420lenin69 [comrade/them, he/him]

  • 0 Posts
  • 48 Comments
Joined 3 months ago
cake
Cake day: October 18th, 2025

help-circle















  • Some interesting sub-points in the article and I enjoyed the perspective but I don’t agree with the core thesis.

    Because of this [defense spending as stimulus and Ukrainian war debt], it’s highly unlikely that the EU will tolerate an early conclusion to the war in Ukraine. They stand to lose the justification for their spending, lucrative contracts for their defense sectors, tens of billions on loans that Ukraine will be unable to pay, and the massive investments they’ve made into military-industrial infrastructure.

    I don’t agree with this assertion since they can simply flag the “Russian threat” as a justification to continue increased spending for another decade after this war ends anyway.

    The article also makes points about the “Danish model” (Denmark investing in defense manufacturing within Ukraine) which seem to run directly counter to the thesis that the spending is intended as stimulus since that would function as stimulus better by spending it in Denmark or the EU.

    Further, the loss of access to cheap Russian gas is a major factor in pushing Europe further into stagnation / recession, so it’s putting the cart before the horse a bit. At most the stimulus effect of defense spending is enjoying a bit of cream after killing the cow.

    I think it’s likely accurate to say that defense spending is welcome economic stimulus. It’s also accurate that Europe needs a Ukrainian state of some kind to survive the war else they will have to write-off hundreds of billions in war debt.

    But I suspect the cost of massively increased defense spending, loss of Russian gas, all the other costs of supporting Ukraine… surely these costs are massive compared to the cost of writing off a couple of hundred billion in debt? The idea that a desire to get that debt repaid is a driver of European policy towards Russia seems suspect since a few hundred billion in debt (that will probably be restructured or defaulted on either way) just isn’t that much in the true scale of things.

    I think the best way to understand the wests motivations is to see them as geopolitical actors who want to curtail Russia’s sphere of influence in Europe.


  • Let’s judge Elon. The way he got involved with designing the cyber truck suggests he actually believed his own bullshit.

    My theory is they have an instinct for bullshit. The initial motivation is to lie and say whatever it takes to make the market react.

    But then when the market does react, and reacts big, it goes to their heads and they buy into their own lies even though they’re fully aware they didn’t really mean it when they initially said it.

    Like, a pathological liar actually does momentarily believe what they’re saying. In the moment of uttering a lie they are living inside a delusion and feeling a sense of conviction in that delusion, even while being simultaneously aware it isn’t true in a factual sense.