I've been watching Peter Zeihan's stuff, didn't know about him until recently.

Is he really THAT good, or is he more like one half good delivery plus one half substance, or some other combination of things?

He said if Putin invades Poland after he's "finished" with Ukraine, Nato would enter the fray, and Putin would then use nukes if Putin felt an existential threat. He said it in a way that seemed more like a guarantee instead of a possibility. Is he just hyper smart with a little too much enthusiasm, or something else entirely ?

He seems smart as hell to me, but I'm not smart enough to reliably judge true raw intelligence and superior judgement.

What say you ?

quote:

if Putin invades Poland after

Not going to happen.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

if Putin invades Poland after

Not going to happen.

PZ says Putin would without question, and gives reasons that sound, well, sort of reasonable.

So what's your reason that it would never happen ? Because of NATO ?

quote:

PZ says Putin would without question, and gives reasons that sound, well, sort of reasonable.

Well, then PZ is Wrong!

Yeah, everybody is smart and expert and making money spouting their expertise on YT and speaking circuits. Where have we heard that before.

I have met him and I have listened to him speak a couple of times. I am not a fan.

Here is a fellow with whom I have had essentially the same interactions, Dr. Alan Beaulieu. He is in a similar field to Zeihan, forecasting global events, but Dr. Beaulieu is a real economist and I think he is much better.

https://itreconomics.com/alan-beaulieu/



.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

if Putin invades Poland after

Not going to happen.

Agree. Not going to happen.
This is the purpose of nato.

I use to watch him and occasionally still do but after a while the saying “ If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance then baffle them with bullshit” came to mind.

He is sooo sure of himself and his view of macroeconomics that it’s hard to believe he is ALWAYS right. He got political a few months ago stating that he was getting off X because Musk was stifling free speech… That’s when I decided that I’ve had enough. A quick search shows he’s back on now….what a scam.

I know nothing about this guy. not one single thing. But I am not convinced putin would not move further into nato country. probably why he is voting for brandon. putin has learned a ton about his enemies in the last three years and more importantly has strengthened his allies during that time.
I think to underestimate your enemy is a fatal mistake.

quote:

Originally posted by smlsig:
I use to watch him and occasionally do but after a while the saying “ If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance then baffle them with bullshit” came to mind.

Yep. And he believes that the USA is a superpower by accident, simply because of our geography, not our founding principles. He's a leftist and, to my knowledge, has no formal economics education, unlike Dr. Beaulieu above.

.

Invade Poland, not happening. The Poles have a bigger army, tanks and artillery than the Germans. And I would argue better trained and equipped. Not the same German army that I remember when I was a young Nato soldier before the wall came down.

Now invade the Baltic states that might happen.
But they would be opening up a major can of conventional whoop ass. Nato might not be able to retake it with landforces but I think they would conventionally airstrike the Russians like they have not seen. Not to mention real sanctions for a change.

As much trouble as the Russians are having with Ukraine I think it will be awhile before they get frisky again.

I wouldn't dismiss everything Zeihan talks about, just make sure you keep it in perspective and weigh it against other information you've come across. People who are fans/supporters of him, speak of him like he's an oracle, he's no such thing. He's no doubt knowledgeable in economics of global trade, natural resources and finances however once he starts verging into areas like military activities and tactics, he's lost me. He's visible and willing to engage with new media (podcasts, vlogs, etc..) versus most economists and global speculators who are more comfortable within the confines of academia or, corporate halls.

Peter Zeihan is just a different version of Bill Nye, lots of talking points & energy.......but complete nonsense.

Russia's military is set-up for defense of their territory, they're not an expeditionary force.

quote:

He said if Putin invades Poland after he's "finished" with Ukraine, Nato would enter the fray, and Putin would then use nukes if Putin felt an existential threat.

This is based on the false premise that Putin would invade a NATO country in the first place, so the rest is invalid. Even without NATO, Poland has a centuries-long history of being divvied up between various powers and is not going back there without a fight.

Well, and not only that, but their most recent occupiers were Russia, and I had one Polish emigrant tell me her mother survived the war and said the Russians were worse to the Poles than the Germans. All of that only ended about thirty years ago and you’re right, that isn’t going to happen again without an incredible fight. The chance of Putin attacking Poland has to be somewhere very near zero.

Putin is struggling with a slog in Ukraine years longer than he expected. Why on Earth would he immediately attack Poland after? That would be insanity.

I first caught Zeihan on Lawrence Person's battleswarmblog.com. He was interesting at first, but he is not the answer to those of us seeking more certainty in these extremely tumultuous--dare I say terrifying--times.

I still recall constantly hearing in my youth about the Domino Theory and why we had to continue in Vietnam and complete the job.
If we didn't, the Ruskies would be emboldened and it would be just like the Germans in the late 30's or Soviets in eastern Europe. All of Southeast Asia would fall and who knows after that.

I can’t get a handle on him either. I thought he was another arrogant leftist but he threw Obama into the wood-chipper while doing an analysis of Biden’s goofery, saying he was in the bottom 10 of presidents.

He's a lib for sure, and doesn't like Trump, and after reading this thread I can look back and see he's pretty formulaic in his analyses, perhaps to a fault, and we see this in lots of popular channels and speakers who get a hold of a successful schtik and run with it for a while. I don't know if he ever debates with equals or superiors, but that might be helpful in judging his true level of credibility.

But I'm just spouting, I don't know about him nor his work or what truly smart people say about him.