Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
3 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

Zelensky is right to take this position.  The key to any deal he must make is the US putting arms into Ukrainian hands.  So far, there is only take, no give.

That said, don't you know Putin is whispering in tfg's ear, "I already have the lands with the minerals.  Make a deal with me."  Can you imagine a world where the US makes a deal to take an invaded country's valuable mineral assets from an invading power?  

Because that's where this is going. 

Ah fuck. I could 100% see Trump and Hegseth ordering our armed forces to occupy russia's holdings as a """peacekeeping""" force - as long as we get some of those sweet sweet precious fluids mineral rights

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
6 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Ah fuck. I could 100% see Trump and Hegseth ordering our armed forces to occupy russia's holdings as a """peacekeeping""" force - as long as we get some of those sweet sweet precious fluids mineral rights

Nah.  That would cost us money.  He's going to tell Russia they can have it, just send the proceeds direct to Mar A Lago.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted

https://www.threads.net/@guy_fawkes_news/post/DGdP5TKx708?xmt=AQGzKGeI9EI5fjaBcAthrDe2Y36CbJW8K9aFwi1a8jh9Sw

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is in Kyiv and has pledged 25 light armoured vehicles to Ukraine and says Canada will provide $5 billion in seized Russian assets. Slava Ukraini! 🇺🇦🌻🇨🇦🍁

 

There is a summit going on today where a bunch of World Leaders went to Maidan where it all started:

https://www.threads.net/@globalobserverx/post/DGdYWFmJaKZ?xmt=AQGzoC5b39tfjRmnCjjruQpwaUppAEWvJBgtdCXJU_Fb5g

The leaders of several countries have arrived in Kyiv for an unannounced emergency summit on Ukraine they include: Canada, Spain, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
With several more still expected to arrive.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
Posted

https://www.threads.net/@realmiafarrow/post/DGdUmugxlhN?xmt=AQGzJvpstKtMY_mrX-3pXSoGFB8ORyBVtf09jL6ST9iczg

European leaders are now in Ukraine, unified in their support.

 

https://www.threads.net/@kyivindependent_official/post/DGc2q6zoKLz?xmt=AQGzJvpstKtMY_mrX-3pXSoGFB8ORyBVtf09jL6ST9iczg

️ Zelensky sent Trump list of all 'ceasefires' violated by Russia.
"Peace cannot be concluded in an hour, a day, today, tomorrow, the day after tomorrow," President Volodymyr Zelensky said in an address to world leaders at the Support Ukraine summit in Kyiv.
"When General (Keith) Kellogg was in Kyiv, I handed him and the U.S. president a document with all the ceasefires, along with specific dates, that Russia had violated."

 

^Hope Kellogg takes it to heart

  • Hook 'Em 8
  • Like 1
Posted
27 minutes ago, MillerEP said:

https://www.threads.net/@realmiafarrow/post/DGdUmugxlhN?xmt=AQGzJvpstKtMY_mrX-3pXSoGFB8ORyBVtf09jL6ST9iczg

European leaders are now in Ukraine, unified in their support.

 

https://www.threads.net/@kyivindependent_official/post/DGc2q6zoKLz?xmt=AQGzJvpstKtMY_mrX-3pXSoGFB8ORyBVtf09jL6ST9iczg

️ Zelensky sent Trump list of all 'ceasefires' violated by Russia.
"Peace cannot be concluded in an hour, a day, today, tomorrow, the day after tomorrow," President Volodymyr Zelensky said in an address to world leaders at the Support Ukraine summit in Kyiv.
"When General (Keith) Kellogg was in Kyiv, I handed him and the U.S. president a document with all the ceasefires, along with specific dates, that Russia had violated."

 

^Hope Kellogg takes it to heart

It strike me he is yet another who thinks he can be a guardrail to tfg.  He'll be just another in a long line of failures in that regard.

So embarrassing that we should be leading this meeting, but we are rightfully being left out.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted

https://www.threads.net/@ukrpravda_eng/post/DGdnt-kNO8c?xmt=AQGzJvpstKtMY_mrX-3pXSoGFB8ORyBVtf09jL6ST9iczg

🤯 🤯 The UN General Assembly has adopted a resolution initiated by Ukraine and EU countries.
Supported by 93 states
Opposed by the USA Russia, Belarus, and a few others.

 

^In esteemed company I see

 

https://www.threads.net/@ukrpravda_eng/post/DGa-6CEtDZI?xmt=AQGzJvpstKtMY_mrX-3pXSoGFB8ORyBVtf09jL6ST9iczg

️”Ukraine is developing its own equivalents of the Patriot system,” – Zelenskyy

 

^??????

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 5
Posted
1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Better reporting on this:

https://kyivindependent.com/zelensky-wont-sign-a-natural-resource-deal-that-will-be-paid-by-10-generations-of-ukrainians/

“I am not signing something that will be paid by 10 generations of Ukrainians," Zelensky said, adding that he wants a dialogue with Trump.

The initial White House proposal sought a 50% interest in Ukraine’s natural resources, including critical minerals, oil and gas, as well as critical infrastructure and ports. Zelensky said Ukraine is not ready to “split 50/50 without knowing what’s ahead.”

The Ukrainian leader also pointed out that the U.S. proposed to return future aid with an interest of 1:2. “For every U.S. dollar, Ukraine must return two. In simple terms, this is 100% of the loan,” he said.

The exact details of the current proposal have been kept secret but the administration of President Donald Trump has ramped up pressure on Kyiv to sign. Ukraine has had a back and forth with its American counterparts for nearly two weeks and Kyiv will start working to conclude an agreement with the U.S. on Feb. 24, said Ruslan Stefanchuk, speaker of Ukraine's parliament.

The value and volume of Ukraine’s critical minerals are unknown with the figure hotly debated among experts as assessments are based on old Soviet-era figures. However, $350 billion worth of natural resources are located in the Russian-occupied territories, First Deputy Prime Minister and Economy Minister Yulia Svyrydenko said at the forum.

A little more context:

The minister's comment comes as Kyiv and Washington negotiate a deal for Ukraine’s natural resources in return for support and security guarantees. The exact value and reserves of Ukraine’s natural resources, which include critical minerals like lithium and titanium, are only estimated and further calculations are underway.

Would be useful to see a better breakdown of the $350B number.  By Western standards, "Reserves" are the value of the resource that can be profitably extracted, net of capital and operating costs.  The value of "Resources" is often reported as the gross value (before capital and operating costs) of mineral deposits that have not yet been proven to be profitably extracted.  So the value of Reserves is often a small fraction of the economic value of the Resources.

The reported numbers seem very hand-wavy and I suspect they're conflating Reserves and Resources.  I'm not sure if anyone is doing this on purpose because this is a common mistake even among people who work in those industries.  More context:

Details of the agreement have not been made public. However, the media leaked the White House’s initial proposal on Feb. 12 revealing that the U.S. is seeking a 50% interest in minerals and other natural resources like oil and gas, as well as critical infrastructure, sparking outrage in Ukraine with some officials calling the deal “colonial.”

This makes me think they're taking the total Resource value (100% of the theoretically recoverable minerals regardless of whether they're profitable to extract) and multiplying by 50%.  That implies they're thinking about this as a royalty (before any costs).   This would create an unbelievable economic burden on the business burdened with 100% of the costs.

Some quick math to demonstrate all this from a crude oil perspective:

1.  Discovery of deposit with 10 billion barrels of oil in place - "OMG that's worth $700B at $70 per barrel"

2.  It's estimated that 50%, or 5 billion barrels, of that oil can be recovered before incorporating costs and profitability.  This is usually defined as Resource. Value is $350B, but this just translates to revenue over several decades.  

3.  Of the 50% that is recoverable, only 20% of that (or 10% of the total in-place) can be demonstrated as being profitable (revenue > capital costs, operating costs, and financing costs) to extract.  Now we're at $70B of revenue for 1 billion barrels of economically recoverable resource.  These are Reserves.  But the value of the project, net of costs, is a fraction of the $70B. 

Capital costs: $20 per barrel

Operating costs: $10 per barrel

Financing costs: $20 per barrel X 1 billion barrels = $20B.  Let's assume a 5% interest rate, which is absurdly low.  The Marshall Plan was around 4%.  Financed over 20 years, this is another $20B.  

That leaves $20 per barrel ($70-$20-$10-$20) of profit for 1 billion barrels, or $20B spread out over 20 years.    

So that $350B of Resource is only worth $20B in Reserves.  And that's before any royalties are paid.  If the US is demanding a 50% royalty, then this project would never get off the ground because no sane company would take those terms.

It's possible (and likely) that some of that unprofitable Resource will eventually move into the Reserves category with more exploration, better technology and/or a higher oil price, but that's not going to move the needle much. 

  • Like 1
Posted
17 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

I wouldn’t leave Poland out of the equation, and we’ve pretty much unified the Baltic and Nordic countries, to the point where some of their air forces are operating as one.  It’s agonizingly slow, but as Europe takes our place as the leaders for the West (and probably ramp up arms production even more), they are going to be a lot more unified than they’ve been in many years.  Even though Congress passed legislation that prevents us from flat-out leaving NATO , I expect we will bring most or all troops home (which will cause us huge problems if shit happens in the Middle East/Israel), but I can’t see Russia trying to invade a NATO country at this point, especially with a powerful Ukraine tying up almost all of their ground forces.  Their fucking Scooby Doo vans and golf carts don’t have the distance either once NATO strikes take out their railways.

Hell, Putin got Finland and Sweden off the fence and joining NATO, which is like UT and OU joining the SEC.

And Putin complained about the gentleman's agreement ...

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, MillerEP said:

https://www.threads.net/@ukrpravda_eng/post/DGdnt-kNO8c?xmt=AQGzJvpstKtMY_mrX-3pXSoGFB8ORyBVtf09jL6ST9iczg

🤯 🤯 The UN General Assembly has adopted a resolution initiated by Ukraine and EU countries.
Supported by 93 states
Opposed by the USA Russia, Belarus, and a few others.

 

^In esteemed company I see

Indeed. 

We are one of just 18 countries in the world willing to go on record REFUSING TO CONDEMN RUSSIA'S INVASION & OCCUPATION, INCLUDING THE GENOCIDE.

Let it soak in. All of it. Go down the list and consider each one specifically.

This is the company we keep, a bunch of "shithole" countries and bad actors:

  1. Belarus
  2. Burkina Faso
  3. Burundi
  4. Central African Republic
  5. North Korea
  6. Equatorial Guinea
  7. Eritrea
  8. Haiti
  9. Hungary
  10. Israel
  11. Mali
  12. Marshall Islands
  13. Nicaragua
  14. Niger
  15. Palau
  16. Russia
  17. Sudan
  18. United States of America

Image

Edited by bolverk
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 6
Posted
A little more context:
The minister's comment comes as Kyiv and Washington negotiate a deal for Ukraine’s natural resources in return for support and security guarantees. The exact value and reserves of Ukraine’s natural resources, which include critical minerals like lithium and titanium, are only estimated and further calculations are underway.
Would be useful to see a better breakdown of the $350B number.  By Western standards, "Reserves" are the value of the resource that can be profitably extracted, net of capital and operating costs.  The value of "Resources" is often reported as the gross value (before capital and operating costs) of mineral deposits that have not yet been proven to be profitably extracted.  So the value of Reserves is often a small fraction of the economic value of the Resources.
The reported numbers seem very hand-wavy and I suspect they're conflating Reserves and Resources.  I'm not sure if anyone is doing this on purpose because this is a common mistake even among people who work in those industries.  More context:
Details of the agreement have not been made public. However, the media leaked the White House’s initial proposal on Feb. 12 revealing that the U.S. is seeking a 50% interest in minerals and other natural resources like oil and gas, as well as critical infrastructure, sparking outrage in Ukraine with some officials calling the deal “colonial.”
This makes me think they're taking the total Resource value (100% of the theoretically recoverable minerals regardless of whether they're profitable to extract) and multiplying by 50%.  That implies they're thinking about this as a royalty (before any costs).   This would create an unbelievable economic burden on the business burdened with 100% of the costs.
Some quick math to demonstrate all this from a crude oil perspective:
1.  Discovery of deposit with 10 billion barrels of oil in place - "OMG that's worth $700B at $70 per barrel"
2.  It's estimated that 50%, or 5 billion barrels, of that oil can be recovered before incorporating costs and profitability.  This is usually defined as Resource. Value is $350B, but this just translates to revenue over several decades.  
3.  Of the 50% that is recoverable, only 20% of that (or 10% of the total in-place) can be demonstrated as being profitable (revenue > capital costs, operating costs, and financing costs) to extract.  Now we're at $70B of revenue for 1 billion barrels of economically recoverable resource.  These are Reserves.  But the value of the project, net of costs, is a fraction of the $70B. 
Capital costs: $20 per barrel
Operating costs: $10 per barrel
Financing costs: $20 per barrel X 1 billion barrels = $20B.  Let's assume a 5% interest rate, which is absurdly low.  The Marshall Plan was around 4%.  Financed over 20 years, this is another $20B.  
That leaves $20 per barrel ($70-$20-$10-$20) of profit for 1 billion barrels, or $20B spread out over 20 years.    
So that $350B of Resource is only worth $20B in Reserves.  And that's before any royalties are paid.  If the US is demanding a 50% royalty, then this project would never get off the ground because no sane company would take those terms.
It's possible (and likely) that some of that unprofitable Resource will eventually move into the Reserves category with more exploration, better technology and/or a higher oil price, but that's not going to move the needle much. 

Too much math.
Posted
1 hour ago, bolverk said:

Indeed. 

We are one of just 18 countries in the world willing to go on record REFUSING TO CONDEMN RUSSIA'S INVASION & OCCUPATION, INCLUDING THE GENOCIDE.

Let it soak in. All of it. Go down the list and consider each one specifically.

This is the company we keep, a bunch of "shithole" countries and bad actors:

  1. Belarus
  2. Burkina Faso
  3. Burundi
  4. Central African Republic
  5. North Korea
  6. Equatorial Guinea
  7. Eritrea
  8. Haiti
  9. Hungary
  10. Israel
  11. Mali
  12. Marshall Islands
  13. Nicaragua
  14. Niger
  15. Palau
  16. Russia
  17. Sudan
  18. United States of America

Image

Palau and the Marshall Islands are under Compacts of Free Association with the US; independent but we provide their defense, postal services and some other stuff. They were always going to vote with us regardless of what it is. Hungary sucks. Israel also sucks; they did nothing much for Ukraine after Bucha, why would they start now? The others are either pariah nations (NK, Belarus) or recipients of Russian aid, primarily military/PMCs (most of the African nations listed).

Yep, we are a shithole country now. Lovely.

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted

If the European nations had any balls.  They would make a resolution to dissolve NATO.  Form a new coalition with all the same rules.  Exclude the US.  And then let Ukraine into this new group.  Poland is pretty confident they can take on Putin by themselves.  That's leaves Trump on the sidelines and the European leaders driving a peace agreement.

Posted
24 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

If the European nations had any balls.  They would make a resolution to dissolve NATO.  Form a new coalition with all the same rules.  Exclude the US.  And then let Ukraine into this new group.  Poland is pretty confident they can take on Putin by themselves.  That's leaves Trump on the sidelines and the European leaders driving a peace agreement.

Our nuclear umbrella is still important to them, so I don't think dissolving NATO is on the table. I also don't think giving Putin what he wants is a strong move generally. The goal has to be to pressure Congress force the administration to get our head out of Putin's ass. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Our nuclear umbrella is still important to them, so I don't think dissolving NATO is on the table. I also don't think giving Putin what he wants is a strong move generally. The goal has to be to pressure Congress force the administration to get our head out of Putin's ass. 

200w.gif?cid=6c09b952xulrsbyaks1t97gf4bo

  • Haha 1
Posted

Trump made very clear recently that he’s gonna rig the midterms. Suspicions of fuckery will grow to certainty when his and Congress’ approval is sub-30 yet they sweep the midterms. /noCR

Don’t think that’s a good bet for the Euros… they need to play a stronger hand than “hopes and prayers”.

Posted
1 hour ago, FartingMonk said:

If the European nations had any balls.  They would make a resolution to dissolve NATO.  Form a new coalition with all the same rules.  Exclude the US.  And then let Ukraine into this new group.  Poland is pretty confident they can take on Putin by themselves.  That's leaves Trump on the sidelines and the European leaders driving a peace agreement.

I don't think they'll dissolve NATO, if they do anything, they'll create a European Alliance with similar rules. It's been gaining traction, but who knows if it all talk or not, SuingToGetAMessageBoard is probably right, they'll wait it out:
https://www.politico.eu/article/friedrich-merz-germany-election-united-states-donald-trump-nato/

Germany’s Merz vows ‘independence’ from Trump’s America, warning NATO may soon be dead
Election winner likens the Trump administration to Putin’s Russia as he bids to take Europe in a new direction.

“My absolute priority will be to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible so that, step by step, we can really achieve independence from the USA,” Germany's chancellor-in-waiting said. “I never thought I would have to say something like this on a television program. But after Donald Trump's statements last week at the latest, it is clear that the Americans, at least this part of the Americans, this administration, are largely indifferent to the fate of Europe.” 

Posted
6 minutes ago, MillerEP said:

I don't think they'll dissolve NATO, if they do anything, they'll create a European Alliance with similar rules. It's been gaining traction, but who knows if it all talk or not, SuingToGetAMessageBoard is probably right, they'll wait it out:
https://www.politico.eu/article/friedrich-merz-germany-election-united-states-donald-trump-nato/

Germany’s Merz vows ‘independence’ from Trump’s America, warning NATO may soon be dead
Election winner likens the Trump administration to Putin’s Russia as he bids to take Europe in a new direction.

“My absolute priority will be to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible so that, step by step, we can really achieve independence from the USA,” Germany's chancellor-in-waiting said. “I never thought I would have to say something like this on a television program. But after Donald Trump's statements last week at the latest, it is clear that the Americans, at least this part of the Americans, this administration, are largely indifferent to the fate of Europe.” 

Again: If I'm the Germans, you want to get some functional nukes ASAP. I would not want to rely on the French and the English for my Nuclear Umbrella. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
5 minutes ago, MillerEP said:

I don't think they'll dissolve NATO, if they do anything, they'll create a European Alliance with similar rules. It's been gaining traction, but who knows if it all talk or not, SuingToGetAMessageBoard is probably right, they'll wait it out:
https://www.politico.eu/article/friedrich-merz-germany-election-united-states-donald-trump-nato/

Germany’s Merz vows ‘independence’ from Trump’s America, warning NATO may soon be dead
Election winner likens the Trump administration to Putin’s Russia as he bids to take Europe in a new direction.

“My absolute priority will be to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible so that, step by step, we can really achieve independence from the USA,” Germany's chancellor-in-waiting said. “I never thought I would have to say something like this on a television program. But after Donald Trump's statements last week at the latest, it is clear that the Americans, at least this part of the Americans, this administration, are largely indifferent to the fate of Europe.” 

And apart from the foreign-policy wisdom of that statement (which I think is non-controversial), there's also an economic justification for it.

Let's just be real honest right now--the German economy aint looking so great at the moment.  It has been stagnating for roughly a decade.  And a rejection of free trade by the United States and others is going to disproportionately impact Germany, which has an economy that is heavily reliant on manufacturing.

But therein lies the rub and something the United States figured out a long time ago: a manufacturing-based economy can be boosted by defense spending.  Actually, Germany figured that out a long time ago, too.  We just made them forget it.  But between Thyssenkrupp and Airbus and Rheinmetall, Germany has the industrial base that it can really boost its economy with a significant rearmament program.  And while the SPD would have some real reluctance to do that for historical, ideological, and corruption-al reasons (looking at you, Gerhard Schroeder), the CDU doesn't share that handicap.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

Again: If I'm the Germans, you want to get some functional nukes ASAP. I would not want to rely on the French and the English for my Nuclear Umbrella. 

Bingo.

1) If you wanted to script a scenario that encourages a dozen previously non-nuke-armed nations to get nukes, this would be it.

2) The likelihood of nuclear war goes up not with the number of nukes that exist, but rather the number of states who HAVE nukes.

TLDR; We are on the exact right path to guarantee that a nuclear conflict is MORE likely, not less.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 minute ago, Ghost of LL said:

And apart from the foreign-policy wisdom of that statement (which I think is non-controversial), there's also an economic justification for it.

Let's just be real honest right now--the German economy aint looking so great at the moment.  It has been stagnating for roughly a decade.  And a rejection of free trade by the United States and others is going to disproportionately impact Germany, which has an economy that is heavily reliant on manufacturing.

But therein lies the rub and something the United States figured out a long time ago: a manufacturing-based economy can be boosted by defense spending.  Actually, Germany figured that out a long time ago, too.  We just made them forget it.  But between Thyssenkrupp and Airbus and Rheinmetall, Germany has the industrial base that it can really boost its economy with a significant rearmament program.  And while the SPD would have some real reluctance to do that for historical, ideological, and corruption-al reasons (looking at you, Gerhard Schroeder), the CDU doesn't share that handicap.

I mean, if the western world wants to free itself of US entanglements, a robust German and South Korean defense industry would be very, very well placed to become the standard. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
16 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

I mean, if the western world wants to free itself of US entanglements, a robust German and South Korean defense industry would be very, very well placed to become the standard. 

I don't know if I'd call South Korea "well placed" tho.  

Posted
1 hour ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

I think everyone in Europe is just hoping that they can stall until a new congress in 2027 or new president in 2029.  They'll want NATO to renormalize.

i don't see any world where anyone in Europe or anywhere else trusts our country for anything at all. 

If there is a new admin in 2029, a democrat lead one, something I think isn't likely because fascism, that admin will have a near mission impossible apology tour. not to mention all the change over and self sacrifice that will be done in the interim. yeah good luck with that. 

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
2 hours ago, FartingMonk said:

If the European nations had any balls.  They would make a resolution to dissolve NATO.  Form a new coalition with all the same rules.  Exclude the US.  And then let Ukraine into this new group.  Poland is pretty confident they can take on Putin by themselves.  That's leaves Trump on the sidelines and the European leaders driving a peace agreement.

I was pondering that same thing last week. I guess the hesitation is arms manufacturing. We just have the best shit and it’s not even close. 

Posted
4 minutes ago, staboner said:

i don't see any world where anyone in Europe or anywhere else trusts our country for anything at all. 

If there is a new admin in 2029, a democrat lead one, something I think isn't likely because fascism, that admin will have a near mission impossible apology tour. not to mention all the change over and self sacrifice that will be done in the interim. yeah good luck with that. 

The only way it works is if there is a severe reckoning with tfg and his cronies.

So yeah, it's never going to happen.  No one will trust us for a long, long time as we've proven ourselves unworthy of the power and strength that we have.  If it hadn't been proven before, it certainly was in November 2024.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Posted
18 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

I don't know if I'd call South Korea "well placed" tho.  

More that they have very good gen 4.5 weaponry. But yes, that’s a long supply chain.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, NoRagrets said:

I was pondering that same thing last week. I guess the hesitation is arms manufacturing. We just have the best shit and it’s not even close. 

And on top of it, while the obligation exists, there is some hope for Congress to step in and make POTUS do the right thing - whether the actual power exists or not.  Once they say, "Fuck it, we're out."  Then even that thread, no matter how slim is gone.  

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...