> What did it mean when Zelensky said in February 2022 that items such as disarmament in 1994 agreement are in doubt? The 1994 agreement was meant to remove Soviet nukes from Ukraine and to ensure buffer space. Since then NATO has pushed further east.

No part of the agreement was to provide a buffer state it was merely signed by the Russians because they where a major nuclear power at the time, it was in fact signed by _all_ major nuclear powers at the time.

> "... Ukraine will have every right to believe that the Budapest Memorandum is not working and all the package decisions of 1994 are in doubt."

Of course it's in doubt, because the Russians are not abiding by any of the points that they are bound to in it. That doesn't mean Ukraine wants nuclear weapons.

> Ukraine still refuses to apologize to Poland for massacres in WW 2.

Russia has refused to apologise for using the Geneva convention as a "todo list" too whats your point?.

You know what, after googling a bit, you are more correct than I thought.

The Ukraine War is responsible for a significant portion of US inflation. Not all, but maybe a third, at its peak.[1]

But as other posters have mentioned, the FED had been telegraphing raising interest rate hikes for months prior to the war. I would wager the acceleration of inflation accelerated their rate hikes, but hikes were coming nonetheless. Russia essentially made a difficult situation much worse.

That said, we can no more end that war than we can invade Russia and force them to withdraw. The best policy going forward is to continue to support an ally who was aggressed upon, one whom we promised to protect in case they were invaded in return for them giving up their nuclear weapons only thirty years ago.[2]

1. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-russian-invasion-of-uk...

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

3% and that sounds like a pittance when the fate of Western Europe is at stake. For that price, it decimated what might have been considered the second strongest military in the world, strengthened democracy, sped up the implementation of renewable energy and supercharged local manufacturing. This might be the best investment the US ever made.

Lol, ok.

By the same logic, I can argue that "bidenomics" (printing money) started when the Federal Reserve was formed, in 1913. Or that it started when the FED closed the gold window in 1971.

Though all three of those arguments would be reductive and stupid, and I'm sure we're both above that, so let's not.

But really, reconsider your sources, because they're lying to you.

> I can argue that “bideconomics” (printing money) was started by Trump

Not plausibly can you argue that either of those things (which are not synonyms) were started by Trump (one started earlier, the other later.)

> you expect me to produce some complete quantitative model here in comments?

No, I don’t expect you to back up the claim at all.

At least in the predictive, as opposed to normative, sense of “expect”.