looks like new steps were taken over the weekend here. new financial restrictions...
this should lead to very interesting market gyrations on monday (tomorrow). what market goes up, and which one goes down?
Thanks bear!
Just less than 2 years ago, the markets started doing wild gyrations from COVID.
Now this.......only in the complete opposite direction for some markets at first.
The impact of COVID lasted for months in some markets. The biggest impact with this was the initial spike higher ahead of and on the news???
Lot's of different scenario's though with lot's of spike up and down scenario's for a long time.
The extremes would be something like news that Russia was going to use a nuclear weapon and at the other extreme........a peace settlement was in the works.
Neither of those seem likely which is why the market would react so strongly. .......just on the news BEFORE it actually happened.
Putin's order to put nuclear forces on high alert is making MM's 10% prediction look spot on and markets are sharply lower tonight.
Putin appears to have miscalculated the democratic world's response to the Russian invasion. He is uniting NATO and estranging Ukraine. But it is scary to contemplate that the window for a diplomatic solution is closing and if Putin is unstable....
Authoritarians were on the rise and NATO in disarray these past 5 years. From the link above:
Mr. Putin must also be perplexed by the unified support for Ukraine from the United States, the European Union, Japan, Australia and more. Democracies which waffled over tough sanctions and military aid only a couple days ago announced them Saturday and Sunday with defiant certitude: expulsion of Russian banks from the SWIFT payments system and blockage of Russian central bank reserves; lethal weapons shipments to Ukraine; ouster of Russian airlines from European airspace. BP will disinvest from Russia’s state oil company; the E.U. will bar Russian propaganda’s TV outlets.
In a dramatic speech to Germany’s parliament, Chancellor Olaf Scholzannounced that Germany will not only arm Ukraine’s forces, but rearm its own, committing to spend more than the NATO minimum of 2 percent of its economic output on defense. Mr. Scholz urged a shift from Russian energy supplies to other sources. These are extraordinary changes in Germany’s postwar foreign and security posture, but Mr. Scholz — correctly and courageously — said Mr. Putin’s war is “a turning point in history” to which Germany must swiftly adapt. The applause that greeted Mr. Scholz’s words was the sound of a mature democracy, Europe’s richest and largest, dealing a strategic defeat to the Kremlin’s decades-long effort at co-opting it.
-------
Hoping the Iron Dome defense system developed between Israel and the US during the Obama administration is effective against nukes. Living in NYC leaves me feeling a bit in the crosshairs.
Thanks much joj!
BOTH sides are miscalculating in my opinion. I am convinced that this has alot to do with protecting RUSSIA'S future. It's life blood.........fossil fuels.
Like all of us here from time to time, I searched the internet to find an article to post that explains how Putin views this...........there wasn't a single article that states it the way that seems crystal clear to me.
How can they not know this? Maybe they just are not stating it because it would go against the false climate crisis narrative? If they really don't get it.........then they are oblivious or in denial and its pretty scary because not understanding it could lead to a nuclear war.
So here goes again. I don't mind repeating it many times because nobody, anywhere is stating it like this and this is extremely important.
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/23fe599b-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/23fe599b-en
"fossil fuels accounted for as much as 63.2% of Russia’s exports in 2017 according to the Federal Customs Service. Oil and gas revenues contributed to 36% of the country’s federal budget in 2016."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/81701/#81945
metmike: NATO/UN/IPCC/Climate Accord have a major war on fossil fuels. This is a big part of why Putin insists that the Ukraine can NEVER join NATO. This is why Russia(and China) were not part of the global climate meetings last Fall. A war on fossil fuels is a war on the economies of Russia and China!
Biden criticized both Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin for not showing up to COP26. He asked: ‘How do you do that and claim to be able to have any leadership now?’
metmike: The rock solid science shows that China and Russia's climate is benefiting the most from current climate change(even climate alarmist studies show this, like the one below) as well as their country's economies are benefiting the most from fossil fuels. They are also both nationalist leaders/countries.
https://www.consultancy.eu/news/4964/global-warming-boosts-the-economies-of-some-70-countries
The West/NATO are describing Russia's take over of Ukraine with NONE of this key background information which is a major driver.
If we get rid of fossil fuels, 63% of Russia's exports, what does Russia do to replace them in order to prosper?
THERE IS NOTHING(s) that can ever come close. Russia has many decades worth of fossil fuels in the ground valued at many trillions of dollars.
Their country has many trillions invested in the infrastructure/technology to efficiently extract those fossil fuels out of the ground, then transport and sell them to other countries. This is in addition to using them inside of Russia.
Taking that all away will sentence Russia to a very bleak future.
MM,
How does this military action by Putin avert this bleak future of declining use of fossil fuels?
Does the invasion somehow get the alternative energy movement to back down? It doesn't seem plausible to me.
metmike: The West is punishing Putin for taking offensive actions against Ukraine and the West tells us that the sanctions are sending a message and they are designed to show unity of the West against Putin's actions.
But Putin will NEVER get their message.
THEIR message is based on HIM being the aggressor.
He will never see that. He will always be protecting the interests of Russia with his actions. Countries like those from the West that are trying to obliterate some of Russia's interests (be honest, they ARE obliterating Russia's future if they kill fossil fuels)
Those interests are the ones attacking Russia.
The sanctions, to him are the West ramping up the attack/offensive on Russia.
The West had better be careful because Putin feels unfairly attacked and being ganged up against him.
The West is proud of itself for uniting and doing this and the media is patting them on the back and all interests are devoting much of their time to demean and vilify Putin.
Congratulating themselves for confronting the big bully.
That is not the recipe to get him to cooperate. It's causing more anger and hatred in him, along with feeling unjustly attacked and backed into a corner.
It's the recipe for Putin to seriously consider using nuclear weapons. The West is ignoring how Putin really feels.
The question might be. What if he felt even more attacked and finally decided to use a nuclear weapon to defend because that is the MOST POWERFUL thing that he has to defend Russia?
It would mean that the sanctions backfired.
If that happened, we would have to do something.
1. Respond with nuclear weapons...........thus causing an apocalyptic nuclear war.
2. Negotiate and give him something.
3. Increase sanctions............no, that's not a choice since it would have already caused things to get worse.
4. Do nothing? Not a choice. So either #1 or #2.
Where would he send a nuclear weapon?
Maybe he would send it to an area without people, like in the Atlantic Ocean or Siberia to tell the West that he's not messing around???
I don't think that this will happen but the West acts so strong and righteous because they united, while focusing on obliterating Putin's reputation in front of the world.
Do they think that Putin is going to go away crying like a baby or concede on anything?
They are making Putin out to be weak and not even able to beat Ukrainians because Putin over estimated his strength and underestimated the Ukranians and the powerful West that has united in order to defeat the evil Putin.
Is Putin reading all these thousands of stories and thinking "dang, I had better concede, they are just too strong for Russia" ?
They are pushing Russia closer to a nuclear war!
Does the invasion somehow get the alternative energy movement to back down? It doesn't seem plausible to me.
Glad you asked joj!
That's not at all what Putin wants.
Putin has been adamant about Ukraine NOT joining NATO. That's what this is about. Ukraine joining forces with the enemy that's attacking Russia's life blood......fossil fuels.
He's not trying to get the world to back down........he just doesn't want UKRAINE to be part of the attack on Russia's life blood. Ukraine is also very rich in fossil fuels.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_185174.htm
COP26: Russia's Vladimir Putin will not attend climate summit
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-58977993
++++++++++++++++++++
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/81701/#81975
June 23, 2021
NATO’s focus on climate change is also completely aligned with President Biden’s Interim National Security Strategy, a key, strategic-level national security planning document where “climate” is mentioned 27 times.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
https://geohistory.today/economic-nationalism-globalization-russia/
The Kremlin systematically reacquired large portions of Russia’s energy resources and deployed them as tools of international statecraft and to fund the projects and reforms of the state.[43] Assigning control over the new state corporations to trusted members of his administration, Putin began to control economic development through state supervision and gained valuable authority over the pricing and delivery of energy supplies. Much of the profits from Russia’s natural resources now go to the state treasury to be used for domestic programs. The Kremlin can also, at least theoretically, influence the politics of foreign countries by controlling the delivery of and, to a large extent, the price of gas on the international market. This gives the Kremlin some control over a major part of the economies of foreign states and, through that control, some influence on popular political support for foreign leaders. Russian popular support for these policies has been unparalleled and is seen largely as the personal brain-child of Putin. Putin’s party, United Russia, now controls a large majority in the State Duma and Federation Council and holds the most unified governmental authority since Soviet times.
The last decade of Russian politics has witnessed a revival of officially supported nationalist ideology. From laws limiting employment opportunities for migrant workers to the creation of a “Day of National Unity,” the state has shown its support for renewed pride in Russian citizenship. However, these actions have opened up a political space for radical and xenophobic parties to capitalize on this upsurge in nationalist sentiment. In a recent poll by the independent Levada Center, for example, “half of the 1,880 respondents said they would support banning natives of the Caucasus from living in Russia.”[44] It is important to note that the Caucasuses themselves are partly within the territory of Russia. Violence against ethnic minorities has increased dramatically over the last five years.[45]
Encouraging nationalist sentiments to bolster economic policies can have radical consequences. By directly and indirectly supporting nationalist parties and doctrines, the Kremlin has opened the door for radical and xenophobic parties. The creation of internal and external enemies may have short-term benefits in uniting a populace and thus encouraging economic growth, but it can also have long-term negative consequences by contributing to animosities between groups of citizens within a state. Problems arise when a state actively encourages these sentiments without placing limits on their development.
The Kremlin has attempted to create such limits over the last few months, with several official programs designed to increase discussion of “Russianness” and minimize the damaging effects of the nationalism. As noted above, a certain level of nationalism is needed to unite a populace towards economic and political goals. However, the definition of “Russianness” inserted an exclusive, ethnic component into this economic nationalism. The active facilitation of intolerance, hatred and racism as integral parts of that nationalism has created immeasurable problems in the populace. Russia finds itself in the particularly difficult position of needing a strong, self-confident national identity to drive economic development, while also wishing to prevent violent manifestations in which supposed enemies are physically targeted.
As a theory to counteract the perceived injustices and insecurities caused by globalization, economic nationalism has emerged as a popular and powerful theory that is supported by wide and diverse constituencies looking to preserve their cultural heritage and expand their state’s international power. Nation-states must concentrate on building economic prowess in order to maintain or strengthen their international influence. However, the consequences of encouraging economic nationalism can involve the radicalization of politics and the persecution of segments of the national population, which can lead to fragmentation and eventual political and, hence, economic instability within a state. How this will play out in Russia and other countries where economic nationalist policies are being implemented is yet to be seen.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ByMindy Weisbergerpublished
This is the first time that scientists from Ukraine are involved in an IPCC report as lead authors, Politico reported.
One of the departing Ukrainian scientists told Chloé Farand, a senior reporter for Climate Home News, that "we need to think about [the] safety of our families and it is not possible to concentrate on the wording of the summary for policymakers under attack and bombing," Farand tweeted on Friday (Feb. 25).
According to the prior IPCC report released in August 2021, global climate change is "widespread, rapid and intensifying," with Earth experiencing climate disruptions that are unprecedented in thousands of years — and the role of humans in driving these changes is "unequivocal,"
The upcoming IPCC report is gleaned from more than 34,000 scientific publications and over 62,000 review comments; and it is authored by 270 scientists representing dozens of countries, IPCC representatives said in a statement. This is the first time that scientists from Ukraine are involved in an IPCC report as lead authors, Politico reported.
While the earlier report in 2021 outlined evidence of recent climate change and predictions for how that will continue to reshape our world in the coming decades, the upcoming report will focus on pinpointing critical ways in which human communities and natural ecosystems are vulnerable to climate change, and will outline options for mitigation and adaptation, according to the IPCC"
metmike: So they can't go to safety and use the stored information on their computers and in their heads???
I don't buy it. They dang well know what this war is about (the fake climate crisis and fossil fuels) and that Putin will put a price on their heads for playing a role as lead authors in the war against Russia's life blood!!!!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
metmike: Putin is talking about the Climate Accord here. For the zillionth time, the Climate Accord has zero to do with the climate. :
Recounting historical grievances, Russian president signals entrenched confrontation with the West in televised speech
https://www.wsj.com/articles/putin-address-takes-swipe-at-u-s-led-world-order-11645485419
This is what the Climate Accord is about:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
March 28, 2020
Time for Ukraine to exit Russia’s energy empire
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/time-for-ukraine-to-exit-russias-energy-empire/
"According to a 2017 report on transportation by Stanford University’s Tony Seba and James Arbib, the coming adoption of EVs as the preferred mode of transportation will soon impact demand enough to trigger a permanent fall in oil prices (and a 30% drop in production by 2030), posing an existential threat to many oil producers worldwide. The economic and geopolitical implications of this massive disruption should strike Russia hard, and Ukraine should take advantage of this."
"Russia’s income from energy exports will likely continue to fall in the future. The repercussions for Russia, which has built a fossil fuel energy empire, will be grim. Time is on Ukraine’s side. The trend is clear, and the trend is Ukraine’s friend."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
US officials also offer to negotiate on European security with Moscow but won’t move on most contentious issue
Wed 26 Jan 2022 16.30 EST
The US has presented its written response to Russian demands on Ukraine, but made clear that it did not change Washington’s support for Ukraine’s right to pursue Nato membership, the most contentious issue in relations with Moscow.
He said Ukraine sought a “clear” and “feasible” timeframe to join NATO.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Russia continues to amass troops on the Ukrainian border, threatening an invasion. One of Russia's demands is that Ukraine never join NATO, the longstanding Western alliance. WSJ's Yaroslav Trofimov explains NATO's history with Russia, and why President Vladimir Putin considers its expansion a threat.
"Yaroslav Trofimov: Russia sees NATO as an alliance whose primary aim is to make Russia weaker, and so it sees any expansion of NATO as a direct threat to its own interests."
It's probably not as clear to you because you are having a hard time appreciating what the Climate Accord is really about, like almost everybody else.
I understand.
Goal 13 calls for urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts. It is intrinsically linked to all 16 of the other Goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/climate-action/
Implementation of the Paris Agreement is essential for the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals
Swarthmore International Relations Journal
Volume 3 | Issue 1 Article 1
January 2019 ISSN 2574-0113
https://works.swarthmore.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1035&context=swarthmoreirjournal
The Paris Climate Agreement - Harbinger of a New Global Order
Conclusion
Ultimately, while some aspects of the Agreement’s design and ratification reaffirm the
existing global order by facilitating cooperation through international institutions via
mechanisms of state-exercised soft power, the overall politics of the Paris Agreement provide
strong evidence of a new emerging global order. The enforcement of this Agreement reflects this
transition by shifting power from state to substate and nonstate actors. While the politics of the Agreement are indicative of a new emerging global order, this new order may still incorporate
some elements of the existing one. For example, the Paris Agreement may foster a more
integrated world with greater collaboration and cooperation between states, as well as between
state and nonstate actors. As illustrated in this paper, the Paris Agreement has already
substantially increased the influence of substate and nonstate actors on the international climate
regime. Beyond this regime, it is highly likely that these actors will soon play a more integral
role in international negotiations and foreign affairs more generally. While it remains uncertain
which aspects of the long-standing global order will persist in the newly emerging one, the
politics of the Paris Agreement clearly demonstrate a meaningful redistribution of power among
the political actors on the international stage, and may therefore significantly shape the future of
international relations.
joj,
Here's the thing for me.
Most people that know the Climate Accord is completely bogus and has nothing to do with the climate are against it because they are against One World Order and against some of the objectives.
I'm actually for almost everything in Agenda 2030 and am not that upset about the One World Order thing.
What I vehemently oppose with every cell in my body is them hijacking climate science(my profession as an atmospheric scientist) and manufacturing a climate crisis that doesn't exist.........basically stealing people's intelligence and brainwashing them with massive weather and climate propaganda to accomplish their political objectives.
I don't care how altruistic their goals are, that's no excuse to blatantly lie to people.
And theres more to it that I object to. Trillions of dollars are being made at the expense of wrecking the environment and killing wildlife (birds) with fake green energy, like wind turbines.
Regardless. Putin's view is that he also knows with certainty that the Climate Accord is a crock and he isn't going to tolerate Ukraine being part of it against Russia.
You won't find that explanation anywhere because the West won't allow any articles that expose the Climate Accord to be published, which means they won't allow Putin's real reason to take back Ukraine to be told.
I am NOT speculating. These are facts.
If you don't want to believe all the evidence that I just used to indisputably PROVE it and want to believe the lies............. that's your choice.
but I understand why. Once somebody has become convinced of something, for instance after heaRing the climate accord is all about climate thousands of times…..or told that Putin is doing this for reasons X, Y or Z, then it’s almost impossible to believe the different reasons that I just,proved.
I've always been agnostic on the climate debate. Mainly because I have been visiting my cousin in Florida at his beach house and the shore line hasn't moved an inch in 30 years. So you needn't beat that drum.
The one world theory carries about as much plausibility to me as the Protocols of Zion. I reflexively shun all conspiracy theories.
If Putin is attacking Ukraine to keep them out of NATO it is having the opposite effect. He is rallying NATO. He is pushing Ukraine toward NATO and pushing NATO towards Ukraine.
If Putin is attacking for the purpose of preserving his fossil fuel revenues he is putting that in grave danger.
I think you touched on something when pointing out how Putin "feels". He is an egomaniac and extremely sensitive. I agree to be careful with him.
You argue (I think?) that we should give him something. What should that be? If you suggest we should forfeit Ukrainian independence, I would submit it is not ours to give.
So what should we give him in your opinion. I'm all for giving him an exit ramp. But what?
Thanks joj!
I've always been agnostic on the climate debate. Mainly because I have been visiting my cousin in Florida at his beach house and the shore line hasn't moved an inch in 30 years. So you needn't beat that drum.
I love it! A man that can think critically. Now continue to use that to understand WHY they are making most of this stuff up.
BernieSanders fake climate scare: Major cities NOT going under water in 8 to 9 years. We do not have XX years to save the (greening up) planet from the climate optimum(fake climate crisis). January 2020.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/46122/
If Putin is attacking Ukraine to keep them out of NATO it is having the opposite effect. He is rallying NATO. He is pushing Ukraine toward NATO and pushing NATO towards Ukraine.
You are thinking with a brain convinced of the opposite of why Putin is doing this. The reason for this reaction is that NATO wants Ukraine! They were on the verge of getting Ukraine. For the first time ever, 2 lead authors on the IPCC report about the fake climate crisis which is entirely political were going to be from Ukraine.........they suddenly withdrew.
If this was entirely about human rights and needing to take a stand for a country's independence......then why is the world allowing all these violations?
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/taliban-afghanistan
Vietnam’s appalling human rights record worsened in 2018
Amnesty International has documented widespread human rights violations in China
https://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/china/
How many of those countries above are fighting against an almost NATO country trying to join up? A new country in the Climate Accord with 2 lead authors on this political IPCC report? Zero
https://www.politico.eu/article/bomb-ukraine-climate-scientists-withdraw-global-ipcc-meeting/
The one world theory carries about as much plausibility to me as the Protocols of Zion. I reflexively shun all conspiracy theories.
As I just mentioned, that doesn't upset me either and has nothing to do with my position. Calling it a conspiracy, however, just makes it tougher to see what REALLY IS happening.
So what should we give him in your opinion. I'm all for giving him an exit ramp. But what?
Wonderful question joj!
As I mentioned last week, sometimes bullies in the world do win. Note my examples of it above affecting more than a billion NON NATO people in other countries. Once they go NATO, the pact legally obligates NATO to defend any and every NATO country. Ukraine was about to cross that threshold and there has been 100 times more sensationalism of this than the poor souls currently living in Vietnam or China or Afghanistan that have it even worse.
If we put it into that perspective.........it looks different than compared to the perspective of the sensationalism and at times, misleading what this is all about the last 2 weeks.
With regards to what we should give Putin, there is no way that both sides will be happy.
I think that you will agree.
Especially since the world has been convinced that Ukraine should be given entire independence, allowed to join NATO, along with having lead authors in the Climate Accord(I know the world isn't seeing that part) and not allowing Russia to have any jurisdictions over anything they do.
If Putin was cool with that.............there would be no war.
So the question ......and you asked it, is what do we have to give Putin to NOT make him happy but instead is the minimum to squeak by with enough to keep the bully from taking what he knows that he can/will take by force unless we give him something?
The minimum to guarantee that he will not go nuclear weapons?
Only Putin knows that for sure but its extremely likely not going to be what the West wants.
It could go down like a document that states Ukraine will never become part of NATO and including Ukraine not being part of the IPCC reports being used to obliterate fossil fuels.
You are convinced that this has backfired on Putin but I'm betting Putin is thinking the complete opposite. That he did this just in the nick of time before Ukraine joined NATO. After that, NATO would have immediately been sending in troops to Ukraine to fight Russia.
It appears as if the entire world has united against Putin (actually just the West) and this was a huge blunder by him.
After Ukraine joins NATO, if Russia invades, then NATO is legally obligated to send in troops and right now that would mean WW-3 and Russia having even MORE resistance. But Russia would not have invaded under that situation..............and that's exactly why he invaded BEFORE they joined NATO.
I'm sure you know this because the NYT has had a couple of articles explaining this in recent months.
So maybe we must give Putin assurance that Ukraine will not join NATO?
Only because IT APPEARS that he will NEVER agree to anything less than that. But thats not our decision, as you said.
Right now, Ukrainians are wishing that they were part of NATO EVEN MORE, right? Having NATO fight and defeat Russia is exactly what would help them most. So I get your position on this backfiring. Ukraine will want to join NATO even MORE now.
But you asked what we should give Putin and I'm only trying to answer based on what would satisfy Putin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations
At any other time, this would be considered entirely NTR but THIS IS what's driving all the markets right now. Throw out all the other factors that dominated your life previously.
It's all political news from Ukraine that's affecting almost all the markets. In some cases, causing limit moves.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/82164/#82243
Delegations from Kyiv and Moscow have held the first round of discussions at the Ukraine-Belarus border after days of war.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/28/ukraine-russia-talks-due-to-begin-early-on-monday-live-news