MicroB

As a kid, I knew an old boy at the footie supporters club, Gregory. He was a Ukrainian. I suspect he joined the German forces. He was no Nazi though. Nice bloke. Hated the Communists though. In WW2, Ukrainian and Belarussians took the brunt of deaths, not the Russians. Yes, probably a fair few of those Partizans were just as opposed to Soviet rule as they were German rule. Its not really clear why Crimea was transferred to Ukraine in 1954. I suspect there was a tacit acknowledgement that Ukrainians were very justified to be hostile to Stalin, and there was genuine gratitude for how they ultimately in the end, sided with Stalin.

The computing system error seems to be the source of the Social Security issue; of course cases of fraud will be found, but no where near on the scale suggested. Defence spending is an issue. The DoD has been told to make 10% cuts every year for the next 4-5 years, which will mean, based on projected GDP for the US, that at the end of Trumpf's term, the US will be spending about 1.5% of GDP (at most, because Trumpf expects his policies to far increase GDP far and above analyst projections) on defence, far below the NATO current target of 2.5%, and far below Trumpf's own stated target of 5% of GDP. But leaving defence spending at about 60% of its current level might be an acknowledgement of the dire asset control in the US military. https://responsiblestatecraft.org/pentagon-audit-2666415734/ The DoD can't account for 60% of what it buys. If it can't account for where 60% of its tanks, those tanks might as well not exist. They've been p*ssing money up a wall, possibly resulting in the exageration of capabilities In Europe, the UK MOD is probably the largest defence organisation (even if it doesn't command the largest forces). Recent audits also reveal lost assets https://www.libdems.org.uk/news/article/machine-guns-ammunition-mod-reveals-list-of-almost-200-stolen-items But its paltry in comparison. So European militaries, organisationally much smaller, are leaner, and probably get more bang for buck. The EU states, which covers NATO, more or less (Cyprus and Ireland are not NATO members), has about 2 million full time troops, with a collective spend of $340 bn. That will round up to about $400bn with the UK, and its not including Norway and Switzerland (plus not including Canada). The US Defence budge is $850bn, so on paper, much bigger, and it is bigger. But 10% of that is maintaining the nuclear stockpile. But once you get past 500 nuclear warheads, who actually cares. I wouldn't like to live in a world where the UK and France have just spunked off the 500+ nuclear weapons they have. But accounting for a disproportionate nuclear arsenal, and assumed wastage rates, (and assuming far lower levels of corruption in European defence procurement), then the effective US defence spend is more like $460bn. Suddenly the defence spend gap is not so wide. Additionally, most European countries don't have anywhere as near non-NATO commitments as the US. If the new Defence Secretary does want to achieve the cuts in his ministry, he probably will want to talk to a few past UK Conservative Defence Secretaries to see how Options for Change worked out. When they entered it, it was all about smarter defence procurement, but that crystal ball gazing proved impossible, eg HMC Ocean. And defence cuts ultimately included firing men and women in uniform; not just the brass with their big pensions, and Captains/Majors who could easily segway into nice roles in the City, but it mean cutting a lot of NCOs; men in their 30s and 40s, sometimes 50s, who don't have skills that necessarily translate to civvie street (no, they don't all pick up gigs as PMCs in dusty parts of the world, many ended up in the manual trades, and frankly struggled until they qualified for pensions). sacking faceless bureaucrats is easy to get a big cheer in the bars of America, But its hard when you start firing people a week earlier you were calling "Brave Warriors", and greeting with the empty phrase "Thank you for your service". When the DoD is asking for 10% cuts, which ships get scrapped or sold off to some 3rd world despot? What Americans will wake up to is the realisation that the Cold War was a close run thing, much closer than they think. It was a contest of budgets, with both sides effectively bankrupting each other. Post Cold War, the European nations adjusted; the levels of spend were unsustainable. The GWO was a very bad thing for defence spending. We ended up with a lot of kit that is basically worthless. All those MRAPs developed for Afghanistan? Worthless. Until the Ukraine War, most were waiting their turn at the scrapyard. In reality, leaving all those armoured lorries in Afghanistan probably saved the US military money (The military estate that was over there was staggering, and the full pull out actually took 10 years). Those MRAPs were better than nothing for the Ukrainians, and certainly a step up from the 20 year old MOT failure L200s and Rangers being brought up on Ebay at the time). The Americans need to approach cuts very carefully, otherwise they might find themselves suddenly without an entire capability that will be hard or impossible to reaquire (eg CBRN, that's a one time only skill set).

Well Musk thinks you will, because that's what he sees as the future of personal transport, essentially the end of private car ownership. Now the market disagrees with him, and he has been repetitively wrong in many of his predictions. Tesla sales are in decline, not because of dislike of EVs or Musk, but a natural effect of the market maturing, and competitors catching up. There are very sound reasons why RoboTaxi is utterly essential to Tesla's future; Musk said as much at the Q3 Tesla earnings call last year. He is now in a position to essentially fix the market for his company, ie making it easier to regulate autonomous cars, lowering the cost of that business, making it more attractive to people who are in the business of taxis. All these things were predicted by Mercedes, BMW, Jaguar, and other luxury car makers who suddenly started buying up private limo services, and why Jaguar went so hard with Waymo (and perhaps cost the company its future, though I suspect the new XJ will be a great car). Even if that doesn't come to pass, and Elon doesn't take your proverbial car off you, you will be sharing the roads (as a driver, or if you don't know how to drive, as a passenger) with increasing numbers of autonomous cars, any one of which could take you out. Your reaction, in the context that you don't use taxis (ever, never) and have no interest in autonomous vehicles, is "Good". Perhaps English isn't your native tongue, but I took that to mean you were supportive of deregulation and autonomous cars. But your subsequent statements contradict that position. Most people on the Trump-leaningpart are generally anti "Big Government" and more power to the people, ie the states not the federal government. But Musk literally wants to strip states of the autonomy of what goes on their roads, and impose distant Washington edicts. That's a position normally associated with the Hard Left, who are usually the anti-democratic lot. Or was your response a knee jerk response, that government can do no bad.

Musk intends that you won't have a choice,

The Washington Post conducted the investigation. During the Q4 24 Tesla earnings call (transcript widely available through sites such as Motley Fool), in response to a question, Musk said he wanted to take responsibility away from the states regarding the regulation of autonomous vehicles, and impose standards from central government through something that he was calling back then "a partner of government efficiency". He intimated that he believed state governments should have no say what goes on their roads. Later, in December 24: https://www.notebookcheck.net/Tesla-may-stop-reporting-fatal-FSD-accidents-as-Musk-s-DOGE-team-preps-to-drop-fed-safety-rules.932267.0.html If I was a taxi driver, I'd be looking for another line of work, but you won't be needed soon. This is apparently what Americans want, sitting in the back of a driverless electric cab hurtling along at 80mph. This fits in with Musk's ultimate vision of eliminating all private car ownership.

Obviously the Tesla Robotaxi, which is critical for the future of the company and its revenue stream, needs less regulatory oversight. Cybertaxi is critical to Musk, not because he merely wants to monopolise the US cab market (which he will), but because the passengers become a captive source of data, which is much more valuable. The most valuable data of course being biological; the biological signature you leave behind just being sat in the back of the taxi. It will all belong to Musk to train his AI (because that will be part of the T&Cs on the App that you have to use if you have any hope of getting a cab from the airport, from the bar, to the hospital). Breath analysis and non-invasive genomic analysis is coming. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36290855/ https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-024-05943-x

https://thesignsoflife.com.au/cult-behaviour/ With the DOGE cuts, one has to wonder what's happening about recruitment of Customs Officers, given that the US is instigating an extremely complex range of tariffs.

I recall on ARRSE, a forum for mainily ex-British servicemen, there was an account where the poster had come up with a biography that he was ex-British soldier, settled in Australia but traveling around in Asia, and of independant means. Part of that biography included a resentment at British foreign policy at the time in the Middle East. So he was pretty consistant with his posts, using army lingo as needed, and displaying some knowledge of the services. But there were a few lapses, and sometimes he had apparently forgotten his back story, or his English would get quite poor. The account was outed when someone pointed out the times he was posting at fitted with Moscow time, not Bangkok/Bali/Sydney time. Then he admitted, he was a Russian, and this was his job. There were shifts that operated the account, with handover notes. He was still quite genuinely anti British/West, which was fine, and the debate became more honest. So take all of our claims about ourselves with a strong pinch of salt I suppose is the message.

delete

https://www.jacobsilverman.com/p/prominent-doge-staffer-is-grandson His Grandfather was tricked into returning to the USSR, was arrested and executed. His Grandmother blames the US for outing him and not helping him. This is why Developed Vetting, or whatever the Americans call the same process, exists. DV can go really deep, probing the beliefs of your grandparents and neighbours. Its designed to weed out the Sleepers and keep society safe

Former Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Richard Shirreff comments.

Brits (and Danes) in Sheds. Repurposing Soviet Air to Air missiles into an air defence system the Gravehawk. The name refers to a D&D character, a half-Elf bandit leader.

No, he's not unutual. He thinks like a lot of people, including "normal" people, and that's the problem. The cream hasn't risen to the top. He's a populist, which got him elected. He's not a Statesman. He's a normal stupid person, and they are not unusual or extraordinary. How far Russia is depends on the map,

dup'd

Mr Trumpf hasn't been told that the Congo is full of "rare" earth minerals. Switzerland didn't exactly stay out of WW2. They did well by essentially keeping the Nazis in power. https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1144&context=historical-perspectives

Higher GDP perhaps, but higher quality of oife? You make assumptions about how wealth is distributed in Russia, and how you measure "quality of life". The GDP per head in Macau is $140,000. When are you upping sticks and moving to China, because apparently you will have a better quality of life there Wealth in Russia is not well distributed https://www.intellinews.com/two-thirds-of-russians-earn-under-415-a-month-income-inequality-rising-survey-says-348305/ At the moment, Moscow is colonising the occupied areas with Russians, offering cheap loans only to people from outside the Donbass.

America was never under existential threat. That is a fantasy. The UK never had an election for 10 years due to WW2. Churchill was no dictator. An election was held once the UK knew that Adolf One-<deleted> Hitler had blown his brains out. If Putin would honour us with the same, I'm sure would be delighted to hold elections. Of course US leaders before have wanted elections canceled or suspended. Yes, who would support someone getting killed just for going out to vote.

Rubio

Clear insight.

dup'd

https://1-re--russia-net.translate.goog/analytics/0244/?_x_tr_enc=1&_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp

Why its difficult to hold a Ukrainian Presidential election in areas occupied by Russia: https://cepa.org/article/behind-the-lines-ethnic-cleansing-by-home-loan/

https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2025/01/30/7496040/

Putin's new limo https://zamin.uz/en/world/144685-new-version-of-putins-aurus-car-photo.html It does look like one of those electric London cabs.