Comments by "jeppen" (@jesan733) on "Russia's war economy is unsustainable" video.

@TheErazar thanks Ivan for trying to sow division.
166
@BronnBlackwater perhaps Russia should have tried to fix demographic decline, low birth rates and bad economic outlook in some other way than starting a war that exacerbates those same issues.
25
@angeurbain6129 the western economies have pretty much realigned after the initial supply chock of sanctions against Russia, so it's ceasing to be a problem. The direct cost to the western world is very, very low for supporting Ukraine. However, Russia having an interest rate approaching 20%, increasing repression and wasting a thousand men a day on the front lines is obviously not sound economics. Eventually the palianytsias are going to wreck Russian electricity production and gas distribution as well, so the winter of 2025/2026 in Russia will be cold and dark indeed.
9
@rosenleshtarski472 this war was meant to be won by Russia, because Russia initiated it with that goal and expectation. The west expected that to happen as well, but Ukraine performed better than expected and Russia worse than expected. The west didn't want this war, but when it was forced upon them, the leading governments have tried to contain it but haven't provided Ukraine overwhelming capabilities, fearful of Russian escalation beyond Ukraine if it loses quickly and decisively.
9
@petermomanyi529 "Nato countries even deposed a pro-russian government and imposed a pro-western one." NATO did not. Denying Ukrainian agency is typical Russian propaganda. The Revolution of Dignity was the culmination of the indigenous Euromaidan protests.
6
@johnadam2885 the Afghanistan engagement took up political and military bandwidth. Also progress in nation-building was perceived as slow. Also populist framing was increasingly that we have no business there and that the costs are too high, even though they weren't that high. So it was politically expedient to exit. Americans are polarized and divided for a lot of reasons, but none of them is that Ukraine support is truly expensive. It's not. But in populist rhetoric it is. Populists nurture a culture of taking pride in selfishness and reckless ignorance. People conflate budget deficit and printing dollars. It's not the same thing, and the problems are vastly overblown. There's no significant de-dollarization, and the US didn't incite the war in Ukraine. Quite the opposite, and frankly that was part of the problem. A criminal isn't provoked by the police, but by the absence of, or weakness of, the police.
5
@angeurbain6129 in the 60-ies, defense spending was 8-9% of GDP. Now it's 3.5% with a 0.2% of GDP add-on for supporting Ukraine. This does not stop the US from balancing the federal budget, nor from supporting its communities. Also, the deficit is financed by borrowing, not by printing money. The dollar as reserve currency is not threatened in any way.
4
@johnadam2885 the US could easily afford staying in Afghanistan, and can very easily afford supporting Ukraine. In fact, it's far cheaper to support Ukraine than to contain Russia through ordinary US military spending.
4
@AlexKarasev ">"The west didn't want this war, but when it was forced upon them" On which evidence is this view based?" The evidence is that the US virtually withdrew from Europe after the cold war, refused to send Ukraine any heavy weaponry before the war to not provoke, refused to give Ukraine any means to take back occupied territories before the war, that Germany and large parts of western Europe continued to make itself consciously energy dependent on Russia while having merely symbolic defense spending. Also, the west desperately negotiated before the war, which Putin did not respond to in good faith. And the west offered Zelensky a ride, expecting Kyiv to fall. If the west had wanted this war, don't you think they would have had prepared for it? Russia attacked exactly because we had not prepared for it.
4
@AlexKarasev "The cost of the war in Iraq exceeded $3T" The US has allocated approximately $30B annually for the Ukraine war, meaning it would not reach $3T until after 100 years. At the same time, the US defense budget is approaching $900B annually, meaning the Ukraine war is a tiny fraction. And it's extremely good value for money, reducing Russian capabilities in a way that would require trillions to match through mere readiness. In other words, now we have 3.5% of GDP in defense spending + 0.1% in Ukraine spending. If we just give up on Ukraine, the US should probably spend 4.5% of GDP to deter a strengthened Russia from going further.
3
@TheRedland284 it has borrowed from itself mainly. It's not that much either.
2
@r.s.4174 the US is producing greater value from mining than Russia. The US also has approximately 10x higher value-add from manufacturing than Russia.
2
@AlexKarasev we did enjoy the peace dividend and did not contain Russia after 1990. It wasn't completely free though. The cost is this war. It's a failure of containment. Russia saw that we are weak and acted on that.
2
Agreed, but Russia doesn't need protection for incoming threats from other border areas, because no neighbor wants or dares invade Russia. And it has already left its flank toward Finland and the Baltics virtually unprotected, going all-in toward Ukraine.
2
@angeurbain6129 "The US deficit is not balance and the printing of money is huge." This is a common misconception. The regulation of the money supply and the borrowing to cover the federal deficit are separate things done for separate reasons. The Fed’s actions are focused on stabilizing the economy, not on deficit financing. "The dollar as a reserv currency is under threat by the Brics." No, not in the slightest. "The fact of weaponizing the US dollar do not serv the american economy in the long run because many countries won't like the possibility of their asset in the US to be seized, like what is actually is going on with Russia." This is also two separate topics. The dollar as the world reserve currency is unrelated to how to seize Russian assets to start paying reparations for its illegal war.
1
@angeurbain6129 the regulation of the money supply and the borrowing to cover the federal deficit are separate things done for separate reasons. The Fed’s actions are focused on stabilizing the economy, not on deficit financing.
1
@milanmarinkovic3016 Read Christopher Paul, Miriam Matthews, The Russian "Firehose of Falsehood" Propaganda Model Why It Might Work and Options to Counter It, RAND Corporation.
1
@milanmarinkovic3016 read Christopher Paul, Miriam Matthews on Rssian prpaganda model, also RAND.
1
@BratBugarin "Russians are much more patriotic than you can even imagine." No they aren't. We saw in Kursk. People didn't care. "Ok, so we're Ukrainians now." Of course, after decades of repression and induced political apathy, why would anyone care?
1
@kenziecampbell4605 NATO GDP is 46% of the worlds GDP. And that doesn't include allies like Australia, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.
1
@johnadam2885 I'm not "indulging in a vague plea that America does not incite wars". I'm making the precise claim that that America did not incite Russia to start a war against Ukraine. It was an unforced error from Russia's side. "Then you argue America has no financial and social problems arising from sponsoring conflicts the world over. Alright then, carry on !" Yes, we will support Ukraine for as long as it takes. And we won't even break a sweat. "when the Iraqis and Libyans tried to sell in Euros, like Saddam and Gaddafi, you invaded and did regime change. Why ?" Not because of the dollar. That's a conspiracy theory. Sorry. "As more and more countries settle bills without using dollars, you will weaken. You are putting on a brave face." I simply don't recognize this as a problem.
1
@gustavalexander8676 if I had a dollar for every captive of Russian propaganda who believes I'm native while they understand how the world really works, I'd be rich.
1
@Adnancorner the US has larger minerals extraction value than Russia, and an order of magnitude more manufacturing.
1
@gustavalexander8676 we are really helping Ukraine. We could do more, yes. Pretty sure I'm not the naive one. Who repeats planted conspiracy theories?
1
@gustavalexander8676 when I criticize Russian propaganda, you retort with "Why do you consider any skepticism towards ukrainian performance as a 'planted conspiracy'?". From which dark place did you pull this "any" generalization? You say: "Academically, its very difficult to respect [...]". That's just ridiculous grandstanding. If you want to earn some respect yourself, perhaps don't "loool" at others like a child, don't overgeneralize in your accusations, don't wave academic credentials around and especially, don't cite obvious RT tools like Mearsheimer as truth witnesses. You ask: "Do you consider Mearsheimer to be a 'russian tool' because he concludes that Ukraine is doomed to lose the war?" And yeah, that and a lot of other things he says, including appearing on every RT propaganda site there is. It's not as if Mearsheimer is a military expert able to judge who will prevail in a conflict. He's merely an academic wedded to his theory (simplification) of historical power relations (offensive realism), and also audience captured (at best) by pro-Russians.
1
@gustavalexander8676 when I criticize Russian propaganda, you retort with "Why do you consider any skepticism towards ukrainian performance as a 'planted conspiracy'?". From which dark place did you pull this "any" generalization?
1
@gustavalexander8676 You say: "Academically, its very difficult to respect [...]". That's just ridiculous grandstanding. If you want to earn some respect yourself, perhaps don't "loool" at others like a child, don't overgeneralize in your accusations, don't wave academic credentials around and especially, don't cite obvious RT tools like Mearsheimer as truth witnesses.
1
@gustavalexander8676 You ask: "Do you consider Mearsheimer to be a 'russian tool' because he concludes that Ukraine is doomed to lose the war?" And yeah, that and a lot of other things he says, including appearing on every RT propaganda site there is. It's not as if Mearsheimer is a military expert able to judge who will prevail in a conflict. He's merely an academic wedded to his theory (simplification) of historical power relations (offensive realism), and also audience captured (at best) by pro-Russians.
1
@gustavalexander8676 I made a single comment first, then broke it up into three pieces to get past automoderation. You use the oldest rhetorical trick in the book when claiming I'm "angry". I'm not, I'm just amused by the arrogance. Some answers: 1) Go ahead and list the "well researched academically supported points" with evidence that they're just that. Then I can respond. 2) Where did I say it was? It's clearly a Russian narrative with little basis in reality, considering larger empires (such as the Soviet Union) has lost against weaker opponents (such as Afghanistan). 3) Again you make unfounded generalizations about my behavior, as if one instance of denouncements make me categorically denounce every opposing viewpoint. But to answer your questions: Yes, No, Unlike you and them, I don't just believe things said in my bubble.
1
@petermomanyi529 "Nato's role in the colour revolutions is well documented" I know, Nuland handed out some cookies on a square somewhere in Kyiv one day. "4 years later, the coup happened." A coup is made by a small number of government insiders. This was a popular revolution after months of huge protests in the streets of major cities. "Eastern Ukraine has always been pro-Russian, and that's why they demanded autonomy after the coup." Russia almost immediately invaded with "little green men" and heavy weaponry, and enlisted collaborators to also fight in order to pretend that a civil war had broke out. "Assuming Zelensky speaks for all of Ukraine is unwise and unrealistic." He's the democratically elected president. Ukraine has its internationally recognized borders and Russia has to leave.
1
@FunnyBunny-pd5xx I know about it already. Tragic outcome of a chaotic struggle.
1
@petermomanyi529 it's not NATO, it's the EU. Russia doesn't want the EU on their borders. It doesn't want prosperity, democracy and low corruption among a major brotherly neighbor, because then Russians will see and ask why they can't have good things.
1