Most assertions are speculative opinions unsupported by data. Reducing complex economic and geopolitical issues to simplistic narratives of good guys vs. bad guys (RoW vs. US) is not objectivity. The use of extreme language (‘terrorist’, ‘nukes’) undermines your credibility and distances you from serious debate. There are clear contradictions: you claim that the US economy is fragile because of its global dependence, but its collapse would not harm the rest of the world. I see the discourse as constructed to confirm a strongly anti-US view, not to explore an issue in a balanced way.
Most assertions are speculative opinions unsupported by data. Reducing complex economic and geopolitical issues to simplistic narratives of good guys vs. bad guys (RoW vs. US) is not objectivity. The use of extreme language (‘terrorist’, ‘nukes’) undermines your credibility and distances you from serious debate. There are clear contradictions: you claim that the US economy is fragile because of its global dependence, but its collapse would not harm the rest of the world. I see the discourse as constructed to confirm a strongly anti-US view, not to explore an issue in a balanced way.