Thread by @kamilkazani

Why fund Ukraine?

1. This world consists of states

2. That are war machines optimised for war purposes

3. Allowing the war machines optimised for war purposes to make territorial conquests and get away with this, makes the world unsafe

The unsafe world will cost you more 🧵

https://twitter.com/Eric_Schmitt/status/1704887298871996602

4. Many in the US take their current material prosperity as granted

5. It is not

6. Unprecedented in the world history, it became possible only in the unprecedentedly safe world

7. When the world becomes less safe, you will have to say goodbye to the current prosperity

8. The unprecedented safety of this world is based upon it being dominated by a single war machine (US)

9. That has severely limited the incentives for other war machines to fight each other

10. The US made it very difficult for a war machine to annex a new territory

11. Effectively impossible to legalise such an annexation

12. And straight out impossible to cash out from it

13. When you want to abolish a norm (heavy penalty for annexation + impossibility to legalise it), you must first explain why it had been introduced in the first place

14. It was introduced to decrease a payout from the military victory

15. And, therefore, to prevent wars

16. I cannot annex a territory -> What is the point in a military victory then? -> Well, there is not much point in it -> Perhaps, I won't be starting a war in the first place

Reduced payout from a military victory, that is why wars in the modern world are so rare

17. Allowing to legalise territorial annexations, you increase the payout for the military victory (& penalty for defeat)

18. With the costs/benefits ratio changing so drastically, there will be more incentive to start the war in the first place

19. There will be way more wars

20. While more frequent wars will result in more frequent disruptions of supply chains, thus making everyone poorer, there is another factor at play

21. The US is a war machine

22. Which is primarily threatened by other war machines of roughly comparable size and capacities

23. It is highly improbable that guerillas in the mountains can pose a serious danger to the US

24. But the large war machines optimised for the war purposes can

25. Consequently, it is the large states such as Russia or China that the primary threat to the US can come from

26. Russia seizing control of Ukraine will increase its capacities

27. Make it more aggressive

28. All of this will make it more of a threat in the future

29. What is worse, Russian success in Ukraine will embolden China to pursue a more aggressive policy in Asia

30. While having a demoralising effect on the US allies in the region

31. Ukraine is a very rare example of the US funding an army that is actually willing to fight

32. Taking the US side only to be left one on one with China is a suboptimal choice for any state/non state actor in Asia

33. Consequently, it will make more sense to (lowkey) take the side of China from the very beginning

34. Sabotaging defense preparations may count as *33*

35. Ukrainian defeat will show that a smaller country has zero chance for successful resistance

36. They will take you anyway. You can only choose between the easy way and the hard way

37. Surrendering preventively 😎 way better than getting steamrolled 💀 in a hopeless fight

38. Abandonment of Ukraine will encourage the surrender-preventively mood in Asia

39. Should Ukrainians turn out to be the idiots, so will any current or potential US allies in the Pacific

40. Preventive (if lowkey) surrender will look as the only rational choice for many

41. If certain players in Asia are minimising defense preparations, perhaps they have a reason to believe they can choose only between an easy and a hard way -> they prefer it easy

42. Abandonment and destruction of Ukraine will prove them right

The end