It makes little sense to base projections on 2022, in which Russia indeed had a short surge due to short-lived spike of gas and oil prices and inability for the Western countries to switch to other suppliers in such short time. But now they did and the prices have fallen below the pre-war levels. That is why Russia has lost its main source of income, which I have already pointed out in previous post.

Yes, the official inflation rate is low. The question is, given the current deficit and reserve spending (like 35 bln $ spent from reserves on the National Welfare Fund in January), how long it will last. Similarly, given the situation, any predictions concerning the GDP are rather hypothetical.

Much of the trade surplus is driven by grain exports. Russia produces almost 12% of the world’s wheat, all non-GMO. Total world wheat production for this period is estimated at about 781 million tons. — yebiga

In 2021 foodstuff exports accounted for less than 10% of total Russian exports. Compared to income from oil and gas it is pretty negligible. If it has a bigger share now (I cannot find the data), it is not because it is doing so well, but because its other exports fell so much. And the trade surplus in 2022 resulted mostly from ban of imports from the West; exports could not be banned as quickly, as they had to find new suppliers. But now the trend is clearly reversed and Russia is losing both; here is the current graph concerning the trade with the EU:



The fact is that Russia has lost its best customers.

Having said all that, if I was the Russians I would be very very nervous because, in the immortal words from the opening scene in Patton : "Americans are winners, we hate to lose and love to win" And in this instance winning is going to require something from left field. — yebiga

And not just the Russians.

The US empire spanned the whole globe, and it's unlikely the Americans will let it crumble without a fight. The key question is where that fight is going to take place, since it seems the US is already weak to a degree that it cannot fight on all fronts.

In my view, it won't be in Ukraine, since the United States shows no real commitment to a Ukrainian victory. Besides, Ukraine holds no direct strategic value for the United States, and its involvement there has more to do with attempts at hamstringing the Russians, which already seem to have failed.

Then there's the Persian Gulf - the most important geopolitical area to the US, outside of the American mainland. Again, no sign of a reaction from the US while the area completely seems to slip from its grasp, into the hands of its former adversaries and geopolitical rivals. This is perhaps most shocking of all, and way more significant than anything that happens in Ukraine from a geopolitical point of view.


The only place where the American sphere seems more or less intact is the Pacific, and with China being the real peer competitor to the US (not the Russians or the Iranians, etc.), this is where I believe the US will make its stand.

However, in typical fashion the Chinese are biding their time, essentially waiting for the US to weaken further, as it's unable to commit to other threats to its sphere in fear of losing its grasp over the Pacific.

In an ironic twist the Americans' trump card - Taiwan - seems to have turned into its achilles heel, basically requiring constant attention under threat of a Chinese invasion, disallowing them from turning their attention to other flashpoints.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/kakhovka-dam-ukraine-russia-destroyed-rcna87852

This was a targeted strike designed to wash all the nazi's away.

That graph has the unique attributes of being both correct and irrelevant. Much, if not quite all, Russian resources continue to reach the EU via third party countries. The really significant difference is that the Europeans are paying more for the same resources to pay for the additional layers of middle men and shipping.

But even if that were not the case, the EU and the USA is not the world. It is merely 12% of the world's population. There are new market opportunities for Russia. India is 17% of the world's population. China is another 17% and China has every reason to shift its trading relationship in Russia's favour - as has already happened during this period..

Humans can live without Prada Bags, French Champagne and German Cars. It is more difficult to live without fuel for your transportation systems, very uncomfortable without heating and impossible without food.

The Russian population is barely 2% of the world, but its borders constitute 20% of the world's land mass. Only chronic indolence, corruption, and incompetence can explain why a country possessing this fundamental advantage would be incapable of sustaining a robust economy. Those three attributes have riddled Russia throughout its history. But not only have those riches not gone away but with the advance of technology there are even more unparalleled stretches of previously inaccessible and unexploited territory beckoning.

The popular Western description echoing that Russia is a gas station impersonating a country is entirely a product of envy. And it is the manifestation of this envy, not Ukraine sovereignty, that drives this conflict.

The popular Western description echoing that Russia is a gas station impersonating a country is entirely a product of envy. — yebiga

Do you really think that westerners, particularly Americans, envy Russia?

In the absence of a critical media that challenges the policies of the government, the average distracted citizen, in any given land, becomes a vessel of prescribed thoughts. Western perceptions of Russia, tainted by decades of motion pictures portraying Russians as routine villains, infect the collective consciousness. The consistent messaging is of villainous acts—poisonings, bombings, and the like.

What truly matters lies in the minds of decision-makers and influencers in Washington and Brussels—the architects of policy. The leaders of industry, the projected economic indicators for the next 10, 20, or 30 years. The subsequent policies formulated in think tanks, the ensuing fears informing the neo-conservatives policies, and the envy of multinational energy companies who stare begrudgingly across the eurasian steppes.

There is a news report from the year 2015 —where the Secretary of State, then aspiring to the Presidency, Hillary Clinton, publicly bemoans the supposed injustice of Russia's possession of vast untapped resources. While it may be conceivable, it is highly unlikely that someone in her position would spontaneously make such an observation without the guidance of expert assessment.

Agree!
we maybe able to outline the general trends but how this plays out is not clear me. A myriad of unpredictable twists and turns are likely before a new multi-polar world settles down. The one thing we can say for certain is that Fukuyama's End of History is postponed.

I have tremendous problems with America, to the point where I'll probably become an expat when I retire. But I recognize a petty tyrant when I see one. You don't have to dig deep on this one. Putin thinks the breakup of the Soviet Union was a tragedy. What else would you expect from an ex-KGB thug? He tried for the easy land-grab and it blew up in his face. The rest has been incompetence piled on incompetence piled on a mountain of dead bodies.

America, of course, is thrilled to be fighting this proxy war. But that doesn't make it wrong. For once in America's recent history, it's realpolitik goals and the morality of the situation happen to intersect: helping the Ukrainians is the right thing to do.

For once in America's recent history, it's realpolitik goals and the morality of the situation happen to intersect: helping the Ukrainians is the right thing to do. — RogueAI

The Americans played a principal role in causing this war. They have no moral high ground to speak of.

That graph has the unique attributes of being both correct and irrelevant. Much, if not quite all, Russian resources continue to reach the EU via third party countries. The really significant difference is that the Europeans are paying more for the same resources to pay for the additional layers of middle men and shipping.

But even if that were not the case, the EU and the USA is not the world. It is merely 12% of the world's population. There are new market opportunities for Russia. India is 17% of the world's population. China is another 17% and China has every reason to shift its trading relationship in Russia's favour - as has already happened during this period.. — yebiga

The really significant difference is that the middle men are pocketing the lion's share of the profits, so Russia is getting paid much less. And it is much less important how big are the countries you are trading with, but whether they have the money. India and China are paying for the resources half of what Russians got from the West - that is the significant difference. Especially that neither India nor China want Russia to get much stronger - they are using the opportunity to squeeze Russia, not to help it.

Humans can live without Prada Bags, French Champagne and German Cars. It is more difficult to live without fuel for your transportation systems, very uncomfortable without heating and impossible without food. — yebiga

Is that what you think Russians has imported from the West? Do you realize that not a single modern train junction in Russia (and railway is the backbone of Russian transportation) was built without German technology? Do you realize that not a single oil well works without Swedish, German or American solutions? Did you know that over 70% of Russian civilian aircraft was made in the West and the rest has Western parts, so already part of the fleet had to be cannibalized for spare parts? Even the carmaking industry cannot keep up the (already lowered) production. And these technologies cannot be simply smuggled in or imported through a third country. Without Western engineers they would still be worthless.

The Russian population is barely 2% of the world, but its borders constitute 20% of the world's land mass. Only chronic indolence, corruption, and incompetence can explain why a country possessing this fundamental advantage would be incapable of sustaining a robust economy. Those three attributes have riddled Russia throughout its history. But not only have those riches not gone away but with the advance of technology there are even more unparalleled stretches of previously inaccessible and unexploited territory beckoning. — yebiga

The whole tragedy of Russia is caused by this exact thinking. Its rulers still think they are an empire because they have the sq kilometers. But in today's world area is not worth much (ask Canadians) - you are only as strong as your economy is. And Russia's trails behind Italy, this year it has barely made the first ten, but it does not seem it will stay there for long. That is the very source of Russia's resentment - it does not count that much anymore. That is the major reason for its imperialistic tendencies and that is one of the reasons for the war. If you do not believe me, just watch Russian TV (Russian Media Monitor is an excellent source) - they are stating exactly that precisely and straightforwardly. They do not care for the fate of oridinary Russians - they just want their country 'big'.

The popular Western description echoing that Russia is a gas station impersonating a country is entirely a product of envy. And it is the manifestation of this envy, not Ukraine sovereignty, that drives this conflict. — yebiga

Funny one! Wait, you are serious? The West is envious of Russia? The West mostly does not care about Russia, it is not significant enough. It is Russia that had a Western complex for a long time. In Tolstoy the nobility were practically bilingual, as they spoke French to each other. They called St Petersburg 'Paris of the North', I do not recall anyone calling Paris 'St Petersburg of the West'... And it has not changed a bit - most Russian oligarchs have houses in the West, Solovyov, the chief defender of the Russian values, cries live over the loss of his Italian villas, his purported children, along with children of Peskov, Shoigu, Lavrov and other 'kids of the Kremlin' are also enjoying their lives in the West. That is why they were so outraged at the restrictions... When the Western elites were banned from going to Sochi, they took it in stride. Envy? I do not think so.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/06/06/nord-stream-pipeline-explosion-ukraine-russia/

:up:

For once in America's recent history, it's realpolitik goals and the morality of the situation happen to intersect: helping the Ukrainians is the right thing to do. — RogueAI

I remember this bothering Streetlight X, the US getting off now because the actions of Putin are so clear obvious.

Present Russia is a prime example of a country where it's leaders are so seduced about it's imagined greatness they will ruin everything absolutely everything.

I remember this bothering Streetlight X, the US getting off now because the actions of Putin are so clear obvious. — ssu

Yeah, I haven't seen some of the quislings around lately.

Present Russia is a prime example of a country where it's leaders are so seduced about it's imagined greatness they will ruin everything absolutely everything. — ssu

Ironically, this describes Washington equally well.

The Russian army went into Ukraine with at the very most a 190,000 troops. There is absolutely no way the Russian army, comprised of a 190,000 troops, could conquer all of Ukraine. — John J. Mearsheimer

I'd just like to point out how absolutely pivotal a piece of information like this (that has been public knowledge for a while) is to deciphering the actual goings-on vis-à-vis Ukraine.

For many months now I have defended the position (leaning quite often on Mearsheimer's arguments, I will admit) that the Russians never intended to take over all of Ukraine with their initial invasion.

Unless someone wants to argue the 190,000 figure is false, we can essentially dismiss the entire western narrative of the Ukraine war. I hope people realise that.

Unless someone wants to argue the 190,000 figure is false, we can essentially dismiss the entire western narrative of the Ukraine war. I hope people realise that. — Tzeentch

There is no "entire western narrative". There are different narratives. One is yours. There are others though that still differ from the narrative you support or reject.

I'd just like to point out how absolutely pivotal a piece of information like this is to deciphering the actual goings-on vis-à-vis Ukraine.

For many months now I have defended the position (leaning quite often on Mearsheimer's arguments, I will admit) that the Russians never intended to take over all of Ukraine.

Unless someone wants to argue the 190,000 figure is false, we can essentially dismiss the entire western narrative of the Ukraine war. I hope people realise that. — Tzeentch

The plan was to take Kiev, Kharkiv, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson and Odessa, possibly Dnipro. If it suceeded, there would be little to no resistance, as the entire government structure would collapse (with Lviv being the only remaining bigger center). Ukrainians would have no choice but to accept peace on very unfavorable terms, most likely with puppet Russian government installed. How exactly does that 'dismiss the entire western narrative of the Ukraine war'?

The plan was to take Kiev, Kharkiv, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson and Odessa, possibly Dnipro. If it suceeded, there would be little to no resistance, as the entire government structure would collapse (with Lviv being the only remaining bigger center). Ukrainians would have no choice but to accept peace on very unfavorable terms, most likely with puppet Russian government installed. How exactly does that 'dismiss the entire western narrative of the Ukraine war'? — Jabberwock

The dismissal happens when I measure your narrative to the 190,000 figure, and conclude that there is no way a 190,000 troops could have achieved the goals you purport the Russians had.

In fact, had the Russians intended to take and hold Kiev, 190,000 troops would barely be able to achieve just that, assuming 60,000 Ukrainian defenders (which is roughly what sources seem to agree on).

And they would have been able to achieve nothing else.

However, we know only ~20,000 Russsian troops participated in the Battle of Kiev.

You see a discrepancy here?

The plan was to take Kiev, Kharkiv, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson and Odessa, possibly Dnipro — Jabberwock

Notice that "the entire Western narrative" that Tzeentch seems to argue against is "Russians intended to take over all of Ukraine with their initial invasion" with 190K troops.

Kiev is well outside of the realm of reason. Let there be no misunderstanding about that based on my last reply.

So your narrative is that 20000 of Russian troops were just on a stroll in the vicinity of Kiev? That the battle of Kiev, was actually not a battle of Kiev? What were they doing there then?

A diversion, most likely.

There's a strategic element to it as well, where the West might've been persuaded to the negotiating table upon Kiev being threatened. That's in fact what happened in the early stage of the war, but the US blocked negotiations.

A shame, because back then purportedly a peace agreement lay on the table that kept Ukraine almost entirely intact in terms of territory.

Ironically, this describes Washington equally well. — Tzeentch

Lol.

That's on another timeline. And at least in the English speaking World there's an example of how to lose your Empire with reasonable dignity and without a revolution.

First you need to have the ability to laugh at your own imperialism. Monty Python showed the way:

I assume the 19th Century Briton wouldn't be amused about this Queen Victoria Handicap skit.

A diversion? That theory does not fit the facts - you do not send your best paratroopers to be decimated in a diversion. You do not commit the bulk of your forces in the area for them to leave in disarray several days later, leaving a ton of equipment. You do not form a column and stall it - diversion is just feinting an attack, to hit and run. And what that diversion was supposed to achieve? The defenders would be equally committed without the attack at all, they could not leave the city as long as the Russians stood there.

It was not a diversion, it was a botched attack. The Russians did not expect such resistance and their logistics completely failed.

I'd just like to point out how absolutely pivotal a piece of information like this (that has been public knowledge for a while) is to deciphering the actual goings-on vis-à-vis Ukraine.

For many months now I have defended the position (leaning quite often on Mearsheimer's arguments, I will admit) that the Russians never intended to take over all of Ukraine with their initial invasion. — Tzeentch

Yes, because it was to be ruled by Ukrainian Quislings preferable to Moscow. And because it was going to be a short war. The main objective has been to get Novorossiya into Russia. That nearly came to be, except the collapse of the Ukrainian army. And the strategic strike into Kyiv was again a great plan on paper. Assuming that Ukrainians wouldn't fight back. But why would they?

How many troops did Putin need to take Crimea? I guess 30 000. And then from the Ukrainian forces over 9000 military defected to Russia, including the head of the Ukrainian Navy, and thousands of other officials also. That obviously makes quite easy for a gambler like Putin to take another roll of the dice.

Besides, you didn't noticed that the people in the Russian Intel responsible for Ukraine prior to the war war were sacked? I wonder why that happened if what happened was all planned.

The Russians hoping to take Kiev with 20,000 troops is a laughable fantasy.

Sorry. but it can't be put in any other way.

It's pretty obvious that the Russians in terms of territory aimed for south eastern Ukraine. However, admitting as much would mean admitting the Russians may have achieved some sort of victory, which is of course anathema in western media.

I prefer your sense of humor over your interpretation of the facts.

And claiming that the battle of Kiev was a 'diversion' is not laughable? You have failed to actually address any points I have mentioned, you just repeat your claim.

The aims of the 'special operation' were clearly stated by Putin at its beginning. Russia has failed to achieve any of them. Sure, occupying some land may be seen as a consolation prize, but it is rather obvious that was not the actual goal of the campaign.

On 26.02.2022 RIA Novosti (press agency/main Russian propaganda machine) has run an article by Petr Akopov, one of its main propagandist. In it he praises 'the New Order' which Russia has achieved by 'returning Ukraine to Russia'. It seems it was prepared in advance and was supposed to be run when Russia easily takes Ukraine. Of course, that did not happen and the article was quickly withdrawn, however, some sites, like the Wayback Machine, managed to save it. It is worth reading, as it shows quite clearly what Russia wanted to achieve in Ukraine:

https://web.archive.org/web/20220226051154/https://ria.ru/20220226/rossiya-1775162336.html

I prefer your sense of humor over your interpretation of the facts. — Tzeentch

Something on the same lines:

The Russians hoping to take Kiev with 20,000 troops is a laughable fantasy.

Sorry. but it can't be put in any other way.

It's pretty obvious that the Russians in terms of territory aimed for south eastern Ukraine. — Tzeentch

To assume that the fight of Hostomel/Antonov Airport and the whole fight for Kyiv was a distraction is a laughable fantasy. Sorry, but it can't be put in any other way.

- First of all, where do you get the number 20,000? Russian forces deployed to the Kyiv front were about 70 000 and they were confronted by 20,000 Ukrainian army and perhaps 18,000 irregulars. That's still an advantage. With several crack Airborne units committed to the attack and the largest air mobile operation tried to be implemented. Basically you have several armies attacking into the direction of Kyiv.

- Attacking Kyiv and the Kyiv operations area was one of the concentrations of Russian forces pushing into Ukraine. That somehow it wasn't is laughable. Do note that the taking of Kharkiv didn't either happen. Was then that a fake too?



- If this would have been a feint, then obviously it would have been totally different. The forces wouldn't have been committed to face such losses. And have them on the Ukrainian-Belarussian border would have forced to Ukraine to have forces to defend Kyiv. Yet that didn't happen. And when the where withdrawn, these units had suffered high losses.

First of all, where do you get the number 20,000? — ssu

It was reported directly by the Ukrainian general staff.

31 BTGs, each comprised of roughly 600 - 800 officers and soldiers, amounts to roughly 21,000 troops.