top | item 47051923

(no title)

k_bx | 12 days ago

As a Ukrainian at war since day 1 – I don't buy it. They will sell their gas at discount to China until the very end. Military force is the only way to get them to the death zone.

discuss

order

ericmay|12 days ago

> They will sell their gas at discount to China until the very end.

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.

nradov|12 days ago

I favor harsher sanctions against Russia but let's not be too optimistic. It doesn't take much funding to recruit a poor, desperate guy from the outer provinces, hand him a surplus rifle, and send him into a human wave attack. In a perverse sort of way, killing off those guys might actually be reducing Russian government expenses.

shevy-java|12 days ago

> Sanctions can and will work against Russia.

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.

k_bx|12 days ago

Thank you sir, I wish your words will eventually come true

Elixir6419|11 days ago

I am genuinely curious where is the historical example where sanctions worked? Korea? Cuba? Their regimes are fine, their people are less so.

zh3|12 days ago

As a strong supporter of Ukraine, I would say ultimately wars are won or lost by economic forces (the side that can't afford it any more loses). That's how the USSR lost the Cold War, and all I can hope is that all of Europe really has your back in this one.

shevy-java|12 days ago

But that is historically not quite true.

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.

Haven880|11 days ago

Russia will win on this one. Productions are largely internal. What they lack they get from China. Ukraine loss so many men. Their populations will just go down from now on. USA and China are on the verge of recessions. I really doubt USA will prioritize Ukraine over Israel or China ignoring its own needs. Cede the land and rebuilt. Better to cut losses now than even more loss.

rich_sasha|11 days ago

Some interesting entangled thoughts.

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.

benterix|11 days ago

> They seem happy when Russia wins another 5m^2

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.

red-iron-pine|11 days ago

they are not happy, they are distracted and vaguely know it's not going well.

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.

kergonath|12 days ago

It’s very difficult to utterly destroy a country’s military force, particularly a country as huge as Russia, which has also a sizeable population. Ukraine cannot do it on its own and I see no appetite from anybody else to do it, so I think it is unlikely to happen.

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.

phicoh|12 days ago

Russia's military force currently relies on men willing to die for money. That could change. But Putin seems reluctant to force the general population to die in Ukraine.

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.

ajross|12 days ago

That's misunderstanding the model of actors. "Russia" isn't "Putin". "Countries" act in the best interests of their power structure, not their leaders.

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.

vondur|12 days ago

That is probably true, but if they are selling at a loss, it can only go on for so long.

mdavid626|12 days ago

Ukraine might have less time than Russia does. Russia only has to survive 1 day more.

chowells|12 days ago

As someone with no firsthand knowledge at all, I am inclined to believe your position is correct. But I also think the Economist is making an important point: Russia's continued prosecution of this war will shred their internal economy with consequences lasting for decades or centuries. What people often underestimate is just how much damage an economy can suffer before breaking down entirely.

But Putin doesn't care about that, so the war will continue until something changes militarily.

phicoh|12 days ago

The EU is rich enough to support Ukraine for a very long time. During that time it is likely that Ukraine develops better and better weapons. This requires Russian army to improve as well.

It's not clear how the Russian army will improve when the economy declines.

sourcegrift|12 days ago

Thank you for your esteemed presence. I've got an unsatisfied hankering for kneeling since george Floyd died, but now that you're here, take that kneel.

k_bx|12 days ago

Thank you sir, appreciate the support!

simonh|12 days ago

The article is not as unrealistic as that, the author does point out that Putin is not just looking at the state of Russia, he’s also looking at the relative state of Ukraine and its support from the West.

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.

jltsiren|12 days ago

I don't think doubling the support would have been nearly enough to ensure Ukrainian victory.

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.

trymas|11 days ago

Also many westerns forget (or have no clue) that in ruzzian mindset suffering is one of the greatest virtues. The more you suffer - the better ruzzian you are.

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.