- cross-posted to:
- economy@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- economy@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
When traditionally neutral outlet The Economist says Russia is the economic loser in this, you know it’s bad for Russia.
It’s a good writeup (as one would expect) but Ukraine isn’t in a great spot – the reason they’re better off than Russia is because Russia is a complete clusterfuck.
Well while they’re every large, they’re essentially eating into their reserves all the time. So they can amass more things than Ukraine… for now. At the cost of any possible future for Russia basically.
Russia will be fixing this clusterfuck of their economy for decades after Putin drops, even if it was just of old age.
The Economist isn’t neutral. Quite the opposite: they pride themselves on being opinionated. They might seem neutral only because those opinions regularly cross the traditional US left/right divide (e.g., they were one of the mainstream news outlets talking about Biden’s diminishing faculties long before his meltdown).
Paywall
archive.today
I did my part! Bought a wool sweater from Ukraine as a present for my wife.
Since when ?
Meanwhile they are getting fucked in the actual war.
No they aren’t.
I don’t know how they can claim Ukraine is winning when they’re being supported heavily by foreign aid.
Victors are often made based on their alliances.
Guess you forget that Russia uses Iranian drones, North Korean troops and Chinese microcircuits and other elements in order to build missiles
& Indian money
Is any of that foreign aid or are the Russians purchasing equipment and manpower?
Did you happen to see the receipts or something?
I’m not the one who made the claim. Do you have proof that any of it was foreign aid?
Wait, you mean North Korean soldiers were bought by Russia?
Do they allow that there?
