Haven't listened to the podcast, but
even a tiny chance of a war between the United States and Russia has a huge negative expected value.
seems like a version of the Pascal's wager. You (or Dan) fail to account for the potential higher-likelihood but moderate-utility benefits the US leaders have in mind which dominate the probability landscape.
The upside benefits to the U.S. seem thousands of times lower in magnitude to the harm of another cold war between the United States and Russia, and millions of times lower than the harm of a nuclear war.
The logic of Pascal's wager only (potentially) breaks down when you get to really, really small probabilities which we don't have here.
A Dan Carlin Podcast about how the United States is foolishly antagonizing the Russians over Ukraine. Carlin makes an analogy as to how the United States would feel if Russia helped overthrow the government of Mexico to install an anti-American government under conditions that might result in a Mexican civil war. Because of the Russian nuclear arsenal, even a tiny chance of a war between the United States and Russia has a huge negative expected value.