Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, FLEA said:

So people aren't worthy because they were born in Africa and not Europe? What makes Ukrainians more worthy than say Nigerians? 

Hell of a choice of language.....

I mean, if we're going to play shocked, pearl-clutching humanitarian, this conversation will be even less fruitful.

We judge the worth of a cause every day from the homeless panhandlers you drive by to the countries we send missiles to. Don't be intentionally obtuse.

The Nigerians aren't offering us the opportunity to decimate the military capacity and reputation of a geopolitical adversary.  

1 hour ago, HeloDude said:

You’re missing my point bud—if the massive increases in spending doesn’t matter, then there’s no need to prioritize.  Whatever wants to get funded, gets funded.  So why not do much more across the globe?

As for the debt getting “resolved”…not sure what that means, exactly?  I guess we could just default on some of our payments, tax ourselves considerably more, and/or just print off more money, but this is not the kind of the “resolve” I think will be healthy for the country.  And as I’ve said before, it’s not just Ukraine (though Ukraine is a massive new symptom of the spending problem)—it’s all of it.  
 

Part A: That's MMT, which I certainly don't make arguments for. The spending increases matter, but they matter as part of an overall economic problem. They do not matter in regards to Ukraine, because the funding for Ukraine does not represent specific type of spending that, if halted, would solve our budgetary problems. 

A weak analogy: If you have hypertension because you only eat bacon and chocolate burritos three times a day, you have a heart condition that could kill you when you exert yourself. But when the neighbor's smoking-hot ex-wife is putting the last of her things into the U-Haul, and she offers you VIP tickets to the suck parade for helping her get the tailgate closed, one might argue that your heart-condition is going to be materially worsened by by accepting her offer of oral nirvana. But it wasn't MILF blowjobs that put your heart at risk, and this opportunity is about to drive away forever. So you do the math and take the risk, because at the end of the day it's your addiction to deep-fried butter that put your heart in danger. 

 

Part B: There is no "healthy for the country" solution; we are well past that. The disease is now a cancer, and the treatments are all going to be a whole lot more painful than life would have been if we had just put sunscreen (balanced budgets) on in the first place. But there are treatments, and they will still work in the future, though they will be more painful the longer we wait. A lot is going to depend on the attempted bifurcation of the world currency system by China and Russia. They might be able to accelerate the collapse of fiat to the point we see some solutions in the next decade as opposed to the second half of the century. 

With the worldwide decline in birthrates and the suicidal refusal to produce cheap energy, the grow-our-way-out-of-it solution that the entirety of the planet has been relying on seems completely unrealistic. So that leaves the really shitty solutions. 

Edited January 11, 2023 by Lord Ratner

[Day Man]

1 hour ago, Vetter said:

Why am I paying taxes if .gov can just print money?

gotta buy the printers

[pawnman]

3 hours ago, FLEA said:

So people aren't worthy because they were born in Africa and not Europe? What makes Ukrainians more worthy than say Nigerians? 

Hell of a choice of language.....

Let me know when a major global competitor starts getting their ass handed to them by Nigeria. 

We're not funding Ukraine because we love Ukraine. We're funding Ukraine because it is a unique opportunity to significantly degrade a major global competitor. 

[FLEA]

2 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

I mean, if we're going to play shocked, pearl-clutching humanitarian, this conversation will be even less fruitful.

We judge the worth of a cause every day from the homeless panhandlers you drive by to the countries we send missiles to. Don't be intentionally obtuse.

The Nigerians aren't offering us the opportunity to decimate the military capacity and reputation of a geopolitical adversary.  

Part A: That's MMT, which I certainly don't make arguments for. The spending increases matter, but they matter as part of an overall economic problem. They do not matter in regards to Ukraine, because the funding for Ukraine does not represent specific type of spending that, if halted, would solve our budgetary problems. 

A weak analogy: If you have hypertension because you only eat bacon and chocolate burritos three times a day, you have a heart condition that could kill you when you exert yourself. But when the neighbor's smoking-hot ex-wife is putting the last of her things into the U-Haul, and she offers you VIP tickets to the suck parade for helping her get the tailgate closed, one might argue that your heart-condition is going to be materially worsened by by accepting her offer of oral nirvana. But it wasn't MILF blowjobs that put your heart at risk, and this opportunity is about to drive away forever. So you do the math and take the risk, because at the end of the day it's your addiction to deep-fried butter that put your heart in danger. 

 

Part B: There is no "healthy for the country" solution; we are well past that. The disease is now a cancer, and the treatments are all going to be a whole lot more painful than life would have been if we had just put sunscreen (balanced budgets) on in the first place. But there are treatments, and they will still work in the future, though they will be more painful the longer we wait. A lot is going to depend on the attempted bifurcation of the world currency system by China and Russia. They might be able to accelerate the collapse of fiat to the point we see some solutions in the next decade as opposed to the second half of the century. 

With the worldwide decline in birthrates and the suicidal refusal to produce cheap energy, the grow-our-way-out-of-it solution that the entirety of the planet has been relying on seems completely unrealistic. So that leaves the really shitty solutions. 

This is probably the best response to this whole debacle I've read, so thanks for articulating as well as you did. I appreciate your understanding that this is not a humanitarian mission and is simply a state interest to remove Russia from the strings of power. 

Dont 100% agree that it should be a state interest but this explanation makes thousands of times more sense than the normally emotionally based "but the Ukrainians were invaded....." 

[Stoker]

I think there's a legitimate Arsenal of Democracy case to me made on top of the realpolitik aspect. It just feels damned nice, for once in the past seventy years or so, to be on the side of a no shit more or less democratic and free people who are more than willing to put their own asses in the firing line on behalf of their country. We've spent trillions and tens of thousands of American lives in defense of people who couldn't find the will to fight for their country with two hands and a map. What a cruel joke it would be if we gave the Afghans our support for twenty years but couldn't be bothered to help Ukraine.

[FLEA]

3 minutes ago, Stoker said:

I think there's a legitimate Arsenal of Democracy case to me made on top of the realpolitik aspect. It just feels damned nice, for once in the past seventy years or so, to be on the side of a no shit more or less democratic and free people who are more than willing to put their own asses in the firing line on behalf of their country. We've spent trillions and tens of thousands of American lives in defense of people who couldn't find the will to fight for their country with two hands and a map. What a cruel joke it would be if we gave the Afghans our support for twenty years but couldn't be bothered to help Ukraine.

I think a lot of people on this forum are going to have had diverse experiences with how close their interactions were with Afghan counterparts and their impression of those reactions. I understand why people believe what they believe but its not my experience there and I see a lot of apple and oranges comparisons. One thing Afghanistan missed sorely was a leader like Zelensky. Rather they got a corrupt president who fled before any fighting even got close to him and took a butt load of cash with him. That's a pretty damning action in war and one that almost guarantees the other side victory. 

[filthy_liar]

While all of the talk about bleeding our enemy without us spending any blood is going on...is Russia a threat to us?  If we didn't send a nickel to Ukraine - would our lives be any different here at home?  I'm not convinced.  What I am convinced of is that a lot of Americans have yet again been duped - there is a boogeyman (he doesn't affect your day to day in the slightest), but we need to send a shitload of $$$ to customer ### to defend against the boogeyman.

Its kinda like cyber.  "Dude, if you don't know that the cyber threat can shut down the ATMs at any moment, then I don't know what to tell you."  Well, every ATM I go to works just fine.  You can only use the "it's all on JWICS" argument on me so much before I start to have doubts.  And yes, I'm on JWICS every day.

I think people just get so caught up in the hype, just like the covid threat, that they forget to think.  The narrative starts and then it starts spiraling into a frenzy because people want to believe that their leaders aren't selfish pricks who will do anything to obtain and keep power and wealth.

If Europe doesn't care enough to take care of Ukraine, then I guess I'll still go ahead and keep living exactly how I was before Russia invaded. And Ukraine's shitty extremely corrupt construct of a government.

I think people need to pay attention to what is actually happening around them.  Put on earphones, turn off the tv and radio, and observe what is actually happening.  

[DSG]

30 minutes ago, filthy_liar said:

While all of the talk about bleeding our enemy without us spending any blood is going on...is Russia a threat to us?  If we didn't send a nickel to Ukraine - would our lives be any different here at home?  I'm not convinced.  What I am convinced of is that a lot of Americans have yet again been duped - there is a boogeyman (he doesn't affect your day to day in the slightest), but we need to send a shitload of $$$ to customer ### to defend against the boogeyman.

Its kinda like cyber.  "Dude, if you don't know that the cyber threat can shut down the ATMs at any moment, then I don't know what to tell you."  Well, every ATM I go to works just fine.  You can only use the "it's all on JWICS" argument on me so much before I start to have doubts.  And yes, I'm on JWICS every day.

I think people just get so caught up in the hype, just like the covid threat, that they forget to think.  The narrative starts and then it starts spiraling into a frenzy because people want to believe that their leaders aren't selfish pricks who will do anything to obtain and keep power and wealth.

If Europe doesn't care enough to take care of Ukraine, then I guess I'll still go ahead and keep living exactly how I was before Russia invaded. And Ukraine's shitty extremely corrupt construct of a government.

I think people need to pay attention to what is actually happening around them.  Put on earphones, turn off the tv and radio, and observe what is actually happening.  

The war's good for business.  No more, no less.

[filthy_liar]

DSG gets it.  Hopefully you are investing in the myriad of defense contractor options.  Wouldn't want the contractor companies to get all of the pie.

[nsplayr]

3 hours ago, filthy_liar said:

...is Russia a threat to us?

Well they were much more so before they voluntarily destroyed a large chunk of their armed forces and young male population attempting in vain to annex a neighboring country that decided instead, “The fight is here; I need ammunition, not a ride.” 🇺🇦

But if you don't actually think a leader like Putin with the energy and military power of a country like Russia was a threat to the U.S. in any way and that we shouldn't happily assist them with stepping on every rake and landmine in Ukraine for pennies on the dollar...I don't know what to tell ya.

$48B to Ukraine out of $6.3T in federal expenditures in 2022 is 0.7%. To help significantly kneecap one of our biggest geopolitical opponents. It would be a bargain at 10x the cost!

Literally, if we could kneecap the Chinese military and oppressive CCP leadership in the same way and essentially guaranteed unfettered US & allied global dominance for a generation + for $1T and zero American lives lost, I would sign the check myself.

Edited January 12, 2023 by nsplayr

[pawnman]

5 hours ago, filthy_liar said:

While all of the talk about bleeding our enemy without us spending any blood is going on...is Russia a threat to us?  If we didn't send a nickel to Ukraine - would our lives be any different here at home?  I'm not convinced.  What I am convinced of is that a lot of Americans have yet again been duped - there is a boogeyman (he doesn't affect your day to day in the slightest), but we need to send a shitload of $$$ to customer ### to defend against the boogeyman.

Its kinda like cyber.  "Dude, if you don't know that the cyber threat can shut down the ATMs at any moment, then I don't know what to tell you."  Well, every ATM I go to works just fine.  You can only use the "it's all on JWICS" argument on me so much before I start to have doubts.  And yes, I'm on JWICS every day.

I think people just get so caught up in the hype, just like the covid threat, that they forget to think.  The narrative starts and then it starts spiraling into a frenzy because people want to believe that their leaders aren't selfish pricks who will do anything to obtain and keep power and wealth.

If Europe doesn't care enough to take care of Ukraine, then I guess I'll still go ahead and keep living exactly how I was before Russia invaded. And Ukraine's shitty extremely corrupt construct of a government.

I think people need to pay attention to what is actually happening around them.  Put on earphones, turn off the tv and radio, and observe what is actually happening.  

If you're really on JWICS everyday, then you must know that Russia is a major global competitor that attempted to influence both the 2016 and 2020 elections. You can't possibly believe that the US isn't better off with a weakened Russian military, especially if you're on JWICS every day. 

[Lord Ratner]

If Russia isn't a threat, why do we have a military? Just China? Or are we worried about South Africa? Brazil? World's most expensive military just to counter Al Queda? Russia must be considered a threat if you accept at face value that we have a military due to foreign threats and not just for defense contractors.

 

And if the size of our military (and thus the cost) is determined by the scale of our adversaries, wouldn't we be better if with weaker enemies, allowing for a smaller military?

[Sua Sponte]

15 hours ago, filthy_liar said:

While all of the talk about bleeding our enemy without us spending any blood is going on...is Russia a threat to us?  If we didn't send a nickel to Ukraine - would our lives be any different here at home?  I'm not convinced.  What I am convinced of is that a lot of Americans have yet again been duped - there is a boogeyman (he doesn't affect your day to day in the slightest), but we need to send a shitload of $$$ to customer ### to defend against the boogeyman.

Its kinda like cyber.  "Dude, if you don't know that the cyber threat can shut down the ATMs at any moment, then I don't know what to tell you."  Well, every ATM I go to works just fine.  You can only use the "it's all on JWICS" argument on me so much before I start to have doubts.  And yes, I'm on JWICS every day.

I think people just get so caught up in the hype, just like the covid threat, that they forget to think.  The narrative starts and then it starts spiraling into a frenzy because people want to believe that their leaders aren't selfish pricks who will do anything to obtain and keep power and wealth.

If Europe doesn't care enough to take care of Ukraine, then I guess I'll still go ahead and keep living exactly how I was before Russia invaded. And Ukraine's shitty extremely corrupt construct of a government.

I think people need to pay attention to what is actually happening around them.  Put on earphones, turn off the tv and radio, and observe what is actually happening.  

Any nuclear optioned state that has a tyrant in charge is a threat to the U.S.

Edited January 12, 2023 by Sua Sponte

[FLEA]

1 hour ago, Sua Sponte said:

Any nuclear optioned state that has a tyrant in charge is a threat to the U.S.

Why?

[FourFans]

28 minutes ago, FLEA said:

Why?

Is this an honest question, or sarcasm?

[Prozac]

2 hours ago, FLEA said:

Why?

Just…wow. People are afraid of a lot of shit these days. Global pandemics, rogue asteroids, murderous immigrants, cancer, turbulence, lightning strikes, financial collapse, zombies. Some of those threats are more real than others. You know what everybody really should be absolutely terrified of: nuclear annihilation, ‘cause that’s still far and above the most likely way the human race ends. So yeah, an unstable dictator who offs anyone who produces information that displeases him and has the stated intent of reconstituting one of the most oppressive empires the planet has ever seen is, most assuredly, a threat. 

[FLEA]

3 hours ago, FourFans130 said:

Is this an honest question, or sarcasm?

It's an honest and sincere question. I would like to see where people build the structures that upheld that belief. My reason is because the I-NPT is getting weaker every year and will likely collapse in a matter of time. And I largely believe the US is making a mistake is not accepting that we are probably going to have to accept living in a nuclear armed world with little regulation to control. For example, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea now or have previously operated outside the I-NPT. Another 5-7 countries and I think it would be fair to say the treaty is 100% unenforceable. 

 

There is also the perspective that if it wasn't for Russia we'd live in a more dangerous world. (In the sense that those 5K weapons exist whether we like it or not. Russia at least has the authority and control to safeguard then where as a Russian collapse would most certainly assure they find their way in the hands of irresponsible actors.) 

Edited January 12, 2023 by FLEA

[nsplayr]

^^ so what you’re saying is that nuclear weapons are very dangerous and we should be worried when a larger number of belligerent tyrants and/or unstable shitholes control them…and also you’re questioning if Russia is a threat??

🤷‍♂️

[FLEA]

5 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

^^ so what you’re saying is that nuclear weapons are very dangerous and we should be worried when a larger number of belligerent tyrants and/or unstable shitholes control them…and also you’re questioning if Russia is a threat??

🤷‍♂️

No, what I'm saying is the likely inevitability is that Russia is going to go down in history as one of the most benevolent actors with possession of nuclear weapons. And that's a sad but truthful statement. 

[Sua Sponte]

21 minutes ago, FLEA said:

It's an honest and sincere question. I would like to see where people build the structures that upheld that belief. My reason is because the I-NPT is getting weaker every year and will likely collapse in a matter of time. And I largely believe the US is making a mistake is not accepting that we are probably going to have to accept living in a nuclear armed world with little regulation to control. For example, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea now or have previously operated outside the I-NPT. Another 5-7 countries and I think it would be fair to say the treaty is 100% unenforceable. 

 

There is also the perspective that if it wasn't for Russia we'd live in a more dangerous world. (In the sense that those 5K weapons exist whether we like it or not. Russia at least has the authority and control to safeguard then where as a Russian collapse would most certainly assure they find their way in the hands of irresponsible actors.) 

That’s solely conjecture assuming that perspective knows about the check-and-balance, if any, system Russia has over their nuclear weapons. Who’s the say that Putin doesn’t have direct control over all of Russia’s nuclear weapons and could use them at his whim?

[nsplayr]

18 minutes ago, FLEA said:

No, what I'm saying is the likely inevitability is that Russia is going to go down in history as one of the most benevolent actors with possession of nuclear weapons. And that's a sad but truthful statement. 

😅😂🤣 Lolol ok I give up

[FLEA]

29 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

That’s solely conjecture assuming that perspective knows about the check-and-balance, if any, system Russia has over their nuclear weapons. Who’s the say that Putin doesn’t have direct control over all of Russia’s nuclear weapons and could use them at his whim?

What exactly do you guys think is going to happen to those weapons if Russia experiences internal collapse? 

Edited January 12, 2023 by FLEA

[Sua Sponte]

1 hour ago, FLEA said:

What exactly do you guys think is going to happen to those weapons if Russia experiences internal collapse? 

Assuming they aren’t used?

[FourFans]

3 hours ago, FLEA said:

What exactly do you guys think is going to happen to those weapons if Russia experiences internal collapse? 

That depends ENTIRELY on the state of that internal collapse.  If it's replaced by a real parliamentary government (I have to laugh at that idea...but I've also heard complex and plausible options for that...), it is POSSIBLE that the US and that government could work together to contain and control the spread of nuclear arms.  In any case, the Russian nuclear forces are populated by individuals who also don't want nukes randomly distributed and controlled.  I have a LITTLE faith in them to try and limit distribution.

One factoid should stand out to everyone in this situation though: Russia was expecting to roll over Ukraine, as was the rest of the world.  They aren't, and they're having a very tough time...with UKRAINE.  Not USA, not UK, the Ukraine.  With the current state of Russian forces now known, it is clear that if Russian forces directly engage NATO forces for any reason, Russian military and political leadership KNOWS their only option for military victory is nuclear.  That's scary.

Edited January 13, 2023 by FourFans130

[Prozac]

1 hour ago, FLEA said:

What exactly do you guys think is going to happen to those weapons if Russia experiences internal collapse? 

Russian internal collapse happened in 1989-1991. We’re still trying to influence the fallout.