Can Russia win the military production race?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 чер 2024
- Wars of attrition are won by the defense industry, so in this video I discuss the production capacity in Russia and the West. It is hard to see how Russia can compete if the West decides to invest in serious defense production.
0:00 Attrition and production
2:09 Direct comparison of GDP
2:52 Where does China fit in?
3:57 Problems with nominal GDP
4:37 Purchasing power parity
5:24 Comparing GDP corrected for PPP
7:44 Can Russia win the production race?
The only problem I see with this analysis is that only a small fraction of NATO is acting like they're at war.
Russia is probably diverting 25% of its GDP to war, while its allies are only spending a tiny fraction more than what they would have spent on their military anyway - none of Russia's allies are diverting more than 0.2% of GDP to help Russia. Similarly, Ukraine is probably diverting 50% of its GDP to its war effort, but it has lost significant production capacity from the territories it no longer controls. Ukraine's allies are spending less than 0.2% of GDP. On this basis, Russia is stronger than Ukraine.
Another problem is that much less of GDP in NATO relates to manufacturing capacity or production of raw materials. 85 percent is services. Advertising copy-writers, financial analysts, and real estate salespeople don't do a lot for production of materiel, or for logistics.
In the US, perhaps our biggest problem is that there are only about 4 shipyards that can make a warship. And it isn't much better for sea lift. It takes years to make a shipyard, and that's if you have the labor supply, which we don't.
And Hungary is a traitor to NATO.
I like how Ukrainian trolls say NATO is at war when they talk together and pretend it is not when facing the harsh reality: NATO is being defeated fair and square
Another factor: Ukraine is actually not fighting the Russian production, but decades of Soviet production on the battlefield.
As time passes, it becomes increasingly current production as the old inventory is destroyed.
Secondly, the older the soviet systems are, the less useful they are. A lot of old systems are simply outdated. However, soviet systems do play a role, even though I’d argue said role is lesser than what most of the media portrays it as.
Yeah, and a lot of that soviet production took place in Ukraine, which was the workshop of Soviet Russia, many tanks and planes and helicopters made in Ukraine.
Yes it is going to be harder and harder to "refubish" stored equipment. Clearly rus has used the stuff in best condition first , the quality of stuff coming out of stores will become hardly worth the effort.
@@davidkottman3440 The old inventory is destroyed by Ukrainian bodies.
I know you said you were not an economist, but one key concept is called "opportunity cost". Any time you spend money, or any other limited resource, on one task or project, that means that there are other tasks that you are unable to spend it on. It has that name because the cost making one choice is that you have lost the opportunity to make a different choice.
Spending money and resources for defense means you don't spend it on building public infrastructure, or supporting other domestic needs. Every person taken out of their civilian life, trained as a soldier, and sent to fight in Ukraine, is someone who is not available to be productive in the civilian economy.
So besides the total GDP of a country, you also have to consider what percentage of it they are willing, or able, to spend on their military. The advantage of being on the side whose GDP is 10 times larger than the other, is that we can sustain the same absolute level of military output at a much lower percentage of our total GDP. That is if we implement a plan to spend 2% of our GDP to directly support Ukraine, then the other side would need to commit 20% of their GDP to match it dollar for dollar. You have to get into political analysis to determine if that level can be achieved or maintained for very long.
The part about the soldiers is even worse than that. As Russia went to war, something like a million people fled the country, primarily the ones most at risk of being conscripted, young men, and the ones who understood the consequences, the educated ones. So the Russian government spent a lot of time and money investing in them through education and such, but now those people are paying taxes somewhere else. Even worse, the ones that do get mobilized and sent to Ukraine to die in a meat wave attack, that's a complete waste of investment. Those deaths of thousands of young men also has a very long tail, which isn't immediately obvious, but it will be felt more in a country that already has a very top-heavy population pyramid, like Russia.
GDP in the form of real industry cannot lose to the inflated GDP of the service sector. All tank factories in Russia are 10 times cheaper than Goldman Sachs, but I wouldn’t bet on the bank in a real war... Hollywood is 100 times richer than the Kalashnikov concern, but it can only win on the screen. Google is 1000 times richer than Sukhoi, but it can only win... in UA-cam videos.
I think he sort of hints at this with the Russian economy getting too hot. Russia is going to have a labor shortage if it isn't already there. Like we've seen in the US (probably most places) since COVID started, that plays a role in inflation.
@@SRFriso94Third world neo-fascist ruSSia spends less per head on education than the South American average and rate very poorly in education index.
No, they didn't spend 'a lot'.
Correct. You can't use the "normal" numbers for Russia.
1. You have to subtract the men who fled or are on the battlefield from the workforce.
2. You also need to factor in those pesky sanctions. They make it near impossible for Russia to export anything.
Read a lot of the comments. A lot of intelligent observations, way better than mine. I am adding a comment to feed the algorithm because your work deserves it.
Cheers!
Ditto
Yes, this needs to be heard by people in EU and US.
Well maybe more relevant to the subject, but I maintain that your observation and your little 'digital intervention' is very intelligent. I will follow your example and also leave a comment. Also, I'm going to make the text itself relatively long and use positive words like, just in case that this makes a positive impact. Oh and I also shouldn't forget appropriately themed emojis. 😊😊❤🙏😇🤩🥳🧐🌞
I agree
First let me say I am retired US military. Sadly a major component is the political will of the US. Although we could single handedly supply Ukraine we have one political party who has other concerns. One concern is an eye on future tax cuts for the wealthy and the other is to make our current president look bad. Remember that the reason Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons is that we said we would come to their aid if they were ever attacked.
Nonsense. You should be ashamed of yourself. Though it is true we made such a promise. I'd say now: And you believed them?!
I think what you say is true and that is very sad. Europeans understand Americans are divided but not what you’re divided about. Very weird for us. I’m happy to say that my country, Sweden, will meet nato requirements when we get ratified. We have also provided Ukraine with serious military gear like the Swedish Archer system, the CV-90 and the well known Carl-Gustaf anti tank rifle
The Ukraine is not even in the top ten of voters concerns that is why your don’t hear that much from either party (but doesn’t stop the blame game in full force)so those we elect focus on voters concerns and while we could do more to support the UA it is at the level of billions and billions as well as significant ISR assets.
It's called Ukraine. Not The Ukraine.@@Dog.soldier1950
The orange Clown...
This dynamic was a major factor in the Soviet Union's defeat in the Cold War. The Soviets couldn't keep up economically with the West, and so they were forced to spend a much larger portion of their resources to try to maintain military parity. Getting bogged down in a costly war in Afghanistan accelerated this trend for the USSR. If NATO applies these lessons and supports Ukraine it will erode Russia's power over time and could lead to Putin's downfall.
Putin is much more certain that he will not be invaded by the west... It's a different time, a different calculus, we cannot count on the same outcomes. Ukraine has already been many times more expensive to Kremlin than Afghanistan; they're not collapsed yet.
More than Afghanistan, though, it was the cost of the Chernobyl accident.
But China could help Russia just enough to get the war going and weaken two of its rivals long term
The Ukraine invasion is so much more costly than any of the factors that led to the fall of the soviet union. And Russia in population terms is about half the size of the Soviet Union.
Therefore, I believe that the staying power of Russia is much less than what it was for the Soviet Union.
I would be surprised if Russia doesn’t collapse financially during 2024 if the invasion maintains its current rate of spend/attrition.
It was a combination of those two things, and a bit more. The Russian Revolution's leaders were entering the third generation of rulers, and that's historically when successful revolutions seem to come to an end. @@Katoshi_Takagumi
Well thought through. Thank you Anders.
Thx for the input!
Thank you for this analysis.
Thank you Anders, I rely a lot on you to make sense of these difficult equations 😀
Video downvoted for incorrect explanation of GDP PPP. Although he is not a trained economist, nonetheless he gave wrong information. It has nothing to do with fluctuating exchange rates or the use of the USD
Interesting analysis. Thanks a lot!
Thank you for your videos. Much apreciated!
Always glad to see an APN video up on YT!
Swedish guy here and so far a non-Nato member. I hope we will continue to support Ukraine for as long as i takes. I will gladly help out despite not being a Nato member yet. I hope my politicians think the same.
Sweden lost the moment they said yes to nato.
Jag hoppas detsamma. Förhoppningsvis kan vi skicka Gripen till Ukraina när vi kommer med i nato
@@q5medarbejderplanlgning641 you know, Putler should not force Sweden to join. So as you say, Sweden finally *lost* in the moment they said yes to NATO, Sweden *lost any fear* from RuZZia and Putler.
Sweden supporn nazi again, and again call herself neutral
So many Ukrainians here posing as Swedish 🤣
Thank you for these great videos!
Anders channeling his inner Perun while excluding the Aussies from the GPD used :-) So cold :-) Good stuff as always.
Crap stuff, as always
Thanks Anders for your clear, concise, engaging and insightful analysis of the war. All your videos are excellent.
Video downvoted for incorrect explanation of GDP PPP. Although he is not a trained economist, nonetheless he gave wrong information. It has nothing to do with fluctuating exchange rates or the use of the USD
@@John_Smith_86 Dude, why are you replying to me?
🤣🤣🤣
Your videos really are amongst a very small number that provide top quality analysis of this war. I really appreciate the effort and time you put into making them given all your other responsibilities! Many thanks!
Agreed. Check out as well "Military and History", and perhaps "Combat Veteran Reacts" and "Professor Gerdes Explains". Their focus differs, but I also consider them among the best/most interesing in this area in particular. With an economics focus, from time to time watching "Joe Blogs" also offers an interesting perspective.
Thanks for a great video!
Always insightful
Another point of consideration: the Russian economics ministry took over Rosstat in spring of 2017, immediately retroactively changed GDP growth numbers by whole percentage points for the years 2014-16 and has since then published numbers that are at best questionable and at worst blatantly do not agree with any auditable data from 3rd countries. In addition since spring 2022 only headline figures have been published and those diverge even more from all auditable data that we do have access to. We cannot say how Russia's economy is actually doing, but we can say with a high degree of certainty that it is significantly worse than what they claim.
Do you have any idea how badly the numbers are finagled in the West? What the President calls the greatest economy in world history has already been bankrupted by unlimited borrowing and unlimited spending by the government. It wasn't bad enough that they took all that money away from producers and gave it to parasites, they had to borrow more than we can ever pay back to finance their idiot schemes.
Do NATO countries really want to know how many people will survive a Russian nuclear attack?
@@dWn2T Are you naive enough to think Russia could ever launch a nuclear attack? Do you think Russian generals would follow Putler in obliterating themselves?
Moreover, given the state of most of Russia's army, it's not even a given that their nuclear bombs are still capable of exploding.
@@dWn2T Do they want to know how many Russians will survive a NATO nuclear attack? Why are you trolling about something that isn't going to happen? Putin knows that if he launches, his country will be turned to radioactive glass.
@@dWn2TMore than in russia. Nobody wins nuclear war, but nato will lose it less.
This is the first analysis I have seen on these kinds of issues from someone pro-Ukraine. I want to thank you but also to express my hope that you will do more videos on these aspects of the war.
Look up "Joe blogs". He does a lot of stuff on the Russian economy.
@@thomashjensen1556 I have seen him before. I consider him a propagandist rather than an analyst. YMMV.
Perun's channel made some of his now almost legendary Power Point presentations on the matter as he's a military economics analyst by trade.
@@lorenzcassidy3960 Thank you. I'll check that out.
@@martinhartecfc Really? And you are still following him.
Thanks for stating this overlooked point
I always get a unique sense of clarity from your videos. Thanks!
It's also worth considering that while Russia can evade sanctions to some extent it's going to be more expensive for them to do so than just buying the goods on the open market. They need to set up shell companies, pay people/nations more to take risks for them, pay in goods rather than currency etc etc etc.
There is also straight up price gouging. Iran is taking Russia to the cleaners for their 136. The quality of the goods are unknown and no refunds. Some chips they are getting are untested salvage.
or they can produce what they need... oops, they can !
not being able to get an iPhone, a f150 or an intel processor is not unsustainable when there plenty of alternative on the Chinese market, and cheaper!
Better yet, since they cannot buy from the west, the population would buy something produce locally, improving the internal economy, and their industry doesn't need to compete with western industry !
Russia has plenty of Energy, plenty of FOOD production, plenty of Manufacturing and Know-how, you know they are a nuclear space-ages country ? NASA use to buy launching satellite from Russia !
So, plenty of job too, Russian are not going to freeze and starve.. not so much for the EU.
@@AntishaDowbanall the points you raised are easy to debunk but it would require a lengthy reply with many citations and I don't have the energy to debunk what is at best cope and at worst straight up lies. Do continue to cope and seethe vatnik!
@@AntishaDowbanit seems you don’t understand what a « war economy » is. 😮
Having a non convertible currency, spending billions to pay for military hardware and soldiers, having a part of the population enrolled,..
Add to that the sanctions.
@@AntishaDowban the EU is also not going to freeze and starve, got the money to buy it from US and got enough local Food production.
Though Russian Energy was pretty cheap and a boon for our economy.
Russia was good in the space age but they have fallen behind in the production of chips etc.
And those are needed for guiding their rockets.
I think it is nice how Jake Broe mentioned you in his video and you mention him back it is very interesting to see how my favourite UA-camrs are part of a same ecosystem and how you guys have all reached a level where we can see how reliable you all are… I think it’s very important to distinguish between the many different types of information and information sources we consume and I think that we are lucky to have such a diverse range of reliable perspectives and opinions that are based on facts 🎉🎉🎉🎉
I don’t always agree with you guys but at least I can think critically because of you and I think that the quality of the content from multiple perspectives is why I end up not always being 100% on the same page but it is mostly just because of the angle of perspective not because it is inaccurate or something…
They're both lost in a western narrative. Ukraine is finished....
Of course, all the professional liars, making their sordid cash from lying to the people, will cite each other as support for their foul fake news.
History Legends is better analyst on military side
Thank you for your excellent work. ❤
Another great analysis- thank you very much and keep up your splendid work. I am really looking forward to it 😊
This was interesting, but how does the comparison stack up when you consider which fraction of the GDP is spent by each side on (a) military assets, (b) military assets specifically set aside for this war? It is my understanding that comparing GDP/PPP makes sense when in a total war scenario (all non essential for basic survival resources get directed towards the war effort. I believe only Ukraine itself is currently operating in total war economy.
The disparity is so big that should the allies actually get off their arse, military production would be greater than the sum total axis economies combined even at 9x ratio. At 2% it is greater than the axis combined government budgets. Even in a 100% war economy, you still have to pay for basic non-military services and have a civilian economy as a tax base.
If we got serious about buying South Korean shells, it would easily meet Ukraine's needs.
If the allies increased weapon production by say 2/3% it would put Russia in a difficult situation but unfortunately europe is basically organised around committees and committee’s have never won a war.@@oohhboy-funhouse
Ukraine has no GDP without US money. We spend a lot on the military but you'll notice that we end up losing. We spend it on regime change, which the world is quite aware of, and the Russians spend it on defense. We're the ones who are waging aggressive warfare using Ukrainian soldiers and losing and the people who push for that kind of war can walk away without consequences to themselves. The defender can't walk away but has to fight until the very end. Who do you think is going to cut and run? We're already exploring how we can call a so-called stalemate along the lines that the Russians wanted from the beginning a victory and get out.
@@neilreynolds3858Sorry, but stating that Ukraine has no GDP "without US money" is to honest just pure ignorant bull. Its just so totally out of touch with reality. The US has so far been at #30 on the list of contributors to Ukraine specific with regard to nominal GDP as published by "Kiel Institute" who tracks war contributions by Western countries.
Yes the US has been very in terms of military support, and they have delivered some "Hollywood Superstar" weapons like HIMARS and Patriot. But by now even in field of advanced weaponry its diminishing. Think of F16 (about 60 pcs) from Denmark and NL, Stormshadow/SCALP, Taurus (if they ever come), Ceasar + Archers 155mm etc. So the world is actually moving on to get the job done. What is the US doing at the moment?
NATOs member states defense budget alone, is roughly 70-75% of Russia's entire GDP. That's not including all the Western nations also having significant military production capacity, but not NATO members: Japan, South Korea, Australia, Switzerland, Sweden, Israel...
Tak, Anders. Thank you for a comprehensive, informative explanation. I will bookmark this for showing to those who have trouble understanding this. From Copenhagen, and eargerly waiting for your new book to be delivered, cheers!
Thank you for the video. Please keep making them, I love your sober analysis. Slava Ukraine!
Thank you!
Interesting stuff
It’s great I found this channel. Greeting from Kyiv.
Kiev. Kyiv sounds like Fukov, only European Nazis call it that - it’s an insult to the locals.
@@MultiNike79 it’s definitely Kyiv, because we are all nazis here in Europe, tovarishch. Did you miss your daily 10h of propaganda yesterday?
@@ChrisPBacon-gs8ek The city was called Kiev for 1200 years, and not every invader can determine its name.
@@MultiNike79 you are very welcome to come here and try to make us spell our city the way you want. Bring a friend:)
Почему все укроботы используют иностранные имена?
Как так можно позориться - вы же дно вообще со всех сторон? Аж мерзко, что мы один народ.
Amazing information as usual
Fantastic thanks again
It's wonderful to listen to you! You simplify the issue and present it in a way that absolutely everyone can understand.
Downvoted for incorrect explanation of GDP PPP. Although he is not a trained economist, nonetheless he gave wrong information. It has nothing to do with fluctuating exchange rates or the use of the USD
Do NATO countries really want to know how many people will survive a Russian nuclear attack?
A few additional thoughts: 1. For the Western grey imports due to sanctions, the nominal GDP most probably won't be enough, since you'll have to add the extra share for the middlemen and black market, which will be pretty significant, especially if the West starts applying secondary sanctions and pursuing businesses and countries trying to circumvent them. 2. The West's military production capacity will rise significantly in wartime. 3. If we take China into account on Russia's side, things won't change that dramatically, since in this case, there are quite a lot of factors that have to be counted in, such as China's inevitable losses of revenue due to Western manufacturing outsourcing out of PRC as well as a partial but significant drop in China's exports to its most important market (both scenarios will happen, and both will damage China's capabilities significantly), and, as you say, the capacities of allied nations such as Japan, South Korea, Australia, but also Taiwan, which aren't lightweights. Conclusion: There is no way, Russia can keep up with the West, neither militarily nor economically. Unless we allow it to happen.
Production capacity has little to do with GDP, because the GDP of modern economies (especially in Western countries) is services, not production (and certainly not military production). In simple terms, the US GDP is banking, insurance and online pornography. North Korea's GDP may look small, but it consists almost entirely of the production of shells, artillery and missiles.
@@user-ub3hd4sy4e The money the USA makes in exporting physical goods is larger than Russia’s GDP.
Another point is price gouging in the weapon production in the west through contractors especially in the US. Price can go up to unbelievably 100x. Russia is mostly using state-owned production companies without any profit.
@@LibochROFL. There’s enormous amounts of graft built into the Russian system. Corruption is an integral part of the regime and nothing will change that in the near future.
@@user-ub3hd4sy4etrue. For example the GDP of the US is 25.32% of the total global GDP but it contributes only 16.4% of the total global output for manufacturing whereas China with GDP of 17.86% of the total global GDP but contributes 28.7% of the total global output for manufacturing. If we see from the PPP perspective it would be much more stark. The manufacturing capacity of China could be 4 times bigger than the US.
Just simply, I always look forward hearing Puck's sage advice that you cannot find anywhere else. Dennis
Thanks Anders you legend.
Thank you for another informative video. It would also be interesting to get some specific insights into actual monetary numbers on spending from the West vs Russia if possible?
The "council of foreign relations" has some numbers comparing Western countries.
Video downvoted for incorrect explanation of GDP PPP. Although he is not a trained economist, nonetheless he gave wrong information. It has nothing to do with fluctuating exchange rates or the use of the USD
What I miss in your analysis is what fraction of production capacity is war industry. North Korea has far more industry dedicated to war, whereas many European countries only have a small fraction of their industry dedicated to war. How does this factor into your comparison?
Yes, the US has 20% of its GDP coming from healtcare, in a country that has no healtcare.
This is a complete bogus analysis, because a lot of the GDP of western states is money paid on rent, (a higher percentage of people own their houses in Russia) brand taxes, speculative financial services, interest paid on loans and other water vapour than has nothing to do with a country's productive capacity or self-sufficiency (money out of thin air that doesn't at all help a wartime economy).
Russia's economy on the other hand is far more industrial and agrarian than most European ones. (natural gas, oil, fertiliser, electricity, which they outproduce every other European country on, weaponry etc)
The reality is that, for example, on artillery shell production, Russia outproduces the ENTIRETY OF NATO COMBINED, US included! This is obviously just one sub-industry, and on most others it's skewed in NATO's favour, but the differences are far smaller if one looks at useful measurements, like ammunition numbers, military equipment production, hell, even oil or tons of steel produced per year! Anything actually relevant from a military perspective shows that Russia is a far stronger economy than "GDP" suggests, and on most criteria it actually eclipses every single other European economy, Germany included. (the USA and China almost never of course, but this video presents a very simplistic and useless analysis)
@@Vict0r1984 this whole channel is compeltely bogus anyway and I do not see the purpose of it. What is lying supposed to achieve, it will not help them win a war, just to get public perception to accept war. Which only makes war more likely.
One of the most important metrics is steel production. US and RU are about the same, China dwafs everyone else.
@@Vict0r1984 True. Western economies are primarily based on services and not industrial capacity. Healthcare and social services are huge chunks of the economy that don't contribute to your military capacity in any meaningful way. There's also lack of skilled labor and simply refusal of people to take up industrial jobs.
This is not how it looks like. Europe compared to Korea, Iran and Russia has more industrial power which can easily be transformed into military industry. Also, Sweden, Germany, and France - those countries have MASSIVE military industries.
Excellent video
Great level-headed analysis.
This is somewhat encouraging. With the continued political paralysis in the US, Europe can out perform Russian production.
Sadly, they may have to. Congress is embarrassingly dysfunctional. One of our political parties is practically a Russian agent.
I’m surprised how everyone finds Russian agents everywhere. when they find American agents in Europe or Russia, for some reason this is presented as a blessing@@E3ECO
Romney tried raising the alarm and Obama ended that with his "the 80's called and they want their villains back" remark.
.. it was pretty funny at the time
There is also political paralysis in Europe. We all fell short in delivering the promised armaments. Europe isn't any better than the US in terms of support for Ukraine. This week the German parliament declined again to deliver cruise missiles to Ukraine. Shameful.
@@E3ECOmaybe Europe should fund their own militaries and defend themselves instead of being parasites of the United States taxpayer base? I’m no Russian and i think Putin is a sick dictator, but this is EUROPEs problem, not America’s. Fund your own damn army, leech. We’d like free healthcare too, but we’ll spend literally hundreds of billions of dollars for European security. This is why trump is getting popular again, and you’ll never be ab,e to understand that alternate perspective.
Unsustainable in the MEDIUM AND long term for Russia.
True, but that's been said for 2 years now. Will it continue to be said two years from now?
ukraine will run out of manpower and material before Russian economy runs out of steam.
Magic thinking😁
@@Chantillian Take a look at the situation in Syria. That's been going on for over a decade now.
@@skabuoy Yep, it's at a point now where using the word "unsustainable" loses its meaning.
Thank You !
Anders always a well-balanced lecture. If I were young again, I would give a lot to "study" at the defense academy as it is extremely professional. You do me great honor.👍👍👍
Video downvoted for incorrect explanation of GDP PPP. Although he is not a trained economist, nonetheless he gave wrong information. It has nothing to do with fluctuating exchange rates or the use of the USD
Great video as always Anders! Let's also remember, for Russia's production they are not having to move it very far, while NATO equipment has to be shipped/trucked/airlifted sometimes halfway across the world. Not only expensive, but not fast, and not convenient. I do agree that long-term favors NATO if we can keep (read: create) backfill coming in. There are other factors than simple dollar value however which does give some advantages to Russia. Which is why we can't rest on our laurels.
I will love to see the trolls take on this. I think it will go "hurr durr Russia will win because [magical thinking]"
I'm not a troll or on Russia's side, but I think a lot depends on who will become the next president of the United States. With Trump the USA will drastically cut the the support, if not outright stop it. If Europe will cover for that enormous gap is not sure at all.
@@steffenpanning2776Europe can cover it but let’s face it, Trump has such huge delusions of grandeur that he won’t miss the opportunity to save the free world
trump is a vindictive person... He couldn't care less about the world. As long as the cameras are recording his grandiose existence above everyone around him, He could be standing on a pile of smoking rubble for all he cared. @@1conkers1
Trump is not going to be the next POTUS.
Europes production could also be affected if europe experiences a financial/economic crisis at any time in the future.
Thank you for the analysis video Anders! Always good to hear from you.
I feel that there is a lot of value in the thoughts posted in this comments section. I would love to see a follow-up video from you which explores the issues raised.
Unfortunately for Ukraine, it's not how much the west could spend but rather what they will send. Russia is spending a much larger portion of its GDP than any western nation would even begin to consider. I think that you have to divide the NATO GDP by 10 to get a more fair idea of what realistically could be spent. If you do that you get about what we see - parity and stalemate. Everything that I have heard and read indicates that Russia cannot keep this up indefinitely, where the west can. However, it also means that Russia is not going to collapse any time soon. It's going to be a very long war.
Its going to be a long time before russia collapses? Like 3 years? 4?
They bought laughably low quality North Korean shells for a huge price, That doesn't look to me like someone who can keep things up indefinitely.
@@peterroe2993 Of course, but it could well be that those shells gave them the time they needed to start increasing domestic production. Making artillery shells is not that complicated, and Russia has pretty much all the necessary resources, so if they choose to, they can scale up their production quite a bit.
What analyst forget its who will use all these Western resources, you need to have manpower, and even if in War production NAto countries make more,in the end who will use all these equipment if Ukraine start to have shortage in manpower. I think that these its main concern of NATO not making more war equipment then Russia.
@@edhargquest8710Neither side will run into serious manpower problems any time soon. There are videos about that topic too. Watch them.
This is quite good. As one of those IMF economists I have just one comment. Incidentally, thanks for using our data, though you don't have to go to Wikipedia to get the data, we have a really good site with WEO numbers.
What I want to say is that comparing GDPs is sensible in the very very long run. But we have to understand that GDP includes things like sports, education, maintaining public parks etc., so everything that is produced. But everything that is produced will not help you put tanks and artillery shells into battle in the short to medium run. How long does it take to convert a teacher or someone trained in ballet or critical pedagogy into someone who can make artillery shells? Maybe not forever, but very long for sure. So, it would be better to take the value added in the manufacturing sector at PPP and compare that.
Interesting comment.
BTW: Do we know the unemployment rates among people with an education that is relevant to shell production?
How many potential shell producers are sitting at home waiting to find a job? (I guess that it also takes time to build the factories though)
@@anotherelvis There is data on unemployment by level of education for some countries, but that's not quite what you are asking. But let's estimate -- unemployment rate is less than 10% for most NATO countries, so employing everyone fully would not change the big picture a whole lot. For example, Norway is very rich and has a high GDP, but only 6% of that is manufacturing. So they can't quickly convert majority of their GDP (mostly oil) into tanks and ammunition.
I wouldn't trust most of the people in this country to manufacture paperclips. They don't show up for work; they give you attitude; they take 2 hour breaks for lunch; they're sloppy; and they report you to HR for looking at them funny and HR looks at the DEI guidelines to see if they can fire you for being productive.
I have a friend who has to measure what's produced for the Navy to see if it meets specs. These are the best and brightest - not the polloi. She has to reject more than half of it and these are prototype weapons that are being carefully looked over at all stages of production. What do you think that our woke college students who never had to do anything important in their whole life will produce on an assembly line? Junk.
She has a colleague who tests materials who also doesn't show up for work; gives you attitude; takes 2 hour breaks for lunch; he's sloppy; and reports you to HR for looking at him funny and HR looks at the DEI guidelines to see if they can fire you for being productive. They don't assign him any work because they can't trust him to do the job of checking to see if others are doing their job. They also can't fire him - he's a long time government employee. They can't replace him because the position is filled. One third of the staff is useless. I don't think Anders has ever had to work in the real world in the West.
Russia used to be like that but now they can throw you out on the street if you don't work. Russia is closer to being a capitalist country than almost any country to their west. They learned their lesson but we didn't.
Downvoted for incorrect explanation of GDP PPP. Although he is not a trained economist, nonetheless he gave wrong information. It has nothing to do with fluctuating exchange rates or the use of the USD
@@John_Smith_86I know, you are right! but let’s not be too judgmental. How would we economists perform on a military exam?
Thank you.
Excellent presentation..thanks. Between you and Perun I get the info that explains things to me number wise..
On the theme of attrition, I would love to see you do an estimate on how much equipment russia have left and when they run out with the current burn rate
There was a thread somewhere where someone estimated the number of remaining tnaks to be ~1700. Would be nice if Anders could do an estimate
There are several youtube channels that attempt do evaluate that. Using satellite pictures to estimate changes in the Russian vehicle parks.
Covert Cabal does is is a good place to start. Perun has also done some work on the subject.
But it's incredibly difficult to do. In particular; understanding what proportion of these vehicles are still salvageable, at what rate can they be refurbished and so on...
Our problem is that it's much easier for autocrats to impose their will while democracies are trying to galvanize theirs.
Where do you see democracies in the world? I see various forms of dictatorship by elites masquerading as democracies.
This only ever works short-term & it seems to consistently deteriorate productivity (& cohesion) in the long term.
The Soviet wisdom of "They pretend to pay us & we pretend to work" comest to mind.
Russia is going Soviet & it will end up in the same way as it did back then.
Thanks!
thanks for another informative video! Please post a video on the Russian economy, would be great to know more about that!
Honestly NATO has invested in Ukraine as a very efficient defensive attritional war so likely the bare minimum of holding the line in terms of arms production will be achieved.
I would be interested in seeing how defense budgets have actually changed around the world since the beginning of the war.
Germany can't even increase its military budget since the anti Russia sanctions pulled its economy into the negative, the rest of EU aren't that better.
You make it sound as if that was a conscious strategy. More likely, doing the bare minimum was just the result of the usual political muddling through.
That's how the sausage gets made.
It's in the air right now as to why where and what reasons people have.
But the real problem is voters. Push to hard, and you'll be voted out of office. War is scary, and voters are more than likely uninformed. Some people think peace deals of any sort are a good idea to stop the death.
"Honestly NATO has invested in Ukraine as a very efficient defensive attritional war so likely the bare minimum of holding the line in terms of arms production will be achieved" you are a disgusting psychopath,
@ Path of least resistance. So far, the bare minimum is working. Russia is unable to push through Ukraine and attack NATO countries.
If the tide starts turning and Russians begin advancing on NATO, I think we will see that the "bare minimum" is a relative term. NATO countries will do more to push the Russians back. Keep in mind, NATO has been sending second-rate weapons and ammo that is about to expire. Very few top of the line weapons.
Watch what happens if/when Russia gets within 50 km of Poland or Romania, and people realize that if a NATO country is attacked, A5 drags us all into war.
Basically russia's only hope is that the west stops supplying Ukraine. As a pro-Ukrainian American, all I can say is fuq the gop. (Yes, I'm big mad.)
Its not the GOP, its the speaker of the house and his fraction of Kremlin puppets
How did it even happen? That seems remarkably out of character for the GOP in medium term historical context
@@SianaGearzIt's only me that thinks Reagan may be actually somersaulting in his grave right now?
@@SianaGearzTo think that the current GOP forgot that it once fought against slavery is similarly mindboggling.
GOP going MAGA is a catastrophe!
Americans voting for a politician who created fake electors to overthrow a democratic election and create a dictatorship is mind boggling. Why can't they just move to russia and enjoy dictatorship there?
Officer Nielsen, your commentary and Jake Broe’s commentary are the best, most informative and intelligent. Thank you so much for your information. If you ever come to Manhattan and give a lecture, say at the United Nations, I would very much like to attend. Thank you, Sir. Paul Messina, New York City.
Merci!
Money is a bad indicator. What really counts is how many tanks, planes, artillery, and shells roll out of the factories each month.
I mean, haven’t we learned that quantity is in-fact not a quality in its own right?
@@mamba101 except that it can be if you try hard and long enough.
Right. But since you do not know that and cannot summarize that in a meaningful way, that is why you use aggregates like various kinds of GDP.
A different question, however, is how to gauge any russian statistics.
Yes, steel and production of other metals, ect. The US has 20% of its GDP in healtcare... while having no real healtcare.
This is not going to age well..
It’s always fascinating listening to your videos. Thank you. 🇦🇺👴🏻
This was very helpful in understanding this war of attrition as it relates to the comparative values of NATO versus Russia, Iran, North Korea and GDP. As a conservative, I hope Congress will still support this war even with an administration change in November. We've got big problems here at home, but I am afraid if we do not back Ukraine, our problems will get worse. Just my opinion though. Okay, all have a good weekend.
Thank you! The trouble with the west is all the stalling going on, endless meetings, forums and God knows what! Surely a more united front could help to end this war sooner as the russian economy seems to be in decline. Glory to Ukraine!!!🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇬🇧
Сопли подотри)
С нашей экономикой в отличие от вашей, все в ажуре)
И свои бандеровские кричалки лучше не выкрикивай где попало. Многие уже в курсе откуда они..)
If only there was political will from Nato for Ukraine to win they could outproduce russia by far its not even a question
are you aware of industrial processes?
if there were a will , the wsr would never been started or st least over for 1 year ago
Could you explain your counterargumet a bit deeper?@@toto-yf8tc
@@toto-yf8tcare you aware of industrial processes?
Sorry but you are flat out wrong! NATO industries are far behind Russia when it comes to producing grenades for example. Ramping up production takes a looong time. The war hopefully is over soon..
Hi Anders, I watch ALL your videos as soon as they come out. Always top quality, clear and helpful. This is the first time I felt unable to understand your point. You said if NATO runs at Max capacity Russia would have to invest many times more to keep up with NATO. But I thought the point was that Russia doesn't have the capacity regardless of how much they are willing to pay. You also neglected to mention that Russia uses a lot of equipment from past productions years. Is it to be assumed that that stock is finally running out ? Of course the biggest question is whether NATO has the will to run at max capacity or not but assuming they do I didn't really get your point (apart from the opening statement with regard to Jake's point). In any case, your videos are great. Thanks for taking the time to produce such great content (especially the recent one on the U.S. speaker of the house). Cheers
The speaker is smart, real smart. Speaks well too. I finally fully understand PPP.
There's also the fact that NEW production only applies for a few items, because so far, the US for instance, has only sent equipment we have on hand that isn't new. NATO in total also hasn't sent much new equipment. A few tanks (compared to numbers on hand but in storage, that also tend to not be our most current versions) some IFV's and armored troop transports and Humvee's. Yes, France and Britain have sent SCALP/Storm Shadow's but the US has sent ATACM's for example, that were earmarked for disposal. Same with our Gimlers rockets which are being replaced by PRISM missiles anyway (my acronyms may not all be correct). Now, when it comes to 155 artillery ammo and replacement barrels, yes, we all need to get on the ball and make more, but we're unlikely to run out of F-16's for example, for years and years...and when we do there's always F-15/18 and even 14's before we need to dip into our supply of F-35's, the 1000th of which just recently rolled off the assembly line and even those are undergoing a massive upgrade to just get prepped for the Block 4 variant, which will happen in a few more years. The long and short of it is that we've been supplying Ukraine with, for the most part, older weapons systems that are obsolescent, and that saves us storage and maintenance costs. So this war is, in many ways, actually saving us money.
A lot of money.
Slava Ukraini 🇺🇦
You forgot the so called Nato countries do not have a lot of equipments. Only the US, china and Russia actually has alot of combat equipments
And maybe Germany a bit
Hej Anders.
Jeg vil super gerne vide mere om hvor mange kampvogne Rusland har og kan producere i forhold til hvornår løber tør for kampvogne med deres store tab i krigen
How long is a piece of string.
1500 new and modernized at this moment, but if you ask Anders he will probebly say 150😂
Russia can produce 200 modernized tanks a year roughly, if you get all the babushkas in the square then you can get the 1500 number
It suits me fine that the Russians spend a lot of money on tanks that a small drone can take 😁
Det er meget tvivlsomt at de løber tør:
ua-cam.com/video/uj5c1kWgKd4/v-deo.htmlsi=-v9dRhZNLI7xTrkf
It's not just up to the political will of the countries in the west, but it also importantly comes down to their political capacity. This was an important point raised on the Vlad Vexler Chat channel on UA-cam recently.
Thank You 🙏.
This the topic we need.
And analysis of: how to ramp up weapon production, does it happen? Why not faster? EU vs USA here … political will etc. Maybe role of France in EU’s case (they push for European autonomy - yet it seems to go against speed and efficiency)
I am disheartened there was not done more in this area (in EU at least).
One advantage that Russia has is that they just have one person in the Kremlin that needs to make decisions about how much should Russia commit to the war economically.
Putin just had to say “invest x amount into war production” and it’ll be done. Although a lot will obviously be lost due to corruption.
The West though has to go through endless negotiating amongst themselves on what to provide and how much. And they don’t have the same mindset or military production of Russia that allows them to go all in for a war like this.
And unfortunately because we live in Democracy’s, individuals such as Viktor Orban and house representatives can block aid to Ukraine. Putin doesn’t have to worry about that at all.
But at the end of the day, capitalism beats planned production when it comes to productivity. Look at Cuba, look at Laos.
Except that's totally not what's actually happening. Turns out there's loads of corruption. Turns out he can't even make people keep the heat on. You're falling for russian propaganda - the almighty Tsar Putler.
I wouldn't overestimate the power of dictatorships. Every dictator depends on a complex system of competing forces in their bureaucratic and political structure. Democratic countries might face challenges in terms of parliamentary politics and red tape, but dictators always have to worry about coups and assassinations. They still have to balance every decision with how to maintain their own political survival. Unlike in a democracy, "survival" is not a metaphor.
And yet it is EXACTLY this "disempowerment" of our so called leaders that has made the West so much healthier, wealthier and happier than places like ruzzia. Our leaders have to bow to the rule of law. Usually. With this confidence in the egality of law our entrepreneurs, tiny like me, or huge like Ford, or Honda, grow wealth, confident that no gangster, like putler, will steal it and make my efforts worth nothing. The West may look weak and disorganised, lacking clear vision on the goals and ways to the goals. It's like a self-generated smokescreen, hiding our power from ourselves.
Putler has fired his cannon, the ruzzian economy. It will take ruzzia decades to reload, meanwhile the West (apart from Ukraine) has barely felt anything.
@@rmdomainer9042 Russia is way more capitalist then any country in the west.
The figures sounds like they are in Ukraine’s favour, but they are actually not. In the NATO group, most countries spend less than 2% on their military defence, while Russia is currently spending 40% of their GDP on military production. It’s a catastrophe for the Russian society, but it’s an advantage when it comes to figures on the battlefield in Ukraine.
If NATO has over 20 times higher GDP than Russia they still outspend Russia's 40% with 2% of their GDP.
Dollars or Gold. Thank you for keeping this struggle in the public eye. It is extremely important.
Really informative. Thanks!
meget oplysende,Tak.
I think that a better comparison would be between the values of industrial production, which is a component of GDP. The rest of GDP is agriculture, services & trade.
Yes and no. Comparing industrial production will give a better short term picture, but having a big GDP can be used to buy/build what is needed, so GDP gives a better picture in the long term. For example, Artillery has become a much more important part of the war than expected. For that reason EU has doubled it's production of artillery shells since the start of the war, and is expected to double it again in 2024. Such an increase in production would be completely impossible for Russia, while EU was able to do it with very small impact on the rest of the economy.
@@Damogen There is a big disparity.
We know that Russian GDP is in big part gaz and oil. But, they also have a relatively big military industrial complex. They export weapons.
In a war, you could in theory convert a car factory into a tank factory or other military product. But, it's not efficiente. GDP is only a dump down picture of the capacity of a country without surface level details.
Lack of some material can render a lot on things complicated. (electronic composante for example)
The only conclusion is that Russian doesn't have the raw capacity to just impose what they want.
@@Damogen >> EU has doubled it's production of artillery shells
Thing is Russia has at least quadrupled shell production and plan x5 in 2024. And They had it many times higher beforehand.
@@Damogen Double of nothing is still nothing. The production was so laughably low before the war that it's going take a very long time (if ever) to bring it up to sufficient numbers.
@@Uranus_is_the_size_of_a_planet pre war europe's artillery shell production was 300.00 pr. year, expected for 2024 is 1.2-1.4 mio.
This is still less than Russias 2 mio. pr. year. But it's definitely significant. and if the war continues then Europe will likely outproduce Russia within a few more years.
Also, this is only looking at artillery shells, where Russia was far ahead in production. If you instead look at military drones, which are also playing a bigger role than expected. Here Russia is laughably far behind, and they basically can't do anything to improve it. And Europe is ramping up this production even faster than the artillery shells.
Thanks, for this bite sized primer on the economics of the War. I expect you are aware of Perun’s channel that covers similar topics in greater detail. I would recommend his work to your viewers. What do you think of his work? BTW keep you the good work, love your stuff. It must not be easy given your full time job. Thx
I'd say in this war it's more about an innovation race then a production race
Absolutely the opposite... Quality without quantity makes no sense. Only if you go with a tank against arrows and spears.
The Russian Central Bank recently made a considerable withdrawal from the Russian wealth fund, to finance the budget deficit caused by the war and sanctions. A Russian youtube blogger said that there's only around 350 tonnes of gold + around 40bn Yuan and an undisclosed amount of Rubles left in the fund. It might run dry later this year, not including the ~$300bn in frozen Russian assets in the West, primarily Europe.
It's a false statement. CBR stated to __fill__ Russian Wealth Fund for Jan 2024 (it was banned from doing it since summer 2022)
Listen to Sergey Alexashenko, not bloggers
Always great to hear from you Anders! What effect does the massive inventory of so-called heavy equipment have on this analysis? I understand that a great deal of what russia needs to progress and arm themselves comes from abroad and that most of the iron in 'storage' is decades old and needs major refurbishment before use. What is the key? Is it stopping russia from bringing the iron to the front line (Kerch Bridge) or more about the new tech that they are having to source from behind the line of sanctions?
People talk about the old tanks but don't talk about the untrained soldiers driving them. The Russians in Ukraine are not maneuver warriors; they use their tanks as direct-fire artillery with treads. How else would a Bradley school a T-90 unless the tankers were newbs?
As always, great information.
Another thing to bear in mind is that the wage bill on the western side is being substantially paid out at Ukrainian prices not German or American prices, so PPP probably understates the capacity there
Yeah but because of their economic situation buying raw materials from cheaper countries is probably harder now. And i think the west probably makes Ukraine buy from them. Would suck but is understandable.
Military Production Capacity is limited by current factories in Europe which can produce missiles, and military equipment. It doesn't have much to do with GDP. Russia produces 3 times more missiles than all European countries together, still with sanctions on Russia. Imaging when sanctions are lifted by some countries.
A couple of points:
1: I wonder if there is a way to include a corruption adjustment to this calculation.
If one third of Russian military spending is being wasted due to corruption
that should figure into the calculations.
On the other hand, there was a CBS news piece that investigated
the problem that the American military has regarding sticking to
just one manufacturer for some types of military equipment and
(more importantly) replacement parts.
Apparently decades ago the American military used multiple manufacturers
for each type of equipment but somebody decuded that it would
be simpler and more efficient to use just one supplier for each type
of military equipment which means that if a part needs to be replaced
the U.S. military must pay whatever price the company demands
no matter how outrageous.
That's not a very efficient way to spend money on a military.
2: As someone else has pointed out Russian forces are not just using and losing
equipment produced now but also using a lot of equipment built over many decades.
Based on some of the analysis available Russia seems likely to have
used up all of its inventory of old tanks by spring 2025 if the war
goes on that long and Russia might get to that point sooner than that
given that it has certainly been refurbishing the old tanks in the best condition
and the remaining old tanks must be in worse condition and possibly
many of them are not salvageable.
On top of that is the possibility that they have been cannibalizing
the remaining old tanks for parts and don't have the spare parts
for all of the remaining old tanks.
Once Russia runs out of old tanks it's current tank production
will have no hope of keeping up with immense losses of tanks
and by the summer of 2025 Russia will likely have gone
from having far more tanks than any other country
to effectively having no tanks on the battlefield.
And I assume that the same will happen with a lot of
Russia's other heavy military equipment.
Makes me wonder - Russia may be able to keep producing
or buying artillery shells but when will it run out of guns to fire them?
"
1: I wonder if there is a way to include a corruption adjustment to this calculation.
If one third of Russian military spending is being wasted due to corruption
that should figure into the calculations."
How much Ukraine aid disappears on the black market? lol
@@misterpinkandyellow74 One commenter above gave a clue on how to find out if some of the help was stolen and sold on the black market. Here's how it goes: "Judging by the amount of russian military clothing and basic kit I'm seeing up for sale on ebay right now, you may also need to consider the traditional russian problem of material being stolen to be sold on the black market."
@@ristoikonen6957 are you trying g to gaslight me?
It is always interesting seeing these types of comparisons - thankyou. A high quality video as always.
One additional factor to consider is the societal effects of Total War policies. Under NATO doctrine a state of Total War is where every apparatus of the state is mobilised for the prosecution of the campaign - it is a situation which no European country has been in for the last 80 years. Russia it could be argued is not yet in a complete state of Total war - but it is a damn sight closer than any western European country, and only marginally behind Ukraine.
Why does it matter? ... because countries mobilised for total war get away with economic policies and fiscal decisions that non-TC countries cannot. Putin for all his limited resources can probably leverage a greater percentage of his countries diminished GDP, and do so with mechanisms that allow him to respond faster than democracies that have to balance budgets, maintain a standard of living, and pay for recent emergencies and infrastructure. NATO's resources are far greater - but its burdens are also considerable, and its populations more than capable of influencing the defence spend.
Will it make a difference? .... probably not. Russia is in such a state of decline that the best Putin can hope for is to go to his grave without seeing the inside of a Hauge prison cell. The rest of Russia however - will likely be cold, dark, deprived and resentful for generations.
I like how this was basically an hour of Perun boiled down to 9 minutes.
Another big difference is the technology. While western weapons are more expensive they are also significantly more effective. Even if russia had a much higher production rate for tanks and APC's, the west just needs to produce one or two Javelin/NLAW's per tank. Russia is losing about $100M worth of armoured vehicles daily and the cost to take them out is about $5M.
lol
Cost-performance! Ukraine is destroying billions of dollars worth of Russian equipment using weapons they were gifted.
That’s right. Add to that Russia relies more and more on obsolete Soviet equipment.
soviet 1960 ATGM has more range and reliability that Javeline and NLAW combined. And they destroy leopards in Syria from first rocket. Western at most equal to 1980 soviet technologies.
Javelins are defensive weapons. You don't clear a trench and a minefield with Javelins.
Also, war of attrition is not necessarily the best case for expensive weapons.
Our NATO doctrine is combined arms and our weapons and systems are designed for that.
Ukraine cannot perform combined arms operations.
If I was as consistently wrong in my job as you are in yours, I'd get fired.
Mr anders, this was very good but you should have also examined the proportion of GNP being invested in the war by Russia and the West.
Yes, absolutely. That’s what I mean when I say that it also requires political will.
Another Wonderful Video
Spending a really high percentage of GDP or govt revenue on war is unsustainable, and it's more unsustainable for countries with low GDP per capita, as there's only so much money you can take away, or tax, or not spend on essential services before the economy and society literally starts to collapse. That's what started to happen in Russia in 1916/17, despite significant material and financial assistance from France and Britain. If Germany hadn't conquered France in 1940, she would probably have gone bankrupt within a year, as her military spending was totally unaffordable. But all the victories in 1940 meant Germany was able to steal and exploit the resources and capabilities of other countries and continue the war. And this is the cautionary tale; France (and Britain) lost to Germany in 1940 partly because they had started re-arming too slowly, their economies and industrial footprint was more than capable of out-producing Germany, but due to political reasons I won't go into, they didn't start re-arming and rebuilding their military industrial base until too late. Probably only by a year, as by 1941 Britain was out-producing Germany in aircraft production, and had ramped up tank production to a similar level to Germany despite starting from almost zero in 1938. So the problem isn't that NATO countries don't have the economic and financial ability to absolutely crush Russia, but that they don't have the military production capacity at the moment. First we need to see big investments in that, before it translates to significantly more material help going to Ukraine. There are signs of this happening but they are fairly limited and I worry that they are too late. France and Germany are increasing howitzer production, the UK is increasing 155 and 105 shell output, and the US is doing similar. But the fact remains that Ukraine has very limited human and financial resources, NATO countries should be paying them to increase the salaries of soldiers so that men who have fled and migrated to Western Europe, where they earn more on building sites than their compatriats in the trenches, come back to fight or work in the local economy. The West really isn't flexing it's muscles yet, and Ukraine is paying for that with this costly meat-grinding stalemate that we see at the moment.
A brilliant take and resonates a lot with my thoughts as well. Russia has in fact military economy while everyone else tries to slack by using their old half assed civilian economy approach. This sadly is partially correct for Ukraine who totally expected West to cover all their needs and only now they are ramping up their military production.
I think GDP is absolutely useless to measure production capacity, because in first world countries there is little to no actual production, it's all services that make like 90% of GDP.
Exactly where wealth is stock and bond figures in the city not items made, satastics
you show me a country with 90% of GDP as services and i quit my job
@@charlesburgoyne-probyn6044
And concert tickets
This definitely broadened my perspective on the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
Thank you for your work.