this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2023
1 points (50.5% liked)

World News

31475 readers
1092 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You're almost right. The match was the attempt to take the Russian deal and, knowing full well what that meant, people took to the streets.

That $15 billion would be an investment in a puppet state at Putin's beck and call. Belarus is all the evidence you need, but you can also see how well the CSTO is going for Armenia. Utterly worthless deals.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

There's data available here if you want to see the numbers yourself:
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/UKR/ukraine/gdp-gross-domestic-product

1992 was the start of CSTO.

Ukraine GDP per capita 1992 = $1418
Ukraine GDP per capita 2021 = $4828

Armenia GDP per capita 1992 = $356
Armenia GDP per capita 2021 = $4967

Belarus GDP per capita 1992 = $1668
Belarus GDP per capita 2021 = $7490

Care to elaborate on your comment in light of this data?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

Cherrypicking data after a huge economic crisis and showing growth. Wow. Incredible. Just as a comparison:

Poland GDP per Capita 1992: $2459
Poland GDP per Capita 2021: $17999

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

The fact CSTO has a defense clause which Russia has failed to follow through on multiple times? You talk economic growth, cherry picking stats you like, when I'm talking about the core foundation of a defense pact. The defense. Not once has the group actually defended a member state during an armed conflict, specifically the ongoing fight between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

It is a toothless pact. I'll let Lord handle your stat nonsense, since that wasn't the point of me mentioning CSTO.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago

You do not dispute the economics from the article or my comments.

marx-ok