Water is wet isn’t exactly a valuable input.

This isn’t how it works. Mega corporations are also CVCs and LPs in VC funds.

They’re invested already.

Iran agreed to a deal and didn’t invade anyone.

It’s leverage.

In better shape than 1945.

Out of the 13B allocated to the Marshall Plan, only 1.2B were loans. Everything else were grants.

Russia has 300B seized by Western institutions. Another source of probable funding.

Please research the Marshall plan, and how the UK finished paying it off a few years ago.

Nation rebuilding for the victor doesn’t work like you think it does.

It’s a bit more complicated.

BlackRock is an advisor to the Ministry of Economy of Ukraine. They will advise on where, and which investments are most useful to the Ukrainian economy.

This is quite litterally nation building.

BlackRock can act as a bridge financier to immediately deploy capital to help Ukraine while the slower decision making process of governments goes through its motions.

The EU and US will foot this bill, while financing Ukraine to extremely favourable terms.

There is absolutely zero benefits to burdening Ukraine with unserviceable debt. This isn’t Greece.

The future is bright relative to the present.

Creative destruction is in full effect - physically and ideologically. Hope and trust over doom and gloom.

It’s like the Marshall plan never happened in your history.

The US financed the rebuilding of vastly more deteriorated economies of Japan & Europe at a loss to protect the integrity of democratic institutions against Communism and its totalitarian regimes.

Sounds similar eh? Except now the US should expect the EU to pick up the tab on rebuilding Ukraine.

That is wishful thinking.

Name 5 publicly traded companies that have remained stable in the last.. centuries?

May I suggest investing in the stock market or lottery ticket with such a unique crystal ball? :)

There are numerous instances of near-nuclear engagements in history, specifically with Russia.

Here’s a list.

My bad for assuming you had a perspective of history on nuclear engagements and their doctrines.

You’ve just explained why NATO is acting this way.

Why are we arguing this anymore?

Good on you for realizing your initial argument is unfounded.

Dont be coy, that isn’t it.

Historically, you’re also wrong.

I understand that you feel this way. I’m just telling you it’s wrong.

The doctrines are very clear, and we’re dealing with a dangerous man stuck in a corner with no way out.

Geopolitics are complex and nuclear doctrines are dusty things for most.

Hopefully this War gets people interested about the gears that make the world turn, and burn.

It absolutely would escalate.

Russia has nukes.

Russia claims annexed territories are Russian land.

Read up on their nuclear doctrine.

NATO is a defensive pact Ukraine isn’t a part of it.

They simply cannot, and will never take the initiative unless Putin does something stupid.

Blowing up appartements unfortunately isn’t it.

That isn’t it.

If NATO is perceived to attack Russia, which Putin has been baiting for months now - it changes the entire narrative.

Nukes, China, India, Iran - everything gets realigned as Putin screams existential threat and applies Russian nuclear doctrine, and total mobilization.

It isn’t about being scared, it’s about having political cover to do it.

NATO cannot be perceived to be on the offensive.

Keyword here is perceived.