When all commercial banks go bankrupt, there won't be much anything to call an economy left in the Russia.
Of course they can just print a _lot_ of money to bail out the banks, but then that has the consequences of printing a lot of money.

They can non-care as much as they want, but their economy will die anyway. And then they won't be able to pay their soldiers anymore. At which point it is bye-bye for the Russian occupation.

[–] nesc@lemmy.cafe 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

You are under impression that they are somehow liberal market economy, it's a dying empire with extremely loyal subjects that choosing between food on the table and glorious empire chose the latter 10 times out of 10. And they won't be allowed to collapse completely by bigger european countries, by usa, by china. Essentially everyone roots for fucking r*sia, except those that border them, because it would be inconvenient if that shithole collapses.

[–] Tuuktuuk@mastodontti.fi 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

@nesc

I know Russians would choose that way.
They choose to live separate from reality.

But once you have no food on the table, you die. When you have no food in the table, it's irrelevant what you choose. The physical reality will start dictating the course of action.

Russians can want all the want. But in the end they'll have to bend to laws of physics.

[–] nesc@lemmy.cafe 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

soviet union existed with ration cards for 40 years and they absolutely adore that abomination.

[–] Tuuktuuk@mastodontti.fi 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

@nesc

Absolutely, and Russians will be okay with them again.

But, they won't enlist as professional soldiers without a very substantial compensation. Once that becomes economically impossible and they need to fall back to ration cards, they can only get soldiers through conscription. And 70 000 conscripts at the relatively safe front in Afghanistan brought down Soviet Union. The 50% smaller Russia cannot survive 700 000 conscripts at a deadly front.

[–] nesc@lemmy.cafe 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Afganistan war was deeply unpopular, and there were a lot more people involved and dead then reported, also it wasn't exactly war that brought it down, just one of the many factors. Current war has popular support.

[–] Tuuktuuk@mastodontti.fi 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

@nesc

Yes.

And the amount of dead in the war the Russia is waging now is dramatically underreported inside the Russia. The same thing :)

But yeah, the amount of real deaths (that we know nowadays, not what USSR told back then) in Soviet Union's war in Afghanistan was 25 000 Soviets plus 60 000 Afghans on the side of USSR.

About 15 times as many Russians have died in this war in 4 years as that one back then in 10 years. And the Russia is half the size now compared to USSR back then.

[–] Tuuktuuk@mastodontti.fi 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

@nesc

Afghan war was not deeply unpopular during its first 2 or 3 years. On its 10th year it was. Extremely. And now 75 times as many (in proportion) Russians are dying per decade as back then.

There's no way the Russian populace will put up with that if they need to move to conscription.

The Afghan war was too much for them. This is is as big as 75 Afghan wars at once.

The Russia will probably not fall, but they will 100% surely lose their ability to fight a large-scale war such as this.

[–] nesc@lemmy.cafe 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Short term? If they 'lose' as in freeze the war not on their maximalist terms, yes. If they will get full ukranian capitulation (as it is being forced right now) they will go for another run in 5 years at best.

[–] Tuuktuuk@mastodontti.fi 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

@nesc

Sorry, I do not understand what you are referring to. "Yes" to what?

[–] nesc@lemmy.cafe 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Your point about popular uprising.