Obama did in fact say that in his 2015 SotU [0]. And he was right, while it rebounded after 2015, the Russian GDP/capita dropped almost 12% in 2014 and almost 34% in 2015.

[0] Here's one piece of analysis after, and referring to, the description: https://www.cnbc.com/2015/01/21/obamas-remarks-on-russias-ec...

Are you denying Obama proclaimed Russian economy is "in tatters"? Is the current state of "being reduced to economic rubble" even worse than being "in tatters"? I'd like to see the whole scale, please. I am curious what's next after "reduced to rubble" since that is what will be needed if the EU/US are going to fight Russia. I just hope it does not push my gas prices over 20 $/gal.

I'm not denying anything - I'm asking you for a source where he said that, because I'm genuienly not aware of him doing so.

And like I said, current economic sanctions are worse than anything we've ever used against a developed country in terms of economic punishment. So whatever image you have of Russia in 2014 - now is worse.

>>I just hope it does not push my gas prices over 20 $/gal.

I don't see how it would.

One good source is his speech at the State Of The Union in January of 2015 (though he had been claiming it as soon as they imposed the sanctions in different words perhaps). I am sorry, I thought you are feigning ignorance since you seem to be speaking with authority on the sanctions effect on Russia yet appear to be ignorant of what the POTUS who imposed those sanctions had to say about their effect.

> I don't see how it would.

Figures. As I said further up thread, many people seem to be applying their ignorance to analyze a complex geopolitical situation.

The entire world is not just America you know. I'm not American so I'm not particularly aware of what your president said in 2014. America isn't the only country imposing meaningful sanctions on Russia. I don't think that's ignorance either - you probably don't know what was the Polish presidential stance in 2014 either and I wouldn't call you ignorant because of it.

And I looked up the transcript of the State of The Union address you mentioned and he does indeed say that. Thanks.

Sure I don't even know that Poland had a president. But I don't claim authority i.e. I am not saying "Russia is going to starve this summer because the mighty Polish sanctions deprive it of strategic sunflower seeds" or "Russia is going to crush Poland by sending 10M Africans through the Belarus border!". I just notice that economic claims, especially formulated in such imprecise terms as "tatters" and "rubble" seem to appear the result of political posturing and not an actual analysis of economic effects. There are no effects of the sanctions wrt the campaign in Ukraine, at least ones that I can observe, so I don't see how any hypothetical sanctions could have stopped the hypothetical future military conflict between Russia and NATO.

> Is the current state of "being reduced to economic rubble" even worse than being "in tatters"?

Probably far worse, though actual measurements will take time; also, if the sanctions are maintained equally well, given how much more comprehensive they are, it will be much harder for Russia’s economy to reconfigure and bounce back as it did post-2015.

Except the 2014 sanctions have not ended and Russia had been cutting ties with the West ever since then. New sanctions might be harder but Russia is also much less vulnerable to them.

I am sure the sanctions will hit hard people who still have ties with the West e.g. people working for the Western companies or doing business with Western companies but I don't see how this can affect Russia's military capability. Some "model" not getting paid from Instagram/OnlyFans is not going to slow down military production and deployment.