Russia saw a budget deficit of 3.3 trillion rubles ($47 billion) last year, the second highest in the country’s recent history.
The 2.3% budget gap was exceeded only in 2020, when it hit 4.1 trillion rubles ($58 billion), or 3.8% of GDP, during the coronavirus pandemic.
Russia forecasts that its budget deficit could reach 3 trillion rubles ($43 billion) this year, while analysts say it could go as high as 4.5 trillion rubles ($64 billion). Amid the Ukraine war, at least one-third of the country’s expenditures are expected to go toward defense and security.
I’m not sure world leaders follow GD forum.
They’re more Speakers Corner type people when on the way back from Davos. Anything you post here makes zero difference to the war.
Your win - isn’t.
No, we are haemorrhaging money and equipment for purposes that are beyond me, stuff we can ill afford to squander, and may need on home soil one day, posibly not too far away. Quite how we, and others in the west, constantly go eagerly into situations that have sod all to do with us, to countries that would never even consider reciprocation, and for which the chance of financial recompense from is less than zero is a great mystery.
Putin is showing restraint so far, if he decides to really play nasty it would be interesting to see the west's true resolve. In a war that's so far one of slow attrition, like Vietnam, the west does not have the resolve of its people once things get really shaky to support a country many would not even have been able to vaguely pinpoint on a map until all this kicked off.
The majority of the bravado seems to come from young war game players and politicians so isolated from reality and statesmanship as to be risible. It'll either kick off uncontrollably or the west will find a cop out once the people (voters) find their Bohemian, hedonistic and consumerist way of life becoming too interrupted. Should the EU or GB even moot conscription it will be fascinating to hear how the currently pugilistic start to excuse themselves from what they currently enthusiastically support...
The coalition successfully invaded and defeated Iraq with just 160,000 men, inside the space of 1 month. That includes the capture of Baghdad and the overthrow of the Iraqi government. At that time, Iraq had an active force of 538,000 men, and 650,000 reserves.
It was a classic triumph of quality over quantity.
If he decides to really play nasty?
I assume amongst other things he means covert and overt military action on a wider level i.e. destroying facilities in other countries repairing Ukraine hardware, etc. - but that quickly doesn't end well for Russia if for anyone, but mostly not for Russia.
It’s like some mental Russian wish fulfilment bs. If Ukraine are so hopelessly outclassed then why isn’t this over already?Does anyone actually think Ukraine is going to win this war, it's so pointless to let it drag out like this. The numbers of Russians killed that we're being told is vastly overestimated
Russia has an endless supply of oil money, millions of reservists, munitions and tanks are constantly being produced, nuclear weapons. The Ruble hasn't tanked like people said it would. Russia can play the slow game, and there's nothing Ukraine can do about it
What are you smoking? This number doesn't even cover the losses by Wagner.Real number is around 25k losses
It's called talking facts, we'll see in the coming weeks/months to see who is right shall we
I expected Russia to steamroll Ukraine in a few days, but it didn't happen for a few reasons that I doubt will change anytime soon.
1) Ukrainians are willing to fight and die for their land. (And the west is willing to supply them)
2) Russia is nowhere near as effective in combat as they appeared they would be prior to them starting this war.
3) Russia's effectiveness seems to have been hollowed out by corruption.
Isn't this the same guy Amnesia was quoting? Ah, it was kylew_is_back. You're in great company there......
The 2003 invasion of Iraq was a United States-led invasion of the Republic of Iraq and the first stage of the Iraq War. The invasion phase began on 19 March 2003 (air) and 20 March 2003 (ground) and lasted just over one month, including 26 days of major combat operations, in which a combined force of troops from the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland invaded Iraq.
Twenty-two days after the first day of the invasion, the capital city of Baghdad was captured by Coalition forces on 9 April 2003 after the six-day-long Battle of Baghdad. This early stage of the war formally ended on 1 May 2003 when U.S. President George W. Bush declared the "end of major combat operations" in his Mission Accomplished speech, after which the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) was established as the first of several successive transitional governments leading up to the first Iraqi parliamentary election in January 2005.
...The U.S.-led coalition sent 160,000 troops into Iraq during the initial invasion phase, which lasted from 19 March to 1 May 2003.
I think that's an understatement - https://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-warsNo, you just need to read Wikipedia more carefully.
(Source).
Iraq was beaten inside 1 month, with just 160,000 men. The figure of 956,000 is the total number of coalition forces who served throughout the entire 8 year conflict.
With the exception of Israel, Middle Eastern armies are typically reliant more on manpower than superior technology or fighting prowess. A solid Western force could smash most of them without too much trouble.
Retarded is the word your looking forIt's mindblowing that anyone can believe that Russia has only lost 25k.
they are not the super-power they like to project...