How would crypto work if you don't have electricity or computing capabilities? Or banks cut you off? I don't see how crypto is good for countries who don't have sophisticated infrastructure or are cut off from normal banking institutions. I admit I don't understand crypto very well, but I don't see how it works in a war type situation.
We didn't give them a lot of aid, only a few billion a year. And I don't know why you are talking about WWII here when that was 50 years prior to the 90's. By the way, from your own wikipedia link:
Woah. Huge if true since that would seem to be the obvious place that Putin has hidden a large portion of his war chest. If he cannot pull from that war chest or is limited in doing so now while the economy has crashed, and cannot borrow money... that could end his war right there. It was said earlier that Putin is spending something like 20 billion dollars a day on Ukraine. That's insane. Even if he has access to all 680 billion, that's still "only" 34 days in total before running out of ways to pay for fuel, etc. If his 680 billion is significantly frozen then he might have lost this war by the inability to simply pay for it. A tank is worthless if you can't put gas in the tank.
Oligarchs and mass corruption did not just start in the 2000s it has been a hallmark of the USSR during the entire run. It was a bit of everything, and you have yet to explain what the U.S. could have done and why the corruption would have been halted. Massive corruption is nothing new in Russia, it's been going on since the end of WW II and really ramped up after Stalin. Crazy inflation was the reason the wall fell, it was not something that happened in just the 90s. You really need to read up on the history of Russia and corruption during the soviet regime this is nothing new, and I have no idea why you think the U.S. throwing money at it would have made it better.
Alright you aren't even reading what I wrote or the article I posted and are misrepresenting my point entirely so there's no point in continuing.
Not the same Swiss and not the same with everything being global. There can be severe blow back from not reading the room with how connected everything is.
Japan didn't attack in coordination with Germany. Japan had been at war in China since 1932ish. They conquered a puppet state in Mongolia and were staging for all out war in China throughout the mid 1930s. They went to war in China officially in 1937ish with the Marco Polo bridge incident. Germany hadn't even done the Anschluss with Austria yet at that point, let alone gone to war. The situation between Japan and the West escalated because of the oil embargo. The oil embargo left Japan with no alternatives other than war with the West or surrender in China and relegation to a non major power. They attacked the US at Pearl Harbor and the Western held territories in the Pacific in direct response to the oil embargo because they had to secure Indonesian oil with safe supply routes. That required knocking out British controlled Singapore/Malaya and American held Philippines to protect supply routes. Their hope was that if they damaged American and British fleets enough that they would get a peace deal instead of an actual war. Japan didn't give two ***** about Germany's war in Europe and they didn't coordinate with Hitler. The Tripartite Pact wasn't signed until the end of 1940 and Hitler had no foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor.
Thanks for the article, though I can't read all of it. I still think it's quite a reach to say that Russians would welcome even if a Russian suggested it. And the potential for unintended consequences would be very high. And while I'm sure if we had done something like that we'd be in some alternate timeline now in which probably Putin is not leading an invasion of Ukraine, but who knows if it'd be a better one. I'm not saying we didn't make policy mistakes after the fall of the USSR, I'm sure we did even if I don't know which ones they were. But it still doesn't strike me as realistic that we had a real and obvious option that we could send massive aid to our former hegemonic rival with no institutions of democracy or capitalism or accountability and it would have worked. Even looking back, it seems impossible. Even if we were perfect, this wasn't a real opportunity for us.
Important to know that with crypto if you are trading crypto for true goods and services, those trading for those good and services need to be crypto buyers. It's not like money where everybody is a "buyer" for money because money is money. I don't think any major weapons manufacture out there is accepting something that operates on the open market more like a futures stock than a war bond which is insured, and transferred through a stable currency. I mean imagine the US government with a collapsed stock market going to Boeing to offer them stocks in some tech startup with no capital (that's basically crypto) in exchange for 50 million dollars in blackhawk helicopters. The CEO of Boeing will be giving Joe Biden a hard no on that sale, and will instead see lower risk in the metal, and other parts that have more stable value longterm being able to be a helicopter in the future. So I'm not buying that there's a huge advantage in Putin having billions in Crypto when he's burning through 20 Billion USD a day worth of military expenses in Ukraine. I don't see any real way for him to finance his war much beyond the raw military materials he has on hand.... which might be alot still, but not enough to last occupation level lengths.
Crypto is a gambling mechanism to horde wealth and is nowhere near being a functional currency for say perishable goods or day to day transactions. It's just another tool for the wealthy to horde more of it with a MLM scheme. If crypto was so ****ing great, it wouldn't have the volatility it does and it wouldn't benefit only a few hundred thousand already well to do people. If crypto was as good as touted, it'd actually benefit the poor. Not your mid-tier IT professional with disposal income that thinks because they can code in Python they're somehow a certifiable guru that sees the big picture and everyone else is just some chump for not investing in altcoins. Look at the high and mighty assholes that always push it like Spaceghost and Commodore. Noses held high to cover the smell of **** they always leave behind. It's a joke and waste of energy for countries with the lowest rates of electrical consumption that the wealthy with the hardware to make coins set up shop in at the behest of the utility needs of it's own nations citizens.
I am reading what you wrote, and I can't get into those links, but I have been reading up and watching stuff about this for yrears, so none of this is new to me. And you cannot answer the most basic question, why would the U.S. throw aid money at Russia when we knew how corrupt the government was? You really don't have a point, money would not have solved the history of corruption that runs as deep as it does in Russia.
There's also the reality that Hitler would have simply occupied Switzerland if they violated neutrality oath, same as Sweden. He controlled every inch of land that surrounded Switzerland (or an ally did) and the analysis at the time was that if he invaded they would have offered no defense and simply become an occupied state much like the rest of Europe. He loathed their government. He nixed an invasion plan after the Fall of France. If they had violated neutrality he would have acted and it would have been over in a nanosecond.
With respect, I disagree. I think our inability to see Russia as anything but a rival prevented us from taking the opportunity. Russia was open to it. Putin actually backed Bush after 9/11 and there was cooperation. But so many things happened to put a chill because Bush Jr and the Hawks under him really saw Russia as a rival and turned them into one. Look at all the things that happened. 1. Russian economy in the tank, they ask for Marshall plan - US says no 2. US involvement in Bosnia/Serbia 3. US pushes expansion of NATO (Clinton) 4. Putin asks Bush for debt forgiveness of Soviet Union to help their economy, Bush ignores it 5. US withdraws from treaty to put missiles in Poland (under Bush) 6. Bush declares intention for expansion of NATO to Ukraine & Georgia I think the last two were real problems and did a lot to sour the relationship.
I don't know why you think that is relative, and you refuse to answer the question of why should he have just given money to a corrupt regime or how you think that would have solved anything since corruption is the real issue with Russia not aid.
