All right, Alexander, let's talk about the New York Times article, which has declared that there is no stalemate in the conflict in Ukraine.

So it's official. It's official no stalemate. There was a stalemate for a while, but not anymore.

And the interesting part about the New York Times article

is that the first part of the article talks about how there's an opportunity for Ukraine

to win the conflict in about a year's time, once Russia's weapons, economy, vulnerabilities

have been exploited, everything has deteriorated. Give it one year and

Ukraine has an opportunity to win the war. And then in the same article, it talks about how the

Ukraine forces are heading towards a defeat. It's really strange how in the first part,

which is what I would guess is the part that most

people read, like the top part of the article that talks about how terrible the Russian military

is, how poorly trained it is, and how there's an opportunity for Ukraine.

But then as you go further down the article, they get to the truth, which is that the Ukraine

military is losing and is going to lose in about a year's time.

But the stalemate is over.

Russia is advancing.

What are your thoughts?

Well, it's actually very interesting because you said it's official.

It is absolutely official because what the article says is that US intelligence analysts and analysts assessed back in June that there was a stalemate and that the Russians would not be able to make any breakthroughs.

And then it goes on to say straightforwardly that they were wrong.

That's a very interesting admission. It then also says elsewhere in the article, and you correctly

say all of this is buried deep inside the article that the Pentagon gives Ukraine six to 12 months

before the cumulative effect of the manpower losses become so acute that things begin

...