From the horse's mouth...tequila4kapp said:
3 cheers for Russia! Only 10 months to capture a city that has been virtually demolished and which has very little, if any, strategic value.
Last December, Zelensky compared the battle for Bakhmut to the Saratoga battle. "The fight for Bakhmut will change the trajectory of our war for independence and freedom." pic.twitter.com/OY9POJsNGU
— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) March 5, 2023
Unit2Sucks said:
It looks like Bakhmut has finally fallen, 10 months after Russian propagandists first started pretending it had fallen.
This is a pivotal moment in the war because Ukraine is about to start its counter-offensive, Wagner is clearing out of Bakhmut and Russia is going to need to decide how many forces it maintains in Bakhmut vs fighting the offensive.
It also looks more and more like China isn't going to help Russia and with Russia's depleted economy and industrial capacity, they simply won't have enough to occupy Ukraine indefinitely. Philips Obrien talks about it here, although his article is mostly about how the impending delivery of F-16s will finally allow Ukraine to win the war.Quote:
Russia was and is too weak to have ever conquered even half of Ukraine, let alone achieve the kind of maximalist goals that Putin possessed, and we see now that the Russian economy cannot even produce the kinds of weaponry needed to hold on to 18% of the country. It was why I thought if Putin had any idea of the situation he was in, he would have tried to back out back at the start.
Finally, Timothy Snyder, who is a phenomenal scholar and expert on Russia/Ukraine, writes about Putin's threats and how we should really be considering them.
Quote:
[url=https://twitter.com/ndcarson][/url]Nathan Carson
@ndcarson
[url=https://twitter.com/ndcarson][/url]
Several things here:[url=https://twitter.com/ndcarson][/url]
1) China needs a capital account surplus to provide liquidity to its strained financial sector.
2) China's trade surplus is at record levels.
3) This means that the internal fiscal situation is far worse than CCP is letting on
Cal88 said:
^tl;dr?
already spending way too much time online on a spring weekend...
Prigozhin on the rumors about the liquidation of Commander-in-Chief of AFU, Zaluzhny:
— Trollstoy (@Trollstoy88) May 19, 2023
"For obvious reasons, I don't have information about Zaluzhny. I can say one thing that on May 10, 11 and 12, when he was within the reach of our guns, we carried out a number of events.
Nice try. Obviously if you are being invaded by an enemy that seeks to remove you from the face of the earth making them fight for a single city for 10 months is a good thing.BearHunter said:
3 cheers for Ukraine for defending a city that has been virtually demolished and which has very little, if any, strategic value?
Cal88 said:Unit2Sucks said:
It looks like Bakhmut has finally fallen, 10 months after Russian propagandists first started pretending it had fallen.
This is a pivotal moment in the war because Ukraine is about to start its counter-offensive, Wagner is clearing out of Bakhmut and Russia is going to need to decide how many forces it maintains in Bakhmut vs fighting the offensive.
It also looks more and more like China isn't going to help Russia and with Russia's depleted economy and industrial capacity, they simply won't have enough to occupy Ukraine indefinitely. Philips Obrien talks about it here, although his article is mostly about how the impending delivery of F-16s will finally allow Ukraine to win the war.Quote:
Russia was and is too weak to have ever conquered even half of Ukraine, let alone achieve the kind of maximalist goals that Putin possessed, and we see now that the Russian economy cannot even produce the kinds of weaponry needed to hold on to 18% of the country. It was why I thought if Putin had any idea of the situation he was in, he would have tried to back out back at the start.
Finally, Timothy Snyder, who is a phenomenal scholar and expert on Russia/Ukraine, writes about Putin's threats and how we should really be considering them.
There are about 10 really bad if not downright screwy takes in just one post there, here are a few:
- Russia's economy is not depleted, its industrial capacity is large enough to outproduce all of NATO combined in ammunition, tanks and missiles. furthermore, they have been doing this without significantly affecting their economy.
I can't think of any countries in Europe that are better off than Russia today economically speaking. Russia now has the lowest inflation rates due to their domestic input costs (gas, oil, fertilizers, metals, lumber etc) having actually dropped, they've had a healthy accumulation of proceeds from exports, they have full employment (something most European countries can only dream of), and they have the lowest debt to GDP ratio among large industrialized nations at 16%.
- Putin's alleged maximalist goals
Putin just wanted to get a Minsk 3-type political settlement in April 22, which would have ended the war. NATO actively scuttled that, with Boris Johnson personally intervening to sabotage the Istanbul peace talks.
It is because of this that there has been a quarter million plus Ukrainian soldiers killed the last 13 months.
Furthermore, Russia has been pushed into extending the war by NATO saying that they will formally turn Ukraine into a member "after the war is over", which means that Russia now cannot stop until they take control of the Ukrainian government, either by force, or through a new Ukrainian government changing course.
-China isn't going to help Russia
China already is providing Russia with a few items needed for their weapon production buildup, like ball bearings. They have been keeping a low key because Russia seems to be doing well on its own as it is.
Finally this silly tweet:Quote:
[url=https://twitter.com/ndcarson][/url]Nathan Carson
@ndcarson
[url=https://twitter.com/ndcarson][/url]
Several things here:[url=https://twitter.com/ndcarson][/url]
1) China needs a capital account surplus to provide liquidity to its strained financial sector.
2) China's trade surplus is at record levels.
3) This means that the internal fiscal situation is far worse than CCP is letting on
China is reeling because their trade surplus is at record levels? I mean, seriously??
Exclusive: Kharkiv residents leave city, tanks spotted in #Odessa pic.twitter.com/M0qvx9Cfrq
— CGTN (@CGTNOfficial) February 24, 2022
Bakhmut was taken by a restauranteur and some convicts, against an army trained and supplied by US and NATO. pic.twitter.com/OMoP2K8kqT
— Chebureki Man (@CheburekiMan) May 20, 2023
Cal88 said:
So you've noticed, because you were here all day?
good to veg out watching 3- 4 games today after a long week at work ...
dajo9 said:
Russia would be better off economically if they had more debt (i.e. more government spending). Your little expose on Russia's economy failed to cover the size of their economy (behind Italy - ouch).
DiabloWags said:dajo9 said:
Russia would be better off economically if they had more debt (i.e. more government spending). Your little expose on Russia's economy failed to cover the size of their economy (behind Italy - ouch).
Not only that, but RUSSIA struggles to be in the TOP 50 richest economies in the world. Its ranked 49th.
GDP/Per Capita= $33,521.00
Just ahead of that economic power... the BAHAMAS!
https://www.worlddata.info/richest-countries.php
DiabloWags said:dajo9 said:
Russia would be better off economically if they had more debt (i.e. more government spending). Your little expose on Russia's economy failed to cover the size of their economy (behind Italy - ouch).
Not only that, but RUSSIA struggles to be in the TOP 50 richest economies in the world. Its ranked 49th.
GDP/Per Capita= $33,521.00
Just ahead of that economic power... the BAHAMAS!
https://www.worlddata.info/richest-countries.php
Quote:
Russia would be better off economically if they had more debt (i.e. more government spending). Your little expose on Russia's economy failed to cover the size of their economy (behind Italy - ouch).
DiabloWags said:Cal88 said:
So you've noticed, because you were here all day?
good to veg out watching 3- 4 games today after a long week at work ...
Good for you.
I retired in my 50's.
Dont have to work.
Am currently watching the Denver/LA game and laughing at your ridiculous pro-Russia propaganda.
Cal88 said:
You could use more reading in your spare time (and I don't mean sappy boomer Peggy Noonan editorials).
movielover said:
So economy #50 is spanking Ukraine and the collective West / NATO. Apparently GDP doesn't dictate military prowess.
Cal88 said:
Russia is the 6th largest economy PPP, behind China, the US, india, Japan and Germany. It will pass Germany later this decade, as a result of Biden&Blinken blowing up Nordstream and Germany shutting down its nuclear powerplants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)Quote:
Russia would be better off economically if they had more debt (i.e. more government spending). Your little expose on Russia's economy failed to cover the size of their economy (behind Italy - ouch).
Foreign debt creates dependence, that's why Russia paid off its crippling debt from the 90s in the 2000s.
Russia produces 3 times as much steel as Italy, 13 times as much wheat, 3.5 times as many cars, and consumes 5.5 times more energy than Italy.
Russia is the 4th largest energy consumer in the world.
https://yearbook.enerdata.net/total-energy/world-consumption-statistics.html
The income tax rate in Russia is 13%, regardless of income.
A gallon of gas costs $2.30 in Russia, a loaf of bread around 60c, a unlimited distance subway ticket in Moscow, arguably the most beautiful underground transport system in the world, costs 80c.
The poverty rate in Russia, which was over 40% in the 1990s, is lower today than that of the US, UK, Germany, France or Sweden, and dropping still, while it has been rising sharply across the West due to rampant inflation and other factors.
dajo9 said:Cal88 said:
Russia is the 6th largest economy PPP, behind China, the US, india, Japan and Germany. It will pass Germany later this decade, as a result of Biden&Blinken blowing up Nordstream and Germany shutting down its nuclear powerplants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)Quote:
Russia would be better off economically if they had more debt (i.e. more government spending). Your little expose on Russia's economy failed to cover the size of their economy (behind Italy - ouch).
Foreign debt creates dependence, that's why Russia paid off its crippling debt from the 90s in the 2000s.
Russia produces 3 times as much steel as Italy, 13 times as much wheat, 3.5 times as many cars, and consumes 5.5 times more energy than Italy.
Russia is the 4th largest energy consumer in the world.
https://yearbook.enerdata.net/total-energy/world-consumption-statistics.html
The income tax rate in Russia is 13%, regardless of income.
A gallon of gas costs $2.30 in Russia, a loaf of bread around 60c, a unlimited distance subway ticket in Moscow, arguably the most beautiful underground transport system in the world, costs 80c.
The poverty rate in Russia, which was over 40% in the 1990s, is lower today than that of the US, UK, Germany, France or Sweden, and dropping still, while it has been rising sharply across the West due to rampant inflation and other factors.
Measuring economies by PPP sure does wonders for poor countries with low costs. In your world, India has the 3rd best economy and Indonesia 7th best. Seems like a flawed measure.
Also, bragging about energy inefficiency is not quite the flex you think it is.
The problem with your logic that I need to get out of Jersey is that you are talking about future projections and I am talking about the world as it is today. India absolutely should be a top 2 economy in the world. They and China each have a billion more people than any other country. Indonesia has the 4th largest population in the world.Cal88 said:dajo9 said:Cal88 said:
Russia is the 6th largest economy PPP, behind China, the US, india, Japan and Germany. It will pass Germany later this decade, as a result of Biden&Blinken blowing up Nordstream and Germany shutting down its nuclear powerplants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)Quote:
Russia would be better off economically if they had more debt (i.e. more government spending). Your little expose on Russia's economy failed to cover the size of their economy (behind Italy - ouch).
Foreign debt creates dependence, that's why Russia paid off its crippling debt from the 90s in the 2000s.
Russia produces 3 times as much steel as Italy, 13 times as much wheat, 3.5 times as many cars, and consumes 5.5 times more energy than Italy.
Russia is the 4th largest energy consumer in the world.
https://yearbook.enerdata.net/total-energy/world-consumption-statistics.html
The income tax rate in Russia is 13%, regardless of income.
A gallon of gas costs $2.30 in Russia, a loaf of bread around 60c, a unlimited distance subway ticket in Moscow, arguably the most beautiful underground transport system in the world, costs 80c.
The poverty rate in Russia, which was over 40% in the 1990s, is lower today than that of the US, UK, Germany, France or Sweden, and dropping still, while it has been rising sharply across the West due to rampant inflation and other factors.
Measuring economies by PPP sure does wonders for poor countries with low costs. In your world, India has the 3rd best economy and Indonesia 7th best. Seems like a flawed measure.
Also, bragging about energy inefficiency is not quite the flex you think it is.
India and Indonesia are the fastest-growing large economies in the world today, while G7 economies are stagnant, with industrial decline and growing social unrest and poverty. India is going to be the 3rd largest economy in the world, it's only a matter of time, like China, it is regaining its historic position as a civilizational world power.
The world is changing, you need to get out of Jersey more often. Countries like the US, where it costs between a quarter million and half a million dollars to get a bachelors degree, $50,000 for an appendectomy - this is not a sign of wealth, it's a sign of a broken social and economic system, and of an inflated GDP and economy driven by F.I.R.E.
A lot of the political turmoil on the world scene, including this war and the one looming in the east Pacific, is a direct result of the drastic shifts in the global economy -Thucydides Trap.
dajo9 said:The problem with your logic that I need to get out of Jersey is that you are talking about future projections and I am talking about the world as it is today. India absolutely should be a top 2 economy in the world. They and China each have a billion more people than any other country. Indonesia has the 4th largest population in the world.Cal88 said:
India and Indonesia are the fastest-growing large economies in the world today, while G7 economies are stagnant, with industrial decline and growing social unrest and poverty. India is going to be the 3rd largest economy in the world, it's only a matter of time, like China, it is regaining its historic position as a civilizational world power.
The world is changing, you need to get out of Jersey more often. Countries like the US, where it costs between a quarter million and half a million dollars to get a bachelors degree, $50,000 for an appendectomy - this is not a sign of wealth, it's a sign of a broken social and economic system, and of an inflated GDP and economy driven by F.I.R.E.
A lot of the political turmoil on the world scene, including this war and the one looming in the east Pacific, is a direct result of the drastic shifts in the global economy -Thucydides Trap.
Now when it comes to which country would you want to be a citizen of, the metric to use is GDP per capita, for which the U.S. does very well. Russia and China come in just behind Bulgaria. India comes in just behind Ivory Coast. Indonesia comes in just behind Namibia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
Your preferred measure of PPP GDP is just a way to boost large, poor countries in the rankings because it is cheap to live there. Why is it cheap to live there? All the poverty.
Please provide a source for this dataCal88 said:dajo9 said:The problem with your logic that I need to get out of Jersey is that you are talking about future projections and I am talking about the world as it is today. India absolutely should be a top 2 economy in the world. They and China each have a billion more people than any other country. Indonesia has the 4th largest population in the world.Cal88 said:
India and Indonesia are the fastest-growing large economies in the world today, while G7 economies are stagnant, with industrial decline and growing social unrest and poverty. India is going to be the 3rd largest economy in the world, it's only a matter of time, like China, it is regaining its historic position as a civilizational world power.
The world is changing, you need to get out of Jersey more often. Countries like the US, where it costs between a quarter million and half a million dollars to get a bachelors degree, $50,000 for an appendectomy - this is not a sign of wealth, it's a sign of a broken social and economic system, and of an inflated GDP and economy driven by F.I.R.E.
A lot of the political turmoil on the world scene, including this war and the one looming in the east Pacific, is a direct result of the drastic shifts in the global economy -Thucydides Trap.
Now when it comes to which country would you want to be a citizen of, the metric to use is GDP per capita, for which the U.S. does very well. Russia and China come in just behind Bulgaria. India comes in just behind Ivory Coast. Indonesia comes in just behind Namibia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
Your preferred measure of PPP GDP is just a way to boost large, poor countries in the rankings because it is cheap to live there. Why is it cheap to live there? All the poverty.
US GDP/capita: $80,000
US median income: $54,000
DiabloWags said:movielover said:
So economy #50 is spanking Ukraine and the collective West / NATO. Apparently GDP doesn't dictate military prowess.
You mean the Country that was supposed to overtake Kiev over the weekend back in February of 2022?
The one that has sustained over 200,000 deaths?
The one that is still struggling 14 months later?
The one that had a 35 mile convoy outside of Kiev stuck in the mud and totally exposed?
The column of vehicles that were stalled for weeks?
The one that ended in total failure and retreated?
Too bad the USA didnt just fly in with a few A10 Warthogs and blow those maggots to hell.
They were sitting ducks. Brilliant military strategy and leadership!
You're about as delusional as they come on the internet.
I'll give you that Movielover.
100% delusional.
>>>>> The BBC confirms that the 200,000 KIA figure for Russia is pure fantasy. My estimate above is consistent with their research.Quote:
What is known about the losses of Russia in Ukraine by mid-FebruaryFebruary 17, 2023
- Olga Ivshina BBC
Based on open sources, the BBC managed to establish the names of 14,709 Russian soldiers who died in the war in Ukraine. ...
Confirmed losses began to grow significantly since mid-December. Throughout 2022, Russian sources typically reported about 250-300 deaths each week. In January, these figures doubled.
But in just two weeks in February, the BBC Russian Service, together with Mediazona (recognized as a "foreign agent" in Russia) and a team of volunteers, managed to confirm the names of 1,679 dead, five times more than the usual weekly numbers. This is the largest increase in Russian military casualties since the invasion of Ukraine. And we are talking only about the data that we manage to find and verify from open sources, that is, the real number of losses is definitely even higher.
Most of the dead over the past three months are mobilized, volunteers (that is, those who signed a contract with the army and the National Guard after the start of the war) and prisoners.
We rely only on confirmed death reports, so the data collected does not reflect the actual level of casualties. We assume that our list may contain at least two times fewer names of the dead than actually buried in Russia. We came to this conclusion by studying the situation in cemeteries in more than 60 Russian settlements throughout 2022.
Therefore, according to the most conservative estimate, during the invasion of Ukraine, Russia could have lost more than 29,500 people dead.
dajo9 said:Please provide a source for this dataCal88 said:
US GDP/capita: $80,000
US median income: $54,000
You seem awfully hesitant to provide a source for this data. And you seem to want to blame me for your failings. I wonder why you suddenly want to end this discussion without providing support for your data.Cal88 said:dajo9 said:Please provide a source for this dataCal88 said:
US GDP/capita: $80,000
US median income: $54,000
You're probably confusing median household income, which is around $70k, with median income.
In any case, this is off-topic.
dajo9 said:You seem awfully hesitant to provide a source for this data. And you seem to want to blame me for your failings. I wonder why you suddenly want to end this discussion without providing support for your data.Cal88 said:dajo9 said:Please provide a source for this dataCal88 said:
US GDP/capita: $80,000
US median income: $54,000
You're probably confusing median household income, which is around $70k, with median income.
In any case, this is off-topic.
oski003 said:dajo9 said:You seem awfully hesitant to provide a source for this data. And you seem to want to blame me for your failings. I wonder why you suddenly want to end this discussion without providing support for your data.Cal88 said:dajo9 said:Please provide a source for this dataCal88 said:
US GDP/capita: $80,000
US median income: $54,000
You're probably confusing median household income, which is around $70k, with median income.
In any case, this is off-topic.
Here is a source from a two minute Google search. You can do the same at www.google.com.
https://www.firstrepublic.com/insights-education/how-much-does-the-average-american-make
dajo9 said:oski003 said:dajo9 said:You seem awfully hesitant to provide a source for this data. And you seem to want to blame me for your failings. I wonder why you suddenly want to end this discussion without providing support for your data.Cal88 said:dajo9 said:Please provide a source for this dataCal88 said:
US GDP/capita: $80,000
US median income: $54,000
You're probably confusing median household income, which is around $70k, with median income.
In any case, this is off-topic.
Here is a source from a two minute Google search. You can do the same at www.google.com.
https://www.firstrepublic.com/insights-education/how-much-does-the-average-american-make
Since you are quick to provide assistance to the "America is doomed crowd" can you provide the quick Google link supporting Putin88's GDP per capita number for America?
oski003 said:dajo9 said:oski003 said:dajo9 said:You seem awfully hesitant to provide a source for this data. And you seem to want to blame me for your failings. I wonder why you suddenly want to end this discussion without providing support for your data.Cal88 said:dajo9 said:Please provide a source for this dataCal88 said:
US GDP/capita: $80,000
US median income: $54,000
You're probably confusing median household income, which is around $70k, with median income.
In any case, this is off-topic.
Here is a source from a two minute Google search. You can do the same at www.google.com.
https://www.firstrepublic.com/insights-education/how-much-does-the-average-american-make
Since you are quick to provide assistance to the "America is doomed crowd" can you provide the quick Google link supporting Putin88's GDP per capita number for America?
America isn't doomed, but we are certainly open to valid criticism. Can you link his GDP per Capita post? I am glad I could be of help. Google is a good site.
dajo9 said:You seem awfully hesitant to provide a source for this data. And you seem to want to blame me for your failings. I wonder why you suddenly want to end this discussion without providing support for your data.Cal88 said:dajo9 said:Please provide a source for this dataCal88 said:
US GDP/capita: $80,000
US median income: $54,000
You're probably confusing median household income, which is around $70k, with median income.
In any case, this is off-topic.
