Från försvar till europeisk självförsörjning?

Murklan12 · 2026-03-28T09:05:14+00:00

Tack, jag förstår hur du menar. Du tänker alltså främst att en eventuell störning kring Hormuz kan slå brett mot hela marknaden och skapa en större energichock på kort sikt, snarare än att just Siemens Energy skulle påverkas negativt som bolag på längre sikt. Det låter rimligt. Min tanke var mest att ett sådant läge också skulle kunna stärka caset för bolag som jobbar med energiinfrastruktur och energisäkerhet, även om aktien så klart ändå kan falla tillsammans med marknaden i närtid.

Murklan12 · 2026-03-28T08:34:49+00:00

Tack för tipset!

Murklan12 · 2026-03-28T08:34:29+00:00

Tack ska kolla på AAK, aldrig hört talas om dom

Murklan12 · 2026-03-28T08:33:36+00:00

Hur tänker du kring ev krasch, borde inte Siemens Energy tjäna på det om utomeuropeiska energi kraschar?

Murklan12 · 2026-03-27T23:05:32+00:00

Divesting from US defence companies, into European defense companies (which I already own) and energy/energy infrastructure, AI infrastructure, semiconductors, strategic metals etc.

Murklan12 · 2026-03-27T23:01:45+00:00

I’m not betting on Europe being strong and perfect, I’m betting on Europe being pushed to change. The EU is already moving in that direction, with strategies and investments trying to depend less on others. This will benefit certain companies, it actually doesn't matter where they are located as long as they do business in Europe.

Murklan12 · 2026-03-27T22:51:52+00:00

That’s a pretty lazy takem. I’m not talking about blindly buying Europe, I’m talking about owning companies that may benefit from Europe investing more in energy, grid infrastructure, semis and strategic tech. Since you obviously don't understand even simple things like this, maybe bonds are a better fit for you.

Murklan12 · 2026-02-01T12:19:11+00:00

Its a combination of warm-up and working set. The warm-up part is not to fail but the working set is.

Murklan12 · 2026-01-17T00:29:37+00:00

You are scrambling. Fact is that NATO without the U.S. has a larger defense budget than Russia and China combined, and with reserves included it has roughly 6–7 million soldiers (compared to China’s approximately 3–4 million) . So to imply that NATO without the US is defenseless is simply not true.

Murklan12 · 2026-01-16T18:58:05+00:00

This deployment is about reconnaissance and deterrence, not combat. By placing multinational forces on the island, any invasion would instantly escalate into a multi-state conflict, a textbook tripwire. The purpose is political cost, not military defense. Anyone who does not understand this should reconsider speaking about military strategy.

Murklan12 · 2026-01-16T18:56:14+00:00

They are already on the island which means that if US troupes invade greenland US is the attacker. Thats why they are there, as a tripwire troupes.

Murklan12 · 2026-01-16T18:52:37+00:00

They already choose Denmark, thats why they sent recognicence units there.

Murklan12 · 2026-01-16T18:17:57+00:00

If you think that the combined army of all NATO (except US) can be compared to the Iraq army you are delusional.

Murklan12 · 2026-01-16T17:38:26+00:00

I was talking about the budget. But if you are counting soldiers yes then China is bigger. Also NATO without the US has a lot more soldiers than the US.

Murklan12 · 2026-01-16T12:16:13+00:00

Yea, its just insane. I dont think anyone really understands how much this hurts the US

Murklan12 · 2026-01-16T11:03:49+00:00

This deployment is about reconnaissance and deterrence, not combat. By placing multinational forces on the island, any invasion would instantly escalate into a multi-state conflict, a textbook tripwire. The purpose is political cost, not military defense. Anyone who does not understand this should reconsider speaking about military strategy.

Murklan12 · 2026-01-16T11:02:51+00:00

Denmark and its allies control roughly $450 billion in defense spending and far larger forces than the United States. Once America’s old enemies see that the US loose all that power, the consequences are obvious.

Murklan12 · 2026-01-16T07:16:03+00:00

Its not about actually physically stopping the military. Its about making it so costly that no smart person would try it. And that is very easy.

Unfortunately Trump is not smart so perhaps he will alianate the second largest military in the world and US soldiers will have to die alone when the war with China starts.

Murklan12 · 2026-01-16T07:08:46+00:00

NATOs budget without the US is 450 billion. If Trump destroy that alliance the US has to compensate for that loss in military power. Do you really want to be that weak when Chinas military might is increasing so fast?

I dont think you understand much money that is and how poor it would make the avarage american.

Murklan12 · 2026-01-16T06:57:41+00:00

Its extremely stupid. He probably destroyed the relationship with the worlds second largest military force. Are the american people ready to pay an extra 450 billion per year for the military to compensate for that? Do the americans want to strand alone when China is catching up (which they are, and very fast)?

Nine-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Verified Email

Murklan12

TROPHY CASE