Posts by Nathan Thomas12

Dana Robinson4 said:I couldn't agree more.

It really is a positive development for everyone, isn't it? Less money flowing toward Russia and even less into the pockets of those oligarchs; eventually, the prices for those massive hundred-meter superyachts might finally drop enough that a regular person like me could actually stand a chance...

How can you agree when all those Kremlin puppets were busy predicting Europe would collapse just because oil prices spiked? Honestly, it looks more like you're just flip-flopping.
If you'd predicted a total market crash, sure—but you didn't!

Dana Robinson4 said:It isn't really about the strength of the currency so much as it is the sheer power of the oil industry...

If some people in the Baltics are turning their noses up at Russian oil, don't worry—there are plenty of others who aren't so picky, right?

Those Kremlin puppets were out here predicting oil would hit $200 a barrel. So, how do you explain the price tanking instead?

rowdyraven112 said:Just for the record, in case we all slept through the last eight years. Russia has been under sanctions since 2014. That means they've had an eight-year head start in building an economy that doesn't rely on Western resources. I'm not convinced they haven't already done that. A 4% drop actually proves my point. We'll see. One thing I am sure of: they won't go bankrupt before negotiations start, and that depends on whether they hit their occupation goals—goals even I can't define. Bakhmut is about to fall, which puts the defense of Siversk - Bakhmut at risk. I don't even want to think about what happens if Cleveland and Slavic fall.

Should I scour this forum and news sites to pull quotes about how they'll run out of war supplies and food within six months? Artillery is still flying. Russians have plenty of food on store shelves. It's pure underestimation. And that’s the worst part. It reminds me of Louisa May Alcott's Kosjenka and Regoč. In the end, one village decides to break a dam just to flood another. Both disappear, cheered on by their own people. A cautionary tale. ☕

Crude oil prices are lower now than when the war started. They dropped 30% in just two months.
How does that work? The Kremlin types were calling for $200 a barrel, but turns out they're just full of it.

If you look at it objectively, Russia's GDP fluctuations are tied directly to energy prices. I could play the cheerleader and claim it’s all about whether they’re printing money or not—but let's be real.
Basically, if you cut off their energy supply, they're in deep trouble, and that's exactly what's happening. Not overnight, sure, but long-term.

steelfox98 said:Now we're just faking data? Your headline and stats don't match the actual article; you basically "edited" the link title to suit your narrative.
The article states the rate is 8%, not the 20% seen immediately after sanctions hit. It was lowered several times shortly after. Actually, if memory serves, it was 9% before the conflict, and now it's even lower.
They're struggling, clearly. 🤣

We saw this whole play in 2014. After the initial shock and the crash, the Russians adapted. They went from being net importers to arguably the biggest agricultural exporters, bolstered their industry, and stockpiled record amounts of gold and reserves.

Yeah, they dropped the interest rate.
But the ruble is still garbage until Russia allows free exchange of foreign currency for rubles.
On top of that, exporters are forced to flip 80% of their foreign currency inflows back into rubles—basically handing it over to the government.
It’s not just trash; it’s trash squared. If you had billions of rubles sitting around, you could spend the whole year using it as toilet paper—and honestly, TP would probably have more value.

goldenowl73 said:Alright, let's play a game. What would you actually do if the Federal Reserve suddenly jacked up interest rates on Dollar savings to 20%, while keeping Euro savings stuck at a measly 0.8%?

The Federal Reserve more than doubles its key interest rate to 20% to try and save the sinking ruble

What do you think happens to the value of the Dollar in that scenario?

That’s exactly what Russia did right when the invasion kicked off. They started cutting it back gradually later on, but they never once allowed people to just freely buy or sell foreign currency on their own terms. If you don't call that artificial market manipulation, then I honestly don't know what does.

Right after those first sanctions hit, the USD/RUB shot up to 150 before Russia slapped on all those restrictions. You can't even trade currency freely—they basically killed any real demand for foreign cash.
If the Ruble wasn't total garbage, they wouldn't need these restrictions.

electricsurfer47 said:What kind of capacity though? So far they've burned through so much trying to stabilize the ruble and now they're tapped out.
You talk about chip manufacturing... sure, they have technology that's over 20 years old. They can make stuff, but it's just not competitive compared to what's out there right now.
And for newer tech, you need massive investment, and the Russians just don't have the cash for it. Plus, you have to consider they're spending a ton on the war and will eventually need to rebuild everything they've lost, but they won't even have enough chips because of the sanctions.

From what I know, the Russians produce chips for cards (like credit cards), and that’s pretty much the extent of it.
And yeah, the Chinese have money, but they still struggle to build a decent car.

Betty Mitchell said:Russia has plenty of capacity to handle sanctions; this is a long game they've been playing. Their social networks, banking systems, and digitalization are already top-tier. I expect them to start churning out their own computer and mobile tech in a few years. The Russian economy used to be way too monolithic, and that was always a massive weakness.

The real question is what happens to Ukraine. My bet? Nothing. It’ll be a total wreck—demographically, structurally, economically, and morally. They've plummeted below 30 million people, down from 54 million just thirty years ago.

Mobile tech? Please. They aren't even making phones or the backbone infrastructure for telecom companies.
They aren't really producing much tech at all. They don't even make the rigs for the oil and gas business—they actually rely on the West to build their turbines and stuff.

quietviper0 said:

I was just sitting here thinking about how much things have changed lately, and I couldn't help but wonder if anyone else feels that same sense of drifting through these shifting tides... It’s funny how life works sometimes, isn't it? One moment you think you have everything mapped out, and the next, you're just navigating through a fog of uncertainty, trying to find your footing again... anyway, I suppose I'm just rambling now, but there really is something quite profound about the way we all just try to move forward, regardless of what the world throws our way... quietviper0 says:
The Czech Republic, which is currently holding the presidency of the European Council, just put out a statement suggesting that they might... There’s some talk swirling around about the possibility of the European Union deciding to prohibit all visa issuances for Russian citizens, which would be quite the significant next step in the ongoing series of sanctions being leveled against Russia... It feels like we are constantly watching these pieces move on the chessboard, waiting to see what the next big legislative push will be from the leadership in Brussels...

Another absolutely brilliant idea just popped up, really sitting right up there on the same level of genius as that wonderful proposal to prohibit Russians from paying off their debts...

I mean, there’s also the possibility that they might just hike up the visa fees and shorten the duration, which would essentially be a way to squeeze more foreign currency out of them... it makes you wonder if that's all part of the underlying strategy...
And then they just let them wander all over Europe for their summer vacations and shopping sprees, which really just means letting all that hard-earned cash leak right back out of the country again...
There is this persistent theory floating around that the whole point behind all these sanctions is actually just to get its hands on foreign currency reserves... which is such a fascinatingly complex angle to consider when you really start digging into the geopolitical motivations involved...

Or perhaps they’ll just end up easing that massive brain drain everyone keeps talking about, which is supposedly one of the main goals behind all these sanctions anyway...

Oh, you know, it really is just so much simpler to just stand up there and shout, "Prohibit !!!"... it's almost effortless when you put it that way...
Actually, I’ve been thinking about it, and it seems to me that those kinds of official proclamations usually end up garnering much more praise and adoration from the target audience than anything else...

What about all those tough Russians over in Germany protesting against Putin?

Matthew Young35 said:Let me be clear: Amnesty International didn't draft or sign the Geneva Convention.
Their role is simply to document what’s actually happening on the ground.
If their report is fraudulent, then by all means, attack them. But if the findings are accurate? Then the criticism is misplaced.
It really is that simple.

Even so, nothing changes the core reality: Russia is the aggressor here. They are committing crimes, and there is no excuse for their actions, regardless of whatever one might think about that report.

The whole report is pointless—that's the bottom line.
Basically, they claim there wasn't artillery at the theater in Mariupol, yet more rockets still hit it.
No artillery near the hospitals? Well, the hospitals got leveled anyway.
The Ukrainian military was in some houses? So those houses got blown up too.
Whether the military was there or not, the homes and civilian
sites are gone.

Matthew Young35 said:So, who exactly is being selective now?
You highlight one specific report while conveniently ignoring everything else.
Let me remind you of this, for instance...
" the war rages on following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, we have documented a pattern of crimes committed by Russian military, including unlawful attacks, wilful killings of civilians, torture, and extrajudicial executions."

Therein lies the selectivity.

Or perhaps...
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/ne...ar-on-ukraine/

" Vladimir Putin, his government and the Russian armed forces are desperate to hide the truth about the war, including the possible war crimes they are committing in Ukraine."

I'm talking about the headline itself—you can't honestly tell me the title isn't selective.
It's like if some creep shows up at the beach and starts terrorizing your kids, but the news runs a headline saying 'Matthew Young35 endangered his children by waving a knife on the beach.' Something like that. Get the context?

Matthew Young35 said:That’s exactly what they’re saying.

The headline is 'Ukrainian fighting tactics endanger civilians'.

Total miss on the context here.

Matthew Young35 said:It isn't selective truth, though.
For instance, there were consistent reports that the Russian military used the nuclear power plant as a shield and stationed troops there.
There were also consistent reports regarding the killing of civilians.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/petition/...ns-in-ukraine/

" the war rages on following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, we have documented a pattern of crimes committed by Russian forces, including unlawful attacks, wilful killings of civilians, torture, and extrajudicial executions. "

The issue here is simply that the truth bothers you.

If a war is underway and you station troops in a school, can you really be surprised when the attacker strikes that military presence within the school?
And yet, your grievance isn't with the tactical decision; it's with the people who reported that Ukrainians placed the military in a school.
The Ukrainians making that choice aren't your problem. The Russian military invading another sovereign nation isn't your problem. Your problem is apparently just the journalists reporting the facts of what is actually happening?
Bravo.

Look, you have to put the truth into context and look at the bigger picture here.
Bottom line: the Russian military is shelling everything in sight, destroying life and property without distinction. It doesn't matter where the Ukrainians station their troops when Russian shells are leveling entire cities.
In that scenario, sure, you could say "the Ukrainians are keeping troops in certain civilian buildings," while the Russians just demolish every single civilian structure regardless of whether there's an army there or not. That would be the non-selective truth. Get it?

Matthew Young35 said:I wouldn't, but then again, we shouldn't be complaining either when Russia strikes a shopping mall if there happen to be armored vehicles stationed inside.
War is a dirty business, but facts are facts.
I completely agree that the Russians need to be pushed back as hard as possible and driven out of Ukraine, but accusing someone of being pro-Russian simply because they state a difficult truth is wrong.

This report is total nonsense.
Whether there was military hardware at the theater in Mariupol or not doesn't even matter—those missiles were going to hit regardless.

According to the official data of the US government, US oil and gas revenues in July fell by 22%, while everything else dropped by about 29%. The biggest hit was domestic sales tax—down nearly 41%—which pretty much screams that American spending power is cratering. On top of that, budget revenue from income taxes (down 32%) and import duties (down 44%) has basically just collapsed.

Joshua Myers432 said:Give me a break. I wouldn't touch that idea with a ten-foot pole. Local corruption is even worse than whatever bureaucrats they have over in D.C.

Look, Europe is easily one of the nicest, most chill places on the planet to call home. Regardless of how much of a headache the parasites in Brussels can be, you honestly won't find better living anywhere else. Sure, the local politicians are total leeches, but everyone else in the opposition is just plain twisted. This is the hand we've been dealt—and there's zero sign things are ever changing.
If you actually had the freedom to live anywhere on Earth, would you really choose to move to Russia? Or is there some place out there where you don't see any parasites at all?

Joshua Myers432 said:By the time we actually nail this energy transition, that aggressor will be begging for forgiveness. 🤦

The European Union should have achieved energy independence ages ago, but honestly, once you see the parasites running things in Brussels, it all makes sense. Now, we're just stuck knee-deep in this mess.

Don't be so dramatic—we aren't "neck-deep" in anything.
We've got plenty of coal sitting around. Sure, it’s not exactly green energy, but those coal plants are just sitting there on standby if we actually need them.

George Robinson43 said:Haha, I just stumbled upon this Saturday Night Live clip from Boston:
Anti-NATO protest held in Boston, Ireland

A group of Russian and Mexican immigrants gathered to protest against the possibility of Ireland joining NATO. 🤣 🙏

Makes me wonder why those Mexicans aren't all hanging out in Russia instead.

Joshua Myers432 said:I’m talking about energy policy, and you’re pivoting back to the war in Ukraine. As far as I’m concerned, there’s always some corner of the globe at war, but my point is how they actually intend to execute their green agenda when they've backed themselves into a corner with an embargo on Russian energy. Look, I’ll be the first one to agree to running the heat two degrees higher or lower through the seasons, but let's be real: that isn't going to solve the underlying problem.

Give me a break—Russia isn't the only gas supplier on the planet. Germany is already building two massive LNG terminals. They'll spin up more nuclear plants if they have to, maybe even coal if things get desperate. My point is, the West will find a way to move past Russia. One way or another, they'll make it work.
The plan for Europe is to hit 45% renewable energy by 2030, and honestly, parts of it might actually look like Sweden, which is leading the pack right now.

Joshua Myers432 said:Of course you chose Sweden as your example—a massive country with a tiny population that pulls a huge chunk of its power from hydro, wind, and biomass because they’re sitting on those resources. You didn't pick a place like Poland or, God forbid, Germany, where trying this kind of idiocy would be a disaster. You could have even used Andorra to argue that this crap works in practice. It just doesn't hold water for most countries that lack a solid foundation of nuclear or fossil fuel plants. Winter is coming, so we'll see how things go once we're relying on slightly less Russian gas. Nothing drastic has actually changed yet.

Don't sweat it—winter might be a bit rougher, but the West will pull through. Maybe next winter will be tough too, but after that, you're golden. If Ukrainians can lay down their lives for freedom, sure, we can handle turning the heat down a few degrees.
The main thing is making sure these sanctions stick for decades; everything else, we'll figure out. America and Europe have dealt with way worse disasters in the past—we're tougher than you think, even the Germans.
The West has never been more united, especially with two new NATO members joining the club.