollars a gallon minimum is not minor pain. You are doing the same shit the rich libs do telling people to buy electric cars and shit they can't afford. Simply put if we had other sources that we could ramp up then we could play against Russia. But as it is now, why should an American not be willing to let Russia have all of Ukraine in exchange for gas to go back down to 3 dollars?

 

[Zachowon]

Dude 5 dollars a gallon minimum is not minor pain. You are doing the same shit the rich libs do telling people to buy electric cars and shit they can't afford. Simply put if we had other sources that we could ramp up then we could play against Russia. But as it is now, why should an American not be willing to let Russia have all of Ukraine in exchange for gas to go back down to 3 dollars?

So we should buy Russian oil?

 

[King Arts]

So we should buy Russian oil?

Not necesarily. America could have not listened to environmentalists and just used more of it's domestic oil, or your glorious leaders in the US government like Biden your commander in chief could have not been a cuck and actually force Saudi Arabia to produce more oil. Instead of bringing up the topic gently and then backing off when the king of Saudi Arabia like a chad said no.
If you can't ensure either of those things so that the supply of oil is constant, then yes you should be Russia's bitch and buy from them. You can't have everything you want, there are sacrifices you have to make, you have to prioritize, choose one over the other.

 

[Zachowon]

Not necesarily. America could have not listened to environmentalists and just used more of it's domestic oil, or your glorious leaders in the US government like Biden your commander in chief could have not been a cuck and actually force Saudi Arabia to produce more oil. Instead of bringing up the topic gently and then backing off when the king of Saudi Arabia like a chad said no.
If you can't ensure either of those things so that the supply of oil is constant, then yes you should be Russia's bitch and buy from them. You can't have everything you want, there are sacrifices you have to make, you have to prioritize, choose one over the other.

Theb why is us cutting off Russian oil bad?
It will push for more domestic one way or another