Not at all. There is no explicit permission to do so, as you would very quickly find out if you have already filled your ISA by 31st March and pay into it again between 1st and 4th April.
In practice, the only reason people can consider the tax year as ending on 31st March is because most people have no significant taxable events occurring between then and 5th April.
But if you sell shares that put you over the capital gains threshold, receive dividends, pay into your ISA or even receive interest from your bank account in those few days, these are all considered taxable events. For most people they are a non-issue due to the tax-free allowances on all these classes of income, but if you exceed the tax-free allowance for any of them, it's important you apportion them to the correct year.
But GDP is measured in dollars and not in amount of things produced. If everything is expensive in your country it will have larger GDP even producing less things.
Russia can turn into a war economy - which means GDP is nearly irrelevant. Right now they're doing warfare while still keeping the lights on at little inconvenience for the public. They can change that around.
You don’t just press a button that says “war economy” and then everything turns out fine. You drive massive inflation, weaken consumer markets, take on
massive debts and eventually run out of young men.
Pretty much every nation bar the US was on the verge of economic collapse by the end of WWI (and Russia’s did). The financial burden of two world wars killed the French and British empires. Germany’s WWII war economy was totally unstainable and the USSR’s was bankrolled by the US lend-lease program.
It’s not a panacea - it’s just what you have to do to drive enough military production to sustain a near-peer conflict.
They can shift production from consumer goods to war goods, but total productive capacity won't grow dramatically. Productive capacity will likely decline due to the large number of able bodied men sent to their deaths or to be maimed.
The most valuable company in Europe is Louis Vitton. Forgive me, I don't think Putin's quaking in his boots about when they'll weigh in.
GDP was a good war metric for an industrial economy, and fucking terrible for a services based one. There's never one metric that describes all. You know it, Goodhart knew it, anyone was worked with metrics ever knows it. This is rather important and frankly I don't get the glibness. Russia's not an unstoppable force but it's not a joke either.
> When asked about al-Nusra's plans for a post-war Syria, al-Julani stated that after the war ended, all factions in the country would be consulted before anyone considered "establishing an Islamic state". He also mentioned that al-Nusra would not target the country's Alawite minority, despite their support for the Assad regime.
Idlib governance
> In response to the unrest, al-Julani made several concessions. He released hundreds of detainees from a previous summer's security operation, including his former deputy Abu Maria al-Qahtani, who had been arrested along with 300 others in a purge of his movement. He also promised local elections and increased employment opportunities for displaced persons, while warning protesters against what he termed treachery. [38]
I see his experience as governor of Idlib matching his moderate rhetoric. He has clearly evolved his views from his younger years of international jihadist towards syrian nationalism, including tolerance of minorities that make part of the syrian people, and economic development (christmas trees and free mass, or a more reliable electricity supply than Damascus for example)
I agree with the other commenter; I don't believe this language, which seems to be directed towards western audiences for self-serving reasons.
- "He also mentioned that al-Nusra would not target the country's Alawite minority, despite their support for the Assad regime"
In the past, al-Julani (or al-Golani) has explicitly demanded Alawites convert to Sunni Islam,
- "But any Allawite considering taking advantage of Golami’s kind offer must meet certain conditions. They must not only stop supporting Assad, but they must convert to Nusra’s brand of extreme Sunni Islam or, in other words, stop being Allawites. Christians will be given a grace period before they have to start pay jizya, a special tax, and Golani takes for granted that Sharia will be implemented. “The basics remain the same,” says Lund, “and they’re extreme enough to be borderline genocidal even when sugar-coated by Al Jazeera.”"
And the surrounding context of that quote is apropos, too: "They had earlier forcibly converted hundreds of Druze to their fundamentalist variant of Sunni Islam." These people have no intention of coexisting with different religious groups—they intend to violently convert them, and eradicate their religions.
I provided the link to hear it from the horses mouth. I'm not saying he's some wonderful person, but HTS's current agenda and recent actions are generally positive.
You mean what he tells CNN while he is trying to get US support?
Reminds me of what we were told of the talibans when Biden was trying to hand them over the country. "They are not the same talibans", "they want to be a good world citizen", etc. Well that didn't age well.
I think there is a good chance that reasonably fair elections get held. The government will likely take a moderate Islamic tone, with other religious groups coexisting. For now all the main players seem fairly chill.
I think it's too good to be true that after 13 years of civil war fought by multiple factions, suddenly everyone becomes friends with each other and then they happily live thereafter in a democratic utopia. We can expect a string of coups as various groups attempt to seize power.
I'm not sure there is any particular evidence for America or Israel aiding them.
Also while originally an offshoot of Al Qaeda they do appear to have moderated significantly, working with many different religious and ethnic groups. I'm cautiously optimistic.
> it means Ukraine has a real fighting chance to put them on their knees.
Yes, and this point has been obvious to many for the last two years.
The problem has been the west drip feeding aid into the largest war since WW2. We actually have to define the objective as reclaiming all Ukranian territory (at least to the pre-2022 borders) and supply them appropriately. It might be expensive in the short-term but we can afford it, can seize the $300B of Russian assets, and will be able to reduce our defensive forces in the future use to the reduced Russian threat.
The problem now is that we may have run out of time with Ukraine experiencing significant manpower issues. They could mobilise a lot more people, but that will mean women and younger men (currently only 25+) from a generation that is already very thin.
We can ask Ukraine to do this, but we they will need an ironclad commitment that we will supply them with everything they ask for.
The purpose of the drip feeding is, unfortunately, to get Russia closer to a total collapse rather than a quick loss for them to retreat and build up their strength again for the next 20ish years to repeat it.
I have heard this argument before, but I'm not particularly convinced.
Either way pretty much all their pre-war modern equipment has already been destroyed. Now they're fighting with really old stuff like T-55s pulled from storage, newly manufactured equipment, or whatever North Korea thinks it can spare.
Your impression of Russia's war capabilities is vastly mistaken.
"According to Joseph Fitsanakis, professor of intelligence and security studies at Coastal Carolina University, “Russian military production is currently outpacing that of the US and all of NATO member states combined. This may be hard to believe, but Russia is obligated to do it if it is going to outpace the support given to Ukraine."
It shouldn’t be surprising that a country with a war economy has a higher first derivative at producing material, the question of import is
1. What is the difference between absolute quantities comparing against all relevant players,
2. How long would it take to bridge the gap at current production rates, and
3. Can that rate of production be sustained long enough for it to alter any fundamentals?
The point to rebut isn’t that Russia is making more, it’s whether they can continue to do so ongoingly before Ukrainian advances, regime falter or economic collapse, US/China step-in, or internal unrest will dramatically weaken or make the current Russian negotiating position untenable.
Love the "first derivative" view! One can take a snapshot of a good day, but if russia really was producing more weapons than USA + NATO for a prolonged time, having also more people, Ukraine would fall a long time ago.
It didn't. As we say in Poland "paper will accept everything". And russia is known for shameless propaganda.
So far, Russia is still making gains on the battlefield though, not Ukraine. At some point, that momentum would have to reverse.
Also, I don't think it's an "until" about China stepping in, they seem to be squarely on Russia's side, just presenting themselves slightly more moderate in public to appear suitable as a mediator. (Maybe sort of like the US does with Israel)
Finally, there is BRICS and some massive shifts of attitude in Africa that seem to work in Russia's favor.
> So far, Russia is still making gains on the battlefield though, not Ukraine.
This is again first derivative. Russia annexed Crimea, sent unofficial troops to Donbas, in 2022 moved rapidly and captured a lot of territory... But later was pushed back severely. And after that, it was gaining terrain in a truly snail pace.
BTW India and China are in an ongoing border conflict, the hostilities don't end there, with India banning many Chinese apps for example. They're nowhere near as united as EU or NATO, it's more like the Visegrád Group.
Do Americans have the technical expertise for a higher curvature? The American primary/secondary schooling system sucks, and most of the top STEM students at university are not interested in working for the military.
Both sides are aching (very badly) for this thing to be over, or at least taken off the stove.
One can quibble further as to the details -- which are a matter of metrics, wildcards, politics. And (as recent events have shown) there are still many cards to be played.
But that's the fundamental equation we need to keep in mind.
Yes, by pushing to reduce the drafting age, which the Ukrainian don't want to, because someone needs to raise families and Ukraine has a way lower population, while Putin brings in north koreans already. And can also escalate by general mobilisation at some point if cornered. So I don't see the outcome as clear.
Their "production" includes restoring stuff from the soviet equipment bases. When they make stuff from scratch, they are as much drip-feeding as west is, or even less - for example they make 6-8 Su-34s a year, while Lockmart is making 156 F-35s a year.
I partly agree, in that by drip feeding Ukraine supplies we have given Russia time to build up their production rates. And my earlier comment was disputing the idea that drip feeing the supplies was some kind of intentional strategy.
With regards to the broader claim that Russian production is outpacing that of the west. Yes, with artillery shells that's probably true, though we are continuing to ramp production. There aren't really any other areas though where a combination of western production + stock drawdowns couldn't supply Ukraine with greater quantities of material.
That doesn't make sense. The minerals don't disappear just because Putin fails invading Ukraine. The minerals will be waiting in the ground no matter what.
I don't think US and friends would have any problem with them having a successful economy if they didn't use it to attack and threaten other countries.
Yes. Given their fall in Syria one might assume they are getting close to a breaking point. But it’s difficult to know for sure as they lie at every step of the process, even to themselves.
Syria is Russia's backyard! It is not culturally close like Ukraine, but Syria has been an ally of the Soviet Union and Russia for decades through the Assad family.
Nevertheless, Russia clearly chose to stop their support; the Assad regime was cooked.
Things are not based on history anymore. It atleast as much as we might think. Russia just took a trip to Afghanistan to try build relations and encoporate a way to utilize Afghanistan. Historically this would make no sense since they have a bad history between each other out of all the countries in the region Afghanistan was the own Russia couldn't possess or influence in the past. That being said Russian lost many battles against Afghanistan against the very same government today "taliban".
>Syria has been an ally of the Soviet Union and Russia for decades through the Assad family
I realize that and I realize that this outcome is bad for Moscow, but the Nazis (and others, e.g., the Turks) went through Ukraine to invade Russia whereas no one has ever gone through Syria to get at Russia, so I would expect Moscow to care less about whether the government of Syria is aligned with Moscow than whether the government of Ukraine is aligned with Moscow.
This is giving too much credit to the competence of the same political leadership that has spent the last 30 years dismantling the European war machine(that was pretty solid up until the mid 90s) while Russia and China has been arming themselves to the teeth.
I concur, the slow drip feeding is adequately explained by coming from a place of war ineptitude and domestic priorities rather than a conscious strategy.
I agree with this. russia is being lured into continued commitment by giving it a chance. I'm unusually impressed with how American intelligence played russia in this conflict. Of course there's another reason: russia is a nuclear power, and even though everyone seems used to its threats and makes nothing of it, a nuclear war is an absolutely terrible threat, possibly wiping entire humanity if it fails to endure nuclear winter. As a result, America/NATO is doing a dance, where it waits for russia to do something morally wrong, then respond to it with escalation, ready to criticize and sanction on moral grounds all russia's allies if they decide to respond with (political) support to russia. We're quite successful in my opinion, the escalation of the west is validated throughout the world, and the response to it on the russia's side wouldn't be, and would result in stronger sanctions.
Had all the escalations of the recent 2 years be condensed to the first month of war, BRICS (and not only, e.g. the pope was quite supportive of russia, not sure if he still is) could unite and coordinate a response, and the west could possibly lose the war in the political sense, kind of like Israel lost it. I'm not putting an equal sign between Israel and Ukraine, but who would predict a few years ago common harsh criticisms against Israel in mainstream TV?
Israel and Ukraine are rather different in that it is hard to have much sympathy for Russia as they are the ones who chose to invade and they could go home any time they get fed up. The palestinians don't have that option.
Personally I think the west should have been firmer early on that the Russian invasion was unacceptable and they should go or be forced out. Instead they were kind of wishy washy.
> The purpose of the drip feeding is, unfortunately,
Absolutely not, it's not intentional.
- Suddenly, the world defense base needed to get on up to a level to match the world's 5th largest army, with all its stockpiles -- regardless of if its just lil ol Ukraine, Russia is putting its full effort in.
- Politics in US delayed it several months, I can't recall the exact number, but it was at least 6.
The war has been going on for a bit more than a thousand days now.
Your points would have been valid maybe one year into the war. Unless you’re suggesting the US military industrial complex takes three years to respond.
Quick reminder that Russia first invaded Ukraine in 2014, before that they invaded Georgia and before that they took Chechnia. And yet even now the popular belief in the West is that the war in Ukraine will be the end of it and that some sort of a peace deal can hold.
One report from early in the first Trump administration (possibly apocryphal) was when Trump was being briefed about NATO commitments to defend all member countries. Trump supposedly was surprised that the US was committed to going to war with Russia if they invaded Latvia. The Baltic countries are very exposed and could be reached by land only through a narrow gap with Poland.
Something I've always been confused about is where are these Russian assets to seize? Are there just yachts sitting off the coast of Ukraine? Russian investments in businesses? Or, would it come after a peace deal where the Russian government pays reparations for the war?
In terms of manpower, weapon types, domains of warfare, quantity of equipment, global impact, and national security implications-Ukraine is the largest.
In total violent deaths, 2nd Congo is worse. Let’s hope the war ends before that happens again
But Trump winning means Zelenskyy can scale down his ambitions (about reclaiming all of Ukranian territory) and not lose face, "well, the #####s reelected that Putin-fan in USA, so this is the best we can get now.", and conveniently for Putin it's also a way to get out of the expected walk into the Kyiv-Park that turned out into 3 years of quagmire: he can say "The goal all along was to secure Crimea and access to the Black Sea, get out the миссия выполнена banner!".
Possibly, but it also shows how weak Russia is and how limited their presence in Syria was (because they sent everything to Ukraine). Russia can be defeated in Ukraine, but the west will need to step up support.
Since the 2022 Russian invasion, the West has provided 200bn in aid to Ukraine [0]. And Russia has been winning on the ground lately. It seems the West is thinking more aid will not change the outcome, but only diplomacy will.
Russia has not been winning on the ground. It's two and a half years into the war and Russia is still stuck contesting edge territories. Russia has overwhelmingly larger numbers, but with as high as 7:1 casualties to Ukraine and with a significant increase in casualties over the last eight months.
The frontline is stabilized and the ruble is collapsing. What exactly is being won here?
The western aid was an important lesson on the importance of proper timing for investments: it was always too little to win, but too much to loose outright. Had Ukraine been able to strike with full force from the beginning, the world could look very different right now.
Russia has been gaining tiny amounts of ground while suffering massive losses. Latest estimates say casualties are currently averaging 1,500 a day.
Total casualties since the start of the war (less than 3 years ago) are 600,000+. That's about 200,000 more than more than the US sustained in Korea, Vitnam, First Gulf War, Afghanistan, and The Second Gulf War combine.
Heh, if you call few meaningless villages per day winning. Whats really happening is decimation of russian armed and naval forces (and young population) dramatically to the point where russia is regional power at best, not any form of superpower anymore and its weapons are often considered as subpar. They almost emptied massive cold war stockpikes of more sophisticated technology.
Which seems to be US plan since beginning, give enough support to make them bleed but not really corner them existentially to trigger nuclear strikes.
We can see a massive success here, mostly due to very predictable russian stupidity and primitive emotions at controlling positions. Well done CIA, well done indeed, hopefully this will make world a better place in the future. But it can easily backfire too.
This Russian losses are primarily not young people actually. There’s been somewhere in the ballpark of 600-800k casualties (I believe the latter) which has been a huge struggle for the labor force. But, in fairness, it hasn’t been the young folks.
reply