This utter horror showJock42 wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2025 8:31 pmMTG?Uncle fester wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2025 7:45 pm The guy asking Zelensky why he doesn't wear a suit is MTG's boyfriend.
Russian state media nearly got access and had to be escorted out once they realised who they were.
My guess, is they tried to use the occasion to attempt to railroad Zelensky into signing the extortionate minerals deal expecting him to sign without any security guarantee (which means one of NATO/nuclear weapons/European or US troops), then the security guarantee which doesn't exist was mentioned and it blew up. Thing is, does someone who actually has no cards get a reaction like that? That level of anger and rage for a man with no cards? The US strategy of excluding Europe and Ukraine whilst attempting to pick Russia as the winner on Russia's terms isn't viable, the anger is better explained by Europe and Ukraine having at least some cards and the US hating that fact (it's more than Trump). Zelensky took the brunt because he's the weakest.Margin__Walker wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2025 7:35 pm Odd thing is, that these guys are such pricks, it's hard to tell whether the intention was always to stage an ambush in this setting (probable), or whether it was spontaneous (less likely, but more than possible).
Pretty shocking pantomime to witness either way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marjorie_ ... prov=sfla1Jock42 wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2025 8:31 pmMTG?Uncle fester wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2025 7:45 pm The guy asking Zelensky why he doesn't wear a suit is MTG's boyfriend.
Russian state media nearly got access and had to be escorted out once they realised who they were.
Ah yeah OK.inactionman wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2025 8:43 pmThis utter horror showJock42 wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2025 8:31 pmMTG?Uncle fester wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2025 7:45 pm The guy asking Zelensky why he doesn't wear a suit is MTG's boyfriend.
Russian state media nearly got access and had to be escorted out once they realised who they were.
Marjorie Taylor Greene, maga tea party, conspiracy theory dickhead and inexplicably representative for the state of Georgia
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... dApp_OtherThere is a thing in Washington that many people understand but that few will say: that the Trump administration was looking for a pretext to ruin its relationship with Ukraine, and that the canned messaging that followed the Oval Office feels oddly coordinated and premeditated.
Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, who has been one of Ukraine’s strongest backers up until his confirmation, tweeted: “Thank you @POTUS for standing up for America in a way that no President has ever had the courage to do before. Thank you for putting America First. America is with you!”
Agree 100% with analysis.Also on a personal level Trump hates Zelensky and cant stand being seen to be upstaged by a wee man in black fatigues in front of the world!_Os_ wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2025 8:45 pmMy guess, is they tried to use the occasion to attempt to railroad Zelensky into signing the extortionate minerals deal expecting him to sign without any security guarantee (which means one of NATO/nuclear weapons/European or US troops), then the security guarantee which doesn't exist was mentioned and it blew up. Thing is, does someone who actually has no cards get a reaction like that? That level of anger and rage for a man with no cards? The US strategy of excluding Europe and Ukraine whilst attempting to pick Russia as the winner on Russia's terms isn't viable, the anger is better explained by Europe and Ukraine having at least some cards and the US hating that fact (it's more than Trump). Zelensky took the brunt because he's the weakest.Margin__Walker wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2025 7:35 pm Odd thing is, that these guys are such pricks, it's hard to tell whether the intention was always to stage an ambush in this setting (probable), or whether it was spontaneous (less likely, but more than possible).
Pretty shocking pantomime to witness either way.
American West vs European West really does look possible. It's clear the US just wants to axe support for Ukraine regardless of outcome, which Europe cannot allow. Lets hope the UK and France win Suez this time.
Absolutely this. More corny and orchestrated than any US sh*tcom. Only thing missing was the canned laughter.Uncle fester wrote: Sat Mar 01, 2025 8:56 amhttps://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... dApp_OtherThere is a thing in Washington that many people understand but that few will say: that the Trump administration was looking for a pretext to ruin its relationship with Ukraine, and that the canned messaging that followed the Oval Office feels oddly coordinated and premeditated.
If he wants to completely fuck the American defence industry he can do that.Flockwitt wrote: Sat Mar 01, 2025 8:59 pm The problem is if Trump gets to the position of saying, cease fire now or we withdraw all support.
Doing exactly what Putin wants of course.
He unfortunately has the potential to do this, as he absolutely does not care. He could do it and then point to savings made, without recognition of or consideration for the consequences for his own country, nevermind the wider world.Hellraiser wrote: Sat Mar 01, 2025 10:40 pmIf he wants to completely fuck the American defence industry he can do that.Flockwitt wrote: Sat Mar 01, 2025 8:59 pm The problem is if Trump gets to the position of saying, cease fire now or we withdraw all support.
Doing exactly what Putin wants of course.
OSINT researcher Cyrus has published new charts of military equipment losses recorded by the Oryx team.
Russian losses have been steadily decreasing month after month, although the Russians themselves have not reduced the pressure and have been actively advancing. Cyrus considers this a sure sign of the general exhaustion of the Russian Armed Forces.
Moreover, he considers it unlikely that the Russians will prepare new forces to resume more active attacks in the spring - if they have not managed to form such reserves since May last year.
At the same time, the researcher points out that Ukrainian losses do not show a similar decline - which means that the situation with military equipment in Ukraine is more stable.
@yigal_levin
NEW: Recent Russian official statements in response to the proposed US-Ukraine mineral deal indicate that the Kremlin is trying to sabotage the deal through narratives targeting Ukrainian and American audiences. The Kremlin is claiming that this mineral deal does not benefit Ukraine while also claiming that Russia can make a better offer to the United States, indicating that Moscow sees the deal as harmful to its objectives.
Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov responded on February 23 to a question about the US-Ukraine mineral deal and whether US pressure would push Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to "finally sell out all of Ukraine," including Russia's illegally annexed territories in Ukraine.
Again, you're another person acting like you are talking about rational, intelligent people who think things thru & have a plan, instead of, "Art of the Deal", & all the other bullshit._Os_ wrote: Mon Mar 03, 2025 6:33 pm Hearing a lot of talk about the mineral deal, you can tell those talking are not from a mining jurisdiction and know literally nothing about the subject. I've seen no one make these basic points, so I'll put them here for you guys:
1. It takes massive capital investment and 10-15 years to develop a natural resource into a productive mine operating at scale. This investment simply doesn't happen unless the conditions are perfect, and I mean absolutely perfect over a range of areas (policy certainty, infrastructure/transport/power, political stability, local skills base, etc). Industrialised mining at scale definitely is not done in contested warzones. Even if the war stopped tomorrow it's very unlikely any new mining at scale will be done in Ukraine before the end of the 2030s.
2. Not many companies are able to prospect and develop fresh claims into large scale mines. This mining deal will not change which companies are operating there, it's going to be the same few regardless. Deal with the Americans to divide natural resource revenue =/= more Americans than with no deal. The deal could even kill mining investment (is this a form of tax? at 50%!). Most of the value will be in oil/gas even if Ukraine doesn't have much, just more profitable than digging.
3. Not really related but foreign workers aren't a security guarantee. Iraq invaded Kuwait and didn't worry at all about that.
... All looks a bit grubby. Trump talks about helping Ukraine and they should be grateful, but then talks about how he wants to make money from the situation. Is he helping or trying to make money.
True but also foolish, reality does exist.fishfoodie wrote: Mon Mar 03, 2025 7:04 pmAgain, you're another person acting like you are talking about rational, intelligent people who think things thru & have a plan, instead of, "Art of the Deal", & all the other bullshit._Os_ wrote: Mon Mar 03, 2025 6:33 pm Hearing a lot of talk about the mineral deal, you can tell those talking are not from a mining jurisdiction and know literally nothing about the subject. I've seen no one make these basic points, so I'll put them here for you guys:
1. It takes massive capital investment and 10-15 years to develop a natural resource into a productive mine operating at scale. This investment simply doesn't happen unless the conditions are perfect, and I mean absolutely perfect over a range of areas (policy certainty, infrastructure/transport/power, political stability, local skills base, etc). Industrialised mining at scale definitely is not done in contested warzones. Even if the war stopped tomorrow it's very unlikely any new mining at scale will be done in Ukraine before the end of the 2030s.
2. Not many companies are able to prospect and develop fresh claims into large scale mines. This mining deal will not change which companies are operating there, it's going to be the same few regardless. Deal with the Americans to divide natural resource revenue =/= more Americans than with no deal. The deal could even kill mining investment (is this a form of tax? at 50%!). Most of the value will be in oil/gas even if Ukraine doesn't have much, just more profitable than digging.
3. Not really related but foreign workers aren't a security guarantee. Iraq invaded Kuwait and didn't worry at all about that.
... All looks a bit grubby. Trump talks about helping Ukraine and they should be grateful, but then talks about how he wants to make money from the situation. Is he helping or trying to make money.
You spent more time thinking about this than anyone in the Administration !
This imaginary deal was just so the Traitor could have his moment of Triumph outside the WH, & claim that while crooked Joe gave 500 bazillion dollars & got nothing in return, he the master negotiator got a deal that was worth 2000 bazillion dollars, & it only took him a few days.
Everything is just bullshit, & the only thing this fucking moron cares about is headlines & poll ratings.
This Trump administration's only consideration is taking as much public money as possible and putting it into the pockets of the billionaires who fund them. Ukraine is costing a lot of money and they want to stop spending it on security for Ukraine and start spending it on security for their doomsday ranches in bumfuck Wyoming.lemonhead wrote: Mon Mar 03, 2025 8:46 pm They are now, as expected, looking at easing sanctions on Russia.
Even the straight up report-news-verbatim articles are baffled as to the underlying strategy behind it. Which would charitably suggest there isn't nearly enough of, if any on display.
Their thinking seems to be that collapsing the global order will increase their relative power and wealth. Middle class have gradually been shrinking in the US anyway but overall wealth is still increasing so they think that will continue until about 10 people own 99.5% of the wealth.Sandstorm wrote: Mon Mar 03, 2025 9:57 pm I don’t understand how these billionaires who support Trump will still be rich when the US economy shrinks and millions of people lose their jobs. The stock market will drop and so will the value of their stock profiles. What am I missing?
Still over thinking !_Os_ wrote: Mon Mar 03, 2025 8:24 pmTrue but also foolish, reality does exist.fishfoodie wrote: Mon Mar 03, 2025 7:04 pmAgain, you're another person acting like you are talking about rational, intelligent people who think things thru & have a plan, instead of, "Art of the Deal", & all the other bullshit._Os_ wrote: Mon Mar 03, 2025 6:33 pm Hearing a lot of talk about the mineral deal, you can tell those talking are not from a mining jurisdiction and know literally nothing about the subject. I've seen no one make these basic points, so I'll put them here for you guys:
1. It takes massive capital investment and 10-15 years to develop a natural resource into a productive mine operating at scale. This investment simply doesn't happen unless the conditions are perfect, and I mean absolutely perfect over a range of areas (policy certainty, infrastructure/transport/power, political stability, local skills base, etc). Industrialised mining at scale definitely is not done in contested warzones. Even if the war stopped tomorrow it's very unlikely any new mining at scale will be done in Ukraine before the end of the 2030s.
2. Not many companies are able to prospect and develop fresh claims into large scale mines. This mining deal will not change which companies are operating there, it's going to be the same few regardless. Deal with the Americans to divide natural resource revenue =/= more Americans than with no deal. The deal could even kill mining investment (is this a form of tax? at 50%!). Most of the value will be in oil/gas even if Ukraine doesn't have much, just more profitable than digging.
3. Not really related but foreign workers aren't a security guarantee. Iraq invaded Kuwait and didn't worry at all about that.
... All looks a bit grubby. Trump talks about helping Ukraine and they should be grateful, but then talks about how he wants to make money from the situation. Is he helping or trying to make money.
You spent more time thinking about this than anyone in the Administration !
This imaginary deal was just so the Traitor could have his moment of Triumph outside the WH, & claim that while crooked Joe gave 500 bazillion dollars & got nothing in return, he the master negotiator got a deal that was worth 2000 bazillion dollars, & it only took him a few days.
Everything is just bullshit, & the only thing this fucking moron cares about is headlines & poll ratings.
This isn't some nonsense culture wars issue which impacts hardly anyone. They're going to destroy US soft power if they keep this up for 4+ years, they'll never be forgiven in Europe if their bullshit harms Ukraine. The guys who lost to Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan and are now struggling against the Houthis, think their strength is hard power. They also think Russia wants to be their friend and Russia will help them more against China than Europe.
This is some insane shit we're witnessing. I'm half expecting them to go block capital red font "goo goo gaa gaa".
Ask any hedge fund/PE manager the best time to make money and they'll reply it's at times of uncertainty.Sandstorm wrote: Mon Mar 03, 2025 9:57 pm I don’t understand how these billionaires who support Trump will still be rich when the US economy shrinks and millions of people lose their jobs. The stock market will drop and so will the value of their stock profiles. What am I missing?
But Bezos, Musk and Zuckerberg are not. And these guys stand to lose if their market shrinks.I like neeps wrote: Mon Mar 03, 2025 10:16 pmAsk any hedge fund/PE manager the best time to make money and they'll reply it's at times of uncertainty.Sandstorm wrote: Mon Mar 03, 2025 9:57 pm I don’t understand how these billionaires who support Trump will still be rich when the US economy shrinks and millions of people lose their jobs. The stock market will drop and so will the value of their stock profiles. What am I missing?
Lets say you the president announces tarrifs on Canada,
stock orices of energy go down, you buy some and tomorrow the president says slightly fewer tarrifs so you sell them. Then the president annouces definitely will be tarrifs stock down buy again and sells them when he changes his mind. And a good amount of Trump's economics advisors are indeed hedge fund managers.
There are 2 ways the billionaires make moneySandstorm wrote: Mon Mar 03, 2025 10:51 pmBut Bezos, Musk and Zuckerberg are not. And these guys stand to lose if their market shrinks.I like neeps wrote: Mon Mar 03, 2025 10:16 pmAsk any hedge fund/PE manager the best time to make money and they'll reply it's at times of uncertainty.Sandstorm wrote: Mon Mar 03, 2025 9:57 pm I don’t understand how these billionaires who support Trump will still be rich when the US economy shrinks and millions of people lose their jobs. The stock market will drop and so will the value of their stock profiles. What am I missing?
Lets say you the president announces tarrifs on Canada,
stock orices of energy go down, you buy some and tomorrow the president says slightly fewer tarrifs so you sell them. Then the president annouces definitely will be tarrifs stock down buy again and sells them when he changes his mind. And a good amount of Trump's economics advisors are indeed hedge fund managers.
Shock doctrine/disaster capitalism - chaos is an opportunity. The economic elite may lose some money in the short term, but they will still be incredibly wealthy. Tens or hundreds of billions of dollars is a level of wealth that someone would have to actively attempt to disburse and even then it would take a while, it's an obscene amount that we peons have little reference for.Sandstorm wrote: Mon Mar 03, 2025 9:57 pm I don’t understand how these billionaires who support Trump will still be rich when the US economy shrinks and millions of people lose their jobs. The stock market will drop and so will the value of their stock profiles. What am I missing?
Musk has been giving himself large government contracts and has companies desperate to buy influence sidling up to him.Sandstorm wrote: Mon Mar 03, 2025 10:51 pmBut Bezos, Musk and Zuckerberg are not. And these guys stand to lose if their market shrinks.I like neeps wrote: Mon Mar 03, 2025 10:16 pmAsk any hedge fund/PE manager the best time to make money and they'll reply it's at times of uncertainty.Sandstorm wrote: Mon Mar 03, 2025 9:57 pm I don’t understand how these billionaires who support Trump will still be rich when the US economy shrinks and millions of people lose their jobs. The stock market will drop and so will the value of their stock profiles. What am I missing?
Lets say you the president announces tarrifs on Canada,
stock orices of energy go down, you buy some and tomorrow the president says slightly fewer tarrifs so you sell them. Then the president annouces definitely will be tarrifs stock down buy again and sells them when he changes his mind. And a good amount of Trump's economics advisors are indeed hedge fund managers.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen presented a five-stage plan for the rearmament of the European Union and support for Ukraine worth 800 billion euros.
She stated this at a briefing in Brussels.
The first part of the plan is to free up public funds to finance national defense.
"Member states are already willing to invest more in defence if they have the fiscal space. So we must allow them to do so. That is why we will propose a way around the Growth and Stability Pact, which will allow states to increase defence spending without triggering an excessive deficit procedure," the president explained.
According to her, this will free up up to 650 billion euros over four years.
The second element is a new instrument that will provide €150 billion in loans to member states for defence investments in air defence systems, artillery systems, missiles and ammunition, drone and counter-drone systems and joint procurement of equipment.
"With this equipment, member states will be able to increase their support for Ukraine on a large scale. We are talking about the immediate delivery of military equipment to Ukraine," von der Leyen said.
The third point is to use the power of the EU budget. Directing funds to defense investments using cohesion funds to increase defense spending. It is worth noting that the use of cohesion funds does not require unanimity, so Hungary or Slovakia cannot block such decisions.
The other two points provide for the mobilisation of private capital by expanding the investment market and through the European Investment Bank.
"The EU is ready to take responsibility. The European rearmament plan could mobilize around 800 billion euros in defense spending for a secure and resilient Europe," the President of the European Commission emphasized.
@yigal_levin
Hellraiser wrote: Tue Mar 04, 2025 11:38 am
She stated this at a briefing in Brussels.
The first part of the plan is to free up public funds to finance national defense.
"Member states are already willing to invest more in defence if they have the fiscal space. So we must allow them to do so. That is why we will propose a way around the Growth and Stability Pact, which will allow states to increase defence spending without triggering an excessive deficit procedure," the president explained.
According to her, this will free up up to 650 billion euros over four years.
The second element is a new instrument that will provide €150 billion in loans to member states for defence investments in air defence systems, artillery systems, missiles and ammunition, drone and counter-drone systems and joint procurement of equipment.
"With this equipment, member states will be able to increase their support for Ukraine on a large scale. We are talking about the immediate delivery of military equipment to Ukraine," von der Leyen said.
The third point is to use the power of the EU budget. Directing funds to defense investments using cohesion funds to increase defense spending. It is worth noting that the use of cohesion funds does not require unanimity, so Hungary or Slovakia cannot block such decisions.
The other two points provide for the mobilisation of private capital by expanding the investment market and through the European Investment Bank.
"The EU is ready to take responsibility. The European rearmament plan could mobilize around 800 billion euros in defense spending for a secure and resilient Europe," the President of the European Commission emphasized.
@yigal_levin
I can't get my head around the more more more more attitude of billionaires.sockwithaticket wrote: Tue Mar 04, 2025 9:18 amShock doctrine/disaster capitalism - chaos is an opportunity. The economic elite may lose some money in the short term, but they will still be incredibly wealthy. Tens or hundreds of billions of dollars is a level of wealth that someone would have to actively attempt to disburse and even then it would take a while, it's an obscene amount that we peons have little reference for.Sandstorm wrote: Mon Mar 03, 2025 9:57 pm I don’t understand how these billionaires who support Trump will still be rich when the US economy shrinks and millions of people lose their jobs. The stock market will drop and so will the value of their stock profiles. What am I missing?
Speaking of peons, regular folk will be orders of magnitude worse off and that's when those with wealth swoop in and accrue more assets, strip away more worker protections, strong arm mergers etc.
Bragging rights over their peers.C T wrote: Tue Mar 04, 2025 12:54 pmI can't get my head around the more more more more attitude of billionaires.sockwithaticket wrote: Tue Mar 04, 2025 9:18 amShock doctrine/disaster capitalism - chaos is an opportunity. The economic elite may lose some money in the short term, but they will still be incredibly wealthy. Tens or hundreds of billions of dollars is a level of wealth that someone would have to actively attempt to disburse and even then it would take a while, it's an obscene amount that we peons have little reference for.Sandstorm wrote: Mon Mar 03, 2025 9:57 pm I don’t understand how these billionaires who support Trump will still be rich when the US economy shrinks and millions of people lose their jobs. The stock market will drop and so will the value of their stock profiles. What am I missing?
Speaking of peons, regular folk will be orders of magnitude worse off and that's when those with wealth swoop in and accrue more assets, strip away more worker protections, strong arm mergers etc.
When I speak to my wife about this she just shrugs her shoulders and says billionaires love money, and I'm always saying I know, but what are they going to do with 550 billion that they can't get with 500 billion. I just don't get it.
Because tits are more wind-resistant.
The bottom line is that the billionaire and millionaires will make money out of any disaster of war and we will end up paying in the long term. Look at the covid emergency in the UK - we are all paying for the emergency response when the Gov transferred the bucket loads of cash to the rich who made money out of us - PPE contracts, Test, Track & Trace, big consultancy firms charging £1000s per day, Covid testing kits, supermarkets increasing prices and profits, eat out to help the virus out, dodgy Covid emergency loans, etc. Billions of pounds pissed up against the wall and ending up in offshore accounts whilst we are still picking up the bills! Mone and Barrowman are a classic case study on how the rich profit from disasters whilst we the public pay. There is always a bigger yacht, a flashier private jet, another holiday home, etc to be bought.C T wrote: Tue Mar 04, 2025 12:54 pmI can't get my head around the more more more more attitude of billionaires.sockwithaticket wrote: Tue Mar 04, 2025 9:18 amShock doctrine/disaster capitalism - chaos is an opportunity. The economic elite may lose some money in the short term, but they will still be incredibly wealthy. Tens or hundreds of billions of dollars is a level of wealth that someone would have to actively attempt to disburse and even then it would take a while, it's an obscene amount that we peons have little reference for.Sandstorm wrote: Mon Mar 03, 2025 9:57 pm I don’t understand how these billionaires who support Trump will still be rich when the US economy shrinks and millions of people lose their jobs. The stock market will drop and so will the value of their stock profiles. What am I missing?
Speaking of peons, regular folk will be orders of magnitude worse off and that's when those with wealth swoop in and accrue more assets, strip away more worker protections, strong arm mergers etc.
When I speak to my wife about this she just shrugs her shoulders and says billionaires love money, and I'm always saying I know, but what are they going to do with 550 billion that they can't get with 500 billion. I just don't get it.
TBF, not all billionaires are the same. Say what you want about Buffet, Soros and Gates (and many do about the latter two at least), but they've given away huge amounts of their wealth. Countless millionaires do the same.C T wrote: Tue Mar 04, 2025 12:54 pmI can't get my head around the more more more more attitude of billionaires.sockwithaticket wrote: Tue Mar 04, 2025 9:18 amShock doctrine/disaster capitalism - chaos is an opportunity. The economic elite may lose some money in the short term, but they will still be incredibly wealthy. Tens or hundreds of billions of dollars is a level of wealth that someone would have to actively attempt to disburse and even then it would take a while, it's an obscene amount that we peons have little reference for.Sandstorm wrote: Mon Mar 03, 2025 9:57 pm I don’t understand how these billionaires who support Trump will still be rich when the US economy shrinks and millions of people lose their jobs. The stock market will drop and so will the value of their stock profiles. What am I missing?
Speaking of peons, regular folk will be orders of magnitude worse off and that's when those with wealth swoop in and accrue more assets, strip away more worker protections, strong arm mergers etc.
When I speak to my wife about this she just shrugs her shoulders and says billionaires love money, and I'm always saying I know, but what are they going to do with 550 billion that they can't get with 500 billion. I just don't get it.
Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov responded on February 23 to a question about the US-Ukraine mineral deal and whether US pressure would push Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to "finally sell out all of Ukraine," including Russia's illegally annexed territories in Ukraine.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen presented a five-stage plan for the rearmament of the European Union and support for Ukraine worth 800 billion euros.