Moscow Shoots Itself in the Foot - Interest Rate Hike will Reduce GDP & Push Moscow into Recession

Moscow going down:
-Economy
-Population
-War
-People out the window
-Currency-
Moskva warship (flagship)
-space craft


Gotta admire your discipline in discussing published Moscow economic data with a straight face. I am very happy to see this happen. It was not a failed mission, it was a 'Special Moon Collision Operation' . The last successful moon project was in Soviet times. Since then, they’ve lost a great deal of their design and engineering capability with the loss of East Germany, Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, Estonia, Czechs etc. etc.

Moscow Shoots Itself in the Foot - Interest Rate Hike will Reduce GDP & Push Moscow into Recession

 

....bless em...really sucs when a good plan goes totally f**king tits up.....

But Putin remains the master strategist.....

 

I'm not a fan of Putin, but let's not pretend that things are great over here. The next half decade is going to be a cluster **** of a trade and supply mess as the world adjusts to this new bipolar world order.

East trades with East, West trades with West.

 

...to be honest I don't think that's a bad thing? I mean from my limited viewpoint globalisation always was and (thankfully) has finally been shown to be a complete balls-up.....as we can see at the moment economies are starting to realign and relocate themselves in order to create resiliency of supply chains in light of global uncertainty....which surely must be the ultimate goal? It will take time and there will be issues over the short/medium term but it's nothing we haven't experienced before. Like you I think Putin is a total cockwomble BUT I think the tart has done the west a very very big favour in highlighting the shortcomings in "western" economic and industrial thinking.

 

Means less shipping overseas. Bad for Europe and Australia. North America is fairly rich in resources. We need to sort out relations with mexico since they are now our largest trading partner. Yet they ****ing hate us and want to join Brics.

 

I know what you mean....but I don't think you'll see an end to the volumes of trade so much...as you say bulk commodities come from where they come from so you can't change that..... but what I think you will see is that economies may will repatriate certain elements of high risk manufacturing/R&D etc (chips for example) and reducing their reliance on sole suppliers in order to de-stress the possibility of future disruption...like Germany and Gas for example....

 

I don't disagree with this. But until this reshuffling of the supply chain settles down, global economies will be taking a hit. Especially those economies which rely heavily on imports. Thankfully I think our GDP is only 10 percent reliant on imports.

 

As long as we promise not to let anyone invade Russia, Russia will be back dooring rare earths, etc.
Russia (and now China) is our incentive to keep upgrading our military tech. Without enemies, we'd still be using muskets!

 

Why would they hate us? I can't remember any US leader doing anything to anger them.

Oh, wait..

 

Looking at the current states of the world, I don't think we should be comparing foreign policies of current and previous presidents.

Mexico and america got off on a rocky start. Texas Colorado California...the drug cartels. Racism on both sides.

Mexico has disliked america long before orange man for into office.

 

Interesting. Well, I admit I'm not that familiar with Mexico and how our two countries relate. But economically we've been close through all of that time, and people visit and immigrate both ways quite a bit. I would have to think that Mexico doesn't generally hate us too much.

It's too bad we're such a big market for their illicit drugs and that they have become such a market for illicit guns in return, though. In that way we're proving to be pretty bad for each other. If Americans didn't have such an appetite and so much wealth to spend on those drugs, they wouldn't have the massive drug cartel problem that they do.

 

They were already in recession and just were lying about the data. Economists used proxies to make their own estimates and no surprises Putler has been lying.

 

Yeah they're still a little pissed off about the whole occupation of Mexico City thing.

 

Well we've invaded them more than once and literally dragged out nuts across their face before.
They disliked us so much they came about *this* close to joining the Axis.

Trump talking a lot of **** didn't help anything of course.

 

Are you sure you don't mean Central Powers? 'Axis' is WW2, and as I understand it Mexico was much better disposed to the US in the 1930s and was ultimately one of only two Latin American nations to send combat personnel to aid the Allies in WW2. WW1 was a different matter entirely.

 

No, I mean WW2.
If the German's hadn't sunk a few tankers in the Gulf of Mexico, Mexico was pretty deep in with Axis industry connections already and would've either remained neutral or become a staging ground to harry American involvement.
The US was also pretty deep in with the Axis, even during lend lease, and its a good thing the Japanese had to **** around and find out or we'd likely all be speaking German.

 

I can see Mexico as a Allied-friendly neutral, but I'd need some serious evidence that there was a real chance it would align with Germany.

Errrr, no. Sorry. Had the US not been involved as a belligerent (and I don't see a likely scenario where it is not) it was going to be STRONGLY aligned to Britain & any other allied nations. Public opinion was firmly on Britain's side as was the US political establishment. They were co-ordinating to the point where the US took ove the occupation of Iceland in 1941 to free up British forces.

The only serious points of contention in the US was how much support to give Britain & Russia & how involved the US should be overall.

 

https://www.indiatimes.com/worth/ne...llion-dollars-despite-ukraine-war-612352.html

"Russia Gains $600 Billion Despite The War..."

"Surprisingly, the US lost more wealth than any other country last year, shedding $5.9 trillion, while North America and Europe combined got $10.9 trillion poorer, UBS reported."

15 months ago a study calculated Ukraine was suffering about $4.5 billion damage to civilians infrastructure every week with a projection the country's total economic losses could total about $600 billion.

Guess who will pay that bill.

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/26/1100...t-to-rebuild-ukraine-and-who-would-pay-for-it

 

Anyone ever heard the Mexican saying that I'm told is common south of our border?

"Pity poor Mexico. So far from God. So close to the United States."

 

Nothing wrong with speaking German. Just my zwei Pfennig.

 

If we hadn't joined as a belligerent when we did the European theatre was done in a year.
Without having to fight on two fronts, the Axis would've continued to steamroll the Soviets.
Once done with the soviets, we are the next target and at that point simply wouldn't be able to stand up to both the japanese and the germans at the same time.
We were able to pull it off the way we did because we joined when we did and maximized our advantages.
Waiting would basically eclipse them, particularly since Nazi sentiment in the US wasn't exactly a low thing during the lend lease years. There was a fairly significant counter culture pushing for that ****.

 

I don't know where you get this stuff, but it is almost all wrong.

No. Not even close.

No. Germany had one shot to 'steamroll' Russia and it failed in 1941. That is why they didn't try to do it again in 1942 - before the US started fighting. Germany couldn't take Leningrad or Moscow in 1941 or 1942, which means no 'steamrolling'. Germany's 1942 offensive also failed before the US had really done much to fight Germany. By the time US involvement as a belligerent had any impact on Germany it was on the retreat in Russia.

Now you are in the realm of pure fantasy. Sounds like a scenario from a game of some sort. You clearly just don't understand the history or the mechanics of the war.

Germany would have struggled to invade Britain - something it couldn't even do in 1940 with Britan's army destroyed and Germany allied to the USSR. Yet somehow you expect them to get across an Atlantic ocean containing the Royal Navy and the USN? Even if Germany started the biggest naval build program in human history in 1942 it would take the 5 years to be able to challenge the RN/USN circa 1942....by which time both of those would have been MUCH larger. Just look at US naval tonnage built during WW2 and keep in mind production was scaled back 12 months before the end because they had so many ships already. The US built 151 aircraft carriers during WW2. Just aircraft carriers. Germany built less than 30 surface ships bigger than a minelayer. Different universes.

The US defeated Japan with about 25% of its wartime resources. There is no credible scenario where Japan does not lose.

Sorry, still wrong. America won because it had vast resources and manpower and was allied to a British Empire/Commonwealth that also had vast resources & manpower and a Soviet state that had vast resources & manpower. Provided none of those entities just decided to stop fighting they were going to prevail becaused their enemies lacked the ability to defeat them.

Sorry, wrong again. Even at it peak pro-Nazi sentiment in the US was fringe. A few prominent figures might have made a few sympathetic noises, but the idea that it posed any significant threat to the US under any circumstances is just wrong. There was a strong 'America First' movement, but they mostly wanted to keep the US out of a war, not turn America Nazi.

I don't know where you get this stuff, but get better sources. Good historians are a good place to start.

Oh, did you did up some sources on Mexico being close to going pro-German?

 

Opinions on hypothetical thought exercises of course vary, o fellow armchair general.

US involvement as a belligerent at all caused a massive shift in the logistics necessary for the shitheads to continue. They had Britain penned in and it basically was set to be pounded into rubble over time. The Blitz would've simply been done as many times as necessary and with Continental Europe under occupation and swiftly falling to collaboration rather than resistance there was no one but the Russians in the theatre to oppose the Germans. The Russians didn't fare so well without comrade winter and the Germans over extended logistically. I consider the sort of losses the Russians took before the Germans got overextended as "steamrolling". You may substitute what you feel is an appropriate term, but relying on permafrost that doesn't exist in most places to do your job for you isn't a winning strategy. The germans don't remain overextended if pearl harbor doesn't happen. Without pearl harbor I doubt we would've given much of the material aid we gave the russians post pearl harbor. We definitely upped the ante from lend lease.

I didn't say we'd get invaded immediately. There would be a pause while the axis consolidated its power around the rest of the world and we remained fairly isolationist.
After a generation or so, they'd all be little cogs in the machine having grown into it with no active power to oppose the nazis in europe and africa, etc.
We'd be missing out on a lot of the tech and talent we straight up looted from the nazis and the japanese.

Mexico doesn't cut ties to the axis until December 11 1941. It does this after showing solidarity with the US post pearl harbor. It starts with Japan, and a few months later tags the rest of the axis as well. Just after that, 2 tankers of theirs go down in the gulf to a German U Boat, and they declare war even sending a nice fighter squadron the "Aztec Eagles".
Without pearl harbor that doesn't happen, and the US is still up their asses about nationalizing the oil industry just a few years prior. Who do you think they would sell to since the US was acting pissy?
How do you think that relationship works out long term when the Axis consolidates its hold on the eastern hemisphere and decides its time to hit the US hard from the east and south while the japs come in from the west with their newly consolidated holdings in China and Korea which they had a strangle hold on if we didn't intervene?

 

Do you visit Mexico or just reading your favorite news source? As someone who does much business with Mexico, I have never seen any issues between Mexicans and Americans or ever even heard of any Mexicans outside of Drug Cartels that hate Americans. They look up to us.

I think you have been buying into Russian disinformation propaganda as Russia attempts to create chaos with anything they can to detract from the West.

 

I am still pissed off at Britain invading the USA back in 1818, but time tends to lessen the burn.

Also, I am still pissed off about the Babylonian Captivity, but no need to dredge up old memories. Let the past be the past.

I seriously doubt any Mexicans remember much less get angry about something that happened in 1847. Such a moronic thing to think any Mexicans in this day and age get angry about.