Репост из: Rybar in English
📝On Long-Term Effects📝
In the context of strikes on the Ukrainian economy
When reading posts about the "war on cities" strategy, a question may arise: what exactly does the transformation of so-called Ukraine into a useless asset for its sponsors mean? Let us provide an example.
📌 Imagine you are almost entirely supporting a territorial entity that has already consumed several hundred billion euros and requires over 50 billion annually. In return, it only weakens your eastern neighbor, who, by the way, has no plans to attack you anyway.
And so the war has frozen, but this territorial entity continues to demand the same sums, because it cannot support itself. After all, its pre-war sources of income are largely destroyed, and the working-age population has been cut in half.
Because of this, "Marshall Plans" are useless — there is no point in rebuilding a factory that will never pay for itself due to irreversibly collapsed demand, a multiple increase in logistics and electricity costs. Or why rebuild the former innovative terminal in a city where three times fewer people now live?
So you begin to wonder whether this territorial asset is really needed, having already lost all the characteristics that made it attractive in 2013? Especially in light of your own economic difficulties and the use of this issue by domestic political rivals.
❗️The more effective the Russian Armed Forces strikes within the framework of the "war on cities," the more likely the outcome where even in the event of a "freeze," the EU will "write off" so-called Ukraine due to the futility of further maintenance. And without sponsors, the Kyiv regime cannot survive.
One can (and should) ask how all this correlates with the original goals of the SMO. But whether anyone likes it or not, one must proceed from current reality, adapting one's strategy to it — otherwise it is irrational.
#Russia #Ukraine #economy
✈️ RU | ✈️ EN | ✉️ MAX
✉️ VK | ✉️ RuTube | ✉️ OK | ✉️ Zen
💸Support us Original msg
In the context of strikes on the Ukrainian economy
When reading posts about the "war on cities" strategy, a question may arise: what exactly does the transformation of so-called Ukraine into a useless asset for its sponsors mean? Let us provide an example.
📌 Imagine you are almost entirely supporting a territorial entity that has already consumed several hundred billion euros and requires over 50 billion annually. In return, it only weakens your eastern neighbor, who, by the way, has no plans to attack you anyway.
And so the war has frozen, but this territorial entity continues to demand the same sums, because it cannot support itself. After all, its pre-war sources of income are largely destroyed, and the working-age population has been cut in half.
Because of this, "Marshall Plans" are useless — there is no point in rebuilding a factory that will never pay for itself due to irreversibly collapsed demand, a multiple increase in logistics and electricity costs. Or why rebuild the former innovative terminal in a city where three times fewer people now live?
So you begin to wonder whether this territorial asset is really needed, having already lost all the characteristics that made it attractive in 2013? Especially in light of your own economic difficulties and the use of this issue by domestic political rivals.
❗️The more effective the Russian Armed Forces strikes within the framework of the "war on cities," the more likely the outcome where even in the event of a "freeze," the EU will "write off" so-called Ukraine due to the futility of further maintenance. And without sponsors, the Kyiv regime cannot survive.
One can (and should) ask how all this correlates with the original goals of the SMO. But whether anyone likes it or not, one must proceed from current reality, adapting one's strategy to it — otherwise it is irrational.
#Russia #Ukraine #economy
✈️ RU | ✈️ EN | ✉️ MAX
✉️ VK | ✉️ RuTube | ✉️ OK | ✉️ Zen
💸Support us Original msg