Inflation is linked to interest rates. Ruzzia keeps inflation low by having nearly double interest rates. Now, stuff more graphs there, but try to understand the basics of economy first.
Let's get this clear: do you consider the attack on grain storages in Ukraine a terrorist act? A simple yes or no will suffice. I offer you a similar direct answer to any (non personal) similar question in exchange.
RE scalations, most of your assertions are false. ATACAMS have more range, more payload and are more difficult to intercept. The stormshadows are very obviously hitting high value targets, and I mean nearly every day,... You should try to read something that is not the official propaganda. The F-35 with some of the longer range rockets do not even need to get near to the front...
RE grain production in the US... well, your graph basically proves my point. US is a grain exporter and will benefit from higher prices. It is irrelevant if Ruzzia exports more or less, the price is the price. Look, seriously, just read ANY book on economy. You need them all.
Now, it seems that you are trying to deny any and all the capabilities built during decades by US and other... it just does not fly (note the pun), those weapons are effective like hell. The US has the potential to support Ukraine up by a factor of 10. They just do not want to - for now. Putin is nearly out of escalations other than nuclear, which he would loose (not that anyone wins in that case).
Latest thing, he is now promoting conflicts in Niger and Congo. But worry not, those will be dealt with in due time, first things first.
Anyway, while you theorise, reality is making a check on all that. Ukraine is moving at a faster pace and liberating some interesting bits of territory in the Zapo front. A trust towards Tohmak has become veeeeery posible. There are also some unconfirmed data on the lack of effectiveness of the "Surovikin line" of defence - there are not enough troops to actually defend it.
Oh, BTW, you are still thinking that somehow Europe has heating problems? Have you not read anything in the last year? Europe simply buys the gas from US an Norway, the countries affected are those that cannot pay the price.
I lost your point, so interest rate in US is now 5,5% and in Russia 3% higher at 8,5% (RUB) (was 20% at one point). What's your point, that Russian economy will collapse any second now?
China has become an "even more critical" economic partner for Russia, providing it with military equipment and helping the regime evade sanctions tied to the invasion of Ukraine, U.S. intelligence officials said in a report published Thursday. Totally unexpected, right? And look at Turkey, they're at 17,5% (TRY) going on few years at these high rates and they're not even at war.
Let's get this clear: do you consider the attack on grain storages in Ukraine a terrorist act?This feels like a friend/foe, are you with/against us groupthink litmus test i.e. completely useless and devoid of reasoning. But nevertheless since you've asked nicely i'll comply. For whom Ukraine?
NO.
Long answer: to objectify this, i'd frame this as country A attacking commodity for export in country B with no loss of life. Technically, strictly by definition, I guess that should be considered terrorism, but an attack on power/heating/water infrastructure is not (because that is always claimed to have military use). That's counterproductive and takes away from the real acts of terrorism. To me, terrorism is intentional, direct, or directly linked, loss or serious injury to civilian population without military justification. e.g. bomb in a subway, airliner targeted into a building, destroying food to cause hunger... But admittedly it's a spectrum, if anything I'd argue that inverse should be true, taking out a power grid in a city is more damaging to civilians than attacking some export storage.
...
So my question for you is at what point soldiers' lives should be considered and this carnage should stop being encouraged? Or are you in the "till the last Ukrainian until Crimea" camp?
Obviously the question is not if is terrorism from Ukraine, but from the RF. It is obvious that you are judging with a double scale (and assuming that there is no loss of life when attacking a silo... a long shot). It seem that the attack on the Ministry of defence is not terrorism at all by your (veeery peculiar definition).
Anyway, the Ruzzians are well past the border of terrorism since the beginning of the war, but you are going to deny and throw dirt on any proof, so I will just let the official institutions do their research and then let you deny.
You have change your view on the effectiveness of weapons... not useless after all... good, good, ... now you just to get familiarised with the differences between and we then can talk again. A million possible escalations are possible from the Ukrainian side, simply because the aid is very limited in all aspects. Just read the Ukrainian requests to US and see how they are fine with using more and better weapons that do exist.
To your question, which I have answered in many posts - the fight has to continue until a result that guarantees a future stable peace is reached. It is no use to surrender "to save lives" if the conditions for the next invasion are setup. As of now, if Putin gets his way to a significant degree, there will be another war soon and then another...
But hey, I also have a peace plan, just like you! Until when should the RF army hold the occupied territories? Just leave and save all those lives you care so much about.
Ministry of Defense of opposing country is not a military target in your book?
US DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE LAW OF WAR MANUAL
https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/DoD%20Law%20of%20War%20Manual%20-%20June%202015%20Updated%20Dec%202016.pdfRead all of Chapter "V – The Conduct of Hostilities" has enough loopholes and exceptions to fly a fleet of aircraft through
About attacking merchant ships and prohibiting neutral vessels from entering the area
13.5.1.1 Captured Enemy Merchant Vessels – Notes on Terminology. A captured neutral or enemy merchant vessel is called a prize.
...
13.5.1.3 Destruction of Captured Enemy Merchant Vessels. When military circumstances preclude sending or taking in such vessel or aircraft for adjudication as an enemy prize, it may be destroyed after all possible measures are taken to provide for the safety of passengers and crew. 86 Documents and papers relating to the prize should be safeguarded and, if practicable, the personal effects of passengers should be saved. Every case of destruction of a captured enemy prize should be reported promptly to higher command. The destruction of neutral prizes involves similar procedures, but a more serious responsibility.
13.5.2 Attack of Enemy Merchant Vessels. Enemy merchant vessels may be made the object of attack, outside neutral territory, if they constitute a military objective. In particular, enemy merchant vessels may be attacked and destroyed by warships, either with or without prior warning, in any of the following circumstances:
• persistently refusing to stop upon being duly summoned to do so;
...
13.8.1 Belligerent Right to Establish Special Restrictions in the Immediate Area of Naval Operations. Within the immediate area or vicinity of naval operations, to ensure proper battle space management and self-defense objectives, a belligerent State may establish special restrictions upon the activities of neutral vessels and aircraft, and may prohibit altogether such vessels and aircraft from entering the area.
On attacking dams
5.13 ATTACKS ON FACILITIES , WORKS , OR INSTALLATIONS CONTAINING DANGEROUS FORCES
Certain facilities containing dangerous forces, such as dams, nuclear power plants, or facilities producing weapons of mass destruction, may constitute military objectives. There may be a number of reasons for their attack, such as denial of electric power to military sources, use of a dangerous facility (e.g., by causing release from a dam) to damage or destroy other military objectives, or to pre-empt enemy release of the dangerous forces to hamper the movement or advance of U.S. or allied forces. Attack of facilities, works, or installations containing dangerous forces, such as dams, nuclear power plants, or facilities producing weapons of mass destruction, is permissible so long as it is conducted in accordance with other applicable rules, including the rules of discrimination and proportionality.
According to US pretty much everything is a fair target. That's the problem with setting a precedent, pretty much all that RF is doing has already been done in some form by US. Although i don't believe RF has attacked a
marked and protected medical facility for half an hour killing 42 and then 11 days later rolled in that hospital with tanks, yet.
You seem to have concluded that 522 days into the conflict US/NATO are intentionally holding back the delivery of weapons preventing UA from achieving their victory, can you expand on why you believe that is done? But you still seem to hold hope that this will change at some future point in time, so much so that UA will be able to take over Crimea. Following that logic, can you opine what conclusion could be formed if those changes never materialize and the conflict is frozen roughly along the current lines?
But hey, I also have a peace plan, just like you! Until when should the RF army hold the occupied territories? Just leave and save all those lives you care so much about.If 522 days into the conflict, after RF has declared general mobilization, and the opponent did not, who also happens to outnumber RF population by 100MM, and i have doubts about intentions/sincerity of the main allies that keep RF afloat, i'd say it'd be time to fold and save the troops.
Also could you opine what probability you allocate to Biden winning US presidential elections in 2024? And how should EU leaders hedge the risk of that not happening? Regardless of the outcome in a year, the election show is about to kick off. Could this be the reason for timing restrictions on UA? And historically speaking how much US prioritized outside conflicts over internal?
Trump calls for halt in military support for Ukraine
Former president Donald Trump wants Congress to withhold military aid for Ukraine until the Biden administration cooperates with congressional investigations into the business dealings of Biden's son, Hunter. Trump, speaking at a rally Saturday in Erie, Pennsylvania, said no additional weapon shipments should be authorized until the FBI, Justice Department and Internal Revenue Service provide "every scrap of evidence" they have of possible misbehavior by Biden family members. Trump threatened Republican lawmakers who didn’t join the effort with primary challenges...
“Congress should refuse to authorize a single additional shipment of our depleted weapons stockpiles … to Ukraine until the FBI, DOJ and IRS hand over every scrap of evidence they have on the Biden crime family’s corrupt business dealings,” Trump said at the rally.
.
