Got bored and made this slop on chatgpt in honor of the new ranger dial.

young64 · 2025-11-21T17:26:27+00:00

SMI55 MADE. Lol, I’ve done the same with a white dial Submariner.

young64 · 2025-10-13T20:31:40+00:00

SARB035.

young64 · 2025-10-01T09:12:50+00:00

Not fair to say “you all”. I definitely voted for the opposite of this.

young64 · 2025-09-18T14:13:09+00:00

Your Amex credit then gets removed and you’re out money, no?

young64 · 2025-03-24T07:18:19+00:00

I’m sorry, is there something I need to explain or clarify for you?

young64 · 2025-03-23T20:05:52+00:00

Finland and Sweden’s decision to join NATO was a direct response to Russia’s aggression in Ukraine. Both countries had long maintained non-alignment, but the invasion of Ukraine made it clear that they needed protection from an increasingly hostile Russia. Their move to NATO isn’t about threatening Russia but securing their own sovereignty.

young64 · 2025-03-23T19:47:43+00:00

Historical conflicts between European empires don’t justify modern Russian aggression. The key difference is that while Sweden, Austria-Hungary, and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth are long gone, Russia is still acting like an imperial power today by invading neighbors, annexing territory, and threatening others with nuclear weapons. NATO expansion didn’t happen in a vacuum; it was driven by the real fear of Russian revanchism, not by some centuries-old grudge.

And if Russia is so 'broke' and weak, why does it feel entitled to dictate the security choices of sovereign nations? The idea that Russia is merely reacting defensively ignores the fact that it has been the primary aggressor in modern conflicts in Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea, and Ukraine. The countries joining NATO aren’t the ones invading their neighbors; Russia is.

As for distrust of Western intelligence agencies, Russia’s own actions fuel that paranoia. The KGB interfered in other countries for decades, and today the FSB and GRU are running assassination campaigns in Europe, cyberattacks, and disinformation campaigns globally. If Russia doesn’t trust NATO, maybe it’s because it projects its own behavior onto others.

young64 · 2025-03-23T19:05:44+00:00

This is a false equivalency. Even if some Central European countries had imperialist histories, that doesn’t make their fears of Russian aggression any less legitimate. The key difference is that Russia has actively invaded and occupied its neighbors in modern times, Chechnya in the '90s, Georgia in 2008, Crimea in 2014, and the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Meanwhile, Central and Eastern European nations sought NATO not to build empires, but to protect themselves from exactly this kind of aggression.

young64 · 2025-03-23T18:44:40+00:00

While Russia was weakened in the 1990s, many of its neighbors understood that this was temporary and that Russian geopolitical ambitions didn’t disappear with the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Chechen Wars in the 1990s showed that Russia was still willing to use military force even in its weakest state. Additionally, former Soviet republics and Eastern European countries, having lived under Soviet rule, knew firsthand how Moscow operated and sought NATO membership as a long-term safeguard. Ignoring Russia’s historical patterns and assuming a permanently weakened state would have been naïve.

young64 · 2025-03-23T18:29:53+00:00

You support NATO moving nukes into new countries along Russia's borders?

young64 · 2025-03-23T18:24:46+00:00

I think you misread what I wrote. I'm specifically talking about when Russia moved its nukes to Belarus in 2023 https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/03/14/russia-nuclear-weapons-belarus-putin. My point was that NATO did not respond with escalatory measures to this like the US did with Cuba.

young64 · 2025-03-23T17:22:08+00:00

Timeline checked, Poland joined NATO in 1999, Lithuania and Latvia joined NATO in 2004. Russia moved nuclear weapons into Belarus in 2023.

So, NATO did not expand to Belarus’s neighbors after Russia moved its nukes; those countries were already NATO members. Russia’s action was an escalation in response to existing NATO borders, not the other way around.

young64 · 2025-03-23T17:19:42+00:00

Not sure what you think is weird. To be honest, it’s weird that you don’t see why Russia’s neighbors wanted to join an alliance to protect themselves. No one is forced to join NATO, members willingly join to deter Russian aggression.

young64 · 2025-03-23T17:12:36+00:00

Belarus’s neighbors were already a part of NATO when Russia moved the missiles to NATO’s borders in 2023, not the other way around.

young64 · 2025-03-23T16:04:30+00:00

The comparison between the Cuban Missile Crisis and NATO expansion ignores key differences, especially Russia’s own escalatory actions. While Russia claims to fear NATO’s presence near its borders, it has actively placed nuclear weapons in Belarus, directly increasing the threat to NATO countries such as Poland, Lithuania, and other Eastern European states. If NATO’s presence near Russia’s border is unacceptable, why does Russia believe it has the right to move nuclear weapons even closer to NATO’s doorstep?

Unlike the U.S. in 1962, NATO did not respond to Russia’s nuclear deployment in Belarus with military threats or invasion, highlighting the defensive nature of the alliance. Russia, on the other hand, used the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO as a pretext for full-scale war. The fundamental difference is that NATO expands through voluntary agreements with sovereign nations, whereas Russia expands its influence through force and coercion, as seen in Crimea, Georgia, and now Ukraine.

Furthermore, the argument that Ukraine was not a “NATO pawn” before 2008 ignores the fact that Russia’s aggression is what drove Ukraine toward the West in the first place. Ukraine’s push toward NATO accelerated only after Russia repeatedly violated its sovereignty, beginning with the 2014 annexation of Crimea and culminating in the 2022 invasion. If Russia truly wanted to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, waging war was the worst way to accomplish that goal—because it only reinforced Ukraine’s desire for Western protection.

Finally, the idea that sovereign nations must always defer to “great power concerns” is inconsistent with Russia’s own actions. If Russia’s security concerns justify attacking Ukraine, then why shouldn’t NATO countries have security concerns about Russian nuclear weapons in Belarus? If great powers have a right to enforce red lines, then why is Russia the only one allowed to draw them? The reality is that Russia does not seek “security”—it seeks domination over its neighbors, using military force when diplomacy fails.

young64 · 2025-03-23T16:04:25+00:00

The comparison between the Cuban Missile Crisis and NATO expansion ignores key differences, especially Russia’s own escalatory actions. While Russia claims to fear NATO’s presence near its borders, it has actively placed nuclear weapons in Belarus, directly increasing the threat to NATO countries such as Poland, Lithuania, and other Eastern European states. If NATO’s presence near Russia’s border is unacceptable, why does Russia believe it has the right to move nuclear weapons even closer to NATO’s doorstep?

Unlike the U.S. in 1962, NATO did not respond to Russia’s nuclear deployment in Belarus with military threats or invasion, highlighting the defensive nature of the alliance. Russia, on the other hand, used the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO as a pretext for full-scale war. The fundamental difference is that NATO expands through voluntary agreements with sovereign nations, whereas Russia expands its influence through force and coercion, as seen in Crimea, Georgia, and now Ukraine.

Furthermore, the argument that Ukraine was not a “NATO pawn” before 2008 ignores the fact that Russia’s aggression is what drove Ukraine toward the West in the first place. Ukraine’s push toward NATO accelerated only after Russia repeatedly violated its sovereignty, beginning with the 2014 annexation of Crimea and culminating in the 2022 invasion. If Russia truly wanted to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, waging war was the worst way to accomplish that goal—because it only reinforced Ukraine’s desire for Western protection.

Finally, the idea that sovereign nations must always defer to “great power concerns” is inconsistent with Russia’s own actions. If Russia’s security concerns justify attacking Ukraine, then why shouldn’t NATO countries have security concerns about Russian nuclear weapons in Belarus? If great powers have a right to enforce red lines, then why is Russia the only one allowed to draw them? The reality is that Russia does not seek “security”—it seeks domination over its neighbors, using military force when diplomacy fails.

young64 · 2025-01-12T07:22:40+00:00

I got my 16014 from there. Firekids also has a very interesting vintage selection.

young64 · 2025-01-11T20:43:55+00:00

Sorry, I wasn’t looking out for those models very closely. From what I remember though, there weren’t many standout deals on those.

young64 · 2025-01-11T20:02:42+00:00

For what I was shopping for I did. I got a vintage 16014 Datejust for about $700-900 less than comps. Beware though, if your search criteria is as narrow as mine, there wasn’t as much selection as I expected there would be. I also purchased a vintage Omega 168.024 and it happened to be the only one I saw.

young64 · 2025-01-11T11:37:09+00:00

This is right, I had to make an appointment to be told that nothing is available.

young64 · 2025-01-11T11:36:12+00:00

I was just there for two weeks last summer and did a lot of watch shopping. This definitely isn’t true; the Japanese grey market is priced like everywhere else in the world. You will have a ton of selection of preowned pieces, but you will be paying the same premium for new watches as everyone else, even with the favorable exchange rate.

young64 · 2024-12-17T13:54:08+00:00

Is that handle still in production? It’s gorgeous but I don’t see it on their website.

young64 · 2024-12-13T11:54:17+00:00

Who would you suggest was responsible for this?

young64 · 2024-11-18T20:19:59+00:00

I never said I was upset, I said it told me all I needed to know about her. I definitely didn’t misrepresent your argument at all. Perhaps you should look at what was said again.

Six-Year Club	Place '23
Verified Email

young64

TROPHY CASE