(1) 72 billion dollars in lost lifetime revenue assuming each horrifically wounded or dead Russian makes the median salary of $600 for fifty years. 1.3 million young Russians who make this or more who fled the country since they were educated and who will likely never ever go back on top of this: 470 billion dollars.
Total cost of running the war including material losses is around 500 million to 1 billion per day, at the low end Russia's looking at another 220 billion, up to 440 billion dollars.
At the low end, not even accounting for lost revenue due to sanctions, that is 762 billion dollars and on the high end almost a trillion.
For the Russians in this thread, that is 61 trillion-81 trillion rubles.
(2) If this money had been properly allocated and invested in the Russian military prior to beginning the war, Russia would have unironically have had its 2,000+ T-14 Armatas, a state of the art air force, and probably at least double to triple the size of its professional military prior to the invasion, meaning they could have actually pulled off their Blitzkrieg. However, for some reason, this was not done, showing the catastrophic consequences of ignoring real military spending.
They could have also possibly just straight out bought the rights to Crimea and the Donbass with that amount of money. Instead, all of this money has been wasted so far and the costs will likely rise even more this year. Which begs the question of just how deep the military corruption of Russia runs and how detrimental it is to both their weapons development and military in general.
>It's an 'Anon discovers that chimping out and declaring war doesn't make sense under the current world order' thread
>Russia would have unironically have had its 2,000+ T-14 Armatas
The problem with the T-14 isn't money, the design itself is essentially a failure at the conceptual level. The Russians tried to do too much with a single platform, their inability to do so was merely compounded by a lack of technical know-how and being cut off from Western military electronics following the attack on Crimea in 2014. No amount of money was going to make it work.
Really, if the Russians wanted to put that money to good use, they should have spent it on developing cost effective medium and long-range loitering munitions and drones that could kill Abrams tanks (or the supply network that keeps them running) long before they were close enough to engage a T-72. Iran did that after 2003 and was able to close the technological gap with the United States considerably, arguably to the point where a full-scale American attack on Iran would be virtually impossible to pull off without suffering catastrophic losses in aircraft and ships.
Armata would have been fine if they actually used a fricking modern engine instead of a ww2 engine that was moronic even in ww2.
I'm amazed it even runs at all.
>However, for some reason, this was not done
The story of the Russian nation.
>For some reason
Systemic corruption. There, solved the fricking mystery.
All you need to know is that in the vatnik union there was a saying that went something like "not committing theft/stealing is a disservice to yourself and your family", lmao
>/k/ - future economics speculation
nervos belli, pecuniam infinitam
Or my preferred version, from Raimondo Montecuccoli: "For war three things are necessary: money, money, and more money."
How do the numbers look if europe is plundered?
Still awful given that France remains a nuclear power and Germany is a turnkey state. On the off chance that Russian troops mount a successful march toward Lublin from Belarus (Warsaw is clearly out of reach), it's hard to see a non nuclear Germany.
>How do the numbers look if europe is plundered?
>197 million households x ownership rate x ~500 euro
There aren't enough washing machines in Europe to make it profitable
>Russian makes the median salary of $600 for fifty years.
Reminder that Russians are sub Mexican.
It's inaccurate to count the lifetime earnings of the dead soldiers and emigrants.
If you're looking at this from the perspective of the Rusian state's military expenditure then really you'd only be counting the taxes collected from the dead and fled over their lifetimes.
So really instead of $442 billion lost, it's only $57.46 billion at a 13% tax rate.
Which is definitely still a lot.
>It's inaccurate to count the lifetime earnings of the dead soldiers and emigrants.
Now were I to adjust my thinking hat a little it's a bit of a yes and no. While the tax portion goes directly to the state, the whole lifetime earnings amount would still ultimately contribute to the overall economy. Actually, if anything, this seems like a bit of an underestimate, if we are to consider alternative costs, or indirect effects. A dead mobik won't buy a home and a lada, which means constructions companies and car manufacturers sell less, and these are just the two biggest lifetime purchases of a typical consumer. Think of the unpurchased legal services, all the unconsumed alcohol, all those investments in internet infrastructure in a country of demographic decline...
The demand falling would keep inflation in check. They will point to that as a sign that Russia stronk but it is the exact opposite.
Imagine if they had to actually honor even a fraction of the stated benefits they're supposed to give to veterans and maimed soldiers. Not only are they dealing with worse than a simple payout on death plus benefits for the family they have to deal with the owed benefits to their veterans and for maimed soldiers they're a net negative for the economy in terms of productivity.
Of course this is predicated on Russia not doing the things they did to their WW2 veterans, Afghanistan veterans and Chechen war veterans (twice).
>61 trillion-81 trillion rubles.
So, ten Dollars?
$2.74 actually
Da cumrad, but what of biolabs and hoholbanditokrainians nazis?
What about 'em?
Money is not that important and that is not the point. It is a country in a long term historic structural decline. It used to be 10+% of the world population and 15+% of the world economy in 1913. Now it is less than 2% on both metrics and still trending downwards. It is unfortunate that this decline became uncontrollable and manifested itself in such death and destruction. Military junta and warlords with private armies phase seems inevitable. Or perhaps China can stabilize it. That would of course mean statues of Mao and Xi going up after a decade and perhaps some reeducation camps.
>It is unfortunate that this decline became uncontrollable and manifested itself in such death and destruction.
Femoid pls. My ancestors have been waiting for Russia to crash and burn for centuries.
ITT; Armchair economists
My question is how can Ukraine afford to sustain this war? Last year the west sent around $110 billion to Ukraine and I doubt it's going to be significantly more this year. So if they were spending $500 million a day (185 billion a year) it would still be too much to be sustainable for them.
The USA spending 0.0034% of GDP (ppp) to make Russia a non factor.
I think Ukraine will be fine.
The West has already seized hundreds of billions of russian assets that will be given to Ukraine as reparations, and Ukraine has untapped reserves of oil/gas and other resources, besides their previous exports and an educated and cheap labor force.
They'll be fine.
the US alone could sustain the entire economy of Ukraine with a small fraction of their military budget, lol
This war is the bargain of the century for the West.
The west is handling the financial burden. America alone can prop up the Ukrainian economy by itself with a small portion of its GDP.
I don't know that they could have won even if they spent that much but OP is still based for thinking in terms of economics since it's the only thing that matters on a nation scale
Didn’t read
Ukraine is losing