Xerxes

nope. need proper submarine Hunt-for-Red October style. None of that remote control submarine toys from the Black Sea. Canadian submarines need to patrol the Arctic and go the distance. in the same way, the air drones won’t do in the pacific theatre for the U.S. forces. F-47 and F-35 is what is needed there. Just because a war evolves the way it did in Eastern Europe, it doesn’t mean we copy paste that specific outcome. In Ukraine, the evolution of drone warfare is a direct consequence of being bogged down into attrition. If the armies could not move, innovation moved to the sky. That is one outcome of many potential could-have outcomes.

Germany & Sweden. TKMS i remember when their minister came to Canada while Carney was going to Korea. I may be mixing up Sweden with Norway.

Not yet for submarines. It has been narrowed down to Korea vs Nordic consortium, but nothing signed unless I missed it. Likely will be from Korea as those meet Navy’s schedule. Though will have limited industrialization. For fighter plans, not for the immediate, but there is also a view (likely in my opinion) that Canada will enter GCAP, but that will in no way solve the short term deficit.

Carney’ cabinet meeting in Quebec City at the Citadel. An old British fort, now a museum. The symbolism of that. I have been there. It is a nice fort. Same league as the one in Halifax minus the noon canon shots.

you got to put some link buddy

What a rock star !

I highly recommend this episode. The guest knows his stuff https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/war-on-the-rocks/id682478916?i=1000745052060

Did someone activated “Deep GFP AI Mode” in this thread

I was explaining Kremlin point of view, and why he was being discounted (I.e not important enough to bother). Maduro and Zelenskyy are indeed (tier-2) peers in that Trumpian-Putinism-Xi great power world view. I think / thought it was pretty clear. Not sure how my comment was retranslated as lack of respect for Zelenskyy, here. Then again this an investment board with a political thread attached to it. So anything goes …

When the Great War of 1914-18 felled the Ottoman Empire, the Turks had to scramble to carve a piece of land (for their own kin) out of the empire that was once theirs. The transition from empire to nation happened in those violent years. There is an alternative history where the Turks wouldn’t be able to carve out a land big enough to have critical mass. When the Soviet Union fell, it went out in a whimper. The new nations out of it were based on the borders of various Soviet republic. Unlike the Turks, the Russian didn’t have a chance to fight and transition from empire to nationhood. So the dream remains. Dormant. But always there.

No central villain then, pre Munich security 2006-08 timeframe. Even the bombing of Moscow towers (largely attributed to FSB) that started the second Chechnyan War and its atrocities was largely “looked over” as internal affairs. Kremlin was being “constructive” back then. A team player who was willingly letting NATO feasting on its Warsaw Pact l at its limbs.

Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Cherchnikov Even Gorbachev was eyed suspiciously by the VP (bush senior) in his dealing with Reagan, until it became clear that he really meant it. Let’s face it; we need our Sauron

That is the issue with Western world. They always need a central cast for villain, and concentrate on that one key person. Putin or not, there is the entire Kremlin complex right behind him. And they are largely in line with their current leader.

I think he is more embarrassed/annoyed by Maduro situation than scared. He had already moved to armoured train for some of his internal travel. On travelling aboard he uses Russia vast airspace and counts on statesmanship and he is selective where he goes. Don’t forget that when Biden went to Kiev during the war, his travel was disclosed to Russians as part of security measures. Head of states are suppose to be untouchables. Usually the unwritten rule is followed among peers. But Zelenskyy is not a peer, so …. Nor is Maduro On Ukraine and Zelenskyy, I don’t think he considered the comedian Zelenskyy relevant enough to have a kidnapping plan. After the initial invasion bogged down yeah. But not as part of that initial invasion.

Is there a Buffett interview that was filmed in May but not posted by CNBC ———- Gemini: Yes, there is. CNBC filmed a significant interview with Warren Buffett in May 2025 that was not released at the time. According to reports, Becky Quick interviewed Buffett just days after the 2024–2025 transition period began (specifically following his announcement at the May 2025 annual meeting that he would step down as CEO). Why was it held back? CNBC intentionally "banked" the full interview to coincide with his formal retirement. While they aired short clips and snippets of the conversation in early January 2026 to mark his final day as CEO (January 1, 2026), the full, unedited footage was reserved for a commemorative special. Key Details of the Interview: • The Content: In the clips released so far, Buffett gives a "huge endorsement" to his successor, Greg Abel, calling him "the decider" and stating he would rather have Abel manage his money than any other CEO in America. • The "100-Year" Quote: This interview contains the now-famous line where Buffett claims Berkshire has a "better chance of being here 100 years from now than any company I can think of." • Broadcast Date: The full interview is scheduled to air as part of a special titled "Warren Buffett: A Life and Legacy." When can you watch it? The special program featuring the entire interview is scheduled to air on CNBC on Tuesday, January 13, 2026, at 7:00 PM ET. Would you like me to find a list of the specific topics or "lessons" CNBC has teased from this upcoming special?

siphoning economic juice was probably the wrong statement by me. I probably meant that just more and more shares will go to FFH, making the public float even less liquid and the discount more extended. The FIH share buyback will of course offset the dilution but not the ownership shift. I guess will see what happens.

We are so back in the 19th century, it all about spheres of influence, gunboat diplomacy, the Great White Fleet (or golden), …. just need to buy some huge hunks of land so that the prophecy is fulfilled.

Did the U.S. Gov “Houthied” the Venezuelans oil tankers and now their leader like pirates of Caribbeans do ? Seriously folks, one less asshole, ain’t a bad thing. That said not sure if there was a D-Day+1 plan here. Rubio has his job cut out for him. This is really funny. Don’t know if it was already posted.

it is not bad capital allocation decision if mathematically the recipient of the fees does not “siphon” all of the economic juice of the payer of the fee, over extended period, thus leaving an empty shell. but then again admittedly I don’t know much about how the above 5% performance fee would go about if the BV were to surge from $21 to $40.

FFH management does not target preferred “dividend yield” for retail

Closing the book on 2025. 2025 => 24.38% 2024 => 36.96% 2023 => 24.81% 2022 => -11.48% 2021 => 20.09% 2020 => 11.36% CAGR stands at 21%. Unfortunately I only started calculating return consistently in the same way since 2020. From memory i had ok return in the 2010s. It does not include crypto; and net of all cash contributions. Crypto gained nothing this year. Flat or down for me. S&P500 had a gain of 16% in the same period in USD terms; but I believe TSX had a giant 27% return, thanking to mining, gold and banks.

imagine if BV goes to $40, in the next little while, through realization and IPOs, the performance fee to FFH are going to get hefty buybacks will offset dilution, but the net effect is more FFH concentration into FIH, unless it’s FFH that sells into the buybacks

unfortunately I don’t.

I would add ABAXX Technology. A $1B market cap minnow, that wants to be central exchange for LNGs. I can across in a podcast few months ago, took mental note; and then completely forgotten about it.

uffffff