Yes this war stinks of agenda. Much wider geopolitics. But your facts are irrelevant, on assumed GDP. Russia is almost exclusively a fully self service nation. Not many nations have those raw materials and natural resources and use them exclusively. Of course it relies on trade as well. But as an example the West relies on far more corporate supply chains. These trade into a monetary system crediting which currencies by using what markets and means of financial backing. Meanwhile the dynamic shifts, technology changes, becoming less reliant on which resources, as supply lines are rerouted, or markets trade away from which currencies .
However, aside from superficial notions of GDP. It of course comes down to production, bullets, troops, military equipment. Attrition. Wearing, dragging, depleting any numbers as wider geopolitics are adopted, by exhausting an enemy into surrender? Questionably how can Russia lose. How? Ukraine expelling every Russian from what it considers its border. Who made this border? It has Russian territory in it or claims of that territory. Directly hosting Crimea, a Russian nuclear base. Russia has nukes.
Instead all that funding is buying what. Attrition. Both sides are this? Which breaks accepting the others claims. As it becomes an otherwise wasteland of territorial capture. As far as Russian funding it isn't on the same field as current Ukrainian conscription and production towards, or has been fully attacked at home prior to this conflict, and gone into the same warmode. If it does, it still has nukes.
In the meantime geopolitics unfold as any risk increases of a wider conflict.
But as far as justifying any funding goes or any war efforts are those numbers factual? No, they rely on the attrition. The other side losing.
Simply looking at a map shows what. Of course a counter offensive might validate it?
However, aside from superficial notions of GDP. It of course comes down to production, bullets, troops, military equipment.
This is partially what I was trying to imply. The US military budget is close to Russia's entire gdp. A trillion dollars per year buys a lot of interesting R&D. If attrition indeed continues forever, Russia will collapse (yet again) before it gets close to defeating NATO.
The fact that Ukraine hasn't sent hardly anyone over into Russia to wreak mayhem is an indicator that the war is fake. A real Kievan would include taking the fight to the enemy, if only to move the crosshairs out of town and save his family's house from the bombs.
If I were Ivan I'd be setting truck bombs outside of hospitals churches and schools throughout Petersburg and Moscow.
Yes absolutely. But GDP becomes superficial in a war. A war it isn't fighting directly. It's simply funding and bankrolling another side off the backs of taxes, and inflation. On what kind of production. Which factories. Who is producing shells and rockets, equipment, those current stocks are being depleted. Western factories are now manufacturing where as an example? Did they even have the raw materials. Now what happens to the rising costs and increasing debts?
It's not the same as being directly involved in that war, because protocols start trimming away at other industry turning it into war production and conscription.
Not if it's not fighting. It's simply causing the prices to rise on any citizens. Meanwhile economics wobble.
Until production and the narrative starts becoming strained. It is feeding a battle of attrition. A battle which hasn't got the same dynamics, going into a proxy. A proxy without the same experience but it simply demands increasing funding.
Agreed the war can last for longer. Until a loss of interest, or concessions and terms or defeat, etc.
But what happens if Russia gets even more aggressive, and it starts targeting Kiev daily fully penetrating defenses, that demand more and more equipment, it being destroyed, quicker. What happens to Ukrainian morale if its supposed offensive of brand new equipment fails? What happens if Russia loses more territory?
Ultimately GDP is irrelevant in a conflict fought directly by other people..
Instead currently there are nothing but lies. When there are lies there is no conclusion. Both are still assuming the other's failures.
It's ironic.
Where is the truth in many of these reports being aired?
Example 100k Russians dead in 5 months. What territory acquired? How? Where? 15k Ukrainians dead last month in Bakhmut. Bullshit. Like all the rest of it. Speculation, estimates, propaganda, agenda. It's seemingly projecting right. It will keep raising those stakes until the other is defeated. Let's face it, at that rate will only escalate. Into you tell me?
If Ukraine gets to the Crimea. It's nukes. I have no idea what those trench lines are for there. An excerise in stupidity. No debate, that line is crossed. If not used to defend its bases, Russia might as well disarm completely, and hibernate. If Ukraine captures another city. It's more attrition. Russia hasn't gone into full warmode, conscription and production.
Yes this war stinks of agenda. Much wider geopolitics. But your facts are irrelevant, on assumed GDP. Russia is almost exclusively a fully self service nation. Not many nations have those raw materials and natural resources and use them exclusively. Of course it relies on trade as well. But as an example the West relies on far more corporate supply chains. These trade into a monetary system crediting which currencies by using what markets and means of financial backing. Meanwhile the dynamic shifts, technology changes, becoming less reliant on which resources, as supply lines are rerouted, or markets trade away from which currencies .
However, aside from superficial notions of GDP. It of course comes down to production, bullets, troops, military equipment. Attrition. Wearing, dragging, depleting any numbers as wider geopolitics are adopted, by exhausting an enemy into surrender? Questionably how can Russia lose. How? Ukraine expelling every Russian from what it considers its border. Who made this border? It has Russian territory in it or claims of that territory. Directly hosting Crimea, a Russian nuclear base. Russia has nukes.
Instead all that funding is buying what. Attrition. Both sides are this? Which breaks accepting the others claims. As it becomes an otherwise wasteland of territorial capture. As far as Russian funding it isn't on the same field as current Ukrainian conscription and production towards, or has been fully attacked at home prior to this conflict, and gone into the same warmode. If it does, it still has nukes.
In the meantime geopolitics unfold as any risk increases of a wider conflict.
But as far as justifying any funding goes or any war efforts are those numbers factual? No, they rely on the attrition. The other side losing.
Simply looking at a map shows what. Of course a counter offensive might validate it?
This is partially what I was trying to imply. The US military budget is close to Russia's entire gdp. A trillion dollars per year buys a lot of interesting R&D. If attrition indeed continues forever, Russia will collapse (yet again) before it gets close to defeating NATO.
The fact that Ukraine hasn't sent hardly anyone over into Russia to wreak mayhem is an indicator that the war is fake. A real Kievan would include taking the fight to the enemy, if only to move the crosshairs out of town and save his family's house from the bombs.
If I were Ivan I'd be setting truck bombs outside of hospitals churches and schools throughout Petersburg and Moscow.
Both sides want to see dead whites.
Yes absolutely. But GDP becomes superficial in a war. A war it isn't fighting directly. It's simply funding and bankrolling another side off the backs of taxes, and inflation. On what kind of production. Which factories. Who is producing shells and rockets, equipment, those current stocks are being depleted. Western factories are now manufacturing where as an example? Did they even have the raw materials. Now what happens to the rising costs and increasing debts?
It's not the same as being directly involved in that war, because protocols start trimming away at other industry turning it into war production and conscription.
Not if it's not fighting. It's simply causing the prices to rise on any citizens. Meanwhile economics wobble.
Until production and the narrative starts becoming strained. It is feeding a battle of attrition. A battle which hasn't got the same dynamics, going into a proxy. A proxy without the same experience but it simply demands increasing funding.
Agreed the war can last for longer. Until a loss of interest, or concessions and terms or defeat, etc.
But what happens if Russia gets even more aggressive, and it starts targeting Kiev daily fully penetrating defenses, that demand more and more equipment, it being destroyed, quicker. What happens to Ukrainian morale if its supposed offensive of brand new equipment fails? What happens if Russia loses more territory?
Ultimately GDP is irrelevant in a conflict fought directly by other people..
Instead currently there are nothing but lies. When there are lies there is no conclusion. Both are still assuming the other's failures.
It's ironic.
Where is the truth in many of these reports being aired?
Example 100k Russians dead in 5 months. What territory acquired? How? Where? 15k Ukrainians dead last month in Bakhmut. Bullshit. Like all the rest of it. Speculation, estimates, propaganda, agenda. It's seemingly projecting right. It will keep raising those stakes until the other is defeated. Let's face it, at that rate will only escalate. Into you tell me?
If Ukraine gets to the Crimea. It's nukes. I have no idea what those trench lines are for there. An excerise in stupidity. No debate, that line is crossed. If not used to defend its bases, Russia might as well disarm completely, and hibernate. If Ukraine captures another city. It's more attrition. Russia hasn't gone into full warmode, conscription and production.