| Forum Index > General Forum |
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. | ||
|
spets1
151 Posts
"We've debunked this and we debunk that" When all you've done is stated your opinion and think that it's fact. No all you've done is shared your opinion, interpretation of the situation and you state it as fact and then the others that have the same propaganda ingrained into your brains parrot the same opinions which serves as your confirmation. So when you do that, ie state your opinion as fact there is no point in me trying to explain other points of views and interpretations | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5887 Posts
On November 20 2025 07:15 spets1 wrote: It's funny how it's said here, "We've debunked this and we debunk that" When all you've done is stated your opinion and think that it's fact. No all you've done is shared your opinion, interpretation of the situation and you state it as fact and then the others that have the same propaganda ingrained into your brains parrot the same opinions which serves as your confirmation. So when you do that, ie state your opinion as fact there is no point in me trying to explain other points of views and interpretations Tell me how these are opinions and not facts. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12584 Posts
On November 20 2025 07:15 spets1 wrote: It's funny how it's said here, "We've debunked this and we debunk that" When all you've done is stated your opinion and think that it's fact. No all you've done is shared your opinion, interpretation of the situation and you state it as fact and then the others that have the same propaganda ingrained into your brains parrot the same opinions which serves as your confirmation. So when you do that, ie state your opinion as fact there is no point in me trying to explain other points of views and interpretations You said that Mearsheimer was right about everything since 2014. They quoted you a bunch of things in his analysis that didn't happen the way he said. Those are not opinions I believe? Either they're right or you are. Based on everything I know about the world, it's probably them who are right. Obviously you've never watched Mearsheimer yourself, but you might want to question the source that you read that told you that he had predicted everything correctly since 2014. Clearly that source has been lying to you. | ||
KwarK
United States44392 Posts
On November 20 2025 07:15 spets1 wrote: It's funny how it's said here, "We've debunked this and we debunk that" When all you've done is stated your opinion and think that it's fact. No all you've done is shared your opinion, interpretation of the situation and you state it as fact and then the others that have the same propaganda ingrained into your brains parrot the same opinions which serves as your confirmation. So when you do that, ie state your opinion as fact there is no point in me trying to explain other points of views and interpretations It’s like the idea of lacking self awareness wished it could be a real boy. | ||
|
0x64
Finland4650 Posts
Black mailed Trump was a very likely situation that would explain a lot of US-Russia negotiation. While being blackmailed, it was also important to stay in a position where he could destroy Russia's leadership if he'd be compromised. This power dynamic is collapsing. No idea how this affects the war. Russia is worse than it was a year ago, and it's getting worse everyday. We are not anymore in a slowly boiling frog situation we described in this thread a year ago. We are now in "I live in Moscow and I can see stuff exploding out of my window", which was not the case for the first 3 years. At the same time, Ukraine seems to have adapted much better also at stopping drone waves. Russia has pretty much exhausted their stock of missiles, being able to only launch what they produce. They also seem to lack meaningful targets. Current Ukrainian drone attacks are just noise, and the real big strike will happen at once at the worst moment, classical Art of War move style. Russian will be like "is that all you can do"... Then it's whoopsie because they used the new tactic which Russia has failed to predict. This pattern is a strong positive pattern that is emerging from the noise. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17853 Posts
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/11/19/new-us-peace-plan-for-ukraine-involves-kyiv-ceding-land-weapons-reports From 2 different sources. The supposed 28 plan cooked up by US and RU together that would make Ukraine basically surrender to Russia. I don't think UA would ever agree to this since this entire "peace plan" is pure bullshit. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17853 Posts
Russian central bank is firing 20% employees. 2 biggest silicone producers in Russia are shutting down completely. They're also unable to fulfill the arms exports deals they made in the past and those will most likely be taken over by China. Sure looks like everything is going well... The cracks are finally beginning to show and widen in the facade. | ||
|
ETisME
12893 Posts
This is a better analysis of Russia economy, I have a fair amount of economic history background. Sanctions are meant to be extremely powerful, and extremely effective. You guys probably forgot or didn't know, George Soros and other Fx traders alone caused the collapsed of multiple Asian currencies and economy to negative growth in 1997 financial crisis. These slow cracks aren't meant to be slow cracks. Russia could be entering stagflation, but so is Germany. Economy downturn isn't a crisis. Crisis of faith is how an economy collapses, and like the video said, Russia still got huge amount of tools, being the totalitarian state. | ||
|
spets1
151 Posts
On November 20 2025 07:25 Nebuchad wrote: You said that Mearsheimer was right about everything since 2014. They quoted you a bunch of things in his analysis that didn't happen the way he said. Those are not opinions I believe? Either they're right or you are. Based on everything I know about the world, it's probably them who are right. Obviously you've never watched Mearsheimer yourself, but you might want to question the source that you read that told you that he had predicted everything correctly since 2014. Clearly that source has been lying to you. Which part? They just said nonsense and posted a video that's 2 hrs long in which he got everything right. So tell me what did he get wrong? Let's just start with one thing. And I'll try to address it. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18473 Posts
On November 20 2025 14:55 ETisME wrote: https://youtu.be/YRuYb3H3mvA This is a better analysis of Russia economy, I have a fair amount of economic history background. Sanctions are meant to be extremely powerful, and extremely effective. You guys probably forgot or didn't know, George Soros and other Fx traders alone caused the collapsed of multiple Asian currencies and economy to negative growth in 1997 financial crisis. These slow cracks aren't meant to be slow cracks. Russia could be entering stagflation, but so is Germany. Economy downturn isn't a crisis. Crisis of faith is how an economy collapses, and like the video said, Russia still got huge amount of tools, being the totalitarian state. Didn't watch the whole video, but what I watched is pretty much inline with what I said and you didn't respond to. Instead you're posting about George Soros' exchange rate "investments"? I mean, making the pivot to George Soros being an evil genius who controls the whole world is standard procedure for fringe right wing conspiracy theorists, but you claim you're an economist. Explain why you think sanctions are fast-acting tools to coerce countries to act differently? Them being effective is, imho, pretty clear: capitulate or your economy is getting flushed down the toilet. South Africa capitulated. North Korea and to a lesser extent Iran and Libya had their economies flushed down the toilet. But none of these were fast. North Korea has maintained their war economy for decades. The population keeps starving, but their god-emperor and his close friends and key personnel in the military seem fine, so it continues. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5887 Posts
The expectation was that the threat of sanctions would make Russia reconsider its invasion plans, not that the sanctions would stop the invasion in short order. | ||
|
ETisME
12893 Posts
On November 20 2025 16:00 Acrofales wrote: Didn't watch the whole video, but what I watched is pretty much inline with what I said and you didn't respond to. Instead you're posting about George Soros' exchange rate "investments"? I mean, making the pivot to George Soros being an evil genius who controls the whole world is standard procedure for fringe right wing conspiracy theorists, but you claim you're an economist. Explain why you think sanctions are fast-acting tools to coerce countries to act differently? Them being effective is, imho, pretty clear: capitulate or your economy is getting flushed down the toilet. South Africa capitulated. North Korea and to a lesser extent Iran and Libya had their economies flushed down the toilet. But none of these were fast. North Korea has maintained their war economy for decades. The population keeps starving, but their god-emperor and his close friends and key personnel in the military seem fine, so it continues. George Soros was named by several nation's PM as the main investor launching speculative attacks. It's not a conspiracy theories. IMF had a paper on it. Speculative attacks is literally what he did. He was the biggest and kickstarted it all. I wasn't responding to what you said. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18473 Posts
On November 20 2025 16:45 ETisME wrote: George Soros was named by several nation's PM as the main investor launching speculative attacks. It's not a conspiracy theories. Speculative attacks is literally what he did. He was the biggest and kickstarted it all. Whatever. It has nothing to do with sanctions whatsoever. But sure, let's talk about George Soros instead of the important bits of my post. | ||
|
ETisME
12893 Posts
On November 20 2025 16:46 Acrofales wrote: Whatever. It has nothing to do with sanctions whatsoever. But sure, let's talk about George Soros instead of the important bits of my post. What important bits? I wasn't even responding to you. Btw | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5887 Posts
On November 20 2025 14:59 spets1 wrote: Which part? They just said nonsense and posted a video that's 2 hrs long in which he got everything right. So tell me what did he get wrong? Let's just start with one thing. And I'll try to address it. Okay, so what were the main points of the video? What were his predictions and what actually happened? | ||
|
ETisME
12893 Posts
On November 20 2025 16:54 maybenexttime wrote: Okay, so what were the main points of the video? What were his predictions and what actually happened? Why don't you watch it. It's not THAT technical | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5887 Posts
On November 20 2025 16:56 ETisME wrote: Why don't you watch it. It's not THAT technical I'm trying to establish whether spets1 watched the video himself. He keeps bringing up that clown, but as Nebuchad pointed out, he seems rather unaware of the contents of the crap he's pushing. As was already pointed out several times, pretty much all of Mearsheimer's predictions regarding the war were wrong. The guy still maintains that Putin's goal is not regime change even though that is one of the officially stated goals for the war. Mearsheimer's either incredibly stupid or arguing in bad faith. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44392 Posts
| ||
|
spets1
151 Posts
"Regarding regime change, Mearsheimer states that Putin sought a shift in Ukraine's leadership away from the post-2014 government, which he viewed as hostile and Western-installed. He describes this as a limited goal: replacing the regime in Kyiv with one more neutral or pro-Russian to neutralize the NATO threat, without intending full occupation or territorial conquest. For instance, he notes that no Russian leader would tolerate a Western-aligned government in Ukraine, as it would threaten Russia's strategic buffer zone, and that Putin's pushback was a direct reaction to the West "installing" such a regime after the Euromaidan events." He even recently said, like couple days ago that Putin wants a regime change but he won't get it the current way things are looking. So can we put that argument to bed? Can you accept that you were wrong? Or is that impossible for you? So anything else he is wrong about? | ||
|
ZeroByte13
799 Posts
What I mostly find is either - bickering between parties who will obviously never agree on anything - or pretty one-sided stream of news only about Ukraine's successes which is of course understandable, but it probably doesn't paint the whole picture I hoped to see re: what is the actual situation and what might happen in near future | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War League of Legends Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
WardiTV Weekly
IntoTheTV X SOOP
PiGosaur Cup
The PondCast
Kung Fu Cup
IntoTheTV X SOOP
FEL
FEL
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Replay Cast
|
|
|
EPT
