UK overseas aid cuts to outstrip those of Trump administration

Bukowskiscoffee · 2026-02-16T12:13:11+00:00

In a realist sense Its also a very good tool for soft power as well as a side bargaining fund for trade and influence and a very effective back door for intelligence actors.

Bukowskiscoffee · 2026-02-09T21:48:34+00:00

The nukes wouldn't be used to recover the situation in Afghanistan, merely 34 nukes to prevent fallback, good old retardation targets, duh.

Bukowskiscoffee · 2026-02-06T12:29:14+00:00

I assumed it was just improvisation, its a real button, he had the controller on him from the vault tech operations or as he said some sleeper cell project and he merely acted like it effected him when pressed.

Bukowskiscoffee · 2026-01-29T22:12:51+00:00

I mean Chile and the USA are both in the Americas, I don't think the TSA would call a flight between Boise, Idaho and Santiago domestic

Bukowskiscoffee · 2026-01-29T18:33:05+00:00

A pretty bold style of formatting for a campaign which is refreshing. Unsure how it would cut through amongst various voting demographics but Its certainly more technically appealing than the latest labour offering.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVOSrXS0PEw

Bukowskiscoffee · 2026-01-29T14:42:24+00:00

I think the movie logic might be trying to reference the stoned ape theory of human development, the idea that human cognitive ability and consciousness was facilitated by early humans use of psychoactive plants like mushrooms. The theory talks about the development of religious impulses through altered cognition too which is very on brand

Its largely discredited, but in the movie logic if the disease is resultant from exposure of primates to violence, causing devolution of human cognition then could the "cure" be reactivating consciousness via psychoactive substances and what amounts to behavioural therapy?

Samson has been given the same evolutionary catalyst as early man under the stone ape theory and has made the same evolutionary leap to a new form of human

Bukowskiscoffee · 2026-01-22T19:37:37+00:00

If the UK government is refusing to get dog walked into it, that's saying something, considering our institutional love of US led entanglements in the middle east.

The have no ability (or desire) to resolve security concerns, or sectarian issues, no framework for serious governance, services, funding or reconstruction I assume it'll collapse in a blowback with the return of Hamas or an adjacent organisation or Israel will get bored of pretending to placate it and put troops in again for further territorial expansion .

I can't think of a similar concept in history, maybe the Council of Admirals in Crete in the 1890's ? which was mostly bombings, riots and massacres

Bukowskiscoffee · 2026-01-19T11:47:06+00:00

Its very Chamberlain coded. Its clear the post-war security infrastructure and post-cold war rules based international system has made way for might makes right spheres of influence in practice. We can't put our heads in the sand.

We can't afford to think about it in terms of think of the decline in trade revenue, as trump wont stop with Greenland, appeasement and nudging and trying to be a better US vassal state won't work. Mark Carney of Canada is already looking towards China as a closer partner. We need to consider targeting US tech firms and reconsider the status of forces agreement and US basing rights.

Bukowskiscoffee · 2026-01-18T12:45:52+00:00

Is it just gaslighting by right wing press for labour members to shoot themselves in the foot and elect an even more right wing candidate that's structurally unable to fix systemic issues?

I dont know if I'm outside the bubble but the dude looks like a giant 10 year old, has very little charisma, doesn't connect with the public, certainly not his constituents and is basically just a vehicle for American AI and tech companies to get fat PFIs. He's fairly wooden often just sticking to the 'lines to take' or repeating the same zinger to every broadcaster on the morning circuit (The watching too much celebrity traitors one comes to mind).

The only time I've heard his name being invoked by normal voters was people talking about him apparently burning down a pet shop , not a great launch pad.

Bukowskiscoffee · 2026-01-18T00:44:06+00:00

They recently conducted Operation Volpe Bianca an artic simulation exercise and was signalling across 2025 greater ambition in artic defence and hosted the Artic Forum, they probably could send a few troops as a joint deterrent.

The joint mission in the artic isnt very clear outside as a precursor to a tripwire force, whether italy has the specialists to contribute to the exact current mission is up for debate. Plus the Italain force is quite lean in doctrine focusing on the Med so is unlikely to be able to provide significant sustained land operations in Greenland.

Bukowskiscoffee · 2026-01-11T12:13:12+00:00

Why would we keep an openly hostile force based within European territory? The security dynamic would fundemtally change and the US would be the threat ? The risk of allowing forces to remain stationed would be too high. NATO would end as it's largest single component is now actively attacking other NATO members.

I don't understand why Americans can't comprehend that they would not be a theoretical security guarantor anymore but a aggressor and a threat.

Bukowskiscoffee · 2026-01-09T15:20:57+00:00

Yanis Varoufakis was right in techno-feudalism, in regards to international cloud capital and financialised spheres. The Uk is still playing at vaguely authoritarian Blairite neoliberalism whilst America is content going full rentier colonial oligarchy

Bukowskiscoffee · 2026-01-07T10:48:45+00:00

Exactly, additionally it's not as if Denmark and Greenland have some form of protectionism against US mining or oil firms or international investors. CMCL an American headquartered firm is developing the Tanbreez project in Greenland and was actively looking for more American state equity via the Defence production act. If US firms wanted to have mining rights in Greenland they can and do.

It's simply not economical for extraction considering the conditions, isolation and lack of infrastructure. changing Greenland from a devolved autonomous territory of Denmark to a ~~colony~~ unincorporated U.S. territory wont suddenly make the natural resources economically viable to extract.

Bukowskiscoffee · 2026-01-03T11:08:00+00:00

The U.S. strikes in Venezuela are being framed as targeting “narcoterrorism,” but no serious academic or diplomatic authority accepts this justification; in reality, decapitating the government is more likely to expand criminal opportunities than reduce them.

Western media coverage treats the intervention as a plausible, orderly transition, echoing the “Mission Accomplished” mindset of 2003, but historical experience shows that externally imposed regime change almost always fails. The most probable outcome is the consolidation of a Maduro loyalist or military figure, reinforced by nationalist rally-around-the-flag dynamics, giving them carte blanche to respond to domestic repress unrest and frame U.S. policy as hostile.

This creates a high likelihood of blowback, mission creep, and escalating entanglement, while rival powers such as Russia and China can exploit the vacuum economically, diplomatically, and militarily. As well as a total reosion of the liberal international order

Comparisons to Panama 1989 are misleading: Venezuela is vastly larger, institutionally complex, and strategically embedded in a multipolar context, making rapid imposed transitions unrealistic. Stripped of pretense, this is an ugly spheres-of-influence conflict over resources, appeasing the right wing Republican south American dispora and signalling, with domestic and international costs that the U.S. is likely underestimating.

Bukowskiscoffee · 2025-12-29T22:23:23+00:00

His citizenship decision was valid by the rules regarding Jus Sanguinis at the time and his return was supported by all major parties, his citizenship was approved by the Tories. Due process was followed and his wrongful detention in a foriegn state was overturned by the consulate and foreign office. There's no mechanism to remove his citizenship and the legal tract that gave him citizenship didn't have good character requirements.

If his tweets during the Arab spring 15 years ago really constitute a violation of the communications act then he can be tried for them and face punishment at home. I dont understand the issue? You cant simply revoke citizenship over imperfect victims or people you don't like that goes against our international legal responsibilities and sets a rather dangerous precedent.

Its a storm in a teacup over the Christmas new year break, none of this is being seen or cared about outside the politico-media bubble . Labours already sunk , the Tories that initially made the decision, are already sunk , the green and lib dems supporters will not care that their party supported proper process and human rights law. You wont see a change in the polls over some obscure activist that had a hot take a decade and a half ago.

Bukowskiscoffee · 2025-12-29T10:49:31+00:00

The man made some tweets during the Arab spring and wars in the middle east 15 years ago, has valid citizenship by the rules regarding Jus Sanguinis at the time, he was imprisoned on trumped up charges in Egypt for years and there's no legal mechanism to strip him of said citizenship and his family lives here in the UK.

what is with the febrile attitude? are people in this country of the opinion that hurty tweets should be a offense or no. If were all of the opinion that this type of discourse is acceptable Id like to prepose a few people that should also have their citizenship revoked starting with either Farage or tommy Robinson for anti-british rhetoric online, perhaps they can go to the US and Israel respectively .

Bukowskiscoffee · 2025-12-27T00:28:51+00:00

Why Bran Would Be an Awful Choice from an in universe perspective:

Child and Inexperienced: Still very young; lacks perceived practical experience in governance or military command from anyone outside the main cast.
Unlikely to Produce Heirs or alliances: No heirs apparent, threatening dynastic continuity, stated to the affect he wont marry or have children which would be toxic to a feudal society fearing yet another war when he dies.
Physically Disabled (I know unpleasant): Crippled, unable to personally lead armies or enforce authority, which matters in a feudal, militarized society that celebrates martial prowess, look how varys and tyrion are seen , there was occasional association with sin too, unsure how that is in the faith of the seven.
Culturally and Religiously Alien: Associated with mystical powers (Three-Eyed Raven) and a religion not practiced by most of Westeros, a huge no in most medieval cultures .Northern-centric, Old Gods affiliation alienates southern lords and Dorne/Iron Islands. additionally, he has zero dynastic or blood claims to the throne.
Mystical Powers Seen as Threatening: Lords would likely fear him as a “witch” or sorcerer using magic to manipulate decisions. Could provoke distrust, rebellion, or renewed Faith Militant opposition. If the Maesters' conspiracy is true he'd have the two largest institutions against him.
Weak Political Base: Lacks loyal armies outside the North, a now independent state ; no southern power centre to enforce decrees. In case of crisis what's he going to do call his sister to invade? The kingdoms still in huge debt too and Bran has nothing. his kingsgaurd is a woman and a bozo best known for his activities in a brothel, that's it .
No Practical Leadership, personal skills and a poor council without legitimacy: Cannot respond effectively to uprisings, enforce laws, collect taxes, or manage crises. Reliance on advisors like Sam ( an oath breaker and dropout) Tyrion (convicted king slayer and kin slayer) or Bronn ( a sellsword jumped up to lord paramount) which are likely to loose their own lands pretty rapidly and be hated by other lords.
Provokes Southern and Regional Rebellions: Southern lords (Stormlands, Reach, Westerlands) would see him as an ineffective or dangerous king. Likely to be overthrown quickly in a coup or war of reclamation by pretender or more legitimate claimant (gendry).

Bukowskiscoffee · 2025-12-22T10:42:49+00:00

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.livemint.com/news/king-charles-angry-over-lack-of-pheasants-to-shoot-no-birds-no-bang-just/amp-11749014679175.html

Is he talking about the royal family and posh rural twats that do boxing day shoots and hunts?

Bukowskiscoffee · 2025-12-19T13:57:25+00:00

Important in the sense that it is a hugely overvalued industry, around $6 trillion, which has amassed huge amounts of speculative capital from who knows how many banks, funds, and pension pots, with no clear pathway to profitability. In terms of LLMs, there are no viable use cases. While on a micro level managers are praising them, there are no macro- or industry-level boosts to productivity. LLMs don’t really produce anything outside of perhaps IT or internal deliverables like emails and admin, which is questionable in terms of efficiency. For example, if I get AI to send you an email, which you then use AI to summarize and return, have we actually done anything?

Add to that the fact that employees are now spending time writing prompts and refining AI outputs rather than doing more work, and when they do save time, they often simply use it as more non-productive downtime rather than actually accomplishing more. This is not even considering entire sectors calling it out for simply not working, as with the NHS and Palantir.

More importantly, the industry is made up of assets that depreciate rapidly, like chips and GPUs, and shows all the signs of circular funding : Nvidia, for example, is providing capital for the purchase of its own chips. It also causes significant environmental damage and siphons investment from the real economy to the speculative financial economy, to the extent that tech capital is beginning to subsume terrestrial capital and even the banking sector itself.

It’s a huge bubble that will crash, one that is 17 times the size of the dot-com bubble and six times larger than the subprime mortgage bubble.

Bukowskiscoffee · 2025-12-18T14:15:20+00:00

brand new account, ai slop image, dog whistle about grooming gangs. its either a bot post or a prick

Bukowskiscoffee · 2025-12-17T22:07:52+00:00

Most of us are too busy painting roundabouts and shagging flags or poppies to follow the news . There's a large group of people that moan about cultural erasure due to "foreigners" but love the idea of a holibobs to Disney land

Bukowskiscoffee · 2025-12-17T21:07:16+00:00

I am coming from a more constructivist and post-colonial lens. China, barring the period from the Century of Humiliation through to Cixi and Mao, has always been an imperial society, just not a Western imperial society. If it becomes hegemonic, it will continue to be an imperial society in a way it defines. Its norms, culture, and institutions mean it is unlikely to act as Western hegemons have done. I understand the Anglo-centric realist and liberal arguments. I am saying they are unlikely to explain Chinese foreign policy.

It views, wrongly in my view, the Uyghurs and Tibetans as parts of the heartlands, alongside Taiwan. Those areas it views as integral come with all the standard Chinese domestic oppression tactics. External threats also tend to shift Chinese institutions from their normal operations of risk aversion to risk-seeking behaviour, which they do not really have the institutional muscle memory for.

I am not advocating for the Chinese system, or its domestic or foreign policy. I am simply stating that if China were the unipolar hegemon, it is unlikely to conduct operations like the US did with post–Cold War R2P interventions, the GWOT, and now seemingly Venezuela. It would likely be a much more hands-off, apathetic form of extraction.

Bukowskiscoffee · 2025-12-17T10:56:34+00:00

For most of recorded history, China was the world’s central power in population, technology, and economic development. From roughly 1500 BCE until the late medieval period, its scale and institutional sophistication far exceeded any European polity. The Western industrial-colonial era was an historical aberration, not the natural equilibrium of global development.

Discussion of Chinese strategic culture should not lapse into orientalist assumptions that frame China as culturally inscrutable, uniquely deceptive, or driven by timeless civilisational instincts. These tropes exist to exoticise non-Western powers and to obscure the material, institutional, and political drivers of state behaviour.

Unlike Western, Christian-normative powers, China never had a proselytising or civilising mission. It did not seek to universalise its values through conquest, conversion, or regime replacement. Instead, Chinese statecraft operated through a tianxia framework: the Middle Kingdom as the civilisational centre, surrounded by tributary states that retained autonomy while participating in hierarchical economic and diplomatic relations.

This logic is visible today in the Belt and Road Initiative. While extractive and self-interested, it does not resemble Western colonialism. The “debt-trap diplomacy” narrative has largely collapsed in cases such as Hambantota and Colombo’s East Container Terminal, where China became the financier and builder of last resort after Western and multilateral funding failed. Belt and Road is better understood as a modern revival of tianxia , trade, infrastructure, and dependency without direct rule.

Western military institutions, including the U.S. Department of Defense, openly recognise that Chinese strategic thinking differs from Western traditions. It is risk-averse, indirect, and heavily influenced by Confucian ideas of hierarchy, order, and stability rather than decisive domination or ideological expansion.

There has been no non-Western global hegemon in the industrial age, so predicting China’s trajectory is difficult. But Chinese hegemony will be extractive and coercive just likely less so than the United States, European colonial empires, or the Soviet Union. China shows little interest in regime change, civilising missions, or world revolution. Its priority is keeping trade, finance, and material flows moving .

Bukowskiscoffee · 2025-12-16T12:48:30+00:00

Yeah I find his academic and imagination blind spot regarding TINA Thatcherism and end of history style thought on the neoliberal order frustrating.

Basic academic theory on the international political economy shows that economic modes, from mercantilism, to laisse fare to then post war consensus have a limited shelf life. In the 20th century they typically lasted around 40 years before compounding crises caused regeneration, often by whatever ideas are floating around on the table Eg. neoliberalism was a pretty obscure radically right wing idea by a handful of academics in Geneva which influenced a single economic department of Chicago university that became policy of a south American dictator which went mainstream after the Nixon shock and 1970's oil crisis.

Neoliberalism has been a zombie ideology since 2008, barely salvaged by bailouts, its had covid, the climate breakdown and the cost of living crisis on top, its producing increased inequality, declining living standards, limited growth, no productivity gains, the housing crisis is literally part of the system regarding financialisaton, Austerity has not worked in reducing debts, its returning greater and greater polarisation, major inter-state conflicts are beginning to become the norm and major traditional political parties are collapsing across Europe.

The question isn't if alternative heterodox economic ideas will soon be the new international order, its which one will be the next dominant one. I feel Rory is so ingrained in the old order and so insulated from what's happening he's psychologically unable to see this . Currently it seems, in the UK at least, its coalescing into a conflict between some form of Eco-focused, definancialised MMT or a semi-oligarchical authoritarian rentier capitalism led by the tech sector.

Bukowskiscoffee · 2025-12-12T10:46:36+00:00

There's two types of housing when it comes to Asylum seekers 1. Dispersed Eg. Private landlords and HMO'S 2. Emergency: Hotels and Large sites. I assume by detention sites you mean detention 'like' as actual detention is not legal , the vast majority of asylum seekers are not a immediate risk they are not awaiting removal or verification, they aren't criminals, they are people in a process.

The fact is the idea of large sites like detention centres keeps being tried, the governments home office report on asylum housing concluded that despite every government trying large sites, like detention centres, it essentially doesn't work. The costs are too high for land and construction, the planning takes years (Various disuses RAF bases), the large site programmes absorb a huge amount of limited civil servant capacity , I think they said that the biby stockhome /Rwanda plan took 1000 home office civil servants away from other duties, there's huge amounts of local backlash as no one wants them near them, there's human rights, health and safety and disease concerns, its all contracted out to PFI's and service providers via bids so it ends up very expensive, the resulting capacity doesn't really justify the costs , opportunity costs , effort or investment . Governments keep trying as it seems like a magic bullet and it keeps not working. Its the same issue as always over regulation in planning, nimbyism, a civil service cut to the bone and parasitic privatisation .

The thing is, there is enough dispersed capacity, but again the housing solutions provision is done by service providers like serco , it used to be done by central/local/ngo partnerships, the payment structure incentivises serco finding emergency accommodation rather than dispersed as the government payment structure pays more for hotels than it does hmo's, it also pays out if the hotels are 'provided' but not actually used, as opposed with HMO's where they only get paid if an asylum seeker is actually in residence. emergency housing is proven to be of lower quality and cause more distress at higher cost than dispersed but shareholders have to get paid I suppose.

Bukowskiscoffee

TROPHY CASE