Russian rouble being low actually creates more domestic profit for the Russian government selling resources. Also, last I checked rouble is trading at 91 to a dollar which is hardly tanked. Given that it's generally been trading between 80 and 90 to a dollar.

Also, not sure where you got the notion that clients in the west were most valuable to Russia. Trading with countries that aren't trying to undermine Russia is far more preferable from Russian perspective. It's the western countries, specifically in Europe, that are most hurt by all this. Hence why Russian economy is growing while Europe is going into a recession.

Hilarious that you call military spending an artificial increase. What does that say about US economy then, weird how nobody applies the same logic there.

Ukraine claims a lot of things, like the Ghost of Kiev. Meanwhile, the only western sources that provides any methodology shows Russian casualties to be at around 43k https://en.zona.media/article/2022/05/20/casualties_eng

Russia is not asking to negotiate the war. What they said from the start is that they're open to negotiations on their terms which have not changed since the start of the war.

Meanwhile, if you think that NATO can afford to continue the was indefinitely then you have no understanding of how industrial economy works. NATO lacks industrial capacity to produce weapons and ammunition at the rate being spent in Ukraine. This is openly admitted by NATO.

It's incredible that people still believe all the nonsense you wrote even though western media now openly admits that all this is false.

[–] groupofcrows@lemmy.ca 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I was going to reply to all the points you made but I read your source and it is excellent, I will use it in the future. https://en.zona.media/article/2022/05/20/casualties_eng

So you make fun of Joe Blog even though he uses Russian (where available) data and other sources. But let's use your "reliable" source "which shows Russian casualties of 43,000". If you had bothered to read more than just the head line you would have seen.

"approximately 47,000 Russians under the age of 50 had died in the Ukraine war. However, these figures represent only a partial account and do not reflect the full extent of the casualties."

"The actual death toll is likely significantly higher."

"This week, CIA Director William Burns penned a column in Foreign Affairs estimating the total losses of the Russian army—killed and wounded—at 315,000. At first glance, this figure might seem significantly different from our own count, but in reality, it’s not, and we regard Burns’ estimate as close to the truth."

"43,000 obituaries found on social networks suggest approximately 80–90,000 actual deaths."

And the 300k estimate is assuming a 3 to 1 wounded to killed ratio. 90,000 killed and (3 times) 270,000 wounded is from Feb 2nd. On that day Ukrainians were claiming ~387,060 casualties, pretty close to the 360,000 from your reliable source.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Nothing in what you quoted contradicts that they can only account for 43k dead using actual methodology. But even if we took your 90k dead with 270k wounded, that doesn't paint the picture you're trying to paint because many of the wounded recover and return to service. What you were clearly trying to insinuate in your original comment was that over 400k soldiers were out of action permanently.

Meanwhile, one simply has to look back through the failed predictions Joe Blogs made over the past year to see that the guy is utterly clueless. It's incredible how hucksters can make a youtube channel to spew utter nonsense and people will gobble it up uncritically.