Russia’s apparent resilience is being kept up by policy tricks and cash
thetimes.co.uk
thetimes.co.uk
"Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter."
Another reason is that Western companies stopped their sales in Russia while the West continues to buy natural gas from Russia. Short-term macroeconomic numbers will regard this as an improvement of Russia's trade balance even slightly boost their GDP.
If you're still unconvinced then look at the granddaddy of all deflations, the great depression. Caused by the freezing of trade it was (in most countries) experienced through the appreciation of the value of currency - deflation, rather than inflation.
This whole “Squeeze” thing is a function of liquidity. The reason that stocks like GME and AMC can experience the effects of a short squeeze is because of how relatively illiquid they are (i.e. point $1bn of consumer capital toward a $3bn stock with thin trading and you can do wild things).
The USD is the currency in which nearly all middle eastern oil is priced, the currency in which $16tn of consumer spending is done, quadrillions of stock trades, etc etc etc.
There’s no individual or group who can point enough capital at that to make for a squeeze, and even if they could, then why wouldn’t the treasury take advantage and start printing more dollars (see: Hertz issuing new shares and ruining wallstreetbet’s day)
It was bad for a lot of countries that had dollar-denominated debt, which is a bad idea precisely for this reason. Countries never learn though, it seems. But it was not too bad for the US actually.
In 1985, Soros bet that the Plaza Accord (a market manipulation among a cartel of leading economies to weaken the dollar for political reasons) [1] would work and he was right.
That has nothing to do with shorts or squeezes and everything to do with collusion among the Treasuries and Central Banks of something like 75% of the world economy at that point.
Soros 'won' the trade because he realized how impactful this collusion would be while the rest of the market didn't.
[1]https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w21813/w218...
edit: am I calculating this right? to do a Plaza today would need, not the G5, but pretty much the entire G20?
[0]https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1989/10/31/j...
[1]https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-11-19-fi-22750-...
Also, I remembered what it was called, the Reagan’s “Imperial Circle”:
https://www.georgesoros.com/1984/05/23/the-danger-of-reagans...
We're a much smaller economy than the US, and have a big problem that whenever there's geopolitical instability, flight to quality appreciates our currency massively (despite negative nominal rates; we've broken pegs before because although they would've been nice to keep, the cost would've been prohibitive), which then hoses our innovative sectors, because they had been counting on being competitive in global exports.
I had been imagining that keeping a currency too elevated for too long would eventually stifle growth, and that would defo be more harmful than inflation. (for a loan-based economy, for example, substantial appreciation might mean that many borrowers would just default, for lack of any other option)
Edit: see the cousin comment: ...it was extremely hard to build a sustainable business in Russia, due to the fact that it was just cheaper to buy something from abroad
No, hence the speed and strength of Fed responses to anticipated deflation vs. anticipated above-optimal inflation.
OTOH, the Fed is also why the theoretical adverse impact is unlikely to materialize in any real world scenario.
Not very; it faced two (not deliberate) recently and dealt with them through QE; our monetary policy system is tuned to deal with that problem, the main failure mode is overshooting into inflation on the tail end.
I'm in EU, not in Russia and still pirate stuff. Granted, it's all for private use.
I think what you mean is that now companies in Russia are free to pirate everything for professional/corporate use as well.
And you would also get the exit ban. FYI, people who worked for Russian biggest banks are now banned from leaving the country, and that is not only IT, real bankers are banned from leaving as well.
Owners of biggest commercial enterprises, and their children were also forbidden from leaving.
Russian FOREX, and crossborder transactions are nominally still open, but any outgoing transaction over $10,000 triggers an automatic account freeze.
People are also unable to sell their property. There is no official ban, but the necessary paperwork for property sale is impossible to do now.
Stock market is bust, but brokerages are also effectively shut down without declaring it publicly. Dividends are frozen because the electronic system controlling dividend transactions simply been physically switched off for months.
Russian customs enforcement always been draconian, but now it went into total overdrive, with Russia-Kazakhstan border seeing kilometres long queues because now 100% of all cars, and cargo goes through full search. People been trying to save their last money by trying to get it over the border as gold bars, only to have them seized with zero paperwork.
Yep, that's me.
> Software and film piracy is now completely legal
No it isn't, sadly. The one immediately good thing I had hoped to happen out of all this mess, sadly didn't happen. What a disappointment, really.
Complying to some arbitrary "copyright" rules, enforced by enemy state and lobbied by corporations, that had practically bought "rights" to all the human culture they could get their hands on (especially if they are refusing to license!) is completely ridiculous and fucking stupid.
In the current political situation at least they could have legalised SciHub - they couldn't even do that! That's just weak.
Office 365 cancellations are another story. Lots of movement to onprem or relocations of IT abroad are in progress right now. Yandex for example is moving part of it’s operations to Israel.
Do you have anything substantial to back this claim?
Cuz to me (actually living in Russia) it seems like exactly the opposite - the economy had been slowly decomposing up until the financial crisis of 2014, when the exchange rates had shifted so that roubles became cheaper.
Until then it was extremely hard to build a sustainable business in Russia, due to the fact that it was just cheaper to buy something from abroad and the only reliably sustainable industries were food production and unprocessed resources.
After 2014 - in my impression - quite a lot of entrepreneurs seem to have seized the opportunity of cheaper expenses, as I personally saw quite a lot of new businesses rising and blooming.
So I'm having a hard time figuring out what exactly had peaked in Russian economy in 2013. Sales of unprocessed resources? This is hardly a success.
Also, I don't get why are trying to reduce all the complexities of real world economics to some single number. This just feels kinda blunt. Why specifically GDP? GDP doesn't tell you anything about sustainability and self-sufficiency of some economy. Hell, all it basically tells you is how much money had changed ownership over the observation period. Why not PPP, for example? Cuz GDP number makes Russia look weak, but PPP makes it one of the world leaders, leaving behind GB, France and Italy? :P
PPP is effectively a currency conversion rate, it's not a meaningful metric by itself anymore than $1USD ~= 1000won or ~= 100 yen tells you anything about the South Korean or US or Japanese economies.
So I'm assuming you're comparing nominal GDP versus GDP by PPP. To a first approximation, nominal conversion rates give you an idea of how an economy can interact with others on a trade basis, whereas PPP conversion rates give you an idea from the perspective of a domestic consumer. For what you tend to use total economic size for, nominal GDP tends to be a better reflection of the size of the economy, whereas PPP works better for something like GDP per capita.
While many have been drafted,“millions” is an exaggeration. Yes, Yerevan is full of Russians at the moment. But likely most are from IT, those who need to get payments from international clients. Doubt that its “millions” though.
Corruption, fear and propaganda is absolutely rampant, so it's very likely some numbers are adjusted.
Also Russia has a brewing demographics collapse, similar to what Japan is experiencing. This is going to royally fuck them for the next 50 years.
I think the Ukraine invasion might be the beginning of the end for Russia as we know it, I wouldn't be surprised to see parts of Russia break away going forward.
[1] https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/11/25/russia-uzbekistan-kyrgy...
To countries far away, but wary of, dunno, nukes going into the hands of terrorists, sure.
To countries bordering Russia who are intimidated and threatened (or invaded!) on a continuous basis, this is a definite improvement.
Even the nukes, scary as they could be, are less of a threat when the individual actors are smaller and weaker. They may not even be able to maintain these nukes. And even if they are capable of using them, they are at a more precarious position than eg. Putin at the helm of Mighty Russia.
I'm not sure "the people with nukes would be in a precarious position" is the comforting statement you intended it to be.
If nothing else, these post-Russias would struggle to afford even more to upkeep and upgrade the stash of nukes. And would be easier to neutralize too...
Again, not comforting. "Might as well use them on <hated neighbor>!"
Ask the people living on the Borders of Latvia, Estonia or Georgia what they think of that. These warlords won't respect borders.
>even if they are capable of using them, they are at a more precarious position than eg. Putin at the helm of Mighty Russia.
I think they have even more incentive to use them, far less consequences if they do. Losing your position as warlord of some Fiefdom is a lot less scary then losing your position as the Dictator of a nation with a top 10 GDP, a permanent UN Security Council seat and having personal wealth in the Hundreds of Billions?
Smaller dictators can do less harm, not more.
I'm sure Serbs and Libyans had said the same about Milosevic and Gaddafi for years before they were removed from power.
They will fight between them with their remaining soviet weapons, since they are not competent to fight any large country. Maybe some of those would actually become a democracy.
Says who? They can just as well harass non-Russian neighbouring states. Or quite likely form some kind of
> since they are not competent to fight any large country
That doesn't prevent them from trying though.
> Maybe some of those would actually become a democracy.
Democracy in such states is an illusion. You are either USA with sustainable, refined over time, extremely restricted (2 parties, electors, strong continuity of the government of the selected few) and deeply rooted in tradition mechanisms of democracy, or you are just a vassal to a state with a good propaganda.
I know imperialists prefer to see the small countries as brainwashed nations that need to be put back in their place and probably this is the reason Putoin is threatening this countries all the time, they show non brainwashed Russians that democracy works, that you can live better then during Stalin or Putin regime, that cooperation works.
Sorry, but when just a few of many countries had managed to barely setup an election process, but can't go on without some violent political crisis every 10 years, that is hardly a functional and sustainable democracy.
What does this have to do with Russians anyway? It's a general principle, which works all ways with all actors. The fact that some west-leaning ex-soviet states are hard on censorship and restriction of Russian media illustrates my point perfectly.
Americans loosing sleep over the idea that TikTok is a threat to national security is another good illustration of this general principle.
See, one really doesn't have to be an imperialist to assess how popularity-based systems can be hijacked in the era when internet and targeted propaganda exist.
Refugees on the border suddenly seems like a nice problem to have.
Your argument would be valid, if this was something exclusive to Russia, and not a common mutual thing between Russia and NATO. NATO bombers just as well fly into Russian airspace, NATO deploys military manoeuvres at Russian borders, and NATO states politicians are just as keen to ramble about nukes as anyone else.
Even now, if only those pesky Ukrainians would stop shooting back at them, peace could be introduced overnight.
Russian peacekeeping corps WAS attacked in Georgia. The EU fact-finding mission, had blamed Saakashvili:
https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/new-report-on-rus...
https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/a-shattered-dream...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/30/georgia-attack...
It's insane how this truth has been erased in the last 14 years, despite being publicly available and easily googlable. This wiki article should provide a good enough context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian%E2%80%93Ossetian_conf...
But hey, why bother with studying facts when you can study propaganda memes, am I right?
In 1994 Chechnya was legally a part of Russia. By that principle, are you considering that Ukraine had invaded Donetsk? Not trolling, just wondering if it is a point of principle or doublethink.
In 1999 Chechnya had invaded Russian Dagestan, which triggered a military response - exactly how does this consitute as "Russia invaded"?
> Georgia once (in 2008)
Georgia attacked Russian peacekeeping corps in 2008:
https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/new-report-on-rus...
https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/a-shattered-dream...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/30/georgia-attack...
I am really puzzled by how people are so reinforced in their ignorance, despite facts being easily available for anyone who cares to spend 5 minutes to learn something.
Like at least four, and if we use the same counting logic you did for Russia, it would be at least 20.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_operations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_mili...
> naked territorial aggression
Well, that depends on what you consider to be worse: pushing neo-colonial policies by installing puppet governments through war and staged coups on the other part of the world, or resolving local conflicts created by dissolution of the SU along the administrative (instead of historical, ethnical, or national) borders, while granting citizenships, providing social infrastructure, or at least allowing states to gain sovereignty (if Kosovo can be independent under UN's self-determination principle, why can't Ossetia, who had been at odds with Georgia for ages and was only territorially related to it, because at some point the Soviet Union decided that budgeting that way is easier?)
Besides, considering the US geography, it's kinda hard for it to have territorial disputes, even if it really wanted to. On the other hand, you can ask Mexicans what they think of US law enforcement openly operating in Mexico.
What's the source on that claim?
For example, the most hawkish interview with Dugin (Pozner is the interviewer) is from 2014. The interview is in Russian and Dugin is clearly enraged about the Maidan events, so he is more straightforward than in English interviews.
If the English subtitles are correct, Pozner explicitly asks which countries should be part of the "Greater Russia". Dugin unambiguously excludes the Baltic states, Poland and Finland.
He wanted the eastern Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Kazakhstan in a Eurasian union.
So if even the hawk who is always cited as an expansionist does not want Latvia/Finland/Poland, who does?
The U.S. does military manoeuvres and close fly-by missions in the South China sea.
The people in charge in Russia grew up during the cold war and believe that NATO is a threat. It does not matter to them what people on Twitter who were born in 2000 think.
I don't think either that NATO is a threat in the case of Russia (unlike for Kosovo, Iraq, ...), but they don't care. If someone is in the business of foreign policy, he has to take the opponent's thoughts into account.
Russia's unlimited expansionism is a narrative that is supposed to obfuscate the mistakes that foreign policy has made since 2008.
You think NATO is a threat to Kosovo?
If that is the case: «ты всё Россию прославляешь; а лучше б мусор выносил!»
As opposed to a single, stronger failed state with economic problems?
You're somehow ignoring that countries bordering Russia have already a failed chaotic state with economic problems on their border which also is systematically threatening with invasion, destruction, and genocide.
There are very good reasons why Baltic states are the highest per-capita providers of military and economic support to Ukraine.
The in-fighting that will occur when the current government collapses will weaken them further.
The Ukraine war has strengthened NATO and shown the (quite surprising!) unity of Europe to the point that people here just aren't afraid any more.
My armchair analysis tells me that there might be coming another round of peripheral nation(alitie)s peeling away.
Not such a bad thing. And let the center - the Burkina-Faso-with-nukes - keep the comfort of their nukes, if it's what it takes to keep them from actually using those weapons in fear or in anger.
OPEC+ doesn't seem to be in the mood to replay the 1980s, though.
A country can QE forever, but this will not put food on the table or shoes on people's feet. If people want those things, they must either be produced or imported. QE doesn't help with either of those. Production is a physical act, not a monetary one.
And if you want to import from somewhere, then you need that nation's currency to do so. Which means that in turn you must have produced something to exchange for that currency.
and Russia still perfectly sells oil and gas.
What they would lack in the short and medium term are high tech products like chips, advanced medicine.
Given enough time and drive any energy and food surplus society can reinvent the high tech stuff.
Of course it doesn't mean they would, seeing how corrupt the whole ruling class is. But it is theoretically possible for them to be totally independent of the rest of the world. They are blessed with too many natural resources to not be able to do it.
It would, if USA was pursuing QE with already-high inflation.
You mean stuff like oil, wheat, fertilizer or aluminium? Yeah, there's no way Russia will be able to manage that. /s
Who did that? US did 6 years starting in 2008 due to the Great Recession and less than 2 starting in 2020 in response to the unusually deep, if quite short, pandemic recession, and the latter of those, because it wasn’t tapered quickly enough for the circumstances, triggered the highest inflation seen in a long time.
> why not Russia?
Russia can do QE as long as it wants, but QE is just self-inflicted inflation. It is a band-aid for incipient deflation, which isn’t a problem Russia has.
Is it the West or specifically the US. United States can do this because of the dollar's role in global economy: essentially everyone else will be paying for it.
Obviously, Russia can't do that. But might you have had something else in mind, since you've said "West" and not specifically "the US"?
Why don't we honor the Budapest agreement and let the Ukrainians finish off Putin's regime with US made weapons if we are going to play word games about the difference between NATO and a firm and unambiguous promise to defend a nation if they give up their nuclear weapons?
The people of Russia don't seem to want this war, they are conscripted. (From what I've read from afar.)
It's time to stop letting totalitarians use people like pawns -- let them fight it out 1 on 1 like the thugs they are. I want to see Putin personally running up on Ukraine like it's the American civil war if he's such a history fan, rather than hiding in a spider hole like the rude little pedophile he is.
My point is only that "Russia would launch nukes" is an overstatement.
So this is like Vietnam (can't go into Cambodia or China) but with much larger counties? (To vastly oversimplify)
(And sorry, I've been avoiding the news of the war since it's stressful)
I'll shut up now, I try to focus on policy positions, not the positions of troops :-)
Ah gotcha. My thinking was why make them use consumer drones? (But I shouldn't joke about serious things when I'm not an expert on these matters)
I'm not trying to be facetious or incidious with my question, feels like I need to worry more about paying bills and keeping my family fed but with nukes being talked about maybe I should be paying more attention.
Putin will nuke hot areas in Ukraine, decapitating Ukrainian forces. No other countries will be involved.
So when targets inside Russia are hit like his precious bridge they always tell us that this means Russia is invaded and they have the right to use nuclear weapons in defense.
For us in Easter Europe the bigger concern is the nuclear plants, this bastards will sabotage them in some false flag operation to get revenge on their incompetence and inferiority.
Most of the military analysts I have read have essentially dismissed the idea that Russia was planning to use nuclear weapons--there's been no force posture changes that would precede imminent use of nukes. The worry instead tends to come from pundits and politicians, and are probably driven more by a desire to support (or not) Ukraine.
The biggest concern is that Russia has consistently threatened nuclear responses to military incursions of its territory (which is not unusual, all nuclear states do this), but the territory that is included in this nuclear threshold is... unclear. Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, and Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk in September, but essentially nobody recognizes those annexations. Immediately after the annexation, Putin did another round of reiterating nuclear threats. Note that Russia did not control much of Zaporizhzhia (including its largest city and administrative center), and Russia lost control of much of Kherson last month--if you took Russia's claims extremely literally, Ukraine was already in a position to trigger nuclear threshold response.
Realistically, no one believes that Putin will use nukes in response to military failure in Ukrainian territory, with the possible exception of Crimea. The annexation may have been intended to try to extend the strategic ambiguity of nuclear response that exists right now for Crimea to the rest of Russian-controlled Ukraine, but it probably had the opposite effect (which is to say, people find nuclear response to a Crimean incursion less likely as a result of the annexation). My sense is that a lot of these messages are directed towards trying to get the West to force Ukraine to the negotiating table and ratify the status quo in lieu of being able to achieve military victory.
People in russia want the war, want to win and conquer Ukraine, they just dont want to be conscripted personally.
[1] https://meduza.io/feature/2022/11/30/za-peregovory-s-ukraino...
No they aren’t.
New York Times on 12/5: “Russian Cruise Missiles Were Made Just Months Ago Despite Sanctions”
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-58540915
They tend to steal from everyone, test a bit, then trade what they have as their people starve.
Why would Russia need tech from North Korea anyway? North Korean technology is based on what the Soviet Union shared with them.
As far as I can tell, Russia has strong domestic production capabilities for even their most advanced cruise missiles such as the hypersonic Kinzhal and Zircon.
What basis is there to assume that Russia lacks the ability to mass produce the less sophisticated components of these missiles?
---
Edit (can't reply):
> They've also apparently been canibalizing consumer devices
Based on an anecdotal report from the leadership of their primary belligerent in this conflict. Why is that easier to believe than the idea that they can produce the (very much not advanced) chips required in these missiles?
> Historical. Iskanders have been produced in the dozens-per-year quantities pre-war, Kalibr in the ~100 range. They're using that many cruise missiles in a single day's attacks now; that isn't be sustainable long-term for anyone.
Why would peacetime production represent their maximum capacity? They inherited a Cold War military-industrial complex which was preparing for a large scale global conflict.
> You should re-read the NYT article you cite; it openly states it's not debunking what you claim it debunks.
The fact the article reports is that a missile used in November was produced no earlier than October. I'm not required to agree with their insinuated conclusion. I do agree that the status of Russia's missile inventory is unclear since logically different types of missiles will be allocated for different uses based on their cost and capabilities (such as the ability to penetrate modern air defense systems).
Or they had a bit of a chip stockpile; the NYT cites "significant stockpiles of the components before the war began" as a possibility. (They've also apparently been canibalizing consumer devices; https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/05/11/russia-...)
> What basis is there to assume that Russia lacks the ability to mass produce the less sophisticated components of these missiles?
Historical. Iskanders have been produced in the dozens-per-year quantities pre-war, Kalibr in the ~100 range. They're using that many cruise missiles in a single day's attacks now; that isn't be sustainable long-term for anyone.
You should re-read the NYT article (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/05/us/politics/cruise-missil...) you cite; it openly states it's not debunking what you claim it debunks.
> Whether Russia has depleted its inventory of older cruise missiles is unclear. But militaries often use older munitions first in combat because they typically make up a majority of a nation’s stockpile.
My understanding of Russian politics is that it is primarily driven by apathy: the population will support what the government does, so long as it doesn't affect them. Russian mobilization is a violation of that tacit agreement, which is why it seems that mobilization is being targeted more at marginal groups with less political voice (e.g., ethnic minorities).
They need to retool their insider threat program, at least the employees at SEI know how to lock down their devices :-)
I think it's a bad mistake to blame everything on Putin. Russians are not benighted victims of propaganda; they have access to western media and the internet (although maybe they have to use a VPN). I know that older Russians are more likely to support the war; and that the population is ageing.But it seems very unlikely that Russians will revolt, unseat Putin, and force a withdrawal.
It seems to me that Ukraine isn't fighting a dictator; it's fighting a nation. And I don't think Russia will concede, until it's defeated militarily. Russians seem to have strong nationalist and imperialist sentiments. So I reckon that if Putin wants to get kicked out, his best bet would be to end the war.
As people have remarked upthread, the sanctions haven't even fully kicked in yet. Even if they were lifted tomorrow, the effects would continue for a decade. If I were Ukraine, I'd prefer my neighbour to be a stable state; but I can't see it staying inside its borders while remaining stable. In particular, Russians definitely regard Crimea as part of Russia; it's their favourite holiday destination.
That is how peace is actually maintained.
That's part of why WWI was so hellishly destructive for Europe - national leaders, military planners, educated elites, etc. really didn't get that modern(-ish) industrialized warfare was profoundly different from "the good old days", and they made endless bad decisions based on obsolete "wisdom".
When were "the good old days" you were referring to?
Add the Mongol Empire and Russian Empire to my "war & conquest worked out pretty well for 'em" list.
Yes, plenty of parallels can be drawn between the Crimean War and the current Russian "special military operation" in Ukraine. The former ended with the Treaty of Paris on March 30, 1856 - which was a very clear Russian defeat.
To be specific, don't blame Ukraine for this war, or humanity in general. Blame Russia, and specifically Putin.
> Everyone involved in a war is a loser.
I agree with you on that point.
Neither Ukraine, nor Russia, nor humanity as a whole benefits from Russia's actions. Even Putin's legacy doesn't. It's truly a loser's race to the bottom.
But you know, this is still regretfully humanity's doing.
While I agree that there really aren't any winners in a war from a humanitarian perspective, it really doesn't feel here like we are losing.
I'm happy to pay a lot for electricity and gas if that means the Russian government will fall and their army will be reduced to shreds (although the gas prices right now are almost the same as they used to be before the war... )
Also to the US, this is an incredibly cheap (it's what, $50B this year?) way of bringing the Russian army to it's knees.
Really, talking to people here - even random ones, like a taxi driver, I've literally never ran into anyone that does not want to keep supporting Ukraine.
Because we know that if Russia wins in Ukraine, we are next. What's money against your life and the feeling of safety?
But if you're telling me that people are happy with the 10% inflation, the energy bills and the mortgages, then fine, I feel better now, I thought this would not be bearable for very long.
You started the whole thing in order to plunder Russia, you are indeed monsters though you "think" you are innocent, and I hope you and above all your american lords, will get the Nurenburg tribunal you deserve for creating this war and the hatred for the Russian people to justify it.
Having said that, the real thing that appears to have happened in this war is that Putin is a KGB stooge, not a military commander. He spent most of 2020 and 2021 in isolation due to concerns for COVID and I believe as a result further lost touch. He is fighting this war and setting up information space in Russia as if this was the USSR fighting Germany’s invasion in WWII, which is the war lore most citizens are familiar with. But obviously that isn’t the case as this is clearly a war of conquest, not defense of one’s own home land. Russian citizens and Putin have more or less struck a bargain that as long as his bullshit doesn’t affect them, he gets to remain in power. But clearly this isn’t the case anymore as military call ups and hard hit economy are having a very real effect on the citizens day to day lives. So the real question is whether this is what will eventually break Putin’a hold on Russia.
Another surprising aspect of this war has been the large community of military bloggers that has developed on Telegram. This nationalist group has an outsized influence on both the Russian overall view of the war and even on the Russian military command. They are often quite critical of the Russian MoD and sometimes of Putin, yet Putin has protected them from consequences of this rhetoric. It appears the Russian information space w.r.t. the war is split into thirds between the MoD communications, the federal news outlets, and the milbloggers and of the three the milbloggers have the most freedom to point out the many problems facing the Russian armed forces in Ukraine. Yet Putin protects them because of the three they are the only ones who genuinely are pushing for annexing what they call “so called ‘ukraine’” due to their strong nationalist beliefs. Basically they are the most ideologically aligned with Putin but also the most critical of his failures. The milbloggers often find cover by criticizing MoD officials and generals in the field instead of Putin himself, and it appears that Purim’s frequent staff shake ups have taken at least some cues from this group. I wonder if a Western information campaign could disrupt this critical component of the war effort.
Lastly, Putin’s main ace in the hole is that NATO is trying to invade Russia and Ukraine was the last stop on their way in. The boogieman of the West is so far enough to get at least some older Russians to believe in the war effort. I have relatives there that are convinced that the war atrocities being committed by Russian AF in Ukraine aren’t real and that it is all crisis actors in the TV and internet footage. But at the same time Putin is definitely showing that NATO could clearly crush the Russian armed forces, nukes aside. Russia apparently still relies on trains to conduct its warfare for example, a practice that went away at the end of the last century for most modernized militaries. Essentially the only thing left in Russia is nukes, oil, hunger, and an out of touch dictator who keeps making military mistakes.
The only loud protest voices coming out of russia seem to be complaining about loses, poor soldier conditions, not killing Ukrainians fast enough etc. Even so called ru opposition turned out to be all in on helping russian soldiers (TV Rain). No anti war/regime protests to speak off, plenty anti mobilization ones tho.
The loudest protest voices I'm hearing are Navalny and Yashin, both very against Russian aggression, both imprisoned for it. Which voices are you referring to?
> Even so called ru opposition turned out to be all in on helping russian soldiers (TV Rain)
TV Rain didn't send any help to Russian soldiers.
https://lenta-ru.translate.goog/news/2014/03/12/navalny/?_x_...
(On the other hand, he did say the infamous "Crimea is not a sandwich" thing later in 2014.)
There were some in February and March, even though they were not very impressive. But then again, just today a leader of Russian opposition was sentenced to 8 1/2 years in prison for posting a video about Bucha on Youtube.
> plenty anti mobilization ones tho
If there's "plenty" of these, surely you could Google some up very easily?
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/women-trouble-soldiers-w...
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/26/europe/russia-dagestan-protes...
https://www.reddit.com/r/N_N_N/comments/yn7x0s/hundreds_of_u...
https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/russia-ukraine-war...
https://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-facing-revolt-after-...
https://www.ibtimes.com/over-100-russian-conscripts-stage-ma...
https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/12/does-this-video-show-rus...
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-briefing-notes/2022/09/arrest...
just first results from "protesting against mobilization" in google
I imagine the average American is doing worse than that since then.
In 2014 USA, things for me and my peers were finally stabilizing after 5 years of financial crisis, housing busts, horrible job market, etc.
Inflation was low, I'd finally found a fair employer at a decent salary, had bought a late model car (3 year old Acura) for about $25K, and my investments had recovered and were now growing again in the stock market. Housing was still modestly priced after the bubble crash, interest rates were low for buyers, but rent prices were doable, with plenty of inventory, too, for those not yet ready to buy.
And there were dozens of 2nd and 3rd tier cities in which any standard worker would be able to move to and likely obtain the "American Dream" of home ownership, a couple cars, etc.
Let's compare that to now:
My salary has grown by about 25% in absolute dollars (2-3% corporate raises don't add up so quickly). Meanwhile, I still own my 2010 car, and it would cost about $40K today to replace it with a similarly low-miled used one, or $50K+ if new. That's if I could even get one since it seems there is now a perpetual "chip shortage."
The same apartment I rented in 2014 would cost at least 50% more now, though probably closer to double with all the extra fees. The same starter homes I looked at then are double in absolute dollars, and at current 7%+ interest rates, might be closer to 3x as expensive per monthly payment. And this isn't just in places like NYC or Bay Area or Miami Beach. Once "cheap" cities like Phoenix and Nashville are now just as expensive, relative to salaries, as the over-crowded and desirable coastal areas were last generation.
Everything else is way MORE expensive, especially food. I eat out less. Food quality is generally lower or smaller portioned.
I take less vacations as airfare seems to have doubled in price in the last 5 years. And let's not even get into health insurance, which has also doubled in price since 2014 (I now have a $3K deductible with the same premium costs as before, thanks to Obamacare).
My retirement savings have lost over 1/3 of their value in the last year.
So Russians should know that it's not just them suffering. Most of us in the west have taken a 10% hit to standard of living in just the last 3 years, IMO.
The Russian economy is on track to be cut in half.
It was ranked the 11th biggest economy in the world before this invasion — and soon, it will not even rank among the top 20.
- President Biden, Mar 26, 2022
I agree, people were lied to, but that's what politicians do. At some point people need to stop being angry at the politicians and be angry at the enablers.
I'm not sure I ever heard such promises. In fact, I distinctly remember the opposite being the general zeitgeist of the time - that Russia would rollover Ukraine with little resistance.