3 ms·
Except that from January to March this year pundits swore up and down that Russia wouldn’t launch a full invasion of Ukraine. When it happened a lot of people w
by more_corn 4y ago
Except that from January to March this year pundits swore up and down that Russia wouldn’t launch a full invasion of Ukraine. When it happened a lot of people were surprised. You could have made a killing in the stock market if you’d realized that Russia would certainly invade, and they probably had a deadline in order to maximize the summer fighting season. It seemed obvious to me, but not so obvious that I positioned myself properly in the stock market.
Everything is obvious after the fact. Look around for the people asserting that it’s obvious BEFORE the fact and measure their accuracy. Those people might have useful insight.
- colinmhayes 4y ago> When it happened a lot of people were surprised. Meanwhile the US intelligence service had been claiming since summer that an invasion was likely. Trump's impeachment was over withholding military aid that the state department deemed crucial. The career foreign service workers saw this coming.
- ProjectArcturis 4y agoPundits? Maybe some did. There are lots of pundits and I'm sure many of them get a lot wrong and some get things right by pure chance. On the other hand, US intelligence was shouting loud and clear in mid-February that an invasion was immanent. In any case, making a claim in October 2014 that at some point Russia would continue its invasion of Ukraine is not a particularly impressive feat.
- togril 4y agoIt is impressive, as entire nations have literally gambled their (energy) security against this to happen. This is like saying it wasn't impressive to predict and time the GFC. Yeah sure, in retrospect it looks all totally obvious and simple.
- CountSessine 4y agoExactly. They entire EU energy strategy was predicated on the idea that trade would moderate Russian ambitions and hold the peace. And they were flat out wrong.