I wanted to try to write a shorter update today so as to not overload those who may still be digesting yesterday’s voluminous mailbag. The most important developments on the docket are that Zelensky was supposed to address Congress in a classified meeting tonight, which was for some reason cancelled at the last minute. One of the potential explanations is that the Republicans have snubbed Biden and the Democrats’ overtures to unlock the Ukrainian funding, as the Rs simply won’t budge from their demands on securing the border first.
I still expect funding/aid to make it to Ukraine, simply because its too big a money pot to not send to various congressional districts and so on.
Republicans are - cynically - probably trying to get enough money to please their constituents, but not enough that Biden gets a win. They are plotting his demise next year. That, is more important than anything happening on the steppes of Ukraine.
In most any year, I would agree with you --- meaning that I would agree that the Republican resistance in Congress is more 'show' than 'go', and some kind of compromise 'fudge' is likely to result that allows some funding but not enough to really make a difference on the battlefield in Ukraine. However, this year, with MAGA congressional 'rebels' and an election year and the general state of 'rebellion' in the Republican Party (i.e. base vs. leadership and donors), anything is possible. The fact that Lindsey Graham and company have reversed their previous positions and now link Ukraine funding to US border policy changes is a symptom of how serious this internal MAGA / base pressure has become. The base (and alt-media) pressure for border measures, against the debt, against foreign wars and foreign aid in general, and against (what is perceived as) a 'traitorous' leadership class (which includes nearly all Republican Congressmen) is pretty strong and angry -- it may prevent all future funding for Ukraine. Time will tell.
There is also the possibility that "they" have gotten enough illegials into the US to staff whatever nefarious plan they have, and now want the wall closed to keep fleeing citizens in...could be wrong.
Comrade Sen.Turbin Durbin of Chicagostan said what many of us knew .... that the Illegal Border Invasion males will be "employed" by the USSa Pantygone as replacement troops.
Then these troops will be either cannon fodder in foreign wars or most likely Feral Mil/Polezi to subdue the Domestic "Deplorables".
It's all tin foil hat "conspiracy" until it knocks on your door, at which time it's way too late to mount an Effective defense.
CYA, conduct yourselves accordingly. Si vis pacem, para bellum aka 2nd Amendment "in full".
Yes, you may be quite right. It is difficult to think about, but after listening to this brave fellow I realize we must see the world and them for what we are facing.
This is an outdated view of war - it is certainly true that a section of the ruling class thinks that unskilled immigrants will serve as cannon fodder, as they have the US notably the 'North' during the Civil War
But the war in Ukraine has shown that real industrial warfare as conducted there by the Russians involves not only extremely well disciplined troops, but, increasingly sophisticated levels of training, backed up of course by massive industrialisation and levels of experience
- all of which the US fails to possess and possession of which would require discipline sense of purpose organisational skills cross class co ordination and trust together with a sense of determination as a nation state and as a 'people'
‘The Plan’ is merely the sum of propaganda pushed after the fact, no one section or faction of the dominant capitalist class has any other determination than to make the most money possible and to destroy any possible hindrance : these are the people who control the flow of capital
The governing class, politicians press & bureaucracy, are contracted to produce and publicise descriptions, justifications, explanations
The offshoring under discussion is that recently to China, but it has been a fixture of industrial capitalism in various forms for a long time, c.f. colonialism in general in India in particular etc etc
This is the structural imperative of capitalism, not careful plans hatched by this or that group
If money is made in large quantities no mistakes have been made
Infantry is infantry. You don't need to know rocket surgery to be a good infantryman, just have an unbroken body and enough discipline to not run away under fire. The SMCT (the basic US Army guide to infantry tasks) is simple enough that 80 IQ is sufficient to do the things required, maybe less. The motivated and more skilled can be NCOs and such.
Understanding commands is kinda important though, but the number of NCOs that understand Spanish is rather high. And citizenship in reward for military service is a real thing.
There are clearance issues - a noncitizen can't be granted a clearance, but not an issue if you are an E-1 to E-3 usually. Also, the security classification system on the battlefield is much fuzzier and ill-enforced than back in the hallowed halls.
What you write is incorrect, flippant and frivolous
If 'infantry is infantry' how come the US army can not fill their quotas, due to mental health, obesity, drug addictions, and so on and so on prevalent in the relevant age groups
You make war sound like child's play - it is ridiculous to state that fighting a war comes down to not running away
To recruit recent immigrants to fight your wars for you is not only ridiculous, arrogant, exploitative, but also guaranteed to fail – at least against an army such as the RF army
Perhaps your attitude is only to be expected in a country which has lost every war in living memory
but the Taliban "Won" not once, but twice. This is Not Two Valued logic, mutiple facts/strategies must be held Valid at the same time.
I agree the USSA military was set up to Fail in these NWO wars for profit & blood. But the Illegals in the New USSA military will mostly be used fighting a CW within the USSA, and the irony may be that is an optomistic view, if the patriots arise.
Whatever is coming next; It is upon us all in 2024 or even before. CYA= conduct yourselves accordingly. I wish you well.
Don't underestimate the public mood. We are sick to death of supporting war, war, war as our own country falls apart at home and abroad., The vast abuses of this regime in DC -- the political trials, the hounding of parents, the tracking of horrible Catholics, the pushing of life-changing mutilations to suit the woke agenda, the judges without judgment but all politics, our Gestapo and their masters at Lavrenty Beria Central Department of Justice, ordinary people who never lifted a finger and were passed into the US Capitol on Jan 6 languishing in prison -- it stinks, all of it, and people across the political spectrum have had enough. When you see those empty shells in Congress tipping over one by one in favor of some u-turn in policy, you know behind it are the people who vote. Now the US can no longer hide behind the myth that Ukraine is winning. And that is fatal. On top of not wanting to push war, we sure don't want another loser. And that is what Ukraine is for the US. Its Waterloo.
no, the voters matter only in an election year. unless, of course, you have already rigged the next election, in which case we are all up that proverbial creek without a paddle.
Yes, there is truth to that however between elections they do continue to gaslight us all to make ensure their money is well spent and will buy the influence they seek.
I agree donors don't care about the public, but they care how they distribute their money to buy influence. If the public is moving against a favorite they may choose to spend elsewhere to get what they want.
I'm afraid I share your view, although I think the pissing and moaning could easily turn to violence if this next national election even has a SNIFF of fraud and rigging. I do think that is a real possibility.
The public mood is that BOTH parties suck azz and don’t give flying f#ck about what we think. BOTH parties are spending us into the ruin of our nation, and it will be our downfall unless we start taking care of our own first. We do not have long as a nation if this doesn’t change. We can NOT keep funding the rest the world when our infrastructure, manufacturing and energy will no longer support our own citizens. We can bring nearly all our troops home, shutter and close 95% of our military bases outside the US, save BILLIONS and still grow our military and be strong.Mark my words, if this doesn’t change, we will be headed eventually to a civil war, because our government will go bankrupt and collapse.
Still a vast ignorant population in usa that is malleable to media propaganda The proof is how we got in this situation in the first place Fat comfortable people are lesss likely to see discomfort in the truths presented in front of them. This will all neeed to collapse similar to Soviet Union , Reality will need to present itself to all at the same time.
I would've used this, verbatim, for the book I published today, December 20, 2023 (titled "As America Crumbles...: A Grim Chronicle Exploring the Evil Source of America’s Catastrophic Decline") had I not had it at the typesetter, prepping the files for print.
Exactly. They can/will bluff on the border wall + immigration knowing that Biden will fold, since Ukraine is his white elephant. But then they will only give him enough to hang himself with.
Biden is asking many multiples for Ukraine what he is asking for Israel and has tried to tie Ukraine aid to Maui, Florida and Israel in order to get it through.
Did not Biden himself say that a politician's stated priorities can safely be ignored, but his budget will tell his real priorities?
I THINK THIS IS BIG. Did everyone notice that it was not Blinken or Biden who went to see Netanyahu but Musk, the richest man on earth, a prince of the world, with more influence than Biden. Perhaps predictable. Biden can't reign in (?) Netanyahu, but Must sets the rules for the WEF and Techies.
I like the short update. It gives me some time to catch up. I have dozens of things I want to do and can't find the time. Your Sitreps are mandatory reading for me though.
The MIC and the global corporate elite WILL get their way. Johnson is just making points. He'll get some pointless deal on the border and then give Biden all he wants and more. Doesn't much matter, Biden has stocked every borderline election district with illegals at this point anyway.
" It implies they aim to continue this war to the end and, unlike the West, are laying the real groundwork."
And what am I on record as saying since April,. 2022? That Russia intends to remove Ukraine from the board completely, and install a new Military District on the Polish and Romanian borders to counter the NATO Aegis Ashore installations - which can only be countered by playing Russian S-300/400/500 AD as close to those installations as possible - as well as any future NATO buildup which might threaten Russia.
In other words, in conjunction with this effort and the effort to integrate Belarus' military into the Russian military and the building of new Military Districts in northern Russia, Russia intends to build an "Iron Curtain 2.0" from the Black Sea to the Arctic, thus shutting out NATO forever - unless NATO wants to start a nuclear war - which Russia is also prepared for.
Face it, folks - Russia has been invaded or threatened by invasion by the West how many times in the last hundred or so years? Russia is saying, "Enough is enough. The West is the Enemy. We will not allow any further aggression."
This is why Russia is ramping up its military. It's going to need a half million troops, air bases with MiG-31Ks with Kinzhals, air defenses, a naval base in Odessa, etc., etc. in western Ukraine as well as in northern Russia. This is the ONLY way you counter NATO without resorting to invading Poland and Romania and Finland and everyone else.
And absolutely no one gets this but me. It's hilarious.
As for Zelensky being "despondent", let's hope he takes Hitler's way out and sticks a 9mm up his nose. Meanwhile I saw the Redacted Youtube channel today suggested Zelensky will be moved to the US and given US citizenship. Might as well, he already has a Miami mansion. And if he goes anywhere other than the US, the Russian will get to him. And I wouldn't give odds on his surviving in the US, either. If ever someone deserved assassination, it's Zelensky.
My concern if I were him is there are probably a lot of disgruntled Ukraine Jews in Israel and any one of them could be a problem for him.
I wonder if they will take him to the US, or if they will end him in the same manner so many others the US has supported have gone. Gaddafi comes to mind.
You forget that over 2.3 million who live in Israel are born Russian, think the cross dressing Nazi pervert, the Guevara, Castro wannabe will be safe in Zionist heaven, think again, Russian Jewry did not comprise a preponderance of zionists, they are first and foremost the vast majority of them, the Russian Jewish Israeli diaspora Jews, assiduously practicing and adhering to the religions tenets, I don’t think amongst that population of Russian Jews there will be many who love the Elinsky, he who outlawed and made illegal the use of the letter “Z”, the man’s a cluster, a walking disaster, deadman walking…
There are some who do, I acknowledge. But even most of the main pro-Russian analysts don't seem to. That includes The Duran guys, McGovern, Johnson, even Martyanov thinks Russia will hand western Ukraine over to NATO. I think Ritter and Macgregor are kind of 50-50. Everyone assumes Russia will stop at the Dnieper, is afraid of the western Ukrainians, and may or may not bother to take Kiev. The issue of the Aegis Ashore installations, which Putin has spoken about in several speeches, is mostly ignored.
All one has to do is just think about it: what is the most logical way for Russia to solve the issue of NATO encroachment? There's only one real 'military-technical" answer. If Russia doesn't do this, it will have effectively lost the war. I think Ritter said something to that effect one time.
I think Russia's reaction to Ukraine "arming" rhymes with what France and Great Britain should have done about Hitler moving 20000 combat ready troops/units into Rhineland in March 1936!
Russia waited 8 years? Let the "west" extend, w/o planning its "readiness".
Logistics is a problem for NATO, too long lines of communication, whether they have the "industry" is a big issue.
EUUS does not have an armaments industry that can produce anything other than overpriced underperforming airplanes, or tanks -both of which RF can easily counter
As for the basic requirements they can not produce the artillery shells, drones, missiles etc in anything near the quality and quantity required
Nor the men - the US population as the EU is overweight unfit and unprepared - their armies are small and untrained in industrial warfare, are basically policemen
Nor can they re industrialise - as per other comments in this post
They will continue to throw in what little they have, and they may even find some cash, but all this will be chewed up on arrival in Ukraine
Thats what the world said after WW2 and again during Nixon, Bush, Clinton etc.. Just wait 75 years and it will happen all over again. The issues of history repeat-- not the same way-- but they do.
The world did not say to the US right after WW2 that the US must re industrialise, nor, evidently, did the US make any successful nor serious attempt to do so
But you are correct in saying that from a peak of industrial production at that time the downhill slope in the US has been a constant -although the reverse in some other countries
The issues/events/facts of history are not those of re cyclical repetition, this is an outdated idealist theory reminiscent of the worst of German ideologies, but of transformations in which the struggle for domination and control remains a constant, and in which one dominant class mutates into a similar, while the poor get poorer (sauf exception intermittente)
wait 75 years to re industrialise? What does this mean?
It's a bold prediction, for sure. I think most people are basing it off the terms that Russia was amenable to during the negotiations in Istanbul, so it would stand to reason that if Russia was okay with X, they might take X+1 now.
The question of how they'd actually govern Ukraine, and the likelihood of the west continuing to infiltrate weapons, special forces, and saboteurs into Ukraine, is also difficult to answer.
However, it is not an impossibility that if more Ukrainians feel like they were betrayed and sacrificed by NATO into a losing war, that public sentiment could turn very sharply against the Banderites. To presume that Ukrainians will ALWAYS support them is not a given.
Correct. Not to mention that Russia has fought western Ukrainians in an insurgency before in the late '40s and early '50s and won, and since then have dealt with Chechnya and Syria insurgents. Been there, done that,. got the T-shirt - and the knowledge. Not to mention that today is the age of the drone - conduct a rural insurgency and you die. Conduct an urban insurgency - and you get to deal with Chechens and Wagner.
Once Russia and China and the central Asian states start rebuilding Ukraine, jobs return, the economy improves over the next decade or two, and most Ukrainians will accept integration into Russia. Those who don't will be identified - this is the age of the Internet social media, which Russia can surveill - detained and deported. Not a problem.
Interesting how Mr. Putin brought the Chechens into the federation virtually overnight. From my extremely limited understanding he just offered them basic control over their land if they would stop fighting or he was going to pull out all the stops. Win-win. Both sides came out winners so your theory about the remaining Western Ukrainians may hold water.
Everything from Izmayil through Havoron up to Chernoble will be forever Russia though. I think Poland will try and take some of the West and Belarus some of the North with Hungary nibbling at the South West. Romania seems pretty much owned by Yankeeland but if I was running Moldova I would be talking to Russia now because the map is going to change soon. Then again I am not a European and only know limited history from books.
Agree-- I wonder how much US taxpayers are going to be further on the hook for Blackrock, Dupont et al's losses re: agreements with Ukraine for either dumping chemicals or ownership of land.
I think about this- Russia was able to subjugate all the Warsaw pact countries for 50 years, and turned Chechnya into an ally, I also have to believe that many Ukrainian soldiers who surrendered hate the Z government , as do many wounded and demobilized Ukrainian soldiers. Yes, I could imagine a Ukraine -vs -Ukraine black ops conflict within a vast Russian controlled military district of former Ukraine, but this might be manageable in the short term and worth it in the long term, from a defense perspective.
Exactly. The overall requirement is Russia's security - and that threat comes from NATO outside Ukraine, not a limited insurgency inside Ukraine. People over-emphasize the insurgency threat, forgetting that Russia has been there and done that in Ukraine, Chechnya and Syria.
And also I've mentioned that an insurgency in these days of drone warfare is difficult to do. Insurgents can use drones, too, but only if the air defense of their opponents is poor, e.g., Saudis vs Houthis. A Russian Military District is going to have the best air defense in the world. Add to that the difficulty of running an insurgency in either rural or urban areas with drone surveillance and it becomes clear that threat is overstated. The CIA could run one cross-border from Poland or Romania - sending drones in from those countries - if they want to get Poland and Romania bombed.
But did Russia truly appreciate just how much the West wanted to carve them up , steal all their resources (cause thats what US war is ALWAYS about-- have to feed the debt after all), and subjugate them? It's always about money, resources and power. That's history
NATO doesn't run this negotiation business. The boys fighting it do. Arestovich is so clever, he positions himself now on the side of the "duped Ukrainians" with their stupid leaders who picked the wrong team to hitch themselves to. I'd guess Ukrainians' anger over this war and their losses must be reaching an open boil by now.
Not sure about the Duran guys-- they never stated it will be split. In fact they have many times discussed that Odessa and Kiev are impt. historical Russian cities, ie Russia wants them back. Don't confuse the guests they have - Columbia's finest former Russian economic hitman Jeffrey Sachs- as their view.
I disagree about the Duran team. I'm pretty sure I've heard Mercouris assume both that negotiations were likely and that they would result in a split Ukraine. That seems to be his preference since he's big on negotiations. He doesn't care what the end result is as long as people stop dying. Whereas I don't want to see Russia do something stupid and have to start a new war all over again in six months or six years. If half of Ukraine has to die before they "get it", well, that's on the Ukrainians for not "getting it."
I have recently seen a book on Sachs which reportedly covers his previous activities, although I didn't bother to read it. I don't find Sachs that useful simply because - like most of the analysts who have actual government experience - he can go "only so far" in his analyses. The prime example is his recommendation that the UN simply recognize Palestine as a state. Whoop-de-doo! Now what do we do when Israel refuses to recognize that and the US supports Israel? No comment from Sachs. It's easy to just say - as most do - "two-state solution" - and then refuse to drill down into what that actually means and how to actually achieve it. The Devil is in the details, as they say.
This is "CYA" stuff. One gets to show "moral superiority" without actually solving anything. Since I come from a "no morality" and "human life means absolutely nothing" approach, but instead an "actions and consequences" approach. I can see through this stuff instantly.
what you touch upon also relates to the manifestation of a new world paradigm, this has been variously referred to as the "three headed dragon"
As the west infected as it is by a deranged psycopathic religious death cult seeks (covertly not overtly) the rise af a new era via an outmoded, spent pseudo luciferian prophecy, the options for the other team have become limited.
Right, i appreciate that sounds cryptic, but we need to understand the funders of, the relevance of and the proposed outcome of, the "scofield study bible" over american and thus up to this time "world" politics, that being the placement of satans representative on earth throned at temple mount/al aqusa.
Fundamental zionist christianity has until recently dictated the movement of and the ulitimate outcome of world management, from the compliance shown at 9/11 and onward through covert 19.
freemasonry and western politics have been bound in a death struggle since the "creation" of modern day america and its crucial role in the "great work of ages", it has given license to steal, rape, murder, torture to generation after generation of "progressives" in western societies whilst all the time undermining the foundations of the very "gains" they make.
Realising that the west is in a self inflicted death grip (one could even say self imposed "mort-gage") gives insight as to the insanity as we approach the final chapters...
The three headed dragon faced with such insanity watches keenly the destruction of the westen societies by the parasites that live within it (soros et al) and seeks "decontamination" afore the stink of the rotting carcass speads to its own shores...
Summed up we are speaking of emp not nuclear fision, the resultant has been fantasised by creations such as "walking dead" and never underestimate the relevance of "fiction" be it Tolkein, Huxley or hellywood
The sheer inability of pampered western nations to survive even the shortage of toilet paper let alone fuel, electric and running water shows us how quick the slide from "grace" would be..
An insight into the relevance of the "scofiled study bible can be found here"
the fact that uk citizens are being told to stock up on candles tells us dwellers of the "sertic isles" that all the years of meddling in Russias affairs may well soon "bear fruit"
Seems obvious to me, if for no other reason than to deny Blackrock, Monsanto et al from enjoying their ill-gotten gains. No breadbasket for you boys. Future Ukraine feeds the South, not the West.
Nonsense. Russia anticipates a sea-change in European politics that will realign Europe with Russia. They feel rightly or wrongly (mostly rightly, but not entirely) that most Western European governments are U.S. vassals, but that the crunch of immigration, lack of industrial capacity and job growth, and the European elites' self-destructive energy policies will lead to popular upheaval and new governments in most European states.
Why do I say this? Because Putin is rational and tends to act in the best interest of his nation. He assumes that other nations, while they may act irrationally in the short-term, will eventually act in their own self-interest. The interests of Europe are to establish sound trade relations with Russia and the former Soviet Republics in order to acquire energy and raw materials to refurbish the diminished capacity of European factories. This has been the German foreign policy objective since the age of steam: to acquire resources in the east via trade or conquest. Conquest is off the table, so trade is the only feasible route.
In this, I think Putin is absolutely correct. Europe is going to have a major upheaval and sea change in their governments: sooner rather than later. The signs are everywhere from the recent Irish protests to the gilets jaunes in France to the emergence of the AfD in Germany to the victory of Geertz Wilder's PVV.
It is best for Putin to play the long game. Russia has always, throughout its history, pivoted from partnerships and alliance with East then the West then back again. It will continue to do so with a pivot West as Nato and the EU, as its currently configured, collapse under the weight of their own self-destructive energy policies, their de-industrialization, and their social welfare system, which is currently being overloaded by African immigrants.
You are extremely naive about the US reaction to any such changes given the pivotal period between Unipolarity and Multipolarity we are in, no Empire gives up easily. The UK is already taken care of with the political assassination of Corbyn, the AfD may turn into another Meloni once they get their meeting with the BND and CIA. No elections in France until 2027. Plus all the Western European elites are extremely Atlantacist. Romania is like a NATO fiefdom. Russia will need to go all the way, and that's why Putin is ramping up the military so much, he understands after two decades of attempting to court the West and getting repeatedly smacked in the face. Merkel and the others owning up to the perfidy with respect to Minsk 1 and Minsk 2 made Europe non-agreement capable in Russian eyes.
It's one thing to bluster and threaten like the US does so well. It's another to have the power, money and resources to back it up. They dont-- Clinton gave it away with NAFTA and subsequent govts have neglected everything in the US except puffed up, overblown military spending and varying forms of spooks. If the US was a confident mid empire (timing) nation then why focus on censoring and controlling its own citizens so much?
Yes. At this point, the real power that the U.S. government has is based only on the petrodollar and nuclear weapons. Their conventional forces are obsolete and incapable of little more than tossing pebbles at the Eurasian landmass. The petrodollar is fast disappearing owing to all sorts of U.S. foreign policy debacles from turning Iraq over to the Shias to using the petrodollar as an economic weapon against too many resource-rich countries. What use is a currency if one cannot buy the things one needs with it? All that is left is the nuclear threat, and what is that threat? We get to win the game or we flip over the board and send all the pieces flying?
Moreover, the U.S. is a presidential election away from disbanding NATO. Trump is speaking to a majority when he speaks about withdrawing the U.S. from NATO and withdrawing from many of the overseas bases. Why do you think Kagan and Nuland et al are so apoplectic about his return? The empire is on very shaky ground indeed when they must try to suppress, censor, and incarcerate more than one half their own population in order to maintain control.
Right now the US's real power in its proxy Israel which is a nuclear terrorist state. It has not only threatened Iran with nuclear attack, but it has already used tactical nuclear weapons on its neighbors according to Veterans Today. It has already attacked the US as part of the US, Saudi, Mossad intelligence collective that pulled off 911. Remember the US Liberty. They are the most dangerous threat to peace on earth there is, and Netanyahu is a war criminal They could set off a false flag and blame Russia, or whatever is required to get us all killed. .That seems to be their goal, to take us all to hell. Regime change in Israel.
I agree. U.S. unconditional support for Israel will be its ultimate undoing. A major power cannot allow regional proxies to run its foreign policy and remain a major power. Ask the Romans about their "friends of Rome" policy. If the U.S. wants to continue to support Israel, the U.S. must dictate, in clear terms, exactly what Israel can and cannot do, The endless expansion of settlements in the West Bank and the current ethnic cleansing of Gaza cross lines that should have demarcated the end of all U.S. support for Israel. Instead Israel does as it pleases, and the U.S. is drawn into what promises to became an ever widening war as a result. Netanyahu should be unacceptable to the U.S. as a leader of Israel, and they should have told Israel, long ago, Netanyahu goes, or we take our ball and go home.
I don't think that you are being naive -- but just laying out one set of possibilities --- actually, I think you are laying out 'the best case' scenario: Europe rebels from the dominant US (actually WEF / NWO elite that controls the 'West') and rebuilds its economy and society with Russian energy and raw materials. As Roger Boyd points out in response to you, it could be worse (i.e. a kinetic 'fight' over Europe between the forces of the West and Russia). I don't think that such a kinetic scenario is likely because with nuclear weapons and historical precedents & promises, such a fight will likely be nuclear and catastrophic. At least I hope that calmer heads and better luck prevails and that such a kinetic scenario won't happen. However, there is also a third option: a European future of 'meh' (neither revolt/renaissance or kinetic conflict). In this third way, Europe may 'rebel' from the dominating club of the West but not 'rebuild' -- it just stagnates with high energy prices, demographic collapse, economic de-industrialization. Like China after 1500 or the Arab world after the Crusades, Europe may just become a global backwater of former glory and missed potential.: An increasingly poor and economically and technologically irrelevant geographic peninsula on the greater Eurasian land mass. Unfortunately, I think that this path is the path of least resistance and applicable to both the current European trajectory (vassal of the 'West') or potential future (populist revolt against those Western elites). I say this because the European demographic change, migration impact, and cultural transformation may already be too far advanced to stop without a really strong and sustained revival effort that far exceeds what the 'populist' pr 'patriot' forces in Europe can bring to the party. The 'rot' may be too far gone even if the populists 'succeed'.
Yes. It is not that Europe is a vassal of the U.S. so much as most Western governments, including the U.S. government, are vassals of an oligarch class that spans continents and is not loyal or concerned with the interests or fate of any particular nation. It is absolutely pivotal that one understands this, and I am certain that Putin does. Once one understands this, one understands why Putin would be reasonable to expect opportunities to pivot West diplomatically in the near future.
Such a pivot is what he has tried to do throughout his time as president in Russia, and I doubt that he has given up on that just because Blackrock, Vanguard, Goldman Sachs, UBS and Deutschebank paid Victoria Nuland, Robert Kagan, Angela Merkel, and Jens Stoltenburg to run Europe into the ground in an effort to bring back the heady days of 1994 when every two-bit finance capitalist was playing roulette with every asset of the former Soviet Union.
And I would add that to assume ALL of Europe has to go together towards a BRICS/Russia sphere is silly. All it takes is 5 countries to go to weaken either or NATO or EU-- then the rest follow as their woke, Ursula? loving neighbourhood countries see that the grass is greener-- or that their living standard is better.
The 'meh' scenario you outline is more likely than any pivots of "Europe" from USA to Asia. I especially find it unlikely that Russia could make such a pivot happen.
But for my money, the most likely outcome for Europe (and USA, and presumably also China and Russia) is a cyberpunk digital gulag. This envisions complete suckery and basically the return of the iron age slave society, just with all the modern technologies. TBH, it'll probably be worse than 2500 years ago. The opportunities for preventing this from happening are few. Breaking cryptography would be a major move in the right direction but (a) it's not yet clear if we live in a Universe where that is possible or not and (b) even without cryptography the cyberpunk dystopia could still be constructed - it'll just be different. Nevertheless, without cryptography the dystopia would be less sucky and less stable. The essential preventative move is self-edification. People need to be upright, not be glued to their screens, not be addicted to Facebook and Instagram, not read news from Twitter botfarms, not get their info from Google searches, not use credit cards or debit cards, not get into debt, not jerk off or fuck whomever, not do drugs, study all kinds of sciences and crafts and arts, work out, fraternize, socialize, and make and bring up babies. And... they need to pray to God Almighty.
But we all know Europeans are atheists. So are many others all over the world.
And so the new Age of Slavery will probably set. Europe will lead the way, but USA, Russia and China will probably be right behind. If we who try as much as we can to escape this new system could all get together in some corner of the world, on Earth or in space, we might be able to create a land of freemen. Sadly I think we'll not congregate. So then the solution would be to up the ante on those self-edification measures ever more. Perhaps, if you accumulate enough knowhow you could collapse your brain into a knowledge black hole and emerge into the world as wizard, able to use your nimble fingers to fashion items to protect you against the onslaught of slavery. Well, that's my approach. Attempt to create a knowledge singularity in my brain.
Given that a united Europe is Yankeelands greatest fear it will be using every dirty underhand tactic it can to prevent that. That is why it has such a stronghold on Germany because the very last thing it wants is the resources and talent of Russia working with the industrialisation of Germany.
This is the singular thing that has provided some semblance of reason and rhyme to U.S. foreign policy post WWII. Everything else is merely oligarchs buying favors from the State Department and Jewish nationals subverting U.S. foreign policy to benefit Israel. The only constant is a desire to prevent Russia from supplying Germany oil and the two states to become economic partners. The obsession with a German-Russian dominated Eurasian landmass is an obsession that dates back to the British Empire.
he attempts to remove Basshar al Assad in Syria, for example, is to get right of way for pipelines to Germany from Saudi Arabia. The obsession with Ukraine is to get control of the pipelines from Russia to Europe. Notice that one of the first act of this war was the destruction of Nordstream?
Trying to prevent this natural union, however, from the other side of the world is like trying to stop water from flowing to the sea. You can build dams, dikes, ditches, and reservoirs, but sooner or later, the water is going to get to the sea.
Great point about the obsession dating back to the British Empire-- yup it started there and given the historical significance of the "City of London" and its ties to the same twisted political elite in the US-- this is more of a tag team effort than most people realize.
A genuinely independent and geopolitically coherent EU would have been a financial and technological superpower, and arguably, would have the #1 greatest competitor to the US.
This possibility, with only shaky viability to begin with, has now been definitively killed, chopped up into tiny pieces, burned, buried, and anything that isn't ashes is currently decomposing - never to see the light of day again.
My God if only this were true! I have long suspected that US foreign policy has been to talk friendly to Europe while acting to destabilise it. Middle East wars a failure? EU migration crises. LGBTQ? Geopolitical weapon to foment division, friction and create fundable political groups, authoritarian anti hate speech power grabs. Etc etc. I do see some resistance and the great pendulum swinging back the other way, but it will be years if at all before the Western sheeple stop watching the news and learn to see the EU as a desirable, standalone, superpower they should be part of, with a cultural and historical alignment with Russia.
It is not that the U.S. wants to destabilize Europe. The U.S. wants to keep Europe from becoming dependent upon Russian oil. Most of the instability in Europe is the doing of European technocrats and the self-loathing Germans who thought it would be a great idea to import half of Africa into Europe to solve their pension fund problems. Of course, the Africans have no serviceable skills aside from serving coffee, so rather than solving the social-welfare pension crisis, they have exacerbated it exponentially.
Likewise, it is Europeans who have convinced themselves that they have to abandon modern life and the cheap energy that makes it possible, to the delight, no doubt, of the U.S. State Department. John Kerry has done his best to sell Europeans and even U.S. on the idea that the entire West has to abandon cheap energy and return to the bronze age because the sky is falling or getting hot or something. But no one in Europe cares what John Kerry says... now... Greta Thunberg... well... she is the bees knees. What intelligent, sophisticated Dutchman would not want to completely reorder the entire society and economy of the West based on the opinions of a semi-autistic teenager who dropped out of high-school.
At the time there was a coordinated intense media campaign to open the borders to migrants. Migrants were portrayed as innocent refugees, drowning in boats, and anyone cruel enough to deny their entry was deemed a racist nazi. Popular music absorbed this and popular artists produced songs and videos that amplified the message. The UK readily adopted the open border policy and pointed at others who did not from a position of moral authority. Back then it was Angela Merkel who resisted. She was attacked and demonised by the press and her peers. It affected public opinion. The mass manipulated populace in the climate created by Western media were practically clammering for African and Islamic immigration. Of course, when Teflon Merkel finally capitulated that was the beginning of the end for both Germany and herself. In the meantime the UK got busy on the Brexit path, while the media highlighted that the economic and social woes of mismanaged immigration were all the result of EU policy! The entire story is a US centric attack on the EU by directing victims of US wars to migrate there and cause social disruption and erosion of national and cultural identity.
I think people need to see govts as companies in the same industry. Competing for the top job, the top economy and the most resources--like the game of Monopoly 😊. All done by morally frail human beings who are looking to prove to the world they are the best. So of course that is whats happening !!!
Yet word coming out from Russian leadership is that the Europeans are no longer wanted as trading partners, ever. And the only western nation they will enter into any agreement with is the US, and that will only happen in due time.
I will bet money that the Russians will deal with their historical partners-- the US WAY before they go back to Europe. With a return to sanity (ie get rid of Dems) it will be practically easier to do-- one leader, one govt (please don't tell me the EU govt is the same-- really?) . Also can the Russians really forgive Europe or trust a Herr Merkel ever again? Putin is Mr. Practical which is one of the reasons I respect and admire him. If he ever deals directly with Europe again it will be one country at a time (ie like Hungary)
They may in time, but going by Putin's recent speech (link below), they are in no rush to do so. And true, why open any dialogue with the EU, they do what the US tells them to do in spite of the harm it does to their nations.
Don't put much store by the GOP though, they talk but do nothing, the decisions are made by the deep state. And the deep state is all about war, I believe we will be attacking Venezuela shortly, yes over oil, gas fields.
I do see some nations over time breaking with the EU and going with the BRICS, but Ukraine needs to be sorted out before that happens, probably 3, 4 years from now.
Sooner , things will speed up in this coming year. Like election in Ukraine ?
Election in the USA ? We are living in borrowed time , keeping up with the fast growing unhappy citizens with printed money . The money which is only supported with a hypnotizing word . TRUST ???.
As for elections, I see none in Ukraine until the infighting between the two Zs is decided, or Russia takes all.
In the US, I see several possibilities:
1. they use a FF to cancel the election for a year or two, so they can run their EMP strike and currency crash, 2. they rig it yet again, 3. they let Trump win, the day he is installed, they do a major EMP strike, crash the economy and tank the currency.
I am ok with item 3., at least you know what you've got with Trump, he would put his back to it to save the country. Anyone else would just sell the country off by the acre probably to Blackrock.
As a European subject myself, i would say that we are unfortunately faaar away from a "sea change" in European politics. "Alternative" parties like the Fratelli, AfD, Vox, LePen, etc are either coopted by the PTB from the very start or they "get an offer they can resist" once they are close to power.
Putin better get a big dose of patience if he wants to wait until the current European leaders get deposed...
As I've commented in my last post, the US can still do a lot of control on the cheap, especially in regions were it has been hegemonic for decades.
Now don't be so sure you are alone, I have been saying Russia will take all of Ukraine for some time as well. Any inch of Ukraine's dominion left behind would be home of massive NATO investment.
Richard, this is the first logical conclusion I’ve seen about Russias long term game plan. I do wonder if the Dneiper, with a large military force opposite Kiev, could become a stable defensive line, but the objectives- a durable missile defense vis-A-vis NATO, makes a lot of sense.
Anytime now, I'm expecting Russia to start destroying power infrastructure in Ukraine. They are probably waiting to see if the West will throw more money in there first.
You have to admire how patiently Russia is bleeding the West in the SMO.
Not clear to me that sending Ukraine into the Dark Ages in winter was actually the Russian goal last winter - as opposed to say depleting S300 AD missile inventories.
And if the depletion was the actual goal, then it is equally unlikely Russia will do so this winter. The one constant in the fighting by Russia is minimizing civilian casualties.
A lack of power in winter would certainly entail massive civilian death and suffering.
Russia is trying to get Ukraine to surrender, what would you have them do? They're already treating Ukraine with kid gloves compared to the way the West goes into places.
Don't make any sense to waging war against the people , just keep blasting the NATO supplies and decision making centers . ( long overdue ) . Most probably in the final phase , which already started with the internal conflict .
Love your updates. One point I would debate with you on is why the border migration is occurring in the first place (or more correctly, why the US government is allowing it happen in the manner that it is --- I get why the migrants want to come to the US, what is not clear is why the US is allowing it to happen in such numbers and so chaotically). Technically, I don't think that the uncontrolled mass migration into the US is for the 2024 election -- longer term, when and if these migrants get voting rights, then 'yes', it is about a Democrat-leaning voting base and winning elections but near term, 'I doubt it' (in part because in the short term the Republican and Democrat machines can rather easily 'manufacture' whatever voting fraud they want without having millions of illegals in the country -- illegals help the fraud process but are not essential to it).
So, if this chaotic mass migration is not for elections (in the near term), why does it occur? Part of the answer is because 'donors want it' -- but why do donors want it? For cheap labor in the (Republican donor owned) meat packing plants and farms --- partly -- but the sheer numbers of migrates far exceed what is required to 'suppress' local's wages in the short term. Is it to staff the US military (as Senator Dick Durbin proposed yesterday) - unlikely --- there are plenty of legal ways to attract immigrants into the military to do that today (if you think that is a good idea and something the US should do). Is it because 'migration' is a 'human right' or because of 'climate change' or 'reparations' for centuries of Western tyranny? Some some donors, volunteers, NGO's, and decision makers may think so, but I doubt that most US decision makers are choosing to allow this to happen on humanitarian grounds and principle. Is it to cause societal tension, confusion, and chaos (in urban centers, border regions, etc) -- well, I'd have to say almost certainly 'yes'. This, to me, is the really scary and important part of the story. It's not about elections, or wages, or social-justice, but about 'destruction' of the existing order from within by elite. Whether that elite is foreign-controlled and paid for, traitorous and merely ambitious for power & control, or something else is uncertain --- but the fact that this elite is implementing something revolutionary (and something like to prompt a counter-revolution) is unmistakeable (in my opinion).
The death rates for US citizens are way up since COVID and are not coming down again, the US elites will need lots of cheap and healthy migrants to keep its economy going. In addition, the US youth are turning quite socialist so all those new migrants will help keep them quiet.
Your point about excess mortality is correct, but I think your conclusion (that it is to keep the younger generation 'quiet') is a stretch. Firstly, this younger generation and the migrants have very different skill sets that put them in different economic 'segments' in the current and future economy. The migrants are tending to be un-skilled, with poor English-language fluency, and little to no formal education relevant to life in the US. The target market for this 'labor' force tends to be unskilled service, agricultural, and manufacturing jobs (if they get jobs at all). The domestic 'youth' on the other hand tend to be fluent (but not terribly proficient) in English, have formal educations (not that those educations are worth much in an absolute sense but relatively they are 'educated'), and targeted towards white-collar service (e.g. HR), NGO, and government jobs (e.g. education). (This is a gross generalization for both groups I get it -- but the number of STEM graduates or skilled trades among both groups is low). This suggests (to me) that both groups (the youth and the migrants) are complementary, not in competition. The migrants are targeted at one set of 'servant' jobs and the youth are targeted at a different set of 'office drone' or 'bureaucrat' or 'commissar' job. One group doesn't keep the other 'in check' because they are serving different market segments of the 'new world order'. If anything keeps the US domestic youth in check in the future, it is probably AI (and more out-sourcing and off-shoring and the hiring of college-educated immigrants from foreign backgrounds). Besides, it seems that the government (and the powers behind them) are very comfortable providing both groups (migrants and youth) with access to 'free' stuff without the requirement of work (servant or bureaucratic). So, for me, this is yet more evidence that something else is going on here. In conclusion, while I agree that 'the powers that be' are using the migrant crisis for purposes of societal change and control and that 'excess deaths' are intentional, I don't think the migrant crisis is there to check the economic or political power of US domestic youth today or in the near future (10-20 years).
You need to add in the planning around AI. Those youth workers are to be replaced by AI in a few years. And remember "they" want the US population count to be 90 million. The illegials are here to dig our graves IMO.
Receipts please-- migrants are all unskilled? Geez I know a family here whose highly skilled Iranian cousin came in . People came in from China!!! You know what they say about Ass-u-me
You are being unfair. I myself say that my comments are 'gross generalizations' -- simplifications necessary for clearly making my point in the text space available. Clearly, some migrants are highly skilled - however, based on the in-depth reporting I have studied on exactly who is coming across our borders, from where, etc it does not seem to be a stretch to say that most are not high skilled IT, medical, or industrial workers or engineers that are (supposedly) in such short supply in the US economy (and which therefore impedes broader economic growth and prosperity). I am willing to believe that the vast majority of these migrants coming across our border are good people willing to work hard and suffer great hardships to get a better economic (and political) life -- however, if they are not fluent in English, don't have the equivalent of a US high school education or better, or certified to work in the highly regulated industries we have (like medical doctors, pharmacists, etc), then they are likely most likely going to work in unskilled positions. Being in unskilled economic positions doesn't mean that they are individually unskilled as parents, unskilled at being well-adjusted and decent individuals, etc.-- it's just a statement of economic demographics. Assumptions imply you haven't researched the matter (you haven't bothered to look so you assume). Generalizations imply that you have studied the matter and are summarizing and stereotyping for analysis or discussion. If done correctly, such summarizing and stereotyping is ok -- it is the foundation of modern statistical market research. You know all this (or should) -- so why write what you write?
Just 53 years and the West is destroyed and the survival of the White races living in the West right on the tipping point of demographic eradication. Frankfurt, Germany is a good example or Birmingham in England.
EVERY Western nation is affected no matter where in the world they are situated.
They are; an army to subjugate citizenry when the time comes, a replacement work force, an abundant source of sex and work slaves, an organ harvesting opportunity and major source of child sex trade and murder.
The uncontrolled migration is a combination of short term, ham-handed appeal to minorities (in the Democrat eyes) plus a longer term "replacement theory" which the Democrats deny but which their internal discussions all talk about.
And furthermore this process is occurring via DHS literally abrogating its fiduciary duties - so the corruption is occurring in spite of rule of law as opposed to actual legal changes.
Great questions, and great thinking. While I believe a lot of functionaries allow the immigration just because they are following the cues of their social and Institutional superiors, I do believe there is a greater goal: the destruction of the traditional “American” national fabric- empires destroy nations, and there is no more threatening Nation to the American Global Empire than the traditional American Nation. Diluting, fragmenting, disrupting, and turning the traditional American nation against itself are the best way to destroy the American Nation, and ensure that the Nation never threatens or impedes the American Global Empire. So immigration is one front in the full-Spectrum conflict between the America Nation vs. American Empire.
Exactly - and always has been - the original colonisers were the original Puritan bunch, the prissy self serving sects, and subsequent close tribal/in group allies/descendants
The deliberations in the US congress are just political theatre. The Republicans are no more interested in border security than the the Democrats. If the puppet masters want Ukraine funding they'll get it. If they don't they'll use the excuse of 'extreme right wingers' voting down the proposal.
There is a decision making layer that is not visible immediately. Not a conspiracy, lizzards, aliens etc more like a mixture of deep state, and wall street, every individual keeps his freedom of decision, and yet a groupthink prevails. They determine US strategy and express themselves in short, simple sentences, like a beginner’s course in logic.
At this level a conclusion has been reached that current US strategy in Ukraine is unsuccessful, not producing results. Now we’ll see who is going to be Mr Wolfe, the one to organize a clean up. It will not be Nuland, she is one of the original organizers of the whole catastrophe. Someone to try what Kissinger used to do.
A clean up, and from the approach to this cleanup one could try to guess what will be the next strategy towards Russia and Europe.
Very impressive , imaginative consciousness in action . Seeing that remote controlled vehicle delivering goods back and fort , rescuing the wounded . How can anyone think to defeat such resourcefulness . Even the dumb ones in congress asking why should they throw good money after bad . They are being outplayed every which way possible . The Institute of Study of War , what a comedy ? Shut them down and send all the personals to some construction site where they can be useful in some capacity .
Russia has wisely offered peace, not a ceasefire, but peace. Along current frontline. It is the exact opposite of what warmongers are preaching, and is probably intended to give Ukrainians the chance to understand what they can expect from the West, once Ukrainians give up on being a proxy against Russia, what they will get from the West is on them and the West. If this strategy works some Ukrainians, like Arrstovich is doing, will begin questioning the basic Ukrainian strategy:
fight the Russians, reject all compromise offers and West will give you everything, modern army, lot of money, NATO and EU and victory, meaning subjugating Donetsk and Lugansk and the big prize Crimea, with no Russians.
But victory is clearly impossible, Territory lost, and West is encouraging Ukraine to keep on fighting the war, with dwindlling weapons suplly, help, with no NATO in the immediate future...
Actually West is promising, expecting, demanding the postponement of defeat. With vague promises that things might get better in the future, in 2025, after US elections...if Biden wins
There is the little matter of most of the Upper Dnieper ,(West of the river),still wanting to join Russia and no way will Russia ever back off regaining Odessa.
I don't believe Russia has said anything about current front lines. They have said complete and absolute surrender, no terms. Now Hersh was saying that discussions are ongoing between generals, implying Ukraine would continue to exist. I see this as US wishful thinking and a complete fiction for the masses.
You do understand that key for the West is the Persistent conflict, ongoing, neverending, that can always be turned into war. Defeat is peace agreement. An offer that would produce Ukraine accepting peace as a final result is a defeat for the West. Imagine peace agreement, and EU doing business with Russia.
I don't see persistent conflict bringing any benefits to the vast majority of the people in the West, nor do I see it helping the West maintain dominance over the rest of the world.
Defeat of the West is already accomplished in Ukraine - now the question is just how bad it will be.
We all write in shorthand, expressing only the outer layer of thoughts and sometimes more is needed.
West is governed, ruled by so called globalists, more precise term being people who believed globalism will keep US forever on top as unipolar superpower. When globalism hit the wall, China becoming the peer competitor while respecting formal rules of the rules based order, globalists forgot global free trade and reverted to sanctions and decoupling.
Vast majority of people in the West can most of the times be manipulated into conflicts and wars, if the wars are not lost.
The problem is losing the war. The concept of Pushing Ukraine into war with Russia was mistaken, in simple words do not start fight if you are not 100% committed. No victories are won on the cheap. To win a war would demand serious sacrifice and western public would have serious problems understanding why.
‘Germany is trying to close a major gap in its government budget, but private funding is also not looking rosy. A benchmark survey by Munich’s Ifo Institute shows that German companies have slashed their investment plans for this year and next.’
Hard time for supporters, but they can always go somewhere else, support climate change, or go on with academic, diplomatic careers, and wait for the US deep decision level to produce next strategy.
Hardest for Ukrainian leaders, they have to start thinking with their own heads, what is the best strategy for Ukraine. Fighting on or negotiating, trying to reach an agreement.
Remember Russia has said they will not negotiate with Ukraine, only with the US and the deal must be voted on by the US Senate, it is to include NATO back to earliest borders. So no agreement of any kind is likely IMO.
A complete Ukraine surrender in late 2024 is possible though.
I like your writing and analysis. Really well done. The sourcing and fact checking is first rate. However, from my research effective de-dollarisation is decades away as a lot of financial infrastructure has to be in place to supplant the US dollar as a reserve currency.
I certainly have learnt much from your analysis of Ukraine. Do you think the war in the Middle East will expand? I think it likely has to, as Israel is determined to ethnically cleanse the Occupied Territories and create a Greater Israel. However, I doubt the sincerity of US-backed Arab (Egypt, Saudis, Gulf states and Jordan) also Turkey.
Thanks your comment: de-dollarisation is something I am interested in too. I agree it's a huge task, but the various organisations and nations involved seem to be moving steadily towards this goal, as it is the dollar in the final instance that is they keystone of the Empire not its military.
I am concerned about the expansion of war in the ME too. Israel clearly wants the Gaza strip to grab the offshore gas field and possibly build the Ben Gurion canal to rival the Suez canal.
Some thoughts on the Eurodollar. Three elements have helped the Eurodollar system be dominant: 1) it has the infrastructure to enable global trade and investing (the banking network, the telecommunication and computer linkages, the body of statutory and case law the makes the adjudication of disputes predictable, etc), 2) it has scale and network effects (it is near universally accepted as a means of transaction, it is a highly liquid market with good price discovery mechanisms, it has a large and regulated investment market to 'soak up' excess funds, etc.), and 3) it hasn't really had many downsides (until recently -- sovereign funds were in fact sovereign and not susceptible to 'capture' by other state actors (only susceptible to gradual erosion to moderate inflation which was accepted as a 'cost of doing business' by all of the participants. Besides, there was nothing better avaialbe (in the early years of the Eurodollar system the Sterling System was an option, then later the Euro, but neither was a really good substitute for the Eurodollar).
Recently, condition (3) mentioned above has changed --- now there are real existential reasons to find something else, the problem is that conditions (1) and (2) still apply. A truly alternative system needs lots of infrastructure to be built even in support limited 'high visibility' trades (like China-Saudi oil sales or Rupee-Ruble conversion). Building this infrastructure takes time and money and steady effort --- and presupposes that somehow condition (2) (liquidity and investment options) are created. BRICS is working on both of these conditions (1) and (2) as we speak, but it will take time (decades really) to become fully realized (note: even when built, such a system will likely have to go through one or more 'stress events' to prove out it works during crises, not just during 'steady state' operations).
" 1) it has the infrastructure to enable global trade and investing (the banking network, the telecommunication and computer linkages, the body of statutory and case law the makes the adjudication of disputes predictable, etc), 2) it has scale and network effects (it is near universally accepted as a means of transaction, it is a highly liquid market with good price discovery mechanisms, it has a large and regulated investment market to 'soak up' excess funds, etc.), and 3) it hasn't really had many downsides (until recently -- sovereign funds were in fact sovereign and not susceptible to 'capture' by other state actors (only susceptible to gradual erosion to moderate inflation which was accepted as a 'cost of doing business' by all of the participants."
Literally none of these 3 things are true.
For one thing - the rise of the eurodollar market is relatively recent.
The dominance of the eurodollar market over foreign US dollars is a very recent phenomenon even as the existence of SWIFT, US/EU banks etc have been a constant for the entire post-WW2 period.
Well, I think you are being a bit harsh. You can disagree with me if you chose, but you don't have to be snarky about it. As for the specific points you raise, note the following --- you really don't address my key points (infrastructure, liquidity & investment vehicles, and safety) and only comment on whether and when the size of the Eurodollar market exceeded the size of the US domestic dollar market (which is incidental to my main point). Furthermore, the sources you cite are fine, but keep in mind that measuring the size of the US dollar and Eurodollar markets is not a straightforward topic. What is your definition of money for the US? M1? M2? It depends. Same with your definition of Eurodollar (the amount used to transact trade -- that number is huge, the amount that goes recycled into US treasuries? Point being, there is no point in being snarky and triumphalist -- you may disagree but there is no need to be nasty.
I don't need to address those points because I pointed out, with documentation, that the eurodollar market domination is only a very recent phenomenon.
The part which has clearly gone over your head is that trade was therefore being conducted via some other mechanism than the eurodollar market, prior to the eurodollar market's rise in the 1990s.
And therefore your supposed points about liquidity, blah blah are irrelevant because all of trade WAS occurring for the entire post-WW2 period with minimal eurodollar role until very recently.
All you are doing is repeating mainstream economist orthodoxy over why the US dollar is pre-eminent, only juxtaposed onto the Eurodollar market, except your ignorance of the Eurodollar's only recent rise has led you to erroneously conclude that the Eurodollar is the primary factor when it is just a recent wrinkle around the main actor: the US dollar.
Note that your ignorance extends to even understanding the differences between pre- and post- 1971 gold window closing by Nixon.
How did Bretton Woods excess foreign currency exchange mechanisms affect the Eurodollar setup?
Interesting but you missed the biggest benefit for the offshore dollar market-- money laundering. It is now out of control, almost a standard operating business model in real estate especially. Also your (1) doesn't mention the change in the international payments structure Swift and the creation by China and others of their own systems- plus the BRICS trading organizations.
So much has changed. Financial Globalization is dead (though I would like my Gazprom stocks back)
From my perspective, payment structure like Swift are part of the infrastructure that I was referring to (although I did not call it out by name). The recent changes to Swift (if that is 'the change' that you are referring to) is actually my point (3): until recently things were pretty acceptable (not perfect but acceptable) to global players but the recent sanctioning of Russia (and to a lesser extent Iran before it) have changed the rules of the game. The sanctions I am referring to were changes to access to Swift (not economic or political sanctions). Sorry I wasn't clear.
As for globalization being dead -- gee, I hope so. It sure is at least wounded at the moment. I don't think that you and are fundamentally far apart in our positions --- maybe I am just cautious, but I think that the 'system' can and will still fight back and that the battle is not over yet.
Second thought comment on the Eurodollar. Commentators often remark on how the US 'empire' is built on the dominance of the US dollar, how the dollar is a mechanism of US geopolitical control etc. While there is some truth in this, it is useful to see in which ways this is true, which ways it is false, and in which ways it is merely misunderstood.
The reserve currency of global trade today is not technically the US dollar, but the Eurodollar (which is a similar and related thing to the US dollar but fundamentally different in many key respects). The US dollar is spent by the US government (and private citizens), loaned into existence (by US banks), and regulated and influenced (but not entirely controlled) by the US Federal Reserve.
The Eurodollar is spent by pretty much all buyers and sellers in international trade settlements (about 75% of such transactions I believe), cross-dollar currency trades, and international investment (international loans, financial investment in US dollar denominated stocks, bonds, real estate, etc.), and financial speculation (e.g. derivative contracts and options which use US Government short and long term securities as collateral for the underlying trades). These Eurodollars are created by off-shore banks (non-US banks) reservelessly (i.e. 'out of thin air' without reference to any funds held on balance at the US Federal Reserve). All of these Eurodollars are electronic, and lots of them 'exist' for only an instant in time (e.g. to complete a foreign trade transaction that translates Chinese Yuan into USD and then translates those USD into Australian dollars). The US (and local) governments have some indirect influence over who can create and use these Eurodollars, but mostly this regulation and oversight is minimal to non-existent (think of all those off-shore bank entities in the Cayman Islands, etc.).
When exporting nations have 'earnings', these nations often keep some significant portion of their proceeds in Eurodollars at these offshore bank (so that they can easily use them for future foreign trade or investment actions). A lot of those Eurodollars then flow into US financial markets and assets (some might go to other non-US markets and assets but it is the US financial markets that receive the vast majority of those funds. Why? Mostly they go to the US becomes the US market it the biggest (most firms and the most desirable firms), the best regulated and adjudicated (in terms of statutory and case law, court decisions, historical longevity, ec.), and most liquid (i.e. it is easy to buy and sell when you want to with minimal transaction costs and delay). In this sense, foreign individuals, companies, countries holding US treasury securities (and other US dollar denominated assets) isn't an empirical requirement forced on them by the hegemony (or patriarchy or whatever) but a rational decision based on what is available in the world today. There are reasons why another rival global currency does not exist at this time (see my other comment on this thread), but it is not because client states are 'forced' -- even if US government or private 'loans' to countries 'require' usage of that system (and sometimes they do require it), it comes down to a issue that most individuals, companies, or countries would be unwise to use anything else (until lately that is).
A eurodollar is a US dollar - the only difference is that it is printed into existence by a foreign bank as opposed to the US Treasury or Federal Reserve.
Eurodollars furthermore , once the trade transactions the Eurodollars are used for are consummated - the profits flow into Treasuries.
The fact that eurodollars are US dollars matter because devaluation of US dollars via money printing, transmission of monetary supply effects by Fed interest rate and liquidity changes, etc all flow directly into the eurodollar market because these are US dollars.
Once again, I beg to differ -- I think that there are important differences. Once those Eurodollars get invested in domestic US dollar denominated securities, they are more or less 'domestic' dollars, but how they get created is what matters because it determines whether or not the Federal Reserve controls their 'printing' (which it does not). Furthermore, if you want to be pedantic, technically the US Federal Reserve does not print money (and no, I am not referring the paper currency printed by the US Treasury either). The Federal Reserve creates bank reserves -- it is the US banking system that 'prints' (or key-strokes) US currency units into existence via lending operations. The US Federal Reserve can influence (but not control) this printing of dollars in the US banking system -- it does so through its various interest rate mechanisms and by setting reserve requirements. It can also influence short term interest rates through its interest rate policy decisions and by open market operations that affect the Treasury market. However, even in these spaces, the Federal Reserve's power is one of 'moral suasion' rather than absolute control. The market (via the Repo and Treasury markets) affect interests just as much (or more). The current inversion of short term and long term Treasury market yields is an example of when the market hears what the Fed is saying but does its own thing. You even seeing the market 'not listening' to the Fed even at the short end of the yield curve with regard to certain aspects of overnight lending.
If you understand all this, then you have to realize that the short hand common-use phrasing like 'printed into existence' by the Federal Reserve is not actually the way it works. And if the Federal Reserve has limits on how money is printed in the US (and I am saying it has strong influence but with limits), it has even less influence on how Eurodollars are created in overseas banks. We all too often operate with an overly simplified concept of how reserve levels, interest rates, liquidity levels transmit monetary policy (and such loose and not entirely accurate language is perpetuated by the Financial press), but it can sometimes be 'too simplistic' when talking about topics like the US dollar and workings of the Eurodollar market.
Your understanding of how things work - I don't know where it came from but it is not based on reality.
First of all - the Federal Reserve is not the only way by which dollars get printed. Eurodollars are created via the other major method: creation of loans.
Secondly, you confuse the eurodollars during a transaction with the profit dollars thrown off the transaction. In particular, the eurodollars loaned are used to buy a cargo, rent a ship, pay insurance and operating costs etc. Once the ship arrives and the cargo is sold, the resulting dollars are not eurodollars. They are just dollars. The eurodollar loan amount is repaid, the excess dollars go into Treasuries typically, but even then it is not clear that these are "domestic" dollars since there are $7T+ in US Treasuries held by foreign banks etc.
Equally is your wrong notion that the Federal Reserve "creates bank reserves".
No, they do not - except in instances like post GFC where they bailed out Citibank.
It is not even clear to me that you understand what "bank reserves" are.
Do you understand that a major component of bank reserves is the stock market capitalization of the bank? How does the Federal Reserve "create" that?
Do you understand that the other major component of bank reserves are the loans made by the bank? How does the Federal Reserve "create" those?
Do you understand that the third major component of bank reserves are bonds purchased using depositor cash, that are either investments or held to maturity? How does the Federal Reserve "create" that?
You have no idea whatsoever of what you are talking about.
I am beginning to think that you are a bot. My whole point is that dollars are created via the creation of loans (so why raise that as an objection)? Second, I am not confused regarding the Eurodollars created via offshore lending and the resulting 'net proceeds' that are often left in overseas banks as dollars. If those funds are left as bank deposits, well then they are still Eurodollars. If those US dollar denominated deposits are converted into US treasuries, well then they are US treasuries -- in which case they may or may not be 'money' depending on which definition of money you want to use. I think it has been pretty clear in my comments that I am not confusing those two concepts. Treasuries held by foreign banks are 'domestic dollars' in the sense that those assets were issued by the US government, but depending on semantics they may or may not be considered Eurodollars (they are US dollar denominated assets held by but not created by off-shore banks so as a technical manner I have to admit I am not sure exactly what the proper technical term for what those assets may be). However, when we describe the 'behavior' of the Eurodollar system, these US assets held by offshore banks are often included.
As for bank reserves, bank lending depends on both bank specific balance sheet considerations (the capitalization of the bank) AND the amount of reserves held on account at the Federal Reserve -- or at least it did, because in 2020 this reserve level requirement at the Federal Reserve was suspended -- so we now have, in essence reserve-less banking in the US. The Federal Reserve introduced new tools to affect monetary policy as a result (the paying f interest on bank reserves held on account at the Federal Reserve) because of this change. And yes, I understand that the third major component of bank reserves are bonds held as investments or held to maturity. So, yes, I do believe I understand all that (and yes, that has nothing to do with what the Federal Reserve's type of reserves I was referring to). Why you would assume that I don't is also curious. Look, I am open to learning new things, but just claiming that I am clueless because I haven't listed everything dimension of the situation is a bit odd. Add to what I say, correct what I say, don't assume what I know or don't know, and don't be nasty -- life is too short.
Again I would add a significant reason why the US dollar is seen as the global currency has a lot to do with the fact it is the largest consumer based economy . No not China-- the US consumer still outspends. That is why everyone wants to sell Lin the US economy.
You make a couple of really correct points here. One is that everyone wants to sell into the US market because it is large, easy to transact in, easy to repatriate out of, etc.
You also point out that if the US domestic market wasn't so attractive (say if it were merely proportional in size to the US per capita share of the world's population), then it wouldn't necessarily be considered the world's global currency (China might instead).
But even in that scenario, it's still possible that the Chinese currency might not be the world global reserve currency (key is the word reserve). This is because we are starting to run into the specific technical definitions of certain words: money, currency, global currency, global reserve currency, global trade currency, currency of the largest most global markets, etc.
Another problem is that, with regard to this topic of global currency, it is possible to have a global transaction currency for most international trade across currency blocks (e.g. Pound Sterling), a global reserve and settlement currency (gold money by weight), and the largest most liquid financial market in a third currency (US dollars). You would have to live pre 1914 to experience this particular world, but it just goes to show you how complex it can be.
The third comment on the Eurodollar I want to make is regarding US control of that market. The US government and Federal Reserve has reasonably strong (but not absolute) control of the domestic US dollar (via regulation, taxation, budget deficits, bank reserve levels, interest rate policy, debt issuance amounts and term, etc.). However, the US government and Federal Reserve's control over the Eurodollar is pretty limited (except during times of crisis). Outside of crises, the Eurodollar system is very decentralized, adaptive, and designed to function outside of direct governmental systems (it is a bit like AI with a mind of its own. You can try to do something to it to control it and it will adapt to circumvent that control). US foreign investment is minimal as a percentage of the Eurodollar market and US paper currency held overseas is even smaller (and typically this paper currency lives outside of the formal banking system so does not matter with regard to th Eurodollar). Most Eurodollars can be (and are) created 'at will' by offshore banks as bank balance sheet transactions pretty much regardless of US interest rate policies and other government and Federal Reserve actions (those interest rate policies and actions can affect the cost of those Eurodollars to specific customers but not stop or start their creation of Eurodollars if the system wants to create them). In normal times, the only limit to the growth of the Eurodollar system is counter-party risk. All of the banks (and individual and companies) involved in the Eurodollar system have a complex web of interlocking US dollar denominated loans to each other (i.e. Eurodollars) and it is only when 'enough' participants in this system fear that 'enough' other participants in this system are 'broke' (and can't honor their US dollar denominated loan obligations) that the system seizes up. Theoretically, the Eurodollar banks could 'pretend and extend' credit enough to power through the crisis, but realistically all of this individual banks have balance sheet constraints that limit, at some point, their ability to create new loans (hence new Eurodollars) out of thin air. When this 'risk of contagion' takes hold, the whole system seizes up, potentially seizing up all foreign trade and investment, crashing currencies, and thereby crashing offshore economics, bank systems, governments, etc. The only party that can create US dollar denominated credit 'out of thin air' without regard to its own balance sheet is the Federal Reserve (and any foreign Central Bank that has a USD-local currency SWAP lines with the Federal Reserve -- i.e. a Federal Reserve 'deputy sheriff'). It is this power to create credit in a crisis (i.e. 'bailouts' denominated in USD) that give the US Federal Reserve (and US Treasury) ultimate power over other financial systems, currencies, world trade, etc.
Most of the time, this power is only used locally -- e.g. when a specific country (say Argentina) can no longer service is US dollar denominated loans (and no decentralized Euromarket bank will loan them any further money). This gives the US government a stick it can use to force governmental policy changes, etc. This is same type of mechanism that the European Central Bank uses to keep Greece or Portugal in line (although by definition this is outside of the US dollar system). It is also what Russia might use to influence the CIS (although not as effective because CIS countries can still potentially access USD or Euros). Of course the country in crisis (say Argentina) wasn't forced to take out loans denominated in USD (just like consumers aren't forced to take out credit card debt --- it they take it on because taking on US dollar denominated debt (or credit card debt) is a lot more attractive and convenient that the alternative. In that sense, debtors (like Argentina or Greece) put themselves at the mercy of the Federal Reserve (just like you put yourself at the mercy of the Mafia once you start borrowing money from them). Anyway, I digress.
At the end of the day, the point I want to make is that most of what happens in the Eurodollar system (whether that is foreign trade, currency exchange rates, investment flows, speculative contracts, etc.) is not controlled or even very controllable from the US. It's only when there is a crisis (and a Eurodollar participant needs some kind of US dollar denominated intervention) when the US has 'power'. (Note: there is also the issue of US regulations and constraints regarding 'terrorism' or 'sanctions' etc, but until recently this had only been a minor factor affecting a relatively few Eurodollar participants -- so, yes, the US has more influence than I just explained, but even now, this is more of a niche thing).
As I noted above - the US government and Federal reserve exert control over US dollars via interest rate and liquidity manipulation. There are lesser impacts via loans and foreign aid.
You do not have any form of clear understanding of how the US controls the international finance system.
I have to agree with c1ue (not happy about it). Except for his last line. Sorry.
Powells actions over the last 18 months actually bears his comment out. It is also the reason why Christine LeGarde and Yellen have been managing the treasuries/bond market so hard. The kicker is Japan who are off yield curve control and about to (in financial terms) blow up Europe. An indicator? The Euro went from (US0 1.10 to 107 )in less than a week.
For a great education on this issue I would recommend Tom Luongo at Gold Goats and Guns Patreon.
I like and listen to Tom. As for Powells actions, I think he has a lot of influence over the ECB and other central banks (via control over US short term interest rates, swap lines, etc.) -- but is that really control over the Eurodollar market itself? Or is that just interaction with Euro financial universe? That's a serious question not snark. Either way, it is an interesting topic.
With regard to Tom, I love his salty manner and 'in your face opinions'. He may be wrong (not), but he very confidently believes what he believes (which is cool).
I am fascinated with his Powell vs the ECB and Yellen story line. To tell you the truth, I don't think I really fully understand it. It's coherent when he explains it, but have trouble trying to reconcile it with other competing narratives I heard that sound true as well. So I am still puzzling him and his Powell theory out. If I had to pick a guidepost, I guess I would go with Jeff Sneider -- which Tom respects and agrees with in some areas and disagrees in others.
I think de-dollarisation is closer than you think. Mr. Putin has been working on it for at least three decades and BRICKS+ are starting to trade among themselves using their own currencies. A multipolar trading environment benefits all players and Yankeeland doesn't get to clip the ticket both ways on every deal. Fact is it is BRICS+ that has been keeping the Petrodollar afloat to prevent a global financial crash and to give some countries a chance at recovering the gold that Yankeeland supposedly holds in escrow for them.
De-dollarization is sought after more than ever before but the infrastructure, starting with correspondent banks to replace Western controlled correspondent bank systems, still has to be built.
This will take time but it will be both faster than dollar defenders think and slower than dollar detractors hope.
I am having a hard time imaging a plausible scenario where the Middle East war doesn't expand. It really scares me because I think that such an expansion would be catastrophic for all involved (and the rest of the world as well).
When thinking about whether the war expands (and what might prevent expansion) I come up with three considerations that I consider important:
1) It will be nearly impossible for Israel to back down and agree to freezing the conflict or some kind of two state solution (assuming that such a solution could even be crafted). The current Israeli government can't back down because backing down would be fundamentally opposed to its ideology and history. Plus the current Prime Minister would be removed and probably end up in prison (on unrelated and related matters) or dead (in revenge for allowing the attack to occur and or because of the backing down). However, this is not just a problem for the current Israeli government: even the 'leftwing" opposition can't agree to such a 'solution' because emotions have become too inflamed and trust in peaceful co-existence too damaged. Israel, in that sense, is boxed in. Freezing the conflict as it stands merely postpones this unacceptable situation for the future. Agreeing to possible peace acceptable to both parties (even if such a thing existed) would mean fundamental territorial, political, security, social change not previously contemplated at a state level. Furthermore, any move to accept such a solution at this point in time by either right or left would be perceived by most Israeli's as a 'stab in the back' to the victims, the army, the people as whole, etc. because Israel does not see itself at this moment as defeated. Instead it sees itself engaged in a morally just war of survival. Even if there were a political leader with the stature and gravitas to pull this off and make impossible decisions to bring about a comprehensive peace (like de Gaulle in France with regards to Algeria), there would still be the issue of trust -- few in Israel would trust that any implemented peace would actually lead to peace and not just further conflict and extermination in the future when the world's military guarantees and attention fade away. Israel is trapped and can't back down. Too much damage has been done to Gaza to avoid being blamed by many in the world for genocide, so stopping right now won't restore Israel's reputation. Going 'all the way' to remove all Palestinians from Gaza entirely therefore can be seen as the only way to solve Israels short term problem and provide a sense of 'victory', but such a goal is realistically not likely to happen and pursuing it will only lead to point #2, the Arab, muslim, and world-wide reaction (escalation).
2) It will nearly impossible for the Arab and Muslim to sit back and let the carnage in Gaza (and the actions on the West Bank) continue. They will likely feel compelled to intervene at some point, in part because the leaders of such countries / groups feel outrage and in part because if they don't respond, such leaders will be replaced by more aggressive players less reluctant to intervene. More cynically, many of these leaders will also see this current crisis as the best opportunity they have ever had for actually destroying the state of Israel since 1948. This set of reasons (outrage, pubic pressure, strategy) applies to Turkey, Iran, Hezbollah, and even Jordan, Egypt and Syria. States in the next 'orbit' of connectiveness (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc) will also be inclined to move more strongly against Israel (just not kinetically). Plus the global 'non-aligned' players in this conflict (China, India, Russia, Brazil, etc.) will find it hard to not take action against what many see as a Palestinian 'genocide'. So, the Muslim and anti-Israel and even the 'neutral' parties cannot back down and let the status quo continue.
3) This leaves the United States as the pivotal player. Most likely, the US will continue with its publicly mixed, privately strong support for Israel and its actions (i.e. a confused mixture of statements of public support for Israel's actions and mild admonishments against civilian casualties combined with continued transfer for funds, spare parts, intelligence, weapons, and covert action to help the Israeli military). This current policy will let the contradictions between two sides continue resulting in the escalation I fear. There are two other theoretical options for the US -- direct intervention in the conflict (e.g. against Hezbollah or Iran or Yemen etc) or cessation of support to Israel to force an Israeli climbdown. The first option (escalation) only makes the conflict escalation worse and is unlikely to actually resolve any of the current problems (i.e. bombing Iran doesn't make international outrage of civilian casualties less or make peaceful coexistence more likely). The second option (cessation of support) is so unlikely in the current political environment and administration that I think it can't happen, but such a clear removal of support for Israel might force Israel to back down (and thereby prevent wider escalation of the conflict). The US did use some of that pressure against Israel in 1973 and again later in Lebanon in 1982. Could it do it now -- I don't know.
The final question is what happens if (and when) the situation escalates -- it can go in all kinds of direction including regional war, WW3 conventional war, regional or even global nuclear exchange, etc. The biggest problem Israel has, in my opinion, is that in this round of the perennial Mideast conflict, its opponents are much bigger (economically, technologically, militarily) relative to Israel (and with more world wide support) than ever before. Israel is facing a true existential crisis this time -- and one it may not survive if the situation escalates too far (its opponents have access to long range ballistic missiles and likely have access to nuclear weapons --- plus large and competent conventional forces if you include Turkey and Egypt).
Bottomline: if Israel backs down, the 'peace' Israel will likely have to accept will mean the end of Israel as it has been for 80+ years (Jewish settlement in the Israel and a nationstate might exist in this scenario, it just won't be the same in fundamental ways). If Israel doesn't back down (or if it isn't forced to back down), it will likely face a catastrophic strategic defeat (either because it 'wins' and becomes a pariah worldwide and faces even more resistance 'next time' or because it loses an escalated conflict or because it it obliterated in a spasm of mutually destruction.
Israel. Just like Kiev Ukraine. If the US cuts it loose its nothing. It has no agency. No power. It becomes nothing. Doesn't matter what it thinks, what it says.
So the problem really, just like Kiev, is the USA isn't it? Nothing more, nothing less.
And the thing with the USA is that it is a brain dead zombie as a Nation State.
It is merely an agglomeration of vested interests, a pool of sharks, endlessly circling and looking for prey.
Those sharks appear to feed on people, babies even, when we look at the human history don't they? Like monsters. But really they just feed on money and think of themselve as pillars of society. That's what their wives and children think they are.
So that is the ray of possible light to me.
There is no way, no way, the ostensible, the accepted America can possibly dissociate itself from Israel, though it could from Ukraine, of course. But not from Israel.
But the 'accepted America' is, I believe, an illusion, a delusion. It is really that pool of sharks.
Seeing financial loss this way and profit that way they'd do even that: cut Israel loose.
Sounds fantastic? Be real. It starts at the top, doesn't it? The big money moves out of Israel because the water's getting too warm.. and then their hangers on... the wannabe's... and finally, at the end the actual proletariat and the 'State' which lingers to the end because, of course, it is a leech and feeds off the people and stays there feeding off them while ever there are people.
LIke I'm saying investigation may reveal it is already happening. The smart money says Israel is finished. Which sounds to me like a very sensible prophecy.
They - the religiously fervid Jews who're the only ones that matter here as 'sticking points' etc - can be faced with a lovely existential choice:
. Die where you are or
. Move to the Jewish Autonomous Oblast in Russia: it's all yours, waiting for you.
You know, what you say is possible. I have a hard time seeing it as likely, but I don't think it is inconceivable. I can also see a variation of what you proposed: Israel 'gets invited' to migrate (not to the Jewish Autonomous Oblast) but to Florida. In this scenario, the ''accepted America" abandons the Israeli's in Israel, but 'saves' them by giving them subsidized haven in the USA. Do I think that this scenario is likely -- no sir. Is it possible? Yes it is (barely) possible, but it does allow the parties you call 'accepted America' to save face (and not be revealed as so predatory or duplicitous). It has the same effect of what you propose, with fewer of the downsides. I still don't see how most Israeli accept this or how evangelical Christians accept this etc etc but I have to admit that it is conceivable (especially if it looked like Israel was about to be overrun militarily and direct US intervention was not going to happen).
The main problem I have with this scenario is that people are emotional and 'sticky'. I can imagine a lot of religious jews in Israel refusing to abandon Israel but I can also imagine lots of secular, senior military officers, businessmen, politicians, etc being 'sticky' and 'attched' to what has been built up over the years and not wanting to leave under any circumstances. These players have access to Israel's nuclear arsenal and delivery mechanisms. Going down 'in flames' (or even executing the rumored Samson Option) might be more appealing that surrender and exile in that circumstance.
But I also can't see Israel being a home for Jews in the foreseeable future. Isn't it going to be a target of hate for a billion Muslim henceforth?
Who would want to live there? Rich or poor?
In a spirit of perhaps irony and/derision and with an underlay of common sense pragmatic fact and all aimed at the illogic and nonsense of stone age religions I simply point it out: the land is there, it is theirs; that's their big problem, land, a home? then go for christ's sake, go...
I see a virtual currency well before de-dollarization. They are kicking it off in a number of countries already. My guess is they will put US welfare and SS on a virtual currency card, with expiration dates for when it is to be used or deleted. That may come as soon as next year.
As for Israel, I think it was Blinken who said Bibi had two weeks, meaning end this or we will remove you from office. The US doesn't want a full on war in the ME. The Arab states are useless, but Iran and Hezbollah are not, a clock is ticking for Israel.
"Virtual" currency is credit cards, it is loans, it is bank balances, it is Social Security payments, etc etc. These are all virtual because none of them are cash or physical.
Or put another way: what is the difference between the "virtual currency card" you reference and a Food Stamp EBT card?
Most likely what you are trying to reference are CBDCs - central bank digital currencies. The US is going to be the last nation on earth to deploy widespread CBDCs for the simply reason that the private banking sector will never allow its monopoly on consumer finance be threatened to be replaced by a CDBC.
China, in contrast, wants to keep its banksters under control which is why they have been the first to roll out a truly widespread CBDC program.
I am not "confusing many things", I did approach the methodology in a simplistic manner, I will give you that :)
I do see the total removal of paper/coin currency replaced by govt issued cards at first, moving to an implanted chip. The cards tied to what you are allowed to buy, what you are allowed to spend, deductions for being bad and tied to how many of your acquaintances you out, and your carbon footprint.
Some big banks are ok with the CBDCs, others are not. It will depend on how many hold out and how long Powell stays in office.
The reality is that there are already all sorts of mechanisms to control what people can buy.
If you don't believe me, try buying illegal drugs with a credit card.
It is a trope with those ignorant of the actual existing capabilities for financial monitoring, that CDBCs will be used to usher in an era of unprecedented Big Brother spending controls.
The thing is - sex workers, porn and other sites already disguise their payments via innocuous sounding LLCs. The venue is the single most reliable indicator of what is being purchased; credit card companies have zero visibility beyond that. Why would a CDBC be any different, unless the entire grocery store receipt is uploaded along with the credit charge?
Any why wouldn't the government just go straight to the grocery store and access its database, which already has this information? With or without a loyalty card - any individual is trivially identified by the credit/debit card they use to pay with.
If you pay cash, that doesn't matter either because all the stores have cameras. Facial ID plus a video of you physically paying, linked to the register# & time, yields all the data anyone could possibly want.
The real barrier to the dystopian financial oppression you reference is simply that this kind of effort just is nowhere remotely worth it.
Only when litigation - civil or criminal - occurs does this possibly become relevant. What I write above is a direct result of my experience delivering these types of financial investigative services in civil and criminal litigation support, along with all manner of other methods such as trash pulls, physical surveillance, etc etc - all of which can be conducted legally in pretty much all states.
Or in other words - if such repression is attempted, for most things - the trivial workaround is simply to not charge for the item or change its name regularly. You should note that the horror stories around China's social credit spend limits never involve stuff - they involve travel by train or plane.
Thank you, you are working from the angle of the product to the card. I see them working from the card to the product.
The card/chip is programed to ONLY allow you to buy specific items. If you try to buy anything else it is blocked no matter what it is. I work in security software, it is far easier to control the output rather than the input. They will do the same :)
As for cash, they will eliminate it. This isn't here today, but it is being field tested in other countries already, it is coming unless "they" are stopped.
Programming a card/chip to block purchase of certain items - that's trivially bypassed by renaming/recoding said items.
Eliminating cash: banksters want it because it means forcing people to use banks and pay their fees. But the reality is that poor people are a money losing proposition for a bank - they consume no services, they have very little money compared to the KYC/AML oversight costs both in aggregate and individually. So again I point to the private control over banking in the West: why would banks want to be forced to take on these loss centers (poor people) as customers?
You'll note that the only countries that have gone deep on the cashless route are Scandinavian - and even there is has not gone particularly well.
The reality is that cash is the cheapest way to handle money for small transactions.
Most definitely going to own Odessa
I still expect funding/aid to make it to Ukraine, simply because its too big a money pot to not send to various congressional districts and so on.
Republicans are - cynically - probably trying to get enough money to please their constituents, but not enough that Biden gets a win. They are plotting his demise next year. That, is more important than anything happening on the steppes of Ukraine.
In most any year, I would agree with you --- meaning that I would agree that the Republican resistance in Congress is more 'show' than 'go', and some kind of compromise 'fudge' is likely to result that allows some funding but not enough to really make a difference on the battlefield in Ukraine. However, this year, with MAGA congressional 'rebels' and an election year and the general state of 'rebellion' in the Republican Party (i.e. base vs. leadership and donors), anything is possible. The fact that Lindsey Graham and company have reversed their previous positions and now link Ukraine funding to US border policy changes is a symptom of how serious this internal MAGA / base pressure has become. The base (and alt-media) pressure for border measures, against the debt, against foreign wars and foreign aid in general, and against (what is perceived as) a 'traitorous' leadership class (which includes nearly all Republican Congressmen) is pretty strong and angry -- it may prevent all future funding for Ukraine. Time will tell.
I hope you're right
There is also the possibility that "they" have gotten enough illegials into the US to staff whatever nefarious plan they have, and now want the wall closed to keep fleeing citizens in...could be wrong.
Comrade Sen.Turbin Durbin of Chicagostan said what many of us knew .... that the Illegal Border Invasion males will be "employed" by the USSa Pantygone as replacement troops.
Then these troops will be either cannon fodder in foreign wars or most likely Feral Mil/Polezi to subdue the Domestic "Deplorables".
It's all tin foil hat "conspiracy" until it knocks on your door, at which time it's way too late to mount an Effective defense.
CYA, conduct yourselves accordingly. Si vis pacem, para bellum aka 2nd Amendment "in full".
Yes, I saw Durbin saying that, and I agree with you, they will be used internally.
He is the same guy who block release of Epstein's flight log a few days ago. My guess is at least 50% of congress is compromised, possibly more.
80%, possibly more, imo.
Yes, you may be quite right. It is difficult to think about, but after listening to this brave fellow I realize we must see the world and them for what we are facing.
https://www.youtube.com/@dvmtv7961
This is an outdated view of war - it is certainly true that a section of the ruling class thinks that unskilled immigrants will serve as cannon fodder, as they have the US notably the 'North' during the Civil War
But the war in Ukraine has shown that real industrial warfare as conducted there by the Russians involves not only extremely well disciplined troops, but, increasingly sophisticated levels of training, backed up of course by massive industrialisation and levels of experience
- all of which the US fails to possess and possession of which would require discipline sense of purpose organisational skills cross class co ordination and trust together with a sense of determination as a nation state and as a 'people'
-All of which are anathema to the US ruling class
So the enthusiastic Offshoring (Free Trade) of U.S. Industrial knowledge, Factories was a Mistake? Or part of the Plan?
‘The Plan’ is merely the sum of propaganda pushed after the fact, no one section or faction of the dominant capitalist class has any other determination than to make the most money possible and to destroy any possible hindrance : these are the people who control the flow of capital
The governing class, politicians press & bureaucracy, are contracted to produce and publicise descriptions, justifications, explanations
The offshoring under discussion is that recently to China, but it has been a fixture of industrial capitalism in various forms for a long time, c.f. colonialism in general in India in particular etc etc
This is the structural imperative of capitalism, not careful plans hatched by this or that group
If money is made in large quantities no mistakes have been made
Infantry is infantry. You don't need to know rocket surgery to be a good infantryman, just have an unbroken body and enough discipline to not run away under fire. The SMCT (the basic US Army guide to infantry tasks) is simple enough that 80 IQ is sufficient to do the things required, maybe less. The motivated and more skilled can be NCOs and such.
Understanding commands is kinda important though, but the number of NCOs that understand Spanish is rather high. And citizenship in reward for military service is a real thing.
There are clearance issues - a noncitizen can't be granted a clearance, but not an issue if you are an E-1 to E-3 usually. Also, the security classification system on the battlefield is much fuzzier and ill-enforced than back in the hallowed halls.
What you write is incorrect, flippant and frivolous
If 'infantry is infantry' how come the US army can not fill their quotas, due to mental health, obesity, drug addictions, and so on and so on prevalent in the relevant age groups
You make war sound like child's play - it is ridiculous to state that fighting a war comes down to not running away
To recruit recent immigrants to fight your wars for you is not only ridiculous, arrogant, exploitative, but also guaranteed to fail – at least against an army such as the RF army
Perhaps your attitude is only to be expected in a country which has lost every war in living memory
but the Taliban "Won" not once, but twice. This is Not Two Valued logic, mutiple facts/strategies must be held Valid at the same time.
I agree the USSA military was set up to Fail in these NWO wars for profit & blood. But the Illegals in the New USSA military will mostly be used fighting a CW within the USSA, and the irony may be that is an optomistic view, if the patriots arise.
Whatever is coming next; It is upon us all in 2024 or even before. CYA= conduct yourselves accordingly. I wish you well.
I don't think it's so much MAGA/base pressure as much as it is the desire to hand Biden an L in Ukraine.
This. With the correction "desire to hand Biden *and the Democrats* an L in Ukraine".
Yes maybe - but why not get Trump elected first?
Don't underestimate the public mood. We are sick to death of supporting war, war, war as our own country falls apart at home and abroad., The vast abuses of this regime in DC -- the political trials, the hounding of parents, the tracking of horrible Catholics, the pushing of life-changing mutilations to suit the woke agenda, the judges without judgment but all politics, our Gestapo and their masters at Lavrenty Beria Central Department of Justice, ordinary people who never lifted a finger and were passed into the US Capitol on Jan 6 languishing in prison -- it stinks, all of it, and people across the political spectrum have had enough. When you see those empty shells in Congress tipping over one by one in favor of some u-turn in policy, you know behind it are the people who vote. Now the US can no longer hide behind the myth that Ukraine is winning. And that is fatal. On top of not wanting to push war, we sure don't want another loser. And that is what Ukraine is for the US. Its Waterloo.
Since when did public opinion start to matter?
I think a pol could tell you that. It's like an insect's antennae: out there sniffing for food or famine.
Mrrwop?
When donors stop reaching for their wallets.
In other words, it's not the public that matters, unless that happens to align with what donors want.
Until the lower classes and the general public get so p**** off with the dominant class that..... PS It's happened before
no, the voters matter only in an election year. unless, of course, you have already rigged the next election, in which case we are all up that proverbial creek without a paddle.
There are a lot of ways to manage that.
Yes, there is truth to that however between elections they do continue to gaslight us all to make ensure their money is well spent and will buy the influence they seek.
I agree donors don't care about the public, but they care how they distribute their money to buy influence. If the public is moving against a favorite they may choose to spend elsewhere to get what they want.
generally it affects individual candidates, but a boycott of donors for both parties would be grand.
They don't give a damn about the "public mood". They can fix elections and they know that people will continue to moan and do nothing.
I'm afraid I share your view, although I think the pissing and moaning could easily turn to violence if this next national election even has a SNIFF of fraud and rigging. I do think that is a real possibility.
The public mood is that BOTH parties suck azz and don’t give flying f#ck about what we think. BOTH parties are spending us into the ruin of our nation, and it will be our downfall unless we start taking care of our own first. We do not have long as a nation if this doesn’t change. We can NOT keep funding the rest the world when our infrastructure, manufacturing and energy will no longer support our own citizens. We can bring nearly all our troops home, shutter and close 95% of our military bases outside the US, save BILLIONS and still grow our military and be strong.Mark my words, if this doesn’t change, we will be headed eventually to a civil war, because our government will go bankrupt and collapse.
Still a vast ignorant population in usa that is malleable to media propaganda The proof is how we got in this situation in the first place Fat comfortable people are lesss likely to see discomfort in the truths presented in front of them. This will all neeed to collapse similar to Soviet Union , Reality will need to present itself to all at the same time.
I would've used this, verbatim, for the book I published today, December 20, 2023 (titled "As America Crumbles...: A Grim Chronicle Exploring the Evil Source of America’s Catastrophic Decline") had I not had it at the typesetter, prepping the files for print.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CQR71WN3
Your second paragraph is the real reason funding is being held up. Team R wants Biden to get an embarrassing L.
Exactly. They can/will bluff on the border wall + immigration knowing that Biden will fold, since Ukraine is his white elephant. But then they will only give him enough to hang himself with.
Biden is asking many multiples for Ukraine what he is asking for Israel and has tried to tie Ukraine aid to Maui, Florida and Israel in order to get it through.
Did not Biden himself say that a politician's stated priorities can safely be ignored, but his budget will tell his real priorities?
Indeed. I should have said blue and yellow elephant, too
Ukraine will get a reduced amount in this round and maybe more next year.
More likely than not you are correct. Team R wants to embarrass Biden but doesn't want to be blamed.
Yes
I THINK THIS IS BIG. Did everyone notice that it was not Blinken or Biden who went to see Netanyahu but Musk, the richest man on earth, a prince of the world, with more influence than Biden. Perhaps predictable. Biden can't reign in (?) Netanyahu, but Must sets the rules for the WEF and Techies.
I like the short update. It gives me some time to catch up. I have dozens of things I want to do and can't find the time. Your Sitreps are mandatory reading for me though.
The MIC and the global corporate elite WILL get their way. Johnson is just making points. He'll get some pointless deal on the border and then give Biden all he wants and more. Doesn't much matter, Biden has stocked every borderline election district with illegals at this point anyway.
" It implies they aim to continue this war to the end and, unlike the West, are laying the real groundwork."
And what am I on record as saying since April,. 2022? That Russia intends to remove Ukraine from the board completely, and install a new Military District on the Polish and Romanian borders to counter the NATO Aegis Ashore installations - which can only be countered by playing Russian S-300/400/500 AD as close to those installations as possible - as well as any future NATO buildup which might threaten Russia.
In other words, in conjunction with this effort and the effort to integrate Belarus' military into the Russian military and the building of new Military Districts in northern Russia, Russia intends to build an "Iron Curtain 2.0" from the Black Sea to the Arctic, thus shutting out NATO forever - unless NATO wants to start a nuclear war - which Russia is also prepared for.
Face it, folks - Russia has been invaded or threatened by invasion by the West how many times in the last hundred or so years? Russia is saying, "Enough is enough. The West is the Enemy. We will not allow any further aggression."
This is why Russia is ramping up its military. It's going to need a half million troops, air bases with MiG-31Ks with Kinzhals, air defenses, a naval base in Odessa, etc., etc. in western Ukraine as well as in northern Russia. This is the ONLY way you counter NATO without resorting to invading Poland and Romania and Finland and everyone else.
And absolutely no one gets this but me. It's hilarious.
As for Zelensky being "despondent", let's hope he takes Hitler's way out and sticks a 9mm up his nose. Meanwhile I saw the Redacted Youtube channel today suggested Zelensky will be moved to the US and given US citizenship. Might as well, he already has a Miami mansion. And if he goes anywhere other than the US, the Russian will get to him. And I wouldn't give odds on his surviving in the US, either. If ever someone deserved assassination, it's Zelensky.
Zelenskyy has a couple of mansions and a hefty bank account in Israel.
Not with an Israeli war on he won't.
My concern if I were him is there are probably a lot of disgruntled Ukraine Jews in Israel and any one of them could be a problem for him.
I wonder if they will take him to the US, or if they will end him in the same manner so many others the US has supported have gone. Gaddafi comes to mind.
You forget that over 2.3 million who live in Israel are born Russian, think the cross dressing Nazi pervert, the Guevara, Castro wannabe will be safe in Zionist heaven, think again, Russian Jewry did not comprise a preponderance of zionists, they are first and foremost the vast majority of them, the Russian Jewish Israeli diaspora Jews, assiduously practicing and adhering to the religions tenets, I don’t think amongst that population of Russian Jews there will be many who love the Elinsky, he who outlawed and made illegal the use of the letter “Z”, the man’s a cluster, a walking disaster, deadman walking…
Who says the Russians cant get him in the US. Never say never. I love Russia's long game.
> And absolutely no one gets this but me. It's hilarious.
It's lonely at the top. Just to be clear: I also don't get it. :)
There are some who do, I acknowledge. But even most of the main pro-Russian analysts don't seem to. That includes The Duran guys, McGovern, Johnson, even Martyanov thinks Russia will hand western Ukraine over to NATO. I think Ritter and Macgregor are kind of 50-50. Everyone assumes Russia will stop at the Dnieper, is afraid of the western Ukrainians, and may or may not bother to take Kiev. The issue of the Aegis Ashore installations, which Putin has spoken about in several speeches, is mostly ignored.
All one has to do is just think about it: what is the most logical way for Russia to solve the issue of NATO encroachment? There's only one real 'military-technical" answer. If Russia doesn't do this, it will have effectively lost the war. I think Ritter said something to that effect one time.
RF is bleeding NATO dry - RF is bleeding EU dry, US is bleeding itself dry -
NATO 'encroachment' is a pipe dream
I think Russia's reaction to Ukraine "arming" rhymes with what France and Great Britain should have done about Hitler moving 20000 combat ready troops/units into Rhineland in March 1936!
Russia waited 8 years? Let the "west" extend, w/o planning its "readiness".
Logistics is a problem for NATO, too long lines of communication, whether they have the "industry" is a big issue.
Does US have the industry base to mobilize?
EUUS does not have an armaments industry that can produce anything other than overpriced underperforming airplanes, or tanks -both of which RF can easily counter
As for the basic requirements they can not produce the artillery shells, drones, missiles etc in anything near the quality and quantity required
Nor the men - the US population as the EU is overweight unfit and unprepared - their armies are small and untrained in industrial warfare, are basically policemen
Nor can they re industrialise - as per other comments in this post
They will continue to throw in what little they have, and they may even find some cash, but all this will be chewed up on arrival in Ukraine
Thats what the world said after WW2 and again during Nixon, Bush, Clinton etc.. Just wait 75 years and it will happen all over again. The issues of history repeat-- not the same way-- but they do.
The world did not say to the US right after WW2 that the US must re industrialise, nor, evidently, did the US make any successful nor serious attempt to do so
But you are correct in saying that from a peak of industrial production at that time the downhill slope in the US has been a constant -although the reverse in some other countries
The issues/events/facts of history are not those of re cyclical repetition, this is an outdated idealist theory reminiscent of the worst of German ideologies, but of transformations in which the struggle for domination and control remains a constant, and in which one dominant class mutates into a similar, while the poor get poorer (sauf exception intermittente)
wait 75 years to re industrialise? What does this mean?
It's a bold prediction, for sure. I think most people are basing it off the terms that Russia was amenable to during the negotiations in Istanbul, so it would stand to reason that if Russia was okay with X, they might take X+1 now.
The question of how they'd actually govern Ukraine, and the likelihood of the west continuing to infiltrate weapons, special forces, and saboteurs into Ukraine, is also difficult to answer.
However, it is not an impossibility that if more Ukrainians feel like they were betrayed and sacrificed by NATO into a losing war, that public sentiment could turn very sharply against the Banderites. To presume that Ukrainians will ALWAYS support them is not a given.
Correct. Not to mention that Russia has fought western Ukrainians in an insurgency before in the late '40s and early '50s and won, and since then have dealt with Chechnya and Syria insurgents. Been there, done that,. got the T-shirt - and the knowledge. Not to mention that today is the age of the drone - conduct a rural insurgency and you die. Conduct an urban insurgency - and you get to deal with Chechens and Wagner.
Once Russia and China and the central Asian states start rebuilding Ukraine, jobs return, the economy improves over the next decade or two, and most Ukrainians will accept integration into Russia. Those who don't will be identified - this is the age of the Internet social media, which Russia can surveill - detained and deported. Not a problem.
You might be right. The "Free Russian Legion" and "Anti Putin Partisans" in Belgorod earlier didn't last very long at all 😂
Interesting how Mr. Putin brought the Chechens into the federation virtually overnight. From my extremely limited understanding he just offered them basic control over their land if they would stop fighting or he was going to pull out all the stops. Win-win. Both sides came out winners so your theory about the remaining Western Ukrainians may hold water.
Everything from Izmayil through Havoron up to Chernoble will be forever Russia though. I think Poland will try and take some of the West and Belarus some of the North with Hungary nibbling at the South West. Romania seems pretty much owned by Yankeeland but if I was running Moldova I would be talking to Russia now because the map is going to change soon. Then again I am not a European and only know limited history from books.
Agree-- I wonder how much US taxpayers are going to be further on the hook for Blackrock, Dupont et al's losses re: agreements with Ukraine for either dumping chemicals or ownership of land.
I think about this- Russia was able to subjugate all the Warsaw pact countries for 50 years, and turned Chechnya into an ally, I also have to believe that many Ukrainian soldiers who surrendered hate the Z government , as do many wounded and demobilized Ukrainian soldiers. Yes, I could imagine a Ukraine -vs -Ukraine black ops conflict within a vast Russian controlled military district of former Ukraine, but this might be manageable in the short term and worth it in the long term, from a defense perspective.
Exactly. The overall requirement is Russia's security - and that threat comes from NATO outside Ukraine, not a limited insurgency inside Ukraine. People over-emphasize the insurgency threat, forgetting that Russia has been there and done that in Ukraine, Chechnya and Syria.
And also I've mentioned that an insurgency in these days of drone warfare is difficult to do. Insurgents can use drones, too, but only if the air defense of their opponents is poor, e.g., Saudis vs Houthis. A Russian Military District is going to have the best air defense in the world. Add to that the difficulty of running an insurgency in either rural or urban areas with drone surveillance and it becomes clear that threat is overstated. The CIA could run one cross-border from Poland or Romania - sending drones in from those countries - if they want to get Poland and Romania bombed.
But did Russia truly appreciate just how much the West wanted to carve them up , steal all their resources (cause thats what US war is ALWAYS about-- have to feed the debt after all), and subjugate them? It's always about money, resources and power. That's history
NATO doesn't run this negotiation business. The boys fighting it do. Arestovich is so clever, he positions himself now on the side of the "duped Ukrainians" with their stupid leaders who picked the wrong team to hitch themselves to. I'd guess Ukrainians' anger over this war and their losses must be reaching an open boil by now.
You really think NATO can't pick and choose it's preferred factions and dispense the num-nums accordingly?
Nato is about as dumb as they come - they could not pick a fight let alone a faction
Not sure about the Duran guys-- they never stated it will be split. In fact they have many times discussed that Odessa and Kiev are impt. historical Russian cities, ie Russia wants them back. Don't confuse the guests they have - Columbia's finest former Russian economic hitman Jeffrey Sachs- as their view.
I disagree about the Duran team. I'm pretty sure I've heard Mercouris assume both that negotiations were likely and that they would result in a split Ukraine. That seems to be his preference since he's big on negotiations. He doesn't care what the end result is as long as people stop dying. Whereas I don't want to see Russia do something stupid and have to start a new war all over again in six months or six years. If half of Ukraine has to die before they "get it", well, that's on the Ukrainians for not "getting it."
I have recently seen a book on Sachs which reportedly covers his previous activities, although I didn't bother to read it. I don't find Sachs that useful simply because - like most of the analysts who have actual government experience - he can go "only so far" in his analyses. The prime example is his recommendation that the UN simply recognize Palestine as a state. Whoop-de-doo! Now what do we do when Israel refuses to recognize that and the US supports Israel? No comment from Sachs. It's easy to just say - as most do - "two-state solution" - and then refuse to drill down into what that actually means and how to actually achieve it. The Devil is in the details, as they say.
This is "CYA" stuff. One gets to show "moral superiority" without actually solving anything. Since I come from a "no morality" and "human life means absolutely nothing" approach, but instead an "actions and consequences" approach. I can see through this stuff instantly.
what you touch upon also relates to the manifestation of a new world paradigm, this has been variously referred to as the "three headed dragon"
As the west infected as it is by a deranged psycopathic religious death cult seeks (covertly not overtly) the rise af a new era via an outmoded, spent pseudo luciferian prophecy, the options for the other team have become limited.
Right, i appreciate that sounds cryptic, but we need to understand the funders of, the relevance of and the proposed outcome of, the "scofield study bible" over american and thus up to this time "world" politics, that being the placement of satans representative on earth throned at temple mount/al aqusa.
Fundamental zionist christianity has until recently dictated the movement of and the ulitimate outcome of world management, from the compliance shown at 9/11 and onward through covert 19.
freemasonry and western politics have been bound in a death struggle since the "creation" of modern day america and its crucial role in the "great work of ages", it has given license to steal, rape, murder, torture to generation after generation of "progressives" in western societies whilst all the time undermining the foundations of the very "gains" they make.
Realising that the west is in a self inflicted death grip (one could even say self imposed "mort-gage") gives insight as to the insanity as we approach the final chapters...
The three headed dragon faced with such insanity watches keenly the destruction of the westen societies by the parasites that live within it (soros et al) and seeks "decontamination" afore the stink of the rotting carcass speads to its own shores...
Summed up we are speaking of emp not nuclear fision, the resultant has been fantasised by creations such as "walking dead" and never underestimate the relevance of "fiction" be it Tolkein, Huxley or hellywood
The sheer inability of pampered western nations to survive even the shortage of toilet paper let alone fuel, electric and running water shows us how quick the slide from "grace" would be..
An insight into the relevance of the "scofiled study bible can be found here"
https://rumble.com/v3t9omm-the-mystery-of-israel-a-documentary-by-david-sorensen.html
the fact that uk citizens are being told to stock up on candles tells us dwellers of the "sertic isles" that all the years of meddling in Russias affairs may well soon "bear fruit"
https://halturnerradioshow.com/index.php/en/news-page/world/deputy-british-prime-minister-tells-uk-citizens-stock-up-on-candles-and-batteries-for-grid-down-situation
Seems obvious to me, if for no other reason than to deny Blackrock, Monsanto et al from enjoying their ill-gotten gains. No breadbasket for you boys. Future Ukraine feeds the South, not the West.
Nonsense. Russia anticipates a sea-change in European politics that will realign Europe with Russia. They feel rightly or wrongly (mostly rightly, but not entirely) that most Western European governments are U.S. vassals, but that the crunch of immigration, lack of industrial capacity and job growth, and the European elites' self-destructive energy policies will lead to popular upheaval and new governments in most European states.
Why do I say this? Because Putin is rational and tends to act in the best interest of his nation. He assumes that other nations, while they may act irrationally in the short-term, will eventually act in their own self-interest. The interests of Europe are to establish sound trade relations with Russia and the former Soviet Republics in order to acquire energy and raw materials to refurbish the diminished capacity of European factories. This has been the German foreign policy objective since the age of steam: to acquire resources in the east via trade or conquest. Conquest is off the table, so trade is the only feasible route.
In this, I think Putin is absolutely correct. Europe is going to have a major upheaval and sea change in their governments: sooner rather than later. The signs are everywhere from the recent Irish protests to the gilets jaunes in France to the emergence of the AfD in Germany to the victory of Geertz Wilder's PVV.
It is best for Putin to play the long game. Russia has always, throughout its history, pivoted from partnerships and alliance with East then the West then back again. It will continue to do so with a pivot West as Nato and the EU, as its currently configured, collapse under the weight of their own self-destructive energy policies, their de-industrialization, and their social welfare system, which is currently being overloaded by African immigrants.
You are extremely naive about the US reaction to any such changes given the pivotal period between Unipolarity and Multipolarity we are in, no Empire gives up easily. The UK is already taken care of with the political assassination of Corbyn, the AfD may turn into another Meloni once they get their meeting with the BND and CIA. No elections in France until 2027. Plus all the Western European elites are extremely Atlantacist. Romania is like a NATO fiefdom. Russia will need to go all the way, and that's why Putin is ramping up the military so much, he understands after two decades of attempting to court the West and getting repeatedly smacked in the face. Merkel and the others owning up to the perfidy with respect to Minsk 1 and Minsk 2 made Europe non-agreement capable in Russian eyes.
It's one thing to bluster and threaten like the US does so well. It's another to have the power, money and resources to back it up. They dont-- Clinton gave it away with NAFTA and subsequent govts have neglected everything in the US except puffed up, overblown military spending and varying forms of spooks. If the US was a confident mid empire (timing) nation then why focus on censoring and controlling its own citizens so much?
Yes. At this point, the real power that the U.S. government has is based only on the petrodollar and nuclear weapons. Their conventional forces are obsolete and incapable of little more than tossing pebbles at the Eurasian landmass. The petrodollar is fast disappearing owing to all sorts of U.S. foreign policy debacles from turning Iraq over to the Shias to using the petrodollar as an economic weapon against too many resource-rich countries. What use is a currency if one cannot buy the things one needs with it? All that is left is the nuclear threat, and what is that threat? We get to win the game or we flip over the board and send all the pieces flying?
Moreover, the U.S. is a presidential election away from disbanding NATO. Trump is speaking to a majority when he speaks about withdrawing the U.S. from NATO and withdrawing from many of the overseas bases. Why do you think Kagan and Nuland et al are so apoplectic about his return? The empire is on very shaky ground indeed when they must try to suppress, censor, and incarcerate more than one half their own population in order to maintain control.
Right now the US's real power in its proxy Israel which is a nuclear terrorist state. It has not only threatened Iran with nuclear attack, but it has already used tactical nuclear weapons on its neighbors according to Veterans Today. It has already attacked the US as part of the US, Saudi, Mossad intelligence collective that pulled off 911. Remember the US Liberty. They are the most dangerous threat to peace on earth there is, and Netanyahu is a war criminal They could set off a false flag and blame Russia, or whatever is required to get us all killed. .That seems to be their goal, to take us all to hell. Regime change in Israel.
I agree. U.S. unconditional support for Israel will be its ultimate undoing. A major power cannot allow regional proxies to run its foreign policy and remain a major power. Ask the Romans about their "friends of Rome" policy. If the U.S. wants to continue to support Israel, the U.S. must dictate, in clear terms, exactly what Israel can and cannot do, The endless expansion of settlements in the West Bank and the current ethnic cleansing of Gaza cross lines that should have demarcated the end of all U.S. support for Israel. Instead Israel does as it pleases, and the U.S. is drawn into what promises to became an ever widening war as a result. Netanyahu should be unacceptable to the U.S. as a leader of Israel, and they should have told Israel, long ago, Netanyahu goes, or we take our ball and go home.
I don't think that you are being naive -- but just laying out one set of possibilities --- actually, I think you are laying out 'the best case' scenario: Europe rebels from the dominant US (actually WEF / NWO elite that controls the 'West') and rebuilds its economy and society with Russian energy and raw materials. As Roger Boyd points out in response to you, it could be worse (i.e. a kinetic 'fight' over Europe between the forces of the West and Russia). I don't think that such a kinetic scenario is likely because with nuclear weapons and historical precedents & promises, such a fight will likely be nuclear and catastrophic. At least I hope that calmer heads and better luck prevails and that such a kinetic scenario won't happen. However, there is also a third option: a European future of 'meh' (neither revolt/renaissance or kinetic conflict). In this third way, Europe may 'rebel' from the dominating club of the West but not 'rebuild' -- it just stagnates with high energy prices, demographic collapse, economic de-industrialization. Like China after 1500 or the Arab world after the Crusades, Europe may just become a global backwater of former glory and missed potential.: An increasingly poor and economically and technologically irrelevant geographic peninsula on the greater Eurasian land mass. Unfortunately, I think that this path is the path of least resistance and applicable to both the current European trajectory (vassal of the 'West') or potential future (populist revolt against those Western elites). I say this because the European demographic change, migration impact, and cultural transformation may already be too far advanced to stop without a really strong and sustained revival effort that far exceeds what the 'populist' pr 'patriot' forces in Europe can bring to the party. The 'rot' may be too far gone even if the populists 'succeed'.
Yes. It is not that Europe is a vassal of the U.S. so much as most Western governments, including the U.S. government, are vassals of an oligarch class that spans continents and is not loyal or concerned with the interests or fate of any particular nation. It is absolutely pivotal that one understands this, and I am certain that Putin does. Once one understands this, one understands why Putin would be reasonable to expect opportunities to pivot West diplomatically in the near future.
Such a pivot is what he has tried to do throughout his time as president in Russia, and I doubt that he has given up on that just because Blackrock, Vanguard, Goldman Sachs, UBS and Deutschebank paid Victoria Nuland, Robert Kagan, Angela Merkel, and Jens Stoltenburg to run Europe into the ground in an effort to bring back the heady days of 1994 when every two-bit finance capitalist was playing roulette with every asset of the former Soviet Union.
And I would add that to assume ALL of Europe has to go together towards a BRICS/Russia sphere is silly. All it takes is 5 countries to go to weaken either or NATO or EU-- then the rest follow as their woke, Ursula? loving neighbourhood countries see that the grass is greener-- or that their living standard is better.
All it takes is one of France, Germany, or Italy to do so.
The 'meh' scenario you outline is more likely than any pivots of "Europe" from USA to Asia. I especially find it unlikely that Russia could make such a pivot happen.
But for my money, the most likely outcome for Europe (and USA, and presumably also China and Russia) is a cyberpunk digital gulag. This envisions complete suckery and basically the return of the iron age slave society, just with all the modern technologies. TBH, it'll probably be worse than 2500 years ago. The opportunities for preventing this from happening are few. Breaking cryptography would be a major move in the right direction but (a) it's not yet clear if we live in a Universe where that is possible or not and (b) even without cryptography the cyberpunk dystopia could still be constructed - it'll just be different. Nevertheless, without cryptography the dystopia would be less sucky and less stable. The essential preventative move is self-edification. People need to be upright, not be glued to their screens, not be addicted to Facebook and Instagram, not read news from Twitter botfarms, not get their info from Google searches, not use credit cards or debit cards, not get into debt, not jerk off or fuck whomever, not do drugs, study all kinds of sciences and crafts and arts, work out, fraternize, socialize, and make and bring up babies. And... they need to pray to God Almighty.
But we all know Europeans are atheists. So are many others all over the world.
And so the new Age of Slavery will probably set. Europe will lead the way, but USA, Russia and China will probably be right behind. If we who try as much as we can to escape this new system could all get together in some corner of the world, on Earth or in space, we might be able to create a land of freemen. Sadly I think we'll not congregate. So then the solution would be to up the ante on those self-edification measures ever more. Perhaps, if you accumulate enough knowhow you could collapse your brain into a knowledge black hole and emerge into the world as wizard, able to use your nimble fingers to fashion items to protect you against the onslaught of slavery. Well, that's my approach. Attempt to create a knowledge singularity in my brain.
Given that a united Europe is Yankeelands greatest fear it will be using every dirty underhand tactic it can to prevent that. That is why it has such a stronghold on Germany because the very last thing it wants is the resources and talent of Russia working with the industrialisation of Germany.
This is the singular thing that has provided some semblance of reason and rhyme to U.S. foreign policy post WWII. Everything else is merely oligarchs buying favors from the State Department and Jewish nationals subverting U.S. foreign policy to benefit Israel. The only constant is a desire to prevent Russia from supplying Germany oil and the two states to become economic partners. The obsession with a German-Russian dominated Eurasian landmass is an obsession that dates back to the British Empire.
he attempts to remove Basshar al Assad in Syria, for example, is to get right of way for pipelines to Germany from Saudi Arabia. The obsession with Ukraine is to get control of the pipelines from Russia to Europe. Notice that one of the first act of this war was the destruction of Nordstream?
Trying to prevent this natural union, however, from the other side of the world is like trying to stop water from flowing to the sea. You can build dams, dikes, ditches, and reservoirs, but sooner or later, the water is going to get to the sea.
Great point about the obsession dating back to the British Empire-- yup it started there and given the historical significance of the "City of London" and its ties to the same twisted political elite in the US-- this is more of a tag team effort than most people realize.
A genuinely independent and geopolitically coherent EU would have been a financial and technological superpower, and arguably, would have the #1 greatest competitor to the US.
This possibility, with only shaky viability to begin with, has now been definitively killed, chopped up into tiny pieces, burned, buried, and anything that isn't ashes is currently decomposing - never to see the light of day again.
Receipts please! Given each European has at least 4 levels of govt 😳 "administering" its fate--I would not agree with you.
My God if only this were true! I have long suspected that US foreign policy has been to talk friendly to Europe while acting to destabilise it. Middle East wars a failure? EU migration crises. LGBTQ? Geopolitical weapon to foment division, friction and create fundable political groups, authoritarian anti hate speech power grabs. Etc etc. I do see some resistance and the great pendulum swinging back the other way, but it will be years if at all before the Western sheeple stop watching the news and learn to see the EU as a desirable, standalone, superpower they should be part of, with a cultural and historical alignment with Russia.
It is not that the U.S. wants to destabilize Europe. The U.S. wants to keep Europe from becoming dependent upon Russian oil. Most of the instability in Europe is the doing of European technocrats and the self-loathing Germans who thought it would be a great idea to import half of Africa into Europe to solve their pension fund problems. Of course, the Africans have no serviceable skills aside from serving coffee, so rather than solving the social-welfare pension crisis, they have exacerbated it exponentially.
Likewise, it is Europeans who have convinced themselves that they have to abandon modern life and the cheap energy that makes it possible, to the delight, no doubt, of the U.S. State Department. John Kerry has done his best to sell Europeans and even U.S. on the idea that the entire West has to abandon cheap energy and return to the bronze age because the sky is falling or getting hot or something. But no one in Europe cares what John Kerry says... now... Greta Thunberg... well... she is the bees knees. What intelligent, sophisticated Dutchman would not want to completely reorder the entire society and economy of the West based on the opinions of a semi-autistic teenager who dropped out of high-school.
At the time there was a coordinated intense media campaign to open the borders to migrants. Migrants were portrayed as innocent refugees, drowning in boats, and anyone cruel enough to deny their entry was deemed a racist nazi. Popular music absorbed this and popular artists produced songs and videos that amplified the message. The UK readily adopted the open border policy and pointed at others who did not from a position of moral authority. Back then it was Angela Merkel who resisted. She was attacked and demonised by the press and her peers. It affected public opinion. The mass manipulated populace in the climate created by Western media were practically clammering for African and Islamic immigration. Of course, when Teflon Merkel finally capitulated that was the beginning of the end for both Germany and herself. In the meantime the UK got busy on the Brexit path, while the media highlighted that the economic and social woes of mismanaged immigration were all the result of EU policy! The entire story is a US centric attack on the EU by directing victims of US wars to migrate there and cause social disruption and erosion of national and cultural identity.
I think people need to see govts as companies in the same industry. Competing for the top job, the top economy and the most resources--like the game of Monopoly 😊. All done by morally frail human beings who are looking to prove to the world they are the best. So of course that is whats happening !!!
Of course western European countries are US puppets. The question is whether anyone will do anything about it.
Yet word coming out from Russian leadership is that the Europeans are no longer wanted as trading partners, ever. And the only western nation they will enter into any agreement with is the US, and that will only happen in due time.
Could just be PR, but it is what they are saying.
I will bet money that the Russians will deal with their historical partners-- the US WAY before they go back to Europe. With a return to sanity (ie get rid of Dems) it will be practically easier to do-- one leader, one govt (please don't tell me the EU govt is the same-- really?) . Also can the Russians really forgive Europe or trust a Herr Merkel ever again? Putin is Mr. Practical which is one of the reasons I respect and admire him. If he ever deals directly with Europe again it will be one country at a time (ie like Hungary)
They may in time, but going by Putin's recent speech (link below), they are in no rush to do so. And true, why open any dialogue with the EU, they do what the US tells them to do in spite of the harm it does to their nations.
https://sputnikglobe.com/20230221/putin-russia-showed-readiness-for-dialog-with-west-for-years-but-was-ignored-rebuffed-1107651097.html
Don't put much store by the GOP though, they talk but do nothing, the decisions are made by the deep state. And the deep state is all about war, I believe we will be attacking Venezuela shortly, yes over oil, gas fields.
I do see some nations over time breaking with the EU and going with the BRICS, but Ukraine needs to be sorted out before that happens, probably 3, 4 years from now.
Sooner , things will speed up in this coming year. Like election in Ukraine ?
Election in the USA ? We are living in borrowed time , keeping up with the fast growing unhappy citizens with printed money . The money which is only supported with a hypnotizing word . TRUST ???.
Ah yes, trust. Not much is left at this point.
As for elections, I see none in Ukraine until the infighting between the two Zs is decided, or Russia takes all.
In the US, I see several possibilities:
1. they use a FF to cancel the election for a year or two, so they can run their EMP strike and currency crash, 2. they rig it yet again, 3. they let Trump win, the day he is installed, they do a major EMP strike, crash the economy and tank the currency.
I am ok with item 3., at least you know what you've got with Trump, he would put his back to it to save the country. Anyone else would just sell the country off by the acre probably to Blackrock.
As a European subject myself, i would say that we are unfortunately faaar away from a "sea change" in European politics. "Alternative" parties like the Fratelli, AfD, Vox, LePen, etc are either coopted by the PTB from the very start or they "get an offer they can resist" once they are close to power.
Putin better get a big dose of patience if he wants to wait until the current European leaders get deposed...
As I've commented in my last post, the US can still do a lot of control on the cheap, especially in regions were it has been hegemonic for decades.
https://open.substack.com/pub/concernedceltiberian/p/concerning-the-cheap-evil-empire?r=2nwdrk&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Maybe, what a difference a day makes these days....
I wouldn't be surprised if a Russian air or naval base appears in Venezuela in the near future.
And Cuba too would be a very nice provocation.
And don't forget about Iran :)
https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2022/07/06/685164/Iran-China-Russia-to-flex-muscles-in-America
I haven't forgotten Iran, I was just mentioning the ones in the US "back yard".
No worries, I never judge :)
They are already doing new deals with Cuba (as told to me by a Cuban with family there0
Elensky won't be safe in Miami. There are many Cubans that could do the wet work required.
...or Americans
Now don't be so sure you are alone, I have been saying Russia will take all of Ukraine for some time as well. Any inch of Ukraine's dominion left behind would be home of massive NATO investment.
Correct. Nice to see someone else gets it. The logic is overwhelming.
Richard, this is the first logical conclusion I’ve seen about Russias long term game plan. I do wonder if the Dneiper, with a large military force opposite Kiev, could become a stable defensive line, but the objectives- a durable missile defense vis-A-vis NATO, makes a lot of sense.
That poll should have also included the option 2025/2026. That's my guess.
Anytime now, I'm expecting Russia to start destroying power infrastructure in Ukraine. They are probably waiting to see if the West will throw more money in there first.
You have to admire how patiently Russia is bleeding the West in the SMO.
Not clear to me that sending Ukraine into the Dark Ages in winter was actually the Russian goal last winter - as opposed to say depleting S300 AD missile inventories.
And if the depletion was the actual goal, then it is equally unlikely Russia will do so this winter. The one constant in the fighting by Russia is minimizing civilian casualties.
A lack of power in winter would certainly entail massive civilian death and suffering.
Hitting power stations is attrition without killing civilians. If the regime can't keep up with restoring power, it hastens surrender.
Hitting power stations doesn't kill civilians directly, but it kills lots of babies and old people via freezing to death.
Much as destroying water supplies, hospitals etc doesn't kill that many civilians directly but hastens the Palestinian expulsion from Gaza.
Russia is trying to get Ukraine to surrender, what would you have them do? They're already treating Ukraine with kid gloves compared to the way the West goes into places.
Great point
Russia is trying to get its security concerns addressed.
Ukraine surrendering is one path, but it isn't the only one.
Don't make any sense to waging war against the people , just keep blasting the NATO supplies and decision making centers . ( long overdue ) . Most probably in the final phase , which already started with the internal conflict .
Love your updates. One point I would debate with you on is why the border migration is occurring in the first place (or more correctly, why the US government is allowing it happen in the manner that it is --- I get why the migrants want to come to the US, what is not clear is why the US is allowing it to happen in such numbers and so chaotically). Technically, I don't think that the uncontrolled mass migration into the US is for the 2024 election -- longer term, when and if these migrants get voting rights, then 'yes', it is about a Democrat-leaning voting base and winning elections but near term, 'I doubt it' (in part because in the short term the Republican and Democrat machines can rather easily 'manufacture' whatever voting fraud they want without having millions of illegals in the country -- illegals help the fraud process but are not essential to it).
So, if this chaotic mass migration is not for elections (in the near term), why does it occur? Part of the answer is because 'donors want it' -- but why do donors want it? For cheap labor in the (Republican donor owned) meat packing plants and farms --- partly -- but the sheer numbers of migrates far exceed what is required to 'suppress' local's wages in the short term. Is it to staff the US military (as Senator Dick Durbin proposed yesterday) - unlikely --- there are plenty of legal ways to attract immigrants into the military to do that today (if you think that is a good idea and something the US should do). Is it because 'migration' is a 'human right' or because of 'climate change' or 'reparations' for centuries of Western tyranny? Some some donors, volunteers, NGO's, and decision makers may think so, but I doubt that most US decision makers are choosing to allow this to happen on humanitarian grounds and principle. Is it to cause societal tension, confusion, and chaos (in urban centers, border regions, etc) -- well, I'd have to say almost certainly 'yes'. This, to me, is the really scary and important part of the story. It's not about elections, or wages, or social-justice, but about 'destruction' of the existing order from within by elite. Whether that elite is foreign-controlled and paid for, traitorous and merely ambitious for power & control, or something else is uncertain --- but the fact that this elite is implementing something revolutionary (and something like to prompt a counter-revolution) is unmistakeable (in my opinion).
The death rates for US citizens are way up since COVID and are not coming down again, the US elites will need lots of cheap and healthy migrants to keep its economy going. In addition, the US youth are turning quite socialist so all those new migrants will help keep them quiet.
"The death rates for US citizens are way up since the clot shots"
fixed it for ya'.
Covid fucken Schmovid.
Gene altering death shots.
Your point about excess mortality is correct, but I think your conclusion (that it is to keep the younger generation 'quiet') is a stretch. Firstly, this younger generation and the migrants have very different skill sets that put them in different economic 'segments' in the current and future economy. The migrants are tending to be un-skilled, with poor English-language fluency, and little to no formal education relevant to life in the US. The target market for this 'labor' force tends to be unskilled service, agricultural, and manufacturing jobs (if they get jobs at all). The domestic 'youth' on the other hand tend to be fluent (but not terribly proficient) in English, have formal educations (not that those educations are worth much in an absolute sense but relatively they are 'educated'), and targeted towards white-collar service (e.g. HR), NGO, and government jobs (e.g. education). (This is a gross generalization for both groups I get it -- but the number of STEM graduates or skilled trades among both groups is low). This suggests (to me) that both groups (the youth and the migrants) are complementary, not in competition. The migrants are targeted at one set of 'servant' jobs and the youth are targeted at a different set of 'office drone' or 'bureaucrat' or 'commissar' job. One group doesn't keep the other 'in check' because they are serving different market segments of the 'new world order'. If anything keeps the US domestic youth in check in the future, it is probably AI (and more out-sourcing and off-shoring and the hiring of college-educated immigrants from foreign backgrounds). Besides, it seems that the government (and the powers behind them) are very comfortable providing both groups (migrants and youth) with access to 'free' stuff without the requirement of work (servant or bureaucratic). So, for me, this is yet more evidence that something else is going on here. In conclusion, while I agree that 'the powers that be' are using the migrant crisis for purposes of societal change and control and that 'excess deaths' are intentional, I don't think the migrant crisis is there to check the economic or political power of US domestic youth today or in the near future (10-20 years).
You need to add in the planning around AI. Those youth workers are to be replaced by AI in a few years. And remember "they" want the US population count to be 90 million. The illegials are here to dig our graves IMO.
I don't want to be bored in my grave , I will take a lots of diggers with me .
I think the best way to go is to take their shovels, we need to plan as to how we can accomplish that :)
Receipts please-- migrants are all unskilled? Geez I know a family here whose highly skilled Iranian cousin came in . People came in from China!!! You know what they say about Ass-u-me
You are being unfair. I myself say that my comments are 'gross generalizations' -- simplifications necessary for clearly making my point in the text space available. Clearly, some migrants are highly skilled - however, based on the in-depth reporting I have studied on exactly who is coming across our borders, from where, etc it does not seem to be a stretch to say that most are not high skilled IT, medical, or industrial workers or engineers that are (supposedly) in such short supply in the US economy (and which therefore impedes broader economic growth and prosperity). I am willing to believe that the vast majority of these migrants coming across our border are good people willing to work hard and suffer great hardships to get a better economic (and political) life -- however, if they are not fluent in English, don't have the equivalent of a US high school education or better, or certified to work in the highly regulated industries we have (like medical doctors, pharmacists, etc), then they are likely most likely going to work in unskilled positions. Being in unskilled economic positions doesn't mean that they are individually unskilled as parents, unskilled at being well-adjusted and decent individuals, etc.-- it's just a statement of economic demographics. Assumptions imply you haven't researched the matter (you haven't bothered to look so you assume). Generalizations imply that you have studied the matter and are summarizing and stereotyping for analysis or discussion. If done correctly, such summarizing and stereotyping is ok -- it is the foundation of modern statistical market research. You know all this (or should) -- so why write what you write?
Did you mention the usefulness of unskilled young male immigrants as cannon fodder?
(you have multiple very interesting comments making many valid points)
Great thinking. Clear and logical and evidence based. Thank you.
Ever hear of the Kalergi Plan?
In 1970 Yankeeland got the U.N. to adopt http://www.hist-chron.com/judentum-aktenlage/zionismus/op/Kalergi/ENGL-Kalergi-plan.html as the global plan for the West.
Yankeeland then enforced this by sanctions, tariffs and trade restrictions.
'The Plan' starring Barbara Spectre : https://www.bitchute.com/video/HfyHkUivQZ0Y/
'The Kalergi Plan' (2017) Documentary : https://www.bitchute.com/video/y2RrkiDgFVPU/
Jews say Muslims are Jews allies in Europe : https://www.bitchute.com/video/OinYUCesnxbU/
Jews want niggers and sandfleas to flood Europe but not Israel : https://www.bitchute.com/video/schy7dG9KzcL/?list=subscriptions
Just 53 years and the West is destroyed and the survival of the White races living in the West right on the tipping point of demographic eradication. Frankfurt, Germany is a good example or Birmingham in England.
EVERY Western nation is affected no matter where in the world they are situated.
This is global communism.
You don't really understasnd what is communism do you?
They are; an army to subjugate citizenry when the time comes, a replacement work force, an abundant source of sex and work slaves, an organ harvesting opportunity and major source of child sex trade and murder.
The uncontrolled migration is a combination of short term, ham-handed appeal to minorities (in the Democrat eyes) plus a longer term "replacement theory" which the Democrats deny but which their internal discussions all talk about.
And furthermore this process is occurring via DHS literally abrogating its fiduciary duties - so the corruption is occurring in spite of rule of law as opposed to actual legal changes.
Great questions, and great thinking. While I believe a lot of functionaries allow the immigration just because they are following the cues of their social and Institutional superiors, I do believe there is a greater goal: the destruction of the traditional “American” national fabric- empires destroy nations, and there is no more threatening Nation to the American Global Empire than the traditional American Nation. Diluting, fragmenting, disrupting, and turning the traditional American nation against itself are the best way to destroy the American Nation, and ensure that the Nation never threatens or impedes the American Global Empire. So immigration is one front in the full-Spectrum conflict between the America Nation vs. American Empire.
Exactly - and always has been - the original colonisers were the original Puritan bunch, the prissy self serving sects, and subsequent close tribal/in group allies/descendants
The deliberations in the US congress are just political theatre. The Republicans are no more interested in border security than the the Democrats. If the puppet masters want Ukraine funding they'll get it. If they don't they'll use the excuse of 'extreme right wingers' voting down the proposal.
Cool robot, how did the Ukroids miss twice?
That little bit of electronics magic attached to it cuts the drone comms when the drone gets close to it
There is a decision making layer that is not visible immediately. Not a conspiracy, lizzards, aliens etc more like a mixture of deep state, and wall street, every individual keeps his freedom of decision, and yet a groupthink prevails. They determine US strategy and express themselves in short, simple sentences, like a beginner’s course in logic.
At this level a conclusion has been reached that current US strategy in Ukraine is unsuccessful, not producing results. Now we’ll see who is going to be Mr Wolfe, the one to organize a clean up. It will not be Nuland, she is one of the original organizers of the whole catastrophe. Someone to try what Kissinger used to do.
A clean up, and from the approach to this cleanup one could try to guess what will be the next strategy towards Russia and Europe.
Very impressive , imaginative consciousness in action . Seeing that remote controlled vehicle delivering goods back and fort , rescuing the wounded . How can anyone think to defeat such resourcefulness . Even the dumb ones in congress asking why should they throw good money after bad . They are being outplayed every which way possible . The Institute of Study of War , what a comedy ? Shut them down and send all the personals to some construction site where they can be useful in some capacity .
Russia has wisely offered peace, not a ceasefire, but peace. Along current frontline. It is the exact opposite of what warmongers are preaching, and is probably intended to give Ukrainians the chance to understand what they can expect from the West, once Ukrainians give up on being a proxy against Russia, what they will get from the West is on them and the West. If this strategy works some Ukrainians, like Arrstovich is doing, will begin questioning the basic Ukrainian strategy:
fight the Russians, reject all compromise offers and West will give you everything, modern army, lot of money, NATO and EU and victory, meaning subjugating Donetsk and Lugansk and the big prize Crimea, with no Russians.
But victory is clearly impossible, Territory lost, and West is encouraging Ukraine to keep on fighting the war, with dwindlling weapons suplly, help, with no NATO in the immediate future...
Actually West is promising, expecting, demanding the postponement of defeat. With vague promises that things might get better in the future, in 2025, after US elections...if Biden wins
There is the little matter of most of the Upper Dnieper ,(West of the river),still wanting to join Russia and no way will Russia ever back off regaining Odessa.
I don't believe Russia has said anything about current front lines. They have said complete and absolute surrender, no terms. Now Hersh was saying that discussions are ongoing between generals, implying Ukraine would continue to exist. I see this as US wishful thinking and a complete fiction for the masses.
Hersh 🙄 sigh-- cringe worthy stuff lately. I have to wonder are they(his sources) punking him.?
Remember in the Godfather....The day may never come, but someday I may ask a favor of you...."
Similar mode of operation exists within govts is my guess.
What offer are you referencing?
I certainly see no concrete discussions involving "freezing" the conflict - which is what the West is hoping for.
You do understand that key for the West is the Persistent conflict, ongoing, neverending, that can always be turned into war. Defeat is peace agreement. An offer that would produce Ukraine accepting peace as a final result is a defeat for the West. Imagine peace agreement, and EU doing business with Russia.
The key for the Western MIC, I would say.
I don't see persistent conflict bringing any benefits to the vast majority of the people in the West, nor do I see it helping the West maintain dominance over the rest of the world.
Defeat of the West is already accomplished in Ukraine - now the question is just how bad it will be.
We all write in shorthand, expressing only the outer layer of thoughts and sometimes more is needed.
West is governed, ruled by so called globalists, more precise term being people who believed globalism will keep US forever on top as unipolar superpower. When globalism hit the wall, China becoming the peer competitor while respecting formal rules of the rules based order, globalists forgot global free trade and reverted to sanctions and decoupling.
Vast majority of people in the West can most of the times be manipulated into conflicts and wars, if the wars are not lost.
The problem is losing the war. The concept of Pushing Ukraine into war with Russia was mistaken, in simple words do not start fight if you are not 100% committed. No victories are won on the cheap. To win a war would demand serious sacrifice and western public would have serious problems understanding why.
6 December 2023 FT US Faction struggles with Trump in background, EU self destruction
A record crop today
‘Republicans tell Biden US aid for Ukraine depends on immigrations curbs’
https://www.ft.com/content/3827fcfd-7843-4d28-a1fd-967b4fb6d714
‘Hardline stance’ = fading political and popular support for the war is finally acknowledged but decried as ‘hardline’ as opposed to easily ignored
EU disunion breakdown
‘Ukrainian truckers blocked in Poland: People forgot our war’
https://www.ft.com/content/fdb5a794-67fc-4125-8a74-687e0fe55f7b
‘Why Slovakia and the Czech Republic want to continue using Russian oil’
https://www.ft.com/content/b40e8a9d-6f2a-40cb-b134-2a732535e5e6
Notice ‘using’, not ‘importing’
But the major concern is
‘Germany is trying to close a major gap in its government budget, but private funding is also not looking rosy. A benchmark survey by Munich’s Ifo Institute shows that German companies have slashed their investment plans for this year and next.’
Hard time for supporters, but they can always go somewhere else, support climate change, or go on with academic, diplomatic careers, and wait for the US deep decision level to produce next strategy.
Hardest for Ukrainian leaders, they have to start thinking with their own heads, what is the best strategy for Ukraine. Fighting on or negotiating, trying to reach an agreement.
Remember Russia has said they will not negotiate with Ukraine, only with the US and the deal must be voted on by the US Senate, it is to include NATO back to earliest borders. So no agreement of any kind is likely IMO.
A complete Ukraine surrender in late 2024 is possible though.
I like your writing and analysis. Really well done. The sourcing and fact checking is first rate. However, from my research effective de-dollarisation is decades away as a lot of financial infrastructure has to be in place to supplant the US dollar as a reserve currency.
I certainly have learnt much from your analysis of Ukraine. Do you think the war in the Middle East will expand? I think it likely has to, as Israel is determined to ethnically cleanse the Occupied Territories and create a Greater Israel. However, I doubt the sincerity of US-backed Arab (Egypt, Saudis, Gulf states and Jordan) also Turkey.
Thanks your comment: de-dollarisation is something I am interested in too. I agree it's a huge task, but the various organisations and nations involved seem to be moving steadily towards this goal, as it is the dollar in the final instance that is they keystone of the Empire not its military.
I am concerned about the expansion of war in the ME too. Israel clearly wants the Gaza strip to grab the offshore gas field and possibly build the Ben Gurion canal to rival the Suez canal.
Some thoughts on the Eurodollar. Three elements have helped the Eurodollar system be dominant: 1) it has the infrastructure to enable global trade and investing (the banking network, the telecommunication and computer linkages, the body of statutory and case law the makes the adjudication of disputes predictable, etc), 2) it has scale and network effects (it is near universally accepted as a means of transaction, it is a highly liquid market with good price discovery mechanisms, it has a large and regulated investment market to 'soak up' excess funds, etc.), and 3) it hasn't really had many downsides (until recently -- sovereign funds were in fact sovereign and not susceptible to 'capture' by other state actors (only susceptible to gradual erosion to moderate inflation which was accepted as a 'cost of doing business' by all of the participants. Besides, there was nothing better avaialbe (in the early years of the Eurodollar system the Sterling System was an option, then later the Euro, but neither was a really good substitute for the Eurodollar).
Recently, condition (3) mentioned above has changed --- now there are real existential reasons to find something else, the problem is that conditions (1) and (2) still apply. A truly alternative system needs lots of infrastructure to be built even in support limited 'high visibility' trades (like China-Saudi oil sales or Rupee-Ruble conversion). Building this infrastructure takes time and money and steady effort --- and presupposes that somehow condition (2) (liquidity and investment options) are created. BRICS is working on both of these conditions (1) and (2) as we speak, but it will take time (decades really) to become fully realized (note: even when built, such a system will likely have to go through one or more 'stress events' to prove out it works during crises, not just during 'steady state' operations).
" 1) it has the infrastructure to enable global trade and investing (the banking network, the telecommunication and computer linkages, the body of statutory and case law the makes the adjudication of disputes predictable, etc), 2) it has scale and network effects (it is near universally accepted as a means of transaction, it is a highly liquid market with good price discovery mechanisms, it has a large and regulated investment market to 'soak up' excess funds, etc.), and 3) it hasn't really had many downsides (until recently -- sovereign funds were in fact sovereign and not susceptible to 'capture' by other state actors (only susceptible to gradual erosion to moderate inflation which was accepted as a 'cost of doing business' by all of the participants."
Literally none of these 3 things are true.
For one thing - the rise of the eurodollar market is relatively recent.
This paper shows that as late as 1969 - the eurodollar market was only $264B: https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2022/january/bretton-woods-growth-eurodollar-market
As late as 1985, the Eurodollar market was a bit over $1T: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurodollar
The dominance of the eurodollar market over foreign US dollars is a very recent phenomenon even as the existence of SWIFT, US/EU banks etc have been a constant for the entire post-WW2 period.
Fail.
Well, I think you are being a bit harsh. You can disagree with me if you chose, but you don't have to be snarky about it. As for the specific points you raise, note the following --- you really don't address my key points (infrastructure, liquidity & investment vehicles, and safety) and only comment on whether and when the size of the Eurodollar market exceeded the size of the US domestic dollar market (which is incidental to my main point). Furthermore, the sources you cite are fine, but keep in mind that measuring the size of the US dollar and Eurodollar markets is not a straightforward topic. What is your definition of money for the US? M1? M2? It depends. Same with your definition of Eurodollar (the amount used to transact trade -- that number is huge, the amount that goes recycled into US treasuries? Point being, there is no point in being snarky and triumphalist -- you may disagree but there is no need to be nasty.
I don't need to address those points because I pointed out, with documentation, that the eurodollar market domination is only a very recent phenomenon.
The part which has clearly gone over your head is that trade was therefore being conducted via some other mechanism than the eurodollar market, prior to the eurodollar market's rise in the 1990s.
And therefore your supposed points about liquidity, blah blah are irrelevant because all of trade WAS occurring for the entire post-WW2 period with minimal eurodollar role until very recently.
All you are doing is repeating mainstream economist orthodoxy over why the US dollar is pre-eminent, only juxtaposed onto the Eurodollar market, except your ignorance of the Eurodollar's only recent rise has led you to erroneously conclude that the Eurodollar is the primary factor when it is just a recent wrinkle around the main actor: the US dollar.
Note that your ignorance extends to even understanding the differences between pre- and post- 1971 gold window closing by Nixon.
How did Bretton Woods excess foreign currency exchange mechanisms affect the Eurodollar setup?
Do you even know what I am referencing?
oooohhhh someone has had too much caffeine-- really please tone it down.
Interesting but you missed the biggest benefit for the offshore dollar market-- money laundering. It is now out of control, almost a standard operating business model in real estate especially. Also your (1) doesn't mention the change in the international payments structure Swift and the creation by China and others of their own systems- plus the BRICS trading organizations.
So much has changed. Financial Globalization is dead (though I would like my Gazprom stocks back)
From my perspective, payment structure like Swift are part of the infrastructure that I was referring to (although I did not call it out by name). The recent changes to Swift (if that is 'the change' that you are referring to) is actually my point (3): until recently things were pretty acceptable (not perfect but acceptable) to global players but the recent sanctioning of Russia (and to a lesser extent Iran before it) have changed the rules of the game. The sanctions I am referring to were changes to access to Swift (not economic or political sanctions). Sorry I wasn't clear.
As for globalization being dead -- gee, I hope so. It sure is at least wounded at the moment. I don't think that you and are fundamentally far apart in our positions --- maybe I am just cautious, but I think that the 'system' can and will still fight back and that the battle is not over yet.
Second thought comment on the Eurodollar. Commentators often remark on how the US 'empire' is built on the dominance of the US dollar, how the dollar is a mechanism of US geopolitical control etc. While there is some truth in this, it is useful to see in which ways this is true, which ways it is false, and in which ways it is merely misunderstood.
The reserve currency of global trade today is not technically the US dollar, but the Eurodollar (which is a similar and related thing to the US dollar but fundamentally different in many key respects). The US dollar is spent by the US government (and private citizens), loaned into existence (by US banks), and regulated and influenced (but not entirely controlled) by the US Federal Reserve.
The Eurodollar is spent by pretty much all buyers and sellers in international trade settlements (about 75% of such transactions I believe), cross-dollar currency trades, and international investment (international loans, financial investment in US dollar denominated stocks, bonds, real estate, etc.), and financial speculation (e.g. derivative contracts and options which use US Government short and long term securities as collateral for the underlying trades). These Eurodollars are created by off-shore banks (non-US banks) reservelessly (i.e. 'out of thin air' without reference to any funds held on balance at the US Federal Reserve). All of these Eurodollars are electronic, and lots of them 'exist' for only an instant in time (e.g. to complete a foreign trade transaction that translates Chinese Yuan into USD and then translates those USD into Australian dollars). The US (and local) governments have some indirect influence over who can create and use these Eurodollars, but mostly this regulation and oversight is minimal to non-existent (think of all those off-shore bank entities in the Cayman Islands, etc.).
When exporting nations have 'earnings', these nations often keep some significant portion of their proceeds in Eurodollars at these offshore bank (so that they can easily use them for future foreign trade or investment actions). A lot of those Eurodollars then flow into US financial markets and assets (some might go to other non-US markets and assets but it is the US financial markets that receive the vast majority of those funds. Why? Mostly they go to the US becomes the US market it the biggest (most firms and the most desirable firms), the best regulated and adjudicated (in terms of statutory and case law, court decisions, historical longevity, ec.), and most liquid (i.e. it is easy to buy and sell when you want to with minimal transaction costs and delay). In this sense, foreign individuals, companies, countries holding US treasury securities (and other US dollar denominated assets) isn't an empirical requirement forced on them by the hegemony (or patriarchy or whatever) but a rational decision based on what is available in the world today. There are reasons why another rival global currency does not exist at this time (see my other comment on this thread), but it is not because client states are 'forced' -- even if US government or private 'loans' to countries 'require' usage of that system (and sometimes they do require it), it comes down to a issue that most individuals, companies, or countries would be unwise to use anything else (until lately that is).
More wrongness.
A eurodollar is a US dollar - the only difference is that it is printed into existence by a foreign bank as opposed to the US Treasury or Federal Reserve.
Eurodollars furthermore , once the trade transactions the Eurodollars are used for are consummated - the profits flow into Treasuries.
The fact that eurodollars are US dollars matter because devaluation of US dollars via money printing, transmission of monetary supply effects by Fed interest rate and liquidity changes, etc all flow directly into the eurodollar market because these are US dollars.
Once again, I beg to differ -- I think that there are important differences. Once those Eurodollars get invested in domestic US dollar denominated securities, they are more or less 'domestic' dollars, but how they get created is what matters because it determines whether or not the Federal Reserve controls their 'printing' (which it does not). Furthermore, if you want to be pedantic, technically the US Federal Reserve does not print money (and no, I am not referring the paper currency printed by the US Treasury either). The Federal Reserve creates bank reserves -- it is the US banking system that 'prints' (or key-strokes) US currency units into existence via lending operations. The US Federal Reserve can influence (but not control) this printing of dollars in the US banking system -- it does so through its various interest rate mechanisms and by setting reserve requirements. It can also influence short term interest rates through its interest rate policy decisions and by open market operations that affect the Treasury market. However, even in these spaces, the Federal Reserve's power is one of 'moral suasion' rather than absolute control. The market (via the Repo and Treasury markets) affect interests just as much (or more). The current inversion of short term and long term Treasury market yields is an example of when the market hears what the Fed is saying but does its own thing. You even seeing the market 'not listening' to the Fed even at the short end of the yield curve with regard to certain aspects of overnight lending.
If you understand all this, then you have to realize that the short hand common-use phrasing like 'printed into existence' by the Federal Reserve is not actually the way it works. And if the Federal Reserve has limits on how money is printed in the US (and I am saying it has strong influence but with limits), it has even less influence on how Eurodollars are created in overseas banks. We all too often operate with an overly simplified concept of how reserve levels, interest rates, liquidity levels transmit monetary policy (and such loose and not entirely accurate language is perpetuated by the Financial press), but it can sometimes be 'too simplistic' when talking about topics like the US dollar and workings of the Eurodollar market.
Your understanding of how things work - I don't know where it came from but it is not based on reality.
First of all - the Federal Reserve is not the only way by which dollars get printed. Eurodollars are created via the other major method: creation of loans.
Secondly, you confuse the eurodollars during a transaction with the profit dollars thrown off the transaction. In particular, the eurodollars loaned are used to buy a cargo, rent a ship, pay insurance and operating costs etc. Once the ship arrives and the cargo is sold, the resulting dollars are not eurodollars. They are just dollars. The eurodollar loan amount is repaid, the excess dollars go into Treasuries typically, but even then it is not clear that these are "domestic" dollars since there are $7T+ in US Treasuries held by foreign banks etc.
Equally is your wrong notion that the Federal Reserve "creates bank reserves".
No, they do not - except in instances like post GFC where they bailed out Citibank.
It is not even clear to me that you understand what "bank reserves" are.
Do you understand that a major component of bank reserves is the stock market capitalization of the bank? How does the Federal Reserve "create" that?
Do you understand that the other major component of bank reserves are the loans made by the bank? How does the Federal Reserve "create" those?
Do you understand that the third major component of bank reserves are bonds purchased using depositor cash, that are either investments or held to maturity? How does the Federal Reserve "create" that?
You have no idea whatsoever of what you are talking about.
I am beginning to think that you are a bot. My whole point is that dollars are created via the creation of loans (so why raise that as an objection)? Second, I am not confused regarding the Eurodollars created via offshore lending and the resulting 'net proceeds' that are often left in overseas banks as dollars. If those funds are left as bank deposits, well then they are still Eurodollars. If those US dollar denominated deposits are converted into US treasuries, well then they are US treasuries -- in which case they may or may not be 'money' depending on which definition of money you want to use. I think it has been pretty clear in my comments that I am not confusing those two concepts. Treasuries held by foreign banks are 'domestic dollars' in the sense that those assets were issued by the US government, but depending on semantics they may or may not be considered Eurodollars (they are US dollar denominated assets held by but not created by off-shore banks so as a technical manner I have to admit I am not sure exactly what the proper technical term for what those assets may be). However, when we describe the 'behavior' of the Eurodollar system, these US assets held by offshore banks are often included.
As for bank reserves, bank lending depends on both bank specific balance sheet considerations (the capitalization of the bank) AND the amount of reserves held on account at the Federal Reserve -- or at least it did, because in 2020 this reserve level requirement at the Federal Reserve was suspended -- so we now have, in essence reserve-less banking in the US. The Federal Reserve introduced new tools to affect monetary policy as a result (the paying f interest on bank reserves held on account at the Federal Reserve) because of this change. And yes, I understand that the third major component of bank reserves are bonds held as investments or held to maturity. So, yes, I do believe I understand all that (and yes, that has nothing to do with what the Federal Reserve's type of reserves I was referring to). Why you would assume that I don't is also curious. Look, I am open to learning new things, but just claiming that I am clueless because I haven't listed everything dimension of the situation is a bit odd. Add to what I say, correct what I say, don't assume what I know or don't know, and don't be nasty -- life is too short.
Again I would add a significant reason why the US dollar is seen as the global currency has a lot to do with the fact it is the largest consumer based economy . No not China-- the US consumer still outspends. That is why everyone wants to sell Lin the US economy.
You make a couple of really correct points here. One is that everyone wants to sell into the US market because it is large, easy to transact in, easy to repatriate out of, etc.
You also point out that if the US domestic market wasn't so attractive (say if it were merely proportional in size to the US per capita share of the world's population), then it wouldn't necessarily be considered the world's global currency (China might instead).
But even in that scenario, it's still possible that the Chinese currency might not be the world global reserve currency (key is the word reserve). This is because we are starting to run into the specific technical definitions of certain words: money, currency, global currency, global reserve currency, global trade currency, currency of the largest most global markets, etc.
Another problem is that, with regard to this topic of global currency, it is possible to have a global transaction currency for most international trade across currency blocks (e.g. Pound Sterling), a global reserve and settlement currency (gold money by weight), and the largest most liquid financial market in a third currency (US dollars). You would have to live pre 1914 to experience this particular world, but it just goes to show you how complex it can be.
The third comment on the Eurodollar I want to make is regarding US control of that market. The US government and Federal Reserve has reasonably strong (but not absolute) control of the domestic US dollar (via regulation, taxation, budget deficits, bank reserve levels, interest rate policy, debt issuance amounts and term, etc.). However, the US government and Federal Reserve's control over the Eurodollar is pretty limited (except during times of crisis). Outside of crises, the Eurodollar system is very decentralized, adaptive, and designed to function outside of direct governmental systems (it is a bit like AI with a mind of its own. You can try to do something to it to control it and it will adapt to circumvent that control). US foreign investment is minimal as a percentage of the Eurodollar market and US paper currency held overseas is even smaller (and typically this paper currency lives outside of the formal banking system so does not matter with regard to th Eurodollar). Most Eurodollars can be (and are) created 'at will' by offshore banks as bank balance sheet transactions pretty much regardless of US interest rate policies and other government and Federal Reserve actions (those interest rate policies and actions can affect the cost of those Eurodollars to specific customers but not stop or start their creation of Eurodollars if the system wants to create them). In normal times, the only limit to the growth of the Eurodollar system is counter-party risk. All of the banks (and individual and companies) involved in the Eurodollar system have a complex web of interlocking US dollar denominated loans to each other (i.e. Eurodollars) and it is only when 'enough' participants in this system fear that 'enough' other participants in this system are 'broke' (and can't honor their US dollar denominated loan obligations) that the system seizes up. Theoretically, the Eurodollar banks could 'pretend and extend' credit enough to power through the crisis, but realistically all of this individual banks have balance sheet constraints that limit, at some point, their ability to create new loans (hence new Eurodollars) out of thin air. When this 'risk of contagion' takes hold, the whole system seizes up, potentially seizing up all foreign trade and investment, crashing currencies, and thereby crashing offshore economics, bank systems, governments, etc. The only party that can create US dollar denominated credit 'out of thin air' without regard to its own balance sheet is the Federal Reserve (and any foreign Central Bank that has a USD-local currency SWAP lines with the Federal Reserve -- i.e. a Federal Reserve 'deputy sheriff'). It is this power to create credit in a crisis (i.e. 'bailouts' denominated in USD) that give the US Federal Reserve (and US Treasury) ultimate power over other financial systems, currencies, world trade, etc.
Most of the time, this power is only used locally -- e.g. when a specific country (say Argentina) can no longer service is US dollar denominated loans (and no decentralized Euromarket bank will loan them any further money). This gives the US government a stick it can use to force governmental policy changes, etc. This is same type of mechanism that the European Central Bank uses to keep Greece or Portugal in line (although by definition this is outside of the US dollar system). It is also what Russia might use to influence the CIS (although not as effective because CIS countries can still potentially access USD or Euros). Of course the country in crisis (say Argentina) wasn't forced to take out loans denominated in USD (just like consumers aren't forced to take out credit card debt --- it they take it on because taking on US dollar denominated debt (or credit card debt) is a lot more attractive and convenient that the alternative. In that sense, debtors (like Argentina or Greece) put themselves at the mercy of the Federal Reserve (just like you put yourself at the mercy of the Mafia once you start borrowing money from them). Anyway, I digress.
At the end of the day, the point I want to make is that most of what happens in the Eurodollar system (whether that is foreign trade, currency exchange rates, investment flows, speculative contracts, etc.) is not controlled or even very controllable from the US. It's only when there is a crisis (and a Eurodollar participant needs some kind of US dollar denominated intervention) when the US has 'power'. (Note: there is also the issue of US regulations and constraints regarding 'terrorism' or 'sanctions' etc, but until recently this had only been a minor factor affecting a relatively few Eurodollar participants -- so, yes, the US has more influence than I just explained, but even now, this is more of a niche thing).
As I noted above - the US government and Federal reserve exert control over US dollars via interest rate and liquidity manipulation. There are lesser impacts via loans and foreign aid.
You do not have any form of clear understanding of how the US controls the international finance system.
I have to agree with c1ue (not happy about it). Except for his last line. Sorry.
Powells actions over the last 18 months actually bears his comment out. It is also the reason why Christine LeGarde and Yellen have been managing the treasuries/bond market so hard. The kicker is Japan who are off yield curve control and about to (in financial terms) blow up Europe. An indicator? The Euro went from (US0 1.10 to 107 )in less than a week.
For a great education on this issue I would recommend Tom Luongo at Gold Goats and Guns Patreon.
I like and listen to Tom. As for Powells actions, I think he has a lot of influence over the ECB and other central banks (via control over US short term interest rates, swap lines, etc.) -- but is that really control over the Eurodollar market itself? Or is that just interaction with Euro financial universe? That's a serious question not snark. Either way, it is an interesting topic.
With regard to Tom, I love his salty manner and 'in your face opinions'. He may be wrong (not), but he very confidently believes what he believes (which is cool).
I am fascinated with his Powell vs the ECB and Yellen story line. To tell you the truth, I don't think I really fully understand it. It's coherent when he explains it, but have trouble trying to reconcile it with other competing narratives I heard that sound true as well. So I am still puzzling him and his Powell theory out. If I had to pick a guidepost, I guess I would go with Jeff Sneider -- which Tom respects and agrees with in some areas and disagrees in others.
I think de-dollarisation is closer than you think. Mr. Putin has been working on it for at least three decades and BRICKS+ are starting to trade among themselves using their own currencies. A multipolar trading environment benefits all players and Yankeeland doesn't get to clip the ticket both ways on every deal. Fact is it is BRICS+ that has been keeping the Petrodollar afloat to prevent a global financial crash and to give some countries a chance at recovering the gold that Yankeeland supposedly holds in escrow for them.
Yes and no.
De-dollarization is sought after more than ever before but the infrastructure, starting with correspondent banks to replace Western controlled correspondent bank systems, still has to be built.
This will take time but it will be both faster than dollar defenders think and slower than dollar detractors hope.
I am having a hard time imaging a plausible scenario where the Middle East war doesn't expand. It really scares me because I think that such an expansion would be catastrophic for all involved (and the rest of the world as well).
When thinking about whether the war expands (and what might prevent expansion) I come up with three considerations that I consider important:
1) It will be nearly impossible for Israel to back down and agree to freezing the conflict or some kind of two state solution (assuming that such a solution could even be crafted). The current Israeli government can't back down because backing down would be fundamentally opposed to its ideology and history. Plus the current Prime Minister would be removed and probably end up in prison (on unrelated and related matters) or dead (in revenge for allowing the attack to occur and or because of the backing down). However, this is not just a problem for the current Israeli government: even the 'leftwing" opposition can't agree to such a 'solution' because emotions have become too inflamed and trust in peaceful co-existence too damaged. Israel, in that sense, is boxed in. Freezing the conflict as it stands merely postpones this unacceptable situation for the future. Agreeing to possible peace acceptable to both parties (even if such a thing existed) would mean fundamental territorial, political, security, social change not previously contemplated at a state level. Furthermore, any move to accept such a solution at this point in time by either right or left would be perceived by most Israeli's as a 'stab in the back' to the victims, the army, the people as whole, etc. because Israel does not see itself at this moment as defeated. Instead it sees itself engaged in a morally just war of survival. Even if there were a political leader with the stature and gravitas to pull this off and make impossible decisions to bring about a comprehensive peace (like de Gaulle in France with regards to Algeria), there would still be the issue of trust -- few in Israel would trust that any implemented peace would actually lead to peace and not just further conflict and extermination in the future when the world's military guarantees and attention fade away. Israel is trapped and can't back down. Too much damage has been done to Gaza to avoid being blamed by many in the world for genocide, so stopping right now won't restore Israel's reputation. Going 'all the way' to remove all Palestinians from Gaza entirely therefore can be seen as the only way to solve Israels short term problem and provide a sense of 'victory', but such a goal is realistically not likely to happen and pursuing it will only lead to point #2, the Arab, muslim, and world-wide reaction (escalation).
2) It will nearly impossible for the Arab and Muslim to sit back and let the carnage in Gaza (and the actions on the West Bank) continue. They will likely feel compelled to intervene at some point, in part because the leaders of such countries / groups feel outrage and in part because if they don't respond, such leaders will be replaced by more aggressive players less reluctant to intervene. More cynically, many of these leaders will also see this current crisis as the best opportunity they have ever had for actually destroying the state of Israel since 1948. This set of reasons (outrage, pubic pressure, strategy) applies to Turkey, Iran, Hezbollah, and even Jordan, Egypt and Syria. States in the next 'orbit' of connectiveness (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc) will also be inclined to move more strongly against Israel (just not kinetically). Plus the global 'non-aligned' players in this conflict (China, India, Russia, Brazil, etc.) will find it hard to not take action against what many see as a Palestinian 'genocide'. So, the Muslim and anti-Israel and even the 'neutral' parties cannot back down and let the status quo continue.
3) This leaves the United States as the pivotal player. Most likely, the US will continue with its publicly mixed, privately strong support for Israel and its actions (i.e. a confused mixture of statements of public support for Israel's actions and mild admonishments against civilian casualties combined with continued transfer for funds, spare parts, intelligence, weapons, and covert action to help the Israeli military). This current policy will let the contradictions between two sides continue resulting in the escalation I fear. There are two other theoretical options for the US -- direct intervention in the conflict (e.g. against Hezbollah or Iran or Yemen etc) or cessation of support to Israel to force an Israeli climbdown. The first option (escalation) only makes the conflict escalation worse and is unlikely to actually resolve any of the current problems (i.e. bombing Iran doesn't make international outrage of civilian casualties less or make peaceful coexistence more likely). The second option (cessation of support) is so unlikely in the current political environment and administration that I think it can't happen, but such a clear removal of support for Israel might force Israel to back down (and thereby prevent wider escalation of the conflict). The US did use some of that pressure against Israel in 1973 and again later in Lebanon in 1982. Could it do it now -- I don't know.
The final question is what happens if (and when) the situation escalates -- it can go in all kinds of direction including regional war, WW3 conventional war, regional or even global nuclear exchange, etc. The biggest problem Israel has, in my opinion, is that in this round of the perennial Mideast conflict, its opponents are much bigger (economically, technologically, militarily) relative to Israel (and with more world wide support) than ever before. Israel is facing a true existential crisis this time -- and one it may not survive if the situation escalates too far (its opponents have access to long range ballistic missiles and likely have access to nuclear weapons --- plus large and competent conventional forces if you include Turkey and Egypt).
Bottomline: if Israel backs down, the 'peace' Israel will likely have to accept will mean the end of Israel as it has been for 80+ years (Jewish settlement in the Israel and a nationstate might exist in this scenario, it just won't be the same in fundamental ways). If Israel doesn't back down (or if it isn't forced to back down), it will likely face a catastrophic strategic defeat (either because it 'wins' and becomes a pariah worldwide and faces even more resistance 'next time' or because it loses an escalated conflict or because it it obliterated in a spasm of mutually destruction.
Israel. Just like Kiev Ukraine. If the US cuts it loose its nothing. It has no agency. No power. It becomes nothing. Doesn't matter what it thinks, what it says.
So the problem really, just like Kiev, is the USA isn't it? Nothing more, nothing less.
And the thing with the USA is that it is a brain dead zombie as a Nation State.
It is merely an agglomeration of vested interests, a pool of sharks, endlessly circling and looking for prey.
Those sharks appear to feed on people, babies even, when we look at the human history don't they? Like monsters. But really they just feed on money and think of themselve as pillars of society. That's what their wives and children think they are.
So that is the ray of possible light to me.
There is no way, no way, the ostensible, the accepted America can possibly dissociate itself from Israel, though it could from Ukraine, of course. But not from Israel.
But the 'accepted America' is, I believe, an illusion, a delusion. It is really that pool of sharks.
Seeing financial loss this way and profit that way they'd do even that: cut Israel loose.
Sounds fantastic? Be real. It starts at the top, doesn't it? The big money moves out of Israel because the water's getting too warm.. and then their hangers on... the wannabe's... and finally, at the end the actual proletariat and the 'State' which lingers to the end because, of course, it is a leech and feeds off the people and stays there feeding off them while ever there are people.
LIke I'm saying investigation may reveal it is already happening. The smart money says Israel is finished. Which sounds to me like a very sensible prophecy.
They - the religiously fervid Jews who're the only ones that matter here as 'sticking points' etc - can be faced with a lovely existential choice:
. Die where you are or
. Move to the Jewish Autonomous Oblast in Russia: it's all yours, waiting for you.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Jewish+Autonomous+Oblast,+Russia/@46.357959,132.8950429,6.54z/data=!4m6!3m5!1s0x5ef0d7caa7925693:0x1045834396f9900!8m2!3d48.4808147!4d131.7657367!16zL20vMGo3Y2o?entry=ttu
You know, what you say is possible. I have a hard time seeing it as likely, but I don't think it is inconceivable. I can also see a variation of what you proposed: Israel 'gets invited' to migrate (not to the Jewish Autonomous Oblast) but to Florida. In this scenario, the ''accepted America" abandons the Israeli's in Israel, but 'saves' them by giving them subsidized haven in the USA. Do I think that this scenario is likely -- no sir. Is it possible? Yes it is (barely) possible, but it does allow the parties you call 'accepted America' to save face (and not be revealed as so predatory or duplicitous). It has the same effect of what you propose, with fewer of the downsides. I still don't see how most Israeli accept this or how evangelical Christians accept this etc etc but I have to admit that it is conceivable (especially if it looked like Israel was about to be overrun militarily and direct US intervention was not going to happen).
The main problem I have with this scenario is that people are emotional and 'sticky'. I can imagine a lot of religious jews in Israel refusing to abandon Israel but I can also imagine lots of secular, senior military officers, businessmen, politicians, etc being 'sticky' and 'attched' to what has been built up over the years and not wanting to leave under any circumstances. These players have access to Israel's nuclear arsenal and delivery mechanisms. Going down 'in flames' (or even executing the rumored Samson Option) might be more appealing that surrender and exile in that circumstance.
Yep. I don't think it is likely, either.
But I also can't see Israel being a home for Jews in the foreseeable future. Isn't it going to be a target of hate for a billion Muslim henceforth?
Who would want to live there? Rich or poor?
In a spirit of perhaps irony and/derision and with an underlay of common sense pragmatic fact and all aimed at the illogic and nonsense of stone age religions I simply point it out: the land is there, it is theirs; that's their big problem, land, a home? then go for christ's sake, go...
I see a virtual currency well before de-dollarization. They are kicking it off in a number of countries already. My guess is they will put US welfare and SS on a virtual currency card, with expiration dates for when it is to be used or deleted. That may come as soon as next year.
As for Israel, I think it was Blinken who said Bibi had two weeks, meaning end this or we will remove you from office. The US doesn't want a full on war in the ME. The Arab states are useless, but Iran and Hezbollah are not, a clock is ticking for Israel.
You are confusing many things.
"Virtual" currency is credit cards, it is loans, it is bank balances, it is Social Security payments, etc etc. These are all virtual because none of them are cash or physical.
Or put another way: what is the difference between the "virtual currency card" you reference and a Food Stamp EBT card?
Most likely what you are trying to reference are CBDCs - central bank digital currencies. The US is going to be the last nation on earth to deploy widespread CBDCs for the simply reason that the private banking sector will never allow its monopoly on consumer finance be threatened to be replaced by a CDBC.
China, in contrast, wants to keep its banksters under control which is why they have been the first to roll out a truly widespread CBDC program.
I am not "confusing many things", I did approach the methodology in a simplistic manner, I will give you that :)
I do see the total removal of paper/coin currency replaced by govt issued cards at first, moving to an implanted chip. The cards tied to what you are allowed to buy, what you are allowed to spend, deductions for being bad and tied to how many of your acquaintances you out, and your carbon footprint.
Some big banks are ok with the CBDCs, others are not. It will depend on how many hold out and how long Powell stays in office.
The reality is that there are already all sorts of mechanisms to control what people can buy.
If you don't believe me, try buying illegal drugs with a credit card.
It is a trope with those ignorant of the actual existing capabilities for financial monitoring, that CDBCs will be used to usher in an era of unprecedented Big Brother spending controls.
The thing is - sex workers, porn and other sites already disguise their payments via innocuous sounding LLCs. The venue is the single most reliable indicator of what is being purchased; credit card companies have zero visibility beyond that. Why would a CDBC be any different, unless the entire grocery store receipt is uploaded along with the credit charge?
Any why wouldn't the government just go straight to the grocery store and access its database, which already has this information? With or without a loyalty card - any individual is trivially identified by the credit/debit card they use to pay with.
If you pay cash, that doesn't matter either because all the stores have cameras. Facial ID plus a video of you physically paying, linked to the register# & time, yields all the data anyone could possibly want.
The real barrier to the dystopian financial oppression you reference is simply that this kind of effort just is nowhere remotely worth it.
Only when litigation - civil or criminal - occurs does this possibly become relevant. What I write above is a direct result of my experience delivering these types of financial investigative services in civil and criminal litigation support, along with all manner of other methods such as trash pulls, physical surveillance, etc etc - all of which can be conducted legally in pretty much all states.
Or in other words - if such repression is attempted, for most things - the trivial workaround is simply to not charge for the item or change its name regularly. You should note that the horror stories around China's social credit spend limits never involve stuff - they involve travel by train or plane.
Thank you, you are working from the angle of the product to the card. I see them working from the card to the product.
The card/chip is programed to ONLY allow you to buy specific items. If you try to buy anything else it is blocked no matter what it is. I work in security software, it is far easier to control the output rather than the input. They will do the same :)
As for cash, they will eliminate it. This isn't here today, but it is being field tested in other countries already, it is coming unless "they" are stopped.
Programming a card/chip to block purchase of certain items - that's trivially bypassed by renaming/recoding said items.
Eliminating cash: banksters want it because it means forcing people to use banks and pay their fees. But the reality is that poor people are a money losing proposition for a bank - they consume no services, they have very little money compared to the KYC/AML oversight costs both in aggregate and individually. So again I point to the private control over banking in the West: why would banks want to be forced to take on these loss centers (poor people) as customers?
You'll note that the only countries that have gone deep on the cashless route are Scandinavian - and even there is has not gone particularly well.
The reality is that cash is the cheapest way to handle money for small transactions.