ng a narrative. We're not seeing reporting.

Then I asked Grok, and remember again, Grok doesn't have to be right all the time, but I'll tell you what Grok said because it's interesting. I've told you before that one of the ways you can predict the future is by looking at insurance. And so I wondered, are these boats privately owned? Not boats, ships. Are these tankers privately owned? And if they're privately owned, are they insured? And the answer is, you know, there are a variety of situations, but some of them, well let me cut to the important thing. I asked Grok how much a tanker can earn making one run of, you know, let's say a full ship of oil. And the answer is about $3 to $5 million for one run. And the cargo would be worth something like 15 to 30 million. So they're transporting 15 to $30 million in a ship that itself is worth maybe three to five, I'm sorry the ship would be worth something like 15 million plus but they would earn 3 to 5 million for just one let's say two-month journey there and back. So what I'm trying to communicate is that the economics of being a ghost ship owner are so good that you don't need insurance. In other words, if you just make several runs, you would earn so much that it would pay for the entire ship going down if it got taken out. And since only two of a thousand ships got taken out, then the economics are do I take this $3 million that I'll get in 30 to 60 days at the risk of I don't know maybe 1 in 500 might be the risk of losing the entire ship, but you can pay for the entire ship in maybe half a year, which would be one of the best investments you could ever have. So the problem is that the economics of avoiding sanctions even at the risk of losing your entire tanker, the entire tanker is still overwhelmingly good business. And so I think a lot of the ghost tankers are sort of rusty old older tankers that they wouldn't care that much if it went down.

So it looks to me like, well here's another story along those same lines. The Wall Street Journal has an article that says Russia is winning the drone war. So remember I've told you recently that Ukraine's only real advantage, maybe just one advantage they have, is that they seem to be ahead of Russia in building deadly drones and using them effectively. Well, according to the Wall Street Journal, that has flipped and now Russia has a decided advantage in the drone war. One of the things that caught my eye is that this is from the Wall Street Journal today. Quote, "Large-scale maneuvering remains nearly impossible on a battlefield where masses of cheap drones can see and target movement by soldiers or vehicles." So remember, I've been telling you for a while that this would turn into a robot only war and it wouldn't even be about people. That's basically what the Wall Street Journal is reporting that you wouldn't even bother putting any vehicle into the war zone because it won't last five minutes. So if you can't put human occupied, you can't do troops or a human driving a truck, it's going to be completely depopulated in the border war zone and it will be literally just drone on drone, robot on robot. So we're very close to my weird prediction that this would be our first robot on robot war. It kind of already is. Not exactly, but it's heading that way.

All right. Now, I'm going to confess some stupidity if you don't mind. Somebody said the other day that's one of the reasons they like listening to me is that I'm not overly wed to even my own opinions. If the evidence shows that I've got it wrong, then I don't have any hesitation to changing my opinion. I'm going to do that right now. So I think I said the last few days that for the first time I could kind of imagine there could be a Ukraine Russia peace deal. And until recently, I couldn't even imagine it. And I'll reiterate what I said before I tell you how wrong it was.

So my thinking was that some things have changed recently. There's pressure on Ukraine in the corruption stuf