Boeing is essentially cutting off the supply line for spare parts.
Aeroflot’s fleet consists of 187 aircraft—and 177 of those are Boeings or Airbuses, which is about 94.6% of their lineup. They only have 10 Sukhoi-100s to show for it. The problem? Not a single domestic plane they currently own—or even have planned—is actually capable of handling long-haul flights.
Give it a few months, and those direct routes from Washington, D.C. to Vladivostok are going to vanish—unless they decide to start cannibalizing their own planes just to keep things moving.
So, this is what sanctions actually look like in practice... And honestly, it’s going to keep rolling in like this—just a constant stream of small, medium, and massive headaches—until Putin's regime finally collapses. Russia will continue to bleed out, while the West just finds ways to adapt.
bluemason3 said:The reason nobody attacks them directly is because they have nukes. But let’s be clear: nuclear weapons are a tool for deterrence through mutually assured destruction, not a way to project power when you're fighting a war outside your own borders.
If someone starts threatening the first aggressive use of a nuke, they’re opening a Pandora's box. The other side isn't just going to back down easily.
There are a lot of variables at play here.
When we talk about spheres of influence, we're talking about strength—something that looks pretty questionable regarding Russia, especially on the economic front. Honestly, the US having significant influence in our backyard near Italy is probably a good thing for us. 😁
All this talk about NATO promises is just naive propaganda. It's completely irrelevant whether some American politician from three generations ago made a vague promise to someone, somewhere. It doesn't matter.
Whether you call it hypocrisy or not, the difference between what's happening in the Middle East and what's happening here is that this is in our own neighborhood. Europe sees a direct threat to its stability, and there's a long history of aggressive Russian politics involved. Even the USA isn't the deciding factor here. What really changed compared to previous Russian military moves is how unexpectedly unified Europe became. They're facing a serious threat on their own soil, and I doubt Putin helped by making those imperialist, Soviet-nostalgic comments. The USA isn't doing anything fundamentally different than before; it was Europe that stepped up, which in turn allowed the USA to push for stronger sanctions.
The USA hasn't fought wars on its own borders in a long time. Certainly not in Canada, and definitely not in Mexico in modern times, even if there have been some low-key activities there. The US prefers using the carrot, while Russia prefers the stick. You can't really be surprised that nobody wants to be in that dictator's "sphere of influence."
As for neutrality and NATO, that's just propaganda fodder, not Russia's only motivation. The gas fields around Crimea, which could allow Ukraine to break the Russian monopoly on the European market, are a much bigger issue than NATO—especially since Russia destabilized the region in 2014, making NATO entry impossible anyway.
That whole mantra about the Finnish model exists because it sounds better for propaganda to say "we're afraid of NATO" rather than admitting "we want to strip someone of their resources and, ideally, their independence, sovereignty, and even their identity." A neutral Ukraine just isn't possible; Russia won't let them dictate a policy that could wreck its own economic and strategic interests. Ukraine will either be occupied, partially occupied, a pseudo-independent satellite, or militarily strong enough to compete with Russia—which is easiest to achieve through NATO.
The problem for Ukraine is that it might be too late now to get Crimea back, but they should have raced to join NATO, just like the smart folks in the Baltic states did as soon as they gained independence. There's simply no other way to protect their interests.
And as for the current situation? I have no clue. I'm stuck in the middle.
Emily Fox2 said:Total investments sunk into Russia have hit nearly $500 billion, and right now, there’s just no way to cash them out. ☕ https://www.fdiintelligence.com/article/80757 https://www.barrons.com/news/russia-...ry-01646136307
This coffee is excellent... though calling $500 billion "not much" is a stretch, especially since you're counting investments that have already been recouped.
Take BP, for example—they just ate a $25 billion loss from their exit in Russia.
Their stock price tumbled down to... checks notes... levels we haven't seen since early January 2022.
Carl Lee27 said:Honestly, when you look at natural gas, Russia seems to have much more breathing room for the next few years, mostly because of how Germany has been acting lately. I mean, gas prices over in Europe have basically leveled out with what they're paying in Japan, Taiwan, or China... so now the whole thing really boils down to how much LNG is actually available, and from what I can see globally, there should be plenty coming toward Europe. Just look at the US—within a few years, once you factor in a realistic 65-70% utilization rate for the terminals, the US will have enough export capacity to cover most of what used to come from Russia into Europe. It all comes down to how fast Europe can actually get its act together and do its part.
As for everything else, I honestly think it’s almost laughable to even try and compare the West to Russia. I mean, seriously, who holds the upper hand? Is it the most open, free, and therefore by far the wealthiest and most advanced societies ever known... or is it just one autocratic society that draws all its strength and wealth from primary industries and squeezing resources out of the ground? To put it simply, the West could literally build a wall against Russia tomorrow just by throwing mountains of cash at it.
It sounds 😁 impressive, but that's just the reality. If we hadn't dealt with that unprecedented GDP crash in the West during the pandemic—which was unlike anything we'd seen in decades—I might actually understand the hesitation. But right now? The West can handle a mild or even moderate recession, whereas one of those would absolutely devastate Russia.
The stock market is irrelevant at this point—it’s basically a done deal—so you should really be watching the lines outside the banks when regular folks start trying to pull their cash out...
Look, I’ve got nothing to do with your little grievance—I'm not some moderator over at Ford or anything—and honestly, I can't even find a single instance of us posting in the same thread over the last year 🤔
Yeah... it’s just one thing after another at this point. A good chunk of it got wiped out—and honestly, some people finally got what was coming to them.
All sorted. By the way, there's really no need to start a whole new thread on the main board if it’s been less than 24 hours since the issue popped up—and in this case, it had only been a few hours anyway. The mods aren't always hovering over their keyboards, and let's be honest, the only one actually reading the "skeptical perspective" section is Ariana Grande, so don't expect lightning-fast replies on that subforum.
velvetranger4 said:I don't really follow this guy because his estimates are always way higher than the official data. To be fair, though, ever since Omicron arrived, both politicians and health officials have been citing numbers that are significantly higher than what's officially confirmed.
I'm with you on the Omicron thing, but he made it clear right away that it's about 4 or 5 times more infectious than Delta or those earlier strains.
Samuel Turner2 said:What kind of ads are you talking about? The guy is a doctor based in the USA and he consistently puts out updates on Corona in the States and everywhere else. In this video, he’s breaking down Omicron and some of the latest studies. I honestly don't see what the big deal is...
I don't have a major problem with the video link itself, but a quick summary would be helpful.
I listened to a few minutes of it, and it seems he's taking it as a fact that infections in the USA are 4-5 times higher than the official case numbers. That sounds pretty hard to swallow to me—given how much testing goes on in the US, that would imply almost everyone there has already had it.
fadedrider17 said:Is the pandemic officially over, or what?
Not quite entirely—the whole world still needs to work through it (I'm genuinely curious to see how China handles their side of things), but in Europe, we might be getting there...
We're likely looking at a pretty nasty wave—not necessarily in scale, just because everyone tends to catch it all at once—but it should be over quick. Honestly, I still have a feeling we'll be through the worst of it by March 15th.
Omicron is definitely a milder beast when it comes to reinfections—in fact, looking at South Africa, it seems like everyone is either catching it again or experiencing vaccine breakthroughs... It’s pretty clear South Africa was already sitting on herd immunity by that point.
Sure, you're thinking about it, but given this reinfection rate—and what looks like an inherently higher level of contagiousness—we’re looking at needing over 90%, not just 70-80%... which doesn't really change the big picture anyway, it just means we won't be totally clear by March 15th, but maybe by April 15th instead. 🕺
Nine different antibody treatments—including Trump’s so-called "wonder drug" Remdesivir—are basically useless against Omicron... Great. It might slightly nudge the IFR (for those without immunity—whether from vaccines, previous infection, or both), but that's about it.
