Ukraine

[Ag3ma]

Keep in mind that the reason why it's called a balance sheet is because the assets must match liabilities.

In this case, we're looking at $90 trillion in total debts plus $180 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

https://www.usdebtclock.org/

Oh, I see.

Unfunded liabilities means approximately bugger all, in context. It's merely a statement that the government expects to pay for something in the future. It's not conventional debt, because it not has been borrowed / spent, and will be offset by future income. To give an idea of how misleading this can be, if we take the assumption that the USA needs to pay a defence budget every year, it has to pay something forever until the country ceases to exist, therefore has infinite liabilities. And yet the country is not bankrupt, obviously.

This is not a useful way to think about things.

It works more like this. There are $180 trillion liabilities owed over a certain period of time (presumably relating to the lifespans of its populace), in which case the USA will also earn over that period GDP multiplied by the same number of years. So if we imagine the number of years is 50 and the economy remains the same size for those 50 years ($25 trillion), that's ~$1,250 trillion in income. Paying out $180 trillion in unfunded liabilities, that leaves it a healthy $1,070 trillion spare for other things.

What is more interesting is the $90 trillion in debt compared to $180 trillion in assets. I don't think that's a problem - arguably it's quite a modest debt, overall. Contextually, when most people buy a house with a 10% deposit, they promptly saddle themselves with debts of around 90% of their assets.

The next interesting thing is to look at the US debt held abroad, which is over $7 trillion. The USA has $95 trillion debt, so in other words, over 90% of American debt is owed to other Americans. When that debt is repaid, and the interest on it is paid, it just goes back to America!

Again, this is not to undervalue that the distribution of assets and debt within sectors / entities of the wider economy matter. But there can be an awful lot of debt panic that turn out to be a lot less worrying than the very big numbers suggest.

 

[Hades]

NATO expansion started decades before Russia became aggressive:

Uh Russia has been extremely aggressive and oppressive towards its neighbor since about the time of Ivan the terrible. Eastern European nations have every cause to be scared witless of the entity that keeps terrorizing then.

And Putin ideologically adheres to the stance that Russia inherently owns or ought to own Eastern Europe.

 

[Ag3ma]

You are talking about another planet!

No, I'm just putting forward the notion that this is predictable. All this has been going on for years.

Let's bear in mind that the 1970s oil shock and subsequent turmoil was an attempt by OPEC to dismantle Western power. Likewise all over the place, countries under Western dominance (such as Latin America) have chafed and sought to assert themselves. When the Euro was introduced, there was talk of the end of dollar supremacy as many countries considered the Euro a viable alternative (although that of course foundered with the Euro's problems in the financial crash).

But the trajectory of global development and the relative decline of the USA and Europe has been gradual and consistent. This means the loosening of Western grip over the global economy and international institutions. Part of "MAGA" and that shit is a popular representation of national insecurity over US global hegemony slowly unpeeling. For its part the West has been attempting to forestall it as much as possible, but the decay will only accelerate as the West becomes gradually less dominant.

So if Saudi wants to pay in yuan for its oil that's a bummer for the USA when/if it happens, but the USA will absolutely know that this sort of thing was on the cards, because it's just how things would always be likely to play out.

 

[Silvanus]

NATO expansion started decades before Russia became aggressive

Uhrm, yes, NATO expansion which did not encompass Ukraine, the country now under Russian invasion.

One has to be incredibly dense to imagine that a country that has military spending that's greater than those of others combined is doing so out of the goodness of its own heart, especially given a history of destabilizing, manipulating, and intervening in multiple countries:

Nobody here is imagining that. What we are recognising, however, is that Russia shares a history of destabilising, manipulating, and intervening in multiple countries.

You have created this dreamlike, Hollywood narrative of one global power exploiting and pillaging around the world, while other global powers-- such as Russia-- are apparently motivated by self defence. But that's sheer ignorance. We have numerous global powers engaged in this kind of rank, brutal coercion, and in this case it is Russia that has engaged in its most extreme forms with regards to Ukraine.

and backed by Biden who wanted regime change for Russia

You're literally flag-waving for a leader seeking to implement regime change in Ukraine by force. You have zero problem with regime changes being implemented from outside when it suits your favoured outcome, and yet you'll still bring it up as a sin when it suits you as an attack line. This is not about principle for you.

The rest is sheer whataboutism and deflection. Yes, we know the US is manipulative and abusive. So is Russia. And in Ukraine, it is Russia manipulating and abusing, and it has been for decades.

 

[Silvanus]

You're missing Kennan's point: he did not want the U.S. to interfere in Russia and Ukraine. Clinton did not follow him, and that led to manipulation in Ukraine via Nuland, and with that hostility from Russia.

All you've done here is restate your earlier statement word for word.

You've comically missed a key part of Kennan's position. He explicitly said they wouldn't accept Ukrainian independence *regardless*. If you're arguing that American and Ukrainian actions forced Russia to intervene, then you're offering a claim that's diametrically opposed to George Kennan's.

Your last point is absurd: Russia and Ukraine are closer to each other than the U.S. is to Ukraine.

Who the fuck cares?

Ukrainians certainly don't, since a closer relationship with the EU is popular in Ukraine, whereas rejoining Russia is dismally unpopular.

But of course, Russia cares, and in your estimation it is only the opinion of the larger power that matters: it can then ride roughshod over the smaller power, and incorporate it by force.

 

[Terminal Blue]

NATO expansion started decades before Russia became aggressive:

When exactly was Russia "non-aggressive?"

For the entire history of the Russian federation, Russia has been continuously involved in foreign conflicts in support of its geopolitical aims. It is still involved in the wars in Syria and the Central African Republic to this day.

Russia was considered an ally of the US during the War on Terror, so I guess if that counts as "non-aggressive" to you then sure. But during that time it invaded Georgia, annexed a chunk of territory and, at the very least, turned a blind eye to and at worst actively participated in the ethnic cleansing of the Georgian population of regions it controlled. Wow, so "non-aggressive!"

I'd love to be able to climb onto mount high ground and say "oh, well the situation is very complex and nuanced" but it simply isn't. Russia has been a colonial power for hundreds of years. Its current government does nothing to hide the ambition to return to geopolitical dominance through the renewed subjugation of former colonial states.

Before talking about "NATO expansion" ask yourself a very simple question. If Ukraine had joined NATO, which it didn't because the government and people of Ukraine didn't support it until the annexation of Crimea, would the Russian armed forces currently be occupying its territory and killing its people? That is the big secret to NATO expansion in Russia's quote/unquote "sphere of influence". It's not Washington's devious manipulation, it's the very reasonable desire not to be colonized and ethnically cleansed by Russia.

 

[Hades]

For the entire history of the Russian federation, Russia has been continuously involved in foreign conflicts in support of its geopolitical aims. It is still involved in the wars in Syria and the Central African Republic to this day.

Russia was considered an ally of the US during the War on Terror, so I guess if that counts as "non-aggressive" to you then sure. But during that time it invaded Georgia, annexed a chunk of territory and, at the very least, turned a blind eye to and at worst actively participated in the ethnic cleansing of the Georgian population of regions it controlled. Wow, so "non-aggressive!"

That and they also poisoned a Ukrainian president just because they felt annoyed by him not being pro Russian enough.

That is the big secret to NATO expansion in Russia's quote/unquote "sphere of influence".

True. Russia's sphere of influence is a terrible place to be in, and I don't think any country is in there because they want to be. Most are forced into that position through recent Russian invasions, or they are being led by corrupt strongmen who are only in power because the Russian army intervenes against the citizens of those nations.

 

[Absent]

Hot take. Anyone supporting/justifying/excusing the invasion of Ukraine deserves to die. Infinitely more than the ukrainian citizens blasted by russian missiles.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Hot take. Anyone supporting/justifying/excusing the invasion of Ukraine deserves to die. Infinitely more than the ukrainian citizens blasted by russian missiles.

But not the invasion of the Donbass by Ukraine. That was good and righteous.

 

[Ag3ma]

But not the invasion of the Donbass by Ukraine. That was good and righteous.

I think you're confused.

Russia invaded the Donbas, they just fronted it with some Ukrainian stooges to get useful idiots in the West to think it was some sort of popular revolt.

 

[ralfy]

Oh, I see.

Unfunded liabilities means approximately bugger all, in context. It's merely a statement that the government expects to pay for something in the future. It's not conventional debt, because it not has been borrowed / spent, and will be offset by future income. To give an idea of how misleading this can be, if we take the assumption that the USA needs to pay a defence budget every year, it has to pay something forever until the country ceases to exist, therefore has infinite liabilities. And yet the country is not bankrupt, obviously.

This is not a useful way to think about things.

It works more like this. There are $180 trillion liabilities owed over a certain period of time (presumably relating to the lifespans of its populace), in which case the USA will also earn over that period GDP multiplied by the same number of years. So if we imagine the number of years is 50 and the economy remains the same size for those 50 years ($25 trillion), that's ~$1,250 trillion in income. Paying out $180 trillion in unfunded liabilities, that leaves it a healthy $1,070 trillion spare for other things.

What is more interesting is the $90 trillion in debt compared to $180 trillion in assets. I don't think that's a problem - arguably it's quite a modest debt, overall. Contextually, when most people buy a house with a 10% deposit, they promptly saddle themselves with debts of around 90% of their assets.

The next interesting thing is to look at the US debt held abroad, which is over $7 trillion. The USA has $95 trillion debt, so in other words, over 90% of American debt is owed to other Americans. When that debt is repaid, and the interest on it is paid, it just goes back to America!

Again, this is not to undervalue that the distribution of assets and debt within sectors / entities of the wider economy matter. But there can be an awful lot of debt panic that turn out to be a lot less worrying than the very big numbers suggest.

Unfunded liabilities refer to future costs that can't be covered. That's besides the accumulated debt.

Also, when a country has to sell off assets to pay for liabilities, then it becomes increasingly weak because its assets drop. Meanwhile, to pay for remaining debt it has to borrow again because it can't have a net worth of zero, which brings it back to where it started: borrowing to pay off debt. To make matters worse, it can only borrow less because borrowing is based on net worth as its collateral.

See the problem? The only way to pay off debts is to earn, and that can only be done with trade surplusus.

The U.S. has had trade deficits since the 1970s.

 

[ralfy]

Uh Russia has been extremely aggressive and oppressive towards its neighbor since about the time of Ivan the terrible. Eastern European nations have every cause to be scared witless of the entity that keeps terrorizing then.

And Putin ideologically adheres to the stance that Russia inherently owns or ought to own Eastern Europe.

That's like saying that the U.S. has been a warmonger throughout its existence:

The US Has Been at war 225 out of 243 years since 1776

The American history of overt and covert foreign interventions dates back to 1811, when it had invaded Chile, just a year after this South American country had gained independence from...

www.thenews.com.pk

The last point is also raised by U.S. neocons, i.e., all countries against the U.S. want to form their own empires and must be stopped. Reagan referred to the Soviet Union then as the "evil empire." Later, Dubya argued that "you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists." Somehow, such a blinkered view of the world validates being a warmonger.

 

[Thaluikhain]

That the US has been up to all sort of evil throughout its existence is not disputed. That this means that invading Ukrane, which does not run the US, is justified is disputed.

 

[ralfy]

No, I'm just putting forward the notion that this is predictable. All this has been going on for years.

Let's bear in mind that the 1970s oil shock and subsequent turmoil was an attempt by OPEC to dismantle Western power. Likewise all over the place, countries under Western dominance (such as Latin America) have chafed and sought to assert themselves. When the Euro was introduced, there was talk of the end of dollar supremacy as many countries considered the Euro a viable alternative (although that of course foundered with the Euro's problems in the financial crash).

But the trajectory of global development and the relative decline of the USA and Europe has been gradual and consistent. This means the loosening of Western grip over the global economy and international institutions. Part of "MAGA" and that shit is a popular representation of national insecurity over US global hegemony slowly unpeeling. For its part the West has been attempting to forestall it as much as possible, but the decay will only accelerate as the West becomes gradually less dominant.

So if Saudi wants to pay in yuan for its oil that's a bummer for the USA when/if it happens, but the USA will absolutely know that this sort of thing was on the cards, because it's just how things would always be likely to play out.

The oil shock was driven by OPEC which nationalized oil industries that the U.S., Britain, and others which were trying to plunder countries in the Middle East. In place of disabling the monopoly, the U.S. then engaged in a petrodollar scheme, encouraging the same monopoly to price oil in dollars and then invest their profits in Wall Street in exchange for military aid. This was a multiple win for the U.S. (elite) because it passed on the aid as debt, made its defense industry richer (which is owned by the rich), then profited from investments from oil profits brought in by the Arabs and put in Wall Street banks owned by the rich!

MAGA? Pointless. The U.S. rich call the shots, and the same thing for Ukraine:

Zelenskyy, BlackRock CEO Fink agree to coordinate Ukraine investment

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and BlackRock CEO Larry Fink have agreed to coordinate investment in rebuilding Ukraine, Kyiv announced Wednesday

www.cnbc.com

Finally, that's not just a bummer but worse. The only way the U.S. can continue heavy borrowing and spending across decades is if other countries continue to use the dollar heavily.

 

[ralfy]

Uhrm, yes, NATO expansion which did not encompass Ukraine, the country now under Russian invasion.



Nobody here is imagining that. What we are recognising, however, is that Russia shares a history of destabilising, manipulating, and intervening in multiple countries.

You have created this dreamlike, Hollywood narrative of one global power exploiting and pillaging around the world, while other global powers-- such as Russia-- are apparently motivated by self defence. But that's sheer ignorance. We have numerous global powers engaged in this kind of rank, brutal coercion, and in this case it is Russia that has engaged in its most extreme forms with regards to Ukraine.



You're literally flag-waving for a leader seeking to implement regime change in Ukraine by force. You have zero problem with regime changes being implemented from outside when it suits your favoured outcome, and yet you'll still bring it up as a sin when it suits you as an attack line. This is not about principle for you.

The rest is sheer whataboutism and deflection. Yes, we know the US is manipulative and abusive. So is Russia. And in Ukraine, it is Russia manipulating and abusing, and it has been for decades.

NATO expansion would have included Ukraine. Putin did not allow for that.

The point you're missing is that the country that's going against Russia was manipulated by the U.S.

What about whataboutism and deflection? The Global South, i.e., countries that make up the majority pct of the world population, is now answering back:

Why does so much of the Global South support Russia, not Ukraine?

The war is "not simply seen as good guys in the West versus bad guys in Russia." #EuropeNews

www.euronews.com

Why's that? Because they reject your accusations of whataboutism and deflection. For them, this issue is neither. That is, they're aware that Russia is manipulative and abusive, and even China. But there's a country that's more powerful than both and has done greater harm to them than either. Guess who?

 

[ralfy]

All you've done here is restate your earlier statement word for word.

You've comically missed a key part of Kennan's position. He explicitly said they wouldn't accept Ukrainian independence *regardless*. If you're arguing that American and Ukrainian actions forced Russia to intervene, then you're offering a claim that's diametrically opposed to George Kennan's.



Who the fuck cares?

Ukrainians certainly don't, since a closer relationship with the EU is popular in Ukraine, whereas rejoining Russia is dismally unpopular.

But of course, Russia cares, and in your estimation it is only the opinion of the larger power that matters: it can then ride roughshod over the smaller power, and incorporate it by force.

That's because you comically missed a key part of Kennan's position, which is that the West should not interfere. Otherwise, there will be blowback.

Which is what you're seeing now.

 

[ralfy]

When exactly was Russia "non-aggressive?"

For the entire history of the Russian federation, Russia has been continuously involved in foreign conflicts in support of its geopolitical aims. It is still involved in the wars in Syria and the Central African Republic to this day.

Russia was considered an ally of the US during the War on Terror, so I guess if that counts as "non-aggressive" to you then sure. But during that time it invaded Georgia, annexed a chunk of territory and, at the very least, turned a blind eye to and at worst actively participated in the ethnic cleansing of the Georgian population of regions it controlled. Wow, so "non-aggressive!"

I'd love to be able to climb onto mount high ground and say "oh, well the situation is very complex and nuanced" but it simply isn't. Russia has been a colonial power for hundreds of years. Its current government does nothing to hide the ambition to return to geopolitical dominance through the renewed subjugation of former colonial states.

Before talking about "NATO expansion" ask yourself a very simple question. If Ukraine had joined NATO, which it didn't because the government and people of Ukraine didn't support it until the annexation of Crimea, would the Russian armed forces currently be occupying its territory and killing its people? That is the big secret to NATO expansion in Russia's quote/unquote "sphere of influence". It's not Washington's devious manipulation, it's the very reasonable desire not to be colonized and ethnically cleansed by Russia.

Russia was very weak during the 1990s, which is why they wanted assurance from the U.S. that NATO would not move one inch forward. It went against that because Clinton decided to engage in electioneering:

Bill Clinton’s Role in the Crisis Over Ukraine

The militarization of American foreign policy has evolved over the past thirty years. Ironically, this took place in the wake of the dissolution of the

www.counterpunch.org

In addition, why didn't the U.S. and others respond militarily when Russia attacked Georgia? Probably for the same reason that critics of the U.S. did not attack when it attacked Afghanistan and Iraq, countries far away from it, based on false flags?

There's your problem: for you this issue isn't complex or nuanced. You remind me of Reagan, with his reductionist views of "evil empires," and Dubya, who has a binary view of the world, such that you're either with us or with the terrorists. Put simply, it's U.S. exceptionalism, we're good, and everyone else isn't. That's basically it.

About your last point, consider regime change and Nuland and co., especially in light of color revolutions:

Ian Traynor: US campaign behind the turmoil in Kiev

Analysis: Ukraine, traditionally passive in its politics, has been mobilised by young democracy activists and will never be the same again.

www.theguardian.com

The 2014 coup in Ukraine

www.wsws.org

 

[ralfy]

Hot take. Anyone supporting/justifying/excusing the invasion of Ukraine deserves to die. Infinitely more than the ukrainian citizens blasted by russian missiles.

The irony is that Putin would agree with you, but in favor of Russians, of course.

The reason why it's an irony is that the West, which is funding Ukraine as part of its proxy wars, is supposed to be fighting against such a "hot take."

 

[ralfy]

That the US has been up to all sort of evil throughout its existence is not disputed. That this means that invading Ukrane, which does not run the US, is justified is disputed.

The question isn't whether or not the invasion is justified but what to do about it. Here's what I mean:

The U.S. is funding a war that benefits only its rich, and from which the same rich would benefit from the spoils of victory:

Tempting The Banksters: Zelensky Courts US Companies| Countercurrents

The transformation of Ukraine into untarnished, saintly victim, symbol of democracy and civil society savaged by brutish Russia, has been nothing less than

countercurrents.org

The U.S. pulled the same stunt in Iraq and in other countries.

Meanwhile, what about the U.S. public? It appears that more of them are losing support for sending more aid. In addition, surveys reveal that most of them don't want to fight, don't want to send troops because their loved ones would be hurt or killed, and aren't even fit to serve:

Even More Young Americans Are Unfit to Serve, a New Study Finds. Here's Why.

The updated figures paint a picture of what is currently plaguing military recruiters in many of the service branches, with a shrinking pool of potential service members available to them.

www.military.com

On top of that, they are facing multiple economic crises, including high prices, infrastructure falling apart, banks failing, and now problems with real estate and whatever net worth they have left, including their homes. That's why even the majority of Democrats no longer support Biden.

What about their allies? Marcon has now stated publicly that European countries shouldn't follow the U.S. lead. Instead, it should talk to China and see if the latter can encourage at least a ceasefire and pave the way for peace talks. Meanwhile, Japan is now buying oil from Russia, various European countries starting to buy oil from Russia through India, and France now selling natural gas to China in exchange for yuans.

Saudi Arabia now wants to move away from dollars for oil trade, which is the linchpin of borrowing and spending for the U.S., including debt needed to fund Ukraine plus to pay for its own military and maintain its economy. Other countries, including Brazil, Mexico, Malaysia, and other are following suit, with Malaysia talking to China and considering using the Asian Monetary Fund instead of the dollar for trade. At the same time, not only France but Japan has been meeting with China, together with some officials from Taiwan.

The U.S. response is to send nuclear subs in the Middle East as a show of force and hammer more military arrangements in Asia with Japan, Australia, and the Philippines. It's as if it's counting on war to take place globally.

Officials in Germany and the Czech Republic are speaking up, some complaining that it looks like the U.S. is merely using its allies as pawns for a proxy war, and they are more reluctant to continue giving to Ukraine.

What about Ukraine? Classified documents have been leaked, revealing that Western media, not surprisingly, has been providing bias news in favor of Ukraine, not revealing that Ukraine is getting decimated, with probably up to half of its industrial base permanently lost, just to maintain support for it that has been waning.

In social media, neocons and neolibs proclaim that the U.S. (not just Ukraine) is winning, that any other problem's merely a "nothingburger" and part of "whataboutism," but cracks are now appearing, with most people of the world making up the Global South speaking up:

A new world order? BRICS nations offer alternative to West – DW – 04/10/2023

Predictions about the BRICS countries as the fastest growing economies haven't quite panned out. Instead, the alliance is now offering a diplomatic forum and development financing, outside of the Western mainstream.

www.dw.com

Given that, does the U.S. strategy for this conflict, which is to use its war machine funded by the rich and other countries to "rescue" a Ukraine that most Americans can't even identify on a map:

34% of Americans Can Find Ukraine on a Map

Voters who can identify Ukraine on a map are more likely to back stronger policy responses against Russia, according to a new Morning Consult poll.

morningconsult.com

still make sense?

 

[Absent]

The irony is that Putin would agree with you, but in favor of Russians, of course.

The reason why it's an irony is that the West, which is funding Ukraine as part of its proxy wars, is supposed to be fighting against such a "hot take."

Yeah what about.

One country is being razed by another. For symbolic stakes that do not deserve one death. What an ironical symetry. Poor Hitler. Go to hell.