This is what in large part is driving the Western response to the invasion.  Wake up and smell the coffee.

 

so, just let russia invade whoever they want. 

@Procus is just now reading about this and thinking it's something someone should really look into:

On 4/5/2023 at 10:38 AM, vikas83 said:

 

Perfect response:

 

Honestly I’ve never seen more well fed dogs than in Ukraine. With the strays I was going in expecting the sniper mission in COD 4, but they just kinda waddle around all fat. And the trench dogs have it down to science. They just revisit the mess tent every time a wave a soldiers goes there and just puppy dog eye you to death until you give them food. And then when soldiers are on their way out they put their unused food into the dog bowl. 

4 hours ago, Procus said:

This is what in large part is driving the Western response to the invasion.  Wake up and smell the coffee.

 

Oh ffs learn how funds work.

BlackRock own something like 6% of LockMart. That’s a drop in the bucket.

 

”WELL I GUESS I BETTER SELL ALL THESE WIDGETS TO THIS CUSTOMER BASE BECAUSE OF THIS GUY WHO HAS A TINY SLIVER OF A STAKE IN THR BUSINESS!”

54 minutes ago, Bill said:

Honestly I’ve never seen more well fed dogs than in Ukraine. With the strays I was going in expecting the sniper mission in COD 4, but they just kinda waddle around all fat. And the trench dogs have it down to science. They just revisit the mess tent every time a wave a soldiers goes there and just puppy dog eye you to death until you give them food. And then when soldiers are on their way out they put their unused food into the dog bowl. 

Oh ffs learn how funds work.

BlackRock own something like 6% of LockMart. That’s a drop in the bucket.

 

”WELL I GUESS I BETTER SELL ALL THESE WIDGETS TO THIS CUSTOMER BASE BECAUSE OF THIS GUY WHO HAS A TINY SLIVER OF A STAKE IN THR BUSINESS!”

Black Rock is one of the largest stakeholders in Lockheed.  The 6.4% holding is significant in the big scheme of things.  The largest stakeholder in Lockheed is State Street with roughly a 15% stake.  Black Rock holds roughly a 7.5% stake in State Street.  These are public companies so these percentages are significant.  The other large stakeholder in Lockheed is Vanguard.  Vanguard owns around 8.1% of Black Rock.

So maybe before you come off like a wise guy know it all, you do your research a bit deeper, eh?

3 minutes ago, Procus said:

Black Rock is one of the largest stakeholders in Lockheed.  The 6.4% holding is significant in the big scheme of things.  The largest stakeholder in Lockheed is State Street with roughly a 15% stake.  Black Rock holds roughly a 7.5% stake in State Street.  These are public companies so these percentages are significant.  The other large stakeholder in Lockheed is Vanguard.  Vanguard owns around 8.1% of Black Rock.

So maybe before you come off like a wise guy know it all, you do your research a bit deeper, eh?

They’re funds, man. Funds.

You act as if guys like @vikas83 and their underlings are running around like Mr. White and Le Chiffre or something.

Give it a rest, Pepe Silva. 

2 hours ago, Bill said:

They’re funds, man. Funds.

You act as if guys like @vikas83 and their underlings are running around like Mr. White and Le Chiffre or something.

Give it a rest, Pepe Silva. 

Blackrock, State Street and Vanguard are asset managers. The money is from a bunch of investors, primarily pension funds, endowments and individuals. That’s how mutual funds work. It’s amazing how this is a foreign concept to idiots. Like when Bernie screams about Blackrock and chances are very high he has assets there. 

49 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

 Like when Bernie screams about Blackrock and chances are very high he has assets there. 

Hopefully not in the Paris office

2 hours ago, vikas83 said:

Blackrock, State Street and Vanguard are asset managers. The money is from a bunch of investors, primarily pension funds, endowments and individuals. That’s how mutual funds work. It’s amazing how this is a foreign concept to idiots. Like when Bernie screams about Blackrock and chances are very high he has assets there. 

It's very nice that you gave us an education about who the primary investors are in these asset managers.  This excellent blog from the University of Oxford Faculty of Law discusses the  how asset managers and banks evolved to control the voting rights associated with other people's money.  "As investment became less individual, more institutional and global, asset managers and banks took votes. They use votes, but make no investment. They can govern companies, but bear no economic risk. They bear no costs from unemployment, or dwindling retirement savings."

https://blogs.law.ox.ac.uk/business-law-blog/blog/2017/06/do-asset-managers-and-banks-control-share-voting-rights-your-money

Here, it was noteworthy that Back Rock gave its "big" investors the ability to vote on shareholder proposals (implying no such right exists with other investors), and no doubt the big investors otherwise have considerable influence over voting decisions by the asset managers otherwise.

https://streetcontxt.com/blog/asset-manager-or-asset-owner-who-votes/

So at the end of the day, your rant about pension funds, etc. being the investors in Black Rock is a red herring. 

 

 

 

Anything can be intentionally leaked to mislead, or could be a real breach.

1 hour ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Anything can be intentionally leaked to mislead, or could be a real breach.

And anything can be disinformation from either side.

1 hour ago, Toastrel said:

And anything can be disinformation from either side.

Maybe your post on disinformation is disinformation

 

10 hours ago, vikas83 said:

Blackrock, State Street and Vanguard are asset managers. The money is from a bunch of investors, primarily pension funds, endowments and individuals. That’s how mutual funds work. It’s amazing how this is a foreign concept to idiots. Like when Bernie screams about Blackrock and chances are very high he has assets there. 

When the big curtain is finally pulled back it will be you pulling all the strings after all, won’t it? Maybe now is the time to reveal the truth. 

7 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

When the big curtain is finally pulled back it will be you pulling all the strings after all, won’t it? Maybe now is the time to reveal the truth. 

You mean something like this?

 

7 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

When the big curtain is finally pulled back it will be you pulling all the strings after all, won’t it? Maybe now is the time to reveal the truth. 

You jest, but there is some controversy over Larry Fink and Blackrock investments

https://nypost.com/2022/08/16/blackrock-faces-scrutiny-from-19-state-ags-over-esg-investments/

BlackRock faces scrutiny from 19 state AGs over ESG investments

"BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, is coming under scrutiny from a group of state attorneys general over its aggressive push on so-called ESG investments that promote environmental, social and governance issues."

19 hours ago, Procus said:

It's very nice that you gave us an education about who the primary investors are in these asset managers.  This excellent blog from the University of Oxford Faculty of Law discusses the  how asset managers and banks evolved to control the voting rights associated with other people's money.  "As investment became less individual, more institutional and global, asset managers and banks took votes. They use votes, but make no investment. They can govern companies, but bear no economic risk. They bear no costs from unemployment, or dwindling retirement savings."

https://blogs.law.ox.ac.uk/business-law-blog/blog/2017/06/do-asset-managers-and-banks-control-share-voting-rights-your-money

Here, it was noteworthy that Back Rock gave its "big" investors the ability to vote on shareholder proposals (implying no such right exists with other investors), and no doubt the big investors otherwise have considerable influence over voting decisions by the asset managers otherwise.

https://streetcontxt.com/blog/asset-manager-or-asset-owner-who-votes/

So at the end of the day, your rant about pension funds, etc. being the investors in Black Rock is a red herring. 

Yes go and tell an investment banker how investment banking really works.

Why don’t you tell Einstein how formulas work, while you’re at it. 

2 hours ago, Procus said:

You jest, but there is some controversy over Larry Fink and Blackrock investments

https://nypost.com/2022/08/16/blackrock-faces-scrutiny-from-19-state-ags-over-esg-investments/

BlackRock faces scrutiny from 19 state AGs over ESG investments

"BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, is coming under scrutiny from a group of state attorneys general over its aggressive push on so-called ESG investments that promote environmental, social and governance issues."

Yeah it’s almost as if the funds that drive the investment of blackrock have stipulations about ESGs or something. 

10 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

When the big curtain is finally pulled back it will be you pulling all the strings after all, won’t it? Maybe now is the time to reveal the truth. 

*Interior, old ship cargo hold*
*Door opens*
Hot Assistant: I’ll get the polos. Tell them I’ll-I’ll get the polos.

Vikas: Polos aren’t as valuable to our organization as knowing who to trust.

On 4/6/2023 at 8:30 PM, Procus said:

Black Rock is one of the largest stakeholders in Lockheed.  The 6.4% holding is significant in the big scheme of things.  The largest stakeholder in Lockheed is State Street with roughly a 15% stake.  Black Rock holds roughly a 7.5% stake in State Street.  These are public companies so these percentages are significant.  The other large stakeholder in Lockheed is Vanguard.  Vanguard owns around 8.1% of Black Rock.

So maybe before you come off like a wise guy know it all, you do your research a bit deeper, eh?

Do shut up

 

45 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

 

Kinda - NATO protects fledgling democracies in Europe (the Baltic States/Poland specifically); fledgling democracies on the Russian border threaten Putin personally because who really wants to live in a police state forever after looking over the wall at your neighbors and seeing what is possible... He doesn't want to be the next Yanukovych with nowhere to run.  Of course, he's old and without the disruption of the status quo which he caused with the invasion he could have fueled Europe and died in his sleep without much interference externally.  To me it seems that a majority of Russians have accepted that it his country, they just live there - so they either make the best of it or emigrate... in the end even the threat of a revolution was overstated.

On 4/6/2023 at 3:04 PM, Alpha_TATEr said:

so, just let russia invade whoever they want. 

Would not be the first time

 

this is why Russia must lose. 

Full content:

Quote

WHY WILL UKRAINE DISAPPEAR? BECAUSE NOBODY NEEDS IT

1. Europe doesn’t need Ukraine. The forced support of the NSDAP regime, by the American mentor’s order, has put Europeans into a financial and political inferno. All for the sake of bandera’s unterukraine, that even the snobby, insolent Polacks don’t take for a valid country, and time and again toss in the issue of its western areas anschluss. There’s a nice perspective ahead: to permanently put the nouveau-Ukrainian blood-sucking parasites on the decrepit EU’s arthritis-crippled neck. That’ll be the final fall of Europe, once majestic, but robbed off by degeneration. 

2. The US doesn’t need Ukraine. True, the military and sanction campaigns are attempted for PR by political blabbermouths, who long ago attested to their impotence and imbecility. Average Americans don’t understand what "Ukraine” is, and where "it” is. Most of them won’t show this "power” on the map on the first take. Why won’t the US establishment focus on inflation and job issues, or emergencies in their home States, instead of a country 404, unbeknownst to them? Why does so much dough go across the ocean?
Sooner or later, they’ll ask for that. Then, storming of the Capitol in January 2021 would seem like scout games.

3. Africa and Latin America don’t need Ukraine. The hundreds of millions spent by US on pointless fights in Ukraine, could finance many development programmes for Latin American and African states. 
Latin America is gringos’ backyard – that’s what they’ve been rubbing in for decades. Africa’s had its share of suffering from the genocide, and colonial dependence, imposed by former western slave traders. That’s why the people of African huts and Latin American favelas ask a very reasonable question: for their former suffering and present-day loyalty, why is somebody else rewarded – very, very far away? 

4. Asia doesn’t need Ukraine. By Russia’s example, they see "colour” technologies at work to eradicate the largest competing powers. They understand what scenario the America-led collective West has for them if they disobey. "Help us to overcome Russia, and we’ll soon come to you”, the utterly brazen Western leaders tell them. Such gigantic countries as India, China, and other Asia-Pacific states face the big enough challenge of post-pandemic economic recovery, let aside the drugged clowns, with their whining for aid.  
"We are not interested in you”, Asia tells their messengers, responding to the calls to support Ukraine and confine Russia. The country, geopolitically many times closer to Asian powers, the one that historically has proven itself a reliable strategic partner. Do Asian giants need such headache coming from former colonisers? 

5. Russia doesn’t need Ukraine. A threadbare quilt, torn, shaggy, and greasy. The new Malorossiya of 1991 is made up of the artificially cut territories, many of which are indigenously Russian, separated by accident in the 20th century. Millions of our compatriots live there, harassed for years by the NSDAP Kiev regime. It is them who we defend in our special military operation, relentlessly eradicating the enemy. We don’t need unterukraine. We need Big Great Russia. 

6. Finally, its own citizens don’t need the NSDAP-headed Ukraine. That’s why out of 45 million people there’re only some 20 million remaining. That’s why those who stayed want to leave for any place: the hated Poland, EU, NATO, to be America’s 51nd state. Joining the Antarctic with its pinguins will also be fine. As long as it’s quiet, and the food’s good. The ruling junta’s criminal ambitions forced Ukrainians to beg and roam around the countries and continents, searching for a better life. All that is for an obscure European perspective. Or rather, to let the harlequin in a khaki tricot and his band of thievish NSDAP clowns to put the money stolen from the West into their offshore accounts. Would ordinary Ukrainians need that? 

Nobody on this planet needs such a Ukraine. That’s why it will disappear

 

5 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

 

this is why Russia must lose. 

Full content:

 

Self fulfilling prophecy.  I almost feel bad for the Russian people.  Almost.  But they let this happen, again, to their country.

Ukraine will eventually reveal ‘horrible’ losses – ambassador

Quote

The true number of casualties will be acknowledged only once the conflict is over, Vadim Pristaiko has said
Ukraine will eventually reveal ‘horrible’ losses – ambassador
A Ukrainian serviceman fires a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) from a launcher during a training exercise on April 7, 2023. ©  Genya SAVILOV / AFP
Ukraine will reveal the extent of its "horrible” losses once its conflict with Russia is over, Vadim Pristaiko, Kiev’s ambassador to the UK, said in an interview released on Friday.

Asked by British tabloid the Daily Express to comment on casualties among Ukrainian military personnel and civilians, Pristaiko said "it has been our policy from the start not to discuss our losses.”

"When the war is over, we will acknowledge this. I think it will be a horrible number,” he added.

Pristaiko dismissed any possibility of talks between Moscow and Kiev – at least until Russia withdraws its troops from the territories Ukraine claims as its own. "So, we have to fight to the very last of them or, very unfortunately, the last of us as well,” the envoy said.

Ukraine objects to EU assessment of its casualties
Read more Ukraine objects to EU assessment of its casualties
The ambassador also commented on the assault brigades that Ukraine says it has assembled for a much-anticipated spring offensive against Russia. "Whoever says there are 40,000 men in these brigades, I would like to point out that we have mobilized a million men,” Pristaiko stated.

Both sides of the Ukraine conflict rarely provide data on their losses. However, last autumn, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen put Kiev’s fatalities at 100,000, a claim that was disputed by Ukraine and later removed from the official’s website. In December, Mikhail Podoliak, a senior aide to Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, put the death toll among Kiev’s military at between 12,000 and 13,000 people.

Russia has not officially updated its losses since last September, when Moscow’s Ministry of Defense estimated that 5,937 service members had died.

Pristaiko’s comments come as Ukrainian and Western officials claim that Ukraine will launch a counteroffensive in the coming weeks. Commenting on statements about a potential Ukrainian push, Kremlin Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov noted that the Russian military "thoroughly tracks all the relevant information” on the matter.

Already well over 300K dead.

Say uncle, Sam.