I agree with the article here that the increased spending has more to do with the Russian invasion. On the other hand Trump's comments on NATO in 2016 were where we saw NATO sentiment explode as people saw supporting NATO as resisting Trump. It really was key to rehabilitating the image of NATO after Libya and Afghanistan.
Well it's a backward looking model which explains why it aligns so perfectly with the last 2 recessions. There is certainly value to models like this, and all economic models should be based on data, but it really should show more than 20ish years of history. My guess is that it is only made based on those years, and it doesn't fit the rest of history nearly so well which is why those years are omitted.
Would you say that the issue of reunification vs independence isn't as important of an issue to voters as western media makes it out to be? I remember it being portrayed as the single issue in the run up to the election.
Putin pushed the CIA sniper incitement conspiracy theory, but didn't present evidence.
On the Nazi thing, he seems to be pivoting to he invaded because Ukraine doesn't have strong enough laws to prevent Nazi speech. Again not very compelling.
He again brings up the conflict pre-invasion in east UA, but fails to mention that Russia was backing the insurgents.
He brings up that the change of power in 2014 wasn't done to the letter of the UA constitution, but fails to mention that the current government clearly has a popular mandate.
He rehashes all the arguments that the West has been the aggressor since the fall of the USSR with NATO expansion.
Other than that it was pretty off topic. Tucker doesn't press him much at all, and when he does Putin deflects and Tucker gives up.
Overall nothing you wouldn't expect.
ETA: just remembered, this was kind of strange. The Nord Stream pipeline blasts were brought up and it was one of the few things that Tucker pushed him on for evidence that UA/US were behind it, but Putin doesn't want to talk evidence. It's kinda weird since this might be the one point where Russia has some ground to stand on, but Putin just defects. Maybe he doesn't want to set a precedent that evidence is required.
Yeah, Iran has a bad habit of waiting until these groups become powerful independently and then slyly trying to take credit for it after the fact. The US amplifying these claims to try to demonize these groups usually just makes them more popular especially in Shia majority areas.
It'll take some doing for Russia to reach the near-zero levels of credibility Europe has with Africans, but a prolonged military presence should help with that.
Their operations aren't so brazen as they used to be but, they played a significant role in the jailing of Lula in Brazil (I link the intercept again since they were the ones to publish the leaks):
This one is pretty bad since Lula was a very popular leader, democratically elected and was even reelected after it came to light that he was jailed on a sham trial. To make matters worse the investigations also targeted Petrobras which is the semi-state-run oil conglomerate in Brazil so you know exactly what the US was concerned with.
Edit: I'd also like to add that the implicit threat of use of force and sanctions makes a secret meeting with Pakistani military leadership more coercive than what's being let on in this conversation. That said I think the Pakistani military wanted Khan gone regardless. Just my 2 cents on the situation.
Eh, I'd say there's something here, they beat earnings on Monday, but the stock plunged specifically reacting to that earnings call. You're right that it's a blip on the long term charts, but it's worth looking into how the market reacts to things, and it clearly did react negatively to the call.
Close. The CIA is thought to have funded the Mujahideen, funneling money and arms through Pakistan. Some of them would become the Taliban later.
As for Al Queda, it's possible that they did as well, but generally thought to be unlikely. The reason being is that Bin Laden had more than enough money personally since his dad was a wealthy construction magnate with ties to the KSA royal family.
As a side note, the push by the US and KSA to put religious extremists in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets undoubtedly played a role in the strength of the Taliban and Al Queda in the 90's.
And who is complaining about 17bn? For what the LHC accomplished and the potential of a new collider. This is about understanding the fundamental nature of the universe and reality. The implications for future tech are limitless.
All Israel has to do is publish their evidence and these questions go away. If 190 members are militants then surely they have some evidence that won't compromise their sources and methods.
He's not a dictator yet, but he'll have the opportunity to rewrite the constitution with the numbers his party will get in the next election. He seems to have signalled this is what he plans to do. Given his economic policies and the fact that he runs a police state (even if it was temporarily needed to get rid of gangs I doubt it will stop), he looks a lot like Pinochet which gives some people pause.
That said it's up to the people of El Salvador to decide if it's worth the risk to hand one party all the power.
This is a discussion about what the people who live there want, not what the government does, are we not on the same page here? The fact is the Iraqi PM is facing internal pressure to expel US forces and he is in the process of doing that.
You sure do talk a lot about this for someone who doesn't understand the basics. The groups Iran backs in Iraq are there to prop up the current Iraqi regime since they're afraid of another Sunni leader emerging if the current regime falls. They're mainly worried about an Islamic State takeover, and Iraq accepts their presence.
Jordan has a dictator who lied and said the US base that got struck was in Syria instead of Jordan most likely to avoid backlash from the population about the presence of a US base in their borders.
I agree with the article here that the increased spending has more to do with the Russian invasion. On the other hand Trump's comments on NATO in 2016 were where we saw NATO sentiment explode as people saw supporting NATO as resisting Trump. It really was key to rehabilitating the image of NATO after Libya and Afghanistan.