All Episodes
Feb. 27, 2022 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:08:54
Episode 1667 Scott Adams: What Happens Next in Ukraine. And Welcome to WWIII. You'll Be Fine

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: Are we in WWIII? Massive propaganda flooding all media Marco Rubio's mysterious comment Monday, financial impact slams Russia Elon Musk's Starlink aids Ukraine Bill Ackman's dire warning about Russian banks ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to not only the best place in the world at the best time, but also the safest.
According to science, no one has ever died in World War III while watching this live stream.
If you don't believe it, do your own research.
You'll find out it's true.
And how to make sure that you're as safe as possible on the inside as well as the outside.
Well, you might need a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice of stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite beverage I like.
Coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes every damn thing better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
Live from Switzerland.
Good to have you here, Switzerland.
Join me now.
Go.
So Switzerland, you feeling neutral now?
Or are you feeling a little more than neutral?
Well, let's talk about all the things happening today.
Let's see. Anything happening today?
Checking notes.
Oh! World War III broke out.
What would be the definition of a world war?
Wouldn't it be a war that involved basically all the industrialized countries of the world in a substantial way?
Now, keep in mind that even in World War II... Most of the citizen population of the world did not get shot.
You know, 60 million people did die in World War II, so that's not nothing.
But most people had an impact, financially or otherwise.
And I think we're in World War III because the global financial markets have decided...
To hell with the global energy markets.
And you can see the financial markets start to close in on Russia, which will probably impact energy, which will impact all of us, which will impact inflation, which will impact all kinds of stuff.
I think we get a lot of fertilizer from Russia.
There's a lot of grain that comes out of the Ukraine for the world.
So, there's a lot going on here.
But would you agree with me, would you agree with me that this could legitimately be called a World War III? Because I don't know how you define it other than a war that substantially affects everybody, which is what's happening right now.
So yes and no, it's a matter of opinion.
All right. We are, of course, in the fog of war.
And I recommend you follow Mike Cernovich whenever we're in the fog of war.
One of the reasons is that he will remind you over and over again not to believe stuff that really you shouldn't believe.
And he's doing a good job of that, especially during this Ukraine thing.
There are some things I think I've...
I think I'm guilty of tweeting some things that are probably not really accurate.
And so he's helping me keep my guardrails on as well.
So follow somebody...
Who can remind you not to believe what you see?
For a while. I'm not sure you should ever believe it.
But for a while.
It's real helpful to have people do that.
So that's quite a service he's providing at the moment.
So here are some things which maybe you shouldn't believe.
But maybe you should. I don't know.
Do you remember the video?
Was it Snake Island?
the little island where the alleged Ukrainian fighters said F you to the Russian warship, and then the Russian warship killed them all.
I don't know if that happened.
But I kind of believed it when I first saw it.
But then after reading some of Cernovich's tweets, I thought, hmm, not necessarily.
So I'm going to put that one in the maybe, but I'm not confident enough in it to say that it really happened.
But it could have, maybe.
Shouldn't change anything, one way or the other.
But that's the level of propaganda we're going to see.
Speaking of which, is this propaganda, or does Marco Rubio know something that you don't know?
So Rubio tweeted this yesterday.
I wish I could share more, but for now I can say it's pretty obvious to many that something is off with Putin.
He has always been a killer, but his problem now is different and significant.
It would be a mistake to assume this Putin would react the same way he would have five years ago.
Now, Now, is Marco Rubio tied into enough of the intelligence apparatus to know that he has good intel from behind the scenes, that there's something up with Putin and he can't tell you how he knows it?
Is that what's happening?
Or is Marco Rubio engaged in propaganda?
Which would be quite productive, actually.
Because one would assume he had access to insider information.
What committees is he on?
Marco Rubio, which committees is he on that would give him access?
And I'm not even sure he'd need to be on a committee, because he could hear stuff without being on a committee.
Is he on Senate Intelligence?
Foreign Relations? All right, well, I don't know.
But whatever he's on, I'm pretty sure he's on something that gives him access.
However, you should not believe that he necessarily knows something credible.
What you should believe is that even if he didn't know something credible, this is probably a good way to act.
Because everybody's saying anything in public, especially people who have a big platform, some kind of position, like Rubio does.
Are they neutral in this war?
Is it Marco Rubio's job to tell you something accurate?
Or should he tell you something that might be good for Ukraine?
Because it's World War III. What is his obligation?
In normal times, I would say his obligation is to give it to us straight.
But does he have a bigger obligation to win?
To help the good guys win, whoever the good guys are?
It's a good question.
Because I'm not entirely sure what is the moral or ethical way to play this.
If he imagined that simply suggesting that Putin was different in whatever way you wanted to imagine, which would be bad for Putin, whatever it was, Maybe it doesn't need to be true.
Am I right? Because this is a very unique situation.
This is one situation where if your government's going to lie to you, sometimes all you ask is that they had a good reason.
I know some of you are absolutists about honesty, and I get that.
It's a perfectly reasonable point of view.
But in the real world...
People also look at what the total impact of things is going to be and the total cost of things.
And it could be that our own government has decided that just bullshitting us totally on what's going on might be good for the world in somebody's legitimate opinion.
So don't trust it automatically.
And that brings me to me.
All right, you're all watching this, and if you've watched me for a while, you, I hope, have come to the conclusion that I will try to be objective on pretty much everything.
I'm not objective on the question of fentanyl in China, but you know why, right?
I'm fully transparent about that.
However, I don't know if I could be completely unbiased in In the context of literally being part of a world war.
And so I'm going to give you that warning.
That I feel like it's fair warning.
Let me know if this goes too far or not far enough.
I feel as if I can't promise you that I will intentionally try to be unbiased talking about Ukraine and Russia.
I just can't promise you that.
But I want you to know that.
So that's, I don't know, maybe there's just no way to play this completely ethically.
Because the most ethical thing to do would be whatever helps the most people.
But how do I know?
Who knows? Maybe the truth is the only thing that helps people.
Maybe. I mean, that would be a perfectly reasonable view.
So, just be cautious when you listen to me on this topic.
The same way you should be cautious about every other person.
Just bring the same skepticism to everything I say, and just know that you're doing it with my full awareness and permission.
This is one where you've got to watch me carefully.
Okay? Just so you know.
All right. I did a poll on Twitter, which again is my totally unbiased approach to this.
Watch how unbiased I am.
In my poll I gave people four choices for what was the reason for Putin's apparent change.
You know, a lot of people saying he's changed.
We won't say that's true, but a lot of people are saying it.
Marco Rubio being one.
You see Fox News pundits say it, and a number of people said it.
And I've said it as well.
It just looks like it to me.
But 11% of people thought maybe drugs were involved.
18% said mental health.
And by the way, this is not a scientific poll.
This is just my Twitter followers.
36% said it was just war propaganda.
So it'd be people like me, people like Marco Rubio, maybe just...
Trying to bias things with the suggestion that he's insane.
And you'd expect that our intelligence agencies would be trying to do that as well.
And then 36%, I'm so proud of you.
I really am.
36% said confirmation bias.
Is that a healthy sign or what?
Now, of course, I primed you by putting that choice there in the first place.
So, you know, it's not scientific, and I primed you for it.
But still, 36%?
I find that really encouraging.
Because it means people are sort of hyper-aware of that effect in a way that we're always aware...
But there's a big difference between being aware that confirmation exists and being hyper-aware, which means you can even watch it yourself.
You can watch it in real time.
Oh, that's confirmation bias.
It's different. And I would say that something really, really healthy is happening, at least among the people who are following me, and that 36% would just automatically go to that.
Because you know what? If you were going to bet...
You know, if you saw how the public, or at least this limited, unscientific sample of the public, if you saw how they answered, and then I said to you, all right, now cast your bet.
If you have some magical way to know the truth later, which one do you bet on?
I feel like I'd bet on confirmation bias.
Would you? But even though that's not my opinion, my opinion is drugs.
My opinion is drugs.
Because it looks like it.
Which is not a good enough reason, right?
So I'm pinning, I guess, my cumulative life's knowledge about why people change and how they change and what drugs do to people and what kind of people would be on what kind of drugs.
So I'm kind of bringing together a whole bunch of parts of my skill stack, if I could put it that way.
And my opinion is, my opinion sides with the smallest number of the public, that is drugs.
Now, it might also be mental health, but I'm sure drugs are involved.
I would say the odds that he's not on some kind of drug that is known to affect your cognitive or personality or something, the odds of that are really small, in my opinion.
Doesn't mean it's the whole story.
There's a lot of variables involved.
But I'm pretty sure drugs are involved.
I think that's going to be one of the stories here.
On top of perhaps some health issues as well.
But if I had to bet on it, I would bet against myself.
Does that make sense? If I had to put my actual money on it, I would bet against my own opinion that I hold quite firmly.
Because I'm also aware the confirmation bias is usually right.
I hate to say it.
It's usually right.
That's why it's so important to know about it.
Because it's usually right.
How about everybody's prediction so far?
Can I ask you in the comments...
Was there one other person in the public domain who told you that the Russian army might be surprised by the, let's say, the effectiveness of the weapons that Ukraine would bring against the invasion?
Was there anybody else who told you, I think you might be surprised?
I think it was just me.
Oh, sticks and hammer did?
Anybody else?
Now, in all caps, I'm being asked, do you believe that?
And the answer is no.
Now, when I read the stories that say that Ukraine is unexpectedly successful, is it too early...
To say that that's true.
Yes. It's way too early.
Because it took, I guess, a couple weeks for even the US forces to overrun, what, Fallujah and Baghdad or whatever.
So it actually could take a few weeks for a proper, you know, control of a city.
And the Russian army may have sent in some probes just to test the defense, and now they're assembling the resources they need based on what they've learned, and it might take a week, and then they'll encircle the cities and take it over.
That's possible. So do you believe the reports that seem to agree with your confirmation bias that Ukraine is putting up a big fight and it's working?
What do you think? Okay, Fallujah was the wrong example.
What do you think? I don't know what to believe yet.
But I would say it's way too soon for me to say, yes, they were surprised by better weaponry than they imagined.
However, how good do you think an anti-tank missile is?
If somebody is hiding at a reasonable distance...
And the person hiding can see the tank, but the tank can't see them right away.
Does the tank missile hit the tank most of the time?
I mean, is it pretty much one missile equals one tank, give or take?
Is the R equals one?
One missile equals one tank pretty much every time?
Because it seems to me that if you could see a tank...
And your missile knew how to find a tank, it would be hard to mistake a tank with anything else.
Yeah. And so, the thing that I've been speculating about is, is it possible to invade and hold a country that is a modern country that has access to unlimited modern weaponry because it's coming across the border and they have lots of friends?
I feel as if it can't be done.
Because I feel as if you would need the advantage of the troop transporters and the tanks and the heavy equipment to hold the country, right?
And I think heavy equipment all gets destroyed if you have unlimited number of handheld anti-tank stuff.
Now, I saw a bunch of data that I don't believe...
About how much got destroyed, how many tanks and troop transports and stuff.
And they looked ridiculous.
So I don't believe these numbers at all, coming from the Ukraine side.
So I don't believe they killed 4,800 Russians.
That sounds too high.
I don't believe they blew up 706 troop transport vehicles, presumably with troops in them.
I think the war would already be over if Russia lost 706 transport vehicles in the first 48 hours.
So I don't believe those numbers.
But how many missiles do you think Ukraine has?
Whatever the handheld anti-tank things are called.
How many do you think they have?
Tens of thousands, right?
If they have tens of thousands of these shoulder-mounted things, and they understand the landscape and they know exactly where Russia has to go to get where it goes, because they're letting Russia on the roads.
Didn't you wonder why Ukraine didn't try to stop them at the border?
Why would Ukraine leave a bridge where they could just cross into the country?
It looks an awful lot like they wanted Russia to bring their heavy equipment into the country.
Am I so bad at understanding military strategy that that's stupid?
It looks exactly like they suckered him into a kill zone, meaning that there was no way this heavy equipment could ever reach an urban center, because they would have to go through an unlimited number of anti-tank equipment.
Now, I'm also seeing that Maybe some Turkish drones were used.
I saw some footage.
But you can't trust any footage, right?
Don't trust any military footage you see coming out of this.
So I don't know about that.
But how many of those would they have?
If Turkey had been providing drones, and I'm not positive that's true, how many do they have?
Because it seems like they could have a lot, right?
Nobody ever talked about how much stuff Ukraine had defensively, because maybe nobody knew.
Yeah, Turkey is NATO, but that doesn't mean that this is NATO involvement, because anybody can sell weapons.
They may have just sold them, I assume.
The bridges over the Dynapur are still there.
So... How many of you think it looks like Ukraine suckered their heavy equipment in and they just turned it into a kill box and they're just going to take you...
You know what it looks like?
I'm saying lots of no's.
Lots of no's. It could be just it wasn't a strategy, it's just the only thing they could do because they couldn't stop them at the border probably.
Yeah, I mean, maybe that's just a description of guerrilla warfare.
So I suppose I'm adding nothing to it.
It's just a description of guerrilla warfare.
Everybody knew that would be the strategy.
And Russia might have to outrun their supply line, that's right.
So, here's what's interesting.
Really a lot of it's interesting in a tragic way.
If Ukraine can hold until Monday and markets open in Russia and just all the Russian financial assets tank, which it looks like is going to happen, that changes everything, doesn't it?
Because that would show Russia that the rest of the world wasn't going to let it go.
Scott, Russia is holding capitulation talks with Ukraine right now.
I don't think anything's going to happen with that.
Do you?
The Russian stock market is tiny, somebody says.
Well, it matters to Russia, I'm sure.
So I saw somebody tweeting a list of photos and descriptions of all the Russian billionaires' yachts, you know, the really expensive multi-billion dollar yachts.
I think the Russian oligarchs are absolutely screwed at this point.
Screwed. Here's the thing you probably didn't see coming.
And I didn't see it coming.
But you know how we're talking about Russia as making a decapitation run?
That the whole point was to decapitate the government?
Am I wrong that Putin and Zelensky are racing for pink slips at this point?
Do you recognize that analogy?
Zelensky and Putin are racing for pink slips.
What I mean by that is Zelensky is as close to owning Russia as Putin is to owning Ukraine.
You didn't see that coming, did you?
Let me ask you something else, hypothetically.
Isn't Zelensky Russian?
Wasn't he born in Russia?
Can somebody give me a fact check on that?
Was Zelensky born in Russia?
No. He has Jewish background, but that's not as relevant at the moment.
No, Southeast Ukraine, somebody says.
All right. So, actually, it doesn't matter.
Remember, Putin's whole point is that Russia and Ukraine are the same country, right?
You see where I'm going with this?
If you race for pink slips and you lose, and your entire argument was that Ukraine and Russia are the same country, but you've got two leaders...
You've got Zelensky, you've got Putin, but there's only one country.
They're racing for pink slips.
I think Zelensky could either literally or maybe by influence end up controlling Russia.
Is that insane?
You're saying you're nuts.
I'm not saying it's likely.
I'm not going to say that's a 50% likelihood.
I'm saying that you really can't predict what happens with these things.
How many of you thought Nelson Mandela was going to be the president of South Africa?
Suddenly it doesn't look so crazy, does it?
Right? The person who is beaten to a pulp and survives ends up being...
A senator someday, looking at the civil rights movement in the United States.
If you get beaten to almost death, but you survive, there's a good chance you're going to be in charge someday.
That's just sort of the way it works.
Now, what are the odds that Russians would accept...
Zelensky as their leader, pretty low.
What are the odds that if Putin failed, there wouldn't be just another oligarch to take his place?
Pretty high. Yeah, I think the odds are very small.
But they exist.
They actually exist.
I think vanishingly small that Zelensky would be actually literally the head of Russia.
But not vanishingly small that his influence...
Could decide who gets the job if Putin goes.
I mean, it could be that much influence at that point.
You were ranting today.
Yeah, maybe Navalny.
Could be interesting. All right, on the question of is China being emboldened by this and looking at Taiwan and licking its chops, weren't all the smart people saying...
Just a week ago, all the smart people were saying, wow, this is going to be a double move.
China's going to see how easy this is.
They'll make a move on Taiwan.
But what happens if it turns out that Russia gets destroyed by this?
Which is what's happening right now.
And Mark Schneider pointed this out in a tweet, that Ukraine shares a border with Russia...
Which makes invasion fairly practical.
But Taiwan is an island.
So you'd have to do a naval attack to control Taiwan.
I mean, you could bomb the crap out of it.
But to control it, you'd need to do something on the ground.
To get to the ground, you've got to cross water.
And as Mark points out, who used to serve on submarines, that Taiwan is an island.
China would need to launch an amphibious assault and supplies will need to cross water.
And as Mark points out, one piece of hardware makes that difficult.
Submarines. How many submarines are protecting Taiwan?
And how many would it take?
And I asked Mark this question, and I haven't seen if he responded yet.
But do we know if submarines beat anti-submarine, or does an anti-submarine beat a submarine in 2022?
Is the best anti-submarine better than the pretty good submarine?
Or is the best submarine better than the best anti-submarine?
Does anybody even know?
Because we've never had a war of the top submarines, have we?
So I don't think we know.
So it'd be pretty hard for China to have any kind of a land assault.
All right. I'm starting to think that the importance of Twitter and social media is way beyond even our greatest imagination.
And what I mean by that is I wonder if social media has formed sort of a self-healing mechanism for exactly something like the Ukraine-Russia situation.
Now, self-healing things don't happen immediately.
Like, it takes a while for them to kick in.
But are you not watching social media move governments in real time?
That's what's happening, right?
Isn't it social media?
It's not the news. I don't think it's the people in the streets, as many of them as there are, because they haven't been there long enough making enough noise to really make a difference.
But it seems to me...
That because governments can immediately see social media and they can read the room faster, I think you're seeing social media seeing a cancer, which is Putin attacking Ukraine.
I think social media recognizes it as a cancer on the body.
And you're watching social media actually form a healing, protective, defensive shield.
Right? Because social media is what allows Germany to break its own rules and allow their deadly weapons to go into Ukraine, which just happened.
Social media allowed banks and the SWIFT thing to happen, or whatever is going to happen there, because the world could tell that social media was going to support it.
Am I wrong? It didn't matter what everybody thought, because most people aren't paying attention.
It mattered what social media thought, because they're the ones really paying attention, moving opinions, the ones who have the levers of society.
So we may be watching...
Something fairly miraculous, but also largely below our notice, which is that this is really a social media war with a kinetic component, which starts the whole thing.
But I think the collective actions of the world, as expressed through social media in real time, are having a huge effect on this.
And I can't imagine this would have been true in any prior war.
We don't have anything that's a good analogy to this one, actually.
So... I guess the two big cities there are apparently repelling attacks.
That part is probably true.
I think we'd know if any major city had fallen.
So I feel like we do know that it hasn't happened yet, if it's going to happen at all.
So here's the most interesting story involving this.
The Vice Prime Minister of Ukraine and the Minister of Digital Transformation of Ukraine, he tweeted to Elon Musk, He said, while trying to colonize Mars, Russia tried to occupy Ukraine.
While your rockets successfully land from space, Russia rockets attack Ukrainian civil people.
We ask you...
Now he's talking directly to Elon Musk.
He says, we ask you to provide Ukraine with Starlink stations.
These are the satellites that Musk's company has.
And to address the sane Russians to stand.
And within hours, I think, Elon Musk tweeted back, Starlink service is now active in Ukraine.
More terminals en route.
You need the terminals to be able to access it, so they must be shipping those in.
Did that change things, or is that my imagination?
I feel as if there's no way to conquer and hold a country under the following conditions.
And I think Elon Musk just provided the last of the conditions that are necessary.
Number one, the entire world is on your side.
You know, not the entire world, but even China doesn't seem to be on Russia's side.
They're watching.
But basically, nobody's on Russia's side at this point, really.
So that's condition one.
That is satisfied. Condition two, you have borders which allow the rest of the world to ship in unlimited amount of deadly lethal force.
That is satisfied.
They have to have the willingness to do it and the ability, and they have that.
Then you need communications.
Because the best weapons in the world aren't really that good, even these great shoulder-held tank things, unless at least the military units can communicate with each other and say, hey, there's a unit coming this way.
Put your defenses here or there.
It's possible that Elon Musk just provided the last thing that Ukraine needs to survive on top of Incredible bravery, apparently.
And a leader who's pretty smart about this so far and is leading the way you would expect or hope.
You'd hope a leader would lead.
Now, of course, you also can't believe anything about Zelensky.
Whatever we hear about him, you should also put the same skeptical hat on.
Don't believe he's necessarily as awesome.
We could find out anything later.
But at the moment, that's the narrative that's holding.
Once again, because my life is unusual, I became part of this story about Elon Musk and Starlink in Ukraine.
It's the weirdest thing.
I'm just sitting here in my office where I am every day, sending out tweets.
And then I see a Daily Wire report that talks about Elon Musk and Starlink in Ukraine.
And then it mentions half a dozen political commentators, and it mentioned my tweet, in which I said, push this button and changes the course of history.
Now, of course, that's hyperbole.
It takes more than pushing the button to get this done.
They've got to get the terminals there.
It's a pretty big operation, one assumes.
And I do think it'll change the course of history, though.
Because once dictators can't control communications, everything changes.
And if this is the way that the resistance can communicate well enough to use the weapons that are being shipped in, it changes everything.
But you know what else it changes?
Elon Musk is in the fight now.
So it gets better.
If you thought this was awesome, just listen to this.
So Russia's head of some space thing starts basically threatening that if Russia is sanctioned, etc., they might not have rockets to resupply the International Space Station.
Because Russia had been supplying rockets on a commercial basis.
Elon Musk tweets back at him, SpaceX.
That's it. Just the brand, like a logo, SpaceX.
Because if you aren't paying attention, Elon Musk's SpaceX company has found out how to get stuff in space cheaper, well, at least safer, than the Russian option.
Elon Musk...
Not only provided communications for the Ukrainian rebels, at about the same time, he took out the entire Russian space program.
Because if Russia can't sell its services, I'm not sure they can afford to do it anymore.
So if Musk takes away their ability to charge outrageous amounts, one assumes, to put stuff in space, because he can do it cheaper, Elon Musk just took Russia out of space.
Maybe. I mean, you know, it's hyperbole, right?
But maybe. I mean, follow the money.
How do they compete if he has a better solution?
And it looks like he does.
Do you know who doesn't bluff a lot?
Elon Musk.
He doesn't bluff a lot because he seems to be able to back stuff up.
But you know, this isn't even the most important part of the story.
Do you know what happens when Elon Musk goes all in?
Everybody else does.
Because it looks like he's usually right.
It just feels like it's safer now.
He made it safer.
And he also is unambiguous about it.
He's very clear about his opinion on this.
Right by his actions, he's very clear.
So, I think that when Elon Musk goes in, it influences governments.
What do you think?
I don't think anybody missed this story.
I think it influences governments.
I heard that there was a gas pipeline that got blown.
Now, allegedly, and again, I'm very skeptical about this story for obvious reasons.
Apparently, Ukraine is saying that Russia blew up a gas pipeline near Kharkiv, the second largest city.
Now, I've been asking...
Why the Ukrainians don't threaten to blow up pipelines.
And people kept saying, no, they're too well protected.
But the report is that the Russians did it.
Now, I don't believe the report in part because I don't know why they'd do it.
Because it seems like more something Ukraine would do.
I don't know. But...
I guess the question of whether a pipeline can be blown up may have been answered.
So at least this one was.
Maybe. Again, don't believe it.
Even Switzerland is starting to have protests.
20,000 people protested and burned Switzerland because the government didn't put sanctions on Russia yet, their banks.
Even Switzerland is not neutral.
At least the citizens. I think the country is still kind of neutral.
The citizens are mad at their own country for not being neutral on this one.
But here's something even more interesting.
Let's call them money Twitter.
The people who know the most about finance and also have big social media followings Have also entered the fight.
And what happens when you see...
These names might not be as familiar to you if you don't follow finance.
How many of you know Bill Ackman?
Bill Ackman, head of giant hedge fund.
So when he talks, the financial press almost always reports anything he says.
So he's important enough that when he talks about anything financial, it's in the news.
And what he tweeted today was, I wouldn't want to keep money in a bank that can't access the SWIFT system.
Once a bank can't transfer or receive funds from other banks, insolvency can be a risk.
If I were Russian, I would take my money out now.
Bank runs could begin in Russia on Monday.
And then he hashtagged StandWithUkraine.
Now, remember, everybody's in the fight.
So I wouldn't say that this was Bill Ackman being completely objective in describing a situation.
Although it might be.
I mean, objectively, I don't think he's wrong.
But the reason for it is influence.
You're seeing one of the top guys in finance directly try to take down the Russian economy.
Because if he says it's going down and you should get your money out of the bank...
You should frickin' listen to that.
Let me put it this way.
If Bill Ackman told me to get my money out of my bank, I'd be in my car.
Now, of course, you have to assume also this is an influence operation, right?
Here's something that Naval said today.
Anybody who's in the investing community in the United States will recognize Naval.
He tweeted, Ukrainian forces benefiting from higher morale, superior intelligence via NATO, and a quick and positive social media cycle.
And then he goes on, Russia has already lost the media war and the economic war.
May lose the physical war, too.
Do you know what happens when Naval tells you you just lost an economic war?
Again, you might not be familiar with Naval and you might not be familiar with Bill Ackman.
But the people who move large amounts of money sure know them.
They know them. And the people who move large amounts of money, if they hear Naval say that Russia already lost the economic war, and they hear Bill Ackman say, you better get your money out of the bank today in Russia, I'll bet they're not the only people saying this.
I'm saying it.
So you're seeing social media form a...
Propaganda. A propaganda offensive weapon that is in all likelihood going to take down the Russian economy on Monday.
And this is... Many of these are civilians.
Right? The people I just mentioned.
Civilians. But social media gives civilians gigantic influence if the topic fits those civilians.
Now, civilians... In this case, the people who know the most about economics and finance and the likely direction of business, some of the smartest ones in the business just told you Russia's in trouble on Monday.
Have I ever told you that economies are mostly psychological engines?
Here's a good comment.
But...
So let me say my point.
So economies are psychological engines, and so they can be taken down by psychology.
So a waking bear says this, Scott, you're acting like all these things you're describing were not fully expected by Russia.
No, I'm not acting like it.
I'm pretty sure that they didn't expect all of it.
I believe that they expected a lot of it.
And I think that their expectations have now been exceeded.
I believe that the financial impact will be almost certainly, almost certainly more than they could have anticipated.
Now, we're in the fog of war, as the comments are reminding me.
Remember, you have to keep me honest, too, right?
As many times as I remind you not to believe anything about this situation...
Keep reminding me too, right?
Every time I say something with some certainty, feel free in the comments to say, but fog or war, because that's always the right thing to say.
However, It's not my imagination that people who know what they're talking about in the financial world are persuading against Russia's economy.
I'm not imagining that.
And I'm not imagining that the economy is built on psychology.
That's not imagination.
And I'm not imagining that the entire world, minus China sitting it out, seems to be against Russia at this point.
I'm not... You know, I'm looking at things that you agree with.
This is really, really dangerous for Russia.
Really dangerous. And I don't know that Putin could have ever imagined it would go this far.
I'm surprised. Are you?
So, now, I think it's also fair to say that when the top financial experts seem fairly unified at this point in saying that the sanctions...
By the way, it was only 24 hours ago that we said the sanctions were toothless, right?
Give me a fact check on this.
One day ago, common knowledge was the sanctions were toothless.
Today, again, fact check me, today people are asking on social media what happens if Russia falls this week, financially and maybe politically, and the nukes are not secured.
In one day, we went from saying the sanctions were toothless to saying it could bring down Russia in a week.
Fact check me. That really happened, right?
Now, it's not just SWIFT, because there was also...
Melissa, was it the...
Who was it? The...
Head of the economic, head of the EU, whatever.
Apparently even their entire banking system in Russia is just going to be crashed by international action.
So it's not just SWIFT, but SWIFT is bad enough.
Even though SWIFT carved down some of the energy things, it looks like the other financial and banking restrictions are just going to close down the country.
Now, What should you be saying to me right now?
Bullshit, right?
So what you should be saying is, Scott, you don't know if these sanctions are really going to be that strong, because there's always a workaround, and they've got some reserves, and hey, they anticipated it.
Nobody can anticipate what happens when the first bullets fly.
Nobody can. You know what is the safest prediction about anything involving a war?
You don't know what's going to happen.
That's the safest prediction.
The financial markets don't like uncertainty, so they're definitely not going to like Monday.
So here's what I would be looking for.
I would be looking for other people who are financially astute and have a high profile to tell you that Russia's economy is in trouble on Monday.
That's your assignment for today, is to see how much of the, let's say, classic media, or even social media, let's see how many of them weigh in.
How many times will CNN have somebody on who says, you know, these financial sanctions really are going to take down Russia?
Because even our news business, they're in the war.
Do you know how often I criticize CNN for, you know, bullshit propaganda?
Like, basically every day.
But not right now.
I'm going to put a total moratorium on criticizing CNN or MSNBC about Ukraine, so long as their bullshit is in the right direction.
Because I think you're going to see CNN... Pretty activated by whoever controls CNN these days.
Who knows whether that's our intelligence agencies or the Democrats or whoever.
But they're all on the same side on this, which is CNN wants Russia to not succeed in Ukraine.
Wouldn't you agree? Wouldn't it be fair to say that nobody at CNN is unbiased?
Nobody. Nobody on Fox News.
That's maybe more obvious to you, right?
But Fox News and CNN are on the same side, which is on my side.
And I think your side, too.
Which is, we don't want Russia to succeed in Ukraine.
This might be the only week in which at least, you know, I may look at the other coverage that they do on other topics, but if CNN tells you that Ukraine is winning, I'm just going to let that go.
I'm going to let it go. Just in your mind, you might want to play a little recording that says, you know, under normal times, he would tell us that was bullshit, and I would.
These are not normal times.
We're at war. And if CNN is making Russia's economy look shaky because of the way they're framing the news, good for you.
We're on the same side on this.
And if you don't think that public opinion is what will change the course of the war, I think you're wrong.
How many people would disagree with that?
So here's my... My assertion is that as long as the Ukrainians can hold off the Russians from a quick victory, as long as that's a tie, and it looks like it might be, can't say that for sure, but it looks like it might be a tie for a while, as long as that's a tie, the economy is the war.
Would you agree with that part of the reasoning?
As long as the military is locked up, however long that takes, the economy is where the real war is.
And Russia can't win the economic war.
They can't in the long run.
So if you were going to predict where this goes, it all depends on probably Ukraine holding for another few days.
At which point...
I don't know how many days it would take, but there is a point at which the Russian oligarchs and the people behind Putin are going to accept the path out that we've given them.
And when I say we, I mean probably the CIA and me and Marco Rubio and anybody else who's saying in any public way something different about Putin.
Wait a minute. This isn't really about Russia, is it?
This is about Putin.
Do you realize that that gives the Russian people a way out?
Is that an accident?
I don't think it's an accident.
That the way out is for Russia to say, whoa, whoa, whoa, this was never Russia against Ukraine.
This was always something about Putin.
He changed.
We're going to accept your explanation that something about him snapped.
And we're going to get rid of them ourselves because now we just have to.
Now, here's the question.
How hard would it be for Russia under any amount of pressure to depose Putin?
Like, I assume he's got a pretty good grip on things at this point.
Well, it probably depends how crazy he looks to his own people, don't you think?
And they may be seeing a version of him that looks even crazier than what we're told.
It's also possible he's perfectly sane.
And that everything we're hearing is fake.
Perfectly possible.
And that's what, you know, Mike Cernovich should be reminding you once an hour today.
Alright. All right, I saw a terrible comment on locals, but I'm not going to say it.
So, social media is weaponized.
Here's another thing that I think Mike Cernovich said in a tweet, and boy does it look like this.
It's something I've said before as well, that we're so primed by movies and fiction that we see real-life events in three-part movies.
You know, a movie with three acts...
Tell me that Zelensky, with his famous I don't need transportation, I need ammo, and then going in to lead his people, tell me there's ever been a better third act, like in a movie.
Because imagine, if you will, that things go Zelensky's way.
Let's say he survives, very much in doubt at the moment, but let's say he does.
And Russia falls.
Or at least, you know, Putin can't hold power because he just went too far.
This would be a perfect movie, three-act movie.
So Zelensky is right in the middle of the third act in which it looks impossible, impossible...
That he could win.
But imagine the movie script where they're in the bunker and the Russian army is closing in and communications are falling and it's all falling apart.
And then he starts getting good news Like a shipment of anti-tank missiles just arrived, and then Elon Musk puts up Starlink.
I mean, this is a perfect movie script.
I don't mean to make light of it.
What I'm pointing out, the same thing that Cernovich pointed out, is that our brains are just primed to see things as a three-act movie, and we're seeing this as the third act.
And here's why this matters.
This isn't trivial.
This is why this matters.
If you see it as a three-act movie, your psychology will get into that pattern just automatically.
And the three-act movie is telling us that Zelensky wins.
That doesn't mean it makes sense.
That's what the movie is telling us.
The three-act movie has already been activated in our mind to tell us that Zelensky wins, and not only does he win, but he takes Putin down, because that's the best movie.
Right? Now, what happens when everybody expects something to happen?
Not everybody, but let's say a majority of people expect something to happen.
They end up making it happen.
It becomes self-fulfilling.
Because this goes to the morale of the Russian soldiers.
It goes to the morale of the Ukrainians.
It goes to does Elon Musk get involved?
It goes to do the Europeans get tough?
It goes to do we ever let Russia blackmail Europe again?
It goes to all of that.
The cleverest thing I saw, again, who knows if this is true, so this is another report, put your skeptic hat on, but the report was that the Russian conscripts, you know, 19-year-old soldiers, are just confused and surrendering en masse.
Now, that's exactly the kind of story that is unlikely to be true.
It could be. But when you hear one side, especially the side that has a smaller military force, saying that the one with the big military force are surrendering en masse, probably not.
Maybe not yet.
But maybe in some cases.
Now, here's the good story.
The good story is that the Ukrainians...
Let the captured Russian soldiers, the 19-year-olds, phone their mothers.
Just think about that.
And then that report was in the news.
They gave them phones and told them to phone their mothers.
Now, I don't know much about Russian culture, so maybe somebody can help me out here.
There are cultures in which...
If the grandmothers and the mothers get involved, that's just the way things are going to go.
Now, I've been told by somebody in the black American culture that we always forget how powerful the grandmothers are, the mothers and grandmothers, and that they're actually the lever that moves everything if you let them.
And I wonder if this approach of getting the mothers in Russia involved might be kind of brilliant.
Imagine if every captured soldier is allowed to call home.
Because do you know what the mother's reaction was when they got a call from their captured son?
The mother's reaction was they didn't know that they were there or why.
They just found out.
Do you think word is going to get around?
Yeah. Yeah.
Now, again, this could be another, you know, PSYOP and propaganda.
Maybe there were no Russian soldiers that ever got captured and allowed to call home.
But why not?
I mean, I'm sure they're capturing some.
I would let them all call home.
Wouldn't you? It seems pretty smart, psychologically.
Because I don't think the Russian public is up for killing people who look like Russians and talk like Russians.
I feel like the Russian army has got the morale problem of all morale problems.
And we're probably a day away from Ukraine successfully cutting their supply lines.
By Wednesday, there's a good chance that the Russian supply lines are toast.
And their economy is in a death spiral.
That's totally possible by Wednesday.
And again, 24 hours ago, everything looked completely opposite.
So what is the likelihood that I can predict what will happen on Wednesday?
Anybody? Anybody?
Do you want to maybe take me down the peg because I deserve it?
Right? Nobody can predict this.
Nobody. If it sounded like I was confident of what was going to happen on Wednesday in Ukraine, there should have been a recording playing in your head that says, well, he sounds confident, but nobody can predict this.
Nobody can predict this.
No way to know. The only thing I think I'm going to be right about...
Well, let me ask you.
It's too early to know, so I'm not going to claim being right.
But I think I will be.
And that claim is that the Russian army didn't estimate properly how effective the weapons would be that the Ukrainians had access to.
So I think that part I'm going to be right about.
And I don't know anybody else who said that, that they would be surprised by the modern weaponry that was put against them.
The U.S. intel community blew it again?
I don't know. Did they?
But will it matter in the end?
We don't know. That's what maybe we'll know on Wednesday.
Did U.S. intel cause this?
Depends what you mean by causes.
Now, here's a question.
What percentage of all of Russia's complete military capability for the entire country is employed in Ukraine?
Or let's say bogged down?
Have you seen that?
I've seen estimates of how much percentage of the arms he put in the theater.
Two-thirds? Two-thirds?
Now, I think two-thirds is how much has been deployed from nearby.
You know, the stuff that was in that theater.
But it's not...
Somebody's saying 25%.
That's what I'm saying most. So maybe 25% of his military force?
Okay. Well, he's got a lot of military.
I think it's closer to 50, don't you?
Do you think they put...
Here's what I think.
There's no way to know this, and I'm just totally talking through my ass right now.
So I'm going to take this purely from the perspective of somebody who's got experience in large organizations, okay?
So knowing nothing about the military and not trusting any information coming out of there.
I'm going to say something that I think would be generally true, generally true, that the 80-20 rule...
Applies pretty much everywhere to everything.
There are exceptions, of course.
But I don't think this is one.
And here's where this applies.
My bet is that if you looked at all of the military equipment that Russia has, that 20% of it is really good stuff.
And 80% of it, maybe not so good.
How many would agree with me so far?
And that wouldn't even be necessarily a statement about Russia.
It would be a statement about any large organization.
20% really good stuff, 80% bad.
Now, given the importance of this battle, Do you think Putin put just a general average equipment in the field, or did he put his good stuff there, like as much as he could get there?
What do you think? I'm seeing some people say average.
Do you think that he would do that because he would save some good stuff in case China attacks on his other border?
He had literally no other use for the good stuff.
Am I wrong? He's not defending any other place.
He could put all of his good stuff in Ukraine.
So here's what I think, and this is just based on knowledge of big organizations and how they lie and how they do things.
I think that if you think 20% of his military might is dedicated to Ukraine, that that's what it looks like on paper.
But that it's probably closer to 70% of his capability.
Because it's all of his good stuff.
Did he send the bad general?
Or did he send his best general?
Did he send his bad special forces?
Or the best ones?
Is he using the dumbest missiles?
Or is he using all of his good ones?
Because I even saw somebody suggest he'd run out of missiles.
What? Is that possible?
Can Russia run out of missiles?
I mean, the good ones.
Can they run out of missiles in a week?
Some experts said that.
That didn't sound possible to me, but maybe.
I don't know. So, knowing that everything about everything is a lie, knowing what you know about everything, Big organizations.
How many are willing to side with me on the fact that if it looks like Russia put 25% of its military there, it's probably closer to 75% or something in that neighborhood of their abilities?
I'm getting some yeses.
Because that would be consistent with everything you know about everything.
Am I wrong? I think it's true, unless everything we know about everything is wrong.
Because everything you know about everything suggests they put their good stuff there.
I don't know.
I would worry about the fact that he's activated his nukes, or at least his nuclear force, not the nukes itself.
So that, ladies and gentlemen, is the best show you're going to see today on the topic of Ukraine.
I don't think there will be any disagreement.
If there's anything we can all agree on, this is the best content you've ever seen, and I'm just guessing.
Let's just say the competition is...
Pretty low. So...
I think it was a tremendous job, and as always...
Yeah, I say this not to patronize you, but the only reason I can do what I do is because the live viewers are doing what they're doing.
The fact that this is interactive is what makes it work, and that you're fact-checking me in real time.
That makes a big difference.
Scott would do well to watch Wag the Dog...
You know, I feel like that's an NPC comment now.
I'm going to add that to Soylent Green and The Matrix.
Like, anybody who thinks that, first of all, anybody who thinks that I'm not familiar with that movie, what kind of weird assumption would that be?
Because it's a popular reference.
I mean, even if you didn't watch the movie, you would know what it was about.
All right. So yes, I'm aware of that.
Tell Ukrainians to negotiate peace with Russia.
Well, I don't know.
I don't know what peace looks like or what anybody would have to agree.
But that's all for today, and I will talk to you tomorrow.
Export Selection