no_free_lunch

I would say both parties have a lot of blame here. Many republicans are now full 1930s head in the sand isolationists which is a huge reversal. However republicans are the ones traditionally backing and serving in the military so I don't know that the US would be able to give the defense transfers it does without their prior support. Democrats are committed to defending Ukraine, mostly, but then their ESG and economic policies are at odds with fighting a sustained war with Russia. It's bad either way.

I sometimes will hold broad index funds James. I only do it when I'm short on ideas and afraid to hold cash. For the past 6 months it's been easier to find stuff and so I don't know if I own any etfs today.

I did not listen to the putin speech today but did read highlights. It is notable for things that did not happen. No general mobilization, no declaration of war, status quo more or less. The half committed nature of the whole thing is perhaps telling, there must not be as much support at home as the pumpers would suggest. Surely if he really wanted to win this there would be stronger rhetoric and commitment. As is, they will lose this over time. I think RU holds Crimea and probably the other ore 2022 breakaway areas but eventually loses the other gains. I caught one quote from putin about the importance of private markets and that they played a role in buttressing Russias economy over the past year. I assume this is a pitch to RU investors that the water is fine and they won't be nationalized. However it also ties into my prior point that perhaps the options here are limited for Putin. I feel if the west can keep their resolve then Russia will strangle itself on this effort while in the West what, maybe our taxes go up by 0.5%. Meh, I can take it.

Ukraine is able to hold Russia off due to the weapons inflow from the west combined with their own bravery. You remove either one of those and it would be over. Support is definitely still needed.

I just wonder change, if any of this is really existential for the regime. They dont even CLAIM it to be as such. The RU argument is more, a failure here could ultimately lead to an existential risk. Rhyming a bit with US position on Korea back in the 50s. On your question around sentiment in Russia, obviously I don't know but they seem to have a hard time recruiting. Conscription, prisoner soldiers, emigration, these aren't things you see when there is patriotic support. I think the people supporting it don't have to actually fight.

Bought some of biotechnology company Amgen AMGN. This company has performed stellar over the last 10, 20, 30 years. I don't fully understand the business but they seem to have a small tech moat. It trades around 14x 2023 earnings , quite reasonable. I've traded in and out of this one for over a decade and while it's not crazy cheap i think this is a good price and better than the alternatives I'm seeing. Also i continue to sell things, meta for instance and build up cash.

Wabuffalo, they can't default but can they not get into an inflationary spiral? They print to cover the deficit, which leads to higher inflation and rates, which leads to higher deficits..

As pro Ukraine as I am, I could care less about Crimea. It has a history of being Russian. An offensive on it is more a tool to divert Russian defenses. I think it would be reasonable to surrender Crimea in exchange for a return of the other areas and peace.

I never said to trust Russia propaganda but to listen to it and I'm not going to play childish word games with you.

Not well but they would provide something. If you watch RU propaganda they really pride themselves on this sort of thing. Note that in Russia there is not really a significant resistance movement. It would eventually be the same in Ukraine. Castanza, trusting what the CIA says is madness. Of course they will try for a counter insurgency and I don't doubt it will exist if that's the argument. I just don't see it being effective once RU deploys all their tools. Far easier to fight a conventional war and if it's lost let's burn the country down and get as many people out as possible. Scorched earth, deny it to the beast.

I don't really disagree with much of this. I think though that you underestimate what Russia is willing to do. To your points, its items 1, 4, 5, 6 in particular that they will use. There are pro-Russian elements, we saw that when regions were taken over. So these elements will be empowered. Russians will be encouraged to emigrate. As I said, they will try to intimitdate or liquidate any Ukrainian nationalists. They would try to wipe out the Ukrainian identity once and for all. Far better to fight a conventional war than to get into that garbage.

I think it's ridiculous to NOT compare it to Chechnya. That was only 20-30 years ago. Putin had a hand in that. Of course they will use the same tactics. I will keep my ww2 comparisons, thanks. Russia is the same garbage pile ethically as the USSR. Human life doesn't mean much to them. Have you seen how they are treating even their own citizens, sending them to Ukraine with minimal training and coordination. I am not saying there will be no resistance movement but it's wishful thinking that will mean anything. Sure somebody might use an ied here or there. Not going to stop them from controlling the country. In the occupied areas they are putting people through filtration camps. Children are being separated from their parents. People are disappearing if Russia deems appropriate. I don't see how you get any reasonable resistance out of that. Your last comments are thrashing nonsense. Ukraine will fight when they have half a chance. They are not all going to suicide.

Castanza, It's all part of the Russian playbook. I am not talking about some RU soldier randomly killing someone. The executions are carried out by intelligence units in an organized fashion. They target dissidents, former soldiers and anyone else else capable who is not wholeheartedly pro Russia. That is what is emerging from Kherson, now that its re-taken. If you go around killing enough people you are going to squish resistance. It's also the same exact thing as in Chechnya. Putin was in charge of that too. It's actually likely to be more effective in Ukraine than Chechnya as Ukraine us culturally more similar than Chechnya. There are already pro Russia elements of the population. The Russians would empower those elements, it's going to be tough to resist that for very long. This was all done, multiple times in the 20th century. I don't mean to belittle but if you read the history, and I've read too much, it can be done. It's how the USSR was assembled.

I disagree and fear they could win and hold without western support. The soviets literally did this before in the 20th century. They can go and do mass executions and brainwash the remainder. You go kill 100k people and there will not be that many left with the will to resist. That was the Chechnya playbook recently and similar story in Poland during ww2, just to pick a few examples.

I was under the impression that they simply needed to rebuild capital ratios and could resume share buybacks this year. The way I look at it, either the shares stay down and then C eventually vacuums at rock bottom prices or else it moves up. The banamex sale is at a multiple of book while citi trades at a discount to book. Not sure how fair of a comparison that is but it provides some insight that the shares are quite undervalued. I think this could move up quickly at some point. All that said, it is called shitticorp for a reason so it is about a 3% position for me.

I continue to like C as well. I think they continue to mop up stairs and at some point turn the dividend on, the market would respond to a 12% dividend ir whatever it could be in a couple years. Maybe they can get acquired too? Not sure if it would pass regulations, but perhaps could happen from some outside pool of investors. Yiu can see how if you bought it at 9 or 10x earnings a good team could perhaps do very well. This scenario is knd of wishful thinking admittedly. I think ultimately it may rise when international does well.

The US will increase artillery shell production 6 fold over the next 2 years. The US is covering dual contingencies of a long war in Ukraine as well as a possible war with China. https://www.businessinsider.com/pentagon-increasing-production-of-155mm-artillery-shells-2023-1

Thanks bluegold. I see it as you describe. They are just parroting Russia propaganda and to slander an entire country to get a fu king sound bite does not sit well with me. Nevertheless wait 1 week and the same garbage will resurface.

There are nazis in America too. See Charlottesville, the kkk, that is reported in the media too.

A nazi country with a Jewish prime minister? Hmm...

Thanks for this, some good insights. I tried to get it to work on 10k info and it struggled with the size, the complexity of tables and then summarizing at the level I was after. It also would at times just plain make stuff up. I have no idea what I'm doing so could just be me but I'm still skeptical. I think, as you said, it needs to target very specific use cases. For now.

We can afford it. Its less than half a percent of gdp for most countries. Meanwhile we are building up our armaments industries. We do need European countries to carry a greater load but yes its quite doable. The alternative of course is to sign some peace treaty and Russia and allies learns they can get away with this shit.

Those first 3 examples, Ukraine is the equivalent of Afghanistan / Vietnam. The defender with nothing left to lose. In those cases to actually achieve superiority of production (if it happens), would further the gap. Also note that those were all guerilla wars, this is a conventional war. What we learned from ww2 is that when armies start to adapt similar tactics it does come down to some multiple of quality x quantity. If this was the Mongolian invasion then it would for sure be over already. We have already seen that these 2 armies are at least roughly comparable.

The best way to keep track of the arms is to send more advisers to Ukraine.

Given the discussion is on ww2, let's consider the rapid increase to weapons production during that period. In the US, aircraft production went up close to 30 fold from 1940 to 1944. This while increasingly the quality and complexity of the planes at the same time. For instance, heavy bomber production actually went up 500 fold. I don't see why a similar production curve (possibly much larger) cannot happen for equipment such as autonomous drones. In prior conflicts, what you usually see is this refinement and mass production of weapons that already existed at the start of the conflict. I think this will happen here as well and drones seem like an obvious candidate. This type of tech could change the importance of troop levels or at least act as a multiplier. US combat aircraft production WW2 1940 plane production: 3,611 1942 plane production: 46,907 1944 plane production: 96,270 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_aircraft_production_during_World_War_II