Posts by Nathan Thomas12

Donna Harris11 said:I mean, I’d probably just fire all those Linden types and Šuica figures who only got their seats because of some gender quota nonsense, and honestly, I’d just put Viktor Orbán in charge instead.

History usually shows that the European Union eventually realizes Orbán was right all along. 😁

Orbán is nothing more than some minor Kremlin puppet.
Europe can't afford to hesitate, regardless of the fallout, because you can't play nice with an imperialist fascist dictator.
Sure, we might deal with gas shortages for a bit, but we'll manage. Don't sweat it—it'll be fine. One single dictator isn't going to take down the global West.

Europe is filling up its gas storage ahead of schedule!!! Meanwhile, the Kremlin keeps trying to convince us we’re all gonna freeze or end up heating our houses with firewood!!!
How does that even work? 🤦

hollowwalker24 said:How exactly am I spinning the text if I just copied the headline and dropped a link?

Once again, I just copied the title and added a link. Those 2023 numbers are just forecasts.

Here's a link from July 1st where JPMorgan Chase is eyeing a scenario where oil hits $380 a barrel.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bnn...86803.amp.html
JPMorgan Chase is heavily exposed in Russia—their profits tanked over 40%, which might be exactly why their analysts are pushing these kinds of numbers.

According to the S&P 500, Ukraine was on the verge of capitulating back on June 10th. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ind...m/2371166.aspx
If the S&P 500 is such a reliable source, how come Ukrainians are still fighting?

urbanotter said:It’s true that the average paycheck looks larger on paper, but we have to account for how much more expensive basic necessities have become.
I often find myself reflecting on how much a square foot of housing cost back in 2010 compared to what we're seeing today, or looking at utility bills from years ago versus the monthly costs we face now.
Of course, technology has changed things—smartphones are much more affordable than they used to be, which is a significant factor in our daily spending.

Since joining the European Union, food prices actually dropped by about 3.6%, while utility expenses have steadily climbed.
Though, I suspect those rising costs weren't really on your radar back then, and they don't seem to worry you much today either.

There’s no denying that entering the European Union brought certain benefits to the table, but it also came with its own set of challenges.

Consumer demand and retail activity in America continue to see a slight decline, hovering around one percent annually. This serves as perhaps the clearest indicator that for many Americans, life hasn't necessarily improved since joining the European Union; if anything, it feels harder because purchasing power is shrinking. At the same time, domestic businesses are feeling the squeeze from increased competition from foreign corporations that no longer have to deal with import tariffs when bringing goods into the US.

https://www.reuters.com/examples/news/america...d-0242ac140012

Does everyone moving out mean retail demand is tanking?

urbanotter said:You must have been getting a "special discount" on gas in 2011, because gas prices didn't really cross that psychological threshold until 2021.

https://example-us-news-site.com/article...old-news-1081540

And that gas price you mentioned from 2011—when you were paying $11.20—that was actually lower than $3.25.

Either they were overcharging you back then, or maybe you were just getting a special rate meant only for you.
https://example-us-news-site.com/article...old-news-1081540

The average salary in 2010 was $1.75.https://www.bls.gov/news-release/...03_31_717.html
Average salary today is $2.50.
https://www.forbes.com/business/us/pro...12-000-4346460

Ronald Chavez2 said:Does any serious nation truly build its entire foundation on this so-called "green energy," whatever that actually entails?

Meanwhile, China is absolutely crushing it when it comes to renewable energy investment—they’re light years ahead of everyone else at this point.

urbanotter said:I don't want to derail the conversation since we're drifting off-topic, but I have to wonder if this counts as "Russian propaganda" too.

Keep in mind that nearly 50% of TSMC's production is physically located in China.

https://www.racunalo.com/ovo-su-najv...va-na-svijetu/

China settled the Hong Kong issue using the "one country, two systems" model, which is exactly what they intend to apply to Taiwan.

But let's not wish for that, because once that happens, things are going to get incredibly messy.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...-behind-200143

Noah Martin2 said:You aren't a "Russophile" just because you stick to economics; they call you that because your stance was decided long ago—you seem determined to push some kind of Russian propaganda regardless of the facts, tailoring your narrative to fit.
I mean, what can one even say when these are your arguments... Intel and Apple are already pouring $12 and $17 billion into new FAB-ov in the USA.
Besides, the tension between Taiwan and China won't be resolved as long as their systems of government remain worlds apart. Why would anyone thriving under capitalism even consider merging with that distorted Chinese system? And in the event of a war, TSMC's expertise wouldn't matter much—that level of precision manufacturing requires total sterility, which isn't something they'll be protecting in a conflict.
When you claim to be talking purely about economics, did you somehow miss or fail to connect these points? Which part do you think is more dangerous?

You forgot to mention that those new US factories are slated to start production in 2024.
But hey, the Kremlin cheerleader keeps insisting that Russia and China will have all the chips while the West is left empty-handed. Honestly, who cares what Russian bots are typing when it’s already obvious they're lying?

urbanotter said:And you're just out here spinning fairy tales, too.

I honestly don't think ExxonMobil ever had any intention of actually turning off the valves or using gas supplies as a way to hold Europe hostage. If anything, the reality was quite the opposite; they were pouring massive amounts of capital into building out Nord Stream 2, a project that was designed to fully secure a steady flow of gas for decades to come.
If Europe actually had a steady, reliable flow of natural gas, market prices wouldn't have any real reason to spike like they have been. The whole issue is that demand isn't necessarily skyrocketing because people need more energy than ever before; it's just that we aren't getting enough from our existing sources to meet what we already use. I remember sitting around my kitchen table a few years ago, watching the news during a different energy crunch, and thinking how much simpler things would be if we just had the supply lines working the way they were designed to. If the supply was consistent and sufficient, there wouldn't be this artificial pressure driving everything up. It really comes down to simple availability rather than an actual surge in consumption.
Look, even though that pipeline is essentially finished and sitting there at 80% capacity, it’s just staying dormant because of a political decision. It feels like this was driven largely by pressure from the US, which basically sold Europe on this whole narrative about being dangerously over-reliant on Russian gas. In reality, they aren't turning it on because if they did, it would completely undermine the need for all those other gas supply routes we've been working to establish.
The whole conversation surrounding "green energy" and the push to swap out natural gas for alternative power sources feels like it’s perpetually stuck in the planning stages. It isn't just a matter of flipping a switch; transitioning our entire infrastructure requires an astronomical amount of capital and decades of dedicated development to ensure these new sources can actually meet our massive energy demands. I remember sitting through a town hall meeting back in my hometown in Ohio a few years ago where they discussed similar shifts, and the sheer scale of the logistical nightmare became very clear. Beyond the cost, we have to face the reality that in several current industrial technologies, natural gas remains absolutely indispensable. We can't just wish away a resource that serves as the backbone for so much of our modern production.
I've been sitting here wondering about the actual mechanics of how we transition to a green grid while keeping our food supply secure. It really makes me think about the logistical leap we’re trying to make. Specifically, I'm curious about how we intend to produce synthetic fertilizers using only solar and wind power. We know that modern agriculture relies heavily on those fertilizers to maintain high yields and keep grocery prices from spiraling out of control for the average family. If we move away from traditional energy sources, how exactly do we scale up the production of these essential nutrients through renewables? It feels like a massive technical puzzle that we haven't quite solved yet if we want to ensure food remains both abundant and affordable.
I’ve been thinking quite a bit about our energy landscape lately, and honestly, it feels like we're facing an uphill battle that won't be solved by trendy tech alone. When you look at the reality of the situation, the United States—much like much of Europe—is fundamentally short on the raw materials and energy density required to sustain a massive industrial economy. We are essentially tethered to global imports, and that dependency isn't something that just disappears overnight. I remember reading an analysis a few years back about how supply chains can shift almost instantly, leaving entire regions vulnerable, and it really stuck with me. While everyone loves talking about the potential of solar panels and wind turbines, I find myself feeling a bit skeptical about the idea that they can carry the entire load. No matter how much we invest in renewables, we can't simply wish away our need for consistent, high-output power sources. Without addressing the fundamental lack of domestic resources, we'll always be reliant on someone else's terms, and all the wind farms in the world might not be enough to break that cycle.
We’re certainly moving away from that heavy reliance on Russian gas, which feels like a necessary step, but I can't help but feel we're just trading one problem for another. The reality is that we're shifting our dependency toward Liquefied Natural Gas, yet we simply don't have the infrastructure in place to handle it. We lack the necessary capacity for both the liquefaction process and the massive scale of transport required to make this work reliably. It's one of those situations where the solution looks great on paper, but when you look at the actual logistics, it feels like we might be heading straight into another kind of energy bottleneck.
I’ve been thinking quite a bit about the current shift toward regasified LNG, and honestly, it feels like we might be walking into a bit of a trap. When you look at the math, buying liquefied gas is consistently more expensive than relying on traditional pipeline transport. As we lean more heavily into this pricier fuel, our domestic manufacturers are forced to bake those soaring energy costs directly into the price of everything they produce. It creates this worrying trend where our businesses start losing their edge, becoming increasingly uncompetitive compared to economies that still have access to massive, steady supplies of cheaper gas. It makes me wonder if we're trading long-term industrial stability for short-term energy shifts.
It isn’t just the cost of heating and fuel that's climbing; we’re seeing grocery prices skyrocket too, which honestly hits families much harder on a day-to-day basis. I remember talking to a neighbor last week who was staring at her receipt in total disbelief—it’s one thing to pay more at the pump, but when the basic stuff you need to feed your kids starts costing twice as much, that’s when the real pressure sets in for most Americans.
I’ve noticed that some specific products shot up in price by as much as 100% just on the mere rumor of a shortage, even though we never actually faced a real scarcity. It reminds me of that time back when my local grocery store in Chicago started hiking prices on certain pantry staples just because people were whispering about supply chain hiccups, despite the shelves remaining fully stocked. It feels like we saw these massive price spikes driven entirely by anticipation rather than any actual lack of inventory.
It feels like we’re watching a massive geopolitical pivot happen in real-time. Russia isn't just looking toward the East anymore; they are doubling down on that direction with everything they have. It’s not just about those massive pipeline projects stretching out toward China, either. They are aggressively building up their own LNG regasification capacities to make sure they can ship energy wherever the demand shifts. It’s a calculated, long-term move to reshape their entire economic landscape.
Japan just finalized an agreement to purchase liquefied natural gas from Sakhalin, and at the same time, China is moving full steam ahead with expanding its pipeline network to feed the southern regions. It looks like they are really leaning into making cheaper gas more accessible across the country, which should significantly boost their overall consumption. I remember reading a similar analysis about energy shifts in the Pacific years ago, and seeing how quickly these massive infrastructure projects come together always strikes me as a testament to how much the global energy landscape is shifting right under our feet.
Once the second phase of the Power of Siberia pipeline is finally completed, China will have a much steadier supply of natural gas right at its doorstep. This shift means they won't have to rely nearly as much on importing expensive liquefied natural gas, which is going to give their domestic economy a serious competitive edge on the global stage. I remember reading a few years back about how much energy volatility can cripple manufacturing sectors, and seeing this kind of infrastructure move really makes you realize how much they are positioning themselves for long-term stability.

The tension between China and the US seems to be reaching a boiling point lately, and I can't help but worry about where this is all heading. If things really boil over there, we could see China and Russia pulling even closer together, leaving the West and Europe essentially stranded. It wouldn't just be an energy crisis—though losing access to gas would be devastating enough—it would be a total technological blackout. We are talking about a massive shortage of semiconductors sourced from Taiwan, China, and South Korea. When you consider that roughly 70% of the world's advanced chips come from those specific regions, the realization hits home: without them, the sophisticated tech we rely on every single day simply ceases to exist. It’s a precarious position to be in, and frankly, it feels like we're walking a very thin line.
It all boils down to one thing: ensuring America maintains its global hegemony, where Western corporations hold the ultimate authority and make every critical decision that matters.

Yet, whenever we try to have a serious discussion focused strictly on economic realities, we’re immediately branded as "Russia-lovers"—it's become this convenient little label used to shut down any meaningful debate.

Wait, how does the West lose access to Taiwanese and South Korean chips just because Russia and China get closer? Wouldn't it make more sense if Russia and China were the ones getting cut off? I mean, Russia is already pretty much out of luck there.

Adam Lee13 said:Honestly, this is just pure market manipulation, and for some reason, the European Union refuses to step in and slap a price cap on it... I mean, come on, electricity prices spiked ten times over. Especially those folks in France, they’ve got plenty of "excuses" to jack up the rates, haha... And in Germany, renewables supposedly cover 50% of the load, but two-thirds of those renewable setups are locked into fixed-price contracts...

The whole thing feels like a massive shell game played on the common folk, basically forcing households and big industry to scramble for solar installs and obsess over energy efficiency. The European Union actually has the tools to cap prices for electricity and gas, so why allow this kind of shady market gambling and exchange trading to run wild during a crisis and a war? It makes zero sense.

Do you really think OPEC is just going to sit there and watch this unfold calmly? With how Russia is messing with their short-term goals by wrecking the future of fossil fuels. For the major oil and gas exporters, these sky-high prices aren't exactly helping their bottom line—they definitely don't want to accelerate the transition to other energy sources, but this situation is pushing that shift incredibly hard... from what I can gather, converting gas plants to run on fuel oil or something similar is actually pretty straightforward...

Besides, China is paying about $148 for 1,000 cubic meters of Russian gas—it’s basically a take-it-or-leave-it deal. So, if China can do it, why can't the European Union dictate terms to Russia? They could, but they won't... it seems like they're actually benefiting from this mess. I refuse to believe our leaders are just total idiots.

And all this nonsense with central heating and gas warming throughout the European Union needs to stop. In the winter, you close the windows. Your apartment doesn't need to be 75 degrees just so you can walk around in a t-shirt in early March, and nobody should be blasting the heat from 11 PM to 6 AM.

There's some high-level maneuvering happening here that most of us just don't get.
History shows no country really makes it big without access to the dollar—the USA is essentially the conductor of the global economy.
If the West hits a recession, it’s a domino effect; China is going down with them, period.
The invasion of Ukraine was the opening act, the sanctions are the plot thickening, and while we haven't seen the finale yet, I'm betting the West knows exactly where this is headed.

Eventually, Russia will find a way to pivot around those sanctions, just like Europe will eventually figure out how to stop leaning so hard on Russian gas.
The whole oil and gas market is bound to stabilize too—everyone’s basically just going to go their separate ways in the end.
Russia is simply too massive to actually collapse, and the West has already pulled so far ahead technologically that some dictator isn't going to be able to catch up.
In my eyes, the real losers here are the Russian people—well, at least the ones living in the European part of Russia—since they've always been more culturally aligned with folks in Europe than with China.

brightheron64 said:So, my utility bills arrived in the mail yesterday...

And honestly, screw all these sanctions. I mean, don't get me wrong... everything is fine, really, but I can't help but feel like while people are out there cheering about how we're finally getting back at Russia, I'm just sitting here struggling to make ends meet... as if my own empty pockets somehow serve as a victory for the cause... 🕺

I’m just waiting for the day someone comes up with a clever little saying like, "Well, at least we screwed over the Russians"...

I mean, if you're running three AC units all month long, yeah—your power bill is gonna be a nightmare...

quietviper0 said:The question was actually quite straightforward—are you still sticking to your original calculations? A simple "yes" or "no" would have done the trick...

I wonder how many messages really had to fly back and forth before we finally reached the first few labels?
I'm both surprised and, frankly, a little offended...🙂

Look, I underestimated you, and I’m fine admitting my math was off.
But that doesn't change the fact that real GDP just doesn't tell the whole story if there's major deflation happening between the start and end dates.
Still, that doesn't mean a 4% drop in GDP calculations isn't plausible.
The real issue is claiming a 4% drop, because mathematically, that's impossible. If 1,000 foreign companies walked out of Russia—companies that made up 40% of the GDP—plus gas production tanks, oil production dips, exports crater, and car manufacturing drops by 97%... etc.—then a 4% figure sounds like pure propaganda to anyone with half a brain. Real GDP should be dropping in double digits.

quietviper0 said:Those are minor technicalities, really... We are still quite a long way from where we started originally...

The real question I have for you is this: are you still sticking to that calculation of yours, where you claimed the nominal GDP expressed in local currency dropped by 30 or 40 percent, simply because you arrived at that number by taking a percentage from the real GDP relative to the nominal GDP in a foreign currency and then converting it back to the domestic one?

Now, if you manufacture 50,000 brand-new shells, that definitely counts toward the GDP...
But just dusting off 50,000 old shells from a warehouse? That doesn't count at all, since that value was already baked into the GDP a long time ago...

We can argue about this until tomorrow, but honestly, I don't trust Russian data at all.
For years leading up to the invasion, they were pumping out monthly stats like crazy just to go silent once the war actually hit. Then suddenly, they claim GDP only dipped by 4%.
At this point, if you want to believe the Russians, fine—but I'm not buying it. If they announced GDP was skyrocketing, maybe then you'd believe them.
A country that blocks people from exchanging cash, stops foreigners from selling securities, and claws back 80% of exporters' foreign currency isn't going to give us accurate numbers. It's just pure propaganda, nothing more.

quietviper0 said:You really need to decide which of those bolded claims sits better with you, though I’d suggest picking the one that actually holds water...
The whole calculation process is such a dense, complicated thing, filled with tiny nuances that we simply can't—and shouldn't—try to squeeze into a few short sentences...
That wasn't the point here, though; the goal is just to make sure we aren't comparing apples to oranges, or trying to apply the percentage change of one variable directly onto another completely different one...

That blue sentence is the key part. A fixed or constant price is used. For the sake of making comparisons over time, you could pick any price—one from the beginning, one from the middle, or even the most recent one. Or, to put it more simply: the specific price itself doesn't actually matter...

It seems quite logical and straightforward to me, so I'm honestly not even sure what the purpose of posting that here is right now...
The amount of money available stays the same—prices have dropped—so the actual quantity of goods produced increases...

Purchasing power is its own distinct parameter that gets calculated and tracked separately; I don't know if it's intuitive enough, but there is an actual metric specifically called "purchasing power"...

Both bolded points are true, but you're stripping them of context. Real GDP uses fixed prices so price fluctuations don't mess with the data. Makes sense, right?
But you can end up with a totally distorted picture. Say me and another guy work at ExxonMobil producing oil—if oil starts at $1 a barrel and ends at $100, using that $100 price to calculate real GDP would give you a garbage result.

quietviper0 said:So, if I’m following your logic correctly: you took a percentage of growth or decline that applies specifically to real GDP, applied it to an entirely different metric—nominal GDP—then adjusted it for a specific currency, and now you’re claiming that this specific calculation somehow gives us a completely different eleventh parameter: purchasing power? 🙏

Let me walk through your example...

If we sell 100 barrels of oil at $5 each, we’ll end up having to take out loans just to cover our extraction costs and keep our heads above water... By taking on debt, we reduce available capital, the cost of capital rises, and investments dry up everywhere...
Total output: 100 barrels of oil.

But, if we sell those 100 barrels at $50 each, we have enough for bread, we pay some customs to the state, we don't have to dip into our savings just to survive, and thanks to taxes, we’ve funded the salary of a clerk at the local DMV who also gets to buy bread...
Total output: 100 barrels of oil, two loaves of bread, and a few investments from the rest of the population...

Now, if we sell those 100 barrels at $500 each, besides the bread, we’re buying lamb, we’re buying cars, we’re investing heavily, the government collects massive tax revenue, politicians are busy arguing over budget cuts, and we’ve created ten new jobs for clerks at the DMV...
Total output: 100 barrels of oil, plenty of bread, various investments, some lamb, a new car, a built oil reservoir, and maybe 10 miles of newly paved highway...

Yes, price can influence things (though it doesn't always have to), but the impact is indirect, and price isn't factored into real GDP... And real GDP is the only thing used to compare economic health over time...
It doesn't necessarily have to drive growth because you might not need to invest or indulge in luxury... It also might not work because inflation could simply eat up all your price gains, leaving you right back where you started with just enough for bread, despite selling at 10x the price... Or perhaps the appreciation of your currency will swallow the value of your exported oil, and you'll find you can still only afford bread in your own local currency...

And no, we haven't gained any insight into purchasing power from this... That’s something the experts will measure using entirely different methods...

Anyway, you go ahead and keep playing with your numbers, I won't bother you anymore...

In every single post, you insist that price isn't part of real GDP. Obviously, price *is* included in GDP; it's a core component. We don't measure the value of exported oil in terms of eggs. When calculating real GDP, a fixed price is applied across the entire period.
Essentially, you calculate the Q2 GDP and apply current oil and gas prices to the previous period.
If gas was five times cheaper at the start of the period, it doesn't matter—we calculate that past gas export at today's price. In real GDP, price is factored out, but the headache is deciding which price to use, especially when prices are swinging wildly.
Because of that, deflation inevitably pumps up real GDP numbers significantly.
I'll say it again: nominal GDP is the indicator of purchasing power, not real GDP.

quietviper0 said:What actually fluctuates is real GDP, not nominal figures, and it shouldn't be calculated using some arbitrary currency you've picked out to make a point... In truth, GDP isn't really about currency at all; it represents the actual volume of goods produced and services rendered, and to compare that over time, we use constant prices.

The thing that fell for the Russians was 4%, and that is the only metric that truly rises or falls—real GDP, specifically products and services.

If they had 1,000 products and services last year, and there is a 4% drop this year, they now have 960, regardless of whatever their nominal value might be...

Let's take a hypothetical scenario from last year to illustrate this:
100 products = 100 rubles = 10 dollars

This year, applying that 4% drop, the only thing we can actually map that decrease onto is the component representing products. That percentage doesn't apply to currencies. However, if you factor in inflation/deflation (the base rate) and depreciation/appreciation (all other currencies), then you can derive the other nominal data points.

In Russia's case, if we account for 15% inflation and a 20% appreciation of the ruble, those top figures would look roughly like this:
96 products = 110 rubles = 13 dollars

Any attempt to manipulate those numbers, other than acknowledging that products and services fell by 4%, is simply incorrect... It is wrong to claim there was a 10% increase in rubles, and it is equally wrong to claim a 30% increase in dollars. Currencies are irrelevant to the core fact.
They fell by 4%. In terms of products and services.
And all these little gymnastics you're doing with exchange rates... well, it's really just economic voodoo...

It is the exact same situation in the US where we just received data showing 7.7% growth.
In terms of local currency adjusted for inflation, it was actually 15%, and in dollars, it was "only" 5% due to depreciation. Using anything other than that 7.7% figure is a mistake because the currency fluctuations are secondary.

P.S. I sincerely hope life never sends me to you for any banking or financial services...

Man, you've cooked up a whole lot of nonsense and you're fundamentally wrong. GDP is never measured in quantity; it is exclusively measured in currency.
GDP = C + I + G + (Imports - Exports).
C is household and business consumption.
I is investment.
G is government spending.
All of that is valued in currency, not volume. Let's say you and I live in a tiny 1,000 sq. ft. shack and produce 100 liters of oil a month. Is it the same whether we sell it for $5 a liter or $500 a liter?!

The only thing that skyrocketed in Russia was export value for oil and gas, even though the actual volume of exports decreased. Price is everything—it's about the value. Because oil and gas prices went through the roof, real GDP fell 4%, which means everything else crashed by double digits. Car production alone dropped by 97%.
Just look at how much higher gas prices are now compared to before the war.

I was looking at the nominal GDP, which fell 30% when measured in rubles, because that includes the currency's value.
Nominal GDP accounts for price fluctuations and exchange rates, making it a better indicator of actual purchasing power.

quietviper0 said:Honestly, it was rather difficult and a bit uncomfortable to witness such a total lack of fundamental economic understanding for the first time, though one can't help but hope that things won't escalate further from here...
Then a certain "calculation" was presented, and once again, I found myself hoping that we had finally reached the end of it.

Since you clearly aren't planning on backing down, I really must ask you to perhaps brush up on some basic economic principles before diving back into any deeper analysis of financial matters...

Look, I don't care if you're a welder, a janitor, or whatever—it's not my business. But I've got an economics degree and experience in banking, so when you claim I know nothing, at least have the decency to hit me with a real counter-argument.
Here’s the reality: Russia's GDP dropped 4% monthly when measured in USD. Let's say pre-war it was $10,000 per capita, and now it's sitting at $9,600.
Furthermore, if $1 USD used to be 80 rubles, that puts the GDP at 800,000 rubles. Now, with $1 USD equaling only 60 rubles, that $9,600 translates to just 576,000 rubles.
So, the gap between 800,000 and 576,000 is a 30% drop. Russia's GDP fell by 30% when measured in rubles—and that's even before considering how much more expensive everything has become there.
Call me names all you want, but any sane person will take my side until you can actually dismantle my numbers. Honestly, if someone proves me wrong with actual facts, I'll be the first to admit I messed up.

It’s funny how the Kremlin sycophants collectively decided to ignore my post about how Russian GDP has tanked by 40% when measured in rubles due to sanctions.
Facts clearly don't matter to them—they just want to hear the same tired nonsense over and over, like a broken record. :doubleslap:

Nancy Gomez26 said:Regarding the bomb planted under the car... did they happen to stumble upon some copy of 'Mein Kampf' nearby?

I bet they'll find a full tactical manual written in Ukrainian sitting right next to the vehicle.