New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#326 2026-01-31 11:44:50
- Void
- Member
- Registered: 2011-12-29
- Posts: 9,313
Re: Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:
Some interesting information here as well to add to the just prior two posts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gu5Pe1vkU1o
Quote:
LIVE Davos Breakdown with Presidential Advisor Dr Pippa Malmgren
Triggernometry
1.7M subscribers
Surprisingly good information, I feel.
Ending Pending 
Last edited by Void (2026-01-31 11:46:17)
Is it possible that the root of political science claims is to produce white collar jobs for people who paid for an education and do not want a real job?
Offline
Like button can go here
#327 2026-02-01 12:38:30
- Void
- Member
- Registered: 2011-12-29
- Posts: 9,313
Re: Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:
I don't know how real this is or is not. Somebody thinks it is OK for people like me to see it. It is at least entertaining. It might be that I don't actually know what is real anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ki9ca97cnM
Quote:
Silver DESTROYS The Empire: Europe in Panic (ft. Luongo & Holt)
Rich Does Politics
Quote:
In this interview we dig into how silver fits into Trump’s bigger geopolitical and monetary game, what it means for the dollar, the City of London, and global power, and why the old financial guard is so scared of this move.
Ending Pending
Last edited by Void (2026-02-01 12:40:19)
Is it possible that the root of political science claims is to produce white collar jobs for people who paid for an education and do not want a real job?
Offline
Like button can go here
#328 2026-02-01 12:52:40
- Terraformer
- Member
- From: The Fortunate Isles
- Registered: 2007-08-27
- Posts: 4,000
- Website
Re: Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:
Silver! The price still hasn't caught up to the end of the gold standard. Historical silver:gold price ratios were 10-15, until countries moved off silver and on to gold alone for their currency. Still a ways to go for it to correct back to such ratios, but I expect it will, particularly since it has useful industrial properties.
Use what is abundant and build to last
Offline
Like button can go here
#329 2026-02-03 15:42:43
- Void
- Member
- Registered: 2011-12-29
- Posts: 9,313
Re: Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/CW6yQtaRC8uc/
Quote:
5 AI CEOs Just Said The Same Thing
41 Views - 23 hours ago
Channel
Willyalfredo
So, it is just possible that AI will find a way to roll back my age, and I will become a teen idol with a very long life span. Then I can marry my robot girlfriend who will then divorce me and sue me for gadget support, while cheating on me with a robot hitman who will kill me.
Ending Pending
Last edited by Void (2026-02-03 15:45:15)
Is it possible that the root of political science claims is to produce white collar jobs for people who paid for an education and do not want a real job?
Offline
Like button can go here
#330 2026-02-03 16:09:52
- kbd512
- Administrator
- Registered: 2015-01-02
- Posts: 8,512
Re: Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:
Void,
So, even the average "modern" robotic woman treats men horribly?
I guess it wouldn't be a "real" female robot without exhibiting real female behavior.
If you find one that doesn't look like a beached whale and isn't more venomous than a cobra, do let us know. I always love reading about unicorns. My brain knows they aren't real, but my heart still loves a good story.
If her robot hitman boyfriend murders you, consider it a reprieve. You could've spent the rest of your life with someone, or "something", which is miserable and ugly to its core.
Offline
Like button can go here
#331 2026-02-03 16:14:39
- Void
- Member
- Registered: 2011-12-29
- Posts: 9,313
Re: Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:
Correct Sir!
Is it possible that the root of political science claims is to produce white collar jobs for people who paid for an education and do not want a real job?
Offline
Like button can go here
#332 2026-02-07 12:45:04
- Void
- Member
- Registered: 2011-12-29
- Posts: 9,313
Re: Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:
I am not sure how much of this I am in agreement with but it is interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xk-GQGFMuXQ
Quote:
Epstein Files LEAK: Trump Just Toppled The British Govt | Luongo & Krainer
Rich Does Politics
I am not sure they can do this without the approval of some spooky forces, but it is interesting.
Ending Pending
Last edited by Void (2026-02-07 12:46:48)
Is it possible that the root of political science claims is to produce white collar jobs for people who paid for an education and do not want a real job?
Offline
Like button can go here
#333 2026-02-08 13:18:18
- Void
- Member
- Registered: 2011-12-29
- Posts: 9,313
Re: Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:
More of this stuff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXhi0dOfz6c
Quote:
Silver DESTROYED: How London's Elite Engineered The Crash
Rich Does Politics
I am not able to swim in their ocean. I do not know how real it is.
But it is interesting. They link Frances attacks of "X" to very important matters.
It is surprising when Poland and Italy look like American's friends, and the UK and France act like enemies to our interests.
Ending Pending
Last edited by Void (2026-02-08 13:20:39)
Is it possible that the root of political science claims is to produce white collar jobs for people who paid for an education and do not want a real job?
Offline
Like button can go here
#334 2026-02-10 10:57:39
- Void
- Member
- Registered: 2011-12-29
- Posts: 9,313
Re: Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:
This is pretty big, I think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFqqlX3kekY
Quote:
Meloni Said NO to Brussels! Italy’s Secret Phone Call to Washington Shocks EU.
So, then Poland, ect. also perhaps.
To balance things out after all, I expect.
Ending Pending
Last edited by Void (2026-02-10 11:00:52)
Is it possible that the root of political science claims is to produce white collar jobs for people who paid for an education and do not want a real job?
Offline
Like button can go here
#335 2026-02-12 19:31:18
- Void
- Member
- Registered: 2011-12-29
- Posts: 9,313
Re: Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:
In case you may think I am biased against Ukraine:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwVLMZvpVUw
Quote:
Peter Zeihan - Russia’s Final Collapse Begins Right Now
The New Front
I am not an enemy of Russia, but they have to row their own boat if they can.
Ending Pending
Is it possible that the root of political science claims is to produce white collar jobs for people who paid for an education and do not want a real job?
Offline
Like button can go here
#336 2026-02-14 11:49:46
- Void
- Member
- Registered: 2011-12-29
- Posts: 9,313
Re: Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:
I thought this was interesting: https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/r … &FORM=VIRE Quote:
U.S. Navy's Ray Gun Tech Exposes Iran’s Missile Grid — Sensors Flicker Under Fire
YouTube
Warfare Hits Economy
63 views
I will not at all try to pretend that I have military competency.
However, I do like what happens when inventions flip-flop advantages.
My impression was that competitors had come close to making Aircraft Carriers obsolete.
And the idea of drones both air and surface water, are relatively cheap and can overwhelm our very expensive rocket type weapons.
But this seems to turn the situation on its head. This then may allow those who have such Laser systems to prohibit unfriendly drones, and yet allow, perhaps drones from the Laser owners side. So, for now if this is all true, then our cost of insertion of power by navy drops very low relative to what was otherwise going to become the case.
Of course then if the other side eventually has the same, this is perhaps neutralized. But the USA has a better economy to afford better toys then most others.
Ending Pending
I think this is very important because I consider that the Middle East is a burned-out civilization and a vampire. It has glowing embers of intelligence still, but mostly power and economics is dominated by Verbal and Violent types. By allowing verbal skills to displace other skills they degrade their capabilities. Fortunately, this makes it harder for them to play vampire and conquest people who are less deteriorated then them.
So, there is hope for the human race after all. We may not be eaten by the vampires of verbal and violent religious power.
Ending Pending
Last edited by Void (2026-02-14 12:11:21)
Is it possible that the root of political science claims is to produce white collar jobs for people who paid for an education and do not want a real job?
Offline
Like button can go here
#337 2026-02-19 12:33:54
- Void
- Member
- Registered: 2011-12-29
- Posts: 9,313
Re: Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:
Is this right??? Well, I admit that looking back in time, it seems as if when push comes to shove, the Europeans and their masters, would rather undercut America than to accept it as more than a servant who shovels poo in their pony barn.
They would rather scuttle the fleet than allow us to become what we can become, is my sense of a possible truth.
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/r … &FORM=VIRE
Quote:
Europe Chooses SUICIDE Over Trump’s Peace (Kokinda & Blaine
YouTube
Rich Does Politics
33 views
But I will keep looking to see if I am wrong about it.
Ending Pending
Last edited by Void (2026-02-19 12:36:33)
Is it possible that the root of political science claims is to produce white collar jobs for people who paid for an education and do not want a real job?
Offline
Like button can go here
#338 2026-02-19 14:31:31
- RobertDyck
- Moderator
- From: Winnipeg, Canada
- Registered: 2002-08-20
- Posts: 8,393
- Website
Re: Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:
Void: no, that is not right. Trump has said the US will not protect Europe if/when Europe is attacked by Russia. NATO was founded to protect Europe from Russia. Period. That's it's purpose. Yet Trump is not willing to do that. Europe has to protect itself, because Russia intends to go on a rampage across Europe.
Putin will never be satisfied with a portion of Ukraine. He wants to conquer all of Ukraine, wipe out the Ukrainian language and Ukrainian culture. Before the full-scale invasion of February 24, 2022, Russia force-conscripted (force-drafted) all Ukrainian males between age 18-55 who didn't have a Russian passport, and all those that did have a Russian passport but worked in a job the Russians considered not vital infrastructure. Just one one later, they increased the age range to 18-65. Any Ukrainian who refused to obey orders, who refused to fight against the Ukrainian military, were killed on the spot. These men were given at most 2 weeks training, many less than one week. The Ukrainian military were veterans at that point, fighting against Russian since 2014.
If Russia succeeds in conquering Ukraine, they will force-conscript all Ukrainian males age 18-65 who do not work in vital infrastructure, and force them to invade Russia's next target. When they invade Poland first, or the Baltic States (Lithuania/Latvia/Estonia) doesn't matter, because whichever is first, the other is next. All members of the Ukrainian military will refuse to fight for Russia, so they will all be executed. Many Ukrainian men will also refuse to fight for Russia against Ukraine's allies, so they'll be executed too. This will require death camps on the scale of Auschwitz.
Putin has said many times he intends to put the Soviet Union back together. He will invade/annex Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania/Latvia/Estonia, Finland, Belarus, Moldova, and a narrow strip of Romania between Moldova and the Carpathian mountains.
Belarus is currently an ally of Russia, but the Belarus citizens really REALLY do NOT want to be part of Russia. If Lukashenko ordered the Belarus military to invade Ukraine, then Belarus citizens would have risen up in civil war, kicked out Lukashenko. He allowed the Russian army to pass through Belarus, but that's all. Several Belarus soldiers defected to Ukraine to fight against Russia, and one entire battalion of Belarus army defected as a unit to Ukraine. Belarus railroad workers sabotaged the rail lines to prevent Russian trains carrying tanks from getting to Ukraine. If Russia tries to annex Belarus, the citizens of Belarus will fight against that with everything they have. Yes, Russia will have to conquer Belarus in war.
Finland and Poland never were part of the Soviet Union, but there were conquered/annexed by Russia under the Tzars. After the Communist revolution in 1917, many east European countries gained their independence. Soviet Russia tried to invade/conquer Poland February 1919 - March 1921. That started while World War 1 was still ongoing. Europe provided aid to Poland. Russia failed to conquer Poland, so gave up and moved their army to Ukraine. Invasion of Ukraine was 1918-1922. Soviet Russia likes to claim that Ukraine joined the Soviet Union voluntarily, but that's a lie. Russia conquered/annexed Ukraine by military force. In 1939, Soviet Russia made a deal with Nazi Germany to invade Poland. Nazis would invade from the west, Russia from the East. They divided the country. Russia took what is now Kaliningrad, and gave parts of Poland to Belarus and Ukraine.
In the winter of 1939/'40, Soviet Russia invaded Finland. They failed. They did annex 9% of the land of Finland, but that's all. When Nazi Germany saw Russia couldn't even defeat Finland on their own, they invaded the Soviet Union. Nazis didn't intend to conquer Russia itself, just east Europe (Poland, Lithuania/Latvia/Estonia, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova). The Soviet Union saw this as betrayal by their ally. That's when they switched sides.
Russia today has no intention of stopping with Europe. They will also annex all of the Caucasus: Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan. And central Asia: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan.
Putin also wants control over those countries that were not part of the Soviet Union, but were under control of the Soviet Union. Central Europe: Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Albania, North Macedonia, Bulgaria, and what will be left of Romania.
East Germany was under Soviet control, and was a member of the Warsaw Pact. Russia wants it back. But Germany is reunited. Taking East Germany required conquering all of Germany. That's a founding member of both the EU and NATO. Once invasion of Western Europe starts, Russia intends to continue all the way to the Straight of Gibraltar.
This means World War III. Yes, Putin wants to start World War III. He believes Russia can win, all he needs to do is break up NATO. Putin believes Russia can defeat all European countries one at a time, just not all at once.
If you think this is a European issue that doesn't affect the US, you're wrong. Russia also wants Alaska back. Once Russia has conquered/annexed all of the above, they will use resources and population of all of that to increase their strength to take on the US. They will invade and annex Alaska. Here's a billboard all over Siberia. It reads (in Russian) "Alaska is Ours".
Both France and UK have nuclear weapons. If you think they'll lie down and die without defending themselves, you're an idiot. They will use everything they have. Yes, that means nuclear war. They will not attack Russia first, but will use conventional weapons to defend any NATO country. If Russia uses a nuclear weapon, response will either be assassination of Putin, or NATO troops on Russian soil. If Russia uses a nuke on any NATO country, expect massive retaliation by France and UK. If Russia uses a nuke on France or UK, expect France and UK to deploy their entire nuclear arsenal. If either France or UK appear to be defeated by Russia, expect both to release their entire nuclear arsenal.
For Europe, this is it!!! This is what NATO is for. If Trump is going to side with Russia, refuse to defend Europe, then Europe will have to defend themselves. And the best way to prevent World War III is to ensure Russia loses in Ukraine. No compromise, no way for Russia to claim they won. Russia must suffer a humiliating defeat.
Offline
Like button can go here
#339 2026-02-19 19:16:27
- kbd512
- Administrator
- Registered: 2015-01-02
- Posts: 8,512
Re: Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:
RobertDyck,
Russia has been fighting in Ukraine for 4 years now. Russia has failed to take half or even a third of Ukraine. Russia's supply of war machines is dwindling by the day.
If Russia wanted to take all those other NATO countries you named, and all those European countries are ready and willing to fight Russia as your commentary seems to suggest, then how would Russia's military achieve anything beyond its own annihilation?
Offline
Like button can go here
#340 2026-02-19 20:38:19
- RobertDyck
- Moderator
- From: Winnipeg, Canada
- Registered: 2002-08-20
- Posts: 8,393
- Website
Re: Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:
kbd512,
Obviously I'm cheering for Ukraine. But realize, contrary to the video Void posted, Europe is not "keeping the war going". The way to end the war is for Russia to gain nothing. If they're allowed to gain any benefit, they'll continue for more. And more, and more. The whole list I posted. Europe is trying to end the war, but doing so means the 1991 borders.
I could post the 1919 borders. The point is the 1991 borders ARE the compromise.
The reason Europe has removed the US from certain NATO commands (not all) is Trump cannot be trusted to defend Europe when Russia attacks.
As for the current war: Russia is losing. Sanctions on Russian oil is hurting their economy. Most recently India seized 3 shadow fleet tankers linked to Iran: Feb 10-16. These tankers have mixed oil from Russia, Venezuela and Iran, sold to India and China. France raided a tanker in the Mediterranean from Russia. The US is seizing tankers from Venezuela. Russia is screwed.
SpaceX established a white-list for terminals, effectively shutting down Russian battlefield coms. And making guidance of Russian Shahed drones more difficult. Ukraine is now on the offensive, taking back 9.5km of territory in Zaporitzhzhia Oblast. A couple days ago a Ukrainian Su-29 attacked a bridge in Kherson Oblast, near Crimea. It had a column 1.4km long of combat vehicles, all destroyed or abandoned. The jet dropped a GPS guided GBU 38 bomb. Followed by several Ukrainian drones.
Russia hoped to gain territory, resources and population. They hoped to use those resources to attack the next country. Then again for the next, etc. They failed. Now Putin feels he can't quit the war without showing some win, some benefit. But he won't win anything. Dictators do not have a retirement plan. Putin is in deep trouble.
Offline
Like button can go here
#341 2026-02-19 20:44:30
- RobertDyck
- Moderator
- From: Winnipeg, Canada
- Registered: 2002-08-20
- Posts: 8,393
- Website
Re: Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:
Pink is Ukraine borders from 1919. Red is 1991.
Offline
Like button can go here
#342 2026-02-19 22:23:43
- kbd512
- Administrator
- Registered: 2015-01-02
- Posts: 8,512
Re: Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:
RobertDyck,
The reason Europe has removed the US from certain NATO commands (not all) is Trump cannot be trusted to defend Europe when Russia attacks.
Long after the war started the Germans were still handing over tens of billions of dollars for Russian oil and gas. President Trump asked them to stop doing that during his first term in office, before Russia's war in Ukraine started, which they responded to with a bunch of snide comments. While you're worried about whether or not President Trump can be trusted, I'm only mildly amused by European arrogance, condescension, and backstabbing. American leaders can't afford to have the sort of short-term and selective memory of European leaders. When our supposed allies do more business with their self-described enemies than they do with their most powerful military ally, they're telling us where their loyalties lie. I choose to believe them when they tell us to our faces who they are and what they value, as does President Trump.
The European Union has an economy equivalent in size to America. If they still cannot, collectively, defend themselves from a country with the economy of Italy, after every American President in the 21st century has asked them to spend what they agreed to spend on their own defense, that sounds like a "them" problem. Maybe their leaders only want to pay lip service to the idea. That's no longer acceptable to American leaders. If America leaves NATO, the only remaining question is whether or not Europeans can be trusted to defend Europe when Russia attacks.
I would've thought Europeans would be overjoyed that America is no longer interested in "meddling" in European defense. They can make whatever defense decisions they choose for themselves, as long as they're footing the bill. Europe has 10% of the world's population, 25% of the world's GDP, and represents 60% of global welfare spending. They can still have whatever welfare programs they can afford, after they pay for their defense. European nations had billions of dollars to hand over to Russians who want to kill them and take their land, so they must also have billions of dollars to arm themselves to prevent that from happening.
Offline
Like button can go here
#343 2026-02-20 10:51:49
- RobertDyck
- Moderator
- From: Winnipeg, Canada
- Registered: 2002-08-20
- Posts: 8,393
- Website
Re: Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:
In August 2022 , German Chancellor Scholz came to Canada to arrange purchase of energy: oil and natural gas. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau gave him a lecture about environment and "green energy", suggesting Germany switch to hydrogen. Europe is at war, that obsession with "green energy" is insulting. And if you know technology, transporting hydrogen is very difficult, just not practical. Hydrogen leaks right through most materials, requires metal to contain it. It's light with great volume, etc. Even natural gas must be chilled to transport on a ship. This is one reason why Trudeau is no longer PM. Don't blame Germany.
Canada has completed the Trans-Mountain pipeline expansion, and expanded the port of Burnaby BC to export more oil. The new pipe twinned an existing pipe that operated since the 1950s. The new pipe is significantly larger. Also, the natural gas pipeline to BC is complete, and liquefaction plant to load ships is operational. Delivery to Europe would require use of the Panama canal.
My point is don't blame Germany. They put effort into ending dependence on Russia. After the Nord-Stream pipeline was destroyed, they had to reactivate the power plant in East Germany that burns brown coal. That's the dirtiest means of producing electricity. The source is an open pit mine with a bucket wheel excavator.
Offline
Like button can go here
#344 2026-02-20 17:33:58
- kbd512
- Administrator
- Registered: 2015-01-02
- Posts: 8,512
Re: Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:
RobertDyck,
My point is don't blame Germany.
Germany put effort into energy independence only after the loss of the Nord Stream pipeline. Prior to that, everything they did made them more dependent on Russia for energy. Energy is the basis for all industrialized economies, so it's not as if they didn't know that using Russian energy was a terrible risk. I don't blame Canada's Prime Minister Trudeau for the actions of German Prime Minister Merkel, nor vice versa. Everyone is responsible for their own actions, as well as whatever advice they choose to take. This seems to be stumbling block for all leftists. Leftists don't think they're personally responsible and accountable for their own actions. America cannot maintain functional military alliances with nations run by people who refuse to take responsibility and accountability for their own actions.
After the Nord-Stream pipeline was destroyed, they had to reactivate the power plant in East Germany that burns brown coal.
Germany had perfectly usable nuclear reactors which they proceeded to shut down during the Ukraine War. The German green goofballs would rather re-open brown coal power plants than allow existing nuclear reactors to continue operating. They even destroyed their training facility so no new nuclear reactor operators could be trained in Germany. They weren't "forced" to do it that way, they decided to do it that way for self-destructive ideological reasons.
Offline
Like button can go here
#345 2026-02-20 21:25:49
- RobertDyck
- Moderator
- From: Winnipeg, Canada
- Registered: 2002-08-20
- Posts: 8,393
- Website
Re: Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:
I agree regarding nuclear power.
However, there is no excuse for abandoning your allies. None.
During the period of peace, Bill Clinton reduced US military spending somewhat. I claim the US should have reduced military spending much much more. No, that did not require increasing military spending of other allies. Other NATO countries should have kept their military spending as it was. The US should have just simply reduced. I'm sure military contractors wouldn't have liked that, because it means reduced sales. Tough! It's not about supporting war profiteers. Now that Russia is on a rampage, now is the time to increase military and stand by your allies. But the US has proven to be chicken.
Did I put that bluntly enough? Yes, chicken. Bill Clinton signed the Budapest Memorandum in 1994. Bill Clinton pressured Ukraine to surrender nuclear weapons, in exchange for guarantees that if Russia were to invade, the US would defend Ukraine. That was the deal. Yes, boots on the ground. In Ukraine. Fighting Russian soldiers directly. But you're chicken. Chicken!!! Lawyer weaselly words doesn't get you out of anything. The US failed to honour the agreement, and showed itself to be too chicken to fight Russia. Chicken!!!
Yea, Germany should have cut off Russian energy products right away. That does not get you out of anything. Germany did not sign the Budapest Memorandum. The United States did. The UK also did. France and China gave individual assurances in separate documents. But Germany didn't sign.
Military spending in 2010, in billions of US dollars (not adjusted for inflation): According to International Institute for Strategic Studies:
USA 693.6
China 111
UK 57.8
Japan 54.4
France 52
Russia 65.2
Saudi Arabia 45.2
Germany 44.1
Brazil 33.4
India 30.9
South Korea 25.1
Australia 23.6
Italy 21.9
Canada 20.2
Turkey 17.4
UAE 16.1
Spain 14.7
Israel 14
Netherlands 11.2
Colombia 10.4
Iran 10.6
Taiwan 9
--------
Total not including USA: 688.2
China, Russia and Iran are not allies of the US, all other countries on this list are. India is a strategic partner, not a formal ally. But still, explain to me why you think the US needs a military budget that large.
Source: PDA
Offline
Like button can go here
#346 Yesterday 02:32:34
- kbd512
- Administrator
- Registered: 2015-01-02
- Posts: 8,512
Re: Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:
RobertDyck,
However, there is no excuse for abandoning your allies. None.
American troops remain stationed at European military bases, ready and waiting to do battle with any Russian military forces which attempt to invade NATO countries, as they always have been. The Russians know this. That's what matters to me. Your opinion about this is irrelevant.
I claim the US should have reduced military spending much much more.
Russia never would've thought twice about invading NATO countries if we'd done what you suggested because we'd have no usable weapons left with which to fight them.
No, that did not require increasing military spending of other allies.
America maintained military spending because all other NATO countries drastically reduced their military spending after the Cold War ended.
Other NATO countries should have kept their military spending as it was.
They should've, but didn't.
The US should have just simply reduced.
Russia and China never quit spending money on their military after the Cold War ended. That's why Russia can still produce over a million artillery shells per month while all NATO nations combined still cannot match Russia's munitions production 4 years after the Ukraine War started. Russian munitions production is why every city in Eastern Ukraine looks like a rubble pile.
I'm sure military contractors wouldn't have liked that, because it means reduced sales. Tough! It's not about supporting war profiteers.
The American public doesn't care about what military contractors do or don't like. We never have and never will. We do care about whether or not we have a military so well-prepared and effective in operation that attacking America or our allies is a suicidal proposition.
Now that Russia is on a rampage, now is the time to increase military and stand by your allies. But the US has proven to be chicken.
There is no magic wand anyone can wave to instantly increase production of modern military munitions. The best time to increase military spending was years ago. Today is a very distant second best time.
We stand by our allies until it's beyond obvious that they won't fight for themselves. Eventually, we must accept that some people aren't interested in their continued existence.
Did I put that bluntly enough? Yes, chicken. Bill Clinton signed the Budapest Memorandum in 1994. Bill Clinton pressured Ukraine to surrender nuclear weapons, in exchange for guarantees that if Russia were to invade, the US would defend Ukraine. That was the deal. Yes, boots on the ground. In Ukraine. Fighting Russian soldiers directly. But you're chicken. Chicken!!! Lawyer weaselly words doesn't get you out of anything. The US failed to honour the agreement, and showed itself to be too chicken to fight Russia. Chicken!!!
President Zelensky's own remarks on this matter, from his address to the US Congress, are as follows:
"Ukraine never asked American soldiers to fight on our land instead of us. I assure you Ukrainian soldiers can perfectly operate American tanks and planes themselves."
There are no American troops in Ukraine because President Zelensky has not asked for any. He wants to direct his own war against Russia on his own terms, which he is largely doing. If American troops are sent to fight in Ukraine, then we're doing things our way. Your childish name calling won't change President Zelensky's decision on this matter.
Yea, Germany should have cut off Russian energy products right away. That does not get you out of anything.
Nobody here in America has ever "gotten out of anything". As always, you are free to believe otherwise.
But still, explain to me why you think the US needs a military budget that large.
The US dollar doesn't pay for the same amount of goods and services purchased in the US vs Russia or China. The purchasing power parity of Russia and China means the combination of the those two nations are much closer to American military spending than your simplistic comparison indicates.
r/dataisbeautiful - Defense Spending at PPP
Created by adjusting data from Visual Capitalist (https://www.visualcapitalist.com/larges … the-world/) for purchasing power parity (PPP) using ChatGPT and PPP data from the Military Purchasing Power Parity (Military PPP) project, IISS, and other sources.
We often hear that the U.S. outspends the rest of the world on defense, but reading the Visual Capitalist article, I realized how different the picture looks when adjusting for PPP. While the U.S. still leads, China, Russia, and others close the gap significantly when adjusting for PPP.
To get a clearer comparison, I used ChatGPT to adjust the full list of defense budgets to PPP.
After PPP is accounted for, US military spending is 32.4% of global military spending. The combination of Russian and Chinese military spending is 32.2% of global military spending. The US will not rely on any other nation to effectively counter both Russia and China because they reneged on their military spending agreements over the past 25 years. Until allied nations demonstrate lasting commitments to funding their own defense, the US will continue to spend what we believe we must to effectively counter Russia and China.
Offline
Like button can go here
#347 Yesterday 05:33:24
- RobertDyck
- Moderator
- From: Winnipeg, Canada
- Registered: 2002-08-20
- Posts: 8,393
- Website
Re: Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:
I see you still don't understand the point. From the figures in post #345, Russia's military budget + China + Iran = $186.8 billion. You could add North Korea's military budget, which in 2010 was just $2 billion US dollars. That's $188.8 billion total. That's more than enough. Even if the US cut its military budget to $193.6 billion, that's a cut of $500 billion! Half a trillion!
You argue that Russia would invade if the US cut its military budget. Really? Russia has invaded, and is in the process of invading now. What is the US doing about it? Biden took action, but Trump has done jack shit! Europe is buying weapons from the US to give to Ukraine, and the US is making profit. That's not contributing, that's profiteering.
Oh! And Russia has NOT maintained their inventory of tanks. That's why so many tanks are sitting unused, not in combat in the Ukraine war. They're rusted hulks. What money was allocated to their maintenance was embezzled by Russian generals, used to build luxury villas.
As for Zelenskyy's remarks: after Trump tried to pressure Ukraine to surrender territory to Russia, of course Zelenskyy does not trust the US. As long as Trump is President, the US cannot be trusted.
Still blathering about military spending? Make a list of aircraft carriers of navies of the world? Don't forget to include America's assault carriers, not just strike carriers. You really think the US needs that many?
Your "purchasing power parity" becomes meaningless when approximately 1/3 of all Russia military spending goes to embezzlement.
Offline
Like button can go here
#348 Yesterday 05:51:31
- RobertDyck
- Moderator
- From: Winnipeg, Canada
- Registered: 2002-08-20
- Posts: 8,393
- Website
Re: Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:
World military spending 2021:
USA 801
China [293]
India 76.6
UK 68.4
Russia 65.9
France 56.6
Germany 56.0
Saudi Arabia [55.6]
Japan 54.1
South Korea 50.2
Italy 32.0
Australia 31.8
Canada 26.4
Iran 24.6
Israel 24.3
Spain 19.5
Brazil 19.2
Turkey 15.5
Netherlands 13.8
Poland 13.7
Taiwan 13.0
Colombia 10.2
Source: https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/fil … 2021_0.pdf
I see Brazil reduced their military spending. Who else? Any NATO allies? I chose 2021 because Russia engaged in all-out invasion in 2022. So expect everything changed after February 2022.
Offline
Like button can go here
#349 Yesterday 08:35:20
- kbd512
- Administrator
- Registered: 2015-01-02
- Posts: 8,512
Re: Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:
RobertDyck,
I see you still don't understand the point.
There's little point to further argumentation over America's military budget until you accept the concept of purchasing power parity. The US dollar doesn't buy the same amount of goods and services in America vs anywhere else. That's why currencies from different countries have exchange rates.
You argue that Russia would invade if the US cut its military budget. Really? Russia has invaded, and is in the process of invading now. What is the US doing about it? Biden took action, but Trump has done jack shit!
There are several reasons the Russians would invade a country, perceived weakness being only one of them.
This is Victoria Nuland, amidst the "Euromaidan Revolution" in Ukraine:
Every great mistake has an origin story. This one begins with arrogance and ignorance. Although it was never his doing, President Trump feels responsible for the imprudent and unaccountable behavior of people like Ms Nuland. He cannot bring back the dead, but stopping the killing is something he feels a duty to do as an accountable leader.
Europe is buying weapons from the US to give to Ukraine, and the US is making profit. That's not contributing, that's profiteering.
European nations decided to fund Russia's war effort in Ukraine, so now they're paying for weapons that were previously freely given. When your government is literally funding your self-described enemy during a time of war, you're no longer acting like an ally, you're acting like your own worst enemy.
As for Zelenskyy's remarks: after Trump tried to pressure Ukraine to surrender territory to Russia, of course Zelenskyy does not trust the US.
President Zelensky's remarks were made while President Biden was still in office.
As long as Trump is President, the US cannot be trusted.
The majority of Americans feel the same way about Europe's current leaders.
We've established that we don't trust each other. So, now what?
Still blathering about military spending?
Yes, because it matters.
Make a list of aircraft carriers of navies of the world? Don't forget to include America's assault carriers, not just strike carriers. You really think the US needs that many?
To guarantee the availability of any particular type of ship for a contingency operation, you need at least 4 so that 1 is available when you need it. The other 3 will be in various stages of repair and training activities. This is something I learned by being part of the US Navy, but you've never served in the military and lack the intellectual curiosity to teach yourself about how a military functions.
Your "purchasing power parity" becomes meaningless when approximately 1/3 of all Russia military spending goes to embezzlement.
The very instant that stops, or is significantly curtailed by Putin or whomever comes after Putin, your argument ceases to exist. You're welcome to fixate on what's going on today, but good leaders also plan for tomorrow.
Offline
Like button can go here
#350 Yesterday 19:02:33
- RobertDyck
- Moderator
- From: Winnipeg, Canada
- Registered: 2002-08-20
- Posts: 8,393
- Website
Re: Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:
Although it was never his doing, President Trump feels responsible for the imprudent and unaccountable behavior of people like Ms Nuland. He cannot bring back the dead, but stopping the killing is something he feels a duty to do as an accountable leader.
If Trump wants to stop the killing, then tell Trump to pressure Russia. Putting pressure on the victim is not going to stop anything. Supporting Russia is supporting America's enemy. If Russia is supported, read post #338 above.
Offline
Like button can go here