... but we agree that the goal here is not "Ukraine winning" in any military sense. — boethius

The unfortunate view that some leaders have is that the war goal is about "Ukraine not losing", but not "Russia losing". And before someone comments that Russia losing is absurd as if that would mean Ukrainian tanks in the Red Square, I would again refer to history: Russia losing like in the Russo-Japanese war, the Polish-Soviet war or in the first Chechen war. Or in WW1.

Though, if Kyiv had nuclear weaponry at its disposal, then the Kremlin would have to rethink. — jorndoe

Something that the Ukrainians can be bitter about.

That's true. And of course a dictator for life is very different from a US president.

And we shouldn't forget that many who vote for Trump aren't the ones wearing the MAGA hats. Just as many of those who vote for Democrats aren't the stereotypical American liberal.

Trump doesn't have the discipline or power over the media necessary to match Putin at that. — frank

He doesn't have to.

What Trump lacks his supporters simply dream to exist as his abilities. Total bumbling is 4D Chess, remember? And as every negative news article is part of the global conspiracy against him, he is then absolutely fabulous.

It's surreal, but it works up their audience (=Trump's base). I'm also amazed at how much mileage the GOP is getting out of the FBI 1023 form, and how it's been misrepresented. (see this thread). — Relativist

Unfortunately I cannot find it, but there was a great BBC documentary about how totally surreal the world of the media in Putin's Russia had become where people could not know facts from fiction and thus, how truth was meaningless and how the objective was to have the people confused. This documentary was made many years ago, far earlier than there was any Ukraine war. Then I had difficulties to understand the whole documentary: how can it be that Russians cannot separate fact from fiction?

In a similar fashion, I think Trump goes (and will go) into the surreal. Anything doesn't matter, there is no objectivity or truth or falsehood, it's all about just where you stand and if with whom you support, that is do you support Trump or are you against him. Everything is just a rhetorical attempt to get new supporters and hold the supporters you have. And that there cannot be any other way. As if objectivity and truth and falsehood doesn't exist.

Longer time goes when Trump isn't in jail, furthermore it is proof to Trump's supporters that everything is a political witch hunt, the giant liberal conspiracy against Trump. And that's Trump's line: everything is a witch hunt against him that isn't supportive.

I think the next US elections will be quite surreal.

The Dnipro is a natural defensive line.

In the age of pin-point accuracy weapons going over it is a difficult issue. Not impossible, but just difficult. For example in WW2, the Germans tried desperately to destroy the bridge over the Rhein at Remagen, but a bridgehead was established over the river. Germans made several attempts to bomb the bridge, if I remember correctly.

Russian propaganda is also trying to play the cui bono card. Their western proxies amplify that narrative: — SophistiCat

Lol. Yeah, let's go that cui bono -thinking here. So Ukraine starts it's counteroffensive, but then limits it's possible area of operations by 87 kilometers by blowing the dam, from where then Russians can withdraw forces to fight were the actual counteroffensive now is going on. And what about the 17000 evacuated, the enormous harm done to agriculture and electricity production of 1,4 TW annually? To a country that has as it's objectives to liberate the territory from Russians. That was also preferable to what? That Russia would look bad?

At least the good thing is that now Tucker is giving his bullshit just on Twitter.

Unfortunately I don't have much time for the forum just right now ... but who's ramping up manufacturing to replace this material? — boethius

As the Western countries aren't themselves in war, there isn't a huge "ramping up" of manufacturing. Basically only Poland is making huge investments in armament. Yet Western manufacturers know that if the war ends, then the market immediately shuts down. Hence the increase in production is only marginal.

Likewise, where will people get replaced from when Ukraine starts to run out of able bodies? — boethius

Ukraine isn't running out of able bodies. Do notice that counterattack has been quite local and limited. Ukrainians understand well that this war can go on for a long time. After all, it started in 2014.

The Ukrainian offensives makes zero sense and is only happening because it is part of the media narrative that promised there would be an offensive. — boethius

I wouldn't say it makes zero sense. First of all, to have the initiative in war is extremely important. If you remain passive and don't engage in the enemy, you are handing the Russians the advantage: they can choose where and when to engage.

Furthermore, if you didn't notice, what happened to the Russian "Winter Offensive"?

(The Guardian, 9th Feb 2023) Russia has launched a major offensive in eastern Ukraine and is trying to break through defences near the town of Kreminna, the governor for the Luhansk region said on Thursday.

Serhiy Haidai told Ukrainian TV that Russian troops had gone on the attack and were trying to advance westwards across a winter landscape of snow and forests. There had been “maximum escalation” and a big increase in shooting and shelling, he said.

Actually the Russians were in the same situation as the Ukrainians just few months ago. And that Winter Counteroffensive was forgotten as it didn't go anywhere. Likely what will happen with the Ukrainian counteroffensive is that it will take time. Both sides have their limitations. The simple fact is that the Russian armed forces have suffered severe losses of equipment and trained manpower in the war since February 2022. Such losses will take many years to replace and hence the Russians have to keep a reserve too.

Goodie, let's have some external investigators (just don't get in the way of the defenders moving to kick the invaders out :smile:). — jorndoe

I remember when the Yugoslav Civil war broke out, EU sent observers to observe "the cease-fire" dressed in white overalls. And then you had television footage of these white overalls running for their lives as they were fired upon.

The most likely culprit is of course Russia as it's totally logical for them to a) make the end of the Dnipro unpassable and b) then withdraw forces from there to plug the Ukrainian counterattack. The only thing now is that after WW2 blowing up dams has been a war crime. But obviously Russia doesn't give a damn. Or a dam.

* * *

Seems that three of the six Leopard 2 mine-clearing tanks that Finland gave to Ukraine have met their end. But in a war of attrition, you spend materiel. The side that is attacking will face losses, if it doesn't have superiority on the battlefield. Yet likely the counterattack will go on for weeks or for months.

Do we have a full description and understanding of reality? No. — Tom Storm

I definately agree. Somehow we cannot admit that we are in some issues as clueless as people in the 19th Century. And many things are still unknown to us that have questioned us for a longer time. I think especially then as science and technology had advanced, people really had the idea that humanity as gotten everything.

Yet as our knowledge has advanced in our history and especially in the last 400 years on a rapid pace, it's quite probable that it will advance also in the next 400 years. And people 400 years from now will look at us in many issues like we look at the knowledge level of people in the 17th Century.

Of course, interaction with extraterrestials, if it comes to that, will likely happen in the timeline of Centuries.

The interaction is the problem, basically. At least for now, to our present knowledge, the speed of light is a bit of an obstacle.

If we solve our "limitations in our understanding" and create the faster than light hyperdrives or teleportation, then there's a bit more to the subject of interaction with aliens.

As you said, that notion of "goldilocks" territory is something we can know. OK, how about hypothetical that the James Webb telescope or it's successors find that perfect planet on the goldilocks territory and get the chance to take a picture of it and it really looks like Earth, has all similar materials? Fine, but then what?

And it's more than 50 light years away. With even so close, it's really a long thing to try to interact.

Perhaps the question isn't about laws of physics, but increasing the age of humans then.

Or, do you think this is all malarky? — BC

The probability of there being other living beings in the universe is so high that I would say there are alien life forms, even advanced organisms alive right now when we discuss the issue here.

And except that, the vast majority of UFO stuff is malarky. Just look at the radius our radio waves have gone in the Milky Way:


Yeah, not many have had the chance to notice us.

In fact, as we know now what is in the forest (even the Christian fanatics accept that from biology), we (usually) don't believe in goblins and faireys and other magical creatures living in the forest next to us. But with UFO and outer space, there is a lot that we don't know. Hence it's the perfect place for us to put our superstitions and goblins and faireys -stuff to work. There is a social demand for this.

They had the same concerns though didn’t they? — I like sushi

Far more was it about money and old rights, I guess. Then there was more of the backdrop of the guild-system (that was being abolished) and the modern capitalist system was just becoming of age.

This is part of a declaration made by the Frameworck Knitters in 1st of January 1812:

Whereas by the Charter, granted by our late Sovereign Lord Charles the Seacond by the Grace of God of Great Brittain France and Ireland the Frame Worck Knitters are Impowre’d to breake and Distroy all Frames or Engines that fabricate Articles in a fraudilent and Deceitfull manner and to distroy all Frameworck Knitters Goods Whatsoever that are so made—And Whereas a number of Deceitfull Unprinciped and Interguing Persons did Attain An Act to be passed in the twenty Eight Year of our preasent Sovereign Lord George the third Whereby it was enacted that Persons, Entring by Force into any house Shop or Place to Brake or Distroy frames should be Adjudged Guilty of Feloney, and as we are fully Convinced that such Act was Obtain’d in the most Fraudilent Manner Interesting and Electionering manner and that the Honourable Parliment of Great Brittain was deceived the Motives and Intentions of the Persons Obtained such Act we therefore the frame worck knitters do hereby declare the aforesaid Act to be null and void to all Intents and Purposses, Whatsoever as by the passing of this Act Vilinous and Impassing persons Are Enable to make Fraudilent and Deceitfull Manifactory’s to the discreadit and utter ruin of Our Trade.

These people were seen as Luddites. Is it the same thing now? You be the judge.

Can we crucify him? — frank

Assuming you will chant then that "His blood be upon us and on our children". Or something on that line.

Where can we buy those new NFTs? — Pierre-Normand

Google it!

Dogma warning: Donald is not Jesus. — unenlightened

A God-Emperor isn't Jesus.

I want hard quotes — neomac

Me too.

This is a Philosophy Forum, so we do treat quoting somebody seriously.

I just cannot say "Well, Kant said the same thing too as I" if I really haven't got that exact quote from Kant. People won't take it as not important or as semantics.

AI comes to mind first. It's a new and potentially dire threat, depending on who deploys it for what purposes and whether or not it has big OFF switches. — BC

I think you are on to something. Especially with AI you could have a really fanatic movement against it that would try to break in to corporation buildings to destroy the computers behind the AI. Hence a lot of destroying of normal computers just stacked in large warehouses that form our cloud computing platforms.

The idea that they are defending humanity from the real 'Skynet'. Yeah, some people could fall for it.



Yet it seems that this kind of movement would more of a media hype issue than a real important movement with long term support. The actual Luddite activity lasted less than a decade and the real important movement was the workers movement, trade unions etc.

Not sure how funny this is in the scheme of things, but gave me a chuckle anyway. — jorndoe

I guess what has been confirmed is that the modern equipment is in use now.

Yet not sure just how large this counteroffensive will be. The fact is that even if the assistance from the West is significant and is enough for Ukraine to defend from Russian assaults, but to take on Russia's entrenched defenses is another issue. Then you have to have that numerical advantage and superiority at least in the local level, which still is difficult for Ukraine.

It is a war of attrition now.

It's not semantics. If you argue that the attack toward Kyiv was a feint and argue that other people are saying this or have said so when they have not, that isn't semantics.

And I got you.

Nothing about the two major axis being feints as you declared to Mearsheimer to say.

If you quote somebody saying something, then this person has to say that thing. Nothing something that you can intrepret of being somewhat close or whatever to what you intend.

In fact the limited objectives Mearsheimer said, to take Kyiv or threaten it aren't feints. A feint is a is a maneuver designed to distract or mislead. That is different. You don't engage your best troops, do the most the largest airborne operation of the war, engage in a month long battle, suffer substantial losses, all to make a feint. There's absolutely no logic to it.

The only one calling it a feint is you. Not Mearsheimer and likely not anybody else.

And furthermore, you showed even better how confused you are:

(Mearsheimer): I think he’s interested in taking at least the Donbass, and maybe some more territory and eastern Ukraine, and, number two, he wants to install in Kyiv a pro-Russian government, a government that is attuned to Moscow’s interests. — Jabberwock

And that's what many have said. Yet installing that pro-Russian government, you have to do something about Kyiv. Try to take it, encircle it, perhaps hope that they follow the US proposal of flying to safety to the West. All that needs a military operation that isn't a feint.

So your confusion here is that you totally mix up what are the territorial objectives of Putin (and that's the territories of Novorossiya) and then military operation for installing that pro-Russian government (or the destruction of the rump state of Ukraine).

That's not the video I meant. By now I have dug up and shared these links so many times I can't be bothered to do so again, since none of you seem to take any of the contents to heart anyway. — Tzeentch

Lame excuse. You simply use the quote key and it's easy...

Besides, in the other videos you have referred to like this video Mearsheimer says himself that the limited objectives that Russia had was to take or threaten Kyiv. Mearsheimers only point has been that the force cannot occupy all Ukraine.

So your wrong.

No, you have not. The communications by the Ukrainian General Staff DOES NOT give the number of troops, only the number of BTGs. So you DO NOT have a source for your number. You conclude that it was 21000 troops based on your faulty assumptions. — Jabberwock

* * *

[...] and anybody with the slightest understanding of how militaries work can see that this wasn't a feint. — ssu

Simply untrue.

Mearsheimer considers the possibility in one of his lectures which I have already linked here. — Tzeentch

Wrong again.

The given link here Mearsheimer SAYS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LIKE THAT. Nothing. Nowhere in the 1h 33min lecture did he even touch the subject.

@Tzeentch, you have to understand that when you give as reference or say that someone has the same thing in mind, you simply have to have the ability to produce a direct quote or a copy-paste quote that people can see that they really think so. Here, just in case of @Jabberwock's and other counters, the references you point out don't say what you state them saying.

That Mearsheimer says that Russia doesn't want all the territory of Ukraine (which I do agree and have emphasized the Novorossiya part of Ukraine) is simply not the same as saying the two axis of Russian advance into Kyiv were a faint.

Learn how to use references or sources.

I'm hypothesizing. — Tzeentch

So now its hypotheticals. At least that is promising. :smirk:

Anyway, the 190,000 figure is provided by Mearsheimer as the upper limit of troops the Russians deployed at the start of the invasion. I don't think that number is actually being seriously disputed — Tzeentch

How about the fact that troops committed to a war aren't just made up, even in Russia, from battalion tactical groups, the maneuver units? Maneuver units are the spearhead of the fighting force, but behind there is all other supporting elements and supply.

Hence you have Armies attacking into Ukraine, which are created from several divisions which in turn form the needed BTCs. Hence it's rather naive talk of how much manpower and then look at size of the BTC. And anyway, as usual, this is totally besides the point.

The fact is that Russian Army and other parts of the armed forces concentrated nearly everything they could to the "special military operation" is totally obvious. The most obvious and irrefutable fact is that they had to perform a mobilization of reserves afterwards, when things didn't go as planned. And so is that two of main axis went after Kyiv and anybody with the slightest understanding of how militaries work can see that this wasn't a feint.

Understanding that Ukraine put up a fight, understanding the pre-attack intel was horrifically wrong, and above all the attack being got stuck with lots of losses, Russia withdrew it's forces from the Kyiv operations area to reinforce other fronts as a) Ukraine won't follow them to Belarus. This was no feint, what happened was a withdrawal.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the Kyiv attack had not been part of the Feb 24 invasion.

In terms of strategy, what might reasonably have been expected for north-Ukrainian/Kyiv forces? — jorndoe

This is quite hard to say (too many moving parts to make even an educated guess, in my view), but in a general sense if there had been no significant threat to Kiev, the Ukrainian defense would have been a lot denser, because there would have been less frontline to cover. This is generally seen as being in favor of the defender. — Tzeentch

One hypothetical (as we are talking about hypotheticals now) would have been that Russia would only have attacked in Donbas and the war wouldn't have been about the de-nazification of Ukraine (regime change).

This clearly would have had an affect of the attack being on a lower escalatory ladder and likely would have produced a far weaker response from the West. If the Russian attack would have confided to the Donbas with the objective to gain all of the area and that landbridge to Ukraine, many could argue that this wouldn't be a major escalation. No attack towards Kyiv and Kharkiv. Above all, no regime change either. Ukraine, as it had done in 2014, would still have had to have reserves to defend it's Capitol from a possible attack. But now as it was an all-out attack on Ukraine with the objective of regime change, this obviously didn't happen.

Putin did have this possibility, but he went Kyiv.

'Captured plans' - sure. Show them to me. — Tzeentch

Ok, now you're just trolling.

First of all, you haven't given ANY reasoning for your idea (here ) a that two of the main groups attacking Kyiv were doing some kind of faint. Then even the link that you gave yourself states done in February 26th states:

Kyiv axis: Russia’s likely main effort to rapidly isolate Kyiv and force the Ukrainian
government to capitulate has failed as of February 26.

Had this been the Russians' intention, we would have seen a lot more casualties and intense fighting. — Tzeentch

Operation Danube didn't see more casualties and intense fighting, but did see large columns of tanks suddenly on the streets of the target Capital after a rapid drive from the border. Great military operation.



Hence Russians advancing in long columns close together is an obvious irrefutable proof that they weren't suspecting a fierce fight from the Ukrainians.

I've already given you mine. — Tzeentch

How can a report done in February tell about facts that happened in April? :chin:

Just at first answer that.

Besides, the RUSI article used captured plans to make out what the plans were. And they show just how wrong the Russians were right from the start:

For mechanised forces, the intent was often to rapidly occupy and thereafter isolate and screen key objectives. On the axis from Gomel to Kyiv, for example, the force was divided into a screening force that was to establish positions facing west to cut off Kyiv from western Ukraine, and units responsible for pushing into the city. Very little consideration appears to have been given to Ukrainian reserves or the Territorial Defence Forces (TDF). The assertion in Russian planning that Ukraine could generate only 40,000 additional troops appears to be premised on the anticipated speed of the operation rather than an appreciation of Ukraine’s capacity for mobilisation. This emphasis on speed led to units being ordered to advance in administrative column by road and to attempt to bypass any initial resistance. The assumption was that by D+10, Russian units would transition to stabilisation operations. The synchronisation matrix of the 1st Guards Tank Army (Western Military District), for example, captured near Kyiv in March 2022, stated that by D+10 the force would ‘proceed to the blocking and destruction of individual scattered units of the Armed Forces and the remnants of nationalist resistance units’.

The reason why columns of armour were destroyed is that basically Russians were trying something similar to the US invasion of Iraq or more likely, their most successful military operation post WW2 operation, Operation Danube.

What tells about the pre-attack confidence of the Russians in their abilities (and their assumption on the weakness of the Ukrainians) is that when the Western intelligence sources gave out publicly a fairly correct estimate on what Russian plans were, Putin didn't change them, but went with the same plans anyway.

Who needs strategic surprise when the target is a weak state that is artificial?

What a curious remark, coming from someone who keeps referencing the battle of Hostomel Airport (24th - 25th of February by the way, when "the goddamn battle of Kiev wasn't even going on"). — Tzeentch

Wrong. Trying to misrepresent what I said is silly. I said "To assume that the fight of Hostomel/Antonov Airport and the whole fight for Kyiv". Notice the word and.

Besides @Tzeentch, it is you who is referring to a document given two days after the attack to claim how much there were troops of a battle that went at least to April, the next month.

Also, what losses are you talking about here? — Tzeentch

Oh right, you don't believe that Russia has experienced any meaningful losses.

Sources, or no bueno. — Tzeentch

Why don't you start with your own. Like try to give some credibility to your argument that how RUSI among military observers are wrong when they state "The northern axis was the main effort, focused on the encirclement and capture of Kyiv."

:snicker:

Do you know what you gave as your reference? Just look at what the ISW issue says:

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, February 26, 2022!

It's been done the same month! The whole goddam battle for Kiyv wasn't even going on!!! Just started. Quite good intel if you have good insight on the attacking formation in a couple of days.

How about something done perhaps with little more hindsight (from November 2022): RUSI: Preliminary Lessons in Conventional Warfighting from Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine: February–July 2022

The northern axis was the main effort, focused on the encirclement and capture of Kyiv. For this purpose, the Russians formed two groups of forces commanded from the Eastern Military District Command Post. One group was formed in the Gomel region of Belarus and used the tactical sign ‘V’ with orders to attack Kyiv along the right (western) bank of the Dnipro River. The second group was formed in the Bryansk region of Russia and used the tactical sign ‘O’ with orders to surround Kyiv from the left (eastern) bank.

And this wouldn't be the only reference. I could have several Finnish Military studies saying basically the same issues and other and going deeper in just what these groups of forces consisted. The operational objectives are quite clear and obvious now in hindsight.

And those who are curious just were the "Z" came from (continued RUSI article):

The Southern Military District Command Post commanded units with the tactical symbol ‘Z in a square’, ordered to attack from occupied Crimea to establish control over the North Crimean Water Canal, Energodar and the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, surround Mariupol, take control of the bridges over the Dnipro and advance along the right bank to Voznesensk with the aim of seizing the South Ukrainian Nuclear Power Plant.

The Southern MD has been seeing most of the fighting in the near history (Russo-Georgian war and earlier the Chechen wars), hence it seems to have been the best Russia MD as it gained it's primary objectives.

I prefer your sense of humor over your interpretation of the facts. — Tzeentch

Something on the same lines:

The Russians hoping to take Kiev with 20,000 troops is a laughable fantasy.

Sorry. but it can't be put in any other way.

It's pretty obvious that the Russians in terms of territory aimed for south eastern Ukraine. — Tzeentch

To assume that the fight of Hostomel/Antonov Airport and the whole fight for Kyiv was a distraction is a laughable fantasy. Sorry, but it can't be put in any other way.

- First of all, where do you get the number 20,000? Russian forces deployed to the Kyiv front were about 70 000 and they were confronted by 20,000 Ukrainian army and perhaps 18,000 irregulars. That's still an advantage. With several crack Airborne units committed to the attack and the largest air mobile operation tried to be implemented. Basically you have several armies attacking into the direction of Kyiv.

- Attacking Kyiv and the Kyiv operations area was one of the concentrations of Russian forces pushing into Ukraine. That somehow it wasn't is laughable. Do note that the taking of Kharkiv didn't either happen. Was then that a fake too?



- If this would have been a feint, then obviously it would have been totally different. The forces wouldn't have been committed to face such losses. And have them on the Ukrainian-Belarussian border would have forced to Ukraine to have forces to defend Kyiv. Yet that didn't happen. And when the where withdrawn, these units had suffered high losses.

I'd just like to point out how absolutely pivotal a piece of information like this (that has been public knowledge for a while) is to deciphering the actual goings-on vis-à-vis Ukraine.

For many months now I have defended the position (leaning quite often on Mearsheimer's arguments, I will admit) that the Russians never intended to take over all of Ukraine with their initial invasion. — Tzeentch

Yes, because it was to be ruled by Ukrainian Quislings preferable to Moscow. And because it was going to be a short war. The main objective has been to get Novorossiya into Russia. That nearly came to be, except the collapse of the Ukrainian army. And the strategic strike into Kyiv was again a great plan on paper. Assuming that Ukrainians wouldn't fight back. But why would they?

How many troops did Putin need to take Crimea? I guess 30 000. And then from the Ukrainian forces over 9000 military defected to Russia, including the head of the Ukrainian Navy, and thousands of other officials also. That obviously makes quite easy for a gambler like Putin to take another roll of the dice.

Besides, you didn't noticed that the people in the Russian Intel responsible for Ukraine prior to the war war were sacked? I wonder why that happened if what happened was all planned.

Ironically, this describes Washington equally well. — Tzeentch

Lol.

That's on another timeline. And at least in the English speaking World there's an example of how to lose your Empire with reasonable dignity and without a revolution.

First you need to have the ability to laugh at your own imperialism. Monty Python showed the way:

I assume the 19th Century Briton wouldn't be amused about this Queen Victoria Handicap skit.

For once in America's recent history, it's realpolitik goals and the morality of the situation happen to intersect: helping the Ukrainians is the right thing to do. — RogueAI

I remember this bothering Streetlight X, the US getting off now because the actions of Putin are so clear obvious.

Present Russia is a prime example of a country where it's leaders are so seduced about it's imagined greatness they will ruin everything absolutely everything.

For long what was missing was to treat unidentified flying objects as unidentified, flying, objects.

I think that can have changed a bit when the Navy came out officially with material that couldn't be identified and the Navy pilots were interviewed in the media ...and continued to have their jobs as fighter pilots afterwards. It's one thing to point out something is unidentified and unknown, another thing to come to the conclusion that it's extra-terrestials with an advance technology that (apparently only) the US government knows about, but it's kept hidden for so many decades.

The conspiracy theorists basically are the problem. In the typical American way, when there is a buying audience, then to get money you have to please that audience. And if you don't please that audience, well, they won't just ignore you, part of them will attack you. For many it's an interesting entertainment and actually the few believers are entertainment for the people too.

It's basically an American phenomenon, because only Americans can both distrust their own government and yet think their government bureaucracies can be so capable at the same time to have these huge cover ups. In other countries when you distrust your government, you don't rate their abilities to be so high up. The UFO cult would have been different if it would have been based in some other country than the US. Yet that there are interesting open questions and obviously unidentified things is a different matter than believing that the UFO cult is right.

Hyperinflation happens when people lose all trust in the currency. I don't think people are at all thinking like that.

Hence I don't think you or me ought to talk about hyperinflation when you have had what? 9% inflation at the highest was or so. That's a quite an extrapolation. Many countries have had experiences of high inflation without there being hyperinflation. Not everything leads to the worst case happening.

After all, just with 10% inflation in a decade and your money is worth less than a half. Yet paying back those older debts is far more easy.

The problem is just how the US government, and typically any Western government, spends. The political problem is that "mandatory" spending is already the majority of the costs and "discretionary" is the smaller part.



Hence the "stimulus packages" will be the new norm. Just as the raising of the debt level. And it simply doesn't add up. Sooner or later you will have the crisis because the spending simply is unsustainable. And what ought to be noticed is that the higher interest rates will mean that the share of the "interest on the debt" will rise. We have started climbing from the lowest interest rates ever recorded in history.

And the spending of "mandatory items" will be changed only through a crisis. Come that before 2030 or after.

Seems that Russia blew up the Kakhovka damn to prevent any crossing from western part (western end) of the Dnipro. But it obviously puts a lot people into danger.

the head of the Kherson region, Oleksandr Prokudin, said that as a result of the explosions, “water will reach a critical level in 5 hours” and that residents in nearby areas would be forced to leave their homes. “Around 16,000 people on Kherson’s right bank are in the critical zone," he said, adding that residents would be evacuated by bus.

And the talk of the loss of values in the West is rather hypocritical, given the 'values' of Russia's allies. It is not a coincidence that they are all authoritarian states. — Jabberwock

Democracies seem decadent, weak, corrupt and verge of collapse to the authoritarian. And, of course, they are also homosexual and are against traditional values, which the authoritarian regimes often declare to be the sole defenders of. It was so in the 1930's and it is so now.

I dont think much of what you wrote there is directly related to the present situation. — frank

What Chinese policies then you had in mind?

Besides, China has followed a quite similar path as the West when it comes to debt, yet it's public sector isn't as heavily in debt as for example the US is being under 100% of debt-to-gdp. (If the total debt to gdp is for China in the 300% level, it's for the US somewhere in the 700% level)

China isn't in the west. China doesn't follow western policies. — frank

Especially after the sanctions now imposed on Russia, China can fear that similar things would happen to itself. And thus the globalization bromance between China and the US is over and globalization is now going backwards. China is also focused on trying to increase it's domestic market and doesn't see anymore the link to the US or the West's technology and investment as crucial as earlier.

As Harvard Business Review put it:

But for more than 15 years—spanning the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations—China has followed a strategy of reducing its dependence on foreign technology and capabilities. Moreover, it has projected that strategy forward another 15 years.

This transformation doesn't happen quickly, but is happening. Still the majority of all foreign currency holdings that nations have are in US dollars. And the fact is that even if the USD has an oversized role on the markets, the US still has the largest economy.

Below a graph showing the foreign currency reserves held in the World:


The fact that now the biggest holder and the biggest buyer of US Treasuries isn't China or Japan, but the Federal Reserve. Yet the real problem is that US public finance has totally decoupled from actual tax income and is totally dependent basically structurally on acquiring more and more debt. The problem is the rapid growth of this, which will be increasingly difficult to manage.

When the global economy crashed in March 2020 and markets went into free fall, the U.S. Treasury market — the $25 trillion bedrock of the global financial system — broke down. Sellers struggled to find buyers, and prices whipsawed higher and lower. The Fed stepped in, devoting trillions of dollars to steadying the market.

The importance of the Treasury market is hard to overstate. It is the main source of funding for the U.S. government and underpins borrowing costs around the globe, for a huge variety of assets. If you have a mortgage, the interest rate you received was probably priced in relation to Treasuries. The same goes for credit cards, business loans and just about anything with an interest rate attached to it. The proper functioning of this market is paramount.

That’s why even small wobbles in this market can generate huge worries. At its worst, a Treasury trading breakdown could cause the value of the dollar, stocks and other bonds to tumble.

You can pay that debt away with inflation. And that's why even if we can have temporary lulls in inflation, it won't go away.

I think you're forgetting that the US is part of a global system. The US can overspend without developing hyper-inflation as long as China doesn't have high inflation. The problem right now is that everybody's inflation is on the high side. Even Japan's inflation rate is going up (which usually never happens). — frank

All nations are following the same example. And that's why a dollar crisis wouldn't be a crisis of the US, it would be a crisis for the West. We are in the same boat. And that's why the saying has gone that in the end the US is the best of the bad. I'd say the end result is monetary crisis of the whole system. Just like Nixon had in the 1970's.

Right now we're in a self-propelling cycle. Wages are up because spending is up, and vice versa. Even though there are signs that we may already be in a recession, inflation continues along it's own trail. — frank

It would be good actually to see what economists and commentators said earlier. Reasons like why there wouldn't be any inflation because of the COVID stimulus packages and the huge increase in spending. There was even the Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) that was eagerly listened to. Even if the MMT did understand that somewhere inflation would be a problem, it wouldn't be now. Especially not for the US.

And comments were like this when the trillions level stimulus bills happened:

(Washington Post, March 4th, 2021) This time, the proximate cause is the Biden administration’s $1.9 trillion coronavirus rescue package, coupled with the Fed’s new approach, which aims to let inflation hover near 2 percent (and go slightly above it when necessary), instead of strictly targeting 2 percent. What happens, the inflation hawks ask, if we emerge from the pandemic with an economic boom? If everyone gets back to work and uses that government money, will wages and prices suddenly shoot up? It’s not an outrageous question: Theory holds that goods will cost more and our money will buy less. But that’s not happening yet. And it hasn’t happened in a very long time. Our understanding of inflation has changed, our ability to control it has improved and the danger is more remote than we once believed. *** From a human standpoint, it seems like a no-brainer. Stop overly worrying about unlikely inflation and support a roaring economy, one that’s inclusive enough to pull people off the sidelines. It’s essential medicine. If only the hawks can be convinced to let us take it.

It's the age old thing of people believing that "this times it's different". As if what held earlier in history wouldn't hold know. And when something is brewing on for decades yet isn't upon us and the crisis hasn't happened yet, nobody cares.

. Giving those profits to the rich is morally wrong and terrible practice. — Mikie

Obviously you don't like capitalism, but the fact is profit is given to those that are the owners. Workers get salaries, owners profits.

The issue is just to look at what has the biggest effect on the issues. Yes, some large corporations indeed have pricing power and can protect their profits. However, it's still a response to the situation: raw materials and others cost rose, hence they could raise prices. And it's basically the same talking point, that it's the greedy corporations, that Gerald Ford had when inflation rose to 12% during his administration. And that's how the political discourse will be set: talk about greedy corporations, the war in ukraine, supply shortages and total silence about monetary policy.

And thus I keep repeating on the absolutely massive Trump era COVID stimulus packages in addition to the out of control spending that the US has. A jump from a debt-to-gdp ratio of 100% level to 120% level in a year or so simply has consequences. That public spending went from 4 trillion to the 7 trillion range has consequences. It's unpopular in the US as both Democrat and GOP administrations are the culprits here and thus the other side cannot simply blame the other.

Similarly, that just now the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve has double again in a very short time is telling.



And now that money didn't go to re-inflate a burst speculative bubble and keep the financial system afloat, but to prevent the COVID lockdowns causing an economic downturn.

Likely in the end the international dollar system will simply collapse. Likely then the bad guy for all this in addition to the "greedy corporations" will be said to be China. Never fiscal spending by central bank printing money as the culprit.

It's never a good sign when one supplants valid objection with attacking a strawman. — creativesoul

What is the strawman where you do have inflation every year except one?

. And it’s a terrible practice. Terrible for businesses, in fact. To say nothing of the moral bankruptcy of the shareholder primacy view, which you seem to assume as a law of nature. — Mikie

Terrible practice to make a profit? Terrible for business?

Just what in your mind is a business profit?

Evil banality of greedy people that abuse people or what?