AwesomeCapital

Saturday, March 1, 2025

Ukraine routinely bucks US interests at the UN — despite receiving $175B: State Dept. data

Despite receiving hundreds of billions of dollars in critical military aid since Russia’s invasion in 2022, Ukraine has made a habit of rejecting US interests at the United Nations, according to a review of State Department data by The Post.

After years of skirmishes, Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022 — initiating a bloody ongoing conflict which has cost hundreds of thousands of lives.

The invasion also marked the beginning of a gusher of US military and government aid, with at least $175 billion so far being allocated, according to the Council on Foreign Relations.

That same year, however, Ukraine voted differently than the US on 31% of measures brought before the United Nations General Assembly, according to the data, which shows that the US was in closer alignment with Albania (27%) Iceland (30%) and Micronesia (22%).

00:01

04:31

As the war raged in 2023, Ukraine’s record slightly improved — voting differently in 24% of cases.

But many of Ukraine’s actions have been in direct opposition to the United States’ position in powderkeg regions, such as the Middle East.

Just days after Hamas terrorists invaded Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, the UN passed Resolution ES-10/21 calling for an “immediate and sustained” humanitarian truce.

The US led a bloc of 14 nations to oppose it. Ukraine abstained — and did so again in a follow-up resolution demanding a ceasefire in December 2023, which was also opposed by the US.

In November 2023 the United Nations voted to demand the United States lift its trade embargo on Cuba — with only Israel and the US voting against it. Ukraine abstained.

“I think its disgraceful that a country that is so reliant on the largesse of the United Sates to keep them viable as a nation-state refuses to back our plays in the United Nations and shows that they would rather kowtow to . . . somebody else when we’re the ones keeping them safe,” Jim Hanson, a international affairs consultant in D.C., told The Post.

Among the nations, Israel’s voting record was most closely aligned to the United States with a voting coincidence of over 90% in both years.

Last year’s data is expected to be released by the end of March.

https://nypost.com/2025/03/01/us-news/ukraine-routinely-bucks-us-interests-at-the-united-nations/

Cuomo accuser, ex-aide Karen Hinton tears into former gov’s mayoral bid: ‘Women’s rights’ will suffer

A former top aide for ex-Gov. Andrew Cuomo said her former boss is unfit to lead NYC and predicts “women’s rights” will suffer if he’s elected NYC’s next mayor.

“As a movement, we women haven’t done enough to toughen laws to protect women from such immoral, unethical, and what should be illegal behavior by men in positions of power, such as Cuomo,” said Karen Hinton, who claims Cuomo made unwanted sexual advances towards her in 2000, when he was U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

“This election should be an opportunity to make the case for women’s rights, to give women a strong, powerful voice in City Hall… [New York City] won’t get it if [Mayor Eric] Adams or Cuomo is elected,” she told The Post.

But voters — and prospective employees — should beware, she warned.

“Women and men employees should never trust him. He will be very demanding. Nice one day; nasty the next. Your best friend; then your worst enemy,” she insisted.

Hinton, who was not part of the James’ report, stepped forward shortly after it was released and accused Cuomo of sexual harassment before he resigned.

In her 2021 book, “Penis Politics,” Hinton claimed Cuomo talked about lurid sex with his underlings, including salacious things involving his ex-in-laws, the Kennedys — who, like Cuomo, have denied the allegations.

Cuomo has also denied Hinton’s claim that he was physically “aroused” when he allegedly hugged her when she was his HUD press aide.

“He approached me, embraced too tightly, too long, and was aroused,” Hinton previously told The Post. “I felt extremely uncomfortable and actually shocked. Nothing had ever happened that way between the two of us.”

Cuomo has adamantly denied all allegations of sexual harassment and has repeatedly accused Hinton of having a political ax to grind.

Hinton – a Mississippi native who is married to ex-state operations director Howard Glaser — went to work for then-NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio in 2015 at a time when a political feud between de Blasio and Cuomo was simmering, leaving Cuomo fuming at the time, according to multiple sources and past media reports.

She resigned as de Blasio’s top press aide in 2016, in part because she felt undermined by de Blasio, sources then told The Post.

Comparing the two Democrats she said: “De Blasio, to my knowledge, never made sexual overtures to women — he just didn’t listen to them.”

Hinton said she’s especially interested in this year’s mayoral race – which shows Cuomo ahead in the recent polls – because she still has three daughters who live in NYC.

“New York City may elect a mayor who has been rightfully accused of sexual misconduct by several young women who worked for him in up-close positions,” she claimed.

Cuomo spokesman Rich Azzopardi said his longtime boss continues to adamantly deny committing sexual harassment.

“As we said from day one, the [governor] didn’t harass anyone – and years later, the facts have borne that out,” he said.

“New Yorkers aren’t naive and understand that ugly political situation for exactly what it was. Today, New York City is in crisis – a crisis of affordability, public safety and leadership, and that what Gov. Cuomo is focused on: The fight to save our city.”

When asked specifically about Hinton’s remarks, he quipped “Hinton’s attitude toward the governor has always been based on what’s best for Hinton and whether or not she has a book to sell.”

https://nypost.com/2025/03/01/us-news/cuomo-accuser-karen-hinton-womens-rights-on-line-in-nyc-mayoral-race/

Venezuela vessels near Exxon unit in Guyanese waters are unacceptable, US State Dept says

The United States on Saturday denounced what it said were Venezuelan naval vessels "threatening" an ExxonMobil unit in maritime territory claimed by Guyana.

The statement came hours after Guyana President Irfaan Ali said a Venezuelan patrol boat had entered "exclusive" Guyanese waters around 7:00 in the morning.

Guyana had "put its international partners on alert," he said on Facebook.

The US warned against any further encroachment.

"Venezuelan naval vessels threatening ExxonMobil's floating production, storage and offloading (FPSO) unit is unacceptable and a clear violation of Guyana's internationally recognized maritime territory," said the statement from the US Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs.

"Further provocation will result in consequences for the Maduro regime," it added.

Guyana and Venezuela have seen heightened tensions over control of the disputed Esequibo territory, a sprawling region rich in natural resources.

Tensions flared in 2015 when petroleum giant ExxonMobil discovered deposits that gave Guyana, a country of just 800,000 people and with a tiny military, the largest crude oil reserves in the world.

Ali, whose country is closely allied to the US, said on Facebook that the floating production vessels were "operating legally within Guyana's exclusive economic zone."

Venezuela's armed forces have not commented.

Tensions were fanned on February 17 when Guyana said six of its soldiers were wounded when a supply transport was ambushed, allegedly by members of a Venezuelan criminal gang.

That happened on the anniversary of the signing of a 1966 agreement between Venezuela and Britain, reached before Guyanese independence, that called for a negotiated solution to the territorial dispute.

But Guyana has insisted that an 1899 ruling had fixed the disputed border in its favor.

Last December, Britain sent the patrol ship HMS Trent on a port visit to Guyana capital Georgetown, a gesture deemed a "provocation and threat by the United Kingdom" by Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

Venezuela then launched a major military exercise in the border region, including more than 5,600 soldiers, fighter jets and patrol boats.

Ali and Maduro met in December in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and agreed to avoid any use of force.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-guyana-denounce-venezuelan-naval-182710526.html

Musk: Soros Hack Leveraged Small Donations To Nonprofits Into Billions In Government Funds

Elon Musk spoke about how non-government organizations (NGOs) are used by people like George Soros to extract money from the government, Friday on the "Joe Rogan Experience" podcast (full video at the bottom of the page).

"The whole 'NGO' thing is a nightmare," Musk said. "And it's a misnomer because if you have a government-funded non-governmental organization, you're simply a government-funded organization. It's an oxymoron."

"We've seen cases where one person was getting $1.9 billion sent to their NGO, which had basically been formed about a year ago and had no prior activity."

"George Soros is a systems hacker. He is a genius arbitrager. He figured out that you could leverage a small amount of money to create a non-profit and then lobby politicians to send a ton of money to that non-profit so you can take what might be a $10M donation and leverage it into a $1 Billion NGO."

"And 'nonprofit' is a weird word. It’s just a non-governmental organization. The government continues to fund it every year, and it’ll have a nice-sounding name like The Institute for Peace or something like that. But really, it’s a graft machine."

He added: "It does some good. So it’s not like 0% good. If it was really 0% good, it would be much easier to attack. So there’s going to be some percentage of good that they add in there. But it might be 5% or 10% good, while 90–95% is not."

That’s the situation https://t.co/PDRIXc223F— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 28, 2025

JOE ROGAN: When you guys first started investigating it, how much of it was shocking, like just the size of it all?

ELON MUSK: Well, the size of it all, small decisions result in multibillion-dollar outcomes. So, you know, we'd see cases where one person was getting $1.9 billion sent to their NGO, which had basically been formed about a year ago and had no prior activity.

So they just stand up an NGO. The whole "NGO" thing is a nightmare, and it's a misnomer because if you have a government-funded non-governmental organization, you're simply a government-funded organization. It's an oxymoron.

JOE ROGAN: It's a loophole.

ELON MUSK: Yes, basically, government-funded NGOs are a way to do things that would be illegal if they were the government but are somehow made legal if the money is sent to a so-called nonprofit.

But these nonprofits are then used by people to cash out. They become very wealthy through nonprofits. They pay themselves enormous sums through these nonprofits.

JOE ROGAN: It's insane that this has been going on for so long.

ELON MUSK: It's a gigantic scam—one of the biggest, maybe the biggest scam ever.

JOE ROGAN: And how many NGOs are there?

ELON MUSK: I think the total number of NGOs is probably in the millions, but in terms of large NGOs—tens of thousands.

It's actually kind of a hack to the system where someone can get an NGO stood up for a fairly small amount of money. George Soros was really good at this. He’s like a system hacker. He figured out how to hack the system. He’s a genius at arbitrage. I mean, these days, he's pretty old, but he was a genius at arbitrage.

He figured out that you could leverage a small amount of money to create a nonprofit, then lobby politicians to send a ton of money to that nonprofit. So you can take what might be a $10 million donation to create a nonprofit and leverage that into a billion-dollar NGO.

And "nonprofit" is a weird word. It’s just a non-governmental organization. The government continues to fund it every year, and it’ll have a nice-sounding name like The Institute for Peace or something like that. But really, it’s a graft machine.

JOE ROGAN: And what are the requirements for that money? What do they have to do?

ELON MUSK: Really, no requirements at all.

JOE ROGAN: So they just get grants, and the government assumes they’re doing good work?

ELON MUSK: I think a lot of people in the government know that they’re not doing good work, but it’s a giant graft machine. But when people start unpacking this.

JOE ROGAN: It almost seems fake. We were covering this article that said 55,000 Democrat NGOs were discovered that had been contributing to campaigns, moving things around, and pushing propaganda. They were all connected, and they found it through AI. You have to go through steps and steps and steps to figure out where the money’s coming from. Oh, it’s all funneling down to this group, and this group does that.

Yeah, it’s a giant propaganda machine, a giant regime-change machine.

But doesn’t it do some good as well?

ELON MUSK: It does some good. So it’s not like 0% good. If it was really 0% good, it would be much easier to attack. So there’s going to be some percentage of good that they add in there. But it might be 5% or 10% good, while 90–95% is not.

You can watch the full conversation here:

Medicare’s Drug Price Negotiation And Innovation: What’s Off The Table

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 marked a significant shift in US health care policy, granting the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) the authority to establish a program to negotiate Medicare drug prices with manufacturers. The goal is to make prescription drugs more affordable and accessible for patients, and to maintain the sustainability of the Medicare program. In August 2023, CMS identified the first 10 drugs for price negotiation. In August 2024, CMS announced the new prices for these drugs, which are slated to take effect in 2026.

The pharmaceutical industry has voiced concerns over CMS’s negotiation program. Specifically, some critics believe that the potential reduction in revenue from new drug prices would curtail investment in research and development (R&D) and restrict patient access to novel treatments. This apprehension is not new. The impact on innovation is a common refrain against policies to affect pharmaceutical profits. Although profitability has a direct impact on drug innovation, marginal change in revenue is not necessarily proportional to marginal change in R&D spending for individual pharmaceutical companies, given the complex dynamics between drug development and investment.

The relationship between the new drug negotiation program and likely future pharmaceutical innovation is further complicated by the fact that a long list of drugs is exempted from the program. This is not the case in other countries that have long practiced drug price negotiation. This article examines the potential impact of these exemptions on future drug innovation.

Lower-Spend Drug Exemption

First and foremost, drugs with total annual spending under Medicare Part B (which covers drugs that are administered in a medical setting) and Part D (which covers retail drugs) combined of less than $200 million are exempted from the price negotiation. The program targets high-expenditure prescription drugs that have a considerable market presence and have been without generic or biosimilar competition for a substantial period following approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (nine years for small-molecule drugs and 13 years for biologics). The first 10 drugs selected for negotiation have been on the market for an average 16.8 years, ranging from 11 to 28 years. The total cost of these drugs was $56.2 billion, accounting for 20 percent of CMS Part D spending in 2023. Spending on individual drugs ranged from $2.57 billion to $16.48 billion between June 2022 and May 2023. That same year, patients paid `1234 for these drugs. To put these numbers into context, the average R&D costs from drug discovery to launch were estimated at $2.3 billion.

With current eligibility criteria, 80 percent of the 250 drugs with the highest 2022 US domestic net revenue would not be eligible for negotiation. Viewed another way, if the program had started in 2012, only $43.2 billion, representing 4 percent of $1.14 trillion in 2022 global pharmaceutical industry revenue, or 6 percent of $742 billion in global revenue for the affected companies, would have been subject to negotiation.

In August 2024, CMS announced the Maximum Fair Prices (MFPs) negotiated for the 10 drugs and estimated that net Part D spending would have decreased by 22 percent had the new prices been in effect in 2023. Discounts ranged from 38 percent (Imbruvica) to 79 percent (Januvia). While some of the negotiated prices appear to have steep discounts compared with list prices, such a comparison is misleading. This is because the list prices presented by CMS are wholesale acquisition costs (WACs). WACs do not include discounts and rebates, and therefore do not reflect the actual price Medicare paid for a drug—which is considered confidential and proprietary. In a testimony before the US Senate, Merck CEO Robert Davis reported that the weighted average net price (post-discount/rebate) for Januvia is 90 percent less than its list price. While there may be differences in rebates among Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs, many of the drugs selected for the first round of negotiation are older products nearing the end of their patent exclusivity (for example, Stelara, Eliquis) and would likely already have deep discounts. Together with the exemption, this dynamic helps limit the actual impact of the negotiations on revenue received by manufacturers.

Small Biotech Exemption

A second exemption, which could impact innovation in as-yet unknown ways, is for small biotech drugs with less than or equal to 1 percent of Part D spending (and eventually Part B) and 80 percent or more of the Medicare program expenditures for the drug’s manufacturer. This is probably in recognition of the fact that small biotech companies are often a driving force for developing groundbreaking therapies that are later marketed by big pharmaceutical companies. Between 2011 and 2016, 65 percent of 170 new molecule entities approved by the FDA originated from small or mid-size biotech companies. Large companies tend to either partner with or acquire smaller companies that developed the drug. There is speculation that few small biotech companies would be eligible for this exemption. To date, CMS has approved four drugs originating from small biotech.

The intent of the exemption is to allow these small biotech companies to maintain higher revenue compared to large pharmaceutical companies and ensure they are not disproportionally affected by the new pricing policy. However, many small companies responsible for initial drug development may not have the infrastructure necessary for commercialization as they are often dealing with a single product instead of an entire portfolio. It may be in their best interest to sell the new product to a larger company that can commercialize it more efficiently. Yet, qualifying single source drugs are not eligible for the exemption if they are acquired by a large drug manufacturer after 2021. This removes a major source of revenue for small companies oriented toward drug discovery. To this end, the “small biotech” exemption potentially disincentivizes innovation among small biotech firms.

For small biotech companies that decide to commercialize, the criteria of the single source drug consisting of “80 percent or more of the Medicare program expenditures for the manufacturer” may cause further disincentive for innovation. These companies likely do not have another blockbuster drug, and having a single product is a vulnerable time for them. They may seek to build their portfolio in other ways. Approximately one-third of therapies originating from large pharmaceutical companies are later sublicensed to small firms for production. This is especially common for therapies for rare diseases. The gain in revenue by licensing an existing product for a small patient population may not offset the cost of losing the price negotiation exemption for their qualifying drug. Thus, the exemption could also disincentivize small companies seeking to build their portfolio and ultimately compete with large companies to create a more diverse and competitive ecosystem. As the pharmaceutical industry is in a transitional period (due to the upcoming patent cliff, changes in the regulatory environment, and so forth), more research on the impact of this exemption on innovation among small biotech is required.

Orphan Drug Exemption

A third exemption is for drugs that are designated for only one rare disease or condition and approved for an indication (or indications) only for that disease or condition. This exemption includes drugs that have been FDA-approved for multiple indications within the same disease (for example, for children, adults, or other subgroups). It does not, however, include drugs that have indications for multiple diseases. Drugs for single indication, rare disease are generally not subject to price negotiation, making them attractive to investors. For instance, there has been significant deal activity around antibody drug conjugates (ADCs). These drugs are designed to target specific types of cancers, rather than being used for multiple indications. The number of ADC trials has risen in recent years, accompanied by increased acquisitions.

Nevertheless, of the 282 orphan drugs approved by the FDA between 2003 and 2022, 63 (23 percent) had at least one follow-on indication. One potential impact of this exemption is that it may disincentivize pharmaceutical companies from conducting the additional trials required to obtain follow-on indications. Pharmaceutical companies have long been criticized for making R&D decisions based on financial considerations, not unmet need. However, if a large pharmaceutical company decides not to pursue an additional indication for financial reasons related to the CMS negotiation program, it may open doors for small biotech, government or patient groups interested in developing other therapies in these areas with a high unmet need.

Some stakeholders have also questioned whether this exemption is even necessary given the original intent of the Orphan Drug Act, which is to provide incentives to develop drugs for conditions affecting fewer than 200,000 individuals in the US that have “no reasonable expectation” that revenues will offset development costs. Yet, drugs approved for rare diseases earn similar revenues to drugs for common conditions. From 2012 to 2021, total Medicare Part B and Part D spending on the 95 high-spending Orphan Drug Act–designated drugs was $517 billion (25 percent of Medicare drug spending). The median sole orphan drug in this cohort was projected to earn revenues of $21.9 billion, which far exceeds published estimates of drug development costs. When it comes to these financially successful orphan drugs (that is, achieving greater than $200 million in spending), CMS is leaving a significant amount of savings (for themselves and patients) off the negotiating table.

Conclusion

The future of health care hinges on striking a delicate yet crucial balance between ensuring affordability for payers and incentivizing innovation within the pharmaceutical industry. The CMS drug price negotiation program represents a pivotal shift in US health care policy, promising to lower prescription drug prices. However, the anticipated reduction in revenue from lower prices for drugs that already have a considerable market presence may not significantly hinder drug innovation, while the orphan drug exemption could leave significant savings off the table. The exemption on small biotech companies could have unintended consequences as these companies, as a key driving force in drug innovation, are often engaged in distributed partnerships with large pharmaceutical companies, leading to a more profound impact on the pharmaceutical ecosystem.

https://www.healthaffairs.org/content/forefront/medicare-s-drug-price-negotiation-and-innovation-s-off-table-matters-too

All Over But the Shouting

by John Hinderaker

France’s President Emmanuel Macron is in Washington, and did a joint press conference with President Trump today, on the Russia-Ukraine war. News reports on the press conference fall along predictably partisan lines. This Sky News report is objective, if only because it is so brief:

A half-turn, in a carefully choreographed dance, the US leader asserting optimism, the French one, much more cautious in response.
President Trump repeated his view that the war in Ukraine would soon end.
He signalled a dramatic shift by Russia, suggesting President Putin might accept the deployment of European peacekeepers on the ground in Ukraine.
But Emmanuel Macron cautioned that any peace agreement must respect Ukraine’s sovereignty.
Trump claimed Ukraine’s president would be in Washington soon, to sign a deal granting the US access to rare earth minerals to offset US war aid.
Again, the French president gently stressed the need for security guarantees.

I think that the way this will play out is pretty obvious:

1) The war has been a disaster for both Russia and Ukraine. Both countries badly want it to end. Vladimir Putin needs it to end in a way that doesn’t wind up with him being hung from a lamppost.

2) If the United States had had a functioning president three years ago, the war would not have begun. If we had had a functioning president for the last two years, it would have been brought to an end before now.

3) Russia and Ukraine need President Trump to manage an end to the conflict. Trump will do that successfully, but he won’t be awarded a Nobel Peace Prize.

4) There will be a ceasefire, very soon. That will be followed rapidly by a peace treaty.

5) The terms on which the war will end are clear: Russia will keep a slice of eastern Ukraine pretty much equal to what it now occupies. In return, Russia will promise not to invade again.

6) There will be a peacekeeping force consisting of European troops. They will not be on the front line–God forbid!–but will nevertheless deter future Russian attacks, which Russia has no intention of launching.

7) Ukraine will give the U.S. mineral concessions of a value sufficient to repay some of the cost that our taxpayers have incurred in supporting that country. The details will be negotiated, but the final amounts will be substantial.

Happily, with Donald Trump negotiating on behalf of the United States, we can be sure that American taxpayers will not be taken to the cleaners.

The diplomatic dance will continue, but that is what is going to happen.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/02/all-over-but-the-shouting.php

Search This Blog