Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (186875)	4/23/2022 5:34:40 PM
From: TobagoJack	1 Recommendation Recommended By Secret_Agent_Man Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217753

Germany seems demure It is possible Germany is concerned about off-ramps and exits, the lack of Let’s see about the French Should the French remain reserved, Nato can break Should Nato break, the cages are wide open, a guess We do not disagree that there ought to be and there is a lack of conduct in war. What we disagree on is whether global nuclear war is possible from here on out and should events go south in a hurry, happen in a hurry. Either you believe nuclear war out of the Ukraine war is impossible no matter US / Nato counter actions or counter-counter-counter actions, that which we know as escalation, and / or you believe trying to win it is worth it, no matter what the underlying reasons that might have led the planet up to the current here-and-now. What I believe is … (1) there is no win in nuclear war (2) must be forestalled / prevented at most cost (3) most circumstances entered into after wise deliberation ought to be able to preclude ‘it’ (4) but am doubtful continuous and continuing escalation that got the planet here to this point would do such, preventing ‘it’ So, let’s try this as we are dialogue-in, a simple question, do you believe, based on just face-value, without delving into any other aspects, that Scholz is correct in stating (not whether he believes it or means it, but what he reckons) "NATO must avoid a direct military confrontation with Russia that could lead to a third world war," Chancellor Scholz was cited as saying in a new interview Der Spiegel when asked why Germany hasn't sent heavy weapons. zerohedge.com Germany's Scholz Resists Sending "Quickly Available" Tanks To Ukraine: 'Could Lead To Nuclear War' German Chancellor Olaf Scholz is under continued pressure to "do more" for the Ukrainians, particularly in the area of sending heavier weaponry to Kiev, with Bloomberg reporting at the close of this week that a "German arms manufacturer has asked the government to approve the export of 100 Marder tanks to Ukraine, Welt am Sonntag reports, without saying where it got the information." The arms maker is saying the tanks are "quickly available" and that the first wave delivery could be transferred to Ukraine "within a few weeks" - pending approval of the Scholz government. However, unlike the British and US governments, who haven't been shy about sending and pledging unprecedented military aid to the Ukrainians, Scholz has loathe to do anything seen as escalatory by Moscow. He's expected to reject the appeal by the arms maker. "NATO must avoid a direct military confrontation with Russia that could lead to a third world war," Chancellor Scholz was cited as saying in a new interview Der Spiegel when asked why Germany hasn't sent heavy weapons. He vowed to not be "irritated by shrill calls" to take potentially reckless action, according to more from the interview: Asked in an extensive interview published on Friday why he thought delivering tanks could lead to nuclear war, he said there was no rule book that stated when Germany could be considered a party to the war in Ukraine. "That's why it is all the more important that we consider each step very carefully and coordinate closely with one another," he was quoted as saying. "To avoid an escalation towards NATO is a top priority for me. *"That's why I don't focus on polls or let myself be irritated by shrill calls. The consequences of an error would be dramatic."* Previously he appeared to focus his argument against sending heavy weaponry on the fact that Germany's own military has depleted stocks and thus simply is incapable of sending its arms to Ukraine. But now his argument is clearly focused on avoiding direct confrontation with the Russians. He also addressed calls for blocking Russian natural gas: "I absolutely do not see how a gas embargo would end the war. If (Russian President Vladimir) Putin were open to economic arguments, he would never have begun this crazy war," Scholz said. Image source: NATO"Secondly, you act as if this was about money. But it's about avoiding a dramatic economic crisis and the loss of millions of jobs and factories that would never again open their doors." Sent from my iPad