What the actual fuck is economic warfare, and why the fuck do people say it 10x more devastating than actual war??

What the actual fuck is economic warfare, and why the fuck do people say it 10x more devastating than actual war??

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The enemy cannot fight if you disable their money.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >RAMIREZ!
      >STABILIZE THE FINANCIAL MARKETS!

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >downturns in the market ma'am. According to intelligence they'll be random and light

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The Klandathu analysis

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous
      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >So, when are we going to Wall Street?
        >Not soon enough, man. But, I know we're going to short it down when we get there.
        >When the time's right, analyst. When the time's right.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >So, when are we going to Wall Street?
        >Not soon enough, man. But, I know we're going to short it down when we get there.
        >When the time's right, analyst. When the time's right.

        >Grizzly, this is Grizzly 2. Interrogative: Are we cleared to use our thermobaric LAWs, over?
        >2, 3. What's your target?
        >Snipers confirmed in the building Alpha 2-5. It'll be easier if we drop the whole building, over.
        >2-3, confirm Alpha 2-5 is the Federal Reserve Building, over?
        >2, 2-3, roger that. They are all over the top floor.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      War costs money. No money, no war.

      Economic warfare never works. Didn't work in WW2, won't work now. A country can print as much money as it likes to fund the war, and just create a new currency if inflation weakens the old one.

      >money
      "economic" does not mean "paper currency", it means "the exchange of goods and services", economic warfare means you're interrupting the actual economic activity of the country - not just making them spend money (which means nothing because money isn't real), you're actually preventing them from doing things like growing food, making steel, shipping things from A to B, etc

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >money isn't real
        utter fucking brainlet lmao

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Money doesn't matter in war. Even gold doesn't matter in war. What matters is control of key resources - labour, land, food, energy, and steel being the most important.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >What matters is control of key resources - labour, land, food, energy, and steel being the most important.
            And how do you control the labor? How do you get them to extract the other things on the list?

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              A steady paycheck of food, water, patriotism, and military police forcing them to work.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Paychecks gotta come from somewhere, the new dozers, the new trains and rail lines.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You can pay them in monopoly money if you want. Doesn't matter. Workers need to eat, so they need to be able to buy food, so you need to have food available. Doesn't matter what they pay with as long as everyone accepts it as acceptable tender.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Can't eat anything if you can't build/buy farm implements.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That's a fair point, but that doesn't mean sanctions are a good tool. It might work in the case of Russians but a country like India or Iran or China is competent enough to build tractors and combines.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >let them eat patriotism
                lmao come on bro, be serious

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >What matters is control of key resources - labour, land, food, energy, and steel being the most important
            Ever heard of "war bonds"? You can borrow money to buy these things

            https://i.imgur.com/FMpyUAG.jpg

            If you ain't got shit they want, but they have shit you want, well

            Ah I see
            I misunderstood your statement, sorry

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Ever heard of "war bonds"? You can borrow money to buy these things
              Good luck finding a seller of those commodities, especially if you look like you're gonna lose and will never repay.

              Why would I ever trust anything an oil executive says?

              surely an oil exec would have no financial incentive in high energy prices?

              He's literally saying the opposite of what is profit maximising.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Good luck finding a seller
                >all investors have crystal balls who can predict the outcome of a war

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                People still won't supply a country just for the money, geopolitical considerations are a big factor.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >geopolitical considerations are a big factor
                Which, ideally, would be tied to country-level economic considerations.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                not during a war. the russians aren't going to supply europe with gas after the eu slapped sanctions on them and stole their reserves. this should hardly be surprising.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Because the Russian long-term assessment, rightly or wrongly, is that going to war and not supplying their enemies with gas is economically beneficial to them
                >somehow

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They usually use money in those exchanges to make up for their lack of domestic production in one way or another. It's just the simple econ 101 answer for people who don't like to hear themselves talk.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >money
          >make up for their lack of domestic production
          >simple econ 101 answer
          worse and worse

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If you ain't got shit they want, but they have shit you want, well

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >not just making them spend money (which means nothing because money isn't real)
        Based retard. I wish I had a tenth of your self-confidence, no matter how misplaced.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Finally, a weapon to enact total victory over Israel.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >place agents strategically around the streets of Israel
        >all drop a penny on the ground below tall buildings
        >garden gnomes inside can smell the copper and hear it hit the pavement from the top floors
        >all leap for the nearest window to grab the penny
        >Israel depopulated in a day
        Checkmate, long nose tribe

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Good thing the Geneva Convention banned this tactic.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    War costs money. No money, no war.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Economic warfare never works. Didn't work in WW2, won't work now. A country can print as much money as it likes to fund the war, and just create a new currency if inflation weakens the old one.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It worked in WW1 you dunce

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Worked perfectly well in both ww1 and ww2 you retard.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Cutting Germany off form the world market was what ruined their economy and caused them to die to attrittion in both world wars.

      Printing all the money in the world isn't worth shit when you can't buy anything with it.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Germany attacking the Soviet union instead of trading with them in WW2 might have helped, though.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Soviets were planning their own offensive, it was only a matter of time before they came to blows.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I still think Hitler should've waited until the soviets mounted an offensive, by that time the world was 50/50 on if they hated Nazis or Commies more but after Poland everyone agreed fuck Germany. Had he waited he could've rallied Western Europe against a common communist threat instead of becoming the common threat

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              The Soviets were modernizing at a fairly decent pace. Had Hitler waited until the Soviets were "ready", let's say five years, it's likely that he would've lost faster unless he came up with a nuke or some shit.

              Beyond that, China goes communist in '49. A combined Sino-Soviet offensive would be quite devastating.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Beyond that, China goes communist in '49. A combined Sino-Soviet offensive would be quite devastating.
                china only went communist in 49 because the soviets occupied Manchuria in '45 and gave them all the armor they left there. Whether that would have still happened in a world without Barbarossa is an open question.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I still think Hitler should've waited until the soviets mounted an offensive, by that time the world was 50/50 on if they hated Nazis or Commies more but after Poland everyone agreed fuck Germany. Had he waited he could've rallied Western Europe against a common communist threat instead of becoming the common threat

            Kek. Go read Mein Kampf if you really think Hitler was really just defending Europe from communism and dindu nuffin

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              that wasnt really the argument but rather that from a strategic point of view if he had waited the outcome could be much more favorable for germany

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Trading with the USSR was making them stronger. The Nazi-Soviet pact was considered by western press at the time to be a deal that would eventually choke the Nazis out, because the Soviets were getting capital goods, and the Nazis were getting consumables (i.e. grain)

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It worked in the Civil War.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There it is. The dumbest post.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The Germans and Japanese deluded themselves into thinking they could win hard and fast enough to force a favorable settlement specifically because they knew there was no way in hell they would economically out-compete the Americans and Soviets over the long run. The Rhodesians carried out an incredibly successful counterinsurgency campaign that was all for naught because the rest of the world choked them out economically.

      Russia's invasion of Ukraine has continued because they can continue to export energy resources and because the nations of Western Europe (mostly Germany) were too retarded to take the last eight years to identify and establish alternative sources.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Anon debunks all of economics in one post
      I kneel.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That's not how economies works. Giving people worthless currency doesn't mean shit if they can't buy anything with it. You can have Deutschmarks you want, but if you can't produce or import oil, rubber, and steel then your economy will grind to a halt. Money is used to acquire materials not the other around.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Hitlers wacky nazi monopoly money was literally worthless outside of Germany and their economy was so bad they had to transport important logistics to battlefields with fucking horse drawn carriages.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >country A has fertile soil for potatoes produces lot of poatoes sells to everyone
    >country B has ok fertile soil produces it's own food, highly industrialized manufactures high end goods, slowly but surely through trade agreements B country sells high end goods and buy cheap food from Country A
    >Now country B could be self reliant and grow all of it's own food, but economically it's not as efficient/profitable as Buying food from A.
    >political upheavels happens, country A turns communist, fuck country B exploiting us, no more potatoes, embargo, economic warfare etc etc
    >country B literally starves as it's underinvested and crippled food industry tries to catch up to demand as results in food prices skyrocketting and thousands starve, social unrest, chaos, industry is decimated as result, civil war, thousands turn into millions of deaths.
    economic warfare is highly immoral imo, at least warfare you're killing combatants economic warfare kills children whose mums get laid off from work, USA uses economic warfare to great effect, Cuba is an example, north korea, most recently venezuela.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >at least warfare you're killing combatants
      This has historically not been the case for the vast majority of deaths.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      tbh North Korea and Cuba going to shit isn't totally the US' fault. Theyre run by fucking idiot dictators who didn't want to invest in their country. North Korea is quite fertile for example but had horrible famines. What really did them in was the fall of the USSR who have them both tons of gibs. Without the gibs, their horribly arranged societies suffered and in North Koreas case, many starved

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Both countries invested what they could into their own countries, but given how devestating sanctions are they could only do so much. Despite this North Korea did better than South Korea until the 80's, going so far as to regularly send them aid. Cuba's still doing better than Puerto Rico in most cases save GDP despite the latter literally being US soil.

        Imagine the ridiculous amount of money they could rake in from tourism alone.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >10x more devastating than actual war
    lol
    lmao

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Even

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You know how North Korea and Cuba are poor as fuck despite having relatively advanced machinery and resources? You know how 5.45 isn't 10 cpr anymore, and Saigas aren't $239.99?

    That's economic warfare.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    economic warfare is mainly a way for western elites to pretend to do something without actually doing things. only works on small countries

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Russia probably would have been able to build at least double digit quantities of the T14 and SU57 if they still had access to imported components. It can't actually do crippling damage to a country but it can weaken their military over time.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Remember when the USSR's economy took a nosedive during the 1980s because the US ramped up the Arms Race and the USSR had to divert investments from the civilian industries into the military industrial complex to build more nuclear weapons? Same shit.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Russia didn't have to build more nukes. They just had a nuke heavy strategy since the 70s when they realised they couldn't compete. Then they just doubled down on that strategy for no rational reason - people tend to make bad decisions when they're desperate.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because few nations are 100 percent economically independent, cutting one off from all imports and exports and forcing their MIC to survive off only their domestic supply severely hampers their capabilities. Doubly so for non-war related industries. An embargo can ground more planes, keep more ships in port, and stop more tanks than any military operation. Moreover making life suck on the home front can quickly end a war when nobody wants to sign up or would actively want to sabotage and betray their nation over serve it

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Wars are because the ruling class of two nations disagree, hurt the ruling class enough and they'll back down.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yes of course. The Russian ruling class believes that Ukrainians should be raped, murdered or enslaved and the Ukrainian ruling class disagrees. Remove the latter and the Ukrainians will happily submit. Retard.

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Poland is running out of food due ro the lack of russian gas. Thats 21st century economic warfare.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/TCxTDzo.jpg

      are you gonna post the line about your heated russian apartment (with internet!) next?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        To be fair to him, if he has internet then he's actually one of the well-off upper classes in Russia. Most of Russia isn't even connected to the electrical grid, so the ones you see posting like this are either deluded beyond belief that their luxurious lifestyle represents their average countryman (Russians tend to ignore the upwards of 90% of the country without electricity, heating, internet, etc.) or they're some poor fuck the Kremlin dragged in off the street and pays 4 rubles a day to shit up the internet with pro-Russian discourse.
        Basically if they're not being paid to say this, they're probably deluded. The Venn diagram of "Russians with internet" and "Russians who are poor" have a very small overlap, so you're unlikely to be seeing many dissenting voices even without getting into the realm of Russian censorship laws. I'm sure if you gave every Russian a computer and internet connection today and they had no threat of FSB doorkickers coming to arrest them for saying mean things about Putin, you'd see a very different view of the place coming from the average Russian citizen.

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Be Dutch privateer Piet Heyn, 80 years' war is in full swing
    >Only man to succesfully raid the Spanish treasure fleet, 11.000.000+ guilders in booty
    >Ship that shit back to the Netherlands
    >Dutch WIC shareholders enjoy 50% divident, Dutch army expanded and soldiers' wages secured for the next year, two fortress cities recaptured that year
    >Spain goes bankrupt
    We need to bring back letters of marque

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >We need to bring back letters of marque
      I think this only works if people can't communicate fast enough to report that you plundered somebody's ship. If you're sanctioning privateers, they've got to get back with the plunder to make it worth it...

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why's the yokel lad on the right rubbing his nips to nappy?

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    economic warfare is when civilized countries don't want to trade with you anymore due to your crimes and your shitty little pissant kleptocratic economy immediately dies

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Left side
    >hair unusually affected by the wind
    Right side
    >cocky confident stride

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You can't easily rally your population against economic warfare like you can against a military threat.
    Often times they will turn against you because their quality of life is down severely and can't bear to see their family members suffer under the political status quo, and that's the main motive behind enemies waging economic warfare.

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's what Russia's doing to Europe, and they're winning.
    https://www.ft.com/content/02f848fc-3b80-4ddc-ba4f-26109d79db89
    https://www.ft.com/content/0ed80178-0573-41a8-b437-49e3a293f6a9

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      moron im not paying for a financial times subscription

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        stop being poor

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why would I ever trust anything an oil executive says?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        surely an oil exec would have no financial incentive in high energy prices?

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Economic warfare is

    - confiscating or freezing all funds companies of the opponent nation has invested or placed in your country
    - targeting key officials of opponent nation by freezing or confiscating their foreign funds and investments
    - refusing companies of opponent nations the right to invest, purchase or operate legal businesses in your country and in all other countries under your sufficient influence
    - send various international law agencies against your opponent contries companies and key officials, making them act under made-up claims and freeze their options for long enough to make them go bankrupt
    - superfund your allies who are the closest potential enemies of your opponent nation, forcing them to overspend on military resources
    - listen in on your opponent nation's civilian companies' international communication and pass important business and research dato to the competition of your choice, like your own nation's companies

    And my favorite; enlist higher level business leaders and representatives to act as spies for you in the opposing nation. Cash, patriotism and intel in a happy union. Inquire with your local National Resources office today, if your suit is expensive enough.

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A way-out for politicians to pretend they are doing something. It will only lead to countries stopping using western financial mechanism, since the west has shown they are willing to weaponize it, and they build their independent systems.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Good. makes them easier to collapse.

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    All warfare is fundamentally economic.

  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Starvation
    >only reason the Japs did not starve was because the us government started providing them with food after they surrendered.

  24. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's what's currently happening in Europe.

  25. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    because getting called a poorfag is worse than getting shelled

  26. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Economics won the first World War and contributed in large part to victory in the Second
    >United States bankrolled the British and French while denying German financial support, allowing them to stay in the fight despite import/export economies being shit on and contributing to German war exhaustion and the eventual revolution
    >American blockade of oil to Japan severely hobbled their military ambitions in China, forced a disadvantageous war declaration, and crippled both manufacturing and logistical support capabilities for the Pacific War

  27. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    because all wars are banker wars you tourist

  28. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    smoothbrain

  29. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nearly all conflicts are economic on at least level. Economics drive the geopolitical forces that lead to aggression.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >the Netherlands
      >net importer of food
      Which retard made this map?

  30. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    convenential warfare depends on a sustainable generation of cash flow while people have this delusion you can simply run to the hills and wage guerilla warfare indefinitely
    you still need logistics (which costs money) supplies (costs money) weapons (more money) for it to not crumble immediately
    look at historical guerilla warfare and youll notice theyre all literally funded by a proxy country or a drug empire

Your email address will not be published.