Luke

It's simple: One side is morally bloated and blind on one eye. They want to seek "justice" and fight "evil," and that justifies why the EU/US, etc, should send trillions of dollars, incl. their men, to fight against evil Russia because apparently they want to take over the whole of Europe, leaving out any history and origin of the discussion. They are for way more weapon delivery and ultimately a total war against Russia until they crumble and the government is taken over and replaced with a pro-western leader. The other side sees that there is an origin of this conflict, that we have a responsibility to resolve the initial conflict diplomatically, and that we have to stop sending more and more weapons. They see that we have to include Russia and Putin in the discussion, take them seriously, reinitiate communications and mutual respect and work towards an acceptable deal for both sides wich includes new elections in Ukraine, no nato joining etc, autonomous regions in the east etc. This would be best for humanity, would stop the dying, would lead to peace in europe and slowly ukraine can rebuild itself and emerge neutral, autonomous and safe. Then the first group says "but putin etc" we cant let him win" "he is evil" so the weapons continue and the war continues and the escalation continues towards a potential nuclear disaster all for really, nothing but lofty moral statements, meanwhile hundred thousand men dead. So the outcome by group one is a total war with then 5m men dead, and a totally destroyed ukraine. And the second outcome of group two is immediate stopping of dying, peace developments, ukraine not bombed anymore, emerging prosperity etc. You tell me whats smarter.

And that's why I would never vote for you because eventually, you would send young western european guys to a war that they have nothing to do with. Do real sensible politics and not a virtue show biz that eventually leads to a full escalation, including NATO. That's what you want, right? Because its "good" vs "evil", right? RIGHT? Look at the NATO budget, look at NATO's technological advancement, look at our manpower. You are delusional if you believe Putin plans to conquer Nato countries or go further into Europe. Good, because you are providing 0 value to the discussion with your statements.

What is the realistic alternative? The war has its origins, and the West/Ukraine went too far. It doesn't mean Russia can simply do this, but they are doing it, and you have to acknowledge reality. I am simply pointing out an acceptable way out that was already there two years ago, and now there are hundreds of thousands of dead men, and you want to continue throwing weapons at this? What does the US have to do with any of this? One reason for this war is that the US is encroaching on every country globally, trying to grab influence and build military bases everywhere, including Ukraine. That is not the story at all, sorry.

From an investment perspective: I think the board can change fast, elections in the US could turn in favor for trump, EU elections and german elections could bring a conservative government that seeks diplomatic resolution. By 2026 russian direct trade could be open again, maybe even the stock market too. Not saying the probability is that high BUT its also not as unlikely IMO.

I don't have to explain, with every statement one makes in this war, that it's a brutal, tragic, vicious, and unnecessary war that I wouldn't wish for any country in this world without having a moral police stepping by. But that is also part of this conflict; you can't discuss anything without someone playing the moral police and it prevents to discuss the fundamentals and seeking a resolution.

John, please, my statement was without moral judgment. I was simply speaking from the Russian side of view. The land they gained is not "nothing". There are trillions worth of minerals and other natural ressources that are valuable. So the war, as much people it cost, gained them a lot of ressources. Yes, brutal, but thats obvious. I am not in this thread to sob or virtue signal, just simply discussing reality and whats happening behind the scenes.

IMO the US operates fully in its own interests (contrary to european countries but they dont see that), which by now are not realizable and will lead only to further escalation because Russia would rather blow up than be defeated. They also have little to lose with how much they are pushed into a corner anyway. It is time to call it off and sit down with Putin to discuss forced peace (as much as this goes against the will of the Ukrainians). Much better would be of course, total withdrawal by Putin, some sort of autonomous region in the east and a neutral position with a new government. But I think that deal was realistic 10 years ago, but not anymore

Russia has expanded its wealth of natural resources by more than 10%, and there is a lot of value in the eastern region, so I don't think "nothing" was gained here. But as you already said in previous posts, it was not smart at all from Ukraine to lean towards either side and could have existed perfectly fine if it would have run a more "swiss" position with a government that operates more strategically. I agree basically with everything you said in previous post though. Ukraine got into things way bigger than them, and the government didn't think about its position and the willingness of Russia to solidify itself there. Very tragic.

Thank you for your detailed answer!

There will be a 4%?! buyback tax??

Relatively well

And i own some tracking stocks, minor positions, some leftover TSMC shares that i will probably never sell.

Half in FFH 25% in PRX almost 20% of PDD Rest is in AMR, HCC, IPCO On Margin, I own: Hang Lung Group, WOSG, PETROBRAS 3 very big bets. IB hates me for it and requires ridiculous margin requirements, i have enough liquidity that i can get out of the margin quickly. Sold my Japan stocks for mid teens gain, exited EVO.AB (still think its a good bet), exited some other things which went into the larger positions, for example when PDD crashed. We will see what the future brings, I am young, and I can afford to be concentrated!

+1 Just love the set up still at current valuation. Fairfax has lots of room if a recession hits and will do well if it doesnt too. Also, i could not find anything else where i would feel comfortable allocating as much money as this position is and i really dont want to be in cash Maybe buy even more Prosus but i like my current mix.

https://qz.com/bill-gates-would-make-the-rich-poorer-1851652364 Back to communism for the US?

The thread is called "Is Europe becoming uninvestable"? The answer clearly is: NO! Lots of good stuff!!

Folks, I am patiently waiting yet to read ONE comment that speaks out for the need to regulate these mega-caps in their anti-consumer stances. The EU needs to downsize, but the IDEA itself is good. WHY is there this ridiculous iPhone lock-in with their lightning cables, why are the phones unrepairable and software locked etc. Have you ever dealt with this S***?

https://www.scmp.com/economy/policy/article/3279153/china-eyes-sci-tech-venture-capital-boost-industrial-upgrade-economic-growth?module=top_story&pgtype=homepage

"Reversing globalization would involve a massive derating of US asset prices as sales to foreign buyers are artificially restricted. Effects on GDP could theoretically be contained, but the wealthy would have to become poorer in hopes of bringing low-income folks back into the middle class as investment bankers become process engineers and Uber drivers become factory workers. For a political economy that couldn’t figure out a mechanism to pay-them-off as globalization created immense riches, how likely is it that the immensely rich will willingly stomach becoming significantly poorer?" In that case owning local manufacturing companies that take chinas market will be good!

All of these are insanely high quality, there is no shame in not having a trillion or two trillion USD marketcap. I have 0 bias towards any country in the world as long as the price is right and the story

Europe and European countries have a heck of a lot of wonderful companies of various sizes. Just because they don't have any tech megacaps doesn't mean they are not innovative. There are thousands of midcap suppliers of semiconductors, robotics, cars, etc. Part of why there are no EU equivalents to US-mega caps is their monopolistic structure. Good luck getting venture investments for a Facebook, Windows, Apple 2.0

Which regulations AGAINST big tech by the EU are in YOUR opinion "bad"? Please explain. The golden eggs are tax evasion, lowest corporate taxes ever, anti-repair anti-consumer products, record high dividends and buybacks, and coercing entire countries with their power They are not a good goose! X is a complete mess, you cant contact them about your account, they ban people and you get no feedback why. If you want the data they have about you they dont contact you back. The guy cant do what he wants with a business of that size. We are not in the wild west.

I don't think the size of a company or several companies is an indication of a prosperous country. It's also not necessarily a sign of a "good" company. It's increasingly concerning how monopoly-like US mega-caps have become, and they face almost no regulatory consequences except for the EU. Bashing the EU for regulating these monopolies makes sense since you are likely all shareholders of such companies, and you want them to abuse their monopoly-like position as much as they can, but I like a lot of things the EU does to make these companies ACTUALLY better (hello USB-C apple). There is a lot of noise by such companies because they prefer 0 regulation but i don't have to tell you where that leads.

https://asiatimes.com/2024/09/biden-nato-effectively-declaring-war-on-russia/