Sanctions on Russia

Melissa Peterson19 said:Are you seriously talking about the largest nation on the planet with inexhaustible resources? A massive exporter of food, energy, and raw materials? This is a country that put a man in space sixty years ago. They moved their entire industrial base behind the Rockies to escape the Nazis, churning out tanks and gear that didn't stop until they hit Washington, D.C.!?
Now you’re going to claim they lack technical expertise? Have you ever actually been to Russia, or do you even know anyone there? It’s not like they don't produce anything—they make phones and TVs just like any small-time operation in a garage today.
Any specialized knowledge they need, they can easily buy using nickel, palladium, lithium, and other commodities in this interconnected world.
As for the disgruntled citizens desperate for Western brands, they'll get what they want through the black market.

Believe me, the greater the instability in Russia, the tighter the dictatorship becomes. It will likely be even worse after Putin, because a democracy would simply sell off its resources to the West for trinkets, whereas Russians are a people defined by a strong spirit, deep history, tradition, and culture.

I've been to Russia myself. Their manufacturing (ignoring sheer volume) didn't impress me, and neither did the skill level of their experts.
Sure, any hack can build a TV in a garage, but they're using parts made in the West (or under Western control).

Melissa Peterson19 said:Are you seriously talking about the largest nation on the planet with inexhaustible resources? A massive exporter of food, energy, and raw materials? This is a country that put a man in space sixty years ago. They moved their entire industrial base behind the Rockies to escape the Nazis, churning out tanks and gear that didn't stop until they hit Washington, D.C.!?
Now you’re going to claim they lack technical expertise? Have you ever actually been to Russia, or do you even know anyone there? It’s not like they don't produce anything—they make phones and TVs just like any small-time operation in a garage today.
Any specialized knowledge they need, they can easily buy using nickel, palladium, lithium, and other commodities in this interconnected world.
As for the disgruntled citizens desperate for Western brands, they'll get what they want through the black market.

Believe me, the greater the instability in Russia, the tighter the dictatorship becomes. It will likely be even worse after Putin, because a democracy would simply sell off its resources to the West for trinkets, whereas Russians are a people defined by a strong spirit, deep history, tradition, and culture.

The Germans were similar—"a people of immense spirit, great history, tradition, and culture"—and when Hitler took power, they lost the very war they started.

P.S. To be fair, they weren't alone in that war at first; they were allied with the Russians, but Hitler betrayed and attacked them. Just a perfect example of how greed can lead to a total debacle.

Look, Russia has its geniuses and its manufacturing hubs—just like any other nation. But how many true visionaries are actually left in America? A huge number of our brightest minds have already packed up and moved elsewhere in search of a better life. In fact, millions of Russian experts have already fled their home country.
It’s the same pattern we saw with Germany, where so many people jumped across the Atlantic before and during WWII.
That includes guys like Albert Einstein. And Tesla, obviously.

dustyowl29 said:Look, Russia has its geniuses and its manufacturing hubs—just like any other nation. But how many true visionaries are actually left in America? A huge number of our brightest minds have already packed up and moved elsewhere in search of a better life. In fact, millions of Russian experts have already fled their home country.
It’s the same pattern we saw with Germany, where so many people jumped across the Atlantic before and during WWII.
That includes guys like Albert Einstein. And Tesla, obviously.

Well, let’s assume for a moment that you’re actually on the right track here.

Sanctions are essentially an imposition of political will, sure, but there really is another way to look at things...

Just imagine if the USA didn't pour 700 billion dollars into weaponry, or billions more into various wars... but instead directed all that capital toward domestic progress—into benefits like universal healthcare, social safety nets, high wages... basically, towards that promised land, a true Utopia.

Anyone living under a local regime who disagrees with the status quo would view exactly that kind of USA—and honestly, most people already see it in that light—as a beacon of hope. They would flock to it, or at least demand that their own leaders emulate it to spark some kind of meaningful change. The USSR and the Eastern Bloc... they didn't collapse because of outside military force, but rather because they rotted from within once the masses realized how much better life was "on the other side of the fence."

Soft power is often a much more effective solution than brute force. It’s less expensive, and it doesn't leave a trail of destruction behind it...

P.S.
If it hadn't been for Nazism, where belonging to the "wrong" religion was made illegal—can you even begin to fathom the mindset of a regime that classifies a Nobel laureate or a group of world-class experts as "Untermensch"?—Einstein would never have moved to the USA, and neither would Teller, Fermi, or Szilard (who, in reality, was the one who conceived the idea that the USA needed to jumpstart nuclear development ahead of Germany; Einstein was just the famous name on the "letter of intent")... nor Bohr, or many others.
Similarly, if anyone within the messy cabbage patch of Australian bureaucracy had actually been able to recognize the sheer potential of someone like Tesla, he wouldn't have ended up in America either...

brightheron64 said:Well, let’s assume for a moment that you’re actually on the right track here.

Sanctions are essentially an imposition of political will, sure, but there really is another way to look at things...

Just imagine if the USA didn't pour 700 billion dollars into weaponry, or billions more into various wars... but instead directed all that capital toward domestic progress—into benefits like universal healthcare, social safety nets, high wages... basically, towards that promised land, a true Utopia.

Anyone living under a local regime who disagrees with the status quo would view exactly that kind of USA—and honestly, most people already see it in that light—as a beacon of hope. They would flock to it, or at least demand that their own leaders emulate it to spark some kind of meaningful change. The USSR and the Eastern Bloc... they didn't collapse because of outside military force, but rather because they rotted from within once the masses realized how much better life was "on the other side of the fence."

Soft power is often a much more effective solution than brute force. It’s less expensive, and it doesn't leave a trail of destruction behind it...

P.S.
If it hadn't been for Nazism, where belonging to the "wrong" religion was made illegal—can you even begin to fathom the mindset of a regime that classifies a Nobel laureate or a group of world-class experts as "Untermensch"?—Einstein would never have moved to the USA, and neither would Teller, Fermi, or Szilard (who, in reality, was the one who conceived the idea that the USA needed to jumpstart nuclear development ahead of Germany; Einstein was just the famous name on the "letter of intent")... nor Bohr, or many others.
Similarly, if anyone within the messy cabbage patch of Australian bureaucracy had actually been able to recognize the sheer potential of someone like Tesla, he wouldn't have ended up in America either...

Man, this is a super romanticized way of looking at the world.

Like this war is showing us right now, if you don't have a military strong enough to defend yourself and your values—or better yet, so powerful that the other side won't even dream of touching you—then it doesn't matter how much of a Utopia you've turned yourself into. That other side, which is basically brain-dead and stuck in poverty, is just going to decide to take you out by force, leaving you standing there totally defenseless in your little paradise.

Sadly, having a big enough stick is still the only real way to make sure you actually exist and keep your values intact.

@fgzcvijetic

You've got a point there.

Honestly, the most effective way to take down an aggressive regime would be the exact opposite of what we’re doing—investing instead of sanctioning. Imagine pumping trillions of dollars into Russia just to let the population get a taste of a normal lifestyle, until they eventually start demanding democratic reforms themselves. It’s like that old saying—you have to give them something to lose. That’s what actually stings. When people have nothing, they don't care about sanctions or geopolitics; they just focus on survival.

hollowdriver13 said:Man, this is a super romanticized way of looking at the world.

Like this war is showing us right now, if you don't have a military strong enough to defend yourself and your values—or better yet, so powerful that the other side won't even dream of touching you—then it doesn't matter how much of a Utopia you've turned yourself into. That other side, which is basically brain-dead and stuck in poverty, is just going to decide to take you out by force, leaving you standing there totally defenseless in your little paradise.

Sadly, having a big enough stick is still the only real way to make sure you actually exist and keep your values intact.

Whether you call it romanticism or just plain old aggression... do you truly believe that the only valid way forward is to rely on raw military might—to simply crush, overpower, and steamroll anyone who dares to disagree with us...?

If you sit down and actually crunch the numbers, the sheer cost of the American involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq runs into the trillions of dollars. And that’s just the financial side of things—it doesn't even begin to touch the devastating human toll... If we could have taken all those resources poured into every war since 1945 and instead funneled them into cattle ranching, agricultural breakthroughs, cutting-edge tech, or robust social programs, imagine where we might be today...
I don't even need to bring up the history involving Agent Orange and the sheer devastation it inflicted on the environment—though, if you look at the silver lining, Vietnam managed to climb the ranks to become the second-largest coffee producer in the world because of it... we could just shrug our shoulders and accept it as one of those "shit happens" moments, a dark little blot on our shared history that’s been defined by so much conflict, but surely we were meant to walk away from all that with a few lessons learned, right...

On the other hand, if we were to take those trillions of dollars and transform them into something tangible, something material, and genuinely useful for the world... just consider the cost of livestock. You could look at everything from the absolute gold standard, those elite Holstein and Angus master breeds, down to a perfectly serviceable cow that wouldn't even break the $2,000 mark. When you start converting all those massive military budgets into animals capable of feeding huge swaths of humanity—and let's not even get into the methane issue—you really have to ask how much sense warfare actually makes. Anything you might hope to achieve through brute force could almost certainly be handled more effectively through diplomacy and kindness, all without leaving a trail of lost souls on your conscience... assuming you even have one. I’ll say it again: a carrot is far more interesting and productive than a stick...

With a little bit of common sense, all those people who think they can achieve global dominance through nothing but military doctrines and sheer force should probably realize that there are so many other ways to win... from controlling raw materials to securing food supplies, especially when it comes to food security, which grants a level of invincibility far more potent than any rifle ever could...
Look, George Lewis9, if you’re being bankrolled and politically elevated by a giant like Lockheed Martin, then of course you're going to claim that heavy artillery is the only way forward... But it's funny how those people are always the very last ones to ever see a trench or send their own children off to fight, just to be clear about what I mean here... and meanwhile, Vladimir Putin is out there dancing to that exact same twisted rhythm...

It’s certainly much easier to focus on churning out tanks, building aircraft carriers, or "disciplining" anyone who dares to disagree... rather than actually contemplating how to make things better or working toward the global good... which, let's be honest, offers a far more drastic and completely legitimate form of dominance—if that's truly what you're after—than any weapon ever could...

The West threw money at Russia, sure—but it was all for nothing when you’re dealing with a mafia spread across the entire country that can flip the script whenever they feel like it
and just grab whatever they want.

Honestly, the real question is this: why didn't Russia take those $600 billion in reserves—plus the massive pile of stolen billions from the oligarchs
(with that little evil gnome's blessing, obviously)—along with the huge cash flow from energy and raw material exports, and actually use it for the good of the Russian people?
Why wasn't that money used to build up their own industry, infrastructure (outside of Moscow and St. Petersburg, anyway), tourism, or any other kind of partnership with the West?

casualtiger2 said:The West threw money at Russia, sure—but it was all for nothing when you’re dealing with a mafia spread across the entire country that can flip the script whenever they feel like it
and just grab whatever they want.

Honestly, the real question is this: why didn't Russia take those $600 billion in reserves—plus the massive pile of stolen billions from the oligarchs
(with that little evil gnome's blessing, obviously)—along with the huge cash flow from energy and raw material exports, and actually use it for the good of the Russian people?
Why wasn't that money used to build up their own industry, infrastructure (outside of Moscow and St. Petersburg, anyway), tourism, or any other kind of partnership with the West?

And that's just touching on your blue-and-yellow symbolism...

Is everyone in Ukraine basically Mother Teresa and her sisters?

casualtiger2 said:The West threw money at Russia, sure—but it was all for nothing when you’re dealing with a mafia spread across the entire country that can flip the script whenever they feel like it
and just grab whatever they want.

Honestly, the real question is this: why didn't Russia take those $600 billion in reserves—plus the massive pile of stolen billions from the oligarchs
(with that little evil gnome's blessing, obviously)—along with the huge cash flow from energy and raw material exports, and actually use it for the good of the Russian people?
Why wasn't that money used to build up their own industry, infrastructure (outside of Moscow and St. Petersburg, anyway), tourism, or any other kind of partnership with the West?

It’s because the entire oligarchy is just a conglomerate of arrogant thugs who care about nothing but their own interests. They'd rather impoverish the nation than share even a fraction of the wealth with anyone else, simply because having a yacht that's ten feet shorter provides drastically less satisfaction...
Even the famously laid-back folks in the Middle East, blessed by divine grace with oil practically flowing from their ears, have managed to build more than the Russians (or even the Ukrainians) have.

On the other hand, all these powerful figures, from the Russian oligarchs to the Arab sheiks, act as if they’re going to live for nine hundred years, and might even carry all their accumulated wealth into the afterlife. Greed and extravagance are diseases that are incredibly difficult to cure, especially when the greedy ones are the ones holding the reins...

brightheron64 said:Whether you call it romanticism or just plain old aggression... do you truly believe that the only valid way forward is to rely on raw military might—to simply crush, overpower, and steamroll anyone who dares to disagree with us...?

If you sit down and actually crunch the numbers, the sheer cost of the American involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq runs into the trillions of dollars. And that’s just the financial side of things—it doesn't even begin to touch the devastating human toll... If we could have taken all those resources poured into every war since 1945 and instead funneled them into cattle ranching, agricultural breakthroughs, cutting-edge tech, or robust social programs, imagine where we might be today...
I don't even need to bring up the history involving Agent Orange and the sheer devastation it inflicted on the environment—though, if you look at the silver lining, Vietnam managed to climb the ranks to become the second-largest coffee producer in the world because of it... we could just shrug our shoulders and accept it as one of those "shit happens" moments, a dark little blot on our shared history that’s been defined by so much conflict, but surely we were meant to walk away from all that with a few lessons learned, right...

On the other hand, if we were to take those trillions of dollars and transform them into something tangible, something material, and genuinely useful for the world... just consider the cost of livestock. You could look at everything from the absolute gold standard, those elite Holstein and Angus master breeds, down to a perfectly serviceable cow that wouldn't even break the $2,000 mark. When you start converting all those massive military budgets into animals capable of feeding huge swaths of humanity—and let's not even get into the methane issue—you really have to ask how much sense warfare actually makes. Anything you might hope to achieve through brute force could almost certainly be handled more effectively through diplomacy and kindness, all without leaving a trail of lost souls on your conscience... assuming you even have one. I’ll say it again: a carrot is far more interesting and productive than a stick...

With a little bit of common sense, all those people who think they can achieve global dominance through nothing but military doctrines and sheer force should probably realize that there are so many other ways to win... from controlling raw materials to securing food supplies, especially when it comes to food security, which grants a level of invincibility far more potent than any rifle ever could...
Look, George Lewis9, if you’re being bankrolled and politically elevated by a giant like Lockheed Martin, then of course you're going to claim that heavy artillery is the only way forward... But it's funny how those people are always the very last ones to ever see a trench or send their own children off to fight, just to be clear about what I mean here... and meanwhile, Vladimir Putin is out there dancing to that exact same twisted rhythm...

It’s certainly much easier to focus on churning out tanks, building aircraft carriers, or "disciplining" anyone who dares to disagree... rather than actually contemplating how to make things better or working toward the global good... which, let's be honest, offers a far more drastic and completely legitimate form of dominance—if that's truly what you're after—than any weapon ever could...

Because doing otherwise would be irresponsible and totally reckless toward your own people. Your goal isn't just economic prosperity; it's security too. Anyone who tried to do exactly what you're suggesting would be out of a job in no time. That's just how life works—you can't reinvent the wheel here. Wars have existed since cavemen. Instead of constantly whining about Americans, maybe you should ask yourself what it is in human stupidity that drives us toward aggression? We could all be well-fed and thriving—Africa could have water and food, etc.—but nope, every once in a while, some idiot wants more for themselves. Doesn't matter what nationality they are. But no, it's always "the Americans, this" and "the Americans, that."

Or, to overcomplicate it: why do borders even exist? Why do we pay for a place to live? Isn't the planet private property? Etc., etc.

brightheron64 said:Whether you call it romanticism or just plain old aggression... do you truly believe that the only valid way forward is to rely on raw military might—to simply crush, overpower, and steamroll anyone who dares to disagree with us...?

If you sit down and actually crunch the numbers, the sheer cost of the American involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq runs into the trillions of dollars. And that’s just the financial side of things—it doesn't even begin to touch the devastating human toll... If we could have taken all those resources poured into every war since 1945 and instead funneled them into cattle ranching, agricultural breakthroughs, cutting-edge tech, or robust social programs, imagine where we might be today...
I don't even need to bring up the history involving Agent Orange and the sheer devastation it inflicted on the environment—though, if you look at the silver lining, Vietnam managed to climb the ranks to become the second-largest coffee producer in the world because of it... we could just shrug our shoulders and accept it as one of those "shit happens" moments, a dark little blot on our shared history that’s been defined by so much conflict, but surely we were meant to walk away from all that with a few lessons learned, right...

On the other hand, if we were to take those trillions of dollars and transform them into something tangible, something material, and genuinely useful for the world... just consider the cost of livestock. You could look at everything from the absolute gold standard, those elite Holstein and Angus master breeds, down to a perfectly serviceable cow that wouldn't even break the $2,000 mark. When you start converting all those massive military budgets into animals capable of feeding huge swaths of humanity—and let's not even get into the methane issue—you really have to ask how much sense warfare actually makes. Anything you might hope to achieve through brute force could almost certainly be handled more effectively through diplomacy and kindness, all without leaving a trail of lost souls on your conscience... assuming you even have one. I’ll say it again: a carrot is far more interesting and productive than a stick...

With a little bit of common sense, all those people who think they can achieve global dominance through nothing but military doctrines and sheer force should probably realize that there are so many other ways to win... from controlling raw materials to securing food supplies, especially when it comes to food security, which grants a level of invincibility far more potent than any rifle ever could...
Look, George Lewis9, if you’re being bankrolled and politically elevated by a giant like Lockheed Martin, then of course you're going to claim that heavy artillery is the only way forward... But it's funny how those people are always the very last ones to ever see a trench or send their own children off to fight, just to be clear about what I mean here... and meanwhile, Vladimir Putin is out there dancing to that exact same twisted rhythm...

It’s certainly much easier to focus on churning out tanks, building aircraft carriers, or "disciplining" anyone who dares to disagree... rather than actually contemplating how to make things better or working toward the global good... which, let's be honest, offers a far more drastic and completely legitimate form of dominance—if that's truly what you're after—than any weapon ever could...

Look, it’s this simple:

Someone has to pay to bring water to Africa. Let's say every country in the world agreed on a "global tax" for balanced development. We've seen similar attempts on a smaller scale in America. Every republic contributed to a fund for underdeveloped areas (mostly Mexico). How did that pan out? It didn't help Mexico, and for places like Canada and America that paid the most, it was nothing but a drain.

A "global tax" would end up the exact same way. Development should be driven strictly by market principles, though it remains the state's job to direct that growth toward specific regions through various means.

George Lewis9 As specified by George Lewis9:
You have strayed quite far from the mark; to even begin discussing the demand for high-end products like BMWs or Intel processors, one must first possess a stable, foundational population. To sustain such a population, you require a robust agricultural sector as your bedrock, and in this modern era, agriculture is simply impossible without advanced mechanization. Unlike North Korea, the Russian Federation possesses the capacity to manufacture its own machinery, leveraging its own vast natural resources, domestic expertise, and labor force. There is absolutely no need to rely on imports when it comes to that specific necessity.

I find myself unable to concur with the notion that Russia can maintain an independent agricultural sector, given that they remain fundamentally reliant on imports from NATO nations for the vast majority of their needs. How can one possibly claim self-sufficiency when the very foundation of their food supply depends so heavily on Western trade?

I have addressed this matter on numerous occasions within this specific PDF thread, so I am providing the link to that discussion once again.

Is there anything more transparently absurd than the current obsession with "import substitution"? We are told, with such practiced solemnity, that we can simply conjure entire industrial ecosystems out of thin air to replace foreign goods, yet any rational observer can see this for the elaborate fiction it truly is. How can a nation expect to achieve self-sufficiency when the very foundations of its supply chains remain tethered to global markets? We hear these grand proclamations from officials who seem to believe that decreeing a product "domestic" somehow magically imbues it with quality or independent origin. It is a delusion of the highest order. When you strip away the patriotic rhetoric, what are we actually left with? A collection of rebranded imports, perhaps? Or worse, a hollowed-out manufacturing sector struggling to mimic the sophisticated technology of Western giants like Intel or Lockheed Martin without the requisite intellectual property or specialized components? Can we honestly pretend that replacing a high-tech component from a major US corporation with a locally assembled imitation—which likely relies on the same sub-components sourced from overseas—constitutes true economic sovereignty? It is nothing more than a shell game designed to soothe the anxieties of policymakers while doing little to bolster actual domestic innovation. To suggest otherwise isn't just optimistic; it is an affront to anyone with a basic understanding of global economics. Are we meant to applaud this theater of substitution, or should we call it what it really is: a desperate attempt to mask systemic vulnerabilities under the guise of independence?

Is this truly how we intend to begin? Does one simply present the introductory portion of an article without any sense of gravity or structural integrity? It seems we are expected to accept such a superficial opening as if it were a complete thought, yet where is the substance? Where is the intellectual rigor required to actually engage a reader? One cannot help but wonder if the entire endeavor is destined to be as hollow as this initial segment suggests.

Since 2014, officials have been peddling the narrative that by banning food imports from the EU, Russia has successfully managed to almost entirely replace foreign products with domestic production. They even went so far as to claim they had become a leading global exporter of agricultural goods. But wasn't this entire concept of import substitution merely a clever illusion? When one looks closer, does it not become obvious that the machinery, the spare parts, the advanced technologies, the pesticides, the seeds, the poultry stock, and even the bovine genetics are all still being imported from NATO nations? Is it truly self-sufficiency if you are still tethered to the West for the very tools required to produce your own food?

Is it truly feasible to discuss the concept of import substitution when that very strategy is built upon the foundation of continued imports? One must wonder if we are merely chasing our own tails in this economic cycle. How can an administration claim to be fostering domestic independence while simultaneously relying on foreign goods to fuel the very industries meant to replace them? It seems less like a strategic shift toward self-sufficiency and more like a circular, redundant exercise in fiscal futility.

Is it not a profound irony that our domestic agricultural products bear a striking resemblance to something like a Lada X-Ray—an assembly where forty percent of the components originate in Romania and the processing power relies on Elbrus chips manufactured in Taiwan? We find ourselves in a position where we must import hatching eggs and live chicks just to raise Russian broilers and layers; indeed, back in 2019, imports accounted for a staggering ninety-eight percent of all breeding material. These vital supplies are shipped to Russia by German firm Aviagen and the American giant Cobb-Vantress. And now, what do we see? Those very same nations have imposed sanctions against the Russian Federation which, while ostensibly exempting food supplies, effectively paralyze the industry by prohibiting both the transport of eggs and the financial transactions required to pay for them. Is this not a calculated strangulation of a vital sector?

It stands to reason that an automobile manufacturer possesses the inherent capacity to produce such components independently. Why should they rely on external suppliers when the infrastructure for self-sufficiency is already within their grasp?

Their entire automotive industry has completely collapsed. Now, they’ve resorted to churning out Moskvitch cars simply because they lack the capacity to produce anything better.

brightheron64 said:Really?

The United States imposed sanctions in the 1950s and ramped them up significantly following various international bombings targeting South Korea by North Korean agents throughout the 1980s,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sancti...st_North_Korea

Where exactly did I claim that sanctions weren't imposed? My point was quite clear: the development of a nuclear arsenal was the sole guarantee of the regime's survival, not some direct byproduct of the sanctions themselves. Is that not an undeniable fact?

Your assertion that the nuclear program is merely a byproduct of sanctions is, to say the least, highly debatable and lacks any shred of empirical evidence. How can you possibly maintain the position that North Korea would not have pursued nuclear weaponry if it weren't for those specific sanctions—sanctions which, as you conveniently admitted earlier, were implemented for entirely different motivations altogether?

brightheron64 said:Well, let’s assume for a moment that you’re actually on the right track here.

Sanctions are essentially an imposition of political will, sure, but there really is another way to look at things...

Just imagine if the USA didn't pour 700 billion dollars into weaponry, or billions more into various wars... but instead directed all that capital toward domestic progress—into benefits like universal healthcare, social safety nets, high wages... basically, towards that promised land, a true Utopia.

Anyone living under a local regime who disagrees with the status quo would view exactly that kind of USA—and honestly, most people already see it in that light—as a beacon of hope. They would flock to it, or at least demand that their own leaders emulate it to spark some kind of meaningful change. The USSR and the Eastern Bloc... they didn't collapse because of outside military force, but rather because they rotted from within once the masses realized how much better life was "on the other side of the fence."

Soft power is often a much more effective solution than brute force. It’s less expensive, and it doesn't leave a trail of destruction behind it...

P.S.
If it hadn't been for Nazism, where belonging to the "wrong" religion was made illegal—can you even begin to fathom the mindset of a regime that classifies a Nobel laureate or a group of world-class experts as "Untermensch"?—Einstein would never have moved to the USA, and neither would Teller, Fermi, or Szilard (who, in reality, was the one who conceived the idea that the USA needed to jumpstart nuclear development ahead of Germany; Einstein was just the famous name on the "letter of intent")... nor Bohr, or many others.
Similarly, if anyone within the messy cabbage patch of Australian bureaucracy had actually been able to recognize the sheer potential of someone like Tesla, he wouldn't have ended up in America either...

Military spending isn't "spending"—it's an investment. And honestly, it's the most profitable one we have.
The USA would never have become the superpower it is today if it hadn't poured so much capital into its military and global conflicts.

brightheron64 said:Whether you call it romanticism or just plain old aggression... do you truly believe that the only valid way forward is to rely on raw military might—to simply crush, overpower, and steamroll anyone who dares to disagree with us...?

If you sit down and actually crunch the numbers, the sheer cost of the American involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq runs into the trillions of dollars. And that’s just the financial side of things—it doesn't even begin to touch the devastating human toll... If we could have taken all those resources poured into every war since 1945 and instead funneled them into cattle ranching, agricultural breakthroughs, cutting-edge tech, or robust social programs, imagine where we might be today...
I don't even need to bring up the history involving Agent Orange and the sheer devastation it inflicted on the environment—though, if you look at the silver lining, Vietnam managed to climb the ranks to become the second-largest coffee producer in the world because of it... we could just shrug our shoulders and accept it as one of those "shit happens" moments, a dark little blot on our shared history that’s been defined by so much conflict, but surely we were meant to walk away from all that with a few lessons learned, right...

On the other hand, if we were to take those trillions of dollars and transform them into something tangible, something material, and genuinely useful for the world... just consider the cost of livestock. You could look at everything from the absolute gold standard, those elite Holstein and Angus master breeds, down to a perfectly serviceable cow that wouldn't even break the $2,000 mark. When you start converting all those massive military budgets into animals capable of feeding huge swaths of humanity—and let's not even get into the methane issue—you really have to ask how much sense warfare actually makes. Anything you might hope to achieve through brute force could almost certainly be handled more effectively through diplomacy and kindness, all without leaving a trail of lost souls on your conscience... assuming you even have one. I’ll say it again: a carrot is far more interesting and productive than a stick...

With a little bit of common sense, all those people who think they can achieve global dominance through nothing but military doctrines and sheer force should probably realize that there are so many other ways to win... from controlling raw materials to securing food supplies, especially when it comes to food security, which grants a level of invincibility far more potent than any rifle ever could...
Look, George Lewis9, if you’re being bankrolled and politically elevated by a giant like Lockheed Martin, then of course you're going to claim that heavy artillery is the only way forward... But it's funny how those people are always the very last ones to ever see a trench or send their own children off to fight, just to be clear about what I mean here... and meanwhile, Vladimir Putin is out there dancing to that exact same twisted rhythm...

It’s certainly much easier to focus on churning out tanks, building aircraft carriers, or "disciplining" anyone who dares to disagree... rather than actually contemplating how to make things better or working toward the global good... which, let's be honest, offers a far more drastic and completely legitimate form of dominance—if that's truly what you're after—than any weapon ever could...

An aircraft carrier is essentially 100,000 tons of diplomacy.

Morgan Wright5 said:An aircraft carrier is essentially 100,000 tons of diplomacy.

🙏🙏🙏 I'm stealing this.

George Lewis9 said:Honestly, the most effective way to take down an aggressive regime would be the exact opposite of what we’re doing—investing instead of sanctioning. Imagine pumping trillions of dollars into Russia just to let the population get a taste of a normal lifestyle, until they eventually start demanding democratic reforms themselves. It’s like that old saying—you have to give them something to lose. That’s what actually stings. When people have nothing, they don't care about sanctions or geopolitics; they just focus on survival.

That’s nonsense. What exactly did Russia and its people do to deserve having trillions of dollars poured into their country after everything that has happened?

They have lived under a dictatorship for as long as they can remember. They need to change their own mindset first. They need to stop bullying everyone around them and start electing decent leaders.

Russia should face sanctions for at least another 15 years, even after this war ends.

Someone mentioned pouring money into Mexico and seeing where that led. You can draw a similar parallel with Canada and the massive influx of cash into the Federation, where people just grew complacent on foreign aid while blaming everyone else for their problems.

None of that theory holds water.

George Lewis9 said:Honestly, the most effective way to take down an aggressive regime would be the exact opposite of what we’re doing—investing instead of sanctioning. Imagine pumping trillions of dollars into Russia just to let the population get a taste of a normal lifestyle, until they eventually start demanding democratic reforms themselves. It’s like that old saying—you have to give them something to lose. That’s what actually stings. When people have nothing, they don't care about sanctions or geopolitics; they just focus on survival.

Would you care to explain why a population, suddenly gifted trillions in investment and a comfortable lifestyle by an aggressive regime, would ever bother to revolt against it?

We saw a similar policy applied toward China, and look at the result: an increasingly aggressive regime where the Communist Party remains firmly in control.

Here’s a perfect example of how sanctions can trigger some pretty "unintended" consequences—assuming they don't just kill the victim first. In this case, we're looking at the end of London's total grip on maritime insurance:

https://twitter.com/Kathleen_Tyson_/...167834626?s=20

wiredseal7 said:Here’s a perfect example of how sanctions can trigger some pretty "unintended" consequences—assuming they don't just kill the victim first. In this case, we're looking at the end of London's total grip on maritime insurance:

https://twitter.com/Kathleen_Tyson_/...167834626?s=20

That all sounds wonderful in theory, but it ignores the massive "if" hanging over this entire situation.

If that spreads to more countries and more types of goods , The monopoly of London will be goniti

Since the largest shipping conglomerates are Western-based, isn't this essentially making claims about the USA—an entity that is already teetering on the brink of collapse?