Right— and it’s complete nonsense. Anyone who buys into that really just hasn’t looked into the matter closely enough. — Xtrix

I agree. Those who get the money before the inflation kicks in are the real winners. And usually the wage earners are the last to demand higher compensation due to the higher prices. Yet there's ample amount of literature of wage inflation.

But even if it's nonsense, it's politically quite convenient. Just as is the idea that high inflation ought to be best fought by lowering salaries!

No, I didn’t say inflation is a talking point— I said attributing inflation to raising wages and handing out stimulus checks is a talking point. — Xtrix

With inflation, wage increases are usually viewed as the bad guy. And of course the government did basically shut down businesses during the pandemic, so the stimulus checks should be a truly exceptional case. The real question is will they be so exceptional.

And then there is the question government finances. Which looked like this in 2020.



So that was the "exception". How does it look now? Does it look like the 2020 budget?

Yes. The historical record is absolutely clear on this. Without legitimate-sounding excuses, invasions do not occur. Haven't done for decades. — Isaac

Seems like your blaming the rape victim for dressing too promiscuously. Oh yes, a decent outfit would have saved the beautiful young girl from being raped! And let's not talk about the rapist as that's irrelevant because everybody knows he's a rapist that lurks in the park.

So if you think a known mass murderer has a gun, it's OK to sell him another? After all, he's already got a gun, so no harm making a profit out of his murderous intent, yes? — Isaac

Let me get this right. Ukraine wanting to join NATO, and NATO saying something "OK...in the future" as they said, is equivalent of giving a gun to a known mass murderer?

So independent countries wanting to join a defense treaty to protect them from an attack is wrong?

And really, if someone says that one landmass and it's people are an inseparable part of their country and that is has been a huge historical injustice that they and the landmass has been separated from their historical and cultural home, I think there is really enough excuses to start a war with or without blaming the evil Americans.

Because they’ve been screaming about debt and inflation for decades. A broken clock is right twice a day. — Xtrix

Some have, that's true. I do know those permabears. They have their niche audience, just like every perma-something or conspiracy theorists has. And if they change their minds, oh boy, their audience will revolt!

(I only really listen to those that can truly change their stance from bearish to bullish. Those who acknowledge that basically the fiat system can go on for decades and even our lifetime, even if it could crash also.)

All this is, in the end, is a conservative talking point. It’s an excuse to ignore supply-side issues like line distributions, price gouging, profiteering, and oligopoly. Rather they want us to believe it’s because some poor people got $1200 bucks and wages increased by 4%. Give me a break.

Complete bullshit. — Xtrix

But if you think inflation is just a conservative talking point, which I would correct it is when the conservatives aren't in power, then there is not much else for you to contribute in this thread.

What I've learned that usually economists of different school do have a point. Something that is true and should be thought about. Yet likely they miss something else also. Hence there aren't economists or economic schools that are RIGHT and others that are WRONG. But many do have this idea, especially when politics comes to the picture. They will have their real economists and others being the phony ones. And basically the whole issue becomes a political fight, perhaps part of the culture war. And then what people hear are only supposed dog whistles.

The point I'm making is that whether Putin wants to annex Crimea, Ukraine (or Moldova, or Lithuania...) is entirely irrelevant to us. — Isaac

Or irrelevant to you. Then why on Earth continue this debate?

What matters is whether he's actually going to try. — Isaac

Well, in the case of Crimea and now in Donbas, I think this should be clear even to you.

So if we want to limit the horrors of war, don't provide excuses to tyrants. — Isaac

Oh that would make him change his mind? If we didn't give him excuses?

I think it's quite obvious that Putin had excuses / justifications / reasons to invade Ukraine irrelevant to NATO / EU / The West.

Again— inflation was predicted after all the spending in 2009. Didn’t happen. — Xtrix

After the bursting of a speculative housing bubble inflation won't pick up as the bubble bursting is highly deflationary. Banks and the financial sector are the ones in focus and they won't continue lending as they did before. And the inflation the QE created basically went afterwards to asset inflation, to refilling the bubble.

3 years later, inflation happens after an unprecedented global pandemic — inflation that’s occurring all over the world — and the same believers say “See? Told you so.” It’s simply nonsense. — Xtrix

Why do think so?

When did I say there wasn't and Old Right ...or those who are against the New Deal? There are those even today

I don't dispute there being an "Old Right". What I'm disputing is the idea that the Keynesians and those who pushed for the New Deal weren't part of the elite. They were, and are, also.

True, it wasn’t 100% solidarity. No kidding. — Xtrix

Like in 1971 Nixon saying that he is now a Keynesian? When especially Keynesianism is one of the most successful economic schools of all time, the idea of Keynesianism/New Deal -thinkers vs. the elites just sounds a bit strange.

I dunno how fertility rates are calculated. If I'm correct it uses birth rates in the population and that in all likelihood ignores abortions and miscarriages that should appear in their very own categories. In other words, fertility rate ain't the whole story if you catch my drift. — Agent Smith

Let's put things into context: In the US in 2017, the abortion rate stood at 13.5 abortions per 1,000 women. Which means, as obviously someone can have more than 1 abortions, that lower than 1,35% percent of women have abortions. The fertility rate is an estimate the average number of children that a woman would have over her childbearing years (i.e. age 15-49), based on current birth trends. When the fertility rate in the US is 1,75, means that wome 15-49 have on average 1,75 children.
Something little under one fifth of women (18%) are childless, which means the vast majority of women do have children.

Hence the issue of population growth are depended on a lot of other things than abortions, which affected every 100th woman or so. And when some states will have legal abortions, the impact at least to issues like population growth is minimal if non-existent.

That's not controlled by the US, though. The whole global economy is doing that, much of it by the will of the Chinese. — Tate

Not actually. There's no alternative now for the US dollar. For now.

Basically the US just can fuck up and have the dollar lose it's status as the reserve currency. It's not like the World's countries will choose an alternative system. It's just that they will have to admit that the system doesn't work anymore. And only the Americans themselves can mess things so badly, if they want.

Good way to do that is to send those stimulus checks again for the people and just spend, spend and spend. It's totally possible to wreck the dollar, but will take a lot of work!

With Roe vs. Wade squashed, we should expect a population explosion in the US in the coming few decades. — Agent Smith

Between the defunding of social security, healthcare, daily mass shootings, and uncontrolled climate change (all Republican priorities), I kind of doubt that. — Mr Bee

Fertility rate goes actually down when people get more prosperous and the fertility rates have gone steadily gone down around the World. Abortion bans mean quite little, actually. Only something as crazy as ban on contraceptives might have an effect.

And anyway, this decision just separates the US states even more. I really doubt that California or Washington State would dramatically change their abortion laws now.

I’m not stereotyping, nor do I consider the ruling class enemies. — Xtrix

Well, just who are you talking about. I think Roosevelt and the democrats of that era were part of the ruling class. With any class of people, you obviously have totally opposing views and not so much actual solidarity inside the class, let alone one agenda that everybody agrees to.

But this is going a bit off the topic...

A lot of Americans feel the same way. 'Let it all go up in flames and start over, or not even that, just let it all be ended'. It's the nihilism Olivier5 was talking about in the Ukraine thread. — Tate

Ah, the decadence of the West!

Well, both Americans and we foreigners likely don't understand just how much of that wealth and awesomeness of the US economy is based on the position the US dollar enjoys.

Yet why we have now (and will have in the future) high inflation is because finally the MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) experiment has been done, and it's effects are to be seen now. Here's a perfect example of the MMT thinking:



It should be noted that Kelton as supporter of MMT does say the obvious, that with deficit spending the real limit is inflation (or in the end, basically the trust in the currency). But as we know, we have a lot of excuses for inflation to be "transitory": the war in Ukraine and Putin, supply shortages and, why not, even climate change. Anything else but that deficit spending by our governments.

They believe they lost power during the New Deal era, and were under threat in the 60s. There’s some truth in that. — Xtrix

Some, but only partly.

I think the problem is that there's a huge difference in the actual policies and objectives which one side has and what the other side portrays these objectives to be. Just "who" these people are is a genuine question as people just love the stereotypes they create of "the other" as the enemy.

Joe Manchin isn't looking so stupid all of the sudden. — Tate

I've not followed what he has said. And I think the real problem is that into this issue will also be engraved the political mudslinging, the "culture war" or whatever you will call the feuding by the two parties in the US. Just to talk about the issue, or any issue close to this, will immediately treated as some kind of dog whistle if one or the other side talks about the issue enough. And then... no more of any kind of educative debate about the issue.

The only fairly universal guideline is that those not in opposition and not power can talk about the problem clearly while those in power have to handle the issue.

Hence, it's not at all surprising that who has talked about the issue most clearly is Vladimir Putin: he genuinely has nothing to lose on this, and will be happy about the possible demise of the dollar / the Western financial system.

Never. — Xtrix

Exactly.

And the real problem is that these elites don't even change so much.

It's "a monumental day for" regressive conservatism, religious sentiments being imposed upon others apparently, no mention of sober bioethics either. — jorndoe

I wonder what the reaction would have been if a Republican would be in the White House.

We'll see if they repeat it or learn from the lesson. — Tate

Learn just what?

Actually the real interest hikes happened in the 1980's. Paul Volcker was the Fed chief in 1979-1987.

Here's the fed funds rate along with the CPI from that time:

Now, just look how scary it looks just now. Rates are nowhere close to confine the inflation.

This time I think they will let inflation run wild. There's enough scapegoats around and simply the Fed is between a rock and a hard place.

A lot of people will be poorer in the future than now.

That the policies will be of "relief", "stimulus" and "assistance" is quite clear. Just look at how Biden tries to engage with high fuel prices:

Interesting and educational, thanks!

. It’s a commitment to taking power “back” from the New Deal era, returning it to its proper place: to the elites. — Xtrix

Since when have the elites not had the power?

This isn't only an US problem.

This is a global problem.

When Paul Volcker raised the interest rates above the inflation rate, I guess the US debt to GDP ratio was something like 13%. Now it's over 130%. That's a big difference when the central bank ought to raise interest rates so that the real interest rates aren't negative. Or anything close to that.

Now the Fed funds rate is 1,75% and the inflation rate 8,6%. That's highly negative.

In fact, Japan is already in this quagmire: they simply cannot have higher interest rates or the government will have real problems.

I have no idea how long this will last.

My point was that Crimea being (historically, ethnically etc) part of Russia was very important in the rhetoric/excuses.

But enough of this. said the obvious about this whole issue. So let's move on.

Stagflation, here we come. — Tate

Indeed.

I bet in the fall if this thread doesn't pick it up, someone else will start a thread about stagflation.

Come on! You're becoming ridiculous. — Isaac

The legality of the "full compliance with democratic procedures and international law norms" seems quite in line with the Stalinist rhetoric during the Winter War. And with Stalinist rhetoric in general:

The referendum unsurprisingly produced a Soviet-style result: 97 percent allegedly voted to join Russia with a turnout of 83 percent. A true referendum, fairly conducted, might have shown a significant number of Crimean voters in favor of joining Russia. Some 60 percent were ethnic Russians, and many might have concluded their economic situation would be better as a part Russia.

It was not, however, a fair referendum. It was conducted in polling places under armed guard, with no credible international observers, and with Russian journalists reporting that they had been allowed to vote. Two months later, a member of Putin’s Human Rights Council let slip that turnout had been more like 30 percent, with only half voting to join Russia.

(See here)

Besides, many also were extremely happy when the Sudetenland was taken from Czechoslovakia also...a perfect example of similar "justified" actions?

I just meant they borrow it, they don't print it. Maybe that's not an important distinction? — Tate

No, it isn't an important distinction. With money printing I don't mean the actual printing of money, although they do that too.

Let's just listen to what the actual chairman of the Federal Reserve says about this:

Excuses were - Russian-speaking population, oppression of language, NATO risk to warm-water port access. — Isaac

Your again wrong, Isaac. With Crimea, it was viewed as an inseparable part of Russia, which had no right to be part of Ukraine. Putin stated it quite clearly.

From his speech in 2014:

Colleagues,

In people’s hearts and minds, Crimea has always been an inseparable part of Russia. This firm conviction is based on truth and justice and was passed from generation to generation, over time, under any circumstances, despite all the dramatic changes our country went through during the entire 20th century.

After the revolution, the Bolsheviks, for a number of reasons – may God judge them – added large sections of the historical South of Russia to the Republic of Ukraine. This was done with no consideration for the ethnic make-up of the population, and today these areas form the southeast of Ukraine. Then, in 1954, a decision was made to transfer Crimean Region to Ukraine, along with Sevastopol, despite the fact that it was a federal city. This was the personal initiative of the Communist Party head Nikita Khrushchev. What stood behind this decision of his – a desire to win the support of the Ukrainian political establishment or to atone for the mass repressions of the 1930’s in Ukraine – is for historians to figure out.

So no, excuses weren't supporting separatists autonomy', or 'repelling NATO', or 'supporting legitimate governments against foreign intervention',... and so on. Something to be an inseparable part of Russia makes it quite clear. Or perhaps you haven't listened to Apollodorus, who has promoted the idea that Russia has the most justification for Crimea.

Ha! Take a country's history all the way back to 1939 and the example of naked land-grabbing you come up with is still Russia. They really have become bogeyman number one haven't they? Do you recall any other land grabs by any other countries in 1939? anything spring to mind? — Isaac

Oh! You really think that the Winter War was an example of naked land-grabbing? But somehow you do not notice the totally similar playbook, do you?

Likely Stalin would have declared the Soviet Army peacekeepers just coming to help the Democratic Republic of Finland in a "special military operation", if that would have been the rhetoric of the time. For the Soviet soldiers it was promoted as a parade march to liberate the Finnish workers from their evil capitalist controllers. And Finnish Democratic Republic was just like the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics. This has been played from the same playbook in Georgia, Moldova and now in Ukraine. Just with different outcomes.

I don't think the US government prints a lot of extra money. — Tate

When the Federal Reserve doubled it's monetary base from September 2020 to December 2021, you think that isn't a lot of extra money?

Sure...the people need those COVID money transfers when prices have risen...:snicker:

They sell treasury bonds to pay for things like the COVID response. — Tate

That was then bought by the Federal Reserve, right.

It's not the foreigners who have continued to buy it:

It basically is the question just how credible is the deterrence of NATO in the end. Or the US. We do have to remember that CENTO or SEATO don't anymore exist.

Now, in the case of Estonia, they've likely noticed that not all US politicians would come to their help. From some years ago:



Hopefully the current dispute with Lithuania and Russia don't grow, but we'll see what the Russian response will be.

Interestingly, Morocco is set to consolidate its position on the fertilizer market in Africa. Building on their natural phosphate deposits they are exporting to sub-saharian Africa but also building fertilizer plants there, and even contributing to agronomic research and extension about optimal fertilizer dosages etc. — Olivier5

I think Morocco has three quarters of the reserves of phosphate rock in the world, so it's no wonder. Yet the real issue is to have a robust efficient and up-to-date chemical industry. And that, as is the problem for many Third World countries, isn't so easy to create.

I’m not denying that pumping a lot of money into the economy has no role to play; it certainly does. But when looking at the current situation it seems that supply issues are playing a bigger role. — Xtrix

Well, this is the point I really look forward to have a discussion.

How long should you believe this "supply shock" argument? How long people believe the "Present inflation is just transitory and will quickly go away" argument?

Before it was Covid. Fine. But now?

War in Ukraine? Really? I think Daniel Lacalle's argument is convincing:

The Ukraine war has created another excuse to blame inflation on oil and natural gas. However, it seems that all those who blame inflationary pressures on commodities continue to ignore the massive price increases in housing, healthcare, and education, as well as in goods and services where there was evident overcapacity. Global food prices show a similar problem. The United Nations and Food and Agriculture Organization Food Price Index has been rising steadily and reached all-time highs even before the covid crisis.

Oil and gas will be used as an excuse for inflation as long as low interest rates and massive currency creation remain. But the reality is that when both deflate somehow, the problem of currency debasement will remain.

Inflation was already higher than the CPI measure suggested before the covid-19 crisis. The rise in the prices of non-replicable goods and services, shelter, healthcare, fresh food, and education was significantly higher than the CPI percentage. According to Deutsche Bank, these were rising up to five times faster than the CPI. There was high inflation in the things that we consume every day even in the days when some said there was “no inflation.”

So the real issue here is what are the real reasons and what are just consequences. And are we actually blaming consequences. With high inflation in the present, usually that happens. Yet history and economic history point the finger on government policies.

This is an important issue, actually.

With the Baltics, first it was that the states just became NATO members.
....without anything else being done.

Then actual warplans were made to defend them, sort of.
.....without actual exercises.

Then actual exercises were held with trip-wire troops deployed.
.....without asking what then.

And now Kallas is asking the obvious. If NATO in the Baltics is just a tripwire.

This is the fundamental question IF you don't have anything else but the nuclear deterrence: what if Putin moves the border just 500m in the Suwalki gap? Is that enough to use nukes?

The funny thing is that this kind of tactic has been used literally. Even the Grand Tour found this amazing 'moving border'.



Yep. It does. Ruins that already precarious markets for the local farmers. But who cares about that.

Obviously. Hence: kindly drop dead unless you're willing to pay us. — Streetlight

Well, when they do start dropping dead in a great famine in the Sahel or somewhere else, the Europeans (and Australians too) can show their immense benevolence and generosity by sending them food aid. :halo:

Or likely that fertilizer plants in Africa would be dangerous competitors to European fertilizer plants. Not only the salaries would be lower, but also the transportation costs would be lower.

But moving on to another issues...

What is interesting and a show of good political moves from Russia is the defense of the ruble. After the initial plunge, it has strengthened prior to the war.



It's worth wile to look at what are the reasons for this. Yes, Russian companies had to change the foreign currencies to rubles, yes you cannot freely convert them and there are many restrictions. However this isn't the reason. The reason is basically that anybody needing rubles is basically buying them for gas, oil and other natural resources. There isn't the usual currency market casino operating with the ruble anymore. In fact, Russia has gone partly to a gold standard:

The Central Bank of Russia has announced that “In order to balance supply and demand in the domestic market of precious metals, the Bank of Russia will buy gold from domestic credit institutions at a fixed price of 5,000 Russian rubles per gramme from 28 March to 30 June 2022. The established price level makes it possible to maintain a stable supply of gold and smooth functioning of the gold mining industry in the current year. After the period specified, the purchase price of gold can be adjusted taking into account the emerging balance of supply and demand in the domestic market.”

(See Russia Positions Itself To Move The Ruble To A Gold Standard)

So basically buyers of Russian gas and oil can buy with gold the rubles they need. Now linking your currency basically to natural resources that the World needs seem to be an answer, especially when the other side is printing money at enormous quantities. And this hasn't gone unnoticed by Vladimir Putin. The accusations that the global inflation is because of the war are in my view flimsy, and here I have to agree with Putin.

Putin's speech from June 17th 2022, at theSt Petersburg International Economic Forum:

Surging inflation in product and commodity markets had become a fact of life long before the events of this year. The world has been driven into this situation, little by little, by many years of irresponsible macroeconomic policies pursued by the G7 countries, including uncontrolled emission and accumulation of unsecured debt. These processes intensified with the onset of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020, when supply and demand for goods and services drastically fell on a global scale.

This begs the question: what does our military operation in Donbass have to do with this? Nothing whatsoever.

Because they could not or would not devise any other recipes, the governments of the leading Western economies simply accelerated their money-printing machines. Such a simple way to make up for unprecedented budget deficits.

I have already cited this figure: over the past two years, the money supply in the United States has grown by more than 38 percent. Previously, a similar rise took decades, but now it grew by 38 percent or 5.9 trillion dollars in two years. By comparison, only a few countries have a bigger gross domestic product.

The EU's money supply has also increased dramatically over this period. It grew by about 20 percent, or 2.5 trillion euros.

Lately, I have been hearing more and more about the so-called – please excuse me, I really would not like to do this here, even mention my own name in this regard, but I cannot help it – we all hear about the so-called ‘Putin inflation’ in the West. When I see this, I wonder who they expect would buy this nonsense – people who cannot read or write, maybe. Anyone literate enough to read would understand what is actually happening.

Russia, our actions to liberate Donbass have absolutely nothing to do with this. The rising prices, accelerating inflation, shortages of food and fuel, petrol, and problems in the energy sector are the result of system-wide errors the current US administration and European bureaucracy have made in their economic policies. That is where the reasons are, and only there.

(See here)

Possibly, but you've still not countered the objection that they would never invade without any excuse (note 'excuse' not 'reason'). Every single invasion Russia has ever carried out in its modern incarnation has been for 'supporting separatists autonomy', or 'repelling NATO', or 'supporting legitimate governments against foreign intervention',... and so on. Never, not once, has it been "because we wanted that land". — Isaac

Really?

HOW ABOUT CRIMEA?

Anyway, I think you should put the trust in Stalinist rhetoric to a level where it belongs. After all, in Soviet (Russian) history Finland attacked Soviet Union in 1939 and the Soviet Union attempted to liberate the Finnish proletariat, and saw as the legal representative of Finland the Finnish Democratic Republic, which then likely would have joined the Union of Soviet Republics just like Baltic States.

Same rhetoric is continued now.

If they were about to join into a hostile military alliance they certainly would.

How did the United States react to Cuba getting into bed with the USSR? By calling it an existential threat and threatening nuclear war.

That happened over half a century ago, and Cuba is still under sanctions as a result of that. Do you realise that? — Tzeentch

And if during the Cold War there would have been a Marxist revolution in Mexico, yes, extremely likely the US would have intervened. Mexicans themselves understand this quite well.

But there wasn't a leftist revolution in Mexico. Hence you really should give the reason why Mexico would think it would be better off to shed it's neutrality and join in a military alliance with China.

The simple fact is that countries seek military alliance if they feel threatened. The US isn't an existential threat to Mexico. It simply doesn't have ambitions to annex parts of Mexico. (You could argue it was in the 19th Century, but then it was attacking it's northern neighbor too...and got it's ass kicked.)

Putin's Russia is threatened by NATO.
It's just that the threat is against Putin's expansion (land-grabbing) ambitions.

And that goes to show how the sort of tu quoque type switch of narrative, "NATO is the threat", has been successful.
"Bring up and focus on that, and watch", you might hear Surkov say, with Medinsky nodding in agreement, and Kiselyov implementing for the masses.
"Shut others down", you might hear Putin say.
That was easy. :sparkle:

It became clear enough some time ago that no NATO membership for Ukraine isn't a peace-maker.
And Russian bombs are still bringing ruinage to Ukraine. :fire: — jorndoe

:100: :up:

Mexico attacking doesn't seem very likely either. But how do you think the United States would react if Mexico were to enter, say, a Chinese-led military alliance? — Tzeentch

The famous hypothetical China-Mexico alliance. Well, ask yourself first just why would Mexico want to have Chinese to protect them? The Zimmerman telegraph didn't change their views...even if then US-Mexican relations were a bit problematic. Or their reasons for doing this don't matter here...right???

The Monroe Doctrine tells us how they would react, and this concept has guided United States foreign policy regarding the Americas from the Cold War to the present. Remember Cuba, Venezuela (then and now!), etc.? — Tzeentch

Both, Cuba and Venezuela, haven't been toppled / occupied / annexed. In fact they show clearly the limitations that the US with the most powerful military in the World has. Where the US can trample freely and have it's most bizarre and dubious machinations done are in tiny Central America and the Caribbean countries. Guatemala, Panama, Haiti and so on. Not Mexico, Brazil.

Yet US doesn't treat Mexico as Russia treats Ukraine. It isn't an "artificial" country that basically should be part of the US. After the US got Texas and California, there hasn't been appetite for more Mexican territory. Not at least yet.

International relations are a two way street.

With Mexico and the South American countries, the US cannot be such a bully. Last time it sent troops to Mexico was during the Mexican Civil War. In fact last time it was Mexico that sent troops to the US.

Anyway, the real issue is how a Great Power treats it's neighbors. Hence Luxembourg can be pretty easy with Germany and France now. But not previously. The fact you should be asking is why Ukraine and other former Soviet Republics like the Baltic States wanted to join NATO? And why Sweden and Finland opted to ask for membership in NATO?

The Finnish border is not of the same strategic significance as Ukrainian one.

The former consists of highly irregular terrain through which is it extremely difficult to conduct military operations. The Soviets experienced first-hand how defensible this terrain was in the Winter War of 1939.

The latter consists of open plains and is part of a region also termed the "highway to the East", used by the Germans to invade the Soviet Union in WWII at rapid speed. — Tzeentch

Ukraine itself has huge strategic significance. Just earlier you could read how 'Novorossiya' is portrayed from the Russian viewpoint. And NATO attacking?

Well, if you think of it from the Russian view, the shortest way to strike a) St Petersburg, b) Moscow and c) Northern fleet/Kola peninsula is from here. Both Northern Norway or the Baltics don't have that strategic depth, Sweden+Finland add that depth to the North for NATO. In modern war airspace is crucial too, hence it's no wonder Soviet officials were proposing Soviet air defence installations to be positioned into Finland as late as the 1970's.

What border is this? — Tzeentch

?

The border which increases hugely the border that Russia has against NATO (now only in the north in Norway and around the Kaliningrad oblast with Poland and Lithuania).

The way to keep NATO out is to make incorperation into the Russian Federation a foregone conclusion, and I think that's what these things are aimed at. — Tzeentch

???

Regime change is one thing. Annexing territories another. Last time the US fought a war of conquest was the Spanish-American war.

Talk by whom? The Russians? — Tzeentch

Where do I start? Perhaps from 2014:

Talking about the Ukrainian elections and ethnic Russians in that country's east, Putin took a detour through history.

"I would like to remind you that what was called Novorossiya back in the tsarist days – Kharkov, Lugansk, Donetsk, Kherson, Nikolayev and Odessa – were not part of Ukraine back then," Putin said. "The center of that territory was Novorossiysk, so the region is called Novorossiya. Russia lost these territories for various reasons, but the people remained."

Putin's comment might be taken as it was portrayed – as an aside, or a little tidbit of information – if it weren't for the fact that Novorossiya has been brought up so often in recent days by pro-Russian activists, who have reportedly been chanting the word as they argued against staying with Kiev. Someone has even set up a Web site that appears devoted to bringing the historical region back.

Or from a Russian website, geopolitika.ru:

Former "Ukraine" is from 2014 a dysfunctional pseudo-state run by an illegal and nazi junta in Kiev who take their orders from Washington. It is a scizophrenic "state" where one half of the population is indoctrinated and hates and opresses the other half with the help of the illegal regime and illegal armed terrorist groups like "Pravyj Sector". These groups have also taken over parts of the "ukrainian army" that now has become a tool of opression of the people of Novorossiya and thus has lost all legitimity too. The only way to get out of this mess is to liberate Novorossiya and all lands east of the Dnepr river from the Kiev nazi junta. This would also solve the problem of Transniestria and save that state from Nato occupation. The rest of "Ukraine" is so indoctrinated by lies and infiltrated by nazis that it is not worth the effort to liberate. It should be possible to support the Novorossian regions at least by promise that once they vote for independence, or to join Russia, then their application will be 100% approved and people will be protected from the nazis.

Novorossiya (and eastern Malorossiya) contains the biggest part of industry and natural resources, and of educated people, of former"Ukraine" so it can "pay" for the "cost" for its liberation.

History shows us that what is built on hate and lies and crime and foreign power is rotten and will collapse sooner or later. Former "Ukraine" has become the "brown hole" of Europe - "Banderastan" has no future - the future is Novorossiya! (see Geopolitica.ru)

I think the objective of territorial expansion of Russia in this war is pretty evident. If you read what in Russia is said.

This is not only a demand issue. It’s also largely a supply issue. To minimize the supply-side of this situation is ideologically motivated. — Xtrix

Oh.

So you mean that corporations are secretly refraining of producing what is demanded? Well, they then lose money.

When it comes to explaining inflation, there are also other important factors to consider outside of these policies — like COVID and its effects; climate change and its effects; and geopolitical problems (war). — Xtrix

Can you explain a bit what your meaning here.

Inflation is a monetary phenomenon.

Yes, COVID, wars, etc. do increase the spending of governments, which the take more debt (and basically print money), which then create inflation.

Shortages due to a war is a bit different: Russia's naval blockade has halted Ukraine's shipments of agricultural products to many countries, and these countries have depended on Ukraine, then naturally this means that prices go up because of the shortages. But note that this case isn't inflation: do notice that prices simply going up don't mean inflation.

Inflation is usually defined as:

a general increase in prices and fall in the purchasing value of money.

Shortage on Ukrainian wheat isn't the same as general increase in prices.