Russia Invades Ukraine 2022

[Josh]

Part of why this is funny is because leftists and liberals used to be gigantic Tesla fans and would buy one (and buy TSLA stock) as some kind of political statement. I always found that a bit off putting, even when I was a liberal, a leftists, a fan of EVs, and really enjoyed my test drive in a Roadster at the flagship Palo Alto store.

[Ken]

Part of why this is funny is because leftists and liberals used to be gigantic Tesla fans and would buy one (and buy TSLA stock) as some kind of political statement. I always found that a bit off putting, even when I was a liberal, a leftists, a fan of EVs, and really enjoyed my test drive in a Roadster at the flagship Palo Alto store.

What is funny is that Elon knew that and yet still set out to destroy his own personal brand by tying himself so closely to both Twitter and Tesla. Liberals in blue states are now canceling Tesla orders right and left. While conservatives in red sates are not picking up the slack. Tesla dropped another 11% today alone even though the broader market was basically flat. Here is Tesla's year to date. If you invested $100 in Tesla last January your investment is now worth $27.28

[Bootstrap]

Prior to the outbreak of WW2 there was all kinds of diplomacy going on. None of it mattered in the end because Hitler was always going to extend the reach of the Reich by one means or another. There's an angle where you could say it was failed diplomacy that caused the war, but in the end, aggressive dictators who are willing to use force aren't going to be stopped from getting what they want by "peace talks." Unless those peace talks are a euphemism for handing them their wishes on a silver platter.

Yes, there are reasons for Putin's outrage that drove him to invade a sovereign nation, just like there were reasons for Hitler's outrage that drove him to invade his neighbors. This doesn't mean that WW2 was the fault of the Allies or Poland or Czechoslovakia. Nobody in Europe in the 1930s wanted war, except Hitler. The responsibility for the war lies with Hitler more than ANY other factor. I disagree that the US or NATO really wanted a Russia-Ukraine war. Putin is the one who wanted it, and now he has it. The war is on him personally more than on anything else.

I agree completely.

And between 2014 and the 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine, I read many, many articles that basically said neither NATO nor the USA would be in any position to defend Ukraine if Russia attacked and Ukraine could not defend itself, saying that's why Ukraine should not be able to join NATO. Neither Europe nor the USA wanted this war to happen. Neither did Ukraine. And everything I read said that Russia could conquer Ukraine very quickly if it wanted to.

Putin really is the one who wanted this war. If he had not invaded, there would be no war.

However, the US has benefited from the war. Russia's war-making capability (as well as other aspects of its major power status) has been substantially reduced at a cost of exactly zero American military casualties. This in exchange for aid that amounts to a small percentage of the US annual defense budget.

I think everyone was surprised that Russia didn't take Ukraine very quickly. The Russian military was nowhere near as good as most experts had thought. Ukraine fought much better than most experts had expected.

This war didn't exactly make Putin look like a genius, either.

[Bootstrap]

Part of why this is funny is ...

What is funny is ....

What is funny is that Ken and Josh keep having the same conversation in various threads that are about different topics. It makes it really hard for me to know what the subject is.

I wonder if this thread could be about the Russian invasion of Ukraine?

[Ken]

Part of why this is funny is ...

What is funny is ....

What is funny is that Ken and Josh keep having the same conversation in various threads that are about different topics. It makes it really hard for me to know what the subject is.

I wonder if this thread could be about the Russian invasion of Ukraine?

I made the comment that so far the US has spent less on military aid to Ukraine than Musk spent on Twitter. Which either tells us that the US military investment in Ukraine is remarkably cheap or that Muck hugely overpaid for a web site. Or perhaps both.

It is actually pretty cheap in military terms. What is tremendously more expensive than equipment is personnel. Deploying US troops overseas costs many-times more than just shipping weapons for others to use. That is what made wars like Iraq and Afghanistan so expensive despite facing foes many-times less advanced and powerful than Russia.

[Josh]

I still can’t figure out what the price of Twitter has to do with Ukraine.

And the U.S. has actually spent more than $44 billion on Ukraine, so I’m not even sure why Ken keeps repeating that falsehood.

According to the CFR, the U.S. has spent nearly $50 billion.

[nett]

What is funny is ....

What is funny is that Ken and Josh keep having the same conversation in various threads that are about different topics. It makes it really hard for me to know what the subject is.

I wonder if this thread could be about the Russian invasion of Ukraine?

I made the comment that so far the US has spent less on military aid to Ukraine than Musk spent on Twitter. Which either tells us that the US military investment in Ukraine is remarkably cheap or that Muck hugely overpaid for a web site. Or perhaps both.

It is actually pretty cheap in military terms. What is tremendously more expensive than equipment is personnel. Deploying US troops overseas costs many-times more than just shipping weapons for others to use. That is what made wars like Iraq and Afghanistan so expensive despite facing foes many-times less advanced and powerful than Russia.

Do you really think Musk buying Twitter is comparable to exporting arms to Ukraine in financial terms?

[Josh]

I would welcome a world where money is spent on a gossip website instead of being spent on ammunition, artillery, explosives, drones, tanks, guns, and bombs.

[Ken]

I still can’t figure out what the price of Twitter has to do with Ukraine.

And the U.S. has actually spent more than $44 billion on Ukraine, so I’m not even sure why Ken keeps repeating that falsehood.

According to the CFR, the U.S. has spent nearly $50 billion.

Look up at my post. I specified military aid since that was what we were talking about. The $50 billion figure you cite is all forms of aid including humanitarian and financial. The actual amount of military aid we have sent to Ukraine is less than half that or $22.9 billion which, coincidentally, is almost exactly half the amount that Elon paid for Twitter. Incidentally, only $12 billion is actual weapons, the rest of the military aid is training and logistical support and loan guarantees.

Here is the chart from the source that you linked to above.

[Josh]

100% of that is military aid.

Is America sending humanitarian assistance to Russia? No? Then it is entirely a matter of sending money to support America’s preferred side in a war.