Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of BRK.ABest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of BRK.ABest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", BreckHutHigh asked the members: "What about the long road trips with kids?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Stocks A to Z / Stocks B / Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A)
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (105) |
Author: Dope1   😊 😞
Number: of 84362 
Subject: Re: Trump a vacuous moron
Date: 03/03/25 7:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 2
An odd concern to have.

Have you spoke to any Ukrainians, and are you aware of the some of the crimes Russia has committed? They've literally spirited off thousands of children and re-homed them inside Russia. The level of hatred the average Ukrainian has for the average Russian is almost at the Holy War level.

Not an odd concern at all.

Our posture towards Taiwan is one of "strategic ambiguity" - a strong enough commitment towards defending them that it has dissuaded China from attacking, but one that's subject to enough US discretion to dissuade Taiwan from declaring independence (much less declaring war).

So...the "strategic ambiguity" argument goes against allowing the Ukraine into NATO. After all, if a "will they or won't they approach" is good enough for China - who views Taiwan as a runaway province and doesn't even recognize Taiwan as a country - then why wouldn't than be good enough for the Ukraine?

It's not hard for even modestly skilled diplomats to craft a policy that would signal to Russia that aggression against Ukraine will be met with an overwhelming flow of resources and materiel for them to defend themselves, and also signal to Ukraine that if they get into a conflict that they started that they'll be on their own.

Indeed. Which is why NATO membership is not necessary in this case. A mere statement that "A whole, sovereign and prosperous Ukraine in the long term interests of the United States" would suffice.
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to Dope1 here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 84,309 posts about US Policy. The article-length ones it recommended most:
It's going to get worse · 33 recs · 2025
G’day Donny · 30 recs · 2026
Old Related Story · 28 recs · 2026
HCR is a national treasure · 27 recs · 2025
Fascism in America · 27 recs · 2025
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (105) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of BRK.A | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community