A Resolution to the Ukraine Problem

 

Have you ever seen a freight train fly? That is the image that keeps coming into my head when I consider the situation Russia is in. Russia is weighed down by alcoholism, a lack of development, out-of-date infrastructure, an economy on the brink and a rapidly aging population. That was before the war. Today, with the exodus of the young professionals who had the sense to escape early on and the deaths of so many who did not, everything is worse. In exchange for a slice of Ukrainian territory, they have sacrificed even more of their future.

As a sort of twisted insight into this reality, a recent Wall Street Journal article highlighted the economic benefits poor regions have seen — due to cash payments for those who have been killed in battle. A 35-year-old man can be expected to earn more for his family, dead on the battlefield, than he would have over 25 years of working, assuming he had a full-time job. In reading the article, I detected a tone of near-celebration among the women left behind. They are buying apartments and cars — and commemorative plaques to the men who paid for it all with their lives. There’s a problem with this zoomed-in economic perspective. On the battlefield that 35-year-old man added nothing to the Russian economy. Because of those losses, the net present value of the Russian state is plummeting.

They are like a train rushing along a track that heads straight into a mountain. They are getting heavier and heavier as they go. And they are hoping, somehow, to gain enough speed to take off.

It isn’t going to happen.

None of this means Russia can’t “win the war.” Ukraine is also suffering. Ukraine has nowhere near the manpower and the Ukrainians, after the history of the early 1990s promises, can’t trust any security guarantee offered by the United States or Europe. Of course, given the track record of Russia in Moldova, Georgia, Chechnya and elsewhere, the Ukrainians also have zero trust in any agreements signed by the Russian State. As Darth Putin puts it so succinctly: the Warsaw Pact is “the only modern mutual defense alliance in history to repeatedly attack itself.”

Given all the above, what kind of off-ramp can there possibly be? Do these states keep throwing lives at each other until their respective trains crash headlong into the mountain? Does Russia expand its campaign of sabotage against the West, hoping to draw NATO troops in so they have the honor of at least losing to what they consider a peer? Do they start a nuclear conflict, unwilling to face the prospect that everything has truly and irredeemably gone sideways? Do they invite the Chinese into their war, capturing Ukraine but surrendering their own independence in the process?

None of these possibilities seem the least bit hopeful. As much as Trump has talked about phone calls bringing an end to the war, it seems tremendously unlikely. Russia won’t surrender what they’ve captured, Ukraine won’t trust Russia, and NATO soldiers won’t stand at the front. What hope can there possibly be for a ceasefire, much less a lasting peace?

In reality, hope abounds so long as you know where to look for it.

Ukraine won’t agree to a ceasefire because they can’t trust Russia. But what if they don’t need to trust Russia? What if a ceasefire, even one that leaves Russian soldiers on Ukrainian territory and cedes conquered territory in Kursk, is actually a path to Ukrainian security and long-term independence?

It is critical to remember that a ceasefire is not a ceasewar. A ceasefire is simply an opportunity for both sides in a conflict to regroup and redouble their capacity to fight the next round of war. Israel and Hezbollah had a ceasefire in 2006. Until recently, it looked as if Hezbollah ‘won the ceasefire’ by building up what seemed to be an overwhelming rocket capacity in the south of Lebanon. In fact, much more quietly, Israel was the winner of that round of non-fighting. In the context of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, if there is a ceasefire and Russia rebuilds its capacity faster than Ukraine does, then there will be another round of warfare within a year or two. Putin’s legitimacy rests on it. The ceasefire will have served Russian purposes and extended their warfighting capacity. On the other hand, if there is a ceasefire and Ukraine outgrows and outbuilds Russia then the ceasefire will be continually extended until the present Russian government and foreign policies are abandoned.

It is this concept that serves as the key to enabling Ukrainian security under the Trump administration and beyond.

NATO countries, given rising global threats, need to raise their defense expenditures, possibly by as much as 1% of GDP. Due to their provision to Ukraine, NATO members have severe shortages of critical armaments. Among the items they do have, many are outdated in the context of 21st-century warfare (the best in European and American equipment barely made a dent in the great offensive of the summer of 2023). Some of the needed defense spending will go to top-line weapons systems like fighter jets and ships. However, significant spending is needed in more mundane areas: ballistic missiles, artillery shells, mortars, drones, body armor, armored vehicles, howitzers, etc…

For its part, Ukraine has historically been a major manufacturer of weapons. Since the 2022 re-invasion, they have re-upped their capacity and are continuing to expand it. They are, in some areas, producing among the most advanced and battle-tested war-fighting technology in the world.

The result is a match made on Earth.

In order to help address NATO’s own issues, NATO members could commit to spending 0.1% of their GDP on purchasing Ukrainian arms. The combined GDP of NATO is 46 trillion dollars, so this is 46 billion dollars — or almost exactly 1/4 of the Ukrainian GDP. Just as the rest of the world can buy Ukrainian grain, vodka and software services, the Western world would be encouraged to buy Ukrainian arms.

NATO members could purchase whatever they want from whichever Ukrainian manufacturers they want, including low-cost drones, discount howitzers… Due to Western regulations, Western quality and purchasing requirements would apply, raising the quality of the Ukrainian industry as a whole. If Ukrainian companies are successful in the competition for these arms dollars, they could expect to sell ever more into NATO stockpiles.

The result would be a rearming of NATO, massive growth in the Ukrainian arms industry, a strengthened bulwark against Russian aggression and the underwriting of the rebirth of the Ukrainian economy — all without the corrupting influence of aid dollars or the need to trust security guarantees that never stand up in the face of Realpolitik.

Ukraine is often referred to as Europe’s breadbasket. Perhaps it would benefit everybody (except Vladimir Putin himself) if Ukraine became the armory as well.

Published in Foreign Policy
This post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 130 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    GPentelie (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    JosephCox (View Comment):

    DonG (¡Afuera!) (View Comment):

    Autistic License (View Comment):

    Dumb question #2: How would any peace deal be enforceable if Ukraine weren’t in NATO?

    Some other defense treaty. UK is willing to sign on to anything. In the last 300 years, there have been many defense treaties in Europe. sometimes they end in world wars. In general things work well until Germany gets aggressive. Defense treaties don’t have to involve the USA.

    Ukraine won’t trust a defense treaty. They had one before 2014. Russia’s little green men shredded it. They just need their own strength and a flourishing arms industry can supply that.

    We should have let them keep their nukes.

    They weren’t their nukes, any more than those that the Soviet Union had had stationed in Belarus and Kazakhstan belonged to those newly independent Republics. Furthermore, the US/NATO had no standing to “let them“, since they most definitely were ours, either.

    I’m not an expert on this, but I’m pretty sure the UK and the USA said that we would protect them if they got rid of the nukes. I think it came down to nobody believe they would be responsible enough to keep them away from terrorists. I really wish they were heavily armed before Russia invaded, but what do I know? 

    • #61
  2. GPentelie Coolidge
    GPentelie
    @GPentelie

    RufusRJones (View Comment):
    I think it came down to nobody believe they would be responsible enough to keep them away from terrorists.

    Agree. Aside from there being no desire on ANYBODY’s part to add one more country with nukes into the geopolitical mix.

    • #62
  3. Autistic License Coolidge
    Autistic License
    @AutisticLicense

    GPentelie (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    GPentelie (View Comment):

    JosephCox (View Comment):

    DonG (¡Afuera!) (View Comment):

    Autistic License (View Comment):

    Dumb question #2: How would any peace deal be enforceable if Ukraine weren’t in NATO?

    Some other defense treaty. UK is willing to sign on to anything. In the last 300 years, there have been many defense treaties in Europe. sometimes they end in world wars. In general things work well until Germany gets aggressive. Defense treaties don’t have to involve the USA.

    Ukraine won’t trust a defense treaty. They had one before 2014. Russia’s little green men shredded it. …

    That didn’t happen in a vacuum. Ukraine had just had a US-supported coup, and installed a government pretty much hand picked by the US (as per the famous leaked Nuland conversation with the US Ambassador in Kiev at the time.

    There are no White Hats in this mess.

    That’s what Putin claims……

    Predictably …

     

    Ok better hope nobody looks up Ad Hominem.  We can talk about this stuff can’t we?

    • #63
  4. GPentelie Coolidge
    GPentelie
    @GPentelie

    Autistic License (View Comment):

    GPentelie (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    GPentelie (View Comment):

    JosephCox (View Comment):

    DonG (¡Afuera!) (View Comment):

    Autistic License (View Comment):

    Dumb question #2: How would any peace deal be enforceable if Ukraine weren’t in NATO?

    Some other defense treaty. UK is willing to sign on to anything. In the last 300 years, there have been many defense treaties in Europe. sometimes they end in world wars. In general things work well until Germany gets aggressive. Defense treaties don’t have to involve the USA.

    Ukraine won’t trust a defense treaty. They had one before 2014. Russia’s little green men shredded it. …

    That didn’t happen in a vacuum. Ukraine had just had a US-supported coup, and installed a government pretty much hand picked by the US (as per the famous leaked Nuland conversation with the US Ambassador in Kiev at the time.

    There are no White Hats in this mess.

    That’s what Putin claims……

    Predictably …

    Ok better hope nobody looks up Ad Hominem. We can talk about this stuff can’t we?

    Some of us can. Others can’t resist plopping “Putin mouthpiece” style insinuations into this topic. For another example thereof, see comment #2 (i.e. “Putin fanboys”).

    Tiresome.

    PS:

    If you’re gonna tsk-tsk, don’t be selective about it.

    • #64
  5. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    GPentelie (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    GPentelie (View Comment):

    JosephCox (View Comment):

    DonG (¡Afuera!) (View Comment):

    Autistic License (View Comment):

    Dumb question #2: How would any peace deal be enforceable if Ukraine weren’t in NATO?

    Some other defense treaty. UK is willing to sign on to anything. In the last 300 years, there have been many defense treaties in Europe. sometimes they end in world wars. In general things work well until Germany gets aggressive. Defense treaties don’t have to involve the USA.

    Ukraine won’t trust a defense treaty. They had one before 2014. Russia’s little green men shredded it. …

    That didn’t happen in a vacuum. Ukraine had just had a US-supported coup, and installed a government pretty much hand picked by the US (as per the famous leaked Nuland conversation with the US Ambassador in Kiev at the time.

    There are no White Hats in this mess.

    That’s what Putin claims……

    Predictably …

     

    https://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/cms/index.php/648-explaining-the-russia-ukraine-thing

    the last sentence applies to you….

    • #65
  6. GPentelie Coolidge
    GPentelie
    @GPentelie

    Moving on …

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Other considerations:

    “Russia’s … … … underspending on education is gruesome.”

    Amusingly, …

    … the very source you cite links to a Wiki-provided table that shows Russia’s “gruesome” education spending (3.7%) as a tenth of a percent below Italy’s, the same as Ireland’s, and a tenth of a percent higher than … Japan’s.

    Said Wiki-provided table, however, suffers from a bit of a problem: countries’ last reporting year vary widely. While Russia’s is 2020, Italy’s is 2016 and Japan’s is 2014.

    So let’s take a look at a data set that’s much better from that point of view, the World Bank‘s. Here’s a selected list from their table:

    Italy (2021): 4.0%

    Norway (2022): 4.0%

    Russia (2020): 3.7%

    Japan (2021): 3.5%

    Ireland (2021): 2.9%

    Singapore (2022): 2.4%

    “Gruesome”, eh?

    • #66
  7. Al Sparks Coolidge
    Al Sparks
    @AlSparks

    David Foster (View Comment):

    ” In reading the article, I detected a tone of near-celebration among the women left behind. They are buying apartments and cars — and commemorative plaques to the men who paid for it all with their lives.”

    What a depressing thing.

    During World War II, American servicemen had U.S. government provided life insurance (and probably still do).  There were some instances of women marrying servicemen who were about to go to war, the thought being they could collect on it.

     

    • #67
  8. Al Sparks Coolidge
    Al Sparks
    @AlSparks

    GPentelie (View Comment):

    They weren’t their nukes, any more than those that the Soviet Union had had stationed in Belarus and Kazakhstan belonged to those newly independent Republics. Furthermore, the US/NATO had no standing to “let them“, since they most definitely were ours, either.

    The nukes were on Ukranian territory.  And possession is 9/10’s of the law.  I’m sure Putin would agree with that.

    • #68
  9. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    GPentelie (View Comment):

    Moving on …

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Other considerations:

    “Russia’s … … … underspending on education is gruesome.”

    Amusingly, …

    … the very source you cite links to a Wiki-provided table that shows Russia’s “gruesome” education spending (3.7%) as a tenth of a percent below Italy’s, the same as Ireland’s, and a tenth of a percent higher than … Japan’s.

    Said Wiki-provided table, however, suffers from a bit of a problem: countries’ last reporting year vary widely. While Russia’s is 2020, Italy’s is 2016 and Japan’s is 2014.

    So let’s take a look at a data set that’s much better from that point of view, the World Bank‘s. Here’s a selected list from their table:

    Italy (2021): 4.0%

    Norway (2022): 4.0%

    Russia (2020): 3.7%

    Japan (2021): 3.5%

    Ireland (2021): 2.9%

    Singapore (2022): 2.4%

    “Gruesome”, eh?

    Try again :

    Russias population is 2.5x Italy’s-Italy spent 65% more in total education expenditures.

    so per capita Italy is spending 4 times what Russia is

    .ie Russia is not investing in the future-but given Russia’s current trajectory only a fool would invest in it…

    https://countryeconomy.com/countries/compare/russia/italy

    • #69
  10. Al Sparks Coolidge
    Al Sparks
    @AlSparks

    Al Sparks (View Comment):

    GPentelie (View Comment):

    They weren’t their nukes, any more than those that the Soviet Union had had stationed in Belarus and Kazakhstan belonged to those newly independent Republics. Furthermore, the US/NATO had no standing to “let them“, since they most definitely were ours, either.

    The nukes were on Ukranian territory. And possession is 9/10’s of the law. I’m sure Putin would agree with that.

    Come to think of it, all the nukes were Soviet Union nukes.  So if the nukes on Ukranian territory weren’t Ukranian nukes, then they weren’t Russian nukes either.

    • #70
  11. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    Al Sparks (View Comment):

    GPentelie (View Comment):

    They weren’t their nukes, any more than those that the Soviet Union had had stationed in Belarus and Kazakhstan belonged to those newly independent Republics. Furthermore, the US/NATO had no standing to “let them“, since they most definitely were ours, either.

    The nukes were on Ukranian territory. And possession is 9/10’s of the law. I’m sure Putin would agree with that.

    Putin thinks everything is Russia’s

    • #71
  12. Al Sparks Coolidge
    Al Sparks
    @AlSparks

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Al Sparks (View Comment):

    GPentelie (View Comment):

    They weren’t their nukes, any more than those that the Soviet Union had had stationed in Belarus and Kazakhstan belonged to those newly independent Republics. Furthermore, the US/NATO had no standing to “let them“, since they most definitely were ours, either.

    The nukes were on Ukranian territory. And possession is 9/10’s of the law. I’m sure Putin would agree with that.

    Putin thinks everything is Russia’s

    A few years ago, he made noises about Alaska still being Russian.  That caught my attention because I live there.

    • #72
  13. GPentelie Coolidge
    GPentelie
    @GPentelie

    Al Sparks (View Comment):

    Al Sparks (View Comment):

    GPentelie (View Comment):

    They weren’t their nukes, any more than those that the Soviet Union had had stationed in Belarus and Kazakhstan belonged to those newly independent Republics. Furthermore, the US/NATO had no standing to “let them“, since they most definitely were ours, either.

    The nukes were on Ukranian territory. And possession is 9/10’s of the law. I’m sure Putin would agree with that.

    Come to think of it, all the nukes were Soviet Union nukes. So if the nukes on Ukranian territory weren’t Ukranian nukes, then they weren’t Russian nukes either.

    Thank goodness that such arguments did not prevail, for carrying them to their logical conclusion might have ended up with an international auction. “Missile #648, going once, going twice, SOLD to anonymous phone bidder #35!”.

    • #73
  14. GPentelie Coolidge
    GPentelie
    @GPentelie

    Al Sparks (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Al Sparks (View Comment):

    GPentelie (View Comment):

    They weren’t their nukes, any more than those that the Soviet Union had had stationed in Belarus and Kazakhstan belonged to those newly independent Republics. Furthermore, the US/NATO had no standing to “let them“, since they most definitely were ours, either.

    The nukes were on Ukranian territory. And possession is 9/10’s of the law. I’m sure Putin would agree with that.

    Putin thinks everything is Russia’s

    A few years ago, he made noises about Alaska still being Russian. That caught my attention because I live there.

    Some context:

    Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev seemed to mock Patel’s comment about Alaska later Monday. “According to a State Department representative, Russia is not getting back Alaska, which was sold to the U.S. in the 19th century. This is it, then. And we’ve been waiting for it to be returned any day. Now war is unavoidable,” he wrote on X. 

    During a 2014 question-and-answer session, Putin, when asked if he had plans regarding the “annexation of Alaska,” described the 1867 sale at $7.2 million as “inexpensive.” 

    “Alaska was sold sometime in the 19th century. Louisiana was sold to the United States by the French at about the same time. Thousands of square kilometers were sold for $7.2 million, although in gold. We can calculate the equivalent amount, but it was definitely inexpensive,” Putin said, according to a Washington Post transcript. “Russia is a northern country with 70% of its territory located in the north and the far north. Alaska is not located in the southern hemisphere, either, is it? It’s cold out there as well. Let’s not get worked up about it, all right?”

    Russian journalist Kirill Kleimyonov had joked during the session, “That’s a popular joke, Mr. Putin. They call Alaska ‘Ice Crimea’ in jest.””

    PS:

    Did you take Trump’s comments about buying Greenland a few years back seriously, too? Or did you recognize them as being in jest? I’m guessing the latter.

    • #74
  15. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    GPentelie (View Comment):

    Al Sparks (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Al Sparks (View Comment):

    GPentelie (View Comment):

    They weren’t their nukes, any more than those that the Soviet Union had had stationed in Belarus and Kazakhstan belonged to those newly independent Republics. Furthermore, the US/NATO had no standing to “let them“, since they most definitely were ours, either.

    The nukes were on Ukranian territory. And possession is 9/10’s of the law. I’m sure Putin would agree with that.

    Putin thinks everything is Russia’s

    A few years ago, he made noises about Alaska still being Russian. That caught my attention because I live there.

    Some context:

    Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev seemed to mock Patel’s comment about Alaska later Monday. “According to a State Department representative, Russia is not getting back Alaska, which was sold to the U.S. in the 19th century. This is it, then. And we’ve been waiting for it to be returned any day. Now war is unavoidable,” he wrote on X.

    During a 2014 question-and-answer session, Putin, when asked if he had plans regarding the “annexation of Alaska,” described the 1867 sale at $7.2 million as “inexpensive.”

    “Alaska was sold sometime in the 19th century. Louisiana was sold to the United States by the French at about the same time. Thousands of square kilometers were sold for $7.2 million, although in gold. We can calculate the equivalent amount, but it was definitely inexpensive,” Putin said, according to a Washington Post transcript. “Russia is a northern country with 70% of its territory located in the north and the far north. Alaska is not located in the southern hemisphere, either, is it? It’s cold out there as well. Let’s not get worked up about it, all right?”

    Russian journalist Kirill Kleimyonov had joked during the session, “That’s a popular joke, Mr. Putin. They call Alaska ‘Ice Crimea’ in jest.””

    PS:

    Did you take Trump’s comments about buying Greenland a few years back seriously, too? Or did you recognize them as being in jest? I’m guessing the latter.

    The difference is in Putin’s Russia, making a joke he doesn’t approve of gets you a fall out of a 6th story window or a Novichok cocktail or a glass of tea with polonium-210….or a long vacation in Siberia.

    • #75
  16. GPentelie Coolidge
    GPentelie
    @GPentelie

    MiMac (View Comment):

    GPentelie (View Comment):

    Moving on …

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Other considerations:

    “Russia’s … … … underspending on education is gruesome.”

    Amusingly, …

    … the very source you cite links to a Wiki-provided table that shows Russia’s “gruesome” education spending (3.7%) as a tenth of a percent below Italy’s, the same as Ireland’s, and a tenth of a percent higher than … Japan’s.

    Said Wiki-provided table, however, suffers from a bit of a problem: countries’ last reporting year vary widely. While Russia’s is 2020, Italy’s is 2016 and Japan’s is 2014.

    So let’s take a look at a data set that’s much better from that point of view, the World Bank‘s. Here’s a selected list from their table:

    Italy (2021): 4.0%

    Norway (2022): 4.0%

    Russia (2020): 3.7%

    Japan (2021): 3.5%

    Ireland (2021): 2.9%

    Singapore (2022): 2.4%

    “Gruesome”, eh?

    Try again :

    Huh?

    I’ve just used your very own criteria (i.e. % of GDP) to demonstrate just how off-base your characterization of Russia’s education spending as “gruesome” is, and now you’re scrambling to move the goalposts in ways that would get one laughed out of a freshman year level economics class on the proper methodology used for making international comparisons (hint: GDP per capita is important).

    Good grief.

     

    • #76
  17. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    GPentelie (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    GPentelie (View Comment):

    Moving on …

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Other considerations:

    “Russia’s … … … underspending on education is gruesome.”

    Amusingly, …

    … the very source you cite links to a Wiki-provided table that shows Russia’s “gruesome” education spending (3.7%) as a tenth of a percent below Italy’s, the same as Ireland’s, and a tenth of a percent higher than … Japan’s.

    Said Wiki-provided table, however, suffers from a bit of a problem: countries’ last reporting year vary widely. While Russia’s is 2020, Italy’s is 2016 and Japan’s is 2014.

    So let’s take a look at a data set that’s much better from that point of view, the World Bank‘s. Here’s a selected list from their table:

    Italy (2021): 4.0%

    Norway (2022): 4.0%

    Russia (2020): 3.7%

    Japan (2021): 3.5%

    Ireland (2021): 2.9%

    Singapore (2022): 2.4%

    “Gruesome”, eh?

    Try again :

    Huh?

    I’ve just used your very own criteria (i.e. % of GDP) to demonstrate just how off-base your characterization of Russia’s education spending as “gruesome” is, and now you’re scrambling to move the goalposts in ways that would get one laughed out of a freshman year level economics class on the proper methodology used for making international comparisons (hint: GDP per capita is important).

    Good grief.

    No-I used per capita-a big difference. You seek to emphasize Russian importance b/c of it population & GDP- ignoring its almost 3rd world status. Russia is large, but not wealthy & poorly run by a mafia like state. Its material status is further undermined by its kleptocratic system. It is a declining power and should be opposed in its attempts to control Ukraine & Central Europe.

    addendum-by your logic the average untouchable in India lives better than the average Swiss since India’s GDP is more than 3x larger.

    • #77
  18. GPentelie Coolidge
    GPentelie
    @GPentelie

    MiMac (View Comment):

    GPentelie (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    GPentelie (View Comment):

    Moving on …

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Other considerations:

    “Russia’s … … … underspending on education is gruesome.”

    Amusingly, …

    … the very source you cite links to a Wiki-provided table that shows Russia’s “gruesome” education spending (3.7%) as a tenth of a percent below Italy’s, the same as Ireland’s, and a tenth of a percent higher than … Japan’s.

    Said Wiki-provided table, however, suffers from a bit of a problem: countries’ last reporting year vary widely. While Russia’s is 2020, Italy’s is 2016 and Japan’s is 2014.

    So let’s take a look at a data set that’s much better from that point of view, the World Bank‘s. Here’s a selected list from their table:

    Italy (2021): 4.0%

    Norway (2022): 4.0%

    Russia (2020): 3.7%

    Japan (2021): 3.5%

    Ireland (2021): 2.9%

    Singapore (2022): 2.4%

    “Gruesome”, eh?

    Try again :

    Huh?

    I’ve just used your very own criteria (i.e. % of GDP) to demonstrate just how off-base your characterization of Russia’s education spending as “gruesome” is, and now you’re scrambling to move the goalposts in ways that would get one laughed out of a freshman year level economics class on the proper methodology used for making international comparisons (hint: GDP per capita is important).

    Good grief.

    No-I used per capita-a big difference.

    What you ended up doing, once the “% of GDP”-based argument that you originally used blew up in your face, is simply switch to dividing a country’s education expenditures by its population. The problem with that is that it leads to absurd conclusions such as, for example, “On a per capita basis, Germany spends less than half of what Switzerland spends on education. Germany is not investing in its future!”.

    Understand now?

    • #78
  19. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    MiMac (View Comment):
    Russia is large, but not wealthy & poorly run by a mafia like state.

    “Communism” = mafia 

    • #79
  20. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    GPentelie (View Comment):

    Moving on …

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Other considerations:

    “Russia’s … … … underspending on education is gruesome.”

    Amusingly, …

    … the very source you cite links to a Wiki-provided table that shows Russia’s “gruesome” education spending (3.7%) as a tenth of a percent below Italy’s, the same as Ireland’s, and a tenth of a percent higher than … Japan’s.

    Said Wiki-provided table, however, suffers from a bit of a problem: countries’ last reporting year vary widely. While Russia’s is 2020, Italy’s is 2016 and Japan’s is 2014.

    So let’s take a look at a data set that’s much better from that point of view, the World Bank‘s. Here’s a selected list from their table:

    Italy (2021): 4.0%

    Norway (2022): 4.0%

    Russia (2020): 3.7%

    Japan (2021): 3.5%

    Ireland (2021): 2.9%

    Singapore (2022): 2.4%

    “Gruesome”, eh?

    Russian teachers require vodka.

    • #80
  21. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    GPentelie (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    GPentelie (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    GPentelie (View Comment):

    Moving on …

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Other considerations:

    “Russia’s … … … underspending on education is gruesome.”

    Amusingly, …

    … the very source you cite links to a Wiki-provided table that shows Russia’s “gruesome” education spending (3.7%) as a tenth of a percent below Italy’s, the same as Ireland’s, and a tenth of a percent higher than … Japan’s.

    Said Wiki-provided table, however, suffers from a bit of a problem: countries’ last reporting year vary widely. While Russia’s is 2020, Italy’s is 2016 and Japan’s is 2014.

    So let’s take a look at a data set that’s much better from that point of view, the World Bank‘s. Here’s a selected list from their table:

    Italy (2021): 4.0%

    Norway (2022): 4.0%

    Russia (2020): 3.7%

    Japan (2021): 3.5%

    Ireland (2021): 2.9%

    Singapore (2022): 2.4%

    “Gruesome”, eh?

    Try again :

    Huh?

    I’ve just used your very own criteria (i.e. % of GDP) to demonstrate just how off-base your characterization of Russia’s education spending as “gruesome” is, and now you’re scrambling to move the goalposts in ways that would get one laughed out of a freshman year level economics class on the proper methodology used for making international comparisons (hint: GDP per capita is important).

    Good grief.

    No-I used per capita-a big difference.

    What you ended up doing, once the “% of GDP”-based argument that you originally used blew up in your face, is simply switch to dividing a country’s education expenditures by its population. The problem with that is that it leads to absurd conclusions such as, for example, “On a per capita basis, Germany spends less than half of what Switzerland spends on education. Germany is not investing in its future!”.

    Understand now?

    You brought up Italy & misused the data- you reported gross figures and compared Russia to a country with less than half the population. Italy spends 4x what Russia does per capita

    in total Russia spends $55 B Italy $91B

    recall Russia has 2.5x the population

    Understand?
    BTW-Germany spent $185B about 8x  Russia’s gruesome per capita expenditure . So if I will concede your point that Germany spends too little….guess what that says about Russia?

    addendum-if you want to say it is unfair to compare the educational expenditures of a backward, relatively impoverished country (say-Russia) with more advanced countries (say Italy or Germany), I will agree Russia is a bad model for comparison. Mainly b/c it is run by a murderous kleptocracy.

    the combined populations of Germany + Italy is~the same as Russia. They spend > 5x what Russia did on education.

    • #81
  22. GPentelie Coolidge
    GPentelie
    @GPentelie

    Behold some of the “gruesome” results of Russia’s spending only a fifth as much (in US Dollar terms) as Germany and Italy combined:

    • #82
  23. GPentelie Coolidge
    GPentelie
    @GPentelie

    MiMac (View Comment):

    https://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/cms/index.php/648-explaining-the-russia-ukraine-thing

    the last sentence applies to you….

    Said sentence reads:”Now stop being their propaganda bitch.”

    Oh, my.

    I must say, though, that’s a creative way to try not to run afoul of Ricochet’s conduct rules on your part. “Kudos”.

    • #83
  24. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    GPentelie (View Comment):

    Behold some of the “gruesome” results of Russia’s spending only a fifth as much (in US Dollar terms) as Germany and Italy combined:

    The average student in Russia scored 481 in reading literacy, maths and sciences, below the OECD average of 488.

    Russia ranked 26 out of 41

    Russian universities are not highly ranked-the top rated Russian university is #124 in Europe-the Danes have multiple universities ranked higher. And the list doesn’t include the USA or China in it- which would greatly reduce the rankings of Russian universities-since 20 of the top 30 are in the USA. China, UK & Australia do very well ….but not Russia.

    • #84
  25. GPentelie Coolidge
    GPentelie
    @GPentelie

    MiMac (View Comment):
    Russian universities are not highly ranked-the top rated Russian university is #124 in Europe-the Danes have multiple universities ranked higher. And the list doesn’t include the USA or China in it- which would greatly reduce the rankings of Russian universities.

    Russia’s top university, Lomonosov Moscow State University, was ranked #78 in the world by QS World Universities Rankings in 2022. Just a notch above the University of Copenhagen, and a couple of notches below University of Wisconsin-Madison.

    Furthermore, …

    On a per capita basis, Russia cranks out more STEM grads than China, India, the US, and Germany. Per 1,ooo people, in descending order:

    Russia: 3.4

    China: 2.5

    Germany: 2.3

    U.S.: 2.3

    India: 1.7

    Additionally, the percent of higher ed students who get STEM degrees in Russia is almost twice that in the US: 37 vs. 20.

    Link: https://cset.georgetown.edu/article/the-global-distribution-of-stem-graduates-which-countries-lead-the-way/

     

    • #85
  26. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    GPentelie (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):
    Russian universities are not highly ranked-the top rated Russian university is #124 in Europe-the Danes have multiple universities ranked higher. And the list doesn’t include the USA or China in it- which would greatly reduce the rankings of Russian universities.

    Russia’s top university, Lomonosov Moscow State University, was ranked #78 in the world by QS World Universities Rankings in 2022. Just a notch above the University of Copenhagen, and a couple of notches below University of Wisconsin-Madison.

    Furthermore, …

    On a per capita basis, Russia cranks out more STEM grads than China, India, the US, and Germany. Per 1,ooo people, in descending order:

    Russia: 3.4

    China: 2.5

    Germany: 2.3

    U.S.: 2.3

    India: 1.7

    Additionally, the percent of higher ed students who get STEM degrees in Russia is almost twice that in the US: 37 vs. 20.

    Link: https://cset.georgetown.edu/article/the-global-distribution-of-stem-graduates-which-countries-lead-the-way/

     

    And we know Russian engineersing is almost as good as their preventive maintenance….and in Russian”preventive engineering “ is spelt v-o-d-k-a

    • #86
  27. Al Sparks Coolidge
    Al Sparks
    @AlSparks

    GPentelie (View Comment):
    Did you take Trump’s comments about buying Greenland a few years back seriously, too? Or did you recognize them as being in jest? I’m guessing the latter.

    Actually I thought both Trump in talking about Greenland and Putin talking about Alaska were both talking in jest.

    My one little paragraph sure did result in quite a rant.  Honest, I didn’t mean to gaslight you.

    • #87
  28. GPentelie Coolidge
    GPentelie
    @GPentelie

    Al Sparks (View Comment):

    GPentelie (View Comment):
    Did you take Trump’s comments about buying Greenland a few years back seriously, too? Or did you recognize them as being in jest? I’m guessing the latter.

    Actually I thought both Trump in talking about Greenland and Putin talking about Alaska were both talking in jest.

    My one little paragraph sure did result in quite a rant. Honest, I didn’t mean to gaslight you.

    Cool. I’m very glad I guessed correctly.

    A very Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours!

    • #88
  29. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    GPentelie (View Comment):

    JosephCox (View Comment):
    terrible economy

    In PPP terms, according to the IMF, …

    In 2000, Russia GDP ranked #9, between that of the UK and Brazil.

    In 2003, it overtook the UK and France and moved up to #7.

    The following year, it moved up to #6 by overtaking Italy. It remained there until, …

    … in 2021, having done a pretty good job at sanction-proofing their economy since 2014 as much as possible, …

    It overtook Germany and moved up to #5.

    And how have they done since the start of war?

    Here:

    https://carnegieendowment.orgundefined/?lang=en

    You are using absolute GDP figures instead of GDP per person to boast of Russia’s robust economic situation.  Anybody who’s ever learned basic math knows that you can’t judge a country’s economic situation by just adding up the total of its citizen’s output.  That would mean you are just ranking countries mostly by their population size.  Russia’s GDP is more than 200 times that of Monaco’s.  But Monaco’s people have a per capita income 17 times greater than the average Russian.  Only the most severely mentally challenged person would argue that Russia’s economic situation was better than Monaco’s.

    You use the same absolute metric in many of your later comments to try to hide Russia’s poor state of education, alcohol consumption, etc…  compared to other countries, but I don’t think anybody is buying it.

     

    • #89
  30. David Foster Member
    David Foster
    @DavidFoster

    Russian nuclear weapons in Ukraine…not sure what level of locks were applied to the control of missile launch and the arming of the warheads, but surely there was some, and may not have been breakable without causing the warhead to destroy itself. So these weapons might have actually not been useable by Ukraine.

    • #90
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.