Breathtaking Incompetence, page-569

Ukraine likely would not have gone to war with Russia if the United States and its allies had taken a more balanced, non-patronising approach. Now, even figures like Zelensky (often caricatured as the "Joker" or a "bodybuilder") may realise the geopolitical consequences. Some argue that the U.S. interest in Ukraine was not purely for humanitarian support, but also to gain access to and control over the country’s vast mineral resources. This parallels the situation in Iraq, where the invasion under the guise of searching for weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) served, in reality, to secure oil interests. Following that conflict, many Iraqis fled and resettled in places like Australia, where they have been supported by Australian taxpayers. It is clear the U.S. does not support nations like Ukraine out of charity alone.

This entire situation is reminiscent of what’s happening with Biotron (BIT) and C14. Two parties—BIT management and C14—appear to be maneuvering over a vulnerable company, not unlike global powers competing over a smaller nation. C14 seems content to delay action, while BIT management appears indifferent, as long as their personal compensation continues uninterrupted. This pattern—typical in some biotech firms—involves raising funds, launching trials, initiating analyses, involving third parties, and conveniently shifting blame to those parties when results fall short. All the while, executives continue to benefit, with little regulatory oversight or audit. One might wonder if there's a consulting or legal mechanism silently advising BIT on how to extract value without technically breaking any laws.

It often feels like a closed-loop business network within Biotron, designed to sustain internal benefit—just as wars sustain the weapons industry and surrounding economies. BIT management is likely to return to shareholders for more funding, or otherwise risk voluntary administration (VA). The shareholders who previously supported the remuneration report are likely well-funded and generous, but they were outvoted. Still, their influence remains.

To sum it up: Ukraine is being squeezed, Gaza suffers under prolonged conflict, and war continues to be big business. The parallels with corporate governance in biotech companies like Biotron are striking—where strategy, delay, and internal gain can overshadow transparency and shareholder value.

Best wishes to the people of Ukraine and Gaza—and to the Biotron shareholders still holding on with hope.