I worked with Grok 3 to analyze all of the spending deep federal government spending cuts, possible end to the Ukraine war, privatization of parts of government, streamlining agencies and functions. I looked at using improved tax and other policies to achieve strong economic growth (doubling GDP growth from 2% per year to 4-5% per year).
This is an update of a prior analysis. Elon Musk has now discussed $5000 stimulus checks in 2026. The previous plan had recession risks in 2026. Stimulus checks can be used to offset that risk to avoid recession.
For the past 10 years (2014-2023):
The average annual GDP growth rate for the USA from 2014 to 2023 is approximately 2.26% and has been 2.16% over the last 20 years. The new plan could see the US reach double the annual GDP growth with 4-5% average GDP growth.
The potential impacts of federal government spending cuts in the range of $1 trillion to $2 trillion per year (15% to 30% of the $6.7 trillion 2024 federal budget), paired with the proposed policy changes, on the U.S. economy by September 2026, September 2028, and 2030 and beyond. Use historical examples (post-WWI, post-WWII, and Clinton-era 400K federal staffing cuts), economic principles, and the specific measures you’ve outlined—military spending efficiencies, fraud reduction, tax reforms, stimulus checks, and geopolitical/supply chain fixes. Outline a best plan for a stronger economy.
Assumptions include a negotiated halving (or substantial successful agreed reductions) of military spending with Russia, China, and the U.S., $500 billion in annual federal fraud and waste per GAO reports, DOGE identifying waste (e.g., USAID as 90% scams and CIA tool), shutting down the Department of Education with functions transferred to states, privatizing the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) and Veterans Affairs (VA), and implementing DOGE’s X discussions and Project 2025 plans from Heritage for 75% cuts in federal workers/contractors via privatization, IT modernization, and efficient processes. Evaluate all U.S. government agencies for necessity and effectiveness, considering state/local or private delivery. The goal remains a stronger economy by September 2026, 2028, and 2030+.
Overview and Historical Context
Federal spending cuts of this magnitude would be significant but not unprecedented in relative terms. Post-WWI, U.S. federal spending dropped from $18.5 billion in 1919 to $6.4 billion by 1922 (a 65% cut), driven by demobilization, leading to a sharp but brief recession (1920–1921) with unemployment peaking at 11.7%. Post-WWII, spending fell from $92.7 billion in 1945 to $34.5 billion by 1948 (63% reduction), yet the economy transitioned to growth due to pent-up consumer demand, private investment, and a global economic boom. During the Clinton administration (1993–2001), federal employment was reduced by about 400,000 (mostly military-related), and discretionary spending tightened, contributing to budget surpluses by 1998 amid a tech-driven economic expansion. These cases suggest large cuts can trigger short-term contraction but, with the right conditions, enable long-term growth.
Tax Reforms
Flat Tax: A revenue-neutral flat tax (e.g., 1i% across all income with 30K exemption) simplifies compliance, potentially boosting investment. Low earner exemptions prevents low income hit.
Middle-Class Cuts/No Tax on Tips: Eliminating taxes on tips (with rules like a $50,000 cap to prevent abuse) and cutting middle-class rates could increase disposable income by $100B–$200B annually, spurring consumption.
No Taxes on Seniors: Exempting Social Security income might cost $50B–$100B yearly but supports retirees’ spending power.
Stimulus Checks
$5,000 Checks: One round for 80 million households in summer 2026 costs ~$400B; two rounds total $800B. Post-COVID $1,200–$1,400 checks boosted GDP by 1–2% short-term; $5,000 could add 3–5% temporarily, offsetting recession risks.
Geopolitical and Supply Chain Fixes
Ukraine War Cessation: Ending U.S. aid (~$50B/year) saves funds and, if paired with normalized Russia/Ukraine trade, lowers fertilizer/energy costs, cutting inflation by 0.5–1%.
Supply Chain: Streamlining logistics (e.g., port efficiency) could reduce goods prices, amplifying consumer purchasing power.
Inflation/Interest Rates: Effective Fed policy keeping rates at 3–4% (from 5%+ now) supports borrowing/investment without overheating. Managing with deregulation and other policies that lower inflation, interest rates and lower energy costs are pro-growth.
Revised Assumptions and Cuts
Federal Budget Baseline: $6.7 trillion (2024). Cuts aim for $1T–$2T (15%–30%), now leaning toward $2T+ with aggressive reforms.
Military Spending: Current U.S. defense budget is ~$850B. A negotiated halving with Russia and China drops it to $425B, saving $425B/year. Assumes global stability reduces need for overseas bases and arms races.
Fraud and Waste: GAO’s $500B/year estimate includes $200B in Medicare/Medicaid, $50B in Social Security, and $250B across other programs (e.g., USAID, discretionary). DOGE targets this fully.
USAID: $50B budget (2024) deemed 90% waste ($45B cut), redirected from “global meddling” (media control, conflict funding) to domestic priorities.
Dept. of Education: $80B budget eliminated; $10B in useful functions (e.g., student loans) shifted to states, saving $70B.
USPS and VA Privatization:
USPS: $80B budget (offset by $70B revenue) nets $10B cost. Privatization saves $10B, improves efficiency via competition.
VA: $300B budget privatized (e.g., via vouchers/healthcare markets), saving $150B–$200B after inefficiencies; assumes private sector absorbs veterans’ care.
75% Workforce Cuts: Federal employees (2.1M) and contractors (~2M) total ~4M full-time equivalents (FTEs). A 75% cut reduces this to 1M, saving $300B–$400B/year (avg. $100K/FTE). Privatization/IT modernization (per Project 2025) shifts functions to states/private firms.
Agency Review: Most of the 400+ federal agencies (e.g., EPA, HUD, Commerce) face scrutiny. Non-essential or redundant functions (e.g., overlapping state roles) are cut or devolved.
Revised Plan for $2T+ Cuts
Spending Cuts ($2.2T Total):
Military: $425B (halving from $850B via negotiation).
Fraud/Waste: $500B (GAO baseline, fully realized via DOGE audits).
USAID: $45B (90% of $50B cut).
Education: $70B (shutdown, states absorb $10B).
USPS: $10B (privatized).
VA: $175B (privatized, midpoint of $150B–$200B).
Workforce: $350B (75% cut to 4M FTEs, avg. $350B savings).
Other Agencies: $625B (e.g., EPA $10B, HUD $60B, Commerce $20B, discretionary redundancies; 50%+ cuts, devolved/privatized).
Total: $2.2T (33% of $6.7T), phased over 3 years ($733B/year).
Tax Reform (Revenue-Neutral):
Flat tax at 18% with $30K exemption ($400B cost offset by cuts).
No tax on tips ($50K cap), Social Security, or middle-class bracket (15% rate), adding $200B–$250B in consumer spending power.
Stimulus:
$5,000 checks in summer 2026 ($400B, 80M households), funded by military/USAID savings. Second round ($400B) in 2028 if needed.
Geopolitical/Supply Chain:
Military deal with Russia/China by mid-2026 stabilizes Ukraine, saving $50B/year in aid and dropping fertilizer/energy costs 10%.
$20B in port/IT upgrades enhances supply chains.
Agency Rationalization:
Keep: Treasury ($15B), Justice ($40B), Defense ($425B post-cut), State ($60B, reduced), core HHS ($150B post-fraud cuts).
Cut/Shift: EPA (to states), HUD (to local/private), Commerce (to private trade groups), Labor (to states), Energy (privatize non-nuclear).
Privatize: Amtrak ($2B), TSA ($10B), alongside USPS/VA.
Savings align with Project 2025’s “best corporate standards.”
Economic Impacts
By September 2026
Shock and Stabilization: $733B cut (Year 1) is 3% of $25T GDP. Job losses (1M–1.5M FTEs) spike unemployment from 4% to 6–7%. GDP drops 2–3%.
Stimulus Offset: $400B checks add 3–4% GDP growth, netting 0–1% growth. Tax cuts boost consumption 1–2%.
Inflation: Supply chain fixes and military de-escalation cut inflation to 2%. Fed holds rates at 3–4%.
Outcome: Flat growth (0–1%), unemployment at 5–6%, recession avoided. Confidence wavers but stabilizes with stimulus.
By September 2028
Adjustment: Full $2.2T cut implemented. Private sector absorbs 1M+ jobs via privatization (e.g., VA, USPS). Unemployment falls to 4–5%.
Growth Drivers: Tax reform and military savings (invested in IT/infrastructure) yield 3–4% growth. Fraud elimination boosts efficiency.
Debt: $2T/year surplus (assuming $4.5T revenue) cuts debt-to-GDP from 100% to 85–90%.
Outcome: 3–4% growth, unemployment at 4%, leaner government. Risks of service gaps (e.g., veterans’ care) mitigated by private uptake.
By 2030 and Beyond
High-Growth Economy: Sustained 4–5% growth as private investment (up 15–20%) replaces government. Debt-to-GDP hits 70–80%, freeing $100B–$200B in interest costs.
Structural Shift: States handle education, housing, and labor efficiently; private firms excel in postal, health, and transport services.
Risks: Overreliance on private sector or geopolitical instability (if Russia/China renege) caps growth at 3%. Social unrest if privatization falters.
Outcome: 4–5% growth, 3–4% unemployment, globally competitive U.S. economy.
Best Plan for a Stronger Economy
Phased $2.2T Cuts:
Year 1: $733B (military $142B, fraud $167B, USAID $45B, Education $70B, workforce $150B, other $159B).
Year 2–3: $733B each (military $142B, fraud $167B, workforce $100B, VA/USPS $185B, other $139B).
Mitigates shock, allows private/state transition.
Tax Reform:
18% flat tax, $30K exemption, no tax on tips ($50K cap), Social Security, or middle-class (15%). Funds stimulus, boosts consumption 5–7%.
Stimulus:
$5,000 checks in summer 2026 ($400B), optional 2028 round ($400B) if growth <2%. Targets households under $150K.
Geopolitical/Supply Chain:
Military halving deal by mid-2026 with Russia/China, saving $425B/year and stabilizing Ukraine trade.
$20B in IT/port upgrades cuts costs 10%.
Agency Overhaul:
Eliminate: Education, USAID, EPA, HUD, Labor (to states/private).
Privatize: VA, USPS, Amtrak, TSA.
Streamline: Defense (post-halving), HHS (post-fraud), Treasury, Justice.
75% workforce cut via IT modernization (e.g., AI for tax processing).
Monetary Policy: Fed targets 2% inflation, 3% rates, supporting investment.
Conclusion
By September 2026, phased cuts and stimulus deliver 0–1% growth, avoiding recession despite workforce upheaval. By 2028, a leaner government and private surge drive 3–4% growth, with unemployment at 4%. By 2030+, a 4–5% growth economy emerges, debt-to-GDP at 70–80%, and the U.S. thrives competitively—assuming privatization succeeds and geopolitical deals hold. This aligns DOGE’s vision with Project 2025, leveraging waste cuts and state/private efficiency for a transformative economic reset.
BTW Cheaper Fertilizer Means Cheaper Food and Lives Improved Around the World
The Ukraine front lines have barely budged in the last 2 years. About 250,000-450,000 dead and wounded each year on both sides. Over the last three years, the US has provided about $350 billion of military support. And the Europeans about half that level. A lot of this money did not go into actual military support but was stolen to corruption in the US, in Ukraine and others in the middle.
Ukraine and Russia have been the global leaders in fertilizer production. If they got back to regular production then Global food prices could go down by 10%. Cheaper food can save and improve lives in Asia and Africa and elsewhere. This would include children. Continuing the war will continue to kill civilians was waste soldiers lives to no purpose. Sacrificing the fathers, uncles or sons of other families does not get dead civilians back.
In the current war, it has become a war of attrition. Russia has four times the number of possible soldiers versus Ukraine. Russia has encircled a few key cities. Capturing those locations will collapse the defensive position and enable a few hundred mile deep loss of more land. The only way to stop or reverse this would be actual direct US air power and direct NATO involvement, which would be WW3. Russia has nuclear weapons and would use them in that situation.
I am open to hearing a viable approach to winning the war or getting far better terms in negotiations. Military negotiations reflect current facts on the ground and larger geopolitical and economic bartering.
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
Trump and his corrupt minions lie relentlessly. It looks like Trump and Putin want to pressure Ukraine into a deal, that benefits Russia the most and Usa to some extent. 500 B of rare metals is totally unjust, glad Ukraine did not sign it. Not to forget some 100+ billion of it went to replenish US stock, just get rid of old stuff and modernize existing arsenal, feed contracts to domestic def industry.
I wonder why does Trump cooperate with the enemy so much and helps him and not US allies?
He insults allies, lies, damages alliances that lead to progress and peace. On the other hand we have Russians, who clearly wage ware against west, lie constantly, put people in jail for slightest criticism of their regime.
I mean Us and Eu wanted united front against China, but now it seems Eu will have to do more business with China instead. It trade partner and ally insults you, helps your biggest enemy then no choice to do otherwise.
The majority of the US voters have voted for the US to stop funding Ukraine and end the war. This was a major promise of the election campaign.
Donald Trump repeatedly promised to end the war in Ukraine during his 2024 presidential campaign. This pledge was a consistent theme in his public statements, often framed with a specific timeline.
Trump won the popular vote in the 2024 election, securing approximately 77 million votes. This victory suggests broad support for his platform, which included his pledge to end the Ukraine war swiftly.
55% in a mid-2024 Pew poll said aid to Ukraine should decrease.
This is pure democracy and not corruption.
You can campaign (or find someone who can win) on restarting the Ukraine War or attacking Russia in 2028. Win the election and you can go to town.
Elections have consequences.
I see you are going with the strategy of ranting and accusing people on the other side as being corrupt Putin and Hitler lovers and traitor to allies. This could work. I suggest you continue. Call the 77 million stupid, criminal and traitors. Tell them you want about 10 million of them to switch their vote and you will let them live after you win and purify the country.
244,000,000 Americans are eligible to vote.
76,800,000 voted for trump.
167,200,000 did not vote for Trump.
Less than a third of eligible voters voted for trump.
Nothing like a mandate.
Elections do have consequences, which is why powerful forces drive people to disgust, telling them to hate these ones, hate those, too.
There’s a reason negative ads work.
They aren’t meant to get folk to vote for anyone, but to make people give up and not vote at all.
To make people feel like it doesn’t matter.
I wrote-in Pat Paulson, because he hasn’t lied to me in years.
Trump and his minions lie and deceive constantly.
Trump lied at the ammount of US aid to Ukraine.
Trump lied about approval ratings of Zelensky. He said 4%. Man logic and reason tells you that is another trumpian lie. Musk is not a lot better.
Tl;dr
You asked Elon Musks AI, trained by Elon Musk, if Elon Musk is right.
It said, “Yes”.
That’s a little harsh.
The problem with that model is it assumes that a lot of factors are highly constrained in their knock-on effects. Especially in light of political implications like a president having the ability to directly touch out and crush any company that does anything he doesn’t like. And a legal system that favors bribery and special favors, and so on.
That is assuming the economic chaos that changing things to such a system causes doesn’t dissuade them first.
I don’t want any comments from people who say too long did not read. I am cutting you some slack as you said. Long time commenter.
You are just saying you want to parade your bias and emotional tantrum.
I will leave it to you to make this comment useful.
It may be useful to point out, my comment is correct, albeit “harsh” and of a narrow scope.
But, it was not a personal attack.
It was just a neat little thought-package.
But, when you say:
“You are just saying you want to parade your bias and emotional tantrum.”
Seems personal, and closed-minded to other opposing opinions.
At no point in, I don’t know, 10-15 years — I really don’t know, have I been dismissive of you or your site, or treated others with anything less than respect.
You have thanked other commenters for supporting you, who then turn and call other commenters names, dismiss others as libtards, etc.
Seems a bias there.
Again, as I said several times throughout the few recent posts, all I’ve been looking for is a goal.
Yes, you have covered space colonization and so on, but not merged your fiscal suggestions with a plan that includes those goals.
Make something up.
If nothing else, I can dream, and dreams can be useful.
Brian, your argument that Ukraine should be delighted in Trump’s odious peace offer because it is the weaker party, is highly questionable. For example, North Vietnam ultimately prevailed against a much stronger US. The Greeks defeated the mighty Persian empire. Why should Ukraine accept the table scraps tossed at it? For that matter, aren’t you Elon’s top fan boy, so when is TESLA going to pop? People don’t like his politics and will no longer buy his cars.
I already predicted back in October, 2024 when Tesla was in the low 200s that it would go up over $450 within 90 days and it did. Now we have a consolidation phase. $350 is still 60% up. A pop to over double $488 and then a retracement and move up again. It will be to making new all time highs by end of June. End of July at the latest. So it popped and I told everyone (on this website and in youtube vidoes) before it happened. In time to buy. And I said that it would 10X within 3 years. I said that 4-5 months ago and made articles, posts and youtube videos.
Tesla is transitioning from cars to AI, fully solved driving.
North Vietnam won because the US made the mistake of allowing open TV coverage. The military and politicians were not willing to destroy them on TV after major events. The US changed the media messaging and media afterwards which why USAID established in the 1960s grew to $50 billion per year and has billions in global media control (US CIA and military propoganda and Democrat propoganda).
BTW: North Vietnam got about $1 billion per year from the Soviets and $200 million per year from China in weapons during the war. They also got a total of $20 billion in other aid from China over the 1950s-1970.
CBS News and other major US media coverage decided that Vietnam has the hero in that based upon the 60s cultural shift. You believe unquestioningly that propaganda and how you do not question propaganda that Ukraine are heroes. There are sides and there are interests and there are costs and benefits.
This war profiteer propaganda is the various stories and story fragments you are repeating now. Parts of the US military, CIA and USAID and military companies want $100 billion per year going to the Ukraine war. There is 40% at least of that going to profits and scams. You have controlled beliefs and are not even aware of the sources to perform historical validation and parsing.
The US military then recreated itself with new weapons, precision warfare so that by the 1990s they were ready to crush Iraq military in weeks. They did not figure out occupation. But destroying armies became easy.
Ukraine does not have to be delighted but they will lose. Ukraine benefit is they stop losing 300,000 men to death and injury each year while still losing territory. I think this would be a happy thing.. maybe after they face the reality that the war was already lost.
The USSR ended up financially collapsing in 1991. All of their 20%+ to their war machine and support of other nations in the cold war ended up breaking their economy.
How will the US do with $1 trillion of new debt every 100 days and $37 trillion in total debt already? I have a new article that it would likely be in the 2030s.
Some of Brians predictions are a bit fishy and shaky.
Please explain how the 4 trillion tax giveaway to the rich works with DOGE’S hatchet job to congress-created programs. The big savings the Muskrats have found is based on their youthful ignorance and Elon hubris. You seem to know a lot about propaganda because you deal in it. You inflated the US costs in Ukraine – where are you sources? In regard to our national interest how is allying ourselves with Putin’s interest, better than assisting a democracy being attacked by this war criminal? How does that assist are NATO allies?
By the Brian, in regard to my controlled beliefs and inadequate parsing of sources. I have a PHD in historical analysis. What are your credentials, other than being an Elon fanboy and a shoddy presenter of poorly developed arguments?
It’s almost as if Americans think there’s nothing to learn by looking around at history and the rest of the world.
How do you think Austerity ideology went for Europe and the United Kingdom? Terribly.
You can buy growth, which the USA has been doing so well recently with CHIPS IRA, etc.
Growth = increases in tax collection = less debt.
Until you decide to instigate massive tax breaks making this cycle the poor being forced to give to the rich.
Good luck America.
“A US Treasury Threat Intelligence Analysis Designates DOGE Staff as ‘Insider Threat’” – https://www.wired.com/story/treasury-bfs-doge-insider-threat/
And
“Feb 15, 2025 6:30 AM Security News This Week: The Official DOGE Website Launch Was a Security Mess” – https://www.wired.com/story/the-official-doge-website-launch-was-a-security-mess/
And this is before any of the newly identified young and inexperienced DOGE workers are compromised or blackmailed or worse, by foreign or domestic sources. Do they even have personal security? Unlikely, since they were never vetted by the now reeling & gutted FBI.
The wheels are coming off the government and we’ve only begun to see the damage DOGE is doing. It may take years or longer to fix this, if ever. The loss of technological and other advantages the U.S. still retains may be lost forever. China and Russia must be loving what Trump is allowing DOGE to do. No wonder Putin loves Trump.
The loss to American society goes beyond money but that withdrawal won’t be made up by a few stimulus checks. In the periods Brian talked about: post WWI & WWII, America still spent on development and innovations. We had some of the largest of both in each post war era, often paid for by redirected government. The government didn’t just bow out to the private sector. Europe was rebuilt after WWII also, in large part with American money.
What Trump and Musk are doing has no precedent.
Not only this but hyping an unregulated crypto industry can lead to the situation in Argentina. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/17/argentinia-opposition-impeachment-milei-cryptocurrency-collapse
One D.O.G.E. 19 year old was previously fired from his cybersecurity job for passing confidential info to competitors.
In posts he made afterward, he said he could access the security firms computers any time he wants, the implication being, he installed some back door while at the firm.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/musk-doge-teen-fired-cybersecurity-194133008.html
Not good.
Your tears are what I voted for.
Single
Issue
Voter
Liberal tears, 100%
Gut more, DOGE!
“President-elect Donald Trump has revived talk from his previous term of moving to privatize the United States Postal System. To be sure, such a process would be complicated and would likely require an act of Congress.
The Constitution in Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the ability “to establish Post Offices and post Roads,” including the power to control land for the “post roads” to carry the mail, and the buildings needed to maintain a mail delivery system.” – https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-constitution-and-the-postal-system
So…there’s that. And privatizing the Post Office would make it more expensive for most people not living in the major urban centers. It costs a lot to deliver mail to rural areas. Some shippers use USPS for packages to rural areas for exactly that reason. That’s where drone delivery actually makes sense, given the distances and road travel time/expense otherwise.
Russia invaded Ukraine simply because of the resources in Donbas (several trillion). If the war is stopped, Russia has a positive business case. This will result in other countries and Russia doing the same (Putin has already claimed this). This will further disrupt global trade leading to inflation, very large budgets invested in an arms race and build-up of military. Resources are not available hence this will lead to more inflation.
Russia still has the power to block food exports or worse, if it occupies more of Ukraine, dominate large part of the wheat production. This uncertainty alone will increase the food prices even more.
The US, UK and Russia signed the Budapest memorandum where it agreed to defend Ukraine. In return Ukraine gave up their nukes. If the US backs out, the trust in the US agreement will diminish and it will start a nuclear arms race in several countries. No country will ever give up its nukes ever again.
Hence the business case for Russia must be negative. The Russian economy is suffering. Option: by investing US and EU (loan) an overwhelming amount in Ukraine, Russia’s will see the chance of it business case working out diminish (losing land in the short term). This will enable them to work out a much more favourable security deal and with that lower the need for decades of increased security spending. Note that a US general noted that the investment in the Ukraine is the best bang for your buck.
Especially for the EU there are other benefits. If Europe pledges to invest heavily in nuclear in Ukraine post war, it would not need energy from Russia and help rebuild Ukraine.
Where is the parade of countries that gave up their nuclear weapons after Ukraine ? Why do you think that is a thing that matters?
Why would other countries copy Russia? Other countries have attacked and lost. Other countries have attacked and won. Russia has already lost 800,000 dead and wounded. Why would this be an encouraging example?
Countries and leaders do not think in those terms.
Russia lost in Afghanistan and they went back rebuilt and made attack into Georgia, Chechnya etc…
US lost in Vietnam and still went to war in Iraq.
The Iraq and Afghanistan business case was negative and it does not mean the US will go back or attack where ever next time.
None of our analysis makes any sense.
History does not match what you are claiming at all.
Businesscase is not the right wording, its more goals leaders want to achieve when starting a war.
“Why would other countries copy Russia? Other countries have attacked and lost. Other countries have attacked and won. Russia has already lost 800,000 dead and wounded. Why would this be an encouraging example?
Countries and leaders do not think in those terms.”
That is indeed my point, the goal of Russia is to create a great empire. Putin has made clear that he wants, next to staying in power, to ‘go back’ to the times of the USSR and Russia and he will use force to get it. However, he needs a lot of money to do this. In that view the 800.000 do not matter, nor wil it indeed deter other countries. With Trumps peaceplan Putin achieved victory and the resources to pay for the next war. A peacetreaty will also not work for Putin, he signed several and broke them. Its not in his intrest.
For the US, the reasons for the US to go to war is different, its has been to reduce risks to US (Germany, Russia, China, Iraq). If a war would increase the risk for the US (interal stability, dollar as reseve currency) it would not do so. The reason for China to invade Taiwan is also clear. Also the intention to do so. See https://www.youtube.com/shorts/TUDsUw3gG6I
Reasons to prevent war are also studied like good relations, economic dependance, coalitions like Nato and important, an internal reluctance against war (democratic elections). These are not idiot proof unfortunately.
The reasons that countries go to war have also been studied. The most important for the Ukraine war can be found on:
https://mwi.westpoint.edu/the-five-reasons-wars-happen/
For Russia and many other non-democratic countries there is one reason not to fight a war. The risk of losing power. In most cases losing power is not because of external military victory but by internal forces. Hence the only way to stop this is to be a threat to his power position. If we show we are willing to do that, it will deter other countries.
“Where is the parade of countries that gave up their nuclear weapons after Ukraine ? Why do you think that is a thing that matters?” Counter argument, were is the list of countries that developed nuclear weapons? Its the ultimate self defence and only very few countries invested in that in the last decades. Other countries felt safe because they felt they could trust Russia, US and Nato for stability. Is there now a reason for all countries bordering Russia to not invest in nuclear arms?
I’m worried that you will ban me, despite the many years I’ve commented here, so, don’t take my comments as personal, please.
Quoting from your post:
“Why do you think that is a thing that matters?”
Me: See Libya.
“Russia lost in Afghanistan and they went back rebuilt and made attack into Georgia, Chechnya etc…”
Me: So, Russia will rebuild and…
“Why would this be an encouraging example?”
Me: Because, bad people don’t care about others suffering, but they do care about taking other peoples stuff. Seeing Russia get away with their land grab is very encouraging.
See Sudan and DR Congo.
“The Iraq and Afghanistan business case was negative”
Me: For the taxpayers, true, but…
https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/ask-not-what-the-war-cost-the-us-but-who-profited-from-the-war-49318
https://www.ibtimes.com/winner-most-iraq-war-contracts-kbr-395-billion-decade-1135905
I think the biggest issue I have with this whole discussion is, what’s the point?
Americans need a goal to work towards.
When you look forward, 5, 10, 20 years, what will America have to show?
WWI and WWII lead the USA to produce new infrastructure, new technologies, and educate the populous.
If you’d like this to be a time of such growth, it begins with setting a goal.
Surprisingly, considering the past primary focus of this site for so many years, you’ve not included the potential upsides of tech advances.
How about a large scale move to industrialize space?
How about staking out a claim on the Moon, before China takes the poles, like they took the South China Sea?
How about building colonies in free space? At Mars?
The only frontier left.
This is all squabbling over how to divide up the last 10% of left-overs between the “bottom” 80% of the citizens.
And, as a disabled veteran, I do not want the VA to be profitized.
Spelling is correct.
You claim to be a disabled veteran. I also don’t want to rude but a lot of different people online claim a lot of stuff. What war or how did you serve? Can you prove it? Not that it ultimately matters when debating a larger national issues.
I have many articles and videos about colonizing Mars and the entire solar system and beyond. You know this from the over 35000 articles with 9000 on space.
There is the current discussion and debate about DOGE and the cutting to only the necessary spending. There is the debate on the War. Thus I am putting out analysis that I think is needed to understand and make better choices.
I am cutting you some slack because you are a long time commenter. Don’t put out off the cuff, no effort insults or no info rants. As a long time commenter, you know I don’t have the time or patience for it. I am willing to put up well thought out counter arguments. But if people put no effort into and are just emotional then I will delete and possibly drop the hammer on their account. So don’t waste my time and make it a hassle for me.
Let me explain again:
I am making the case that getting to truly deep cuts can be done while maintaining essential functions at the federal level and getting other functions to the state level or privatized or unfunded entirely. There are huge efficiency gains to be made.
The Ukraine war is not a free war for the US. None of the spending particularly on wars is required. Those who support the war get no points for saying they hate Putin, hate Trump etc… Justify the benefit of $100 billion per year. Justify how it will lead to victory and a victory that is worth the lives. Because 77 million voted against the war by voting for Trump when this was a major part of his platform.
I have already said my deep analysis shows the war is lost. Even tossing 250,000 NATO troops (France, Germany, Poland) and almost none have combat experience but they have some newer weapons — I think will see those 50%+ of people killed or wounded within 12 months. It will extend the war but there will be NO military victory as a result. People say Russia is running out.. I again analyze this in detail and they will be able to keep going for at least 4 more years. There is no f**ing teaching them a lesson. Describe a tactical and strategic success and give an actual cost in people and lives and how it does not end up with Russia using tactical or strategic nukes. Tell me how Russia’s 4X advantage in artillery and artillery shells is overcome. Tell me why the majority 77 million voted for Trump who campaigned on ending the war and cutting the budget. This is all campaign promises.
All of this will happen anyway. The budget cuts, the staffing cuts, a negotiated end to the Ukraine war. The speed of the budget cuts depend upon the Republican senate. The House is going for $4.5 trillion in cuts while the senate has $1.5 trillion over ten years. This is only the first set of bills.
Sad.
You have my email. Send me yours, I’ll send you a copy of my civil service letter from the VA.
Nothing matters if nothing matters.
I feel that I try to be clear and joyful in my posts, though a good turn of phase, even if biting, sometimes slips itself in.
Returning to a thumbs up/down option might help guide your guests — and we are guests in your house, by your invitation, to better form their arguments.
I’ll ask again; to what ends are you aiming?
None of your, or Groks, number crunching, says, “This is what we’re working towards.”
Space ain’t free. Not even free space.
What % of the GDP should be dedicated to space industrialization?
What milestones should be set?
In 5 years, a new boss will flip the table, and the whole shell game will roll on.
Every year, for 5 or 6 decades, through every president, the wealth in America has shifted from the bottom to the top.
Right now, the bottom 50% of Americans own around 2.5% of the wealth, while the top 1% own ~30%.
The “Plan” must include giving people a chance to improve themselves and their children’s future.
Americans were worshipped once, tamers of the wild frontier.
No frontiers to expand into, no future. Just the same slide of wealth towards the top, away from the rest.
And wealth is power. As we are all witnessing.
What is your big picture?
And, as long as we’re showing our cards, tell us where you served.
I am interested in the analysis. Counter arguments:
YT covert cabal counted Russian stockpiles and they see a decline reaching 0 end 2025 for some hardware some later in 2026 / 2027. However, Russia can not go down to 0, it has to defent itself.
A 3 to 1 advantage can be overcome by be on the defending side. Ukrains terrain is well suited for this.
But the war will not end on the battlefield. It will end when the Russian Wealthfund has dried up. That is now approx 1/3 of what it initially was. When thats dried up Russia cannot pay the war and will resort to money printing eg inflation. This will hurt the powerbase of Putin.
At this moment the people in Russia are not complaining, they have seen an increase in their wages. However, these are financed from the wealthfund. When that stops, wages stagnates while inflation will continue to rise. At that moment Russia will be unable to continue the war for long.
For the US investment:
Time says that 90% of Ukraine aid spending stays in the U.S., creating thousands of jobs. https://time.com/6694915/ukraine-aid-bill-what-united-states-gains/.
John Spencer said that investing in Ukraine is the best defence spending. Older equipment is send, new equipment is build and the costs of hurting an enemy of the US is done without risk to the US.
My feeling is that you calculate from a zero sum game, which is not the case. After the war, the uncertenty in the region alone will ensure foodprices remain high. The chances of a next war remains high (Putin says he wants to expand) resulting in disruptions in global markets, inflation ect.
On why people voted for Trump. In the UK the population voted for the promisses of a Brexit, while Boris did not inform them what banks, researchers and informed groups told him (it doesnt work). Isolism and tarifs have been tried so in the past, in the most cases they fail.
For the US investment:
Time says that 90% of Ukraine aid spending stays in the U.S., creating thousands of jobs.
This is military industrial complex propaganda.
The USAID has budgetary line items to pay for placing social engineering messages.
$200 billion in war aid is a super crappy way to create jobs and boost the economy.
Especially a war that disrupts fertilizer, natural gas and wheat for Europe, Africa and the Middle East.
I know about the declining stockpile of ancient tanks. I covered it.
I knew three years ago that they run out in end of year 2025 or 2026.
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2023/11/russia-still-has-three-years-of-tanks-in-storage-based-on-satellite-imagery.html
Will debate the specifics of the war some other time but if Russia gets desperate enough they will use tactical nukes. Plus if neither side can muster 3:1 then you have the stalemate. ww1 attrition. Russia has three cities encircled on three sides. over this year they can get those and Ukraine will lose more land before things grind down. Ukraine recruiting problem is more urgent and they could collapse in the next 12 months. Without 200k-300k per year for the meat grinder. the attrition war is lost. Both sides are attritting. Ukraine is attritting faster.
I don’t think we shouldn’t sell out the murdered and kidnapped children of Ukraine for cheaper fertilizer.
The front lines have barely budged in the last 2 years. About 250,000-450,000 dead and wounded each year. Over the last three years, the US has provided about $350 billion of military support. And the Europeans about half that level. A lot of this money did not go into actual military support but was stolen to corruption in the US, in Ukraine and others in the middle.
Global food prices could go down by 10%. Cheaper food can save and improve lives in Asia and Africa and elsewhere. This would include children. So do you want to make useless attempts to avenge dead children or did you want to save lives of 16-40 year old soldiers and help billions of living people around the world?
In the current war, it has become a war of attrition. Russia has four times the number of possible soldiers versus Ukraine. Russia has encircled a few key cities. Capturing those locations will collapse the defensive position and enable a few hundred mile deep capture. The only way to stop or reverse this would be actual direct US air power and direct NATO involvement, which would be WW3. Russia has nuclear weapons and would use them in that situation.
So explain what a viable approach is to winning the war or getting far better terms?
“So explain what a viable approach is to winning the war or getting far better terms?”
The solution is to continue to isolate Russia rather than help it.
Please note that your analysis is wrong:
1) Military aid sent to Ukraine was helpful,and although you do not want to admit it, you said yourself: frontlines have barely moved despite the (theoretical) military potential or Russia
2) Military aids from US and Europe served their intended purpose: if a missile is intended to destroy an enemy tank, I does its intended purpose even if it is the ukranian army the one using against your enemies. And Russia military potential collapsed, they had to resort to makeshift tanks, and they had such casualties that, despite the bigger population, they had to recruit Nord koreans. Not seeing this and not mentioning this, is again, dishonest.
3) Russian economy is crippled by the costs of war, the reduction in manpower due to military recruitment, casualties, and systematic desertion of those who could flee the country (because even the russian do not want to fight for Putin).
4) The simple truth is that Trump is corrupt and has Putin’s (not even Russia’s) best interest in mind. He is not a pacifist (because he threatened military actions in Greenland and Panama), he does not understand the value of honoring your allies and military.
You can try to rationalize it, but there is no other explanation.
Furthermore, assuming that this 180-degree turn on international alliances will not have a catastrophic impact on American global influence is shortsighted at best.
In final note, I find it particularly rich to complain about “corruption” in Ukraine, when Trump gave the keys to the US government to his billionaire friend without any legal framework and already suggested buying 400 million worth of cyber tracks.
The $400 million armored cybertruck deal was approved by Joe Biden. The deal was canceled by Trump.
$200 billion per year & 250000 lives per year (killed or wounded on the Ukraine side) and military gear kept Ukraine in the war.
Ukraine – lowering the conscription age from 27 to 25 and exploring ways to include 18- to 25-year-olds. President Zelenskyy resists mandatory drafts for the youngest cohort to preserve the nation’s future. Despite these reforms, Ukraine achieved only two-thirds of its conscription goals recently. The lack of adequate training infrastructure exacerbates the problem—new units are often inexperienced, and seasoned brigades remain pinned at the front, unable to rotate and train recruits effectively. This creates a vicious cycle: insufficient manpower limits battlefield success, which in turn dampens morale and recruitment willingness. Ukraine compensates partly with innovations like drone production (targeting over a million units in 2025), but infantry shortages remain a critical bottleneck.
Russia also faces recruitment hurdles, but its larger population and authoritarian approach provide more resilience. The Kremlin sustains a recruitment rate of 25,000–30,000 new soldiers monthly through lucrative contracts, avoiding a politically risky mass mobilization since September 2022. However, this rate barely keeps pace with staggering casualties—48,670 reported by Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense for December 2024 alone, with estimates suggesting over 430,000 total losses in 2024. Recruitment quality is declining; volunteers in Moscow dropped from 200–250 daily in mid-2024 to just 40 by early 2025, forcing reliance on foreigners (e.g., from China, Africa, and Central Asia), criminals, and debtors lured by high bonuses.
As of February 19, 2025, the military situation favors Russia on a tactical level.
Russia holds the initiative, having gained approximately 4,000 square kilometers of Ukrainian territory in 2024, though at a high cost (less than 1% of Ukraine’s total land for massive casualties). Russia uses overwhelming numbers, artillery superiority (estimated 5:1 advantage), and glide bombs, which force Ukrainian units to spread thin and limit their ability to rest or resupply. Advances in Donetsk, such as the envelopments of Avdiivka, Vuhledar, and Velyka Novosilka, demonstrate tactical success, albeit slow and costly.
What is the US interest in sending $800 billion over four years to Ukraine.
Russia attacked in 2014 to Crimea and part of Donetz under Obama and Biden. 3 Years no action by Obama to push Russia out. Why didn’t Obama win the war.
Barack Obama made the comment about having “more flexibility” in his second term during a conversation with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on March 26, 2012, at the Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul, South Korea. The exchange was inadvertently captured by a live microphone as reporters were entering the room. Obama said, “This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility,” in reference to contentious issues, particularly missile defense negotiations with Russia. Medvedev responded, “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir,” referring to Vladimir Putin, who was then the incoming Russian president set to take office in May 2012 after serving as prime minister.
No new Russian attack while Trump was in office. 2017-2020
New attack while Biden was President.
Looks like Obama and Biden were corrupt. I know you want to say Trump is correct. Explain how when Ukraine only lost territory under Obama/Biden and then Biden/Harris.
Trump makes threat but not started wars in Greenland or Panama. Panama is booting China out just based on talk. No deaths. No payouts just the talking you don’t like.
Valuing allies and military? Ally nations had to payout over $200 billion for the Ukraine war because of Biden. If Ukraine is an ally (since we gave them money and weapons) then there were 700,000 wounded and dead under Biden and Obama. Trump talking mean to them but Biden and Obama costing them 20% of their territory, their cities and their lives. Biden and Obama did them the honor of getting about a million killed/wounded and losing hundreds of billions. But they get the honor of also taking Russians with them.
Russia is winning, slowly grinding down Ukrainian defenses through attrition and territorial gains. Its manpower and firepower advantages allow it to dictate the pace, though at a staggering human and economic cost.
The case for Ukraine winning would involve. … Solve the recruitment and morale problem. Get even more money and equipment.
How much? $500 billion per year ?
$200 billion per year is already about 22% of the entire US defense budget. It is 145% of the $140 billion/year for Germany.
Outlast Russia into 2027? 2028? 2029?
How many dead and wounded at that point. I thought you cared about children. How about those that were 10 at the start of the 2014 war who are now 21. Now they get die and get wounded at tens of thousands each month.
But you don’t want to say… ok that’s enough. Putin can’t keep it. No more how Ukrainians die get your land back, kill more Russians.
Brian…good reply…..but I wouldn’t of wasted my time on a CNN lovin, blue haired, smooth brain, room temp IQ, they/them/he/she.
Thanks for the support.
I am not trying to convince the specific complainer(s). I am using them as foil to create a FAQ so that I can make it clear why some common thinking is wrong.
I am not to the point about making maximum predictions about the goals I think DOGE will achieve. But the approaches look good for success and I have dug into the details to show how this can come together. I have made predictions publicly like there will be over over 250,000 fewer federal employees this year. This has a greater than 70% chance of being over a 500,000+ federal staff reduction by the end of this year. More depends upon congressional bills like privatizing US postal services or major functions of it and privatizing the Veterans Administration and other bills to turn more agency functions over to the states. The bills could pass but there could be delays and challenges to the bills and their could be delays in implementation.
BTW: to some other people. When I see a new comment from people who were never authorized to comment before that claims to be a long time reader who now can no longer support the site. I know that is laughable BS. Really pathetic attempt to try to pursuade me to alter the content. I have been through a thousand internet flame wars and moderated hundreds of thousands of comments.
1) Republicans have been hindering Ukraine’s effort to defend itself for years, despite that Ukraine managed to resist.
2) No new Russian attack while Trump was in office. 2017-2020, sure, if you have an ally in the white house, the frictions are lower.
3) Russia holds the initiative so much that they have lost control of part of their territories and they had to move the fleet, because a NATION WITHOUT NAVY managed to sink many of their most important ships
4) Russia loses more people than it can recruit and more materials than it can produce every month, especially high-tech stuff. Thus, Russia is losing the attrition game, and sustaining Ukraine would grant a complete victory.
5) “What is the US interest in sending $800 billion over four years to Ukraine.” The main interest was to demonstrate that the US is a stable partner in long-term strategic alliances; Trump consistently demonstrated that this is not the case. Trump is so shortsighted that he is forcing US allies to arm themselves more and more and trust the US less and less because they could cozy up with an invading dictator on a moment’s notice. Not seeing the long-term effects of this approach for a government leader is sign of incompetence.
We see that Russia is losing because it is trying to rush the “peace talks” now that Trump is giving them whatever they want. If the situation were truly on Putin’s side, he would drag things out longer and reap more benefits. This is not the case.
That being said, this is my final comment here on NBF, while I often disagreed with your position (or the comments of some readers), I always tried to be respectful and to provide a meaningful contribution to the site (that produced more engagement for you, Brian). I had no problems in discussing different issues like FSD, spaceX, fake aliens, and so on… but I cannot accept to help contributing even a minimal amount of engagement to someone that aligns with invaders and dictators. My grandfather served in the Italian army, and since he could not accept that at a certain point, Germany de facto occupied part of Italy, he refused to serve and was sent to a concentration camp. I will not tolerate nor support in the slightest someone who is fundamentally OK with giving invaders the right to invade.
I thank the community for all the discussions and the clashes we had in the past.
Kyiv says:
“US provided Ukraine with $100 billion in aid, not $500 billion, Zelensky says” – https://kyivindependent.com/war-has-cost-320-billion-us-and-eu-covered-two-thirds-zelensky-says/
The Council of Foreign Relations says (September 27, 2024):
“Since the war began, the U.S. Congress has voted through five bills that have provided Ukraine with ongoing aid, doing so most recently in April 2024. The total budget authority under these bills—the “headline” figure often cited by news media—is $175 billion. The historic sums are helping a broad set of Ukrainian people and institutions, including refugees, law enforcement, and independent radio broadcasters, though most of the aid has been military-related. Dozens of other countries, including most members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union (EU), are also providing large aid packages to Ukraine.” – https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-us-aid-going-ukraine
This is why you can’t rely on AI for really important things. Nowhere is $350b cited, outside of Grok 3 apparently, and certainly not entirely as military support. Military support that mainly cycles right back to the U.S. since we supply their weapons for the most part. In other words, it’s money – stimulus – to the M.I.C. That doesn’t make it right. It just makes it a lot less expensive.
The loss of lives and labor IS a real cost, but Russia mainly recruits peasants from the poor, rural areas, who contribute little more than feeding themselves even in peacetime. Under the cold, calculating cost/benefit analysis, there’s little lost to Russia when they are removed from the country – the loss of talented emigrees out of the country when the war started who didn’t want to get drafted is a bigger loss. Still, Russia has grown its GDP during the war, and now outproduces both the U.S. and Europe combined in artillery shells.
The environmental loss is rarely figured by anyone, but is in the billions, and infrastructure in the 100s of billions.
The war needs to end, but not on terms that essentially encourage Putin/Russia to expand into other European countries in the future (they already annexed parts of Moldova, Georgia).
This.
WW3 has already started, the front is creeping west in Ukraine
EU been wringing their hands for 3 years, and now America First (just like the first America First 100 years ago) is retreating.
If Russia wins simply by outlasting the west it has shown the recipe for China, North Korea and Iran.
This war is but a gentle taste of whats to come if we back down.
Hi Brian, I would appreciate the source for the $350 billion of military support.
I have only been able to find official US figures of $60 – 70 billion of military aid.
One source I found (BBC) says; If all types of aid are included – military, humanitarian and other financial aid – data shows the US has spent about $120bn. That is 43% of total support to Ukraine since the start of 2022.
They’re not really concerned about the Fertilizer.
If they wanted cheaper fertilizer, they could have it.
Fertilizer is made from natural gas.
North Dakota flares off gas as a waste product.
My Organic Intellegence asks, “Why not make fertilizer, then?”
Or, plastic feed stock.
Russia and Ukraine punched above their weight in the fertilizer market, especially for nitrogen and potash, because of their resource advantages and production scale. Russia was the world’s top exporter of nitrogen fertilizers (like urea and ammonia), holding about 16% of global urea exports and 23% of ammonia exports before 2022 disruptions. Together with Belarus, it also supplied 40% of global potash exports, alongside Ukraine’s smaller but still notable contributions.
Abundant Natural Gas in Russia: Nitrogen fertilizers, which dominate global use, rely heavily on ammonia production via the Haber-Bosch process, where natural gas is a key feedstock (70-90% of production costs). Russia sits on massive natural gas reserves—about 19% of the world’s proven total per BP’s 2023 data—and historically kept domestic gas prices low through state control. This gave Russian producers like Uralchem and EuroChem a cost edge, letting them churn out nitrogen fertilizers cheaply and flood export markets.
Potash Reserves in Russia and Ukraine: Potash, another critical fertilizer, comes from mined potassium salts. Russia and Ukraine (along with Belarus) have some of the world’s largest deposits, notably in Russia’s Urals region and Ukraine’s Carpathian basin. Russia’s Uralkali and Belarus’s Belaruskali scaled up to export-focused giants, leveraging these reserves to meet global demand, especially in potash-hungry markets like Brazil and India.
Industrial Legacy and Export Focus: Soviet-era investments left both countries with hefty chemical and mining infrastructure. Post-1991, Russia pivoted to exports, capitalizing on low domestic demand (its ag sector is smaller than its energy focus) and proximity to Europe and Asia via Black Sea ports. Ukraine, though less dominant, piggybacked on similar infrastructure and export routes until the 2014 conflict and 2022 invasion disrupted its output.
Cheap Labor and Lax Regulation: Lower labor costs and less stringent environmental rules compared to North America kept production costs down, making their fertilizers competitive globally despite shipping expenses.
Before Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, these factors made them key suppliers. Russia alone accounted for 15-20% of global fertilizer trade across nitrogen, phosphorus, and potash, per the International Fertilizer Association, with Ukraine adding smaller but critical volumes—especially before war crippled its exports.
Why Didn’t the U.S. or Canada Use Cheap Natural Gas to Grab More Market Share?
The U.S. and Canada have cheap natural gas—thanks to the shale boom—and are fertilizer powerhouses, but they didn’t chase global dominance like Russia. Here’s why:
Domestic Focus Over Exports:
U.S.: The U.S. is the world’s top nitrogen producer (about 13% of global capacity) and a big phosphate player, but it consumes most of what it makes. Its massive corn and soybean belts guzzle fertilizers, leaving only about 10-15% of nitrogen production for export. Companies like CF Industries prioritize feeding the U.S. farm juggernaut over flooding foreign markets.
Canada: Canada leads in potash—Nutrien produces over 30% of the world’s supply from Saskatchewan—but its nitrogen output is modest. It exports heavily (especially potash to Brazil and Asia), but its fertilizer industry isn’t geared to dominate nitrogen, where Russia excelled.
Natural Gas Price Dynamics:
While U.S. gas prices dropped post-shale (averaging $2-4/MMBtu in the 2010s vs. Europe’s $8-10), they’re market-driven, not state-subsidized like Russia’s. Fertilizer producers face higher volatility and can’t always lock in the ultra-low costs Russian firms enjoyed. Canada’s gas is cheap too, but its nitrogen production capacity didn’t scale up as aggressively—partly because potash was the bigger prize.
High global gas prices (e.g., $35/MMBtu in Europe in 2022) did spur U.S. exports, but building new plants takes years and billions, and the U.S. wasn’t positioned to pivot fast enough to outmaneuver Russia pre-2022.
Infrastructure and Investment Lag:
Building or expanding ammonia plants is capital-intensive. The U.S. shuttered much of its nitrogen capacity in the 1990s when gas prices spiked, relying on imports until the shale revival. By the time gas got cheap again (post-2008), Russia had already locked in export markets. Canada focused on potash mining, not nitrogen, and didn’t pivot to challenge Russia’s ammonia dominance.
Shipping costs also hurt. North American producers are farther from key importers like India or Brazil compared to Russia’s Black Sea advantage.
Regulatory and Cost Structures:
Stricter environmental rules in the U.S. and Canada raise production costs—think emissions controls or labor standards. Russia and Ukraine faced fewer constraints, letting them undercut on price. For example, CF Industries closed a UK plant in 2022 due to high gas costs and regulations, while Russian firms kept humming.
Market Strategy:
U.S. firms like Mosaic and CF Industries target high-margin domestic sales or nearby Latin America, not the cutthroat global export game Russia played. Canada’s Nutrien ramped up potash after 2022 sanctions hit Russia/Belarus, but it didn’t have the nitrogen capacity to fill Russia’s shoes. Neither country saw fertilizers as a geopolitical lever like Russia did.
The Bigger Picture
Russia and Ukraine thrived by marrying resource wealth with export-driven scale, while the U.S. and Canada leaned on self-sufficiency and regional strengths. Cheap gas helped North America, but they didn’t weaponize it for global market share—partly by choice, partly by circumstance. Post-2022, sanctions and war scrambled the board: Russia’s exports dropped (e.g., nitrogen exports fell 15-20% by 2023 estimates), Ukraine’s collapsed, and North America stepped up. Nutrien boosted potash output by 40% from 2020-2025, and U.S. nitrogen exports rose—but they’re still playing catch-up to Russia’s former reach, constrained by time, scale, and focus.
Russia and Ukraine dominated through gas, geology, and grit. USA and Canada didn’t want to until the Ukraine war.
Ha, ha, don’t blame Grok 3 when DOGE’s house of cards collapses. Taking vital federal services from ordinary Americans will create pushback – protests like you are seeing on the streets. Firing federal workers providing critical services in the nuclear and public health sectors lacks basic common sense. But DOGE is trying to solve financial problems with a fire axe. Is Grok 3 requesting these changes or is it Musk with his merry band of computer geeks? In any case acting outside the Constitution gives DOGE and Musk no legitimacy.
NNSA looks like exactly the type of redundant bureau that could be cut – at best an oversight role to Naval Reactors and the Weapons Labs created in 2000. People hear the word “nuclear” and ohhh, ahhhh.
The Potemkin protests funded by Soros front groups? Yawn…you have no power here.
Massive tax cuts for the rich.
Drives an asset rally. Brings in inflation thanks also to tariffs.
Average Joe in red state working day to day will get ploughed under. Now that education is a private rather than public benefit, he’s not much chance to improve his lot.
But Joe will get stimulus check with Trump’s name on it, so will continue to vote maga. Brutal but it seems to work in Trumps favour.
And if Joe is sporting an injury from his time in the military and relies on veterans benefits… Well, he’s just gonna have to work harder.
The glowies sure are freaked-out Brian.