FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Ukraine get's it's ass kicked

https://www.facebook.com/reel/655054747126910

---

Remember when contributors around here were insisting the embargo's were working, how Putin was taking unaffordable casualties and Ukraine was going to force Russia to withdraw ?

Western propaganda works.

---

Kind of reminds me of the insistence that tariffs are working, and will end up bringing manufacturing back to the United States.

It was all a fantasy.

---

My friend I seem to remember a similar mentality whenever I said Russia was winning the war.

And like Russia wining the war ; tariffs and even just the threats of tariffs ; are going to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US.

Time clarifies everything.

---

You guys really believe that tariff's are going to increase industrial manufacturing? Did it work in 2016-20 under Trump and in 2020-24 under Biden? How much more manufacturing did we see? Honest question.

---

prior to covid, 1st Trump admin had a net gain of 750k. Biden had a comparable number over a full 4 years, but also had the benefit of unprecedented economic stimulus.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2018/10/16/the-trump-manufacturing-jobs-boom-10-times-obamas-over-21-months/
https://www.factcheck.org/2024/09/trump-vs-harris-on-u-s-manufacturing/

so, yes, policy does matter. it can grow manufacturing jobs (rather than inhibiting them.) Trump's policies will indeed stimulate manufacturing growth - the clear aim of them is to force companies to move larger percentages of their supply chain inside the USA in order to avoid the risks that tariffs pose to their business models.

But the growth of manufacturing jobs is not really the primary statistic. The trade deficit is the more important metric. That's why Trump did not seek to simply match the tariffs of trade partners, but to evaluate the full range of tariff AND non-tariff barriers to trade, for the purpose of sending the signal that trade with the USA under existing arrangements is over. The message is, clearly - If you want to continue selling goods to the USA, you better enter negotiations quickly with a plan to reduce your trade surplus. Companies can do their own calculations on how & where to restructure supply chains (which will take time and investment, which is being factored by the stock markets at the moment). And governments are going to have to make concessions on rates and regulations to find a way to buy more US stuff (goods or services).

What he's doing is simple. Elementary. Effective. But so many people are so thoroughly invested (financially and morally) in globalism that they are having great difficulty accepting that the game has changed. the post-WWII order is over. A new one is being built. The USA is going to demand balanced trade relationships as the price of entering the US market, which is the largest and wealthiest consumer market on the planet.

Biden made the same error Obama did = he provided enormous amounts of fiscal stimulus, but muted the response with crazy stupid regulations (Obamacare, Green New Deal). Just dumb. LIke flooring the gas pedal and holding down the brake at the same time.

---

Are you comfortable with the federal government using blunt force tools like tariffs to force private companies to relocate supply chains regardless of cost, efficiency, or consumer impact? Is that economic nationalism or centralized planning?
To paraphrase Sowell, we are executing a painful solution to solve existential problems created by a previous government solution - using globalism to win the Cold War.

If you oppose overregulation and big government in other parts of the economy (Obamacare, etc.), why is government-directed industrial coercion acceptable here?
Trump critics have been quite vocal about tariffs being a tax, right? So how is raising a tax in one area (trade) and lowering it in another (payroll) "coercion?" Those companies are not being forced to do anything, other than what is good for their shareholders. Government always sets the rules for competition in the marketplace. We just changed the rules. Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything......

What makes this version of market interventionism different? And before you say "national security", yes, we all agree that certain sectors like semiconductors, defense, food, and energy independence require strategic protection. But using that to justify broad, permanent market interference across unrelated industries is a bait and switch. National security isn't an all purpose license to remake the entire economy by government fiat.
I say again: trade policy ALWAYS serves national security. Good trade policy also serves domestic needs. And for several decades, our trade policy has not served common good.
You keep calling this strategy "elementary," and that's exactly the problem. Tariffs are a political signal, not an industrial policy.
LOL tariffs are a tool to forge industrial policy. Always have been.
The idea that we can "force" balanced trade relationships by threatening our partners into submission ignores both how global markets work and how modern manufacturing operates.
Kind of an ironic statement, given developments of today, is it not......

If trade deficits were proof of weakness, the U.S. wouldn't lead the world in economic output, innovation, capital markets, and corporate investment inflows. You're treating structural features of an advanced, service-heavy, reserve currency economy as defects.
Trade deficits are not irrelevant. They have some advantages (which I have noted here many times) and they have some disadvantages (which I have noted here many times). Whether they are appropriate at any given time depends on the problems one is facing. We used them correctly during the Cold War. And we paid an enormous price. (actually, not "we." the working classes paid the full burden). Now, it's time we rebalance. There is no reason whatsoever why we cannot run a trade surplus, and enjoy the many advantages of it. "The only sustainable growth is export-led growth....."

And as for being "simple", economic policy that disrupts supply chains, increases consumer prices, and relies on delayed, uncertain gains isn't simple. It's unnecessarily risky.
Macroeconomics is indeed very simple. And brutal. In every macro & trade class I had, we used the decline of the Rust Belt as the operative example of "creative destruction" hastened by our structural trade deficit. It's easy to say that the death of inefficient industries causes resources to flow to more efficient industries which will increase overall wealth. But macro does not concern itself with what happens to those invested in the inefficient.....those with mortgages in dying mill-towns and no reasonable job prospects at anything approaching their former wages. Just working a checkout register at the convenience store for half what they made on the assembly line. Talk to that guy about "creative destruction" and see what he says. And if you stack up enough millions of folks like that over the decades, eventually, you will a populist wave that will sweep change into office (which is where we are today.....) while those invested in the globalist structures will talk about free trade as a moral imperative no matter how big the trade deficits get (or how many people are harmed by them in the process).

I've mentioned several approaches/ideas that don't require this political theater masked as strategy, nor intentionally damage our economy in the short or long term. You are beholden to the politics and the politician, not real world practical industrial policy that can make us more competitive in manufacturing and many other sectors.
What is being done now is effective, is it not?
When the lion has eaten your leg all the way up to your belt button, you can poison him slowly or you can shoot him between the eyes. Trump has just shot the lion between the eyes. I will thank him for that rather than criticize his choice of caliber.

---

What Trump has done is conceptually very, very simple. The reason no one has yet done it yet is because.....well.....look at the reaction to what Trump is doing. The short term pain is real. The short term angst is deafening. But he's doing the right thing. Sure, one can critique HOW he's doing it, but effectiveness matters more than the means. And man, is he being effective.

---

Honest questions.

So far we have a 90 day pause. That is it. China still has their punitive tariffs In place. The EU has their tariffs in place. Nothing has been negotiated with any of the 75 Nations begging to kiss Trump's ass (his words).

What have we won? I do not see the victory, a short term reprieve of stock market? Actually you could make an argument Trump blinked.

Explain the victory.

---

Isn't there a thread for this?

---

I never replied to whiterock for this very reason. You're welcome.

Now, where are we on a ceasefire? China going to proxy more in retaliation for the trade war? Offset Walmart losses with military hardware to Russia? Trump going to go brash against Russia or blink?

---

Gracias. I think Russia's position on a ceasefire hasn't changed. Ukrainian neutrality and recognition of the newly annexed territories have always been the starting points. Not an easy concession for Trump to make even if he'd like to.

---

I know you don't seem to see the connection between what Trump is doing in Ukraine to tariffs, but there is larger fallout in two areas.
1- China, as you said
2- Trump's "how" he has done the tariffs and his NATO actions has voided US leadership and ability to have Europe follow whatever he cooks up with Putin. It is not a given the EU will accept what Donald will...

---

I see it differently. The EU is bending the knee to the tariffs. I think they will do the same on whatever Trump tells them. We have flexed our muscle and the wannebe's are falling by the wayside. The EU is a wannabe The US is still very strong in Europe

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Ukraine get's it's ass kicked

https://www.facebook.com/reel/655054747126910

---

Remember when contributors around here were insisting the embargo's were working, how Putin was taking unaffordable casualties and Ukraine was going to force Russia to withdraw ?

Western propaganda works.

---

Kind of reminds me of the insistence that tariffs are working, and will end up bringing manufacturing back to the United States.

It was all a fantasy.

---

My friend I seem to remember a similar mentality whenever I said Russia was winning the war.

And like Russia wining the war ; tariffs and even just the threats of tariffs ; are going to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US.

Time clarifies everything.

---

You guys really believe that tariff's are going to increase industrial manufacturing? Did it work in 2016-20 under Trump and in 2020-24 under Biden? How much more manufacturing did we see? Honest question.

---

prior to covid, 1st Trump admin had a net gain of 750k. Biden had a comparable number over a full 4 years, but also had the benefit of unprecedented economic stimulus.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2018/10/16/the-trump-manufacturing-jobs-boom-10-times-obamas-over-21-months/
https://www.factcheck.org/2024/09/trump-vs-harris-on-u-s-manufacturing/

so, yes, policy does matter. it can grow manufacturing jobs (rather than inhibiting them.) Trump's policies will indeed stimulate manufacturing growth - the clear aim of them is to force companies to move larger percentages of their supply chain inside the USA in order to avoid the risks that tariffs pose to their business models.

But the growth of manufacturing jobs is not really the primary statistic. The trade deficit is the more important metric. That's why Trump did not seek to simply match the tariffs of trade partners, but to evaluate the full range of tariff AND non-tariff barriers to trade, for the purpose of sending the signal that trade with the USA under existing arrangements is over. The message is, clearly - If you want to continue selling goods to the USA, you better enter negotiations quickly with a plan to reduce your trade surplus. Companies can do their own calculations on how & where to restructure supply chains (which will take time and investment, which is being factored by the stock markets at the moment). And governments are going to have to make concessions on rates and regulations to find a way to buy more US stuff (goods or services).

What he's doing is simple. Elementary. Effective. But so many people are so thoroughly invested (financially and morally) in globalism that they are having great difficulty accepting that the game has changed. the post-WWII order is over. A new one is being built. The USA is going to demand balanced trade relationships as the price of entering the US market, which is the largest and wealthiest consumer market on the planet.

Biden made the same error Obama did = he provided enormous amounts of fiscal stimulus, but muted the response with crazy stupid regulations (Obamacare, Green New Deal). Just dumb. LIke flooring the gas pedal and holding down the brake at the same time.

---

Are you comfortable with the federal government using blunt force tools like tariffs to force private companies to relocate supply chains regardless of cost, efficiency, or consumer impact? Is that economic nationalism or centralized planning?
To paraphrase Sowell, we are executing a painful solution to solve existential problems created by a previous government solution - using globalism to win the Cold War.

If you oppose overregulation and big government in other parts of the economy (Obamacare, etc.), why is government-directed industrial coercion acceptable here?
Trump critics have been quite vocal about tariffs being a tax, right? So how is raising a tax in one area (trade) and lowering it in another (payroll) "coercion?" Those companies are not being forced to do anything, other than what is good for their shareholders. Government always sets the rules for competition in the marketplace. We just changed the rules. Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything......

What makes this version of market interventionism different? And before you say "national security", yes, we all agree that certain sectors like semiconductors, defense, food, and energy independence require strategic protection. But using that to justify broad, permanent market interference across unrelated industries is a bait and switch. National security isn't an all purpose license to remake the entire economy by government fiat.
I say again: trade policy ALWAYS serves national security. Good trade policy also serves domestic needs. And for several decades, our trade policy has not served common good.
You keep calling this strategy "elementary," and that's exactly the problem. Tariffs are a political signal, not an industrial policy.
LOL tariffs are a tool to forge industrial policy. Always have been.
The idea that we can "force" balanced trade relationships by threatening our partners into submission ignores both how global markets work and how modern manufacturing operates.
Kind of an ironic statement, given developments of today, is it not......

If trade deficits were proof of weakness, the U.S. wouldn't lead the world in economic output, innovation, capital markets, and corporate investment inflows. You're treating structural features of an advanced, service-heavy, reserve currency economy as defects.
Trade deficits are not irrelevant. They have some advantages (which I have noted here many times) and they have some disadvantages (which I have noted here many times). Whether they are appropriate at any given time depends on the problems one is facing. We used them correctly during the Cold War. And we paid an enormous price. (actually, not "we." the working classes paid the full burden). Now, it's time we rebalance. There is no reason whatsoever why we cannot run a trade surplus, and enjoy the many advantages of it. "The only sustainable growth is export-led growth....."

And as for being "simple", economic policy that disrupts supply chains, increases consumer prices, and relies on delayed, uncertain gains isn't simple. It's unnecessarily risky.
Macroeconomics is indeed very simple. And brutal. In every macro & trade class I had, we used the decline of the Rust Belt as the operative example of "creative destruction" hastened by our structural trade deficit. It's easy to say that the death of inefficient industries causes resources to flow to more efficient industries which will increase overall wealth. But macro does not concern itself with what happens to those invested in the inefficient.....those with mortgages in dying mill-towns and no reasonable job prospects at anything approaching their former wages. Just working a checkout register at the convenience store for half what they made on the assembly line. Talk to that guy about "creative destruction" and see what he says. And if you stack up enough millions of folks like that over the decades, eventually, you will a populist wave that will sweep change into office (which is where we are today.....) while those invested in the globalist structures will talk about free trade as a moral imperative no matter how big the trade deficits get (or how many people are harmed by them in the process).

I've mentioned several approaches/ideas that don't require this political theater masked as strategy, nor intentionally damage our economy in the short or long term. You are beholden to the politics and the politician, not real world practical industrial policy that can make us more competitive in manufacturing and many other sectors.
What is being done now is effective, is it not?
When the lion has eaten your leg all the way up to your belt button, you can poison him slowly or you can shoot him between the eyes. Trump has just shot the lion between the eyes. I will thank him for that rather than criticize his choice of caliber.

---

What Trump has done is conceptually very, very simple. The reason no one has yet done it yet is because.....well.....look at the reaction to what Trump is doing. The short term pain is real. The short term angst is deafening. But he's doing the right thing. Sure, one can critique HOW he's doing it, but effectiveness matters more than the means. And man, is he being effective.

---

Honest questions.

So far we have a 90 day pause. That is it. China still has their punitive tariffs In place. The EU has their tariffs in place. Nothing has been negotiated with any of the 75 Nations begging to kiss Trump's ass (his words).

What have we won? I do not see the victory, a short term reprieve of stock market? Actually you could make an argument Trump blinked.

Explain the victory.

---

Isn't there a thread for this?

---

I never replied to whiterock for this very reason. You're welcome.

Now, where are we on a ceasefire? China going to proxy more in retaliation for the trade war? Offset Walmart losses with military hardware to Russia? Trump going to go brash against Russia or blink?

---

Gracias. I think Russia's position on a ceasefire hasn't changed. Ukrainian neutrality and recognition of the newly annexed territories have always been the starting points. Not an easy concession for Trump to make even if he'd like to.

---

You excited that Chinese soldiers have joined Russia's war against Ukrainian aggression, terrorism and white supremacy? I mean, NK, Iran, and now China - the trifecta of countries you want on your side.

Russia is definitely fighting for a just cause.

---

Sounds like more Zelensky BS to me.

---

What made you so easily discount the videos evidencing same? Propensity to believe whatever Russian state TV tells you?

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Ukraine get's it's ass kicked

https://www.facebook.com/reel/655054747126910

---

Remember when contributors around here were insisting the embargo's were working, how Putin was taking unaffordable casualties and Ukraine was going to force Russia to withdraw ?

Western propaganda works.

---

Kind of reminds me of the insistence that tariffs are working, and will end up bringing manufacturing back to the United States.

It was all a fantasy.

---

My friend I seem to remember a similar mentality whenever I said Russia was winning the war.

And like Russia wining the war ; tariffs and even just the threats of tariffs ; are going to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US.

Time clarifies everything.

---

You guys really believe that tariff's are going to increase industrial manufacturing? Did it work in 2016-20 under Trump and in 2020-24 under Biden? How much more manufacturing did we see? Honest question.

---

prior to covid, 1st Trump admin had a net gain of 750k. Biden had a comparable number over a full 4 years, but also had the benefit of unprecedented economic stimulus.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2018/10/16/the-trump-manufacturing-jobs-boom-10-times-obamas-over-21-months/
https://www.factcheck.org/2024/09/trump-vs-harris-on-u-s-manufacturing/

so, yes, policy does matter. it can grow manufacturing jobs (rather than inhibiting them.) Trump's policies will indeed stimulate manufacturing growth - the clear aim of them is to force companies to move larger percentages of their supply chain inside the USA in order to avoid the risks that tariffs pose to their business models.

But the growth of manufacturing jobs is not really the primary statistic. The trade deficit is the more important metric. That's why Trump did not seek to simply match the tariffs of trade partners, but to evaluate the full range of tariff AND non-tariff barriers to trade, for the purpose of sending the signal that trade with the USA under existing arrangements is over. The message is, clearly - If you want to continue selling goods to the USA, you better enter negotiations quickly with a plan to reduce your trade surplus. Companies can do their own calculations on how & where to restructure supply chains (which will take time and investment, which is being factored by the stock markets at the moment). And governments are going to have to make concessions on rates and regulations to find a way to buy more US stuff (goods or services).

What he's doing is simple. Elementary. Effective. But so many people are so thoroughly invested (financially and morally) in globalism that they are having great difficulty accepting that the game has changed. the post-WWII order is over. A new one is being built. The USA is going to demand balanced trade relationships as the price of entering the US market, which is the largest and wealthiest consumer market on the planet.

Biden made the same error Obama did = he provided enormous amounts of fiscal stimulus, but muted the response with crazy stupid regulations (Obamacare, Green New Deal). Just dumb. LIke flooring the gas pedal and holding down the brake at the same time.

---

Are you comfortable with the federal government using blunt force tools like tariffs to force private companies to relocate supply chains regardless of cost, efficiency, or consumer impact? Is that economic nationalism or centralized planning?
To paraphrase Sowell, we are executing a painful solution to solve existential problems created by a previous government solution - using globalism to win the Cold War.

If you oppose overregulation and big government in other parts of the economy (Obamacare, etc.), why is government-directed industrial coercion acceptable here?
Trump critics have been quite vocal about tariffs being a tax, right? So how is raising a tax in one area (trade) and lowering it in another (payroll) "coercion?" Those companies are not being forced to do anything, other than what is good for their shareholders. Government always sets the rules for competition in the marketplace. We just changed the rules. Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything......

What makes this version of market interventionism different? And before you say "national security", yes, we all agree that certain sectors like semiconductors, defense, food, and energy independence require strategic protection. But using that to justify broad, permanent market interference across unrelated industries is a bait and switch. National security isn't an all purpose license to remake the entire economy by government fiat.
I say again: trade policy ALWAYS serves national security. Good trade policy also serves domestic needs. And for several decades, our trade policy has not served common good.
You keep calling this strategy "elementary," and that's exactly the problem. Tariffs are a political signal, not an industrial policy.
LOL tariffs are a tool to forge industrial policy. Always have been.
The idea that we can "force" balanced trade relationships by threatening our partners into submission ignores both how global markets work and how modern manufacturing operates.
Kind of an ironic statement, given developments of today, is it not......

If trade deficits were proof of weakness, the U.S. wouldn't lead the world in economic output, innovation, capital markets, and corporate investment inflows. You're treating structural features of an advanced, service-heavy, reserve currency economy as defects.
Trade deficits are not irrelevant. They have some advantages (which I have noted here many times) and they have some disadvantages (which I have noted here many times). Whether they are appropriate at any given time depends on the problems one is facing. We used them correctly during the Cold War. And we paid an enormous price. (actually, not "we." the working classes paid the full burden). Now, it's time we rebalance. There is no reason whatsoever why we cannot run a trade surplus, and enjoy the many advantages of it. "The only sustainable growth is export-led growth....."

And as for being "simple", economic policy that disrupts supply chains, increases consumer prices, and relies on delayed, uncertain gains isn't simple. It's unnecessarily risky.
Macroeconomics is indeed very simple. And brutal. In every macro & trade class I had, we used the decline of the Rust Belt as the operative example of "creative destruction" hastened by our structural trade deficit. It's easy to say that the death of inefficient industries causes resources to flow to more efficient industries which will increase overall wealth. But macro does not concern itself with what happens to those invested in the inefficient.....those with mortgages in dying mill-towns and no reasonable job prospects at anything approaching their former wages. Just working a checkout register at the convenience store for half what they made on the assembly line. Talk to that guy about "creative destruction" and see what he says. And if you stack up enough millions of folks like that over the decades, eventually, you will a populist wave that will sweep change into office (which is where we are today.....) while those invested in the globalist structures will talk about free trade as a moral imperative no matter how big the trade deficits get (or how many people are harmed by them in the process).

I've mentioned several approaches/ideas that don't require this political theater masked as strategy, nor intentionally damage our economy in the short or long term. You are beholden to the politics and the politician, not real world practical industrial policy that can make us more competitive in manufacturing and many other sectors.
What is being done now is effective, is it not?
When the lion has eaten your leg all the way up to your belt button, you can poison him slowly or you can shoot him between the eyes. Trump has just shot the lion between the eyes. I will thank him for that rather than criticize his choice of caliber.

---

What Trump has done is conceptually very, very simple. The reason no one has yet done it yet is because.....well.....look at the reaction to what Trump is doing. The short term pain is real. The short term angst is deafening. But he's doing the right thing. Sure, one can critique HOW he's doing it, but effectiveness matters more than the means. And man, is he being effective.

---

Honest questions.

So far we have a 90 day pause. That is it. China still has their punitive tariffs In place. The EU has their tariffs in place. Nothing has been negotiated with any of the 75 Nations begging to kiss Trump's ass (his words).

What have we won? I do not see the victory, a short term reprieve of stock market? Actually you could make an argument Trump blinked.

Explain the victory.

---

Isn't there a thread for this?

---

I never replied to whiterock for this very reason. You're welcome.

Now, where are we on a ceasefire? China going to proxy more in retaliation for the trade war? Offset Walmart losses with military hardware to Russia? Trump going to go brash against Russia or blink?

---

Gracias. I think Russia's position on a ceasefire hasn't changed. Ukrainian neutrality and recognition of the newly annexed territories have always been the starting points. Not an easy concession for Trump to make even if he'd like to.

---

I know you don't seem to see the connection between what Trump is doing in Ukraine to tariffs, but there is larger fallout in two areas.
1- China, as you said
2- Trump's "how" he has done the tariffs and his NATO actions has voided US leadership and ability to have Europe follow whatever he cooks up with Putin. It is not a given the EU will accept what Donald will...

---

Briefly, I think Trump has much bigger fish to fry. He wants a deal for a new international trading order. The tariffs are just to gain leverage. Whatever happens to Ukraine will happen.

[It is important here to proceed with a healthy dose of epistemological humility. No one is suggesting that it is feasible or necessarily even desirable to formally ally with Russia against China. Not only would Moscow never go for it for some of the reasons ably rehearsed by McFaul, but even if it did, an "alliance" along these lines may induce the Chinese to counter with aggressive balancing behavior that could very well create more problems than it solves.

Rather, the realist claim should be this: There are inherent fault lines in the Russia-China relationship, the most important being Moscow's concern with playing junior partner to an economically more powerful China. The Western diplomatic and economic maximum pressure campaign in the wake of Russia's 2022 Ukraine invasion has rendered the Russia-China relationship more lopsided than ever, with the Chinese market occupying a whopping 36.5 percent of Russia's imports and 30.5 percent of its exports as of 2023 even as Russia only comprises roughly four percent of Chinese foreign commerce.

The tensions stemming from Russia's uncomfortable dependence on its Chinese neighbor have been suppressed only by Moscow's existential short-term need to balance against the West. It stands to reason that a stabilization or improvement in relations between Russia and the West, but especially between Moscow and Washington, will allow these tensions to rise to the fore in ways that will inevitably prompt a degree of strategic distance between Russia and China.

Working out a framework for Moscow to reenter Western commodities markets and financial institutions pending a negotiated settlement in Ukraine will cut into China's growing economic leverage over Russia. It would also give Moscow a stake in stable, constructive relations with the West rather than a continued incentive to work with China to create and bolster alternatives to Western economic and political platforms. This will enable Russia to pursue more freely and vigorously its national interests in areas where Moscow and Beijing do not necessarily see eye to eye, including hedging against China's growing influence in Central Asia, dialing back certain kinds of security and defense technology cooperation with China, pursuing independent pacific partnerships with states like Vietnam in ways that indirectly frustrate Chinese power projection, providing a backchannel for nuclear talks with North Korea that do not have to directly involve China, further deepening its relationship with India to the chagrin of Chinese observers, and blocking the evolution of the BRICS as a bloc oriented against the West. None of these developments is a silver bullet in isolation, but together they add up to a more propitious climate for engaging China by itself rather than confronting a unified anti-Western, Sino-Russian bloc. ] -American Conservative

Ukrainian father saying goodbye to his young son that was killed in the Russian ballistic missile strike with cluster munitions against a playground in Kryvyi Rih.

8 other kids and 11 adults were also killed in the attack. pic.twitter.com/WI4i3J1lQ0

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) April 9, 2025

This is why the war needs to end as soon as possible.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Ukraine get's it's ass kicked

https://www.facebook.com/reel/655054747126910

---

Remember when contributors around here were insisting the embargo's were working, how Putin was taking unaffordable casualties and Ukraine was going to force Russia to withdraw ?

Western propaganda works.

---

Kind of reminds me of the insistence that tariffs are working, and will end up bringing manufacturing back to the United States.

It was all a fantasy.

---

My friend I seem to remember a similar mentality whenever I said Russia was winning the war.

And like Russia wining the war ; tariffs and even just the threats of tariffs ; are going to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US.

Time clarifies everything.

---

You guys really believe that tariff's are going to increase industrial manufacturing? Did it work in 2016-20 under Trump and in 2020-24 under Biden? How much more manufacturing did we see? Honest question.

---

prior to covid, 1st Trump admin had a net gain of 750k. Biden had a comparable number over a full 4 years, but also had the benefit of unprecedented economic stimulus.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2018/10/16/the-trump-manufacturing-jobs-boom-10-times-obamas-over-21-months/
https://www.factcheck.org/2024/09/trump-vs-harris-on-u-s-manufacturing/

so, yes, policy does matter. it can grow manufacturing jobs (rather than inhibiting them.) Trump's policies will indeed stimulate manufacturing growth - the clear aim of them is to force companies to move larger percentages of their supply chain inside the USA in order to avoid the risks that tariffs pose to their business models.

But the growth of manufacturing jobs is not really the primary statistic. The trade deficit is the more important metric. That's why Trump did not seek to simply match the tariffs of trade partners, but to evaluate the full range of tariff AND non-tariff barriers to trade, for the purpose of sending the signal that trade with the USA under existing arrangements is over. The message is, clearly - If you want to continue selling goods to the USA, you better enter negotiations quickly with a plan to reduce your trade surplus. Companies can do their own calculations on how & where to restructure supply chains (which will take time and investment, which is being factored by the stock markets at the moment). And governments are going to have to make concessions on rates and regulations to find a way to buy more US stuff (goods or services).

What he's doing is simple. Elementary. Effective. But so many people are so thoroughly invested (financially and morally) in globalism that they are having great difficulty accepting that the game has changed. the post-WWII order is over. A new one is being built. The USA is going to demand balanced trade relationships as the price of entering the US market, which is the largest and wealthiest consumer market on the planet.

Biden made the same error Obama did = he provided enormous amounts of fiscal stimulus, but muted the response with crazy stupid regulations (Obamacare, Green New Deal). Just dumb. LIke flooring the gas pedal and holding down the brake at the same time.

---

Are you comfortable with the federal government using blunt force tools like tariffs to force private companies to relocate supply chains regardless of cost, efficiency, or consumer impact? Is that economic nationalism or centralized planning?
To paraphrase Sowell, we are executing a painful solution to solve existential problems created by a previous government solution - using globalism to win the Cold War.

If you oppose overregulation and big government in other parts of the economy (Obamacare, etc.), why is government-directed industrial coercion acceptable here?
Trump critics have been quite vocal about tariffs being a tax, right? So how is raising a tax in one area (trade) and lowering it in another (payroll) "coercion?" Those companies are not being forced to do anything, other than what is good for their shareholders. Government always sets the rules for competition in the marketplace. We just changed the rules. Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything......

What makes this version of market interventionism different? And before you say "national security", yes, we all agree that certain sectors like semiconductors, defense, food, and energy independence require strategic protection. But using that to justify broad, permanent market interference across unrelated industries is a bait and switch. National security isn't an all purpose license to remake the entire economy by government fiat.
I say again: trade policy ALWAYS serves national security. Good trade policy also serves domestic needs. And for several decades, our trade policy has not served common good.
You keep calling this strategy "elementary," and that's exactly the problem. Tariffs are a political signal, not an industrial policy.
LOL tariffs are a tool to forge industrial policy. Always have been.
The idea that we can "force" balanced trade relationships by threatening our partners into submission ignores both how global markets work and how modern manufacturing operates.
Kind of an ironic statement, given developments of today, is it not......

If trade deficits were proof of weakness, the U.S. wouldn't lead the world in economic output, innovation, capital markets, and corporate investment inflows. You're treating structural features of an advanced, service-heavy, reserve currency economy as defects.
Trade deficits are not irrelevant. They have some advantages (which I have noted here many times) and they have some disadvantages (which I have noted here many times). Whether they are appropriate at any given time depends on the problems one is facing. We used them correctly during the Cold War. And we paid an enormous price. (actually, not "we." the working classes paid the full burden). Now, it's time we rebalance. There is no reason whatsoever why we cannot run a trade surplus, and enjoy the many advantages of it. "The only sustainable growth is export-led growth....."

And as for being "simple", economic policy that disrupts supply chains, increases consumer prices, and relies on delayed, uncertain gains isn't simple. It's unnecessarily risky.
Macroeconomics is indeed very simple. And brutal. In every macro & trade class I had, we used the decline of the Rust Belt as the operative example of "creative destruction" hastened by our structural trade deficit. It's easy to say that the death of inefficient industries causes resources to flow to more efficient industries which will increase overall wealth. But macro does not concern itself with what happens to those invested in the inefficient.....those with mortgages in dying mill-towns and no reasonable job prospects at anything approaching their former wages. Just working a checkout register at the convenience store for half what they made on the assembly line. Talk to that guy about "creative destruction" and see what he says. And if you stack up enough millions of folks like that over the decades, eventually, you will a populist wave that will sweep change into office (which is where we are today.....) while those invested in the globalist structures will talk about free trade as a moral imperative no matter how big the trade deficits get (or how many people are harmed by them in the process).

I've mentioned several approaches/ideas that don't require this political theater masked as strategy, nor intentionally damage our economy in the short or long term. You are beholden to the politics and the politician, not real world practical industrial policy that can make us more competitive in manufacturing and many other sectors.
What is being done now is effective, is it not?
When the lion has eaten your leg all the way up to your belt button, you can poison him slowly or you can shoot him between the eyes. Trump has just shot the lion between the eyes. I will thank him for that rather than criticize his choice of caliber.

---

What Trump has done is conceptually very, very simple. The reason no one has yet done it yet is because.....well.....look at the reaction to what Trump is doing. The short term pain is real. The short term angst is deafening. But he's doing the right thing. Sure, one can critique HOW he's doing it, but effectiveness matters more than the means. And man, is he being effective.

---

Honest questions.

So far we have a 90 day pause. That is it. China still has their punitive tariffs In place. The EU has their tariffs in place. Nothing has been negotiated with any of the 75 Nations begging to kiss Trump's ass (his words).

What have we won? I do not see the victory, a short term reprieve of stock market? Actually you could make an argument Trump blinked.

Explain the victory.

---

Isn't there a thread for this?

---

I never replied to whiterock for this very reason. You're welcome.

Now, where are we on a ceasefire? China going to proxy more in retaliation for the trade war? Offset Walmart losses with military hardware to Russia? Trump going to go brash against Russia or blink?

---

Gracias. I think Russia's position on a ceasefire hasn't changed. Ukrainian neutrality and recognition of the newly annexed territories have always been the starting points. Not an easy concession for Trump to make even if he'd like to.

---

You excited that Chinese soldiers have joined Russia's war against Ukrainian aggression, terrorism and white supremacy? I mean, NK, Iran, and now China - the trifecta of countries you want on your side.

Russia is definitely fighting for a just cause.

---

Sounds like more Zelensky BS to me.

---

What made you so easily discount the videos evidencing same? Propensity to believe whatever Russian state TV tells you?

---

Worse...I believe the AP. They acknowledge that "China is not believed to have knowingly provided Russia with troops, weapons or military expertise." A couple of Russian Army troops who happen to be Chinese is no indication that China or Chinese soldiers have joined the war.

And there's reason to doubt even that. One of my sources claims that Zelensky's video file was originally labeled "North Korean Soldier" before being deleted and replaced with a re-named video. The North Korean troops were a well known hoax. Here's a BBC article with Ukrainian troops making fun of the idea:

Quote:

---

But some of the soldiers we spoke to said they felt they were in the wrong place, that it was more important to be on Ukraine's eastern front, rather than occupying part of Russia.

"Our place should have been there [in eastern Ukraine], not here in someone else's land," Pavlo said. "We don't need these Kursk forests, in which we left so many comrades."

And despite weeks of reports suggesting that as many as 10,000 North Korean troops have been sent to Kursk to join the Russian counter-offensive, the soldiers we've been in contact have yet to encounter them.

"I haven't seen or heard anything about Koreans, alive or dead," Vadym responded when we asked about the reports.

The Ukrainian military has released recordings which it says are intercepts of North Korean radio communications.

Soldiers said they had been told to capture at least one North Korean prisoner, preferably with documents.

They spoke of rewards - drones or extra leave - being offered to anyone who successfully captures a North Korean soldier.

"It's very difficult to find a Korean in the dark Kursk forest," Pavlo noted sarcastically. "Especially if he's not here."

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn4x9gz4ylwo

---

Zelensky is seizing on whatever topic seems relevant at the moment and trying to play up conflict between Russia and the US. It's a familiar pattern.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Ukraine get's it's ass kicked

https://www.facebook.com/reel/655054747126910

---

Remember when contributors around here were insisting the embargo's were working, how Putin was taking unaffordable casualties and Ukraine was going to force Russia to withdraw ?

Western propaganda works.

---

Kind of reminds me of the insistence that tariffs are working, and will end up bringing manufacturing back to the United States.

It was all a fantasy.

---

My friend I seem to remember a similar mentality whenever I said Russia was winning the war.

And like Russia wining the war ; tariffs and even just the threats of tariffs ; are going to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US.

Time clarifies everything.

---

You guys really believe that tariff's are going to increase industrial manufacturing? Did it work in 2016-20 under Trump and in 2020-24 under Biden? How much more manufacturing did we see? Honest question.

---

prior to covid, 1st Trump admin had a net gain of 750k. Biden had a comparable number over a full 4 years, but also had the benefit of unprecedented economic stimulus.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2018/10/16/the-trump-manufacturing-jobs-boom-10-times-obamas-over-21-months/
https://www.factcheck.org/2024/09/trump-vs-harris-on-u-s-manufacturing/

so, yes, policy does matter. it can grow manufacturing jobs (rather than inhibiting them.) Trump's policies will indeed stimulate manufacturing growth - the clear aim of them is to force companies to move larger percentages of their supply chain inside the USA in order to avoid the risks that tariffs pose to their business models.

But the growth of manufacturing jobs is not really the primary statistic. The trade deficit is the more important metric. That's why Trump did not seek to simply match the tariffs of trade partners, but to evaluate the full range of tariff AND non-tariff barriers to trade, for the purpose of sending the signal that trade with the USA under existing arrangements is over. The message is, clearly - If you want to continue selling goods to the USA, you better enter negotiations quickly with a plan to reduce your trade surplus. Companies can do their own calculations on how & where to restructure supply chains (which will take time and investment, which is being factored by the stock markets at the moment). And governments are going to have to make concessions on rates and regulations to find a way to buy more US stuff (goods or services).

What he's doing is simple. Elementary. Effective. But so many people are so thoroughly invested (financially and morally) in globalism that they are having great difficulty accepting that the game has changed. the post-WWII order is over. A new one is being built. The USA is going to demand balanced trade relationships as the price of entering the US market, which is the largest and wealthiest consumer market on the planet.

Biden made the same error Obama did = he provided enormous amounts of fiscal stimulus, but muted the response with crazy stupid regulations (Obamacare, Green New Deal). Just dumb. LIke flooring the gas pedal and holding down the brake at the same time.

---

Are you comfortable with the federal government using blunt force tools like tariffs to force private companies to relocate supply chains regardless of cost, efficiency, or consumer impact? Is that economic nationalism or centralized planning?
To paraphrase Sowell, we are executing a painful solution to solve existential problems created by a previous government solution - using globalism to win the Cold War.

If you oppose overregulation and big government in other parts of the economy (Obamacare, etc.), why is government-directed industrial coercion acceptable here?
Trump critics have been quite vocal about tariffs being a tax, right? So how is raising a tax in one area (trade) and lowering it in another (payroll) "coercion?" Those companies are not being forced to do anything, other than what is good for their shareholders. Government always sets the rules for competition in the marketplace. We just changed the rules. Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything......

What makes this version of market interventionism different? And before you say "national security", yes, we all agree that certain sectors like semiconductors, defense, food, and energy independence require strategic protection. But using that to justify broad, permanent market interference across unrelated industries is a bait and switch. National security isn't an all purpose license to remake the entire economy by government fiat.
I say again: trade policy ALWAYS serves national security. Good trade policy also serves domestic needs. And for several decades, our trade policy has not served common good.
You keep calling this strategy "elementary," and that's exactly the problem. Tariffs are a political signal, not an industrial policy.
LOL tariffs are a tool to forge industrial policy. Always have been.
The idea that we can "force" balanced trade relationships by threatening our partners into submission ignores both how global markets work and how modern manufacturing operates.
Kind of an ironic statement, given developments of today, is it not......

If trade deficits were proof of weakness, the U.S. wouldn't lead the world in economic output, innovation, capital markets, and corporate investment inflows. You're treating structural features of an advanced, service-heavy, reserve currency economy as defects.
Trade deficits are not irrelevant. They have some advantages (which I have noted here many times) and they have some disadvantages (which I have noted here many times). Whether they are appropriate at any given time depends on the problems one is facing. We used them correctly during the Cold War. And we paid an enormous price. (actually, not "we." the working classes paid the full burden). Now, it's time we rebalance. There is no reason whatsoever why we cannot run a trade surplus, and enjoy the many advantages of it. "The only sustainable growth is export-led growth....."

And as for being "simple", economic policy that disrupts supply chains, increases consumer prices, and relies on delayed, uncertain gains isn't simple. It's unnecessarily risky.
Macroeconomics is indeed very simple. And brutal. In every macro & trade class I had, we used the decline of the Rust Belt as the operative example of "creative destruction" hastened by our structural trade deficit. It's easy to say that the death of inefficient industries causes resources to flow to more efficient industries which will increase overall wealth. But macro does not concern itself with what happens to those invested in the inefficient.....those with mortgages in dying mill-towns and no reasonable job prospects at anything approaching their former wages. Just working a checkout register at the convenience store for half what they made on the assembly line. Talk to that guy about "creative destruction" and see what he says. And if you stack up enough millions of folks like that over the decades, eventually, you will a populist wave that will sweep change into office (which is where we are today.....) while those invested in the globalist structures will talk about free trade as a moral imperative no matter how big the trade deficits get (or how many people are harmed by them in the process).

I've mentioned several approaches/ideas that don't require this political theater masked as strategy, nor intentionally damage our economy in the short or long term. You are beholden to the politics and the politician, not real world practical industrial policy that can make us more competitive in manufacturing and many other sectors.
What is being done now is effective, is it not?
When the lion has eaten your leg all the way up to your belt button, you can poison him slowly or you can shoot him between the eyes. Trump has just shot the lion between the eyes. I will thank him for that rather than criticize his choice of caliber.

---

What Trump has done is conceptually very, very simple. The reason no one has yet done it yet is because.....well.....look at the reaction to what Trump is doing. The short term pain is real. The short term angst is deafening. But he's doing the right thing. Sure, one can critique HOW he's doing it, but effectiveness matters more than the means. And man, is he being effective.

---

Honest questions.

So far we have a 90 day pause. That is it. China still has their punitive tariffs In place. The EU has their tariffs in place. Nothing has been negotiated with any of the 75 Nations begging to kiss Trump's ass (his words).

What have we won? I do not see the victory, a short term reprieve of stock market? Actually you could make an argument Trump blinked.

Explain the victory.

---

Isn't there a thread for this?

---

I never replied to whiterock for this very reason. You're welcome.

Now, where are we on a ceasefire? China going to proxy more in retaliation for the trade war? Offset Walmart losses with military hardware to Russia? Trump going to go brash against Russia or blink?

---

Gracias. I think Russia's position on a ceasefire hasn't changed. Ukrainian neutrality and recognition of the newly annexed territories have always been the starting points. Not an easy concession for Trump to make even if he'd like to.

---

You excited that Chinese soldiers have joined Russia's war against Ukrainian aggression, terrorism and white supremacy? I mean, NK, Iran, and now China - the trifecta of countries you want on your side.

Russia is definitely fighting for a just cause.

---

Sounds like more Zelensky BS to me.

---

What made you so easily discount the videos evidencing same? Propensity to believe whatever Russian state TV tells you?

---

Yuuuuup....

Interesting. This Dec. 23, 2024 BBC article - notably after the article you posted - cited several sources confirming NK troops are indeed engaging Ukrainian troops in the battlefield. You believe this to be a lie?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm2796pdm1lo

North Korea's deployment of troops to fight alongside Russian forces in Ukraine has attracted global attention - as well as speculation as to how they would be deployed on the battlefield.

Pyongyang has sent at least 10,000 troops to Russia, according to Kyiv and Seoul, who have also said North Korean casualties have been rising since entering combat in early December.

The tolls cited vary. South Korea said this week that more than 1,000 North Korean troops have been killed or wounded, while Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky put the number at 3,000.

Pentagon officials had confirmed there had been casualties but did not provide a figure.

The Pentagon said that it appeared the soldiers were being used in infantry roles around the Kursk border region, which Moscow has been trying to recapture from Ukraine - meaning it's possible that North Korean troops have not been deployed across the border in Ukraine.

This news comes nearly two months after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and South Korean officials accused Pyongyang of deploying troops to support Russia's invasion.

But little information has emerged since then, and Moscow and Pyongyang have not responded directly to these reports.

Estimates of troop numbers have ranged from about 11,000 - a Pentagon calculation - to as many as 100,000, according to unnamed sources quoted in Bloomberg news.

At first, their lack of battlefield experience was given as a key reason why they might be assigned non-combat roles. But that assumption was re-evaluated after the US and Ukraine said that North Korean troops had engaged in combat with Ukrainian soldiers.

And then there is this one from just a few days ago...

https://abcnews.go.com/International/surrender-ukraine-commander-details-fight-north-koreans-russia/story?id=120403500

And then we have this one from Reuters from a couple of months ago...

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/what-we-know-about-north-korean-troops-joining-russias-war-ukraine-2025-02-18/

All propaganda?

As I've said, South Korean intelligence is notoriously shoddy and unreliable. The US ignored these claims until they became a convenient excuse to launch missiles into Russia. NYT later revealed the Biden administration had made that decision at least six months earlier. Subsequently less and less was said about it as the evidence failed to materialize.

The bottom line is that it doesn't really matter. Even if you believe Ukraine captured a couple of Chinese nationals, it doesn't mean China is involved in the war.

Sam Lowry said:

---

As I've said, South Korean intelligence is notoriously shoddy and unreliable. The US ignored these claims until they became a convenient excuse to launch missiles into Russia. NYT later revealed the Biden administration had made that decision at least six months earlier. Subsequently less and less was said about it as the evidence failed to materialize.

The bottom line is that it doesn't really matter. Even if you believe Ukraine captured a couple of Chinese nationals, it doesn't mean China is involved in the war.

---

So propaganda then. Got it. Everyone's lying except those honest Russians.

Wagner Soldiers are Kids Compared to North Koreans
DPRK soldiers rarely surrender. If they are wounded, their comrades just step over them leaving them where they lie and they use grenades to blow themselves up as Ukrainian troops approach. The dead are doused with flammable liquid; their faces are burned to disguise their identity.
A Ukrainian commander Yuriy Bondar described North Koreans fighting in the Kursk region as "disciplined, determined and fearless".
Bondar, of Ukraine's 80th separate airborne assault "Galician Lions" brigade, wrote on Facebook that his unit was one of the first of Ukraine's armed forces (AFU) to engage with North Korean troops in the Kursk region, adding that Pyongyang's troops should not be underestimated:

Quote:

---

"They are extremely resilient, extremely well-trained, and morally stable.
Their level of small arms proficiency is extremely high ten years of military service yields results.
The number of defense force drones that the enemy managed to shoot down just using small arms is seriously surprising."

---

A similar account was recently presented in New York Times citing other Ukrainian soldiers who told the NYT that since the North Koreans had arrived fighting in the Kursk region had become "far more ferocious than before." An AFU lieutenant using the call sign "Alex" said:

Quote:

---

"The Koreans … are quite skilled in shooting, they have repeatedly destroyed drones, obviously they were primarily trained for this, so they try to destroy everything in the air."

---

A platoon leader, identified as "Oleksii," told the NYT:

Quote:

---

"The situation worsened significantly when the North Koreans started arriving. They are pressing our fronts en-masse, finding weak points and breaking through them."

---

Bondar said that DPRK troops carry out dynamic attacks, often catching Ukrainian defenders "off guard," capturing positions even when outnumbered. He said that one of the commanders in Kursk told him, "… compared to the soldiers of the DPRK, the Wagner model of 2022 are just children and I believe him."
Source: KyivPost

Assassin said:

---

Wagner Soldiers are Kids Compared to North Koreans
DPRK soldiers rarely surrender.

---

Especially if they aren't there.

Today is the 11th anniversary of the start of war in the Donbas.

It was launched on April 12th 2014 in Sloviansk by a group of around 60 special forces and paramilitary men led by the Russian GRU agent Igor ”Strelkov” Girkin.

They crossed the border from Russia on April 11th… pic.twitter.com/C0ERIev12H

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) April 12, 2025

Sam Lowry said:

---

As I've said, South Korean intelligence is notoriously shoddy and unreliable. The US ignored these claims until they became a convenient excuse to launch missiles into Russia. NYT later revealed the Biden administration had made that decision at least six months earlier. Subsequently less and less was said about it as the evidence failed to materialize.

The bottom line is that it doesn't really matter. Even if you believe Ukraine captured a couple of Chinese nationals, it doesn't mean China is involved in the war.

---

Let's face it Sam, you and Red are pro-Russia. As much as I don't trust Trump, you are pro-Russia. They can do no wrong in this war. I don't Trust Trump based on what he did in NJ and NY, he is about him. Why are you so pro-Putin on this? Family ties? Know people? It would give context.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

As I've said, South Korean intelligence is notoriously shoddy and unreliable. The US ignored these claims until they became a convenient excuse to launch missiles into Russia. NYT later revealed the Biden administration had made that decision at least six months earlier. Subsequently less and less was said about it as the evidence failed to materialize.

The bottom line is that it doesn't really matter. Even if you believe Ukraine captured a couple of Chinese nationals, it doesn't mean China is involved in the war.

---

Let's face it Sam, you and Red are pro-Russia. As much as I don't trust Trump, you are pro-Russia. They can do no wrong in this war. I don't Trust Trump based on what he did in NJ and NY, he is about him. Why are you so pro-Putin on this? Family ties? Know people? It would give context.

---

My cultural and family background are West European.

Let's face it, some of you are robots. Press a button, you march to battle. America can do no wrong.

Assassin said:

---

Today is the 11th anniversary of the start of war in the Donbas.

It was launched on April 12th 2014 in Sloviansk by a group of around 60 special forces and paramilitary men led by the Russian GRU agent Igor ”Strelkov” Girkin.

They crossed the border from Russia on April 11th… pic.twitter.com/C0ERIev12H

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) April 12, 2025

---

Excellent reminder.

Yet many still believe it was Ukrainians with pitchforks who started and led the "uprisings."

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

As I've said, South Korean intelligence is notoriously shoddy and unreliable. The US ignored these claims until they became a convenient excuse to launch missiles into Russia. NYT later revealed the Biden administration had made that decision at least six months earlier. Subsequently less and less was said about it as the evidence failed to materialize.

The bottom line is that it doesn't really matter. Even if you believe Ukraine captured a couple of Chinese nationals, it doesn't mean China is involved in the war.

---

Let's face it Sam, you and Red are pro-Russia. As much as I don't trust Trump, you are pro-Russia. They can do no wrong in this war. I don't Trust Trump based on what he did in NJ and NY, he is about him. Why are you so pro-Putin on this? Family ties? Know people? It would give context.

---

My cultural and family background are West European.

Let's face it, some of you are robots. Press a button, you march to battle. America can do no wrong.

---

Fair statement.

My family is Ukrainian on my maternal Grandmother side and Czech on my maternal Grandfather side. So, as you could imagine, I have little room left in my thought process to give the Russians the benefit of the doubt. In terms of my family, the Russians were as bad as the Nazis.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

As I've said, South Korean intelligence is notoriously shoddy and unreliable. The US ignored these claims until they became a convenient excuse to launch missiles into Russia. NYT later revealed the Biden administration had made that decision at least six months earlier. Subsequently less and less was said about it as the evidence failed to materialize.

The bottom line is that it doesn't really matter. Even if you believe Ukraine captured a couple of Chinese nationals, it doesn't mean China is involved in the war.

---

Let's face it Sam, you and Red are pro-Russia. As much as I don't trust Trump, you are pro-Russia. They can do no wrong in this war. I don't Trust Trump based on what he did in NJ and NY, he is about him. Why are you so pro-Putin on this? Family ties? Know people? It would give context.

---

My cultural and family background are West European.

Let's face it, some of you are robots. Press a button, you march to battle. America can do no wrong.

---

Fair statement.

My family is Ukrainian on my maternal Grandmother side and Czech on my maternal Grandfather side. So, as you could imagine, I have little room left in my thought process to give the Russians the benefit of the doubt. In terms of my family, the Russians were as bad as the Nazis.

---

not a lot of difference, frankly, except that the Russians are orders of magnitude more effective at genocide.

sombear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Today is the 11th anniversary of the start of war in the Donbas.

It was launched on April 12th 2014 in Sloviansk by a group of around 60 special forces and paramilitary men led by the Russian GRU agent Igor ”Strelkov” Girkin.

They crossed the border from Russia on April 11th… pic.twitter.com/C0ERIev12H

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) April 12, 2025

---

Excellent reminder.

Yet many still believe it was Ukrainians with pitchforks who started and led the "uprisings."

---

If the majority of the people in Donbas had been against them then it should have been a very easy thing to put down a small number of GRU gunmen

Instead the war in the Donbas dragged on for a decade and Kyiv was unable to retake the area by force.

But of course it's true that Donbas separatists had lots of support from Russia

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

As I've said, South Korean intelligence is notoriously shoddy and unreliable. The US ignored these claims until they became a convenient excuse to launch missiles into Russia. NYT later revealed the Biden administration had made that decision at least six months earlier. Subsequently less and less was said about it as the evidence failed to materialize.

The bottom line is that it doesn't really matter. Even if you believe Ukraine captured a couple of Chinese nationals, it doesn't mean China is involved in the war.

---

Let's face it Sam, you and Red are pro-Russia. As much as I don't trust Trump, you are pro-Russia. They can do no wrong in this war. I don't Trust Trump based on what he did in NJ and NY, he is about him. Why are you so pro-Putin on this? Family ties? Know people? It would give context.

---

My cultural and family background are West European.

Let's face it, some of you are robots. Press a button, you march to battle. America can do no wrong.

---

Fair statement.

My family is Ukrainian on my maternal Grandmother side and Czech on my maternal Grandfather side. So, as you could imagine, I have little room left in my thought process to give the Russians the benefit of the doubt. In terms of my family, the Russians were as bad as the Nazis.

---

You're a good guy, but my context is different. I had family who fought the Germans in WW2 and later developed close ties with them. I didn't grow up thinking wars necessarily defined people.

If I were Russian I'd care more about Russia. As the Germans say, "Let everyone sweep his own doorstep, and the world will be clean."

sombear said:

---

Excellent reminder.

Yet many still believe it was Ukrainians with pitchforks who started and led the "uprisings."

---

Perhaps because they did. They declared themselves a republic, chose a head of state, fought against pro-Kiev militias, and requested help from Russia, all before the events of April 12.

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Today is the 11th anniversary of the start of war in the Donbas.

It was launched on April 12th 2014 in Sloviansk by a group of around 60 special forces and paramilitary men led by the Russian GRU agent Igor ”Strelkov” Girkin.

They crossed the border from Russia on April 11th… pic.twitter.com/C0ERIev12H

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) April 12, 2025

---

Excellent reminder.

Yet many still believe it was Ukrainians with pitchforks who started and led the "uprisings."

---

If the majority of the people in Donbas had been against them then it should have been a very easy thing to put down a small number of GRU gunmen

Instead the war in the Donbas dragged on for a decade and Kyiv was unable to retake the area by force.

But of course it's true that Donbas separatists had lots of support from Russia

---

No no no, just Ukrainians with pitchforks.

No tanks. No GRU, No 10s of thousands of Russian troops and vets.

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Excellent reminder.

Yet many still believe it was Ukrainians with pitchforks who started and led the "uprisings."

---

Perhaps because they did. They declared themselves a republic, chose a head of state, fought against pro-Kyiv militias, and requested help from Russia, all before the events of April 12.

---

LOL.

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

As I've said, South Korean intelligence is notoriously shoddy and unreliable. The US ignored these claims until they became a convenient excuse to launch missiles into Russia. NYT later revealed the Biden administration had made that decision at least six months earlier. Subsequently less and less was said about it as the evidence failed to materialize.

The bottom line is that it doesn't really matter. Even if you believe Ukraine captured a couple of Chinese nationals, it doesn't mean China is involved in the war.

---

Let's face it Sam, you and Red are pro-Russia. As much as I don't trust Trump, you are pro-Russia. They can do no wrong in this war. I don't Trust Trump based on what he did in NJ and NY, he is about him. Why are you so pro-Putin on this? Family ties? Know people? It would give context.

---

My cultural and family background are West European.

Let's face it, some of you are robots. Press a button, you march to battle. America can do no wrong.

---

Fair statement.

My family is Ukrainian on my maternal Grandmother side and Czech on my maternal Grandfather side. So, as you could imagine, I have little room left in my thought process to give the Russians the benefit of the doubt. In terms of my family, the Russians were as bad as the Nazis.

---

You're a good guy, but my context is different. I had family who fought the Germans in WW2 and later developed close ties with them. I didn't grow up thinking wars necessarily defined people.

If I were Russian I'd care more about Russia. As the Germans say, "Let everyone sweep his own doorstep, and the world will be clean."

---

I can agree to that. It is when Nations invade that causes problems, including the US in Iraq. Never saw the need for that.

Many Ukrainians were on their way to or gathered in churches this Palm Sunday morning when Russian ballistic missiles hit central Sumy.

This church was recording when the first missile hit a few hundred meters away. They also caught the 2nd missile on tape

34 dead & 117 wounded pic.twitter.com/AGWdZvJMv9

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) April 13, 2025

I find it so freaking shameful that our Liar in Chief again, yesterday said Ukraine was responsible for starting the war. Who in their right mind believes this? Just pathetic.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Wagner Soldiers are Kids Compared to North Koreans
DPRK soldiers rarely surrender.

---

Especially if they aren't there.

---

I think they probably just apparate. There one minute, and gone the next.

Assassin said:

---

Wagner Soldiers are Kids Compared to North Koreans
DPRK soldiers rarely surrender. If they are wounded, their comrades just step over them leaving them where they lie and they use grenades to blow themselves up as Ukrainian troops approach. The dead are doused with flammable liquid; their faces are burned to disguise their identity.
A Ukrainian commander Yuriy Bondar described North Koreans fighting in the Kursk region as "disciplined, determined and fearless".
Bondar, of Ukraine's 80th separate airborne assault "Galician Lions" brigade, wrote on Facebook that his unit was one of the first of Ukraine's armed forces (AFU) to engage with North Korean troops in the Kursk region, adding that Pyongyang's troops should not be underestimated:

Quote:

---

"They are extremely resilient, extremely well-trained, and morally stable.
Their level of small arms proficiency is extremely high ten years of military service yields results.
The number of defense force drones that the enemy managed to shoot down just using small arms is seriously surprising."

---

A similar account was recently presented in New York Times citing other Ukrainian soldiers who told the NYT that since the North Koreans had arrived fighting in the Kursk region had become "far more ferocious than before." An AFU lieutenant using the call sign "Alex" said:

Quote:

---

"The Koreans … are quite skilled in shooting, they have repeatedly destroyed drones, obviously they were primarily trained for this, so they try to destroy everything in the air."

---

A platoon leader, identified as "Oleksii," told the NYT:

Quote:

---

"The situation worsened significantly when the North Koreans started arriving. They are pressing our fronts en-masse, finding weak points and breaking through them."

---

Bondar said that DPRK troops carry out dynamic attacks, often catching Ukrainian defenders "off guard," capturing positions even when outnumbered. He said that one of the commanders in Kursk told him, "… compared to the soldiers of the DPRK, the Wagner model of 2022 are just children and I believe him."
Source: KyivPost

---

Remember, ol' Sam believes the numerous reports (and videos) of NK soldiers fighting in Ukraine is a fairy tale.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

As I've said, South Korean intelligence is notoriously shoddy and unreliable. The US ignored these claims until they became a convenient excuse to launch missiles into Russia. NYT later revealed the Biden administration had made that decision at least six months earlier. Subsequently less and less was said about it as the evidence failed to materialize.

The bottom line is that it doesn't really matter. Even if you believe Ukraine captured a couple of Chinese nationals, it doesn't mean China is involved in the war.

---

Let's face it Sam, you and Red are pro-Russia. As much as I don't trust Trump, you are pro-Russia. They can do no wrong in this war. I don't Trust Trump based on what he did in NJ and NY, he is about him. Why are you so pro-Putin on this? Family ties? Know people? It would give context.

---

You're catching on.

He's been on the side of our enemies for, oh, about 20 years now.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Wagner Soldiers are Kids Compared to North Koreans
DPRK soldiers rarely surrender.

---

Especially if they aren't there.

---

I think they probably just apparate. There one minute, and gone the next.

---

Truer than you know. They were suddenly "withdrawn" and disappeared en masse a couple of months ago when Trump returned to office and the US got tired of maintaining the charade.

The Economist reports that Pentagon officials have reached out an unspecified allied state, telling them to put an end to their continued arms supplies to Ukraine.

The allied state rejected the request.

Some Trump aides are reportedly “fed up” with Europe’s Ukraine support pic.twitter.com/j1MEloKB5x

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) April 16, 2025

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Wagner Soldiers are Kids Compared to North Koreans
DPRK soldiers rarely surrender.

---

Especially if they aren't there.

---

I think they probably just apparate. There one minute, and gone the next.

---

Truer than you know. They were suddenly "withdrawn" and disappeared en masse a couple of months ago when Trump returned to office and the US got tired of maintaining the charade.

---

That is weird, since there have been a number of news reports - including reports from the UN - since Trump took office evidencing their continued involvement.

But I guess we could pretend it's not still being reported by multiple outlets and organizations.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Wagner Soldiers are Kids Compared to North Koreans
DPRK soldiers rarely surrender.

---

Especially if they aren't there.

---

I think they probably just apparate. There one minute, and gone the next.

---

Truer than you know. They were suddenly "withdrawn" and disappeared en masse a couple of months ago when Trump returned to office and the US got tired of maintaining the charade.

---

That is weird, since there have been a number of news reports - including reports from the UN - since Trump took office evidencing their continued involvement.

---

Indeed. The Ukrainian narrative has only gotten more convoluted and self-contradictory over time.

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/north-korea-troops-in-russia/

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Wagner Soldiers are Kids Compared to North Koreans
DPRK soldiers rarely surrender.

---

Especially if they aren't there.

---

I think they probably just apparate. There one minute, and gone the next.

---

Truer than you know. They were suddenly "withdrawn" and disappeared en masse a couple of months ago when Trump returned to office and the US got tired of maintaining the charade.

---

That is weird, since there have been a number of news reports - including reports from the UN - since Trump took office evidencing their continued involvement.

---

Indeed. The Ukrainian narrative has only gotten more convoluted and self-contradictory over time.

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/north-korea-troops-in-russia/

---

So they weren't able to produce the two NK soldiers for questioning to the reporters at the Quincy Institute? Wow. Must be a total sham then.

I am sure the NK troops withdrawing from the front lines had nothing whatsoever to do with the fact Trump returned to office and that NK thought it best not to provoke him, and everything to do with the US, South Korea, Great Britain, NATO, the UN, and Ukraine just completely making **** up. All just one big conspiracy. Sure, NK has provided plenty of arms and weapons, but a few thousand expendable soldiers is beyond the pale, and just impossible to believe.