Miscellaneous News

jiajia99 said:

Can someone please stop this endless back and forth. This is going no where given how one side seems to completely believe one point whilst doing everything in their power to ignore reality while a lot of people are responding back to a literal brick wall. The simple conclusion is that Ukraine has lost territory that it will never get back and those areas are the most productive parts of Ukraine in regards to resources. You cannot squeeze water from stone, Ukraine is losing based on territory alone and hence if the war was to suddenly stop right now, Russia pound for pound has already won. Please cease this nonsense as this is going no where

Click to expand...

Putin's goal was to disarm and denazify Ukraine. He said this in interviews and television speeches. Several times.

Taking just 17% of the territory but still leaving Ukraine armed by NATO and with another 83% of territory is not a complete victory. It is a FAILURE. Simple as that.

manqiangrexue said:

Since you know them personally, ask them when they defend themselves to challenge debating editors and reviewers, what format they must use. Or better yet, if you are actually one as you claim, when you published for your dissertation, what format did you need to use to defend yourself to reviewers? Its like you think this is a bizarre request of a format no one's ever heard of.

1. That would be true then for the whole scientific community.
2. Staying on topic and locking down on points rather than drifting off is Asperger's? Do you even know what that syndrome is?
3. Uh oh... is that... an ad hominem an this new conversation of no ad hominems? LOL

Not in this debate. At the beginning of this conflict, most people thought that Russia would win militarily in short order but then have its economy crippled like North Korea. If you went against this and predicted the current position correction from early 2022, can you show such a post?

We're on this forum right now, ok? This claim is like single dude swearing to everyone he has lots of girlfriends who are all long distance and whom nobody will ever get to meet. Pull something off here and we'll see.

Right now shows I'm right and you're wrong. Right now, Russia owns a fifth of Ukraine and is taking more. That's no stalemate by any definition.

None that I've seen. Can you show me?

By the way, I noticed that you've failed to rebut the entire content of the last post because you could not do point to point... As a matter of fact, this entire post of yours mentions not Russia, Ukraine, missiles, war tactics, territorial advance, nothing at all. That's why you can't do point-to-point. There's Asperger's being mentioned though LOL

Click to expand...

You are knowing my predictions now. Later you can also apologize to me if you know how to recognize your mistakes.

quim said:

Your main mistake is to think that NATO has already done everything they can against Russia. But the escalation is progressive and in stages.

NATO's plan in Ukraine is certainly to weaken Russia by exploiting every loophole they find. If the provocations continue without responses, the West could send Tomahawks and other weapons against Russian factories and depots and also against Russian institutions and authorities. Those attacks can certainly have an impact on the battlefield at some point and you simply ignore or underestimate this.

This also partially explains Putin's restraint. And nukes cannot be used so easily to prevent everything.

So they dream that Putin will be overthrown like Assad by disgruntled generals at risk, and in this mess, NATO wins.

Obviously I don't believe that the West will achieve everything they plan and I also don't believe that Putin will achieve everything he plans.

Therefore there will be a negotiated stalemate at some point, as I have always said.


This is a demand that coincides with that of Poland and other countries that have already increased military spending and supports Ukraine.

This will only be more difficult for France, UK Germany and Italy to comply with.


Most of Europe's economic problems have to do with bureaucrats who made bad choices and unnecessary or inefficient spending.

But in reality any country can sustain high military spending if they cut superfluous spending and, in the future, they would still have a very competitive and sustainable economy, as Russia proves, managing to face NATO in Ukraine to a certain extent.

So this wouldn't be as difficult as some imagine, especially with countries under pressure and when incompetent governments are being fired easily with votes of no confidence.

Popular dissatisfaction and revolts do not bring down governments because of spending cuts. Only the military sector can truly overthrow a government !!!!!

That's why I insist that Ukraine will end in a stalemate.

The only way Russia could win unquestionably would be if China started to directly and publicly support Russia with weapons to face NATO. That would change the calculation and give the West room to actually abandon the Ukraine project. But for now China maintains the doctrine of non-interference.

Click to expand...

quim said:

Most of Europe's economic problems have to do with bureaucrats who made bad choices and unnecessary or inefficient spending.

Click to expand...

Huh? Where'd you get this idea? That EU countries like Germany, France, Spain, Italy, and the U.K. are struggling due to their bureaucrats and the higher educational institutions that appointed and selected them is a load of nonsense. We can't simply arrive at a conclusion absent any credible data or evidence to support such outlandish claims; it's not but pure speculation on your part.

Furthermore, Europe's economic challenges are multifaceted, extending beyond mere bureaucratic inefficiencies. The impacts of the pandemic, global economic shifts, and supply chain disruptions have all contributed to the current economic landscape. Addressing these issues requires a comprehensive approach that acknowledges the complexity of modern economies.

I find the mere notion that EU would escalate further attacks into Russia proper would be tolerated not just by Putin, but by the Russian people HIGHLY UNLIKELY and such a charge and speculative assumption is quite dangerous, bordering on crazy talk!! The potential for such actions to escalate into a nuclear confrontation is a deterrent that neither side is likely to overlook. If the EU and its supporters like yourself would like to test that "RUSSIA WEAK THEORY" then please proceed Governor!!

The comparison between Putin and Assad is simply wrong. The political and military contexts of Russia and Syria are completely different. Putin benefits from a more stable and loyal base of power, while Assad is in a much weaker position. We should not make the mistake of conflating one supposed "strong man" from the Middle-East to another "strong man" of Russia, that is Vladimir Putin simply based on their superficial appearance and similarity. The contrast could not be more revealing, not to mention a great insult to the accomplishments of Putin in terms of how he managed to turn the Russian economy around from the crapper it was having under the helm of the perpetual drunkard a.k.a. Boris "Vodka" Yeltsin.

quim said:

Putin's goal was to disarm and denazify Ukraine. He said this in interviews and television speeches. Several times.

Just taking 17% of the territory but still leaving Ukraine well armed and with another 83% of territory is not a complete victory.
It is a partial FAILURE. Simple as that.

Click to expand...

Even you agreed that one does not need to achieve total victory of all objectives to win. As a matter of fact, it almost never happens because as people win, they get more aggressive and put higher goals until they come to an equilibrium where they cannot get more. It is a matter of who the final negotiations favor and if they draw the line into Ukraine for Russia to keep, they favor Russia. Everything for everyone is partial, but Russia succeeds much more than it fails as evidenced by the new borders.

quim said:

You are knowing my predictions now. Later you can also apologize to me if you know how to recognize your mistakes.

Click to expand...

There is later for those who need to get away from a losing argument; there is right now for those who can stand and debate. You predicted a stalemate but nobody defines a stalemate as taking 18% (and growing) territory of your enemy. Nobody defines a stalemate as losing 18% or more of your territory. So the only way you would be right is if Russia decided to go back to the original borders. That's a stalemate.

quim said:

It's just a forum, I'm in my free time almost going to sleep, I don't need to teach anyone or follow any model just because you want me to. Let's stop with these off topics.

I just need to answer what is really worth it and not every irrelevant detail.

You wrote as if testing 1 oreshk and capturing a tiny area of less than 2,000 square km in more than 1 year was an escalation that would cause fear or prevent NATO from continuing to provoke Russia. These things are simply not enough escalations. These are just predictable actions by Putin that denote how he is afraid of the conflict escalating into an all-out war.

NATO dreams of making a mess so that Putin can be removed from office and that way they win, obviously. You don't get tired of being a dishonest debater, picking up irrelevant details to undermine the message of others. please, let's be honest so as not to derail the thread again.


China is still officially neutral and would be unlikely to change that. The only support that China gives to Russia is indirect, keeping Russian trade and civil economy alive.
And I'm not trusting Elon/Trump, I just doubt Putin's willingness to win alone in Ukraine without going into a total war. For now Russia still treats it as a special military operation only. Putin fears martial law, the war economy and having to attack NATO.

Click to expand...

@quim, I enjoy jousting with you. I respect and understand your point of view, and I'm not here to change it. I'm here to examine your own logic and views regarding how, why, what, when, where, or why you arrive at your views on the topic that's reverberating in our world today.

manqiangrexue said:

Even you agreed that one does not need to achieve total victory of all objectives to win. As a matter of fact, it almost never happens because as people win, they get more aggressive and put higher goals until they come to an equilibrium where they cannot get more. It is a matter of who the final negotiations favor and if they draw the line into Ukraine for Russia to keep, they favor Russia. Everything for everyone is partial, but Russia succeeds much more than it fails as evidenced by the new borders.

There is later for those who need to get away from a losing argument; there is right now for those who can stand and debate. You predicted a stalemate but nobody defines a stalemate as taking 18% (and growing) territory of your enemy. Nobody defines a stalemate as losing 18% or more of your territory. So the only way you would be right is if Russia decided to go back to the original borders. That's a stalemate.

Click to expand...

Stalemate is an inconclusive war in which neither side completely achieves its objective.

If Russia takes 18% of the territory but Ukraine remains armed and integrated into NATO countries, both are left without the complete objective.

Neither Ukraine can recover Crimea nor Russia can disarm Ukraine.

But Ukraine remaining armed and a NATO ally will be an eternal headache for Russia.

Now you simply want to change the meaning of the term stalemate in wars because it doesn't fit your narrative? lol

Bellum_Romanum said:

Huh? Where'd you get this idea? That EU countries like Germany, France, Spain, Italy, and the U.K. are struggling due to their bureaucrats and the higher educational institutions that appointed and selected them is a load of nonsense. We can't simply arrive at a conclusion absent any credible data or evidence to support such outlandish claims; it's not but pure speculation on your part.

Furthermore, Europe's economic challenges are multifaceted, extending beyond mere bureaucratic inefficiencies. The impacts of the pandemic, global economic shifts, and supply chain disruptions have all contributed to the current economic landscape. Addressing these issues requires a comprehensive approach that acknowledges the complexity of modern economies.

I find the mere notion that EU would escalate further attacks into Russia proper would be tolerated not just by Putin, but by the Russian people HIGHLY UNLIKELY and such a charge and speculative assumption is quite dangerous, bordering on crazy talk!! The potential for such actions to escalate into a nuclear confrontation is a deterrent that neither side is likely to overlook. If the EU and its supporters like yourself would like to test that "RUSSIA WEAK THEORY" then please proceed Governor!!

The comparison between Putin and Assad is simply wrong. The political and military contexts of Russia and Syria are completely different. Putin benefits from a more stable and loyal base of power, while Assad is in a much weaker position. We should not make the mistake of conflating one supposed "strong man" from the Middle-East to another "strong man" of Russia, that is Vladimir Putin simply based on their superficial appearance and similarity. The contrast could not be more revealing, not to mention a great insult to the accomplishments of Putin in terms of how he managed to turn the Russian economy around from the crapper it was having under the helm of the perpetual drunkard a.k.a. Boris "Vodka" Yeltsin.

Click to expand...

Those who really have power are the military. Be it Putin, Assad, Zelensky or Trump and Macron, in the moment of greatest emergency, those who have the power to impose martial law and fight a war are those who can command the army.

When the head of state and the army no longer understand each other, the head of state falls, as happened with Assad recently.

The people, even if they suffer economically and don't like it and protest in the streets, have no power to overthrow a government if the army doesn't want to.

Regarding the economy, any country can adapt to a new reality. Economy can change. If the NATO military demands reforms, European countries will be forced to do so. It is the military and whoever controls it who has the power.

horse said:

Could be just copium.

Click to expand...

Okay, this is what I think about that Thomas Friedman article in the New York Times, that has created a discussion apparently in wider media circles. A short rant. At least I hope it will be short.

First of all, let me start off by saying I actually liked the article when I first read it, as here was Friedman doing some actual reporting. Then the second part of the article, he goes off tangent and really do not know what he was getting at. So it was article that had potential, but ultimately not that good of article.

The reason became apparent to me today for some reason, and that reason made me realize why I forgot about this article just like that after reading.


Really, it just comes down to this, of the question who is important here, what is important, and do we have facts to support that.

I know, economics has a lot of obtuse theory, blah blah blah, but there are still facts.

Who is China's biggest trading partner? It is ASEAN and growing. Not America.

Then what does China buys from America?

Agricultural goods? Not anymore, China has replaced much of American food exports, in particular soybeans and corn.

Raw materials? Well, as we learned from the news the past weeks with the Chinese banning certain elements, the flow of critical elements run the other way.

China continues to buy some high technology products from the United States, the stuff they have not banned yet for sale, which they probably will ban sooner or later.

(Then we can consider the state of Chinese industry, such as 5G, or EVs, the tech landscape of platforms, etc, China is doing alright. These exists independently from any American input.)

So what does China want from America? At this point in time, not much. This is as good as it gets.


That was Friedman's gross misunderstanding, that he never realized that America is just not that important to China anymore. In terms of business.

Nothing personal, just business.

The current entrenched business interests between China and America, is as both Chinese and American. Wal-Mart, Apple, they never leaving China.

That is what Friedman got wrong, that there are no new avenues to improve the trading relationship, and that China views America as lessening in its importance in trade, just going by the numbers.

So why did Friedman get it so wrong? Who knows. If he is a dummy, then he is a dummy, no point in pursuing it further.

That is why I forgot about that article once I read it. In the first half, Friedman did some reporting work, dug up some facts. Stuff we already know, for China watchers. But, in the second half of the article, Friedman basically makes up his own facts, including references to the Kansas City Chiefs quarterback wife Tiffany Smith. Why he do that?

Who knows.

Maybe it was copium?!

horse said:

That is why I forgot about that article once I read it. In the first half, Friedman did some reporting work, dug up some facts. Stuff we already know, for China watchers. But, in the second half of the article, Friedman basically makes up his own facts, including references to the Kansas City Chiefs quarterback wife Tiffany Smith. Why he do that?

Click to expand...

Like to add, one last thing, because I can attach a video I liked, so there is my excuse for that.

Friedman always had this thing about American soft power. That is the dog whistle here by bringing up KC quarterback Mahome's wife the swimsuit model Tiffany Swift.

Friedman did not need to bring up the quarterback's wife, he could have just point to NBA players traveling in China in the off season as American soft power.

So Friedman was entirely ignorant of the NBA inroads into China, or willfully ignored that supposed demonstration of American soft power.

Why does Friedman want the quarterback's wife to champion American soft power and not NBA players?

Who knows.

Soft power is not something I understand. It is complicated. Anything dealing with culture is complicated, not simple.

Seth Curry in China, with mister Fox too.