ojo con die zeit que viene fuertecito hoy

Mira esta es la razón por la que Trumputin quiere la paz.

https://www.politico.eu/article/vladimir-putin-russia-donald-trump-moscow-ukraine-gdp-finance-war-banks/

Why Putin is finally negotiating

Moscow could soon struggle to finance the war, and fiscal breathing room may well be what the Russian leader’s looking for.

As U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin consider meeting in the coming weeks, it may be useful to ask why it is that Moscow now appears inclined to end the war in Ukraine.

Three years into the conflict, Putin has shown the world he doesn’t care about bloodshed. And if his goal was to install a Russia-friendly government in Kyiv, he remains far from achieving it. However, there is a third, less explored hypothesis that explains why the Russian president might finally be coming to the negotiating table:

Moscow could soon struggle to finance the war.

The usual narrative about Moscow’s fiscal situation tends to note that Russia records a small budget deficit and that Russian public debt is low (at about 20 percent of GDP), which makes for sound fiscal metrics. This analysis holds true for most economies, but in Russia’s case, there’s an important catch: With Western sanctions constraining Moscow’s ability to tap into international debt markets, the Kremlin has limited room for maneuver to finance its small — but nonetheless real — fiscal deficit.

With external debt out of the equation, Moscow’s initial plan B was to get Russian banks to buy sovereign debt. This strategy worked reasonably well in 2022 and 2023, but cracks started to emerge last year. Faced with competing pressures from the Kremlin to extend hundreds of billions in cheap loans to defense firms while also buying huge amounts of sovereign bonds, domestic banks have become so cash-strapped that they’re now reluctant to pile on more debt. Late last year, the Kremlin had to cancel several auctions for domestic debt issuance because there were no buyers.

So, with domestic borrowing increasingly out of the equation, Moscow has turned to plan C: tapping into the reserves of the Russian National Welfare Fund (NWF).

On paper, this looks like a reasonable strategy. Totaling nearly 10 trillion rubles (about $110 billion) in early 2022, the liquid portion of these reserves initially looked sufficient to cover the war-fueled budget deficit for several years. However, even the largest of savings eventually dries up, and three years into the conflict, the NWF’s liquid reserves have already shrunk by around 60 percent.

For the Kremlin, it thus looks like this year is set to be difficult on the fiscal front. In January, the country’s monthly budget deficit was about 45 percent higher than the full-year target for 2025.

Seen from Moscow, this data probably looks alarming: If fiscal expenses remain at their January levels throughout the remainder of the year, the NWF reserves could vanish in just three months. And even if they don’t — as is more likely — 2025 is probably the last year Moscow will be able to fully cover its fiscal deficit by tapping into those savings.

This begs the question, what would happen if Russia ran out of money to finance its budget shortfall?

With domestic banks choking on debt, a sovereign default could well trigger a full-blown financial crisis. If that happened, the Kremlin would be hard pressed to support its banking sector. With the NWF reserves running low, there would be no pot of money available to proceed with recapitalizations. The house of cards that the Russian economy has become would quickly start shaking.

Fiscally speaking, Russia is running out of time. The Kremlin has no plan D to finance its budget deficit, raising questions about its ability to fund the war. From this perspective, fiscal breathing room could well be what Putin is really looking for in his talks with the U.S., whether through sanctions relief (for instance, relaxing U.S. restrictions on Russia’s ability to place external debt) or a pause in the conflict (which would allow Moscow to replenish its coffers via a reduction in defense spending).

Back in September 2024, Kyrylo Budanov, Ukraine’s defense intelligence chief, predicted that mired in economic problems, Moscow would try to force an end to the war in 2025. These words may now be proving prescient.

The reason Putin might finally be ready to negotiate seems to be remarkably simple: He wants to avoid a humiliating bankruptcy.

@lowfour (post #212)

bueno, ésto sin duda, pero es que tampoco le está yendo bien en la guerra, no?

lo que se le da de cojones es meter truchos en gobiernos extranjeros, a ver si se arruina de una puta vez y nos deja tranquilos

@elarquitecto (post #213)

Pues me da a mí que cada vez menos. Y creo que van a ir a por los truchos a nivel EU. Han tardado pero se acabó la fiesta.

https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/s/OrOuPC5Sfk

"The EU was formed to screw the United States".

25% de aranceles.

Ya te lo dice todo el titular del puerco ruso.

https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbet/comments/1iyu1i3/trump_says_he_will_impose_25_tariffs_on_imports/

@lowfour (post #216)

this means war!!!

diplomáticamente hablando esto es un torpedo a las relaciones con la ue y tal, eh?

lo que pasa que como es "trucho" se lo permitimos o algo así, pero imagínate que llega rusia y dice eso, o china, no sé... se arma pollo seguro

ni palabra de eso aquí:

al menos sí que sacan esto del vance de la semana pasada:

que era para apoyar a los trucho-nazis de afd

pero en el fondo es lo que venimos contando, quieren follarse toda democracia liberal que pillen, les sobra los estados soberanos llenos de derechos civiles y tal

@lowfour (post #216)

Pues hala, tarifas recíprocas. A ver qué tal les va a los USA con aranceles en todo el mundo. Mientras nosotros a comerciar con el resto de América, y a echarnos en manos de los chinos..... Empiezo a pensar que en realidad Donald Mcdonals es agente de Pekín y no de Moscú..... o que se lo lleva calentito de ambos lados.

che, es que nos perdemos mandanga de la buena entre tanta mierda que suelta, eh??

Trump is only tough on free societies.

tatuaos esto, porque es lo que subyace a todo y olvidarlo puede jodernos más que no responder a sus ataques contra nuestras democracias

bueno, yo entiendo "free societies" como éso, democracias liberales, votar cada 4 años, tener derechos civiles (igualdad de oportunidades y tal), pero sobre todo, estado del bienestar, protección social, pensiones, educación y sanidad gratis (pagadas con impuestos, claro, pero tú no te pagas la insulina a 1000$ semanales, sino a 10$, etc etc etc)

está claro que quieren su nwo-t a toda costa y rápido (a trump le queda poca mecha ya)

@Jag (post #218)

nono, hay que dejar de pensar en términos racionales o lógicos, porque no funcionan así

esto lo hacen por cuestiones puramente ideológicas

son fanáticos

es el nacional-catolicismo imponiendo rezos en las escuelas, y tú pensando que lo hacen porque crea disciplina y mejora la educación... no?

es todo lo contrario a un plan quinquenal y la parametrización de los elementos que hacen funcionar un país (que es lo que dice lowfour que hace musk con su puta ia trucha, ja!!), esto es consagrarse a la fe del "terraplanismo", la sociedad es lo que digo yo que sea y me la suda los datos y la realidad

y por eso nos quieren joder, porque la realidad es que ninguna mierda autocrática funciona, nunca

mira rusia, mira best-korea y mira talibanlandia y cosas así

@elarquitecto (post #220)

Yo creo más bien que es un san para mí y los demás que se jo**n de manual. Algunos se lo llevan calentito y si para eso destruyo el mundo que así sea. Son gente capaz de vender a su madre por un dólar, y lo disfrazan de ideitas.

@elarquitecto (post #217)

Claro joder. Si lo han dicho. Que Europa pone problemas a la AI (para que sea ética y controlada con su AI Act), que si les impiden monopolios de Google y Facebook, que si les exigen condiciones laborales dignas en Amazon.

Pues eso. Para que sus mamuts sigan creciendo y expoliando, necesitan follarse el estado del bienestar. Tan sencillo, tan banal, tan malvado.

Pero al parecer el odio de Trump a la EU viene de largo.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/27/world/europe/trump-eu-allies.html

Indifference or Hostility? Trump’s View of European Allies Raises Alarm

Debate is building over just how deep the Trump administration’s antagonism runs, and whether the real goal is to destroy the European Union.

During his first term in office, President Trump described the European Union “as a foe,” established “to hurt the United States on trade.”

He repeated the charge at a cabinet meeting on Wednesday, but in more vulgar terms: “The European Union was formed in order to screw the United States. That’s the purpose of it, and they’ve done a good job of it.”

Then he said he was preparing to hit Europe with 25 percent tariffs on cars and other goods.

After Mr. Trump’s embrace of Russia and his warnings that Europe had better fend for itself, the president’s latest attack added to the increasing view of European leaders and analysts that he and his team of loyalists consider America’s traditional allies in Europe as adversaries not just on trade, but on nearly everything.

Some officials and analysts see the Trump administration as merely indifferent to Europe; others see open hostility. But there is a common view that the fundamental relationship has changed and that America is a less reliable and predictable ally.

Mr. Trump has rebuffed NATO and aligned himself with the longstanding, principal threat to the alliance: Russia. Vice President JD Vance has attacked European democracy while calling for the door to be opened to far-right parties. Elon Musk, the billionaire Trump aide, has heaped contempt on European leaders and openly endorsed an extremist party in Germany.

Equally shocking to European leaders, the United States this week refused to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine at the United Nations. It instead broke from its allies and voted with Russia, Belarus and North Korea, all authoritarian governments.

European leaders are scrambling to assess and mitigate the damage. The prime minister of Britain, Keir Starmer, arrives at the White House on Thursday — the second such visit this week, after President Emmanuel Macron of France — still hoping to persuade Mr. Trump not to abandon Ukraine and to remain engaged in Europe. But Mr. Trump describes himself as a disrupter, and Mr. Macron got little for his attempt at seduction.

Friedrich Merz, 69, the conservative politician likely to be Germany’s next chancellor, has expressed strong doubts about the trans-Atlantic relationship he and his country have been committed to for decades.

On Sunday evening, after his party won the most votes in the German election, Mr. Merz said that after listening to Mr. Trump, “it is clear that the Americans, at least this part of the Americans, this administration, are largely indifferent to the fate of Europe.”

He wondered whether the American nuclear umbrella over NATO would remain — and even whether the alliance itself would continue to exist.

“My absolute priority will be to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible so that, step by step, we can really achieve independence from the USA,” he said.

His comments were a remarkable measure of the dismay felt by European leaders over the American reversal of policy on Ukraine and, perhaps more so, for its outright backing of far-right parties that despise European governments and support Russia.

Mr. Merz’s remarks were reminiscent of a 2017 statement by Angela Merkel, then the German chancellor, after contentious alliance meetings with Mr. Trump. “The times in which we could rely fully on others — they are somewhat over,” she said. She encouraged Europeans to “take our fate into our own hands.”

Her comments were considered a potentially seismic shift, but a real reorientation of European security policy never materialized. Matters are more serious now, said Claudia Major, who directs security policy at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs.

“In Munich, Vance declared a culture war and said: ‘Join us or not. We have the right values and you have it wrong,’” she said. His speech, she added, made it clear that “the country that brought us back our freedom and our democracy is turning against us.”

She is not alone in the assessment. Several analysts said the Trump administration’s actions showed that it was not merely indifferent to Europe, but was out to undo it. The distinction holds real consequences for how Europe can respond.

“There is no question the intention is there to destroy Europe, starting with Ukraine,” said Nathalie Tocci, director of Italy’s Institute of International Affairs. “The empowering of the far right is instrumental to the goal of destroying the European Union.”

The reason, she said, is that the Trump administration sees Europe not merely as a competitor, but also as an economic and even ideological threat. It wants to undermine the power of the European Union to regulate trade, competition and hate speech. The latter is a major topic for Mr. Vance, as he criticized what he called news media censorship and political correctness.

The European Union is the largest trading bloc in the world, capable of striking back against Washington economically and in tariff terms, representing the “economic foe” Mr. Trump railed against in his first term.

That power is being used against high-tech and social media companies whose leaders surround and subsidize Mr. Trump, like Mr. Musk, who owns the social media platform X. They, too, have an interest in weakening “the Brussels Effect,” as Anu Bradford of Columbia University Law School called it.

The Brussels Effect is the power of the European Union to establish global rules and norms, and it is particularly important in the realms of climate regulations, digital competition, platform accountability and artificial intelligence.

But if the Trump administration feels it necessary to destroy that threat, then there is little European nations can do to appease the White House, some warned.

If Mr. Trump and his team “are out to push the far right and destroy European democracy, then no amount of European purchasing of American LNG or weapons will matter,” said Ms. Tocci, of Italy’s Institute of International Affairs. By increasing dependency, she added, “it could be a kind of double suicide.”

U.S.-European relations tend to go in cycles, with important strategic debates in the past over Iraq or Afghanistan or even Vietnam. But now the clashes are simultaneously ideological, strategic and economic, said Camille Grand, a former NATO and French official with the European Council on Foreign Relations.

“Facing hostility on all three fronts at once is quite a shock to Europeans,” said Mr. Grand. “Adding all three together you can wonder whether you are no longer a partner but a rival and, perhaps, even an adversary.”

Every country in Europe is doing a reassessment of where it is vis-à-vis Washington, he said. What isn’t clear is whether, as in Mr. Trump’s first term, “you have an unpleasant roller-coaster ride that leaves you sick but you end up where you started, or whether the whole relationship now derails.”

Linas Kojala, director of the Geopolitics and Security Studies Center in Vilnius, Lithuania, urges calm, because “there is no real alternative to the U.S. security guarantee” for a long time to come. “Declaring the trans-Atlantic relationship has collapsed would be like stepping off a ship in the middle of the ocean with no other vessel in sight.”

So for now, he said, “Europe must swallow” the Trump criticism and “do everything possible to keep the relationship intact.”

But it is unlikely to return to where it was, Alex Younger, a former chief of Britain’s foreign intelligence service, MI6, told the BBC last week. “We are in a new era where, by and large, international relations aren’t going to be determined by rules and multilateral institutions,” he said, but “by strongmen and deals.”

Matthew Kroenig, a former defense department official who is now at the Atlantic Council in Washington, calls himself a “normal Republican” and says that “there has been a bit too much hysteria over the past couple of weeks.”

After all, Mr. Kroenig said, the first Trump term was also marked by “a lot of tough rhetoric against allies and a lot of deferential language toward Putin, but in the end, NATO was strengthened.”

Others are less sure.

Mr. Trump has been engaged in “a policy of rapid, unilateral concession of long-held positions on fundamental interests to persuade the aggressor to stop fighting,” said Nigel Gould-Davies of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, speaking of Russia in Ukraine.

“The established name for such a policy,” he said, “is ‘strategic surrender.’”

Whether it will produce the outcome Mr. Trump desires is not clear, he said. What is clear is that it is undermining allied trust in the credibility and common sense of the United States.

It is imperiling old allies in Europe.

And it is “making Russia a more powerful, assertive and attractive ally to America’s adversaries around the world,” he said.

Los aranceles nos benefician a los de abajo de países pobres, significa que bajarán los precios al no poder exportar tan rentablemente. Ha pasado con el precio del cerdo por ejemplo, es de lo poco que no se ha disparado de precio como el resto y ha sido por un tema de aranceles o sanciones (no recuerdo si con Rusia o con EEUU, me suena alguno de los dos)

El _libremercao_ beneficia principalmente a los ricos, para los pobres significa que te suben los precios de lo que antes era barato.

@lowfour (post #222)

hay respuesta ue

y perrosanxe ha insistido, la ue no se ha creado contra nadie, al revés, para unir

sisi, a macron le dijo que no invadiria ~~polonia~~ ucrania y a la semana estaban los tanques atascados camino kiev

está claro que están jugando a algo que no sabemos y que NO es un acuerdo de paz

yo supongo que es cómo "saquear" ucrania sin pegar un solo tiro o algo así... aunque para ello siga la guerra a tope, porque así negocian los ruskis, a tiros

ayer dijo putin que no iba a renunciar a lo ocupado ilegalmente

vamos, que el asunto es repartirse el pastel sin contar con zelensky y mucho menos europa

y cómo nos lo van a hacer aceptar, claro

bueno, estamos un poco mezclando temas, pero bueno, fiajos

ojo porque dice que se reunirá por separado con meloni y zelensky, el mismo domingo

apunta a que meloni fue la díscola en la reunión con macron el otro día

asistirán:

Alemania, Francia, Italia, Países Bajos y Polonia, así como miembros de la OTAN, también rutte, costas y vonderleyen

habrá también contactos con las bálticas y supongo que algo saben escandinavos y tal

está curioso que mientras trump le hace firmar a zelensky (hoy) un acuerdo para un acuerdo para "reconstrucción"

nosotros estamos mirando cómo hacer que rusia respete una paz justa y duradera

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000010019918/trump-zelensky-vance-ukraine.html?smid=url-share

Malditos hijodsdeputa fascistas, palilleros de polígono industrial, haciendo la trampa de 2 vs 1. Zelensky es el PUTO AMO. Todo lo que esos eunucos palilleros nunca serán.

Pobre hombre. La EU mañana debería apoyar en secreto a Ucrania y que revienten a Rusia

Lo que lleva diciendo @elarquitecto desde el día uno. Estos hijosdeputa no quieren acuerdo de ningún tipo y Zelensky les ha visto el órdago y le han intentado hacer la trampa para culparle. Pero han quedado como los charcuteros de barrio que son.

https://www.reddit.com/r/YarvinConspiracy/s/4s7xWtjgjs

Nukes europeas a ukrania ya!

@lowfour (post #228)

acabo de verlo en el 24h

flipando estoy

@lowfour (post #229)

coño, que le ha sacao la carta del ww3, nomejodas

os juro que esta tarde estaba medio convencido de que todo esto era paripé para hacer como que hacen algo, porque el acuerdo era "acordar" sobre la reconstrucción y poner el 50% de los beneficios en manos de usa o algo así

pero no, esto era justo lo que me daba la impresión desde el principio, hacer "parecer" a ucrania como la que no quiere la paz

justo sacan el momento que trump dice que "estas jugando con la ww3"

ojocuidao que este corte da a entender que zelensky es culpable por "enfadar" al trump

pero claramente han ido a cabrearle a muerte

en el video completo se ve a zelensky con los brazos cruzados (claramente en oposición a vance y trump) y luego los descruza y empieza a templar gaitas... pero sin recular en su postura

los otros dos hacen lo que dice lowfour 2vs1 y aun así yo opino igual, les ha salido regulinchi

mira, aquí lo sacan

en el pais resaltan la frasecita de maton palillero

aquí hemos reaccionado

aspirante a trucho, no puede ser más pro-ue que esto:

von der leyen anda buscando el bate para arrearle al cerdo naranja

fijaos lo que dice trump

"no está preparado para la paz"

que me den un puesto en el cni o algo, no?

ya lo sabíamos, pero no está mal repetirlo

usa ha caído

y yo estoy casi seguro de que si no pasa nada en 2-3 meses, será un estado fallido o fascista o ambas cosas (y solo será posible devolver a la "normalidad" con golpe militar, porque no habrá elecciones libres o de ningún tipo directamente)

estaba también pancho moreno

che, estaban ahí para hacer de poli bueno poli malo o qué?

sea como sea, parece que fue vance el que hizo cabrear al zelensky diciendo que tienen que obligar a los hombres a alistarse porque no tienen "hombres" y tal...

tíos, éstos no se dan cuenta de la mierda en la que deja a usa??

les debe de dar tan puto igual porque son "los putos amos" o algo así, que ni se coscan de la debilidad en que les deja

@elarquitecto (post #236)

mientra trump pone a parir a zelensky, éste le responde:

el potus ese me da que es biden, eh?

yo no sé qué pasará con ucrania, pero zelensky se ha ganao un puesto al lado de churchill y tal, o qué?