Posts by bluemason3

loneviper4 said:If there's a party going on, I say let's go all out and dance with the princess. 😁

Now the Russians are pivoting to Bitcoin...

Honestly, the Russians seem way more ready to get kicked out of SWIFT than the Germans are. If nothing else, at least their debts get wiped clean—assuming they even had any to begin with! ☕

Bitcoin is a joke. You can't have a medium of exchange where the value swings wildly between the time you draft a contract and the time you sign it. Plus, how can something that's systematically deflationary serve as a sensible alternative to centralized payment systems?

It’s high-risk speculation, plain and simple. Calling it "money" is just a misnomer.

Justin Kern67 said:As clever as you think you're being, you're actually making a valid point. From 2014 to the present day, Russia has been systematically and continuously scaling back its trade with the West while simultaneously stockpiling gold and reserves. It is quite obvious they have been preparing for this exact scenario for the last seven years.

True, but that’s just cushioning the blow. It won't stop the long-term fallout from sanctions.

Relying solely on China as a strategic partner is even riskier than depending entirely on selling energy to the European Union. Russia and China have conflicting interests in plenty of areas, and frankly, the West is still much more financially vital to China than Russia is.

northernangler8 said:I mean, let's be real—even Putin isn't crazy enough to just march into Poland only to find himself walking straight into a trap. It’s just not how he operates. At the end of the day, I guess the ones who are actually going to suffer through the fallout of all this are the Ukrainians.

Look, it wasn't about Putin showing up personally; he should have sent representatives instead.

He wouldn't even set foot in Minsk.
You can tell he's paranoid enough that he won't even meet his own ministers unless they're at least five miles apart.😬

Besides, these kinds of meetings are usually held on neutral ground. He could have suggested a sixth country entirely, rather than picking an ally involved in all of this.

gentleharbor3 said:The fundamental flaw in how people view these sanctions and this war
is the delusion that the world still revolves around the West. It doesn't.
We’re seeing a clear break from Western cultural, political, and economic dominance.
Just as the Middle East was our primary focus, the rest of the world sees this conflict in America's backyard as secondary.
America is rapidly becoming a peripheral player on the global stage while the center of gravity shifts toward the East.

How much more trade does China do with Russia compared to the European Union? Maybe ten times as much?

Joseph Cruz said:But isn't there a third option? Could they have remained neutral, much like how Finland and Sweden functioned during the Cold War? If Ukrainians had opted for military neutrality, perhaps this war could have been avoided entirely. Consider this: the Warsaw Pact never once attacked Sweden or Finland, even though they possessed the capability to do so without any fear of triggering a NATO response that might escalate into World War III...

Honestly, in the territories Russia Putin considers its own backyard, there isn't much tolerance for any policy that isn't pro-Russian. I'm not entirely convinced that military neutrality would have been enough to maintain an independent foreign policy. Once you factor in demilitarization, the choice disappears. From their perspective, Ukraine is treated more like Belarus than Sweden.

Jack Kelly5 said:I mean, NATO is basically just words on a page, and in reality, it's more like an alliance that works for whatever the biggest players want.
Maybe we're all just extra sensitive because this is happening right here in Europe, but honestly, there have been way worse wars scattered across the globe over the last 20 years or so that most of us barely even blinked at. And no, I don't think Putin is just going to suddenly stop in Ukraine—heaven forbid—but I guess I'm just worried that the world we're living in is undergoing some pretty deep, fundamental changes.

In which of those wars did a non-NATO country actually attack a NATO member?

Sure, NATO is basically an American sphere of influence. But if they failed to react to an actual attack on a member state, that whole sphere would collapse instantly because it would prove membership is meaningless.

So, it’s actually in the interest of the "big players" to step up when that happens.

Frank Nguyen37 said:Look, I’m neither a Putin supporter nor a fan of Russia, but I’ll weigh in anyway—personally, I expected the Russians to strike, and I figured it would be a limited conflict. Especially after watching how Vladimir Putin sat that clown Micron and that ridiculous Olaf Scholz at the far end of the table, away from him.🤣

That was a loud and clear message for anyone smart enough to realize those seating arrangements aren't accidental. What I didn't see coming, though, was the sheer intensity—and honestly, the breadth of the front line. It’s massive. That caught everyone off guard, myself included. But hey, both me and the people I'm arguing with were pretty sure someone was going to get hit hard because things had finally boiled over.

Wasn't he just sitting there at meetings with his own people?

bluerider63 said:In the age of Bitcoin, this whole thing is a joke, and honestly, it’s just going to trigger massive price hikes and inflation across Europe.

Crypto is basically high-risk speculative gambling, not a reliable way to handle everyday transactions. Sure, people use it to dodge sanctions—much like a black market—but it isn't a legitimate substitute for currency. It’ll likely end up hurting Russia, particularly regarding Western trade.

If there weren't economic consequences involved, they wouldn't be making things this difficult with this move. But that's how it works in any conflict, whether it's military or economic. Nobody escapes without casualties; it really just comes down to how much you're willing to sacrifice to reach a goal.

Laura Scott7 said:I mean, who else is going to flee into the middle of major cities and put civilians right in the crosshairs? That’s basically Military 101—you don't let the fighting get anywhere near urban centers, you definitely don't go running into them to use them as human shields. But sure, the second a shell hits a residential building, suddenly it's all the Russians' fault, right? Just do me a favor and actually check out some actual news sources like RT instead of just blathering on about what you *think* is happening. You can't just make stuff up and call it reality. It doesn't work that way.

Did you pick up that rule during a post-grad seminar at West Point? 😳

When you're facing superior tech, the best move is to use difficult terrain—mountains and cities. Out in the open, they wouldn't know what to do against Russian armor and air power. Asymmetric warfare just isn't sustainable on flat, open ground where classic conventional battles thrive; that much favors the side with better gear rather than fighting on uneven terrain.

I wasn't looking for objective info on RT, not even back when relations were at their peak, let alone during a war. Honestly, even before I knew what television was, the first time I stumbled upon a satellite feed years ago, I found the propaganda there to be laughably obvious and poor quality. 😁

If you're really searching for a single definitive source—which is never a smart move—the Associated Press is decent, as is the Financial Times. I occasionally check Reuters too. Even Al Jazeera is fine, aside from their Middle East coverage.

RT is garbage, even worse than American propaganda networks.

mistycanyon67 said:No, considering they were attacked for that exact reason. The Russian demand was military neutralization and demilitarization based on their own security concerns. They didn't comply, and this is the result.

That would be a pretty foolish strategy. If you look at South Korea compared to everyone else, it shows there’s really only one way to stand up to a superpower. If you're just playing into some local bully's hands, you might end up getting stripped bare just to find enough leverage to build a gun big enough so they stop messing with you. Otherwise, you're just getting bullied without any way to fight back.

Ukraine has two paths here—either follow the Belarusian scenario and become a Russian province, or militarize so heavily that attacking them stops being worth the cost for Russia. Honestly, their best bet would have been securing NATO membership.

It's naive to think that simple demilitarization would stop all Russian interference and let them run an independent foreign policy, especially when it clashes with someone else's interests. They'd just end up being crippled both economically and politically.

Joseph Cruz said:Even those initial sanctions triggered by the situation in Crimea back in 2014 should have, by now, resulted in a total collapse of the Russian economy and sparked a Maidan-style uprising in Moscow. But if all those sanctions haven't yielded results up to this point, can we really expect any new measures to carry significantly more weight?

Sanctions aren't a silver bullet or some kind of magic wand.

They do work, though. The real question is whether they work enough.

It’s a paradox: they actually tend to hit harder in autocratic regimes. Since power is held by a tiny circle of people, they don't necessarily need to worry about public opinion. It's much easier for them to maintain their own lifestyle while the rest of the country suffers economic damage.

Look at South Korea—despite all the pressure, they kept developing nukes. Iran hasn't collapsed either. Both have felt the sting of sanctions, even if they manage to bypass them through gray markets involving China and others.

That said, Russia has a much larger economy and was far more integrated into the West than the others, regardless of how much that changed in recent years.
But that’s a double-edged sword; it means the West ends up hurting its own economy too.

At the end of the day, it's a tool for pressure. A total collapse isn't guaranteed, though there is a chance that economic strain could force a different faction of leadership to step in against Putin, or weaken the military's budget. Even then, it's hard to say how much the state can squeeze its citizens versus the military, or how long they can keep exporting weapons to countries that can navigate the sanction systems.

If sanctions stay in place long enough, and if the West doesn't start pulling them back due to their own economic interests, they will eventually have an effect. You just have to view them as one tool in the toolbox, rather than a standalone solution.

Jack Kelly5 said:I really just want this whole madness to stop, honestly. You've got the lives of over 200 million people indirectly caught up in this mess, but please, don't try telling me that the USA or NATO is actually going to go to war with Russia over somewhere like Latvia or America.
War is such a weird anomaly, it doesn't just happen out of nowhere, and if you look at history, the big players never, ever truly give a damn about the little guys.

It isn't about having genuine concern for the small nations; it's about protecting the strategic interests and the overall survival of NATO. That sense of purpose would vanish if there weren't a clear reason to act against an attack on a member state. In other words, the idea is to respond to an assault because it serves the interests of all other members, not because they actually care about the victim.

casualhound42 said:The Russians couldn't care less about how long this war drags on—it's not like they're punching a clock. They’re fully aware the West isn't going to step in.

The longer this drags on, the better. Sanctions bite harder, military costs climb, casualties rise, and domestic resentment toward politicians builds. It also gives the defenders more time to organize and arm themselves once they finally get external support. If things go south, it could end up looking like what happened in Vietnam. A superior military wants a quick victory to wrap things up, but an inferior one wins by dragging it out—forcing the superior force to bleed resources and discipline just by being there.

BJJ isn't gay, period. 😳

In a recent podcast, Bog John mentioned—likely regarding Francis—that most of those "issues" involving Franja get handled by having the fighter walk into the executive offices, walk out smiling, and then just keep their mouth shut and stay out of the headlines. 😁

The UFC will reward the fighters who play ball by adding various perks to their base contracts that the public never sees. What they aren't interested in, though, are any systemic changes that would drive up costs for the entire roster.

Francis probably has the better end of the deal here. This whole thing about contracts expiring after a year is a relatively new rule the UFC introduced, mostly just to protect themselves from those massive lawsuits they’ve been facing lately. Back in Randy's day, this wasn't even an issue, and honestly, there's a chance he didn't even finish out all his scheduled fights as per his contract.

Noah Roberts46 said:Haha, look, I think they’d fight more if there was a contract guaranteeing, say, $10 million for pulling off 3 or 4 title fights a year. Wouldn't that incentivize them? It's the same in other sports—players make $50 million a season and play long schedules because, let's face it, you can never have enough cash.

A lot of fighters could probably pull those numbers right now(Francis mentioned he passed up about $6-7m over his last two fights because he wouldn't sign a certain deal, though I don't quite get how that works since he was still on the old contract leading up to this one, but it definitely illustrates what the current offers look like). With champions, it's hard to know what they actually take home. The official number is just the most direct part of the paycheck. That could be everything, the lion's share, or just a fraction, depending on the side deals that aren't public knowledge.

Also, if champions fought for titles 3 or 4 times in a row, the top of the rankings would be a revolving door. You'd see more turnover at the top, and earnings would likely drop the moment you lose the belt.

Doing 3-4 title fights a year just isn't realistic. There are too many injuries. Often, after a fight, a fighter gets medically sidelined for a while, so they couldn't compete even if they wanted to. Plus, the stakes are too high to jump in without a full camp specifically tailored to an opponent. Everyone else can prepare for one champion, but that one champion has to stay ready for every single potential challenger climbing the ranks.

Sure, if someone is so dominant that they cruise through opponents without major training injuries or cage mishaps, it might happen. But as a general rule? Not happening. And the higher the stakes, the harder that becomes. More money means bigger investments; it stops being just about one fighter and a manager and turns into supporting entire teams of professionals.

Noah Roberts46 said:@bluemason3/">@@bluemason3

Of course it's about the money. He just doesn't want to admit it because he wants to look greedy. At least that’s my take, especially since he works so hard to maintain this "humble guy" image. Plus, he seems set on landing one big boxing match, which isn't impossible right now—Ariel mentioned that in an interview.

Maybe, but he keeps insisting it's not about the cash and claiming he already turned down millions...

Based on what he's saying, it sounds like he wants a boxing contract structure, which goes against how almost every major MMA organization operates. He's essentially trying to flip the entire business model on its head, which, in my opinion, is way too ambitious.

It’s possible he can pull off some decent fights as a freelancer, whether in boxing or elsewhere. On the other hand, if things fall through with Mike Tyson, he’ll likely end up making less than he would have stayed in the UFC with a better contract.

Obviously, I don't know what his real motives are behind the scenes, but from what he's saying publicly, he seems like the type who throws out ultimatums during negotiations and refuses to budge. The whole situation feels weird to me; I honestly don't know what to make of him.
With Dan, you know where you stand. We also know he's prone to settling financial details with top fighters behind closed doors, often in ways that never hit the news because he doesn't want to drive up the general pay scale. So, I actually believe he could have been offered a very solid deal.

If he were truly doing this for the good of the sport, he wouldn't be pushing this boxing angle so hard. To me, all this talk about health risks feels like smoke and mirrors. Either he has a genuine issue with existing obligations, he's genuinely obsessed with boxing, or he's figured out that this path is more profitable. Looking at the facts, I don't see a fourth option. 🤔

Whatever mess Dan might have caused in the past or any drama he contributed to, I doubt he'd agree to something that ruins the vibe. Sure, the UFC could make a quick buck by promoting a fight like this, but they could also indirectly damage their reputation. Dan was never one to make exceptions like he did with Conor; most everyone else is just a footnote by the time they jump into boxing.

It also feels risky to bet everything on negotiating a fight with Mike Tyson when Tyson likely has a few more serious, high-paying boxing matches left in him. Then again, Francis Ngannou won't be fighting for a year anyway, and Tyson might decide to retire after another couple of bouts.

So, I caught Ariel's interview, and now I'm feeling pretty conflicted about Francis again.

He mentioned meeting up with Dan privately, saying they had a decent talk and maintain a good relationship outside of business. On the professional side, he claims they offered him serious money, but says that isn't the deciding factor. He won't get specific about what actually matters, just some vague stuff about respect, following his dreams, and not looking back.🤔

If that’s really the case, it feels a bit immature. You want a contract with a company, you want them to pay you what was agreed upon, but you also want the total freedom to do whatever you want? It doesn't work like that. You can't have a one-sided commitment; they have interests to protect too.🤔

I mean, he can't seriously expect MMA to operate like boxing, where you just negotiate fight by fight. That’s not how any major organization in this sport functions.🤔

I'm just speculating here, but maybe he wants to go out and scrap in boxing instead. If that's the goal, then staying in the UFC doesn't seem like a long-term move anyway. And if they actually did offer him a massive payday, you can't really blame Dan for that.🤔

It isn't just about size; it's about the level of competition. Heavyweights are a minority even in countries with high growth rates, and in most parts of the world, they barely exist at all. This creates a situation where, just like in Francis's case, being physically powerful is practically enough to succeed. In a lower weight class, someone with Francis's raw strength would never make it with such amateurish technique, because in every small town, you can find guys just as strong who actually know how to fight.

Essentially, if you're in a division with massive competition, you have to be a much more complete fighter than you do in a division where the talent pool is shallow.