Gyroscopic Investing

stuper1 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2025 3:20 pm Hegseth says that Ukraine won't join NATO.

Too bad Blinken couldn't have said the same thing 4 years ago. Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian men would still be alive.

Isn’t it tens of thousands?

My take away was that Zelensky is a brave articulate dumb puppet. Someone tell him Boris Johnson and Biden have left the building. The fact that he confidently says he talks about joining NATO matter of factly really tells me he is a fool not a hero. If Putin wanted to he could kill everyone in Ukraine. We would be clutching our pearls for dear life as we watched the horror but would not dare actually enter the conflict.

If Trump stops this, he deserves to become chairman of the Nobel Association and give himself a Nobel four times a year.

dualstow wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2025 4:14 pm

stuper1 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2025 3:20 pm Hegseth says that Ukraine won't join NATO.

Too bad Blinken couldn't have said the same thing 4 years ago. Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian men would still be alive.

Isn’t it tens of thousands?

Just over 10,000 ....

12,456
How many people have died during the war in Ukraine? OHCHR has estimated the number of deaths of civilians, or non-armed individuals, in Ukraine at 12,456 since the start of the war on February 24, 2022. The highest death toll was recorded in March 2022, at over 3,900.

I thought I saw 60,000 at wiki.
Your figure doesn’t include combatants. Shouldn’t it?

dualstow wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2025 6:57 pm I thought I saw 60,000 at wiki.
Your figure doesn’t include combatants. Shouldn’t it?

Of course you are correct.


Ukraine has lost 45,100 soldiers on the battlefield since the start of Russia's full-scale invasion in February 2022, President Volodymyr Zelensky said in an interview with U.K. journalist Piers Morgan published Feb. 4.

Hegseth is such a dork in my view. He destroyed Ukraine's bargaining position be pre-stating that they would not join NATO. IDIOT. That was a bargaining chip!

US should have been mum about NATO, or even vaguely supportive in public... then behind closed doors, "You give back XXX square km of land, Ukraine will stay out of NATO. Deal". Everyone goes home.

These people, so naive. Being a TV person he thinks the performance in front of cameras is the event. No, it's the pre-event, and you failed the test. And we still have to deal with him for the next XXX years until he gets thrown under the bus, too.

LOSER

I gained confidence in Hegseth. He stated the obvious. It is not a bargaining chip in any way, Unless we want every Ukranian dead and Superrsonic missiles ready to rain down on us. And Europe exposed as unproductive and weak that we won’t work very hard to protect.

Ukraine is basically screwed because they listened to Biden and the clowns in NATO.

I think we are on the right track.

ochotona wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2025 7:44 am Hegseth is such a dork in my view. He destroyed Ukraine's bargaining position be pre-stating that they would not join NATO. IDIOT. That was a bargaining chip!

US should have been mum about NATO, or even vaguely supportive in public... then behind closed doors, "You give back XXX square km of land, Ukraine will stay out of NATO. Deal". Everyone goes home.

These people, so naive. Being a TV person he thinks the performance in front of cameras is the event. No, it's the pre-event, and you failed the test. And we still have to deal with him for the next XXX years until he gets thrown under the bus, too.

LOSER

All the above appears to be truth to me.

ppnewbie wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2025 8:24 am I gained confidence in Hegseth. He stated the obvious.

If you go in to buy a car... you don't state the obvious to the dealer, "this is an all-cash deal" even if it is, even if you have a Rolex on your wrist and everyone can see it. You hold that close to your vest, let them think they are making money off of their loan to you, then you change the deal as you close it, "ah, ok, I like your price, but I'm paying all cash for this car".

To telegraph movements like that to Russia is really a sign of submission the way I see it (at worst), or sheer adolescent incompetence at best.

I forgot the exact numbers, but I plugged in what Trump would have in terms of wealth if he had invested his inheritance from Father Fred passively in the S&P 500, and spent the dividend, and let the shares appreciate. It was a fantastic sum, way more than he is claims to be worth now.

In other words, he's NOT the brilliant businessman, he's NOT the great negotiator, he and the people around him are just fakes and posers and why everyone doesn't see that I will never understand.

Totally agree with ocho.

Here is what I believe could happen. Ukraine may or may not pay back Europe who ruthlessly LOANED them 100 billion and will pay us back the 350 billion worth of their country (not dollars) we have given them and I am guessing will pay Russia 450 billion worth of their country that they spent. Russia may not ask for the money back the US stole from them if the US gives them a good enough deal.

How will they do this. All of their natural resources are now ours and Russias. Sorry Europe.

This is between the US and Russia. Ukraine and Europe are now even more owned by the two of us.

BTW if I am saying they cannot join NATO and Hegseth says it, do you think it was a bargaining chip? It’s so obvious.

Think about what is happening and what you believe to be true. Are the two matching up? Or is Hegseth dumb? Ukraine is unfortunately between two 800 pound gorillas (US and Russia). It must appease both. That’s the breaks. Also I think people should forget about Europe in terms of military might. We are their protectors.

Sorry I am being so obnoxious but this is a tragedy that should have never happened. Also I hope I am willing to change my mind if I see something different.

You're 100% right, ppnewbie. Russia holds all the cards here. Russia is winning on the battlefield. The longer the conflict goes on, the more people die on both sides, but more on the Ukrainian side, and the more land that Russia wins. The most humane thing to do is to end this war as soon as possible, and to do that we have to acknowledge that the main issue from the beginning and since 2008 or earlier has been Russian opposition to NATO being in Ukraine. Russia stated this as a red line many times. There were other things that created this war, one of those being consistent mistreatment (i.e., a lot of killings, etc.) of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine, once the western-leaning coup happened in 2014, but that issue is now solved as Russia owns those lands now. The NATO thing is the big remaining issue.

Regarding losses, some commentators claim more than a million lives have been lost. Others claim less than 100,000. Both Ukraine and Russia have incentives to fudge the numbers. I assume the truth is somewhere in the middle and also that we will never know the truth, given the fog of war and all. What matters is that a lot of people died unnecessarily because stupid aggressive Americans (think people like Victoria Nuland, John Bolton, Lindsey Graham, etc.) thought that we could just push NATO into Ukraine and that Russia was bluffing when it stated repeatedly that this was a red line that shouldn't be crossed. And is that such an unreasonable thing for Russia to say? Would we allow a Chinese military alliance to exist in Mexico? I highly doubt it. Those stupid aggressive Americans were willing to gamble with tens or hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives just to see if Russia was serious or not. I guess it's a thrill to gamble with other people's lives when it's not your own sons and daughters who will be hurt. And the unwise (or corrupt?) Ukrainian leaders went along with it.

The great researcher Scott Horton, who runs the excellent website antiwar.com, recently released a new book called Provoked: How Washington Started the New Cold War with Russia and the Catastrophe in Ukraine. He goes into exquisite detail on all the mistakes the US has made since 1991 and how wise Americans like George Kennan, John Mearsheimer, etc. warned that the US was just leading Ukraine down the garden path to very likely tragedy. And here we are.

Please people the next time the US pushes for war somewhere (say in Iran or over Taiwan) don't fall for it. Diplomacy can actually work. The Iranians and the Chinese aren't warlike people. How many overseas military bases do they have? The answer is virtually zero. And how many does the US have? The answer is about 800. So which civilization is the more militaristic? It's like the man who got punched in the face, and his attacker says oh no, you just walked into my fist. We have our fist right in the face of countless countries. I guess that's what it takes to run an empire and pacify the people with low prices for gasoline. Is the US meant to be a republic or an empire?

ochotona wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2025 9:51 am

ppnewbie wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2025 8:24 am I gained confidence in Hegseth. He stated the obvious.

If you go in to buy a car... you don't state the obvious to the dealer, "this is an all-cash deal" even if it is, even if you have a Rolex on your wrist and everyone can see it. You hold that close to your vest, let them think they are making money off of their loan to you, then you change the deal as you close it, "ah, ok, I like your price, but I'm paying all cash for this car".

To telegraph movements like that to Russia is really a sign of submission the way I see it (at worst), or sheer adolescent incompetence at best.

I forgot the exact numbers, but I plugged in what Trump would have in terms of wealth if he had invested his inheritance from Father Fred passively in the S&P 500, and spent the dividend, and let the shares appreciate. It was a fantastic sum, way more than he is claims to be worth now.

In other words, he's NOT the brilliant businessman, he's NOT the great negotiator, he and the people around him are just fakes and posers and why everyone doesn't see that I will never understand.

A 21st century variation of the famous story of "The Emperor Has No Clothes"?

stuper1 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2025 11:06 am You're 100% right, ppnewbie. Russia holds all the cards here. Russia is winning on the battlefield. The longer the conflict goes on, the more people die on both sides, but more on the Ukrainian side, and the more land that Russia wins. The most humane thing to do is to end this war as soon as possible, and to do that we have to acknowledge that the main issue from the beginning and since 2008 or earlier has been Russian opposition to NATO being in Ukraine. Russia stated this as a red line many times. There were other things that created this war, one of those being consistent mistreatment (i.e., a lot of killings, etc.) of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine, once the western-leaning coup happened in 2014, but that issue is now solved as Russia owns those lands now. The NATO thing is the big remaining issue.

Regarding losses, some commentators claim more than a million lives have been lost. Others claim less than 100,000. Both Ukraine and Russia have incentives to fudge the numbers. I assume the truth is somewhere in the middle and also that we will never know the truth, given the fog of war and all. What matters is that a lot of people died unnecessarily because stupid aggressive Americans (think people like Victoria Nuland, John Bolton, Lindsey Graham, etc.) thought that we could just push NATO into Ukraine and that Russia was bluffing when it stated repeatedly that this was a red line that shouldn't be crossed. And is that such an unreasonable thing for Russia to say? Would we allow a Chinese military alliance to exist in Mexico? I highly doubt it. Those stupid aggressive Americans were willing to gamble with tens or hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives just to see if Russia was serious or not. I guess it's a thrill to gamble with other people's lives when it's not your own sons and daughters who will be hurt. And the unwise (or corrupt?) Ukrainian leaders went along with it.

The great researcher Scott Horton, who runs the excellent website antiwar.com, recently released a new book called Provoked: How Washington Started the New Cold War with Russia and the Catastrophe in Ukraine. He goes into exquisite detail on all the mistakes the US has made since 1991 and how wise Americans like George Kennan, John Mearsheimer, etc. warned that the US was just leading Ukraine down the garden path to very likely tragedy. And here we are.

Please people the next time the US pushes for war somewhere (say in Iran or over Taiwan) don't fall for it. Diplomacy can actually work. The Iranians and the Chinese aren't warlike people. How many overseas military bases do they have? The answer is virtually zero. And how many does the US have? The answer is about 800. So which civilization is the more militaristic? It's like the man who got punched in the face, and his attacker says oh no, you just walked into my fist. We have our fist right in the face of countless countries. I guess that's what it takes to run an empire and pacify the people with low prices for gasoline. Is the US meant to be a republic or an empire?

"website antiwar.com, recently released a new book called Provoked: How Washington Started the New Cold War with Russia and the Catastrophe in Ukraine."

The most brazen was the 2nd Iraq War. How many hundreds of thousands of people marched against it starting both in our country and around the world. But it still happened.

ochotona wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2025 9:51 am

ppnewbie wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2025 8:24 am I gained confidence in Hegseth. He stated the obvious.

If you go in to buy a car... you don't state the obvious to the dealer, "this is an all-cash deal" even if it is, even if you have a Rolex on your wrist and everyone can see it. You hold that close to your vest, let them think they are making money off of their loan to you, then you change the deal as you close it, "ah, ok, I like your price, but I'm paying all cash for this car".

To telegraph movements like that to Russia is really a sign of submission the way I see it (at worst), or sheer adolescent incompetence at best.

I forgot the exact numbers, but I plugged in what Trump would have in terms of wealth if he had invested his inheritance from Father Fred passively in the S&P 500, and spent the dividend, and let the shares appreciate. It was a fantastic sum, way more than he is claims to be worth now.

In other words, he's NOT the brilliant businessman, he's NOT the great negotiator, he and the people around him are just fakes and posers and why everyone doesn't see that I will never understand.

Totally agree

Not surprised, and who knows, maybe Republicans will change their mind, but not looking good

https://youtu.be/5LZaUoX-h2k?si=T3bFbFIiMnob0BrC

Start listening at minute 12:15. Trump states the obvious about Ukraine and NATO. Don’t over think this. Anyone who does not know this a fool (the entire last administration and Zelensky).

The Greta interview of Zelenskyy

Volodymyr Zelenskyy to Newsmax: Trump Can Help End War in Ukraine

https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/volo ... d/1199179/



Whenever I hear him speak ... he gets a lot of credibility with me.

Far more than that two term president we had in the 80s who could not keep straight what he experienced in movies he acted in and what he experienced in real life.

ppnewbie wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2025 2:35 am https://youtu.be/5LZaUoX-h2k?si=T3bFbFIiMnob0BrC

Start listening at minute 12:15. Trump states the obvious about Ukraine and NATO. Don’t over think this. Anyone who does not know this a fool (the entire last administration and Zelensky).

Afghanistan, Ukraine, Israel, Syria, Taiwan ... all (soon) lost. Many have tolerated the US being able to export inflation to fund the likes of a massive military might - but are now seeing the light, the US (esp. Trump) is a loser (a Putin puppet) and that former confidence of if-needed support by those supporting Dollarization is misplaced.

Trumps threats of sanctioning/tariffing those that move away from the Dollar are increasingly just being shrugged off. Ending the war in Ukraine will be good as it will rekindle/grow Europe/Russia relations. Trumps US isolationist policies may very well also lead to a exodus of US stock listings in favor of Anti-Dollar alternatives. Wouldn't be surprised if Canada also opted to lean that way. $323,000 and rising US debt per US taxpayer absent external support of the Dollar doesn't bode well for Americans.

Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal on promises that have been broken. Russia has a history of mass murdering Ukrainians (starvation) that is still relatively recent in memories. What remains will be absorbed into the EU and come under that mutual defense umbrella - thereafter ... what need for NATO - demonstrably a failure. What use US AI when China can supply better ...etc. 300 million versus 8 billion is a no contest.

Finland Moves to Ban Russian Nationals from Buying Property
— Moscow Times

seajay wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2025 5:43 pm

ppnewbie wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2025 2:35 am https://youtu.be/5LZaUoX-h2k?si=T3bFbFIiMnob0BrC

Start listening at minute 12:15. Trump states the obvious about Ukraine and NATO. Don’t over think this. Anyone who does not know this a fool (the entire last administration and Zelensky).

Afghanistan, Ukraine, Israel, Syria, Taiwan ... all (soon) lost. Many have tolerated the US being able to export inflation to fund the likes of a massive military might - but are now seeing the light, the US (esp. Trump) is a loser (a Putin puppet) and that former confidence of if-needed support by those supporting Dollarization is misplaced.

Trumps threats of sanctioning/tariffing those that move away from the Dollar are increasingly just being shrugged off. Ending the war in Ukraine will be good as it will rekindle/grow Europe/Russia relations. Trumps US isolationist policies may very well also lead to a exodus of US stock listings in favor of Anti-Dollar alternatives. Wouldn't be surprised if Canada also opted to lean that way. $323,000 and rising US debt per US taxpayer absent external support of the Dollar doesn't bode well for Americans.

Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal on promises that have been broken. Russia has a history of mass murdering Ukrainians (starvation) that is still relatively recent in memories. What remains will be absorbed into the EU and come under that mutual defense umbrella - thereafter ... what need for NATO - demonstrably a failure. What use US AI when China can supply better ...etc. 300 million versus 8 billion is a no contest.

As usual you give each of us something to think about, consider.

yankees60 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2025 8:44 pm

dualstow wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2025 6:57 pm I thought I saw 60,000 at wiki.
Your figure doesn’t include combatants. Shouldn’t it?

Of course you are correct.


Ukraine has lost 45,100 soldiers on the battlefield since the start of Russia's full-scale invasion in February 2022, President Volodymyr Zelensky said in an interview with U.K. journalist Piers Morgan published Feb. 4.

For comparison, the US estimate of Russian (military and militia) losses is 700,000. The UK estimates it at 790,000. Putin is doing a good job of killing more of his own citizens than Ukrainians.
I miss Kbg's posts. He apparently had a military background. One time he commented that history shows us that it is remarkably hard for even the most powerful country to invade, conquer and dispossess another country that does not want to be subsumed. Examples: Vietnam and Afghanistan.
BTW, the US estimate of Ukrainian combatant losses is closer to 57,000.
I don't know about you, but I would not take a bet that the Ukrainian people have any less grit than the Vietnamese or the Afghans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualtie ... ainian_War

glennds wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2025 10:16 am

yankees60 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2025 8:44 pm

dualstow wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2025 6:57 pm I thought I saw 60,000 at wiki.
Your figure doesn’t include combatants. Shouldn’t it?

Of course you are correct.


Ukraine has lost 45,100 soldiers on the battlefield since the start of Russia's full-scale invasion in February 2022, President Volodymyr Zelensky said in an interview with U.K. journalist Piers Morgan published Feb. 4.

For comparison, the US estimate of Russian (military and militia) losses is 700,000. The UK estimates it at 790,000. Putin is doing a good job of killing more of his own citizens than Ukrainians.
I miss Kbg's posts. He apparently had a military background. One time he commented that history shows us that it is remarkably hard for even the most powerful country to invade, conquer and dispossess another country that does not want to be subsumed. Examples: Vietnam and Afghanistan.
BTW, the US estimate of Ukrainian combatant losses is closer to 57,000.
I don't know about you, but I would not take a bet that the Ukrainian people have any less grit than the Vietnamese or the Afghans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualtie ... ainian_War

I believe that KBG made reference to the 3-1 rule:

https://dupuyinstitute.org/2019/11/14/t ... -one-rule/
The Source of the U.S. Army Three-to-One Rule

KBG did have an extensive military background. Forgetting whether or not he is still in.

yankees60 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2025 10:54 am
I believe that KBG made reference to the 3-1 rule:

https://dupuyinstitute.org/2019/11/14/t ... -one-rule/
The Source of the U.S. Army Three-to-One Rule

KBG did have an extensive military background. Forgetting whether or not he is still in.

That's pretty interesting. I might posit that it leaves out one influential factor - the resolve level of the defender. Cultures differ. Some might demonstrate more resolve than others. The NVA were outgunned more than 3 to 1 but then they were extraordinarily tenacious, resourceful and strategic.
When the fight is existential for one side and "merely" opportunistic for the other. I think that's a factor too.

I oftentimes wonder whether the grieving Russian mother feels it's worth the loss of her son, and how it might compare to the perspective of the Ukrainian mother. Would the Russian mother question the goals, or are Putin's ambitions worth her son? Would the Ukrainian mother feel the survival of the country was on the line thus worth a tragic price?

glennds wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2025 12:11 pm I oftentimes wonder whether the grieving Russian mother feels it's worth the loss of her son, and how it might compare to the perspective of the Ukrainian mother. Would the Russian mother question the goals, or are Putin's ambitions worth her son? Would the Ukrainian mother feel the survival of the country was on the line thus worth a tragic price?

That would be a question for the Russian/Ukranian gentleman on this site, but I would guess there are individual answers, maybe a whole spectrum.

glennds wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2025 12:11 pm

yankees60 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2025 10:54 am
I believe that KBG made reference to the 3-1 rule:

https://dupuyinstitute.org/2019/11/14/t ... -one-rule/
The Source of the U.S. Army Three-to-One Rule

KBG did have an extensive military background. Forgetting whether or not he is still in.

That's pretty interesting. I might posit that it leaves out one influential factor - the resolve level of the defender. Cultures differ. Some might demonstrate more resolve than others. The NVA were outgunned more than 3 to 1 but then they were extraordinarily tenacious, resourceful and strategic.
When the fight is existential for one side and "merely" opportunistic for the other. I think that's a factor too.

I oftentimes wonder whether the grieving Russian mother feels it's worth the loss of her son, and how it might compare to the perspective of the Ukrainian mother. Would the Russian mother question the goals, or are Putin's ambitions worth her son? Would the Ukrainian mother feel the survival of the country was on the line thus worth a tragic price?

How would all that fit in our own Civil War? The North had far more resources in every way yet it took five years to finally win the war.