Summary
Russia’s ruble has plunged to its lowest level since March 2022 following new U.S. sanctions on Gazprombank, a key platform for energy payments.
The ruble’s slide, driven by sanctions, falling oil prices, and soaring defense spending, has intensified inflation and strained the war economy.
While the Kremlin benefits from a weaker ruble by converting foreign revenues into more domestic currency, experts warn of overheating risks and financial instability.
The Russian central bank is scrambling for solutions, but long-term economic pressures and declining oil revenues pose significant challenges.
In the end, all wars are economic.
No, just most. War is the continuation of politics by different means, and political desires are quite often, but definitely not always, economical. Rome razed Carthage because of the economics of empires in the Mediterranean, yes, but Charlemagne didn’t genocide Old Saxony for its economic output, but religious fervour and autocratic arrogance (the whole one god one pope one king thing).
I think what they meant was that all wars need to be supported by the economy.
It’s not enough to have soldiers, you also have to supply and feed them.
Beyond that, it’s hard to get people who are comfortable in their lives to get up and go to war. If the nation is stable internally, if the people aren’t desperate and angry, if they don’t feel like they should have more - you know, for themselves - it’s hard to get a motivated, aggressive military staffed and ready to attack their neighbors.
But also yes, an army marches on its stomach. Every major offensive beyond a nation’s borders ends when the supply chain falters.
No it’s an actual theory that posits all the other reasons are merely justifications for economic reasons.
It falls apart pretty badly if you look at World War 1. But there’s also been a ton of wars that fit the theory, which is why it exists.
yeah russia is actually experimenting with this part lol. and innovations like golfcarts and e-scooters on the battlefield.
At least most. Storage Wars is another good example of this. Not sure about Star Wars, though.
Have you forgotten that the drama of the ‘first’ episode starts with an exciting … trade blockade?
Negotiations were short.
In the beginning, too. Russia originally invaded because they want to control Crimea and more Black Sea coast and ports. And all that farmland in Ukraine too
Unless they’re done in order to sacrifice captives to the gods like they did in pre-Colombian Mesoamerica. That was because they legitimately thought they had to do it to keep the universe working. That’s also why their wars were usually about attacking to wound rather than attacking to kill. Just as many people died, but they died in sacrifice rather than on the battlefield.
Oddly enough, the interpretation of the glyph the Mayans had for a war as we would think of it- one of conquest- is “star war.” Blame Dr. Linda Schele for that one.
also in pre-Colombian Mesoamerica, furher north, they switched the mode of war from combat to a ball game when the casualty count was around 100. so, in case you’re wondering how we (and yes, i mean the whole imperialist sphere) can find a meaningful, certainly still highly corruptable purpose for UEFA and FIFA.
Usually, but perhaps not all. North Vietnam did not repel the US through its superior industrial capacity / economy.
Well no, North Vietnam repelled the US with China’s military force (mostly just manpower/cannon fodder). But regardless, saying that the war was economic doesn’t mean that one side’s economy must be superior to the other’s in order to “win”. The Vietnam war is actually a good example of an asymmetric situation, because North Vietnam’s economic capacity really had no bearing on the outcome. The war was astronomically expensive for the US, which had spent US$168 billion by 1970. Adjusted to 2019 dollars this is US$843.63 billion, making it the 4th most expensive conflict in US history.
Vietnam didn’t have to out-produce the US, they just had to drag the conflict out until it became too costly to sustain.
To put it another way, it’s not a question of how much war you can afford, it’s a question of how much war you can force the other guy to pay for, and what he can afford.