Tanker attacks in Strait of Hormuz surge to wartime high, Iran tries choking oil
cnbc.com
cnbc.com
Exports to the US is about 20% of China's GDP [2].
Regardless of any of China's contingency plans, US exports are well above noise-levels.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/268173/countries-with-th...
[2] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.EXP.GNFS.ZS?location...
What you should take note of, is that China's trade surplus tracks the US trade deficit extremely closely, and this has been the case for the last 20 years.
Said another way, most nations in the world run roughly balanced trade. There is only one nation on earth that can sustain large and prolonged trade deficits. Only one. That is the US. So if you are a nation whose entire economic strategy rests on running large and sustained trade surpluses, then you are going to be exporting your surplus to the US, directly or indirectly, and only to the US.
Now in practice, some of that will be direct sales to the US, some will be indirect sales to the US, but at the end of the day, if you want to run a 1.2 trillion dollar trade surplus, then you have to hope to God that the US is willing to run at least a trillion dollar trade deficit, because no other country is going to do that for you, the entire rest of the world may be willing to accomodate a hundred billion or so, but for everything else, you will depend on the US, directly or indirectly, to absorb your surplus.
So to run a current account surplus against the rest of the world of $100, you need to accumulate $100 of financial claims belonging to the rest of the world. There are complexities, for example I switched from "trade surplus" to "current account" because things like interest payments also need to be added in, but with these adjustments, you cannot run prolonged trade surpluses without storing your money in some other nation's jurisdiction.
Now the question is, which nation is willing to accomodate inflows of a trillion dollars a year? That's right, only a single nation is willing to do that. Most nations ban or severely restrict foreign capital inflows. Those that don't ban it, they don't have the necessary financial infrastructure to accomadate the scale of surpluses that China needs to run. This is why I laugh at all these reports of "China is dumping treasuries". China accumulated over a trillion dollars of dollar claims over the last year. That's in addition to what they already had. Why? Because who else would allow those levels of foreign capital inflows into their economy.
So once again, the US is the only nation willing and able to absorb these capital inflows.
Personally, I don't think this is sustainable, it's deindustrializing the US and is highly destabilizing, but since the liberalization of global capital flows launched by the Clinton administration, we have been doing this 30 year experiment in what happens when you let countries print money and use them to buy your bonds. The results have been, in my opinion, highly destabilizing, and it's not going to end well. But many of those who grew up in this period, think this is just how the world works and they can't imagine any other system, one in which capital inflows were highly restricted and as a result, no nation ran large trade surpluses against any other. Or they don't think about this at all and believe that China's hard work and industrial prowess is why they are able to run large trade surpluses, completely ignoring the whole money printing to buy US bonds that is happening in the background. When the US was the world's primary industrial power in the period 1870 - 1920, we ran current account deficits, not surpluses. What China is doing, industrializing while exporting capital -- that is truly unprecedented and possible only due to the combination of fiat non-convertible money combined with the US allowing unrestricted capital inflows. It's a truly bizarre state of affairs.
This is just tautological with the trade surplus. Yes, the two go hand in hand.
My point is that "trade surplus" is always trotted out as if it is some vulnerability of China's - that if we stop giving them dollars and they stop giving us goods, this would create an unsolvable problem for China's economy.
But this is merely fanciful fiction borne from western thinking where we don't have the political will to take sustained direct action to subsidize domestic industry. But China isn't bound by this! Rather it is merely wishful thinking as if we hold power here.
Hence my focusing on whether China actually needs more dollars (ie is reliant on exporting to get those dollars), or whether they could make do with what they've already saved up in treasuries (and other USD investments) while being unable to export as much to the US. My gut says their economy and industry is now large enough that they could weather it just fine. We're still looking at them as if they are the little kid from the 90's (who would have indeed been hurt if we had never started the arrangement), and failing to see that they are all grown up. The pump has been primed.
> the US is the only nation willing and able to absorb these capital inflows... The results have been, in my opinion, highly destabilizing
In my opinion, the destabilizing results were not inevitable. Rather they were the result of deliberate policies that were kept outside of the Overton window by the entrenched interests who were benefiting from them.
Having others say "I'm willing to accept IOUs from you rather than requiring payment in cold hard cash" (aka having the world reserve currency) is an inherently lucrative position! The downsides can only come from how you react to having that ability - a spendthrift might write IOUs without limit and spend all their cash, making the position itself look like a vulnerability. Whereas a frugal person who wants to avoid that fate but isn't very creative might keep a stack of cash that 1:1 corresponds to IOUs they've issued.
The two deliberate policies of which I speak are 1. USD must always inflate (which precludes the frugal option) 2. the legislature/executive government is prevented from spending the newly created money on (most) deliberate constructive activities (like the industrial subsidies I was talking about above).
So most of the wealth we received from having the world reserve currency (represented in-system by newly created money) was simply given away by the Federal Reserve directly to banks (as low-interest loans) to blindly "invest". This resulted in the everything bubble - unproductive assets as a safe haven, intemperate investment in new industries, but failure to maintain the industries we had (since mature industries don't achieve outsized investment returns).
In a different world the legislature would have spent some of that wealth directly subsidizing domestic industry to maintain it, backed up with laws about not being able to move production lines out of the country. But of course this was not in the interest of the corpo class as it would have meant less money going into their own pockets. Hence it remaining on the fringes of the Overton window. (the one place it did actually happen was the defense industry, of course)
Now that the deindustrialization scam has run its course, the corpo class is on to the next thing - economic consolidation to further cement their position. They're channeling echos of what would have been prudent decisions back in the 90's, which makes grassroots voters think they are finally being listened to. But it's nonsensical to talk of closing the barn door after the horse is long gone, right? So in reality they're pushing upside-down bizarro revanchist economics (like framing strong currency itself as a problem!), to destroy the economy that we actually did develop. Then they can mop up and further centralize.
Edit: tanker hit a mine today in Hormuz, going great
so nothing changed. Or does CNBC knows of a peace treaty ? /s
Propaganda.
It's never 4d chess. it's just a guy desperately trying to get diesel prices to temporarily decline _without_ having to admit that he's a fucking idiot for having dragged America into Israel's war on Iran.
And even then, it's only because of the mid-terms. The GOP does not give a single solitary fuck about the sorts of people who notice and are hurt by gas prices. The GOP despises American workers.
This is not GOP vs DNC. They are fully corrupted on both sides, and stopped representing their constituents a long time ago.
There are two big reasons for this. The first is that it's completely as it seems - we want to protect the EU. But this has nothing to do with freedom, democracy, or whatever else. It's because we don't want to see the rise or expansion of another major competitor. Imagine if Germany, China, Russia, or whoever else managed to "unite" Europe, to use a euphemism. They could viably be the greatest power the world has seen in centuries.
The other is more insidious. NATO makes an EU military largely unnecessary. This is, in some ways, a tremendous benefit to the EU since it leaves them with far more wealth to do other things with, like improve their citizens' lives. But it also leaves them completely dependent upon NATO which is largely just a proxy for complete dependence upon the US. So this creates a scenario where the US is simply irreplaceable for the EU, at least not until they have their own military. And there are occasional calls for the creation of an EU military, but they mostly go nowhere, and if they did start going anywhere the US would do everything in its power to destroy them behind the scenes, and that would probably be successful.
And I'm curious which sanctions by Russia are crippling "the west"?
Considering we only see Russian bots talking about lifting sanctions nowadays and everybody else moved on to other subjects in Europe, it must have some effect of some sort, otherwise they wouldn't talk about it.
> And Russia is in a winning position in the war.
At best, even if they took the full country tomorrow, I don't think there's any way to save Russia from medium term collapse.
They would need a Marshall plan of somebody giving them 300 billions for free and I don't see that happening and who would do that.
> but the West has bet everything on a victory which means they'd rather see it continue to the last Ukrainian
You have it backwards, Ukraine and Europe want a victory so that Russia doesn't continue to kill to the last Ukrainian. (And for Europe more importantly, not being the next one in line).
That's what Russia's policy of destroying cities and killing civilians do.
Well, Iran was offered similar amount by certain somebody, so never say never
And Russia is going to collapse after the war if somebody doesn't give them $300 billion, a small fraction of their GDP, and what Western media now claims they're annually spending on the war? How is that supposed to even make any sense? Similarly for a Ukrainian victory. The war in Ukraine has turned into a classic war of attrition with a small nation against a much larger one. The small nation is already having significant manpower issues, while the large one has yet to even turn to general mobilization. Again, how is a victory supposed to come out of this?
No, I mean actual Russian bots, either paid far rights politicians or online paid accounts. That's the kind of people left talking about sanctions, everybody else moved on to other subjects a long time ago.
It used to be a hot debate in 2022 / 2023, we're way past that now and the public opinion moved on.
> Macron is at 16% and Merz has hit a truly impressive 10%. They've defined their leadership by their foreign policy, so what other conclusion can one draw?
No they haven't, as for France, which I know very well, almost nobody cares about foreign politics on election day.
What's making Macron unpopular is the local debt, ineffective spending, retirement policies, reaction to local events (such as student protests right now), voters don't really care about Russia.
> And Russia is going to collapse after the war if somebody doesn't give them $300 billion, a small fraction of their GDP
GDP isn't government budget. And I was making a low ball estimate yeah, maybe they need 800 billions, I don't know. What I do now is that they dug themselves into a very deep hole and Ukraine is a very poor country (especially now) which is never going to help them make that back.
> The small nation is already having significant manpower issues, while the large one has yet to even turn to general mobilization. Again, how is a victory supposed to come out of this?
I don't know a single war in history which ended because they had literally no men to throw at it.
Russia to me looks to be in a similar position as Germany in 1917, they still had men to throw at the war (and were even making territory gains!) but the country was collapsing due to the weight of the war, forcing them to stop.
What exports of tank components from Russia are detrimental to the west?
Since that is some of many things sanctioned?
How is Russia in a winning position?
You only give assertions without any actual explanation nor facts and is apparently obsessed with Ukraine's leader.
As for the war, it's turned into a war of attrition. Ukraine is facing an increasingly severe manpower shortage whereas Russia has not even carried out a general mobilization, yet continues to inch forward. That's the reason for Ukraine's various recent efforts to try to change the nature of the conflict, but I think that's mostly just opening a Pandora's Box that should have stayed closed. It certainly hasn't left Ukraine in a stronger position, to say the least.
The graph doesn't show that at all.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_economic_crisis_(2022%E...
"regularly mocked" this is news to me? By whom? Russia? Who threatens nuclear war every 5 seconds against any state it deems as a meanie?
Even then, how is mocking = effective? Are vibes how we determine economics?
Secondly: you already acknowledge that one graph is seasonally adjusted and the other isn't.
Which makes very little sense given the little context you give.
But even putting that aside, how do those graphs establish that sanctions hurt the West more than Russia? Russia's GDP went up, therefore sanctions didn't hurt it? What? Which self-respecting economist would ever make such a bizarre simplification of how an economy works? Since you know an economy can grow and still be worse off than it would've been without sanctions, those aren't mutually exclusive.
And yes Germany has been making some very questionable if not downright stupid decisions policy and economically speaking for about 15 years now one being aligning itself with Russia has of course caused huge economic problems for themselves, just look at Hungary and Serbia for similar examples.
Even so: Germany having a shit time doesn't magically tell you how much of that came from sanctions rather than energy dependence, the war itself or its own economic problems. Where have you actually separated those things instead of just pointing at a graph and going "see, sanctions"?
Plus why are you treating Germany as "the West"? Where's the comparison with Sweden, Poland or the rest of Europe? And I'm not asking whether their GDP went up or down.
I'm asking where you've demonstrated that the damage caused by sanctions was greater for them than for Russia, since that's your claim, isn't it?
And Russia is winning because no general mobilization? How? Since: "Hasn't done it" doesn't automatically mean "doesn't need to.", unless you think that not getting medicine for an illness means you don't need it.
Even so how are you ruling out the costs, logistical problems or political consequences of doing it?
Exactly where's the evidence that this means Russia has a load of usable military capacity sitting around rather than capacity that's expensive or difficult to put into the field?
What is "inch forward" here? How much territory, over what period, at what cost, and does it actually put Ukraine in a significantly worse military position?
And how is starting a war not opening Pandora's Box? Or you think it was smart by Nazi Germany to start WW1 and WW2?
On the war stuff, the war has become a classical war of attrition. Both sides are fighting to the see who runs out of people first. Ukraine is fighting with something near to their max potential fighting force. They've locked all "fighting age" men in their country, are literally dragging people off the streets, and their are still facing major manpower issues. By contrast Russia is fighting with a small fraction of their overall potential having not even turned to a general mobilization. So Ukraine is losing when fighting with all of their might against Russia fighting with a fraction of theirs. This is the reason for the nonstop propaganda about Russia just about to declare a general mobilization, every single year. Without such happening, it makes it clear that this is an very one-sided war to anybody who's aware of the basic facts.
The point Pandora's Box is one of unforeseen consequences and regret. I was speaking of the decision to start intentionally targeting genuine civilian infrastructure, but as for the war as a whole it's the same story. If you take Russia back to 2022 and tell them what the situation would be today, more than 4 years later, they would 100% do it all again. If you do the same for Ukraine or the US, they certainly wouldn't have.
[1] - https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/sdg_08_10/def...
I highly doubt it. In February 2022, the worst case scenario - complete and swift takeover of Ukraine by Russia - was still on the table. Yet they still decided to fight. If we told them that 4.5 years later, not only would majority of Ukraine be still free, but Russia would not manage to take and hold a single large Ukrainian city, and refineries in Russia would be regularly blown up Ukrainian drones, they would 100% do it all over again.
On top of it being plainly absurd, if you thought it was true this is not something you ever leak if you thought it were true, precisely because it might indeed provoke an invasion! Indeed, given the media's close relationship with the US intelligence community, this probably would never have been published, and the leaker would have found himself in prison. The whole narrative reeks!
Russia did not expect to end up in a war against the entire West. And there's not a chance in hell they would have realistically expected to be able to win in a war against the entire West, almost single-handedly. This war has shifted the geopolitical balance permanently (and is almost certainly what inspired Iran to fight back), and has given Russia the clout they so desperately wanted since the collapse of the USSR.
[1] - https://www.newsweek.com/even-russian-propaganda-was-hesitan...
Then there is state-owned news media publishing stuff like this:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/russian-state-news-accidentally-p...
> "The period of the split of the Russian people is coming to an end," the article reads. "Did someone in the old European capitals, in Paris and Berlin, seriously believe that Moscow would give up Kiev? That the Russians will forever be a divided people?"
Russia only stopped outside Kyiv because they had to (the resistance was much greater than anticipated), not because they wanted to.
And this is even more likely given that negotiations for the end of the war started on February 28th, 4 days after the war began! Furthermore, the large convoy was completely inappropriate for actual military purposes and Russia didn't even have the logistics in place to keep it running. It makes no sense from a military perspective, but is 100% logical from an intimidation one.
I do think the airborne troops were a genuine decapitation strike attempt, as is tried in most of every war. It rarely works, but there was a chance it would (and in such a scenario you'd want a draft of the 'victory speech' written, much as we wrote a public obituary for the Apollo astronauts before they embarked for the Moon). But even if it failed, it also plays into the intimidation.
And those negotiations would have indeed almost certainly succeeded if the West didn't jump in and encourage Ukraine to "just fight". And I think the West did this expecting to rapidly inflict a 'strategic defeat' on Russia. Nobody got their quick victory, and instead we ended up with a real war that I don't think anybody thought would happen.
> And those negotiations would have indeed almost certainly succeeded if the West didn't jump in and encourage Ukraine to "just fight".
> And those negotiations would have indeed almost certainly succeeded if the West didn't jump in and encourage Ukraine to "just fight".
Nope, Russians wanted far more than just neutrality. The March–April 2022 peace negotiations in Istanbul ultimately failed because Russians refused to let go of their most controversial demands: severe reductions and restrictions of Ukrainian military.
Key Military Reduction Demands:
• Personnel Limits: Russia demanded that the Ukrainian standing peacetime army be capped at 50,000 to 85,000 troops (compared to the much larger forces Ukraine maintained or later negotiated in subsequent frameworks).
• Weapon and Equipment Caps: Strict quantitative and qualitative ceilings were demanded on Ukrainian military hardware, including deep restrictions on armored combat vehicles and tanks, artillery and rocket systems, combat aircraft and anti-air assets
• Missile Range Bans: Moscow demanded a complete prohibition on Ukraine acquiring or possessing long-range missile systems.
• Foreign Aid and Alliances Ban: Ukraine was required to renounce NATO aspirations, ban foreign military bases or troops, and prohibit joint military exercises or Western military aid.
• Veto Power: Russia insisted on a security guarantee structure that would grant Moscow (along with other permanent UN Security Council members) a veto over any international intervention if Ukraine were attacked again.
Source: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/putins-20...
This is basically capitulation, and absolutely unacceptable for any sovereign state. No serious national leader would agree to this, and Russia refused to compromise. Ukrainians had no choice but to fight. The demands would result in a nation that is so defenseless that they would inevitably end up as a Russian vassal state in the near future.
"[Russia] really hoped almost to the last moment that they would force us to sign such an agreement so that we would take neutrality. It was the most important thing for them. They were prepared to end the war if we agreed to, – as Finland once did, – neutrality, and committed that we would not join NATO. In fact, this was the key point. Everything else was simply rhetoric and political 'seasoning' about denazification, the Russian-speaking population and blah-blah-blah." [1] The article continues, "When asked why Ukraine did not agree to this point, Arakhamia replied that there was no confidence in the Russians, because they were ready to promise anything."
That's exactly how they would act if they didn't really care about much of anything except the NATO aspect. There was even the posturing between the two parties on who was making more of a compromise in the agreements [2], which reflects not only how successful they were, but was a clear sign of it being on the verge of being signed. Basically everything was being set up to have a 'I'm going to sue you for $20 billion dollars, but I'll settle it out of court right now for $50.' I imagine Russia simply did not imagine it could possibly fail, because it makes no sense for it to fail. Then the West enters the stage.
[1] - https://www.yahoo.com/news/head-ukraines-leading-party-claim...
[2] - https://web.archive.org/web/20220404023417/https://www.teleg... (archive since The Telegraph currently seems down?)
Vladimir Chirkin, the commander of Russian ground forces 2012-2013:
"Everyone, if you recall, started saying in February 2022 that the war would be over in three days. We'll beat them all now," said Chirkin in an interview on November 27 with Russian radio outlet RBC. "But unfortunately, it didn't work out that way. I would give our entire Russian intelligence community a failing grade," he added.
In the RBC interview, Chirkin said that Moscow had "traditionally" miscalculated the balance of power, underestimating its enemy and overestimating the performance of its own forces. Chirkin said that Russian leadership had been misled into thinking that 70% of Ukraine's population supported a pro-Russian government. "It turned out to be exactly the opposite. 30% for us and 70% against," he said. "During the first few weeks, we were taught a seriously cruel lesson."Are you taking the piss?
Secondly so why didn't you just give us the same data done in the same way? Why was that something you didn't address when you posted it?
Even granting your 10% versus 2%, you still haven't established who lost more because of sanctions, considering that you've now acknowledged that the answer depends on what growth would have been without them, which is exactly the point.
But instead of estimating that, you've gone "that seems beyond improbable," therefore "the only conclusion".
Since when does your intuition eliminate every other explanation?
Since in reality if we are going to look into how an economy moves with our without sanctions, you need an estimate of what would have happened without sanctions, accounting for the war and the government spending alongside it.
Instead you've just decided what sounds plausible to you.
Since if there is one VERY common theme in war is that the Government ALWAYS become a top spender and enabler of said economy that is a war economy.
And that is the case with Russia's government which has massively increased spending, with war-related production driving much of the expansion, the Bank of Finland's October assessment explicitly describes rapidly expanding war-related sectors alongside weak growth in the broader economy[0].
So no a peaceful Russia would not enjoy 10% growth because GDP is not adjusted for what type of economy you are running.
Give me the oxford definition of War of attrition, I know you can at least do that much beyond copy-pasting manpower, because: a very kind little hint: attrition is not defined as manpower only.
Even so, why are you being so evasive about what Russia is doing? It's a very simple question, why is it hard for you to go into detail about what Russia does when it comes to: recruitment, handling of dissidents, what capacity Russia has in it's military, their budget and so on.
You've posted, and posted about Ukraine here and Ukraine there, yet always so tight lipped about Russia, why is that?
With that said:
Your jump from "Ukraine has serious manpower problems" to "Ukraine is using essentially its entire potential while Russia is barely trying" those aren't the same claim.
And even just scrutinizing your "ALL FIGHTING MEN" is wrong; Ukraine still allows those bellow 1-822 to travel outside the country and only those above or at 25 has to serve from what I can find, so why lie?
And Russia not announcing a general mobilization doesn't establish that it's using only a small fraction of its usable military capacity.
Looking at RUSI's September analysis it describes an ongoing recruitment system involving substantial financial incentives, regional recruitment pressure and reported coercion[1].
In particular it notes that the 2022 partial-mobilization decree was never formally rescinded, Russia is sustaining recruitment while managing its financial and political costs.
Even so why is Russia so interested in seeing their own men dying in this war that they are fighting with so many hands tied behinds it's back, while also bombing daily Ukrainian civilians and even establishing "human safari" against Ukrainians?
Either Russia is using it's "mighty" army or it isn't, you keep on tapdancing around it, if you're going to argue for "basic" "facts" can you stop arguing for "lazy vibes" as you are doing?
Given that, what fraction of Russia's usable capacity are you claiming is deployed, and how did you calculate it? How many additional troops can it train, equip, supply and command, over what period? How many are replacing losses rather than expanding the force?
And if this is what you call "basic facts" then I'm sorry to tell that you're using the definition where basic is used as a negative insult and not as the definition where it's used for foundation.
Either way you really need to re-read the story of Pandora's box if that is the take away, considering you cannot phantom that starting a war that was expected to go over fast has dragged out for 4 years now soon to be 5 is the definition of Pandora's box.
And what Russia? Do you view Russian people so low that they don't even exist as a ethnicity here? Or is the government of Russia the only thing that matters? Since that is what you're insinuating here.
And let's use your logic to the fullest: by your logic then what Israel is doing against Gaza is also fine? because they would "100% do it again".
[0]https://www.bofit.fi/en/forecasting/latest-forecast-for-russ...
[1]https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/comme...
The second is because Ukraine is praying for a hope of having a Ukraine after the war. Ukraine had major demographic issues before the war, and is in a terminal situation now. You need to have fathers for the next generation if you want a next generation. A country without enough people will not be a country for long, regardless of land. Let alone when you're going to have social obligations towards countless individuals, perhaps in the millions, who will be crippled or suffering from the various mental and social disorders that war experience causes in people.
The rest of your post is somewhat incoherent, so it's not clear to me what you're trying to say. According to Syrskyi, Russia could deploy up to 20 million men in a general mobilization, including 5 million already with military experience or training. [2] However you want to estimate the forces Russia has deployed, it's a very small fraction of their potential in a general mobilization. And I never said what Russia has done is fine. Opposing the war does not mean cheerleading endlessly for a Ukrainian victory, especially as such is likely impossible. Russia should not have invaded, yet will benefit from the war. Such is life.
Plus I never claimed that using comparable figures would automatically reverse the result.
Since I already went along with your 10% vs 2% argument, especially since you keep replying as if my whole objection is merely those two figures being wrong.
That is because claiming that: "Reliable sources show Russia grew faster" is not the same claim as "reliable sources show sanctions hurt Europe more".
Because the first concern tells us what has happened, the second is about how much of what happened was caused by sanctions, compared with what would otherwise have happened.
You just haven't shown even a millimeter of what the second concern demands to be taken serious.
Good that you do seem to agree then that your original point about fighting-age men were false, in fact I double thank you for ensuring that this is now set in stone as a good solid fact.
Then there's the question about why you seem almost allergic to discussing Russia's recruitment and partial mobilization when we contrast this with your "basic facts" statements about Ukraine.
Why aren't you doing a deep dive into how many young folks are being sent to the frontlines on the Russia side, you've avoided every curious question I've asked of you about the same assertion you make about Ukraine to give me the same conclusion using the same analytical framework towards Russia, nothing more and nothing less.
So I'm not going to repeat myself there, beyond: How much additional force can Russia actually train, equip, supply and command, over what period and at what cost? How much recruitment is replacing losses rather than expanding the force and of course what of the partial mobilization?
I’m more than happy to explain any points you find incoherent, but challenging your reasoning isn’t the same as claiming you think what Russia has and is doing is fine.
Afterall you're the one who wrote "Russia would 100% do it again", even granting that you mean only the government, that is still an unhinged statement, as it disregards any actual concerns or issues the people have at stake.
And using that form of reasoning or logic and applying it another genocide going on such as the one in Gaza is merely showing your reasoning/logic's conclusion, not claiming your support for Russia.
I'm not sure exactly what questions you're asking me about Russian enlistment that I haven't answered. Ukrainian military sources put Russia's mobilization potential at 20 million. That seems like a very conservative estimate, but it doesn't really matter. Even if we roll with that, and whatever other constraints you may want to construct, it's dramatically larger than the current forces they're using, and that's point.
And calling Ukraine a genocide is ridiculous. The Ukraine War has had the lowest civilian casualty rate of any modern war, by a wide margin. [1] And that's based on the plainly fabricated casualty rates for Ukraine. After their real casualty levels are 'revealed' the civilian casualty rate will be significantly lower.
> How is Russia in a winning position?
Because US is asking Russia to lift restrictions and not vice versa. If US is in a winning position why do they even need to ask anything from a "losing" side? Winner sets conditions, not asks.
And was Russia a manufacturing powerhouse? Genuinely curious who has more sway there? China or Russia against the west.
Right only that it was Russia that asked for sanctions to be lifted: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/trump-says-russia-im...
And how exactly is that winning either way?
Russia exports diesel = winning everything?
I guess then if I win going up before my alarm clock I have won everything in life.
> And was Russia a manufacturing powerhouse?
Of drones and missiles? Yes.
How exactly would diesel help republicans win when diesel is 1 of several critically important issues that is going against the republicans and Trump?
And I asked in past tense not in present, since you were talking in past tense.
Even so I'm sure India will be happy to eat Russian missiles for breakfast and call people on their drones since that is what exports powerhouse is compared to China.