The Ukraine War, implications, outcome?

[loop101]

This article

How would Putin ever justify killing civilians to his own people? Sure, razing cities to the ground is possible and would “win” him the war, but extremely hard to justify internally in my opinion.

American politicians justified nuking Japanese cities by reasoning that it was to save the lives of countless American soldiers, which it did. If Putin loses a bunch of soldiers trying to take Kiev on the ground, he could use the same logic.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[basedzoomer]

Bringing a different perspective to this thread:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1498480933401292802

 

[Xeon]

Those dots on the second map are not all bases. There are no NATO bases in Finland or Sweden for example, liaison offices or something like that maybe. The dot on sea between Finland and Sweden makes zero sense, perhaps it should be lower on Åland island..? The whole map looks quite sketchy..

It is definitely military bases aka US military presence. Whether those bases have missiles or not makes no difference, because the US can easily move troops and rockets anytime they want.

Infographic: History of US interventions in the past 70 years

The US controls about 750 bases in 80 countries and spends more on its military than the next 10 countries combined.

www.google.com

 

[Raoul Duke]

I don't know. This just seems like poking a bear? Why do that. LOL

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[woken]

Belarus sent troops in Ukraine too.
This doesn’t feel like de-escalation.

Last night I had a dream. Russia joined Nato too. It was peaceful & everyone was happy.


more threats on the way :

"If necessary, if such stupid and mindless steps are taken by our rivals and opponents, we will deploy not only nuclear weapons, but super-nuclear and up-and-coming ones to protect our territory," Lukashenko( Belarus President) said

 

[c4n]

I'm no weapons expert but WION (India News) said a Vacuum Bomb (prohibited by Geneva Convention) has been used and cluster bombs, so you may be right.

Just for some perspective:

Thermobaric weapons are not prohibited directly by the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and the US has a couple of them in active service (called FAE munitions), even a variant of the very popular "Hellfire" missile. They've been used against structures and bunkers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Also, Russia never signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions. Neither did the US, China, Israel...

For the record: I'm an active air force officer in a NATO air force; close, but not bordering Ukraine.

 

[Silverfox148]

The more I look at this Russian/Ukraine situation the less sense it makes, this could be some type of staged setup.

The fact that NATO/Western countries keep escalating via social media makes little sense if the Russian federation has actually committed to kinetic on the ground fighting, the best move is for everyone to be calling for a cease fire but I hear little talk of that.

Also the videos coming out of Ukraine are somewhat staged, I saw an "attack on a Russian tank with a Molotov cocktail from the POV of the person who threw the cocktail from a moving car but at the very end you can barely see this tank/half track is being towed by some type of tractor so it's not even actively fighting.

Strange but it seems like this a continuation of the Covid drama now via war, very 1984ish.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[MJ DeMarco]

I have no clue what's going on. I trust media sources ZERO, and that's in both the East and West. At this point, hearsay from on the ground reports in the hot zone from people with family is probably the most reliable source.

From an outside perspective, it's like two emotionally volatile, immature teenagers fighting on social media, except these teenagers are armed with nuclear weapons, while Billy is stuck in the cross fire (Ukraine).

 

[Xeon]

I don't know. This just seems like poking a bear? Why do that. LOL

Anyone who follows Taiwan's news will easily see that they're one of the biggest fanatic of the US.
Little did they know, they'll be sacrificed hard in the event of a China-US war. Fools!

The more I look at this Russian/Ukraine situation the less sense it makes, this could be some type of staged setup.

The fact that NATO/Western countries keep escalating via social media makes little sense if the Russian federation has actually committed to kinetic on the ground fighting, the best move is for everyone to be calling for a cease fire but I hear little talk of that.

Also the videos coming out of Ukraine are somewhat staged, I saw an "attack on a Russian tank with a Molotov cocktail from the POV of the person who threw the cocktail from a moving car but at the very end you can barely see this tank/half track is being towed by some type of tractor so it's not even actively fighting.

Strange but it seems like this a continuation of the Covid drama now via war, very 1984ish.

It's likely a trap to bait Russia in, then using economic means to ruin them. Everything feels so coordinated. Even Visa and Mastercard has joined the sanctions.

----------------------------------------

There's 2 things I've been thinking about while reading the news just now:

1) Is Zelensky aware that right now, there is a MASSIVE human resource drain in Ukraine? People are leaving by the masses to neighbouring countries. Programmers, businessmen, teachers, all kinds of people. As at now, UN mentioned something like 600,000? It's only going to go up. Ukraine is already lacking human capital before the war.
That means regardless of the outcome, Ukraine is going to get F*ckED in the near future. Companies will shut and people will go out of jobs. Or is Zelensky oblivious to this, and is just taking money from his masters in the West to do what he's told? And when his job is done, he cashes out and flies to Miami, and lives a happy, unscripted life?

2) I think most Ukrainians are living in bunkers and shelters now? How long can people reasonably live in bunkers before they go nuts? Will it reach a point where Ukrainians get impatient from living bunker life? Bear in mind, currently, shipments of commercial packages etc are all stopped temporarily and the country has come to a standstill in terms of business and leisure. This is worse than Covid lockdown. I'm curious, how long can this go on? (actually, it's the same for Russia with all the sanctions but at least Russia isn't getting pounded by bombs and Russians aren't living in bunkers yet)

 

[Silverfox148]

There's 2 things I've been thinking about while reading the news just now:

1) Is Zelensky aware that right now, there is a MASSIVE human resource drain in Ukraine? People are leaving by the masses to neighbouring countries. Programmers, businessmen, teachers, all kinds of people. As at now, UN mentioned something like 600,000? It's only going to go up. Ukraine is already lacking human capital before the war.
That means regardless of the outcome, Ukraine is going to get f*ckED in the near future. Companies will shut and people will go out of jobs. Or is Zelensky oblivious to this, and is just taking money from his masters in the West to do what he's told? And when his job is done, he cashes out and flies to Miami, and lives a happy, unscripted life?

2) I think most Ukrainians are living in bunkers and shelters now? How long can people reasonably live in bunkers before they go nuts? Will it reach a point where Ukrainians get impatient from living bunker life? Bear in mind, currently, shipments of commercial packages etc are all stopped temporarily and the country has come to a standstill in terms of business and leisure. This is worse than Covid lockdown. I'm curious, how long can this go on? (actually, it's the same for Russia with all the sanctions but at least Russia isn't getting pounded by bombs and Russians aren't living in bunkers yet)

There is more than meets the eye in this situation, Zelensky is an interesting character. A good play here was for Zelensky to have put NATO membership "off the table" for a bit and give Putin an offramp/facing saving way out the situation with little to no blood shed. When Putin faded from power Ukraine or this situation blew over they could have pursued NATO membership at least to preserve Ukraine. Ukraine if reports are to be believed that they are putting up a fight is about to get leveled, Ukraine via the fact that it neighbors Russia is never going to be allowed to be part of the "west" Putin or no Putin from a Russian point of view. The Russian people have proven over and over again that they view themselves as independent and will not be a vassal state for the USA/Nazis WW2/etc. Hell that's what partly led Putin to power because the Russian people saw Yeltsin as a puppet of the west.

A conflict between NATO and Ukraine was inevitable as NATOs only perceived mission and reason for being was the Warsaw Pact/USSR/Russia, NATOs real reason for being however is to prevent war/arms races among NATO members. Putin called NATOs bluff with this invasion which at some point was going to be called by a Russian leader now or later. Ukraine is the real loser here as NATO membership is now gone no matter what happens on the ground, the best outcome here for the people of Ukraine is to get rid of Zelensky and declare some type of neutral status ala Finland and stop the destruction.

That is not the best outcome for the USA/West/Europe, but if you are a Ukrainian leader you should be looking after your own people first.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Guyfieri5]

Initially, I was thinking that the possibility of WW3 is complete BS, it'll never happen.

But seeing how most of the countries in the world have sanctioned Russia and, in the case of the Western nations, who have started sending tons of military equipment to Ukraine, it seems like most countries are now involved in one way or another. Needless to say, I'm betting US is the one pressuring those on the fence behind the scenes. E.g. "if you're not with us, you're against us"




I call bull on this. Unless US troops are already in Ukraine the past few days fighting for the Ukrainians against the Russians while disguising as Ukrainian soldiers, these numbers are farfetched.

The only other explanation is that Ukraine's army is so far ahead of Russia's. And in order to achieve those figures, the difference between them needs to be equivalent to that of US vs Cyprus.

I can't seem to find any news on how many Ukrainian military casualties are there, only that 300+ civilians have died. Did Western media censored out all these news?




Interesting insight. If there's going to be a war between China and US one day, I suspect it's going to be China making US implode economically. China's media, branding and network can never beat the US in a hundred years, and if they go the Russian route of taking Taiwan, they're going to end up like Russia.

(*side note, am I the only one feeling creeped out by how the US can get almost the whole world to go against a country which they feel threatened by, without firing a single bullet? And everyone quietly obeys?)



Anyway, there's a solution (albeit a stupid crazy one) which can work to solve the current crisis:

1) The objective behind Russia's invasion is to force Ukraine to never join NATO so they've a security buffer. Because if Ukraine joins, US is going to place its missiles right next to Russia and Russia will become the next Iraq. Potentially 148 million of their population displaced vs Ukraine's 44 million.

2) To fix this, the US, Canada and Mexico *must* sign a treaty with Russia, that allows Russia to build military (missile) bases in Ontario, Canada and the northern regions of Mexico. The actual number of bases to build will match the current number that the US+NATO currently has in and around Europe.

3) At the same time, Russia will pull out troops from Ukraine and Ukraine can join NATO if they want. Now that Ukraine is in NATO, US can build military bases there. Their wet dream. The number of bases to built will be calibrated so that it matches Russia's number of bases.

We will now end up with a situation where Russia has missile bases in US's backyard and US will also have missile bases aiming at Russia from their backyard.

Well, it's your call now, America. It's all about equality and democracy, and less of hypocrisy.

Right now we have Russia backed into a corner. Every front is being attacked except the kinetic one whether it be finance, communications, etc. Russia is slowly reaching a position where they have nothing to lose. Also, I'm no conspiracy theorist, but it seems odd to me that Putin would behave so erratically. You'd think he would take a small piece of Ukraine and wait as he did with Crimea. I can't imagine what threats he's received behind the scenes. Activating your nukes is a big deal. Also, it makes sense what you proposed. If we were playing fair we'd offer something to Russia aside from threats. So much disinformation it's hard to discern what is going on.

 

[Black_Dragon43]

If you are a western businessman who moves to Russia to take advantage of some of the business opportunity there, and you are not interested in local politics, there is basically zero relevance on how high politics in Russia work.

Most people are concerned with cost of living, ease of doing business, business opportunity and personal safety and business related policies. Freedom in political participation is just one aspect of life. Russia is not hell and could even offer advantages that western countries don't have in other areas.

You are wrong about this. It's true, you'll be left alone if you're opening a corner hair saloon, or a café or the like. BUT, the moment you are expanding, and come into conflict with competitors who are companies that are owned or managed by oligarchs or influential people, then you will come in their crosshairs. Sure, they will not start out by killing you, but it can get there. They will start by coming over to have a conversation with you. And they will tell you that that's their territory, and it's not right for you to get in there or whatever. If you disobey and don't pull back, next a tax audit may come upon you. Or the windows of your store may be broken. And so on it's going to escalate until you stop.

This to me is a HELL HOLE - you literarily don't have basic freedoms.

 

[Black_Dragon43]

the best outcome here for the people of Ukraine is to get rid of Zelensky and declare some type of neutral status ala Finland and stop the destruction

No, the best outcome is Putin losing and failing, and his empire crumbling. I don’t support negotiating with evil or with terrorists regardless of the costs. And no one should, even if it means the destruction of the whole world.

What you are asking for is a BETRAYAL of someone who is courageous and fights for his country and for freedom. You are asking people to abandon their values to “save life”. No thanks. That’s exactly what terrorists and warmongers want. Do not fear Putin, fear is worse than death. Death is nothing - if you die fighting for truth and justice, then you have lost nothing and gained the most important thing: an honorable death.

What did Jesus do when asked why he doesn’t call an army of angels to save Himself? He said NO, because there are more important things in this world than life.

What did Socrates do when offered the chance to escape death and go into exile? He said NO. Why? Because some things matter more than life.

Follow the examples of humanity’s greatest teachers and say no to fear. Fear is what drives immorality and what gives power to men like Putin.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Antifragile]

From Ray Dalio:

The Changing World Order: Focusing on External Conflict and the Russia-Ukraine-NATO Situation

History is changing fast—in fact so fast that it won’t be long after you read this that dramatic changes will take place that will change the complexion of the world order. In this piece I’d like to put these fast-changing developments in the context of the Big Cycle evolutions of world orders, in t

www.linkedin.com

Copy/paste for convenience:

History is changing fast—in fact so fast that it won’t be long after you read this that dramatic changes will take place that will change the complexion of the world order. In this piece I’d like to put these fast-changing developments in the context of the Big Cycle evolutions of world orders, in this case focusing on the “Big Cycle of External Order and Disorder” as laid out in Chapter 6 of my book Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order. I will focus most on the Big Cycle that began in 1945 and is now 77 years old. I will briefly review how the big cycle of external conflicts typically works in the context of the rises and declines of empires and world orders. In these respects, my perspective will be different from most others’ perspectives in that 1) while most people are now focusing more on the tactical moment-by-moment developments of the Russia-Ukraine-NATO conflict, I am focusing more on the big picture of the changing world order that this conflict is the latest manifestation of, and 2) while most people are looking at this conflict in isolation, I view it as something that has happened many times before in similar historical cases that we can learn from.

I am looking at what is now happening within these contexts because I know that I need to see the bigger picture and need to have a good historical perspective (as well as look at the day-to-day tactical developments) in order to understand what is happening and to imagine what might happen. I am passing these thoughts along in the hope that they might help you and with the disclaimer that I’m not sure how right or wrong I am. I am just putting them out there for you to take or leave as you like.

To briefly touch on the short-term tactical stuff before getting into the big-picture strategic stuff, I’ll start with the obvious: war is terrible and unpredictable and causes awful human suffering. We are at the brink of finding out if it will stop or expand. More specifically, it seems to me that the two most important and immediate questions are:

1) Will this war extend beyond the Ukrainian-Russian borders to include Russian responses that hurt one or more NATO countries in significant enough ways that could lead to tit-for-tat escalations that could lead the war to become between Russia and NATO countries or will cease-fire talks lead to some sort of cessation of fighting? The big step-up in sanctions recently announced will have very damaging effects on the Russian economy without much cost to NATO countries, especially if the conflict continues for an extended amount of time. The economic pain that Russians will feel will be so bad that it would be surprising if there wasn’t big internal opposition to Putin’s policies that could threaten or topple his regime. These circumstances highlight the obvious questions of a) whether Putin will respond by upping the ante by giving NATO countries something big to lose, what that will be, and how it will be handled, or b) whether he can successfully backpedal to have some sort of compromise (unlikely). Putin giving NATO countries something big to lose (e.g., in a nuclear confrontation) would be worrisome.

2) How supportive will China be to Russia? Because Russia is not strong in most ways other than militarily, and because these sanctions were always obvious possibilities, it would not have been logical for Putin to have taken the path he took alone, and it is well known that China and Russia are very aligned in many ways and that can be very helpful in minimizing the effects of the sanctions. Most interesting are the questions related to using the Chinese currency and its clearing system (most importantly the development and increased usage of the e-CNY and the reduction in US sanction powers via its control over SWIFT). To be clear, I’m not saying that China will help in this way. I think a more compelling argument can be made for China not helping. In any case, I’m waiting to see what China will do because that will have a big effect on what the rapidly changing world order will soon look like.

I should say that a huge amount is being learned by what is now happening—most importantly about the strengths and weaknesses and actions of all of the key players—that will be very helpful in imagining how the struggle for control of the world order might unfold in the future. Still, as is true in all such wars and changes in world orders, at this point in the progression what is known is much less than what is not known.

From the Big-Picture, Top-Down Perspective

Now I will now rise above this short-term tactical stuff to look at how the long-term big cycle of rises and declines of great powers and changes in the world order work in order to help us better understand what is now happening and better anticipate what might happen. With that perspective in mind, we can then drop back down into the current conflict between Russia, Ukraine, NATO, and other countries.

To Review: The Three Big Forces That Are Now at Work

As explained before and more comprehensively in my book Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order, it seems to me that we are now seeing three big forces that are changing the world order in ways that never happened in our lifetimes but happened many times throughout history:

1) The Financial/Economic One: Classically and currently the world’s leading power (which typically has the leading currency) is spending much more money than it is earning, which is leading it to borrow a lot and print a lot of money to buy the debt, which is reducing the value of the debt and money relative to the value of goods, services, and non-debt investment assets. This is producing inflation in goods, services, and investment assets. History has shown that when the coffers are bare and this sort of money printing takes place, financial weakness is near, and financial weakness causes all sorts of problems and precedes declines. When the coffers are bare and there is the need for more spending on both “guns and butter” there is a lot more printing of money, inflation, and political reactions to inflation.

2) The Internal Conflict One: Classically and currently there is great internal conflict over wealth and values gaps that is leading to populism of the right and populism of the left and fights between the sides. There is a “win at all cost” mentality, which eliminates the compromising and rule-following that is essential for maintaining internal order. The more internal disorder there is the more polarity and fighting there is, which typically leads to some form of civil war.

3) The External Conflict One: Classically and currently the rising of one or more foreign powers to become comparable in power to the leading power(s) leads to power struggles, typically external wars, that determine which power(s) will be in control and what the new order will be.

Classically and currently these three cycles—i.e., the financial/economic one, the internal conflict one, and the external conflict one—are both individually evolving and influencing each other to create the Big Cycle of rises and declines of empires, countries, dynasties, and world orders.

• All empires in history have risen and declined for knowable and measurable reasons. To objectively measure and monitor these three and other important forces I created 18 indices of power that reflect 18 different types of power. While I don’t have the space to show them here they are shown in Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order, so if you want to see them I direct you there.

Today I will focus on the third of these three big forces, pulling out some of the most important principles covered more completely in Chapter 6, “The Big Cycle of External Order and Disorder,” and relating them to what is now happening.

The Big Cycle of External Order and Disorder

Some relevant principles are:

• International relations are driven much more by raw power dynamics than internal relations are. That is because all governance systems require effective and agreed-upon 1) laws and law-making abilities (e.g., legislators), 2) law enforcement capabilities (e.g., police), 3) ways of adjudicating (e.g., judges), and 4) ways of inflicting punishments. None of these has been able to be established on a global basis because the most powerful countries won’t give up power to the majority of countries because it would be unwise for them to do so. For example that is the reason that the US-China trade dispute wasn’t adjudicated by the World Trade Organization.
• There are five major kinds of competitions or wars that exist between countries:

1. Trade/economic wars
2. Technology wars
3. Geopolitical wars
4. Capital wars
5. Military wars

• These competitions or wars reward the winners and penalize the losers, which reinforce their strengthenings or their weakenings. They vary in severity from healthy competitions to all-out wars. The progression tends to be from the first one on the list (trade/economic wars) toward the last one on the list (military wars), with each growing in intensity. Then, when a military hot war begins, all four of the other types of wars are applied full-on and weaponized. For these reasons, by monitoring the progression and intensities of the conflicts one can pretty well anticipate what is likely to come next.
• To be a leading world power one must be strong in most of the major ways. For example the United States and China are now strong in all of these ways but Russia is not. For that reason Russia needs to align itself with a leading power (China) to win wars.
• The weak will lose to the strong.
• One must be strong internally in order to be strong externally.These ways and how strong each country is in them are measured and shown in the appendix to my book and will be updated on economicprinciples.org.
• People and countries are more likely to have cooperative relationships during economic good times and to fight during economic bad times.
• Shortly before there is a military war there is an economic war that typically includes:

1. Asset freezes/seizures
2. Blocking capital markets access
3. Embargoes/blockades

Over the weekend we saw significant intensifications of these economic war actions by Western (mostly NATO) powers, inflicting them on Russia. The magnitudes of increases and levels of these are a classic red flag that we should worry about a hot war between the major powers. At this moment we haven’t yet seen a retaliation by Russia, though we are hearing nuclear and other threats. So it appears that we are in the “at the brink” part of the cycle that is just after the big intensification of the economic war attacks and just before the military hot war. In other words, while the military hot war has been confined within the borders of Ukraine, it could spread to include the major powers. Seeing an acceleration and intensification of these economic war actions and/or a retaliation by Russia to hurt the NATO countries would signal a major increase in the risk of a major hot war. When I say that it would signal a major increase in the risk, I wouldn’t yet say that it is probable.

• The choice that opposing countries face between fighting or backing down is very hard to make because both are costly—fighting in terms of lives and money expended and backing down in terms of the loss of status, since it shows weakness, which leads to reduced support. This is playing a role for both Russia and the opposing Western powers since backing down would be viewed as an unacceptable sign of weakness as the world is now looking to find out who will win this war. Putin now appears trapped. This could be dangerous or it could neuter Russia as a power. We will soon find out which happens.
• Hot wars typically occur when irreconcilable existential issues cannot be resolved by peaceful means. For example existential issues a) for Putin might be having another Western/NATO-supported country on its border, b) for China might be not having control over Taiwan, c) for Iran and/or North Korea might be not having nuclear weapons to protect themselves, and d) for the US and other countries might be these countries having these things.[1]
• The greatest risk of hot war is when both parties have military powers that are roughly comparable because if one side is dominant it typically gets its way by simply threatening war. Russia and NATO have roughly comparable military capability.
• Winning means getting the things that are most important without losing the things that are most important, so wars that cost much more in lives and money than they provide in benefits are stupid. This looks like a stupid war.

While these things sound ominous, my experiences over my lifetime have been that when push came to shove all sides, when faced with the choice of pulling back or experiencing mutually assured destruction, chose pulling back from hot wars. My first encounter with this, which is also the most analogous case to the one at hand, was the Cuban Missile Crisis when Russia had a sympathetic government and arms on the border of the United States and the United States considered that an existential threat and the parties could have gone to nuclear war fighting over it. I remember watching TV news and thinking that it was implausible that either side would back down and then being relieved that the decision makers chose to back down and find a path out of what could have been total destruction. I also remember how close a call that was because some of the leaders and generals favored war over the path that was taken to avoid war. For that reason, I believe it’s too early to consider the movement to a hot war between Russia and NATO countries likely. Instead of trying to anticipate it I’d rather react to the next stepped-up threats and/or some form of actual attack, which I would expect to be more restrained than an all-out military hot war.

When Hot Wars Begin

Before I get into what hot wars look like I want to re-emphasize that I believe that odds favor not getting into a hot war between Russia and NATO countries for the foreseeable future; at the same time I believe that they aren’t low enough for me to not consider and protect myself against the possibility. The most important principles about them are:

• The two things about hot wars that one can be most confident in are that 1) they won’t go as planned and 2) they will be worse than imagined. As a result, smart leaders typically go into them only if the other side has pushed them into a position where losing by backing down can be ruinous. We know that if there was to be a hot war between the United States and Russia (especially if China was involved) it would be disastrous so that the fear of mutually assured destruction remains the main impediment to having a hot war.
• Those who are most likely to win hot wars aren't the most powerful. They are the ones who can endure the most pain for the longest amount of time. In this regard the Russians and the Chinese are stronger than the Westerners.

More Indications of What a Hot War Could Look Like for Economies and Markets

The following table shows wartime economic controls that existed in each of the major countries during World War II.

The next table shows the controls over markets and capital flows that were put in place by the major countries during World War II.

Stock market closures were common in a number of countries, leaving investors in stocks stuck without access to their capital. I should also note that money and credit were not commonly accepted between non-allied countries during the war because of a justifiable wariness about whether the currency would have any value. As noted in Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order, gold—or, in some cases, silver or barter—was the coin of the realm during wars. At such times, prices and capital flows are typically controlled, so it is difficult to say what the real prices of many things are.

Because losing wars typically leads to a total wipeout of wealth and power, movements of those stock markets that remained open in the war years were largely driven by how countries did in key battles as these results shifted the probability of victory or defeat for each side.

Protecting one’s wealth in times of war is difficult because normal economic activities are curtailed, traditionally safe investments are not safe, capital mobility is limited, and high taxes are imposed when people and countries are fighting for their survival. Protecting the wealth of those who have it is not a priority relative to the need to redistribute wealth to get it to where it is needed most. When hot wars happen, classically it pays to sell out of debt and buy gold because wars are financed by borrowing and printing money, which devalues debt and money, and because there is a justifiable reluctance to accept credit.

It is for these reasons that, as I said before, my two most important questions are now 1) will this war pass beyond Ukraine’s borders and include some form of a Russian attack on a NATO country that leads to a tit-for-tat acceleration, and 2) what will China do?

I will conclude this piece with my power principle.

Power principle: Have power, respect power, and use power wisely. Having power is good because power will win out over agreements, rules, and laws all the time. When push comes to shove, those who have the power either to enforce their interpretation of the rules and laws or to overturn them will get what they want. It is important to respect power because it’s not smart to fight a war that will produce more pain than reward; it is preferable to negotiate the best settlement possible (that is unless one wants to be a martyr, which is usually for stupid ego reasons rather than for sensible strategic reasons). It is also important to use power wisely. Using power wisely doesn’t necessarily mean forcing others to give you what you want—i.e., bullying them. It includes the recognition that generosity and compromise are powerful forces for producing win-win relationships, which are fabulously more rewarding than lose-lose relationships. In other words, it is often the case that using one’s “hard powers” is not the best path and that using one’s “soft powers” is preferable.

Footnotes

[1] Note that the US is in all these conflicts because the United States is the leader of the existing world order, which has led it to be the defender of its ideologies and areas of influence. You can decide whether or not you think this is an enviable position to be in and how to handle it. History tells us that it’s an unenviable position to be in unless one is a dominant power.

Disclosures

Bridgewater Daily Observations is prepared by and is the property of Bridgewater Associates, LP and is circulated for informational and educational purposes only. There is no consideration given to the specific investment needs, objectives or tolerances of any of the recipients. Additionally, Bridgewater's actual investment positions may, and often will, vary from its conclusions discussed herein based on any number of factors, such as client investment restrictions, portfolio rebalancing and transactions costs, among others. Recipients should consult their own advisors, including tax advisors, before making any investment decision. This report is not an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy the securities or other instruments mentioned.

Bridgewater research utilizes data and information from public, private and internal sources, including data from actual Bridgewater trades. Sources include, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Bloomberg Finance L.P., Capital Economics, CBRE, Inc., CEIC Data Company Ltd., Clarus Financial Technology, Conference Board of Canada, Consensus Economics Inc., Corelogic, Inc., CoStar Realty Information, Inc., CreditSights, Inc., Credit Market Analysis Ltd., Dealogic LLC, DTCC Data Repository (U.S.), LLC, Ecoanalitica, Energy Aspects, EPFR Global, Eurasia Group Ltd., European Money Markets Institute – EMMI, Evercore, Factset Research Systems, Inc., The Financial Times Limited, GaveKal Research Ltd., Global Financial Data, Inc., Harvard Business Review, Haver Analytics, Inc., The Investment Funds Institute of Canada, ICE Data Derivatives UK Limited, IHS Markit, Impact-Cubed, Institutional Shareholder Services, Informa (EPFR), Investment Company Institute, International Energy Agency (IEA), Investment Management Association, JP Morgan, Lipper Financial, Mergent, Inc., Metals Focus Ltd, Moody’s Analytics, Inc., MSCI, Inc., National Bureau of Economic Research, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OCED), Pensions & Investments Research Center, Qontigo GmbH, Quandl, Refinitiv RP Data Ltd, Rystad Energy, Inc., S&P Global Market Intelligence Inc., Sentix GmbH, Spears & Associates, Inc., State Street Bank and Trust Company, Sustainalytics, Totem Macro, United Nations, US Department of Commerce, Verisk-Maplecroft, Vigeo-Eiris (V.E), Wind Information(HK) Company, Wood Mackenzie Limited, World Bureau of Metal Statistics, and World Economic Forum. While we consider information from external sources to be reliable, we do not assume responsibility for its accuracy.

The views expressed herein are solely those of Bridgewater as of the date of this report and are subject to change without notice. Bridgewater may have a significant financial interest in one or more of the positions and/or securities or derivatives discussed. Those responsible for preparing this report receive compensation based upon various factors, including, among other things, the quality of their work and firm revenues.

 

[nothingness]

Listening to the radio briefly earlier and had a "hang on" moment; the BBC using active copywriting in it's news reporting about Russia to get you to hate Russia. Lots of "unconfirmed reports of Russia doing horrible shit" but only mentioning the unconfirmed part at the start; is this what the BBC is nowadays? Just spreading rumors?

I also noticed they mentioned cluster bombs under the context of it being "one of Russia's favorite ways of indiscriminately targeting civilians". Since when does Russia attack civillians? They are painting Russia and all of its soldiers out to be war criminals and the 99% with no copy experience will totally fall for it. Disgusting really.

 

[MTF]

According to the latest official information, there are over 350,000 refugees in Poland already (mostly women and children). 350,000 people is roughly 1% of current Polish population. Just yesterday 100,000 more refugees crossed the border.

For Americans to understand the scale, imagine that each day, about 1 million people arrive in the US. Consider that in the US, one million people arrive every year as permanent legal residents, asylum-seekers and refugees. Imagine the same number arriving EVERY DAY.

For now, all refugees can get whatever they need in Poland. Everyone everywhere is collecting food, hygiene products, medical supplies, clothes (though it's being said there's more than enough clothes now), and other items. And I mean, everyone everywhere pretty much literally. Every person, every business, every organization, every school, every city, every club of any kind, etc.

And that's just Poland which gets about 50% of the refugees. The rest escapes to Hungary, Romania, Moldova, Slovakia and a few other countries. The scale of this humanitarian crisis is unfathomable and heartbreaking.

Each day when I'm out and see people going about their days I imagine it was exactly the same just a week ago for Ukrainian people. You take peace for granted and suddenly realize it can be taken from you literally overnight.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Silverfox148]

No, the best outcome is Putin losing and failing, and his empire crumbling. I don’t support negotiating with evil or with terrorists regardless of the costs. And no one should, even if it means the destruction of the whole world.

What you are asking for is a BETRAYAL of someone who is courageous and fights for his country and for freedom. You are asking people to abandon their values to “save life”. No thanks. That’s exactly what terrorists and warmongers want. Do not fear Putin, fear is worse than death. Death is nothing - if you die fighting for truth and justice, then you have lost nothing and gained the most important thing: an honorable death.

What did Jesus do when asked why he doesn’t call an army of angels to save Himself? He said NO, because there are more important things in this world than life.

What did Socrates do when offered the chance to escape death and go into exile? He said NO. Why? Because some things matter more than life.

Follow the examples of humanity’s greatest teachers and say no to fear. Fear is what drives immorality and what gives power to men like Putin.

There is a lot of emotion in your post which is fine but this is an actual war right now, it's no longer theoretical, innocent people on both sides are being affected, the best outcome for the Ukrainian people at the moment is a ceasefire. Your logic train ends at the below:

You are directly advocating for a tactical as well as a strategic defeat of the Russian military via Ukraine as a proxy, you are also directly advocating for regime change in Russia. The Russians have proven over and over in their history that they are unwilling to be a vassal state ala(Germany, France, etc). Ukraine as a proxy can never accomplish those goals, this is not the example of one person as you highlight above(Socrates, Jesus, etc), this is millions that will suffer if Ukraine gets leveled, the Russian side is trying very hard not to destroy Ukraine at large. It is costing them casualties most likely but this posture isn't going to hold forever, even the US in Iraq warned civilians to get out and leveled the place(Fallujah), the Russians will at some point arrive at the same conclusion.

This glory and honor sounds good in theory but in an actual battlefield situation it can be disastrous especially on civilians. Japan wisely came to the same conclusion after two of it's cities were leveled, the shoe is just on the other foot now. Ukraine right now is fighting for NATO while NATO itself is unwilling to get involved on the ground or the air, it's being used as a proxy, nothing more , nothing less.

Ukraine is and always will be a buffer state between Europe and Russia, it's just it's geographic destiny, the best outcome for Ukraine is a neutral Ukraine ala Finland.

 

[Silverfox148]

Also is it just me or has the indirect goal/logic train of the West/Europe/Politicians become the
the tactical as well as a strategic defeat of the Russian military via Ukraine as a proxy as well as regime change in Russia ?

Crazy goals, anyone in the west not advocating for a cease fire is indirectly pursuing those goals it would seem. I see trouble for Biden ahead on this, he is getting boxed in little by little, if this whole thing is not some deep state/powers that be fake show, he could have a tough time finding an off ramp(Biden), ironically just like Putin himself couldn't find an off ramp.

 

[Antti]

Ukraine is and always will be a buffer state between Europe and Russia, it's just it's geographic destiny, the best outcome for Ukraine is a neutral Ukraine ala Finland.

Finland is not a neutral country. It was perhaps kind of true during cold war but certainly not after our EU membership and other developments during the last 30 years.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[JordanK]

It will be interesting to see what Biden says during his State of the Union address tonight at 9PM Eastern US Time.

 

[Silverfox148]

Finland is not a neutral country. It was perhaps kind of true during cold war but certainly not after our EU membership and other developments during the last 30 years.

They have toed the line really well without directly antagonizing Russia, they have refrained from joining NATO, etc. Ukraine should have learned much from Finland, in any case, it's a model Russia seems to accept, right now that's off the table but it may be possible in the future.

 

[Black_Dragon43]

There is a lot of emotion in your post which is fine but this is an actual war right now, it's no longer theoretical, innocent people on both sides are being affected, the best outcome for the Ukrainian people at the moment is a ceasefire.

It is not emotional, it is purely rational. If a terrorist captured one of your kids and asked for a $100,000 reward in exchange for their life, I’d say no. I’d say that if they wish they are free to kill him, but I will NOT, under any circumstances agree to pay them any amount.

If you give in to the demands of a terrorist you justify their behavior by rewarding it. There will be no rewards for any terrorist. This is the best defence. Afterwards a terrorist learns that there is no value in trying to blackmail you because they get punished for it, and they don’t do it again.

You are directly advocating for a tactical as well as a strategic defeat of the Russian military via Ukraine as a proxy, you are also directly advocating for regime change in Russia. The Russians have proven over and over in their history that they are unwilling to be a vassal state ala(Germany, France, etc).

Yes, indeed. Putin has proven that he has no place at the table of discussions. I’m not arguing for Russia becoming Western, I don’t think that’s what will happen. The Russians would continue under a dictatorial system with a different leader who adopts a different, more modern perspective.

Ukraine as a proxy can never accomplish those goals, this is not the example of one person as you highlight above(Socrates, Jesus, etc), this is millions that will suffer if Ukraine gets leveled, the Russian side is trying very hard not to destroy Ukraine at large. It is costing them casualties most likely but this posture isn't going to hold forever, even the US in Iraq warned civilians to get out and leveled the place(Fallujah), the Russians will at some point arrive at the same conclusion.

Of course, war has costs. Nobody is denying that. But values should not be surrendered in the face of the oppressor, even if it means the death of millions.

Japan wisely came to the same conclusion after two of it's cities were leveled, the shoe is just on the other foot now

And what values was Japan fighting for at the time?!

Ukraine is and always will be a buffer state between Europe and Russia, it's just it's geographic destiny, the best outcome for Ukraine is a neutral Ukraine ala Finland.

I hope the people of Ukraine will prove you wrong through their spirit, perseverance and moral courage.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Antifragile]

a terrorist captured one of your kids and asked for a $100,000 reward in exchange for their life, I’d say no. I’d say that if they wish they are free to kill him, but I will NOT, under any circumstances agree to pay them any amount.

Please clarify. Do you have children? Or is this a theoretical thing for you? Thanks.

 

[Antifragile]

You’re asking a stupid question.

Wow. Welcome to my ignore list. I've learned all I need about you.

 

[Silverfox148]

It is not emotional, it is purely rational. If a terrorist captured one of your kids and asked for a $100,000 reward in exchange for their life, I’d say no. I’d say that if they wish they are free to kill him, but I will NOT, under any circumstances agree to pay them any amount.

If you give in to the demands of a terrorist you justify their behavior by rewarding it. There will be no rewards for any terrorist. This is the best defence. Afterwards a terrorist learns that there is no value in trying to blackmail you because they get punished for it, and they don’t do it again.


Yes, indeed. Putin has proven that he has no place at the table of discussions. I’m not arguing for Russia becoming Western, I don’t think that’s what will happen. The Russians would continue under a dictatorial system with a different leader who adopts a different, more modern perspective.


Of course, war has costs. Nobody is denying that. But values should not be surrendered in the face of the oppressor, even if it means the death of millions.


And what values was Japan fighting for at the time?!


I hope the people of Ukraine will prove you wrong through their spirit, perseverance and moral courage.

Well friend, we will just have to agree to disagree, you are willing to sacrifice millions(real lives) if need be as well as your own child(theoretical). I think you laid your position as clearly as possible for all to see, regime change in Russia and a tactical and strategic defeat of the Russian army via Ukraine as a proxy. Pretty ambitious goals coming out of Eastern Europe these days, almost proves Putin's point all along.

Crazy stuff.

Stay safe if you are anywhere near the fighting.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[srodrigo]

Do not fear Putin, fear is worse than death. Death is nothing - if you die fighting for truth and justice, then you have lost nothing and gained the most important thing: an honorable death.

It is not emotional, it is purely rational. If a terrorist captured one of your kids and asked for a $100,000 reward in exchange for their life, I’d say no. I’d say that if they wish they are free to kill him, but I will NOT, under any circumstances agree to pay them any amount.

You’re asking a stupid question.

You've been flooding this thread with borderline psychopathic bs since minute one.

Ignored (should have done way earlier).

 

[Kak]

It is not emotional, it is purely rational. If a terrorist captured one of your kids and asked for a $100,000 reward in exchange for their life, I’d say no. I’d say that if they wish they are free to kill him, but I will NOT, under any circumstances agree to pay them any amount.

I’m mostly staying out of this shitshow, but for the record, I’d rob a bank if I had to in order to pay my family’s ransoms.

 

[Kak]

But if you do that, what message are you sending to the terrorists? “Hey, kidnap my family, I’m happy to pay” no? How is that actually defending them? Sure, you may defend this one child or family member, but you put everyone else in grave danger by setting a bad example.

I don’t care about the message and I don’t care about everyone else. I protect my family. No one else’s family is my responsibility.

I’d kill every last one of them after I knew my family was safe. Not for your family, for revenge.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[MitchC]

But if you do that, what message are you sending to the terrorists? “Hey, kidnap my family, I’m happy to pay” no? How is that actually defending them? Sure, you may defend this one child or family member, but you put everyone else in grave danger by setting a bad example.

You need to take a break dude, you are so worked up and far from reality that it’s worrying.

Normally I like your business posts too.

 

[JordanK]

This thread is embarrassing.