Yes and no. There's a minimum price they need to sell it, and somewhere in between they may not actually make enough between the minimum and sale price to actually fund their military. Nevermind the awesome job you guys are doing blowing up refineries and other industrial facilities. It'll be good when Europe stops importing Russian gas and steps up their seizure of sanctioned ships too.
Sanctions can and will work against Russia. Part of the strain they face today is due to these sanctions, it just takes awhile and in the meantime, unfortunately, there are people dying.
Reality on the ground is much different. While the Soviets did bear the brunt of the Nazi onslaught, what is often overlooked is their own culpability in the war (invading and splitting Poland in partnership with the Nazis, &c) and their evil annexations of peoples and countries that were nearby as part of their own power-grab. In other words, part of the reason they were in the war in the first place is because they joined the Nazis in effectively kicking it off, at least in Europe.
Soviet apologists also tend to forget that the United States and other anglo powers* simultaneously fought the Nazis in the west, took down the Japanese, invaded and liberated Italy, the Philippines, and more, fought and won in North Africa, and did all of this while providing the Soviets with the equipment they needed to stay in the war. Nevermind staging additional campaigns and operations, such as those in China to aid them against Japanese occupation.
* I don't intend to suggest that it was only the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada that fought the good fight because we undoubtedly received heroic contributions from numerous allies and friends during the war.
Nice story. One problem though: they eagerly joined Nazis in exterminating Jews. The ideology of nationalists aligned quite well, be it German Nazis, Baltic states, Hungarians or Western Ukrainians.
Russians are killing their future for sure.
We hear this mantra since almost 5 years. I am not saying there should not be sanctions, but at some point the strategic lies need to end.
Their epistemology doesn't need updating; the politicians fibbing need to be ridiculed.
Under market rates sure, but it must still be profitable. China and India know that, so they're going to drive down the price to the extent they can so that it's just barely profitable. But you can't just profit from the oil and gas, you need to profit enough to buy fighter jets and tanks, and all sorts of other things.
It takes time.
Now, can you see anyone giving Putin's kleptocracy a few trillion dollars to rebuild Рашка? The Marshall Plan rebuilt Germany because the US realised that without that as the economic powerhouse of Europe the place would be a basket case in need of US support for decades, but when you're just a gas station masquerading as a country (McCain) no-one's going to bail you out except insofar as it keeps the gas flowing, and if you look at places like Nigeria you don't need much to keep the gas flowing.
Unfortunately, if the leaks are true, they might actually be discussing that.
"Fortunately" Putin is more bent on having the whole Donbas which Ukraine will not give so I don't believe this happens in the near future - which is bad for Russia as a country.
Which specific leaks are discussing giving Putin a few trillion dollars? Who is the money coming from?
I have several friends in Russia, and I do wish them well, but it will be difficult to get back to normal as long as Putin is alive.
I am not sure where did you get this, there is no such announcement publicly available.
> but it will be difficult to get back to normal as long as Putin is alive
There won't be a return to the 1990s-2000s subservient state, which you seem to be calling "normal". Whomever comes to replace Putin is going to be way more nationalist than the guy who spent more than half of his life in the USSR, being a Party member, and working in the field of internationalist politics.
No need to go that far, I visited Moscow a few times before 2014 and it was more or less fine. I'd say 2 decades behind the West but OK. What is now is a big mess with Russia being an international pariah. This is bad and also unfair to millions of people who don't care about imperialistic ambitions of Putin and just want to live their lives in peace.
World War 2 was not won due to the economy. And while it is true that the USSR "lost" the Cold War, they actually spent too much and entered a recurring debt from which they could no longer get out. There was no direct war here, which is different to e. g. world war 2 (at the least USA versus Germany). USSR and USA only fought some proxy wars.
It was literally won due to the economy. The moment Germans failed to knock out Soviets and Japanese pulled Americans into the fight their days were numbered due to insane industrial base of the both countries. Soviet meat waves, industry + lend lease won Europe and US finished Japanese.
sigh
> sigh
I agree it's an unfortunate way of presenting it but Stalin was a guy who didn't care for anyone's life and was literally sending people in waves to die with the NKVD sadists shooting scared young boys whenever they tried to run away from the horror of war. Dead if you go, dead if you don't. It's romanticized an celebrated today, but it was a mass tragedy incomparable to one that happened to ny other country in recent history.
So many pivotal decisions in WW2 were economic in nature. Lend lease? Germany's late switch to a war economy? The Allies' much larger manufacturing capabilities?
You could also argue that the cold war stayed cold because of the West's economic might. It set a military and living standard that the USSR bankrupted itself trying to match.
The US may not prioritize Ukraine but the war is mostly funded now by Europe who don't want Russia rolling west into Europe.
As per Clausevitz, wars end either when you kill every last soldier or the ones who are still alive decide not to fight. I can't see the former happening. So it's about ratcheting the pain of continuing to something unbearable. To the level where Russia can't make enough cash selling resources to make more tanks and bombs and also feed people.
The issue is of course that Russians seem incredibly resilient against the latter. They seem happy when Russia wins another 5m^2 of territory even if materially they are massively affected.
But even then if Russia can no longer recruit "marginal" people and the alternative to peace is even larger losses, people might reassess.
The higher the economic cost in the meantime, the sooner this moment comes.
the "russian firehose" approach and vryanyo (institutional lying) means they're bombarded with info but also know most of it is BS, but not necessarily how or why.
they know it's not going well but at this point much of the economy is on war-footing and if they're not drafted they're probably getting paid okay. STFU and keep your head down and you won't get drafted.
But who? People watching the national TV and followers of war bloggers for sure. But for the rest the current situation is just a very dark fragment in the history of Russia and everybody is just waiting for it to end.
Of course, it is also very difficult to utterly destroy a country’s economic power. Unfortunately, in Russia’s case, they have the raw materials and a population they can basically enslave. Hitting hard at refineries is a good strategy, it’s a weak point in the whole structure. Hopefully it’ll be enough.
Honestly, I don’t see an easy or clean way out of this. One possibility is that they’ll grind themselves badly enough to become completely irrelevant. Unfortunately that means a good chunk of Ukraine gets ground down along the way. One can hope for a coup, but then whatever comes after might well be worse.
Then, hopefully Ukraine can rebuild as a free nation.
Basically: the way this ends is when the collective will of the power centers (generally the armed forces, though not always) decide that they'll be wealthier and happier with Putin gone than by following more orders.
And obviously that's an unstable/unpredictable equilibrium, because groups don't decide collectively like that and exactly how a coup works is never known until it does. But it's the way literally every other government of every other failed state has fallen[1], and there's no reason to think this one will fare any differently.
[1] Well, there's "unexpected death of the leader" thing too.
No, I am not misunderstanding. For all intents and purposes, at the moment Putin’s will is Russia’s will. And it looks like he knows his weaknesses within the country and is willing to let marginal populations bear the weight of his ambitions while keeping his power base comfortable enough. Of course he might end up like Stalin, at which point who knows? But it might not be much better for Ukraine, and in the meantime Putin keeps giving the orders.
> Basically: the way this ends is when the collective will of the power centers (generally the armed forces, though not always) decide that they'll be wealthier and happier with Putin gone than by following more orders.
He can get most soldiers rich enough for this to drag on for quite a long time. They probably would be happier elsewhere, but they don’t have a say. The generals is another problem, but so far Putin is quite effective at finding loyal ones.
I'm not saying that Putin is going to be deposed next week, or year, or even ever. I'm saying that the Russian government is no less susceptible to the circumstances that produce coups than any other failed state, and failed states are the circumstances that produce coups.
At the end of the day, all government is ultimately by the consent of the governed. But predicting how and when that consent will be withdrawn that's is hard part.
However putin is a good representative of russian people who easily travel to other country 5000+ km to die for cash and imperial narratives. If putin dies tomorrow war wouldn't stop.
Classic economic theory suggests that the amount you need offer to people willing to die goes up over time.
For Ukraine the main thing is to get to the point that Russia doesn't attack any more. There is no need for Ukraine to concur any part of Russia. Even getting the currently occupied land back is mostly optional.
No, it's not. Even Ukrainians rarely target civilians.
Not if that city's industry is contributing to the war effort.
>Most people suffering from it will be civilians. There will likely be deaths.
You can say that about Western sanctions on Russia too. How many people have died because of a single MRI scanner or cancer drug that couldn't be bought by a Russian hospital?
Was it the "nuclear war without nukes" since the day the West imposed blanket sanctions on Russian economy?
Or did that "nuclear war without nukes" started in 2014-2015 when the Ukraine cut electricity and water supply to Crimea? "It has one goal - terror", right?
Ukraine cutting supply of electricity and water to Crimea did demonstrate the attitude of the Ukrainian government to people it considered once their citizen. It obviously wasn’t a part of the current chapter of the war.
Yes, there is nothing like 'nuclear war without nukes' that is happening here. And I was trying to demonstrate that your logic seem to lead to conclusion that the 'nuclear war without nukes' started in 2014.
>to people it considered once their citizen
It is still considering them Ukrainian citizens.
The whole story with territorial question is part of this: possible peace settlement could include just splitting Donbas region on the current front line, so that Putin could claim victory and Ukraine could just say they did what they could. But Russia wants more, they need Donbas in original borders, which is unacceptable to Ukraine. Why? Because if this question will be settled in the peace deal, it may open Ukraine eventually path to NATO. They want to create permanent tension the same way as it happened to Georgia, deferring the final settlement by a hundred years (see Taiwan as an example, which occupies China for decades).
No, it wouldn't be victory, it would be compromise. And the Ukraine isn't Russia's rival, it's just cannon fodder for the West.
>they are surprisingly content with Ukraine joining EU
Kremlin says that. Doesn't have to be true.
>which is unacceptable to Ukraine
Why is it unacceptable to the Ukraine?
I see why it's unacceptable for current regime in Kiev because they can't just say "we actually don't need Donbass, never mind hundreds of thousands lives we wasted defending it".
However, it is true that they do not do it on the scale Israel is doing.
That's only true in the short term.
If Russia gets out of the war with Ukraine with territory gains, that only serves as incentive to start up again after Russia can regroup. After all, Putin's stated long-term goal is to take the entire country (among others) and restore the USSR.
Of course, taking back the occupied land is also easier said than done, as it would severely weaken Putin domestically to have expended all these resources and lives for nothing. There's no way he can allow that.
Both countries are in a catch-22.
This was never a stated goal.
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2025/6/27/putin-confirms-...
Also, looking at Russian track record specifically, is Georgia, which was militarily defeated in 2008, part of Russia? Did they formally annex Abkhazia or Transnistria? Does Lukashenko report to Putin?
Ukraine was seen as easy to take over. But that was clearly a wrong assessment.
And Ukrainian military force currently relies on kidnapping men on the street and dispatching them to the front line after minimal training.[0][4]
The borders of the Ukraine are closed for any man of conscription age - they can't get out.[1]
You can watch the videos with logos of Ukrainian telegram channels and see how it happens[2][3]. Imagine yourself in their place.
[0] https://responsiblestatecraft.org/ukraine-recruitment-army/
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_conscription_crisis#...
You can exhaust yourself completely and be dead on your feet.
Doomed, is the expression.
Same applies for the West.
If they do, they loose. That sets their position in the world.
Who’d fear them? They can’t even win over a country which is much smaller and weaker than they are.
The problem isn't Russia, inherently. The problem is Putin. He cannot survive (probably literally) without being feared.
Only the current regime is in existential struggle. This why it closed the borders[0] and kidnaps men on the streets[1] to send to the front line.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_conscription_crisis#...
They know they are next on the chopping block.
They need Russia to guard their back, the last thing they need is a USA-friendly regime in Russia.
You are all talking about 'just a bit longer and Russia will implode'. Look at the state of Ukraine, who is going to implode sooner, Russia or Ukraine?
Heck, look at the state of Europe and USA! USA is a political nutcase, and Europe has deep divisions and is overflowing with incompetence and impotence. Plus enormous debts, both in USA and in Europe.
Every day that passes, Russia gets weaker: more oil sold in crude form only, since they don't have refining capacity to export gasoline; foreign currency reserves shrinking, since China is their main customer; another 35k casualties every month, with mounting costs for enlistment bonuses and death benefits; outer provinces stripped of men of fighting age, North Korea unwilling to send more soldiers, African recruits drying up; inflation raging, industries shutting down, and all economic indicators heading south.
It's terrible that Ukraine is trapped in this slugfest, but at this point, time favours Ukraine.
Ukraine domestic defense production has the slight problem of being continuously bombed, lacking manpower, reliable (or any!) electricity. Are you sure it is growing? Perhaps explosively...
Their largest and most competent army is mostly dead and maimed, they rely on catching unwilling men on the streets and herding them to the front. You believe 35k Russian casualties each month, and at the same time you believe Ukrainian official figures of 55k casualties overall, right?
European powers taking responsibility for supporting Ukraine by continuously arguing where/how should they get emergency funds to 'lend' to Ukraine, so its finances do not collapse within the next 2 month.
Man, how can you believe this nonsense?
Time does not favour Ukraine. It does not favour Russia (or Europe) either, it favours mostly China.
Whether or not it's under constant bombardment, Ukraine is now supplying 50% of its consumable supplies; in 2022, it was under 5%. Ukraine actually exports some weapons and drone tech to finance other purchases.
Its manpower crisis has been continually overstated by Russian propaganda. At the moment, they have 800k+ in their army. They rejected a bill recently to lower the conscription age to 25 from 27. They have an untapped pool of manpower aged 18-27 that they're avoiding if possible (as has been possible so far).
Whether or not Europeans are arguing a lot, they're still providing massive material and financial aid to Ukraine, which still has a functioning economy and social welfare system. Their gov't pensions go out on time and in full. They're not experiencing hyperinflation. There's a reason that Ukrainians as a population aren't willing to accept the kind of crap settlements Trump is pushing.
> Man, how can you believe this nonsense?
You're the one spouting Russian disinformation, especially after looking at your other comments. If you're not getting paid for this, you should be.
But Putin doesn't care about that, so the war will continue until something changes militarily.
It's not clear how the Russian army will improve when the economy declines.
So European NATO countries basically need to keep supporting Ukraine while they try to becomes militarily independent of the US.
If Russia really becomes weaker and the war winds down a bit, then supporting Ukraine is likely to become cheaper as well. But as long as Russia manages to send tons of drones and missiles to Ukraine, Europe should be worried. So Ukraine will remain a testing ground for air defense for a while.
There is also the issue with the Baltic countries and to some extent Finland. Those countries are terrified that Russia will do something stupid.
Even if there is enough support for economic/material support of Ukraine, the matter of sending your man to die on the eastern front is an altogether different matter. Even Poland is not willing to do that. I mean, 'I am afraid of dying in a war, so I better go die in a war, to prevent that.'
The death zone isn’t the point at which they die, it’s the point at which they are consuming their own long term strength and capacity to recover in order to sustain their effort .
To our utter shame, we have never actually committed to Ukrainian victory or Russian defeat, but merely to tenuous Ukrainian survival. I firmly believe this war would already be over, or effectively so, if Ukraine’s allies had spent what we have up till now in the first 2 years. Even from a cynical financial point of view it would have been the better policy.
The fundamental issue is that Russia has not fully committed to winning the war either. While losing the war would be an existential threat to the Putin regime, not winning it is not. As long as the war drags on, there are more effective uses for Russian resources to ensure the stability of the regime. But if the war becomes an existential threat, Russia could mobilize its entire economy.
A regime change in Russia is the only way Ukraine could win the war. Maybe by a coup or by military force. Or maybe by an arrangement, where the current regime can retire comfortably in a third country without having to answer for its crimes.
By western standards ruzzian economy is in collapse, but their citizens are willing to endure anything beyond western imagination. Not to mention that even before 2022 apart from Moscow and Saint Petersburg there are many towns that are like timecapsules 50+ years into the past.
TL;DR: I will believe ruzzina state collapse/death when I will see it, but now I don't hold my breath.