Jump to content

Talk:Economic impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

SWIFT

Isn't it a bit early to assert the described effects are due to SWIFT cut-off? As far as I know, there's no details publicly available about which banks would be targeted at the moment, only declarations of principles, and I understand that these details do matter. (And obviously, no enforcement yet either.) bonob (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Prelude to the crisis

I think we need a prelude to the economic crisis section. There’s the background of 2014-2019 with sanctions from Crimea, then the 2020-2021 world economic crisis due to Covid, and then the stock crashes that occurred in the direct lead up to the invasion, and then the ones from the invasion itself MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Article Protection Level

2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is extended confirmed protected, but this article has no protections on it. Considering they're both ongoing events that are closely related, shouldn't they have the same level of protection? The9thBit (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

We'd have to show vandalism is a concern for this article as well, The9thBit. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

OIl

As the Russians sell it it going up in price will not be a financial crisis for them. Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Somewhat doubtful, financial system is poorly set up for entities that are struggling. Sberbank's EU subsidiary is already rumored to be bankrupt, but aside from that the financial industry relies on trust, as soon as the trust starts to evaporate and underlying asset values are reevaluated such as Russian Sovreign Debt now being junk bond status the margin calls start up, so they may even have solvency but counter parties will begin requesting greater amounts of margin to account for greater risk. This creates rushes for liquidity sell offs and all the rest. Doing things like restricting capital outflows, and forcing companies to liquidate FOREX just further dissolves trust. Who knows I could be wrong, but I wouldn't want my money anywhere near anything Russian. Alcibiades979 (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
All true, but the rise in the price will not cause an economic crisis in Russia.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure what they have left. Russia's now radioactive essentially, even an estimated 70% of the oil is struggling to find customers, because the country is so toxic. So they're going to have to start shipping the oil to Asia most likely but because that's shipping and not pipeline like how it had been getting to its previous customers in Europe it has to pass through the black sea which is now the site of an active war zone so the tankers are struggling to get insurance to travel to Russia's export terminals on the black sea. The thing is how systemic it is, and it will build over time. For instance Boeing will no longer sell parts, so all boeing planes gradually are rendered paper weights, Aeroflot, most airlines Aeroflot included don't actually own their planes but rather rent, so they start losing planes because no one wants to rent to them so domestic travel starts shutting down. Domestic supplies of imported goods will dry up in about another 2 weeks and they won't be replaced. The Central bank is trying to do everything in its power to shore up the ruble right now but it's ultimately futile because what can you buy with a ruble? Nothing. So the layoffs have already started, investment will go to zero, interest rates are already through the roof especially at a time when there should be stimulus to help after the damage that covid did to the economy. Alcibiades979 (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Speculations

This article is a shame. Western propaganda at high level, against wikipedia principles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball ΔώραΣτρουμπούκη (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

We'd be happy to make it more neutral if you'd give us reliable sources to use :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 03:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

What is this page about?

The page begins by saying it is about the crisis *in* Russia; but then we get stuff like The American Bakers Association president warned that the price of anything made with grain would begin rising as all the grain markets are interrelated and it begins to bleed into problems in the world as a whole William M. Connolley (talk) 10:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

KInd of made this point about oil, which seems to be more about a global financial crisis. Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Big Tobacco

Can we add that Philip Morris and Imperial Tobacco are still producing cigarettes for the Russian market — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassidy McGurk (talk • contribs) 20:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Source? And what has this to do with a financial crisis? Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Cassidy McGurk, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information on a subject, we must include information in articles based on the prominence of that information in reliable sources discussing the subject of the article. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Page title

Russian economy is slapped by the sanctions, but the sources still don't back the current title which features "crisis". --Mhhossein talk 03:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I went through all the sources used in the lead section (for this version) and could not verify they support the current title or the wording of the first sentence. --Mhhossein talk 12:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
So do you have an alternative suggestion? Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Slatersteven: Hey, it should be something like '2022 sanctions against Russia' or sth like this. The current title & content is misleading. It's an OR at best. --Mhhossein talk 18:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
And woud then need some heavy rew0rtieing as some of this is not about sanctions as such but economic impact of the war (not just the sanctions). Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Slatersteven: I understand the requirement for rewriting. But the current title is not applicable either. Why not going by something like 'Russia and the economic consequences of invading Ukraine'? --Mhhossein talk 07:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Mhhossein, is there an article on the economic impact of the sanctions/invasion on the world economy as a whole? If not I'd propose making this article fit that purpose and titling it "Economic consequences of the Russian invasion of Ukraine" A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@A. C. Santacruz: A good suggestion, a quick survey shows there's no such a page. See 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Economic impact. --Mhhossein talk 08:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
I just moved the page but accidentally hit enter rather than backspace while writing out the rationale. In any case, point is crisis is the wrong term to use and the article would be more encyclopedic by covering the wider impact on the global economy. Pinging interested editors @Mhhossein, Slatersteven, and William M. Connolley. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I hink this is a better titles, and fits the content better. Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I've reworded the lead a bit (I'm having difficulties mentioning Belarus there), but I'll leave the article work itself to others for now. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:47, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you everybody @Slatersteven and A. C. Santacruz:. --Mhhossein talk 12:13, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
The new page title is deeply problematic because it fundamentally changes the article. Before it was the 2022 Russian Financial Crisis which made sense, so the article was written about a Financial Crisis in Russia which is how the article remains, however this is now the "Economic Impact of the Russian Invasion of Ukraine" so it's not limited to Russia which means that it's global which fundamentally changes the article. The title in short needs to limit the Article to Russia because otherwise it's too broad and too difficult to write about. How do you for instance write about the food shortage in Afghanistan and Egypt in relation to this article? And if you go down that route the vast majority of this article gets RMed for WP:RELEVANCE. Beyond that how does the article not slip in to WP:OR? The article should be short and concise and about a subject that has a plethora of sources to support it, as such it needs to be limited to Russia. Alcibiades979 (talk) 10:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Alcibiades979 There was consensus in this talk page that the previous title was unsuitable for the currently developing financial and economic situation both in Russia and elsewhere. The current article makes references to other countries like Egypt (who depends on Ukraine and Russia for agricultural imports). This was the case before the name change. In my opinion, the effects both within Russia and outside are so deeply interconnected that I currently do not see a strong enough rationale for a WP:SPLIT, and I think not mentioning the effects it has on the rest of the world (the high gas and oil prices are affecting households and industry in Europe so heavily that some analysts expect there to be a depression worse than COVID-19's recession, for example) would be a bad idea. The idea the article should be short, or that a wider article would lead to OR seems an extreme opinion to me at this time. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
The title doesn't need to be "Russian Financial Crisis" but the title needs to be limited to Russia. Why? For starters the article itself is limited to Russia: the vast majority of the article is irrelevant to a global context. For instance section on the "Stock markets, banking sector, and the ruble" all in Russia, "Corporate boycotts and removals of service" all in Russia, "Crude oil" all in Russia, "Background" all about Russia etc. It has few editors: 7 edits in the past 48 hours if you don't include vandalism and the Citation Bot. The topic is far too broad and currently lacks sources. I don't believe WP:SPLIT either, as there is currently nothing to split off. You talk about the effects of a hypothetical gas cut offs and high oil prices and all that but there's nothing about that in the article, and for good reason it's WP:CRYSTAL BALL; these may happen and if they do they would warrant discussion, but they have not happened yet, which is why the article was renamed in the first place, no? Because there weren't enough sources for Russian Financial Crisis. As for whether the title is overly broad, just look at the first sentence of the article: "The economic impact of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine began in late February 2022, in the days after the Russian federation recognized two break-away republics and authorized use of military force against Ukraine," the English is bad and it doesn't make sense. The article as it stands with the new title is fundamentally broken. Alcibiades979 (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
I am sorry but I disagree so heavily with you on both the availability of sources and the purpose of these kinds of renames (see for example Evergrande liquidity crisis -> 2020–2022 Chinese property sector crisis expanding the scope before the text itself was altered) that I am entirely unconvinced by your arguments. Additionally, its not WP:CRYSTALBALL when reliable sources are discussing the possibility after Russian threats to cut off gas supplies and it has affected the gas market as much as it has. I don't even know where you get your information on the global financial markets if your sources haven't been talking about this non-stop for the past weeks. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Then why aren't you contributing that to the article? I see four editors in this talk, one of whom has added 20 edits to the article, one of whom has reverted two cases of vandalism, and one of whom has changed the title and edited slightly the lede. Like I said in the past 48 hours this article has received 7 edits that weren't citation bot or vandalism. To me it seems like three editors have decided to fundamentally change the article, but rather than adding content they've just left a broken article which a number of editors had been working on. Alcibiades979 (talk) 11:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
You don't OWN the article by contributing to it, Alcibiades979, nor is there any obligation for any of us to edit after supporting or making a name change to an article. There is no deadline to Wikipedia, and I'm currently too busy to really dig into this stuff at the moment. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
The problem was a large chunk of the article is not about a financial crisis in Russia. Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Then switch out financial crisis, but don't radically change the scope of the article. Read the entire thing top to bottom and tell me if it makes sense with the name "Economic_impact_of_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine" because to me it reads broken Alcibiades979 (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
The name change was made yesterday Alcibiades979, please be more patient. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Economic impact of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Economic impact of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "auto":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Article Lacks a Thesis and Thus a Point

The open sentence is: "The economic impact of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine began in late February 2022, in the days after the Russian Federation recognized two break-away republics and attacked Ukraine." This doesn't really mean anything. The closes the lede gets to an actual WP:THESISSTATEMENT is here: "Both the conflict and the sanctions have had a strongly negative impact on the world economic recovery during the ongoing COVID-19 recession." But this it should be noted is WP:OR and typically a thesis would then have examples or proof but this is notably lacking. This lack of a thesis is then apparent throughout the article which is formless. What is the article about? There are four sections:

  • Background: Deals with sanctions in regard to Russia
  • Impact on markets: Deals with commodities pricing/corporate boycotts of Russia/loosely related anecdotes about stock market
  • Impact on population: First paragraph is about an exodus from Russia which according to RSs is due to the war not the economy, second paragraph is a mix of disparate things from leaving russia, to economic outlook to the great fire wall of China
  • Opposition to sanctions: Two sentences about China's opposition to sanctions, then a paragraph about Russia allegedly nationalizing some watches, like the kind you wear on wrist.

Essentially everything is a wrapper for the section of "Impact on markets" so in this way the entire article could probably be renamed "Impact of the 2022 Russian invasion on Financial Markets". I'm not recommending that it should be, but simply point out that content wise this is essentially what the article is. But from an actual content stand point, ie: what information the sentences hold this is a real problem. Prices change, and markets have tons of inputs so isolating a price change to one is impossible. The ruble for instance which "Impact on markets" dwells on for some time is back to more or less its preinvasion price. The Russian Economy? Better than expected. So the actual substance of the sentence is a lot of WP:RECENTISM a lot of WP:NEWSORG, some WP:CRYSTAL BALL and a dash of WP:OR. The article has only gotten 33 edits in the past two weeks so clearly not a lot action happening, so the idea that if we wait long enough it will magically become fixed seems unlikely. I started this off by saying that article lacks a thesis and desperately needs one, but as I review the article my conclusion is that it should probably be deleted. The majority of it is breaking news about old financial market pricing. Alcibiades979 (talk) 10:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Alcibiades979 I agree with much of what you say. I think part of the reason why so much of the information is about financial markets is the fact that information is available instantly after it happens, while longer-term impacts such as trade relations, CPI correlation, or manufacturing volume reductions will take a bit more to become into good, more isolated data we can use here. I think deletion is highly unlikely due to the notability of the article and it not violating MOS or PAGs enough to warrant blowing it up and starting over, but a significant improvement is definitely warranted. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Mention this please

- this https://cepa.org/rattled-russia-re-embraces-the-command-economy/

and

- this https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/opinions/2022/3/31/russias-post-invasion-political-economy “working to transform Russia’s autocratic market economy into an autarkic command one.“ Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Inflation ?

Basically the subject title why nobody mention this ? 114.125.234.6 (talk) 07:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

IP you are free to add reliable sources covering the invasion's impact on inflation if you wish, and I would encourage you to do so :) — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 14:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Three aspects

  • Impact on Russia
  • Impact on Ukraine
  • Impact on the world
This article describes mostly the (Western) world, including Russian and Ukrainian details.
I believe that the three parts should be separate4d, either here or as three pages.
This article does not describe the Russian state robbery system - grain, steel, industrial and agricultural machines, art, gold.
Russian soldiers steal IT products, refrigerators, washing machines, watches.Xx236 (talk) 07:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

'Impact on population' is emotional

The section quotes individual cases and opinions. We need numbers (150,000 or 300,000 refugees).Xx236 (talk) 07:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

More facts Russian emigration following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine.Xx236 (talk) 11:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

car industry

It could be noted that the output of Russias car industry has dramatically shrunk: http://rusautonews.com/2022/06/07/russian-car-market-has-decreased-by-84-in-may-2022/ --Hg6996 (talk) 10:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

War profiteering

I understand that fossil fuel producers and arms manufacturers are making money from the war, kind of by default, but is it right to refer to this as "war profiteering"? Is it really war profiteering in the strict sense? Because arguably, the term implies malicious behaviour on the companies' part, which (at least in the case of the arms producers) is not really apparent, ie they don't act in a way that actively prolongs the conflict. The argument that they do simply because they are producing weapons for states which then deliver them to Ukraine does not count in my opinion, as it is politically and particularly ideologically loaded and often used by pro-Russian factions. Thoughts? M.Aurelius C. (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Section on Armenia

I'd like to delete the section on Armenia for two reasons :

1) The sources do not line up with the text for example :The consequences of the conflict had both positive and negative effects on the economy of Armenia. One of the negative impacts of the war was that due to the influx of Russian migrants, the prices of the apartments in the center of the capital increased sharply on average 109000 AMD per square. If before the war people could rent an apartment in the center of the capital (two-rooms and furnished to be more specific) for 500 Euros, in 2022 during the war the price has risen for 50%. Cites this article https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-launch-new-sanctions-against-russia-over-barbaric-attack-ukraine-2022-02-24/ which does not even contain the word Armenia ! All other sources are of the same mismatch.

2) It has a limited pertinence to this article. If we include Armenia, we should include Poland and other bordering countries, but I feel this would reduce the overall quality of the page. Sambiakz (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

A typo

Sorry if I'm writing here for such a simple task, but I can't edit since I don't have 500 edits. The "infrastructure destruction" paragraph under the "Impact on population" one needs a capital I as the first letter. Thanks, Jtorquy (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Economic_impact_of_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_1&oldid=1244903981"