Four years after Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the Russian economy is showing clear signs of structural exhaustion. The contours of a genuine economic endgame are coming into view for Russia. This is the finding of a new Kiel Report published by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy and the Stockholm Institute of Transition Economics.
  • Photonic@lemmy.worldEnglish
    11·
    11 hours ago

    I read, but the only thing I don’t understand is your stupidity and stubbornness.

    And sure, they used up their NWF. War is expensive. Who would have thought? Does that prove anything about sanctions?

    And a 300B+ (rubles not USD) expense is not the same as an economy being ruined. Especially when the GDP of that country is about 200 trillion rubles. And you’re trying to tell me I don’t understand how this works? Riiiiiight…

    And talk about ignoring:

    Early in the war, the broad consensus was that the new sanctions would devastate the Russian economy. By some metrics, though, Russia’s economy has proved resilient to date.

    From the US government

    Following Russia’s full-fledged invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Western countries imposed unprecedented economic sanctions. Yet there is limited evidence that these measures have inflicted substantial economic pain on Russia, as the recent slowdown has largely reflected factors unrelated to sanctions.

    From the ESCP geopolitics institute

    Why are you ignoring this?

    Edit to your edit: yes the “triangle” –which is actually not a triangle but a Greek capital letter delta, the more you know– symbol gave you away. A human commenting online would just spell out delta. So did the language that is completely different to your other comments.

    • Vergissmeinnicht@lemmy.caEnglish
      11·
      10 hours ago

      War is expensive. Who would have thought? Does that prove anything about sanctions?

      Yes, because war spending is still spending, and acts as a stimulus, increasing GDP. The amount of increased spending accounts for a bigger share of GDP than their GDP growth figures account for, so without this extra spending their GDP growth would be negative, due to sanctions.

      And a 300B+ (rubles not USD)

      You’re right, I had my numbers mixed up. The NWF spending accounted only for $70B (5.3T Rubles)

      It’s the gutting of the liquidity of Russia’s banks that accounted for the majority of the stimulus and was even higher than the $300B that I remembered, at $446B (36.6T Rubles) by early 2025 https://navigatingrussia.substack.com/p/russias-hidden-war-debt-full-report

      This plus the NWF spending accounts for 20% of GDP, or roughly 5% per year over 4 years. Russia’s growth numbers were significantly lower than that at between -2.1% and + 4.3%. So on average, without the stimulus spending not a single year since the beginning of the war would have been positive economic growth.

      A human commenting online would just spell out delta.

      Admit you don’t know calculus without telling me you don’t know calculus. You write the letter, you don’t spell it out.

      And the non-monetary consequences of sanctions, that you also keep ignoring. From your own source:

      Russia’s military has difficulty procuring key components

      Which is why the Iskander production figures are fluctuating for example, and are much lower than they would be without sanctions. To come back to your favourite weapon, the ballistic missile.

      • Photonic@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        2 hours ago

        Yes

        That’s funny, because:

        Yet there is **limited evidence** that these measures have **inflicted substantial economic pain** on Russia, as the recent slowdown has largely reflected factors **unrelated to sanctions**.

        And I never claimed the sanctions were having no effect at all. So another bad faith argument by you. The thing we are discussing is:

        My claim, (in other words) that:

        Early in the war, the broad consensus was that the new sanctions would devastate the Russian economy.

        But that (and again, I quote, not my exact words, but VERY similar):

        there is limited evidence that these measures have inflicted substantial economic pain on Russia, as the recent slowdown has largely reflected factors unrelated to sanctions.

        So you don’t have to try to make a case against something I never claimed, which is that the sanctions are not having any effect at all on the Russian economy. They just weren’t draining the economy in 2022, like Von der Leyen (and many others) claimed. For this I have provided ample evidence, against your: “nah uh!” without any evidence to back it up and endless straw man arguments.

        You write the letter, you don’t spell it out.

        Yeah in a work document, paper or math assignment. Nobody does in an online discussion with some other guy. Also the entire language was completely different from the rest of your comments. It was clear it was LLM output. Stop embarrassing yourself, triangle boy.

        the non-monetary consequences of sanctions, that you also keep ignoring.

        I have not been ignoring it. It’s just that I never claimed anything about it, nor that it is part of the discussion. You’re just making another straw man. This discussion is entirely about the economy draining in 2022, or have you forgotten that in all your wisdom?

        Why is it so hard for you to say: “yeah, okay, with all this evidence, I see that you’re right. Von der Leyen and many others have indeed been claiming similar things about the Russian economy since 2022 and they haven’t come true, so let’s indeed wait and see before we believe another such message.” ?

        And maybe apologise for acting like a jerk right off the bat too, Mr. “asking questions“.

        That would get you way more respect than this mindless rambling, this pathetic whining, this narcissistic behaviour, trying strawman after another that all fail miserably.