Again with these assertions and no actual substance.
"regularly mocked" this is news to me? By whom? Russia? Who threatens nuclear war every 5 seconds against any state it deems as a meanie?
Even then, how is mocking = effective? Are vibes how we determine economics?
Secondly: you already acknowledge that one graph is seasonally adjusted and the other isn't.
Which makes very little sense given the little context you give.
But even putting that aside, how do those graphs establish that sanctions hurt the West more than Russia? Russia's GDP went up, therefore sanctions didn't hurt it? What? Which self-respecting economist would ever make such a bizarre simplification of how an economy works?
Since you know an economy can grow and still be worse off than it would've been without sanctions, those aren't mutually exclusive.
And yes Germany has been making some very questionable if not downright stupid decisions policy and economically speaking for about 15 years now one being aligning itself with Russia has of course caused huge economic problems for themselves, just look at Hungary and Serbia for similar examples.
Even so: Germany having a shit time doesn't magically tell you how much of that came from sanctions rather than energy dependence, the war itself or its own economic problems. Where have you actually separated those things instead of just pointing at a graph and going "see, sanctions"?
Plus why are you treating Germany as "the West"? Where's the comparison with Sweden, Poland or the rest of Europe? And I'm not asking whether their GDP went up or down.
I'm asking where you've demonstrated that the damage caused by sanctions was greater for them than for Russia, since that's your claim, isn't it?
And Russia is winning because no general mobilization?
How?
Since: "Hasn't done it" doesn't automatically mean "doesn't need to.", unless you think that not getting medicine for an illness means you don't need it.
Even so how are you ruling out the costs, logistical problems or political consequences of doing it?
Exactly where's the evidence that this means Russia has a load of usable military capacity sitting around rather than capacity that's expensive or difficult to put into the field?
What is "inch forward" here? How much territory, over what period, at what cost, and does it actually put Ukraine in a significantly worse military position?
And how is starting a war not opening Pandora's Box? Or you think it was smart by Nazi Germany to start WW1 and WW2?
"regularly mocked" this is news to me? By whom? Russia? Who threatens nuclear war every 5 seconds against any state it deems as a meanie?
Even then, how is mocking = effective? Are vibes how we determine economics?
Secondly: you already acknowledge that one graph is seasonally adjusted and the other isn't.
Which makes very little sense given the little context you give.
But even putting that aside, how do those graphs establish that sanctions hurt the West more than Russia? Russia's GDP went up, therefore sanctions didn't hurt it? What? Which self-respecting economist would ever make such a bizarre simplification of how an economy works? Since you know an economy can grow and still be worse off than it would've been without sanctions, those aren't mutually exclusive.
And yes Germany has been making some very questionable if not downright stupid decisions policy and economically speaking for about 15 years now one being aligning itself with Russia has of course caused huge economic problems for themselves, just look at Hungary and Serbia for similar examples.
Even so: Germany having a shit time doesn't magically tell you how much of that came from sanctions rather than energy dependence, the war itself or its own economic problems. Where have you actually separated those things instead of just pointing at a graph and going "see, sanctions"?
Plus why are you treating Germany as "the West"? Where's the comparison with Sweden, Poland or the rest of Europe? And I'm not asking whether their GDP went up or down.
I'm asking where you've demonstrated that the damage caused by sanctions was greater for them than for Russia, since that's your claim, isn't it?
And Russia is winning because no general mobilization? How? Since: "Hasn't done it" doesn't automatically mean "doesn't need to.", unless you think that not getting medicine for an illness means you don't need it.
Even so how are you ruling out the costs, logistical problems or political consequences of doing it?
Exactly where's the evidence that this means Russia has a load of usable military capacity sitting around rather than capacity that's expensive or difficult to put into the field?
What is "inch forward" here? How much territory, over what period, at what cost, and does it actually put Ukraine in a significantly worse military position?
And how is starting a war not opening Pandora's Box? Or you think it was smart by Nazi Germany to start WW1 and WW2?