...Why are you sending me a stat that is GDP per person for Europe while talking about total GDP growth for Russia?
Are you taking the piss?
Secondly so why didn't you just give us the same data done in the same way? Why was that something you didn't address when you posted it?
Even granting your 10% versus 2%, you still haven't established who lost more because of sanctions,
considering that you've now acknowledged that the answer depends on what growth would have been without them, which is exactly the point.
But instead of estimating that, you've gone "that seems beyond improbable," therefore "the only conclusion".
Since when does your intuition eliminate every other explanation?
Since in reality if we are going to look into how an economy moves with our without sanctions, you need an estimate of what would have happened without sanctions, accounting for the war and the government spending alongside it.
Instead you've just decided what sounds plausible to you.
Since if there is one VERY common theme in war is that the Government ALWAYS become a top spender and enabler of said economy that is a war economy.
And that is the case with Russia's government which has massively increased spending, with war-related production driving much of the expansion, the Bank of Finland's October assessment explicitly describes rapidly expanding war-related sectors alongside weak growth in the broader economy[0].
So no a peaceful Russia would not enjoy 10% growth because GDP is not adjusted for what type of economy you are running.
Give me the oxford definition of War of attrition, I know you can at least do that much beyond copy-pasting manpower, because: a very kind little hint: attrition is not defined as manpower only.
Even so, why are you being so evasive about what Russia is doing? It's a very simple question, why is it hard for you to go into detail about what Russia does when it comes to: recruitment, handling of dissidents, what capacity Russia has in it's military, their budget and so on.
You've posted, and posted about Ukraine here and Ukraine there, yet always so tight lipped about Russia, why is that?
With that said:
Your jump from "Ukraine has serious manpower problems" to "Ukraine is using essentially its entire potential while Russia is barely trying" those aren't the same claim.
And even just scrutinizing your "ALL FIGHTING MEN" is wrong; Ukraine still allows those bellow 1-822 to travel outside the country and only those above or at 25 has to serve from what I can find, so why lie?
And Russia not announcing a general mobilization doesn't establish that it's using only a small fraction of its usable military capacity.
Looking at RUSI's September analysis it describes an ongoing recruitment system involving substantial financial incentives, regional recruitment pressure and reported coercion[1].
In particular it notes that the 2022 partial-mobilization decree was never formally rescinded, Russia is sustaining recruitment while managing its financial and political costs.
Even so why is Russia so interested in seeing their own men dying in this war that they are fighting with so many hands tied behinds it's back, while also bombing daily Ukrainian civilians and even establishing "human safari" against Ukrainians?
Either Russia is using it's "mighty" army or it isn't, you keep on tapdancing around it, if you're going to argue for "basic" "facts" can you stop arguing for "lazy vibes" as you are doing?
Given that, what fraction of Russia's usable capacity are you claiming is deployed, and how did you calculate it? How many additional troops can it train, equip, supply and command, over what period? How many are replacing losses rather than expanding the force?
And if this is what you call "basic facts" then I'm sorry to tell that you're using the definition where basic is used as a negative insult and not as the definition where it's used for foundation.
Either way you really need to re-read the story of Pandora's box if that is the take away, considering you cannot phantom that starting a war that was expected to go over fast has dragged out for 4 years now soon to be 5 is the definition of Pandora's box.
And what Russia? Do you view Russian people so low that they don't even exist as a ethnicity here? Or is the government of Russia the only thing that matters? Since that is what you're insinuating here.
And let's use your logic to the fullest: by your logic then what Israel is doing against Gaza is also fine? because they would "100% do it again".
[0]https://www.bofit.fi/en/forecasting/latest-forecast-for-russ...
[1]https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/comme...
Are you taking the piss?
Secondly so why didn't you just give us the same data done in the same way? Why was that something you didn't address when you posted it?
Even granting your 10% versus 2%, you still haven't established who lost more because of sanctions, considering that you've now acknowledged that the answer depends on what growth would have been without them, which is exactly the point.
But instead of estimating that, you've gone "that seems beyond improbable," therefore "the only conclusion".
Since when does your intuition eliminate every other explanation?
Since in reality if we are going to look into how an economy moves with our without sanctions, you need an estimate of what would have happened without sanctions, accounting for the war and the government spending alongside it.
Instead you've just decided what sounds plausible to you.
Since if there is one VERY common theme in war is that the Government ALWAYS become a top spender and enabler of said economy that is a war economy.
And that is the case with Russia's government which has massively increased spending, with war-related production driving much of the expansion, the Bank of Finland's October assessment explicitly describes rapidly expanding war-related sectors alongside weak growth in the broader economy[0].
So no a peaceful Russia would not enjoy 10% growth because GDP is not adjusted for what type of economy you are running.
Give me the oxford definition of War of attrition, I know you can at least do that much beyond copy-pasting manpower, because: a very kind little hint: attrition is not defined as manpower only.
Even so, why are you being so evasive about what Russia is doing? It's a very simple question, why is it hard for you to go into detail about what Russia does when it comes to: recruitment, handling of dissidents, what capacity Russia has in it's military, their budget and so on.
You've posted, and posted about Ukraine here and Ukraine there, yet always so tight lipped about Russia, why is that?
With that said:
Your jump from "Ukraine has serious manpower problems" to "Ukraine is using essentially its entire potential while Russia is barely trying" those aren't the same claim.
And even just scrutinizing your "ALL FIGHTING MEN" is wrong; Ukraine still allows those bellow 1-822 to travel outside the country and only those above or at 25 has to serve from what I can find, so why lie?
And Russia not announcing a general mobilization doesn't establish that it's using only a small fraction of its usable military capacity.
Looking at RUSI's September analysis it describes an ongoing recruitment system involving substantial financial incentives, regional recruitment pressure and reported coercion[1].
In particular it notes that the 2022 partial-mobilization decree was never formally rescinded, Russia is sustaining recruitment while managing its financial and political costs.
Even so why is Russia so interested in seeing their own men dying in this war that they are fighting with so many hands tied behinds it's back, while also bombing daily Ukrainian civilians and even establishing "human safari" against Ukrainians?
Either Russia is using it's "mighty" army or it isn't, you keep on tapdancing around it, if you're going to argue for "basic" "facts" can you stop arguing for "lazy vibes" as you are doing?
Given that, what fraction of Russia's usable capacity are you claiming is deployed, and how did you calculate it? How many additional troops can it train, equip, supply and command, over what period? How many are replacing losses rather than expanding the force?
And if this is what you call "basic facts" then I'm sorry to tell that you're using the definition where basic is used as a negative insult and not as the definition where it's used for foundation.
Either way you really need to re-read the story of Pandora's box if that is the take away, considering you cannot phantom that starting a war that was expected to go over fast has dragged out for 4 years now soon to be 5 is the definition of Pandora's box.
And what Russia? Do you view Russian people so low that they don't even exist as a ethnicity here? Or is the government of Russia the only thing that matters? Since that is what you're insinuating here.
And let's use your logic to the fullest: by your logic then what Israel is doing against Gaza is also fine? because they would "100% do it again".
[0]https://www.bofit.fi/en/forecasting/latest-forecast-for-russ...
[1]https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/comme...