Is Russia bleeding the West dry fiscally?
394 sats \ 31 comments \ @TomK 6 Sep econ
Anyone complaining about the stubbornness of the Europeans and how they continue to fuel the Ukraine conflict while refusing any diplomacy must always bear in mind that there is a high probability that the Europeans are looking for reparations payments in the event of a Russian defeat. The EU (but especially the UK) is facing severe fiscal turmoil, with recurring turbulence on the bond markets. Think of what happened in England a few quarters ago. Both the expropriation of Russian assets and the attempt to get the Americans more involved again point to the same strategy.
You have to read Fiat Circus in this way to understand why Putin has apparently declared the Donbas a zone of fiscal bleeding of the West.
write
preview
related posts
97 sats \ 24 replies \ @Cje95 6 Sep
At the same time, the West could flip this on Russia's head easily. Nothing repairs an economy like a good ol war. You put the Western economies on war footing like Putin has done and poof a lot of these issues go away as we have seen time and time again over history.
Not saying we need or want war but it is an easy way to flip this on Putin and call his bluff. He doesn't have the army of the USSR and is struggling in Ukraine even with his gains. Imagine modern Western fighter jets over the skies and what that would do.
Putin's "peace" isn't peace either. He just wants everything and Ukraine to admit to all the falsehoods he has pumped into the world. He ignores and awards heinous war crimes by his troops and while Ukraine has done so bad stuff to if we look at the Ukrainian incursion into Kursk the warfare was completely different from how Russia just razes cities and towns.
reply
47 sats \ 23 replies \ @Bell_curve 6 Sep
The obstacle to a ceasefire is NATO mainly USA
The plan is to sacrifice Ukraine to weaken Russia
NATO doesn’t have the stomach for direct conflict vs Russia
The Kursk offensive is an interesting tactic. What is the objective? Gain Russian territory?
reply
21 sats \ 1 reply \ @TomK OP 6 Sep
in my opinion, the kursk offensive serves the purpose of continuing to receive aid money from the partner states and thus keeping the bond market liquid. always keep an eye on Ukrainian government bonds as well
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Cje95 6 Sep
I think it was more of a moral boost. The Eastern front is bad right now and throwing reinforcements at it wasn't going to help. By going into Kursk you embarrass Putin which is a huge win as well as gain a way to launch those crazy stupid drones that Ukraine has developed that is blowing up all those refineries and storage areas.
Kursk was interesting because it did really help out the Sumy region and recently Ukraine has begun pushing back in Kharkiv.
Moral boost was huge for the country though they needed a big win and they got one with Kursk
reply
0 sats \ 20 replies \ @Cje95 6 Sep
I mean emboldening your enemies by letting them get what they want is a very stupid and we have plenty of evidence it is doesn't work.
Russia is already cooked and was cooked after a year and a half. Now its just well sad.
With regards to NATO and the US I will just drop this here...
reply
68 sats \ 2 replies \ @jgbtc 6 Sep
There is also evidence that diplomacy works. If today's blood-thirsty, war mongering leaders were in charge during the Cuban missile crisis we would not be here to have this conversation.
reply
21 sats \ 1 reply \ @TomK OP 6 Sep
Imagina refusing diplomacy at all like UK/EU/Neocons do. That's really a cultural decay and highly unethical
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Cje95 6 Sep
The issue at hand still boils down to not only your side but the other. No one wants to compromise and when you are dealing with volatile leaders like Putin it is hard to take them for their word because of their history of actions. Europe as a whole I think is still burned by the WWII era diplomacy failures other failures.
This article from a couple of years ago highlights efforts made to prevent war and highlights how Russia was getting ready to invade its neighbor without reason but it failed and Putin wouldn't be deterred. Putin thought once the US had the embarrassing withdrawal from Afghanistan Biden would cave and didn't. https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/02/28/russia-ukraine-biden-eu-when-diplomacy-fails/
reply
68 sats \ 16 replies \ @Bell_curve 6 Sep
The provocation of Russia is unnecessary and dangerous. There is no strategic reason for Ukraine joining NATO especially a corrupt country.
reply
0 sats \ 15 replies \ @Cje95 6 Sep
Wait so your telling me and I am sorry but I gotta try and wrap my head around this... that Russia invading its neighbor and slaughtering and torturing civilians is somehow provocation? It was only once this happened and the true vile nature of the crimes came out that you saw aid surge into the country.
Russia came through and on video just mowed down civilians man... that alone provoked the West into action.
reply
55 sats \ 11 replies \ @TomK OP 6 Sep
We need to put this conflict into a larger historic picture. To include the Maidan plot is important. And the attacks on russians in Donbas since then. The fight for resources is in most cases at the center of any conflict (Biden crime family was highly involved). Look what happens in the Middle East since they found oil and gas
reply
0 sats \ 10 replies \ @Cje95 6 Sep
Lets not forget the Budapest Memorandum. Russia has loved meddling in its neighbors' activities and hated all of those who looked towards the West for economic advances.
Lets not forget he based this war on the idea that a person of Jewish heritage was a Nazi and Hitler supporter which I mean is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.
reply
21 sats \ 7 replies \ @TomK OP 6 Sep
Calm down. You don't need to fight. The moto is: 'fight until the last Ukrainian'
Where are the diplomats, I ask You?
view replies
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Bell_curve 6 Sep
A memorandum is a piece of paper that lacks the force of a treaty.
The Budapest Memorandum was not ratified by the U.S. Senate. It is a political agreement rather than a legally binding treaty, which means it did not require Senate ratification. The memorandum was designed to provide security assurances to Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan in exchange for their accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) as non-nuclear states. The U.S. administrations involved did not seek Senate ratification because they believed the Senate would not approve a treaty with military commitments to Ukraine. Instead, the memorandum was adopted with more limited terms as a political commitment rather than a formal treaty[1][4][5].
Sources [1] Budapest Memorandum - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum [2] Ukraine: The Budapest Memorandum of 1994 https://policymemos.hks.harvard.edu/links/ukraine-budapest-memorandum-1994 [3] Budapest Memorandum at 25: Between Past and Future https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/budapest-memorandum-25-between-past-and-future [4] What the Budapest Memorandum means for the U.S. on Ukraine https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/01/what-budapest-memorandum-means-us-ukraine/ [5] Constructive Ambiguity of the Budapest Memorandum at 28 - Lawfare https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/constructive-ambiguity-of-the-budapest-memorandum-at-28-making-sense-of-the-controversial-agreement [6] Ukraine war: what is the Budapest Memorandum and why has Russia’s invasion torn it up? https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-what-is-the-budapest-memorandum-and-why-has-russias-invasion-torn-it-up-178184 [7] Memorandum on security assurances - UNTC https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280401fbb [8] [PDF] Ukraine's Territorial Integrity and the Budapest Memorandum https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/publication/Issue%20Brief%20No%203--The%20Breach--Final4.pdf
view replies
47 sats \ 2 replies \ @Bell_curve 6 Sep
NATO expansion for Ukraine was and is a redline for Russia.
Crimea was a response to the color revolution in 2014.
The provocation was and is NATO enlargement.
When the Cold War ended in 1991, there were 16 members. Today NATO has 32 members.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Cje95 6 Sep
Lol is really all I can say... first Budapest Memorandum second Russia interfered when both Ukraine and Georgia began to look towards the West for economic and well social growth.
They exercised the freedom that they got in the USSR collapse and make a choice that Putin hated.
If Russia had something to offer would be one thing but Putin assassinates people weekly at this point and jails those who don't like him.
Population collapse is a hell of a thing
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 6 Sep
Memorandum is not a treaty. Senate didn’t ratify.
The Budapest Memorandum was not ratified by the U.S. Senate. It is a political agreement rather than a legally binding treaty, which means it did not require Senate ratification. The memorandum was designed to provide security assurances to Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan in exchange for their accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) as non-nuclear states. The U.S. administrations involved did not seek Senate ratification because they believed the Senate would not approve a treaty with military commitments to Ukraine. Instead, the memorandum was adopted with more limited terms as a political commitment rather than a formal treaty[1][4][5].
Sources [1] Budapest Memorandum - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum [2] Ukraine: The Budapest Memorandum of 1994 https://policymemos.hks.harvard.edu/links/ukraine-budapest-memorandum-1994 [3] Budapest Memorandum at 25: Between Past and Future https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/budapest-memorandum-25-between-past-and-future [4] What the Budapest Memorandum means for the U.S. on Ukraine https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/01/what-budapest-memorandum-means-us-ukraine/ [5] Constructive Ambiguity of the Budapest Memorandum at 28 - Lawfare https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/constructive-ambiguity-of-the-budapest-memorandum-at-28-making-sense-of-the-controversial-agreement [6] Ukraine war: what is the Budapest Memorandum and why has Russia’s invasion torn it up? https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-what-is-the-budapest-memorandum-and-why-has-russias-invasion-torn-it-up-178184 [7] Memorandum on security assurances - UNTC https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280401fbb [8] [PDF] Ukraine's Territorial Integrity and the Budapest Memorandum https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/publication/Issue%20Brief%20No%203--The%20Breach--Final4.pdf
reply on another page
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @krawall 8 Sep
I can't contribute to you directly here but for all the commenters that say we need more "diplomacy" and that's on the west and their fault (EU, etc) then I can just say how can you negotiate with a guy like Putin.
"There are no plans or intentions to attack Ukraine." He went on to say, "There is no reason to fear some kind of escalatory scenario."
A google helps.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @TomK OP 8 Sep
The debate is fruitless if You exclude diplomacy which is, imo, the only ethical way to manage conflicts between human beings.
But I'll leave You this here from my Nostr to hopefully reflect on the background of this conflict.
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @stack_harder 6 Sep
the only thing that cunt Putin is bleeding dry is the russian economy. listen to some non kremlin russian economists like Igor Lipshits.
they've obliterated their soverign wealth fund, lost more working-age men than all the previous wars combined (chechnia 1 and 2 and afghan) and they keep upping the payouts for military contracts and death payments. where;s all this money coming from? central bank barley keeping the thing afloat.
and wheres the money coming from to rebuild all the territory they have seized? crimea has been a financial drain since they took it over. it's net negative.
as for the eu fueling the conflict, you do realize that war production boosts GDP , right? all russias GDP is oil and their own military spending. looks good on paper
they give away old stuff and commission new stuff. cantillion all the way, but don't think for a minute that it will change anything for the economics of the EU
reply
47 sats \ 1 reply \ @Bell_curve 6 Sep
The EU is hurting itself by banning fossil fuels and shutting down coal and nuclear plants.
The net zero initiative is a path to poverty, third world.
Combined with its open border policy maybe the goal of EU is to become a third world banana republic
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @TomK OP 6 Sep
But the food...
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @TomK OP 6 Sep
What is Your opinion on the EU economy, public debt etc?
reply