re: Pretty wild Russian aircraft the Ukrainians bombed here.

quote:

---

The logic is cockblocking Russia from European markets. Russia has much cheaper oil and gas than the U.S. and other countries. The European people would much rather purchase cheaper energy and as a consumer they probably don't care where it comes from.

The LNG market is exploding in the U.S. right now because of European purchases due to sanctions on Russia.

---

That may be a reason for somebody, but it's not logical from a national perspective IMO. The risks and costs of war with Russia outweigh the potential benefits to the US economy from LNG exports. Not saying wars don't happen for bad reasons, but the US is already headed for big trouble due to bad decisions and this would be a very bad decision, IMO.

quote:

---

That may be a reason for somebody, but it's not logical from a national perspective IMO.

---

The other reason is DC probably gets along better with the Euro trash globo-homos than the Russian Christian nationalists.

quote:

---

The other reason is DC probably gets along better with the Euro trash globo-homos than the Russian Christian nationalists.

---

I have serious doubts about Europe. Relations between the West and Russia have been deteriorating for 15 years of more. The rhetoric has been obviously getting more tense long before 2022. NATO discussions with Ukraine were an obvious potential flash point, because Russia was never going to willingly give up Sevastopol. Why, under those circumstances, did Europe fail to start beefing up their military strength?

Even after the war started, Europe didn't start quickly ramping up their forces. Have they been good NATO partners, to proceed under those circumstances as if the US would carry NATO in a war against Russia? It seems highly unlikely that Europe would have meaningful ability to assist the US if war came to our shores, but they got petulant when Trump suggested they need to pay more for their own defense. Only then did they start having discussions about rebuilding their military capacity.

They also got petulant when Trump suggested the US needs to balance our foreign trade, including a massive deficit with the EU. So I'm have a little trouble figuring out what advantage the US gets from NATO. Yes, we get European bases, but our ability to afford global military projection is rapidly waning. Financial constraints have killed empires before and we're the next candidate.

Easily AI.

But what they did in reality was still shocking.

quote:

---

You’ve flacked pro-Kremlin narratives since you joined this forum.

---

God damn, you're seeing Russian agents in 16 year old TD accounts?

How many Russian assets are in here with us right now?

quote:

---

The logic of America taking sides in this fight, and funding it, is non-existen

---

It makes perfect sense. Geopolitics is ruthless. The Russians would absolutely do the same if the US was in the same position. The Russians, in fact, have done the same to the US.

The least logical position is the one pretending that the US doesn't have a prevailing interest in sidelining a former rival, one whose elite ruling class still sees the US as an enemy.

Economically, the US even has more interest, from ensuring the continued stability of trade to expanding our typical trading bloc to making sure countries keep using the dollar for balance of payments to getting contracts for our defense companies.

Well those aren't even bombers so....

quote:

---

The Russian military has never attacked, or financed another country's military to attack, the US.

---

This is absolutely incorrect.

quote:

---

The least logical position is believing we can "sideline" a military nuclear superpower without starting WWIII and potentially causing a nuclear exchange

---

We have been sidelining them since the end of the CW and especially since we pulled out of the ABM treaty, which is coincidentally the date that Russia began an active measures campaign against the West wholesale. What does that tell you?

quote:

---

The words "nuclear deterrence" mean "if you attack my country, you're going to get nuked."

---

If this means that Russia or any nuclear superpower gets to have its way with its neighbors, then literally all of Eastern Europe was justified in rushing to join NATO after the Warsaw Pact ended. This is the worst version of nuclear deterrence imaginable, one in which you participate in a war with a very close neighbor and suddenly expect that there won't be collateral damage by virtue of your nuclear status.

The fact that Russia has continued to pursue conventional means of warfare despite suffering several attack on its soil since the invasion began suggests they know the consequences of actually using their weapons in an offensive war. You aren't thinking this through.

quote:

---

Suddenly, Ukraine euphoria has convinced a bunch of people that the concept of nuclear deterrence was never valid.

---

Nuclear blackmail isn't deterrence. It never has been nor will it be.

quote:

---

Economically, this war could very well lead to US hyperinflation or debt default

---

What? Default to whom? The US cannot default to obligations it itself creates. And the hyperinflation scenario is idiotic. We would definitely have hyperinflation if countries don't use dollars as balance of payments. Continuing what we've been doing in Ukraine is never going to be the cause of hyperinflation. I don't even know where you are getting this from.

quote:

---

This is absolutely incorrect.

---

No, it's correct.

quote:

---

We have been sidelining them since the end of the CW

---

Oh, okay. By sideline, I thought you meant militarily beat them down enough to stop them from projecting military power against those who attack them. If you meant that, then clearly we haven't sidelined Russia, because they can hit us with a nuclear missile tomorrow. Otherwise, if we've already "sidelined" them, why do we need to do it again?

quote:

---

If this means that Russia or any nuclear superpower gets to have its way with its neighbors,

---

It means exactly what it says; if we attack Russia they may well hit us with nuclear weapons. That's the deterrence and it has worked for 80 years. No country attacked the US during all of our wars. And no country will attack China when they invade Taiwan for the same reason. No country has ever ever done it because of that very risk. Nothing special about Ukraine.

quote:

---

Nuclear blackmail isn't deterrence. It never has been nor will it be.

---

This is true. The possibility of a nuclear war is the deterrence. It always has been and always will be until somebody decides they want a nuclear war.

quote:

---

What? Default to whom?

---

Default means you stop honoring your debt to whomever holds it?

quote:

---

The US cannot default to obligations it itself creates.

---

I'm afraid you're confused about debt and how it works. Any entity that issues debt can default. Including the US.

quote:

---

And the hyperinflation scenario is idiotic.

---

Sorry, didn't mean to disturb your illusion, but hyperinflation is a very likely outcome for the US dollar. Unaffordable debt is a precursor. Wars increase that risk, especially major wars. Even a "reserve currency" can be made worthless, and the US is proceeding that way.

quote:

---

No, it's correct.

---

Nah, it isn't. Syria the last ten years is a prime example. There are many more granular examples I can give, including weapons that were supplied to the Taliban. But suffice it to say, the Russians have done to the US what we are doing to them. They would be fools not to. That is standard for geopolitics.

quote:

---

Oh, okay. By sideline, I thought you meant militarily beat them down enough to stop them from projecting military power against those who attack them. If you meant that, then clearly we haven't sidelined Russia, because they can hit us with a nuclear missile tomorrow. Otherwise, if we've already "sidelined" them, why do we need to do it again?

---

We are sidelining them. We haven't sidelined them. We have been very active in our approach to minimize their ability to project power to their former satellite states. The key was that those states did everything in their power to avoid being under the Russian sphere. It is clear we need to continue doing it because the Russian elite see us as enemies. Again, the active measures campaign they have run for more than 20 years proves this.

quote:

---

 means exactly what it says; if we attack Russia they may well hit us with nuclear weapons. That's the deterrence and it has worked for 80 years. No country attacked the US during all of our wars. And no country will attack China when they invade Taiwan for the same reason. No country has ever ever done it because of that very risk.

---

This is nonsensical. Firstly, countries have attacked each other when the other party has nuclear weapons. It happened in the last month between India and Pakistan. It has also happened between China and India. Note that I use the word 'attacked' and not some other word for a particular reason.

This does not answer my claim either. Nuclear status does not mean freedom from consequence.

quote:

---

I'm afraid you're confused about debt and how it works. Any entity that issues debt can default. Including the US.

---

I'm quoting Alan Greenspan.

quote:

---

hyperinflation is a very likely outcome for the US dollar. 

---

You wrote it as though the result of any more participation in the Russo-Ukrainian war would result in hyperinflation. That is a categorically wild claim. If we have hyperinflation, this war in particular won't be a major cause.

quote:

---

Unaffordable debt is a precursor. Wars increase that risk, especially major wars.

---

So continuing to fund Ukraine through weapons transfers, which are given an accounting value even though many weapons would be mothballed otherwise, is going to contribute to our debt significantly? We are involved to the level we should be, which is supplying weapons. Russia won't use nuclear weapons in a war they started because they understand the consequences. A defensive war is different, but this isn't a defensive war.

quote:

---

Even a "reserve currency" can be made worthless, and the US is proceeding that way.

---

Can you give me a historical example?