Rusija vs. Ukrajina aka. "Putin - še sladkih 16 let na oblasti?"

Ruzziha te vojne ne more zmagati.

Pithlit je danes ob 14:56:16 izjavil:

arato je danes ob 14:50:24 izjavil:

Windlass je danes ob 14:39:44 izjavil:

arato je danes ob 14:08:59 izjavil:

Windlass je danes ob 10:49:56 izjavil:

arato je danes ob 09:46:52 izjavil:

Ne. Za razliko od tebe, lahko nevtralno gledam situacijo.
Tole zgoraj je izredno pomembno, predvsem za to, da se zaščiti ukrajinsko prebivalstvo. Upam da ni standardnih 10 raket

Da, da, pravi svetilnik nevtralnosti si xD Zato ponavljaš rusko diplomatsko pozicijo kot papiga dan na dan.

Sploh pa, zakaj govoriš o zaščiti prebivalstva? A ni tako, da imajo balistične rakete 1000% natančnost s katero so na dosegu vsi VOJAŠKI cilji xD?

Izkazalo se je, da se vendarle da sem pa tja kaj narediti, da se ublaži učinek balističnih raket in da se Ukrajincem ni treba kar predati. Kdo bi lahko to predvidel? (vsak, ki so mu to ene 150x pojasnili praviloma)

A si ti kdaj povedal zakaj si tako slepo za Ukrajino, da maš neprestano zjebane možgane?

Da, moja pozicija je nevtralna. Ne ponavljam "ruske diplomatske pozicije" ampak, kot sem že rekel in tudi pokazal zakaj tako menim, Ukrajina NIMA realnih možnosti v tej vojni. Zato zagovarjam zamrznitev konflikta. Čim prej, tem bolje. To ni nobena ruska propaganda ampak realnost konflikta. Rusi se ne bodo ustavili, rusov se v doglednem času ne da ustaviti. Nadaljevanje tega konflikta bo terjalo tisoče civilnih žrtev in še miljon na ukrajinski in ruski strani.

Kar se tiče Patriotov je to dobra novica, ampak glede na to, da ni bilo povedano koliko, sumim da jih je spet toliko, da jih bo ukrajincem zmanjkalo v eni ruski salvi.

ampak ti kar drkaj na Ukrajino in išči po internetu ruske vohune

Vse kar smo naredili je pohitrili smo časovnico za 10+ let in prislili Rusijo v vojaško industrijo. Sedaj, in samo sedaj, je Evropa v nevarnosti. 2022 ni bila.

Joj, kako lepo nevtralno si združil ˝ne ponavljam ruske pozicije˝ in ˝rUSijE nI MoGOčE poRAZiti!!!˝.
Prav, si za zamrznitev. Kao. Zakaj prepričuješ nas ali Ukrajince? Naslovi to na svojega Putina, ker ovira je tam. Ukrajinci so že pristali na premirje, ampak ta sorta premirja vaši strani ni všeč. Ti si samo za tako vrsto zamrznitve, ki bo Putinu omogočila 3. napad na Ukrajino. Če si ti glup, še ne pomeni da smo tudi ostali. Misliš da se ni nihče nič naučil iz prekršenih sporazumov?

Nikomur ni treba biti slepo za Ukrajino - na Ukrajinski strani je mednarodno pravo, morala, skupna vizija družbene ureditve...pa še kaj bi se našlo. Za češnjo na torti pa še te silne ruske premoči nikjer ni videti razen v tiradah tebi podobnih.

Pa ne pretvarjaj se kako so ti patriot rakete dobra novica. 2 meseca že onaniraš na balistične rakete, zdaj bi pa imel ljudi za idiote. Nekaj jih je za prvo silo, pričakovano je pa, da bodo po malem kapljali dokler se problem ne reši.

Rusije v tej situaciji ni mogoče poraziti. Ne onaniram na rakete, zame so groza, ampak so realnost konflikta. To, da ima RUsija odločilno prednost je ključnega pomena pri kakršnikoli analizi.

Zamrznitev konflikta tako, da se Rusiji da ozemlje, ki ga zahteva, potem pa naprej.

Seveda je vse to na strani Ukrajine, se strinjam. Ampak realnost situacije je, da se Putin na to požvižga. In potem se ne moremo več sklicevati na vse to, vsaj ne v pogovoru z njim.

Za "prvo silo" je nekaj raket. Te rakete ne pomenijo nič. 10 so jih dobili zadnjič, skurili v enem do dveh dneh. Po malem kapljale - Ukrajinci jih rabijo čez 300, da preživijo zimo (po beseda zelenskega)

Biti "slepo za Ukrajino" pa pomeni, da v ljudeh, ki ti kontrirajo vidiš ruske vohune, v dati, ki kaže da Ukrajina te vojne ne more dobiti, pa laži in sprenevedanja. Ukrajina poleti 2026 nima ENEGA aduta.

kot sem že rekel, sam ne vidim pogojev ukrajinske zmage. vidim pa 10k mrtvih civilistov, če bodo ukrajinci še pobijali ruse.

Dvigni kiklo, baba, pa pust da te mimoidoči nategne drugače te bo nabutal! Zato da bom js lahko gledal.

A sem te v redu zadela? Jaz mislim da sem te v nulo. Kolk mam prav bodo pa drugi povedali.

... ker drugače bo ubil tebe in vse, ki si jih kdaj spoznala

to je bolj ta logika

arato je danes ob 14:50:24 izjavil:

Rusije v tej situaciji ni mogoče poraziti. To, da ima RUsija odločilno prednost je ključnega pomena pri kakršnikoli analizi.

To je dogmatizem, s tem se ne bom ukvarjal. Analizirat pa itak ne znaš.

Zamrznitev konflikta tako, da se Rusiji da ozemlje, ki ga zahteva, potem pa naprej.

To bi ti bilo všeč, ne. Saj sem rekel, na liniji z rusko diplomatsko pozicijo.

Seveda je vse to na strani Ukrajine, se strinjam. Ampak realnost situacije je, da se Putin na to požvižga. In potem se ne moremo več sklicevati na vse to, vsaj ne v pogovoru z njim.

Vprašal si zakaj sem slepo na strani Ukrajine, ne na kaj se bom skliceval v pogovorih s Putinom. Ne bluzi.

Za "prvo silo" je nekaj raket. Te rakete ne pomenijo nič. 10 so jih dobili zadnjič, skurili v enem do dveh dneh. Po malem kapljale - Ukrajinci jih rabijo čez 300, da preživijo zimo (po beseda zelenskega)

Ne rabijo 300 raket da preživijo. 300 raket bi rabili da bi se branili kot prej, ker so jih toliko prej dobivali. Ni vse idealno.

Biti "slepo za Ukrajino" pa pomeni, da v ljudeh, ki ti kontrirajo vidiš ruske vohune, v dati, ki kaže da Ukrajina te vojne ne more dobiti, pa laži in sprenevedanja.

A to je zdaj tvoj najnovejši slamnat argument? Že ene 5x sem te zalotil da provociraš s takimi nizko-inteligentnimi.

Ukrajina poleti 2026 nima ENEGA aduta.

vidim pa 10k mrtvih civilistov, če bodo ukrajinci še pobijali ruse.

Jaz pa vidim nagravžno sprenevedanje in rusko diplomatsko pozicijo.

Podjetja, katerih izgube so presegle 5 % njihovega letnega prometa, bodo prejela 12-mesečni odlog plačila davkov, zavarovalnih premij in akontacij. Do konca leta bodo tudi oproščena davčnih in drugih revizij. Podpora bo zagotovljena samodejno

he he arato se ne zaveda da so ruski cilji v ukrajini postali asimptota in se jim večno približujejo

arato je danes ob 16:10:45 izjavil:

Podjetja, katerih izgube so presegle 5 % njihovega letnega prometa, bodo prejela 12-mesečni odlog plačila davkov, zavarovalnih premij in akontacij. Do konca leta bodo tudi oproščena davčnih in drugih revizij. Podpora bo zagotovljena samodejno

To najlepše govori v kakšnem kurcu so v realnosti v Rusiji zasebna podjetja!

Tolk o vojaških ciljih... Meso, sadje zelenjava, superge, oblačila in gospodinjski aparati... škoda seveda je ogromna.

arato je danes ob 16:36:16 izjavil:

Russian attacks destroy 400,000 sq m of warehouse space in month

Pa tko, mimogrede (samo za tvoj Veleum):
"In July 2026, Ukrainian drones destroyed approximately 860,000 square meters of warehouse space belonging to the Russian e-commerce giant Wildberries."

Rusija zmaguje! Rusija napreduje! Rusije se ne da porazit! Pustite da vas rusi v svoji dobrohotnosti posilijo! Ane?

arato je danes ob 16:51:10 izjavil:

shmandi je danes ob 16:40:35 izjavil:

Tolk o vojaških ciljih... Meso, sadje zelenjava, superge, oblačila in gospodinjski aparati... škoda seveda je ogromna.

ne vem kdaj je postalo merilo za zmago količina uničenih skladišč.
samo postal sem številko

Ti ne premikaš več vratnic. Ti vratnice pustiš pri miru in raj igrišče premakneš...

https://x.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/20...
Up to 10 Flamingo missiles visited various areas of the city, including the area near Donetsk City shopping center. ATESH agents report that one of the missiles may have landed on one of the "DPR Ministry of Internal Affairs" buildings.

Moje mnenje glede obiska CIA v kremlju je, ker je krompir lukasenko podlegel pritiskom in dovolil napad na sever Ukrajine.

Se strinjam zato pa so kavbojci sli v moskvo.

Sile zla se gropirajo. s. koreja + belorusija.

Vroča zima mas čaka. .

Če koga zanima... Zbirka ruskega zornega kota na obisk Ratcliffa v Moskvi.
Zanimivo za prebrat, sploh ker Z-bloggerji delujejo bolj poklapani in manj steklinasti, kot slovenski fanatiki:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/2092...

1/ The unexpected and apparently brief visit of CIA Director John Ratcliffe to Moscow has caused confusion among Russian warbloggers. They suggest that he was sent in place of the usual "diplomatic clowns" to deliver an ultimatum to the Kremlin. ?
2/ It's not yet clear whether Ratcliffe met Putin. VChK-OGPU reports that Ratcliffe "certainly met with representatives of the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB), but whether he met with Putin remains unknown. Sources say Ratcliffe departed earlier than planned."
3/ "On Sunday, two aircraft took off from Vnukovo airport with a short interval. In the morning, an Il-76, and in the middle of the day, a Tu-214 from the government flight detachment. This usually happens before Putin's visits to other countries.
4/ "They transport Putin's car, an advance security team, etc. Today, Ratcliffe arrived. Putin was definitely in the Kremlin today, so they likely met in person. Immediately after Ratcliffe's arrival, an aircraft from the special unit "Russia" took off from Moscow."
5/ Russian presidential pool journalist Alexander Yunashev reported that Ratcliffe would meet personally with Putin. According to Yunashev, a "very large-scale event" involving hundreds of people was canceled for this meeting.
6/ 'Federation Towers' suggests that the visit must have focused on matters too sensitive to entrust to other negotiators, and argues that "there is no reason to consider the current visit a sign of a future deal or an imminent escalation."
7/ "It speaks to a simple fact: Moscow and Washington consider the risk of error too high to transmit important signals through the press and third countries."
8/ The channel suggests that "Ratcliffe's appearance in Moscow coincided with leaks indicating that Washington has intelligence on Russia's possible preparations for a new mobilisation and scenarios to test NATO's resolve..."
9/ "In negotiations, intelligence is often used not only for analysis but also for pressure. First, one side demonstrates its perception of a threat. Then it transmits a signal over a secure channel.
10/ "This sequence allows the opponent to be warned without backing them into a corner with public demands.
11/ "Ratcliffe did not arrive as a public mediator. The CIA director is needed for something else: to convey a sensitive message without diplomatic language, to gauge the other party's reaction, and to elicit a response that neither side wants to record in an official statement.
12/ "Such contacts are resorted to when open negotiations have reached an impasse or publicity prevents discussion of real terms."

The author suggests that the conversation might have included Russia's support for Iran, given Trump's current push to isolate Tehran.
13/ Warblogger Yuri Kotenok is contemptuous of the Trump Administration's quest for peace:

"The Russians are trying to fulfill the Supreme Commander's order to create a buffer zone (very slowly), and then they're inundated with offers of peace, friendship, and chewing gum."
14/ "According to Bandera's logic, what should Ratcliffe have offered us in return? Halve sanctions, allow us to trade trade with the Chinese and Indians? In short, don't make us laugh. We've been through all this before...
15/ "And my wish for Ratcliffe is very simple: fewer air pockets and a safe return to the place he considers his homeland."

Kirill Federov is similarly dismissive:
16/ "It's highly doubtful that the anti-Russian hawk, Ratcliffe, could agree on anything in Moscow that would be acceptable here. Besides, he's not even known here, unlike Bill Burns, a career diplomat from the early 2000s, who also didn't achieve much at the time.
17/ "They all come here, as they say, to ask for Ukraine, to try and get the fighting to stop, because no one at the top wants to suffer the consequences in Kyiv - they are personally losing out financially.
18/ "But what about us? Especially since the "Spirit of Anchorage" showed that Trump and his team are unable to make Ukraine comply with anything, and they don't keep their word. Well, then, GTFO."
19/ In contrast, 'Crimson Digest' interprets his visit as a potential sign that the US is about to surrender Ukraine:
20/ "Ratcliffe is a Russia-hater, a staunch enemy of Russia, a person who (according to The Atlantic) is the top lobbyist for Kyiv in the Trump administration, who is trying to convince Trump that Russia is losing and Ukraine is strong,...
21/ ...playing on the fact that Trump doesn't like losers. By the way, until recently, we looked to any American politician like hopeless losers, the ultimate losers, the aggrieved, the suck-ups, and generally very stupid and unpromising losers.
22/ "Now the situation looks better, because in Trump's favourite newspaper, articles like "Russia is destroying Zelensky's own city" finally appear...
23/ "If Ratcliffe himself arrived in Moscow, then this is either a harbinger of a serious escalation (maybe he came to threaten something in anticipation of the first potentially truly hungry and cold Ukrainian winter, with empty shelves and non-functioning sewers,...
24/ ...trying to save the Zelensky regime), or something much more pleasant, in terms of moving from the stages of "denial and anger" to the stage of "bargaining."
25/ 'Visionary Channel' suggests that Ratcliffe may have presented "new proposals from the Kremlin itself, such as concessions, which are being presented with the utmost seriousness by both sides. The US has sent in a "bad cop"...
26/ "However, it could also be the other way around - US intelligence agencies are warning of Russia's readiness to attack European NATO countries, which have indeed already crossed all red lines.
27/ "In other words, this is a 'final warning,' a serious ultimatum from the Kremlin to the West, delivered through Trump's 'ears.'"
28/ 'Intelligence Diary' is thinking along similar lines:

"It is not appropriate to talk about Ratcliffe arriving with any peaceful initiatives. Unlike "diplomatic clowns" like Witkoff and Kushner, he represents a significant force.
29/ "It is highly likely that the CIA Director brought an ultimatum to the Kremlin regarding Ukraine, Iran, and possibly North Korea (areas where the US is facing serious challenges). It is unlikely that this ultimatum contains categorical demands in the style of...
30/ ...Khrushchev's statements about West Berlin or the Soviet-American confrontations surrounding Cuba. However, it is clear that Ratcliffe has a certain set of threats in his briefcase, addressed to the Russian political leadership."
31/ 'Rybar' sees it as a sign that "the negotiating track, despite various statements, has not gone away. Russia and its leadership are interested in it for pragmatic reasons."
32/ "It's clear that the US won't 'give up' anything and may even resort to threats of new sanctions or the activation of Starlink over Russia's 'old' territory.
33/ "And yet, the visit demonstrates that even in a more advantageous position, the US, at the very least, doesn't feel completely in control."
34/ 'Older than Edda' has an alternative theory: "Ratcliffe flew to Moscow to find out whether or not Kanye West's concert would actually take place." /end

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/2092...

1/ Russian bloggers are continuing to speculate about yesterday's lightning visit to Moscow by CIA Director John Ratcliffe, about which much is still unclear. There appears to be an increasing consensus that he was seeking to warn Russia against escalating the Ukraine war. ?
Image
2/ Despite Vladimir Putin reportedly cancelling a major event on the day of the visit, he did not meet with Ratcliffe, according to Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov. Instead, Ratcliffe is said to have visited Moscow for "contacts between intelligence agencies."
3/ It's unclear who he actually met with. Yuri Baranchik focuses on the unique qualities which Ratcliffe brought to the meeting, in contrast to Trump's favoured but so far unsuccessful negotiators Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner - neither of whom are professional diplomats.
4/ Baranchik calls Ratcliffe "a completely different type of negotiator, especially when it comes to Ukraine. Ratcliffe is responsible for American intelligence, and US intelligence data remains one of the key resources for Ukraine."
5/ "It helps Kyiv track Russian assets and conduct long-range strikes, including against oil infrastructure. Washington has already shown that it can limit such assistance if it wants to put pressure on the Ukrainian leadership.
6/ "Therefore Ratcliffe could be useful to Trump in two opposite scenarios. The first is a warning to Moscow. If Russia is not ready to soften its conditions for ending the war, the United States may expand support for Kyiv, primarily in the areas of intelligence and long-range...
7/ ...strikes. The second is negotiation. If Moscow is ready to make certain concessions, limiting American intelligence support for Ukraine could be part of a deal. However, it's unclear where we can retreat from our current, and already quite modest, negotiating positions.
8/ "There is a third option: a broader discussion about the risk of a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO. For such a conversation, the CIA Director is even better suited than diplomats.
9/ "In the area of intelligence agencies, real red lines, confidential warnings, and information about the military intentions of the parties are usually discussed.

It is also important that Ratcliffe's contact with the head of the SVR, Sergei Naryshkin, did not begin today.
10/ "They spoke by phone in March 2025 and agreed to maintain direct contact to resolve crisis situations and reduce confrontation. Later, Naryshkin said that they could contact each other practically at any time.
11/ "Therefore, Ratcliffe's arrival is likely not the creation of a new channel, but rather the elevation of an existing channel to a higher level. Previously, a phone call was sufficient. Now, a personal meeting is required.
12/ "This draws a parallel with 2021. Then, CIA Director William Burns visited Moscow to deliver a warning from Washington to the Russian leadership regarding the preparation of a military operation against Ukraine.
13/ "Of course, this does not mean that history is repeating itself. But the principle is similar: the CIA Director arrives in person when the issue is too sensitive for ordinary diplomacy.
14/ "One thing is clear: if Witkoff and Kushner were not the ones who flew to Moscow, but Ratcliffe, then the conversation is no longer just about political formulations. Concrete tools of pressure and negotiation may be on the table - the question is, about what exactly.
15/ "And this question was both urgent and important. And yes, the question is: what Russian aircraft from the presidential flight detachment flew west an hour after Ratcliffe's departure? This is a great mystery. For now."
16/ Other commentators link the visit to growing concerns that Russia might escalate the war in response to Ukraine's long-range drone strikes and the near-stalemate on the front lines. 'Two Majors' writes:
17/ "At the same time, we personally note that the visit took place at a time when the parties entered a phase of the most severe escalation, which is increasingly impacting the global situation.
18/ "Russia is so suppressing grain exports from Ukraine (periodically receiving counterattacks) that grain prices have risen. And the burning of each other's marketplace logistics is plunging the populations of both countries into a frankly pre-nuclear state.
19/ "The quantity and quality of Kyiv's drones, supplied by the EU, are, in effect, capable of inflicting damage equivalent to a series of nuclear strikes, which would trigger the provisions of the Russian Federation's Nuclear Deterrence Doctrine.
20/ "So the Yanks are feigning concern and lavishing attention on our side, so that Moscow gets its share of attention and continues the bloody drudgery without making any sudden moves.
21/ "However, our side usually puts on a constructive front in such cases, waits for a pretext, and then starts hammering the Nazis with renewed vigour."

Igor Dimitriev suggests that Ratcliffe was delivering a warning about how the US would response to a Russian escalation:
22/ "A few weeks ago, the CIA warned its European allies about impending hybrid attacks. Meanwhile, we're talking about mobilisation, which no one has convincingly refuted, plus some decisive step is being discussed that would allow us to seize the initiative.
23/ "Putting it all together, there are only two scenarios that would compel the CIA Director to visit. The first is nuclear. Burns flew to Ankara for a second time in November 2022, to meet with Naryshkin, specifically to warn against this option.
24/ "The second: not to continue fighting against the Ukrainian drone line, where the initiative has been lost and every metre costs lives, but to strike at Europe, which supports Ukraine but is itself unprepared for war, either in terms of air defence capabilities,...
25/ ...mobilisation resources, or psychological preparedness. In other words, Russia would mobilise, covertly or not, switch its economy to a war footing, and attack a weak link instead of a fortified one.
26/ "Strategically, this makes more sense than spending another year [fighting] at Sloviansk.

Then Ratcliffe flew in to explain how the United States would respond. And herein lies the key unknown.
27/ "Will they fully invoke Article 5 of the NATO Charter, or will they limit themselves to the same measures as in 2022--that is, supplies and sanctions? Does Trump need a war on the European front when he's been trying to leave Europe for the second year?
28/ "A government plane carrying a reciprocating envoy departed Russia. Perhaps it was Sergei Naryshkin, who had already been in contact with Ratcliffe. We'll understand from statements in the coming days what was discussed in Moscow.
29/ "Or maybe we won't, and only then will Ratcliffe write about it in his memoirs. The only question is whether you or I will be alive to read them." /end

Namig je bil, da je letal iz Rige. Pomoje Putin ovohava Baltske države. Obramba tam gor je deleč od Ukrainske, četud so to Nato države. Pa tut bolj žepne so. Hitro lahko Rusi nardijo štalo po vzori kakega Hamasa. Me prav zanima, ker evropejc se bo šel fajtat in umirat v Latvijo?

ššš je danes ob 19:16:29 izjavil:

Namig je bil, da je letal iz Rige. Pomoje Putin ovohava Baltske države. Obramba tam gor je deleč od Ukrainske, četud so to Nato države. Pa tut bolj žepne so. Hitro lahko Rusi nardijo štalo po vzori kakega Hamasa. Me prav zanima, ker evropejc se bo šel fajtat in umirat v Latvijo?

Mene pa ta aspekt sploh ne skrbi. NATOve skupine so itak že tam. Pustiti po neki Chamberlainski neumnosti, da se razblini article 5 pa smatram da je pljunek v lastno skledo, ki si ga v Evropi ne bomo privoščili (pa pustimo Trumpa zdaj). Da bi bil pa tako velik vpad kot v Ukrajino bomo pa vedeli v naprej, ker ne moreš na skrivaj spraviti toliko ljudi na meje.

Vidim da začenjajo rusi dobivati sporočila v njim razumljivem jeziku:

Che25 je danes ob 12:39:49 izjavil:

Hehe, Rusiji gre tako dobro, da želi Kremelj stroške protidronske zaščite in obnove premestiti z državnega proračuna na zasebna podjetja, v nasprotnem bo država prevzela nadzor nad njihovimi sredstvi.

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/83108

Saj to ni nobeno presenečenje, ker je ruski proračun že zvrtal večjo luknjo od pričakovanj. Od nekod pa je ja treba pobrati tisti denar, ki je še v državi. Sedaj ima Moskva problem, ki se ga ne poudarja. Ruske regije so dosegle navječji dolg do sedaj. V zameno za odpis dolga, pa Moskva zahteva mobilizacijo v teh regijah in da naj vse stroške vojakov prevzamejo regije same. Ampak to je zgolj dolg Moskva - regije, banke jim zaenkrat ne odpisujejo dolgov, ker že največja podjetja praktično ne morejo plačati glavnice, torej banke ne dobijo več investiran denar Rusov nazaj. Tudi bančni sektor tako odpušča. Druga največja banka že 10 % zaposlenih. Banke zato sedaj podaljšujejo rok, obresti so itak 20 %, lastniški prevzem s strani banke, pa pomeni da se lahko vse sesede samo vase. Torej ima Rusija že problem na relaciji državni proračun - proračun regij - banke in nimajo več komu kaj dati, zato je denar za vojno še kje? Ja zasebni sektor in pa zlato. Pa tu spet nastopi še nova spremenljivka. Nekaj regij je zaradi vojne že popolnoma odvisnih od Moske in v državni proračun tako vrta še večjo luknjo, saj gospodarstva, ki vplačuje v proračun regije ni več. Enako se dogaja s premogovnimi in regijami z nafto. Črpališče ni večno, tudi zato so dolgovi začeli izjemno hitro naraščati. Torej je Moskva potencialno zavohala še tisti zadnji denar, ki je znotraj regij.

Sedaj pa lahko dodamo še eno spremenljivko. Zakaj Ukrajina tudi napada mimovrste in shopster? Zato, ker je to še zadnji tisti nevojni del gospodarstva, tisti čisti DDV v proračun, ko raja troši in vse gre v državni in regijski proračun. Posredna škoda sanacije je na plečih regij, podjetja, ki pri 20 % obrestnih merah ne delajo pa vse bolj tonejo, osebni stečaji pa prav tako. Vojno gospodarstvo pa pomeni le to, da država več ne proizvaja to kar potrebuje/želi trg, ampak določa kaj potrebuje vojska, trg pa dobi drobtinice, vse dokler (drugi del palice) se ne začnejo pomanjkanja. V vojnem gospodarstvu tudi ni pravilo, da bo ministrstvo za obrambo, oziroma vojska plačala vse takoj. Velikokrat dobiš papir, kjer piše nekoč.

Rusija je tako danes finančno izolirana. Rubelj je vreden manj kot uporabljen WC-papir, torej noben finančni trg ne želi kupiti dolga, domače banke pa zaradi odliva denarja Rusov, neplačila glavnic nimajo tega kapitala. Regije kot že omenjeno, se zaradi upada lokalnega gospodarstva soočajo z vse višjimi dolgovi, tisto kar lahko ta veliki izvažajo, se verjetno dobi nazaj v valuti kupca, ker kdo bo pa bi danes hotel imeti za trgovalno valuto Rubelj, kjer potem vojno gospodarstvo dobi nazaj dele iz te države in se vse skupaj skuri v Ukrajini v nakupovalnem centru. Torej nobene dodane vrednosti, razen če obvladaš računovodsko matematiko. Centralna banka bi lahko sprinatala Rublje brez kritja, ampak bi to le še podžgalo inflacijo, ki že tako raste zaradi goriva in podražitev prevoza. Rusija 80 % stvari prevozi po železnici, ki tudi ne zmore plačati glavnice in je največji delodajalec v Rusiji. Da se izgone kolapsu gre prevoz gor za 8 %, da dobijo svež denar od trga, ki vse bolj upada.

Torej državi proračun usiha, nerazumnost Moskve, ki bi rada nadzor nad štirimi regijami, ki bodo na koncu zgolj državni proračun še bolj obremenile, pa išče denar skozi pravila vojnega gospodarstva v gospodarstvu, ki se še obnaša tržno. Trenutno nobena poteza izhoda iz te situacije Rusiji ne prinaša nič dobrega, vse dokler bo izolirana. Kolapsira lahko, lahko pa tudi na koncu dneva uvede tisto zadnjo potezo, ultra vojno gospodarstvo, kjer bo določala tudi cene hrane in delila bone, kar ji trenutna diktatura tudi omogoča. Pri tej zadnji fazi, pa bo prej kolapsiral ruski narod, kar je spet druga stran te palice, ki bo zato občutil da gre nazaj v zgodovino in se vse lahko vrne v leto 1917?, kjer bi lahko kakšen bolj pogumen izkoristil stanje in bi lahko dobil na svojo stran tudi vojsko, saj bodo lačni tudi njihovi družinski člani.

Zato je ta poteza povsem logična. Očitno se bodo šli vojno do zadnjega centa v državi, vse dokler ne bo zavladal rek: Kjer ni, še vojska ne vzame. Torej kaj bo prej? Prodaja raji zmago ali smrt kot John Wayne? Nabiullina, ki rešuje kar se še da in ji je Puding vedno zaupal, gre drugo leto v penzijo. Če ekonomiste redno odpuščajo zaradi tega, ker vrtijo jezik... Ne Rusija ne more več zmagati, tudi če dobi željene regije.