Latest Ukraine/Russia Thread

[BlueOak]

Here is what I originally thought: an exaggerated claim with reasonable sourcing for its overall message. @Breakingthewall

3.20
Here it's sourced that the Russian railways' profit has dropped from 118 billion to 13.9 billion. I thought this 90% drop an exaggeration and was going to say even if it was half of this, that's still huge, and before this latest round of refinery hits are ongoing, which is what's nose-diving things. Allegedly 35 billion dollars in debt, but I haven't verified that last claim.
 

Russian Railways Profit Drop (Sources & Context)

Recent reports indicate that Russian Railways’ (RZD) net profit fell from 118.3 billion rubles in 2023 to 13.9 billion rubles in 2024 — a decline of nearly 90%.

Sources:

TRACECA News — “What impact did the war have on Russian Railways?”
https://traceca.ge/en/news/whatimpactdidthewarhaveonrussianrailways?utm_source=chatgpt.com

The Moscow Times — “Russian Railways furloughs staff amid freight traffic slump – RBC”
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2025/08/04/russian-railways-furloughs-staff-amid-freight-traffic-slump-rbc-a90092?utm_source=chatgpt.com

RailFreight.com — “From staff shortage to layoffs in a year: Russian Railways to cut workforce”
https://www.railfreight.com/business/2025/10/20/from-staff-shortage-to-layoffs-in-a-year-russian-railways-to-cut-workforce/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

RailFreight.com — “Russian Railways net profit vanishes”
https://www.railfreight.com/railfreight/2025/03/10/russian-railways-net-profit-vanishes/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Caveats & context:

These figures refer to net profit (after interest, taxes, and other costs) under Russian accounting standards.

No official RZD financial statement publicly available yet confirms these exact figures line-by-line; the data is drawn from press briefings and RBC-reported leaks.

Analysts attribute the collapse in profit to declining freight volumes, sanctions, rising debt-service costs, and export disruptions.

The figures reflect broader strain across Russia’s transport sector rather than a total collapse of operations.

I asked it to verify the claims

• I could not locate a publicly accessible RZD annual report (2024) that clearly lists the net profit for 2023 as 118 billion rubles. The “118 billion” figure appears in press statements/analyses but not in a verified financial statement I found.
• The detailed breakdown of how much of the drop was due to interest expenses, tax, extraordinary items etc., is not available from the sources I found.
• Some sources quote “15 billion rubles” or “around 15 billion rubles” as 2024 net profit, which is consistent with ~13.9 billion but indicates rounding/variation. RailFreight.com

🔍 My conclusion (GPT's)

• The claim “net profit dropped from ~118 billion rubles to 13.9 billion rubles” has strong support in multiple independent reports for the 13.9 billion number for 2024.
• However, the starting figure of ~118 billion rubles in 2023 is not clearly verified by a primary source I located.
• Without access to the full official audit/annual report, one should treat the 118 billion figure as plausible but not confirmed with full transparency.
• If you like, I can try to dig into Russian-language filings of RZD (e.g., via Moscow Exchange disclosures, government submissions) to find a definitive “net profit 2023 = 118 billion” number. Would you like me to do that?

Edited October 21 by BlueOak

[Breakingthewall]

8 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Here it's sourced that the Russian railways' profit has dropped from 118 billion to 13.9 billion.

9 hours ago, BlueOak said:

 

This is true, but Chatgpt says this: 

 

✅ Verified Financial Data — Russian Railways (RZD)

In 2023, RZD reported a net profit of 118.3 billion rubles.
(Source: eng.rzd.ru)

In 2024, under Russian accounting standards (RSBU), RZD’s net profit dropped to 13.9 billion rubles, a fall of nearly 90 %.
(Source: RBC.ru)

Under international accounting standards (IFRS), the company reported a net profit of 50.7 billion rubles for 2024 — about a 70 % decrease compared to 2023.
(Source: metalinfo.ru)

Despite the profit decline, revenues actually increased by around 8–9 %, reaching roughly 3.3 trillion rubles in 2024.
(Source: TASS)

⚠️ Interpretation

The discrepancy between 13.9 billion and 50.7 billion rubles results from different accounting standards (RSBU vs IFRS).

The profit collapse doesn’t mean the company is “collapsing,” but it does show serious profitability pressure: revenues are rising, but so are costs, debt servicing, and capital expenses.

The decline likely reflects higher interest rates, currency volatility, war-related logistics issues, and heavy capital investment.

RZD has launched a massive investment program (≈ 1.4–1.5 trillion rubles for 2024), which reduces short-term profit but supports infrastructure goals.

🧾 Conclusion

Yes — RZD’s net profit plunged dramatically in 2024, while revenue grew.
This means the company faces financial stress and thinner margins, not total collapse.
It’s still functioning but under heavy economic pressure from sanctions, logistics rerouting, and high domestic costs.

 

[Breakingthewall]

Also this: 

 

🏦 Financial expenses & debt for RZD 

RZD expects interest payment costs to reach around US $7 billion in 2025, compared to about US $1.1 billion in the first half of 2024.

Its net debt is projected to rise to RUB 3.9 trillion (≈ US $39.6 billion) in 2025, up from RUB 2.54 trillion at mid-2024.

Operating expenses in 2024 increased by about 8.6 %, to ~RUB 2.84 trillion.

Revenues grew (~9.2 % in 2024) to ~RUB 3.29 trillion, but the much faster growth in financial expenses and cost pressures squeezed net profit.

🧾 Why this matters

Because:

When debt is very large and interest rates are high (Russia’s key rate ~17-20 % in 2025), the cost of servicing debt eats into profit heavily.

Even with revenue growth, if financial costs rise faster the margin collapses.

Large capital investment programmes (RZD has record investments ~RUB 1.3-1.5 trillion for 2024) mean high depreciation, high maintenance, and additional borrowing.

The mismatch between growth in “top line” revenue and the burden of debt/interest/capex results in much smaller net profits, which is what we see.

 

[zazen]

@BlueOak @Breakingthewall That’s definitely a lot of pressure being applied for once - via drones of all tools. They seem to be doing what sanctions intended to - whether that bends or breaks Russia is to be seen.

Let’s say all this pans out to the point of collapse - do we really think Russia is going to sit by and allow itself to collapse or wouldn’t it level Ukraine before that even happens? As Israel has done to Gaza.

 If all this chaos takes Putin out who comes after? As far as I know Putin seems to be the more restrained among the lot who are growing frustrated with him not gong all out. Putins seems to be balancing things as to not tilt so far into forcing NATO’s direct involvement or alienation from its allies or the world for going scorched earth and racking up the civilian death toll.

The reason tomahawks escalate things is because when launched no one can tell whether their equipped with nuclear warheads or not - so Russia would have to take this into account and respond for the worst case which risks nuclear war. Yet we have Eurocons egging all this on as if they’re unaware of the basics. Seems it was a bluff tactic as Trump is known for. Are we all ready to spill blood for this war?

Good listen going into the fragile situation we’re currently in:

It’s a narrative war out there. This for example: https://x.com/simpatico771/status/1980718375757029645?s=46&t=DuLUbFRQFGpB8oo7PwRglQ

See the exchange of bodies linked in that tweet which shows Russia exchanging far more Ukrainian casualties than Ukraine. Fog of war.

If manpower eventually becomes an issue - what next? Europe sending troops and direct war..

It seems on all fronts there are massive pressures which is why even UK’s top chief is saying what he is (Ukraine can’t win). Manpower, arms (Trump saying they need it for themselves), funding (freezing assets now which isn’t optically good for trust in Western finance and will have consequences). Just more de-industrialising and bad economic outlook for Europe with all the moves being made (Nexperia also). Today a refinery in Hungary is ablaze now too lol.

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2025/10/20/should-frozen-russian-assets-fund-ukraine-eu/

“The West does not have the resources to bankroll an indefinite war. Instead, fatigue has risen – notably in the United States – for continuing to finance Ukraine. There is a curtailed capacity to deliver on loans and grants when many western governments face political and budgetary turmoilthemselves.

Ukraine can no longer rely on the United States to deliver any sustained financing. This means the European Union – already Ukraine’s single largest financier – will have to foot much of the bill. But there may be a voter backlash within the EU if the military funding of Ukraine comes at the expense of domestic spending. The only realistic resource at this stage is the Russian assets.”

All they have now are drones and courage it seems. Or a invitation to scorched earth policy from NATO stepping in directly of which Ukraine will be the first casualty. Even if Eurocons and Neocons get their wet dream of ousting Putin, that will bring in a someone with a harsher stance they need to deal with - so what’s the off ramp here? Seems the battlefield will decide.

Edited October 21 by zazen

[Breakingthewall]

7 hours ago, zazen said:

That’s definitely a lot of pressure being applied for once - via drones of all tools. They seem to be doing what sanctions intended to - whether that bends or breaks Russia is to be seen.

Russia is under pressure, but it seems its population is willing to endure much longer. They are aware that their nation's future is at stake, and the sacrifice they have to make isn't that enormous: holding out for one or two years.

Harsher actions, such as devastating Ukraine further, wouldn't end the resistance if NATO continues to provide materiel. Russia's war isn't against Ukraine; it's against NATO. The problem for Ukraine is that the number of casualties and devastation is scandalous, but they don't seem to care. NATO obviously doesn't care either. Besides, China won't openly help Russia, but it has no interest in its downfall. It will contribute discreetly to maintain the balance.

[BlueOak]

@zazen
@Breakingthewall

Reality doesn't care what I want, or you want. It doesn't care what Russia or Ukraine want, it just is.

Russia will collapse unless it gets heavy bailouts. Again, draw a downward line; the pattern is that simple to understand. It cannot avoid that if it continues with its current policy. Ukraine will very slowly lose land, that's a reality.

I.E Russia needs to negotiate, like Ukraine does. Ukraine offered a ceasefire at the current negotiations; Russia refused. Though there are plenty of hard realities Ukraine would need to accept as well, but it is willing to sit down and start. Currently, Russia won't recognize Ukraine as a state, it's literally said so again yesterday. Won't recognise Zelensky, or that it won't occupy the territory it demands (till 2030), or that Ukraine will never demilitarize, just like Russia won't. So there will never be peace with Putin in power; he won't even sit down with him.

What that means is Russia collapses if Putin lives. This is where I draw that conclusion from.

Now, what does a collapse mean? No fuel on the front. Breakaway Russian regions. Internal conflict. You may think the Russians will tolerate war, not when they are starving and homeless they won't. When they can't pay their soldiers, you think there are soldiers there keen to be fighting? They are there for the huge windfalls they were promised and are now not receiving already.  Not when there is no money to draw from the bank and everything costs a fortune.

That's when the government collapses, as you can't pay the police or services or army. There are multiple independence movements in Russia ready to break. China is keeping the economy afloat, but its still going downward because it can't carry the entirety of its country on its back. It can buy it up and has been doing so, slowly making Russia a proxy of China, but it's a band-aid on parts of the country (eastern).

On manpower. Drones > Manpower now.
Ukraine is doing more with less. Russian casualties are estimated at five times those of Ukraine in the current suicidal armored pushes. Probably those 35k Cubans being wiped out.
There is another scenario. Russia starts a general mobilisation, which would still be a death knell to its economy and uprisings, only faster. Or Europe cuts off Ukraine, but this last one is highly unlikely. Not least of which, because Putin was dumb enough to involve Europe as much as possible, firing threats every other week to inspire fear, to inspire defense, to inspire a stronger NATO response etc.

On money. Ukraine doesn't need America. It needs money, yes, but not the states.To be honest, in Europe we are better off without America, as their obvious path is to fascism. I don't see enough indicators that this is going to be halted short of a corrupt democracy (or democracy in name) which is difficult to work with as an ally, as bribes winout.

There was an insane drone and cruise missile barrage today of mostly Ukrainian origin, made up of Ukrainian drones and missiles with a few Stormshadows. As a response, no doubt to Putin just dragging out negotiations and people telling them they can't win. (Some say Trump gave the go-ahead to punish Russia for making him look bad) The win is Russia's economic collapse; it's always been that. 

At least the Russian stockmarket is back in freefall, now the stupid delaying tactic courting Trump has been realised for what it is, a stupid delaying tactic. The third time Trump's fallen for it

Edited October 22 by BlueOak

[BlueOak]

As for the tomahawk propaganda: @zazen

GPT Answer, as I wanted it to break down all weapons in Ukraine.

Short answer: practically no — there’s nothing Ukraine is currently being supplied by the West (or fielding itself) that comes pre-configured to carry a nuclear warhead. The old Tomahawk did have a nuclear variant in the Cold War, but that variant was retired and modern Western-supplied missiles in use today are conventional only. Wikipedia+1

Explanation / key points (with sources)

Tomahawk history — nuclear variant existed, but it’s retired.
The BGM-109 family once included a TLAM-N (nuclear) variant that carried a W80 warhead. That TLAM-N was taken out of service (the US retired TLAM-N decades ago) — the Tomahawks discussed for use in Ukraine today are the conventional Block IV / Block V types. Wikipedia+1

Other Western missiles sent to Ukraine are conventionally armed.
Weapons often discussed or supplied to Ukraine — e.g. MBDA’s Storm Shadow/SCALP, US ATACMS/MGM-140, JASSM family, naval antiship missiles, LR-SAMs etc. — are designed and fielded as conventional weapons, not as nuclear delivery systems. Western nuclear warheads are part of national nuclear forces and are tightly controlled; they are not exported as a routine capability. Wikipedia+2Missile Threat+2

Nuclear warheads are not something states transfer lightly — legal and political constraints.
The NPT / non-proliferation norms and alliance practices (e.g., NATO “nuclear sharing” keeps US warheads under US control) mean that transferring operational nuclear warheads to a partner would be an extraordinary, escalatory political decision — not a technical detail. In practice that’s why Western states do not supply their conventional missiles with nuclear warheads to third parties. NATO+1

What about Ukrainian/Soviet-era missiles? Some Soviet systems had nuclear-capable variants — but Ukraine doesn’t possess warheads.
Soviet-era systems (for example the OTR-21 Tochka family) had nuclear-capable variants on paper; some cruise missiles like the Soviet Kh-55 were built to carry nuclear warheads. However, Ukraine voluntarily gave up the Soviet nuclear warheads it inherited after the USSR collapsed (the 1990s transfers and the 1994 Budapest/Trilateral arrangements), and the country does not possess nuclear warheads today. There have been historical proliferation incidents (e.g., reports Ukraine transferred some Kh-55 airframes in the 2000s, reportedly without warheads), but that is very different from having an intact national stockpile of warheads that could be mated to missiles. Wikipedia+2Arms Control Association+2

Could any missile be converted if a nuclear warhead were supplied by a nuclear state?
Technically, some cruise or tactical ballistic missiles can be fitted to accept a nuclear warhead if a state chooses to design, test and certify such a pairing — but that is a major engineering and political action (requires the warhead, integration work, safety/permissive-action systems, testing, and authorisation). In short: the only realistic route to make any Ukrainian launcher deliver a nuclear blast would be a deliberate transfer of a nuclear warhead (and the associated political/legal decision) by a nuclear-armed state — an act that would massively escalate and violate non-proliferation norms. Wikipedia+1

Bottom line (plain):

Tomahawk: historically had a nuclear version → retired; modern Tomahawks are conventional. Wikipedia+1

Storm Shadow, ATACMS, JASSM, Neptune, Harpoon, etc.: conventional only in operational use for Ukraine. Wikipedia+2Missile Threat+2

Ukraine: does not possess nuclear warheads today (gave them up in the 1990s). Some Soviet-era missiles were capable of carrying nuclear warheads on paper, but without warheads that capability is moot. Arms Control Association+1

[BlueOak]

Here is the general fuel shortage map attached:



https://x.com/delfoo/status/1979533376127398251/photo/1


What this translates to in real life is. Queues. Plenty of gas stations don't have fuel, some have closed as they cannot afford to operate because of a cap on prices. When one gets fuel people spread the word and go to it, forming long queues. This is after 2.5 months, the problem gets progressively worse not better, and will continue to do so as more damage is inflicted on depots, pumping stations, refinery deposits, pipelines etc. Picture this again at 10 months... into an already pained, backsliding economy

Its a degradation of all aspects of the Russian economy and life, including the military, as the occupied areas are easiest to hit. Crimea is losing all its storage capacity in an attempt to depopulate the area. Then the bridge can be blown, and it's cut off.

So its sustained growing pressure to speed up Russia's collapse. There was a report that certain local governors were saying they had 1% of the funds they needed to end the year on. The country is not too far from collapsing. I am not trying to BS people, or hyperbole it. Not without a pattern change of some kind. China moving in to take over more, bailing out Russia, a negotiated peace, independence movements trying to save their regions etc. Something substantial, or that's it.

 

Edited October 22 by BlueOak

[zazen]

@BlueOak Regarding the Tomahawks - the issue is in the ambiguity and the fact that NATO or the US could put nuclear warheads even if Ukraine doesn't have them itself. Nuclear deterrence runs on worst-case logic and Russia will have to factor this in. Beside that - the range is threatening enough and it would mean US/Western involvement much more concretely in strikes upon Russia which complicates Russia's position. Does that mean that they then start striking arms industry in NATO countries? It brings up many questions and raises the stakes. The fact its taken so lightly shows the willingness of some to escalate the war into a hot one and spread it beyond Ukraine.

Do you think Russia would allow itself to collapse before leveling Ukraine? Don't you think Putin being out would invite someone much more hard line than he is and escalate this war even further? Many things are being balanced and calibrated at all times - including the intensity of the war. Things have been kept in the tank for the contingency of NATO getting involved directly down the line. If Russia was really about to collapse we'd see a entirely different kind of war being waged - scorched earth kind like in Gaza.

Russia clearly doesn't want a ceasefire but a permanent resolution to the whole issue. A ceasefire just means Ukraine can re-group and build up again to continue at a later date. Also, article 73 of the Ukrainian constitution makes any agreement to alter Ukraine's borders legally void unless approved by a nationwide referendum so any concession made without that could be thrown out later.

Let's see what happens.

Edited October 22 by zazen

[Breakingthewall]

32 minutes ago, zazen said:

If Russia was really about to collapse we'd see a entirely different kind of war being waged - scorched earth kind like in Gaza.

Devastating Ukraine would not help Russia at all. First, it would lose its legitimacy, but above all, the Ukrainian military does not depend on Ukraine; it is supported by NATO. Even if Ukraine is in ruins, if NATO continues to provide materiel, the Ukrainians would continue fighting, probably more fanatically than until now. The attitude of the Ukrainian military is surprising. They will endure anything for a cause that, really, doesn't make much sense, isn't vital.

Regarding what you say about Putin, you're probably right. His replacement would be someone more radical, but probably with common sense, maybe patrushev, who seems bit paranoid, but smart , a Putin 2.0.

Edited October 22 by Breakingthewall

[BlueOak]

58 minutes ago, zazen said:

@BlueOak Regarding the Tomahawks - the issue is in the ambiguity and the fact that NATO or the US could put nuclear warheads even if Ukraine doesn't have them itself. Nuclear deterrence runs on worst-case logic and Russia will have to factor this in. Beside that - the range is threatening enough and it would mean US/Western involvement much more concretely in strikes upon Russia which complicates Russia's position. Does that mean that they then start striking arms industry in NATO countries? It brings up many questions and raises the stakes. The fact its taken so lightly shows the willingness of some to escalate the war into a hot one and spread it beyond Ukraine.

Do you think Russia would allow itself to collapse before leveling Ukraine? Don't you think Putin being out would invite someone much more hard line than he is and escalate this war even further? Many things are being balanced and calibrated at all times - including the intensity of the war. Things have been kept in the tank for the contingency of NATO getting involved directly down the line. If Russia was really about to collapse we'd see a entirely different kind of war being waged - scorched earth kind like in Gaza.

Russia clearly doesn't want a ceasefire but a permanent resolution to the whole issue. A ceasefire just means Ukraine can re-group and build up again to continue at a later date. Also, article 73 of the Ukrainian constitution makes any agreement to alter Ukraine's borders legally void unless approved by a nationwide referendum so any concession made without that could be thrown out later.

Let's see what happens.

Russia doesn't have a choice. 

It is going to collapse.

The timeline is subject to outside influence, acceleration, or deceleration, but that's it. Such as continuing to cut off Russian sales of oil, the rate at which Ukraine's weapons production continues to increase, how much Russia bailed out by others, Europeans willingness to go a few more years, and the state of the US (I mean, there is a violent period coming in the US, that's a likely outcome in America not guaranteed- but its starting now, which BTW could affect anyone, including Russia/China).

It does not have the capacity to strike anything, other than sabotage some Eastern European refineries, which everyone is choosing to ignore.
You refer to strategic nukes, the ones that are still working, as so far every test of their missile as a show of force has failed. No other missile is hitting anything in NATO. Which is not 'striking NATO arm industries' they'd be ending themselves. This is not a solution to an economic collapse. You realise that yes? 

• Russia doesn't have the ability to fight NATO as you describe.
• It doesn't have the ability to prevent its collapse based on the current pattern. 

What it does have the capacity to do I have described.

• To keep on this path and end up collapsing.
   
• Mass mobilisation leading to the ruin of their country quickly.
   
• Negotiating with Ukraine as a country - Putin won't do this.
   
• Putin falling out of a window and thus anything is possible. *BTW even if the leader is worse than Putin, nobody is going to care if he is not as intent on forming the USSR like that old KGB Fossil. There is nobody right now that could do a worse job, in this current moment, of managing Russia's future than putin because he's unable to make any moves but run right into a wall, and is hated by so many.
   
• China and BRICS finance more of the war and try to slow his collapse - But in that case we just get more death and a longer war with the same Russian collapse.
   
• There is a possibility someone in Europe will negotiate with Putin (which is far more palatable than Trump doing it) I've been racking my brain about who might. Turkey is the only European-friendly or NATO-friendly state that will occur in imho with their relations with Russia not being terrible, but that'll be Putin Negotiating, not just demanding. But Turkey may be too NATO-friendly for Russia, the Saudi's? Probably too Russian-friendly. This meeting in Hungary by a Russian sycophant, with his country dependent on their oil, was doomed to be rejected.
   
• Political stunts. Invade Estonia. Try to take it, ransom it for Ukraine. - This will not work out, even if its possible, because it'll just accelerate their decline further. Further aggressive actions won't help them at this point.

So if he's unable to change, and nothing surprising happens, Putin will die. That's an obvious outcome to this. Whether he dies quietly off camera, or in a dramatic moment, who knows. 

Edited October 22 by BlueOak

[Breakingthewall]

@BlueOak 

This guy makes a pretty brilliant and in-depth analysis of the Russian war economy and concludes that Russia is a long way from being in trouble.

 

[BlueOak]

3 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

@BlueOak 

This guy makes a pretty brilliant and in-depth analysis of the Russian war economy and concludes that Russia is a long way from being in trouble.

 

There are many reasons for the collapse; he is aware of a couple of them.

67 Russian regions are defaulting (or very close). They are there now, not tomorrow, not next year, now. Many were there in September before these drone hits.
The country as a whole is approaching default. That means no money for anything. In practice, if you don't have a paid government, you don't have a government. The police might be paid to maintain order, but that's it.

So where can this money come from? Other countries or its own citizens.  The food harvests are down because the workers are dead. Fertiliser can't be shipped or is coming at a higher cost than usual, pushing up food prices. A lot of people aren't taking the trucking contracts because the fuel costs are too high. - This is just a microscosm of what I mean, goods and services are having the same issue.

Russia can't afford to supply a large number of men at war. The reason its had men who will go, is not out of some blind patriotism; its for a paycheck. That's over. Large bonuses are over. So what do they do, lie to foreigners, abduct the homeless, or throw in prisoners, but that's running out too.

Russia is not at the start of this process it's nearer the end because his analysis is partial at best. There's no real manoeuvre left in the economy, it's put itself into a spiral. Is it collapsing tomorrow? Next year, no, it's collapsing now, gradually, not dramatically.

Let me ask you what killed the Soviet Union, what really killed it? The people did.

The prediction has never been wrong, it's been a steady squeeze for the entire war. The war economy hasn't surprised me; it's given lots of bonuses out of its wealth fund. That war fund is over now. Lack of protests hasn't surprised me either, with all the crackdowns and the indifference of the population. But not the indifference to their own quality of life.

Can Russians put up with more? In the worst-off areas, sure, in Moscow and St Petersburg, not really, they lose their minds when the power goes down for a day. This will be tested in the remote areas when people starve because they can't get food. Or die through a lack of medical supplies (as is happening now). Or Freeze to death this winter from a lack of fuel. - That's not hyperbole, they really are out of fuel in many areas, that's what i'm pointing at. That and Putin lacking the control necessary now over the more distant regions that have been suffering for a long time.

Yes the economy rose. Because it used all its spare money and sovereign wealth fund. People loved it because they got all the benefits of going to war. That's over now. Building missiles to fire gives nothing back to the economy; its all spent. That's one reason why the stock market is tanking.

This isn't World War 2 in Germany. When you can blitzkrieg your opponent with better technology. Its not soviet Russia because drones rule. Manpower, even if Russia could pay it (it can't), is becoming secondary to the production of drones. - Russia isn't bad at this BTW, its better than Europe because we are stupidly not advancing our own capacity sufficiently, but it's behind Ukraine.

The end state is obvious to me, I am sorry its not to you. It will come as an adjustment.

Its a negotiation, bail out or the end of the Russian state. Unless something surprises me (like Russia propaganda being successful on the Europeans), the pattern is there and obvious.

Edited Wednesday at 06:14 PM by BlueOak

[BlueOak]

And BTW if this pattern continued throughout the world for the next X amount of years, everyone would be in the same boat, it's not me saying there is this grand separation, just Russia is being focused on faster for obvious reasons.

That's all I really should be saying to people, as they argue over the timeframe. I don't have a timeframe only a line that goes downward.
 

This was a decent video. I've dropped it at the part regarding defaults and bonds.

Honest too, as the Ukrainians are about to lose that city, well, in the next 'months'.  Just as Russia stacks junk bonds on to companies that won't foot the bill, citizens will in their prices and wages.

Edited Wednesday at 06:42 PM by BlueOak

[Lyubov]

I think calling it a collapse is a bit over exaggerated. Probably similar to how people now keep saying the Ukraine front line will collapse. This conflict will most likely be solved diplomatically and it will likely result in Ukraine losing the annexed land. I think Russia will stop fighting when it really starts to feel more economic pain. I think both sides will ultimately experience some form of pyrrhic victory. I don't think either side will really be able to claim much and the fighting will likely stop where it's currently geographically at more or less. I think Russia will give up some of it's conditions like neutral status of Ukraine. There will be some sort of security guarantee for Ukraine.

[Breakingthewall]

5 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Let me ask you what killed the Soviet Union, what really killed it? The people did.

That people no longer believed in it, but it seems they do believe in Russia and believe that losing this war would be a severe blow to Mother Russia, humiliating it to the point that it would disintegrate and its citizens would become second-class humans begging from other countries Then, they are willing to do whatever it takes.

Imagine what Germany was like in the last year of the war. Well, the people continued to resist, with millions of soldiers entering in waves to devastate everything in their path. Berlin resisted.

Compare this to Russia. People can't go to the disco more than once a month and to the restaurant twice? It doesn't seem like a sufficient reason. If the Russians collapse due to a little austerity, little would remain of the Russians who kicked out the Nazis at the cost of 25 million deaths. Let's not underestimate the Russian spirit of sacrifice, as it has proven in the past that it rises from the ashes and burns like wildfire.

Edited Wednesday at 11:18 PM by Breakingthewall

[BlueOak]

8 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Compare this to Russia. People can't go to the disco more than once a month and to the restaurant twice? It doesn't seem like a sufficient reason. 

Ah you speak of Moscow and St Petersburg. Indeed, the privileged area. That will break at the first sign of real struggle. St Petersburg already had a few protests recently and they are barely feeling any squeeze yet.

No compared to this: The men don't exist, people are bundled off the streets into the war, cripples are common, roads can barely be traversed, there is no money already, your soldiers are not paid the bonus they said they would be, criminals are returning from the front causing havok, you feel resentment to the governing authorities, oligarchs have more contorl than the state, medicines are hard to find, and now fuel doesn't exist.

Does that sound like a rebellion to you? Because it does to me. Add some freezing to come and maybe starvation to those regions and yeah. Oh did I mention the scaled-down police force are now the criminals and soldiers returning? When they are paid, which isn't guaranteed.

Let's get the comparison grounded.

We have a few privileged areas that have never experienced real hardship for two or more generations. They've been babied from the consequences of this war, especially in the losses experienced. You are asking me if they'll rise up if they take some pain? I think yes they will protest, not rebel.

But then we have what I am also talking about, the other 80 regions, or moreover the ones far enough away with enough money to do a better job of governing themselves.

 

8 hours ago, Lyubov said:

I think calling it a collapse is a bit over exaggerated. Probably similar to how people now keep saying the Ukraine front line will collapse. This conflict will most likely be solved diplomatically and it will likely result in Ukraine losing the annexed land. I think Russia will stop fighting when it really starts to feel more economic pain. I think both sides will ultimately experience some form of pyrrhic victory. I don't think either side will really be able to claim much and the fighting will likely stop where it's currently geographically at more or less. I think Russia will give up some of it's conditions like neutral status of Ukraine. There will be some sort of security guarantee for Ukraine.

Fair. I've never liked the term collapse. There is a point it'll be reached though.

If I saw any indication Putin would even recognize Zelensky as a president or Ukraine as a country to negotiate with, I might agree. This might be a scenario i'd see as likely. At the minute its not. Its Russia's stubborn maximalist aim (and its need to take the fortified Donetsk areas so it can push forward in the next war)

--

Russia has FINALLY had its oil industry sanctioned by the US, yesterday. Which is only going to accelerate this.

Then there are 'rumors' people are going to transfer frozen Russian assets to Ukraine, but don't hold your breath on that one.

Edited Thursday at 07:19 AM by BlueOak

[BlueOak]

Ukraine is now trading AI data with the US, as AI data is the weapon of the future.
 

This will be true of Russia - China also of course.

But it highlights some of the countries that will be taking leaps ahead of everyone else. I assume some of the EU countries helping Ukraine will have similiar deals and it might explain some of BRICS persistance in trade, as its an unspoken major shift.

I've often said Tanks are useless now, same with APCs, unless they get large upgrades.

Edited Thursday at 07:41 AM by BlueOak

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, BlueOak said:

No compared to this: The men don't exist, people are bundled off the streets into the war, cripples are common, roads can barely be traversed, there is no money already, your soldiers are not paid the bonus they said they would be, criminals are returning from the front causing havok, you feel resentment to the governing authorities, oligarchs have more contorl than the state, medicines are hard to find, and now fuel doesn't exist.

Does that sound like a rebellion to you? Because it does to me. Add some freezing to come and maybe starvation to those regions and yeah. Oh did I mention the scaled-down police force are now the criminals and soldiers returning? When they are paid, which isn't guaranteed.

I don't know if the situation is now as difficult. Anyway, look at the example of Ukraine. It's devastated, with 11 millions displaced , without electricity, with a monstrously powerful enemy attacking them, and they continue to resist. Will Russia be weaker? It's difficult to know. 

[BlueOak]

5 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

 Anyway, look at the example of Ukraine. It's devastated, with 11 millions displaced , without electricity, with a monstrously powerful enemy attacking them, and they continue to resist. Will Russia be weaker? It's difficult to know. 

I have no illusions Ukraine will not and has not suffered horribly. That's one of the reason it has so much popular support. It will also get a lot of foreign investment to stabilize it.

Russia is not near as powerful as it once was. Ukraine has held them for several years. I used to say: Russia do not have a strong military; they have nukes and manpower. Though right now, in my opinion, anyone low on drones has a weak military. - So perhaps Russia is in fact a stronger military than most of the world looked at through that lens.- Just not as monstrously powerful as you say compared to Ukraine, because Ukraine have even better drones than Russia does. It's more like a big guy brawling with a normal-sized guy who can fight well.

Ukraine's got electricity; Russia is being more tactical (shocker) in its strikes this time and trying to cut off certain cities from the grid, which is much more effective. You know, one day they will save all their missiles terrorizing the civilian population and actually aim them at useful targets; if so they would have probably won the war a year or two ago.

There is just systematic stupidity in the overall strategy Russia has employed. Otherwise, the scenario might be more like you and others suggest.