>You can have 35% inflation AND no drones or good arms in general.

I guess you can always be worse off as a country, no argument there.

>if this lack makes it easier to get invaded or "regime changed" into a failed style.

I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying it would be better if a country gets US weapons while being under threat of being "regime changed" into an enemy? Because that somehow seems even worse. And that's literally what the US was afraid of in Ukraine.

>The welfare of the Kurds

I suppose they don't care if the bombs are dropped by Turkish or US drones. But at least the sanctions delayed it by ~half a decade, so there's that.

You said "who cares about 35% inflation when you got your own drones"

Based on the parent you were replying to, I take it to imply: "don't make drones to avoid sanctions (even if it means not having arms), lest you get inflation", the latter of which you paint as the worse outcome.

So, the point I made above is that if not having drones/arms etc makes it easier to be regime changed/turned into failed state, then, yes, 35% inflation would still be a small cost to pay to avoid it.

I still don't get it. Are you saying that we also shouldn't send weapons to Ukraine because there is a real threat that they will end up in the enemy's hands? Or are you saying we should definitely send weapons because the opposite is a guaranteed regime change? It's kind of a lose-lose from a US POV (just like Turkey) and it still misses the actual point: Both Ukraine and Turkey will do anything to achieve their goals, they don't care what it takes to get there, even if it comes at enormous cost to their own population.