Sanctions on Russia

Arthur Miller7 said:So, you're one of those guys who's against the sanctions, right? Just being direct here—not even about your specific post—but what exactly was supposed to happen? What was the move when Putin has that "power" to just squeeze us whenever he feels like it?

And honestly, I don't think this is off-topic at all since we're talking about sanctions, and that's why we're even here—to swap ideas. It gets annoying when people don't have a real answer, so they just dodge the subject and start bringing up missiles, labs, NATO, and all that other nonsense.

It's easy to say that when you clearly haven't read my recent posts.
From my very first post on this thread—not acting like some general after the war is already over, but looking at things in real-time, like how Mario Draghi would approach it—my stance remains the same: smart sanctions.
The goal is to make sure the aggressor makes less money from gas and oil, rather than making the same amount or even more than before the sanctions hit (the latest projections show a +38% y/y increase in dollars for 2022).

We need to take down Putin, not ourselves.
Lock in electricity prices a year in advance:

Noah Martin2 said:I addressed the actual drop in production—whether caused by their own policy choices or sanctions—based on data available to the public that impacts GDP projections, yet you keep pivoting back to real GDP. We don't have access to their internal metrics because they don't release them. If you were personally sent those figures, feel free to share them with us.
How do you explain the idea that price may or may not affect the GDP of a nation that has tied its entire development solely to hydrocarbon exports?

My friend, I think you might have misread the intent behind my previous posts...

I wasn't actually trying to provide a deep dive into the current situation in Russia itself, but rather I was pointing out that the math you're performing feels a bit like voodoo magic, and frankly, it’s going to remain voodoo magic whether those figures you're playing with are accurate to eleven decimal places or just complete fabrications coming out of Russia...

If you're asking specifically about that 4% drop figure, even though I haven't personally spent time presenting or dissecting that particular number here, I can certainly point you toward the fact that it was recently released regarding the second quarter, and you can find plenty of articles covering it all over the mainstream American news sites if you feel like doing some reading and analysis...

quietviper0 said:So, if I’m following your logic correctly: you took a percentage of growth or decline that applies specifically to real GDP, applied it to an entirely different metric—nominal GDP—then adjusted it for a specific currency, and now you’re claiming that this specific calculation somehow gives us a completely different eleventh parameter: purchasing power? 🙏

Let me walk through your example...

If we sell 100 barrels of oil at $5 each, we’ll end up having to take out loans just to cover our extraction costs and keep our heads above water... By taking on debt, we reduce available capital, the cost of capital rises, and investments dry up everywhere...
Total output: 100 barrels of oil.

But, if we sell those 100 barrels at $50 each, we have enough for bread, we pay some customs to the state, we don't have to dip into our savings just to survive, and thanks to taxes, we’ve funded the salary of a clerk at the local DMV who also gets to buy bread...
Total output: 100 barrels of oil, two loaves of bread, and a few investments from the rest of the population...

Now, if we sell those 100 barrels at $500 each, besides the bread, we’re buying lamb, we’re buying cars, we’re investing heavily, the government collects massive tax revenue, politicians are busy arguing over budget cuts, and we’ve created ten new jobs for clerks at the DMV...
Total output: 100 barrels of oil, plenty of bread, various investments, some lamb, a new car, a built oil reservoir, and maybe 10 miles of newly paved highway...

Yes, price can influence things (though it doesn't always have to), but the impact is indirect, and price isn't factored into real GDP... And real GDP is the only thing used to compare economic health over time...
It doesn't necessarily have to drive growth because you might not need to invest or indulge in luxury... It also might not work because inflation could simply eat up all your price gains, leaving you right back where you started with just enough for bread, despite selling at 10x the price... Or perhaps the appreciation of your currency will swallow the value of your exported oil, and you'll find you can still only afford bread in your own local currency...

And no, we haven't gained any insight into purchasing power from this... That’s something the experts will measure using entirely different methods...

Anyway, you go ahead and keep playing with your numbers, I won't bother you anymore...

In every single post, you insist that price isn't part of real GDP. Obviously, price *is* included in GDP; it's a core component. We don't measure the value of exported oil in terms of eggs. When calculating real GDP, a fixed price is applied across the entire period.
Essentially, you calculate the Q2 GDP and apply current oil and gas prices to the previous period.
If gas was five times cheaper at the start of the period, it doesn't matter—we calculate that past gas export at today's price. In real GDP, price is factored out, but the headache is deciding which price to use, especially when prices are swinging wildly.
Because of that, deflation inevitably pumps up real GDP numbers significantly.
I'll say it again: nominal GDP is the indicator of purchasing power, not real GDP.

We’re all just sitting around waiting for tourist visas to be scrapped entirely. More and more countries are getting on board with the idea. Now we just need that whole massive sham over in Germany to finally grow some backbone and make it happen. Tick tock.

Paul Sanders5 said:We’re all just sitting around waiting for tourist visas to be scrapped entirely. More and more countries are getting on board with the idea. Now we just need that whole massive sham over in Germany to finally grow some backbone and make it happen. Tick tock.

It feels like they've started desperately scraping the bottom of the barrel 😁

Germany, Canada, Greece, and Cyprus are going to be the ones blocking it.

Nathan Thomas12 said:In every single post, you insist that price isn't part of real GDP. Obviously, price *is* included in GDP; it's a core component. We don't measure the value of exported oil in terms of eggs. When calculating real GDP, a fixed price is applied across the entire period.
Essentially, you calculate the Q2 GDP and apply current oil and gas prices to the previous period.
If gas was five times cheaper at the start of the period, it doesn't matter—we calculate that past gas export at today's price. In real GDP, price is factored out, but the headache is deciding which price to use, especially when prices are swinging wildly.
Because of that, deflation inevitably pumps up real GDP numbers significantly.
I'll say it again: nominal GDP is the indicator of purchasing power, not real GDP.

You really need to decide which of those bolded claims sits better with you, though I’d suggest picking the one that actually holds water...
The whole calculation process is such a dense, complicated thing, filled with tiny nuances that we simply can't—and shouldn't—try to squeeze into a few short sentences...
That wasn't the point here, though; the goal is just to make sure we aren't comparing apples to oranges, or trying to apply the percentage change of one variable directly onto another completely different one...

That blue sentence is the key part. A fixed or constant price is used. For the sake of making comparisons over time, you could pick any price—one from the beginning, one from the middle, or even the most recent one. Or, to put it more simply: the specific price itself doesn't actually matter...

Nathan Thomas12 said:In every single post, you insist that price isn't part of real GDP. Obviously, price *is* included in GDP; it's a core component. We don't measure the value of exported oil in terms of eggs. When calculating real GDP, a fixed price is applied across the entire period.
Essentially, you calculate the Q2 GDP and apply current oil and gas prices to the previous period.
If gas was five times cheaper at the start of the period, it doesn't matter—we calculate that past gas export at today's price. In real GDP, price is factored out, but the headache is deciding which price to use, especially when prices are swinging wildly.
Because of that, deflation inevitably pumps up real GDP numbers significantly.
I'll say it again: nominal GDP is the indicator of purchasing power, not real GDP.

It seems quite logical and straightforward to me, so I'm honestly not even sure what the purpose of posting that here is right now...
The amount of money available stays the same—prices have dropped—so the actual quantity of goods produced increases...

Nathan Thomas12 said:In every single post, you insist that price isn't part of real GDP. Obviously, price *is* included in GDP; it's a core component. We don't measure the value of exported oil in terms of eggs. When calculating real GDP, a fixed price is applied across the entire period.
Essentially, you calculate the Q2 GDP and apply current oil and gas prices to the previous period.
If gas was five times cheaper at the start of the period, it doesn't matter—we calculate that past gas export at today's price. In real GDP, price is factored out, but the headache is deciding which price to use, especially when prices are swinging wildly.
Because of that, deflation inevitably pumps up real GDP numbers significantly.
I'll say it again: nominal GDP is the indicator of purchasing power, not real GDP.

Purchasing power is its own distinct parameter that gets calculated and tracked separately; I don't know if it's intuitive enough, but there is an actual metric specifically called "purchasing power"...

quietviper0 said:You really need to decide which of those bolded claims sits better with you, though I’d suggest picking the one that actually holds water...
The whole calculation process is such a dense, complicated thing, filled with tiny nuances that we simply can't—and shouldn't—try to squeeze into a few short sentences...
That wasn't the point here, though; the goal is just to make sure we aren't comparing apples to oranges, or trying to apply the percentage change of one variable directly onto another completely different one...

That blue sentence is the key part. A fixed or constant price is used. For the sake of making comparisons over time, you could pick any price—one from the beginning, one from the middle, or even the most recent one. Or, to put it more simply: the specific price itself doesn't actually matter...

It seems quite logical and straightforward to me, so I'm honestly not even sure what the purpose of posting that here is right now...
The amount of money available stays the same—prices have dropped—so the actual quantity of goods produced increases...

Purchasing power is its own distinct parameter that gets calculated and tracked separately; I don't know if it's intuitive enough, but there is an actual metric specifically called "purchasing power"...

Both bolded points are true, but you're stripping them of context. Real GDP uses fixed prices so price fluctuations don't mess with the data. Makes sense, right?
But you can end up with a totally distorted picture. Say me and another guy work at ExxonMobil producing oil—if oil starts at $1 a barrel and ends at $100, using that $100 price to calculate real GDP would give you a garbage result.

Brenda Murphy3 said:The guy talking about irony is the same one spouting absolute nonsense about NATO servers, claiming Chinese cars are going to wipe out the European Union and Japanese brands, and so on and so forth...

Seriously, man, if that's the case, then your entire body of work regarding Russia is just one big irony. If that's how you feel—my bad, I apologize.🙂

Honestly, what kind of bubble are you living in if you aren't watching how fast China is moving in the auto industry?

We’ve covered the server stuff plenty—concluded that NATO definitely has its hands in it (DNS resolution stuff).
But hey, it’s easy to play the ignoramus who didn't bother following the thread and just spouts nonsense because they fell for some gaslighting... 🙂

Donna Harris11 said:It feels like they've started desperately scraping the bottom of the barrel 😁

Germany, Canada, Greece, and Cyprus are going to be the ones blocking it.

They’ll cook something up eventually, but it'll be watered down. Like, visa fees go up, more questions get asked, or wait times get longer.

How much can war costs actually swing the GDP?
For instance, you could claim you're burning through 50k shells a day straight from the stockpile, slap an arbitrary price tag of several thousand dollars on each, inflate the transport costs per mile to ridiculous levels, and count "destroyed" tanks at their full replacement value. Suddenly, you've manufactured a massive spike in GDP just by playing the numbers.
Look, I’m no economist, so take this as a genuine question.

Nathan Thomas12 said:Both bolded points are true, but you're stripping them of context. Real GDP uses fixed prices so price fluctuations don't mess with the data. Makes sense, right?
But you can end up with a totally distorted picture. Say me and another guy work at ExxonMobil producing oil—if oil starts at $1 a barrel and ends at $100, using that $100 price to calculate real GDP would give you a garbage result.

Those are minor technicalities, really... We are still quite a long way from where we started originally...

The real question I have for you is this: are you still sticking to that calculation of yours, where you claimed the nominal GDP expressed in local currency dropped by 30 or 40 percent, simply because you arrived at that number by taking a percentage from the real GDP relative to the nominal GDP in a foreign currency and then converting it back to the domestic one?

feralhawk45 said:How much can war costs actually swing the GDP?
For instance, you could claim you're burning through 50k shells a day straight from the stockpile, slap an arbitrary price tag of several thousand dollars on each, inflate the transport costs per mile to ridiculous levels, and count "destroyed" tanks at their full replacement value. Suddenly, you've manufactured a massive spike in GDP just by playing the numbers.
Look, I’m no economist, so take this as a genuine question.

Now, if you manufacture 50,000 brand-new shells, that definitely counts toward the GDP...
But just dusting off 50,000 old shells from a warehouse? That doesn't count at all, since that value was already baked into the GDP a long time ago...

Bryan Booth82 said:For heaven's sake, can we please just pick a side and stick to it? You either believe that these sanctions actually have teeth and produce a tangible effect, or you don't. It can't be both! Are we actually seeing results here, or is this all just performative political theater designed to make us feel better while nothing changes on the ground? Make up your minds!
You’re telling me I’m contradicting myself across two different posts? Really? Are we actually doing this right now? It's funny how people jump to conclusions when they think they've caught someone in a slip-up, but let's be clear: nuance isn't a contradiction. If you look closely—and I mean *really* look—you'll see that my points evolve as the context changes. How can you claim I'm saying opposite things when the entire framework of the argument has shifted? Is it possible you're just reading the surface level without grasping the deeper logic I'm laying out?🤔
As far as I can tell, absolutely nobody—not one single soul among those responsible for pulling the trigger on these sanctions—has ever actually cited what you’re calling the "initial idea." Everything you're claiming is nothing more than pure, unadulterated speculation on your part. Are we really supposed to believe this is based on fact? It isn't. It's just your own guesswork!
Correct me if I'm wrong.

The entire point of these sanctions is to punish Russia for its unprovoked aggression against Ukraine. Let’s be clear about that. This isn't some novel concept or a modern invention; economic warfare and punitive measures like these have been used throughout human history to hold aggressors accountable. Why should we act as if this is unprecedented? It's simply a tool in the arsenal of international diplomacy, used whenever a nation decides to cross the line.
Of course, Russia will go ahead and claim that sanctions aren't doing a damn thing to them and that they aren't feeling any of the heat. How else are they supposed to save face?
Honestly, I’d be more surprised if it actually turned out any other way.

Let’s be real for a second—if you apply even a shred of common sense to this situation, you have to realize that sanctions and the total isolation of a nation are blunt instruments that hit every single country in their crosshairs. It isn't just some theoretical political move; it has massive, tangible consequences. Just look at the historical precedent! We have seen how devastating this can be for the economies of places like Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, South Korea, and Iraq. When you decide to cut a country off from the global stage, you aren't just making a point; you are triggering a domino effect of economic hardship that ripples through every level of society. Is anyone actually stopping to consider the long-term fallout?
To suggest that sanctions will somehow trigger the collapse of a Putin-esque regime, or act as some magic wand to end this war, is nothing short of delusional. It’s honestly just as naive as claiming that these sanctions aren't doing a single thing to hurt the Russian economy. Are we really still playing this game?
War is an incredibly expensive mess, isn't it? And let’s be honest—adding massive sanctions on top of that chaos just makes the whole damn thing even more outrageously pricey. Is anyone actually surprised at how much this is driving everything up?
When the money runs dry—and let’s be honest, it always does eventually—the side that hits a financial wall first is going to start looking for an exit strategy. It’s simple math, isn't it? You can talk about ideology, territory, or glory all you want, but once the coffers are empty and the funding evaporates, the conversation changes instantly. Who stays in a fight when they can no longer afford to pay the bill? Not them. They’ll be scrambling for any possible way out.
On one side, you have a deeply isolated Russia, struggling to keep its economy afloat while suffocating under a mountain of sanctions. On the other hand, you have Ukraine, bolstered by an endless stream of support from the West and the massive, deep-pocketed economies that back them up. How can anyone expect a fair fight when the scales are tipped so drastically in one direction?
Whose is actually bigger? Honestly, we’ll just have to wait and see who comes out on top in the end.
LP? Seriously? Is that really all we're going to get here? A two-letter acronym tossed out like it’s some profound insight? If you're trying to kick off a discussion about liquidity providers or perhaps some specific market positioning, you might want to actually put some meat on those bones first! How am I supposed to engage with a vacuum? Are we talking about institutional players, or are you just testing to see if anyone is even awake at this hour? Give us some context! Give us a reason to care! We can't have meaningful discourse if we're communicating in shorthand. Let's see some actual substance next time, shall we?

It's not contradictory at all. They definitely hit the Russian standard of living, but they aren't stopping the war. Plus, you totally slept through all the major Presidents and Prime Ministers saying they hoped sanctions would shake Russia enough to drag them back to the negotiating table.

Bryan Booth82 said:For heaven's sake, can we please just pick a side and stick to it? You either believe that these sanctions actually have teeth and produce a tangible effect, or you don't. It can't be both! Are we actually seeing results here, or is this all just performative political theater designed to make us feel better while nothing changes on the ground? Make up your minds!
You’re telling me I’m contradicting myself across two different posts? Really? Are we actually doing this right now? It's funny how people jump to conclusions when they think they've caught someone in a slip-up, but let's be clear: nuance isn't a contradiction. If you look closely—and I mean *really* look—you'll see that my points evolve as the context changes. How can you claim I'm saying opposite things when the entire framework of the argument has shifted? Is it possible you're just reading the surface level without grasping the deeper logic I'm laying out?🤔
As far as I can tell, absolutely nobody—not one single soul among those responsible for pulling the trigger on these sanctions—has ever actually cited what you’re calling the "initial idea." Everything you're claiming is nothing more than pure, unadulterated speculation on your part. Are we really supposed to believe this is based on fact? It isn't. It's just your own guesswork!
Correct me if I'm wrong.

The entire point of these sanctions is to punish Russia for its unprovoked aggression against Ukraine. Let’s be clear about that. This isn't some novel concept or a modern invention; economic warfare and punitive measures like these have been used throughout human history to hold aggressors accountable. Why should we act as if this is unprecedented? It's simply a tool in the arsenal of international diplomacy, used whenever a nation decides to cross the line.
Of course, Russia will go ahead and claim that sanctions aren't doing a damn thing to them and that they aren't feeling any of the heat. How else are they supposed to save face?
Honestly, I’d be more surprised if it actually turned out any other way.

Let’s be real for a second—if you apply even a shred of common sense to this situation, you have to realize that sanctions and the total isolation of a nation are blunt instruments that hit every single country in their crosshairs. It isn't just some theoretical political move; it has massive, tangible consequences. Just look at the historical precedent! We have seen how devastating this can be for the economies of places like Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, South Korea, and Iraq. When you decide to cut a country off from the global stage, you aren't just making a point; you are triggering a domino effect of economic hardship that ripples through every level of society. Is anyone actually stopping to consider the long-term fallout?
To suggest that sanctions will somehow trigger the collapse of a Putin-esque regime, or act as some magic wand to end this war, is nothing short of delusional. It’s honestly just as naive as claiming that these sanctions aren't doing a single thing to hurt the Russian economy. Are we really still playing this game?
War is an incredibly expensive mess, isn't it? And let’s be honest—adding massive sanctions on top of that chaos just makes the whole damn thing even more outrageously pricey. Is anyone actually surprised at how much this is driving everything up?
When the money runs dry—and let’s be honest, it always does eventually—the side that hits a financial wall first is going to start looking for an exit strategy. It’s simple math, isn't it? You can talk about ideology, territory, or glory all you want, but once the coffers are empty and the funding evaporates, the conversation changes instantly. Who stays in a fight when they can no longer afford to pay the bill? Not them. They’ll be scrambling for any possible way out.
On one side, you have a deeply isolated Russia, struggling to keep its economy afloat while suffocating under a mountain of sanctions. On the other hand, you have Ukraine, bolstered by an endless stream of support from the West and the massive, deep-pocketed economies that back them up. How can anyone expect a fair fight when the scales are tipped so drastically in one direction?
Whose is actually bigger? Honestly, we’ll just have to wait and see who comes out on top in the end.
LP? Seriously? Is that really all we're going to get here? A two-letter acronym tossed out like it’s some profound insight? If you're trying to kick off a discussion about liquidity providers or perhaps some specific market positioning, you might want to actually put some meat on those bones first! How am I supposed to engage with a vacuum? Are we talking about institutional players, or are you just testing to see if anyone is even awake at this hour? Give us some context! Give us a reason to care! We can't have meaningful discourse if we're communicating in shorthand. Let's see some actual substance next time, shall we?

Obviously they aren't, but their effectiveness is super questionable. Cuba was under sanctions for 50 years—unfair ones, too, for no real reason—and it didn't cause a revolution. It just left the people broke.

And Russia isn't alone at all—they've got China on their side. Look, I'm for Ukraine in this war too—obviously, because they were attacked for no reason and their land is being torn apart—but I'm not blind to the reality here.

Larry Fox5 said:Let’s be real here—so far, these sanctions aren't doing a damn thing. We're talking six months in already...
The whole grand plan was that the sanctions would trigger a revolt from the American elite—you know, those oligarchs with their frozen bank accounts everywhere—and then eventually the public would follow suit.
The idea was that a critical mass would finally form and actually kick Putin out of power. But instead? His grip just tightened through pure terror, and that whole theory has completely fallen apart.

At this rate, this miserable status quo and this endless, drawn-out war will probably drag on until he dies—because there is zero chance he’s ever just stepping down on his own...

As for the oligarchs, they seem to value their lives more than their bank accounts for now. They aren't going to lead the charge; they’ll likely just scramble to kiss the boots of whoever takes over once the current leader finally falls. But someone actually has to pull him down, and that remains the most dangerous, high-stakes gamble in the game. So far, nobody in that circle is brave enough to take the risk. It doesn't pay off yet. Any organized resistance against the regime is virtually impossible because the entire system is riddled with informants. And without organization, there is no change.

Larry Fox5 said:It's not contradictory at all. They definitely hit the Russian standard of living, but they aren't stopping the war. Plus, you totally slept through all the major Presidents and Prime Ministers saying they hoped sanctions would shake Russia enough to drag them back to the negotiating table.

Obviously they aren't, but their effectiveness is super questionable. Cuba was under sanctions for 50 years—unfair ones, too, for no real reason—and it didn't cause a revolution. It just left the people broke.

And Russia isn't alone at all—they've got China on their side. Look, I'm for Ukraine in this war too—obviously, because they were attacked for no reason and their land is being torn apart—but I'm not blind to the reality here.

Honestly, I don't think anyone actually expected sanctions to just topple Putin. That was probably more of a pipe dream floating around the West—wishful thinking, not a realistic expectation. It feels like a narrative pro-Russian trolls are pushing online to try and make the whole sanction effort look like a total failure.

If the sanctions were truly toothless, the Russians wouldn't be begging to have them lifted every single time peace talks or concessions come up.

Even when it came to getting Ukrainian grain exported, they were asking for their own grain export sanctions and fertilizer sanctions to be lifted too.

Right now, the biggest sting for Russia is the ban on semiconductors and other high-tech gear (you can actually see a noticeable dip in the number of Iskanders and Calibers being fired compared to when the war first kicked off).

The big hits on oil and gas haven't even fully kicked in yet; those start hitting properly on January 1st, 2023. Once you add a ban on insuring Russian oil shipments via sea vessels, that’s where we might see real damage, because Western insurance companies basically hold a total monopoly on that sector.

The Russians have fallen deep into the sunk cost fallacy in Ukraine, so expecting them to act rationally at this point is probably a lost cause.

Chaos in the coop

Turkey tells companies doing business with Russia: Don't sweat those US sanctions

The suicidal European Union basically just handed Turkey a way to cash in on these sanctions

quietviper0 said:Those are minor technicalities, really... We are still quite a long way from where we started originally...

The real question I have for you is this: are you still sticking to that calculation of yours, where you claimed the nominal GDP expressed in local currency dropped by 30 or 40 percent, simply because you arrived at that number by taking a percentage from the real GDP relative to the nominal GDP in a foreign currency and then converting it back to the domestic one?

Now, if you manufacture 50,000 brand-new shells, that definitely counts toward the GDP...
But just dusting off 50,000 old shells from a warehouse? That doesn't count at all, since that value was already baked into the GDP a long time ago...

We can argue about this until tomorrow, but honestly, I don't trust Russian data at all.
For years leading up to the invasion, they were pumping out monthly stats like crazy just to go silent once the war actually hit. Then suddenly, they claim GDP only dipped by 4%.
At this point, if you want to believe the Russians, fine—but I'm not buying it. If they announced GDP was skyrocketing, maybe then you'd believe them.
A country that blocks people from exchanging cash, stops foreigners from selling securities, and claws back 80% of exporters' foreign currency isn't going to give us accurate numbers. It's just pure propaganda, nothing more.

Nathan Thomas12 said:We can argue about this until tomorrow, but honestly, I don't trust Russian data at all.
For years leading up to the invasion, they were pumping out monthly stats like crazy just to go silent once the war actually hit. Then suddenly, they claim GDP only dipped by 4%.
At this point, if you want to believe the Russians, fine—but I'm not buying it. If they announced GDP was skyrocketing, maybe then you'd believe them.
A country that blocks people from exchanging cash, stops foreigners from selling securities, and claws back 80% of exporters' foreign currency isn't going to give us accurate numbers. It's just pure propaganda, nothing more.

The question was actually quite straightforward—are you still sticking to your original calculations? A simple "yes" or "no" would have done the trick...

Nathan Thomas12 said:We can argue about this until tomorrow, but honestly, I don't trust Russian data at all.
For years leading up to the invasion, they were pumping out monthly stats like crazy just to go silent once the war actually hit. Then suddenly, they claim GDP only dipped by 4%.
At this point, if you want to believe the Russians, fine—but I'm not buying it. If they announced GDP was skyrocketing, maybe then you'd believe them.
A country that blocks people from exchanging cash, stops foreigners from selling securities, and claws back 80% of exporters' foreign currency isn't going to give us accurate numbers. It's just pure propaganda, nothing more.

I wonder how many messages really had to fly back and forth before we finally reached the first few labels?
I'm both surprised and, frankly, a little offended...🙂

Larry Fox5 said:Let’s be real here—so far, these sanctions aren't doing a damn thing. We're talking six months in already...
The whole grand plan was that the sanctions would trigger a revolt from the American elite—you know, those oligarchs with their frozen bank accounts everywhere—and then eventually the public would follow suit.
The idea was that a critical mass would finally form and actually kick Putin out of power. But instead? His grip just tightened through pure terror, and that whole theory has completely fallen apart.

At this rate, this miserable status quo and this endless, drawn-out war will probably drag on until he dies—because there is zero chance he’s ever just stepping down on his own...

Sanctions are having a negligible impact because Russia has been prepping for this exact scenario since 2014. These sanctions were slapped on haphazardly, an ad hoc mess implemented week by week without any real strategic analysis. Honestly, the only thing stupider than these sanctions was the Russian assumption that they’d march into Ukraine to flower receptions.

That notion of a "critical mass" rising up to overthrow Putin is pure Western delusion; it has nothing to do with the reality on the ground in Russia. They are under total, Stalinist-style propaganda control. Nobody is going to take him down.

Now we're stuck in a stalemate. Everyone is dependent on everyone else, trapped in a war where nobody can actually win. Americans and the Chinese are just sitting back, profiting while you people deal with the fallout...

Sanctions don't just magically fix things in six months when you're dealing with a country that's supposedly this "wealthy." Besides, it’s really just the West slapping these restrictions on them—other nations are more than happy to look the other way and keep doing business with criminals.
We’re already seeing gas being flared because nobody's buying it, which is basically the same thing as burning through unsold wheat crops.
It's just a directionless, lost economic policy at this point.
The worst part? In a few years, once things settle down in Russia and some new leadership takes over, the West won't have any trust left to actually do business there again. They've essentially lumped themselves in with Iran and North Korea.
It's a pathetic situation for everyone involved—especially for Russia, considering how insanely resource-rich they are.

Sanctions aren't going to hit all at once—give it a year, maybe eighteen months tops.

quietviper0 said:The question was actually quite straightforward—are you still sticking to your original calculations? A simple "yes" or "no" would have done the trick...

I wonder how many messages really had to fly back and forth before we finally reached the first few labels?
I'm both surprised and, frankly, a little offended...🙂

Look, I underestimated you, and I’m fine admitting my math was off.
But that doesn't change the fact that real GDP just doesn't tell the whole story if there's major deflation happening between the start and end dates.
Still, that doesn't mean a 4% drop in GDP calculations isn't plausible.
The real issue is claiming a 4% drop, because mathematically, that's impossible. If 1,000 foreign companies walked out of Russia—companies that made up 40% of the GDP—plus gas production tanks, oil production dips, exports crater, and car manufacturing drops by 97%... etc.—then a 4% figure sounds like pure propaganda to anyone with half a brain. Real GDP should be dropping in double digits.