Some decades ago, I was a commissioned officer in the US Navy nuclear propulsion program. Pulled a couple of WestPac-Indian Ocean deployments as a nuclear engineering officer — I’ve long been familiar with APAC military ops and remain so to this day.

Back then, we patrolled the perimeter — from the Gulf all the way up to the East China Sea.

Call this repost from Mark Wauck a “sentimental journey”.

Mark begins with Nuland and GEROMAN: https://open.substack.com/pub/meaninginhistory/p/out-of-the-frying-pan-into-the-fire?r=9ozk&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

***************************************************

Out Of The Frying Pan Into The Fire?

MAR 9, 2024

Civilized people have been celebrating the departure of a key Neocon, Victoria Nuland, from her position in the State Department. So far I’ve seen very little about who will replace Nuland. Today Geroman is claiming that Nuland will be replaced by a “China hawk”. The idea is that the Zhou regime is “pivoting to China” while trying to keep the war on Russia going by means of rhetoric and spending. Here’s what Geroman is saying—with some extra comments:

— GEROMAN — time will tell – 👀 — @GeromanAT

Nuland was taken out for a reason – the new guy is a China hawk – Europe is now in full panic mode because they know that the war US=NATO has caused is now a European problem – good luck producing shells without cheap energy and basically zero own resources.

US used NATO to cut EU off cheap Russian energy – fertilizer – and other important resources.

To be a vassal of US regime comes with a price tag

Macron is afraid – like most of those “Western Leaders” in Europe – because US is shifting focus on China now – and the Russia / Ukraine project has failed epically – and now those idiots just learned that it is on them now to save the day.

Spoiler alert: NATO lost its dirty war… x.com/JBrowsing2023/…

1:45 PM · Mar 8, 2024

JuliusXXVI @JuliusXXVI

Tbh Nuland’s replacement just happened to be down the list next in line. But he has a history of acting as the clean-up guy of failed US policies, if pattern is same that’s what he’ll do this time. US isn’t even sending money anymore so project is over, they have no more policies

— GEROMAN — time will tell –  — @GeromanAT

they could have chosen anyone but picked him – and yes – he is for the cleanup – but also a China hawk

You’ll notice that nobody is actually named. What I’ve read is that John Bass (also here) will be the interim replacement for Nuland, but Julianne Smith is being prepped to be the permanent replacement. Bass has a somewhat controversial record for aggressively interfering in the affairs of the countries he’s been stationed in, but I didn’t pick up any specific “China hawk” references.

There are some reasons to take Geroman’s thesis seriously, despite the increasingly bellicose anti-Russian rhetoric from Zhou and the collective West. For example, the US has closed a deal for basing in three Pacific island nations. This is not actually a sudden policy move—it was made possible long ago and the activation of this plan has been in the works for a while:

Five months behind schedule, the US Senate on Friday approved promised economic assistance for three allied Pacific island nations to blunt China’s influence in the strategically vital region.

The delayed funding for the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau under the Compacts of Free Association (Cofa) found its way through a US$460 billion appropriations package passed by the Senate hours before a midnight Friday deadline to narrowly avert a federal government shutdown.

…

First signed in the 1980s, the Cofa agreements provide the United States exclusive military access to strategic swathes of the western Pacific in exchange for economic help.

I wasn’t able to come up with a map that singled out these specific islands, but these two maps will give you an idea of what’s going on:

Basically, the US concept is to—optimally—blockade China inside the First Island Chain utilizing US bases and “allied” nations, stretching from Japan and Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, and down to Malaysia. That first military chain of bases will be backed up by the Second and Third Island Chains further out in the Pacific. The need for the second and third island chains is dictated—as I understand it—by two factors. The first is to protect the US supply chain across the thousands of miles of the Pacific Ocean. The second is to intimidate Pacific island nations—the Solomon Islands come to mind—who might see their interests best served by establishing cordial relations with China. Predictably, China—which is heavily dependent on foreign trade and energy—isn’t inclined to sit back and allow the American Empire to establish a stranglehold over its economy, to be utilized at the pleasure of the US.

[Comment: here is the punch line]

In other words, the American Empire is attempting to solve what is a fundamentally a trade and commerce problem caused by misguided US polices … by military force and intimidation. [Empasis added] For the imperial mindset, every geopolitical issue has a military solution. Why not change the US policies that led to this, instead of blaming China? The ruling oligarchy of the American Empire—which enriched itself by outsourcing American industry—has simply too much money at stake. In essence, our ruling class wants to have its cake—obscene profits from our financialized economy—and eat it too—keep China in industrial servitude as the provider of inexpensive “stuff” that the US no longer makes. The interests of Americans, who are being gradually crushed by what the ruling class has done, are not a consideration for the ruling class. Nor is the increasingly obvious demoralization and decline of American society a consideration, since the ruling class feels secure in its own enclaves. This is what lies behind the American Empire’s pretty nakedly imperialistic adventures: enrichment of the ruling class through the projection of military force to control the world’s resources and trade routes. Virtually every military adventure you can name ultimately fits into this framework. And this is what accounts for the rise of BRICS.

[Comment: got it? No? Then read that paragraph again very slowly.]

Yesterday I briefly outlined my disagreement with Professor John Mearsheimer. Mearsheimer is of the view that the US should be on good terms with Russia—so that we can crush China without hinderance from stupid wars in Europe. In this view Russia would foolishly assume that, having crushed China, the American Empire would never pivot once again to crush Russia and loot it for its treasure chest of resources. YMMV, but I don’t think the Russians are that stupid—not even close. They’ve seen enough of our act. They get it that we can’t be trusted. Here’s what I wrote yesterday:

One thing I want to make clear. I don’t really agree with Mearsheimer regarding China. He characterizes China as a “peer competitor”. To the extent that China actually is such a competitor, however, I think that’s more due to America’s folly in pursuing the impossibility of becoming now and future World Hegemon. China has many problems that are at the core of its national existence. If America retrenches in the direction of pursuing its own limited national interests, China will end up not being anything like a “peer competitor.”

For that reason I also would take issue with the idea that America should regard China as a “threat”, as an “adversary”, or that “containing China [is] America’s principal mission.” I can certainly agree that it’s foolish to push Russia into the arms of China. However, to the extent that China is perceived as a threat, I would maintain—as commenter Cassander did earlier today—that that is mostly do to the cynical and self interested policies of our ruling class in pursuing their own enrichment. Framing this issue as The China Threat simply diverts attention from the real issues and their real solutions.

Not long ago I heard Mearsheimer present his “optimistic” take on China US relations. He maintained that, by 2075, the US would be much more “powerful” than China. Why? Because, he said, the US population is growing while China’s is contracting. I was stunned at this statement, failing, as it did, to account for how America’s population is growing and the quality of the human capital that is causing that growth by walking across our borders.

[Comment: I had the same reaction to John as Mark did. And I hasten to add, I casually knew John a long time ago who gave me very good advice at the time. Always remember him fondly for it. So when John drifts off into his take on US-PRC relations, it’s like … WTF?]

Now, none of this is to say that the US should abandon all national security concerns with regard to China. However, I would suggest that national security for America begins at home. We are surrounded by thousands of miles of ocean. Rather than pursuing the impossible goal of projecting military might around the globe, we would be far better off scaling our objectives back to manageable proportions. That, and securing our home front against rampant foreign interests that are distorting our entire constitutional order. This is our true weakness. We need to build back the moral character of America if we want to influence the rest of the world, rather than relying on purely military force. Unfortunately, this sensible approach is opposed by our dominant ruling oligarchy. I’m not optimistic that the American people will be able to summon up the character to reclaim their country. Only a serious reverse on the foreign war and economic front may accomplish the needed turnaround.

Pivoting back, as it were, to our Euroweenie vassals, you have just shake your head at the stupidity they’re exhibiting. The UK continues to back attacks on Russia, Macron is drawing supposed “redlines” for Russia, and Poland’s new government, ignoring public opinion, is engaged in mindless provocation against its powerful neighbor. Read what Radek Sikorski (Mr. Anne Applebaum) said recently—presuming that Poland has total “asymmetric escalation” dominance over Russia, by keeping Russia guessing. Not kidding. Putin and Shoigu most be having a good laugh:

“In Korea in the 50s there was a coalition of UN countries that fought against aggression. So it can’t be said that this is something unthinkable. So I appreciate the recent French initiative. Because there are good intentions behind it, namely, for the president of Russia to ask himself what our next step will be, so that he is not sure that we will not do anything creative, and therefore could not freely plan his scenarios. This ability of asymmetric escalation should also be on our side.”

What comes through loud and clear is that the Globalist oligarchy gives not a fig for the subject population. Big Serge offered a humorous thread on this subject, with reference to Macron, but the same goes for the rest of these goofballs:

Big Serge @witte_sergei

The problem with bluffing is getting called.

Nothing about this threat even makes sense. If you think that Ukraine is worth fighting a war with Russia, you wouldn’t set some weird redline where you pledge to intervene *after* Ukraine has been defeated.

The French Army has eight combat capable brigades (2 armored, 2 mech, 2 light armored, 1 mountain, 1 airborne). French force quality is fine, but this is an expeditionary force that’s not built to slug it out in Eastern Europe.

One is reminded of Bismarck’s famous quip that if the tiny peacetime British Army invaded Germany he would “simply have them arrested”. Given immensely negative reaction from the rest of NATO to Macron’s trial balloon, it’s hard to see France trying to go it alone here.

The balance of things is that Macron is trying to make it look like he’s taking a tough stance on Russia, knowing that the veto from Germany and America will prevent him from actually having to follow through. He can then say “I tried, but the Germans are cowards”.

Threatening to enter the war if Russia gets to Odessa is basically like saying “you better not beat up my little brother, if you knock him unconscious I’m going to hit you.” You wouldn’t wait until your kid brother has already been pulverized to step in.

[Comment: Game-set-match]

It’s standard practice in nuclear ballistic missile submarine fleets throughout the world to periodically demonstrate you can actually launch a warbird successfully.

“Success” is defined as the warhead lands within the down-range target area.

Another measure of success is you don’t destroy your boat trying to light one off.

The Royal Navy dodged “yet-another” bullet the other day in one of its recent Trident missile tests — they seem to repeat their failures regularly.

Even back in my day, the Royal Navy was a sketchy operation.

Seems the mortgage business is getting pretty sketchy. We can check out Rocket recent results

National Mortgage News reports Rocket had a bad Q4: https://www.nationalmortgagenews.com/news/rocket-companies-posts-233-million-net-loss-in-q4

Rocket posts $233 million net loss in 4Q

By   Andrew MartinezFebruary 22, 2024, 7:07 p.m. EST

Rocket Cos. lost $233 million in the final months of 2023, sending its full-year mark deep into the red. 

Executives for the Detroit-based giant Thursday touted the firm’s artificial intelligence bona fides and cost-cuttiing amid its step back in quarterly and annual performance. The company, which had predicted a difficult period, saw net income fall from $114.9 million in the third quarter, but improved on its $492.6 million net loss to close 2022.

The fourth quarter of 2023 pushed Rocket’s net loss for the year to $390 million, also a major step back from the $699.9 million profit it reported amid the market’s downswing at the end of 2022. Rocket posted adjusted net revenue of $885 million in the fourth quarter – a figure above guidance that Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer Brian Brown attributed to stronger origination metrics.

“We delivered these achievements in what was one of the worst quarters for mortgage origination in recent history,” he said in a conference call Thursday evening. 

Rocket Mortgage counted total origination volume of $17.2 billion between last October and December, down 22% quarterly and 9% less than the same time in 2022. Over 2023, originations hit $78.7 billion, a steep decline from the $133 billion in volume in 2022.

Origination volume in the direct-to-consumer channel of $10.36 billion and in Rocket’s partner network, including Rocket Pro TPO, of $8.46 billion were down quarterly and year-over-year as well. Each channel also saw steep dips in volume compared to the same period last year.

Brown and CEO Varun Krishna in Thursday’s call emphasized Rocket’s cost-cutting, with annual expenses falling from $5 billion in 2022 to $4.2 billion in 2023. The business said it cut its project list by more than 80%, slashing or pivoting efforts including Rocket Auto and Rocket Solar for solar upgrade loans.

Rocket’s prominent AI focus is apparently giving it an edge in originations. In December, its underwriters didn’t have to intervene in nearly two-thirds of income verifications, a fivefold improvement compared to a year-and-a-half earlier, the company said. 

“AI is something that you have to have a right to win. and a right to win means you have to have the assets,” said Krishna. “Because of those ingredients that we have at scale, It’s why we expect to be a benefactor.”

The lender’s gain on sale margin of 268 basis points was down from the third quarter’s 276 bps, but up from the 217 bps at the same time in 2022. Brown told an investor it was hard to say when the company would reach the 300 bps GOS margin of years past, but capacity exiting the market will help. 

“Now we’re starting to actually see it flow through in terms of pricing competitiveness,” said Brown of industry capacity reductions.

Rocket held $6.4 billion of mortgage servicing rights at the end of the year, a number that’s dipped slightly over the past five quarters. The company is actively bidding on MSRs, and Brown said the supply isn’t great amid aggressive bids by other industry players. 

The CFO also expressed confidence in Rocket regarding recent comments by Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen suggesting a nonbank lender could fail amid market stress. Rocket’s balance sheet and liquidity of $9 billion are among, if not, the strongest in the industry.

“It’s something we’ll pay close attention to, but in a lot of cases, new regulations like this could actually increase our competitive advantage and sometimes even increase the moat around this business,” he said.

****************************************

To put Rocket in context, consider some market trends.

The 30-year fixed rate mortgage is up 2x since 2021. And not going anywhere until Powell cuts rates which seems like “not for a while.”

Originations?

When I reported to my boat way back when, Rocket Man was on our sound track. I’m not an Elton fan but the line still resonates from standing a lot of otherwise quiet backwatches.

“All the science I don’t understand, it’s just my job 5 days a week.”

Mark Wauck: https://open.substack.com/pub/meaninginhistory/p/ukraine-update-7b7?r=9ozk&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Today looks like it’s time for a small update on the fighting in Ukraine. Avdeevka is perhaps the most fortified Ukrainian stronghold. It’s the fortress city from which the Ukrainians have used artillery to inflict civilian casualties on Donetsk City. This is a big victory for Russia and could signal further breakthroughs. There is heavy activity all along the front, from south to north—constant Russian pressure forcing Ukraine to commit what reserves they have.

— GEROMAN — time will tell –  — @GeromanAT

The Battle for Avdeevka is lost for Ukrainians – but the battle is not over yet. AFU will either try to fight its way out of the city – or hold on to the last man to gain time for a better line of defense further in the West. One is clear – Russian forces won’t make it easy for AFU – no matter what they will try. Artillery and aviation is working – RF is pinning down AFU on the outskirts – making it harder to leave post – and moving deeper into the center to split the cake for good.

12:54 PM · Feb 7, 2024

both – Ukrainian and Russian sources report Russians are dropping an insane number of FABs on the remaining AFU positions in Avdeevka – more than 40 counted in the last hours – while RF have now basically FULL fire control on the remaining supply route – looks like AFU will be wiped out there in the next 48h – or they will call VOLGA

FABs are gravity bombs that come in many sizes, but these are the very heavy variety for use against deeply fortified positions. The US provides such bombs to Israel for use against Palestinian civilians.

VOLGA is the surrender hotline the Russians have set up for Ukrainian troops to use.

Military Summary @MilitarySummary

Information is coming from different sectors of the front about multiple breakthroughs by the Russian Armed Forces along the entire line of combat contact. There is an operational crisis, and if the Ukrainian Armed Forces cannot stabilize the situation, the crisis could instantly develop into a strategic one.

In the near future, American journalist Tucker Carlson will publish an interview with Putin. This is expected to be another blow to a weakened Biden and Zelensky, who has almost lost all hope.

— GEROMAN — time will tell –  — @GeromanAT

and we saw how it works in the last 24h. Russia broke through on several locations. AFU is in a real operational crisis. And this tactics (to attack everywhere – even if just a little) – is also used all along the lines. AFU had to shift reserves to keep Avdeevka open – Russia attacked towards Terny – and Kupyansk – AFU is shifting forces to the north – RF is advancing in Marinka and south of Avdeevka. So – again – we won’t see any “big arrows” in the coming months – there is no need for that at all. And the idiotic assumption by “Western Experts” – that Russia “will take Kupyansk as a gift for Putin to win the elections” is another sign of desperation in the NATO camp – they create another “time line” – “Russia will take this or that unit 24th of Feb – or until elections” – this is another attempt to create a virtual victory for the losers club. Russian military doctrine has nothing to do with “we have to take that to show the West” – for Russia this war is like all others – take out the enemy – and try to avoid idiotic losses just for political reasons. But I’m sure the idiots in the NATO camp won’t understand this at all. All their military decisions were based on idiotic assumptions and PR.

Big Serge @witte_sergei

Avdiivka is collapsing in real time. Incredible. Russia is bombarding the remaining corridors, and it looks like the Ukrainian evacuation order was real, as well.

4:58 PM · Feb 7, 2024

I agree with Danny Davis’ assessment today that it’s questionable whether Ukraine can avoid collapse before the November US elections.

ZeroHedge: https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/us-budget-deficit-soars-50-crushing-estimates-fiscal-collapse-under-biden-accelerates

Remember when we showed that the “stealth” secret sauce behind Bidenomics was nothing more than a massive, multi-trillion debt-fueled spending spree, which led to the biggest peactime, non-crisis budget deficit in US history, with the total deficit for fiscal 2023 ending just over $2 trillion, or double the prior year, something which BofA’s Michael Hartnett called the “era of fiscal excess”?

Well, we have news for you: if 2023 was bad, 2024 – an election year of course – is shaping up to be far worse.

Moments ago the US Treasury reported the budget deficit picture for December and it will come as no surprise to anyone that the US has continued to spend like a drunken sailor, or rather, even more. As shown in the chart below, in the month of December, the US collected $429 billion through various taxes, while total outlays hit $559 billion…

… resulting in a December deficit of $129.4 billion.

This may not sound like a lot, but December is actually one of those months when the US deficit is relatively tame, or used to be.

As shown in the next chart, traditionally the December deficit was barely in the $10-20BN range… until 2020 when it exploded to an all time high of $140BN. And while it dropped sharply in 2021, it rebounded dramatically in 2022, and rose to just shy of the December crisis high last month!

Here is some more context: tax receipts of $429.3BN in December were down 5.6% from the $454.9BN in December 2022 and down a whopping 11.8% from December 2021. On an LTM basis, US total tax receipts were $4.521TN, or down 7.2% YoY. This is now the 9th consecutive YoY decline in LTM tax receipts, something that historically has only taken place when the US was in a recession. As an aside, the “smart economists” were certain that the collapse in tax receipts would reverse after November when the postponed California taxes would be collected. Well, November has come and gone and the big picture is just as ugly.

Looking at outlays, unlike tax receipts, there is danger of a decline… ever; and indeed in December the US spent a total of $559 billion, up 3.5% from the $540BN spent a year ago, and up even more from the $508BN in 2021. On a 6 month moving average basis, we are rapidly approaching the exponential phase even when accounting for the spending burst in 2020 and 2021.

Putting it all together, we get the scariest chart of all: the YTD budget deficit three months into fiscal 2024 is already $509 billion, which would be the biggest deficit in US history after one quarter with the exception of the covid outlier year of 2021 when the US injected multiple trillions in stimmies.

As for the final, and most shocking, data point, the December budget deficit of $129.4 billion was more than $40BN higher than the $87.5BN median estimate, and was more than 50% higher compared to the $85BN December deficit in fiscal 2022.

Needless to say, this is completely unsustainable and assures fiscal collapse for the US, not if, but when. Then again, we already knew this thanks to the CBO which was kind enough to chart the endgame:

What is funniest about all this is that the US is on an accelerating path to ruin less than one year after the imposter in the White House published this laughable propaganda.

We can’t wait to see what really happens to the budget deficit over the next 10 years. Spoiler alert: there won’t be a happy ending.

Simplicius: https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/under-the-radar-major-cia-revelations?publication_id=1351274&post_id=140375775&isFreemail=true&r=9ozk

One of the more interesting bloggers regarding the NATO-Russia Proxy War. He leverages Simplicius of Cilicia, a Greek Neoplatonic philosopher and polymath who wrote commentaries on Aristotle and Plato. He provides in depth geopolitical and conflict analysis, with a dash of the sardonic. You can support himby pledging here or tipping at: http://www.buymeacoffee.com/Simplicius.

************

This past July, one of the most remarkable articles of the entire Ukrainian war flew under the radar. I’ve had it sitting on my tab for weeks now, but could never quite fit the information in. It is so eye-opening, and dispels so many narratives in the West, that I thought it deserving of its own writeup; particularly because it has flown so under the radar for whatever reason, causing most people to miss its many juicy revelations.

The article is the following from Newsweek:

Its age does not detract from its significance as the information therein is more pertinent than ever—which is precisely why I chose to do an exposé on it now.

The reason is, as the Ukrainian war presently enters a new watershed phase characterized by the slow-acceptance of Ukraine’s now de facto losing position, a proverbial windmill of narratives is churned out from the pro-UA side seeking to somehow reconcile the various cognitive dissonances created by their inability to understand how it is possible that the mighty NATO bloc could be losing to Russia.

This results in their proposing increasingly convoluted theories as to why the US may be “deliberately sabotaging” Ukraine’s otherwise guaranteed “victory”. For instance, a common coping narrative you might hear these days is that the US “fears” Ukraine winning a total and ‘decisive’ victory over Russia because this would cause Russia to “fracture” into many small feudal states, which could precipitate an existential crisis as the warlords of the new states would vie for the now unaccounted for nuclear weapons, etc. Though it is obviously preposterous, this is the type of narrative being floated on pro-UA thinkspaces to try and explain away the US’s perceived weakness and ‘cowardice’ in the face of Russia’s growing dominance.

They simply cannot understand how it is possible that the US would not stand up to the putatively “weak” Russia. In their mind, addled by two years of propaganda characterizing Russia as a totally dysfunctional failed state with an unimaginably weak military, it’s simply impossible to reconcile these two quotients. So the only logical inference is that it is an intentional act by the US—the only remaining question being why the US would intentionally condition Ukraine’s loss.

But the article dispels such fantasies and reveals some of the real reasons behind US’s seemingly perplexing posture.

Firstly, the article revolves around—as per usual—the statements of an anonymous “senior intelligence official” from the Biden administration, who is “directly involved in Ukraine policy planning,” and notes that the topics discussed therein are ‘highly classified matters’.

The first significant offering is the following:

That the Ukraine war is a clandestine war, with its own set of clandestine rules, and that one of the CIA’s chief roles is to prevent the war from spiraling too much out of control. This will come into heavier play later.

The senior official goes on to clarify the latter position:

“Don’t underestimate the Biden administration’s priority to keep Americans out of harm’s way and reassure Russia that it doesn’t need to escalate,” the senior intelligence officer says. “Is the CIA on the ground inside Ukraine?” he asks rhetorically. “Yes, but it’s also not nefarious.”

What he reveals there is likewise significant: the Biden administration has an absolute priority in reassuring Russia to keep Russia from escalating too much. Why would that be? The answer is the broader theme of my entire article.

In fact, Newsweek states that the article is the culmination of three long months of intense trail-following and digging into the CIA’s covert operations in Ukraine.

Again, they highlight the chief operative pillars:

The second official says that while some in the Agency want to speak more openly about its renewed significance, that is not likely to happen. “The corporate CIA worries that too much bravado about its role could provoke Putin,” the intelligence official says.

You can see the common theme of the constant prudential tip-toeing around Russia’s redlines so as not to excessively provoke Putin.

They go on to express that the CIA is keen to distance itself from any of Ukraine’s more provocative actions, like the Nordstream attack, or strikes on Russian territory.

But the key portion of the article, which comes next, is the admission that Biden dispatched CIA director Burns to Russia on the eve of the invasion in late 2021. They had been watching Russia’s troop buildups, and in essence sent Burns to deliver a final warning of consequences should Russia proceed with an invasion. Though Putin ended up “snubbing” the CIA head by staying in a Sochi resort and refusing to meet him in person, he did take his secure phone call from Sochi.

What comes next is the heart of the entire article and is one of the most significant and remarkable admissions of the entire war. It is a must read:

Read that several times to comprehend the gravity of it, as this one statement alone single handedly explains and encapsulates the entire dynamic of the war.

Once again I’m forced to be the bearer of the news that not all is as it seems on the surface. Russia isn’t the 10 foot giant some have built it up to be, nor is it a dwarf. Likewise, the US isn’t some uncompromisingly all-powerful entity that does what it wants at all times with zero qualms or concern for repercussions.

This may be a difficult point for some to swallow; after all, how is it possible in actual practice that the US could be fearful of Russia’s reprisal? After all, the US has its vaunted fleets that sail unchallenged through every sea; just the US’s naval air wing alone, believe it or not, makes up the second largest airforce in the entire world. That’s right, just the Navy, which itself pales in comparison to the Airforce, has more planes than the entire Russian airforce. What could such an imposing powerhouse possibly fear from little ol’ Russia?

It stems from the misunderstanding of the actual logistical nuances of the US’s force projection capabilities in the European theater. The people confused by these revelations are those who easily fell prey to a very generalized and caricaturized image of the US military’s operations therein. They’ve developed a blanket image of US forces being able to operate all over Europe, instantly bringing to bear endless stealth craft, unlimited unstoppable missiles, hundreds of thousands of troops, etc.

But that’s far from reality. The US is direly overstretched; its most critical bases in Europe—the ones actually capable of fielding the types of platforms that could actually do anything against Russia, are highly vulnerable. The US has further learned from the Ukrainian conflict that its most advanced air defense is virtually helpless against Russia’s top missiles. Reuters recently told us that Ukraine alone has 1/3 of all the air defense of the entire European continent, and yet Russia has no trouble penetrating it.

This is not to swing the pendulum too far to the other side and lay unrealistic claim to Russia being able to easily and instantly wipe out all of NATO—no, it’s simply to temper ideas about what US and NATO could realistically do to Russia. At the end of the day, a war between the two could very well be a stalemate but it would come at massive costs to the US/NATO, which is precisely the point that pro-UA supporters have made themselves blind to.

But the internal players—the CIA and policy makers—certainly understand this. Which is why they have openly made clear in the above article that a stringent set of ‘rules of the game’ have been laid out between the counterparties. Russia has obviously made it clear that it is willing to strike NATO assets that are assisting Ukraine if things are pushed too far. The US likewise now understands that Russia indisputably has the capability to do so. Thus they have shaken hands and agreed to limit the trampling of each other’s red lines. Russia will allow the US certain clandestine operations within the purview of the gentleman’s agreement, and the US in turn will venture to keep its rabid dog on a short leash and within the narrow bounds of the playpen.

We’ve long known and suspected that such rules extend beyond just this locus, and could explain why, for instance, Russia has limited its strikes on Ukrainian rail infrastructure, bridges, etc. We’ve long known the West still receives critical supply deliveries from both Russia and China—particularly of precious metals, rare earths, etc.—by rail through Ukraine. This is simply realpolitik at work, and all wars in history have operated under more or less similar conventions.

Just as a final thought experiment to drive the point home for those who remain skeptical or unconvinced. It’s not so much that NATO—in its most “ideal” and purest sense can’t defeat Russia. If we were absolutely certain that NATO could operate under the most ideal circumstances, with full solidarity and a united front, then sure. But the problem is, the real world simply doesn’t operate in “ideals” all the time, or even most of the time. NATO suffers from large internal disputes and friction on critical points.

The fear is the following: if Russia were to actually strike NATO territory, what would happen if unity fails, and some members refuse to risk the total annihilation of their state and citizens’ lives to protect another member merely for the sake of something they rationally know was that members’ fault? For instance, if Rzeszow, Poland was struck—why would Hungary and several other states risk being annihilated when they know full well that Poland is acting as a central hub of aggression against Russia, and that Russia could clearly be argued to be justified in protecting itself?

Do the pro-UA people understand what the consequences of a smaller NATO state’s involvement are? It could mean the literal nuclear annihilation of that state if they were to escalate Article 5 and bring NATO vs. Russia to the brink. Why would many of these smaller states want to risk their total erasure from existence for the sake of the scenario above? A single state or two cowing could create a cascade which ripples through the entire alliance. And guess what the implication of that would be?

It could be the total dissolution of NATO as an alliance.

Because once the point is reached where Article 5 has been exposed as an irrelevant non-starter, then NATO itself ceases to be—given that the article serves as NATO’s primary existential heart and soul.

Arestovich broached this very topic earlier today:

So, getting back: knowing the above, why would the US risk such a confrontation that could potentially collapse all of NATO and undo decades of US hegemony over all of Europe? Such a disaster would lead to the US’s entire downfall—the loss of all influence and global power. Is that much of a risk worth it to play brinkmanship games against Russia for mere bragging rights and geopolitical ego?

No, of course not. US elites are smarter than that. Calculated risk is certainly operable in many circumstances, but when the stakes are that high, US planners know when to hedge and when to fold. The loss of Ukraine is not worth risking the loss of their entire global hegemonic order—it’s simply far too much Empire to lose.

That means the US is forced to play within the bounds of certain rules set by Russia. The article goes on to emphasize this:

“Zelensky has certainly outdone everyone else in getting what he wants, but Kyiv has had to agree to obey certain invisible lines as well,” says the senior defense intelligence official. In secret diplomacy largely led by the CIA, Kyiv pledged not to use the weapons to attack Russia itself. Zelensky has said openly that Ukraine will not attack Russia.

Interestingly, we learn not everyone was on board:

Behind the scenes, dozens of countries also had to be persuaded to accept the Biden administration’s limits. Some of these countries, including Britain and Poland, are willing to take more risk than the White House is comfortable with. Others—including some of Ukraine’s neighbors—do not entirely share American and Ukrainian zeal for the conflict, do not enjoy unanimous public support in their anti-Russian efforts and do not want to antagonize Putin.

Two important points from the above. Firstly, it’s no surprise the UK and Poland are open to “taking more risk” than the US itself. At first glance this appears to imply the US to be the most skittish. But I’ve covered this angle before: the fact remains that the US has the most to lose. Of course the weak Poles would be full of bravado—they know if crap hits the fan, they can run to hide behind the US’s skirts.

The UK likewise hasn’t too much to fear from Russia owing to the fact that it doesn’t have much assets in Europe—at least compared to the US. And it’s situated far enough that, unlike even Poland, it needn’t fear much from medium range ballistic missile retaliation. It’s difficult to strike Britain—and therefore harm it in any way—without escalating to a far larger scale of conflict in general. Poland on the other hand can be struck at whim without even changing the tempo of the current war.

So the fact remains: such countries are full of bravado precisely because they have “daddy” to hide behind, and neither has as much to lose as the US. But since “the buck stops” with the US, the de facto NATO head doesn’t have the luxury to be so gung ho because it would be the US taking the brunt of Russia’s reprisal if things drastically turned left.

The second point confirms what I said earlier about NATO’s hidden internal disunity. They state openly that some of Ukraine’s “neighbors”—which can only refer to countries like Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, etc.—which are all NATO—do not share the same ‘zeal’ for the conflict and do not have public support for it. This means if a scenario developed as I described earlier, it would end precisely as I outlined: NATO disunity on Article 5 would risk tearing the entire alliance apart, and “exposing” its central and founding pillar as fraudulent and ineffective in practice. It’s too grave a risk for US to haphazardly take on.

The article adds more details:

“The CIA has been operating inside Ukraine, under strict rules, and with a cap on how many personnel can be in country at any one time,” says another senior military intelligence official. “Black special operators are restricted from conducting clandestine missions, and when they do, it is within a very narrow scope.” (Black special operations refers to those that are conducted clandestinely.)

Simply, CIA personnel can routinely go—and can do—what U.S. military personnel can’t. That includes inside Ukraine. The military, on the other hand, is restricted from entering Ukraine, except under strict guidelines that have to be approved by the White House. This limits the Pentagon to a small number of Embassy personnel in Kyiv. Newsweek was unable to establish the exact number of CIA personnel in Ukraine, but sources suggest it is less than 100 at any one time.

This is an interesting set of admissions because it asserts that the CIA is operating in Ukraine because nominal US military forces being there would constitute “boots on the ground”—a far stickier situation. However, the real angle to this is that allowing CIA to operate gives the US a sort of plausible deniability to characterize the operations with an image of corporate looking guys in suit-and-ties, black sunglasses, briefcases, merely gathering intel—innocuous by comparison to full-fledged military commandos armed to the teeth.

However, in reality we know the CIA has its own clandestine combat forces. Things like the Special Activities Center (SAC), within which lies Special Operations Group (SOG)—considered to be the most secretive unit in the entire US governmental structure. SOG has its own direct combat units, from wiki:

As the action arm of the CIA’s Directorate of Operations, SAC/SOG conducts direct action missions such as raids, ambushes, sabotage, targeted killings and unconventional warfare (e.g., training and leading guerrilla and military units of other countries in combat) as an irregular military force. SAC/SOG also conducts special reconnaissance that can be either military or intelligence driven and is carried out by Paramilitary Officers (also called Paramilitary Operatives or Paramilitary Operations Officers) when in “non-permissive environments”. Paramilitary Operations Officers are also fully trained case officers (i.e., “spy handlers”) and as such conduct clandestine human intelligence (HUMINT) operations throughout the world.

That’s all to say that bureaucratically limiting “personnel on the ground” to just “CIA” and not “boots on the ground” doesn’t mean a thing: the CIA has its own “boots” and is most certainly using them. It’s just administrative semantics.

The article goes on to describe the off-radar logistics operation which clandestinely supplies Ukraine:

Now, more than a year after the invasion, the United States sustains two massive networks, one public and the other clandestine. Ships deliver goods to ports in Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and Poland, and those supplies are moved by truck, train and air to Ukraine. Clandestinely though, a fleet of commercial aircraft (the “grey fleet”) crisscrosses Central and Eastern Europe, moving arms and supporting CIA operations. The CIA asked Newsweek not to identify specific bases where this network is operating, nor to name the contractor operating the planes. The senior administration official said much of the network had been successfully kept under wraps, and that it was wrong to assume that Russian intelligence knows the details of the CIA’s efforts. Washington believes that If the supply route were known, Russia would attack the hubs and routes, the official said.

Another small admission at the end. Pro-UA armchair warriors on Twitter believe US is incapable of being challenged and that Russia is weak; in the meantime, the actual CIA people who work the conflict understand the realities quite differently.

Then comes another reveal of Russia’s own clandestine capabilities:

It then outlines the key role Poland has taken, which obviously goes toward reinforcing the idea that Poland will be made into the “new Ukraine” in the future, after the current one is used up and discarded:

Since the end of the Cold War, Poland and the United States, through the CIA, have established particularly warm relations. Poland hosted a CIA torture “black site” in the village of Stare Kiejkuty during 2002-2003. And after the initial Russian invasion of Donbas and Crimea in 2014, CIA activity expanded to make Poland its third-largest station in Europe.

In fact, I’m fairly well taken aback that they’re even so openly making such large admissions. The CIA usually doesn’t talk about the CIA unless there’s an advantageous angle to it.

And that angle could very well be their attempt to distance themselves from an increasingly erratic and unpredictable Ukrainian ‘mad dog’, which has increasingly gone ‘off the leash’, refusing to play by those previously established rules. The article goes on to highlight this next:

One crisis was averted. But a new one was brewing. Strikes inside Russia were continuing and even increasing, contrary to the fundamental U.S. condition for supporting Ukraine. There was a mysterious spate of assassinations and acts of sabotage inside Russia, some occurring in and around Moscow. Some of the attacks, the CIA concluded, were domestic in origin, undertaken by a nascent Russian opposition. But others were the work of Ukraine—even if analysts were unsure of the extent of Zelensky’s direction or involvement.

Given the above, could the CIA have been using such publications to absolve itself? This would further play into the chief theme that the CIA is very diligently trying to signal its ‘gentlemanly’ intentions to Russia so that no misunderstandings or un-planned escalations can occur.

The article segues this into the Nordstream attacks in such a way as to almost suggest the entire thing was written merely to absolve the CIA of those attacks, and pin the blame entirely on Ukraine.

In a clear sign that the CIA feared Russian reprisals, they reportedly “scrambled” to discover the origins of the Kerch and other attacks after a Russian security council began to change its tone in those attacks’ aftermath:

Meeting with his Security Council, Putin said, “If attempts continue to carry out terrorist acts on our territory, Russia’s responses will be harsh and in their scale will correspond to the level of threats created for the Russian Federation.” And indeed Russia did respond with multiple attacks on targets in Ukrainian cities.

“These attacks only further reinforce our commitment to stand with the people of Ukraine for as long as it takes,” the White House said of the Russian retaliatory strike. Behind the scenes, though, the CIA was scrambling to determine the origins.

Once again we see the common thread: contrary to BroSints’ performative gung ho chauvinism, the real movers and shakers are scrupulous and smart enough to fear Russia’s wrath.

Though it’s besides the central point, this was an eye-opening revelation indeed:

“The CIA learned with the attack on the Crimea bridge that Zelensky either didn’t have complete control over his own military or didn’t want to know of certain actions,” says the military intelligence official.

After the foolhardy drone attack on the Kremlin in the center of Moscow, the article notes that even Poland had begun warning the CIA that Ukraine was, in essence, a refractory mad dog:

A senior Polish government official told Newsweek that it might be impossible to convince Kyiv to abide by the non-agreement it made to keep the war limited. “In my humble opinion, the CIA fails to understand the nature of the Ukrainian state and the reckless factions that exist there,” says the Polish official, who requested anonymity in order to speak candidly.

This is quite interesting for the following reason. Firstly it could explain Poland’s own later distancing from Kiev, the fruits of which we’re seeing now. Even brazen Poland may have started getting cold feet after they realized that Ukraine’s entire MO would likely revolve around trying to rope Poland into WW3. Not only were there several missile attacks on Polish territory for which Ukraine tried to frame Russia, but there were increasing reports in recent weeks from Russian intel sources that Ukraine intended to escalate this plan in the near future.

It’s clear that Poland has recently seemed to have a big shift vis a vis Ukraine—the turning point was several months back after the failed NATO summit and Zelensky’s subsequent disrespectful rhetoric. That is when Duda openly called Ukraine a “drowning man that would pull everyone down with him.” It all went down hill from there.

But it could also explain the US’s new cold posture and seeming snub of Ukraine. For instance, many are currently complaining that the US has $4B drawdown authority funds remaining yet they’ve announced no further funding will be allotted. This mysteriously comes on the heels of repeated Ukrainian strikes to sensitive targets in Crimea, as well as senseless attacks on Belgorod. Could the CIA have finally seen the light, preached earlier by Poland, and perhaps convinced the Biden administration that this mad dog is getting too unhinged to continue safely supporting? It could at least have something to do with it, if not be entirely responsible for the cold stance switch.

In fact, this is suggested by the very next paragraph in the article:

In response, the senior U.S. defense intelligence official stressed the delicate balance the Agency must maintain in its many roles, saying: “I hesitate to say that the CIA has failed.” But the official said sabotage attacks and cross border fighting created a whole new complication and continuing Ukrainian sabotage “could have disastrous consequences.”

As one can see, Ukraine’s recalcitrant flaunting of the ‘unspoken rules’ could have finally contributed to making the US realize that it was suicidal to continue supporting such a brazenly fractious mad dog whose sole intention has clearly become to embroil the world in WW3 as a last ditch escape from its own self-sealed fate.

In an absolutely demonstrative twist of irony, the comments section under the Newsweek article is filled with the very types of shallow-brained people who inspired my own writeup to begin with. Despite reading the exact pinpoint refutation of their own delusions, they still found the gall to comment things like: “And what would Putin do if US violated his “red lines”?”—implying again that Russia is somehow weak, and the US is this caricaturized unstoppable superpower which owes no compromise or concession to anyone. To such people with utterly shallow and hare-brained understandings of international relations and geopolitics: I beg you, leave your basements, go read a book sometime. Learn how the real world functions. It’s not a one dimensional comic book as you imagine. Believe me, no one in the entire world who actually operates within the halls of power of any major country believes that Russia is some sort of limp pushover to be laughed at and whose red lines are to be ignored. This sort of characterization only exists in the 12 year old minds of videogame addicts who moonlight as military analysts on Twitter. It’s also sometimes done as mere bravado, or a show of grandstanding by two-bit punks like Lindsey Graham on TV—but the tone “behind the scenes” remains in stark contrast to the “character” they portray in their laughable put-ons for the CNN peanut gallery.

Ultimately though, this Newsweek article should serve as further proof to brainwashed pro-UA supporters that this really is a proxy war between two giants, with Ukraine merely being a pawn stuck in the middle, whose own infant squalls are ignored in favor of Russia’s far weightier demarches. That should serve as a wake up call for Ukrainians: you are merely being used as disposable puppets in a geopolitical Great Game. And when that game is done, the actual players will shake hands and move on to the next contest while you will be left as the detritus to be ‘swept up’, like the trash and fast-food wrappers strewing the stadium grounds after a big match.

No matter how hard you try, no matter how many hundreds of thousands of lives of your own people you throw away, you will never become that Big Player on the stage that you were induced and gaslighted into thinking you could become. The only chance at survival you stand is to join the only one of the two Big Players which actually cares for you and views you as a close blood relative, rather than as a soggy rag to blow snot into then discard.

As a last point. I actually predicted much of this long ago, at the start of this year. In one of my earliest reports I wrote how when things would begin to really go down hill for Ukraine, Zelensky would opt for increasingly dramatic actions that would be more threats to his own handlers and sponsors, rather than to Russia. That’s because he knows Ukraine balances on a fulcrum and has the power to cause a wider global war between the two blocs to erupt. So I had proposed that when his back would be against the wall, Zelensky would escalate in such a way as to increasingly bring a wider war closer as a threat: “If you don’t give me what I need—arms and money—I will pull you into the war with me.”

This could very well be one of the reasons the US has decided to pull the plug on Ukraine now. Seeing no other options remaining, they may have been bothered by some of the recent rhetoric, knowing where such unchecked recklessness could lead. For instance, weeks ago after killing Ilya Kiva near Moscow, the Ukrainian SBU head promised big “surprises” for 2024, with the crowning achievement to be some kind of strike that he said would be a “needle to the heart” of Russia:

This could very well be a threat of some major assassination as a final logical escalatory precipice, whether of Putin or some other leading figure in Russia. The CIA may have read the internal signals in this direction and decided that the point of no return had finally come in supporting this ‘mad dog’, and if the US doesn’t put the brakes on now, it would be dragged into Zelensky’s existential trap.

The other elephant in the room is that such findings as those in this article naturally lead to people wondering whether the entire conflict is just one orchestrated and well-choreographed dance between “two sides of the same coin”. This cleaves to the age old conspiracy theories about Russia and the US both being under some manner of ‘globalist control’, and merely being played off each other as pawns to fool us into some grand theatrical spectacle.

This would once more be a fairly uninformed reading of the situation. Typically, such views sprout from people who are only capable of skimming the surface, judging conflicts and developments through very simplistic ‘broad stroke’ lenses. These are the people that subsist on “either/or” and other binary style reductions of everything. Their minds are usually not capable of grasping nuance, or sometimes they’re simply surface-scraping because their lives are too busy to really dig into highly complex situations to truly understand them.

In this case, Russia and the US’s informal ‘secret handshakes’ certainly does not equate to their being part of some grand charade to defraud the world together, or that Putin is a secret mole for [insert globalist clan here]. To come to that conclusion is to admit one’s ignorance of history, and how these things really work. This is standard operating procedure for any sort of sensitive geopolitical entanglement and is merely characteristic of the true behind-the-scenes statecraft that underlies the surface level gloss the majority of people ingest via CNN and such outlets. Such ‘handshakes’ represent simple basic diplomatic statecraft, courtesy, and precaution in the form of scrupulous risk-hedging and due diligence, nothing more than that.

With that said, this alone doesn’t preclude larger conspiracies of secret collusion between large, ostensibly adversarial nations—I’m simply stating that this specific instance would not qualify as exemplary of that. There are many other actual examples, but that’s beyond the scope of this article.

But as always, one must also remember that there are corridors within corridors in each organization, and there are groups within the CIA operating independently—and even antithetically—to the parent organization just as the CIA may itself be operating against the wider interests of the US itself. So ultimately, we’re still only hearing one side of the story, which happens to be the side they want us to hear.

Luongo: https://tomluongo.me/2024/01/05/the-dreaded-goat-predictions-for-2024-part-i-where-do-we-go-from-here/

As a long-time fan of Tom’s, “Gold, Goats ‘N Guns” is always entertaining.

And who can resist the image of a tactical nuke surface burst a 5000 yards out from your backyard. 

In fact, I find myself starting to back-calculate the yield of the device pictured. Old skills die hard.

Anyway, here’s Tom for his “Top 10” for 2024, shamelessly reposted (I assume you’re cool with this, Tom – if not, DM as always)

Where do we go from here
Terror in Rue de St. Denis, murder on the periphery
Someone else in someone else’s pocket
Christ knows I don’t know how to stop it
Poppies at the cenotaph, the cynics can’t afford to laugh
I heard in on the telegraph there’s Uzis on a street corner
— Marillion, White Russian

Last year I finally gave in to the pressure and did a 10 Predictions for 2023 post. I’m not a huge fan of these things, but getting out of your comfort zone is never a bad thing. So, let’s look at the scorecard and update things.

Last year’s theme was “Losing My Religion.” Last year was a mess. So many of the themes I wrote about advanced significantly. So many of them caused a lot of folks to lose their religion over old narratives.

What most of them didn’t do, however, was come true. By my count I hit .300 last year — good enough for the Majors but not for the geopolitical prediction business. Predictions #4,6,8 are winners.

The Ukraine War did continue dangerously (#4). De-dollarization (#6) did accelerate as bilateral trade moved away from the US dollar is many areas, while the USDX spent most of the year rising only to collapse in Q4 on ridiculous hopes of eight (8) rate cuts by the Fed in 2024. Oil never dropped below $70 per barrel Brent (#8).

I’d take credit for #9 but the Dow Jones Industrials missed the 40,000 mark by just over 2,000 points. Then again, given that nearly everyone else expected the Dow to collapse into oblivion, I think I should get extra credit for at least calling the shift from bonds into equities for most of the year, to be turbo-charged into the end of Q4 on the perception of a dovish Fed.

Given how much of a mess 2023 was, I guess I’ll have to take that as a challenge to improve. Let’s get started… the problem with that is, of course, where do we start? Where do we go from here?

#1 – The Democrats Will Try to Burn the Country Down to Win the Election

We are in the midst of a Cultural Revolution the likes of which we haven’t seen since the days of Mao in China. Until we wrap our heads around this, take it into our black hearts, and metaphorically start “slitting throats” to invoke H.L. Mencken we will lose what, sadly, has become the most important election of our lifetimes.

Not that elections mean much anymore. Certainly not after “Joe Biden” was selected over Donald Trump in 2020. I said after the 2020 election steal that “Civil War it is, then.”

If we just get rid of Orange Man Bad, everything wrong with America will be gone…

… So, all they have now is the unquenchable envy of Marxism which burns until it consumes everyone in retribution or they are put down like rabid dogs. That’s what is on display in these counting centers.

This is what they did in 2020. Today too many people see them for what they are. The speech environment is less controlled, thanks to some guy named Musk.

Therefore, the only option for them and Davos now is to go big or go home.

They have to win this thing or a few hundred years of colonial oppression and extraction collapses… at least that’s what they are thinking. To stop Trump they will stop at literally nothing. If you don’t believe me, believe the AP’s description of the first week of Biden’s 2024 election campaign, where he’s not even allowed to have a challenger.

It’s all race baiting; dark and twisted. It’s all Goebbels in the media, all day. “MAGA Republicans,” “Nazis,” “Saving Democracy!” Read the quotes from the Millennial operatives building “Biden’s” campaign and tell me they are just cynical hacks.

Is is just me or does anyone else think of “Matt Daaa-mon” from Team America: World Police whenever I see or hear “Joe Biden” anymore?

#2 – It’s False False False False False Flag World.

Both of these things I’m predicting in this tweet have sprung from events from this week… in 2024. “Joah Bii-den’s” campaign kickoff tour as described and the attack on the funeral commemorating the 3rd anniversary of Trump assassinating Gen. Qassem Soleimani in Iran.

Every neocon douchebag in an off-the-rack (pant)suit will remind us day and night for the next few months about how much Iran hates us. They will now also use the US pulling the Gerald Ford carrier group — long overdue for maintenance FYI — out of the Persian Gulf as a talking point. First to show how weak we’ve become by not standing up to Iran and Shi’ite terrorists.

Second, they will use that to concoct a fantasy of an empowered Iran sending agents through the border to take out the grid in Texas or Florida.

The best part is that will come from the Republi-tards like Nimrata Haley scoring political points with the Fox News set because “Joah Bii-den” opened up the border. This sets up #3.

The main point is that it will be nothing but false flag operations all summer long. These people need a casus belli to rouse the US out of its anti-war slumber for the war that will end the American experiment once and for all.

The goal is always to save themselves, and a US fighting a war on every front is, to them, the best path to do that.

#3 – Neither Trump Nor Biden Will be President in 2025.

The handwriting is already on the wall. It has been written in blood and drool. None of “Bii-den’s” moves to save himself politically will work. The US electorate is too far gone for that. The only thing that gets his or the Democrats’ approval rating out of the cellar is a war, and only a Just War thanks to #2, if it comes to pass.

But, even as I laid out, “Joah Bii-den” and the Dems will get the blame for any attack on US civilians by ‘terrorists’ let into the country.

So, in that scenario, getting rid of Donald Trump is the priority. Trump is clearly primed to go into the White House again, this time armed with a much better sense of what power he actually wields as President.

I’m no Trumptard, far from it. But just Trump’s desire for revenge and his sense of patriotism alone should be enough for him to blow up a whole lot in his second 100-days.

And that is why they have to stop him from either winning or, if he wins, ever taking office.

I’m not making a prediction on how the election turns out. But it is obvious that a lot of bad people are auditioning to be Trump’s Veep. Wall St. has made it obvious that it should be Nimrata. The Gods forbid happening! But it’s the most likely scenario if she makes it out of the early states with even some false momentum.

Vivek Ramaswamay is as authentic as Hillary Clinton’s chocolate chip cookies but he’s saying all the right things, and may even mean a couple of them.

Ron DeSantis isn’t ready for prime time and has too much work to do in Florida to prepare for the Civil War anyway.

The less said about the rest, the better. If somehow Trump is inaugurated a year from now, he will be saddled with more poison pills than your local CVS.

On the Democrats’ side of the aisle, Gavin Gruesome is clearly being groomed (all puns intended) for the job. Michelle Obama hates the US so much she’d love to finish the job her ‘husband’ started but only if she could be handed the job like “Joah Biii-den” was.

Big Mike doesn’t do kissin’ white babies.

And current Veep Kamala Harris may just have something to say about all of this yet. The problem is will anyone be able to understand it.

None of these people can beat Trump even if some of my failed predictions from 2023 come true and they embrace them in 2024, namely #5, “The US will Leave Syria,” to try and shift away from deeply unpopular positions.

Getting our troops out of Syria would fit into the “Iran attacks US civilians” plot I outlined above. It would fuel the Neocon/Nimrata schtick about empowering Iran by running from the Houthis. It will remind everyone of “Joah Bii-Den’s” disgraceful withdrawal from Afghanistan and give her foreign policy cred to be Trump’s VP pick.

#4 – Inflation, Interrupted

I predicated most of my 2023 predictions on inflation returning in the second half of the year. Inflation didn’t come back because of the concerted effort to keep oil prices below $80 per barrel Brent. That kept wholesale gasoline prices lower for :Joah Bii-Den” to try and score a point with the voters.

Moreover, RINS blending credit prices fell dramatically because of a record US corn harvest. Low natural gas prices used for drying also helped keep pressure on gas prices all year. This dynamic isn’t going to change in the first half of 2024.

Since COVID we’ve been dealing with cost-push inflation and especially of the ‘gasoline-induced’ variety.

Gas futures entered 2024 with all the momentum of EV sales at a Jeb Bush revival.

Please Clap.

And that means low CPI inflation through the first half of 2024. Despite having declared an end to fossil fuels by 2030 or 35 or Juneteenth, the Davos ninnies are having a hard time explaining away why the IEA just revised upward their projection for 2024 global demand for gasoline after a record 2023.

Low gasoline prices are an American phenomenon: equal parts non-market ethanol-blending shenanigans (RINS), the reindexing of Brent to include oversupplied West Texas Intermediate (25% weighting), and dumping more than half of the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve into the market to punish Russia and Saudi Arabia.

The widening Brent/WTI spread, now over $5 per barrel, tells you that global demand is strong despite record US production numbers.

Finally, the “Bii-Den!” administration is refilling the SPR, at far higher prices than they turned down in February of last year. While inflation is on hold, it’s still baked into this economic cake and FOMC Chair Jerome Powell knows it.

So, I expect the CPI to remain exactly where no one wants it for the first half of 2024; just high enough to stay the Fed’s hand on cutting rates but just low enough to keep the pressure on Powell to loosen credit conditions around the world.

#5 – Is It Really a Pivot after More than Two Years?

The biggest questions of 2024 surround the Fed. When will they begin cutting rates and how many times? These are questions that have far bigger implications for the dollar worldwide rather than domestically.

We can look now at the financial health of the country more accurately thanks to having a real market for domestic dollar demand, SOFR — The Secured Overnight Financing Rate. Anyone using dollars now has to think about what the Fed wants directly rather than what City of London wants with its hand up the Fed’s ass.

It’s an important distinction for this cycle.

In past cycles, the Fed was never really in control of its monetary policy, but yet it always took the blame for what happened. Austro-libertarians like myself and others applied our general (and I still believe correct) critique of central banking as yet another iteration on why all central planning fails.

But, without the larger context of the system as built, i.e. the eurodollar system, that critique is a shallow one. This is not because the end goal of decentralizing banking and money is wrong, but because there are a few dozens moves to be made before you can actually implement it.

The whole world isn’t just going to gather ’round the campfire, pick up a mistuned acoustic guitar and a joint, and say, “Yeah… man,” before launching into the Ron Paul Song (as good as it is!).

Even Ron argued that we had to do as little harm as possible. That means changing the direction of the country while we keep our promises, pay our bills, and clean our rooms.

Did Ron advocate tearing down 95% of the federal government in a year? No, he said roll back the budget to that of a few years ago, for example. Rein in the spending. Normalize interest rates. End the Empire abroad.

But we couldn’t do that if LIBOR was actually the tail wagging the US banking system dog.

Isn’t rolling the Fed back to being the central bank of the US rather than the world a similar move as the ones listed above? Ending the Eurodollar system will take more than a couple of years. It will take decades to drain if we don’t want to maximize the collateral damage of changing out this system to, you know, everyone.

So, for this year, monetary policy is absolutely political. Whatever Powell does or does not do will be politicized. Everyone will grind their ideological axe because it gets clicks, buys votes, and pays the bills.

The ones dying on the Eurodollar vine will scream, “PIVOT!” The ones finally getting positive real yield on their savings will say, “Don’t you dare!”

One could argue that the first two years of the fight versus the Great Reset and the grand Eurocommie Revival were the easy ones. The easy ground to take. Now it’s crunch time. Now we get to find out not just now strong Powell is internally, but how strong those backing his play actually are.

That’s the real question we’ve all been struggling to answer since I first brought this all up two years ago.

If I’ve been correct about all of this SOFR v. LIBOR stuff, then Powell will hold to his “Higher for Longer” position for as long as he can. We can argue about the definition of “long.”

That means as long as he has the cover of low but annoyingly high inflation (#4 above), then he doesn’t have to do anything in Q1 even if the markets scream otherwise.

Since the beginning of this week, the SOFR Futures market has already priced out one rate cut for 2024.

Will it price out another 1 or 2 by the next FOMC Meeting? Look at how far these curves are moving meeting to meeting and you tell me the market has any clue as to what’s on the horizon.

Last year because I was expecting inflation to return I expected the Fed to pause and then resume rate hikes, pushing to a terminal rate closer to 7% than 5%. Clearly that didn’t work out. But, if I’m right about inflation returning in H2 of this year then that argument still holds serve.

All this said, here are the answers to the questions surrounding the Fed in 2024.

The Goldilocks scenario is this (and it’s the one we should all hope for):

If the Fed can get through the lowflation period thanks to low gasoline prices of H1 2024, then it clears the decks for Powell to continue just doing nothing until the election is no longer in Davos’ grasp. At that point he’s clear to lower rates in the second half of the year, at the July meeting or after Jackson Hole, to give the incoming president, hopefully Trump, clear sailing to clean house with a positive credit environment to continue the reorganization of the economy with a less corrupt Congress.

Now here’s my realistic scenario:

Powell refuses to cut rates by March to help Bii-den! win the election. The Fed becomes one of the main focal points of the Democrats’ campaign. End the Fed and absorb it into the US Treasury. Blame the recession on the Fed. It won’t work. Powell cuts in May or June, once. The FOMC statement at the Halloween meeting will be a harbinger of where election shenanigans are headed. The Usual Suspects will scream “Cuck!” and “Baby Murderer!” with equal ferocity.

The planet keeps spinning.

Mark Wauck: https://meaninginhistory.substack.com/p/a-dangerous-new-point-in-the-war

It’s been apparent for a long time that there has never been any real prospect of Russia being defeated on America’s chosen battlefield—Ukraine. The talk we’ve been hearing of the vaunted Ukraine counteroffensive being designed to make serious gains on the ground that would force Russia into a favorable settlement—favorable to the American Empire—has faded into recriminations against the Ukrainians. However, there is a new strategy being advanced in the media—one which ends up in the same way as envisioned in the previous version. Russia will be forced—by military force—to either negotiate a peace or to at least agree to a ceasefire. The basic idea is that Ukraine will slowly fall back, to shorten its defensive lines and make up for its vast losses in personnel and equipment. In the meantime, Ukraine will gear up an armaments industry—basically from scratch—while Western aid keeps the war going.

What I see as the truly dangerous new development is the possibility that, in view of the likelihood that Ukraine will not be able to last as long as that pie in the sky scenario requires, Ukraine is being provided with significant new weaponry—almost certainly operated by NATO, including US, military personnel—with the idea of bludgeoning Russia into a ceasefire by inflicting heavy losses. Couple with this are some very aggressive new developments involving US bases. Here are a few examples:

• First we have the missile attack on a Crimean port that was previously out of range of the missiles that have been provided to Ukraine. While it’s not definite, there are reports that the missiles used may have been longer range Storm Shadow missiles from the UK’s store.
• The claimed use of Patriot missiles batteries—manned by US personnel—that had been moved near the front lines in the Kherson region. Japan, under US pressure, is apparently transferring Patriot batteries that may be redeployed to Ukraine. Russia has issued a harsh warning to Japan if those missiles are used against Russia:

Such a scenario would be “interpreted as unambigously hostile actions against Russia and will lead to grave consequences for Japan in the context of bilateral relations”, [Zakharova] said.

• The agreement of Finland to grant the US access to all 15 of their military bases. This could place US forces in proximity to the key ice free Russian port of Murmansk as well as to Russian naval installations. Americans don’t usually remember things of this sort, but during the Russian Civil War British and American troops occupied Murmansk. Russians remember.

Predictably, the Russians weren’t amused by Finland’s foolish action: Russia Points North – “You Will Suffer First of All”.

According to Russia, Finland will not only taste the consequences of joining NATO. The country will also be first in line to suffer if tensions between Russia and the Western world escalate further, warns Russian diplomat Mikhail Ulyanov, as reported by Reuters.

Politico has an article that suggests that my fears are well founded—that the Neocons are intent on bludgeoning Russia by main military force into some sort of settlement that the American Empire will be able to spin as a victory:

The Biden Administration Is Quietly Shifting Its Strategy in Ukraine

For two years, Biden and Zelenskyy have been focused on driving Russia from Ukraine. Now Washington is discussing a move to a more defensive posture.

With U.S. and European aid to Ukraine now in serious jeopardy, the Biden administration and European officials are quietly shifting their focus from supporting Ukraine’s goal of total victory over Russia to improving its position in an eventual negotiation to end the war, …

U.S. and European officials are now discussing the redeployment of Kyiv’s forces … into a stronger defensive position … In addition, the Biden administration is focused on rapidly resurrecting Ukraine’s own defense industry to supply the desperately needed weaponry the U.S. Congress is balking at replacing.

The administration official told POLITICO Magazine this week that much of this strategic shift to defense is aimed at shoring up Ukraine’s position in any future negotiation.

The article then discusses US politics and Zhou’s shifting rhetoric—from “as long as it takes” to “as long as we can.”

Some analysts believe that is code for: Get ready to declare a partial victory and find a way to at least a truce or ceasefire with Moscow, one that would leave Ukraine partially divided.

The difficulty here is simple: How to get Russia to cooperate? Previous attempts to con the Russians have fallen totally flat. George Beebe, a former chief of Russia analysis for the CIA, points out that time is critical:

“The longer this goes on the more we’re going to have to concede up front just to get the Russians to the negotiating table.”

A shift to defense could buy Ukraine the time it needs to eventually force Putin into an acceptable compromise.

Read and parse that carefully. The Neocons understand that they don’t have much time to play with, and that the only was to pull this off is to “force” Putin to comply. Have you ever tried to force the leader of what’s turning out to be the most capable military in the world to comply with your wishes? I haven’t either, but it sure seems like a tricky strategy. One false move, and … Maybe that’s what that special flight from St. Petersburg to DC was about—the flight that sat on the tarmac for 54 hours. This is why I call this a dangerous situation.

At any rate, there’s lots more in the article, much of it having to do with the US political angle. But what about the Russian perspective on all this? Dmitry Medvedev—who, if anyone does, knows the mind of Putin—is unimpressed and, seemingly, unmoved:

Dmitry Medvedev @MedvedevRussiaE

Question by RIA Novosti: The collective West, having wasted almost all of its weapons, starts to push the Kiev regime to engage in talks in 2024. Is that possible?

Answer: What about the talks in 2024? It’s all perfectly clear.

1. The special military operation will continue, with its aim still being the disarmament of the Ukrainian forces, and abandonment of neo-nazi ideology by the present-day state of Ukraine.

2. Displacement of the ruling Bandera [i.e., Ukro-Nazi] regime is, though not openly stated, the most important and inevitable goal which must, and will be achieved.

3. Odessa, Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkov, Nikolaev, Kiev, as well as many others are Russian cities, temporarily occupied. All of them are still marked by the colours of yellow and blue on the maps and pads.

And so, yes. The “talks” are possible, of course. Russia never rejected them – unlike the mad authorities of Ukraine. Such “talks” have no time limits. They can go on till full defeat and surrender of the North Atlantic Alliance’s Bandera forces.

And, by the way, I’d like to inform you that since January 1, 2023, the Armed Forces of Russian Federation have accepted half a million people as servicemen under contract.

3:00 AM · Dec 28, 2023

Translation: The SMO will continue with the same goals as ever. Just to be clear, that means that the current regime in Kiev will be “displaced.” Inevitably. We’re perfectly happy to talk with anyone—talk, and talk, and talk—while we continue to carry out the SMO to its conclusion. Ceasefire? Don’t make us laugh! Oh, did we mention? Odessa, Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkov, Nikolaev, Kiev, as well as many other cities are Russian cities—it’s just that they’re temporarily occupied by the Bandera regime.

I’ll finish off with a very thought provoking partial transcript from Judge Nap and Matt Hoh:

Matthew Hoh: Who Really Controls US Foreign Policy?

The Ukrainians are going to be the next Afghans. They are going to be forgotten and left behind as soon as that’s politically convenient for the US, as soon as the US can see another path in Eastern Europe. For the US one of the reasons why I think we may have an interest in a negotiated settlement in Ukraine is because the major aspect, maybe the most important aspect for the Americans is the domination of the energy market in Europe. For me this is where it all begins. How did this go from, in 2012, Barack Obama in debates making fun of Mitt Romney for suggesting that Russia is an adversary, to within a year the Russia phobia that we have seen? For me a lot of that comes from fracking and, then at the same time, the construction or the expansion of a dozen or so liquid natural gas terminals on the East Coast, in the Gulf of Mexico. They had to send all this fracked gas someplace and where’s the best market? It was Europe. For me that’s the genesis of the last decade’s worth of tensions with Russia, as well as you know the genesis of the coup in Ukraine in 2014. So in that sense the Americans have won, at least at this point, because we are dominating that energy market. We are now the largest liquid natural gas supplier to the world with much of that going to Europe, taking over from what the Russians used to provide.

So, if the Americans can say, ‘Look, we got this and this is what we really wanted,’ we can always just spin what we did in Ukraine as, ‘We stopped Vladimir Putin, he was only ever to able to advance 60 or 70 kilometers west, he only actually really took 10% of the territory because he had taken Crimea before, this is a victory. We stopped the tyrant in his tracks, he wasn’t able to march on Berlin or Paris.’ You can see how Biden could spin this when he’s out campaigning for reelection. These are all the things that should make the people in Kiev realize that they are ripe for betrayal …

We’re coming out of Christmas and I think it’s appropriate to understand the societal aspects of this–the philosophical, the metaphysical, the religious aspects of all this. What we are seeing is really something that is unholy, and I think you can use that in a religious sense but also in a secular sense: the moral horror of this and what that means for us as a people, who we are and, of course, what it has done to tens and tens of millions of people. But then, too, the nightmare of the Empire, the ever extending nightmare of the empire, in the sense that as things get out of control for our Empire, as it devolves, as it falls apart, as there’s more fractures in it, as we try to maintain more control by putting pressure on things through violence, through military force, whether direct or by proxy, it causes even greater stress which cause even greater fractures.

So what that plays out to, then, is nations saying, ‘This American hegemony just doesn’t benefit us–it harms us. We have to not just get away from it, we don’t just need to find alternatives like, say, the BRICS, but we need to actively oppose it.’ So what you see is things like what are happening in the Red Sea, with the Houthis or Ansar Allah as they’re called, fighting back, and the harm that has caused because they can fight back asymmetrically against very soft parts of the Empire’s global economy. It’s causing effects that are really outstripping what our actual capabilities are and so, rather than seeing that the way to handle this is to address what they are are fighting about, what they are standing up against–basically stop the genocide in Gaza–the desire is to double down on it and to quash them militarily. So what we’re seeing play out in the Red Sea, that could blow up into other things with consequences that we just can’t foresee but are likely going to be bad, is something that is just lost on the Romneys the Grahams the Blumenthals, because, one, they are so ideologically driven, they are infested with this religious American exceptionalism, they believe it’s good for their careers, but also this is how they’re they’re underwritten by the arms industry.

*************************************************

Addendum: RT.com: https://www.rt.com/russia/589869-moscow-massive-attack-ukraine/

Russia confirms ‘massive barrage’ on targets in Ukraine

An overnight operation added to 50 group strikes conducted throughout the week, the Defense Ministry reported.

The Russian Defense Ministry has confirmed that its forces launched a series of air attacks against multiple targets in Ukraine in the last week. A statement from the ministry on Friday detailed 50 “group” strikes and a single “massive” barrage using precision missiles and drones.

The ministry described the intended targets as “defense industry sites, military airfield infrastructure and depots for the storage of artillery munitions, naval drones, arms and fuel for military vehicles,” as well as troop positions. All of them were successfully hit, the statement added.

Valery Zaluzhny, the commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian armed forces, reported earlier in the day that at least 158 separate launches were detected by Kiev’s troops on Thursday evening and Friday morning. He claimed that of the total, 27 drones and 87 cruise missiles were intercepted.

READ MORE: Ukraine hit by large-scale air attack – Kiev

Ukrainian Air Force spokesman Yury Ignat said in a televised statement that “we have never seen so many targets on our monitors simultaneously.” 

Officials in various parts of the country claimed damage to several warehouses and a metro station in Kiev, among other locations.