Reply With QuoteTry having Pfizer stockOriginally Posted by andy6025
Hall Of Fame
“Weapons matter, especially air defences and long-range missiles to strike at Russian supply lines, which is why it is crucial for America to approve the latest tranche of aid. Because arsenals are already depleted, more work needs to go into increasing the capacity of Western arms-makers.”
Uh oh, Jampie, The Economist doesn’t just have the conflict at a stalemate. Now Putin is winning! Do you think Congress will do the right thing and sprinkle $60B of resolve into my LMT holdings? I need something to offset those Moderna stocks I bought right at the peak and then watched as they tumbled down the mountain.
And to be honest, this war hasn’t been that great, financially speaking. By no means, bad, but not compared to its potential. I think our manufacturers have been reluctant to significantly expand capacity. I heard what’s-his-name, the American general, saying a year or so ago that the manufacturers don’t want to bite unless they are guaranteed long term contracts. I mean I get it, it makes sense - who wants to quadruple the number of ice cream makers they own when they see a long nuclear winter right around the corner.
It’s for thought, anyways.
Aside from the usual tropes about Putin’s “grip on power” vs “Ukrainian democracy”, etc, this Economist writer just might be angling for Russian agent status. I hear Putin pays well. But don’t worry - none of this is evidence that Putin is winning, and it’s certainly not evidence that Ukraine would have been better off signing off on the deal they didn’t propose.
https://archive.is/ZzEXQ
Hall Of Fame
Try having Pfizer stock
Hall Of Fame
Have you given up repeating the lie that they were close to a truce? Good, good. Onto the next lie I suppose. Oh wait it's an old lie: "Putin's winning!!11"
The Economist eh, that veritable bastion of great military analysis! Let's see here... clickbait headline that isn't supported by the article, some vague statements of fears, nothing about actual battles, losses, ground won or lost? Check, check and check. A quality addition, thanks so much for linking it, good job.
The war isn't going according to your fantasy mate. A stalemate, at this point, is probably a decent summation, with Russia holding onto the southeastern corner by dint of the superpower pro move of... *checks notes* cowering behind millions of land mines.
They've lost a majority of the territory they seized in their sneak attack, including the entire north of the country and everything west of the Dnipro. And in exchange for their remaining "territorial gains" they've lost a majority of their military land power, most of their stocks of long range munitions and a not insignificant number of aircraft. To call that situation "winning" is a joke, and a bad one.
As for what congress will do, I can't predict them. Biden will ensure the support is there regardless, of course. The primary risk to Ukraine remains a second Trump term I suppose.
No idea what you're trying to say with the rest of your barely coherent rant. I couldn't care less what your stocks do and bringing them up is almost is disgusting as your continual cheerleading for a dictator and war criminal.
Hall Of Fame
Is the war in Ukraine still going on?
It's ceased to be a 'media event' now, much like Covid.
'Breaking News': Something more new and 'exciting' is happening between Israel and Palestine, so all the cameras and journalists have gone there, and the things that were previously headline news and a threat to our existence have been relegated to 'other news'.
Anyone would think the MSM's real aim is just to maintain constant hysteria and sell advertising to keep themselves in jobs.
Hall Of Fame
And their owners' aims are to keep the public thinking about the latest crisis, whether it impacts them or not, instead of their own economic situation.
Yeah, the Ukraine war continues but the lines have ossified now with lots of landmines and stuff. So we're unlikely to see dramatic territorial gains for either side for a while.
Hall Of Fame
I heard an interesting one this morning on 5Live. They were saying because of their funding cuts they simply don't have the resources to cover more than one world event, so tend to follow the 'latest' and drop the older news. As a result, they have largely dropped Ukraine in favour of Palestine. With the new cuts about to be announced I think this will become worse. Listening to LBC you realise how balanced the BBC really is (but not as balanced as GBNews obviously!!).
Hall Of Fame
Interesting article by former Deputy Undersecretary of Defence (but now possible Russian agent), Steven Bryen,
https://weapons.substack.com/p/nato-...m_medium=email
Hall Of Fame
Kent Magpie, if the BBC didn't employ Big Ears, they would have plenty of money to follow more than one world event. Even if that is a valid reason, it smacks of rank bad budgeting.
Great to see little GB News still getting under your skin though.
Hall Of Fame
Not good reading for us and other NATO countries, looks like another giant American led fk up incoming, don't even make the news now.
New Member
I think you are on to them.
Though the question remains: Are the agenda pushers even human?
Posting Permissions
