3 ms·
Money. US profits immensely from a stable world order. Peace and predictability is good for business. Security guarantees also prevent nuclear proliferation. I
by vardump 2y ago
Money. US profits immensely from a stable world order. Peace and predictability is good for business.
Security guarantees also prevent nuclear proliferation. If Ukraine is defeated, the lesson many countries will learn is to have a strong nuclear deterrent.
- rayiner 2y agoHow much money? Can you point me to studies that show this?
- ziddoap 2y agoYour debate tactic reminds me of some variation of the gish gallop. I thought there was a word for it, but I can't find it. You just ask question after question after question after question, with an extremely disproportionate amount of effort required between you and the person you are asking, and hope that the other side eventually gives up. Edit: jakelazaroff pinned it down for me, "sealioning"
- ceejayoz 2y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
- jakelazaroff 2y agoI think GP is probably looking for sealioning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
- ziddoap 2y agoThat's the one! Thank you.
- torstenvl 2y agoNo. vardump specifically said that the money from stability justifies spending money to support Ukraine. That is only true if the latter is outweighed by the former. We know the amount spent in support of Ukraine. The only missing piece of the puzzle is the specific dollar valuation of the deterrence value of further assistance to Ukraine to resist the Russian invasion. If Ukraine regaining its pre-2022 (or pre-2014) borders is not worth a dollar value that exceeds the cost to achieve that outcome, then vardump's assertion of "money" as the reason is insufficient.
- rayiner 2y agoIf “interests” means something concrete it shouldn’t take a lot of effort to explain what it means. To me it seems like the word is used to avoid acknowledging that “there’s no there, there.”
- ziddoap 2y agoYou do this same tactic in every political thread I've seen your name pop up in from as early as I can remember recognizing your name on this site. Sometimes your questions seem legitimate. Often they don't (they might be! but they don't read so). But, this is probably getting a bit too meta and off-topic. Sorry for the derailment.
- smallmancontrov 2y agoHere, I have just the thing, a study of how much it ultimately costs to appease belligerent European powers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II Now remember that this time everyone has nukes.
- rayiner 2y ago[flagged]
- smallmancontrov 2y agoFor the love of god could you engage with a single argument anywhere in this entire thread?
- rayiner 2y agoThere are no “arguments” being raised here. An argument would be something like “America relies on Ukraine as a key source of XYZ so it would be bad if Russia took it over.” Can you even tell me without looking how much U.S.-Ukraine trade there was before the war? All these platitudes about “interests” and “soft power” seem to be predicated on an assumption that nobody is willing to articulate. Are we all expected to be Francis Fukuyama cultists here who take it as axiomatic that it’s in america’s interest to defend the borders of european countries? If that’s the argument, then I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. Because I happen to think liberals have actually been right on that issue since the 1970s.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- smallmancontrov 2y agoThe argument is that appeasing Putin in Donbas will work about as well as appeasing him in Crimea, creating successively more damaging conflicts in Europe until Article 5 gets tested and either NATO falls apart or we enter a hot war with Russia, and yeah, that's gonna cost money. You know that this is the point of the WWII comparison, which is why you have so studiously ignored the argument, trying to dodge it harder than neo dodging bullets in the first matrix.
- anigbrowl 2y agoEnough that it makes Trump very upset whenever another country talks about using a reserve currency other than the dollar. Why would you need studies when you have the leader's own words?
- wwweston 2y agoYou need studies to show that peace & stability support greater productivity and wealth? Likely as it is that research can indeed confirm this, given the depth & tone of your inquiry, perhaps the most immediate convincing experiment would be best: find someone you can employ to harass and threaten your property and your person, occasionally to devastating effect, alongside another person who can study your productivity and wealth before and after. Perhaps with further similar efforts here you can even persuade some people to volunteer for half of that project free of charge.
- vuln 2y agoThe US profits off war. War is the easiest way to stimulate the economy.
- empiricus 2y agoBut is it though?
- insane_dreamer 2y agoThat depends. It was true of WW2, but that had a unique set of circumstances. The US economy performed much better in the 90s, after the end of the Cold War, then it did in the 2000s with the invasions of Iraq/Afghan