05-04-2024, 07:55 AM
"Russia’s economy grew by 3.6 per cent in 2023 and is projected to expand by over 3 per cent in 2024."
Much of this success relies on the expansion of the military-industrial complex. Russia has bolstered fiscal revenues and used them to stimulate the domestic economy. Export controls have not yet resulted in decisive choke points or disruptions in supply chains.
https://twitter.com/ElbridgeColby/status...5043038349
[Quotes from the source article appear in that Twitter thread.]
An argument existed for placing international sanctions against Russian energy exports. However, that project was feasible over a ten-year timeline and was not a direct measure to end Russia's war in Ukraine.
The war in Ukraine will be decided on battlefields, with logistics and ending the patterns of static land warfare and limited counterattacks. Returning to battlefield mobility and breaking the back of enemy forces is yet to occur. Granted, a Lend-Lease arrangement would have been confined to supplying equipment and not restoring manoeuvre.
The international policymakers whose religious type belief in sanctions replaced material aid to Ukraine are outright fools. The U.S. never leveraged their commitment to supply Australia with nuclear-powered submarines against that country supplying more than token assistance to Ukraine.
Another issue is the U.S.-led sanctions regime and limited aid to Ukraine are in a policy vacuum. I don't think there is a "good outcome" from the war in Ukraine. The defeat of Russian forces in Ukraine might trigger unintended consequences. A second Russian Civil War or extreme Russian political instability would be disastrous.
Alternately, Russia returns to launch another onslaught against Ukraine after 6 - 10 years.
However, a peace deal involving Ukraine ceding territory to Russia invites further trouble. Russia would be emboldened to resume its war against NATO or make a move against the Baltic States, which are NATO members.
Moreover, none of those matters appear to influence the International community's approach to Ukraine. Threading the needle to argue for the destruction of Russian forces in Ukraine while reducing the risk of future wars would have been extremely tough but a step forward for policymakers.
Much of this success relies on the expansion of the military-industrial complex. Russia has bolstered fiscal revenues and used them to stimulate the domestic economy. Export controls have not yet resulted in decisive choke points or disruptions in supply chains.
https://twitter.com/ElbridgeColby/status...5043038349
[Quotes from the source article appear in that Twitter thread.]
An argument existed for placing international sanctions against Russian energy exports. However, that project was feasible over a ten-year timeline and was not a direct measure to end Russia's war in Ukraine.
The war in Ukraine will be decided on battlefields, with logistics and ending the patterns of static land warfare and limited counterattacks. Returning to battlefield mobility and breaking the back of enemy forces is yet to occur. Granted, a Lend-Lease arrangement would have been confined to supplying equipment and not restoring manoeuvre.
The international policymakers whose religious type belief in sanctions replaced material aid to Ukraine are outright fools. The U.S. never leveraged their commitment to supply Australia with nuclear-powered submarines against that country supplying more than token assistance to Ukraine.
Another issue is the U.S.-led sanctions regime and limited aid to Ukraine are in a policy vacuum. I don't think there is a "good outcome" from the war in Ukraine. The defeat of Russian forces in Ukraine might trigger unintended consequences. A second Russian Civil War or extreme Russian political instability would be disastrous.
Alternately, Russia returns to launch another onslaught against Ukraine after 6 - 10 years.
However, a peace deal involving Ukraine ceding territory to Russia invites further trouble. Russia would be emboldened to resume its war against NATO or make a move against the Baltic States, which are NATO members.
Moreover, none of those matters appear to influence the International community's approach to Ukraine. Threading the needle to argue for the destruction of Russian forces in Ukraine while reducing the risk of future wars would have been extremely tough but a step forward for policymakers.
