Strong supporter of 🇺🇦 Emerging markets and renewable energy specialist, nature activity enthusiast, father of four boys, (Intel) Officer and Gentleman
Realising Apple went public at under $2 billion and 15 times revenue in 1980.
SpaceX wants you to buy at $2 trillion and 100 times revenue in 2026.
That is not getting in early. That is being the exit for venture capitalists who have held this equity for years at a fraction of what you are being asked to pay.
Almost none of the retail investors buying this IPO will read the 300 pages before the book closes on June 11.
That is your entire competitive advantage right there.
Trump is now reportedly responsible for roughly 27.7% of the entire U.S. national debt accumulated under all presidents combined.
That is an astonishing figure historically.
The national debt just crossed $39 trillion.
President Trump has added roughly $12–13 trillion to the debt across his two terms in office.
That’s approximately 30% of ALL U.S. national debt accumulated since 1789.
In 2016, Trump said he would pay down the national debt “over a period of eight years.”
Instead:
- First term: +$7.8 trillion
- Second term: roughly +$4–5 trillion already
And yes, COVID affected first-term spending.
It does not explain adding another trillion dollars every five months without a pandemic.
A political movement built on:
“fiscal conservatism”
“small government”
“balanced budgets”
has now overseen the largest debt expansion tied to any single presidency in American history.
@Gerashchenko_en The people Fico talks to in restrooms, no one else wants to talk to. The same goes for those interested in hearing what Putin has to say.
@elonmusk In some posts, people will be obsolete as robots take over, while in others, we need more people. When we are ready to colonise other planets, we will need settlers ready to relocate and build new worlds, but as robots and AI takes over, less human hands and minds will be needed.
@Gerashchenko_en@generalkellogg Nobody wants to join an “alliance”, where members are expected to go to war because one member unanimously decides to do so without consultations or alignment.
BREAKING: NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte flew to Washington to discuss Ukraine’s $60 billion defense requirement for 2026. He spent over two hours being dressed down about Iran. When he emerged, he told CNN the meeting was “very frank” and acknowledged that “some allies failed the test.” Trump posted in all caps that NATO was not there when the US needed them and would not be there again.
Here is the part of this story that should stop everyone cold.
Russia is earning an extra $150 million per day in oil revenue because of the Iran war. The Guardian reported $8 billion in additional fossil fuel revenue in just the first two weeks of the conflict, $900 million above normal. Carnegie Endowment estimates the windfall at tens of billions per annum if the disruption persists. The Swedish armed forces commander said publicly that Moscow is “pouring” that revenue directly into its war effort in Ukraine. Russian state television propagandist Vladimir Solovyov told audiences on March 2: “For our budget, the attack on Iran is a big plus.”
And on April 7, Russia vetoed the UN Security Council resolution that would have reopened the Strait of Hormuz.
The resolution was sponsored by Bahrain alongside Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. It had already been diluted three times, stripped of all offensive authorization, reduced to purely defensive coordination, narrowed to the strait alone. Eleven countries voted yes. Russia and China voted no. Pakistan and Colombia abstained. Russia’s ambassador said the resolution presented Iranian actions as the sole source of tension while ignoring US and Israeli strikes. China’s ambassador said it failed to capture root causes. They killed the only multilateral mechanism that could have reopened the strait without a bilateral US-Iran deal, ensuring the disruption continues, ensuring the windfall continues, ensuring the war funding continues.
So the structural loop is this. Trump started the Iran war. Hormuz closed. Oil prices surged. Russia began earning an extra $150 million every day. Russia pours that money into its Ukraine campaign. NATO needs $60 billion to counter Russia in Ukraine. Trump demands NATO simultaneously support the Iran effort AND fund Ukraine. But the Iran war is financing Russia’s Ukraine campaign at a rate that dwarfs NATO’s incremental spending. And Russia just vetoed the resolution that could have ended its own windfall, because keeping Hormuz closed is worth more to Moscow than any amount of diplomatic credibility at the Security Council.
Iran also exempted Russia from the Hormuz blockade. On March 26, Foreign Minister Araghchi announced that ships from five nations, including Russia and China, would be allowed to transit freely. Russia’s tankers move. NATO’s do not. Russia sells oil at tightened discounts. NATO buys oil at war premiums. Russia funds its army with the proceeds of a war that NATO is being punished for not joining.
Rutte knows all of this. Which is why his post-meeting statement included a line most outlets buried: NATO’s security and Ukraine’s are “interlinked.” That word, interlinked, is doing the heaviest lifting in transatlantic diplomacy right now. It is Rutte’s way of telling Washington that the alliance cannot be tested on Iran and Ukraine simultaneously when the Iran war is funding the adversary that the Ukraine commitment exists to contain.
The alliance is not failing because of freeloaders. The alliance is trapped inside a feedback loop where the war meant to demonstrate American resolve is generating the revenue that funds the threat the alliance was built to deter. And the country profiting most from that loop just vetoed the only vote that could have broken it.
Full analysis - https://t.co/0fIdGsM5qH
Taking the ceasefire at face value, I’ll give a brief overview of what happened during these 40 days of war and how Trump won—and won so big it blew all of us away:
- The war isn’t over. A ceasefire doesn’t mean peace;
- Ayatollah Khamenei has been eliminated, along with a few dozen other leaders of the Revolutionary Guards—the Islamic Revolution’s terrorist group. All of them are despicable criminals. No one is mourning them or feeling sorry for them;
- Iran now controls the Strait of Hormuz. It did not before February 28 (when the war began). It used this leverage in negotiations with Trump and secured acceptance of their 10-point plan (you will see these terms are very favorable to Iran) to be the basis of 2 weeks negociations;
- The U.S. has used between 10 and 55% (depending on the weaponry) of its stockpiles of stand-off munitions, which are essential for deterring China, and (it is estimated) even more of the interceptor missiles that are exceptionally important for protecting civilians in Ukraine. China is laughing;
- Russia benefits from the lifting of sanctions on oil transported by sea. Putin is more than happy;
- Iran benefits from the lifting of sanctions on its oil transported by sea. The regime’s new leaders are delighted;
- The theocratic regime of the Islamic Revolution has NOT been changed. In fact, the terrorist, criminal leaders who were removed have been replaced by others whom experts there tell us are even more radical (if that’s even possible) and even tougher and crueler;
- The Iranian people are not free. Right? I want us to focus on this fact. The Iranian people, who should have been placed at the center of this conflict as the top priority, have been abandoned. Moreover, they feel betrayed by Trump;
- The crisis caused by this war, which, as you can see from the points above, has brought no significant benefits, will be felt for many months to come, most likely throughout the year—and here I am referring to the IT industry, agriculture, and the energy sector.
China is the long-term winner in the energy sector because it will weather this shock, because it is investing heavily in green energy, and because the IT industries in South Korea and Taiwan will be hit by the helium crisis, which gives them time to further narrow the technological gap with the West. Europe is the big loser due to its energy dependencies and the stalling of green energy investment programs in recent years.
- The 400-odd kilograms of enriched uranium are exactly where they were before the war began;
- NATO is going through the biggest internal crisis in its history due to the start of this war and Trump’s insults and threats. It’s also facing a crisis of confidence in its very essence, Article 5, which I don’t see how it will overcome in the near future, if ever;
- The economies of the Gulf states have been disrupted and—in part—damaged over the medium and long term;
----
Don’t you feel like winners? Especially when we’re pumping 2 euro+/litre worth of diesel into the tank and we’ll see the fall announcements with inflation at 12–14% or who knows how much.
If this is a Trump victory, I don’t want to know what a defeat looks like. If you’ve made it this far, I don’t want to let you forget that the war isn’t over yet.
Trump: "NATO is a paper tiger…It all began with, if you want to know the truth, Greenland. We want Greenland. They don't want to give it to us and I said 'Okay, bye bye.'"
@CharlotteBirk@mrconfino Det giver ingen mening, da bombning af MIL mål ikke er terror men krig… enig, det er ikke normal US praksis, men meget er ikke normalt p.t.
@CharlotteBirk@mrconfino Ja, han skriver, at det “eksperten” skriver simpelt hen ikke passer. Når Trump truer med at bombe broer og kraftværker og skabe et “Living Hell”, peger det meget i retning af terrorbombning.
@mrconfino Igen: det handler om proportionalitetsprincippet: det er ok at bombe CIV mål, hvis det er væsentlig MIL grund. Det er ikke ok at sønderbombe en bro, bare fordi der står en enkelt soldat.
@McFaul I am Danish and I agree - we hope for cooler heads to prevail and see the value of NATO as a defensive alliance, but allow transition through allied bases.
@SteffenFrolund Spændende, hvordan de er nået den konklusion og de priser, nå de samtidigt konkluderer: “Verken havvind eller kjernekraft er lønnsomt med de investeringskostnadene vi har lagt til grunn, sier Hjelmeland.” Hvis lønsomhed ikke er et kriterie, hvad er så?