Words fall on deaf ears. Putin isn’t going to take orders from anyone.

Alas the Russians labour under the impression that they have less to fear from nukes than smaller, more densely populated countries. That impression may unfortunately be correct to a certain extent. "Russia is huge" thinks the Russian, "it would be bad luck if a nuke hit near me". "Not only is Russia huge" thinks wino Medvedev, "but I'll be safe in my nuclear bunker".

NATO should keep track of who in Russia is advocating nuclear war, and where their relatives live. Then NATO should announce it reassigned nuclear missiles to specifically target the nuclear advocate's home town and relatives.

51 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

So there is GDP growth then, okay. I was under the impression you had said the opposite.

And what if the current forecast is 0.4%? The UK's is 0.8% hardly much difference.

You obviously haven't read well my initial post! 😃

i wrote:

"After a decade of zero GDP growth, he made a stupid war which actually put his country's fate in the hand of its most dangerous neighbour."

That's what the graph shows. Russia caught up lost growth only after military expenses fueled GDP growth.

Edited August 27Aug 27 by candide

2 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

This is tired NATO propaganda of course, Putin does not want Greater Russia, or even all of Ukraine. And yes, he did extend a hand of friendship to the West, after 1990, which was spat on.

The "tired NATO propaganda" seems to originate in Moscow:

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181

2 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Isn't that what Russia is doing now? Actuing with impunity? For all the sanctions and support of Ukraine, none of the NATO members dare to put troops on the ground to oppose Russia. We all know why. They're afraid of nuclear annihiliation.

Two ways of looking at it. This 2-month "SMO" is now quickly approaching its 5-year anniversary. It is clear that things haven't gone to plan from a Russian perspective. Putin could have resorted to nuclear warfare before now but hasn't. Why not? Perhaps he is concerned about the possible répercussions?

2 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

There is no way in hell NATO would respond in kind, as every NATO member knows that would risk the total destruction of their country via nuclear holocaust. The only risk would be if Zelensky is supplied with a similar weapon by NATO and then Russia is attacked. Then it could escalate.

It's telling that you believe that the best hope of avoiding MAD is to rely on the West to act morally.

And what happens if NATO ignores a Russian nuclear strike? For sure, Ukraine capitulates but then what? The peace-loving Vlad retreats to Moscow and we all - apart from the Ukrainians - live happily ever after? I think not.

A more likely scenario is that an emboldened Russia starts to ramp up the tension with Poland and the Baltic States. The West will act morally initially but there will come a tipping point when it thinks enough is enough i.e. MAD becomes inevitable.

Edited August 27Aug 27 by RayC

Europe (or the USA) should stop meddling in the issue and let it get sorted out by conventionnal warfare between the 2 parties. Would be far a more reasonable casus beli. Because in this context, both sides are as corrupt as the other.

1 minute ago, Sigmund said:

Europe (or the USA) should stop meddling in the issue and let it get sorted out by conventionnal warfare between the 2 parties. Would be far a more reasonable casus beli. Because in this context, both sides are as corrupt as the other.

Stop with the both sides BS. There is nothing wrong with the USA/Europe adding Ukraine.

10 minutes ago, Sigmund said:

Europe (or the USA) should stop meddling in the issue and let it get sorted out by conventionnal warfare between the 2 parties. Would be far a more reasonable casus beli. Because in this context, both sides are as corrupt as the other.

Presumably you would also want those countries supplying and supporting Russia, among others Belarus, North Korea, China, and Iran, to stop "meddling"?

1 hour ago, RayC said:

but hasn't. Why not? Perhaps he is concerned about the possible répercussions?

Because he was under the impression that conventional warfare would suffice to win the war, however, now with continued British, German support for drones and so on, and the need to mobilise further he may have revised his position. Obviously he would be concerned about repercussions, but the Russians have been very clear, that if they believe that the security of mother Russia is impaired they will allow nuclear strikes. Maybe that point has been reached.

1 hour ago, RayC said:

A more likely scenario is that an emboldened Russia starts to ramp up the tension with Poland and the Baltic States. The West will act morally initially but there will come a tipping point when it thinks enough is enough i.e. MAD becomes inevitable.

I just don't think any leader is mad enough to risk MAD. It is to the credit of Western NATO countries and the US that they refuse to go on a hot war adventure with a nuclear power like Russia. Obviously that would be madness.

I really do not think Russia wants war, not with Poland, not with Britain. It is however constantly being poked in the eye with a stick, particularly by Britain, and France too.

4 hours ago, candide said:

That's what the graph shows. Russia caught up lost growth only after military expenses fueled GDP growth.

No, that's not what the data shows. The data shows that Russia prepared carefully for the war, and filled its war coffers with substantial savings that were then used for investment. Putin prepared Russia very well for war.

18 hours ago, Cameroni said:

Russia to grow faster than all advanced economies says IMF

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) expects Russia to grow 3.2% this year, significantly more than the UK, France and Germany.

Despite the Kremlin being sanctioned over its invasion of Ukraine, the IMF upgraded its January predictions for the Russian economy this year, and said while growth would be lower in 2025, it would be still be higher than previously expected at 1.8%.

Russia to grow faster than all advanced economies says IMF

The IMF estimates Russia's economy will grow faster than the likes of the US, UK and Germany this year.

What planet do you live in? Certainly not planet Earth.

But the "growth" is because it's a war economy, i.e. spending on all the things a genuinely-prosperous nation shouldn't be spending money on.

Using traditional economics, check the labour shortages in conventional businesses, with record low unemployment. Inflation is at 6%. Interest rates are at 14%. The liquid assets in the National Wealth Fund are down 70% since the start of the war. Oil and gas revenues are down 30% since 2022.

It's not sustainable, is it?

30 minutes ago, IsaanT said:

But the "growth" is because it's a war economy, i.e. spending on all the things a genuinely-prosperous nation shouldn't be spending money on.

Using traditional economics, check the labour shortages in conventional businesses, with record low unemployment. Inflation is at 6%. Interest rates are at 14%. The liquid assets in the National Wealth Fund are down 70% since the start of the war. Oil and gas revenues are down 30% since 2022.

It's not sustainable, is it?

The tremendous growth of the Russian economy from 2023 to 2024 is not sustainable. Russian GDP grew more than the US, Japan, UK, Germany, France. This in fact created the risk of overheating of the Russian economy, prices rose, and inflation became a problem.

Russia is not a war economy, a mere 10% of the growth is related to military production. 30% of Russia's growth is due to oil and gas exports. However, the production for the military is becoming a pillar, the real pain will be when Russia wins the war and this pillar of the economy falls away.

Russia is not overspending, on the contrary, it saved substantially prior to the war, and its spending was very targeted with the aim of fuelling the economy. This has succeeded beyond anyone's wildest dreams, even the Financial Times admits this:

https://www.ft.com/content/d304a182-997d-4dae-98a1-aa7c691526db?syn-25a6b1a6=1

There is a change in the structure of spending now, including growing social and military expenditure, among the main challenges facing the economy. However, the Russian economy is still growing. The economy is expected to maintain “positive momentum” this year. The country’s economic growth is expected to steadily increase to 2.4 per cent in 2029.

Economic dynamics are cyclical, a period of high growth is always followed by an adjustment, the current stage is normal. The spectacular growth of 2023 and 2024 could not continue indefinitely.

https://www.ft.com/content/30d82390-b30f-41c7-a3dc-f4768126d99e?syn-25a6b1a6=1

22 hours ago, impulse said:

He's not wrong. It's not just NATO, but Ukraine would have been out of money and ammo years ago if it wasn't for funding from NATO countries.

And the dying would have stopped and they'd be years ahead on the rebuilding.

And who next ,do you realy thing Putin eould stop at ukrain,

22 hours ago, impulse said:

He's not wrong. It's not just NATO, but Ukraine would have been out of money and ammo years ago if it wasn't for funding from NATO countries.

And the dying would have stopped and they'd be years ahead on the rebuilding.

Rubbish Vlad! Putin then would have attacked another former Soviet country! The only thing Russia respects is strength! You clowns might like to paint it as lengthening the war but reality, Ukrainians are sacrificing for all of Europe!

Thankfully with all the nut jobs running Nuclear armed Super power countries we have one, China which has a sane leadership and is using it to the benefit of the world!

7 minutes ago, Hardcastle P said:

And who next ,do you realy thing Putin eould stop at ukrain,

Yes, I do. He won't attack NATO. He's brutal, but he's not suicidal.

3 minutes ago, Brettoj said:

Rubbish Vlad! Putin then would have attacked another former Soviet country! The only thing Russia respects is strength! You clowns might like to paint it as lengthening the war but reality, Ukrainians are sacrificing for all of Europe!

You mean these guys?

Putin already has exactly what he claimed he wanted going in. The 4 Oblasts in the Donbas (yeah, that's way oversimplified, but this isn't a geography thread), as a buffer, and for the Ukronazis to quit murdering ethnic Russians in that area.

Besides, you can always start WW3 and nuclear winter if he decides to go further.

Edited August 28Aug 28 by impulse

21 hours ago, candide said:

Russia is now too dependent on China, currently his first trade partner. Putin cannot act against China's wishes.

Putin is an incompetent leader. After a decade of zero GDP growth, he made a stupid war which actually put his country's fate in the hand of its most dangerous neighbour.

Russia, with its good natural and human resources , should now be like California. Putin has been a disaster for his country. 😅

Russia’s real GDP growth (annual % change) over the last 10 years (2016–2025):

Year	Growth rate
2016	+0.2%
2017	+1.8%
2018	+2.8%
2019	+2.2%
2020	–2.7%
2021	+5.9%
2022	–1.4%
2023	+4.1%
2024	+4.9%
2025	+1.0%

These are real (inflation-adjusted) GDP growth rates. Figures are rounded to one decimal place; slight differences appear across datasets due to revisions and methodology.

Sources

• Primary: World Bank (World Development Indicators and Macro Poverty Outlook documents, including April 2026 Russia country data).

• Also widely cited: IMF World Economic Outlook, Rosstat (Russian Federal State Statistics Service), Macrotrends, TheGlobalEconomy, and StatisticsTimes compilations that draw from World Bank/IMF.

16 hours ago, Cameroni said:

No, that's not what the data shows. The data shows that Russia prepared carefully for the war, and filled its war coffers with substantial savings that were then used for investment. Putin prepared Russia very well for war.

Your deflection is also true, and it does't contradict what I said. There was a quasi-zero growth during a decade, before military expenses fueled growth. While other emerging economies, such as China's economy, were thriving.

Putin waited to have accumulated enough foreign reserves and gold reserves, and also that the price of energy was high enough, before invading Ukraine.

4 hours ago, Cameroni said:

The tremendous growth of the Russian economy from 2023 to 2024 is not sustainable. Russian GDP grew more than the US, Japan, UK, Germany, France. This in fact created the risk of overheating of the Russian economy, prices rose, and inflation became a problem.

Russia is not a war economy, a mere 10% of the growth is related to military production. 30% of Russia's growth is due to oil and gas exports. However, the production for the military is becoming a pillar, the real pain will be when Russia wins the war and this pillar of the economy falls away.

Russia is not overspending, on the contrary, it saved substantially prior to the war, and its spending was very targeted with the aim of fuelling the economy. This has succeeded beyond anyone's wildest dreams, even the Financial Times admits this:

https://www.ft.com/content/d304a182-997d-4dae-98a1-aa7c691526db?syn-25a6b1a6=1

There is a change in the structure of spending now, including growing social and military expenditure, among the main challenges facing the economy. However, the Russian economy is still growing. The economy is expected to maintain “positive momentum” this year. The country’s economic growth is expected to steadily increase to 2.4 per cent in 2029.

Economic dynamics are cyclical, a period of high growth is always followed by an adjustment, the current stage is normal. The spectacular growth of 2023 and 2024 could not continue indefinitely.

https://www.ft.com/content/30d82390-b30f-41c7-a3dc-f4768126d99e?syn-25a6b1a6=1

And here you are again, citing outdated information from a 2024 dated source! 😂

Edited August 28Aug 28 by candide

17 hours ago, Cameroni said:

Because he was under the impression that conventional warfare would suffice to win the war, however, now with continued British, German support for drones and so on, and the need to mobilise further he may have revised his position. Obviously he would be concerned about repercussions, but the Russians have been very clear, that if they believe that the security of mother Russia is impaired they will allow nuclear strikes. Maybe that point has been reached.

I just don't think any leader is mad enough to risk MAD. It is to the credit of Western NATO countries and the US that they refuse to go on a hot war adventure with a nuclear power like Russia. Obviously that would be madness.

I really do not think Russia wants war, not with Poland, not with Britain. It is however constantly being poked in the eye with a stick, particularly by Britain, and France too.

That Putin underestimated Ukraine's ability to resist Russia's invasion is beyond doubt.

You seem to expect - in both senses of the word - the West to show restraint when it comes to the use of nuclear weapons but not apply the same conditions to Russia, simply because they have supposedly offered some sort of warning.

Wrt 'poking the bear'. You view this as sufficient justification for Russia's SMD; I don't. I doubt that we will ever convince the other.

6 minutes ago, RayC said:

That Putin underestimated Ukraine's ability to resist Russia's invasion is beyond doubt.

You seem to expect - in both senses of the word - the West to show restraint when it comes to the use of nuclear weapons but not apply the same conditions to Russia, simply because they have supposedly offered some sort of warning.

Wrt 'poking the bear'. You view this as sufficient justification for Russia's SMD; I don't. I doubt that we will ever convince the other.

No, it's fundamentally different, because Russia would use the nuclear device on a non-nuclear nation like Ukraine. As it sees its integrity endangered. You're talking about NATO countries attacking a nuclear country like Russia. Very different premises.

Like I said, we saw how reluctant the NATO countries are to go to war with a nuclear power. And for good reason.

Russia doesn't need any justification, if you look at the map, had Ukraine joined NATO then Russia would have become de facto indefensible with Ukraine on NATO's side. Obviously controlling a rump of Ukraine now is preferable.

4 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Russia would use the nuclear device on a non-nuclear nation like Ukraine.

No ones nuking anyone. But, if they could I'd fully support RU nuking Ukraine.
Get this over and done with instead of the continual laundering of UK taxpayer money through that corrupt <deleted> hole.

I Stand ON Ukraine. <deleted> them.

2 hours ago, Taxi said:

Russia’s real GDP growth (annual % change) over the last 10 years (2016–2025):

Year	Growth rate
2016	+0.2%
2017	+1.8%
2018	+2.8%
2019	+2.2%
2020	–2.7%
2021	+5.9%
2022	–1.4%
2023	+4.1%
2024	+4.9%
2025	+1.0%

These are real (inflation-adjusted) GDP growth rates. Figures are rounded to one decimal place; slight differences appear across datasets due to revisions and methodology.

Sources

• Primary: World Bank (World Development Indicators and Macro Poverty Outlook documents, including April 2026 Russia country data).

• Also widely cited: IMF World Economic Outlook, Rosstat (Russian Federal State Statistics Service), Macrotrends, TheGlobalEconomy, and StatisticsTimes compilations that draw from World Bank/IMF.

You also didn't read well my post ("After a decade of zero GDP growth, he made a stupid war"). I mentioned the decade before Putin started to fuel GDP growth with military expenses for the war, notvduring the war.

The graph I posted in the post after the one you quoted is from the Fed, using World Bank data (which is provided by Russia to the Worldbank). It show real GDP level (not growth), as it makes it easier to compare between years. Reposted below.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MKTGDPRUA646NWDB#

2 minutes ago, Tourist2 said:

No ones nuking anyone. But, if they could I'd fully support RU nuking Ukraine.
Get this over and done with instead of the continual laundering of UK taxpayer money through that corrupt <deleted> hole.

I Stand ON Ukraine. <deleted> them.

Maybe not. Could be the head of US intelligence flew to Moscow to warn against an attack on Latvia, not a nuclear strike.

Whatever it is it must be bad. Or Trump's administration would tell us. They're honest and transparent to a fault. Like no other administration in history.

4 minutes ago, candide said:

You also didn't read well my post ("After a decade of zero GDP growth, he made a stupid war"). I mentioned the decade before Putin started to fuel GDP growth with military expenses for the war, notvduring the war.

The graph I posted in the post after the one you quoted is from the Fed, using World Bank data (which is provided by Russia to the Worldbank). It show real GDP level (not growth), as it makes it easier to compare between years. Reposted below.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MKTGDPRUA646NWDB#

Your graph is not supporting your assertion of zero growth in GDP for a decade.

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

Your graph is not supporting your assertion of zero growth in GDP for a decade.

These guys don't let the facts get in the way of their feeling.

They've hated Russians since 1987 (when Ivan Drago killed Apollo Creed and almost beat Rocky)
and they're not gonna stop now.

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

No, it's fundamentally different, because Russia would use the nuclear device on a non-nuclear nation like Ukraine. As it sees its integrity endangered. You're talking about NATO countries attacking a nuclear country like Russia. Very different premises.

That is no justification for Russia detonating a nuclear bomb in Ukraine. It amounts to saying that using nuclear weapons is ok so long as your adversary cannot reply in kind.

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

Like I said, we saw how reluctant the NATO countries are to go to war with a nuclear power. And for good reason.

I would hope that statement would apply to all nuclear powers, including Russia.

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

Russia doesn't need any justification, if you look at the map, had Ukraine joined NATO then Russia would have become de facto indefensible with Ukraine on NATO's side. Obviously controlling a rump of Ukraine now is preferable.

But Ukraine hadn't joined NATO, wasn't on the verge of joining NATO and probably never would join NATO.

Ukraine withdrew its application for NATO membership in 2010. In 2014, Ukraine reaffirmed its neutral status. Since then, Russia has annexed Crimea, funded and armed separatists in Donbas and invaded mainland Ukraine.

If you start with an assumption that Russia needs no justification, then debate is not possible. However, what is clear is that there is no justification for Russia's actions.

5 hours ago, Cameroni said:

Russia is not a war economy, a mere 10% of the growth is related to military production

Mere 10% eh? So while military output alone might not dominate GDP, the systemic reorientation of the economy around the war effort is what many experts point to when calling it a war economy which is what it is.

That is no justification for Russia detonating a nuclear bomb in Ukraine. It amounts to saying that using nuclear weapons is ok so long as your adversary cannot reply in kind.

I was addressing the point of retaliation, not whether it's right or wrong. Clearly if you attack a non nuclear country that country cannot retaliate with nuclear weapons. If you attack a nuclear country that country can retaliate with nuclear weapons. That is why the NATO countries are so reluctant to go to war with Russia.

8 minutes ago, RayC said:

I would hope that statement would apply to all nuclear powers, including Russia.

Yes, of course. However, we have seen "low level" provocations, like the French and British navies seizing de facto Russian vessels. We may see the same from Russia, seizing ships affiliated with the UK or France, drone attacks on planes in Germany. Not outright attack, and leaving plausible deniability.

But Ukraine hadn't joined NATO, wasn't on the verge of joining NATO and probably never would join NATO.

Ukraine was very much on the path of joining NATO.

Russia annexed the Crimea after the Bucharest NATO conference disclosed that Ukraine WILL become a member of NATO. That was the point of no return for Putin, when he learned that he'd been lied to.

If Ukraine is part of NATO then a defence of Russia becomes impossible, factually speaking. This is what caused the Ukraine war, Russia warned Ukraine cannot become a NATO member, the West disagreed. So we got war.

Edited August 28Aug 28 by Cameroni

13 minutes ago, Palatus said:

Mere 10% eh? So while military output alone might not dominate GDP, the systemic reorientation of the economy around the war effort is what many experts point to when calling it a war economy which is what it is.

Russia is not a "war economy". Nazi Germany devoted 75% of its GDP to the war effort in 1944. That was a "war economy".

Saudi Arabia devotes 7.1 percent of its GDP to its military. Yet nobody would call Saudi Arabia a war economy. 10 percent is not enough for that.

There is an increasing interweaving with the military, and it is slightly above what is normal, but you certainly cannot call Russia a "war economy".

China Warns Putin: Don’t Cross the Nuclear Red Line in Ukraine

Western propagandists are making up fictional stories to sell to a totally dumbed down public.