MicroB

Since you ask, It stands for Microbiologist, if you look through other posts. It's not a euphemism that related to obscenities, unlike your user name. I will assume you chose your user name because that's how you live your life, mouthing obscenities to friend, foe, strangers, reflecting how you were brought up. You're refusing to answer my genuine question (I knew a Richard Head, and he laughed about it), so that is what I have to assume, that you have a one track mind, and that's dirt track, and that you are trying to circumvent forum rules. Might have seemed a good idea at the time, but now you are stuck with it.

Er, no, nothing wrong my childhood. But thanks for the concern. Genuine question; why did your mum give you a pub joke for a name? Do you do the old wrist shake for added effect? If you are using a fake name, why is there the urge to offend minors?

The saving grace is that because he has built a cult of personality, something completely missing from his known brood, that cult will quickly disappear, quicker than Boerbet finishing off a theater audience. He's not a healthy man. I'd give him 2 years before he croaks.Vance will be in, but Vance isn't too bright, so he won't win the 2028 election; I'm not even sure he will be nominee. Of course, still time for a lot of damage to occur.

True for Supports and Opponants. Is your name really Mike Hunt or are you trying to deliberately use a highly offensive word to evade the swear filters. Or is it better than your real name, Mickey Labia?

Change the record. Some card carrying Nazi book burning religious Holy Joes don't understand sources of government income and who who paying for stuff today.

The clothing issue is a red herring. Churchill wore a boiler suit in the Whitehouse in 1942 (at selective times, at other times he wore a plain button naval uniform). Maggie Thatcher wore DPM flying with the paras. Starmer wore whatever the current Defstan camoflage just a few weeks back. Liz Truss even wore a flak jacket. Xi wears combats at times. When King Charles wears his uniform, it for the same reason all the politicians wear one. American Presidents seem to be the exception. I think the only sitting US President, in modern times at least, to have worn a military uniform while in office was George W Bush. https://static.politico.com/dims4/default/2cc0a44/2147483647/resize/1160x>/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2Fdb%2F40%2F44617f1245f1812781c4682c805d%2F20160214-grunwald-trumpbushiraq.jpg And the flight suit ceased being merely a flight suit once it had Presidential (rank) insignia on it. The American President will, at times, wear, like other Presidents, those quasi-military blousons, when attending events with the military, or emergency officials. There's no practical reason to do so, its for the photo opportunity to convey a message. The Oval office was a photo opportunity, given there was supposed to be a formal press conference at the podiums later. The "sacredness" of the Oval Office is a nonsense considering what Musk and he bogie-picking offspring do there. But moving away from the US-Ukraine spat, which I think will be sorted (the President wants his $350bn back, right now he's getting nothing), the broader sense is that trust in the United States is being eroded in spades. For some "trust" and "reliability" are just code words for being a sucker. Several years ago the current President conckuded some complex trade agreements with Canada and Mexico, stating at the time, these were fantastic deals. Here he is telling the world what a great deal it was; Years later, he's saying it was a terrible deal, and wondered who negotiated such a terrible deal. I don't think he had a memory lapse. This is how he worked when he was a businessman. Maybe it was the only way to get ahead in property investment; bad faith business, and screwing the other guy, and he is applying these practices in foreign relations. So America's word means nothing now. Presidents won't abide by treaties signed by predecessors. NATO members can no longer count on Article 5. Trade agreements concluded after tariff wars are worthless. British troops cannot count on the United States anymore, irrespective of what the President said, smiling, shaking hands, to the British Prime Minister. The American President says he never wants to see an American soldier in a war again, which is a laudable notion, and no one can disgree with that. I don't "want" British or an other soldiers dying in Ukraine, or anywhere. American troops storming the beaches in Normandy or Iwo Jima, didn't "want" to draw their last breath that day, but many did. Jesus didn't want to die on the cross. But he did, for a nobler cause, and he was true to His Word, as did many Martyrs. Putin doesn't trust the Americans and the West (we now talk of these as seperate entities, as US interests are no longer Western interests, they are only American intersts). The West will no longer trust the Americans. With all that, a Peace Treaty and all Peace Treaties are over. Taiwan probably doesn't trust the US anymore. That's going to affect how it views reunification. It might start moving in that direction. Without American help, they will be over run, and many people die. They are not getting American help. Some Americans might think thats a good thing, no American boy should die for Taipei, but the outcome won't be good for America. Some in the world might start trusting China more, because the Chinese are very legalistic; they will pour over the fine print in agreements going back generations. They have a much longer term view. The alternative is a world in chaos. An America that thinks it doesn't need the rest of the world, until another Bin Laden rocks up with a nuke this time. Its a savage world, with no rules, no order, except the rule of jungle. And that will extend to within the US.Why should Texas or California trust Washington to return federal tax money in the shape of infrastructure? Lack of trust erodes the US's biggest power; its Soft Power. Proverbially, everyone wants to be American, or the American lifestyle. The US projects a positive message, through media, through culture. A lot of that costs it nothing. The British like Americans, on a personal level, because we feel we are kith and kin (even if that is, at times, not reciprocated). Western Europe also feels a lot fo alignment because of perceived common values, through "Western Civilisation". Businessmen know all about Good Will. That's gold dust in business; you build up a business, and make money selling it on because of the Good Will built up. It takes a long time to build up Good Will, the customer who keeps coming back. One mistake can completely destroy it. Hard Power is the American's other Power. Ultimately, they have 6000 nuclear weapons, and they can choose to use them for offensive purposes. If America wants Greenland, and Denmark objects, Copenhagen is erased. No one could stand up to a power execised like that. But its expensive power to exercise. Some one could attack America back They won't win, but cities might be lost. Maybe that's an acceptable price to pay, But Hard Power sounds a lot more expensive to get your way in the world than Soft Power.

Ask Eric Trump about Russian loans. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/following-the-money/

I win the bet. You owe me $1000.

Yes, it was a Photo-Op. At first I thought it was that imbecile Vance who was trying to spoil it, given the actions of Musk the day before. But the fact that the question on the Ukrainian President's attire (pretty rude thing to ask, would never have asked that of Churchill's Siren Suit) came from MJG's toy boy, of all people, made me smell a rat, that it was contrived. Get Zelensky annoyed about something, then interupt the US President to further rile him, knowing that it would initiate a similar reaction from the US President (both men are obviously volatile personalities, with similar limitations in comprehension). Note how Vance then sat back, with an innocent but smug look on his face. He tried it with the British Prime Minister; there was a perfectly amicable interaction between the two leaders, possibly even genuine warmth, but Vance decided to interject with his bizarre, off-topic observation, particularly when he referenced Apple. I think he was trying to rile the US President, and have that as the headline. And Vance kept referring not to the "media" or "international media" but to the "American media". Who's idea was it for these Oval Office meetings. I don't recall them 2017-20? Almost like someone with Psy-Ops was involved stage managing things.

Not according to my Republican American friends in Missouri. Putin has planted a proverbial worm in your brain that is very Orwellian. Left is Right. Black is White. New speak. By your current standards, you consider Maggie Thatcher, who won from the centre, to be a Communist. You're a victim of KGB spycraft. I feel pity.

I think people who revert to "Leftist" in discussion are just as lazy in the brain as those who use "Rightist". Australian politics is kinds of similar to the UK, that generally parties win elections from the centre. It used t be that case for the US, that we used to joke that there wasn't really all that much difference between the Democrats and Republicans. And by and large, thats still the case, except those who want to create artificial division. And the person largely responsible for that sits in Moscow. He had a cushy little job in East Germany repressing anti-communists, which probably would have earned him a decent Lada, with the 1500cc engine, and a Dacha down on the Black Sea. Then his boss gave Germany back their country, and he was sacked. He's been stewing ever since, Make Russia Great Again (based on a largely imagined past) and give the West a taste of the post-Communist collapse. He does both by sewing division. Our governments and economies, so he hopes, collapse in a pile of corruption (nothing good will come out of Musk's bonfire, except a complete distrust of government), plus show our societies are no better than his brand of Communist-Stalinist-Tsarist politics to other countries, thus restoring Russia's "rightful" position as a global Superpower (this is behind the wheeze in Syria, where by backing Assad, he would persuade the Russian way was better than the American way, assuming that the world is always black/white). 30 years on, its worked, with Americans back believing about Reds under the Bed again, but perversely really liking Russia. Leading to this absurdity by two older pillocks who really should have known better.

Before 1990, it was 2.4%, above 3% (West Germany), and that was at a time when there were very strict limits where the West German Army could go. You might be a bit too young, but Germany hasn't always been just Germany. There was a West Germany and an East Germany. In 1989, East Germany collapsed, mostly due to a completely collapsed economy. West Germany inherited a decrepit (as it turned out to be) but vast East German army, and troops suddenly without a country. You probably don't realise, but East Germany was what people call Communist. So State Enterprises collapsed. Unemployment was 20%. This created an enormous burden on the West Germany economy, with the population increasing overnight by 25%. Imagine the US having to absorb, overnight, the entire population of Mexico, that would have a very negative effect on fiscal policy, and probably the US would have to make hard spending choices. However, since you are an expert and maybe native Russian speaker, judging by your post remarking on the translation what Zelensky said, you might consider what would happen to Russia if overnight Armenia, Turkmenistan, and Tajikastan (spelling might be off) all joined, in 24 hours, Russia as a single unitary state. There will be an impact on economics. German defence spending is too low. They were ordered, by essentially the occupying powers, to scrap most of the East German military equipment (there were strict rules in place that dictated the size of the new German military). That lead to fields of T72s, BMP3s, but also West German Leopards and Marder IFVs waiting for the scrapyard, not even allowed to be exported. German defence spending has been rising. It is too low. But, if you are, as a Russian, concerned about American defence spending levels, you have to consider, given the DoD loses so much, is it s a mirage, and the real level of spending, in terms of equipment actually available. is actually much much less than 2%. Western Europe, despite on paper less spending, somehow manages to have a lot more soldiers in uniform. You also have to consider the 10% of budget sucked up maintaining ~6000 or so nuclear weapons. Not sure how that compares to your own country.

The medical devices supply chain is quite complex. I'm working with the FDA to identify risks in the US supply chain; COVID revealed that they don't really know where stuff comes from (the EU is also doing the same kind of study). About 5% of US branded products, from US companies are made wholly in the US, and thats really in quite niche, specialist areas. A lot is assembled in the US, but that's not the same as made in the US. For instance, an American compay sells a test system for respiratory viruses. They do some manufacturing in the US, some work in their Chinese factory. Some electronics they have outsourced to a US contract manufacturer who has an electronics design capabilirty in Singapore, but who then has the electronics part assembled in Malaysia. Critical to the whole test is viral antigen; this company can't make the right antigen (killed lethal virus), and you need that antigen to prove the test works. They outsource it to a tiny Dutch company who has a class 4 biosafety lab and the knowhow not only to know how to inactivate the virus, but also inactivate it in such a way it can be used in the test. Onshoring all of that is not straightforward. Electronics manufacture could be onshored, but they don't own the IP, so there is a cost there. Maybe they can build their own class 4 lab in the US, but getting those things built these days is really hard; who wants an anthrax lab next door. And if they do all that, can they sell the system anymore for $10,000 for the hardware, $50 per test. Probably not. More like $200 per test, which translated into a $400 bill to the payer. There are about a million and a half different medical device products on sale in the US. Putin tried to see if his boffins could onshore Russian medical supplies. Remember, this is a nuclear power, with lots of clever, able and well trained people, with access to lots of raw materials. They couldn't do it. One, they lacked the know how. Two, the doctors were telling them there was no way they would treat their patients with something shonky just because it was Russian made. The same in the US. It will take years for the US to decouple from the ROTW. When it comes to CDMOs influencing the US, most of them are EU; that means contract manufacturers with know how (ie you can't make what you want to make without their IP and know how). In the meantime, doctors will be guided by medical liability legislation, and certainly not risking their patients, and their liberty, on half baked nationalist-driven products. This was the failure of the ventilator projects during COVID; the doctors wanted more ventilators of the type they were already using , not something dreamt of by a vacuum salesman or a carmaker. Of course it cuts both ways, and there is interdependance between economies. Though trade deficits show Americans want European goods more than Europeans want American goods. Partly you could say thats because American goods are more expensive in Europe. But for cars, that is literally not true; things like Mustangs and Corvettes are actually pretty cheap. But they are crap. They don't handle that well, they are thirsty, they are not all that comfortable, and the quality is a bit crude. Dealer support ain't great. American companies like Ford, build Rangers for Europe in Thailand. The profits don't go back to Thailand. They go back to Dearborn, and back into American pockets.

And if you look at some maps, the US border is much closer to Russia than, say, the UK border. Wars often start because of miscalculation. What if the Russian President think the US President doesn't care for Alaska. Russia is a problem for the US as well. Pick your poison. Does America prefer the frontline to be somewhere east of Warsaw or 12 miles off Baltimore. That has really been the deal with NATO the whole time; a mutual defence pact, where in reality, in an actual shooting war, most of the damage will be incurred by the junior partners. We all knew that. West Germany would have been left a smoking ruin, the Red Army would run out of gas by the time it got to the Dutch border. BAOR (British Army on the Rhine) was assumed to last maybe 3-4 weeks in WW3, its role being mainly stay behind and make sure fuel depots were denied to the Soviets as they advanced (because they wouldn't have been able to bring up supplies quick enough). and buy time before it went full nuclear. The Soviets assumed superior (accurate) Western tactical nuclear weapons would be used early on to interdict supply lines, to effectively cut off advancing units. Its all quite grim for the people in Europe, however it turned out, with the main objective that the US homeland would be left untouched by the ravages of war. That was the deal for 60 years. Europe protected America with its blood and soil.

They haven't lost a million soldiers. Russian dead is about 170,000, Ukrainian dead are about 100,000. You misunderstand the estimated numbers that are being reported. The rest are wounded. About 30% of Russian wounded are returned to duty, About 50% for Ukraine. Russia's healthcare system is being degraded as more of the state budget is put into war fighting. Ukraine continues to receive help supplementing its healthcare system.

The numbers are misunderstood. The gargantuan losses quoted are killed and wounded (plus MIA, probably dead). The uncertainty is the ratio of wounded to killed, and that largely depends on the standards of medical care. Domestically, both sides' healthcare systems are in a mess. Russia used to have a pretty decent private healthcare system, accessed by a majority of the population, because the public hospitals were so dire. That's completely collapsed now, as the Russian government prioritises supplies for the state sector; before the war, 90% of medicines were imported (and similar for medical equipment), mainly from German and American suppliers. Medical supplies are not sanctioned, so officially not blocked, but the costs have rocketed, and major suppliers have pulled out because of the increased cost of warehousing. The Russian government has tried to get the domestic industry to step in, but have failed. They have plugged things to an extent by importing 3rd tier Chinese products (the things China normally exports to developing countries) and Indian products (virtually all low grade) At the same time, the government has been stripping hospitals of Emergency Room staff, to form brigades at the front, which is another signal that they don't have enough military doctors. Ukraine isn't much better; its hospitals have been bombed, but it has received a lot of donated supplies and volunteer medics. Plus, seriously wounded solders have been evacuated to 3rd countries, like the US, Germany, for treatment and rehab. Statistics from the Western coalition wars don't apply; the troops received excellent care, and there were remarkable cases of men surviving truly horrendous injuries. The biggest cause of death among US troops in Afghanistan wasn't bombs or bullets but sepsis; delays in evacuating from the front line. The assumption is the survival rate is much worse in Ukraine-Russia. The Western countries will have an idea for Ukraine, and would be confident if the soldier can get to a hospital, they will survive. Russia is probably worse. Ukraine isn't losing 350,000 per year. That's a fair estimate for the number of killed and wounded since 2022. US killed:wounded in WW2 was about 1:10. In recent wars, 1:17. Ukraine's data suggests 5:1 or their military. The IISS estimates for Russia about 170,000 Russians dead, 611,000 wounded, with about 40% potentially recoverable to some level of fitness.

To sell him "Raw Earth" (sic)? Literally, the US President thinks he is buying dirt. I think you missed the pun.

And the American defence spending is a bit misleading. For a start, as many moan about, they give away kit to other for favours. But also, they lose a lot. At the last audit, the DoD couldn't account for 60% of their assets. https://breakingdefense.com/2024/11/pentagon-fails-7th-audit-in-a-row-eyes-passing-grade-by-2028/ So 63% of spending might as well not been spent. When you buy 1000 tanks, but can only find 470 of them, you haven't got 1000 tanks to fight with. Yes, all large (government ) organisations waste money; the NHS is a prime example, The US military is truely enormous, which is why they don't know where anything is. American defence spending is supposedly 3.6% of GDP, as if this is some magic number. Say a few tenths is given away, down to 3.4%, waste, fraud, incompetance, means effective spend is 1.26% of GDP. Part of the reason for the gap in how much military aid Ukraine says its received, and how much the US thinks it sent is apparently down to some Cleetus forgetting to note down serial numbers. So whats happened, x-number of, say, Javelin systems have been moved from one warehouse to another. Clerk at warehouse A marks them as gone. Clerk at warehouse B doesn't add them to his ledger. Months later, 4 Star General figuratively goes to clerk at warehouse A and says he needs 2000 Javelins as his boys are dying in South Korea. Clerk A says the warehouse is empty, sorry. Clerk C though finds them, and puts them on Ebay. It seems common in many miitaries that if something isn't signed for, it never existed and therefore is fair game. I think the most outrageous case was the father and son flogging F-14 spare parts to Iran. They were only found out because in the run up to GW1, the US military needed to stock up on F14 spares, and found the shelves were empty. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1985-07-16-mn-6840-story.html There was a case where sensitive non-lethal equipment was appearing on Ebay which the US military ended up buying back to keep things quiet.

What he said was apparently "suka, blyat". So its more like a version of WTF, ie a sign of exasperation.

https://therecord.media/hegseth-orders-cyber-command-stand-down-russia-planning It was a stitch up. I was prepared to give the American President the benefit of the doubt, and thought it was about Vance trying to create a crisis (knowing what emotiional buttons to push), just like when he tried(and failed) it on with the UK Prime Minister 24 hours earlier from the same seat. But now, its clear, it was concocted pure reality TV show theatrics, really to persuade some of the US Presidents supporters that its ok to kidnap 20,000 children. The current administration is placing more value on a bankrupt, literally and morally, Russian Federation over Ukraine and all the other Western democracies (no, its not a Europe thing, he hates Canada, he hates Australia, he hates New Zealand). If the DoD is stepping down cyber defence against an adversary, it means either they are no longer an adversary, or the adversary has won. And this was done last week. I said a while ago I thought Rubio would be the first to resign. Kellog will likely be fired, stripped of pension. Waltz I think is a basically decent man with strong moral values (and stronger credentials to be the Defence Secretary than the current incumbant), and he was also standing in that room, behind Vance. The US President will likely stick to his pledge that during his tenure, no American soldier will die in battle. So that means Taiwan will fall, and it will likely fall without a shot, since the US will cut off aid through some concocted reason, such as they started it by fleeing in 1948.

He was combat celebritiy photographer, first class. Literally spent his tour in Iraq photographing birthday cakes and handshakes. Purple heart for incurring paper cuts. He was only in the Marines to get a free handout from government (pay for his school fees that his crackhead mother didn't have).

Vance is an idiot, but the seating was similar for foreign leaders Fascinating differences in body language. Macron, while obviously trying to butter up Trump, tries to dominate the room, mansplaning more than Trump, who is doing a good job at that as well. Mansplaning is a primative instinct to display one's genitals, to project big <deleted> and Alpha Maleness. Several times Macron lead the shake of the hands, grasping Trumps right arm with his left. Starmer sits back in his seat, leg crossed, not dominating. The handshake is lead by Trump. Starmer manages at one point a rather limp, awkward left hand shake. Notice Rubio sitting forward to acknowledge Macron speaking, Vance takes no notice of him. Obviously, the best dressed man in the room was Macron. I think the American President actually fancies him. Veey different with Starmer. If Starmer really is getting his suits made for him, he's getting a bad deal, because they look M&S. Trump still has no idea how to wear a tie. Someone need to introduce him to the clipon.

50,000 Irish citizens fought for Britain in WW2, and the Irish Defence Forces saw 5000 desert to join the allies. The population certainly supported neutrality, though I suspect that was through an expectation that Britain would be out of the war soon enough, rather than expecting the new occupying powers would unify Ireland. Parts of the IRA, and certainly the Blue Shirts, backed Germany politically. Britain actually offered Ireland unification if it abandoned neutrality. The Irish didn't believe the British, so turned it down. Irish neutrality meant the USSR veto'd Ireland;s application to join the UN.