Latest Ukraine/Russia Thread

[Hatfort]

3 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

@Hatfort
Countries don't have elections in wartime

Especially the ones whose leaders know they are going to lose them. In this case, for prefering a negotiated but inevitable outcome instead of the certain death of their men for a lost cause against a more powerful army. 

[BlueOak]

Just now, Hatfort said:

Especially the ones whose leaders know they are going to lose them. In this case, for prefering a negotiated but inevitable outcome instead of the certain death of their men for a lost cause against a more powerful army. 

No. Again this propaganda. 
Leaders DO NOT have elections in wartime. Period.

The cause isn't lost because the strategy is working. Russia is getting measurably weaker and less threatening the more the war goes on. Its actually working better than I expected with all the hits on Russian fuel right now.

[Hatfort]

1 minute ago, BlueOak said:

No. Again this propaganda. 
Leaders DO NOT have elections in wartime. Period.

The cause isn't lost because the strategy is working. Russia is getting measurably weaker and less threatening the more the war goes on. Its actually working better than I expected with all the hits on Russian fuel right now.

Sometimes they do, Russia just had them. Ukraine could have them too, to the extent they control. The East parts were the most Russian-friendly ones in voting, so in a sense, he would have an advantage having to exclude the other side of the frontline. However, he knows he would lose them to any candidate offering a negotiated route with Russia, that's the main reason he won't have them.

But okay, let's say exceptional circumstances can justify exceptional measures. I feel sorry for the Ukrainians though, all this is suicidal for them, they never had a chance to win. The Western countries are okay with losing some cash on this, but Ukraine is putting the bodies. 

You many times accuse others of falling into propaganda, but you are the one who does that, can't even admit the reality of the battlefield. Also the Russian economy collapse is total bullshit.

[BlueOak]

6 minutes ago, Hatfort said:

Sometimes they do, Russia just had them. Ukraine could have them too, to the extent they control. The East parts were the most Russian-friendly ones in voting, so in a sense, he would have an advantage having to exclude the other side of the frontline. However, he knows he would lose them to any candidate offering a negotiated route with Russia, that's the main reason he won't have them.

But okay, let's say exceptional circumstances can justify exceptional measures. I feel sorry for the Ukrainians though, all this is suicidal for them, they never had a chance to win. The Western countries are okay with losing some cash on this, but Ukraine is putting the bodies. 

You many times accuse others of falling into propaganda, but you are the one who does that, can't even admit the reality of the battlefield. Also the Russian economy collapse is total bullshit.

Comparing Apples to Oranges.
Or do you really want Russian style elections in Ukraine? Kill everyone involved, and give yourself 97%
Elections in wartime do not help win wars. - War is never popular with the people dying, despite what Russian propaganda would have you believe, nobody likes dying over there either.

Alright Hatford show me where my propaganda is specifically. And I will address it.

Its unlikely you have a better grasp of the battlefield than I do, as I watched so damned much of it. But sure, point it out. If I learn something i'll appreciate it.
 

Edited August 22 by BlueOak

[Hatfort]

27 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

Comparing Apples to Oranges.
Or do you really want Russian style elections in Ukraine? Kill everyone involved, and give yourself 97%
Elections in wartime do not help win wars. - War is never popular with the people dying, despite what Russian propaganda would have you believe, nobody likes dying over there either.

Alright Hatford show me where my propaganda is specifically. And I will address it.

Its unlikely you have a better grasp of the battlefield than I do, as I watched so damned much of it. But sure, point it out. If I learn something i'll appreciate it.

I pointed two things specifically, the battlefield and the economy. I've seen you addressing them, your assessments are wishful thinking for the future, but not based in the reality but go on. Russia keeps advancing and stopping any Ukrainian offensive attempt and it has wonderful relations with so many big, medium, and small countries to maintain its economy immune to any Western sanctions. They reduced their dependency on the dollar-based trade system as a bonus.

[BlueOak]

2 hours ago, Hatfort said:

I pointed two things specifically, the battlefield and the economy. I've seen you addressing them, your assessments are wishful thinking for the future, but not based in the reality but go on. Russia keeps advancing and stopping any Ukrainian offensive attempt and it has wonderful relations with so many big, medium, and small countries to maintain its economy immune to any Western sanctions. They reduced their dependency on the dollar-based trade system as a bonus.

You are still not being specific enough. What exactly did I say that's propaganda?

If you mean generally, I can speak generally but its not going to help.

Let me try to cite a few things i've said?
Do you mean where I say interest rates are tanking their economy, or they are printing money every few months, or that some of their major companies have gone bankrupt? Do you mean their demographics are terrible and have gotten worse? That they are running out of fuel? Do you want sources for China buying up their industries or becoming their main trade partner? What is needed here? Specific, please.

Or do you mean the battlefield casualty rates, the rate at which they are gaining land, the current stockpiles, fuel reserves, momentum, or kill ratio between the two sides vs their manpower? The overall strategic picture as it was from 2014 to now?

No major country is doing well now comparatively; a 'wonderful' economy is a daydream in regards to any country least of all one at war. Immune to sanctions is also a fantasy, but I can start there specifically if you like, as I agree 'sanctions' need to be much broader for them to be effective; hitting India was a start, but saying they are immune is quite frankly a lie and can be easily proven. - They are, however, very ineffective when compared to hard power or weapons given to Ukraine. I do agree.

Edited August 22 by BlueOak

[PurpleTree]

If they have China and India on their side they are not taking the economy though unfortunately.

[BlueOak]

46 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

If they have China and India on their side they are not taking the economy though unfortunately.

Yeah it's much slower I agree. This war would have been over two years ago if not for BRICS.
The Russian population is also suppressed enough to accept a lower quality of life and death for land.

All true.

But a country can't run without fuel, for example; that's a clear problem right now they are suffering with because of the hits on their refineries and its robbing them of their dominant export. It can't run well without enough demographics to support a working population. Its companies are going bust and they are printing money. China is buying it up bit by bit. Its a perfect debt trap long-term for the chinese.

So it all depends how much China and india are actually funding this war. If India turns around and starts selling their fuel back to the Russians, for example, that's one thing to note. If they are just straight giving them cash, it doesn't save the Russian economy, it leads to hyperinflation which is what's going on there now. - I'm sure there are ways India and China can take on their debt, and thus the debt of the war, however.

In that case Ukraine would be more directly in a war with China, India and BRICS generally. And we'd have to address that if it's the case, and target their economies and trade directly. Peace is not an option now. Putin will not negotiate, that's obvious, he won't even recognize Zelensky to talk to him. So if that's going to be the reality going forward, and Europe's security concerns are ignored by the Indians and Chinese at that point the gloves need to come off

Again please note I am suggesting to counter things where possible against these countries, not escalate. That takes smarter men than me with greater economic minds on the problem, or just directly targeting any oil/trade as it comes in. As Russia have done with the US factory manufacturing consumer goods on the Ukrainian-Hungarian border just recently.

Edited August 22 by BlueOak

[Elliott]

China and India are production economies, not consumption economies, they're not a substitute for Europe.

Edited August 22 by Elliott

[Ajay0]

15 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Yeah it's much slower I agree. This war would have been over two years ago if not for BRICS.

If not for Brics, Russia would have transitioned to nuclear warfare from conventional warfare if it had suffered heavy conventional reverses.

A few tactical nukes would probably have been deployed by them, and considering russian nuclear submarines patrolling the american and european coast-lines, nato would have agreed to a cease-fire agreeing to Russian conditions of keeping away from its borders.

 

Quote

In that case Ukraine would be more directly in a war with China, India and BRICS generally. And we'd have to address that if it's the case, and target their economies and trade directly. Peace is not an option now. Putin will not negotiate, that's obvious, he won't even recognize Zelensky to talk to him. So if that's going to be the reality going forward, and Europe's security concerns are ignored by the Indians and Chinese at that point the gloves need to come off

Again please note I am suggesting to counter things where possible against these countries, not escalate. That takes smarter men than me with greater economic minds on the problem, or just directly targeting any oil/trade as it comes in. As Russia have done with the US factory manufacturing consumer goods on the Ukrainian-Hungarian border just recently.

Good luck targetting China and India by military means if that is what you suggest. Both have the two largest armies on earth and are ranked third and fourth in world rankings of military power, with many millions in reserves as well. 

Can the west with its ageing population and low fertility figures can match a Russia-India-China-Brics military combination ! Hundreds of western volunteers have already died fighting in Ukraine due to poor situational awareness and training as per military experts, and continue to die needlessly in Ukraine. They seem to have been conditioned by corporate owned western media narratives to go and fight for the western cause.

Most of them stem from the middle and lower classes as usual and the upper classes maintain a safe distance encouraging those of the lower classes to go and fight risking life and traumatic injuries.

[zazen]

18 hours ago, Elliott said:

China and India are production economies, not consumption economies, they're not a substitute for Europe.

To produce requires the consumption of energy - which both don’t have enough of for their size and speed of development. China and India are the largest energy consumers in the world alongside EU and US. Both require more consumption and have room for growth - especially India as it’s still developing.

Both have locked in with Russia which means for the foreseeable future Russia will be able to sustain itself economically. Both have also brushed off the secondary sanction threat.

Arnaud:

''Imagine if Europe had done this with Russia (India resetting ties with China) when Trump started, like he just did with India, to go hostile on trade. Not only would they not be in the absurd situation where they need to negotiate peace with Russia via the intermediary of a hostile Trump, but they also could be rebuilding ties with Russia as leverage against American extortion.

And I'm not even speaking about avoiding the pathetic spectacle of being lined up like schoolchildren before Trump's desk, or having to pay several points worth of European GDP in tribute. Now they get the worst of all worlds: public humiliation as American vassals, systematic wealth extraction by the US, a ruinous proxy war they need to pay for, and continuous hostility with their next door neighbor even when, ironically, the US is now restoring relations. In some way it's even politically harder for India to do this than it would have been for Europe vis a vis Russia: the level of animosity towards China of the Indian population is probably greater than that against Russia in Europe.

Heck, European leaders would undoubtedly have been cheered by a large proportion of Europeans if they'd taken the diplomatic initiative in Ukraine instead of Trump, all the more if it was as a strategic move to resist Trump. But no, they'd rather sit in the Oval Office like obedient pupils, write $100 billion checks to American defense contractors, and continue playing vassals to a hegemon that openly despises them. Europe doesn't lack the capability for strategic autonomy - it lacks the will, the courage, and apparently, any sense of shame.''

Edited Saturday at 08:42 AM by zazen

[Lyubov]

21 hours ago, Hatfort said:

Sometimes they do, Russia just had them.

You are arguing in bad faith with this one. Everyone know’s Russia’s elections are total bullshit. They have to rig it so Putin gets 120% of the vote. Seriously though Russia completely eradicated all free speech and all opposition parties. Elections  are only true when you don’t completely unalive and destroy opposing political parties in your country over 20 years to the point where there’s no one else but you. That’s not a democratic election that’s the appearance of one. 

[zazen]

Interesting comments from Leo in 2022:

On 10/9/2022 at 7:39 AM, Leo Gura said:

Listen to his interviews, speeches, and study his life.

He does not behave at all like what you suggest he is.

He's not at all like Trump.

Trump is a shallow moron and coward. Putin is a genius and patriot.

You are not considering how much stronger NATO would be if Putin just let the West slowly co-opt Ukraine and turn it into their staging ground.

And yet, consider how American politicians would react if Russia co-opted Mexico and placed missile silos in Tijuana.

In practice Ukraine is not powerful enough to have a voice in this.

This is a proxy war over who controls Ukraine, Russia or the West. From Putin's POV Ukraine is just a puppet for the West. Ukraine has no power without the West and it does the West's bidding. Also, Putin considers Ukraine as part of Russia, historically. To give it up to the West is like a huge betrayal of loyalty.

I'm not saying Putin is right. I'm just saying, try seeing the situation from a non-Western perspective.

 

On 10/9/2022 at 7:44 AM, Leo Gura said:

Hitler comparisons will not help you understand this situation.

Maybe. I'm not really arguing for or against that here. There is a larger issue of NATO and Western hegemony which everyone in the West just ignores. But Putin cannot ignore that.

 

On 10/9/2022 at 6:31 AM, Leo Gura said:

Rational doesn't mean you can't miscalculate. His calculation was that the Russian military would overwhelm the Ukrainian military. This was a reasonable calculation.

It's also not rational from Russia's perspective to sit back and just allow Ukraine to become a staging ground for NATO nuclear missile launch sites.

Because NATO would start installing nuclear missiles sites in Ukraine.

That's not as contradictory as you think. Putin basically wants to create a independent geo-political pole to the West. This will involve some short-term suffering for long-term gain in power and autonomy.

He also could not allow Ukraine to join NATO without a fight.

Putin basically sees NATO as a virus that is spreading across Europe to infect the Russia empire.

You're not really seeing the Russian agenda. You are looking at this from a Western agenda. Which is not sufficient to make sense of the situation. It is not the case that Putin is just a greedy bad guy.

 

[Hatfort]

2 hours ago, Lyubov said:

You are arguing in bad faith with this one. Everyone know’s Russia’s elections are total bullshit. They have to rig it so Putin gets 120% of the vote. Seriously though Russia completely eradicated all free speech and all opposition parties. Elections  are only true when you don’t completely unalive and destroy opposing political parties in your country over 20 years to the point where there’s no one else but you. That’s not a democratic election that’s the appearance of one. 

I'm not here to defend Russian democracy as flawless, but the last presidential election in 2024 showed a big support for Putin's operations in Ukraine, which was the most important issue people were voting for. His support has increased since the previous one. 

One of the first things Zelenksy did when the war started was prohibit political parties that represented Russo-Ukrainians and also the leftwing ones, I saw some footage of political leaders being lynched, tied to posts, and things like that. Ukraine is a de facto dictatorship, with Zelensky as visible head and the extreme ultra-right-wing nationalist factions of Ukraine in military power, even if they are not the majority. They are kidnapping men to send them to the frontline to die in vain, which obviously they don't want. People can't speak up against the war, there are reports of people being arrested for criticizing the war in their daily life, not to mention doing it publicly. But everything is fine because they are at war for you guys. Zelensky can hold elections at the moment he decides to and see if the people of Ukraine still want to continue this suicidal path, besides his legal term has ended.

[zazen]

23 hours ago, BlueOak said:

But a country can't run without fuel, for example; that's a clear problem right now they are suffering with because of the hits on their refineries and its robbing them of their dominant export. It can't run well without enough demographics to support a working population. Its companies are going bust and they are printing money. China is buying it up bit by bit. Its a perfect debt trap long-term for the chinese.

So it all depends how much China and india are actually funding this war. If India turns around and starts selling their fuel back to the Russians, for example, that's one thing to note. If they are just straight giving them cash, it doesn't save the Russian economy, it leads to hyperinflation which is what's going on there now. - I'm sure there are ways India and China can take on their debt, and thus the debt of the war, however.

In that case Ukraine would be more directly in a war with China, India and BRICS generally. And we'd have to address that if it's the case, and target their economies and trade directly. Peace is not an option now. Putin will not negotiate, that's obvious, he won't even recognize Zelensky to talk to him. So if that's going to be the reality going forward, and Europe's security concerns are ignored by the Indians and Chinese at that point the gloves need to come off

I think your misreading surface level events or overstating the effects. Refined exports make up 12% of their total exports and 22% of their total energy exports ( the rest is mainly crude and gas ) - so it's not hitting their dominant export. The hits are disrupting but not totally destroying the refineries which get back online within weeks. China and India both have massive refining capacity to absorb more crude and refine it themselves which can cushion the shock if refined exports took a further hit. The West would need simultaneous, large scale sanctions + refinery strikes + secondary sanctions on India/China if it waned to really cripple Russia - which doesn't look to be happening.

China isn’t lending to Russia in a debt trap - it’s trading in energy for yuan deals. Russia isn't suffering hyperinflation which is where currency de-values to staggering degrees like in Zimbabwe. In fact their currency has been top performing. It does have high war time inflation of around 10% but that's far from hyperinflation territory.

In a sense Ukraine is a proxy right now between the West and BRICS though un-intentionally, except on Russia's part who did choose to invade. But BRICS isn't going to re-orient their trade for higher energy and burnt relations with Russia which they have a history with - for a larger geopolitical game. Biden already tried targeting China with tech (CHIPS) and now Trump is attempting to with trade - yet both aren't holding out so well. The reason Trump hasn't fully steam rolled China with tariffs is due to China's leverage over trade, specifically with rare earths that are critical. So the West just don't seem to have that much leverage in all this. Trade, tech, resources, dollars - all are being worked around or re-oriented towards alternatives. The biggest thing the West had was financial power in a financialized economy - but BRICS have hard power of tangible manufacturing, resources, trade routes and chokepoints and demographics (consumer or future consumer markets).

I agree the election point is bogus on the Russian side. As if a country can or should hold one when a quarter of the population are unavailable to vote. That brings me to another point on demographics - Ukraine's lost a quarter of its population ( from approx 40 to now 30 mill ) - displaced or gone. Russia's population has gone from approx 147.2 to 146 mill.  The difference as a percentage is around 1-1.5% vs 20-25%. Even if we account for tech workers and youngsters leaving Russia being high quality contributors that have fled - the depth and pool of population is still large and the loss no where near as traumatic compared to Ukraine. Yet a narrative for this war to continue (mainly European elites pushing it) with less arms, money and manpower is suicide for Ukraine. There was that recent hack that apparently found the death and casualties to be 1.7 million for Ukraine but it's not verified as its from a Russian source (hackers). But regardless, even Western establishment acknowledges Ukraine's manpower issue and dire demographics.

Kaja Kallas literally said it would be  a good idea to fracture and Balkanize Russia, then in another Hudson Institute sit down she said if we can't defeat Russia how will we defeat China - my point being, why the hawkish warmonger posture not only with Russia but now with China lol. There's such a lack of strategic foresight or groundedness in the establishment thinking and posture towards this entire situation. As if it’s a great idea to try and de-stabilize and contain a nuclear armed, resource rich Russia who is your geographic neighbor no amount of wishful thinking can wish away. This is why I say it's the fault of Western hegemony underpinned by Western arrogance and supremacy that has caused the conditions for the shit show we are now in and that aren't helping in getting us out of. The Hitlerization of Putin doesn't help - in fact he's seen as more of a moderate compared to the others like Medvedev - yet depicted as a Hitler wanting to conquer Europe. Russia's either weak enough to continue war with, with their defeat just around the corner, or strong enough to be threatening to Europe in which case we need to psy-op our population to bleed for this pointless war.

The reason for nothing moving forward on the deal front is because only Europe/Ukraine's security concerns are considered valid and not Russia's. If theirs no proper framework or agenda to be discussed without adequate pre-conditions what is there to negotiate further. Just as Leo said above, the Western perspective doesn't account for Russia's at all which is why there hasn't been peace and from the looks of it won't be. The only reflex is double down and say peace is not an option now as you have said. The only proposal from the Europeans is to anchor Ukraines security to one bloc (Western) which locks Europe into a permanent frontline state against Russia and basically resembles NATO-lite - the whole issue to begin with. Rather than having a multilateral guarantee (which reflects a multi-polar reality) such as what was floated in Istanbul 2022 (which included Turkey, China) - that was subsequently torpedoed by the West that bet on them weakening and destroying Russia instead.

 
What a change of tone from 2022. Zelensky became too deeply committed off the back of Western backing and promises. It became increasingly difficult for him to backtrack due to various reasons: sunk cost, domestic politics (hardliners), further dependence on the West which means Zelensky isn’t leading Ukrainian strategy but implementing Western strategy with Ukrainian blood. That’s the cost of playing the proxy game when your an ant among elephants fighting.

How sovereign and autonomous is Ukraine today? Ukraine’s attempt to achieve 100% sovereignty has resulted in near total loss of actual sovereignty, while the rejected neutrality option would have preserved most of it.

Ukraine chose the path that promised 100% sovereignty but delivered perhaps 15% actual sovereignty across all domains - energy, economy, military.

Liberals have convinced themselves that the 1648 Peace of Westphalia created some kind of magical force field around every country where they get to do whatever they want without consequences. As if “sovereignty” means freedom from the basic realities of great power politics that have governed international relations for millennia. It’s the flat earth theory of geopolitics and how the world works.

Edited Saturday at 01:29 PM by zazen

[BlueOak]

 

@Ajay0

Both your statements are false.

1) Russia's stated nuclear doctrine is for a large-scale invasion of Russian territory, nuclear attacks against Russia or its allies.
2) Show me this corporate coercion. I can show you where citizens, specifically, in the UK, for example,  were told not to go.

Though class-based inequality in wartime is generally sadly a factor of it, see how Russia have mobilised the poorer areas of its country first.

China and India.

China and India's size doesn't translate into superiority. The west has a large technological edge, neither of these country's have the ability to project power globally like the US. They don't have the combat experience, and NATO has tightly integrated strategic structures and command protocols, whereas China and India have divergent interests and strategic aims. (Though granted this final point can shift) While China has strong production capabilities, India is still transitioning to one.

But. 
My argument specifically stated it should be non-escalatory, as i've seen how quick these countries are to want to get involved further.

I stated trade flows or foreign factories inside Russia, either on the ground or financially, just as the Russians have just done to the US. That's considerably more measured than direct escalation and limits it to the theatre. Again though if India and China don't recognize European security interests, then that needs to be addressed. That's the Russian narrative and excuse for all of this waste of human life after all.
 

[BlueOak]

@zazen

Hitting the Russian refineries cripples the conventional economy. Fuel shortages hit agriculture, transport and civilian industries. This is magnified in Russia as its internal logistics are so vast and demand so much energy for travel. 12% of total exports is 1, Not something to dismiss at all in regards total GDP output in wartime when every ruble matters to sustain the strain, but more importantly, its effect on the domestic economy is disproportionately large; the country would grind to a halt.

Even if I take the official Russian figures (I don't) 10% inflation is a significant fiscal strain, propped up by asset sales, draining their sovereign wealth fund, and things like issuing new money, bonds, credit etc.

It's accurate to say BRICS is funding the war, its economic depth complicates the Western deeper strategy. But it's also fair to say that China's increasing dominance over Russian trade puts Russia in a junior role, its more a dependency than an alliance the more this goes on.

Russia is increasingly a proxy of BRICS through your lens. On the workforce or demographics. You've failed to factor in Russia's large emigration from the war, disproportionately of its best and brightest youth, or if you have the million casualties it's suffered and will now carry. Whereas in Ukraine the women and children were welcome to leave, but the men were limited to the Ukranian borders and drafted early on. So it's not an accurate representation of the actual numbers able to fight and also fails to take into account the existing demographics of the countries.

Deeper on inflation, i've pulled ChatGPT up as independent experts conclude its closer to 20%

GPT Quote:

Regarding Russia’s economic resilience, it’s important to distinguish between nominal stability and underlying structural risks.

While it’s true that Russia has avoided hyperinflation and that sanctions have not entirely crippled the economy, there is strong evidence that Moscow has been engaging in both traditional and digital forms of monetary expansion to sustain wartime spending.

🔹 Money printing (physical and electronic):
Russia’s Central Bank has reportedly increased the monetary base by trillions of rubles, primarily to finance state enterprises and cover defense expenditures. This includes a blend of physical cash printing and “electronic inflation” through subsidized credit channels. One source cites around 8.2 trillion rubles (~$90 billion) injected since the war began:

Why did Russia launch the printing press? – Center for Countering Disinformation, Ukraine
https://cpd.gov.ua/en/results/rf-en/why-did-russia-launch-the-printing-press/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

There are even unverified internal leaks suggesting the Central Bank ordered up to 15 trillion rubles in new currency to be printed recently:

Reddit: Central Bank leak discussion (unverified)
https://www.reddit.com/r/tjournal_refugees/comments/1m250cb/центробанк_рф_запустил_печатный_станок_на_15_трлн/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Though its a less credible source compared to the others, I asked for a translation here for simplicity.
Ukrainian hackers passed screenshots of internal correspondence from the Central Bank of Russia to the media project Newsader:
On July 7, 2025, the head of the Central Bank, Elvira Nabiullina, signed a secret directive instructing Goznak (Russia’s state money printer) to print 15 trillion rubles in 1,000 and 5,000 ruble denominations by October.

Officially, this is described as being for "inflation stabilization" and "financing of priority expenses," but in fact, according to the investigation's authors, it's for war, mobilization, and simulating social stability.

The scale is historic: in just three months, the cash volume in Russia would double—a level not seen even in 1998. For comparison, a 3 trillion ruble issuance in 2022 caused inflation to nearly double; now they’re printing five times more, the report emphasizes.

According to the forecast, by winter, Russia faces an inflationary shock: ruble collapse, price hikes, shortages, capital flight, gray markets, and mass impoverishment. The Central Bank reportedly foresees this but is hiding it from the public.

🔹 Structural inflation and war financing:
Rather than direct cash giveaways, a significant share of this “money printing” is happening through state-directed lending via banks like VTB and Sberbank, effectively expanding the money supply without physically printing money. This has propped up war industries but also contributed to elevated inflation:

FT Interview with Elina Ribakova – Russia’s War Economy Pressures
https://www.ft.com/content/438e6f4b-dda6-4c93-bc8d-0c72aa9f6416?utm_source=chatgpt.com

🔹 Inflation pressures:
Russia’s inflation hovers around 9–10% officially, but external observers argue it's likely higher due to data opacity and sectoral imbalances:

Reuters: Russia faces more austerity and inflation risks

In short, while Russia is not in hyperinflation territory, its wartime economy is being increasingly sustained by aggressive monetary expansion—what could reasonably be called “electronic inflation.” This strategy buys time, not sustainability.

https://www.reuters.com/markets/asia/russia-under-war-spending-pressure-set-more-austerity-tax-hikes-2025-08-20/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

End Quote

Here's its objective conclusion on both sides, which I considered rewriting but agreed with largely.

Strategic Impasse and the Role of Western Policy

The missed opportunity of Istanbul 2022 and the overreliance on NATO-centric security frameworks remain critical failures of imagination. A multilateral, non-aligned security arrangement—one that includes Turkey, China, and neutral European states—could have offered a credible alternative.

• The West frames Russian defeat as essential for peace and long-term European security.
• Russia frames Western support as an existential encirclement, justifying prolonged militarization.
• Ukraine, caught in the middle, bleeds manpower, infrastructure, and sovereignty.
• Meanwhile, the weaker Russia becomes, the more it risks turning into a de facto proxy of BRICS powers, particularly China and India, whose strategic interests now shape the viability and direction of the Russian war effort—economically, diplomatically, and potentially militarily.

Zazen’s point about Ukraine’s declining sovereignty is worth considering, but saying Ukraine has only “15%” left is an exaggeration. Wartime conditions always limit democratic processes, yet Ukraine’s loss of sovereignty is not total—it retains agency, even if constrained by dependence on Western support.

Edited Sunday at 06:50 AM by BlueOak

[BlueOak]

@Hatfort

Elections don't happen in war.
As has been stated, they effectively don't happen in Russia either. - If people really want this global alignment and authoritarianism that I hear every other week, there it is. That's probably the most effective Russian/BRICS aspect of this, how much they've influenced the West's internal governance, but somehow, when it's inconvenient to the Russian narrative, it conveniently doesn't apply. But that's for another discussion.

Back to being objective: in wartime, maintaining legitimacy and authority is paramount; populations will always vote not to die. On both sides of this. That's obvious. But to maintain a country, not an individual, understandable survival instincts  of an individual can't decide the outcome of a war.

You try to frame everything as if it's a normal functioning country. No it's a war for its survival and future, and the future of Eastern Europe, and perhaps NATO itself. I'll expand in the next post.

Edited Sunday at 07:02 AM by BlueOak

[BlueOak]

The second false flag attempt by the Russians.
Could just be probing for reactions, like the drone attack on Poland with our weak response; we'll see. - Weakness always encourages Putin, should have been a stronger response to it, and it should have been shot down.

I have always agreed if (when) they invade the Baltics, a nuclear war will not be the immediate result. It'll be conventional. Putin knows, NATO knows, I know this. So that's quite a likely outcome, considerably more likely than people here admit. Russia's economy requires war to sustain itself now.

[zazen]

12 hours ago, BlueOak said:

In short, while Russia is not in hyperinflation territory, its wartime economy is being increasingly sustained by aggressive monetary expansion—what could reasonably be called “electronic inflation.” This strategy buys time, not sustainability.

Chat GPT you quoted said their war economy isn't sustainable - long term definitely not.

12 hours ago, BlueOak said:

I have always agreed if (when) they invade the Baltics, a nuclear war will not be the immediate result. It'll be conventional. Putin knows, NATO knows, I know this. So that's quite a likely outcome, considerably more likely than people here admit. Russia's economy requires war to sustain itself now.

If Russia is suffering so bad economically and militarily I don't see why they would escalate to that level by attacking a NATO country. 

12 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Russia is increasingly a proxy of BRICS through your lens. On the workforce or demographics. You've failed to factor in Russia's large emigration from the war, disproportionately of its best and brightest youth, or if you have the million casualties it's suffered and will now carry. Whereas in Ukraine the women and children were welcome to leave, but the men were limited to the Ukranian borders and drafted early on. So it's not an accurate representation of the actual numbers able to fight and also fails to take into account the existing demographics of the countries.

I got to 2mill by including 800k emigration (which I quickly googled) and 1.2m loss to the war. True on the quality of those that have left, it's a disproportionately negative effect, I just think the scale can't be compared to the same degree. Even if I'm really generous and estimate a 3 million reduction in the Russian population that's still 2% compared to over 20% in Ukraine according to the figures. Half lost to battle and half who've left, most of who probably won't return as they settle for a better more stable life elsewhere in Europe.

13 hours ago, BlueOak said:

I stated trade flows or foreign factories inside Russia, either on the ground or financially, just as the Russians have just done to the US. That's considerably more measured than direct escalation and limits it to the theatre. Again though if India and China don't recognize European security interests, then that needs to be addressed. That's the Russian narrative and excuse for all of this waste of human life after all.

The irony is that the West demands India and China respect Europe’s security, while Europe refuses to respect Russia’s. India and China, all the way on the other side of the planet, should worry about Europe's security concern - who are only concerned now after refusing to recognize Russia's which prompted Russia to act upon that very concern.

Again - Russia didn't place itself in NATO expansions way, it was the other way round. Just like how Palestinians didn't place themselves in the way of Zionist expansion. But both will have you believe its the Russian and Palestinians fault for existing in the way of both of their ambitions for dominance and primacy. Such a shame that China and Iran have placed themselves around US bases too.

The EU should recognize its own security interests by dealing with a non-EU member like Ukraine hitting the Druzhba pipeline which provides energy to two EU member states. If Brussels isn’t sanctioning Kyiv for undermining its own energy security, why would India or China take seriously a Russian strike on a US factory making coffee machines which is less critical than striking the energy of a country.

Euro News: "Given that in the past years, the EU and its Member States have provided hundreds of billions of Euros' worth of support to Ukraine, we find Ukraine's actions, which severely threaten the energy security of Hungary and Slovakia, completely irresponsible," read the letter, signed by Hungary's Péter Szijjártó, and Slovakia's Juraj Blanár.

Speaking of pipelines, economic terrorism upon Nordstream is back in the news:

 

Edited Sunday at 07:24 PM by zazen