War Invasion of Ukraine News Megathread - Thread is only for articles and discussion of articles, general discussion thread is still in Happenings.

Status
Not open for further replies.
President Joe Biden on Tuesday said that the United States will impose sanctions “far beyond” the ones that the United States imposed in 2014 following the annexation of the Crimean peninsula.

“This is the beginning of a Russian invasion of Ukraine,” Biden said in a White House speech, signaling a shift in his administration’s position. “We will continue to escalate sanctions if Russia escalates,” he added.

Russian elites and their family members will also soon face sanctions, Biden said, adding that “Russia will pay an even steeper price” if Moscow decides to push forward into Ukraine. Two Russian banks and Russian sovereign debt will also be sanctioned, he said.

Also in his speech, Biden said he would send more U.S. troops to the Baltic states as a defensive measure to strengthen NATO’s position in the area.

Russia shares a border with Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

A day earlier, Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered troops to go into the separatist Donetsk and Lugansk regions in eastern Ukraine after a lengthy speech in which he recognized the two regions’ independence.

Western powers decried the move and began to slap sanctions on certain Russian individuals, while Germany announced it would halt plans to go ahead with the Russia-to-Germany Nord Stream 2 pipeline.

At home, Biden is facing bipartisan pressure to take more extensive actions against Russia following Putin’s decision. However, a recent poll showed that a majority of Americans believe that sending troops to Ukraine is a “bad idea,” and a slim minority believes it’s a good one.

All 27 European Union countries unanimously agreed on an initial list of sanctions targeting Russian authorities, said French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian, and EU foreign affairs head Josep Borell claimed the package “will hurt Russia … a lot.”

Earlier Tuesday, Borell asserted that Russian troops have already entered the Donbas region, which comprises Donetsk and Lugansk, which are under the control of pro-Russia groups since 2014.

And on Tuesday, the Russian Parliament approved a Putin-back plan to use military force outside of Russia’s borders as Putin further said that Russia confirmed it would recognize the expanded borders of Lugansk and Donetsk.

“We recognized the states,” the Russian president said. “That means we recognized all of their fundamental documents, including the constitution, where it is written that their [borders] are the territories at the time the two regions were part of Ukraine.”

Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, Putin said that Ukraine is “not interested in peaceful solutions” and that “every day, they are amassing troops in the Donbas.”

Meanwhile, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky on Tuesday morning again downplayed the prospect of a Russian invasion and proclaimed: “There will be no war.”

“There will not be an all-out war against Ukraine, and there will not be a broad escalation from Russia. If there is, then we will put Ukraine on a war footing,” he said in a televised address.

The White House began to signal that they would shift their own position on whether it’s the start of an invasion.

“We think this is, yes, the beginning of an invasion, Russia’s latest invasion into Ukraine,” said Jon Finer, the White House deputy national security adviser in public remarks. “An invasion is an invasion and that is what is underway.”

For weeks, Western governments have been claiming Moscow would invade its neighbor after Russia gathered some 150,000 troops along the countries’ borders. They alleged that the Kremlin would attempt to come up with a pretext to attack, while some officials on Monday said Putin’s speech recognizing the two regions was just that.

But Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin told reporters Tuesday that Russia’s “latest invasion” of Ukraine is threatening stability in the region, but he asserted that Putin can “still avoid a full blown, tragic war of choice.”

Article
 
If that base is near the polish border it would also send a strong signal to NATO, but it would be playing with fire, specially if the missile misses and explodes on the other side.
It wouldn't need to. Even a tactical nuke, that close to the border, would send fallout across southern Poland and on to Czechia and Slovakia. It'd be giving NATO a near-airtight justification to join the war, if only because it would be easy to claim that it was an intentional contamination. Putin would be an idiot to do it.

But then again, last month I was saying Putin would be an idiot to invade Ukraine, yet here we are.
 
It wouldn't need to. Even a tactical nuke, that close to the border, would send fallout across southern Poland and on to Czechia and Slovakia. It'd be giving NATO a near-airtight justification to join the war, if only because it would be easy to claim that it was an intentional contamination. Putin would be an idiot to do it.

But then again, last month I was saying Putin would be an idiot to invade Ukraine, yet here we are.
It's much "cleaner" for Putin just to use nerve gas and leave the city infrastructure intact but gassing a city really makes the rest of the country redouble their resistance and animus for your forces.
 
@Considered HARMful

Russia's POV is that existence and encroachment of NATO has shown why the invasion was necessary.
Russia's POV is unreliable at best, delusional at worst. They've given a million different justifications for this war, all are probably bullshit. The only one that probably isn't is that Putin views Ukraine as a historical mistake that needs to be corrected.

Why does it have to be World War all at once? There was a Turkish invasion of Greek Cyprus in..1974 I think? Doesn't seem like both countries being in NATO stopped them from doing their dirty political ploys and coups.

Are you going to wiggle out of it because that was not a some big apocalyptic general war, so it's a-ok? Is there a specified criterion when some wars count and some don't? Does it not count because you mentioned Western, Northern and Central Europe and skipped Southern?
Nigga stop moving goal posts. You asked what wars NATO prevented, a stupid question in the first place because you are asking for a negative, wars NATO prevented, which is impossible to answer because, if the war was prevented, then we wouldn't even know to count it in the first place, but one war we know it did prevent was WWIII, or any other major regional war. I only skipped southern Europe because some people consider the Balkans southern Europe. Though the Balkans are specifically not in NATO entirely, even today.

Yet NATO felt somehow obliged to intervene. How was that defensive?
NATO was activating as a peacekeeping force specifically. That, and the war was threatening the stability of the entire continent and had become genocidal in nature.

This is a dangerously totalizing view. Besides, if so then again: why don't invite Russia into NATO?
Its the truth. If Ukraine had been a part of NATO, the war would never have happened. And I've already explained why Russia is not a member.

Initiality is irrelevant. How is that a) defensive b) European? C'mon, those were your words, not mine!
I'm explaining the historical and legal situation. NATO was part of a larger international effort in both Afghanistan and Libya, acting under the auspices of the U.N. If you have an issue with either intervention, take it up with the U.N., which authorized both.

Seriously?!

"My enemy is using a weapon against me and that's suspicious".

Motherfucker, I'd fully expect Russians to exploit that stuff to kingdom come and back! How is that suspicious? If anything is suspicious is that this transcript didn't gain further traction!
Really? Do not see that the Russians manipulated the situation, probably to make it look worse than it was? That they released only a portion out of context to make the U.S. look as bad as possible, without context that could mitigate the situation? Really? This has to be explained to you?

@Considered HARMful

You are having a nigger moment. STFU and let's actually have this thread more or less be what it is intended for.
Thank you. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Sure! But we don't know how small of an excerpt it is nor what might possibly be any further context that would change its meaning 180 degrees,
And all of this has to be taken into account with that call. As it is, it means little without the greater context behind it. Russia didn't release that call with good intentions. It intentionally wanted to make the U.S. look as bad as possible, so manipulated the situation to do so. That makes it suspect.

And yet the talk is about Ukraine ascending into NATO, and now suddenly the corruption you mentioned becomes non-issue? Dude, I get that we'll disagree and that's fine, but let's at least keep some consistency.

And you conveniently forgot Poland Albania. And I personally think Montenegro is no less fishy.
But Ukraine has not joined yet. And that is because of Ukraine's internal issues. Ukraine was probably a decade away, at least, from joining NATO before Russia took Crimea, and Russia knew this. The Russian invasion of Crimea made it impossible for Ukraine to join and Russia also knew this prior to the invasion, which is why Russia invading due to Ukraine wanting to join NATO is bullshit; because Ukraine was never going to join as long as Russia held Crimea. Ukraine was not in danger of joining NATO when Russia invaded. It had been working for years to do so, and was still working towards it when Russia took Crimea.
 
you are saying that they rewrote constitution ... then in Feb-March of 2014 Putin responded with annexation (i.e. with an armed coup)

'except that you provide a link about NATO vote in Dec of 2014 ... which tool place 9 mo AFTER Putin responded to this vote ... :story:

"an ammendment" to the Ukrainian constitution was added in 2019, like a said before, that codifies country's direction toward joining of NATO and EU. The constitution itself has not been re-written since it's adoption in 1996.

Here is a timeline to help:

November 21, 2013 – February 21, 2014: This was the revolution/coup (call it what you want) but it's when the democratically elected government was removed from power without an election, and an interim government was installed unconstitutionally.

February 21, 2014, the newly installed parliament passed a law that reinstated the December 2004 amendments of the constitution. This change to the Constitution is what made it possible for them to even begin the process of trying to join NATO. It didn't begin the process, it made it possible to begin the process. Before that, it was not possible under the Ukrainian Constitution. That's why they changed it, so that they could begin the process (which they officially did in December 2014). Why didn't they try to join NATO right away after this, why did it take until December? Well, because within hours of this decision Putin rolled his fucking tanks into Crimea.

February 22-23, 2014: Russia immediately invades Ukraine as a result of the above. Their reasoning is that it will prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, since a requirement to join NATO is that you have control of your borders and are not in an active conflict. Ukraine can ask to join NATO at this point, but they can't be accepted unless and until Russia leaves Crimea.

December 23, 2014: Ukraine votes to abandon neutrality and sets their sites on joining NATO officially.
 
Last edited:
Russia's POV is unreliable at best, delusional at worst. They've given a million different justifications for this war, all are probably bullshit. The only one that probably isn't is that Putin views Ukraine as a historical mistake that needs to be corrected.
I neither agree nor disagree. I'm just stating their POV and you choose to dismiss it outright, thus fueling the paranoia. This is not me you're arguing against.
Nigga stop moving goal posts. You asked what wars NATO prevented, a stupid question in the first place because you are asking for a negative, wars NATO prevented, which is impossible to answer because, if the war was prevented, then we wouldn't even know to count it in the first place, but one war we know it did prevent was WWIII, or any other major regional war. I only skipped southern Europe because some people consider the Balkans southern Europe. Though the Balkans are specifically not in NATO entirely, even today.
I asked you in earnest for your opinion admitting in front that it's not a very serious question and now you're turning my own admission against me and expect to score some points? This is low.

Sorry, I can't take you one-bit seriously any more, so I'll respond in kind:
So the NATO somehow stopped a hypothetical WW3 and couldn't prevent Greko-Turkish infighting. Wow, such peacekeeping, very unity.
NATO was activating as a peacekeeping force specifically.
So not defensive. Thank you, come again.
That, and the war was threatening the stability of the entire continent and had become genocidal in nature.
Conjecture.
Its the truth. If Ukraine had been a part of NATO, the war would never have happened.
Conjecture. See also the diplomatic ping-pong regarding Polish MiGs, which were supposed to be supplied to Ukraine. Why do you think the Polish government agreed to transfer them under US control instead of sending them directly? That was one of very few intelligent things for which I give my government credit it deserves.
And I've already explained why Russia is not a member.
Because corruption. And Albania is a member, because it's not corrupt. And Ukraine could be a member because it's not corrupt. Wow, very consistency, such logic.
I'm explaining the historical and legal situation.
So not European nor defensive. Thank you, come again.
Really? Do not see that the Russians manipulated the situation, probably to make it look worse than it was? That they released only a portion out of context to make the U.S. look as bad as possible, without context that could mitigate the situation? Really? This has to be explained to you?
I don't know, I wouldn't put it past them. As a matter of fact, I'd fully expect it and that's not suspicious at all. If I expect my enemy to damage me, why is it suspicious that he makes the weapon more potent on purpose?
And all of this has to be taken into account with that call. As it is, it means little without the greater context behind it. Russia didn't release that call with good intentions. It intentionally wanted to make the U.S. look as bad as possible, so manipulated the situation to do so. That makes it suspect.
It's exactly expected, therefore not suspect. But let's not argue semantics.
But Ukraine has not joined yet. And that is because of Ukraine's internal issues. Ukraine was probably a decade away, at least, from joining NATO before Russia took Crimea, and Russia knew this. The Russian invasion of Crimea made it impossible for Ukraine to join and Russia also knew this prior to the invasion, which is why Russia invading due to Ukraine wanting to join NATO is bullshit; because Ukraine was never going to join as long as Russia held Crimea. Ukraine was not in danger of joining NATO when Russia invaded. It had been working for years to do so, and was still working towards it when Russia took Crimea.
Talk about goalpost moving. :story:
 
I neither agree nor disagree. I'm just stating their POV and you choose to dismiss it outright, thus fueling the paranoia. This is not me you're arguing against.

I asked you in earnest for your opinion admitting in front that it's not a very serious question and now you're turning my own admission against me and expect to score some points? This is low.

Sorry, I can't take you one-bit seriously any more, so I'll respond in kind:
So the NATO somehow stopped a hypothetical WW3 and couldn't prevent Greko-Turkish infighting. Wow, such peacekeeping, very unity.

So not defensive. Thank you, come again.

Conjecture.

Conjecture. See also the diplomatic ping-pong regarding Polish MiGs, which were supposed to be supplied to Ukraine. Why do you think the Polish government agreed to transfer them under US control instead of sending them directly? That was one of very few intelligent things for which I give my government credit it deserves.

Because corruption. And Albania is a member, because it's not corrupt. And Ukraine could be a member because it's not corrupt. Wow, very consistency, such logic.

So not European nor defensive. Thank you, come again.

I don't know, I wouldn't put it past them. As a matter of fact, I'd fully expect it and that's not suspicious at all. If I expect my enemy to damage me, why is it suspicious that he makes the weapon more potent on purpose?

It's exactly expected, therefore not suspect. But let's not argue semantics.

Talk about goalpost moving. :story:
@Considered HARMful


Russia's POV is unreliable at best, delusional at worst. They've given a million different justifications for this war, all are probably bullshit. The only one that probably isn't is that Putin views Ukraine as a historical mistake that needs to be corrected.


Nigga stop moving goal posts. You asked what wars NATO prevented, a stupid question in the first place because you are asking for a negative, wars NATO prevented, which is impossible to answer because, if the war was prevented, then we wouldn't even know to count it in the first place, but one war we know it did prevent was WWIII, or any other major regional war. I only skipped southern Europe because some people consider the Balkans southern Europe. Though the Balkans are specifically not in NATO entirely, even today.


NATO was activating as a peacekeeping force specifically. That, and the war was threatening the stability of the entire continent and had become genocidal in nature.


Its the truth. If Ukraine had been a part of NATO, the war would never have happened. And I've already explained why Russia is not a member.


I'm explaining the historical and legal situation. NATO was part of a larger international effort in both Afghanistan and Libya, acting under the auspices of the U.N. If you have an issue with either intervention, take it up with the U.N., which authorized both.


Really? Do not see that the Russians manipulated the situation, probably to make it look worse than it was? That they released only a portion out of context to make the U.S. look as bad as possible, without context that could mitigate the situation? Really? This has to be explained to you?


Thank you. Couldn't have said it better myself.


And all of this has to be taken into account with that call. As it is, it means little without the greater context behind it. Russia didn't release that call with good intentions. It intentionally wanted to make the U.S. look as bad as possible, so manipulated the situation to do so. That makes it suspect.


But Ukraine has not joined yet. And that is because of Ukraine's internal issues. Ukraine was probably a decade away, at least, from joining NATO before Russia took Crimea, and Russia knew this. The Russian invasion of Crimea made it impossible for Ukraine to join and Russia also knew this prior to the invasion, which is why Russia invading due to Ukraine wanting to join NATO is bullshit; because Ukraine was never going to join as long as Russia held Crimea. Ukraine was not in danger of joining NATO when Russia invaded. It had been working for years to do so, and was still working towards it when Russia took Crimea.
Please take this to the other thread, YouTube comments or some unknown subreddit or discord. I know this isn't super strict on being on topic of the News, but this is getting to be a bit much. I don't want to have to scroll past your dissertations every time I visit here. Thanks!
 
It's much "cleaner" for Putin just to use nerve gas and leave the city infrastructure intact but gassing a city really makes the rest of the country redouble their resistance and animus for your forces.
Chemical weapons are very destructive, but this is over selling how effective they are.

To be easily deployed over a city you would need it to be deployed as a gas or as a liquid. Which would mean that it's probably going to evaporate - or in the Ukraine it might even freeze.

I know a lot of spergs denied the chemical attacks in Syria because white helmets would retrieve bodies without specialist equipment, however in those cases the chemical in question was gone. It had evaporated because Syria is fucking hot. I remember watching a video where a chemist explained that this would occur quickly.


Now I know it's not a perfect analogy, but even during rush hour in one of the most tightly packed and busiest subways in the world a Sarin attack only killed 14 (plus some others later on) and left 50 permanently wounded. That is in an enclosed and busy environment.

Now yes they didn't have an effective dispersal mechanism, and hospital treatment would have been reach fairly easily - but likewise, a city can be windy, has areas in cover and dispersal over a wide area would be difficult or would likely have no effect.

If Putin does use them it will be out of sheer desperation, as regular military units have access to the required precautions to survive this. It's unpleasant, but not overly complicated to don a respirator.
 
Last edited:
Please take this to the other thread, YouTube comments or some unknown subreddit or discord. I know this isn't super strict on being on topic of the News, but this is getting to be a bit much. I don't want to have to scroll past your dissertations every time I visit here. Thanks!
Out of respect for you since you are one of the few people in this thread that consistent provides good information, I'll let the other asshat have all the downvotes and sit this one out. I'm tired of his goal post shifting.
 
I'm perfectly willing to stop shitting the thread if I'm extended the same courtesy instead of bad-faith mudslinging.
Your points are all nonsensical and ignore obvious facts.

1) NATO was not a threat to Russia prior to this war. It was all talk and politics, and many, including myself, doubted its very purpose prior to the war. So even if Ukraine joined NATO, there would be no immediate effect on Russia unless it attacked.

2) Ukrainians protested against the pro-Russian government and supported the pro-American/EU one. It's obvious which side the people are on, when they're voting to become part of NATO.

3) Russia had the diplomatic high ground before this war; they were still feared as a military power and would likely be able to twist the West's arm into concessions by simply using the threat of force rather than force itself. Now that they've invaded and proven their army to be vastly inferior even when compared to an ex-Soviet republic using NATO weapons, no one will take them seriously. Russia's army is falling apart just trying to keep up a stalemate with Ukraine; if NATO forces got involved, Russia would get conquered within a week, and if they did use nukes, both Russia and the West would get decimated within minutes.

4) Zelensky already promised no NATO membership for Ukraine and recognition of the breakaway eastern regions. The only reason Putin continues the war is because he believes his own fiction that Ukraine is not a sovereign nation.

5) Kiev has been its own civilization for over 1000 years. Ukraine as a nation has every right to exist.

6) The corruption and kelptocracy in Russia makes third-world nations look positively prosperous. Russian oligarchs can match western billionaires pound-for-pound, yet the average Russian has no way to the top, which is why most industrious Russians go overseas, to nations like the USA, to make their wealth. As bad as things are in the USA/EU, things are even worse in Russia and its puppet states, which is why Ukraine wanted to join the former instead of being the bitch of the latter and become Belarus 2.0.

7) And of course, for the whole "GLOBOHOMO" point, the Ukrainians field nationalists and are defending their land and culture, and their president is banning pro-Communist parties, while the Russian forces field foreign Islamic auxiliaries and force their own conscripted soldiers through a program of hazing, torture, and sexual abuse. Not to mention that the Russian leadership are Communist-era boomers who think the Commies were the good guys during the Cold War and who want to rebuild the Soviet empire by sending wave after wave of gopniks to die for that cause. One side has "Neo-Nazis" while shutting down its own communists, the other side chimps out about fictional Nazis while sending Chechen soldiers into European soil, not to mention they conscript their own men into an army that practices sexual depravity.
 
Last edited:
Here is a timeline to help:

November 21, 2013 – February 21, 2014: This was the revolution/coup (call it what you want) but it's when the democratically elected government was removed from power without an election, and an interim government was installed unconstitutionally.

February 21, 2014, the newly installed parliament passed a law that reinstated the December 2004 amendments of the constitution. This change to the Constitution is what made it possible for them to even begin the process of trying to join NATO. It didn't begin the process, it made it possible to begin the process. Before that, it was not possible under the Ukrainian Constitution. That's why they changed it, so that they could begin the process (which they officially did in December 2014). Why didn't they try to join NATO right away after this, why did it take until December? Well, because within hours of this decision Putin rolled his fucking tanks into Crimea.

February 22-23, 2014: Russia immediately invades Ukraine as a result of the above. Their reasoning is that it will prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, since a requirement to join NATO is that you have control of your borders and are not in an active conflict. Ukraine can ask to join NATO at this point, but they can't be accepted unless and until Russia leaves Crimea.

December 23, 2014: Ukraine votes to abandon neutrality and sets their sites on joining NATO officially.
It's funny that a "democratically elected government" has to clamp down on its own people, whereas the pro-American Ukraine government has the support OF the people who voted to abandon neutrality and to join NATO. And now, they're fighting and dying on the ground so that they can become part of the West.

You're using buzzwords to hide your bullshit, and it's really obvious now. If what you say is true, then Putin's men would have been welcomed as liberators against the EEEVIL NATO tyrants who overthrew the "democratically elected government" of Ukraine. Instead, the Russians got a boot up their ass, courtesy of the locals. That doesn't sound like these people would "democratically elect" a government that is pro-Russian.
 
Look, if you want to continue this, just post it in a private conversation instead of cruising for asspat stickers.
Someone's a little angry. Maybe you should address my points instead of just trying to focus on "WAAAAAH! UKRAINE/NATO BAAAAAAAAD!!!!!"

Again, if you actually looked at the objective truth of it all, NATO was not a threat to Russia. It was a threat to the Soviet Union, but it wasn't going to attack Russia unless Russia gave it a reason. People like myself were questioning its very existence and wondering why it still exists. Why we put part of our GDP towards it instead of something more productive like economic development or research into safer energy sources, like say, creating a clean version of nuclear energy, so the next time oil giants like Russia throw a temper tantrum, we don't get affected.

But Russia's assault gave NATO purpose. It is the best advertisement for NATO you can get; Russian shells landing not just at enemy command posts and military targets, but at the homes of families, at schools for children. It showed the world that trusting Russia not to attack is like building a castle on quicksand, and just like that, more nations want to join NATO and the EU. And now, Russia's army has been exposed for the low-quality gopnik horde that it truly was; the biggest Russian casualty isn't any one of those generals that the Ukrainians killed, but rather, the prestige of its military. The Russians were considered second to only the Americans in terms of military might, but now? They're a joke. An oversized banana republic with nukes. If a covert NATO strike shut down their ability to launch their nukes, you can bet your ass Uncle Sam would be at Moscow's throat by the time this week ends.

And of course, you didn't even bother to ask why the Ukrainians would die fighting for a pro-western government, and why they protested and turned against their pro-Russian one. It's quite obvious; they've decided that it was better to live and die free, than to get keked by Putin and his oligarch buddies who make George Soros look like Santa Claus by comparison.

Speaking of which:

There's a difference between someone who participates willingly in sexual depravity, and someone who conscripts others and forces them into it.

It's the difference between a whore and a child rapist.

So what if some Ukrainians chose to participate in sexual depravity? They're not as bad as the Russians who conscript their own men into participating in such decadence.
 
Someone's a little angry. Maybe you should address my points instead of just trying to focus on "WAAAAAH! UKRAINE/NATO BAAAAAAAAD!!!!!"
I'm doing what I've been asked for - not shitting up the thread. Curiously only I've been asked to do so.

The offer to continue in private conversation is still standing. I already tried asking one person on the points of disagreement but didn't yet get a response.
 
No wonder political prisoners deserved their own category. As a fellow inmate, I'd become suicidal having to listen to the ramblings all day with no way to escape.

More on topic:
I just wonder how it all will pen out. Regardless of who will "win" this. Millions of people became refugees and left for mostly the European countries. I have a hard time believing that these very refugees that had to flee from Russia and now see a glimpse of the potential prosperity the West is offering for the average person - will see Russia in any good light at all.
If Russia, despite all projections, fails here - they created a hard demographic block that will just down everything that only vaguely sounds pro Russia. At least that is what I would suspect.
 
I'm doing what I've been asked for - not shitting up the thread. Curiously only I've been asked to do so.

The offer to continue in private conversation is still standing. I already tried asking one person on the points of disagreement but didn't yet get a response.
That's on you, not me. I've no desire to speak to you, only prove that what you state is wrong through facts.

No wonder political prisoners deserved their own category. As a fellow inmate, I'd become suicidal having to listen to the ramblings all day with no way to escape.

More on topic:
I just wonder how it all will pen out. Regardless of who will "win" this. Millions of people became refugees and left for mostly the European countries. I have a hard time believing that these very refugees that had to flee from Russia and now see a glimpse of the potential prosperity the West is offering for the average person - will see Russia in any good light at all.
If Russia, despite all projections, fails here - they created a hard demographic block that will just down everything that only vaguely sounds pro Russia. At least that is what I would suspect.
Russians have been leaving Russia for a reason. Anyone with no oligarch ties is not allowed to get in big business. Basically, Russia prior to the war was like what if the United States never participated in trust-busting against monopolies, and the monopolies became hereditary seats of power.

Hence why many have left for greener pastures abroad.
 
That's on you, not me. I've no desire to speak to you, only prove that what you state is wrong through facts.


Russians have been leaving Russia for a reason. Anyone with no oligarch ties is not allowed to get in big business. Basically, Russia prior to the war was like what if the United States never participated in trust-busting against monopolies, and the monopolies became hereditary seats of power.

Hence why many have left for greener pastures abroad.
One hears a lot about skill economy and the risen value of "human capital". We might see the effects with the invasion already. Actually I am pretty sure of it. But this brain drain will fuck Russia up in the long term, right?

Their economy is mostly based on resources. Mostly fossil fuels. Most of which are out of their way. Thanks to the invasion as well. The EU is going overdrive on green energy investments. Germany is even considering to ramp up it's nuclear reactors.
There is always China. But China has shown that it is willing to put on pressure if it wants to. There is the Australian coal issue for example where China willingly stopped importing Australian coal and used their own Chinese, lower quality coal. Which all the downsides that was bringing.
So those nice profit margins with gas and co might become a thing of the past for Russia.

Might be an interesting trainwreck to watch.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back