OV9

I said the same to the missus when watching it yesterday.

It all seemed chummy, chummy but by Monday, he might well slap 50% tarrifs on UK Trade with the promise he'll remove them if we do x, y and z to help him with his agenda points. Why do all the hard work when you can get others to do it for you.

dinny_g wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2025 9:52 am I said the same to the missus when watching it yesterday.

It all seemed chummy, chummy but by Monday, he might well slap 50% tarrifs on UK Trade with the promise he'll remove them if we do x, y and z to help him with his agenda points. Why do all the hard work when you can get others to do it for you.

I actually think it's the best defence against Project 2025 - that Trump is so impulsive and uncontrolled that it'll just never happen, or he'll undermine and contradict the main project goals and achievements

He's put people in place who are implementing it, and they'll Caesar the shit out of him if he changes his mind.

That's the problem with putting raving psychopaths in positions of power - Kash Patel, for example, barefaced lied with a shiteating grin on his face during his confirmation hearings.

dinny_g wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2025 9:52 am It all seemed chummy, chummy but by Monday, he might well slap 50% tarrifs on UK Trade with the promise he'll remove them if we do x, y and z to help him with his agenda points. Why do all the hard work when you can get others to do it for you.

So I guess the next play is “Condemn Zelensky like us or you won’t get a trade deal”

See Vance has gone for a ski trip in Vermont. It’s not going well, apparently he’s having to camp out in his hotel due to the number of protesters

mik wrote: Sat Mar 01, 2025 8:40 pm https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -zelenskyy

good article, though she needs to decide how she’s spelling Zelenskyy…

mik wrote: Sat Mar 01, 2025 8:40 pm https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -zelenskyy

Is the 2.6bn loan tiny we're offering, tiny in comparison to the amount the U.S have been paying previously?

I mean, the US military budget is basically a quarter our entire GDP (~$800bn vs ~$3300bn) and our military budget doesn't even hit $100bn, so it's a matter of perspective.

Trying to pin down figures is a bit of a pain in the arse, but broad estimates are that we've put in about $8bn in military aid since 2022, and the US has put in about $65bn of the same. How the numbers are calculated seems a bit different, whether they include very recent commitments, etc, but as ballpark figures go those seem close enough from what I can see.

But given that the US military budget is literally ten times ours (and that's at a high estimate - between $65-80bn a year for the UK are the numbers I could be arsed to find after a bottle of wine) I'd say our input is pretty respectable. It might be tiny objectively compared to their input in a vacuum, but they have a much bigger pool to take from.

Also, this $2.26bn is something we're contributing to on top of the already commited, per year, till 2030 or "when it's done" $3bn/PA number:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-c ... to-justice

In the final week before the Christmas recess, the House of Commons passed the Third Reading of the Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill, which will enable the delivery of a further £2.26 billion loan to Ukraine, to be paid back by profits from immobilised Russian sovereign assets. The UK’s £2.26 billion loan is earmarked as budgetary support for Ukraine’s military spending, enabling the Ukrainians to invest in key equipment to support their efforts against Russia. It comes on top of the UK’s existing £3 billion a year military aid for Ukraine.

So this year we're actually putting in $5.26bn

Remember, if that "Tiny $2.26bn" phrase came from the US government, it can be entirely dismissed out of hand without a second thought, because their government press office is now basically staffed with the sort of people who would sit there and say the sky is polka dot black and white, and have a shit-eating grin on their face while doing so. I don't even mean that as hyperbole, the US Presidential Press office should be considered a non-reliable source for anything for the foreseeable future.

https://www.business-standard.com/amp/w ... 211_1.html

Norwegian fuel company that refuelled the us navy with 3million litres last year, has told a us submarine to jog on

Gunnar Gran, owner of Haltbakk Bunkers, reinforced the company's stance in an interview with Norwegian maritime news outlet Kystens Næringsliv, asserting that “not a litre” of fuel would be supplied to US forces “until Trump is finished.”

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZNdJtHPGm/

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZNdJtVNEa/

US is halting cyber ops against Russia. Every day something more insane than the last.

https://kyivindependent.com/us-halts-cy ... a-reports/

Also be careful how they are generating those numbers. I've read more than once that the US take a 40 year old vehicle out of storage, effectively worth buttons, then chalk up the cost of its brand new replacement and count that as the donation value, rather than seeing what it was. Something that was effectively mothballed before disposal.

Yeah, hence the wobbliness on the numbers - there's a lot of utter bollocks in there.

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZGdfxVajL/

Either he needs glasses and won’t admit it or he is genuinely illiterate

The debacle on Friday, this makes sense, “the stranger in the room”:

https://bsky.app/profile/muellershewrot ... gnuesirs2l

Make Smoking Great Again ?

Ian should get on a 60 a day habit, it might slow his tweeting down.

This is apparently an old Soviet joke:


Guy stops by the newsstand every day, scans the front page, doesn’t buy the paper. One day the vendor asks what he’s up to.

Guy says: “looking for an obituary.”

Vendor says “those are towards the back of the paper, comrade.”

Guy says: “not the one I’m looking for.”