Russia and the West

seaspear

Active Member
There is some interesting information here on the economic effects of this war and how it has even boosted economies of some countries particularly with Russians leaving Russia
As More Russians Flee Over Putin's War On Ukraine, Other Countries Are Reaping The Economic Benefits (rferl.org)

Some of the longer term consequences for Russia may include decreased gas production from permanent damage caused by shutting down wells of equivalent to two million barrels per day and pivoting gas exports to Asia will cost massive infrastructure spending in the medium term
Effects Of War In Ukraine On The Russian Economy – The Organization for World Peace (theowp.org)
 

seaspear

Active Member
View attachment 49886



The above pictures come from Le Monde, it confirm the trend the abseentee coming mostly from Asia and Middle East. However shown some numbers from Latin America and Africa. Many of them are commodities producers including hydrocarbons.

So it is not just oil and gas matter in here. I do see some more substantial issue from Non Collective west put. This Indian article can shown example on that.


More likely, this war going to be part of more multipolar order global relationship developing. Business wise those growing abseentee are having more relationship with West then Russian. Russian Hydrocarbons going to get more non Euro customers is being predicted by market (as I have shown market assesment on that in this thread before).

However it is not I believe what giving raise on the trend. Non Collective West more concern with the precendents that West try to build in this kind of relationship (as the Indian article put). Russia will not going to pay, unless they are completely capitulating (which only potentially happen if WW3 happen). More likely if there's payment to Ukraine, will come from Russian assets confiscated in Western Financial system.

That confiscation of assets that create more jittery and concern from Non Collective West, especially growing emerging economies in Asia, Middle East and Latin America. Those emerging economies that many of them make the abseentee votes. Their concern seems indicated on this kind of vote can be used to developed as legal precedents toward confiscation of assets in legal market system, base more on Political moves

Even Western market big players already warn their Politicians, those confiscation will in turn more likely give inducement toward Non Collective West market mechanism substitutions/rivals. Something that before being projected more likely maturing by end 2030 can speed up toward later half of this decade.
Who are these 'Western market big players" you refer to? can you expand on the rest of your paragraph please
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group


confiscating Russia’s reserves could entail unnecessary risks to the strength and stability of the international financial system.
The big Western market players are the big banks. I will not going to shown here the communication between market analysts or behind the doors discussions. Asside the concern coming from big investment and commercials banks, on confiscating Russian Banks assets. I have put few links in this thread sometimes ago on the subject.

However there's enough public articles on that issue. The quote that I put from second article which basically come from the concern of market players. The trust and stability of market and financial system. They put it as International system, however mostly it's Western Market.

The concern more on move to confiscating Russian central bank and other Banks reserve in western market. As expected that move already create jittery on other non collective west on the 'trustworthy' of western financial markets. In sense increasingly questions: "is the market run by pure market mechanisms or more and more run by politics".

Related to UNGA 94, any payment to Ukraine more likely come from those Russian Banks confiscate assets (at this moment most still on 'frozen' status). This then will make politics dictate market systems. Market systems thrive and build on trusts. You play on that trusts then negative effect will come, including competition system.

SWIFT is the main payment system on financial markets. It's Western system based in Brussels but mostly transaction control from NY and London as main hub of financial transactions. This is the 'veins' on how financial systems work. Market already knows well China CIPS try to make it self as alternative.

If the trust on Western financial systems eroded especially from non collective west, then they will go to other competition. It will not happen right away, that's why many analysts prediction the alternative Western systems will only come as competition close 2040.

However recent developments can increase the growth of alternative systems one decade ahead, as true Western market competition. This's what big western market players warn. Basically they warn market should be run by market mechanisms and not political whims.

Remember people in Non Collective West use USD or Euro on their international trade because they trusts the West market systems. This in the end increase US and EU influences accros non collective west trades (thus economics influences). Chip that trust away, it is US and EU (through Western market) that eventually pay the price.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
View attachment 49885

Eventough like all UN resolution, this will not have any legal matter or bearing, interesting to shown how Much of Asians (except Japan and ROK), Middle East and part of Latin America, mostly either against or abstention. This trend already been seen since the 3rd resolutions (I believe that's in the graphic above) toward Russia on Ukraine issue.

Seems the more demanding the resolution tones toward Russia, then the more much of Middle East and Asian and part of Latin America choose to distance themselves from those resolutions.

Perhaps this trend give more support in Moscow with their 'Go East' strategic relationship. Guess this is one way of Non allies of Collective West massage toward West even Russia, most of them will sit in fences.
Interesting that Serbia, Israel, Myanmar, and Turkey voted for the motion.
  • Serbia because of them being of historic Russian ties and them being pro Russian.
  • Israel because of the Russian Jewish population.
  • Myanmar because I thought that they're still using Russian gear.
  • Turkey because of its role in negotiations between Russian and the west.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
that Serbia, Israel, Myanmar, and Turkey voted for the motion.
There's several reasons for countries choose to side with Russia or absentee in this resolution. However like I put before, suspect the main reasons is worries on this as precedent for any Political drive to be use as base on confiscating overseas assets.

Confiscating foreign assets especially in the market should be only base on legal dispute arise on pure business transaction. This's how trustworthy market should be base, not Political whims. Pushing more politics in there then it will increase risks on market systems thus business and economics stability.

Indonesian President state on press conference during G20 closing statement. G20 is business and economics forum, don't pull it in to Political issues. This's part of big concern from Non Collective West on this war going to impact economics stability more due to Political issues. UNGA 94 can create that precedent, which why I believe many emerging economies decided to become absentee.
 

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
There's several reasons for countries choose to side with Russia or absentee in this resolution. However like I put before, suspect the main reasons is worries on this as precedent for any Political drive to be use as base on confiscating overseas assets.

Confiscating foreign assets especially in the market should be only base on legal dispute arise on pure business transaction. This's how trustworthy market should be base, not Political whims. Pushing more politics in there then it will increase risks on market systems thus business and economics stability.

Indonesian President state on press conference during G20 closing statement. G20 is business and economics forum, don't pull it in to Political issues. This's part of big concern from Non Collective West on this war going to impact economics stability more due to Political issues. UNGA 94 can create that precedent, which why I believe many emerging economies decided to become absentee.
I don't think we will see the economic war between "the West" and Russia will be repeated in other situations. The Ukraine war is rather unique. As you have correctly pointed out, Europe is paying a high cost for the economic war against Russia. Once the war is over (hopefully by 2023/2024) I think Europe will try to return to "normal" again as soon as possible. Main focus will be on restoring the economy.

It is extremely unlikely that any other European country will be invaded after the Ukraine war (most are or will be in NATO which is an effective deterrent). So, the special conditions that arose around the Ukraine war are highly unlikely to be met in future conflicts for the foreseeable future.

So, rest assured: if a country in South America, Africa, the Middle East, or Asia is being invaded by a larger neighbor, Europe will focus on arranging UN emergency meetings where they will talk and talk (and talk), and send some humanitarian aid. But they will not start a new economic war and they will not confiscate overseas assets. This is a one-off.

The only exceptions might be if somebody decided to invade SK, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, Australia or New Zealand -- that would trigger a surprisingly strong reaction from Europe (in addition to the US of course). However even in such a case it's not a given that assets will be confiscated -- it really depends on the situation. Hopefully none of those countries will be invaded by anybody, at least not in our lifetimes.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
rest assured: if a country in South America, Africa, the Middle East, or Asia is being invaded by a larger neighbor, Europe will focus on arranging UN emergency meetings where they will talk and talk (and talk), and send some humanitarian aid. But they will not start a new economic war and they will not confiscate overseas assets. This is a one-off.
Well seems the Non Collective West especially the emerging markets are not that assured. So what ever the West want to say, doesn't means it is reassuring to others. So it's understandable they are taking precaution and distance them selves on some matters.
 

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
Well seems the Non Collective West especially the emerging markets are not that assured. So what ever the West want to say, doesn't means it is reassuring to others. So it's understandable they are taking precaution and distance them selves on some matters.
There are many conflicts around the world already. Is "the West" working towards confiscating assets related to other conflicts? If not, perhaps it's prudent to adopt a "wait and see" attitude before jumping to conclusions about what will happen.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
perhaps it's prudent to adopt a "wait and see" attitude before jumping to conclusions about what will happen.
I believe those emerging economies are doing 'wait and see' attitude. However this also does means they are 'sitting in fences'. This means they are take precautions and keep some distance to each sides. Stay friendly to each sides, but also not committing to all cause. Done case by case approach.

BRICS for example outside Russia and China doing that. Most ASEAN doing that,so does most Big Middle East. They have enough assets on trades each days. West can call whatever on their position, so does Russia and China. Doesn't mean the rest of Non Collective West especially the emerging economies will buy any of each sides position like that.

G20 statement in Ukraine war is example of the consensus that G20 members like Indonesia and India push. This is not original draft that G7 try to push to others in G20. The middle try to bridge each sides, and stay in the fences for now.
 
Last edited:

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
1. No G20 presidency has had to face the geopolitical challenges that Indonesia was dealt with in 2022. More importantly, the summit was not boycotted, did not fall apart, and it produced a communiqué. In addition, an absolute good came out of sidelines of the G20 meeting — the renewal of the UN grain deal by 3 countries, Turkey, Russia and Ukraine.

2. In a roughly three-hour meeting, Biden and Xi agreed to restore regular communication and jointly opposed the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
(a) The no-nuclear first use position on Euro-Asia, was taken by Xi prior to the G20 Summit in Bali.​
(b) This G20 meeting also gave a foretaste what China’s “win-win” (hegemony) would look like and how a powerful emperor behaves — for the tiny Xi give — that Russian nuclear 1st use on Ukraine would be seen as bad by China and there were limits to China’s no limits relationship with China.​

3. Meanwhile, when G20 leaders were meeting and calling for the war to end, Russia conducted massive strikes against Ukraine. G7 and NATO partners, condemn these brutal missile acts.

4. Should Twitter experience a prolonged disruption, the information war dynamics for Russia will fundamentally change, and the impact to support operations in Ukraine (be it in the political, or information spheres) would probably be detrimental.
 
Last edited:

tl1000r

New Member
There are many conflicts around the world already. Is "the West" working towards confiscating assets related to other conflicts? If not, perhaps it's prudent to adopt a "wait and see" attitude before jumping to conclusions about what will happen.
How many conflicts around the world which "the West" doesnt directly involved? Or you mean that "the West" should do selfsunctions and selfconfiscating? Lets call each conflict in the World where the West can do confiscating but didnt done it? Its not sarcasm or so, i'm really interested in information about those conflicts you mentioned. Thanks!
 
Last edited:
How many conflicts around the world which "the West" doesnt directly involved? Or you mean that "the West" should do selfsunctions and selfconfiscating? Lets call each conflict in the World where the West can do confiscating but didnt done it? Its not sarcasm or so, i'm really interested in information about those conflicts you mentioned. Thanks!
We are talking about foreign currency reserves and market stability around that in the context that such instruments can be frozen or seized.

Wikipedia lists 6 'Major' wars, 16 Wars, and 20 minor conflicts currently ongoing - so 32 conflicts ongoing: Link

I'm not familiar with major asset seizures resulting is sales to most of these, but I'm no political scientist. Perhaps you could outline examples for some of these 32 wars where the west has been seizing and selling off assets of the belligerents?

Regarding Ukraine, the US continues to argue about whether it has the legal mechanisms required to seize foreign assets - such as in the case of Russia Link

The EU and the G7 continue to try to even figure out if they have a way to seize frozen funds owned by Russia Link

So given that "the West" is still arguing over how it would or could even go about confiscating assets in this case, I'd suggest we are in unchartered waters here - not in a current 'modus operandi' of the western world.

The unchartered waters element is the part that is spooking the market. Markets can price in certainty, even if the certainty is bad - in this case it's not knowing what governments will do in the future (Sometimes called sovereign risk) that makes markets uncertain. Once an option has been employed once, the likelihood of it happening again has increased. If the west wants to maintain its hegemony over monetary transactions in the coming decades, it will need to convince markets that the risk of such actions happening again is low - and/or at the very least, lower than any competing alternatives such as those put forward by China.

I certainly hope that the West does maintain its market dominance, by demonstrating a trustworthy financial system with a low chance of exceptional behaviour. And I do think that will happen with time. On the other hand - unfortunately - I'm not the one that needs to be convinced.
 
Last edited:

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
Interesting that Serbia, Israel, Myanmar, and Turkey voted for the motion.
  • Serbia because of them being of historic Russian ties and them being pro Russian.
  • Israel because of the Russian Jewish population.
  • Myanmar because I thought that they're still using Russian gear.
  • Turkey because of its role in negotiations between Russian and the west.
Israel has voted pro-Ukraine consistently. But Ukraine has voted against Israel consistently, not changing a tune even after the war began. To this day over 200 votes by Ukraine vs Israel were made, despite their pleas for weapons. The Ukrainian ambassador to Israel was told this is the result of Ukraine's own voting record.
 

tl1000r

New Member
We are talking about foreign currency reserves and market stability around that in the context that such instruments can be frozen or seized.

Wikipedia lists 6 'Major' wars, 16 Wars, and 20 minor conflicts currently ongoing - so 32 conflicts ongoing: Link

I'm not familiar with major asset seizures resulting is sales to most of these, but I'm no political scientist. Perhaps you could outline examples for some of these 32 wars where the west has been seizing and selling off assets of the belligerents?

Regarding Ukraine, the US continues to argue about whether it has the legal mechanisms required to seize foreign assets - such as in the case of Russia Link

The EU and the G7 continue to try to even figure out if they have a way to seize frozen funds owned by Russia Link

So given that "the West" is still arguing over how it would or could even go about confiscating assets in this case, I'd suggest we are in unchartered waters here - not in a current 'modus operandi' of the western world.

The unchartered waters element is the part that is spooking the market. Markets can price in certainty, even if the certainty is bad - in this case it's not knowing what governments will do in the future (Sometimes called sovereign risk) that makes markets uncertain. Once an option has been employed once, the likelihood of it happening again has increased. If the west wants to maintain its hegemony over monetary transactions in the coming decades, it will need to convince markets that the risk of such actions happening again is low - and/or at the very least, lower than any competing alternatives such as those put forward by China.

I certainly hope that the West does maintain its market dominance, by demonstrating a trustworthy financial system with a low chance of exceptional behaviour. And I do think that will happen with time. On the other hand - unfortunately - I'm not the one that needs to be convinced.
Its obviously! But me and (i guess) Vivendi talking about another, not so obvious things. And your post doesnt answers on my question.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
We are talking about foreign currency reserves and market stability around that in the context that such instruments can be frozen or seized.

Wikipedia lists 6 'Major' wars, 16 Wars, and 20 minor conflicts currently ongoing - so 32 conflicts ongoing: Link

I'm not familiar with major asset seizures resulting is sales to most of these, but I'm no political scientist. Perhaps you could outline examples for some of these 32 wars where the west has been seizing and selling off assets of the belligerents?

Regarding Ukraine, the US continues to argue about whether it has the legal mechanisms required to seize foreign assets - such as in the case of Russia Link

The EU and the G7 continue to try to even figure out if they have a way to seize frozen funds owned by Russia Link

So given that "the West" is still arguing over how it would or could even go about confiscating assets in this case, I'd suggest we are in unchartered waters here - not in a current 'modus operandi' of the western world.

The unchartered waters element is the part that is spooking the market. Markets can price in certainty, even if the certainty is bad - in this case it's not knowing what governments will do in the future (Sometimes called sovereign risk) that makes markets uncertain. Once an option has been employed once, the likelihood of it happening again has increased. If the west wants to maintain its hegemony over monetary transactions in the coming decades, it will need to convince markets that the risk of such actions happening again is low - and/or at the very least, lower than any competing alternatives such as those put forward by China.

I certainly hope that the West does maintain its market dominance, by demonstrating a trustworthy financial system with a low chance of exceptional behaviour. And I do think that will happen with time. On the other hand - unfortunately - I'm not the one that needs to be convinced.
We generally don't like Wikipedia as a source because it's not reliable enough.

Its obviously! But me and (i guess) Vivendi talking about another, not so obvious things. And your post doesnt answers on my question.
@Dead Money took the time and effort to answer your query, so please have some manners and show a bit of gratitude.

Secondly, we have a set of rules here and one of them is that one line posts are not acceptable. Please take note and and take time to
read the rules.
 

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
Russia will spend 9.4 trillion roubles ($155 billion) on defense and security next year, according to Reuters analysis.

The 2023 budget will see spending on the "national economy" - including roads, agriculture, and research and development - fall by 23% to 3.5 trillion roubles. Healthcare is to get 9% less - or 1.5 trillion roubles - while education spending will be cut by 2% to 1.4 trillion roubles.

Although education spending in general will be cut, "patriotic training" in schools will increase by 513% from this year to reflect Russia's view of current and historic events, according to Ranepa and the Gaidar Institute.

Russia's economy shrank 4% year-on-year in Q3.

Budget deficit is set to double next year. Moscow is incurring debt to finance the war in Ukraine. However, compared to other countries the debt will remain low (estimated to 17% of GDP next year). However, servicing costs will increase towards 6.8% of total spending in 2025 from 5.1% now, exceeding funding for health and education, analysts say.


The Russian population should expect several tough years ahead. And brainwashing of Russian children will reach new levels.
 

tl1000r

New Member
Abuse of other posters. Awarded 18 demerit points for two years.
I have different source, which claimed twice lower counts - only 5 trillion roubles. Make sure "defense and security" is not only Ukraine war, it included all kinds of security inside and outside of Russia. Even the salary of houskeeper who clean the windows and floors inside the ministry of defence or Police station.S
Grow of the budgets is normal in such situation, just look at inflation counts in your country.

By the way, World war spendings in 2021 gained $2 trillion US dollars. Just imagine, $800 000 000 USD spent (id say wasted) USA on what?! From who this country defences?!

Not to mention brainwashing of Russian children, where did you find this drivel? My son can be brainwashed only by me, at school he and his teachers have no time and ability to talk about anything except learn program. He dont watch TV, and dont interesting the politics. So stop such stupid talk about poor russian children, it make all Norges look bad. Stop it.

@tl1000r Stop right there and stop being abusive to other posters or your time on here will be short. We are a defence forum not a political forum and we don't tolerate abuse of other posters. People are entitled to their views whether you like them or not. Also politics are not allowed unless they directly related to defence. This is a formal warning. Don't do this again.

Awarded 18 demerit points for 2 years.

Ngatimozart.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
Developments in Ukraine, Isreal and Russia

1. Senior Ukrainian delegation visited Israel, which Israel downplayed. Reportedly for the missile warning system Israel promised, and to discuss weapons Ukraine may want.

2. Obviously the topic of weapons is classified and Israel understandably not want to discuss it publicly, but the warning system is interesting.
  • The warning maps we see of Ukraine show entire districts as warning areas. Meaning a projectile destined for a single city will light up warnings district-wide, which might naturally make civilians numb to these warnings.
  • Israel's warning system is highly localized, raising alarms only on the neighborhood level. This contributes substantially to casualty reduction as people know there is a high likelihood of impact near them.
3. Right now the situation is not quite optimal, with cases like this:

4. Regarding the weapons, this here is yet another piece in the long saga of deteriorating Israel-Russia relations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
The EU is asking it's members to accept a $60 dollar price cap on Russian oil in an attempt to "squeeze Russia's oil revenues":

EU Asks Members to Set Russia Oil-Price Cap at $60 - WSJ

To me it would make more sense to add a "war tax" on Russian products imported into EU, e.g., 30%. The "war tax" would be put on top of the regular price and all of it would be redirected to Ukraine, for non-military purposes only.

This would both "squeeze Russia's oil revenues" and also, if anything is sold, provide extra financial support to Ukraine. They need a lot of humanitarian aid, as well as rebuilding critical civilian infrastructure.

What would be the downside of adding a "war tax" instead of a price cap? I can't think of any, but I suspect there might be some things?
 
Top