- Reaction score
- 14,925
- Points
- 1,160
The War in Ukraine
- Thread starter Bruce Monkhouse
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 2,625
- Points
- 1,090
bump up in munitions production in the US. Keep at it
- Reaction score
- 3,747
- Points
- 1,160
So the Reds are back to executing POW’s.
Just one example, there are many more recent (last few days especially around Kursk).
Just one example, there are many more recent (last few days especially around Kursk).
Skysix
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 896
- Points
- 1,010
After 2.5 years the US has reached the lofty production goal of 40,000 shells a month (potentially 480,000 a year) while Russia has surpassed 110,000 a month (1,325,000 a year) with well under 1/12th the economy.
Per the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) Russia will procure 4 million 152mm shells from North Korea, China, Iran and Venezuela to add to the 1.325 million 152mm shells domestically produced in 2024. No word on how many gun barrels....
Meanwhile the recent US military aid package of $250m will, if exclusively artillery ammo at around $4200 per US made 155 shell, provide Ukraine with only 60,000 shells. Enough to last MAYBE 10 days if they are parsimonious with them (Russia fires about 50,000 a day in Dombas alone)
$250m is essentially couch change when talking high intensity LSCO. Is it a lot of money? Yes. Unbudgeted for? Yes (but it should not have been by this point) Might it be hurting US military readiness by reducing available monies for training and operations? Probably. Again, that is entirely a result of political fear of returning taxes to pre Trump cut levels - or heaven forbid, even to Regan levels.
$250m is the same amount given by the US to support Ukraine in a month as 18 HOURS of Russian support of their troops in Ukraine. Russia may be the second army in Ukraine but it is sad to see the US afraid to walk its talk and not be anywhere close to being the second economy in Ukraine.
Does anybody think that if war spreads into (or returns in a few years to) Europe somehow it will not be many MANY MANY times more expensive to the average taxpayer than a mild increase now? It is literally in our best financial (and security) interest to stop dribbling piss into the wind to see where it lands like a feeble old man and to start acting like a boomer on nitrates.
And the west, NATO especially, needs to SEVERELY enforce secondary sanctions and STOP BUYING RUSSIAN GAS/OIL/PETROLEUM PRODUCTS. We are, paraphrasing Stalin (?), giving them the rope to hang us with. We are sending hundreds of millions of hard currency into Russia where it funds the war effort we then send more money into Ukraine to halt.
Why are our leaders (!) so deaf, dumb, blind, parochial and shortsighted? I guess we truly do get the government we deserve (elect).
Rant off
Links to the RUSI report and several other sources are available and when I walk off this 'mad' I will try to remember to attach them if requested.
Per the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) Russia will procure 4 million 152mm shells from North Korea, China, Iran and Venezuela to add to the 1.325 million 152mm shells domestically produced in 2024. No word on how many gun barrels....
Meanwhile the recent US military aid package of $250m will, if exclusively artillery ammo at around $4200 per US made 155 shell, provide Ukraine with only 60,000 shells. Enough to last MAYBE 10 days if they are parsimonious with them (Russia fires about 50,000 a day in Dombas alone)
$250m is essentially couch change when talking high intensity LSCO. Is it a lot of money? Yes. Unbudgeted for? Yes (but it should not have been by this point) Might it be hurting US military readiness by reducing available monies for training and operations? Probably. Again, that is entirely a result of political fear of returning taxes to pre Trump cut levels - or heaven forbid, even to Regan levels.
$250m is the same amount given by the US to support Ukraine in a month as 18 HOURS of Russian support of their troops in Ukraine. Russia may be the second army in Ukraine but it is sad to see the US afraid to walk its talk and not be anywhere close to being the second economy in Ukraine.
Does anybody think that if war spreads into (or returns in a few years to) Europe somehow it will not be many MANY MANY times more expensive to the average taxpayer than a mild increase now? It is literally in our best financial (and security) interest to stop dribbling piss into the wind to see where it lands like a feeble old man and to start acting like a boomer on nitrates.
And the west, NATO especially, needs to SEVERELY enforce secondary sanctions and STOP BUYING RUSSIAN GAS/OIL/PETROLEUM PRODUCTS. We are, paraphrasing Stalin (?), giving them the rope to hang us with. We are sending hundreds of millions of hard currency into Russia where it funds the war effort we then send more money into Ukraine to halt.
Why are our leaders (!) so deaf, dumb, blind, parochial and shortsighted? I guess we truly do get the government we deserve (elect).
Rant off
Links to the RUSI report and several other sources are available and when I walk off this 'mad' I will try to remember to attach them if requested.
Last edited:
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 10,156
- Points
- 1,040
What lofty production goal has Canada reached?
We can stop buying Russian oil, but we will either need to do without or buy elsewhere. The latter course will likely mean paying (bidding) more. Whoever we displace will presumably still need oil; some may choose not to buy from Russia but ultimately the shuffle ends with someone who is willing to buy the Russian oil.
We can stop buying Russian oil, but we will either need to do without or buy elsewhere. The latter course will likely mean paying (bidding) more. Whoever we displace will presumably still need oil; some may choose not to buy from Russia but ultimately the shuffle ends with someone who is willing to buy the Russian oil.
- Reaction score
- 2,625
- Points
- 1,090
I feel like Ukraine is doing their best to disrupt Russian oil and gas production
As far as Canadian munitions production I imagine that people doubt the long term case for that expansion
- Reaction score
- 2,625
- Points
- 1,090
I believe images like this are why Russia will eventually lose
rmc_wannabe
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 9,643
- Points
- 1,310
- Reaction score
- 11,721
- Points
- 1,360
The problem is that the US and the West have collectively allowed their Heavy Industry and Industrial Base to evaporate as a consequence of globalization.
By PPP, the Russian Economy is the 4th or 6th largest in the World depending on who you ask. It's on par with Japan and Germany in terms of value and close to 30% of it is tied to industrial outputs.
Western Economies are heavily tied to services and we actually produce very little. Lots of technology and knowledge is produced here but that doesn't help when it comes to pumping out guns & butter.
It turns out the Russian Economy is great at pumping out both guns and butter. The technology can be bought/stolen very easily and Russia has their own large cohort of Engineers/Scientists to put the stuff together.
- Reaction score
- 26,221
- Points
- 1,360
The Finns would be a….notable challenge…for invading Russians…especially after Halloween.
- Reaction score
- 4,097
- Points
- 1,260
lol, that’s if they pay at the end of the contract.
- Reaction score
- 26,221
- Points
- 1,360
GDP(PPP) is a tool better at assessing a country’s product for internal operations/purposes than GDP(nominal) which doesn’t adjust a Nations GDP to its own cost-of-living index. That’s to say GDP(PPP) does not take into account the actual value of a nation’s product as traded with other countries around the globe. GDP(Nominal) puts Russia actually beneath Canada, so even its gas and oil exports internationally don’t out it on par with maple syrup land. Internal sure, for now, until Russia’s 16-17-18% prime lending rate causes its GDP(PPP) even to fall significantly compared to other high GDP nations trading relatively unrestrictedly internationally.
- Reaction score
- 34,842
- Points
- 1,090
Skysix
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 896
- Points
- 1,010
GDP is not the same as PPP.
PPP IS GDP corrected for the purchasing power of 'X' currency units within that countries economy. I am by no means a financial whiz, I leave that to Perun et al, but as I understand it (probably badly) it still is not the same as GDP.
Think of the Big Mac standard. In the US a big Mac costs, hypothetically, $6 USD. Say the street exchange rate is 120 Roubles per dollar - then in Russia, all things being equal, a Big Mac should cost 720 Roubles. But if the official exchange rate is closer to 90 Roubles per USD and the customer ends up paying 720 Roubles, he has actually paid the equivalent of $8 USD. But when the burger is priced for the local economy according to the prevailing official rate, its cost drops to 540 Roubles. Now the customer - if he is living entirely within the local economy and being paid accordingly and is not changing currency - has an extra 180 Roubles to spend.
I probably have this all wrong, but my point is, GDP and PPP are not the same. PPP is the most accurate comparison of relative 'wealth'. Standing by for the inevitable educational correction /explanation. Because this is seriously confusing to me.
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 26,221
- Points
- 1,360
That is not correct. GDP is GDP. It is not GDP or PPP.
It can either be stated in absolute monetary terms - GDP (Nomimal), where respective nations adjust their respective currency-stated GDPs to an agreed standard (usually USD) using agreed foreign exchange rates, or it can be corrected to the purchasing power of each nation specific to its own internal consumption market - GDP-PPP.
PPP used as a term itself is the nationalized correction method, it is not a replacement for GDP as you incorrectly state above. Your ‘Big Mac factor’ is a reasonable layperson’s example of the basis of the PPP methodology, but one wouldn’t then describe a nation’s gross domestic product as a nations Big Mac Output.
GDP (Nominal) vs GDP (PPP) - StatisticsTimes.com
difference between GDP (nominal) and GDP (PPP). Ratio of GDP (PPP) to GDP (nominal) of 195 countries/economies.
m.statisticstimes.com
When you start with the Big Mac theory, it’s surprisingly easy to convince first year Econ undergrads that it actually stands for Per Pickle Price. You don’t even need to really twist the logic much.
Similar threads
