You’re looking for rational thinking from irrational people. I’m sure he’ll be at least testing alliances. All it takes is for one side to bend the knee.
Not ‘anything’, no. We’ll see inflation e up, and a weakening of the US dollar. But, again, ‘weakening’ is a relative term to other currencies.
Directly engaged means having to mobilize our troops, ie: NATO article IV. Then things get really expensive. This, comparatively speaking, is cheap.
Russia is weak and needs continuous bleeding, both economic and military to collapse, as seen in the 90’s. It’s a proven strategy. The recent Syrian collapse is further proof that Russia is indeed weak.
I mean, we already made this mistake before. We let nazis and their allies fester, and played the ‘neutral’ card thinking it’s ‘their problem’, until Pearl Harbor happened. One would think we’ve learned our lesson. Heck, NATO existence is a direct result of that.
"Testing" is one thing. A major World War style conflict is something totally different.
If the US government has a major debt crisis of a scope and scale like we've never seen before, then anything is possible. You could rock global markets in a way that sets off a Great Depression.
It's a myth that the US was really neutral until Pearl Harbor. Regardless, the cir stances are not the same as in the lead up to WW2. For example, we actually have a credible NATO operating now.
Destabilizing Europe is the name of the game. Even you know that and you also know Russia has been active with hybrid warfare for a while now. NATO is effectively Europe and the US. Destabilizing Europe is synonymous of destabilizing NATO.
We’re $36 trillion in debt. This is scale and scope like we’ve never seen before. But, our sustained GDP growth is also in scale and scope something we’ve never seen before either.
We do not if we’re not going to stand by our allies. That was called into question in the previous administration, which happens to be also the upcoming one.
It was called into question because they weren't spending 2%. If they spend it, then we won't have a problem. Most countries got the message already and others are in the process of getting it.
I think what most Euro countries figured out is that the US is not going to fulfill its part of the NATO accord. Today is the 2% spending, tomorrow it’s going to be another excuse (ie: you’re not buying American weapons). This is the problem when a partner becomes unreliable.
NATO just isn’t an economic accord, period. If the US doesn’t understand the geopolitical value of NATO, then we’re indeed repeating the same mistake as WWII.
Somehow the country that spends close to 4% of GDP on defense and spends billions of American tax payer dollars on military bases, exercises and deployments in Europe is unreliable... while the countries actually in Europe that don't spend on defense are somehow reliable?
You've just got it ass backwards. It's frustrating to read, actually.
Last edited by DMX7; 12-19-2024 at 01:40 AM.
Nope, you're the one wanting to get out of NATO and other agreements.
You're unreliable. No one can count on you.
the US not being agreement capable in a multipolar world could have downsides
What the US chooses to spend its up to the US, always has been. The notion that the US is in Europe only to protect them is ridiculous as well, and overlooks that the US prefers to fight wars as far away from the homeland as possible.
Again, NATO isn’t an economic accord, and post WWII geopolitics play a big part.
You got it ass backwards as usual.
lol prefers to fight far away from the homeland
Nobody on the planet has the ability to fight on our homeland
^^^ case in point. That’s what we said before Pearl Harbor, when we were also saying “America First” and let fester in the rest of the world. Difference is that the nukes aren’t exclusive to us anymore.
Exactly right,,,100%. NoNo is pointing out certain incidents like Pearl Harbor,,,,even 9/11,,,,,but the only major war this country has had on its own soil is the Civil War. There has,,,nor ever will be in our lifetime at least,,,,a World War on our land,,,,wont happen. To much power in weaponry to allow another country to invade us,,,,,other countries have had nukes for decades now and still not one iota of a foreign power has even tried to breach a coastline of ours militarily,,,,,wont happen.
Who’s talking invasion? What you have now are bit countries like North Korea with ICBMs and nukes, now in partnership with Russia and China, with newer tech like supersonics and drones. Doesn’t even have to be nukes to cause major damage.
Russia just walked away from the denuclearization of North Korea. The point being that when you let those s fester unchecked, the world turns into a much more dangerous place. We also thought WWII wasn’t our problem and we were far away, until it was our problem. This is exactly what I mean when I talk about learning our lessons.
What lessons, NoNo?,,,,we set the bar,,,,we have never been invaded,,,,,we stay ahead of the curve,,,,,,what in' lessons? Incidents ike Pearl Harbor and 9/11 will happen anywhere at anytime but a full blown military invasion will never happen on our soil,,,,,so again what lessons have we learned that some other nation taught us?,,,,of course the world turns more dangerous by the minute,,,,,we cant do about that,,,,but we can do about that coming across our shorelines and we have,,,and thats all we can do,,,
Really? How many Americans died in WWII? If not for the fact that we had nukes (no longer an advantage), and Russia owning the Nazis, America and the world would look a lot different right now. You can’t just say “well, except Pearl Harbor”. Pearl Harbor was the wake-up call that we were next.
Why do you think NATO exists at all? We let half of Europe get razed while looking the other way. That’s the lesson we learned back then. Hard to believe this needs to be said, this is history 101.
lol,,,,hold on a sec here, NoNo,,,,youre going off base here,,,,and let me just say this,,,,I like having this debate with ya,,,,non agressive,,,no name calling,,,,1st point you made is hypothetical,,,,,it doesnt matter what would have happened if X turned out to be Y,,,,it didnt. As far as Pearl Harbor as a wake up call,,,,agree just like 9'11 was a wake up call,,,,but those countries still didnt have the power to breach our shorelines and invade us,,,,,that is fact. As far as Nato goes,,,,history 101?,,,,lmao,,,,,let me ask you this NoNo,,,,how did we get roped into Nato and pay the bulk of it when the countries getting invaded dont pay and we always foot the bill and we never get invaded?,,,,,
We were and are the most powerful and richest nation in the world after WWII BECAUSE the fight wasn't on our territory and decided forming NATO was in OUR interest.
This is history 101.
[QUOTE=ChumpDumper;11167419]We were and are the most powerful and richest nation in the world after WWII BECAUSE the fight wasn't on our territory and decided forming NATO was in OUR interest.]]]
...it was a close decision though Dumper. Do to Russia what we'd just done to Japan, OR, make Russia our bogeyman ever more, and build an MIC.
We chose...wisely?
tee, hee.
Exactly. And the US having the nuke advantage at that time was huge. It really did reshape how geopolitics developed in the immediate aftermath. Russia had to back down until it stole the tech.
Things are very different now. China moves into Taiwan and 80% of the advanced chip supply in the world (including that we use for our military) disappears. It’ll set us back at least a couple of years.
weird investor dispute puts Argentine gold at risk
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2025...-reserves.htmlFor its part, the YPF case is considered one of the most significant disputes in recent history between a sovereign state and international creditors*. This week, Preska ordered the Argentine Republic to disclose the whereabouts of its state-owned assets abroad, including the central bank’s roughly $4.5 billion of gold reserves as well as, allegedly, the nation’s sovereign accounts in the US, including those belonging to diplomats, embassies and consulates, as well as the bank accounts of companies with which it has engaged in commerce.
Judge Preska also said that regardless of whether the gold reserves are in the custody of the Central Bank of the Argentine Republic (BCRA) or in some other jurisdiction, Argentina is obliged to provide do entation showing that these assets are, or are not, in its possession. According to Infobae, one of Latin America’s largest online news portals, this latest injunction underscores the Argentine State’s obligation to comply with the US court’s orders.[2]
“What the judge did was issue an order that obliges Argentina to report where the country’s gold is located and how much came out of the BCRA’s reserves,” Sebastián Marill, CEO of Latam Advisors and an expert in the case, told Ambito. It is estimated that at least 60% of Argentina’s gold reserves were sent to London in recent years. This includes, of course, all the gold bars that the Minister of Economy (and former JP Morgan exec), Luis Caputo, covertly dispatched last year (for further background, click here).
Michael Hudson suggested in response to a previous post that Milei may have sent the gold to the UK precisely so that it could be seized. Given Milei’s near-total devotion to the Anglo sphere, Economy Minister Luis Caputo’s loyalties to Wall Street as well as the UK’s seizure of Venezuela’s gold, this is is a very real possibility.
In our post, “What Is the Milei Government Doing With Argentina’s Gold?“, we noted that the decision to send much of the country’s gold across the Atlantic, either to London or the Bank of International Settlements in Switzerland, under the cover of darkness, puts it at high risk of seizure by unpaid creditors, of which Argentina has its fair share:
When questioned on the matter in July last year, Argentina’s Economy Minister (and former banking exec at JP Morgan Chase and Deutsche Bank) Luis Caputo argued that leaving the gold sitting in a vault at the Central Bank of the Republic of Argentina was a pointless exercise:As readers may recall, London — and more broadly, Europe — are hardly the safest places to store gold reserves and other sovereign assets these days. In 2019, the UK government impounded Venezuela’s roughly $2 billion of gold deposits stored at the Bank of England after “derecognising” the Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in favour of the self-appointed Juan Guaidó. Even after Venezuela’s leading opposition parties voted to oust Guaidó in 2023, the UK continues to hold on to Venezuela’s gold deposits.
With Argentina facing numerous lawsuits over unpaid bills and debts, including one concerning the former Cristina Fernández de Kirchner government’s expropriation of roughly half of national energy company YPF, the risk of part or all of Argentina’s gold being seized is not negligible, as the Secretary General of the Banking Association and deputy, Sergio Palazzo, himself warns:
“The gold in transit may be seized by any judge who eventually orders a seizure for any of the cases Argentina has pending abroad. It’s an unnecessary risk being run, and [the central bank] should clarify to us Argentines the reason for this transaction, whether it is to exchange the gold for foreign currency in another country, or whether it is a credit operation, or whether it is a purchase and repurchase operation with the International Payment Bank.”
It is not entirely clear why the Milei government sent so much gold overseas, precisely at a time when the general trend is for countries to try to repatriate their gold, but the most likely explanation is that it is being used as collateral on a bridge loan so that Argentina can continue serving its debt, including, of course, to the IMF. The government is desperate for fresh money from the Fund while struggling to service the near-$40 billion debt it still owes. According to an article in Argentina’s largest newspaper Clarín, Milei is hoping that a Donald Trump victory in the US elections will allow him to expand Argentina’s debt with the IMF.“It is a very positive move, because today you have gold in the BCRA that is like a piece of property that cannot be used for anything. If you have it abroad, you can generate returns. It is much better to have it stored outside, where they pay you something for it.”
Nor it it clear how much of Argentina’s 62 tonnes of gold (current market value: $5.4 billion) is now stashed abroad, or indeed where it now resides. Some estimates put the figure at around 37 tonnes, which include the 11 tonnes transferred to London by the Macri administration in 2017. Thanks to the Milei government’s recent actions, even more of Argentina’s gold is now vulnerable to seizure by the country’s creditors. As the libertarian economist Saifedean Ammous writes in a twitter thread, “pawning off a politically neutral monetary asset free of counterparty risk in search of a few quick bucks does not inspire confidence”.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
