jacob29

Getting exercised? I wanted to see examples of these US talking points, as I don't recall mentioning any. Which is a fair response, and I even asked them if that was specifically the angle they were coming from. I don't want to discourage anyone from holding western countries to higher standards (or any country), and criticism should flow in order for that to happen. To the extent it's leveraged to diminish or distract from the accountability of other states seems counter productive, as lowering the bar for other states will help to lower the bar for all.

I never asked for the reason Russia invaded, nor even insinuated they had no reason. Plenty of people give US and Israel a free pass, and here you are saying if anyone calls them out for it, it's because they don't understand the world is complicated. Truly idiotic thing to say. US had no business being in Iraq or Vietnam, and Israel rightly copping a lot of heat for their recent actions. Easy for me to say, as I'm not trying to make excuses for their poor behaviour. I don't have to make mind bending leaps of logic and try to defend them. Perhaps I should blame Russia for making the US feel insecure, and forcing them to embark on adventures of regime change. If 'communists' didn't keep provoking US, they wouldn't have to change the regime right? This is how you sound. I would like you to highlight the US talking points I've raised on this thread.

Don't use that language if you don't want to be seen as assigning blame. I don't want to know who is to blame, I want to know why you keep going out of your way to blame the west. I have enough information to divine the answer by this stage.

You very clearly have been. I would like to know why. You tell me, as it's you keep putting a fine point on who is to blame. Explain how that's helps diplomacy, how making out Russia to be the victim will help any negotiated settlement? Very astute of you to notice I have no argument - as I'm asking a question, not trying to prove a point. Only took half a dozen replies to get there. Keep pretending you're not giving a Russia a free pass if you like, while hammering out all the Kremlin favorites like Nuland and Johnson.

How can I understand when you refuse to answer questions on what you write? I have asked clear questions, which you won't answer. Is it a surprise someone doesn't understand what you wrote, if you refuse to address their questions or provide clarification? I did not ask about geopolitics and international relations, I asked why Russia appears to be given a free pass. You have all the Kremlin talking points memorized, so one assumes that is the reason, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. US being a bad actor in no way excuses Russia for being a bad actor. Why the essay on a question that wasn't asked? You're welcome to speak your mind, but it's not what I'm asking about. If I blamed Palestine squarely for the war going on there, and made an effort to play down Israel's role in escalation - and you asked me why I wasn't critical of Israel.. do you think it would be appropriate for me to start talking about general history of international relations and diplomacy? No it would not, so please cut it out and stay on topic. Or don't, up to you, just know you can't be taken seriously while you play this game.

Your comments thus far have been incongruent with diplomacy, given the absence of criticism for Russia. Russia started this war, they could have negotiated an agreement without invading, that didn't even involve the US (or the UK). If your understanding of diplomacy is that threatening nuclear strikes is effective, then I don't see how anyone can take you seriously on matters of diplomacy.

Why don't you show some conviction when asked for details? No matter how awful the US was, is, or will be - that's not the concern of Ukraine, they're a sovereign state. If it's ok to invade Ukraine to gain diplomatic concessions, you work out what that means for Taiwan. You will probably be the first to blame the west for an invasion there. Eliminating accountability in no way helps diplomacy.

I'm afraid I wasn't interested in your idea on how to solve the conflict, and you well know it since I've asked the same question several times now. Ukraine isn't willing to cede territory without a good fight, and that's true of pretty well all nation states. Give me a good reason why they should? Russia is willing to nuke the world if they don't gain territory, and you appear to not to be critical of that in the slightest? Don't be vague. In their sights how, if not a ground invasion. Please be specific, in their sights has a broad scope. What did Russia fear so much they were compelled to invade a state?

Which doesn't help me at all to understand why you keep assigning the majority of the blame on the west. You just did it again. You believe Putin was goaded into starting this war. Ok. Does this absolve Putin of all culpability? Ignore his nuclear threats and actions like bringing NK into the war, because US engaged in behaviours that upset him? At what point do you start being critical of Putin, or is that not possible for historical reasons? Let me paraphrase your position, and please correct me if I'm wrong - Ukraine should cede to the demands of Russia, as global security (risk of nuclear escalation) is a greater concern than the sovereignty of Ukraine. Russia hasn't been targeted, what risk was Russia facing? You can't seriously believe a ground invasion of Russia was in the works. If Taiwan is invaded, is that going to be the fault of the west as well?

You didn't seem to concede anything, you posited a hypothetical. Why do you get triggered over such a basic question, and you continue to evade it saying I miss your point? I'm not seeking a concession, I want to understand why you keep piling the blame on the west instead of Russia. You talk about lack of negotiation, yet there again western nations didn't turn this into a hot war. Russia did. Do you believe western nations should be more accommodative of Russia - than they are of Ukraine. Perhaps treat them like the state equivalent of a special needs child? No hypothetical, no analogy, no interpretive dance, just give me a straight answer.

Agree sounds like outright theft. If the lady was still alive, and the nominee fraud was discovered, surely she wouldn't be stripped of *all* her assets - just the properties plus maybe a fine. I hope there's a mistake in the report, and the lady still gets jewellery/cash not connected to the property. Edit: I'm almost certain the article is a little off, other reports state company assets will be seized, which won't be everything. If that's not the case.. well people can look forward to tax audits finding irregularities, maybe some undeclared remittances, resulting in your entire estate going to the state 😂. I can't see it working like that.

No let's not. I don't want an imagined hypothetical for the purposes of discussion. I want to know why you keep blaming the west first and foremost for escalation. Is that too much to ask? Not happy, as it's deflection. You believe Russia has legitimate reasons to fear for their sovereignty, and that their nuclear threats are credible. Ok. So how do you think smaller non nuclear neighbours are feeling right now? Do you think they feel secure knowing there's a loose cannon next door willing to nuke them into submission? The source of escalation seems to matter a great deal to you, as you keep reminding us all its first and foremost the fault of the west. There are no blameless parties here, we agree on that. However the way you see direct nuclear threats from Russia as less of an escalation, makes your position not very credible. If you're genuinely concerned about nuclear escalation, surely you would have the biggest beef with Russia? Ukraine has a scary situation. Does Ukraine have the right to defend its borders?

That's not especially clear though, as Russia is at the end of your threat list.. yet they're the only ones issuing nuclear threats. You seem to be implying direct nuclear threats is a lesser form of escalation. Can you please clarify? Or was that in reverse order of the most irrational and reckless? If not, I would like to understand why you keep focusing on western responses, when they're clearly less threatening. Is it because western nations should know better, while Russia is a bit unhinged so we should give them a bit more latitude?

I found the article, and it's far from 'considering' doing that. The quote reads 'Several officials even suggested that Mr. Biden could return nuclear weapons to Ukraine that were taken from it after the fall of the Soviet Union'. In what universe, is a comment on what Biden could theoretically do, equivalent to the administration considering it? Meanwhile Russian state TV announces these warnings in a direct manner. So I ask again, would you prefer a more direct approach, where state run media like RFA issued direct threats of nuclear strikes on Moscow? As you seem quite rattled by speculation by an official on what Biden could do.. while being ok with direct threats. You keep avoiding commentary on threats issued by Russia, can you at least acknowledge their destabilizing nature?

Good thing Ukraine keeping their territory is not an existential threat to Russia, by any stretch of the imagination. So what are you worried about? I'm not sure what you mean by Russia experiencing a first strike, as none of the recent events even hint at that. You're seeing chatter, I've seen no such chatter, and I don't believe there's anything credible of that nature leaking. There has been chatter on Ukraine developing nuclear capability indigenously, and you can only blame western nations for that insofar as not providing enough assistance. You can't seem to bring yourself to say Russia is being irrational. Why is that so hard? What if western nations went full mad dog like Russia, threatening nuclear strikes on capitals of Russia, NK and Iran. Would you consider that a more appropriate response?

How is it in Russia's interest? Russia who you believe may initiate a nuclear strike hasn't lost the plot?

Are you talking about Moldova?

How bright would Russia (and by extension their enablers like China) be in that scenario? You just said states act in their best interest. This is quite clearly not in their best interest.

Ukraine has legitimate security interests as well, why do Russian interests take precedence? You seem to believe Russia issuing nuclear threats to all and sundry is not a legitimate security threat for nations. Is that because you believe the threats aren't credible, or because Russia should be free to threaten security of other nations with impunity?

More epic than storming Capitol Hill?

Is Russia withdrawing back to its border a Russian loss? That's what Ukraine wants - and what they want carries the most weight, not third party countries. Russia threatens nuclear armageddon if they face risk of losing territorial sovereignty, so why should Ukraine have to suffer it? If Ukraine wants to negotiate, that's fine. Most countries are not ok with ceding sovereign territory, this should be unsurprising.

I clarified the context explicitly, stating I was talking about the mainland. Don't blame your reading comprehension issues on me. It's not some manufacturers not reaching profitability, it's nearly all of them, and even the profitable ones are on razor slim margins. So don't ask me for evidence they're running at a loss - since you knew they all would be already. What are you even arguing at this point? You come to a different conclusion from the same data, but why this song and dance to arrive at that conclusion?

Some losses sure (until scale achieved), but these are pretty mature companies in some cases, and I'm not sure how else we can evaluate a fair market price for vehicles. BYD at a scale that matches the giants - is turning a profit of around $1000-$2000 per vehicle which is peanuts. So even the well established company with sales out the wazoo is on razor thin margins. Combine that with BEV steeply undercutting ICE cars on price, and the picture that emerges is not one of sustainable market prices.

Which part of my comment related to Thailand? What I stated, and what you responded to asking for evidence, was The vast majority of manufacturers are selling at a loss on the mainland That wasn't your point, your point was that prices in China were fair/reasonable. When close to the entire industry is selling at a loss, thats clearly not sustainable. They could give them away for free and you wouldn't call it dumping, so let's ignore that term entirely since it's a red herring. Even if it was 'perfectly normal', that doesn't imply that it's a fair market price. It can (and often does) mean below market (not normal) rate in order to capture market share. The company may well not be able to sustain those losses in multiple markets, especially as tariff risks increase if they're too aggressive slashing prices. Even China friendly nations like Brazil are introducing EV tariffs.

It's not a huge difference compared to 100%, which is the reason I converted to percent (incorrectly) in the first place. 700% vs 100%, compared to 900% vs 100%. The point remains, that there is nothing unusual about a dramatic increase in the number of claims, considering the explosive growth in sales. Baseline number is practically irrelevant, since it applies in equal measure to the number of insurance claims made (e.g. also makes your 100% increase in claim 'look impressive')