- you claim the benefits of Starlink to Ukraine are minimal, then four paragraphs later have a whole section on Starlink Math.
Which concludes by stating “…Starlink is becoming one of the most powerful geopolitical tools there is.”
Maybe the first item should specify that explicitly direct financial benefit is not the only way to measure value.
Also, a lot of the European and Other financial assistance is still generating order flows for US defense contractors. Directly and to replace in kind aid drawn down to send to Ukraine.
2. You state that the UAE and Iran control Hormuz. UAE certainly has land and territorial waters on both the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, but it is Oman that shares the actual Straits of Hormuz with Iran.
Thankfully Ukraine has had such great success with attacking Russias oil refineries - so they have had to put a limit on how much petrol/gas people can buy - resulting in long lines for filling their car tanks.
But does that also mean they have had to stop exporting oil? (and thus not benefitting from high oil prices?)
Yes this is the typical thing where there’s such a gap between what we see and the reality that I’m not sure how many conclusions we can draw. We need to look at the details of how oil production, consumption, and exports have fluctuated.
"According to Ukrainian sources, the kill ratio of Russians to Ukrainians was ~5:1, and now it’s frequently 13:1 since Starlink stopped servicing Russian troops in February."
I think uncritically republishing Ukrainian sources on kill ratios does not assist your argument. Pro-Russian sources that I have seen suggest an almost inverse proportion. And the cadaver exchange stats I've seen tend to support the Russian figures.
In truth, who knows what the correct ratio is? My point here is not to argue for a pro-Ukraine or pro-Russia narrative. I am simply saying that, given the lack of clarity about the figures, it is unhelpful to assert conclusions about the importance of Starlink (or anything else) which purport to be based on those ratios.
The point was not to believe the kill ratio, but rather the factor between the two. I don’t know if their kill ratio was 1:5, I need to look into that. But doubling it with starlink sounds possible, and there are few benchmarks we will ever have that are better than what these ppl on the frontlines say.
Interesante artículo, pero esto de que en lugar de gravar las exportaciones, se quiere gravar los beneficios corporativos, y que no se penalizan tanto la inversión. y que eso es lo que está haciendo Milei: menos impuestos a la exportación, para que las empresas inviertan más, crezcan más y, finalmente, paguen aún más impuestos, a través del impuesto de sociedades y que además estamos viendo que la primera parte de esto funciona, con cosechas récord, resultado de la inversión..... es así en relación a la primera parte. Pero, la realidad es que está bajando también los impuestos corporativos y la inversión social y mantienen impuestos altos a trabajadores independientes y pequeñas y medianas empresas. Los estados de caminos y sistemas sanitarios están colapsados y está incrementando el costo operativo y hasta la logística de muchas empresas.....
I know lots of people in the Argentine agriculture business and I wouldn't be so quick to credit Milei's export tariffs reduction with the increased output. Generally there's a lot of frustration with how slowly he's reducing these (Macri straight up eliminated most of them except for soy, for comparison) and many costs for things like fertilizers have gone up. With Macri we saw a genuine investing boom in agriculture, something that we haven't seen yet in this cycle.
Like the corporate gains tax note at the end of this article. I think that corporate gains taxes could definitely change the environment of governance in many countries and re-distribute wealth in a meaningful way if the politicians in charge of making policy weren’t so corrupted by their personal investments in capital gains markets. This should be the first step toward reducing corruption in political bodies and incentivizing a limitation of corporate interests, especially in the US.
Thank you, Tomas, will be curious to see what the next few weeks look like with the shorter articles cycling in, as in the past I haven't read as many articles as I would like, because I know each one will be in-depth, and somehow I have trouble finding/making the time to read everything, despite being a longtime subscriber and supporter. From time to time I pop in (like now at past 4am for example), and was very interested and pleased to see the poster concepts submitted to you. I will have to return to comment on the few that seemed to follow your desired parameters as set out in your 16 page guide. As a hobbyist artist this particular issue reminding readers of your poster competition was very timely, although sadly I did not get much further into your actual article today! But I am also very interested in what's been happening in Ukraine so I plan to read the entire article in the next few days.
Glad that you are still out there, writing and researching and writing. You make a difference in our world, even if very likely you may never know the full extent of your influence.
I'm looking forward to seeing how the proposed format works out! Can't improve without making changes and sometimes breaking bits, but never know until you try.
Lend-lease was massive aid, which is not happening now.
If Ukraine were paying itself, the U.S. would be much less relevant because (1) there are alternative to US weapons and (2) that’s a corporate decision, not a political one.
Looking forward to the new format.
Two comments on this one:
- you claim the benefits of Starlink to Ukraine are minimal, then four paragraphs later have a whole section on Starlink Math.
Which concludes by stating “…Starlink is becoming one of the most powerful geopolitical tools there is.”
Maybe the first item should specify that explicitly direct financial benefit is not the only way to measure value.
Also, a lot of the European and Other financial assistance is still generating order flows for US defense contractors. Directly and to replace in kind aid drawn down to send to Ukraine.
2. You state that the UAE and Iran control Hormuz. UAE certainly has land and territorial waters on both the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, but it is Oman that shares the actual Straits of Hormuz with Iran.
Cheers.
Thank you on all accounts.
Yes, for Starlink I meant it was not the gov's. Corrected.
Will add your point on contractors.
And thanks for Oman, indeed.
Thankfully Ukraine has had such great success with attacking Russias oil refineries - so they have had to put a limit on how much petrol/gas people can buy - resulting in long lines for filling their car tanks.
But does that also mean they have had to stop exporting oil? (and thus not benefitting from high oil prices?)
Yes this is the typical thing where there’s such a gap between what we see and the reality that I’m not sure how many conclusions we can draw. We need to look at the details of how oil production, consumption, and exports have fluctuated.
"According to Ukrainian sources, the kill ratio of Russians to Ukrainians was ~5:1, and now it’s frequently 13:1 since Starlink stopped servicing Russian troops in February."
I think uncritically republishing Ukrainian sources on kill ratios does not assist your argument. Pro-Russian sources that I have seen suggest an almost inverse proportion. And the cadaver exchange stats I've seen tend to support the Russian figures.
In truth, who knows what the correct ratio is? My point here is not to argue for a pro-Ukraine or pro-Russia narrative. I am simply saying that, given the lack of clarity about the figures, it is unhelpful to assert conclusions about the importance of Starlink (or anything else) which purport to be based on those ratios.
Thanks!
The point was not to believe the kill ratio, but rather the factor between the two. I don’t know if their kill ratio was 1:5, I need to look into that. But doubling it with starlink sounds possible, and there are few benchmarks we will ever have that are better than what these ppl on the frontlines say.
I should have made that clearer. Thank you!
Interesante artículo, pero esto de que en lugar de gravar las exportaciones, se quiere gravar los beneficios corporativos, y que no se penalizan tanto la inversión. y que eso es lo que está haciendo Milei: menos impuestos a la exportación, para que las empresas inviertan más, crezcan más y, finalmente, paguen aún más impuestos, a través del impuesto de sociedades y que además estamos viendo que la primera parte de esto funciona, con cosechas récord, resultado de la inversión..... es así en relación a la primera parte. Pero, la realidad es que está bajando también los impuestos corporativos y la inversión social y mantienen impuestos altos a trabajadores independientes y pequeñas y medianas empresas. Los estados de caminos y sistemas sanitarios están colapsados y está incrementando el costo operativo y hasta la logística de muchas empresas.....
Tengo que escribir un artículo entero sobre Argentina, así que no puedo juzgar sobre todo.
Lo que sí creo que es muy improbable es que las carreteras estén colapsados por estar el en el poder por dos años
I know lots of people in the Argentine agriculture business and I wouldn't be so quick to credit Milei's export tariffs reduction with the increased output. Generally there's a lot of frustration with how slowly he's reducing these (Macri straight up eliminated most of them except for soy, for comparison) and many costs for things like fertilizers have gone up. With Macri we saw a genuine investing boom in agriculture, something that we haven't seen yet in this cycle.
Thanks for that. Worth looking more into.
Like the corporate gains tax note at the end of this article. I think that corporate gains taxes could definitely change the environment of governance in many countries and re-distribute wealth in a meaningful way if the politicians in charge of making policy weren’t so corrupted by their personal investments in capital gains markets. This should be the first step toward reducing corruption in political bodies and incentivizing a limitation of corporate interests, especially in the US.
Note that these are corporate income tax rates and not personal income capital gains.
An article in a few days will look into this.
Very good column. Thank you.
Thank you, Tomas, will be curious to see what the next few weeks look like with the shorter articles cycling in, as in the past I haven't read as many articles as I would like, because I know each one will be in-depth, and somehow I have trouble finding/making the time to read everything, despite being a longtime subscriber and supporter. From time to time I pop in (like now at past 4am for example), and was very interested and pleased to see the poster concepts submitted to you. I will have to return to comment on the few that seemed to follow your desired parameters as set out in your 16 page guide. As a hobbyist artist this particular issue reminding readers of your poster competition was very timely, although sadly I did not get much further into your actual article today! But I am also very interested in what's been happening in Ukraine so I plan to read the entire article in the next few days.
Glad that you are still out there, writing and researching and writing. You make a difference in our world, even if very likely you may never know the full extent of your influence.
Thank you so much! I’m a bit worried about the format, so this is valuable feedback.
I'm looking forward to seeing how the proposed format works out! Can't improve without making changes and sometimes breaking bits, but never know until you try.
Is it Oman, not the UAE, on the Southern side of the Strait of Hormuz?
Ah yes, corrected. Thank you
UAE does not control the other side of Strait of Hormuz. The other size is controlled fully by Oman.
if u zoom your map a little bit you will see it.
Re: So the corporate tax earns more money. But 10.5 is not more than 20….
Am I missing anything?
Why does Europe paying for US military assistance to Ukraine make US irrelevant to Ukraine?
If Ukraine were paying itself, would US be irrelevant?
Was US irrelevant to UK in 1940-1 because Lend-Lease?
Is Starlink not American?
Starlink is not Trump’s.
Lend-lease was massive aid, which is not happening now.
If Ukraine were paying itself, the U.S. would be much less relevant because (1) there are alternative to US weapons and (2) that’s a corporate decision, not a political one.
Starlink is controlled by a former member of the Trump admin.
Trump could block Starlink to Ukraine anytime.
There exist a great many military/intelligence things for which there exist no alternatives to US. None.
States buying weapons that require US gov approval is “a corporate decision”? How so?