In the West, Russia's GDP is constantly greatly downplayed. It would seem that GDP is not difficult to calculate correctly - no one in Russia hides the real figures. However, Western politicians prefer to deceive themselves and draw the wrong conclusions because of this. This is a kindergarten.
Interesting to read this in tandem with Jeffrey Sach's recent article about Russia in the 90s. He argues, based on his experience in government at the time, that we didn't bungle our chance to bring post-Soviet Russia into the fold of allies. Rather, our neocons deliberately poisoned the relationship.
Smedley Butler was awarded his first Medal of Honor for service during the ‘police’ action in Veracruz, Mexico in 1914. Subsequent to the fighting, Secretary of the Navy Josephus Daniels ordered the awarding of 56 Medals of Honor to individuals who participated in the Veracruz fighting.
Butler tried to return the medal, claiming he had done nothing heroic, but was ordered by the Department of the Navy to keep and display the award.
Butler won his second Medal of Honor for action leading his Marines during the capture of Fort Rivière Haiti in November 1915.
Ironic that relatively low GDP, low Defense budget Russia has more and better weapons and a larger army than the US and the most militaristic NATO members.
If the Forever War was paused for a few years, the MIC (and the grifters) could rearm NATO, becoming very much richer, but NATO would end up further behind because of the increase in Russian and Chinese capability to get more bang for the buck. Purchasing Power Parity makes itself felt in the War sector like everywhere else.
GDP is an economic metric that is retained because it makes post-manufacturing economies (of the West, that control the IMF, World Bank etc.) LOOK productive.
A glaring example of the misleading tendency of GDP is available if you compare Chinese manufacturing industry capacity, which is about 1/3 of that of the total World, with US capacity, which is only 1/3 of China's. Yet there are those who maintain the US economy is bigger than China's (ignoring the production and that goods and services is much less expensive to buy, in China).
Lawyers, accountants, insurance salespeople, and corporate Diversity, Equity, Inclusion Departments, add to GDP but not much to tangible economic output. And while a family member cutting the lawn is not counted in GDP, hiring a Lawn Maintenance company, is.
I remember the times when the USSR was trying to catch up with the USA in iron and steel production. Recently I was surprised to learn that Russia alone, without other Soviet republics, has already caught up with the USA in this indicator. And China produces 10 times more steel than the United States.
It is no secret that War Is A Racket, and that this racket benefits the rich and connected at the expense of ordinary bozos.
What does anyone propose to do about it? The rich and connected will not change their minds or give up their perks as a result of moral arguments. In fact, they see such as contemptible weakness.
I suggested changing production of swords into production of plowshares. Maintain a military for occassional police actions, but our primary security focus should be on verifiable arms treaties.
They ask more money for defense but if you compare the budgets it's not a matter of money. Where does all the money goes is the most important question. But everything in the collective west is overpriced, on paper we might be rich but we can't afford anything. We no longer build beauty but everything needs to be minimalistic and cheap, yet it cost more than we can afford. Building a Kerch bridge or even new subway isn't affordable anymore. We have a broken system. I would call GDP mostly fake. They started cheating long ago to present better numbers but after decades GDP has become like a magic trick.
Expanding NATO was foolish, what's the point if you can't defend your territory? So we are in a recession, stagflation, they broke the system, never fixed the 2008 crisis but made it worse, drowning in debt, last thing we need is war. Now EU countries wan't to spend billions on Patriots AD, yes those they can't shoot down anything. It's really depression if you follow all those things. And we always have the EU to introduce new taxes to make live even more affordable.
"without the United States European members of NATO cannot defend their own territory"
Absolutely. But it is worse. Without the US, the European NATO members cannot even build their own equipment. As NATO grew, many of the nations in it discovered that buying US material was cheaper than building your own. Hence more money to buy votes. No politician could say no to that. And its not as if this was an accidental development; the NATO and the US MIC actively pushed for this. I suspect that in the beginning they actually offered below production costs simply to destroy European defense industries. And of course there were the bribe scandals...
I believe that the NATO was used to establish the US hegemon role and make other NATO members dependent on the US and to generate money for the US MIC. It was not created for that purpose, but that is what it grew into. And that is IMO the main reason for its expansion. Gather more nations under its umbrella such that each of these would become dependent on the US (and its MIC). I.e. the NATO was the tool of the hegemon to stay the hegemon.
War is a racket. That's very true. On top of that, this war is a mayor blunder. They set up the bear trap, so that once Russia invades the sanctions "will bring its economy to its knees". Regime change was the ultimate goal but again, they underestimated the Russians. However, let's be clear here. Nobody will be held responsible. Truth is, "as an American you never have to say sorry". Whether you commit genocide against the Natives, kill and poison the Vietnamese, kill thousands of Iraqis or now push the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians into their graves.
Was anyone held accountable to the debacles in Iraq, Syria, Lybia or Afghanistan? No, Petraeus still walks around and even claims Ukraine has still a. chance to win this. The US government is sick and Trump was a mayor disappointment, because he never drained that swap he so ferociously talked about. In the end, Trump helped arming Ukraine to its teeth provoking Russia as well. So, Russia will need to destroy the Ukrainian army, so this ends once and for all. Once the casualty numbers will come out, the shock will be big... but by then the US will probably look at China and Taiwan where the next war is in the making.
Russia isn't a continental threat. European members of NATO have a sugar daddy, the US taxpayer who subsidizes their defense. The blob isn't helpful either. It exercises political and economic control over Europe and doesn't take kindly when European NATO members buy weapons or place orders with European contractors. Europe needs to build a robust contracting industry (as dysfunctional as the business of weapons is) And the US needs to allow the Europeans to buy whatever weapons they like from whichever contractor they prefer, instead of placing orders for F35's to make the DoD happy. Only then will it get more bang for its buck.
The US has a considerable amount of $ that is spent on veterans through the VA, pensions, education programs, etc. When the USSR broke up, I believe that the veterans benefits were taken up by the successor governments (Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Belarus, etc.). That'd create a sizeable difference in sunk costs between the US and Russia.
If you use purchase power parity to compare what you get for an equivalent amount of currency, then it's clear that the ruble punches above it's weight. Russia gets more bang for the buck than the US.
Russia doesn't try to spread military projects across 500+ congressional districts. They place orders with the folks who can complete them on time and ideally under budget. Military upgrades are not a jobs program but are focused on definable, realizable results.
Lastly - the Russian MIC is not concerned with DEI in any way, shape or form. Funds allocated for DEI projects in the West are applied directly to operations and research in Russia. That too contributes to more funds allocated directly towards results.
Bureaucracy. It will grow and grow consuming its host like a cancer. For instance here in Canada we excel in the number of hospital administrators per ICU bed, a world leader in fact. We rank equal to Columbia in ICU beds per capita. Go big government! I won’t even bother with examples of our “military” aka peacekeeping force. I’m just glad they are utterly inept as I have a strong healthy son in is 20’s. He won’t be meat in the blobs grinder.
Perhaps Stephen will comment on the latest events.
But for now, since it fits better here:
Putin´s statement yesterday on why NATO would be regarded as war party.
(Do people in the WH actually have the capability to read? Like a Mr. Sullivan who might soon be Secretary of whatever? Because more often than not I really doubt it...)
"Answer to a media question
Following his address to the plenary session of the United Cultures Forum, Vladimir Putin answered a question from a media representative."
"Question: Over the past few days, we have been hearing statements at a very high level in the UK and the United States that the Kiev regime will be allowed to strike targets deep inside Russia using Western long-range weapons. Apparently, this decision is either about to be made, or has already been made, as far as we can see. This is actually quite extraordinary. Could you comment on what is going on?
President of Russia Vladimir Putin: What we are seeing is an attempt to substitute notions. Because this is not a question of whether the Kiev regime is allowed or not allowed to strike targets on Russian territory. It is already carrying out strikes using unmanned aerial vehicles and other means. But using Western-made long-range precision weapons is a completely different story.
The fact is that – I have mentioned this, and any expert, both in our country and in the West, will confirm this – the Ukrainian army is not capable of using cutting-edge high-precision long-range systems supplied by the West. They cannot do that. These weapons are impossible to employ without intelligence data from satellites which Ukraine does not have. This can only be done using the European Union’s satellites, or US satellites – in general, NATO satellites. This is the first point.
The second point – perhaps the most important, the key point even – is that only NATO military personnel can assign flight missions to these missile systems. Ukrainian servicemen cannot do this.
Therefore, it is not a question of allowing the Ukrainian regime to strike Russia with these weapons or not. It is about deciding whether NATO countries become directly involved in the military conflict or not.
If this decision is made, it will mean nothing short of direct involvement – it will mean that NATO countries, the United States, and European countries are parties to the war in Ukraine. This will mean their direct involvement in the conflict, and it will clearly change the very essence, the very nature of the conflict dramatically.
This will mean that NATO countries – the United States and European countries – are at war with Russia. And if this is the case, then, bearing in mind the change in the essence of the conflict, we will make appropriate decisions in response to the threats that will be posed to us."
Janis (1982) notes the following symptoms of groupthink: OVERESTIMATION OF THE GROUP, including illusion of invulnerability and, belief in group‘s inherent morality; CLOSED MINDEDNESS, including collective rationalization and, stereotypes of out-groups; PRESSURE TOWARD UNIFORMITY, including self censorship, illusion of unanimity, direct pressure on dissenters and, self-appointed mind guards. BELIEF IN THE GROUP'S INHERENT MORALITY including closed mindedness, collective rationalization, and, stereotypes of out-groups ; PRESSURE TOWARD UNIFORMITY including self censorship, illusion of unanimity, direct pressure on dissenters, and, self-appointed mind guards. The Congressional-Government-Military-Complex are all making money in the dysfunction, and they have deluded themselves that they have the high moral ground.
I don't see this changing anytime soon. The Europeans (Poles excepted) may increase spending here or there, but as you say, those extra euros will go to defense executives and won't produce much. The EU, no matter the elites who desire nothing more than access to US $$$ and the DC board circuit to become rich, do not want to get serious because 1) their publics won't stand for it and 2) much of the current spending goes to non-deployable territorial defense forces who defend their rice bowls to the death.
An article worth sharing! I think it may even be digestible by folks who still think this war is about "helping" Ukraine.
In the West, Russia's GDP is constantly greatly downplayed. It would seem that GDP is not difficult to calculate correctly - no one in Russia hides the real figures. However, Western politicians prefer to deceive themselves and draw the wrong conclusions because of this. This is a kindergarten.
Interesting to read this in tandem with Jeffrey Sach's recent article about Russia in the 90s. He argues, based on his experience in government at the time, that we didn't bungle our chance to bring post-Soviet Russia into the fold of allies. Rather, our neocons deliberately poisoned the relationship.
I had no idea that this was seriously disputed any more.
Smedley Butler was awarded his first Medal of Honor for service during the ‘police’ action in Veracruz, Mexico in 1914. Subsequent to the fighting, Secretary of the Navy Josephus Daniels ordered the awarding of 56 Medals of Honor to individuals who participated in the Veracruz fighting.
Butler tried to return the medal, claiming he had done nothing heroic, but was ordered by the Department of the Navy to keep and display the award.
Butler won his second Medal of Honor for action leading his Marines during the capture of Fort Rivière Haiti in November 1915.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_occupation_of_Veracruz
Ironic that relatively low GDP, low Defense budget Russia has more and better weapons and a larger army than the US and the most militaristic NATO members.
If the Forever War was paused for a few years, the MIC (and the grifters) could rearm NATO, becoming very much richer, but NATO would end up further behind because of the increase in Russian and Chinese capability to get more bang for the buck. Purchasing Power Parity makes itself felt in the War sector like everywhere else.
There is no irony of fate here. Russia's GDP is much larger than is commonly believed in the West.
GDP is an economic metric that is retained because it makes post-manufacturing economies (of the West, that control the IMF, World Bank etc.) LOOK productive.
A glaring example of the misleading tendency of GDP is available if you compare Chinese manufacturing industry capacity, which is about 1/3 of that of the total World, with US capacity, which is only 1/3 of China's. Yet there are those who maintain the US economy is bigger than China's (ignoring the production and that goods and services is much less expensive to buy, in China).
Lawyers, accountants, insurance salespeople, and corporate Diversity, Equity, Inclusion Departments, add to GDP but not much to tangible economic output. And while a family member cutting the lawn is not counted in GDP, hiring a Lawn Maintenance company, is.
I remember the times when the USSR was trying to catch up with the USA in iron and steel production. Recently I was surprised to learn that Russia alone, without other Soviet republics, has already caught up with the USA in this indicator. And China produces 10 times more steel than the United States.
I think Gross Output is a better way to measure the economic health of a country.
It is no secret that War Is A Racket, and that this racket benefits the rich and connected at the expense of ordinary bozos.
What does anyone propose to do about it? The rich and connected will not change their minds or give up their perks as a result of moral arguments. In fact, they see such as contemptible weakness.
A.lead pipe to the skull gets their respect.
I suggested changing production of swords into production of plowshares. Maintain a military for occassional police actions, but our primary security focus should be on verifiable arms treaties.
Any country that has something to take away needs a strong army. Otherwise, a neighbor will come and take away what he wants.
*occasional police actions and defensive deterrence*
Exactly, as long as the ones really profiting bite the dust last nothing will ever change.
They ask more money for defense but if you compare the budgets it's not a matter of money. Where does all the money goes is the most important question. But everything in the collective west is overpriced, on paper we might be rich but we can't afford anything. We no longer build beauty but everything needs to be minimalistic and cheap, yet it cost more than we can afford. Building a Kerch bridge or even new subway isn't affordable anymore. We have a broken system. I would call GDP mostly fake. They started cheating long ago to present better numbers but after decades GDP has become like a magic trick.
Expanding NATO was foolish, what's the point if you can't defend your territory? So we are in a recession, stagflation, they broke the system, never fixed the 2008 crisis but made it worse, drowning in debt, last thing we need is war. Now EU countries wan't to spend billions on Patriots AD, yes those they can't shoot down anything. It's really depression if you follow all those things. And we always have the EU to introduce new taxes to make live even more affordable.
"without the United States European members of NATO cannot defend their own territory"
Absolutely. But it is worse. Without the US, the European NATO members cannot even build their own equipment. As NATO grew, many of the nations in it discovered that buying US material was cheaper than building your own. Hence more money to buy votes. No politician could say no to that. And its not as if this was an accidental development; the NATO and the US MIC actively pushed for this. I suspect that in the beginning they actually offered below production costs simply to destroy European defense industries. And of course there were the bribe scandals...
I believe that the NATO was used to establish the US hegemon role and make other NATO members dependent on the US and to generate money for the US MIC. It was not created for that purpose, but that is what it grew into. And that is IMO the main reason for its expansion. Gather more nations under its umbrella such that each of these would become dependent on the US (and its MIC). I.e. the NATO was the tool of the hegemon to stay the hegemon.
War is a racket. That's very true. On top of that, this war is a mayor blunder. They set up the bear trap, so that once Russia invades the sanctions "will bring its economy to its knees". Regime change was the ultimate goal but again, they underestimated the Russians. However, let's be clear here. Nobody will be held responsible. Truth is, "as an American you never have to say sorry". Whether you commit genocide against the Natives, kill and poison the Vietnamese, kill thousands of Iraqis or now push the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians into their graves.
Was anyone held accountable to the debacles in Iraq, Syria, Lybia or Afghanistan? No, Petraeus still walks around and even claims Ukraine has still a. chance to win this. The US government is sick and Trump was a mayor disappointment, because he never drained that swap he so ferociously talked about. In the end, Trump helped arming Ukraine to its teeth provoking Russia as well. So, Russia will need to destroy the Ukrainian army, so this ends once and for all. Once the casualty numbers will come out, the shock will be big... but by then the US will probably look at China and Taiwan where the next war is in the making.
Russia isn't a continental threat. European members of NATO have a sugar daddy, the US taxpayer who subsidizes their defense. The blob isn't helpful either. It exercises political and economic control over Europe and doesn't take kindly when European NATO members buy weapons or place orders with European contractors. Europe needs to build a robust contracting industry (as dysfunctional as the business of weapons is) And the US needs to allow the Europeans to buy whatever weapons they like from whichever contractor they prefer, instead of placing orders for F35's to make the DoD happy. Only then will it get more bang for its buck.
Steve: great article that I’m sharing widely!
Aloha!
Howard & Susan
Thank you Howard and Susan. Use the latest version (a few glitches fixed)
Steve
The US has a considerable amount of $ that is spent on veterans through the VA, pensions, education programs, etc. When the USSR broke up, I believe that the veterans benefits were taken up by the successor governments (Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Belarus, etc.). That'd create a sizeable difference in sunk costs between the US and Russia.
If you use purchase power parity to compare what you get for an equivalent amount of currency, then it's clear that the ruble punches above it's weight. Russia gets more bang for the buck than the US.
Russia doesn't try to spread military projects across 500+ congressional districts. They place orders with the folks who can complete them on time and ideally under budget. Military upgrades are not a jobs program but are focused on definable, realizable results.
Lastly - the Russian MIC is not concerned with DEI in any way, shape or form. Funds allocated for DEI projects in the West are applied directly to operations and research in Russia. That too contributes to more funds allocated directly towards results.
Bureaucracy. It will grow and grow consuming its host like a cancer. For instance here in Canada we excel in the number of hospital administrators per ICU bed, a world leader in fact. We rank equal to Columbia in ICU beds per capita. Go big government! I won’t even bother with examples of our “military” aka peacekeeping force. I’m just glad they are utterly inept as I have a strong healthy son in is 20’s. He won’t be meat in the blobs grinder.
Perhaps Stephen will comment on the latest events.
But for now, since it fits better here:
Putin´s statement yesterday on why NATO would be regarded as war party.
(Do people in the WH actually have the capability to read? Like a Mr. Sullivan who might soon be Secretary of whatever? Because more often than not I really doubt it...)
"Answer to a media question
Following his address to the plenary session of the United Cultures Forum, Vladimir Putin answered a question from a media representative."
September 12, 2024
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/75092
https://archive.is/twFen
"Question: Over the past few days, we have been hearing statements at a very high level in the UK and the United States that the Kiev regime will be allowed to strike targets deep inside Russia using Western long-range weapons. Apparently, this decision is either about to be made, or has already been made, as far as we can see. This is actually quite extraordinary. Could you comment on what is going on?
President of Russia Vladimir Putin: What we are seeing is an attempt to substitute notions. Because this is not a question of whether the Kiev regime is allowed or not allowed to strike targets on Russian territory. It is already carrying out strikes using unmanned aerial vehicles and other means. But using Western-made long-range precision weapons is a completely different story.
The fact is that – I have mentioned this, and any expert, both in our country and in the West, will confirm this – the Ukrainian army is not capable of using cutting-edge high-precision long-range systems supplied by the West. They cannot do that. These weapons are impossible to employ without intelligence data from satellites which Ukraine does not have. This can only be done using the European Union’s satellites, or US satellites – in general, NATO satellites. This is the first point.
The second point – perhaps the most important, the key point even – is that only NATO military personnel can assign flight missions to these missile systems. Ukrainian servicemen cannot do this.
Therefore, it is not a question of allowing the Ukrainian regime to strike Russia with these weapons or not. It is about deciding whether NATO countries become directly involved in the military conflict or not.
If this decision is made, it will mean nothing short of direct involvement – it will mean that NATO countries, the United States, and European countries are parties to the war in Ukraine. This will mean their direct involvement in the conflict, and it will clearly change the very essence, the very nature of the conflict dramatically.
This will mean that NATO countries – the United States and European countries – are at war with Russia. And if this is the case, then, bearing in mind the change in the essence of the conflict, we will make appropriate decisions in response to the threats that will be posed to us."
Janis (1982) notes the following symptoms of groupthink: OVERESTIMATION OF THE GROUP, including illusion of invulnerability and, belief in group‘s inherent morality; CLOSED MINDEDNESS, including collective rationalization and, stereotypes of out-groups; PRESSURE TOWARD UNIFORMITY, including self censorship, illusion of unanimity, direct pressure on dissenters and, self-appointed mind guards. BELIEF IN THE GROUP'S INHERENT MORALITY including closed mindedness, collective rationalization, and, stereotypes of out-groups ; PRESSURE TOWARD UNIFORMITY including self censorship, illusion of unanimity, direct pressure on dissenters, and, self-appointed mind guards. The Congressional-Government-Military-Complex are all making money in the dysfunction, and they have deluded themselves that they have the high moral ground.
I don't see this changing anytime soon. The Europeans (Poles excepted) may increase spending here or there, but as you say, those extra euros will go to defense executives and won't produce much. The EU, no matter the elites who desire nothing more than access to US $$$ and the DC board circuit to become rich, do not want to get serious because 1) their publics won't stand for it and 2) much of the current spending goes to non-deployable territorial defense forces who defend their rice bowls to the death.