“Weapons matter, especially air defences and long-range missiles to strike at Russian supply lines, which is why it is crucial for America to approve the latest tranche of aid. Because arsenals are already depleted, more work needs to go into increasing the capacity of Western arms-makers.”
Uh oh, Jampie, The Economist doesn’t just have the conflict at a stalemate. Now Putin is winning! Do you think Congress will do the right thing and sprinkle $60B of resolve into my LMT holdings? I need something to offset those Moderna stocks I bought right at the peak and then watched as they tumbled down the mountain.
And to be honest, this war hasn’t been that great, financially speaking. By no means, bad, but not compared to its potential. I think our manufacturers have been reluctant to significantly expand capacity. I heard what’s-his-name, the American general, saying a year or so ago that the manufacturers don’t want to bite unless they are guaranteed long term contracts. I mean I get it, it makes sense - who wants to quadruple the number of ice cream makers they own when they see a long nuclear winter right around the corner.
It’s for thought, anyways.
Aside from the usual tropes about Putin’s “grip on power” vs “Ukrainian democracy”, etc, this Economist writer just might be angling for Russian agent status. I hear Putin pays well. But don’t worry - none of this is evidence that Putin is winning, and it’s certainly not evidence that Ukraine would have been better off signing off on the deal they didn’t propose.
https://archive.is/ZzEXQ
