No. vardump specifically said that the money from stability justifies spending money to support Ukraine. That is only true if the latter is outweighed by the former.

We know the amount spent in support of Ukraine. The only missing piece of the puzzle is the specific dollar valuation of the deterrence value of further assistance to Ukraine to resist the Russian invasion.

If Ukraine regaining its pre-2022 (or pre-2014) borders is not worth a dollar value that exceeds the cost to achieve that outcome, then vardump's assertion of "money" as the reason is insufficient.

I'm referring to their comments in totality, not just this one specific example.

The U.S. failing Ukraine sends a signal you can get away with invasions. So it's not just about Ukraine.

The full global consequences can be devastating.

That's what "deterrence value" means.

Say it results in a global nuclear war. That might be the worst case scenario.

What's the dollar value of that?

[delayed]

You do this same tactic in every political thread I've seen your name pop up in from as early as I can remember recognizing your name on this site.

Sometimes your questions seem legitimate. Often they don't (they might be! but they don't read so).

But, this is probably getting a bit too meta and off-topic. Sorry for the derailment.

I think GP is probably looking for sealioning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

That's the one! Thank you.