>With first chance they will try to to run into the Europe.
This.
Imagine SURVIVING in NK as a soldier. You do not LIVE, you survive, using the tiny amount of power to bash peasants for resources.
Then, you get shipped to Europe. You can literally SEE the west, you can see there's no real borders for those who surrender and you remember all that russopig propaganda about how even a lowly Black person can get into the west.
The party always taught that EVERYTHING in the west is wrong and horrible. But one time, long ago, perhaps through NK smuggler media, hidden radio transmissions, DVDs or whatever, the soldier saw it... and he liked it.
>Then, you get shipped to Europe. You can literally SEE the west, you can see there's no real borders for those who surrender and you remember all that russopig propaganda about how even a lowly Black person can get into the west.
Could they?
Would they really even be able to speak anything but some dialect of korean?
In fact, how the frick would Russia organize them , other than just letting them free in Ukraine to do as they please, like they do with Chechens?
It seems likely to me that the nork problem could be completely neutralized by just blasting "surrender and we'll take you in as refugees" in Korean across the lines. They might not sneak off as much as you'd think since their families are being held hostage, but the paranoia of their leadership would 100% cripple what little ability they have to perform combat operations. They'd start demanding extreme barrier troops and deploy more political enforcement officers than soldiers.
>by just blasting "surrender and we'll take you in as refugees" in Korean across the lines.
If they're actually sent (which is a big 'if') they likely won't be sent anywhere near the front.
The nork lumberjacks in russia aren't allowed anywhere near russian towns since even those are a world apart from their native living standards, and still have to attend 3 month 'decontamination' camps once they've completed their contracts.
Norks sent to Ukraine will likely be used for static defence roles guarding railways and bridges in as remote locality's as possible.
So, Kim loses 100,000 troops when they die or defect, then he has to kill 1,000,000 of their relatives as punishment? At that rate, gonna run out of Koreans pretty quick.
There's probably some Russians who know Korean. They taught Russian pilots to speak Korean during the Korean War so that they could maintain the illusion that Soviet pilots weren't involved. Spoiler: it didn't work.
They will (literally) hold a gun to their families head. And they will carefully vet to make sure all of the 100k norkbots have vested interests in their family. Asian cultures in general are heavily centered around family. Doubly so in a broken economy where you rely extra hard on family, friends and acquaintances to survive.
To run to the west is sentencing everybody around you, from your wife, kids, sisters, brothers, parents to death or dying in slave labor. The ones willing to accept this price typically try to run out through China into Worst Korea, not join the military.
I have been waiting for this for some time now. It really makes sense, the Norks need money/oil, and (if they survive) could get some combat experience. If they don't it's NBD. The only downside for the Russians is the optics of unleashing feral asiatics on your supposed "brothers" but let's not pretend they didn't cross that bridge forever ago.
well by north korea standards is probably not all that great.
Just imagine, the norks go over there to fight and find a country that is an active warzone is still orders of magnitude better than their own in peacetime. They come home de-programmed and start a North Korean boog.
when they hear the rumors of how well they'll be treated as fricking POW's in Ukrainian hands, I guarantee you they'll be running through no mans land with their hands up for that experience
They are highly disciplined troops, just much smaller than smaller than average vatniks.
Yet they would be the chads and quickly dominate. If they were smart they would just take over.
Either the war crimes are getting turned up to 11 or Ukraine is going to get 100,000 soldiers under the condition that they don't send them home when the fighting is over.
Now you mention it. Would the Nork really allow back in 100.000 soldiers who has seen something of the western living standard first hand? Stalin gulaged every soldier who had been captured by the enemy during the war, on the principle that they might be traitors.
Poles (and maybe the Bongs) could enter the war. The Polish force massing at the Belarussian border is one of the factors keeping Luka out of any direct involvement (besides Luka potentially getting lynched by his own forces, of course).
Europe’s arsenals are completely drained of anti tank and anti air missiles, they won’t give Ukraine any significant numbers of fighter jets, tanks, IFV’s or APC’s, and they already have more than enough rifles. The only thing Ukraine will receive from Europe now is small arms ammunition
Lol, are you joking?
Only things that are slowly getting depleted are the SPARE stocks, meaning Europe has not actually touched to the stuff they could maybe need themselves (excluding maybe Estonia and Poland, but those are restocking very fast).
Finland alone could triple the amount of gear Ukraine has currently, and still have enough stuff to not be completely defenseless.
Anon please. Most of the stuff given to the Ukies was 30 years older or more. They've only recently been getting 'modern' (i.e. only 10 years old) stuff. More importantly, NATO's biggest threat to Russia is their air power which remains totally untouched.
>West gives 25 year old weapons to Ukraine that are either obsolete or just so abundant that it doesn't matter >Probably less than 0.2% of collective NATO GDP is spent on Ukraine so far >Third worlders can't comprehend the economic and technological power of the west so they assume these obsolete weapons are rare wunderwaffen that the west will soon run out of
It would be sad if it wasn't so funny
Anyone who doesn't think the West can escalate hasn't been paying attention to the last 80 years of military and technological development. The 'West', and in particular the US, are the only entity on Earth currently in a position to utterly destroy the quality of life for every other nation on the planet unilaterally, with or without the cooperation of its allies.
>Have complete air dominance everywhere >Have complete naval dominance everywhere >Hurr can't do shit without nukes
The fact that the US hasn't flattened Russia entirely with conventional munitions, firebombed every populated city and dumped hundreds of tons of salt on Ukrainian farmlands to ensure Russians starve for the next 250 years should not be seen as evidence that they can't. It is simply evidence that they haven't.
Times have been good since the end of WW2. The US has had plenty of incentive to allow its enemies to quietly grow complacent, rot and wither on the vine, all while making metric fricktons of money quietly pushing guerilla wars and proxy conflicts all over the globe.
Times are approaching the time where they are no longer good anymore. All economies, all growth comes to an end, and is eventually replaced anew. During those times people fight, from people mugging each other for food all the way up to militaries claiming land with valuable resources. The assumption that things are always going to be easier to just trade for or buy only really works so long as the world is in excess and remains civilized, but those times are waning.
>Which you ironically used first
So? What of it? If your intention is to make this into a moral argument then you shouldn't be using the word 'dumbass' directed at anyone but yourself. The world isn't fair and the very next time a country HAS to turn to nukes to get its way, it absolutely will. The US is no exception to this.
>flattened Russia entirely with conventional munitions, firebombed every populated city and dumped hundreds of tons of salt on Ukrainian farmlands to ensure Russians starve for the next 250 years should not be seen as evidence that they can't. It is simply evidence that they haven't.
Again, how are you gonna do this without being nuked? >If your intention is to make this into a moral argument
No, i was simply trying to point out the irony in the fact that the US can't use it's conventional superiority because of something that it invented in the first place.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Implying that nuking some US cities is going to make them stop
Again, you know nothing about politics. Nuking US cities would only strengthen the hand of its corporate apparatus and the MIC, who would use it as justification for needing 80%+ of the US's total GDP forever. If you think they care about the buildings or the people, you haven't been paying attention.
You would have to wipe out the entire nation, every last American and nuclear silo. The only way that happens is if every other nuclear-armed nation goes down with them.
All in all not much. Incel gen alpha kids here with sit and seethe and talk big but it will be a slow drip until gas hits $5.40 again nationally and then we slow down gibs to the holols again. Russia can't win but if you think the USA is going to escalate any further especially as continued rounds of recession hits you are a copium filled polish teen who knows nothing but worthless technical trivia and won't ever have the balls to go fight for real.
Don't forget >Continued rounds of recession
because the dip wasn't nearly as bad as they wanted it to be, so they have to make it out to be lots of little ones and they were still right
Don't forget >Continued rounds of recession
because the dip wasn't nearly as bad as they wanted it to be, so they have to make it out to be lots of little ones and they were still right
Nice to know the asshurt pole teens who don't understand basic economics are here still. have a nice day frick tards, or be a man and go fight already.
>what are strategic reserves
You're fricking deluded if you think the US will let it's economy bomb mad Max style rather that releasing as much oil as it takes to keep things manageable
USA isn't Europe though. Courtesy of shale production the US generates natural gas as a byproduct that is hard to store, so they just burn it for energy.
The EU is completely and utterly screwed though. They will either rely on gibs from the US, or will break apart and go back to their normal MO, which is centuries of infighting and warfare. If you want to punish these elitist dicks for all the BS they've given you over the last couple decades, now's the time.
(However, now could also be the time to rejuvenate NATO.)
>the EU will break apart and fight each other because of oil and gas prices rather than just fricking up russia who is the instigator and cause of all the problems
>the EU will break apart and fight each other because of oil and gas prices
Yes.
2 years ago
Anonymous
lay off the krokodil
2 years ago
Anonymous
Like the EU will lay off cheap energy?
2 years ago
Anonymous
the EU will smoke coal and vape nuclear power unitl oil and gas prices go down
2 years ago
Anonymous
>coal
Imported from Russia? >nuclear power
With Uranium imported from Kazakhstan, which is right next to Russia, and in an awesome position to interrupt such trades? >until oil and gas prices go down
Oil will maybe go down, although we'll see at least five million barrels per day going off of western markets.
Gas will never, ever go down to the pre-SMO-levels until Germany starts producing their own natural gas, and they've already said they won't do it. Transport of LNG is just too costly.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Imported from Russia?
Europe has coal. >With Uranium imported from Kazakhstan, which is right next to Russia, and in an awesome position to interrupt such trades?
With uranium imported from Kazakhstan, Canada, Namibia, Niger...etc
Anyways I'm sure Russia will try and exploit their "awesome position" any day now. >Gas will never, ever go down to the pre-SMO-levels until Germany starts producing their own natural gas, and they've already said they won't do it. Transport of LNG is just too costly.
You should use that brilliant insigt to invest all your money into gas then as you obviously have figured out something that the gas market hasn't. QUICK BUY STOCK IN ANY GAS-PRODUCING BUSINESS, IT CAN NEVER GO DOWN!
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Europe has coal.
Name their production sites. Poland's coal production has gone down since 1985, and in early 2022 they even started to IMPORT coal from ... you guessed it ... 75% coming from Russia. Then they stated they no longer wanted to import Russian coal, but when asked where its replacement was coming from couldn't answer because of a dentist appointment or whatever. >Germany
Germany only has lignite, and lignite is shite due to its high water content.
>With uranium imported from Kazakhstan
Yeah, not gonna happen, not with Russia ready to restore some of its southern territories. Nazarbayev being the tool that he was was the only reason Russia didn't think it to be necessary to come invade, but if they started exporting Uranium to Europe that's a perfect casus belli, ESPECIALLY since Kazakhstan already refused to help in Ukraine. Their hours are counted.
>Canada
Aside from the fact that their stuff already goes to other places they're already experiencing a labor shortage due to failing demographics. I wouldn't count on them any time soon. >Namibia >Niger
Relying on African countries for resource production is like relying on Congo for Cobalt production; tempting at first, but soon a civil war will wreck your production sites. >You should use that brilliant insigt to invest all your money into gas then as you obviously have figured out something that the gas market hasn't.
Exactly.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You really think Russia is going to push their luck trying to rebuild the USSR when they can't even manage Ukraine?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yes.
>Name their production sites. Poland's coal production has gone down since 1985, and in early 2022 they even started to IMPORT coal from ... you guessed it ... 75% coming from Russia. Then they stated they no longer wanted to import Russian coal, but when asked where its replacement was coming from couldn't answer because of a dentist appointment or whatever.
Coal is imported because it's cheaper, not because europe ran out of coal. If russian coal stops european coal mines will open again or they'll import from someone else. >Germany only has lignite, and lignite is shite due to its high water content.
Russia only has vatniks and vatniks are shite due to their high AIDS and krokodil content but I guess they'll just have to make due with shite then. >Yeah, not gonna happen, not with Russia ready to restore some of its southern territories. Nazarbayev being the tool that he was was the only reason Russia didn't think it to be necessary to come invade, but if they started exporting Uranium to Europe that's a perfect casus belli, ESPECIALLY since Kazakhstan already refused to help in Ukraine. Their hours are counted.
Cool fiction bro, tell us when Russia decides to start a second simultaneous large scale "special military operation". That'll be fricking hilarious. >Canada
Aside from the fact that their stuff already goes to other places they're already experiencing a labor shortage due to failing demographics. I wouldn't count on them any time soon. >Namibia >Niger >Relying on African countries for resource production is like relying on Congo for Cobalt production; tempting at first, but soon a civil war will wreck your production sites.
QUICK, INVEST ALL YOUR MONEY IN URANIUM FUTURES! LITERALLY CAN'T GO DOWN! >Exactly.
Go on then, I'll be waiting to see your new billion dollar yacht soon.
>Go on then, I'll be waiting to see your new billion dollar yacht soon.
Why would you invest in a failing economy? Europe is done. The US is where it's at.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>yes
We'll, let's hope they do. If the Ukraine conflict doesn't sink them, doubling down like moronic apes definitely will
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Why would you invest in a failing economy? Europe is done. The US is where it's at.
>Can predict future of world commodities markets but won't invest.
Cool story Nostradamus.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>but won't invest
Says who? I've just not been investing into European assets. Everybody who's doing it now is going to be in the same situation as companies who've been investing in China for decades.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Says who? I've just not been investing into European assets. Everybody who's doing it now is going to be in the same situation as companies who've been investing in China for decades.
You just said gas and uranium can't possibly go down because Russia controls the world supply. So why not invest in gas and uranium futures?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>So why not invest in gas and uranium futures?
You still assume that Europe and the US are one and the same markets. They're not. All easily accessible and stable resources for Europe are under Russian control, with the EU also experiencing a demographic collapse despite their moronic immigration policies. And transport from someplace else - specifically of LNG - is going to be a major hassle to the point where Europe will have to pay a premium for those deliveries, making them noncompetitive to the location that supplies them with LNG and uranium in the first place: the US. Why would companies stay in Europe, where they have to pay a premium for energy and labor, when they can get both much cheaper in the US?
And that's why everything in Europe - except maybe agriculture in France - is a bad investment.
2 years ago
Anonymous
So you're saying that Russia does in fact not control the world markets of gas and uranium and there's no problem for Europe buying their gas and uranium from somewhere else as long as they're willing to pay slightly more for it?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>So you're saying that Russia does in fact not control the world markets of gas and uranium
Quote me where I ever said that. I said that it control's Europe's easily accessible supplies.
>there's no problem for Europe buying their gas and uranium from somewhere else as long as they're willing to pay slightly more for it
Not slightly. Significantly. Every American-based producer knows that they got Europe by the balls - what are they gonna do, get their gas and Uranium from someplace else that is in threat of Russian interference? If you have a monopoly, then you dictate the prices. And why would US and Canada be lenient towards Europe?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>inb4 muh NATO
And here I though the Russians were so weak that Ukraine could hold them at bay, to say nothing of the other European nations. What reason do the US have in participating there? They can do their own thing just fine without needing to get involved in some European squabbles, they've got much bigger fish to fry in China.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Quote me where I ever said that. Quote me where I ever said that. I said that it control's Europe's easily accessible supplies.
In what way do Russia "control" Europes supply if Europe can still buy gas and uranium on the world markets? Did you mean to say that Russia can slightly increase the European prices of these commodities by torpedoeing their own economy? >Not slightly. Significantly. Every American-based producer knows that they got Europe by the balls - what are they gonna do, get their gas and Uranium from someplace else that is in threat of Russian interference? If you have a monopoly, then you dictate the prices. And why would US and Canada be lenient towards Europe?
The American (and Canadian, and Australian etc...) producers sell their stuff on the world markets same as everyone else. Supply and demand sets the prices. The significant price fluctuations in these commodities have been felt just as much in the rest of the world as in Europe.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>In what way do Russia "control" Europes supply if Europe can still buy gas and uranium on the world markets?
Which "world markets"? The ones that are easily accessible are also easily accessible to Russia, and in a much worse position than Ukraine. Kazakhstan for instance has one third of the population of Ukraine, no promise of any NATO supplies, and also relies on Russian food to survive. True for many such cases, especially now that fertilizers are dropping off the markets, too. Heck, Russia probably doesn't even need to threaten military intervention; just a good old food embargo would be enough to make most energy producers fall in line, and that will limit supply.
What other "world markets" are there? Canada and US? They know that if Europe gets energy cheaper than they deserve they'll be able to keep in competition to Canada and the US. Why would Canada and the US hurt their own industries for no gain whatsoever? So whatever they're going to sell to Europe will come with a premium.
>The American (and Canadian, and Australian etc...) producers sell their stuff on the world markets same as everyone else
And why should they keep doing it? >inb4 because otherwise nobody would be buying their stuff if they raise the prices
OK, but what if nobody else is selling to you because otherwise they'd starve? >then prices would go up
Slightly, or significantly? >well, Europe has a huge demand
Significantly, then.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Which "world markets"? The ones that are easily accessible are also easily accessible to Russia, and in a much worse position than Ukraine. Kazakhstan for instance has one third of the population of Ukraine, no promise of any NATO supplies, and also relies on Russian food to survive. True for many such cases, especially now that fertilizers are dropping off the markets, too. Heck, Russia probably doesn't even need to threaten military intervention; just a good old food embargo would be enough to make most energy producers fall in line, and that will limit supply.
Russia controls world! More news at eleven!
Seriously though: LOL
I do hope they try and invade more countries, that would be hilarious. >What other "world markets" are there? Canada and US?
Yes. And y'know the rest of the world. >They know that if Europe gets energy cheaper than they deserve they'll be able to keep in competition to Canada and the US. Why would Canada and the US hurt their own industries for no gain whatsoever? So whatever they're going to sell to Europe will come with a premium.
They will sell at whatever price supply and demand dictates. Same as usual. >And why should they keep doing it?
Because that's how they make money. If you think you have a smarter way to make more money than them you should try it yourself. I doub't they'll listen to you here. >OK, but what if nobody else is selling to you because otherwise they'd starve?
What krokodil-induced hallucinations are you talking about here? >Slightly, or significantly?
As much as the supply and demand equation dictates probably? But seriously though; what kind of delusional construct of your own imagination are you even responding to here?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Russia controls world! More news at eleven!
Alright, you're a waste of time.
>Yes. And y'know the rest of the world.
At non-sustainable rates for European industries.
>They will sell at whatever price supply and demand dictates
And that price will be huge since demand will be high, and supply decreases.
>What krokodil-induced hallucinations are you talking about here? >Heck, Russia probably doesn't even need to threaten military intervention; just a good old food embargo would be enough to make most energy producers fall in line, and that will limit supply.
>Marxist economic theory predict the west will crumble any day now. >Somehow there is a scenario where this can happen without the rest of the world economy going down in flames too. >If Russia is willing to cut off 60% of its GDP it can decrease the EU GDP by 10%, ergo Russia has Europe by the balls. >Germany's population is steady since the mid-90s - this means it will collapse. (Please ignore that Russia's population is in a slight decline during that same time period.)
What are you talking about here? Europe isn't the west. Europe will suffer, but that's got nothing to do with the US.
>it can decrease the EU GDP by 10%
Oh, much, much worse. But since you're a NATO shill you just make up predictions and hope that no one challenges you on them, eh?
Alright, I'm out. This thread is so full of cognitive dissonance and "we will crush Russia" it's not even funny. Have a good one.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Alright, you're a waste of time.
When ca we expect the "Special Military Operation: 2 Return of the Vatnik" to begin? >At non-sustainable rates for European industries.
Yeah sure Europe will collapse any day now, but until then; proofs? >And that price will be huge since demand will be high, and supply decreases.
World markets are gonna do what they're gonna do. High prices over time will make for more drilling and ming which leads to lower prices in the future. >Heck, Russia probably doesn't even need to threaten military intervention; just a good old food embargo would be enough to make most energy producers fall in line, and that will limit supply.
Russia sure have had that eyebrow raised for quite a while now but it looks like everybody else just isn't understanding them. To everyone else maybe it just looks like Russia had a stroke?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>At non-sustainable rates for European industries.
define sustainable. the whole point is that any scenario in which Europe becomes a shit-hole comparable to russia or china would also mean people in those countries would be back to cannibalizing each other for food. you simply can't have one scenario without the other.
>And that price will be huge since demand will be high, and supply decreases.
and europe and the US will be far more able to pay the higher price than any other countries. again: by the time westerners aren't able to afford new shoes - chinks and russians will all have starved to death.
>Europe isn't the west. Europe will suffer, but that's got nothing to do with the US.
oh, so now you're saying that not only aren't the european and russian economies causally interlinked but the US and europe also are completely separate economically. go take an econ101 class for gods sake.
>hope that no one challenges you on them, eh?
you're challanged alright.
>This thread is so full of cognitive dissonance and "we will crush Russia" it's not even funny.
you started the whole "russia has europe by the balls and can crush them economically" line of reasoning.
>russia produces a bunch of wheat
so? they're not the only ones producing it, almost all of europe is food secure (ie. they make more food than they consume) and russia won't be able to grow a portion of that amount once european supplied spare parts run out. that is bad news for places like india, algeria and china - not europe.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Oh, much, much worse
H-HATO sisters, I-I am already starving, capitalism has failed me, h-hopefully Russia will airdrop some food aid in the form of traditional russian cuisine, like eggs and peas on mayonnaise and....ummm.....Chechens?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Imk already freezing to death in Europe, pls send help and firewood!
2 years ago
Anonymous
Me too, cannot even bury our dead, ground is too frozen to dig graves, and it's still just August. It's over capitalist nazi bros...
2 years ago
Anonymous
Im on my last sheet of hermaphrodite pills and my Marvelflix subscription ran out. The Wect is doomed, we must be make of friends with russian bear (and not poke it)
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Which "world markets"? The ones that are easily accessible are also easily accessible to Russia,
Europe and the US have about 50 times as much cash as Russia. You're literally saying that you can starve out your far richer neighbours because you have access to the same stores as them and thus can buy all their food out from under them. (Even though you make 50 times less than them.)
>What other "world markets" are there? Canada and US?
All of south America, all of Africa, all of Asia except china. Any yeah the US and Canada.
>And why should they keep doing it?
Yeah why should the US and Canada export stuff at a profit to their allies. Absolutely no reason to. >OK, but what if nobody else is selling to you because otherwise they'd starve?
Again what your arguments boild down to is "if the entire world economy goes up in flames, then Europe will have major economic downturn." Yeah no shit moron.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>All easily accessible and stable resources for Europe are under Russian control
XD
Village peasant education at its finest.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Yes.
I really want you to be right
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Name their production sites. Poland's coal production has gone down since 1985, and in early 2022 they even started to IMPORT coal from ... you guessed it ... 75% coming from Russia. Then they stated they no longer wanted to import Russian coal, but when asked where its replacement was coming from couldn't answer because of a dentist appointment or whatever.
Coal is imported because it's cheaper, not because europe ran out of coal. If russian coal stops european coal mines will open again or they'll import from someone else. >Germany only has lignite, and lignite is shite due to its high water content.
Russia only has vatniks and vatniks are shite due to their high AIDS and krokodil content but I guess they'll just have to make due with shite then. >Yeah, not gonna happen, not with Russia ready to restore some of its southern territories. Nazarbayev being the tool that he was was the only reason Russia didn't think it to be necessary to come invade, but if they started exporting Uranium to Europe that's a perfect casus belli, ESPECIALLY since Kazakhstan already refused to help in Ukraine. Their hours are counted.
Cool fiction bro, tell us when Russia decides to start a second simultaneous large scale "special military operation". That'll be fricking hilarious. >Canada
Aside from the fact that their stuff already goes to other places they're already experiencing a labor shortage due to failing demographics. I wouldn't count on them any time soon. >Namibia >Niger >Relying on African countries for resource production is like relying on Congo for Cobalt production; tempting at first, but soon a civil war will wreck your production sites.
QUICK, INVEST ALL YOUR MONEY IN URANIUM FUTURES! LITERALLY CAN'T GO DOWN! >Exactly.
Go on then, I'll be waiting to see your new billion dollar yacht soon.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Name their production sites. >lignite is shite
https://www.statista.com/statistics/265451/proved-coal-reserves-in-the-european-union/
79 billion tonnes of proven reserves in the EU mate. Even if it's all low quality lignite and burned in dilapidated old power-plants - that's still enough to power an all-EV Europe for roughly 46 years. >Yeah, not gonna happen
If the Kazahks don't want to sell theirs - no problem. The US and Canada have the largest proven reserves of uranium in the world. What you fail to grasp is that the US and Europe don't use Russain coal or Khazak uranium because we don't have any - but simply because it's cheaper and we don't want to pollute our rivers with mining operations. If push comes to shove - those concerns will go out the window. >already experiencing a labor shortage due to failing demographics
Kek.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Even if it's all low quality lignite and burned in dilapidated old power-plants
Doesn't work like this. The more coal you need to generate the same amount of power the more costs are associated with this process, which in turn will rise energy costs. Will it be enough to keep Europe's citizens supplied? Yes - if they start with that process as soon as possible. Will it be enough for industries to remain competitive? No, not at all, which will lead to them moving to places with cheaper energy unless you're in agriculture (because you can't just take the soil with you). Will that cause a collapse of the European job market, and thus exacerbate EU citizens' inability to pay their energy bills? Absolutely.
>The US and Canada have the largest proven reserves of uranium in the world
Reserves don't matter until you actually dig them up, and then you need to transport them. Transporting stuff costs. Those costs will be added to the price of the final product. That final product will become unattractive if there's someplace that can produce it cheaper (anyone remember China's industrial boom), and so it won't sell. With the inability to sell their produce Europe will be unable to buy energy from the outside, which means they'll switch to lignite and yadayada ... I've been through this once.
>Kek.
Nothing to kek about here. Just take Germany, which is the motor of the EU - if it calls into depression that's it.
Why, oh
That assumes that the production costs are low enough to make a profit. If they're not, then energy prices will rise because of it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>you claim that europe has no coal >get told off with proven statistics >you ignore that and start talking about something else
every fricking time.
>"europe switching back to its own coal will require capital investment and will make electricity more expensive."
yeah no shit, you're literally repeating what i said.
>Will it be enough for industries to remain competitive? No, not at all, which will lead to them moving to places with cheaper energy
energy is basically free in venezuela, russia and saudi arabia when compared to europe. and still those places are economic shitholes when compared to europe. hmm really makes you think. PROTIP: europe and the US aren't on top of the world economy because of cheap labour or cheap energy - they're far outclassed on that front by dozens of shitholes in the world. and despite this: technological know-how and large reserves of capital are more than enough to overcome that. europe isn't a sweatshop like you seem to assume. >unless you're in agriculture (because you can't just take the soil with you).
terrible example: almost all european agriculture works at an capital opportunity loss. it's there for food security reasons. we can afford to do shit like that. >Will that cause a collapse of the European job market, and thus exacerbate EU citizens' inability to pay their energy bills? Absolutely.
any day now the europan house of cards will crumble! does an economic war with russia or china hurt the european economy? sure. but it hurts those countries just as much if not more. and the people in the west have far more of a buffer between prosperity and starvation than russians or chinese.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>>you claim that europe has no coal
When did I claim that Europe has no coal? I said that Poland's production quantity and quality has been going down, and that lignite is shite. You didn't prove jack.
>hmm really makes you think.
It doesn't. Venezuela dropped everything on oil production, and any profits they made from oil was immediately spent on social projects. Went well until oil prices dropped, now they're not only politically unstable, but there's also no incentive by the government to change this.
SA is much more capitalistic and actually has industries besides oil production, which allows them to survive much, much better than Venezuela on a rainy day (seldom though they are in the desert) - but they need food and water imports, and developing infrastructure in the desert is a b***h. Russia is just a kleptocracy. And you didn't mention it, but Iran has been surprisingly self-sufficient for a place that is mostly desert and can barely participate on the international state due to sanctions. None of this holds true for Europe and the US, so your point is moot, yet again.
>technological know-how and large reserves of capital are more than enough to overcome that
That's why China rose so much, eh? Not because they had food, water, infrastructure and cheap labor, but because of all their technological know-how. That technical know-how even voided the fact that they need to import 85% of their energy.
My god, it's so apparently you have no idea what you're talking about it's almost funny. Of COURSE it was the fricking cheap labor. Right before One Child they had a fricking baby boom, and after One Child they didn't have to invest into their next generation so much, so most of their money went back into their economy. No fricking wonder they rose as quickly as they did, and that's got nothing to do with technical knowledge.
(And even if it did - guess what - people with said technical knowledge can just move, y'know. Like a lot of Russian's did).
2 years ago
Anonymous
>When did I claim that Europe has no coal?
When you say that Europe is fricked without russian coal that's exactly what you're saying. You mean to say you weren't saying that either? Then why bring up Polands coal-imports? Are you saying you're just a moron stating random facts for no reason? >You didn't prove jack.
Except that Europe has enough coal to keep itself up and running for 50 years and enough to replace russian imports for over a century. >None of this holds true for Europe and the US, so your point is moot, yet again.
I bought up those countries as examples of economic failures. You elaborated on exactly how they are failures - and somehow that proves me wrong? >That's why China rose so much, eh?
Chinese per capita GDP is still 1/8 of the USs (even if you ignore their massive fudging of statistics.) And that's after an economic miracle fueled by western excess cash and technology. >That technical know-how even voided the fact that they need to import 85% of their energy.
I never said that being a highly developed economy is the only way towards growth. Duh. Even the US and Europe got their capital in the first place by industrializing themselves. Again: duh. But once you're at the top - the tendency is to stay there. To boil it down to a simple analogy you can process: Just because I say your neighbour is rich and you poor - and therefore chances are that he'll still be richer than you in ten years. That doesn't mean I'm saying it's impossible for anyone to improve their economic lot. > Right before One Child
If population stagnation is such a doomsday scenario for economies, why are you praising China for instituting one in exchange for mid-term growth?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Marxist economic theory predict the west will crumble any day now. >Somehow there is a scenario where this can happen without the rest of the world economy going down in flames too. >If Russia is willing to cut off 60% of its GDP it can decrease the EU GDP by 10%, ergo Russia has Europe by the balls. >Germany's population is steady since the mid-90s - this means it will collapse. (Please ignore that Russia's population is in a slight decline during that same time period.)
2 years ago
Anonymous
There are tons of coal reserves in Europe, its just currently cheaper for the market to buy up Russian coal, or at least it was pre-sanctions. Now that Russia has decided to fall on its sword for the West's benefit, they can go back over to domestic production once companies realize there's money to be made from that demand.
>Implying that there's going to be a Russia in another 25 years
Europe will get its coal and energy supplies from the parts of Russia that Russia is forced to sell in order to pay its debts and war reparations. The deals were probably made in the first week of the war - the west sending guns, China offering only token, predatory help, all of it.
European industrial concerns will be allowed to buy up Russian companies, land and resources for pennies on the dollar. Meanwhile, the US can finally put its Cold War enemy to bed and focus entirely on deconstructing China's hegemony over the next 20 years together with its people.
After that, the US will be the unchallenged One World Power.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I mean even Serbia voted yes. Serbia. That is just beyond hilarious.
Have you seen Germany? They'd go rewrite the maps so everything East of Berlin is Russian territory if it meant getting to suckle at the gassy teat for another 3 months.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Have you seen Germany? They'd go rewrite the maps so everything East of Berlin is Russian territory if it meant getting to suckle at the gassy teat for another 3 months.
The germans have neither the military nor the political clout to rewrite any maps on their own.
Russia cannot be defeated with so many nukes. You either sign peace or you get fricked.
>Russia cannot be defeated with so many nukes. You either sign peace or you get fricked. >MUH NOOOOKS!
The gas prices are high because the gas companies decided to make them higher since they could blame the war in ukraine, it's fake, they're making record profits though which is the real reason.
ITT, Russians are coping on actual mass media again. Anyone remember the tens of thousands of african and syrian mercs that were supposed t come to the rescue any day now?
>Russians are coping on actual mass media again. Anyone remember the tens of thousands of african and syrian mercs
Some mercenaries from the Central African Republic were sent to Ukraine. Most were killed.
I can imagine if they do get sent many of them will just disappear which will cause more Norks to be deployed, meaning less troops on the 38th parallel and if enough of them do get sent the US may finally be able to finish off the Korean War stalemate…or the South Koreans may just do it themselves.
What for? It would be a huge financial and societal burden for the South to take them over.
Even if the land has been contaminated with rotting huts the clay is still good. You want to push the aggressive monkeys as far away from you as possible or otherwise they will keep attacking you time and time again. Eventually there will be a moment of weakness and they will succeed in some capacity. Creating iconic pics like Hiroshima vs Detroit in 1945 vs 2022. You dont need nooks if you have self perpetuating pests actively poisoning the well.
Economic investment costs are nothing compared to the existential threat.
>freudian self propelled artillery.jpg
I chuckled a bit but i don't know why, as i haven't gotten around to reading Freud. What is the joke? (If there is any)
Freud's obsession with penises and saying various things represent them is pretty well known. A comically oversized artillery piece like that definitely fits the bill.
Gotcha, only things knew from before about freud was the freudian slip and oedipus complex (i guess that's why i chuckled) but i just started wondering if there was some other freud stuff i've yet to learn about and here you are, thanks!
>Kim seizes control of Russia >Before anyone can react he moves on to China >Gets declared God-Emperor of Eurasia >Decadent West is helpless before the might of Juche >US declares unconditional surrender 1 year later
>US declares unconditional surrender 1 year later
US govt escapes to the visible side of the moon making US equivalent of Taiwan in space, immediately start to play by old Hillarys globohomosexual books and start war with nazis that lived peacefully on the dark side of the moon for past 60 years.
Calling bullshit, Russia might use North Korean labour in lumber camps in the middle of nowhere for a laughable wage but thats only becuase if they run away they will freeze to death miles from civilisation. No way they put emaciated young men that close to the comparatively space world of Europe without them running away for the chance to sell kimchi from a food cart on the streets of Prague. Russia knows this, the North Korean leadership also knows this.
Isn't NK having a serious problem with pandemic? Sending thousands of unvaccinated troops into that hellhole is just begging for disaster among ranks of vatniks.
It'd be super funny if the Russians won the war somehow and made /k/ and twitter heads explode. Doubt they can do it but the Norks, Russkies, and whatever other renegade states would help pulling out a essentially phyrric win would be a wild timeline
Do they have any combat experience?
I'm thinking the best use would be to pump them all full of high-grade amphetamines and airdrop them all spread out throughout western Ukraine. Just let them run around and frick shit up. Trying to use them as a traditional fighting force seems foolish.
I am supportive of this measure.
Imagine Nork equipment and soldiers fighting in a modern war. US/NATO support would skyrocket immensely and we’d probably seeSouth Korea or even Japan send aid to Ukraine.
North Korean construction workers were used at Syria's nuclear reactor project that got destroyed. Supposedly they even had North Korean soldiers operating rocket artillery in the Syrian civil war.
An extra 100k would definitely be a game changer, Russia could just send them all across the northern border towards Sumy and open another front there, forcing Ukrainians to divert forces from the South and making their frontlines collapse.
The only reason North koreans dont defect to the South is because of the daunting task of running across the border. Take them out of their prison state and they will ditch the uniforms and hike to the nearest city for a new life
>World economic collapse imminent, requiring major changes all over the world or the current elites end up like all the previous batches of elites during times when people can no longer afford to eat >Elites engage hmm.jpg >tfw Russia, China and North Korea the only countries on Earth not to sell out to the West yet >tfw they realize that if they can make these three nations implode, there will be no blocks to a one world government under the US, where the banks can do whatever the hell they want about the crisis >Suddenly, Russia decides to fall on its sword >China decides to embrace anti-government rioting >North Korea happy to allow itself to implode along with Russia
Suddenly it seems like all three of these nations were an intentional counterpoint to the West all along. The West needs them to die so that America can take its place as One World Empire, and lo and behold, on the very day...
So a well known moron and liar Korotchenko said some dumb shit on Russian TV and for some reason the Wester media has decided to pick this total bullshit non-story up and run with it anyway?
Any of you guys remember the thread from a few weeks ago where it turned out that North Korea has been actively producing more modern main battle tanks (mainly the Pokpung-ho) than Russia, which has basically been coasting along with T-90s that are all at least a decade old (and now that they're running out of those, they're falling back on T-80s, T-72s, and now T-62s that are all between 30-60 years old)?
Just take that in for a second. North Korea, a nation that is
>an bigger dystopian shithole than Russia >has virtually no natural resources to speak of besides coal and iron ore >a nonexistent trading relationship with the rest of the world >generates a significant portion of its GDP through the illicit production of crystal meth and counterfeit United States currency >an industrial base running off even more ancient Soviet-era fumes than contemporary Russia >was being economically sanctioned by the West back when it was still called embargoing >only exists because China wants a buffer state between them and countries with American airbases
not only designs and fields its own modern combat equipment, but is able to produce MORE of it than Russia, which was until February 23, 2022, to be second most-powerful military power on the planet.
Well, the Pokpung-ho is reliable enough that they were able to take 20 of them on parade in front of the Great Leader himself without a single breakdown. The T-14 prototypes Russia has on the other hand literally broke down during the 2015 Victory Day Parade and had to be towed away (this was literally less than a year after the first one had rolled off the assembly line). Also, the previous generation of North Korean MBTs, the Chonma-ho, was effective enough that it was exported in large numbers to Iran and Ethiopia in the 1980s (both countries were engaged in large-scale conventional wars during that period). The T-14 on the other hand has literally never fired a shot in anger.
Anon I'm not sure why you are trying to compare the Pokpung-ho to the T-14 when it doesn't seem to be particularly better than the T-90. A tank isn't "modern" just because it was built last year. Also not sure why you seem to think all the issues with inflated numbers we see in Russia aren't going to be true of North Korea too. That said, it is pretty embarrassing that Russian tank production doesn't actually seem to have been much higher than North Korea's.
Really it's a win/win for Best Korea. Their soldiers gain combat experience and back home they can get oil, food, and cash. Best Korea can easily afford sending 1/3rd of its active duty troops to Ukraine and not feel any effects back home.
Realistically speaking, how do you think the Norks would perform on the front lines, and how would a good or bad performance affect how the international community views them?
If I were Kim I'd see this as either a really good chance at showing off that my barks have some real bite but something that also carries the risk of great embarrassment if things go breasts up. Do the benefits outweigh the risks here?
>donbabwean & lugandan meatshields are going to be replaced by nork meatshields >70s equipment is going to be replaced by 60s equipment
Wow, the gloves are truly coming off
This article is fake news, the original source (The National Review) pretty much uses the words of some russian TV show so it's pretty much propaganda rubbish recycled as news, much like the "Ukraine super soldiers " shit
>russian troops literally had to loot stores to find food 3 days after the invasion started >russian army has ton of logistical issues and soldiers get stuff from people doing crowdfunding to buy clothes and other basic shit. >let send them 100k skeletons with ww2 gear right before Autumn starts
what could go wrong?
I don't think people are looking at the big picture here.
China isn't allowed to sell weapons to Russia. However, they ARE able to sell weapons to North Korea.
So what could theoretically happen is that Russia buys weapons from China, but China sells it to North Korea. Then North Korea and their soldiers will go to Russia, dropping the weapons off there, and either actually fight for Russia, or have Russian soldiers in those Chinese weapons "pretending" they are Russians.
If China obviously stabs its trading partners in the back, their Belt and Road Initiative is going to go poorly. Ukraine was a Belt and Road partner. Plus the treaty was personally signed by Xi. I doubt he wants to be viewed as a shifty frick
It already is. Half the investments were Potemkin projects instead of actual infrastructure, the other half can't be repaid with no clause Sri Lanka clause.
China has really shown no will whatsoever to even potentially throw itself in harm's way for russia. I would imagine that there's a real threat of getting slapped with sanctions if a bunch of chinese tanks show up in ukraine, no matter how much they totally didn't come from china, technically. The classic approach of "blatantly do something and hide from consequences with a comically small amount of plausible deniability" works a lot better when there's a nice comfortable status-quo that no one wants to disturb, and not when your dumbfrick "ally" has blasted that status-quo to bits and got almost everyone in the world (including you) pissed off at it.
>Mid April >Still no news
Ah yes, Assad, the closest friend of Putin.
Who bet the plan got turned down because ruzzia retrieved soldiers from Syria and now the local army is getting wrecked by all sides.
Oh look, yet another pro-Russian thread. And wouldn't you know it, the Guardians Of /k/, who pop up in every pro-Ukie thread crying bitter tears about "war tourists" and complaining about how threads about an ongoing conventional war somehow isn't /k/ and are just soooo concerned with the state of the board are nowhere to be found
What a fricking surprise...
Same as with the Blacks from africa wich Russia recruited. With first chance they will try to to run into the Europe.
Did they? Are there any reports of African soldiers asking for refugee?
>With first chance they will try to to run into the Europe.
This.
Imagine SURVIVING in NK as a soldier. You do not LIVE, you survive, using the tiny amount of power to bash peasants for resources.
Then, you get shipped to Europe. You can literally SEE the west, you can see there's no real borders for those who surrender and you remember all that russopig propaganda about how even a lowly Black person can get into the west.
The party always taught that EVERYTHING in the west is wrong and horrible. But one time, long ago, perhaps through NK smuggler media, hidden radio transmissions, DVDs or whatever, the soldier saw it... and he liked it.
>Then, you get shipped to Europe. You can literally SEE the west, you can see there's no real borders for those who surrender and you remember all that russopig propaganda about how even a lowly Black person can get into the west.
Could they?
Would they really even be able to speak anything but some dialect of korean?
In fact, how the frick would Russia organize them , other than just letting them free in Ukraine to do as they please, like they do with Chechens?
It seems likely to me that the nork problem could be completely neutralized by just blasting "surrender and we'll take you in as refugees" in Korean across the lines. They might not sneak off as much as you'd think since their families are being held hostage, but the paranoia of their leadership would 100% cripple what little ability they have to perform combat operations. They'd start demanding extreme barrier troops and deploy more political enforcement officers than soldiers.
>by just blasting "surrender and we'll take you in as refugees" in Korean across the lines.
If they're actually sent (which is a big 'if') they likely won't be sent anywhere near the front.
The nork lumberjacks in russia aren't allowed anywhere near russian towns since even those are a world apart from their native living standards, and still have to attend 3 month 'decontamination' camps once they've completed their contracts.
Norks sent to Ukraine will likely be used for static defence roles guarding railways and bridges in as remote locality's as possible.
So, Kim loses 100,000 troops when they die or defect, then he has to kill 1,000,000 of their relatives as punishment? At that rate, gonna run out of Koreans pretty quick.
There's probably some Russians who know Korean. They taught Russian pilots to speak Korean during the Korean War so that they could maintain the illusion that Soviet pilots weren't involved. Spoiler: it didn't work.
They will (literally) hold a gun to their families head. And they will carefully vet to make sure all of the 100k norkbots have vested interests in their family. Asian cultures in general are heavily centered around family. Doubly so in a broken economy where you rely extra hard on family, friends and acquaintances to survive.
To run to the west is sentencing everybody around you, from your wife, kids, sisters, brothers, parents to death or dying in slave labor. The ones willing to accept this price typically try to run out through China into Worst Korea, not join the military.
Thats a shoop, right? Those are MSG The Origin figures and Vito and Carl look too young to have those when those were released.
It is real. There are other pics. It's from when they were in Japan promoting the Fellowship.
Problem is that I suspect the only places any Norks would end up would be bombed-out rural villages with all their valuables already looted.
>Then, you get shipped to Europe. You can literally SEE the west
In Eastern Ukraine? Bruh.. that isn't categorized as "West".
They'd better hope they get declared KIA and forgotten about, otherwise their families get merked.
They will be distracted the first time they come in contact with food.
seriously though. Like the war torn ukriane would be a food utopia to an average nork. You would rapidly see defections.
North Korea feeds their soldiers well, why do you think they have the largest army on earth? People join so they don’t starve lmao
Sure, but that just makes them hungrier when they get introduced with russian logistics lmao
I have been waiting for this for some time now. It really makes sense, the Norks need money/oil, and (if they survive) could get some combat experience. If they don't it's NBD. The only downside for the Russians is the optics of unleashing feral asiatics on your supposed "brothers" but let's not pretend they didn't cross that bridge forever ago.
well by north korea standards is probably not all that great.
Yes, they get 1200kcal of rice a day instead of bark soup.
>why do you think they join?
So they arent murdered
>why do you think they have the largest army on earth?
Mandatory 10 year military service
Their suffering at NATO's hands will be terrible indeed
>There will be a whole generations of Norks haunted by BBQ'd meat, fats and sugars
Hell yes, HELL YES. Best timeline.
Just imagine, the norks go over there to fight and find a country that is an active warzone is still orders of magnitude better than their own in peacetime. They come home de-programmed and start a North Korean boog.
>upsacaled using western capitalist AI
Holy frick imagine the culture shock. Even Russia is better off than their shithole. Would unironically be kino.
when they hear the rumors of how well they'll be treated as fricking POW's in Ukrainian hands, I guarantee you they'll be running through no mans land with their hands up for that experience
They'll just run and apply for asylum.
It isn't, anon. You'd think it is but it isn't
Yeah, poor russians don't even get state provided meth to keep their hunger pangs away
Wouldn't 100,000 poorly trained norks just make things worse for the russians?
They are highly disciplined troops, just much smaller than smaller than average vatniks.
Yet they would be the chads and quickly dominate. If they were smart they would just take over.
>If they were smart
if they were smart they would've already abandoned the commie larp.
You don't have to worry about feeding them since they are already used to not eat.
Realistically, they would probably just take cover various rear area duties from Russians so the Russians can be freed up to serve as cannon fodder
>get sent to rear area to guard fuel trucks and prison camps
>get HIMARS'd
Either the war crimes are getting turned up to 11 or Ukraine is going to get 100,000 soldiers under the condition that they don't send them home when the fighting is over.
Now you mention it. Would the Nork really allow back in 100.000 soldiers who has seen something of the western living standard first hand? Stalin gulaged every soldier who had been captured by the enemy during the war, on the principle that they might be traitors.
Best Korea is teaming up with Belarus to take Moscow
It would change the game in the sense of probably triggering an enormous escalation by the West, yes.
This, basically.
>Oh? The Russians are trying harder?
>Time to escalate to 2% of NATO's full power.
What is the west gonna do? Give North Korea more sanctions? lmao, unless they want to go to war with Russia they can't escalate at all.
Poles (and maybe the Bongs) could enter the war. The Polish force massing at the Belarussian border is one of the factors keeping Luka out of any direct involvement (besides Luka potentially getting lynched by his own forces, of course).
Literally just tell the Ukrainians they can hit Russian cities with HIMARS.
You know theres a lot more missiles and supplies to be given
Europe’s arsenals are completely drained of anti tank and anti air missiles, they won’t give Ukraine any significant numbers of fighter jets, tanks, IFV’s or APC’s, and they already have more than enough rifles. The only thing Ukraine will receive from Europe now is small arms ammunition
*clap* *clap* *clap*
Lol, are you joking?
Only things that are slowly getting depleted are the SPARE stocks, meaning Europe has not actually touched to the stuff they could maybe need themselves (excluding maybe Estonia and Poland, but those are restocking very fast).
Finland alone could triple the amount of gear Ukraine has currently, and still have enough stuff to not be completely defenseless.
Anon please. Most of the stuff given to the Ukies was 30 years older or more. They've only recently been getting 'modern' (i.e. only 10 years old) stuff. More importantly, NATO's biggest threat to Russia is their air power which remains totally untouched.
>West gives 25 year old weapons to Ukraine that are either obsolete or just so abundant that it doesn't matter
>Probably less than 0.2% of collective NATO GDP is spent on Ukraine so far
>Third worlders can't comprehend the economic and technological power of the west so they assume these obsolete weapons are rare wunderwaffen that the west will soon run out of
It would be sad if it wasn't so funny
>The West
>Can't Escalate
Pick one. (1)
Anyone who doesn't think the West can escalate hasn't been paying attention to the last 80 years of military and technological development. The 'West', and in particular the US, are the only entity on Earth currently in a position to utterly destroy the quality of life for every other nation on the planet unilaterally, with or without the cooperation of its allies.
You can't do shit while nukes exist dumbass, which you ironically used first.
>Have complete air dominance everywhere
>Have complete naval dominance everywhere
>Hurr can't do shit without nukes
The fact that the US hasn't flattened Russia entirely with conventional munitions, firebombed every populated city and dumped hundreds of tons of salt on Ukrainian farmlands to ensure Russians starve for the next 250 years should not be seen as evidence that they can't. It is simply evidence that they haven't.
Times have been good since the end of WW2. The US has had plenty of incentive to allow its enemies to quietly grow complacent, rot and wither on the vine, all while making metric fricktons of money quietly pushing guerilla wars and proxy conflicts all over the globe.
Times are approaching the time where they are no longer good anymore. All economies, all growth comes to an end, and is eventually replaced anew. During those times people fight, from people mugging each other for food all the way up to militaries claiming land with valuable resources. The assumption that things are always going to be easier to just trade for or buy only really works so long as the world is in excess and remains civilized, but those times are waning.
>Which you ironically used first
So? What of it? If your intention is to make this into a moral argument then you shouldn't be using the word 'dumbass' directed at anyone but yourself. The world isn't fair and the very next time a country HAS to turn to nukes to get its way, it absolutely will. The US is no exception to this.
>flattened Russia entirely with conventional munitions, firebombed every populated city and dumped hundreds of tons of salt on Ukrainian farmlands to ensure Russians starve for the next 250 years should not be seen as evidence that they can't. It is simply evidence that they haven't.
Again, how are you gonna do this without being nuked?
>If your intention is to make this into a moral argument
No, i was simply trying to point out the irony in the fact that the US can't use it's conventional superiority because of something that it invented in the first place.
>Implying that nuking some US cities is going to make them stop
Again, you know nothing about politics. Nuking US cities would only strengthen the hand of its corporate apparatus and the MIC, who would use it as justification for needing 80%+ of the US's total GDP forever. If you think they care about the buildings or the people, you haven't been paying attention.
You would have to wipe out the entire nation, every last American and nuclear silo. The only way that happens is if every other nuclear-armed nation goes down with them.
North Korea exists because the West decided to escalate
All in all not much. Incel gen alpha kids here with sit and seethe and talk big but it will be a slow drip until gas hits $5.40 again nationally and then we slow down gibs to the holols again. Russia can't win but if you think the USA is going to escalate any further especially as continued rounds of recession hits you are a copium filled polish teen who knows nothing but worthless technical trivia and won't ever have the balls to go fight for real.
Ah yes, gas prices, the glue holding the country together. You frickers will find anything to screech about these days.
Don't forget
>Continued rounds of recession
because the dip wasn't nearly as bad as they wanted it to be, so they have to make it out to be lots of little ones and they were still right
Nice to know the asshurt pole teens who don't understand basic economics are here still. have a nice day frick tards, or be a man and go fight already.
>what are strategic reserves
You're fricking deluded if you think the US will let it's economy bomb mad Max style rather that releasing as much oil as it takes to keep things manageable
USA isn't Europe though. Courtesy of shale production the US generates natural gas as a byproduct that is hard to store, so they just burn it for energy.
The EU is completely and utterly screwed though. They will either rely on gibs from the US, or will break apart and go back to their normal MO, which is centuries of infighting and warfare. If you want to punish these elitist dicks for all the BS they've given you over the last couple decades, now's the time.
(However, now could also be the time to rejuvenate NATO.)
>the EU will break apart and fight each other because of oil and gas prices rather than just fricking up russia who is the instigator and cause of all the problems
>the EU will break apart and fight each other because of oil and gas prices
Yes.
lay off the krokodil
Like the EU will lay off cheap energy?
the EU will smoke coal and vape nuclear power unitl oil and gas prices go down
>coal
Imported from Russia?
>nuclear power
With Uranium imported from Kazakhstan, which is right next to Russia, and in an awesome position to interrupt such trades?
>until oil and gas prices go down
Oil will maybe go down, although we'll see at least five million barrels per day going off of western markets.
Gas will never, ever go down to the pre-SMO-levels until Germany starts producing their own natural gas, and they've already said they won't do it. Transport of LNG is just too costly.
>Imported from Russia?
Europe has coal.
>With Uranium imported from Kazakhstan, which is right next to Russia, and in an awesome position to interrupt such trades?
With uranium imported from Kazakhstan, Canada, Namibia, Niger...etc
Anyways I'm sure Russia will try and exploit their "awesome position" any day now.
>Gas will never, ever go down to the pre-SMO-levels until Germany starts producing their own natural gas, and they've already said they won't do it. Transport of LNG is just too costly.
You should use that brilliant insigt to invest all your money into gas then as you obviously have figured out something that the gas market hasn't. QUICK BUY STOCK IN ANY GAS-PRODUCING BUSINESS, IT CAN NEVER GO DOWN!
>Europe has coal.
Name their production sites. Poland's coal production has gone down since 1985, and in early 2022 they even started to IMPORT coal from ... you guessed it ... 75% coming from Russia. Then they stated they no longer wanted to import Russian coal, but when asked where its replacement was coming from couldn't answer because of a dentist appointment or whatever.
>Germany
Germany only has lignite, and lignite is shite due to its high water content.
>With uranium imported from Kazakhstan
Yeah, not gonna happen, not with Russia ready to restore some of its southern territories. Nazarbayev being the tool that he was was the only reason Russia didn't think it to be necessary to come invade, but if they started exporting Uranium to Europe that's a perfect casus belli, ESPECIALLY since Kazakhstan already refused to help in Ukraine. Their hours are counted.
>Canada
Aside from the fact that their stuff already goes to other places they're already experiencing a labor shortage due to failing demographics. I wouldn't count on them any time soon.
>Namibia
>Niger
Relying on African countries for resource production is like relying on Congo for Cobalt production; tempting at first, but soon a civil war will wreck your production sites.
>You should use that brilliant insigt to invest all your money into gas then as you obviously have figured out something that the gas market hasn't.
Exactly.
You really think Russia is going to push their luck trying to rebuild the USSR when they can't even manage Ukraine?
Yes.
>Go on then, I'll be waiting to see your new billion dollar yacht soon.
Why would you invest in a failing economy? Europe is done. The US is where it's at.
>yes
We'll, let's hope they do. If the Ukraine conflict doesn't sink them, doubling down like moronic apes definitely will
>Why would you invest in a failing economy? Europe is done. The US is where it's at.
>Can predict future of world commodities markets but won't invest.
Cool story Nostradamus.
>but won't invest
Says who? I've just not been investing into European assets. Everybody who's doing it now is going to be in the same situation as companies who've been investing in China for decades.
>Says who? I've just not been investing into European assets. Everybody who's doing it now is going to be in the same situation as companies who've been investing in China for decades.
You just said gas and uranium can't possibly go down because Russia controls the world supply. So why not invest in gas and uranium futures?
>So why not invest in gas and uranium futures?
You still assume that Europe and the US are one and the same markets. They're not. All easily accessible and stable resources for Europe are under Russian control, with the EU also experiencing a demographic collapse despite their moronic immigration policies. And transport from someplace else - specifically of LNG - is going to be a major hassle to the point where Europe will have to pay a premium for those deliveries, making them noncompetitive to the location that supplies them with LNG and uranium in the first place: the US. Why would companies stay in Europe, where they have to pay a premium for energy and labor, when they can get both much cheaper in the US?
And that's why everything in Europe - except maybe agriculture in France - is a bad investment.
So you're saying that Russia does in fact not control the world markets of gas and uranium and there's no problem for Europe buying their gas and uranium from somewhere else as long as they're willing to pay slightly more for it?
>So you're saying that Russia does in fact not control the world markets of gas and uranium
Quote me where I ever said that. I said that it control's Europe's easily accessible supplies.
>there's no problem for Europe buying their gas and uranium from somewhere else as long as they're willing to pay slightly more for it
Not slightly. Significantly. Every American-based producer knows that they got Europe by the balls - what are they gonna do, get their gas and Uranium from someplace else that is in threat of Russian interference? If you have a monopoly, then you dictate the prices. And why would US and Canada be lenient towards Europe?
>inb4 muh NATO
And here I though the Russians were so weak that Ukraine could hold them at bay, to say nothing of the other European nations. What reason do the US have in participating there? They can do their own thing just fine without needing to get involved in some European squabbles, they've got much bigger fish to fry in China.
>Quote me where I ever said that. Quote me where I ever said that. I said that it control's Europe's easily accessible supplies.
In what way do Russia "control" Europes supply if Europe can still buy gas and uranium on the world markets? Did you mean to say that Russia can slightly increase the European prices of these commodities by torpedoeing their own economy?
>Not slightly. Significantly. Every American-based producer knows that they got Europe by the balls - what are they gonna do, get their gas and Uranium from someplace else that is in threat of Russian interference? If you have a monopoly, then you dictate the prices. And why would US and Canada be lenient towards Europe?
The American (and Canadian, and Australian etc...) producers sell their stuff on the world markets same as everyone else. Supply and demand sets the prices. The significant price fluctuations in these commodities have been felt just as much in the rest of the world as in Europe.
>In what way do Russia "control" Europes supply if Europe can still buy gas and uranium on the world markets?
Which "world markets"? The ones that are easily accessible are also easily accessible to Russia, and in a much worse position than Ukraine. Kazakhstan for instance has one third of the population of Ukraine, no promise of any NATO supplies, and also relies on Russian food to survive. True for many such cases, especially now that fertilizers are dropping off the markets, too. Heck, Russia probably doesn't even need to threaten military intervention; just a good old food embargo would be enough to make most energy producers fall in line, and that will limit supply.
What other "world markets" are there? Canada and US? They know that if Europe gets energy cheaper than they deserve they'll be able to keep in competition to Canada and the US. Why would Canada and the US hurt their own industries for no gain whatsoever? So whatever they're going to sell to Europe will come with a premium.
>The American (and Canadian, and Australian etc...) producers sell their stuff on the world markets same as everyone else
And why should they keep doing it?
>inb4 because otherwise nobody would be buying their stuff if they raise the prices
OK, but what if nobody else is selling to you because otherwise they'd starve?
>then prices would go up
Slightly, or significantly?
>well, Europe has a huge demand
Significantly, then.
>Which "world markets"? The ones that are easily accessible are also easily accessible to Russia, and in a much worse position than Ukraine. Kazakhstan for instance has one third of the population of Ukraine, no promise of any NATO supplies, and also relies on Russian food to survive. True for many such cases, especially now that fertilizers are dropping off the markets, too. Heck, Russia probably doesn't even need to threaten military intervention; just a good old food embargo would be enough to make most energy producers fall in line, and that will limit supply.
Russia controls world! More news at eleven!
Seriously though: LOL
I do hope they try and invade more countries, that would be hilarious.
>What other "world markets" are there? Canada and US?
Yes. And y'know the rest of the world.
>They know that if Europe gets energy cheaper than they deserve they'll be able to keep in competition to Canada and the US. Why would Canada and the US hurt their own industries for no gain whatsoever? So whatever they're going to sell to Europe will come with a premium.
They will sell at whatever price supply and demand dictates. Same as usual.
>And why should they keep doing it?
Because that's how they make money. If you think you have a smarter way to make more money than them you should try it yourself. I doub't they'll listen to you here.
>OK, but what if nobody else is selling to you because otherwise they'd starve?
What krokodil-induced hallucinations are you talking about here?
>Slightly, or significantly?
As much as the supply and demand equation dictates probably? But seriously though; what kind of delusional construct of your own imagination are you even responding to here?
>Russia controls world! More news at eleven!
Alright, you're a waste of time.
>Yes. And y'know the rest of the world.
At non-sustainable rates for European industries.
>They will sell at whatever price supply and demand dictates
And that price will be huge since demand will be high, and supply decreases.
>What krokodil-induced hallucinations are you talking about here?
>Heck, Russia probably doesn't even need to threaten military intervention; just a good old food embargo would be enough to make most energy producers fall in line, and that will limit supply.
What are you talking about here? Europe isn't the west. Europe will suffer, but that's got nothing to do with the US.
>it can decrease the EU GDP by 10%
Oh, much, much worse. But since you're a NATO shill you just make up predictions and hope that no one challenges you on them, eh?
Alright, I'm out. This thread is so full of cognitive dissonance and "we will crush Russia" it's not even funny. Have a good one.
>Alright, you're a waste of time.
When ca we expect the "Special Military Operation: 2 Return of the Vatnik" to begin?
>At non-sustainable rates for European industries.
Yeah sure Europe will collapse any day now, but until then; proofs?
>And that price will be huge since demand will be high, and supply decreases.
World markets are gonna do what they're gonna do. High prices over time will make for more drilling and ming which leads to lower prices in the future.
>Heck, Russia probably doesn't even need to threaten military intervention; just a good old food embargo would be enough to make most energy producers fall in line, and that will limit supply.
Russia sure have had that eyebrow raised for quite a while now but it looks like everybody else just isn't understanding them. To everyone else maybe it just looks like Russia had a stroke?
>At non-sustainable rates for European industries.
define sustainable. the whole point is that any scenario in which Europe becomes a shit-hole comparable to russia or china would also mean people in those countries would be back to cannibalizing each other for food. you simply can't have one scenario without the other.
>And that price will be huge since demand will be high, and supply decreases.
and europe and the US will be far more able to pay the higher price than any other countries. again: by the time westerners aren't able to afford new shoes - chinks and russians will all have starved to death.
>Europe isn't the west. Europe will suffer, but that's got nothing to do with the US.
oh, so now you're saying that not only aren't the european and russian economies causally interlinked but the US and europe also are completely separate economically. go take an econ101 class for gods sake.
>hope that no one challenges you on them, eh?
you're challanged alright.
>This thread is so full of cognitive dissonance and "we will crush Russia" it's not even funny.
you started the whole "russia has europe by the balls and can crush them economically" line of reasoning.
>russia produces a bunch of wheat
so? they're not the only ones producing it, almost all of europe is food secure (ie. they make more food than they consume) and russia won't be able to grow a portion of that amount once european supplied spare parts run out. that is bad news for places like india, algeria and china - not europe.
>Oh, much, much worse
H-HATO sisters, I-I am already starving, capitalism has failed me, h-hopefully Russia will airdrop some food aid in the form of traditional russian cuisine, like eggs and peas on mayonnaise and....ummm.....Chechens?
Imk already freezing to death in Europe, pls send help and firewood!
Me too, cannot even bury our dead, ground is too frozen to dig graves, and it's still just August. It's over capitalist nazi bros...
Im on my last sheet of hermaphrodite pills and my Marvelflix subscription ran out. The Wect is doomed, we must be make of friends with russian bear (and not poke it)
>Which "world markets"? The ones that are easily accessible are also easily accessible to Russia,
Europe and the US have about 50 times as much cash as Russia. You're literally saying that you can starve out your far richer neighbours because you have access to the same stores as them and thus can buy all their food out from under them. (Even though you make 50 times less than them.)
>What other "world markets" are there? Canada and US?
All of south America, all of Africa, all of Asia except china. Any yeah the US and Canada.
>And why should they keep doing it?
Yeah why should the US and Canada export stuff at a profit to their allies. Absolutely no reason to.
>OK, but what if nobody else is selling to you because otherwise they'd starve?
Again what your arguments boild down to is "if the entire world economy goes up in flames, then Europe will have major economic downturn." Yeah no shit moron.
>All easily accessible and stable resources for Europe are under Russian control
XD
Village peasant education at its finest.
>Yes.
I really want you to be right
>Name their production sites. Poland's coal production has gone down since 1985, and in early 2022 they even started to IMPORT coal from ... you guessed it ... 75% coming from Russia. Then they stated they no longer wanted to import Russian coal, but when asked where its replacement was coming from couldn't answer because of a dentist appointment or whatever.
Coal is imported because it's cheaper, not because europe ran out of coal. If russian coal stops european coal mines will open again or they'll import from someone else.
>Germany only has lignite, and lignite is shite due to its high water content.
Russia only has vatniks and vatniks are shite due to their high AIDS and krokodil content but I guess they'll just have to make due with shite then.
>Yeah, not gonna happen, not with Russia ready to restore some of its southern territories. Nazarbayev being the tool that he was was the only reason Russia didn't think it to be necessary to come invade, but if they started exporting Uranium to Europe that's a perfect casus belli, ESPECIALLY since Kazakhstan already refused to help in Ukraine. Their hours are counted.
Cool fiction bro, tell us when Russia decides to start a second simultaneous large scale "special military operation". That'll be fricking hilarious.
>Canada
Aside from the fact that their stuff already goes to other places they're already experiencing a labor shortage due to failing demographics. I wouldn't count on them any time soon.
>Namibia
>Niger
>Relying on African countries for resource production is like relying on Congo for Cobalt production; tempting at first, but soon a civil war will wreck your production sites.
QUICK, INVEST ALL YOUR MONEY IN URANIUM FUTURES! LITERALLY CAN'T GO DOWN!
>Exactly.
Go on then, I'll be waiting to see your new billion dollar yacht soon.
>Name their production sites.
>lignite is shite
https://www.statista.com/statistics/265451/proved-coal-reserves-in-the-european-union/
79 billion tonnes of proven reserves in the EU mate. Even if it's all low quality lignite and burned in dilapidated old power-plants - that's still enough to power an all-EV Europe for roughly 46 years.
>Yeah, not gonna happen
If the Kazahks don't want to sell theirs - no problem. The US and Canada have the largest proven reserves of uranium in the world. What you fail to grasp is that the US and Europe don't use Russain coal or Khazak uranium because we don't have any - but simply because it's cheaper and we don't want to pollute our rivers with mining operations. If push comes to shove - those concerns will go out the window.
>already experiencing a labor shortage due to failing demographics
Kek.
>Even if it's all low quality lignite and burned in dilapidated old power-plants
Doesn't work like this. The more coal you need to generate the same amount of power the more costs are associated with this process, which in turn will rise energy costs. Will it be enough to keep Europe's citizens supplied? Yes - if they start with that process as soon as possible. Will it be enough for industries to remain competitive? No, not at all, which will lead to them moving to places with cheaper energy unless you're in agriculture (because you can't just take the soil with you). Will that cause a collapse of the European job market, and thus exacerbate EU citizens' inability to pay their energy bills? Absolutely.
>The US and Canada have the largest proven reserves of uranium in the world
Reserves don't matter until you actually dig them up, and then you need to transport them. Transporting stuff costs. Those costs will be added to the price of the final product. That final product will become unattractive if there's someplace that can produce it cheaper (anyone remember China's industrial boom), and so it won't sell. With the inability to sell their produce Europe will be unable to buy energy from the outside, which means they'll switch to lignite and yadayada ... I've been through this once.
>Kek.
Nothing to kek about here. Just take Germany, which is the motor of the EU - if it calls into depression that's it.
Why, oh
That assumes that the production costs are low enough to make a profit. If they're not, then energy prices will rise because of it.
>you claim that europe has no coal
>get told off with proven statistics
>you ignore that and start talking about something else
every fricking time.
>"europe switching back to its own coal will require capital investment and will make electricity more expensive."
yeah no shit, you're literally repeating what i said.
>Will it be enough for industries to remain competitive? No, not at all, which will lead to them moving to places with cheaper energy
energy is basically free in venezuela, russia and saudi arabia when compared to europe. and still those places are economic shitholes when compared to europe. hmm really makes you think. PROTIP: europe and the US aren't on top of the world economy because of cheap labour or cheap energy - they're far outclassed on that front by dozens of shitholes in the world. and despite this: technological know-how and large reserves of capital are more than enough to overcome that. europe isn't a sweatshop like you seem to assume.
>unless you're in agriculture (because you can't just take the soil with you).
terrible example: almost all european agriculture works at an capital opportunity loss. it's there for food security reasons. we can afford to do shit like that.
>Will that cause a collapse of the European job market, and thus exacerbate EU citizens' inability to pay their energy bills? Absolutely.
any day now the europan house of cards will crumble! does an economic war with russia or china hurt the european economy? sure. but it hurts those countries just as much if not more. and the people in the west have far more of a buffer between prosperity and starvation than russians or chinese.
>>you claim that europe has no coal
When did I claim that Europe has no coal? I said that Poland's production quantity and quality has been going down, and that lignite is shite. You didn't prove jack.
>hmm really makes you think.
It doesn't. Venezuela dropped everything on oil production, and any profits they made from oil was immediately spent on social projects. Went well until oil prices dropped, now they're not only politically unstable, but there's also no incentive by the government to change this.
SA is much more capitalistic and actually has industries besides oil production, which allows them to survive much, much better than Venezuela on a rainy day (seldom though they are in the desert) - but they need food and water imports, and developing infrastructure in the desert is a b***h. Russia is just a kleptocracy. And you didn't mention it, but Iran has been surprisingly self-sufficient for a place that is mostly desert and can barely participate on the international state due to sanctions. None of this holds true for Europe and the US, so your point is moot, yet again.
>technological know-how and large reserves of capital are more than enough to overcome that
That's why China rose so much, eh? Not because they had food, water, infrastructure and cheap labor, but because of all their technological know-how. That technical know-how even voided the fact that they need to import 85% of their energy.
My god, it's so apparently you have no idea what you're talking about it's almost funny. Of COURSE it was the fricking cheap labor. Right before One Child they had a fricking baby boom, and after One Child they didn't have to invest into their next generation so much, so most of their money went back into their economy. No fricking wonder they rose as quickly as they did, and that's got nothing to do with technical knowledge.
(And even if it did - guess what - people with said technical knowledge can just move, y'know. Like a lot of Russian's did).
>When did I claim that Europe has no coal?
When you say that Europe is fricked without russian coal that's exactly what you're saying. You mean to say you weren't saying that either? Then why bring up Polands coal-imports? Are you saying you're just a moron stating random facts for no reason?
>You didn't prove jack.
Except that Europe has enough coal to keep itself up and running for 50 years and enough to replace russian imports for over a century.
>None of this holds true for Europe and the US, so your point is moot, yet again.
I bought up those countries as examples of economic failures. You elaborated on exactly how they are failures - and somehow that proves me wrong?
>That's why China rose so much, eh?
Chinese per capita GDP is still 1/8 of the USs (even if you ignore their massive fudging of statistics.) And that's after an economic miracle fueled by western excess cash and technology.
>That technical know-how even voided the fact that they need to import 85% of their energy.
I never said that being a highly developed economy is the only way towards growth. Duh. Even the US and Europe got their capital in the first place by industrializing themselves. Again: duh. But once you're at the top - the tendency is to stay there. To boil it down to a simple analogy you can process: Just because I say your neighbour is rich and you poor - and therefore chances are that he'll still be richer than you in ten years. That doesn't mean I'm saying it's impossible for anyone to improve their economic lot.
> Right before One Child
If population stagnation is such a doomsday scenario for economies, why are you praising China for instituting one in exchange for mid-term growth?
>Marxist economic theory predict the west will crumble any day now.
>Somehow there is a scenario where this can happen without the rest of the world economy going down in flames too.
>If Russia is willing to cut off 60% of its GDP it can decrease the EU GDP by 10%, ergo Russia has Europe by the balls.
>Germany's population is steady since the mid-90s - this means it will collapse. (Please ignore that Russia's population is in a slight decline during that same time period.)
There are tons of coal reserves in Europe, its just currently cheaper for the market to buy up Russian coal, or at least it was pre-sanctions. Now that Russia has decided to fall on its sword for the West's benefit, they can go back over to domestic production once companies realize there's money to be made from that demand.
>Implying that there's going to be a Russia in another 25 years
Europe will get its coal and energy supplies from the parts of Russia that Russia is forced to sell in order to pay its debts and war reparations. The deals were probably made in the first week of the war - the west sending guns, China offering only token, predatory help, all of it.
European industrial concerns will be allowed to buy up Russian companies, land and resources for pennies on the dollar. Meanwhile, the US can finally put its Cold War enemy to bed and focus entirely on deconstructing China's hegemony over the next 20 years together with its people.
After that, the US will be the unchallenged One World Power.
I mean even Serbia voted yes. Serbia. That is just beyond hilarious.
Have you seen Germany? They'd go rewrite the maps so everything East of Berlin is Russian territory if it meant getting to suckle at the gassy teat for another 3 months.
>Have you seen Germany? They'd go rewrite the maps so everything East of Berlin is Russian territory if it meant getting to suckle at the gassy teat for another 3 months.
The germans have neither the military nor the political clout to rewrite any maps on their own.
>Russia cannot be defeated with so many nukes. You either sign peace or you get fricked.
>MUH NOOOOKS!
Russia cannot be defeated with so many nukes. You either sign peace or you get fricked.
The gas prices are high because the gas companies decided to make them higher since they could blame the war in ukraine, it's fake, they're making record profits though which is the real reason.
This. The saudis were buying russian oil for cheap so they can chill and sell their's for even more.
>Oh Ya, gut erledigt, you have successfully escalated the battle phase
>here is the counter to that thing that was killing all of your men
ITT, Russians are coping on actual mass media again. Anyone remember the tens of thousands of african and syrian mercs that were supposed t come to the rescue any day now?
>Russians are coping on actual mass media again. Anyone remember the tens of thousands of african and syrian mercs
Some mercenaries from the Central African Republic were sent to Ukraine. Most were killed.
Weren't these supposed to be workers not soldiers?
I can imagine if they do get sent many of them will just disappear which will cause more Norks to be deployed, meaning less troops on the 38th parallel and if enough of them do get sent the US may finally be able to finish off the Korean War stalemate…or the South Koreans may just do it themselves.
What for? It would be a huge financial and societal burden for the South to take them over.
This. Germany still hasn't economically recovered from reunification. It's the same reason nobody wanted Kaliningrad after the USSR fell.
Even if the land has been contaminated with rotting huts the clay is still good. You want to push the aggressive monkeys as far away from you as possible or otherwise they will keep attacking you time and time again. Eventually there will be a moment of weakness and they will succeed in some capacity. Creating iconic pics like Hiroshima vs Detroit in 1945 vs 2022. You dont need nooks if you have self perpetuating pests actively poisoning the well.
Economic investment costs are nothing compared to the existential threat.
They'd get so many gibs from the US.
Russia definitely wants to save the white race?
>the average height of the men in North Korea is the same as the average height for a white woman in the US
IMAGINE
>freudian self propelled artillery.jpg
I chuckled a bit but i don't know why, as i haven't gotten around to reading Freud. What is the joke? (If there is any)
The joke is you want to have sex with your mother.
I've been found out!
Freud's obsession with penises and saying various things represent them is pretty well known. A comically oversized artillery piece like that definitely fits the bill.
Gotcha, only things knew from before about freud was the freudian slip and oedipus complex (i guess that's why i chuckled) but i just started wondering if there was some other freud stuff i've yet to learn about and here you are, thanks!
I'm pretty sure they took a meme as news. I've seen shitposts about best Korea participation for months. Hell, even written some.
Wouldn't they all just defect then?
Wouldn’t it be hilarious if the Nork propaganda was correct all these years and it turns out Nork soldiers are the most deadly warriors on the planet
> China
> Palestine
> Nazi
> Nasa t-shirt
> Pop culture memes
I'm getting Andrew Anglin vibes, fr on god
don't forget they're also a literal femboy
With 100k troops in Russia the Norks could just coup Putin and install Kimmy as leader of the new USSR.
>Kim seizes control of Russia
>Before anyone can react he moves on to China
>Gets declared God-Emperor of Eurasia
>Decadent West is helpless before the might of Juche
>US declares unconditional surrender 1 year later
Truly, Kim is the Napoleon of our age.
Truly the best timeline. Thank you Kim for saving humanity.
>US declares unconditional surrender 1 year later
US govt escapes to the visible side of the moon making US equivalent of Taiwan in space, immediately start to play by old Hillarys globohomosexual books and start war with nazis that lived peacefully on the dark side of the moon for past 60 years.
Finland now next to Korea
>Hyperwar commences
Calling bullshit, Russia might use North Korean labour in lumber camps in the middle of nowhere for a laughable wage but thats only becuase if they run away they will freeze to death miles from civilisation. No way they put emaciated young men that close to the comparatively space world of Europe without them running away for the chance to sell kimchi from a food cart on the streets of Prague. Russia knows this, the North Korean leadership also knows this.
I want it to happen for the kino factor.
Hope they send a lot of female soldiers though.
Right... russia has a hard time with logistics as it is, do you think they can supply 100000 half-starved norks?
More like civil defense units to clean up and do construction.
What's up with the Russians using the Zwastika on everything? Are they just hammering home the point they're the nazis now?
it will be worse because they're just clogging the supply lines even more
Isn't NK having a serious problem with pandemic? Sending thousands of unvaccinated troops into that hellhole is just begging for disaster among ranks of vatniks.
It'd be super funny if the Russians won the war somehow and made /k/ and twitter heads explode. Doubt they can do it but the Norks, Russkies, and whatever other renegade states would help pulling out a essentially phyrric win would be a wild timeline
Do they have any combat experience?
I'm thinking the best use would be to pump them all full of high-grade amphetamines and airdrop them all spread out throughout western Ukraine. Just let them run around and frick shit up. Trying to use them as a traditional fighting force seems foolish.
I am supportive of this measure.
Imagine Nork equipment and soldiers fighting in a modern war. US/NATO support would skyrocket immensely and we’d probably seeSouth Korea or even Japan send aid to Ukraine.
Excuse me?
North Korean construction workers were used at Syria's nuclear reactor project that got destroyed. Supposedly they even had North Korean soldiers operating rocket artillery in the Syrian civil war.
>could
I don't know what your image has to do with "could" in the future tense.
Russians have a fleeting grasp of the English language.
Great FINNO-HWAN Empire war will happen again
An extra 100k would definitely be a game changer, Russia could just send them all across the northern border towards Sumy and open another front there, forcing Ukrainians to divert forces from the South and making their frontlines collapse.
You know, the performance of the SS Legions the Germans raised across Europe didn't exactly shine.
The only reason North koreans dont defect to the South is because of the daunting task of running across the border. Take them out of their prison state and they will ditch the uniforms and hike to the nearest city for a new life
Sent how? We'll blast any attempt of North Korea to intervene.
>World economic collapse imminent, requiring major changes all over the world or the current elites end up like all the previous batches of elites during times when people can no longer afford to eat
>Elites engage hmm.jpg
>tfw Russia, China and North Korea the only countries on Earth not to sell out to the West yet
>tfw they realize that if they can make these three nations implode, there will be no blocks to a one world government under the US, where the banks can do whatever the hell they want about the crisis
>Suddenly, Russia decides to fall on its sword
>China decides to embrace anti-government rioting
>North Korea happy to allow itself to implode along with Russia
Suddenly it seems like all three of these nations were an intentional counterpoint to the West all along. The West needs them to die so that America can take its place as One World Empire, and lo and behold, on the very day...
Nice theory anon, but where do the lizard people fit in?
based. capitalism is the one true economic system
Assuming it happens, NATO peacekeeping force when?
They'll make like their soccer players and split.
>thousands of iranian drones paving the way for 100k nork stormtroopers
we're experiencing kino on unprecedented levels
We'll have to clash with the North Koreans and tell the Russians not to get in our way.
Here's your 'starving conscripts'. Time for the Holhols to face the fist of united Korean peoples!
5'2"
I'd pay good money to see Norks getting greased by Slavic untermensch from those drone cams any day of the week.
Screencaped for my bad predictions compilation
>bridge was built but Crimea still went to shit
He actually wasn't far off.
Personally I reckon this is just cover for a secret intervention by the PLA
Does best korea even have enough food to stand up 100k troops?
So a well known moron and liar Korotchenko said some dumb shit on Russian TV and for some reason the Wester media has decided to pick this total bullshit non-story up and run with it anyway?
Any of you guys remember the thread from a few weeks ago where it turned out that North Korea has been actively producing more modern main battle tanks (mainly the Pokpung-ho) than Russia, which has basically been coasting along with T-90s that are all at least a decade old (and now that they're running out of those, they're falling back on T-80s, T-72s, and now T-62s that are all between 30-60 years old)?
Just take that in for a second. North Korea, a nation that is
>an bigger dystopian shithole than Russia
>has virtually no natural resources to speak of besides coal and iron ore
>a nonexistent trading relationship with the rest of the world
>generates a significant portion of its GDP through the illicit production of crystal meth and counterfeit United States currency
>an industrial base running off even more ancient Soviet-era fumes than contemporary Russia
>was being economically sanctioned by the West back when it was still called embargoing
>only exists because China wants a buffer state between them and countries with American airbases
not only designs and fields its own modern combat equipment, but is able to produce MORE of it than Russia, which was until February 23, 2022, to be second most-powerful military power on the planet.
The T-72 they used were upgraded models. The T-90 itself is practically an upgraded T-72.
>T-90 is just a T-72
Every time I orgasm, in the vision of post-cum clarity. I always came to this conclusion.
How much of it is potemkin panzers?
>an extremely poor and authoritarian country which uses it's army for slave labor and indoctrination of population.
Probably most of them.
Well, the Pokpung-ho is reliable enough that they were able to take 20 of them on parade in front of the Great Leader himself without a single breakdown. The T-14 prototypes Russia has on the other hand literally broke down during the 2015 Victory Day Parade and had to be towed away (this was literally less than a year after the first one had rolled off the assembly line). Also, the previous generation of North Korean MBTs, the Chonma-ho, was effective enough that it was exported in large numbers to Iran and Ethiopia in the 1980s (both countries were engaged in large-scale conventional wars during that period). The T-14 on the other hand has literally never fired a shot in anger.
I was really impressed by this post and persuaded especially the way you used ALL CAPS on more
Thanks you NORK shill
Anon I'm not sure why you are trying to compare the Pokpung-ho to the T-14 when it doesn't seem to be particularly better than the T-90. A tank isn't "modern" just because it was built last year. Also not sure why you seem to think all the issues with inflated numbers we see in Russia aren't going to be true of North Korea too. That said, it is pretty embarrassing that Russian tank production doesn't actually seem to have been much higher than North Korea's.
Wonder if we will be seeing a lot of cannibalism on the battlefield from them since it's fairly common in nk.
Really it's a win/win for Best Korea. Their soldiers gain combat experience and back home they can get oil, food, and cash. Best Korea can easily afford sending 1/3rd of its active duty troops to Ukraine and not feel any effects back home.
Realistically speaking, how do you think the Norks would perform on the front lines, and how would a good or bad performance affect how the international community views them?
If I were Kim I'd see this as either a really good chance at showing off that my barks have some real bite but something that also carries the risk of great embarrassment if things go breasts up. Do the benefits outweigh the risks here?
>donbabwean & lugandan meatshields are going to be replaced by nork meatshields
>70s equipment is going to be replaced by 60s equipment
Wow, the gloves are truly coming off
This article is fake news, the original source (The National Review) pretty much uses the words of some russian TV show so it's pretty much propaganda rubbish recycled as news, much like the "Ukraine super soldiers " shit
>russian troops literally had to loot stores to find food 3 days after the invasion started
>russian army has ton of logistical issues and soldiers get stuff from people doing crowdfunding to buy clothes and other basic shit.
>let send them 100k skeletons with ww2 gear right before Autumn starts
what could go wrong?
I don't think people are looking at the big picture here.
China isn't allowed to sell weapons to Russia. However, they ARE able to sell weapons to North Korea.
So what could theoretically happen is that Russia buys weapons from China, but China sells it to North Korea. Then North Korea and their soldiers will go to Russia, dropping the weapons off there, and either actually fight for Russia, or have Russian soldiers in those Chinese weapons "pretending" they are Russians.
>So what could theoretically happen is that...
great, more meat for the meat-grinder.
Still would be a violation of China's defense treaty with Ukraine
https://www.andrewerickson.com/2022/03/2013-prc-ukraine-treaty-of-friendship-cooperation-joint-communique-signed-by-xi-but-whats-it-worth/
>treaties
Heh
If China obviously stabs its trading partners in the back, their Belt and Road Initiative is going to go poorly. Ukraine was a Belt and Road partner. Plus the treaty was personally signed by Xi. I doubt he wants to be viewed as a shifty frick
>Belt and Road Initiative is going to go poorly
It already is. Half the investments were Potemkin projects instead of actual infrastructure, the other half can't be repaid with no clause Sri Lanka clause.
China has really shown no will whatsoever to even potentially throw itself in harm's way for russia. I would imagine that there's a real threat of getting slapped with sanctions if a bunch of chinese tanks show up in ukraine, no matter how much they totally didn't come from china, technically. The classic approach of "blatantly do something and hide from consequences with a comically small amount of plausible deniability" works a lot better when there's a nice comfortable status-quo that no one wants to disturb, and not when your dumbfrick "ally" has blasted that status-quo to bits and got almost everyone in the world (including you) pissed off at it.
>How will the Norks integrate with the Russians?
How?
>Kim station 100K troops in Russia
>Station 100K hungry troops in Moscow.
>Take over Moscow.
>That's how the Russians integrate with the Norks
Who else remembers the "20,000" syrians who were coming to Russia's aid? Whatever happened to them?
>Mid April
>Still no news
Ah yes, Assad, the closest friend of Putin.
Who bet the plan got turned down because ruzzia retrieved soldiers from Syria and now the local army is getting wrecked by all sides.
Oh look, yet another pro-Russian thread. And wouldn't you know it, the Guardians Of /k/, who pop up in every pro-Ukie thread crying bitter tears about "war tourists" and complaining about how threads about an ongoing conventional war somehow isn't /k/ and are just soooo concerned with the state of the board are nowhere to be found
What a fricking surprise...
keep the seethe going