re: Pretty wild Russian aircraft the Ukrainians bombed here.

quote:

---

Russia has never attacked the US. Your talking about involvement in wars in other countries. That's not what's happening in this war, we're financing Ukraine to attack Russia. Russia has not done the same to the US

---

The US has never attacked Russia. Russia does not finance wars in the Western Hemisphere not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because they can't. The USSR in the same position made Latin America an open source of competition.

The reality is that you don't wait for a perceived enemy to do something to you in order to react.

quote:

---

What we're discussing right now is very specific; attacking Russian soil via proxy, and risking further involvement by continuing to fund Ukraine. That's a risk for WWIII and a nuclear exchange. Nobody has ever taken this risk before, for good reason.

---

It is the continuation of the same political calculus that the US has employed since the end of the CW. The risk of nuclear exchange has remained the same. The question is what is Russia's red line. Given that they have attempted nuclear blackmail for the slightest provocation for 3 years now, we can make some pretty same assumptions on what that red line actually is.

quote:

---

What's happening now is playing with fire and it's a stupid risk for the US to take.

---

Right. Attacked and going to war are two different things and we should be clear about that. My point here is that the risk is the same from the original point where we began the process of limiting Russian influence in their former spheres. It was always going to end up into what amounts as gamesmanship, because the ultimate calculus is that the Russian elite are self-interested as well, and thus know the consequences. The point where the Russian ruling class accepts mutually assured destruction is very close to the line where they would consider capitulation.

quote:

---

No, it just means that the consequence is extremely unlikely to include a military defeat of the homeland. Financing or assisting Ukraine to continue attacking Russia's cities and bases brings us closer to nuclear war by the day. It's foolish.

---

So does continued Russian aggression, even more overtly.

quote:

---

We do have a choice, which is why I said default or hyperinflation.

---

We have far more choices on the table than those two. This includes continuing to be the reserve currency, targeted investment in areas which would result in GDP growth, and cutting spending. We can do all of that and still supply weapons to Ukraine.

quote:

---

Our debt is unpayable. Debt to GDP is highest in our history and increasing rapidly as deficits grow faster than the economy.

---

The major issue is that our debt can be paid in the long-term as long as we remain a steady economy and are the reserve currency. In terms of foreign policy, we've been pretty overt about ending threats to our reserve currency status, so much so that Chinese funding of Indian startups occurs in dollars. I am saying we need fiscal discipline to tackle the debt issue, but I am also saying that we absolutely cannot lose our reserve currency status until we can get the debt to a manageable level.

quote:

---

These things are a perfect recipe for hyperinflation

---

The major risk is that countries stop using dollars for balance of payments. That is a scenario for hyperinflation in a direct way.

quote:

---

I think Russia sees this as aggression

---

They might see it that way, but international relations is curious in that sometimes you create the future you most fear. The Russians are absolutely guilty of this. Look at the cables during the first Bush administration and European countries. The desire to avoid the Russian sphere of influence was enough for them to spend lots of time and effort reforming their economies, militaries, and governments to be in line with the West. The US was skeptical of their ability to actually achieve those goals during the first Bush Admin and part of the Clinton admin.

quote:

---

Just like China would see it as aggression if Taiwan made plans to sign a military alliance with the US. 

---

Another view is that such an alliance could be the springboard to overall rapproachment in the area, as China's territorial concerns extend out beyond Taiwan, as evidenced by their behavior in the South China Sea.

quote:

---

Any assertion that it won't result in use of nuclear weapons is dangerous speculation. 

---

It isn't speculation. It is based on evidence. The evidence suggests that Russia is willing to put up with more attacks on its territory before it goes to nuclear weapons. And the most likely scenario is that Ukraine adopts a 'death-by-a-thousand' the longer the war goes on. That makes it even more unlikely that Russia sees a situation where it could use nuclear weapons without a response.

quote:

---

The only obvious way to avoid that is for the US to pull out now

---

There are still nuclear powers involved though. The US being 'out' won't change French and British doctrine, but it might hasten the proliferation of nuclear weapons on the continent, which again is a scenario the US has long wanted to avoid.

quote:

---

What they want us to believe is Ukraine sent drones back in, once the fires were all out, just to get this footage?

---

Its called BDA, Battle Damage Assessment. And what are the Russians going to do about it? there is zero air defense at that base.

quote:

---

OT War thread

---

But it was real to them damnit!

quote:

---

If Russia wins anything, they will come back for more. The Europeans know it, which is reflected in their procurement strategies.

---

I'll just respond to this and got other things to do. I don't believe Russia has aspirations for Europe. I think is about Ukraine and their naval base, which they consider strategically important. Europe has a lot of people and no energy. If Russia tried to absorb some or all of Europe they'd go from energy rich to energy poor, and they wouldn't be able to economically hold it together anyway.

The invasion of Ukraine is not a sign of Russian expansionism, IMO. If anything, it's a sign that they fear Europe's and NATO's expansion, which has moved progressively toward Moscow since the late 90's. The fact that those countries wanted to join NATO doesn't change the fact that NATO has been pushing inexorably eastward.

And despite Europe's recent push to re-arm, they're still not moving like they consider it an emergency. They've done nothing for the last decade, and still aren't moving like their lives depend on it.

quote:

---

I don't believe Russia has aspirations for Europe

---

quote:

---

The invasion of Ukraine is not a sign of Russian expansionism, IMO

---

Putin has repeatedly stated over the years they were interested in 'annexing' Europe, even going so far as to mention an empire from Lisbon to Vladivostok.

Look - are there going to be Russian boots in Paris or Berlin? No, I seriously doubt it, most especially after their piss-poor performance in the Ukraine War.

But it's clear he has aspirations towards at least the Baltics if not Poland, Romania, and even possibly Finland - Finland didn't just join NATO for the fun of it. And while we can argue whether or not that's the US's problem, it's still an issue.

quote:

---

The risk of nuclear exchange has remained the same.

---

False.

quote:

---

The major issue is that our debt can be paid in the long-term

---

Really?

Please detail the plan for our debt being paid in the long-term assuming US debt CofC arrives at 6%.

quote:

---

The evidence suggests that Russia is willing to put up with more attacks

---

... until the evidence is proven wrong.

IS UKRAINE THE POINT AT WHICH WE TAKE THAT RISK?

quote:

---

False

---

The formula for a nuclear exchange is binary. Thus, in my view, we've been set on this path by virtue of decisions made 30 years ago. In that sense, the risk has remained the same. Or rather, I'm arguing that the risk level has not decreased since all parties decided to take the paths they chose to take.

quote:

---

Please detail the plan for our debt being paid in the long-term assuming US debt CofC arrives at 6%.

---

Why did you cut the rest of the sentence, where I did explain the minimum we need to pay off the debt? We both need spending cuts as well as GDP growth.

quote:

---

IS UKRAINE THE POINT AT WHICH WE TAKE THAT RISK?

---

The signs are pointing to yes. That is not an expression of a personal preference though. Going by the disposition of all the actors, their words and their actions, it is trending toward that conclusion.

quote:

---

The formula for a kamikaze is binary?

---

Uh, yeah. A reset occurred and then the geopolitical shenanigans started and the risk level has been set for a long time. It won't happen until it does.

quote:

---

Because of your minimization of relevance.

---

What?

quote:

---

Good Lord!
You're O-T damaged.

---

Nah. What are the major actors doing and how are they behaving? In more direct terms, does it look like, from spending forecasts, procurement strategies, rhetoric and policy implementation, that the major players, outside of the US, are planning for this conflict to die down or to ramp up? All the data points indicate one thing. If you choose to refuse to see it, that is your choice. I'm more than happy to have my mind change provided there is a strong argument.

quote:

---

IS UKRAINE THE POINT AT WHICH WE TAKE THAT RISK?

---

I think what gets people confused is that entering foreign wars is not a place for emotion. There's no good guys vs bad guys mentality for the leaders. There has to be a cold-blooded calculus; what is the risk vs reward for our country. In this case what's the risk for the US: WWIII and nuclear exchange. How do we quantify that? We don't know because nobody every waged war against the homeland of, threatened the existence of, a nuclear military superpower. You can't know the mindset of their leaders. There's no way to quantify this catastrophic risk and that's why generations of leaders have decided not to take that risk.

There's also an economic risk to the US. Nobody discusses it because people in power don't inform the population when they've run the economy on the rocks. They pay or coerce people to say just the opposite and then look for a scapegoat. Nevertheless, the numbers are undeniable evidence that we're headed for the rocks and the ship is to big to turn in time. Only question now is will we try to brake, or just pour on more steam. War with Russia equals more steam.

So what's the reward that justifies this unquantifiable horrific risk? Save Ukraine; that's it. Zero benefit to the US.

"But Putin will attack Europe!" If Putin attacks Europe, that's another decision point. It's taken him years to progress through Ukraine, he's not gonna run roughshod across Europe any time soon.

"But Putin will eventually attack the US!" If Putin attacks the US, then we go to a war with Russia. But as of right now, the most likely way for the US to have a war with Russia is to keep funding Ukraine until Russia feels sufficiently threatened on their own soil.

This US decision weighs the value of saving Ukraine versus WWIII, nuclear war and accelerated debt crisis for the US. That is our choice and, even without knowing exact odds, it's not worth debating. Trump should tell Zelensky we're out and advise him to settle now and hope he can retain part of his country.

I realized the videos were AI generated. In fact, I question the vast majority of videos coming from the Russo-Ukraine war. Literally EVERY video I’ve seen, real or fake, is a Ukrainian combat success. Sort of makes you wonder why the Ukrainians aren’t about to take Moscow.