Quote from: paxmao on Today at 11:09:48 AM

Quote from: DaRude on Today at 08:32:51 AM

Quote from: paxmao on Today at 12:12:18 AM

Quote from: DaRude on May 06, 2024, 06:07:21 PM

[...]

Now ask yourself why would BlackRock hire lawyers and be willing to forgive a big chunk of debt just for at least some payments, but right now? Perhaps of the kindness from their pure hearts or ... Roll Eyes

[...]

The reason i didn't punch Muhammad Ali is because i was afraid of escalations with him. Otherwise, if he wouldn't escalate and fight back, he'd run crying to his mamma Cheesy

classic paxmao

There is nothing to ask about. You may be discovering how high-yield bonds work, but many of us already know.

Ukraine will pay debt and quite a bit of it will be forgiven in exchange for XYZ. I said this many times, there are winners in this war but they are not Ruzzia, Ukraine nor Europe. All thanks to Putin´s "great geostrategic vision" that has made Gazprom loose money for the first time in 20 years, expand NATO faster than ever and burn through the Soviet weapons legacy platforms faster than ever.

But hey, I would not be surprised if Putin had a significant stake in Blackrock funds through some opaque scheme of companies and actually profiting from Ukraine´s debt. He is not going to die for it, the Ruzzian soldiers do.

Overall, Ruzzia is left with more enemies, Putin is probably making more money than ever and if all goes to plan Ukraine will have their independence and perhaps some generations of peace to build a country - likely under the NATO umbrella. Who are the true losers here? The average Ruzzian / Federated citizen and the families of the Ruzzian mercenaries.

Your other comment is stupid, classic daRude. NATO is not for now deploying troops under the NATO structure or mandate because there is no interest nor incentive in that type of escalation. It is much simpler to allow Ruzzia to be as incompetent as they are and self-demilitarise for a few farms and flattened minor cities for which the US has little interest.

The return on investment for the aid to Ukraine is excellent. Please, keep up the military incompetence, it makes the world a safer place.

This below is probably the tiny tiny bit of an iceberg of Putin assets in "the west" that he claims he is fighting.

Billions in assets. Hint: not in Ruzzia

And his brood is said to be living in Switzerland. Give whatever credit you want to this, is not really that relevant.

https://www.businessinsider.com/putin-children-alina-kabaeva-keeps-them-hidden-in-luxury-report-2023-3

Learn what citations are, and do not attribute my citations to me. Angry

Oh i see, when you read my citations claiming some system doesn't work you assume a 100% failure and thus feel the need to provide evidence of at least one or two that did work to prove them wrong? No that's not how warfare works at all, there's this whole the sword and the shield concept, where efficiency of of some new weapon is limited in time before countermeasures are developed.

Quote from: https://www.businessinsider.com/russian-cheap-electronic-warfare-keeps-beating-us-precision-weapons-2024-4

In March, Daniel Patt, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, told Congress the GPS-guided Excalibur artillery shells "had a 70% efficiency rate hitting targets when first used in Ukraine" but that "after six weeks, efficiency declined to only 6% as the Russians adapted their electronic-warfare systems to counter it."

Patt said at the time that "the peak efficiency of a new weapon system is only about two weeks before countermeasures emerge."

So for example excalibers work in Ukraine, so no need to find videos, but only in 6%. If you feel GMLRS work in Ukraine sure go argue with Pentagon and tell Ukraine to request more of GMLRS instead of some other weapons for the next weapon delivery batch.

High yield? You mean junk-bonds?

The problem is that no one believes that Ukraine can survive for longer than it would take for Russia to "self-demilitarise" as you claim (it's obvious now that China won't allow it and for many other reasons). Thus the outcome is clear, so the options really are either make peace now, or keep fighting "to the last Ukrainian" waste more lives and get worse terms just to get Russia to "self-demilitarise" a tiny bit more. You don't see a conflict of interest here between the interest of the "west" and the Ukrainian people?

Obviously you would not lend to Ruzzia at the same rates as Germany nor you would expect re-structuring from Germany .Again, you are not going to enlighten anyone here about credit ratings.

Ukraine is a perfectly viable independent country in economic terms if the war is ended correctly. You know this, Putin knows this and you both want to avoid this outcome at all costs by asking for a surrender while calling it "peace".

Try to be honest for once will you? You were clearly giving credibility to options about the Ukrainian glide bombs and the western weaponry in terms of "not working". Would you like then to retract and say they are not working 100%?

Particularly, what degree of "not working" and the S300 S400 being enough to deal with the western supplied missiles do you claim? And what degree of "not working" do you attribute to the French glide bombs smashing the east bank of the dnipro?

Meh comparing default risks of Germany vs Russia is not interesting, now Russian war bonds vs. Ukrainian war bonds on a free market would be for a far more interesting conversation.

Ukraine was a perfectly viable country in economic terms in 2013, and there was peace and overall prosperity in EU. You know this, and EU knows this, but US decided to change that status quo with some sweet cookies that some naive people fell for, so now we're all paying the consequences.

Once again i'm not a military expert to comment on the specifics, i just collect credible reports from multiple sources and report it here. If you have credible reports that claim otherwise, that Ground Launched Small Diameter Bombs work amazingly for Ukraine do share them, otherwise unless you reveal yourself as some war general or top military strategist, i'll believe media reports over your opinion. Honestly i don't see what you're so held up on, are you just incapable of admitting that some weapons might not work for Ukraine, is that it? There are no reports that ATACMS don't work (there are other issues with them mainly cost and availability but effectiveness doesn't seem to be one of them), yet there are plenty that GLSDB and Excalibur are not effective. Either provide a more credible source claiming otherwise or stop spreading misinformation with your random opinions and pictures/videos.

Even from some UA source defence-ua.com Huh

Quote from: https://en.defence-ua.com/analysis/why_pentagon_can_rest_assured_knowing_glsdb_proved_ineffective_in_ukraines_modern_war_realities-10330.html

Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb (GLSDB) was supposed to become one of Ukraine's farthest-reaching strike weapons, enabling Ukrainian forces to launch strikes 150 km deep inside russian rear on par with ATACMS missiles. However, in practice GLSDB has shown low effectiveness, as follows from the vague words by William LaPlante, Pentagon's Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, he attributed the poor performance to the electronic warfare factor, as well as this weapon's general application tactics and doctrine.