Yes. These guys have a vested interest in their client selling F-35 parts, so they will try to paint white as black.
The interesting part will be whether the court accepts their reasoning.
Hypothesis A:
Hypothesis B:
Unfortunately, there will be more soon.
Businesses in the US will soon face the fact that goods they ordered from Taiwan cost 1.3 times more on arrival, while goods from Vietnam cost 1.6 times more. They can either try to negotiate with sellers for return of goods (which sellers won't accept, since they did nothing wrong) or curse Trump and pay.
If immediate relief isn't in sight, the cost (and predicted future cost) will be passed to consumers. As a result, consumers won't be able to purchase what they used to. Sales volumes will drop and the economy will cool. Less workers will be needed, so there will be layoffs. Etc.
Society is borked in many ways, and dating sites often reinforce this with their policies.
The Wikipedia article about online dating tells that typical (I assume: card stack, like / dislike) dating sites cause different genders to adopt different strategies:
Men liked a large proportion of the profiles they viewed, but received returning likes only 0.6% of the time; women were much more selective but received matches 10% of the time. Men received matches at a much slower rate than women. Once they received a match, women were far more likely than men to send a message, 21% compared to 7%, but they took more time before doing so.
By sending out questionnaires to frequent Tinder users, the researchers discovered that the reason why men tended to like a large proportion of the women they saw was to increase their chances of getting a match. This led to a feedback loop in which men liked more and more of the profiles they saw while women could afford to be even more selective in liking profiles because of a greater probability of a match.[15]
P.S.
My biggest peeve is that the monopolist Match Group (runs Tinder, bought and ruined OkCupid, etc) and its nearest competitor Bumble have both adopted a card stack system that makes searching impossible. They also won't display any statistics to a user about the number of people who saw their profile - keeping their customer in perfect darkness.
In most fields of life, a customer would not be satisfied with this kind of shit. A company advertising their product would demand instant feedback about the number and profile of people who viewed their ad, where they came from, how long they browsed, etc.
Basically, we are all getting scammed by a few monopolists, who are actively ruining people's ability to find partners. I would support a politician who promises to let the best university in the country to build a non-profit dating site.
Obvious possibilities:
The university de-listing him seems particularly interesting. Clearly they were told something that the public wasn't told.
A historical clarification - Ukrainians don't like it being called a "civil war", as it truly wasn't.
The "republics" were started by Igor Girkin, a highly productive employee of the GRU, now imprisoned for incessant criticism of Putin over "not invading Ukraine properly enough". He had the assistance of countless colleagues, of course.
At some point, the flow of support from Russia to the "republics" allowed even a civilian to calculate how many people were involved. In a court case over corruption, the Kirov region's court in Russia carelessly published what amount of military food rations were delivered bi-weekly. Unless I recall incorrectly, the calculation indicated presence of approximately 30 000 men. The court even clearly called them units of the RF military. An archived copy of the text remains, the original publication was taken down of course.
That's why people object to calling it "civil war" - it was a low-intensity war between states, interleaved by occasionally adhering to some ceasefire or keeping heavy weaponry far from the front. It was fought between Russian troops in control of Donetsk and Lugansk, and Ukrainian troops.
Now as for US interference: Obama tried getting Putin to back off, but was ineffectual. He enacted sanctions (about which Navalny once noted that they were close to a joke), but also left the oil tap open, and the resulting decrease in revenue somewhat influenced Putin. Obama also started military assistance to Ukraine, which was reforming its armed forces at very high pace. Humanitarian aid to displaced people was also offered, and I'm sure that many more things happened.
Trump continued the military aid, but tried blackmailing Zelensky once by blocking it. He demanded that Zelensky must have Biden's son investigated. Zelensky didn't do that, but a US whistleblower informed the public of the occurrence and Trump got his first impeachment proceedings as a result. As we know, he wasn't impeached. His grudge against Ukraine likely originates from this incident - Zelensky not bending to his will, and the Ukraine scandal blowing up in his face. Humanitarian and developent assistance continued to be offered.
Biden mostly continued the assistance programmes from his predecessors. But in late 2021, when intelligence analysis started pointing towards an imminent invasion, he engaged in diplomacy to make Ukraine aware of the level of the threat (they didn't believe it at first - they were sure that Putin was a criminal, but didn't consider him detached from reality) and tried to deter Russia from invading. He was ineffectual at that. After the invasion, he offered considerable military assistance, which helped Ukraine stand its ground, and probably made a difference. There might be no more Ukraine without timely assistance from the Biden administration. I would not say that Biden's assistance has "terrible consequences". Without his assistance, we'd have really terrible consequences.
A war is terrible. But the defending side losing a war and an agressor winning (followed by repressions against the civlian population, and subverting the resources of a country to serve another conquest), that is multiple times more terrible - it can be the start of a chain of invasions.
But Biden didn't do everything that could have been done.
A right-wing MAGA influencer called the "direct file" tax program a "far left /.../
Here in Estonia, the castle of "far left" in Europe (shh, don't spoil the joke, comrades, we want them to think we're dark red here ;) )...
...for something like 15 years already, you file your taxes like this:
It typically takes about 15 minutes.
If it's a bad year and the automatically filled declaration was incorrect, things will differ of course - then you wait until next winter for a court to resolve the dispute. If you can write a complaint in legalese, it costs about 20 €, but if you need a lawyer, you shell out real money. I've had a bad year once. Most people never have one.
Background: Iceland is already a member of the European Economic Area, the European Free Trade Association and the Schengen border control area, and has sent an application for EU membership in 2009.
Accession negotiations proceeded at a careful pace, until the application was withdrawn in 2013 after a change of government.
Discussions about holding a referendum (to decide about restarting negotiations) have been ongoing since 2017.
My chain of reasoning:
Conclusion: I have doubts, but yes, there is a potential for a chain reaction if it's demonstrated that international law does not have enough backers (does not apply if you are big enough).
In his shoes, I would think twice - does their team really want to present their dirtiest laundry to the world - such as owing an election to a media oligarch?
As for the EU, it's a massive bureaucracy which still follows its own laws. It probably won't change track. There is no single person to change its track.
However, at this stage of the game, I have the nagging feeling that some American may downregulate Elon Musk directly, far before the EU manages to step on his precious toe.
Having once worked on an open source project that dealt with providing anonymity - it was considered the duty of the release engineer to have an overview of all code committed (and to ask questions, publicly if needed, if they had any doubts) - before compiling and signing the code.
On some months, that was a big load of work and it seemed possible that one person might miss something. So others were encouraged to read and report about irregularities too. I don't think anyone ever skipped it, because the implications were clear: "if one of us fails, someone somewhere can get imprisoned or killed, not to speak of milder results".
However, in case of an utility not directly involved with functions that are critical for security - it might be easier to pass through the sieve.
Diagnosis:
The US system for financing medicine has middlemen who increase prices. The consumer / patient has poor representation and low bargaining power. In European countries, there typically exists a central health insurance authority that's not interested in making a profit, but is interested in everyone's health and access to medicines (at low cost if possible).
Subsequently, a president arrives who doesn't understand a thing. He's been told that his ratings are dropping and he should "do something the people like". He tries to solve drug prices with customs tariffs instead of implementing single payer health care in the US.
Prognosis:
The result will be a free market clusterf*ck and some people will die as a result.