Weaponizing Money

Steve Cortes, "The Risks of Heeding America's Warmongers"

Ruling Class laptop war-hawks commence a dangerous new weaponization of money.

Among the cognoscenti of the Western capitals of politics and finance, the chorus screams unanimously for ever-escalating economic sanctions against Russia. Lost amidst the cacophony of those calling for a historic financial bloodletting is a dispassionate and careful analysis of the potential peril of such unprecedented collective actions.

Specifically, for the first time ever, the powers of the Western World align to purposefully and willfully destroy the currency of a major power – and not just any power, but the most armed nuclear force on earth. The decision to essentially de-bank the entire country of Russia, save very key carve-outs (more on those elements in a moment), represents a brash entry into a heretofore uncharted path of the weaponization of money.

After all, even the despicable Nazi regime during WWII did not face this level of monetary attack. In fact, the Germans transacted internationally via the Bank of International Settlements, which remained neutral in a Switzerland which was then committed to that over-arching principle.

Today, the Russians find no such financial harbor, resulting in the recent absolute plunge in Russia’s currency. See this chart on the US Dollar vs. the Ruble:

Even a columnist for the Washington Post recognized the potential massive and dangerous unknowable ramifications of such actions. When the committed globalists of Jeff Bezos’s own leftist paper can recognize the dangers, everyone better start paying attention.

Here’s the main problem with this weaponization of money: it specifically and immediately targets the Russian people, rather than Putin, the Oligarchs, or their war machine. Regular Russian citizens now find themselves suddenly forced to deal with massive, runaway inflation. Their hard-earned wages become more and more worthless by the hour as their currency collapses as a direct consequence of the concerted efforts of ruling class elites in Washington, New York, London, and Brussels. What will be the fallout of cornering a proud nation of 145 million people in this manner?

Putin and his fabulously wealthy connected cronies can handle, at least in the near-term, such historic volatility -- but the masses of Russia cannot.

Biden, as usual, has this policy approach exactly backwards. If the main goal is to punish the leadership and starve Moscow’s war machine, then a cessation of purchases of Russian energy would be the actual, brutal, and effective prescription. Under Biden, even energy-blessed America welcomed in a surge of Russian energy imports in 2021, an 11 year high of Russian imports to the US. These products include over 200,000 barrels of Crude per day and over 700,000 total barrels per day of all fuel products from Putin’s Moscow, according to S&P Global.

These shipments continue unabated, right now, meaning America pours tens of millions of dollars of hard US currency into the accounts of the Oligarchs on a daily basis. Moreover, this flow of funds is somehow…miraculously…EXCLUDED from the otherwise onerous banking clampdown on Russian transactions.

Of course, America’s purchases of Russian energy, as large as they are, cannot compare to Western Europe’s, which remains totally beholden to Russian supplies, especially for Natural Gas. Those gigantic flows continue as well, proving the utter duplicity of the ruling class powerbrokers of the US and Europe. As blue-checks post Ukraine flags on their social media, they play a never-before attempted experiment in global Foreign Exchange warfare. But as these same virtue- signaling globalists pour out Russian vodka in performative protest, they welcome in torrents of Russian energy.

It seems as though this Ukraine-flag waving crowd of self-assured warmongers in the West actually wants the fighting to continue, otherwise they would resolutely refuse all Russian Energy, and leave the Ruble alone.

Clearly, many Western elites also clamor for regime change, hoping that a wave of economic pain upon the Russian people will compel an uprising – and it may. But it might also unleash rulers who are far less predictable and far more ferociously anti-American than Putin.

Recall that after America eliminated the terrible Saddam Hussein in Iraq, we ended up dealing with an even worse ISIS. In that scenario, at least the Caliphate did not possess nuclear weapons. The reality in Russia is quite different, of course, as the total warhead count in Russia exceeds America’s, see this Bloomberg chart:

Courage is the most important human virtue. Plenty of Ukrainians show real courage in repelling the Putin invasion. In contrast, there is nothing courageous about American politico laptop war-dogs constantly agitating for escalation, and instituting a money war against Russia.

The kinetic war that could well unfold from these actions will not be fought by these effete dilletantes, but instead by everyday American citizens from the heartland, by brave young men from flyover country with names like Mendez and Jackson.

Real courage in US politics right now requires standing up against the powerful and loud bi-partisan Washington War Machine.

Joe Biden's Neoliberal Globalist 2014 Coup in Ukraine has now Officially Failed.

Names mentioned in video above in bold below:

from Wikipedia:

On 22 February 2014, Yulia Tymoshenko was released from prison and addressed more than 100,000 people on Independence Square.[240] The same day, Parliament appointed Arsen Avakov as acting interior minister.[241] Lawmakers also ousted Viktor Pshonka as general prosecutor of Ukraine in a no-confidence vote.[242]

On 23 February, the second day of national mourning, Parliament voted to abolish the law on language policies that had given the Russian, Romanian, and Hungarian languages the official status of regional languages in some areas.[3][243] However, this measure was later vetoed by the acting president, who said he would not sign the bill until new legislation protecting minority languages was developed.[244] The same day, Parliament dismissed Foreign Minister Leonid Kozhara, Health Minister Raisa Bogatyrova, and Education Minister Dmytro Tabachnyk and nationalised Yanukovych's private estate Mezhyhirya.[3][245] Warrants were issued for former Incomes Minister Oleksandr Klymenko and former Prosecutor General Pshonka.[3] Parliament also passed amendments restoring its power to appoint and dismiss judges, which had belonged to the Supreme Council of Justice.[246]

Kyiv Metro became fully operational again, including the reopening of the Maidan Nezalezhnosti station, on 24 February.[247]

On 24 February, Parliament dismissed Social Policies Minister Natalia Korolevska and Culture Minister Leonid Novokhatko;[248] it also dismissed Ihor Sorkin as governor of the National Bank of Ukraine and replaced him with Stepan Kubiv.[249][250] The same day, it appointed Valentyn Nalyvaichenko as head of the Security Service of Ukraine after dismissing Oleksandr Yakymenko from the post.[251] Meanwhile, the leader of the Party of Regions faction, Oleksandr Yefremov, declared that the party was moving into the opposition.[252] Seventy-seven of its MPs had left the faction over the past few days.[252]

On Tuesday, 25 February, acting President Turchynov called for the formation of a national unity government by Thursday.[253] (Two days earlier, he had asked for the formation of such a government by Tuesday.[254]) Also on the 25th, Anatoliy Kinakh and 32 other deputies, mostly former Party of Regions members, created the Economic Development faction.[255][256]

On 26 February, Turchynov assumed the duties of the supreme commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.[257][258]

On 27 February 2014 the first Yatsenyuk government headed by Arseniy Yatsenyuk was formed.[259] The cabinet was formed as a coalition of the parties Batkivschyna, UDAR and Svoboda and the parliamentary factions Economic Development and Sovereign European Ukraine and other independent MPs.[

Eight years later, almost to the day, Russia invades to restore the original Ukrainian pre-coup order. 

Baltimore City Laying Out Red Carpet for Homelessness

Baltimore Sun Editorial Board, "Baltimore gets serious about helping homeless people"

How does one measure a society’s greatness? By its military might? By its wealth? By its natural beauty, architecture or founding documents? Here’s a yardstick that came to mind recently: how it treats its most vulnerable members.

As the United States enters the third year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the nation’s more than half-million homeless people certain qualify as among the most vulnerable. The group is disproportionately made up of people of color who are more likely to have dealt with disability, addiction, mental health issues and incarceration. They are usually individuals, but there are often families in these circumstances as well — their misfortune tied, above all else, to the chronic lack of affordable housing.

Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott recently announced that the city will be spending $90.3 million, most of it in federal COVID relief funds, to assist the city’s homeless population, with the centerpiece of the plan being to convert two yet-to-be-identified city hotels into emergency housing. The proposal drew predictable reactions. Those who have been laboring for years to find better opportunities for the estimated 2,200 people who find themselves living on the streets of Baltimore on any given night cheered. Those who see almost any social safety net spending, at least from government sources, as an indulgence and a drag on productivity voiced their displeasure. “Does that include room service?” asked one Twitter user.

It’s much easier to look down uncaringly at homeless people if one has viewed them only from afar and never witnessed firsthand the hardships they face each day, their health worsened and life often shortened by their unhappy conditions. To judge them merely as a nuisance, as an impediment to commerce — their tents an eyesore, their existence primarily a public safety threat — is to deny our own humanity. The question is not whether to help homeless people, it’s how best to help them to get on their feet. Converting hotels to help them get in from the cold makes a lot of sense given that a traditional homeless shelter’s congregate living design is not only often fraught, it’s especially dangerous during a pandemic. Better to provide individual living space.

There are, however, at least two significant challenges here. The first is to overcome traditional government inefficiency and red tape. Mayor Scott’s intent is right, but will City Hall be able to award contracts, meet the requirements of the American Rescue Plan and the U.S. Department of Housing, and get the money out the door in a timely fashion — and with appropriate transparency and oversight? Promising to spend millions is one thing, following through is often another. This can’t be yet another project that is loudly trumpeted today but quietly still pending years hence. Lives are literally at stake.

The second, and perhaps even more difficult, issue is simply this: Will Baltimore stand alone in this serious effort to address homelessness? Maryland needs a regional approach to this problem. If Baltimore’s initiative relieves Baltimore, Howard, Anne Arundel, Harford and Carroll counties of their own obligations toward homeless people, as individuals in crisis simply leave Towson, Glen Burnie, Bel Air and beyond to find help in the city, then the problem of homelessness isn’t being solved so much as transferred. That’s just another form of redlining (or perhaps reverse-urban flight-ing). The counties have American Rescue Plan dollars sitting around as well. Where are their plans to help the less fortunate? Baltimore County has pitched a $16 million “Affordable Housing Opportunity Fund,” but it is slated to go to at least a half-dozen purposes from preserving existing affordable housing to making existing shelters more accessible to the disabled.

Granted, maybe helping homeless people isn’t good politics outside Baltimore, and this is, after all, an election year. But shouldn’t it be? Aren’t communities with fewer people living on the street better communities for all? Critics are correct in at least one regard: The issue is complicated with many underlying factors, among them the worsening shortage of decent, affordable housing. That’s a problem that can be corrected through responsible public investment. And it’s why Mayor Scott’s approach is a reasonable one — if done responsibly, promptly and not in isolation.