BlueOak

We've got a long way to go on this one. Here's a reflection for you. Russia is China.

@Twentyfirst The only time I have mentioned the US in these posts was to say corruption is high there. You are doing the comparison. I loathe morality arguments; they do not cross cultural, ethical, or even individual perspectives well. If you want this line of reasoning: You'd have been better to say, from your European perspective.... your argument is flawed because... but you are too laser-focused on the US, a country I increasingly don't like or trust. It clouds every sentence you make from actually focusing on what's being said. If you want to get past the noise, just focus on the message, not who is saying it, where they are from, or why. *Oh and I repeatedly do say what you've said, I did so throughout this thread because it brings people closer together to acknowledge everyone operates off the six human needs, and all they do is in service of meeting them. Countries play zero sum games with people's lives all day every day. Its sick, but first we've got to deflate this your right i'm wrong, because this side is good and that bad mechanic that is in everyone's mind.

It's not complicated. People are greedy; in their hands, some get rewarded. Governments can force a better quality of life for more people at once at the expense of some. Example arguments against this are that people need to compete, fight, and earn it to progress society, technology and mankind as a whole Example arguments for this are, how many sports cars and luxury homes does that millionaire or billionaire need before its absurd? The answer, as always, is a balance.

Exactly why the government needs to give the money to people, business owners never will.

Proof I am tone deaf to Western war crimes? Do you want 500 quotes where I am not? 1, How many do you want, its not as if they are hard to find: A) Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/nearly-2-million-excess-deaths-followed-chinas-sudden-end-covid-curbs-study-2023-08-25/ Which included mass-testing and stringent and persistent quarantine lockdown B) Think Global Health https://www.thinkglobalhealth.org/article/shadow-chinas-lockdown-remains China’s problems stem from how Xi’s administration ended its zero-COVID policy, which relied primarily on draconian lockdowns to eradicate the coronavirus. They raked in profits, but China had to rely on lockdowns to keep the coronavirus suppressed. I like this article, it says how China were initially trying to ignore it at their peril, and then they went too far the opposite way, sounds familiar to me as to what many governments did, only China was draconian, unsurprisingly. C) Radio Free Asia https://www.rfa.org/english/china/2024/12/06/china-zero-covid-anniversary/ Guo and his mother were left to get by on potatoes and cabbage, while they heard of elderly people who lived alone without internet access starving to death that winter. 2) Its perverted to think you need to kill 1 man's voice if you've a population of 1.5 billion people. That's a fragile country. 3) Tibet | East Turkestan | China's absurd amount of border disputes | China just claiming the entire south China sea, screw every other country there. - Typical authoritarian greed for territory. 4) Yes Russia. Threats are not normal. They've become normal since BRICS started taking power, threats destabilise the world. - Like that other country you like so much, America. The fact BRICS are doing it now doesn't make it any less destabilising. 5) China have been doing something for the last decade. When they are standing in Taiwan it's far too late. 6) For some reason, you are under the mistaken impression I like the US. Its the typical BRICS answer. The US are bad. And? What does that have to do with China's boom and bust sucking?

Yes. Thank you! THANK YOU! Its a European problem at its core. The desire to preserve the independence of countries leads to more countries. Meaning a stronger likelihood of any one of so many countries coming to hostilities or dispute. It's been this way since the feudal system, and built from that fractured nature. This was somewhat solved within the EU, but outside of it still exists. Its not the desire but the result that's a problem. A lot of war happens in Africa, for example, because they are also very fractured. There is an inherent advantage in being a large unified block like China or the EU, now, such a block can be effectively ruled (in eras gone by, they just repeatedly fractured). But when one country tries to do it by force in Europe, it has always been resisted; it can only be done diplomatically in the modern day without a devastating war. Which is where another big friction point is. The large authoritarian countries to the east just assume that absorbing countries is natural, whereas in Europe, we preserve them (democracies anyway, because democracies align with this view). A long time ago, Europe was repeatedly conquered from the outside (especially the UK), so this was bred into the nations. Might makes right. Europe gained such a technological edge, they were able to conquer anywhere, which explains their overseas behaviour and the resulting fallout of the larger wars. The desire eventually to create peaceful coexistence with other democracies doing the same came about and created the EU.

Yes, European Powers Ally together against expansionist European powers. its happened for hundreds of years, more, it's happening now against Russia. It's a familiar pattern that requires understanding that each country in Europe, no matter the size, has its sovereignty and culture not only respected but celebrated. None are seen as a buffer states from a European perspective, not willingly anyway. BRICS. Of course, everyone's going to milk the war to their advantage, individuals and countries. But BRICS vs NATO allows Russia to attack NATO in smaller theatres or collectively as a whole. They could overwhelm a small country like Estonia, which only has about 7,500 active service members, and then just dig in. Sure Estonia can call on reserves if they get warning. Russia may even cut the Suwałki Gap and thus encircle the Baltic, which is harder as Poland is no pushover, but the distance to Kaliningrad is not far, and it can be attacked from two directions. Part of it is that you can only fit so many people inside a small area. There is a battlefield term called "unit capacity," which effectively means only so many NATO forces can fit in a small area, and tactical nukes could be used to just wipe them. Tactical nukes are tiny in comparison and designed to take out clusters of units. Its one consideration as to why Russia's drones are probing into the center of Europe, to see NATO's force groupings and hit them at the start of the war.

Germany has officially declared they are in conflict with Russia. I think the drone hitting their territory was the last straw to publicly deny it. So whatever you think the reasons for or against are, whichever side you've decided to embrace: The reality is Germany is in conflict with Russia. I'd describe it as a cold war, but that's my perspective.

1, On Estonia I've told you so many times why Russia has a possibility of attacking the Baltics or Poland, why it would benefit them and how now they can do it. i'll just be repeating myself @zazen, you can't or won't see it in your framing. I'll add the video showing how close we are to war. Maybe that'll bypass the hundred reasons I keep listing and the vast potential power of BRICS, to just show the state of the world. – Potential power is power in geopolitics. 2, India, China and BRICS Thank you for admitting China and India don't consider European security. Europe and the US did consider India's security because they considered it more of an ally. Anything goes against India in a war state. I've seen 'oh poor innocent india' spoken or written many times; they are making their choice strategically. You are championing BRICS messing around domestically in their competitors' countries politically, causing social unrest, fighting land wars and trade wars. And calling this acceptable as it's been done before the opposite way, then getting confused when the same is returned. It'd like me being confused as to why BRICS formed or decided to compete with the West, its not hard to work out or see. I think it's an idiotic move of old dictators to force land wars when their economic positions are improving so rapidly relative to their competitors, but I understand it, and the desire to project power over others when you have it, which resides in many men's minds. – You’ll counter this with an understandable security argument and I’ll either say spheres move until they are stopped, OR just point again to hundreds of years of history. 3, We are literally in a cold war zazen. Literally. I don't think you are aware that almost every war the US fought was against regimes backed, funded, armed and trained by Russia (or China). Of course Russia pushes its influence way past its borders; it was the second biggest arms dealer on the planet and the direct competitor for the US, its been highly active in shaping the Middle East and Africa. They just don't blare it on their media, or overplay their hand, sounded to trumpets like some patriotic diatribe, which the US did in the 1960s - 2000's You refuse to acknowledge Europe has a sphere, and as a block is far stronger than Russia is. I'd put Poland against Russia, but backed up by Germany, France, the UK etc, forget it. Russia is far weaker. That’s the regional realignment; just like BRICS is able to push the US’s influence back, Europe does the same to Russia. The US supplies the weapons, but it's Europe and Russia that were directly engaged against each other for centuries (like all great powers till they aligned in Europe). You might not like this, but that is the dynamic in countries that require spheres, a trade empire or prioritize land gain in their foreign policy. NATO is a large defensive alliance. You have a personal bias on this subject that clouds any conversation, both in its decision making but also strength: Its GDP without the USA far dwarfs Russia, and is comparable with China, more with other potential allies in the region like the UK or Turkey. Potential power is power in geopolitics, not seeing this was a failing of the west looking at Russia in this recent war. Why everyone wants Europe to remilitarize directly to consider its perspective is beyond me. Nobody takes history seriously, because Europe's remilitarizing concerns the hell out of me. I guess power needs to be demonstrated to be seen, which is what BRICS also concluded. 4, Russia and the EU were intertwined. Less so now, but I agree it's a mutual recession, and necessary to show everyone the interconnected nature of the world to counter this nationalist trend, but it's a necessity because of BRICS supporting Russia's aggression, and nobody wants a direct shooting match, although that possibility is getting closer. Russia is fully in BRICS yes. There is no going back for decades to meaningful trade with Europe. What you haven’t considered is there are other markets, and they are now getting the investment. India was but its shot itself in the foot also. To accept that, you’d need to accept both perspectives! The reason the pressure has slowly been turned up rather than completely obliterate the country's factories, oil etc. Is twofold, one not to cause unnecessary pain to Europe's own countries, and two to not draw such a shock reaction from Russia as it is hollowed out from the inside out. Hungary is already aligned with Russia, on the Ukraine issue specifically, it makes little odds what happens to them in their decision making. Removing Russian influence on their economy will take them decades before they align more with the EU. 5, Perspectives have to shift to reach a compromise; zero sum thinking needs to be transcended. Exactly, you can only posit one perspective, done in great depth and detail, but all your conclusions are half answers. It's structural, but for one side. I can 100% see, understand and appreciate your perspective. If you were advocating that Russians were monsters, and BRICS were merely aggressive warmongers, I’d be giving you a different perspective. I will restate my exact framing of this situation: Given their economic, technological and population growth rate, BRICS are engaging in unnecessary land wars and aggressive expansion for short-term advancements, which is destabilising the world. They have old territorial ideals and an inability to consider the sovereignty of smaller nations. - As an alliance, they were and can achieve all their objectives without firing a shot, if they are able to objectively analyse the state of the world. There we go: If this were instead a gradual realignment, none of this conversation would be happening. Because everyone would still be asleep. If China weren’t obsessed with a 1000-year-old map, none of this would be happening. They have a gigantic and powerful country already, but just like the US they are pushing this influence outward, whatever their method of doing so. If Russia just decided oh look we have the biggest country on the planet, we actually don’t need a 0.01% territorial gain to improve our station in life, this would not be happening either. Putting a buffer around a country that large is just impractical to enforce. But that’s not how BRICS thinks. More is better. They are stuck in an old 80s American mindset, only for them its towards territory. I know there are 500 other reasons, we keep listing them, which is why it's odd you can’t see why Russia would invade Estonia. You argue that the EU should just accept X, well why the heck can’t you turn that mirror back on the side you’ve embraced, on the things causing the hot part of this war? Not the overall struggle, but the part that’s killing people. Because doing that would mean you’d have to adapt the structure you’ve built up, to include the full reality on the ground, not what you like or don’t like. I don’t like Russia, at all. I hate authoritarians, but it doesn’t factor into my analysis of a country's place in the world. – Below is exactly how authoritarians think. If this were China on this border, I’d be telling you Europe would have a hell of a time, and the buffer state would naturally be in Poland. They are roughly 9 times stronger in GPD than Russia, they lead a large economic block, they have ten times the population. This is not China; this is a tenth of China. Would I like people to break out of this authoritarian, zero sum mindset? Hell yes. But they have not done, so that's why I am framing it this way. if it were my way, we'd have a global government and regional councils.

For me, there is nothing better than having many cultures nearby, many types of people building a strong future under one country. I believe it brings the strengths of all races, cultures, and types of individuals and their perspectives or skills together, but I am in an increasing minority on that one. There are certainly challenges, and I think integration shouldn't ever stop at citizenship or some arbitrary test people take but be an ongoing adjustment to the existing values of the country you've chosen to move to. When you say there are lots of Indian people clustered in one region, that to me is a failure of the system to encourage communities to be multicultural and multi-racial, as opposed to just getting someone in the country and leaving it at that; it seems short sighted. But everyone hates socialism, so none of its benefits are put into a solution. In my world we'd all be under one world government, as a council system which had minimal global oversight level powers and local regional governance. Disputes would always arise and be either settled locally or enforced globally, in a sensible hierarchy, like the court system, with the best possible solution selected and gradually improved upon over time. It seems to me nation-states, in the current authoritarain led world, do nothing more than give people excuses to go to war over KM's of dirt. (I know they bring social cohesion, purpose and identity, but it's difficult to respect or acknowledge, that with all the missiles flying about)

@Ishanga Let's do some grounding here then. India is a country that has too much population, its too over crowded, it has streets I wouldn't walk, let alone drive on, trains which look like they will fall to bits from the load, garbage it can't get rid of, and this is a pre full industrialisational phase. The garbage problem India is going to have if it ever achieves what this is man is talking about is monumental, and who is its market going to be? It attacks a neighbouring nuclear power over small regions of dirt, rather than grant that region full independence, because authoritarian countries are incapable of considering the sovereignty of something smaller than them. i'ver heard plenty of people say, 'Pakistan should not exist' from India; it's all the same authoritarian imbalance in their decision making. It's not a friend of Europe or America; it is financing Russia's war with material and economic support. I have no idea what he's even talking about now. Hopeful dreams, perhaps? There was a phase when companies were moving from China to India, but it's obvious where it's aligning and unsurprising given their history with Russia and geo location. And BTW there a lot of things I respected about it too, such as temples feeding the poor, or its spiritual leaders, but it's harder to find that part of myself now with their course.

As people are still disconnected from how the war is being fought. Warning: This is not graphic, as its on YouTube, but may be disturbing to some. Russia is using human wave tactics or tactical vehicles (cars/trucks/bikes) because drones are greater than tanks or armor of any kind and have taken out so many, they are a cheap low risk way to fight. This is a large part of the war: people in bunkers or at a distance using drones to hit targets, a bit like artillery, only more precise. These days it's on the individual soldier level. *Skip the second half though there isn't much there. Here is another one, a couple of the same clips but largely showing different ones.

Discard their military alliances with Russia on the border? Given the history that is utter delusion. Especially with how they treat their own citizens in the modern day, let alone their subject countries. Even before the war Russia had a host of other problems, such as terrible demographics, dwindling military power compared to its rivals, an infrastructure it couldn't afford to maintain, and a border that was too big to guard. Also, a disconnect from where they practically were in the global realignment happening. That and democracy catching on nearby. And as for your subtance quote, we were living quite happily thank you for decades, and didn't need your judgement on how to run our own countries. Your utter inability to see a world war is not 'they' - 'them' it's US, its THE WORLD, is still blinding you to finding a common ground or solution. You are so focused on the bad guys and the good guys you'll never be able to.

People's views on this differ depending on where they live, the housing prices there, the quality of the housing and how much they earn above the mean income. People live in worse homes in places like Japan. They live in cybercafes. There are milions upon millions of homeless around the globe, and elevating the worst off of us should be the primary drive to raise the entire country up. The UK is getting denser; its just a matter of time if population controls are not established or accepted culturally that this style of design will become more mainstream. There is a tiny house trend btw, which is what he's been trying to cash in on, so size isn't the issue for a lot of first time buyers. House prices being what they are, I'd buy a tiny home. Heck I live in a small apartment, it'd not be much different, and i'd get onto the property ladder. People are always looking for ways onto the property ladder. I was genuinely bemused at the response here :). Not the hate for Musk, that's understood by his meddling in domains other than engineering, but the overall concept. I used to work on mobile homes for a short time, seeing them built, and it can't be much different.

Authoritarians being authoritarians.

Liberalism is too susceptible to outside influence. Ongoing Eastern Alignment over 20 years. - Education, Media, Immigration, Trade, Direct takeover of western companies. BRICS meddling in European governance through funding extremism and direct foreign agents. Culture of Greed, money more easily changes America. (This is why these hostile wars are short-sighted from BRICS) Dual political system being easier to corrupt.: Enhanced by Rightwing populism and a Weak Leftwing status quo that just shifted and suppressed populism. (Played out across the population.) Spiritual teachers preaching rightwing values globally, from Christian through to Buddhist.I would name people like Sadhguru and teal for example, personally, but we could go all the way to the grassroots churches or temples across the globe. Church with state equals rightwing authoritarian values. Rise of China - India - Brazil as major players projecting their influence. The new reality is not one of global liberalism but suppressive authoritarianism. Cold war fought over the internet. As Teal rightly says, this war is fought differently. Its here on the internet for hearts and minds. Russia, India and China are winning this. I find myself for example, facing 5 or 6 posters in my arguments on this forum. This is a micro of the macro going on. Restructuring of Gender's influence on society. As the masculine has adopted authoritarianism (an unstable outward expression of it) and feminism has adopted liberalism (an unstable inward expression of it). One is being pushed outward, resulting in these wars, and one is being suppressed inward, resulting in the suppression of the population or values it represents. The above factors have led to a gradual reorganisation of the country, from the ground up. A gradual demonization of liberalism. If any of the four poles are demonized, the country suffers: Authoritarianism, liberalism, socialism, and capitalism, have to be in balance. Nobody seems to want to balance them but me. People will complain about one or maybe two being skewed, but I've never seen anyone else, ever in my entire life, try to advocate for their balance. - A start would be to see spiritual leaders start to advocate for this. *I will add Sevan Bomar used to advocate for balance in all things in life to be fair to him. Also of course, to fight a world war, people need to be much more nationalist and far right. This is how a generation can be bred to fight a war or accept it.

Yes. Wars have multiple reasons. Its also not directly in BRICS but an ally of theirs and hostile to America. So its an easier target like Ukraine was, often for multiple reasons. And there is a fair chance Brazil won't intervene, as they don't put much legitimacy in the Venezuelan government.

Oh the US is run by an aging self obsessed maniac, no doubt. Greedy oligarchs under the guise of democracy. Like Putin only dumber. But this particular choice wasn't his, he was led to it. NATO didn't start this war. This was Russia backed by BRICS. If you think cowering away from aggressive nations will maintain an alliance dedicated to preserving its borders and states through a strong mutual defense, you are not thinking logically. And yes, we can talk about all the damage the US has done, and i'll agree with you all day. This however, today, is a BRICS decision. They want the competition, they want the aggressive expansion of their nations borders. This is the result.

Russian dirty bomb threats to the north of Ukraine and Sub threats against a US carrier group. All tests to see the response. Just like the false flag against Estonia and others, just like the drones into Poland and the Baltics, just like the nuclear threats against everyone, just like the build ups in Kaliningrad.

@zazen 1) If Russia is suffering so bad economically and militarily I don't see why they would escalate to that level by attacking a NATO country. I advocate for a regional focus, but in this context, Zazen you are need a larger one. If BRICS fights NATO, Russia can take Estonia. Because NATO will be busy all over the globe. Nuclear war isn't happening over an invasion. I am not even sure all countries would go to fight either, are you? Can you imagine Hungary going to fight Russia over Estonia? Collectivists need to understand NATO is many voices, and when pressed, they won't always align. 2) China and India couldn't care less about European security. No action they've taken even suggests it. I'm open for you to prove this otherwise with actions, not just words. Authoritarian countries speak through actions; their words are largely meaningless. At the moment, every action they've taken says the exact opposite. Again - Russia didn't place itself in NATO expansions way, it was the other way round. 3) Yes it did. After all this you still don't see the other side of this. Russia project fear, threats and violence. Russia was directly responsible for other countries joining a defensive alliance to resist them. Just like I can understand a larger power fighting against its decline to a regional power, and using all these tools to try and remake the USSR, or push their influence outward. I also understand that as Russia declines, it loses its sphere. You can't understand that. You think it's entitled to a sphere for its mere existence. No, not if it's too weak to project it relative to its neighbours. The EU should recognize its own security interests by dealing with a non-EU member like Ukraine hitting the Druzhba pipeline which provides energy to two EU member states. 4) Your logic doesn't make sense. Europe prosecuting the country directly responsible for ensuring and fighting for their security interests is like some twisted Russia state TV babble. I might as well say BRICS should prosecute Russia for dragging them closer to the brink of war, completely nonsensical when that's how BRICS aligning itself anyway, as a direct competitor to NATO. This is war zazen. You take out your opponent's economy in war, its been a long time coming. Russia is acting like Germany, which tried to project it had a healthy economy all the way to the end of WW2, when in reality they were broke. Given BRICS material and manpower support to Russia, the delay in really arming Ukraine to fully win, the only win state here for Europe. if Putin will not negotiate peace, is the destruction of the Russian economy. Otherwise, WW3 is a possibility, and that 'win state' could hardly be called a win for anyone. - Though what's practically happening is steady economic pressure.

BRICS and NATO are moving and positioning as if in a larger strategic war. That's why: Trump is moving to Venezuela to hit it. Useful idiots on the left for BRICS don't understand the overall strategy (Trump probably doesn't either). This gives it a military presence near Brazil but also takes out the most vocal ally of BRICS in South America, it's been wanting to join over and over, but Brazil have refused it so far. North Korea is in Russia, and probing South Korea's borders. Israel is hitting its surrounding enemies. China is about to invade Taiwan and keeps stealing military tech. Russia is pressuring Eastern Europe with invasion and fighting in Ukraine. NATO is moving to 5% military. Iran has been pressuring shipping BRICS have been pressuring western democracies internally with far-right groups. India has picked a side; they are providing not just financial but also material support for Russia's weapon construction (indirectly or directly), as are China, only China also provide direct soft material goods, North Korea shells, and Iran missiles. Etc. I advocate for focusing on the region but also state now that this is NATO vs BRICS. It's a cold war with hot war flashpoints. I'll consider it WW3 if and when NATO directly engages BRICS in a hot war, at the moment this is what a cold war looks like. The country that will decide when that happens is China, because Russia is not going into Europe without their say so, probably as a prelude to Taiwan. People still fail to grasp that Russia can fight NATO if all these other countries are also. It'll lose because it'll be a proxy, but it can; it recently threatened Estonia with a false flag, its second false flag. Now it's just threatened a US carrier group with a sub.

More of these men please. This is the energy at the podium the Democrats need to show Trump a coddled, aging fascist. This man could have the complete opposite views to me on almost everything else, but if this was the way he was willing to stand up to fascists, and hold democracy from falling further, i'd vote for him.

The second false flag attempt by the Russians. Could just be probing for reactions, like the drone attack on Poland with our weak response; we'll see. - Weakness always encourages Putin, should have been a stronger response to it, and it should have been shot down. I have always agreed if (when) they invade the Baltics, a nuclear war will not be the immediate result. It'll be conventional. Putin knows, NATO knows, I know this. So that's quite a likely outcome, considerably more likely than people here admit. Russia's economy requires war to sustain itself now.

@Hatfort Elections don't happen in war. As has been stated, they effectively don't happen in Russia either. - If people really want this global alignment and authoritarianism that I hear every other week, there it is. That's probably the most effective Russian/BRICS aspect of this, how much they've influenced the West's internal governance, but somehow, when it's inconvenient to the Russian narrative, it conveniently doesn't apply. But that's for another discussion. Back to being objective: in wartime, maintaining legitimacy and authority is paramount; populations will always vote not to die. On both sides of this. That's obvious. But to maintain a country, not an individual, understandable survival instincts of an individual can't decide the outcome of a war. You try to frame everything as if it's a normal functioning country. No it's a war for its survival and future, and the future of Eastern Europe, and perhaps NATO itself. I'll expand in the next post.

@zazen Hitting the Russian refineries cripples the conventional economy. Fuel shortages hit agriculture, transport and civilian industries. This is magnified in Russia as its internal logistics are so vast and demand so much energy for travel. 12% of total exports is 1, Not something to dismiss at all in regards total GDP output in wartime when every ruble matters to sustain the strain, but more importantly, its effect on the domestic economy is disproportionately large; the country would grind to a halt. Even if I take the official Russian figures (I don't) 10% inflation is a significant fiscal strain, propped up by asset sales, draining their sovereign wealth fund, and things like issuing new money, bonds, credit etc. It's accurate to say BRICS is funding the war, its economic depth complicates the Western deeper strategy. But it's also fair to say that China's increasing dominance over Russian trade puts Russia in a junior role, its more a dependency than an alliance the more this goes on. Russia is increasingly a proxy of BRICS through your lens. On the workforce or demographics. You've failed to factor in Russia's large emigration from the war, disproportionately of its best and brightest youth, or if you have the million casualties it's suffered and will now carry. Whereas in Ukraine the women and children were welcome to leave, but the men were limited to the Ukranian borders and drafted early on. So it's not an accurate representation of the actual numbers able to fight and also fails to take into account the existing demographics of the countries. Deeper on inflation, i've pulled ChatGPT up as independent experts conclude its closer to 20% GPT Quote: Regarding Russia’s economic resilience, it’s important to distinguish between nominal stability and underlying structural risks. While it’s true that Russia has avoided hyperinflation and that sanctions have not entirely crippled the economy, there is strong evidence that Moscow has been engaging in both traditional and digital forms of monetary expansion to sustain wartime spending. 🔹 Money printing (physical and electronic): Russia’s Central Bank has reportedly increased the monetary base by trillions of rubles, primarily to finance state enterprises and cover defense expenditures. This includes a blend of physical cash printing and “electronic inflation” through subsidized credit channels. One source cites around 8.2 trillion rubles (~$90 billion) injected since the war began: Why did Russia launch the printing press? – Center for Countering Disinformation, Ukraine https://cpd.gov.ua/en/results/rf-en/why-did-russia-launch-the-printing-press/?utm_source=chatgpt.com There are even unverified internal leaks suggesting the Central Bank ordered up to 15 trillion rubles in new currency to be printed recently: Reddit: Central Bank leak discussion (unverified) https://www.reddit.com/r/tjournal_refugees/comments/1m250cb/центробанк_рф_запустил_печатный_станок_на_15_трлн/?utm_source=chatgpt.com Though its a less credible source compared to the others, I asked for a translation here for simplicity. Ukrainian hackers passed screenshots of internal correspondence from the Central Bank of Russia to the media project Newsader: On July 7, 2025, the head of the Central Bank, Elvira Nabiullina, signed a secret directive instructing Goznak (Russia’s state money printer) to print 15 trillion rubles in 1,000 and 5,000 ruble denominations by October. Officially, this is described as being for "inflation stabilization" and "financing of priority expenses," but in fact, according to the investigation's authors, it's for war, mobilization, and simulating social stability. The scale is historic: in just three months, the cash volume in Russia would double—a level not seen even in 1998. For comparison, a 3 trillion ruble issuance in 2022 caused inflation to nearly double; now they’re printing five times more, the report emphasizes. According to the forecast, by winter, Russia faces an inflationary shock: ruble collapse, price hikes, shortages, capital flight, gray markets, and mass impoverishment. The Central Bank reportedly foresees this but is hiding it from the public. 🔹 Structural inflation and war financing: Rather than direct cash giveaways, a significant share of this “money printing” is happening through state-directed lending via banks like VTB and Sberbank, effectively expanding the money supply without physically printing money. This has propped up war industries but also contributed to elevated inflation: FT Interview with Elina Ribakova – Russia’s War Economy Pressures https://www.ft.com/content/438e6f4b-dda6-4c93-bc8d-0c72aa9f6416?utm_source=chatgpt.com 🔹 Inflation pressures: Russia’s inflation hovers around 9–10% officially, but external observers argue it's likely higher due to data opacity and sectoral imbalances: Reuters: Russia faces more austerity and inflation risks In short, while Russia is not in hyperinflation territory, its wartime economy is being increasingly sustained by aggressive monetary expansion—what could reasonably be called “electronic inflation.” This strategy buys time, not sustainability. https://www.reuters.com/markets/asia/russia-under-war-spending-pressure-set-more-austerity-tax-hikes-2025-08-20/?utm_source=chatgpt.com End Quote Here's its objective conclusion on both sides, which I considered rewriting but agreed with largely. Strategic Impasse and the Role of Western Policy The missed opportunity of Istanbul 2022 and the overreliance on NATO-centric security frameworks remain critical failures of imagination. A multilateral, non-aligned security arrangement—one that includes Turkey, China, and neutral European states—could have offered a credible alternative. The West frames Russian defeat as essential for peace and long-term European security. Russia frames Western support as an existential encirclement, justifying prolonged militarization. Ukraine, caught in the middle, bleeds manpower, infrastructure, and sovereignty. Meanwhile, the weaker Russia becomes, the more it risks turning into a de facto proxy of BRICS powers, particularly China and India, whose strategic interests now shape the viability and direction of the Russian war effort—economically, diplomatically, and potentially militarily. Zazen’s point about Ukraine’s declining sovereignty is worth considering, but saying Ukraine has only “15%” left is an exaggeration. Wartime conditions always limit democratic processes, yet Ukraine’s loss of sovereignty is not total—it retains agency, even if constrained by dependence on Western support.