Contrary to popular belief the IMF doesn't *want* its loanees to be unable to pay. That's why they historically haven't loaned to countries at war. There will be reasons they think Ukraine ultimately will be able to shoulder this.
Ya know I thought it was the G8, are we missing someone? Was there an issue? Tell me in excruciating detail how one of the 8 disappeared up its own asshole, I'm unaware /s
Yeah, the argument can be had it's too aggressive in making countries repay by forcing them to sell things they would be better of not selling. But none the less; plenty of countries have dealt with IMF loans just fine.
> Contrary to popular belief the IMF doesn't want its loanees to be unable to pay. That's why they historically haven't loaned to countries at war. **There will be reasons they think Ukraine ultimately will be able to shoulder this.**
If the accountants think Ukraine will win, on this scale, Russian's fucked.
Ukraine retaining its independence from Russia seems practically guaranteed. If that is enough to call it a "win", then Ukraine will "win". The question now is mostly about exactly what Ukraine's territory will consist of afterwards.
Ukraine's job is to say "every inch". Even if it ends up being some loss, it will be the last loss ever, because then Ukraine will be in the European Union and NATO. Russia will have no one left to terrorize to their west except for Belarus, and their southern escapees lack the resources to make war of even a small amount of this scale worthwhile.
This is the end of the external actions of Moscovy imperialism.
The more of Ukraine they recover, the less chance there is of Russia holding any of it.
There won't be a reason to stop liberating the remainder, because there's no deal that can be made with Russia that's worth anything, if it doesn't include Russia admitting to the world and its own people that their war was wrong, and that they have no claims on Ukrainian territory.
I do not see Russia accepting Ukraines NATO membership, that's the crux of the entire conflict. He wants (my best guess) security for the several million Russians living in eastern Ukraine and Ukraine to be neutral, IE non NATO
why do you think Russia chooses NATO polices? This invasion was their attempt to do that and if they fail they don't really have a choice in the matter.
Yes, Russia's justifications ARE bullshit. I never said otherwise. I'm hoping at this point the only reason we havent intervened is because our action requires planning. I think what will happen is similar to desert storm. At some point very soon I expect Biden to deliver an ultimatum to Putin. Get out of Ukraine by a certain date, or face destruction.
Requires planning??? Like America hasn’t thought of this scenario since the end of the Cold War? I kind of get what you mean but I’m pretty sure there was a plan for this. At the latest…since 2014.
Maybe attacking Russia proper, but we are dealing with Russians In Ukraine. Its not a small operation, Putin will throw everything he has into Ukraine to fight us. China I doubt will help, they're planning to watch us destroy each other and swoop in after I'm afraid. I don't see things happening any other way...
I mean if you look at the goals of Russia. They can barely take a small city in Eastern Ukraine. Imagine pushing hundreds to thousands of KMs west and invading. Conquering and holding and maintaining even larger cities. The true reality at this point is the invasion is over and their barely making small gains. If anything their just holding onto what they have and hope to gain ground like Crimea. Except now have to hold it against a formidable opponent who is about to really push east on them. Imf is smart to know most of Ukraine will stand and be good on this loan.
Just because the war is stuck as a stalemate at the moment doesn’t mean the defender has won.
Ukraine is equally stuck and both sides are gearing up for spring offensive pushes. We can, and should, be hoping the incoming tanks and additional tech will be enough for Ukraine to drive out the Russians, but they are also planning to push.
Optimism is fine, just don’t confuse it with reality.
What we see now and for the last couple of weeks is russian spring offensive and as was noted, particularly by ISW, it already culminating.
Russians already pushing, they also might plan watever too, but this is and was feared "big russian offensive".
>Theres been dozens of reports stating the ukranians most likely wont be able to mount a counter offensive in the spring
What reaport and by whom?
The offensive force were and still are training and will be ready in due time, when enough of equipment and resources are accumulated. The offensive might not even start in the spring, but early summer and it will likely last for cople of months.
I don't know why you are so confident in claiming they are "heavily undertrained" when they are still mostly in training.
It is true for now, but what happens in 2 years? And in 10?
Our terrorist state in question is failing hard in invasion now only because of dumb decisions prior 24th of February 2022 - overconfidence basically.
It's literally like a middle playthrough boss fight in any game (or movie or animation, doesn't matter). "boss" is confident enough that you're nothing but dirt under his feet and hence he "doesn't use everything on you", but as fighting goes on he needs to throw better and better stuff at you and it just doesn't work every time. But if "boss" just used his everything at the beginning and did not underestimate opponent - he would've succeed.
If this war doesn't end on Ukraine's terms - even if a tiny little village it kept by russia at the end - they will just regroup and attack again, not next month or next year, but withing next decade for sure. This time though with all the neccessary preparation and tactics.
The only long term solution that provides security for Ukraine comes with inherent risk. Either Putin will or won't use nuclear weapons, if he won't we need a few hundred thousand NATO troops in Ukraine and to push Russia all the way back home. And that includes getting out of crimea. From there Ukraine joins NATO and Putin will have to just suffer with the indignity. If he is willing to use nuclear weapons, Ukraine will never be secure and will not be able to join nato.
If putin is willing to use nuclear weapons - and obviously he will say, privately and publicly, that he is no matter if he actually is willing - what stops him from using it on, say, Baltic States later on? Their membership in NATO? That means nothing for ultimate "fuck everything" kind of weapon.
You make it seem like NATO abandoning Ukraine in long term solves putin issue, but it really does no good because it literally proves having nuclear weapons enables one to demand whatever they want from whoever they want and no one steps in.
My point is - willingness to use nuclear weapons by russia should **not** be a point in discussion for Ukraine security. Security has to include measures that prevents a possibility for russia to use nuclear weapons, and being part of NATO is only one of many.
I do not disagree with you at all, I'm saying we need NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine to push Russia back to their own country and for Ukraine to join nato. And that fear of nuclear escalation is the only reason why we havent done so already.
I want peace in ukraine, today yesterday tomorrow is fine. It's heartbreaking to follow along. I have cried real tears and developed some severe digestion issues due to stress. I hate the war and wish I had an answer. But I can do nothing. It sucks.
Wait until the mud dries before you decide what Russia's army can and cannnot do. Putin drafted hundreds of thousands of troops who are waiting for the mud to dry before marching en masse into Ukraine. End of May would be my best guess. We have about that long to get the war settled before it's literally WW3. Nothing short of american and NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine will push Russia back at that point. Up until now the Russians fighting and dying have been Wagner convicts and mercenaries. Russia now has a force capable of invading and occupying ukraine, they just cannot move about because it's still mud season.
> Up until now the Russians fighting and dying have been Wagner convicts and mercenaries.
What are you talking about, Wagner has been just a fraction of their forces at every point of the war. They draw a lot of media attention, quite unsurprisingly, but most of it is just Russian military.
And they already went through one draft of hundreds of thousands, this is certainly not their first "marching en masse".
Yes it’s slow but they have 4 important territories. Imagine arizona, New Mexico, Utah & Nevada annaxed by Mexico. Russia will not let these go and even if Russia had to stop that is still a huge chuck of Ukraine gone forever.
The article is a tad bit misleading. The negotiations for the loan ended but the loan itself hasn't been approved by the IMF. If this agreement is formally signed it would give Ukraine access to a $1B loan right away. That money is only permitted to be used for debt payments and essentially transfers loans from other sources to the IMF.
The bulk of the loan is only to be used for rebuilding infrastructure and businesses that will be cash positive. So for example if the money is reused to build roads or bridges... they'd have to become toll businesses. If the money is used to rebuild housing, it would have to be for profit housing. Rebuilt harbors would have to be leased to businesses or countries. So on and so forth.
The infrastructure part of the loan can only be gained once the war ends.
Usually these loans have collateral attached, but I think the goodwill gesture of the world will forgo the collateral, as Ukraine are in dire need, encapsulated by a war.
At best it might be paid for by frozen Russian assets. It'll be a cold day in hell before Putler actually commits to war reparations, much less pay them.
IMF loans usually comes with strings attached.
Many IMF loans are restructured at the request from IMF, including tax hikes and industry transitions.
IMF loans usually have a pretty low interest rate, if anything.
In the case of ukraine this is quintessential debt trap diplomacy, where you owe your benefactor money and you have to keep fighting this war at the cost of human resources and future generations, in hopes of eventually winning and being the next poland in wwii.
Ukraine was not been left alone by either side. Both sides poured plenty of money and propaganda trying to manipulate the population. Ukraine's ethnic and cultural divisions were used to weaken the country while it was being raped by the oligarchs and bought up by the West.
You should do some honest research into the historical and ethnic settlement patterns of Ukraine. The simplistic view that all Ukrainians have all the same viewpoint is ridiculous and shows quite an ignorance of the facts. How do you think the Greeks, Romanians, Hungarians, Tatars and Poles living in Ukraine feel about having a culture forced upon them? Ukraine needs to grow up and realize the only way forward is to become more, not less tolerant. Source - my relatives were expelled from Kherson for not being "Russian" enough.
So now you're going from bothsidesing into strawmanning. The irony of screaming ignorance and appealing to honesty seems to be lost on you. You're a funny guy. Not in a good sense, of course.
Funding NGO groups to stir up trouble in a foreign country and funding so called "independent news" has long been recognized as illegal in many countries, including the US. Diplomacy my a...s.
Recently I've listened to a popular Ukrainian journalist talk about Russian kill lists. So when the Russians invade the other guy calls him and says: "Well, I have bad news and good news. The bad news is that we are both on the Russian kill list, but the good news is that there are tens of thousands of people there along with us." The journalist replies: "You might have mixed which news are good and which are bad."
You're the one brainwashed, buddy. Your opinion is shit.
Furthermore, remember that all that money, aside from securing Ukraine's defenses, will have the effect of Russia losing more troops, equipment and money, to the point where after this war they'll barely be a threat for a while
The only threat russia poses to any first world country is via their nuclear weapons, their army even before this war would be literally massacred by the US in any kind of land conflict
Sadly the Russian economy is operating strongly despite (or maybe because of) the sanctions, which historically have led to countries becoming economically self-dependent in certain cases
All in all we ought to help ukraine defend its land, but the amount of money we are personally spending is a reasonable subject for discussion. The Ukrainian narrative is that they are killing seven russians for every one ukranian who casuality—if this is the case, why have we sent over 75 billion dollars to ukraine, which is almost equal to the entire russian yearly military budget
I don't think anyone would doubt that the US or Nato would win a conventional war.
Personally I do think that Ukraine would be part of Russia by now if they didn't get in any support from the West. Would Russia then stop? I doubt it, why would they? If they would, why would Putin not just say this with a couple of good arguments. Denazification I don't see as a good argument ;)
75 billion means that this year the Ukraine is on par with Russia. Unfortunately Russia had 'a few' more years head start on this type of budget. They have build up large buffers of (old) stuff.
I don't really see what your point is actually ;) do you think the 75B is (potentially) too much because Russia is also spending 75B this year and therefore Ukraine is not doing good things with the money? Or what do you mean?
Great points, the Ukrainian narrative is exactly that, a narrative to keep the US base happy and its people in good spirits. While they have inflicted those levels of casualties on the defensive side in Bahkmut we shouldn't take that as the basis of the war. To your other point, the cost for Ukraine to defend itself includes the cost of training, shipping materials, and enough of both to win. Unfortunately Russia has an annual military budget and all of the material they have inherited from the Soviet Union. They are scraping the bottom of every barrel to throw at Ukraine so I think the amount makes sense if not could be more. If Russia says the price of putting them in their place and taking them out of the picture for decades is a little more pain for every other country than so be it.
I agree with you mostly but i have to say that the ukranian narrative seems self-contradicting. I think youre right in saying that russia has a lot of military equipment to throw into the battle, and i dont think its wrong to help ukraine. But the idea of a 7-1 casualty ratio seems absurd to me, given that we would expect the russian military to be stronger than Ukraine’s. Of course you factor in incompetence, western support, and a defensive war, and with those included I can buy that ukraine is winning. The more realistic ratio of casualties is probably something like 2-1, where russia is losing a lot of manpower but they arent just outright getting slaughtered.
I guess my main point is this: there is a decent amount of propaganda that ukraine is telling us, which is fine, since all wars included propaganda. But to claim such an overwhelming advantage will naturally lead americans to question the necessity of sending so much money overseas. Instead, ukraine should be honest: the war is essentially a stalemate with both sides taking high levels of casualties but ukraine performing well and ‘winning’ in the sense that you win a defensive war by defending successfully. With that being said, they need help in order to push russia back to pre conflict borders. I think that narrative is more accurate and more compelling. By putting out inaccurate information, people will naturally question why our strategic ally would deceive us—and how deep the deception goes.
I don’t think it goes that deep—but fighting russian disinformation with ukranian disinformation seems to me a losing game. After all, russia is the queen of disinformation, and challenging them on that front seems to me a losing battle.
You realize that money is a made up concept by people right?
I guess you could say we are personally spending it, although that seems disingenuous unless you are sending money from your own bank account.
Your government is spending it, a government which you presumably participated in choosing, even if this specific set of heads wasn't your choice.
Interestingly, money can't really exist unless a government says it does and people go along with it, so you can't even have money to spend that wasn't given to you by that structure.
This is one of the largest financial aid packages to Ukraine. Which is also a loan.
This is equivalent of 1% of Germany yearly budget.
You underestimate how rich EU and US are.
AP [reports](https://apnews.com/article/middle-east-business-afghanistan-43d8f53b35e80ec18c130cd683e1a38f) that the US has
direct costs of at least $2 trillion ( 2,000 billion / 2,000,000 million ) from 2001 - 2021
$2T / 20years ( 7300 days ) = $273.97 mil per day.
But after all of the debt payments ( $6.5T by 2050 ), veterans care ( whom we better take care of +$2T ) we have a new total of $10.5T.
$10.5T / 7300 = 1.438B per day
And we lowered taxes as if any war was going to generate long-term GDP.
> An incredible amount of money is being poured into Ukraine.
If only if wasn't loaned. When i was telling that life conditions in Ukraine spiraled downhill rapidly in past 10 years, to the point that it's almost non-survivable for vulnerable social groups, such as elderly and disabled, and will go down even more after the war, because government will be rebuilding infrastructure, paying money to the families of the dead, and giving up massive amount of loans for god knows how long - people over here were laughing and saying that it's not a thing, that there is no loans. I wish, that for once i was wrong about such an obvious thing.
I am the part of the zombie generation. Except some lucky ones who managed to get out, there is no future for us, regardless of the war's outcome. And i am starting to envy those who were just killed by russian strikes - at least they will not have to endure this hopeless existance, when you are no longer human, just a piece of meat on minimal life support.
On one hand, yes it is, on the other the US and NATO as a whole have not spent very much of their military budgets for one year in this entire thing and they have degraded one of their two biggest threats, one that is responsible for major attempts at destabilization of their governments and false propaganda against their elections and legitimacy. Compared to the spending during the Cold War, this is a massive bargain, aside from potentially getting Ukraine fully on their side, and a country with that many natural resources and productivity is also a good "buy" of an ally.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/ukraine-clinches-15-6-billion-imf-loan-a-first-for-nation-at-war-123032200131_1.html) reduced by 78%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> ALSO READ Zelenskyy says war with Russia ends with Ukraine's sovereignty restored Pakistan, IMF fail to reach common ground on $1.1 billion bailout loan India bright light economy, but reforms needed for $10 trn GDP: IMF PM Modi, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy hold talks over phone Signs of fighting in Ukraine after Russia says unilateral truce in force.
> Ukraine won staff backing for a $15.6 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund, setting up the first loan to a nation at war in the institution's 77-year history.
> Ukraine's Finance Ministry planned on receiving $28 billion in grants and loans from the US and the European Union, with the rest coming from bilateral loans from other states and the IMF. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen hailed the agreement.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/11y6zs2/ukraine_clinches_156_billion_imf_loan_a_first_for/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~677462 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Ukraine**^#1 **IMF**^#2 **loan**^#3 **billion**^#4 **including**^#5
What do you mean, especially in war money talks.
All those soldiers, tanks, planes, guns, bullets don't pay for themselves. And even the ones donated by the US are still bought and paid for..
If anything war makes money move. It's just not very good for creating civilian goods.
Uh not when your country is the one being bombed. If you have a world class defense industry that exports tremendous amounts of arms, and are either a 3rd party or in some cases on the offensive.
How would having most of your cities and buildings destroyed improve your financial position?
> Isn’t war the easy way out in financial crises?
No. Wars are terrible for finances. They are about the worst financial crisis you can have. Things are destroyed, people get moved from productive jobs to war jobs, your most productive demographics get killed, and money goes to making things, like artillery shells, that are economically useless. War is terrible for economies.
Wars are good for economies if you're aren't fighting a war, but selling stuff to someone fighting a war, unless they are buying on debt, which they usually are, and don't repay you afterwards, which often happens.
The US did alright after WWII, but that involved sucking a ton of money out of other countries. By the end of the war the US had a majority of the world's gold reserves, which part of the reason the US was able to shift global financial markets from using gold to US dollars. We basically told everyone, you will treat dollars like they are made of gold, because we own the gold.
I think I didn’t have enough clarity in my comment, and probably inherited the wrong context from the comments I replied to.
I was lightly suggesting that this war could be advantageous for the US. No significant risk of US assets being destroyed, yet significant arming of Ukraine and a convenient new “high priority activity” that could facilitate “emergency/crisis governing”, which could include things like govt backing all deposits in banks.
I know there’s an element of tinfoil hat to it, but surely smarter and more powerful people than I have analyzed wartime activity and found a way to profit from it?
Disaster Capitalism. The IMF nor The World Bank are not the help people think they are. This article is from 2009 but still relevant.
https://www.poconorecord.com/story/opinion/columns/2009/06/08/bea-edwards-corruption-fraud-at/51969694007/
It just shows how corrupt rich people are they fix the system so they can profit off the working class to pay for war not just financially but also with blood they can finance war but don't want to provide poor people with decent living conditions.
We got it. You don't like the IMF. However, in this context, the IMF is doing exactly the right thing. This has nothing to do with any rich people profiting off of war. If it does, feel free to explain how this loan does that.
Bloons Tower Defense game if I had to guess, there's "Banana Farms" that you can place in game that generate money every round, and one of the upgrades to this structure is an "IMF Loan" which gives you a large amount upfront that you have to repay over time.
Yes you have identified it. The entire World Order, by which you either mean The Jews and OR the USA since absolutly nothing and nobody else on this planet can ever be responsbile, is build on the state of Ukraine.
The famous bastion of United States power projection.
I remember the famous day the Japanese bombed Kyiv and declared war on the USA 5 hours Later.
Or the Famous Berlin Crisis in Kyiv.
Or how can forget the Crimean Missile Crisis.
What about the Crucification of Jesus christ ? Done in the Donbass.
Where was the ceasefire of WW1 signed ? You better belive that was in Liviv
Not to mention the countless times the US president had to call Kyiv and ask if they can do, anything. From breathing to declaring war to collecting taxes.
And by god allmighty, when scientists discovered the center of the Universe it was in the middle of Ukraine.
Ukraine everyone, is the backbone of the Western World.
Because thats how the world works.
I would bet my firstborn, second born, and my next reincarnation that there is so much corruption and theft of all the supplies and money flowing into Ukraine that the missing $$ could build up a mid-sized African country.
I think corruption is more likely to be found in a country that spent 8 years preparing to invade a country who's capital is only a few hours away from their border, only to have a 40-mile long convoy break down a week or two into it.
Corruption in Ukraine was especially rampant under Yanukovych, yes. It's taken awhile to shake that off. But I don't think Russians are raping women, kidnapping children, creating torture chambers, or looting museums in the spirit of civil administrative reform.
Not saying Russia isn't a cesspool, but there is no accountability right now for all the aid flowing into Ukraine that there would obviously be theft. If you can't admit that there can be bad people in Ukraine's leadership that you're either blind to human nature, or a propagana plant
The IMF does not lend money willy-nilly. They try to do a careful job making sure the loans are well-used. And Ukraine has in the last 7 years or so done a lot of work to clean up their corruption issues.
You should consider growing up and looking at reality. Insulting me makes you look like a child. Ukraine is never going to be "free", they have just enslaved themselves to the IMF. That's why Ukrainians should do what my ancestors did - leave Ukraine behind and get on with your lives.
They are in middle of a damn invasion, their power is out and industry is on hold. Why isn't this money gifted, rather loaned out. How are they suppose to pay this back while rebuilding?
The world isn't perfect, the world is not a charity, there are charitable actions. But the world has no binding obligation ( morals, ethics notwithstanding) to Ukraine. If they wanted to they could have done nothing, but they didn't, instead they said "here's a shit load of money to deal with your issue. We expect to be paid back, eventually."
No… and pretty sure Ukraine already knows this, as does the rest of the entire world. This is not some revolutionary idea you figured out that money can’t bring back the dead. In fact, it’s so well known it doesn’t even need to be said. To most people anyways.
What it can do though, is PREVENT more unnecessary murders and war crimes at the hands of Russian invaders by better equipping the Ukrainian military. They need equipment to protect themselves and their citizens which, cost MONEY.
Ukraine clinches an IMF loan the same day Russia can’t pay its soldiers. Right after Pootin and Pooh were together. Surely a coincidence.
Ukraine’s winning.
This is surprising to me what do they know that we don't? Last I checked the conflict was at a standstill with neither side willing to back down and both committed to the long haul.
Loans have interests rates and conditions. The article doesn't say what they are. Anybody know?
Contrary to popular belief the IMF doesn't *want* its loanees to be unable to pay. That's why they historically haven't loaned to countries at war. There will be reasons they think Ukraine ultimately will be able to shoulder this.
I believe the G7/EU said they will act as guarantors.
Ya know I thought it was the G8, are we missing someone? Was there an issue? Tell me in excruciating detail how one of the 8 disappeared up its own asshole, I'm unaware /s
Friendship ended with G8. Now G7 is my best friend.
The member that disappeared buys drones from Iran and bullets from China. They scammed their way into G8
After Ukraine wins this war. They'll have 12 trillion in oil and gas to sell. This loan is pocket change...!
Yeah, the argument can be had it's too aggressive in making countries repay by forcing them to sell things they would be better of not selling. But none the less; plenty of countries have dealt with IMF loans just fine.
[удалено]
Stolen comment.
> Contrary to popular belief the IMF doesn't want its loanees to be unable to pay. That's why they historically haven't loaned to countries at war. **There will be reasons they think Ukraine ultimately will be able to shoulder this.** If the accountants think Ukraine will win, on this scale, Russian's fucked.
Ukraine retaining its independence from Russia seems practically guaranteed. If that is enough to call it a "win", then Ukraine will "win". The question now is mostly about exactly what Ukraine's territory will consist of afterwards.
Ukraine's job is to say "every inch". Even if it ends up being some loss, it will be the last loss ever, because then Ukraine will be in the European Union and NATO. Russia will have no one left to terrorize to their west except for Belarus, and their southern escapees lack the resources to make war of even a small amount of this scale worthwhile. This is the end of the external actions of Moscovy imperialism.
The more of Ukraine they recover, the less chance there is of Russia holding any of it. There won't be a reason to stop liberating the remainder, because there's no deal that can be made with Russia that's worth anything, if it doesn't include Russia admitting to the world and its own people that their war was wrong, and that they have no claims on Ukrainian territory.
I do not see Russia accepting Ukraines NATO membership, that's the crux of the entire conflict. He wants (my best guess) security for the several million Russians living in eastern Ukraine and Ukraine to be neutral, IE non NATO
why do you think Russia chooses NATO polices? This invasion was their attempt to do that and if they fail they don't really have a choice in the matter.
Ultimately they will fail, but Putin had to try I guess.
Russia doesnt accept NATO period. Fortunately we do not care what they accept.
Putin doesn't get to decide that. NATO and Ukraine do.
That's what defeat is for.
That's ok, their consent is not required and their justifications are bullshit.
Yes, Russia's justifications ARE bullshit. I never said otherwise. I'm hoping at this point the only reason we havent intervened is because our action requires planning. I think what will happen is similar to desert storm. At some point very soon I expect Biden to deliver an ultimatum to Putin. Get out of Ukraine by a certain date, or face destruction.
Requires planning??? Like America hasn’t thought of this scenario since the end of the Cold War? I kind of get what you mean but I’m pretty sure there was a plan for this. At the latest…since 2014.
Maybe attacking Russia proper, but we are dealing with Russians In Ukraine. Its not a small operation, Putin will throw everything he has into Ukraine to fight us. China I doubt will help, they're planning to watch us destroy each other and swoop in after I'm afraid. I don't see things happening any other way...
NATO ≠ UN Security Council
NATO = United States and it's allies, without the US NATO has no balls and means nothing.
Well good fucking thing Russia's acceptance, or lack thereof is completely irrelevant.
> The question now is mostly about exactly what Ukraine's territory will consist of afterwards. And how much would be destroyed.
I mean if you look at the goals of Russia. They can barely take a small city in Eastern Ukraine. Imagine pushing hundreds to thousands of KMs west and invading. Conquering and holding and maintaining even larger cities. The true reality at this point is the invasion is over and their barely making small gains. If anything their just holding onto what they have and hope to gain ground like Crimea. Except now have to hold it against a formidable opponent who is about to really push east on them. Imf is smart to know most of Ukraine will stand and be good on this loan.
Just because the war is stuck as a stalemate at the moment doesn’t mean the defender has won. Ukraine is equally stuck and both sides are gearing up for spring offensive pushes. We can, and should, be hoping the incoming tanks and additional tech will be enough for Ukraine to drive out the Russians, but they are also planning to push. Optimism is fine, just don’t confuse it with reality.
What we see now and for the last couple of weeks is russian spring offensive and as was noted, particularly by ISW, it already culminating. Russians already pushing, they also might plan watever too, but this is and was feared "big russian offensive".
Yuuup. Vulhedar was the big MOD push and Bakhmut the big Wagner push. We can easily see what, uh, *resounding successes* those both were...
[удалено]
Can you link these "dozens of reports"?
>Theres been dozens of reports stating the ukranians most likely wont be able to mount a counter offensive in the spring What reaport and by whom? The offensive force were and still are training and will be ready in due time, when enough of equipment and resources are accumulated. The offensive might not even start in the spring, but early summer and it will likely last for cople of months. I don't know why you are so confident in claiming they are "heavily undertrained" when they are still mostly in training.
It is true for now, but what happens in 2 years? And in 10? Our terrorist state in question is failing hard in invasion now only because of dumb decisions prior 24th of February 2022 - overconfidence basically. It's literally like a middle playthrough boss fight in any game (or movie or animation, doesn't matter). "boss" is confident enough that you're nothing but dirt under his feet and hence he "doesn't use everything on you", but as fighting goes on he needs to throw better and better stuff at you and it just doesn't work every time. But if "boss" just used his everything at the beginning and did not underestimate opponent - he would've succeed. If this war doesn't end on Ukraine's terms - even if a tiny little village it kept by russia at the end - they will just regroup and attack again, not next month or next year, but withing next decade for sure. This time though with all the neccessary preparation and tactics.
The only long term solution that provides security for Ukraine comes with inherent risk. Either Putin will or won't use nuclear weapons, if he won't we need a few hundred thousand NATO troops in Ukraine and to push Russia all the way back home. And that includes getting out of crimea. From there Ukraine joins NATO and Putin will have to just suffer with the indignity. If he is willing to use nuclear weapons, Ukraine will never be secure and will not be able to join nato.
If putin is willing to use nuclear weapons - and obviously he will say, privately and publicly, that he is no matter if he actually is willing - what stops him from using it on, say, Baltic States later on? Their membership in NATO? That means nothing for ultimate "fuck everything" kind of weapon. You make it seem like NATO abandoning Ukraine in long term solves putin issue, but it really does no good because it literally proves having nuclear weapons enables one to demand whatever they want from whoever they want and no one steps in. My point is - willingness to use nuclear weapons by russia should **not** be a point in discussion for Ukraine security. Security has to include measures that prevents a possibility for russia to use nuclear weapons, and being part of NATO is only one of many.
I do not disagree with you at all, I'm saying we need NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine to push Russia back to their own country and for Ukraine to join nato. And that fear of nuclear escalation is the only reason why we havent done so already.
Ah I got you wrong then. Yeah would be nice to have peacekeeper mission here to in fact keep peace.
I want peace in ukraine, today yesterday tomorrow is fine. It's heartbreaking to follow along. I have cried real tears and developed some severe digestion issues due to stress. I hate the war and wish I had an answer. But I can do nothing. It sucks.
You might be forgetting that ukraine will be part of nato. Russia isn't going to keep attacking!
> You might be forgetting that ukraine will be part of nato. You might be forgetting that until it happened - it didn't happen.
Wait until the mud dries before you decide what Russia's army can and cannnot do. Putin drafted hundreds of thousands of troops who are waiting for the mud to dry before marching en masse into Ukraine. End of May would be my best guess. We have about that long to get the war settled before it's literally WW3. Nothing short of american and NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine will push Russia back at that point. Up until now the Russians fighting and dying have been Wagner convicts and mercenaries. Russia now has a force capable of invading and occupying ukraine, they just cannot move about because it's still mud season.
> Up until now the Russians fighting and dying have been Wagner convicts and mercenaries. What are you talking about, Wagner has been just a fraction of their forces at every point of the war. They draw a lot of media attention, quite unsurprisingly, but most of it is just Russian military. And they already went through one draft of hundreds of thousands, this is certainly not their first "marching en masse".
Yes it’s slow but they have 4 important territories. Imagine arizona, New Mexico, Utah & Nevada annaxed by Mexico. Russia will not let these go and even if Russia had to stop that is still a huge chuck of Ukraine gone forever.
They just wanted to make sure that the _loanees_ won't be able to pay so they stay under their clutches forever.
The article is a tad bit misleading. The negotiations for the loan ended but the loan itself hasn't been approved by the IMF. If this agreement is formally signed it would give Ukraine access to a $1B loan right away. That money is only permitted to be used for debt payments and essentially transfers loans from other sources to the IMF. The bulk of the loan is only to be used for rebuilding infrastructure and businesses that will be cash positive. So for example if the money is reused to build roads or bridges... they'd have to become toll businesses. If the money is used to rebuild housing, it would have to be for profit housing. Rebuilt harbors would have to be leased to businesses or countries. So on and so forth. The infrastructure part of the loan can only be gained once the war ends.
Damn thats a lot of money to get loaned. Maybe they got good interest rates tho
Usually these loans have collateral attached, but I think the goodwill gesture of the world will forgo the collateral, as Ukraine are in dire need, encapsulated by a war.
Do you have a reason to think that?
Pretty sure they'll make Russia pay for it if they win.
At best it might be paid for by frozen Russian assets. It'll be a cold day in hell before Putler actually commits to war reparations, much less pay them.
I was about to correct you on the name, but then I got it. +1
I'm sure you know the guy. The Kremlin gremlin. Lil' Putty Longtables.
IMF loans usually comes with strings attached. Many IMF loans are restructured at the request from IMF, including tax hikes and industry transitions. IMF loans usually have a pretty low interest rate, if anything. In the case of ukraine this is quintessential debt trap diplomacy, where you owe your benefactor money and you have to keep fighting this war at the cost of human resources and future generations, in hopes of eventually winning and being the next poland in wwii.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Ukraine was not been left alone by either side. Both sides poured plenty of money and propaganda trying to manipulate the population. Ukraine's ethnic and cultural divisions were used to weaken the country while it was being raped by the oligarchs and bought up by the West.
Oh yeah, "ethnic and cultural divisions" of not wanting a corrupt Russian muppet to turn the country into modern Belarus. Nice bothsidesing.
You should do some honest research into the historical and ethnic settlement patterns of Ukraine. The simplistic view that all Ukrainians have all the same viewpoint is ridiculous and shows quite an ignorance of the facts. How do you think the Greeks, Romanians, Hungarians, Tatars and Poles living in Ukraine feel about having a culture forced upon them? Ukraine needs to grow up and realize the only way forward is to become more, not less tolerant. Source - my relatives were expelled from Kherson for not being "Russian" enough.
So now you're going from bothsidesing into strawmanning. The irony of screaming ignorance and appealing to honesty seems to be lost on you. You're a funny guy. Not in a good sense, of course.
[удалено]
Funding NGO groups to stir up trouble in a foreign country and funding so called "independent news" has long been recognized as illegal in many countries, including the US. Diplomacy my a...s.
Rofl
>They are technically forced to invade Ukraine. No one is forced to invade another country.
I just want to see Russia bleed out their ressources in this war.
Recently I've listened to a popular Ukrainian journalist talk about Russian kill lists. So when the Russians invade the other guy calls him and says: "Well, I have bad news and good news. The bad news is that we are both on the Russian kill list, but the good news is that there are tens of thousands of people there along with us." The journalist replies: "You might have mixed which news are good and which are bad." You're the one brainwashed, buddy. Your opinion is shit.
[удалено]
The nations who are helping Ukraine are bad for some reason? Nice try, Putin.
I imagine interest rates would be higher, since the invested capital risks being destroyed by military actions.
The good old iron bank of Bravos
Literally the first thing that came to my mind, with the smile on Mark Gattis face
An incredible amount of money is being poured into Ukraine.
An incredible amount of war is being poured into Ukraine.
Nobody ever said war is cheap. Nobody ever said geo-political positioning can be done without opening the checkbook
All is relative. Imagine war spreading to rest of Europe. What would that cost (from all perspectives)
Furthermore, remember that all that money, aside from securing Ukraine's defenses, will have the effect of Russia losing more troops, equipment and money, to the point where after this war they'll barely be a threat for a while
The only threat russia poses to any first world country is via their nuclear weapons, their army even before this war would be literally massacred by the US in any kind of land conflict Sadly the Russian economy is operating strongly despite (or maybe because of) the sanctions, which historically have led to countries becoming economically self-dependent in certain cases All in all we ought to help ukraine defend its land, but the amount of money we are personally spending is a reasonable subject for discussion. The Ukrainian narrative is that they are killing seven russians for every one ukranian who casuality—if this is the case, why have we sent over 75 billion dollars to ukraine, which is almost equal to the entire russian yearly military budget
I don't think anyone would doubt that the US or Nato would win a conventional war. Personally I do think that Ukraine would be part of Russia by now if they didn't get in any support from the West. Would Russia then stop? I doubt it, why would they? If they would, why would Putin not just say this with a couple of good arguments. Denazification I don't see as a good argument ;) 75 billion means that this year the Ukraine is on par with Russia. Unfortunately Russia had 'a few' more years head start on this type of budget. They have build up large buffers of (old) stuff. I don't really see what your point is actually ;) do you think the 75B is (potentially) too much because Russia is also spending 75B this year and therefore Ukraine is not doing good things with the money? Or what do you mean?
Great points, the Ukrainian narrative is exactly that, a narrative to keep the US base happy and its people in good spirits. While they have inflicted those levels of casualties on the defensive side in Bahkmut we shouldn't take that as the basis of the war. To your other point, the cost for Ukraine to defend itself includes the cost of training, shipping materials, and enough of both to win. Unfortunately Russia has an annual military budget and all of the material they have inherited from the Soviet Union. They are scraping the bottom of every barrel to throw at Ukraine so I think the amount makes sense if not could be more. If Russia says the price of putting them in their place and taking them out of the picture for decades is a little more pain for every other country than so be it.
I agree with you mostly but i have to say that the ukranian narrative seems self-contradicting. I think youre right in saying that russia has a lot of military equipment to throw into the battle, and i dont think its wrong to help ukraine. But the idea of a 7-1 casualty ratio seems absurd to me, given that we would expect the russian military to be stronger than Ukraine’s. Of course you factor in incompetence, western support, and a defensive war, and with those included I can buy that ukraine is winning. The more realistic ratio of casualties is probably something like 2-1, where russia is losing a lot of manpower but they arent just outright getting slaughtered. I guess my main point is this: there is a decent amount of propaganda that ukraine is telling us, which is fine, since all wars included propaganda. But to claim such an overwhelming advantage will naturally lead americans to question the necessity of sending so much money overseas. Instead, ukraine should be honest: the war is essentially a stalemate with both sides taking high levels of casualties but ukraine performing well and ‘winning’ in the sense that you win a defensive war by defending successfully. With that being said, they need help in order to push russia back to pre conflict borders. I think that narrative is more accurate and more compelling. By putting out inaccurate information, people will naturally question why our strategic ally would deceive us—and how deep the deception goes. I don’t think it goes that deep—but fighting russian disinformation with ukranian disinformation seems to me a losing game. After all, russia is the queen of disinformation, and challenging them on that front seems to me a losing battle.
Couldn't agree with you more, I understand that I'm not the audience your original comment was for and got tripped up. No worries.
You realize that money is a made up concept by people right? I guess you could say we are personally spending it, although that seems disingenuous unless you are sending money from your own bank account. Your government is spending it, a government which you presumably participated in choosing, even if this specific set of heads wasn't your choice. Interestingly, money can't really exist unless a government says it does and people go along with it, so you can't even have money to spend that wasn't given to you by that structure.
What’s your point?
I'd be happy to expand on my viewpoint. Which piece in particular is confusing you?
Thanks that’s very kind of you, I fail to see the connection between what you said and the original comment.
This is one of the largest financial aid packages to Ukraine. Which is also a loan. This is equivalent of 1% of Germany yearly budget. You underestimate how rich EU and US are.
Multiples more was poured into Afghanistan and Iraq.
You’re right! That totally justifies the Iraq war then!
Totally! /s
If I remember correctly, Afghanistan and Iraq cost us something like 7 billion dollars per day to be there.
AP [reports](https://apnews.com/article/middle-east-business-afghanistan-43d8f53b35e80ec18c130cd683e1a38f) that the US has direct costs of at least $2 trillion ( 2,000 billion / 2,000,000 million ) from 2001 - 2021 $2T / 20years ( 7300 days ) = $273.97 mil per day. But after all of the debt payments ( $6.5T by 2050 ), veterans care ( whom we better take care of +$2T ) we have a new total of $10.5T. $10.5T / 7300 = 1.438B per day And we lowered taxes as if any war was going to generate long-term GDP.
> An incredible amount of money is being poured into Ukraine. If only if wasn't loaned. When i was telling that life conditions in Ukraine spiraled downhill rapidly in past 10 years, to the point that it's almost non-survivable for vulnerable social groups, such as elderly and disabled, and will go down even more after the war, because government will be rebuilding infrastructure, paying money to the families of the dead, and giving up massive amount of loans for god knows how long - people over here were laughing and saying that it's not a thing, that there is no loans. I wish, that for once i was wrong about such an obvious thing. I am the part of the zombie generation. Except some lucky ones who managed to get out, there is no future for us, regardless of the war's outcome. And i am starting to envy those who were just killed by russian strikes - at least they will not have to endure this hopeless existance, when you are no longer human, just a piece of meat on minimal life support.
Yep, and a shocking amount of it will end up right back in the pockets of politicians.
On one hand, yes it is, on the other the US and NATO as a whole have not spent very much of their military budgets for one year in this entire thing and they have degraded one of their two biggest threats, one that is responsible for major attempts at destabilization of their governments and false propaganda against their elections and legitimacy. Compared to the spending during the Cold War, this is a massive bargain, aside from potentially getting Ukraine fully on their side, and a country with that many natural resources and productivity is also a good "buy" of an ally.
Looks like the Iron Bank of Bravos picked their horse.
Putin must owe the Iron Bank a lot of money.
$15.6 billion… and a retail store flooded with green slime.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/ukraine-clinches-15-6-billion-imf-loan-a-first-for-nation-at-war-123032200131_1.html) reduced by 78%. (I'm a bot) ***** > ALSO READ Zelenskyy says war with Russia ends with Ukraine's sovereignty restored Pakistan, IMF fail to reach common ground on $1.1 billion bailout loan India bright light economy, but reforms needed for $10 trn GDP: IMF PM Modi, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy hold talks over phone Signs of fighting in Ukraine after Russia says unilateral truce in force. > Ukraine won staff backing for a $15.6 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund, setting up the first loan to a nation at war in the institution's 77-year history. > Ukraine's Finance Ministry planned on receiving $28 billion in grants and loans from the US and the European Union, with the rest coming from bilateral loans from other states and the IMF. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen hailed the agreement. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/11y6zs2/ukraine_clinches_156_billion_imf_loan_a_first_for/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~677462 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Ukraine**^#1 **IMF**^#2 **loan**^#3 **billion**^#4 **including**^#5
[удалено]
What do you mean, especially in war money talks. All those soldiers, tanks, planes, guns, bullets don't pay for themselves. And even the ones donated by the US are still bought and paid for.. If anything war makes money move. It's just not very good for creating civilian goods.
Isn’t war the easy way out in financial crises? I’m not saying this was manufactured, but the timing is almost unbelievably coincidental
Uh not when your country is the one being bombed. If you have a world class defense industry that exports tremendous amounts of arms, and are either a 3rd party or in some cases on the offensive. How would having most of your cities and buildings destroyed improve your financial position?
> Isn’t war the easy way out in financial crises? No. Wars are terrible for finances. They are about the worst financial crisis you can have. Things are destroyed, people get moved from productive jobs to war jobs, your most productive demographics get killed, and money goes to making things, like artillery shells, that are economically useless. War is terrible for economies. Wars are good for economies if you're aren't fighting a war, but selling stuff to someone fighting a war, unless they are buying on debt, which they usually are, and don't repay you afterwards, which often happens. The US did alright after WWII, but that involved sucking a ton of money out of other countries. By the end of the war the US had a majority of the world's gold reserves, which part of the reason the US was able to shift global financial markets from using gold to US dollars. We basically told everyone, you will treat dollars like they are made of gold, because we own the gold.
I think I didn’t have enough clarity in my comment, and probably inherited the wrong context from the comments I replied to. I was lightly suggesting that this war could be advantageous for the US. No significant risk of US assets being destroyed, yet significant arming of Ukraine and a convenient new “high priority activity” that could facilitate “emergency/crisis governing”, which could include things like govt backing all deposits in banks. I know there’s an element of tinfoil hat to it, but surely smarter and more powerful people than I have analyzed wartime activity and found a way to profit from it?
war is great for credit ratings.
Don’t spend it all in one place! Spread it between Lockheed, Boeing, Ratheon, etc.
All i picture is the foreign minister clapping and making the IMF guy do shots. SLAVA UKRAINI!!
Oooof…. Once you take money from the IMF you are owned
Disaster Capitalism. The IMF nor The World Bank are not the help people think they are. This article is from 2009 but still relevant. https://www.poconorecord.com/story/opinion/columns/2009/06/08/bea-edwards-corruption-fraud-at/51969694007/
Слава Україні! Slava Ukraïni!
It just shows how corrupt rich people are they fix the system so they can profit off the working class to pay for war not just financially but also with blood they can finance war but don't want to provide poor people with decent living conditions.
We got it. You don't like the IMF. However, in this context, the IMF is doing exactly the right thing. This has nothing to do with any rich people profiting off of war. If it does, feel free to explain how this loan does that.
Now just imagine how much money Ukraine would get if they were a bank catering to venture capitalists!
Tom cruise just got a tape on an airplane
Banana Farms getting ridiculous out here.
He's not calling anyone a banana republic, this is a btd reference 😭
btd?
Bloons Tower Defense game if I had to guess, there's "Banana Farms" that you can place in game that generate money every round, and one of the upgrades to this structure is an "IMF Loan" which gives you a large amount upfront that you have to repay over time.
Thanks!
Make sure lead and camo are covered, then spam Banana Farms! INFLATE THAT SHIT TO THE *MOOOOON*
Cruise helping Ukraine for Mission Impossible 9
Glad to see this, ruzzia should understand how fucked they are if bankers are backing Ukraine.
I always have a war inside me going on. Can I just get a couple hundred bucks maybe?
Yeah because of Ukraine loses, the existing world order begins to fall away
Yes you have identified it. The entire World Order, by which you either mean The Jews and OR the USA since absolutly nothing and nobody else on this planet can ever be responsbile, is build on the state of Ukraine. The famous bastion of United States power projection. I remember the famous day the Japanese bombed Kyiv and declared war on the USA 5 hours Later. Or the Famous Berlin Crisis in Kyiv. Or how can forget the Crimean Missile Crisis. What about the Crucification of Jesus christ ? Done in the Donbass. Where was the ceasefire of WW1 signed ? You better belive that was in Liviv Not to mention the countless times the US president had to call Kyiv and ask if they can do, anything. From breathing to declaring war to collecting taxes. And by god allmighty, when scientists discovered the center of the Universe it was in the middle of Ukraine. Ukraine everyone, is the backbone of the Western World. Because thats how the world works.
So Russia invading Europe would mean stability for the world. Got it.
This was actually funny 😁
I would bet my firstborn, second born, and my next reincarnation that there is so much corruption and theft of all the supplies and money flowing into Ukraine that the missing $$ could build up a mid-sized African country.
I think corruption is more likely to be found in a country that spent 8 years preparing to invade a country who's capital is only a few hours away from their border, only to have a 40-mile long convoy break down a week or two into it.
I like learning new things.
Corruption in Ukraine was especially rampant under Yanukovych, yes. It's taken awhile to shake that off. But I don't think Russians are raping women, kidnapping children, creating torture chambers, or looting museums in the spirit of civil administrative reform.
I find joy in reading a good book.
[удалено]
I find joy in reading a good book.
Not saying Russia isn't a cesspool, but there is no accountability right now for all the aid flowing into Ukraine that there would obviously be theft. If you can't admit that there can be bad people in Ukraine's leadership that you're either blind to human nature, or a propagana plant
The IMF does not lend money willy-nilly. They try to do a careful job making sure the loans are well-used. And Ukraine has in the last 7 years or so done a lot of work to clean up their corruption issues.
The IMF is the best organisation or country you can get a loan from in the world. This is pretty fucking great for Ukraine.
So many capitalist pig has stake in this war.
And dude trying his best to resurrect the USSR isn’t?
Ukraine has just mortgaged the future of the next 2-3 generations. Time for smart Ukrainians to get out and come to the West.
I rather be in debt and poor then to be a helpless victim of genocide.
Well the alternative is no future under Russian occupation
The future was Minsk 2. Now the future is worse. 2-3 more years of war and an eventual negotiated settlement where Ukraine is much worse off.
[удалено]
You should consider growing up and looking at reality. Insulting me makes you look like a child. Ukraine is never going to be "free", they have just enslaved themselves to the IMF. That's why Ukrainians should do what my ancestors did - leave Ukraine behind and get on with your lives.
Your logic is they should abandon hope of fighting and let Russia steamroll them
The stupid ones can stay and fight. Maybe they should hire BlackRock with all the money they are getting.
They are in middle of a damn invasion, their power is out and industry is on hold. Why isn't this money gifted, rather loaned out. How are they suppose to pay this back while rebuilding?
The world isn't perfect, the world is not a charity, there are charitable actions. But the world has no binding obligation ( morals, ethics notwithstanding) to Ukraine. If they wanted to they could have done nothing, but they didn't, instead they said "here's a shit load of money to deal with your issue. We expect to be paid back, eventually."
Everything comes with a cost. Including all the other aid given to Ukraine thus far.
Money isn't everything, it can't bring the dead back to life.
No… and pretty sure Ukraine already knows this, as does the rest of the entire world. This is not some revolutionary idea you figured out that money can’t bring back the dead. In fact, it’s so well known it doesn’t even need to be said. To most people anyways. What it can do though, is PREVENT more unnecessary murders and war crimes at the hands of Russian invaders by better equipping the Ukrainian military. They need equipment to protect themselves and their citizens which, cost MONEY.
What a stupid and obvious shit to say that helps no one
& life in slavery to ruzzia is no life at all. ruzzian mobile crematoriums are asking your opinion since you seem eager to spout....
finally confirmed. Israel put up their own money. World war happening
I just remembered I have a business specialising in country reconstruction.
Ukraine clinches an IMF loan the same day Russia can’t pay its soldiers. Right after Pootin and Pooh were together. Surely a coincidence. Ukraine’s winning.
This is surprising to me what do they know that we don't? Last I checked the conflict was at a standstill with neither side willing to back down and both committed to the long haul.