Events in Syria and Iraq Thread #2

[joepistole]

February 4, 2016. That's formally indeed "last month". But your "two weeks" are an obvious lie, the 4. February is now 7 weeks ago. The low of oil as well as the ruble was even before, in January.

Except, it wasn't a lie. It was published in February, that was just a few weeks ago. Check your calendar, it's now March. Oil prices didn't bottom in December (i.e. before January). They bottomed in late January or early February. That is a few weeks ago. In any case that doesn't change Mother Russia's financial circumstances. Your beloved Mother Russia's economic circumstances are dire and are likely to remain dire. Oil prices are not coming back anytime soon for all the previously given reasons.

So, address your "two weeks does not a trend make" to your beloved Reuters, which made a news about something which happened during the first three weeks of the year. "Only one month in and 2016 has already delivered a series of devastating economic blows to Russia." to quote your beloved high quality source.

Unfortunately for you and your beloved Mother Russia, two weeks are a few weeks does not a trend make. You keep doing this every time there is minor uptick in oil prices you assert all the clouds are gone and the glory days are back. Russia's glory days are gone and gone forever, if they ever existed. The oil prices Russia needs to pay its bills aren't coming back.

There is some dependence upon oil prices, but heavily? It is a large part of the export, but much less in terms of GNP, which is what really matters for the people. Because it is heavily taxed, it is an even larger part of the income of the state. Fine, the state sector is anyway too large and deserves some reduction.

Some dependence....? Well that's a slight movement toward the truth. Russia is heavily dependent upon oil and natural gas. Oil and natural gas sales fund the Russian government. Oil and Natural gas exports are Russia's largest export, its largest source of foreign currency. As previously and repeatedly pointed out to you, the Russian government cannot pay all of its employees and you say Mother Russia is fine. It doesn't need oil. It would be just fine giving oil away. That just ain't true. That's delusion or dishonesty.

That's easy. Reports of killed leaders of the other side are the most unreliable claims in wartime, so I do not report them. It does not matter from which side. I do not know who is the actual leader in false death claims, with Givi (a Novorussian rebel leader) and Omar Al Shishany (Chechen, Nr. 2 in Daesh) being the contenders, above have double digit counts. I would be ready for an exception if 1.) the death is confirmed by the other side and 2.) were is wide agreement in the media about the importance of this guy. Like this Alloush from East Gouta killed by the Syrian army, or this Palestinian leader (name forgotten) killed by the Israel airforce in Syria.

LOL....but then you are perfectly fine with publishing other unreliable and unconfirmed claims as gospel (e.g. Assad's state controlled news and Russian media sources). The fact is the US is a credible source. The US government says it captured the ISIS leader. The US stated it has killed ISIS leaders.

To reiterate, the US has captured ISIS's chemical weapons leader. It has killed other ISIS leaders. Those are major developments. But you haven't said a word about them. Probably because Assad nor Mother Russia have mentioned those developments.

 

[Schmelzer]

Except, it wasn't a lie. ... Unfortunately for you and your beloved Mother Russia, two weeks are a few weeks does not a trend make.

Learn to count the numbers of weeks between 4. February and today.

The oil prices Russia needs to pay its bills aren't coming back.

Which bills? For returning the external credits the currency reserves are sufficient. Those of the Russian state anyway, even for those of the firms this would be almost sufficient.

 

[joepistole]

Learn to count the numbers of weeks between 4. February and today.

February was just last month. That's pretty damn current.

Which bills? For returning the external credits the currency reserves are sufficient. Those of the Russian state anyway, even for those of the firms this would be almost sufficient.

Oh, so you are going to tell me now the Russian government doesn't have bills (i.e. expenses)? You know, I cannot think of a single instance in which you have been correct about Russian finances. The fact is and contrary to your assertions, the Russian government is heavily dependent upon the sale of oil and natural gas as demonstrated by the many references that have been previously given to you.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=17231

 

[Schmelzer]

February was just last month. That's pretty damn current.

So how many weeks from 4. February to today?

Oh, so you are going to tell me now the Russian government doesn't have bills (i.e. expenses)?

Internal expenses have to be paid in rubles. You know, this is what Russia prints as much as necessary. So, no need for dollar income from export, or a strong ruble, to pay this.

 

[joepistole]

So how many weeks from 4. February to today?

How does that change anything exactly? It doesn't. It doesn't change the fact the article was recent or that it was published last month. You are doing what you always have done, ignore credible evidence in favor of fiction.

Internal expenses have to be paid in rubles. You know, this is what Russia prints as much as necessary. So, no need for dollar income from export, or a strong ruble, to pay this.

Well, that's the problem isn't it? Putin can print as many rubles as he wants. But those rubles won't buy the same amount of goods and services and that's the problem for your beloved Mother Putin. That's why Mother Putin has a collapsing economy and double digit inflation.

As previously and repeatedly explained to you, Mother Putin needs foreign currency to pay Russia's debts and to do business with foreign companies for the goods and services it needs to sustain its government and prop up its failing economy.

 

[Yazata]

I don't think that Russia's military adventure in Syria is tremendously expensive.

Russia's Latakia air base is built around an existing Syrian airport. So the runways, buildings and the ability to refuel aircraft was already there. Russia didn't have to build it from scratch. Operating maybe 20 fixed wing aircraft there is a lot less expensive than sending an aircraft carrier battle group with perhaps 100 aircraft plus the cost of operating a small fleet of ships.

They already had the aircraft they are currently using in Syria in their Air Force inventory, so the cost of the planes doesn't count (unless a plane is lost, like the Su-24 the Turks shot down). And they would have been flying these aircraft anyway, in training missions. The biggest cost is probably the ordinance that they are expending, some of it advanced smart-weaponry. Of course they would be expending ordinance in training too. So it looks to me like Russia is mostly spending money that it would already have been spending anyway, except that it's being spent in a different place.

They have also expended several dozen examples of new variants of their Kalibr cruise-missile family, which does represent an additional expense. But I'm guessing that the Russian military wanted to get in some operational testing of these systems. (And the Kremlin wanted to show off the missiles' capability, both to potential adversaries and to foreign customers.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M-54_Klub

Interestingly, they are using their new Sukhoi SU-34 'Fullbacks' (what NATO calls them, Russian fighters get 'F' names and in this case the name fits for obvious reasons)

These are larger two-seat attack bombers clearly based on Sukhoi's Su-27 family of aircraft. I believe that the Su-34 is currently entering service in the Russian air force and is intended to replace the long-serving Cold-War-vintage Su-24 as Russia's standard attack plane. A number of Su-24's were and probably still are operating in Syria alongside the much newer Su-34's. So Russia no doubt wants to have some opportunities to evaluate these aircraft and their complex systems in real-life operational situations.

The numbers aren't great in any case, if there are only ~20 fixed wing aircraft currently there. Some of them are older Su-25's, with a role similar to the US A-10. There are also a number of Russia's relatively new Su-30 air-superiority fighters for defense against air attack. (From Turkey probably, since ISIS doesn't have an air force. Russia started out with 4, increased that to 16 after their Su-24 was shot down, and some of the recent draw-down may have been the return of those additional 12 Su-30's to Russia.) So there's likely less than 10 of each aircraft type currently in Syria.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-30

 

[joepistole]

I don't think that Russia's military adventure in Syria is tremendously expensive.

Russia's Latakia air base is built around an existing Syrian airport. So the runways, buildings and the ability to refuel aircraft was already there. Russia didn't have to build it from scratch. Operating maybe 20 fixed wing aircraft there is a lot less expensive than sending an aircraft carrier battle group with perhaps 100 aircraft plus the cost of operating a small fleet of ships.

They already had the aircraft they are currently using in Syria in their Air Force inventory, so the cost of the planes doesn't count (unless a plane is lost, like the Su-24 the Turks shot down). And they would have been flying these aircraft anyway, in training missions. The biggest cost is probably the ordinance that they are expending, some of it advanced smart-weaponry.

They have also expended several dozen examples of new variants of their Kalibr cruise-missile family, which does represent an expense. But I'm guessing that the Russian military wanted to get in some operational testing of these systems. (And the Kremlin wanted to show off the missiles' capability, both to potential adversaries and to foreign customers.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M-54_Klub

Interestingly, they are using their new Sukhoi SU-34 'Fullbacks' (what NATO calls them, Russian fighters get 'F' names and in this case the name fits for obvious reasons)

These are larger two-seat attack bombers clearly based on Sukhoi's Su-27 family of aircraft. I believe that this particular aircraft is currently entering service in the Russian air force and is intended to replace the long-serving Cold-War-vintage Su-24 as Russia's standard attack plane. So Russia no doubt wants to have some opportunities to evaluate these aircraft and their complex systems in real-life operational situations.

I have to disagree. It cost the US nearly a million dollars a head to keep a soldier in Iraq. Now, Mother Putin's troops don't have the sophistication ore the abilities of the US military, so it probably costs less. But it still takes money. I wouldn't be surprised if it cost Mother Russia at least 200k per soldier.

It takes money to fly aircraft. There is the obvious fuel expense. But airplanes need more than fuel, they need routine maintenance. Without maintenance, without a routine maintenance program, parts fail and aircraft fall out of the sky. Flying aircraft isn't cheap, of the 6 Sukhoi SU-34 Russia sent to Syria only 4 are operational at any given point in time.

Keeping troops in Syria requires aircraft, and flying aircraft isn't cheap. If you had ever owned a private aircraft, you would know that. Owning is one thing, operating is quite another. The cheap part is buying the aircraft. The expensive part is maintaining it. Maintaining a private business jet can easily cost upwards of 4 million dollars a year. Maintaining warplanes is more expensive than maintaining private jets.

Russia isn't dropping sophisticated weaponry. So I don't imagine the bombs it has used cost much. But all the airtime spent delivering the bombs is expensive. If Russia cannot pay some of its employees as is the case, then it certainly doesn't have enough money to purse Putin's military adventures. Supplying troops in distant lands isn't cheap. Flying aircraft isn't cheap and that's what Putin is doing in Syria.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article4667617.ece

http://www.businessinsider.com/putin-is-slashing-russian-government-salaries-2015-3?r=UK&IR=T

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/22/w...-aim-at-putin-as-economy-exacts-its-toll.html

 

[Schmelzer]

How does that change anything exactly? It doesn't. It doesn't change the fact the article was recent or that it was published last month. You are doing what you always have done, ignore credible evidence in favor of fiction.

Here is what you have written:

Well Schmelzer, two weeks does not a trend make.

Which is wrong, as about the publication (4. February), as about the oil price recovery as well as the ruble recovery (lowest during January). You are a liar. Ok, I know, nothing new. Only yet another example.

Well, that's the problem isn't it? Putin can print as many rubles as he wants. But those rubles won't buy the same amount of goods and services and that's the problem for your beloved Mother Putin. That's why Mother Putin has a collapsing economy and double digit inflation.

The inflation was mainly caused by the weak ruble, which leads to a heavy increase of imports. But once the ruble becomes stronger, this trend will be reverted.

As previously and repeatedly explained to you, Mother Putin needs foreign currency to pay Russia's debts and to do business with foreign companies for the goods and services it needs to sustain its government and prop up its failing economy.

And we already know that repeating your lies does not make them true. As I have also repeatedly explained, to pay the debt the foreign currency reserves are sufficient. And to do business the income from exports (remember, positive trade balance) is sufficient.

 

[joepistole]

Here is what you have written:

Which is wrong, as about the publication (4. February), as about the oil price recovery as well as the ruble recovery (lowest during January). You are a liar. Ok, I know, nothing new. Only yet another example.

Well, you are mixing two different issues and that isn't intellectually honest. There are two issues here that you are dishonestly conflating. First the date of my reference. My reference was dated last month as I have stated now several times and is evidenced by the date on the reference. The only dishonesty here is you conflating it with my reference to the recent rise in oil prices. But this is very typical of you.

As previously stated a two week increase in oil prices based on rumors of supply collusion based on Russia's efforts to get suppliers to collude and reduce oil production does not a trend make. Even if, and that's a big if, Mother Russia is able to get some oil producers to reduce production, it won't stop the world's largest oil producer (i.e. the US) from producing more oil. In fact, it will encourage it. If Mother Russia is able to get some oil producers to reduce oil production, prices would rise and US producers would once again flood the oil markets with new production. So the long term outlook remains bleak for oil production dependent poor economies like Mother Russia. I think Russia's efforts to drive up oil prices are doomed. I don't see oil producers cooperating. I don't see Iran cutting back on oil production after giving up so much to be able to sell more oil, and I don't see any desire on the part of Arab oil producers to do anything which benefits Iran.

The inflation was mainly caused by the weak ruble, which leads to a heavy increase of imports. But once the ruble becomes stronger, this trend will be reverted.

That's like saying the cause of cancer is cancer. Additionally, there is no relationship between imports and inflation. A weak currency, in this case the ruble, doesn't lead to a "heavy increase of imports". That's utter nonsense. And the problem for you is the only value the ruble may have is in the price of oil and the long term oil trend is bearish. Your pattern has been one of desperation. Every time there is a slight uptick in the value of oil, it's happy days are here again with you, and it isn't. As I said before, two weeks or even a few weeks or a few months does not a trend make. The long term oil fundamentals remain bleak. The glory days of oil prices are over for a variety of reasons, changing technologies, lower demand, improved production technologies, and huge US oil reserves and the ability to bring those reserves to market.

As previously pointed out to you, Mother Russia cannot print its way out of its economic woes as you previously asserted, doing so would cause Zimbabwe style inflation. Printing more currency as it has done would weaken its currency as it has done. That means it takes more currency to purchase the same amount of goods and services. That means everything becomes more expensive for Russians and it distorts investment. That's not good for Mother Russia. Instead of investing in economic production, investors invest in fixed assets like gold. Gold doesn't produce good, clothing, cars, factories, etc. It would lead to further economic stagnation. So contrary to your assertion, Mother Russia cannot print her way out. Russia's ruble isn't a reserve currency. That's one of Mother Russia's problems, Putin keeps thinking he is something he is not.

If you and your fellow Russians want to go down the Zimbabwe path, I say go for it, but it won't fix your economic woes. It will exacerbate them. You do realize, Zimbabwe no longer has a currency. Just because a currency has gotten weaker, it doesn't mean it will at some point get stronger. If you don't believe that, you just need to look at Zimbabwe when they went down the path you recommended.

And we already know that repeating your lies does not make them true. As I have also repeatedly explained, to pay the debt the foreign currency reserves are sufficient. And to do business the income from exports (remember, positive trade balance) is sufficient.

Well here is the thing, just because you don't like facts, it doesn't make them lies. And here is the thing, you know virtually nothing of finance and economics, but you somehow believe Mother Russia's foreign currency reserves are "sufficient". As previously and repeatedly pointed out to you, Russian officials have said otherwise. And as previously pointed out to you, Russia's trade balance has shrunk to a mere 6 billion dollars per year and that was when oil prices were much higher than they are today. That isn't sufficient to meet Mother Russia's basic needs much less to support Putin's grand designs of Russian world domination or somehow competing with the West. Hell, a small American billionaire like Donald Trump has more money than that.

 

[Schmelzer]

There are two issues here that you are dishonestly conflating. .... As previously stated a two week increase in oil prices based on rumors of supply collusion based on Russia's efforts to get suppliers to collude and reduce oil production does not a trend make.

Except that the lowest oil price, 28, was in January, and also not two weeks ago. http://moneyweek.com/prices-news-charts/oil/

Additionally, there is no relationship between imports and inflation. A weak currency, in this case the ruble, doesn't lead to a "heavy increase of imports".

Of course not, this obviously should have been "heavy increase of prices of imports". Which usually leads to a decrease of imports. A trivial and quite obvious omission.

And the problem for you is the only value the ruble may have is in the price of oil and the long term oil trend is bearish.

First, there are other things Russia sells. Don't forget that it is among the leading grain and weapon exporters. Then, given that shale oil is more expansive, there will be enough profit for cheaper sources. Of course, in a situation where one expects a global crisis, one expects that what goes down first are prices for commodities. But this is a short term effect.

Every time there is a slight uptick in the value of oil, it's happy days are here again with you, and it isn't.

LOL In fact, I do not care much at all about this. But once you make a nonsense post of ruble and oil price going down, I take a short look at the actual situation. That's all.

Instead of investing in economic production, investors invest in fixed assets like gold. Gold doesn't produce good, clothing, cars, factories, etc. It would lead to further economic stagnation.

No reason for this. There is a large market of things which became very expensive because imported. To produce them in Russia offers high profit.

There was a lot of other nonsense like

Putin's grand designs of Russian world domination

not worth to be answered.

 

[joepistole]

Except that the lowest oil price, 28, was in January, and also not two weeks ago. http://moneyweek.com/prices-news-charts/oil/

Actually, that isn't true. The actual low for oil was on February 14. The relevant number here is WTI not the Brent.

Of course not, this obviously should have been "heavy increase of prices of imports". Which usually leads to a decrease of imports. A trivial and quite obvious omission.

"Of course not", then why did you write something so silly? What you wrote wasn't an omission, it was flat out wrong.

First, there are other things Russia sells. Don't forget that it is among the leading grain and weapon exporters. Then, given that shale oil is more expansive, there will be enough profit for cheaper sources. Of course, in a situation where one expects a global crisis, one expects that what goes down first are prices for commodities. But this is a short term effect.

Yes, Mother Russia sells other things. But Mother Russia mostly sells oil and natural gas. Approximately 2/3rd s of Mother Russia's exports are attributable to oil and natural gas and related products. Mother Russia's arms industry accounts for .02% of its total exports. It's grain and food exports account for less than 1% of its exports.
http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/rus/

And it's not like this hasn't been pointed out to you before.

LOL In fact, I do not care much at all about this. But once you make a nonsense post of ruble and oil price going down, I take a short look at the actual situation. That's all.

Yeah, it's very obvious you don't care about little things like facts.

No reason for this. There is a large market of things which became very expensive because imported. To produce them in Russia offers high profit.

There was a lot of other nonsense like

not worth to be answered.

As previously pointed out to you Mother Russia cannot print her way out of her economic woes as you suggested. Mother Russia's currency isn't a "hard currency". Its currency isn't a world reserve currency. To do as you suggest would result (i.e. print currency to pay its bills) would result in Zimbabwe style inflation. Last year Russian inflation exceeded 15%. That's not nonsense. Those are facts.

Also as previously pointed out to you, Russia is far from "high profits". Russian productivity is among the lowest, making production in Mother Russia very inefficient and very expensive compared to Western and most Asian states. Russian workers are very unproductive when compared to their Western and Asian counterparts.

Additionally, if Mother Russia (i.e. Mother Putin) isn't dreaming of world domination, then why is it beefing up its military forces? Why has it illegally invaded and annexed the lands of its neighbors in a style reminiscent of Nazi Germany?

 

[Schmelzer]

"Of course not", then why did you write something so silly?

Learn to read. A simple error. Omitting "of prices" in "heavy increase of prices of imports". Of course, if I omit such an important part of this sentence, the result is simply wrong.

Mother Russia's arms industry accounts for .02% of its total exports. It's grain and food exports account for less than 1% of its exports.
http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/rus/

Nice try. http://www.russia-direct.org/analysis/russian-arms-market-unhampered-sanctions-least-now gives different numbers, on the one hand 10B, then in the graphic 27% in comparison to 30% for the US as share for the whole world market, with the US 20B. http://www.businessinsider.com/arms-sales-by-the-us-and-russia-2014-8?IR=T gives even 29.7B. Your source gives 433M. Funny.

Whatever, Russia has a positive trade balance, and it does not look like this will change. And even according to your strange source, it exports a lot of different things. Even more important is that Russia is big enough so that it does not depend that much on exports and imports like small countries.

As previously pointed out to you Mother Russia cannot print her way out of her economic woes as you suggested.

The point of this side remark is that Russia will not go bankrupt. Other countries with large external debts have much greater problems - the external debt usually cannot be paid by printing money. Salaries for the local people can. Not nice for the local people, but the state will not go bankrupt. Of course, printing money does not solve any serious economic problems. But it prevents bankruptcy, if all you have to pay is in local currency, that's all.

How much inflation follows from a particular problem depends on the particular problem. If there is much less income from selling oil, there are other things one can do, and it is the job of the Russian government to decide.

Additionally, if Mother Russia (i.e. Mother Putin) isn't dreaming of world domination, then why is it beefing up its military forces?

One has to, if one wants to be an independent country. Independent from the US.

 

[joepistole]

Learn to read. A simple error. Omitting "of prices" in "heavy increase of prices of imports". Of course, if I omit such an important part of this sentence, the result is simply wrong.

Simple error....?

Mother Russia's arms industry accounts for .02% of its total exports. It's grain and food exports account for less than 1% of its exports.
http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/rus/

Yes, per my previous reference that is indeed true.

Nice try. http://www.russia-direct.org/analysis/russian-arms-market-unhampered-sanctions-least-now gives different numbers, on the one hand 10B, then in the graphic 27% in comparison to 30% for the US as share for the whole world market, with the US 20B. http://www.businessinsider.com/arms-sales-by-the-us-and-russia-2014-8?IR=T gives even 29.7B. Your source gives 433M. Funny.

Actually citing yet another Russian state controlled source isn't impressive. The US is the world's largest weapons seller, not Mother Russia. Further, none of that changes the fact Russia's arms exports account for about .02% of its exports. And 2/3rd s of its exports are oil and natural gas products per previously referenced material. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry

Whatever, Russia has a positive trade balance, and it does not look like this will change. And even according to your strange source, it exports a lot of different things. Even more important is that Russia is big enough so that it does not depend that much on exports and imports like small countries.

My "strange source" was MIT, one of the most prestigious universities in the world.

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, that simply isn't true. Russia's positive trade balance has been rapidly falling. It's less than half of what it was a year ago. Yet you say Russia's trade balance won't change. The fact is, it has changed and changed dramatically. In the last 12 months it has shrunk by more than 50%. That's what the facts say.

Additionally, this has nothing to do with size. It has everything to do with facts. Per previously referenced materials, per Russian officials, Mother Russia's finances are in dire straights. So while you may believe Mother Russia isn't in dire financial straits, Mother Russia's leaders know better. If Mother Russia were not in dire financial straits, it could pay its employees. And per previously referenced materials, Mother Russia isn't paying all of its employees.

The point of this side remark is that Russia will not go bankrupt. Other countries with large external debts have much greater problems - the external debt usually cannot be paid by printing money.

Well, any fully sovereign state cannot go bankrupt. But it can follow Zimbabwe down the path to hyperinflation as I previously brought to your attention. And as I have repeatedly pointed out to you, that's why Mother Russia cannot print her way out of her current fiscal woes without severe adverse consequences. In mother Russia's case, her external debt is always paid in foreign currency per our previous discussions on the matter.

Salaries for the local people can. Not nice for the local people, but the state will not go bankrupt. Of course, printing money does not solve any serious economic problems. But it prevents bankruptcy, if all you have to pay is in local currency, that's all.

Yes, Russian salaries can be paid in rubles. But as previously pointed out to you, those newly minted rubles would be worth less. That adversely affects every Russian consumer. It devalues the Russian currency. Also as previously mention Russia's inflation rate was more than 15% last year...all hail Zimbabwe like inflation comes to Mother Russia. That's why Mother Russia isn't paying all of its employees. The people leading the country want to avoid Zimbabwe like inflation. So Russian citizens must suffer, and they are. But the suffering isn't over for Russians, it is just beginning.

Applying the term bankruptcy to sovereign nations is silly and irrelevant.

How much inflation follows from a particular problem depends on the particular problem. If there is much less income from selling oil, there are other things one can do, and it is the job of the Russian government to decide.

That's more gobbledygook. Mother Russia cannot replace 2/3rd s of its export revenue. It can't conjure up foreign currency to fund its need for foreign currency. And if it cannot fund its foreign currency debt, it defaults on that debt. It's businesses don't have the foreign currency needed to do business, and Russia's economy plunges further into oblivion. That risk is why Russian debt is now rated as junk. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/21/russias-debt-downgraded-junk-moodys

Instead of investing in productive assets, projects that will advance Mother Russia's economy, Mother Putin has chosen to spend its limited foreign currency on military misadventures. That's bad for Mother Russia. It's not sustainable. That's probably why Putin is withdrawing from Syria - the first rational thing he has done.

When Mother Putin began his military adventures he made several serious miscalculations. He overestimated the value of his currency reserves and he underestimated the Western response to his invasions and annexations, and he overestimated the value of oil. He didn't foresee the collapse of oil prices. Now he has his wee wee caught in a grinder.

One has to, if one wants to be an independent country. Independent from the US.

Oh, and where is the evidence for that one?

 

[Schmelzer]

Actually citing yet another Russian state controlled source isn't impressive. The US is the world's largest weapons seller, not Mother Russia. Further, none of that changes the fact Russia's arms exports account for about .02% of its exports.

businessinsider.com a Russian state controlled source? Wow, I have not known. It's number 29.7B does not change .02%? Wow. means around 150000B total ......

My "strange source" was MIT, one of the most prestigious universities in the world.

The particular number it gives is clearly low quality.

Well, any fully sovereign state cannot go bankrupt.

Depends on what one names bankrupt. If not being able to pay what it is obliged to, then a lot of states have gone bankrupt.

 

[joepistole]

businessinsider.com a Russian state controlled source? Wow, I have not known. It's number 29.7B does not change .02%? Wow. means around 150000B total ......

Well, you are not being honest. The facts remain, the US exports more arms that Mother Russia. And that doesn't change the fact that arms exports account for a very small fraction of Russia's exports. http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/03/daily-chart-13

The particular number it gives is clearly low quality.

Just because you don't like it, it doesn't make it low quality.

Depends on what one names bankrupt. If not being able to pay what it is obliged to, then a lot of states have gone bankrupt.

No it doesn't. When most people think of bankruptcy, they think of a legal process. There is no legal process for a sovereign nation state to file bankruptcy. The sovereign may not be able to pay its bills, or live up to its agreements. In which case it becomes insolvent. But it cannot file for a legal bankruptcy. Mother Russia could well find herself in a position where she does default on her debts. That's why Russian debt is rated as junk. Creditors view Russia as a high risk debtor.

 

[Schmelzer]

Well, you are not being honest. The facts remain, the US exports more arms that Mother Russia. And that doesn't change the fact that arms exports account for a very small fraction of Russia's exports.

I have never claimed that Russia is first. Russia is one of the leaders in this export, and the size of its weapon exports is comparable to the American one. If this is only a small part of its exports, fine. It follows that Russia exports also a lot of other things. You see, this is not a question of liking or not. I couldn't care less. I have simply checked a number your source has given, and this number was, for whatever reason, far off.

When most people think of bankruptcy, they think of a legal process. The sovereign may not be able to pay its bills, or live up to its agreements. In which case it becomes insolvent. But it cannot file for a legal bankruptcy. Mother Russia could well find herself in a position where she does default on her debts. That's why Russian debt is rated as junk. Creditors view Russia as a high risk debtor.

Fine, if it is named that way, be it. Anyway, there is no risk of Russia going insolvent. Maybe that some Western investors are afraid of political risks. What if the West decides to expropriate all Russian-owned property in the West? Russia may, in this case, retaliate and expropriate the expropriators. Even if Putin does not plan such things, an investor cannot be sure - this is politics, not economy.

 

[Schmelzer]

There are now first claims that Palmyra is liberated at https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-syrian-armed-forces-liberate-palmyra-2/

 

[Yazata]

There are now first claims that Palmyra is liberated at https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-syrian-armed-forces-liberate-palmyra-2/

Yes, it seems to have been verified and photos are circulating on Syrian media of Syrian troops in the center of the new part of Palmyra. This is probably the biggest victory against ISIS so far in Syria. (Bigger than Kobani holding out and the Kurds' expansion in the far northeast.) Not only is Palmyra the most important archaeological site in Syria, it also dominates a large area of the Syrian desert between eastern and western Syria. It's very strategic.

It remains to be seen what remains of the city's antiquities. The ancient city itself seems from recent photos to be relatively intact, apart from the earlier destruction of several ancient temples that ISIS deemed 'idolatrous'. (There were fears it had been rigged with explosives.) But reports are coming in that ISIS put explosives in the basement of the city's museum (housing smaller antiquities like statues) and blew it up when they pulled out.

I've seen some reports that there were small numbers of Russian soldiers on the ground, embedded with the Syrian army. (spetsnaz?) That seems reasonable, since at the very least the Russian air force would have needed forward air controllers to designate targets for their airstrikes.

 

[Schmelzer]

It is, indeed, a very important victory, not only because of ancient history now prevented from further destruction, but also because Tadmor is a key position in this desert. It opens the road to Deir Ezzor via M20, and it cuts, at the same time, a lot of important communication lines of Daesh. In particular, the connection toward the South via the road Nr. 90 may be important, but there are also roads to the North.

The first expectations about the losses of Daesh are 500 death, which corresponds to 1,5-2 thousands wounded, which is a serious loss for Daesh too. Some Russian comments see here a change of strategy, toward destruction, instead of the former strategy pressing out instead of eliminating the enemy. I'm not sure about this. As usual, expectations about losses of the enemy are the most unreliable thing, and implicit conclusions about a change of strategy are even more speculative. Last but not least, even if there have been reports that some 100 or so Daesh fighters have been encircled, there were also claims about a retreat of the Daesh forces toward East. But, of course, retreating in the desert is not that easy, you will be an easy target for a long time, so, there may be some corresponding modifications of the tactic too.

The Russian side has confirmed the death of a special forces guy who has worked in the hinterland to direct the Russian airstrikes. He was detected and encircled. And has given his own position as the last one to strike at.

The airport, yellow on the map, has been, according to other maps, already taked before some of the already red areas. Right or wrong, who knows. Anyway, maps are more reliable than claims about numbers of deaths, false claims have no long time to survive. There seems to be no doubt that Palmyra has been indeed taken.

By the way, Palmyra is not the only front where the Syrian army is fighting Daesh now. The next important target is Qaratayn. And there is also some progress around
Aqayrbat. Let's add the front near the Khanaser, where there have been no recent news, but I suspect it is not completely stopped, and we have four fronts against Daesh. And, essentially, nothing else. I have seen some modifications of the maps in Latakia on militarymaps. info, but these are not serious informations about villages taken, but indirect information - Sana claims that the rebels have broken the ceasefire and bombed village X, which strongly suggests that village X is controlled by the Syrian army (else, why would they complain about attacks) but village X was never taken officially. So who controls it?

Whatever, the ceasefire really seems to work, and even in all those regions where Al Qaida (Al Nusra) is clearly present, so that nor the Syrian side, nor Al Qaida have officially acknowledged a ceasefire. I think that means that Al Qaida is also seriously weakened, and the Syrian army (I would guess with a strong suggestion by the Russian side) does not attack even if this would be allowed because there is Al Qaida on the other side. The classical Russian "bombing to peace" strategy. Something similar (even if there was no bombing) has been applied in the Ukraine too, two times, with the Minsk I and Minsk II as the results (and a third time, quite unknown, half a year after Minsk II, when the Ukraine has been stopped to violate the ceasefire. In the media, this was presented only as some strange cases of explosions of the weapon depots of the Ukrainian artillery which bombed the Novorussian tows, probably caused by the stupid Ukrainian soldiers and quite old ammunition, but, whatever, the Ukrainian bombing of the cities was stopped for some time).

 

[joepistole]

I have never claimed that Russia is first.

Well, that's a little disingenuous. Your Business Insider referenced did.

Russia is one of the leaders in this export, and the size of its weapon exports is comparable to the American one. If this is only a small part of its exports, fine. It follows that Russia exports also a lot of other things. You see, this is not a question of liking or not. I couldn't care less. I have simply checked a number your source has given, and this number was, for whatever reason, far off.

Well, that really isn't relevant. It's a small market. The fact remains the lions share, some 2/3rd s of Mother Russia's exports are oil, natural gas and related products.

Fine, if it is named that way, be it. Anyway, there is no risk of Russia going insolvent. Maybe that some Western investors are afraid of political risks. What if the West decides to expropriate all Russian-owned property in the West? Russia may, in this case, retaliate and expropriate the expropriators. Even if Putin does not plan such things, an investor cannot be sure - this is politics, not economy.

Well, that is what you want people to believe, but the credit markets, investors, and the Russian government know otherwise. Russia did a lot of borrowing to prop up its foreign currency reserves last year to buy it some additional time. That's high interest debt. Russia didn't do that for the hell of it. The fact is Mother Russia is facing severe economic difficulties. That's why she isn't paying some of her employees. That's why her debt is rated as junk.