6 ms·

What a strange part of Putin's legacy. I'm still hoping for de-escalation, but frankly it feels like we could easily have an incident that causes things to spi

What a strange part of Putin's legacy. I'm still hoping for de-escalation, but frankly it feels like we could easily have an incident that causes things to spiral out of control, a la the start of WWI.

TazeTSchnitzel 4y ago
I want to think the NATO countries are wise enough to not start WW3 if they get an excuse. If a fighter jet or something gets downed, it'd be in the interests of everyone to play it down.
- ihatepython 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - vkou 4y ago
    On the one hand, you prevent Trump winning and maybe write some debt down. On the other hand, you know, war with a nuclear power with plausible escalation scenarios where 'who won the presidency' and 'who owes whom money' become utterly irrelevant questions. The DoS isn't that stupid. But the conspiracy media producing this FUD is.
    - ihatepython 4y ago
      > On the one hand, you prevent Trump winning and maybe write some debt down. You don't just write down some debt. You default on all sovereign debt and introduce a brand new monetary system, entirely digital so that everything can be tracked.
  - actionfromafar 4y ago
    Yeah, age old conflict of the Russian government against its people, alright.
  - m_0x 4y ago
    If the plan is to start it before the US elections why not start it in the next 5 minutes? What are the men behind the curtains waiting for?
    - ihatepython 4y ago
      The timing is better since they get more back for their buck, similar to how they scheduled Trump's hearing for December at the start of the campaign season, rather than as soon as possible. It gives them more time to prepare, and to do military exercises. War requires planning, you can't just flip a switch and go to war.
  - bingobongodude 4y ago
    So what would be the best strategy for a citizen to profit from this looming scenario? Asking in good faith. What is your strategy to get the most out of it? What can I do to take home as much as possible?
    - ihatepython 4y ago
      Tangible assets will survive the transition to the next monetary system as they can be revalued. Government debt will go to zero. I'm not sure that this is a get rich opportunity, rather a try-not-to-lose-your-life-savings event.
      - bingobongodude 4y ago
        If it is not a get rich opportunity there would be no incentive to push for it.
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        > Tangible assets will survive the transition to the next monetary system as they can be revalued. Assuming “the next monetary system” retains the same property system, whhich it might, or might not, and assuming not only that the basic system is the same but that there isn’t a one-time compulsory change of ownership of the assets in question, which is also possible. Of course, the idea that the US Government is seeking WWIII to prevent the reinstallation of the previous President and install a new global financial system under the IMF and UN is, well, beyond ridiculous, but if I was insane enough to believe such a paranoid fever dream, I wouldn’t also believe that the new system being imposed would both retain the existing system and specific assignment of property rights. That’s just a weirdly calibrated level of trust in the government that the scenario is otherwise so paranoid about.
        ihatepython 4y ago
        > I wouldn’t also believe that the new system being imposed would both retain the existing system and specific assignment of property rights. That’s just a weirdly calibrated level of trust in the government that the scenario is otherwise so paranoid about. It would be more like a return to feudalism, which was the system in place before capitalism. The barter system becomes relevant again.
  - xg15 4y ago
    I thought the US can already print as much money as they want without fear of soaring inflation due to $ being the global reserve currency. So why don't they just print more dollars and pay back their debts?
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      MMT was delt a massive blow by the current inflation issue.... They thought they could, then the Ghost of Hayak was heard laughing from Coast to Coast.
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        > MMT was delt a massive blow by the current inflation issue.... MMT literally argues that the monetary/fiscal division is artificial, and that the only constraint on fiscal policy is the monetary impact of net spending in the context of whatever traditional “monetary” policy is pursued, when you operate in your own fiat. There being a monetary impact of either net spending or traditional monetary policy is not a blow to MMT.
    - redeeman 4y ago
      the world is abandoning the US dollar as reserve and trade currency, this capability is being outphased faster than most people realize
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > I thought the US can already print as much money as they want without fear of soaring inflation due to $ being the global reserve currency. No, that’s never been the case. If it was, loose monetary policy to prevent incipient deflation (which is exactly causing inflation compared to the status quo ante) wouldn’t work (and, conversely, leaving the loose money policy engaged too long would lead to inflation, like it did after the brief COVID recession.) The US having the ability to borrow in its own currency (which is closely related to the dollar being a global reserve currency, but slightly different) means that it always has the theoretical capacity to monetize the debt.
- HEmanZ 4y ago
  Normally I would say, “don’t be so sure”, but a book I just finished this weekend changed my mind: “The Guns of August”. I agree with you and do think the western world would be really hard to bring into a world war nowadays. The amount the world and Europe in particular has changed since WWI is astounding. The entire world was deeply belligerent in a way that really surprised me and seems foreign to our modern sensibility. The only country of today that acts/thinks this way seems to be Russia, but leading up to WWI almost every single country in Europe was still planning for the conquest and destruction of their neighbors. Everyone (the major powers anyways) just assumed “ya, we’re gonna fight a huge multi-million person war and we’re gonna win.” I really don’t see that kind of belligerence in the minds of the world anymore. Of course, there were some academics at the time of WWI saying the same thing, so…
- adventured 4y ago
  People frequently reference WW3 in regards to Russia. They can't get through eastern Ukraine. What world war? They have no means (and the mediocre means they had before the beginning of the war in Ukraine, have been slashed in half, to say nothing of vast degradation of still quasi-operating hardware), they'd get stomped by NATO within a month and throw the nuclear card on the table to end it. Iran? Trivial to contain within their own borders, and we'd ignite an armed revolution by flowing massive amounts of weapons into Iran. Belarus? Barely has a military worth mentioning in this context. And there's good reason to be skeptical of China joining Russia in a world war.
  - ihatepython 4y ago
    > And there's good reason to be skeptical of China joining Russia in a world war. You don't seem to have an understanding of basic strategy. China will probably use this opportunity to take back Taiwan. And North Korea might as well invade South Korea while we're at it.
    - _kbh_ 4y ago
      > You don't seem to have an understanding of basic strategy. China will probably use this opportunity to take back Taiwan. And North Korea might as well invade South Korea while we're at it. Why take back Taiwan when they can take back parts of Russia that Russia previously annexed?
      - actionfromafar 4y ago
        Because Taiwan is a living thorn in the of China. It has democracy and a great economy. It's an alternative version of what it means to be chinese. Can't have that. What will they take from Russia, trees and rocks?
    - red-iron-pine 4y ago
      There is no scenario where NK has a reasonable shot of invading SK. There are, arguably, questions as to if NK's total petrolium reserves are enough to move their army to Seoul. There is the potential for great misery and destruction from NK, but that's mostly due to the fact that a lot of well off urban areas are within NK artillery range. I'm not so sure about Taiwan, either. Ukraine is right on the border of Russia, no shipping, no mountainous terrain, and no direct treaties with the US. China has already said in the event of a shooting war they'd consider US allies as legitimate targets, so a Taiwanese war means Japan, Australia, SK, and maybe NATO entering the fray. It would be an ugly, mountainous fight, possibly leading to a guerilla war / insurgency. In 20 years after technology (chips, etc.) transfer back to the US there isn't really any reason for the US to give a shit. Why risk Ukraine-ing yourself when you can just let economic and demographic forces do it for you?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
gerdesj 4y ago
"WWI" World War One was the 1914-18 show. I think you mean: WWIII or WW3. There won't be a de-escalation of any sort because stupidity at national level knows few bounds. However there will be changes, probably unpleasant. I think that nuclear is unlikely because despite how despotic we might paint Russia right now - the Management are not completely hatstand (however Mr Putin appears to be exhibiting quite a few neuroses). Prepare for the worst and hope for the best is indicated.
- xg15 4y ago
  I think GP did mean WWI, where one event [1] set off a chain reaction of mutual defense assurances until first all European powers, then all major world powers were at war. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Archduke_Franz_Ferdinand https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Archduke_Fr...
- silisili 4y ago
  a la means 'in the fashion of.' OP was stating it can happen like what happened in WW1.
- dbrueck 4y ago
  Nah, I meant the first one, like the peers to this comment noted.
pphysch 4y ago
Two long-time-EU, never-Soviet members joining NATO is as nothingburger as it gets. If anything, they didn't join three decades ago because of the poor optics of incessant NATO expansion after USSR collapsed. Now the cat's out of the bag, and there's no reason for them not to formally join the alliance (Ankara willing). But it doesn't change any strategic calculus.
- actionfromafar 4y ago
  I guess you never heard about Finlandisation!
  - pphysch 4y ago
    How is that relevant here?
    - rippercushions 4y ago
      It's the art of bowing to the East without mooning the West. Or was, rather, since Putin finally got the ass end.
    - actionfromafar 4y ago
      Finland finally took a stand, how can it not be relevant? Russia gaining a huge NATO border. Finland and Sweden has always coordinated their defense. Sweden has top notch Air Force and great submarines in the Baltic Sea. Finland has thousands of modern artillery pieces. Russia can't lean on Finland anymore. Finland didn't want to join NATO for fear of provoking the "Bear". If this is not a ripple in northern geopolitics, I don't know what is. I'll give you that it currently isn't as important if Sweden joins or not. Erdogan made the impossible possible - having Finland join before Sweden.
      - pphysch 4y ago
        Finland joined the EU almost 3 decades ago, despite Helsinki being only 300km from St Petersburg. The standard for Russian satellite state is Belarus, not Finland.
carabiner 4y ago
War never changes.

TazeTSchnitzel 4y ago

I want to think the NATO countries are wise enough to not start WW3 if they get an excuse. If a fighter jet or something gets downed, it'd be in the interests of everyone to play it down.

ihatepython 4y ago
[flagged]
- vkou 4y ago
  On the one hand, you prevent Trump winning and maybe write some debt down. On the other hand, you know, war with a nuclear power with plausible escalation scenarios where 'who won the presidency' and 'who owes whom money' become utterly irrelevant questions. The DoS isn't that stupid. But the conspiracy media producing this FUD is.
  - ihatepython 4y ago
    > On the one hand, you prevent Trump winning and maybe write some debt down. You don't just write down some debt. You default on all sovereign debt and introduce a brand new monetary system, entirely digital so that everything can be tracked.
- actionfromafar 4y ago
  Yeah, age old conflict of the Russian government against its people, alright.
- m_0x 4y ago
  If the plan is to start it before the US elections why not start it in the next 5 minutes? What are the men behind the curtains waiting for?
  - ihatepython 4y ago
    The timing is better since they get more back for their buck, similar to how they scheduled Trump's hearing for December at the start of the campaign season, rather than as soon as possible. It gives them more time to prepare, and to do military exercises. War requires planning, you can't just flip a switch and go to war.
- bingobongodude 4y ago
  So what would be the best strategy for a citizen to profit from this looming scenario? Asking in good faith. What is your strategy to get the most out of it? What can I do to take home as much as possible?
  - ihatepython 4y ago
    Tangible assets will survive the transition to the next monetary system as they can be revalued. Government debt will go to zero. I'm not sure that this is a get rich opportunity, rather a try-not-to-lose-your-life-savings event.
    - bingobongodude 4y ago
      If it is not a get rich opportunity there would be no incentive to push for it.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > Tangible assets will survive the transition to the next monetary system as they can be revalued. Assuming “the next monetary system” retains the same property system, whhich it might, or might not, and assuming not only that the basic system is the same but that there isn’t a one-time compulsory change of ownership of the assets in question, which is also possible. Of course, the idea that the US Government is seeking WWIII to prevent the reinstallation of the previous President and install a new global financial system under the IMF and UN is, well, beyond ridiculous, but if I was insane enough to believe such a paranoid fever dream, I wouldn’t also believe that the new system being imposed would both retain the existing system and specific assignment of property rights. That’s just a weirdly calibrated level of trust in the government that the scenario is otherwise so paranoid about.
      - ihatepython 4y ago
        > I wouldn’t also believe that the new system being imposed would both retain the existing system and specific assignment of property rights. That’s just a weirdly calibrated level of trust in the government that the scenario is otherwise so paranoid about. It would be more like a return to feudalism, which was the system in place before capitalism. The barter system becomes relevant again.
- xg15 4y ago
  I thought the US can already print as much money as they want without fear of soaring inflation due to $ being the global reserve currency. So why don't they just print more dollars and pay back their debts?
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    MMT was delt a massive blow by the current inflation issue.... They thought they could, then the Ghost of Hayak was heard laughing from Coast to Coast.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > MMT was delt a massive blow by the current inflation issue.... MMT literally argues that the monetary/fiscal division is artificial, and that the only constraint on fiscal policy is the monetary impact of net spending in the context of whatever traditional “monetary” policy is pursued, when you operate in your own fiat. There being a monetary impact of either net spending or traditional monetary policy is not a blow to MMT.
  - redeeman 4y ago
    the world is abandoning the US dollar as reserve and trade currency, this capability is being outphased faster than most people realize
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > I thought the US can already print as much money as they want without fear of soaring inflation due to $ being the global reserve currency. No, that’s never been the case. If it was, loose monetary policy to prevent incipient deflation (which is exactly causing inflation compared to the status quo ante) wouldn’t work (and, conversely, leaving the loose money policy engaged too long would lead to inflation, like it did after the brief COVID recession.) The US having the ability to borrow in its own currency (which is closely related to the dollar being a global reserve currency, but slightly different) means that it always has the theoretical capacity to monetize the debt.
HEmanZ 4y ago
Normally I would say, “don’t be so sure”, but a book I just finished this weekend changed my mind: “The Guns of August”. I agree with you and do think the western world would be really hard to bring into a world war nowadays. The amount the world and Europe in particular has changed since WWI is astounding. The entire world was deeply belligerent in a way that really surprised me and seems foreign to our modern sensibility. The only country of today that acts/thinks this way seems to be Russia, but leading up to WWI almost every single country in Europe was still planning for the conquest and destruction of their neighbors. Everyone (the major powers anyways) just assumed “ya, we’re gonna fight a huge multi-million person war and we’re gonna win.” I really don’t see that kind of belligerence in the minds of the world anymore. Of course, there were some academics at the time of WWI saying the same thing, so…
adventured 4y ago
People frequently reference WW3 in regards to Russia. They can't get through eastern Ukraine. What world war? They have no means (and the mediocre means they had before the beginning of the war in Ukraine, have been slashed in half, to say nothing of vast degradation of still quasi-operating hardware), they'd get stomped by NATO within a month and throw the nuclear card on the table to end it. Iran? Trivial to contain within their own borders, and we'd ignite an armed revolution by flowing massive amounts of weapons into Iran. Belarus? Barely has a military worth mentioning in this context. And there's good reason to be skeptical of China joining Russia in a world war.
- ihatepython 4y ago
  > And there's good reason to be skeptical of China joining Russia in a world war. You don't seem to have an understanding of basic strategy. China will probably use this opportunity to take back Taiwan. And North Korea might as well invade South Korea while we're at it.
  - _kbh_ 4y ago
    > You don't seem to have an understanding of basic strategy. China will probably use this opportunity to take back Taiwan. And North Korea might as well invade South Korea while we're at it. Why take back Taiwan when they can take back parts of Russia that Russia previously annexed?
    - actionfromafar 4y ago
      Because Taiwan is a living thorn in the of China. It has democracy and a great economy. It's an alternative version of what it means to be chinese. Can't have that. What will they take from Russia, trees and rocks?
  - red-iron-pine 4y ago
    There is no scenario where NK has a reasonable shot of invading SK. There are, arguably, questions as to if NK's total petrolium reserves are enough to move their army to Seoul. There is the potential for great misery and destruction from NK, but that's mostly due to the fact that a lot of well off urban areas are within NK artillery range. I'm not so sure about Taiwan, either. Ukraine is right on the border of Russia, no shipping, no mountainous terrain, and no direct treaties with the US. China has already said in the event of a shooting war they'd consider US allies as legitimate targets, so a Taiwanese war means Japan, Australia, SK, and maybe NATO entering the fray. It would be an ugly, mountainous fight, possibly leading to a guerilla war / insurgency. In 20 years after technology (chips, etc.) transfer back to the US there isn't really any reason for the US to give a shit. Why risk Ukraine-ing yourself when you can just let economic and demographic forces do it for you?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

gerdesj 4y ago

"WWI" World War One was the 1914-18 show. I think you mean: WWIII or WW3. There won't be a de-escalation of any sort because stupidity at national level knows few bounds. However there will be changes, probably unpleasant. I think that nuclear is unlikely because despite how despotic we might paint Russia right now - the Management are not completely hatstand (however Mr Putin appears to be exhibiting quite a few neuroses). Prepare for the worst and hope for the best is indicated.

xg15 4y ago
I think GP did mean WWI, where one event [1] set off a chain reaction of mutual defense assurances until first all European powers, then all major world powers were at war. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Archduke_Franz_Ferdinand https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Archduke_Fr...
silisili 4y ago
a la means 'in the fashion of.' OP was stating it can happen like what happened in WW1.
dbrueck 4y ago
Nah, I meant the first one, like the peers to this comment noted.

pphysch 4y ago

Two long-time-EU, never-Soviet members joining NATO is as nothingburger as it gets. If anything, they didn't join three decades ago because of the poor optics of incessant NATO expansion after USSR collapsed. Now the cat's out of the bag, and there's no reason for them not to formally join the alliance (Ankara willing). But it doesn't change any strategic calculus.

actionfromafar 4y ago
I guess you never heard about Finlandisation!
- pphysch 4y ago
  How is that relevant here?
  - rippercushions 4y ago
    It's the art of bowing to the East without mooning the West. Or was, rather, since Putin finally got the ass end.
  - actionfromafar 4y ago
    Finland finally took a stand, how can it not be relevant? Russia gaining a huge NATO border. Finland and Sweden has always coordinated their defense. Sweden has top notch Air Force and great submarines in the Baltic Sea. Finland has thousands of modern artillery pieces. Russia can't lean on Finland anymore. Finland didn't want to join NATO for fear of provoking the "Bear". If this is not a ripple in northern geopolitics, I don't know what is. I'll give you that it currently isn't as important if Sweden joins or not. Erdogan made the impossible possible - having Finland join before Sweden.
    - pphysch 4y ago
      Finland joined the EU almost 3 decades ago, despite Helsinki being only 300km from St Petersburg. The standard for Russian satellite state is Belarus, not Finland.

carabiner 4y ago

War never changes.