Episode 1684 Scott Adams: Russia Already Lost the War. I'll Explain
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Marco Rubio's bill to STOP time change
President Biden believes price is set on cost?
VP Harris and Ukraine in NATO?
Russia has already lost in Ukraine, IMO
Elon Musk vs. Elona Musk
Ukraine rejects neutrality offer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Well, it is terrific to see you, and may I congratulate you on succeeding once again at finding coffee with Scott Adams, the most marvelous thing since the beginning of time.
And we'd like to take that up a notch, wouldn't we?
Wouldn't we? Yes, it looks like it's unanimous.
We like to take it up a notch by grabbing a...
You know.
You know what's coming. A cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a gel, a stein, a canteen, a jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
Do you know I like coffee?
Now fill it with your favorite liquid and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes just about everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now. Go!
Oh my god.
It's almost like a psychedelic feeling.
It's so good. I don't know if you could feel that, where you were, but wow.
Well, Marco Rubio, Senator Rubio, has figured out how to be useful, and he's championed a bill in the Senate that the Senate passed, but still needs the House to pass it, to stop changing the time twice a year.
Can we just make Marco Rubio president if he just gets this done?
I've decided that I'm going to lower the bar for president.
Anybody who can get this done has my vote for president.
So if Rubio can get this time change canceled, I think he's earned four years.
He'll have to earn the second term.
But in my mind, if he can just do this one thing, President Rubio.
And I would expect that the House will turn it down.
The funniest thing about this is that Congress can't pass a law that everybody agrees with.
Let me say that again.
The funniest thing about this is that Congress can't pass a law that everybody agrees with.
I don't know why.
Does anybody know why?
They actually had to game it and wait for the actual time change to introduce it so that people would still be, you know, sleepy and angry, and then they could get it passed in the Senate.
But too many days might go by before the House gets a hold of it.
They might forget this whole time change thing and think there was some reason to make the world greener or something.
So... It's the most important topic of the day.
You know, I do think you could probably calculate how much productivity is lost by the time change, but also, I'm going to make a bet, without looking at any data, I'll bet there are more traffic accidents.
What do you think? Do you think the time change would show a little blip in traffic accidents, maybe violence in general?
I'll bet. You know?
I don't have any data to back that up, but I'll bet it would make sense.
People have been asking me, since I've been saying some things about Putin, if I'm afraid of being poisoned by polonium, because that sometimes happens to Putin's critics, but I am one step ahead.
For months now, I've been microdosing on polonium.
Just to build up my resistance.
Because if he comes for me, it's going to be like I had two shots and a booster.
I'm going to be like, polonium?
That's like the sniffles.
Come on. I'm thinking of wearing a mask.
Some people say that wearing a mask would not help me from polonium poisoning, but I follow the science, unlike you.
I follow the science.
So, anyway, I'll be ready.
And kids, if you're thinking of doing this, don't do this at home.
Do not microdose on polonium.
It involves breaking into a secure facility in a foreign country and stealing one of the most secure items in the history of humankind.
And then selecting exactly the right amount that won't kill you.
It's hard. So I don't recommend you do it, but I'll be ready when they come for me.
As Joel Pollack pointed out in a tweet, so far Vladimir Putin has done more to punish Hunter Biden for his corruption than the entire American government.
True. Because Putin's put sanctions on some Clintons and Biden, including Hunter Biden, I guess.
And okay, it's a joke, but But it's literally true, at least in terms of the punishment part.
Not the reason for it.
Well, maybe. Who knows?
President Biden lowered our confidence in him a little bit more today by tweeting that oil prices are decreasing.
And gas prices should, too.
Last time oil was $96 a barrel.
Gas was $362 a gallon.
Now it's $4.31.
He says in his tweet, oil and gas companies shouldn't pad their profits at the expense of hard-working Americans.
And this is the day that we learned that Biden believes that prices are set based on cost.
Does he know that that's never the case?
Not just about oil, but about everything?
Try buying something based on the cost.
You should buy something based on what they know the market will pay.
All prices are based on what people are going to be willing to pay.
That's it. It's not really the cost of production.
Now, in the long run, it could be the cost of production.
But as long as the oil companies are selling as much oil as they want to sell, why would they lower the price or the gas stations?
Now, of course, they're also anticipating future higher expenses, and they're working with this psychology.
But to imagine that prices have ever depended on the cost...
I mean, obviously you want your price to be higher than the cost, that's obvious.
But how much higher is just dependent on what people are willing to pay.
Always has been, always will be.
So Biden is, you know, presumably, I'll give him the benefit of a doubt that he probably knows that, but he thinks it's good persuasion because other people don't know it.
And in that he might be correct.
If this were Trump, I'd probably say, you know, it's not actually the way things work, but if it convinces people it should be that way, maybe it might have some benefit, might lower the prices.
He might actually embarrass the industry and lower its prices.
Could work. So as a persuasion play, it might be fine.
And if he knows what he's doing, or his advisors, or whoever wrote the tweet, I would have given Trump a pass on this.
So I'll give Biden a pass on this, too.
All right. Rasmussen poll says that 76% of Americans are in favor of welcoming Ukraine refugees.
Are we a super racist country?
Way more than I thought just a little while ago.
Because how do we explain this?
Two ways, and neither of them are flattering.
All right?
Somebody says in the comments on locals that the Ukrainian women are so hot, and that's why they're welcome.
Well, okay, first of all, I'm not going to argue the point because I think the point is solid.
But how do you explain how many people are saying, give us more refugees?
Well, I would explain it the following way.
Number one, if it's a country that has a high standard of education, it's probably economically a pretty good deal.
So it would work for the United States in the long run.
It would work for the Ukrainians, of course.
So it could be purely economical.
You know, people look at it and they say, you know, we're getting...
People who probably have been exposed to a little bit of English, I would guess, at least the business people, get a lot of skills, they could probably be retrained fairly easily.
So it could be that people are just looking at it and follow the money just works every time, even if people aren't thinking that way.
So I've told you this before, right?
That follow the money works even if nobody involved is thinking in those terms.
Consciously. It just always seems to work.
Weirdly. And this could be another case.
Now, another case, another situation is that the brainwashing of the media, which has, for whatever reason, made Ukraine the most important thing in the world suddenly, maybe it's just brainwashing.
And so we've created this sympathy for the Ukrainians That is artificially, you know, just put into our brains.
So maybe some of that.
And yeah, so I'm not sure exactly how to explain that number, but I don't think it's good or bad.
It's just interesting how quickly people's minds got to a place where 76% would be on the same page.
You don't see that too much.
Vice President Harris was being criticized for saying in public this sentence.
The United States stands firmly with the Ukrainian people in defense of the NATO alliance.
Now, of course, Ukraine is not in the NATO alliance, which is, you know, in many ways, the whole point of the war is what's happening with Ukraine and NATO. But...
Then I guess in the transcript they added a word to clarify, the word and, but they showed that they added it, so they indicated it was an added word.
They weren't trying to hide that part.
And so it would say and, so that they're doing two things.
They're defending Ukrainian people, but they're also, and separately, defending the NATO alliance.
So that would be the clarification.
I will be consistent with my clarification rule, 48 hours to clarify.
Have I not stated that that's the standard I would like to see?
That is the standard I'd like to see.
I'd like to give people 48 hours to clarify.
I think within 48 hours they clarified, and I accept the clarification.
Let me try the really test on you, okay?
Can we do this? I'm going to try the really test.
It goes like this. The Vice President of the United States didn't know that the whole point of the Ukrainian conflict that she has been sent to moderate, she didn't know that Ukraine is not part of NATO. Really?
Really. That's a position you would defend.
That she actually, literally, really, really, really didn't know That Ukraine was not part of NATO. Really.
Okay, in my opinion, the really test works on this one.
I know you're being a little stubborn in the comments, and you're going to go with your interpretation that she didn't know that.
But honestly, people, I feel like you need...
If you think that this is real...
Just take a second look.
Here, I'll tell you what.
I'll tell you what. Let me give you, instead of trying to change your mind, instead of trying to change your mind, to me this is obvious fake news.
I don't think this could be more obviously fake news.
I think the clarification was correct, that she meant to support NATO and also separately Ukrainian people.
And it's very straightforward and simple.
And no, there is no way that the Vice President of the United States was unaware of Ukraine's NATO non-status.
There's no way she didn't know that.
And she didn't forget momentarily.
That didn't happen. But look how easily you were convinced that that actually happened.
How many times have you seen people on the left convinced of something so easily that was so obviously not true?
A lot, right?
It happens to us, too.
How many times have you seen me buy something, at least in the short term, buy into something that was just sort of obviously not true, and I'm like, uh-uh, delete my tweet?
Right? It happens to all of us.
Right? I'm not picking on anybody.
This is a universal human capacity.
We just believe things first sometimes.
But let me ask you again, now that I've spent a little bit of time on it, I'm just going to ask you the same question again.
Do you really believe that the Vice President of the United States didn't know the Ukrainian status with NATO? Really?
Say it again. Say yes if you believe that.
I just want to see. Okay, there's still a lot of yeses.
All right? Now, and you also know that I have a super low opinion of the vice president's capabilities.
So I'm very much on your side about her, let's say, her leadership capabilities.
But there's no way she didn't know that.
All right, so let me give you a challenge, okay?
Okay. Find somebody you know, maybe on Twitter, could be a bluejack or not, somebody you know who's really good at seeing both sides of things.
And then ask them this question.
Do you really think that the vice president didn't know that fact?
See what they say. See if the people you trust, the people you trust, not the people I trust, but the people you trust, see if they agree with you.
I'd be kind of curious about that.
I don't even know. I'm not even sure how that would go.
What if it's me? Why did she tweet it down again the next day?
She didn't. She didn't.
All right. Could I be wrong about this?
What do you think? Apparently you think I could be.
Would it make you feel any better if I agree with you on that?
I think this is within the realm of something I could be wrong about.
I mean, I could be wrong about anything, but it's within the realm.
But if I had to put a bet on it, I'd take 10 to 1 odds.
I mean, easily.
There's no way to actually prove it, so I can't make that bet.
But if it were provable in some way that everyone would agree, I'd take 10 to 1 on this one.
It's always productive to think of things in terms of the odds instead of, you know, yes, no.
It just makes you feel smarter.
All right. Russia already lost the war on Ukraine.
This is my thesis for today, and I'm going to call it that as of today, the fog of war is clear enough that while we don't know the details of what will happen, there will still be some surprises.
But I would say that as of today, in my opinion, very subjective, of course, that's what we're doing here, subjective opinions, but in my opinion, it is now completely clear that That Russia lost the war.
Now, lots more fighting to go on, but I don't think that the endpoint could be anything but that.
And I'll tell you what signals I'm seeing.
First of all, let me give you some context.
And I keep reminding you of this because I think it was actually pretty interesting.
I think I'm the first person you heard in public say that Russia had some surprises coming.
I literally tweeted that.
And that the military technology that the Ukrainians had would be surprisingly effective.
And that Russia wasn't going to waltz in there and hold everything in 48 hours.
Now, I didn't hear anybody else say it.
I didn't hear a military expert say it.
I didn't hear anybody say it.
And people mocked me for it.
Am I correct? You probably saw me getting mocked for saying that the Ukrainians would do a better job than you think because of the technology.
And sure enough, here we are.
So at this point, would you say that every expert agrees with where I was?
Yes, right?
It is the technology that's making the difference.
Now, I don't want to underrate...
The Ukrainian resolve and the Ukrainian bravery, which is insane.
I mean, you know, you talk about brave people, but the Ukrainians are just, I mean, they're redefining the standard, in my opinion.
I mean, it's pretty impressive. You know, I suppose anybody would fight hard for their homeland.
So you do expect a tough fight.
And so I don't want to minimize that.
But the difference would be the weaponry.
You know, having lots of resolve wouldn't help you if you didn't have good weapons.
Lots of places that get conquered have lots of resolve.
They don't have good weapons.
So, here are the signs.
Number one, there is a fourth general reported killed in the Russian army.
Now, I know.
Is that believable?
Because it sounds exactly like Ukrainian propaganda, doesn't it?
A fourth general reported Killed so far?
I'm going to say no more than a 50% chance that's true.
What do you think? 50% chance it's true?
Less? I would go less, 25%.
But it is a sign that the Ukrainians are either killing a lot of generals or they're winning the persuasion war.
Because we sort of believe it.
It seems believable.
I saw a list of all the generals that have died under suspicious circumstance under various Russian leaders.
Now, who knows if that little meme was correct.
But... Can somebody confirm that generals seem to fall out of windows and commit suicide a lot in Russia over the last, let's say, 50 years?
So maybe it's a sign that Putin is killing them himself.
Because we know the generals are not performing, so maybe Putin is killing them.
Maybe Putin just calls the number two and says, go kill your commanding officer and you're in charge now.
Maybe. I mean, you can't rule it out.
And, you know, somebody just said the Taliban won as well.
Yeah, very different situation, but true that.
So, all right, so you've got the northern army of Russia seems to be stalled, and it does appear that the Ukrainians have cut them off from their supply lines.
It does appear that they have low maintenance and the inability to move their big equipment.
And it appears that moving into the tree line wasn't so much that they could, you know, it's a good place to shell or to fire artillery from.
It looks like they're hiding.
It looks like they're hiding.
At least that's the current thinking from the people who are observing over there.
So if the northern army is bogged down, they're only a week or two from starving.
Now, the Ukrainians are in a pretty desperate situation, too.
But I suspect that their supply line is holding so far.
And I doubt that the Russian supply line is holding.
They're probably foraging in the Ukrainian countryside for whatever they're getting.
And they might be just about out of that.
However much they can forage, that amount is going to decrease really quickly.
Mortars are taking out Russian artillery in the woods.
Is that happening? Somebody says that's happening.
I don't know. And I'm seeing in the comments that we've been saying for weeks that they're a week or two from starving.
But the wild card there was that they had...
Originally, they were a week or two from running out of food.
But that meant the food that they brought with them.
It looks like they can extend it by foraging and stealing stuff from the locals.
But their ability to do that, presumably, It's going to, you know, fall off a cliff pretty soon because the locals will pull all their food back as far away as they can or destroy it or it'll all get eaten.
So it does seem like the first few weeks they weren't likely to starve because they could always, you know, reduce their rations and forage and stuff.
But I feel like we've reached the point where the next two weeks they're just going to starve.
And I think they might be killing their own generals at this point.
Here's a question for you, and it might require somebody with Vietnam experience.
Are there any Vietnam vets watching right now?
People who actually were in combat in Vietnam.
Because here's something that I heard from a Vietnam vet years ago.
That the news will never tell you how often people kill their own senior officer.
They do it in the field.
They just drop a grenade and it looks like it happened from the other side.
Yeah, fragging. Now, does anybody know how often that happens?
It happens enough that there's a word for it.
I can tell you that the guy who told me about it told me he did it.
Not to his commanding officer, but to someone else he had a problem with.
He actually said...
Now, I don't know if it's true. It's just something that somebody told me.
And remember, this is a story about himself.
It's not a third-party story.
Actually admitted murdering somebody in his own squad with other people.
They just agreed to murder somebody.
And they just murdered him.
And later they just talked about it.
Yeah, they murdered him.
And... So does that not happen in other military?
Is that something unique to the American military?
I doubt it. Seems like that would be something that happens in a lot of militaries.
And I can't imagine a place it would be more likely to happen than a bogged-down, starving Russian army whose mission, they just found out, is to kill people who look and sound just like them.
I've got a feeling that morale...
It's pretty low.
So I don't know if these generals are being shot by Putin, shot by their own forces, or shot by Ukrainians, or not shot at all, and the entire thing was made up.
All possible, and all point in the same direction.
So in other words, you don't even need to know if any real generals at all were killed.
If the only thing that happens is that the Ukrainians have owned the news cycle so totally...
That it's being reported as news, and maybe it just didn't even happen.
That also signals that Russia's in a lot of trouble, right?
If they can't even control something like that.
So we're seeing, of course, that it looks like Kiev is going to hold.
It looks like more weapons are going in.
It looks like the sanctions are crushing.
And I don't know if Russia has quite realized...
That there's no such thing as making a deal where the sanctions go away.
Do you think they realize that that's not a possibility?
If the sanctions go away, then you can never use them again.
Let me say that again.
If the sanctions are what, you know, cause some kind of a good result from the Ukrainian point of view, they could never be used again, ever.
They would never be used if they're temporary.
They have to be permanent.
Now, permanent means as long as Putin's in office, which could be 30 years.
So there has to be a standard set that you can't make peace in return for lowering sanctions.
The only thing you can do is make peace in return for peace.
Because I'm going to make a prediction, and it's based on the fact that Zelensky, I think he just announced...
Or it's being reported.
I don't know if he announced it. It's being reported that the Ukrainians are going on offense.
What would that tell you?
If the Ukrainians are going on offense anywhere, what does that tell you?
Probably tells you that some of the army is trapped.
Probably tells you that they've taken out their supply lines.
It probably tells you that the new weapons coming in from...
You know, NATO sources is good stuff and plenty of it.
And it does look like Zelensky is looking for a clean win.
And by the way, I think he's saying that now out loud.
I just read an interview, I think it was on CNN, with David Petraeus, General Petraeus.
Petraeus talks about the four possible outcomes in Ukraine.
For the first time...
At least that I saw. A general who knows what he's doing said the fourth possibility is that Ukraine wins outright.
Petraeus said that.
Now, again, the first person you heard say it was me.
The second person was General Petraeus.
Now, he's not predicting it.
Let me be clear.
He's not predicting that.
But he has added it to the option set now.
It's one of the things that could happen.
Now, who was talking about that happening?
Whoever talked about that?
That the actual possibility of Ukraine winning militarily?
I'll tell you what it looks to me.
I think Ukraine is going to take out some big Russian units, you know, just really, really get some victories.
Because if Ukraine gets something that looks like a straight-up, straight-ahead military victory, what is that going to do to the rest of the Russian army that is starved and trapped?
It's starting to look like Ukraine is playing for the win.
Wouldn't you say? Now, of course you're going to say, what does winning look like if your cities are flattened?
Because Russia plans to go all grozny, and they're just going to depopulate and destroy it.
I think that will happen, too.
Well, I mean, it is happening.
There's no question. But who's going to rebuild Ukraine?
Do you think Ukraine will rebuild faster?
Or Russia? Because Russia is going to have sanctions.
Forever. Unless they take a whole bunch of money from China.
And how much do they want to do that?
Because, you know, you don't want to owe China too much.
I think the Ukrainians control public opinion to the point where Europe and the United States and other countries will help them rebuild.
Because if they get something that looks like, you know, they could be peaceful for a while, I think there'll be plenty of investment.
But Russia won't have that capability.
So, yes, it looks like Ukraine will be flattened.
I don't think there's a way to avoid that.
But it does look like, and their losses will be horrific...
But it does look like they're going to come out of this in better shape.
In other words, they'll be more flattened, but they'll recover faster.
I don't see Russia recovering while Putin's in office.
All right. Now, I see many of you doing essentially the comment equivalent of eye-rolling.
Like, who is this guy?
You know, about me. Um...
But I remind you that contrarian predictions are kind of what I do.
Sort of evolved into that.
Now, they're not always right.
So if you think I'm always right, I don't think I'm always right.
But I do think it is important to put an attack.
So at this point, here's my take on this.
I think that the Russian army is such a mess...
That the well-trained Ukrainians with the logistical support of NATO is actually going to take them out.
That's my prediction.
Did I convince anybody?
I'm seeing interesting.
There seems to be a difference between...
Mostly no's.
Some yes's.
Trump's full send interview was taken down by YouTube.
Is that true? Yes.
What I think is irrelevant, you are correct.
Well, you're watching me.
Why are you doing that? Some...
Reparations? Yeah, maybe.
I think the Ukrainians are going to ask for reparations, but Russia won't have any money to repair anything.
All right, the other funny story from this is that Elon Musk, as you know, challenged Putin to a physical fight on Twitter and said that he meant it.
And then the head of the Chechens Offered to train Elon Musk and then insulted him by calling him effeminate and basically calling him a woman because it turns out the Chechens are very sexist.
You might not know that, but the Chechens, they believe that men can fight better than women.
And so for them, an insult is to call a man who wants to fight equivalent to a woman.
Now, they have not learned, as we have learned in the United States, and we learned this from science fiction, that on any science fiction TV or movie, a 95-pound woman can beat a 200-pound man every time, really. Every time.
So they don't know that, I guess, the Chechens.
They don't have TV over there, I guess.
But anyway, so the Chechen guy, in a mocking way, offers to train Elon Musk and renames Elon Musk Ilona.
So he nicknames Elon Ilona to insult him for his woman-like presence, I guess.
Elon Musk, being Elon Musk, immediately changes his Twitter profile to Ilona and, of course, tweets back.
Of course.
And he thanks him for the offer but thinks that it would make it unfair if he got any special training because it's already so unfair.
Now, after I saw this, I immediately said to myself, you know, as one does, if Elon Musk really gets to fight Putin one-on-one, I'd like to get in on this, and I've challenged Lavrov, their foreign minister.
I think I could take Lavrov one-on-one.
Now, he looks kind of big, to be honest.
He looks like he's probably 6'4 or something.
But he smokes.
And I'm wiry.
Sure, I'm not that big.
But would you want to fight me?
I'm wiry, I tell you.
I'm wiry. I could take him in two rounds, I think.
And so, oh, you don't need Joe Rogan for this.
If somebody says Joe Rogan, psst, come on.
That would be too easy.
You want at least something that you do a pay-per-view, right?
Joe Rogan, that's like a 12-second fight, including introduction.
And You know, I'd at least make it interesting.
But I think I could take him.
Because? Do you know why I could take him?
I'm wiry. It's because I'm wiry.
He'd never see it coming.
Now, my real trick, the way I beat Lavrov, is...
If I go directly at him, he's going to see it coming, and that's no good.
So what I'm going to try to do is I'm going to try to lure Lavrov into attacking me in my own home.
Because once I get him onto my home territory, I'm going to have some advantage.
And once he's in my home, I'm going to trap him there and cut off his supply lines.
And I'm going to wait until he starts to starve.
And then I'm going to kill him.
I'm going to attack. He'll never see this coming.
Who would ever think of a plan where you invite the stronger person into your house, cut off his supply lines until he starves, and then you surround him and kill him?
Who would ever think of that?
Zelensky. Zelensky.
All right, so apparently here's another indication that Russia has lost the war.
They said they were talking about maybe Ukraine would have a neutrality like a Switzerland or Sweden model.
Hey, there's something I suggested on day one.
But apparently the Ukrainians have rejected Russia.
The neutrality offer.
Why do you reject an offer like that?
Why would you reject an offer for peace when your country is under so much attack?
Why would you do it?
Because they're winning.
That's why. I don't think Ukraine wants the world to know they're winning yet.
Because if they find out too soon, we're going to stop giving them weapons.
So I think Ukraine is already turning things their way, but I don't think they want to say it yet.
I think the time to say it is after they've wiped out a division of Russia's finest fighters or something.
After they've done something that is militarily surprising, just like a big victory.
Then... Then Zelensky's going to say, no deal, no deal.
You might even ask for reparations.
You never know. You wouldn't get them, but you might ask for them.
So the UK... Somebody in the UK has, I don't know if it's sources or intel or somebody, thinks Russia will run out of manpower in 14 days.
I don't know what they mean by manpower.
Does that mean people starve?
Or they're stuck, so they just don't have enough people to fight?
But one of the things that Petraeus said is that in order to conquer and hold a city, you need five times as many soldiers as Russia has.
So, connect the dots.
Do you believe that Petraeus is correct, that holding territory takes five times as many soldiers as there are there?
I feel like that's something that you'd know.
And the problem is that you have to have somebody stay every time you conquer something.
So you can't take the same force and just, like, move through a city.
Some of that force, and a lot of it, has to stay every time you conquer something.
So you need five times as many people as it takes to conquer the first block, because you're using up your people to hold it as you go.
So that makes perfect sense, right?
You would expect, Petraeus would know, that it's a basic math fact, right?
It's just math. Now, of course, if they level the city, that's a different calculation.
But to hold it, which is all they seem to want, can't really do it.
So since we know Russia can't hold it, and it looks like the Ukrainians will have infinite support to keep them fed and armed from the outside, there doesn't seem to be...
And Russia is running out of manpower, some are estimating...
It doesn't seem there's any way for Russia to win this.
I think it's already over.
Over in the sense that you know how it can end.
And it's not good for Russia in any way.
I saw Ian Bremmer also tweeting that whatever it looks like militarily, Russia lost.
You can say that already.
Ukraine lost too. You could argue Ukraine's even a bigger loser.
But Russia definitely lost.
They lost this war. It's already lost.
They can only, you know, change the details a little bit, but it's lost.
Would Putin go nuclear if he's trapped?
I doubt it. You know, I think that Russia is probably a lot like the United States in the sense that I don't even think Putin could order a nuclear attack.
I don't think he could.
Now, I wouldn't bet my life on it, although I sort of am.
But I think if he lost his mind and was going to do something as irrational as send out nukes, that there would be several layers of people saying, eh, nope, that's where we draw the line, because that's my family, right?
Mike says, Scott Adams is listening to total BS. Russia already won.
Well, this is the part...
Where's the reason you watch this live stream?
If I said what you were already thinking, there wouldn't be much point in watching.
But you have my opinion, and now you have your own, and we'll get to compare.
Putin is crazy, people are saying.
He may be crazy, but I think there are other people who are not as crazy.
BBC said they have Kiev yesterday.
But can they hold it? It doesn't matter if they can't hold it.
Does it? Because Russia's economy will be destroyed and Ukraine's will probably be rebuilt.
But the Russian army isn't going to be able to stay there.
The Russian army will be defeated.
It's being pointed out that I said that I would not be objective on this topic.
Well, I'm showing my work.
Am I not? I'm giving you reasons for all of my opinions.
So you can judge for yourself whether that's a bias.
Are the reasons crazy?
I mean, what did I say?
And by the way, I'm not denying that I have bias in this because I think everybody has bias on this topic.
But what did I say that isn't reasonable?
I don't think anything I said isn't reasonable.
All right, just looking at some of your comments.
Alright. You believe the convoy hoax.
What part is the hoax?
What's the convoy hoax?
By the way, any time anybody says I believe a hoax, you always have my attention.
Well, Russia is definitely killing more Ukrainians, I assume, than Ukrainians are killing Russia.
Is that what you mean by winning?
Because I would agree with that point.
But it doesn't look winnable.
So they're in a non-winnable situation is what I'm saying.
Prediction.
You'll do a trans and sports shuffle.
you What's that mean? Meaning a diversion?
All right, well, you keep that prediction and see how it goes.
Scott, what exactly do you wish would happen?
Oh, that's an interesting question.
Well, of course, you know the obvious.
You wish that the citizens and really everybody there...
It's safe. So, you know, aside from wishing that people's well-being is maximized, the obvious thing, I think the most healthy thing for the world in the long term is that the economic war against Russia works.
Because if it works, it makes regular kinetic war less likely, I think.
Because it's one more, you know, way to destroy somebody.
So I think that's an important precedent.
And given that whatever happens in Ukraine is going to be a horrible tragedy, and there doesn't seem to be a way to avoid that at this point, if you're going to have the tragedy, you need to get something, something out of it.
And that is something.
The only thing I can think of would be that we prove the economic war's work.
That would be used to it.
Let's talk about this.
You know, so I get a lot of questions about talking about the currency question and petrodollars and Russia and China coming up with their own currencies and reserves and stuff like that.
But let me tell you why I'm not talking about it.
I don't think anybody knows anything about it.
We don't know what they're doing.
We don't know if it'll work.
And I don't think anybody even understands the topic.
As I tell you too often, I have a degree in economics, and I'm following the story of who's going to do the reserve currency and all that, and I think to myself, I don't know what's going on.
Maybe other people also don't, and they don't admit it.
I would be in the top, let's say, of people who have a background in education and experience to understand the topic, I would be in the top 2%, probably.
If you took 100 people and said, let me explain this currency thing and the petrodollars and everything, I don't think you'd get more than two people who would understand that.
Because it's hard to understand.
And I could comment on it, but I feel like I would just be flailing in a...
It'd be like me trying to explain physics without a physics degree.
I don't think having a degree in economics really even helps you.
Because so much of it is psychology.
You know, one assumes that from a technology perspective you could do anything.
So, you know...
Everything's an option technically.
But you have to get people's brains to treat things certain ways and to put faith in things and to have confidence.
And it's the psychology that's completely unpredictable.
If you could predict that, you'd really have some skills.
You can gas, but you can't protect.
Jimmy Dore says there are Nazis in the Ukraine army.
Yeah.
I believe there probably are some bad people in every army.
I'm not defending them.
In fact, if one of the outcomes is that Russia gets rid of the Nazis in the Ukrainian army, that could be good.
But, you know, I don't know how many there are.
So that's another story that I stay away from a little bit because I don't believe anything about it.
I don't believe that we understand the average opinion of the Azov battalion.
I mean, we've seen clips, so we know what some leaders have said.
But it wouldn't surprise me if you talked to the members and you had, you know, privately.
Maybe they just joined because their friends are in it.
I mean... Who knows what's going on over there?
Who knows? What?
It's a huge problem, somebody says.
It could be. I'm also not minimizing...
That the size of the problem could be bigger than we think.
It could be. I'm saying that it's just a complete black box over there.
there.
We don't know what's happening.
But, you know, nobody wants Nazis in charge of anything in Ukraine.
Yeah.
All right.
That's all I've got for now.
And I believe I have achieved my objective of giving you the best live stream in the history of the world.
Even better than yesterday.
And... And...
You know what's amazing is it could be even better tomorrow.
