Well obviously that’s up to the Ukrainians. But the US, by making the choice to fund them with lots of extra money and weapons to oppose Russia, will not just increase costs and poverty here in the US but lead to poor people in the third world starving from high food and energy costs, being unable to afford fertilizer to grow enough crops, etc. but I guess that’s a price our leaders are willing to pay, or rather most likely not pay because who cares about poor people in crappy countries? They barely care about the poor people here except when it’s time to get out the vote.
It’s kinda like how we aggressively expanded NATO towards Russia, going back on our agreements from the 1990s, and then when we start training Ukraine with NATO forces and weapons eventually Russia decides that’s not ok with them. Sure, it’s their fault for attacking, but we sure set it up with our actions.
I wonder why? While the President Joseph Biden administration data re-definition has been one reason for previous, optimistic, misleading headlines, is it possible that China’s lockdowns are constraining supply from reaching demand? This would certainly keep the port congestion at the demand side of the equation down.
OTOH, is it possible that President Joseph Biden has somehow eliminated the port congestion bottleneck by utilizing gun buy-back programs, midnight basketball, female black supreme court limitations? Something else?
Aggressive [sic] expanded? I think NATO has been anything but aggressive. Otherwise, all of Ukraine, Bosnia, and Georgia would have been part of a NATO prior to the beginning of this decade. If not for self-restraint, all of eastern Europe could be members.
Oh, and I’m not a big NATO fan. They gave away some very nice Arctic and periodic table posters, but their other activities, post 1990, have been bureaucratic, at best.
I didn’t go beyond the abstract of the LT’s thesis, but there was nothing in the abstract to indicate that we went back on any agreement. While I trust the LT gave his best interpretation, I would prefer to see facts from more sources.
Broadly, they suggest it’s unclear and there were not explicit assurances given regarding NATO non-expansion. But at the same time, in the 30 years since, we’ve seen the concern raised repeatedly by Russian leaders so it’s clearly been important to them and we ignored it at Georgia and Ukraine’s peril.
I appreciate the link, and read it when someone posted it earlier (either here are somewhere else).
I agree with their conclusion that we did not explicitly (as in writing) assure anyone that NATO would not expand eastward.
I’m going to break this sentence down. No offense, but it’s almost script-oidish.
But at the same time
irrelevant
in the 30 years since
in the last 30 years
we’ve seen the concern raised repeatedly by Russian leaders
as we have seen many other subjects
so it’s clearly been important to them
I disagree. I do not have access to info at the moment, but Russia/Yeltsin/Putin have raised MANY topics repeatedly.
and we ignored it at Georgia and Ukraine’s peril.
I disagree. When negotiating, you throw as many things at the wall as possible. Regardless of what sticks, you have some points that are important, and that you will never give up.
It appears to me that Russia did not impress upon their opponents the importance of NATO expansion. I suspect that they were SO enticed by pipelines, allowances, or other offers from the west that NATO expansion, at least in private, was left to the back burner. After all, It wasn’t like NATO was balls to the wall in it’s eastward expansion.
Bottom line - The Putey can’t blame any of this on NATO.
We get the March CPI tomorrow and can then go off and crunch the I bond numbers for buying before end of April. It’s gonna be a big one, the Fed guys are already telling us how they expect it will be high so don’t be shocked…
DEESE: EXPECTING ELEVATED CPI ON TUESDAY
ONE-YEAR AHEAD INFLATION OUTLOOK RISES TO 6.6% IN NY FED SURVEY
CONSUMERS’ 3-YEAR-AHEAD INFLATION OUTLOOK DROPS TO 3.7%
TREASURY 20-YEAR BOND RISES AS MUCH AS 9BP TO 3%
FED’S EVANS: HIGH PRICES WILL PERSIST LONGER THAN I THOUGHT, THOUGH NOT PERMANENT
FED’S EVANS: NEUTRAL SETTING FOR MONETARY POLICY IS 2.25% TO 2.5%
FED’S EVANS: 50 BPS RATE HIKE IS WORTHY OF CONSIDERATION, POSSIBLY HIGHLY LIKELY
I don’t follow. Is that vs buying at end of May? Unless I’m forgetting something, I thought it makes sense to buy without waiting, regardless of the next rate.
You can buy at the end of the month, and earn interest from the first of the month. So if you are currently earning interest, there is marginal benefit from waiting until the end of the month by essentially double-dipping interest.
And in this case, if you buy in April you get both the current 7%/6-months, and next 6-7%/6-months. Miss April, and you’ll only be certain of one 6-month period of high rate, then uncertainty.
The ability to lock in a full year at these rates could make it beneficial to buy your 2023 or 2024 (or even 2025) $10k annual allocation now, as gifts (via an intermediary) to be delivered in the future. Even without knowing what the rates will be after that, they could drop pretty low and still average out to a good rate for the required holding period.
I know all that. I probably misunderstood you – I thought you were suggesting that we need to crunch the numbers before buying. But you’re saying we should buy around end of April regardless, and we’ll also know the exact numbers tomorrow.
. . . core inflation was slightly lower than expectations. But that could be caused simply by consumer spending shifting to higher food and fuel costs, leaving less disposable income. There is no evidence that inflation will suddenly plummet, . . . . . . . . It could take years, unless the economy slips into a deep recession.
Son of a gun, the curve takes off like a rocket on the day that Biden was inaugurated. I’m sure scripta will jump right in and claim that this is entirely coincidental.
