One topic that repeatedly comes up in the What does Putin Want thread is the claim that Russia's economy is doing great, actually, while the U.S. economy is in deep trouble. Apparently Russia has "decoupled" from "the West" and rather than pursuing a path of economic diversification and trade with the world's most prosperous countries, Russia's bright future lies doubling down on fossil fuels and redirecting its productive capacity from consumer goods to wartime production. The U.S., meanwhile, is apparently due to enter another Great Depression at any moment due to the imminent end of the dollar as the world's reserve currency which will cause it to become the kind of post-industrial wasteland one sees in western Europe.

I find this take unconvincing, to say the least, but hey, this is a discussion board. And it's tangential enough to the other issues that come up in the Ukraine thread that it seems like it could work better here on its own place.

Electric car boom in China.

Decoupling from the west is about not having to rely on the West's payment system or using US dollars when trading.  This means that they can't boss you around with sanctions anymore and can't be the unipolar hegemon.  This also might mean freedom from the draconian IMF.

https://x.com/TFL1728/status/1799422152443105703

nan said:

Decoupling from the west is about not having to rely on the West's payment system or using US dollars when trading.  This means that they can't boss you around with sanctions anymore and can't be the unipolar hegemon.  This also might mean freedom from the draconian IMF.

https://x.com/TFL1728/status/1799422152443105703

sanctions are not at all dependent on the role of the US dollar. sanctions have to do with cutting off economic activities. if countries decide not to buy Russian products, for example, it doesn't matter at all what the currency is.

really, learn some basic economics.

unipolar hegemon - Drink!  lol  There's not any Kremlin talking point these days that doesn't use these words.  REMEMBER if Russia isn't key in the New World Order - they'll have no other option then to reclaim more land and hold more phony referendums.

Or else . . . .Nukes and WWIII!!!!!

drummerboy said:

nan said:

Decoupling from the west is about not having to rely on the West's payment system or using US dollars when trading.  This means that they can't boss you around with sanctions anymore and can't be the unipolar hegemon.  This also might mean freedom from the draconian IMF.

https://x.com/TFL1728/status/1799422152443105703

sanctions are not at all dependent on the role of the US dollar. sanctions have to do with cutting off economic activities. if countries decide not to buy Russian products, for example, it doesn't matter at all what the currency is.

really, learn some basic economics.

They need alternatives to non western systems just to survive. Previously there were none. They have also found new markets. We lose them as a market also. They are not coming back. We gambled and we lost. 

jamie said:

unipolar hegemon - Drink!  lol  There's not any Kremlin talking point these days that doesn't use these words.  REMEMBER if Russia isn't key in the New World Order - they'll have no other option then to reclaim more land and hold more phony referendums.

Or else . . . .Nukes and WWIII!!!!!

How does that work? One does not follow from the other, 

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

Decoupling from the west is about not having to rely on the West's payment system or using US dollars when trading.  This means that they can't boss you around with sanctions anymore and can't be the unipolar hegemon.  This also might mean freedom from the draconian IMF.

https://x.com/TFL1728/status/1799422152443105703

sanctions are not at all dependent on the role of the US dollar. sanctions have to do with cutting off economic activities. if countries decide not to buy Russian products, for example, it doesn't matter at all what the currency is.

really, learn some basic economics.

They need alternatives to non western systems just to survive. Previously there were none. They have also found new markets. We lose them as a market also. They are not coming back. We gambled and we lost. 

How big of a market was Russia for the U.S.?

the US exports 2TR a year. Russia about 600B

we exported 9B to Russia

that is .45% of our export business.

Russia exported 12B to the U.S., about 2% of their export market.

they need our market more than we need theirs.

(Numbers are approximate.)

again, learn some economics.

Also, what does "They need alternatives to non western systems just to survive." even mean? Sounds like another ill-defined existential threat.

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

Decoupling from the west is about not having to rely on the West's payment system or using US dollars when trading.  This means that they can't boss you around with sanctions anymore and can't be the unipolar hegemon.  This also might mean freedom from the draconian IMF.

https://x.com/TFL1728/status/1799422152443105703

sanctions are not at all dependent on the role of the US dollar. sanctions have to do with cutting off economic activities. if countries decide not to buy Russian products, for example, it doesn't matter at all what the currency is.

really, learn some basic economics.

They need alternatives to non western systems just to survive. Previously there were none. They have also found new markets. We lose them as a market also. They are not coming back. We gambled and we lost. 

drummerboy said:

Numbers are approximate.

Numbers are from when, and from whom?

Here is a BLS accounting of pre- and post-invasion trade figures:

https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/country-papers/3409-2022-statistical-analysis-of-us-trade-with-russia/file

DaveSchmidt said:

drummerboy said:

Numbers are approximate.

Numbers are from when, and from whom?

Here is a BLS accounting of pre- and post-invasion trade figures:

https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/country-papers/3409-2022-statistical-analysis-of-us-trade-with-russia/file

meh, here and there, this and that.

started here - 2022. then some random googling. just wanted to get a general idea.

drummerboy said:

meh, here and there, this and that.

started here - 2022. then some random googling. just wanted to get a general idea.

Getting a general idea works great for yourself. Sources help the rest of us.

ETA: Thank you for the link.

DaveSchmidt said:

drummerboy said:

meh, here and there, this and that.

started here - 2022. then some random googling. just wanted to get a general idea.

Getting a general idea works great for yourself. Sources help the rest of us.

ETA: Thank you for the link.

it's a lazy Tuesday. also, the numbers I found were so easy to find that sometimes citations aren't really worth it. also, lazy Tuesday.

Since this is a thread about Putin's economics, we should spend some time listening to what Putin has to say.  He is optimistic about the Russian economy.  Interesting to see which imports/exports he sees value for and growth.  Different view than you get in the Western press. I did not know know meat was a big product produced in Russia. 

Plenary session of the St Petersburg International Economic Forum

Vladimir Putin took part in the plenary session of the 27^th St Petersburg International Economic Forum.

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/74234

Here is an interview I'm listening to right now.   Pepe Escobar, a journalist, attended the St. Peterburg Economic conference and has lots of information on what happened there. So far the big news is that there will be a new measurement called "the unit" which will be a huge deal.  The US dollar is considered a "toxic currency."  Lots of talk about neocolonialism! he multipolar world will now be the multinodal world. 

Escobar also talks about the war. He thinks there will be a false flag this summer that will be blamed on the Russians so we can have a hot war.  Gulf of Tonkin moment.

PEPE ESCOBAR: RUSSIA READIES FOR WAR WITH NATO AS PUTIN DROPS BOMBSHELL ON U.S. DOLLAR

I haven't looked him up yet, but I'm sure that Pepe Escobar has credentials that are beyond reproach and we should trust everything he says.

drummerboy said:

I haven't looked him up yet, but I'm sure that Pepe Escobar has credentials that are beyond reproach and we should trust everything he says.

No, you should read every source with skepticism.  But you should read lots of sources from all sides and I don't think you do that since you have not heard of Pepe Escobar.  He's a Legend.  He's intense.  Not for everyone.  You can listen to him on that video I posted. 

He's funny, kind of a Hunter Thomson like character.   I just got his new book but I have not read it yet (just skimmed through).  I actually bought it for someone else but decided at the last moment to give them a different book.  He has such a strong style that unless you are familiar enough with the topic it will be confusing and tedious.  Not a beginner book.  The Glenn Diesen book is really what I should have given that person because it's straightforward and clear. 

Eurasia v. NATOstan (Chronicles of Liquid War)

In Eurasia vs. NATOstan, Pepe Escobar takes us on a whirlwind journey through the swirling sands of the 21st century's defining clash. From the ancient Silk Roads to the modern-day War of Economic Corridors, Escobar paints a vivid picture of a world in transition, where the old order is crumbling and a new, multipolar reality is struggling to be born.

With his nonpareil blend of historical insight, deep cultural appreciation, and sharp geopolitical analysis, Escobar exposes the West's "rules-based international order" for the sham it is, a mere smokescreen for the Empire of Chaos to perpetuate its forever wars and plunder the Global South. But the tide is turning. Led by the Russia-China strategic partnership, a new Global Majority is rising, forging new alliances and building alternative systems that bypass the West's rigged game.

Eurasia vs. NATOstan is not just a chronicle of our turbulent times; it is a call to action. Escobar challenges us to shed the blinkers of Western exceptionalism and embrace the possibilities of a truly multipolar world, where cooperation, mutual respect, and a shared future for all replace the toxicities of war, division, and neocolonialism.

nan, 

Want to know what Russians need to survive?  Less vodka. Like a lot less.  They currently drink 18 litres per year, or ten more than the WHO considers healthy, or 18 more than I consider healthy. What's your tipple?

dave said:

nan, 

Want to know what Russians need to survive?  Less vodka. Like a lot less.  They currently drink 18 litres per year, or ten more than the WHO considers healthy, or 18 more than I consider healthy. What's your tipple?

Florence Nightengale would probably find that interesting if she were alive:

Her mind was increasingly drawn to the reform of nursing. To understand why this was such an area of interest, you need to have an understanding of the state of nursing when Florence Nightingale was a young woman. At that time, nursing was seen as the very lowest of vocations. Most nurses were alcoholics; they were permitted and were expected to drink alcohol while they worked. Many of them were also prostitutes. It was customary for young women of low social class to look to a life of prostitution and nursing, with the consumption of large amounts of alcohol to make the other two occupations seem a little more bearable. The average nurse when Florence was a young woman would think nothing of combining her three occupational interests in a single night; she would sit watching over her patient and sipping her gin, and if her patient was well enough and had the money, extra services could be provided.

PVW said:

One topic that repeatedly comes up in the What does Putin Want thread is the claim that Russia's economy is doing great, actually, while the U.S. economy is in deep trouble. Apparently Russia has "decoupled" from "the West" and rather than pursuing a path of economic diversification and trade with the world's most prosperous countries, Russia's bright future lies doubling down on fossil fuels and redirecting its productive capacity from consumer goods to wartime production. The U.S., meanwhile, is apparently due to enter another Great Depression at any moment due to the imminent end of the dollar as the world's reserve currency which will cause it to become the kind of post-industrial wasteland one sees in western Europe.

I find this take unconvincing, to say the least, but hey, this is a discussion board. And it's tangential enough to the other issues that come up in the Ukraine thread that it seems like it could work better here on its own place.

We know for a fact that the Russian economy is booming. Nan provided proof by  assertion. 

My questions are:

Do we need to commit to a war resulting in 25K casualties per month in order to decouple from Europe or can we just do it by decree?

Similarly, can we transition to a wartime economy without the war. 

We know, by Nan’s assertion, that both of these things are economic wins. Just wondering if we also need to decimate our youth. 

Oh great, a second Russia thread! 

tjohn said:

PVW said:

One topic that repeatedly comes up in the What does Putin Want thread is the claim that Russia's economy is doing great, actually, while the U.S. economy is in deep trouble. Apparently Russia has "decoupled" from "the West" and rather than pursuing a path of economic diversification and trade with the world's most prosperous countries, Russia's bright future lies doubling down on fossil fuels and redirecting its productive capacity from consumer goods to wartime production. The U.S., meanwhile, is apparently due to enter another Great Depression at any moment due to the imminent end of the dollar as the world's reserve currency which will cause it to become the kind of post-industrial wasteland one sees in western Europe.

I find this take unconvincing, to say the least, but hey, this is a discussion board. And it's tangential enough to the other issues that come up in the Ukraine thread that it seems like it could work better here on its own place.

We know for a fact that the Russian economy is booming. Nan provided proof by  assertion. 

My questions are:

Do we need to commit to a war resulting in 25K casualties per month in order to decouple from Europe or can we just do it by decree?

Similarly, can we transition to a wartime economy without the war. 

We know, by Nan’s assertion, that both of these things are economic wins. Just wondering if we also need to decimate our youth. 

You never responded to my thread about NATO after the Cold War, which you asked me about.

I never said Russia's economy was booming.  My point is that they survived the sanctions which no one thought they would (and the bad effects boomeranged to the West). They are now the 4th largest economy in the world and they have growth.  This is from reputable Western sources, not me. 

I don't understand the question about decoupling from Europe--I'll do the best I can. 

The war is not about economic wins for Russia--I think they are surprised as anyone how it turned out.  They are trying to find a way to decouple from the West because they have to--they don't have a choice.   They are investing in their future in BRICS which now provides alternatives to the US dollar (which they call a toxic currency) and other payment systems.  Joe Biden gambled with the US dollar and lost.  This and the seizing of assets are going to do great damage to our economy at some point.  No one will trust us to put money in our banks.  

The war is about an existential threat to their country and it's a big mistake for the West to choose NATO over getting along with Russia.  NATO is a business and just wants to expand and creates the monster so it has the rationale.  It benefits war contractors.  It does not make us safer.  In fact, it's bringing us close to Domesday.  

The Russians have won this war but it's too embarrassing for the West to surrender (and there is an election coming) so they are just scrapping Ukrainian youth off the streets and sending them to the front lines. It's very sad and unfair and I think the Ukrainians are starting to understand what this war has been about and they are mad. 

Russia has won?  It's just odd that they are still suffering 20+ thousand causalities per month and fighting is still heavy across the front.

I'm still not understanding the existential threat to Russia.  You haven't explained which country bordering on Russia was willing, literally, to commit suicide by serving as the jumping off point for the invading army.  Not to mention that prior to be driven to rearm by Putin's imperial ambitions, NATO didn't have the ground forces necessary to launch a successful invasion of Russia.  And then there is the little detail that Russia, quite rightfully, would have responded with nuclear weapons to a land attack.

Russian Stock Market Suspends Dollar Trades After US Sanctions | Barron's (barrons.com)

tjohn said:

Russia has won?  It's just odd that they are still suffering 20+ thousand causalities per month and fighting is still heavy across the front.

I'm still not understanding the existential threat to Russia.  You haven't explained which country bordering on Russia was willing, literally, to commit suicide by serving as the jumping off point for the invading army.  Not to mention that prior to be driven to rearm by Putin's imperial ambitions, NATO didn't have the ground forces necessary to launch a successful invasion of Russia.  And then there is the little detail that Russia, quite rightfully, would have responded with nuclear weapons to a land attack.

I started explaining the existential threat. You ignored what I wrote. I reminded you and you continued to ignore me. So, I don’t think you are interested in finding out about existential threats to Russia. I think you just refuse to consider the possibility at all. 

I want to hear more about how the dollar is going to lose its status as reserve currency and why that's going to cause problems.

nan said:

tjohn said:

Russia has won?  It's just odd that they are still suffering 20+ thousand causalities per month and fighting is still heavy across the front.

I'm still not understanding the existential threat to Russia.  You haven't explained which country bordering on Russia was willing, literally, to commit suicide by serving as the jumping off point for the invading army.  Not to mention that prior to be driven to rearm by Putin's imperial ambitions, NATO didn't have the ground forces necessary to launch a successful invasion of Russia.  And then there is the little detail that Russia, quite rightfully, would have responded with nuclear weapons to a land attack.

I started explaining the existential threat. You ignored what I wrote. I reminded you and you continued to ignore me. So, I don’t think you are interested in finding out about existential threats to Russia. I think you just refuse to consider the possibility at all. 

If you can’t detail the specifics of this existential threat, then it doesn’t exist.  For examples of existential threats, see Poland, a country twice partitioned out of existence by Prussia / Germany and Russia. There was and is no current plan or capability of taking away any Russian territory. 

Another example of an existential threat:  The armies of the UAR massing on the boarders of 1968 Israel, a country with exactly no strategic depth. 

nan said:

I started explaining the existential threat...

Yeah, not really.

You did offer a number of words in response to the question, but in no way approached the neighborhood of explaining it.

See, the problem for you is that you are trying to explain something that does not exist.

Always a hard thing, demanding much from the imagination.

tjohn said:

nan said:

tjohn said:

Russia has won?  It's just odd that they are still suffering 20+ thousand causalities per month and fighting is still heavy across the front.

I'm still not understanding the existential threat to Russia.  You haven't explained which country bordering on Russia was willing, literally, to commit suicide by serving as the jumping off point for the invading army.  Not to mention that prior to be driven to rearm by Putin's imperial ambitions, NATO didn't have the ground forces necessary to launch a successful invasion of Russia.  And then there is the little detail that Russia, quite rightfully, would have responded with nuclear weapons to a land attack.

I started explaining the existential threat. You ignored what I wrote. I reminded you and you continued to ignore me. So, I don’t think you are interested in finding out about existential threats to Russia. I think you just refuse to consider the possibility at all. 

If you can’t detail the specifics of this existential threat, then it doesn’t exist.  For examples of existential threats, see Poland, a country twice partitioned out of existence by Prussia / Germany and Russia. There was and is no current plan or capability of taking away any Russian territory. 

Another example of an existential threat:  The armies of the UAR massing on the boarders of 1968 Israel, a country with exactly no strategic depth. 

A military alliance supporting a unipolar hegemon surrounding your country is an existential threat.  Extra points if they have made it clear they are gunning for you. 

Again, I wrote about the history of NATO and you ignored that.