It is clear that on many levels neither the US, nor Europe ever considered the consequences of this war. Ukraine will never be able to return to its former state or recover from this conflict. As predicted by Prof. Meirsheimer, it will simply turn into a dysfunctional rump state. Its resources will be plundered and pillaged by transnational banks and corporations from countries who will inevitably demand some form of repayment for the money they poured into this war, and the remaining Ukrainian population will only get poorer and poorer trying to service the IMF and other debt.
It is delusional to think that Ukraine's issues will stay in Ukraine. Firstly, many European countries accepted millions of Ukrainian refugees and migrants most of which do not have any plans to return to Ukraine. Secondly, it is inevitable that many of those, who happen to survive the conflict will eventually seek to reunite with their families who settled in Europe after 2022, and it is highly unlikely that they will be looking to do that in their destroyed homeland, which offers them and their children no prospects. So, thousands of mentally and physically broken soldiers will come to Europe to join their families and only God knows whether they will ever be able to recover from the conflict and contribute anything to the societies they would be looking to become a part of or whether they would instead become a permanent burden on Europe's taxpayers for the rest of their lives. So, the cost of this conflict will be much wider and much more painful than the Ukrainian budget beyond 2026 and Europe needs to prepare for supporting Ukrainian refugees and their families beyond Ukraine's borders. I doubt that this is even being discussed among Europe's leadership, let alone that any preparations are happening!
Last year, the Germans published some stats related to the Ukrainians learning German. According to those stats, nearly 70% of Ukrainians either abandoned German language courses or did not put the required effort into learning the language, failed to turn up to classes, exams etc. Remember, this is in a context, where those courses are being funded by the German government and offered to Ukrainians free of charge! As you can see, this shows low interest among Ukrainians to integrate into German society even on a basic level, let alone start contributing anything to it! Has the German government ever considered the cost of millions of the so called refugees from Ukraine never even trying to integrate into their economy? Yes, they do have plans to cut their benefits to force them to work but what is going to be the success of that if the people you are hoping to force to work don't even speak your language and have no desire to learn it? What if many of them to choose to turn to crime instead? Who considered the cost of that? Nobody!
What is to say that other European countries do not have exactly the same or very similar issues? Nothing!
Even where Ukrainians do get jobs and pay taxes, most of the time the jobs they get are low paid and therefore the taxes they pay do not cover what they require from the system to educate their children, provide their healthcare etc, etc...
So, Europe will be dealing with the consequences of this war for a long, long time to come and it will be without the benefit of cheap Russian resources driving economic miracles like post 1960s Germany's!
Indeed. Like you, I doubt that many have thought about the longer term consequences of maintaining the war, without a plan B (which is where we are right now).
Like you, I also worry about the dependency culture we have created with Ukraine, not just in terms of the vast sums that have been given to the Ukrainian state, but also to the ease with which Ukrainian refugees (who most certainly do need some support) live in Europe with little investment of their energies, in some cases (not suggesting all Ukrainians are like this by any means).
At some point, Ukraine has to get back to running itself, as the democracy it says that it wants to be, driving its economy like other European nations. This umbilical cord of western generosity is at risk of making Ukraine version a much worse version of the country that it was in 2013, I fear. Time for Ukrainian leaders to take responsibility and chart a new path forward, starting with ending the war, and triggering new elections, to make a new start.
"It is clear that on many levels neither the US, nor Europe ever considered the consequences of this war"
The US doesn't really have to. As the Green Goblin told Trump to his face, the US is on an island a long way away from Ukraine (or Yemen, or Syria, or Libya, or Iraq or or or...)
Europe/Britain should have had alarm bells going off though. Any US-instigated war in Eurasia, Europe/Britain gets all the refugees, and consequences.
Alexander Mercouris (The Duran) has described several times how European leaders were "drunk" and "euphoric" at the prospect of war with Russia. Well, as long as the poor exploitable Ukrainians did the fighting while Europe/Britain cheered them on on Twitter. "Drunk" and "euphoric" doesn't sound like people who are thinking clearly. Three years later? All I see is the same 'leaders' meeting in London this week, Paris next, repeat ad nauseum, having their group photo taken again, like a class of dunces, agreeing to meet again in a week's time to do it all over again. How about running your countries instead? How about doing some actual work?
But. Big but. They must be thinking about the consequences now. Now they've gambled and lost. And that's why they are in Mercouris' words again: "panicking".
When Ukraine finally goes down, as it will, the mother of all refugee crises is heading for Europe/Britain. We will witness the unseemly sight of Ukraine's biggest cheerleader, Britain, suddenly turning their nose up and saying "We don't want any of your sort."
–––
"thousands of mentally and physically broken soldiers will come to Europe"
Indeed. With expertise in how to access arms, finance/crypto, etc. They'll be running organised crime (drugs trade) in the UK (and conti Europe) inside twelve months.
A lot of the Ukraine military are far right (some involved in committing atrocities) and they will be connected to the UK military and mercenary community (some of whom will have committed war crimes). The British lad who Russia recently caught in Kursk and sentenced to 20 years was covered with tattoos, including those of Nazi symbolism.
Some will be let into the UK. I dare say some war criminals will even find their way into jobs in Western private military contractors. The UK government will look the other way: "They might be Nazi war criminals but they are our Nazi war criminals."
Just like what happened after WWII. Getting plum jobs in the CIA etc: "Jeez, these Nazi guys are psychopaths. Let's hire them!"
I did some research into the UK legal system years ago. Court visits to observe trials. Came away thinking every Lithuanian in Britain must have been stopped by the police only to be found in possession of loaded guns, thousands of pounds of class A drugs.
That's just the Lithuanians. Now imagine people from a much bigger country, much angrier men, highly-trained killers who have killed and killed again, and not necessarily according to the conventions of war, men obsessed with Nazi ideology. Not good...
–––
"Even where Ukrainians do get jobs and pay taxes, most of the time the jobs they get are low paid"
You did say most of the time, granted, but Ukrainians, like any other peoples, will be rocket scientists, brain surgeons, toilet cleaners, shelf stackers, IT professionals...
The first Ukrainian I ever met was an IT developer, in London. Lovely guy. I try to keep him in my mind, to remind me that not all Ukrainians are murderous Nazi psychopaths, like your Budanovs, assassinating Russian journalists, plotting terrorist attacks, carrying out atrocities and then using Western media to lie and say the Russians did it.
Well you’re thinking about criminality. What if after the war, these battle hardened, war minded people ask the inevitable question out loud: “Why did you, the West, let our country be destroyed? For what?”
And what if, after having found that answer, they decide to take revenge? I think there is a chance, that these refugees become our own Chechens.
Thank you very much for your articles and interviews.
It is surprising that these seemingly most important questions: what will happen to Ukraine and what is happening to Ukraine - are not discussed in the UK. Neither is Britain's (and Europe's) strategy towards Russia and Ukraine in general. (Seems to me that even with regard to the US on the eve of big changes - not much discussion.) Individual dissenters exist (like you or Lord Skidelsky, for example, and I don't even know who else to name...), but the unanimity in society seems unbreakable so far.
At the same time, non-political people have a slightly different take on the issue: ‘it's a war between Russia and the US, but we (Britain) are running ahead of the locomotive as usual. If it weren't for nuclear weapons, we'd be fighting the Great War by now. And in general we don't believe anyone, everyone lies.’
Why do you think there are so critically few dissidents on this issue? If I may quote you (I am writing an article about British dissidents for Novaya Gazeta, Moscow). You have spoken many times about ‘state propaganda’, but this term can only be applied to the BBC, but where is the other view of the rest of the press?
I would be very grateful for your reply - if not for quotation, then just for my understanding.
Gene, by state propaganda, I don't simply mean whether the mainstream media outlet is state owned (as is the case, de facto, with the BBC which is paid for by a form of tax). Rather, I refer to the grip that the government communications apparatus has in ensuring that evenly privately owned media outlets relentlessly repeat and amplify government narratives. One of the best examples of this today is the Daily Telegraph, whose Russia commentary is driven by a hardcore group of staff with Russia experience or knowledge and connections into the UK Ministry of Defence. Is that helpful?
Thank you so much for your reply! Thank you very much for your time and efforts in these damn and bloody theme!
Did I understand correctly that some of the basic government materials were prepared very efficiently, and major media outlets have high-quality employees. But how do they get everyone to say the same thing? Sometimes literally? This is despite the fact that they have opposite points of view on all other issues: the Guardian and the Economist, the FT and the Telegraph, Sky and the Times…
In Russia, for example, editors-in-chief used to be literally gathered in one room and explained (now there are probably more sophisticated means). And how is it done here? How can this be achieved?
For example, your excellent article about how the chance for Minsk-2 was lost. These are facts, and none of the British wrote about them! And they don't discuss the article.
Or an equally egregious case: all media outlets have silenced the Istanbul Agreements in 2022. After all, the war could have ended a thousand days ago. And when Arahamiya mentioned Istanbul in the fall of 2023, everyone remained silent. Not like the discussions– some didn't even mention it. How is this even technically possible? After all, if there were "instructions", then it would definitely leak but there are none... So this is kind of self-censorship. Then how it can be that "carbon copy" style? Unclear.
Brave man, Ian, trying to make sense of any official numbers produced by (or for) Ukraine.
I have become so accustomed to everything coming out of Ukraine (whether Ukrainian- or Western-authored) being a lie that I now assume it's a lie, no matter what the subject matter.
Technically, they're bankrupt, aren't they, if their state is being paid for by the US and the EU.
I imagine much will depend on figures that aren't publicly available, such as how much foreign currency reserves the central bank of Ukraine has squirrelled away, or rather, how long before they run out.
It seems likely that attempting to maintain the hryvnia peg to the dollar will have hit those reserves, perhaps influencing the decision to let it float again around, I think, six months ago, although it has the distinct whiff of a 'managed float' to it, slowly drifting from around 36ish to the current 42ish, but inexorably by the look of it, such that 50 could be on the cards soon?
The cost of repaying external debt (likely all USD and EUR denominated) will only worsen as the currency drifts. Sure they can use USD and EUR reserves until they run out but you'd want to maintain levels of reserve currencies as far as possible. At some point this means buying them. And if you don't have the hryvnia to do so? Print some more? Currency drifts again. Print some more. Currency drifts again. And on we go until a cup of tea (builder's) costs a billion hryvnia.
I read somewhere that Ukraine's balance of payments deficit (net imports over exports) was around $20bn a year (recent/current estimate). I think that was just trade-related, excluding financing, so another layer of pressure on the hryvnia. Surely structural in the medium term?
Europe (including Britain) especially is in a damned-if-we-do and damned-if-we-don't scenario. If they pour money into Ukraine to keep the war going, they're damned in the court of public opinion. If they let Ukraine go down the pan, Europe/Britain will be flooded with (even more) Ukrainian refugees, leading to more chagrin (love that word) on the streets of London, Birmingham, and wherever else The Smiths mentioned. Humberside, I'm sure. Even Carlisle!
I'm afraid I've become very cynical and I believe that this fear of another big wave of refugees from a collapsed Ukraine is the main driver of policy in London and Brussels, but dressed up as us needing to beat Putin because 'Russia bad, we good' and all that old racist nonsense.
This is what happens when you blindly tie yourself to America's coat tails. The US get their military industrial complex partially funded by Europe through NATO, so the US can start illegal wars on the Eurasian continent ('aided' by the yappy Brits), wars that create irruptions of refugees that all head to Britain and Europe wanting safe haven. Same pattern for decades. America starts a war, Europe gets all the refugees and the associated social/political costs.
If Trump wants to reverse that trend, we should be grateful, not pissing our pants about it.
I fear you may be right in terms of war being better than peace, for EU policy makers, given potential spillovers, particularly in places like Poland. Sikorski actively calls for more war, but not by Polish troops, encouraging Ukraine to join the EU, but not at the expense of Polish subsidies etc..
We are already seeing a rush of asylum applications from Ukrainians in the UK. There are 3 varieties -
1) those who were here illegally before 2022,
2) those who came on the ukrainian scheme and are now trying to convert their temporary residency into permanent
3) new entrants (primarily men) who entered Ireland after March 2022 and then used the common travel area to enter the UK.
So far at least most of these people seem to be young, of working age and able to speak english. Of course none will ever return to Ukraine. And the British govt won't send them back.
None the less it still grates on me that their white skins and this absurd war has given them this privilege. Our racist politicians won't admit a single Palestinian from Gaza.
40 billion here, 40 billion there ... pretty soon you're talking about serious money.
I'm disgusted by our political classes' complete lack of awareness of what these figures represent.
Let's posit an average US income of USD$50,000 per year. How many man-years of this income level are required to pay sufficient federal taxes to provide 20 billion dollars? (2 million years of the average wage-earners federal taxes?) Or how many of your citizens average incomes for the entire year have you just donated to funding the death of Ukrainian and Russian military and civilians? (2 million of your people were just enslaved to another year of organised slaughter?)
I'm also disgusted by the yellow press' refusal to ever ask these questions. If these figures were stated publicly in the press I believe there'd be a lot more public resistance to this obscenely profligate waste of taxpayer funds.
Funding the interest on the US' national debt requires the federal taxes of 100 million average wage-earners. (This might be a clue as to what the debt is growing and will never be repaid?)
ECB stats show a massive increase in bond buying by European banks that started in Jan. Banks only become risk adverse for two reasons. They either expect NPLs (non-performing-loans) to go up at home or abroad. They need to cushion the blow. Ukraine is definitely a reason although the stats won't show that. All we know is European banks are exposed to something bad.
The UK's (or rather KamiKwaze Kwarteng's and Liz Truss') recent crisis in the bond market was related to pension funds, not banks. From memory, a lack of liquidity in the bond markets was impacting on pension funds' ability to maintain certain ratios of assets to liabilities, which I think have to be complied with on a daily basis. Visions of Richard III, pension fund manager: "A bond! A bond! My Kingdom for a bong!"
Oops. A bond. Not a bong. Well. Maybe after the markets have closed for the day.
Not QT (as it only creates reserves). Banks create real money and instead of lending to the economy choose to buy bonds because lending to the economy is too risky. Shows how bad the economy is.
It is clear that on many levels neither the US, nor Europe ever considered the consequences of this war. Ukraine will never be able to return to its former state or recover from this conflict. As predicted by Prof. Meirsheimer, it will simply turn into a dysfunctional rump state. Its resources will be plundered and pillaged by transnational banks and corporations from countries who will inevitably demand some form of repayment for the money they poured into this war, and the remaining Ukrainian population will only get poorer and poorer trying to service the IMF and other debt.
It is delusional to think that Ukraine's issues will stay in Ukraine. Firstly, many European countries accepted millions of Ukrainian refugees and migrants most of which do not have any plans to return to Ukraine. Secondly, it is inevitable that many of those, who happen to survive the conflict will eventually seek to reunite with their families who settled in Europe after 2022, and it is highly unlikely that they will be looking to do that in their destroyed homeland, which offers them and their children no prospects. So, thousands of mentally and physically broken soldiers will come to Europe to join their families and only God knows whether they will ever be able to recover from the conflict and contribute anything to the societies they would be looking to become a part of or whether they would instead become a permanent burden on Europe's taxpayers for the rest of their lives. So, the cost of this conflict will be much wider and much more painful than the Ukrainian budget beyond 2026 and Europe needs to prepare for supporting Ukrainian refugees and their families beyond Ukraine's borders. I doubt that this is even being discussed among Europe's leadership, let alone that any preparations are happening!
Last year, the Germans published some stats related to the Ukrainians learning German. According to those stats, nearly 70% of Ukrainians either abandoned German language courses or did not put the required effort into learning the language, failed to turn up to classes, exams etc. Remember, this is in a context, where those courses are being funded by the German government and offered to Ukrainians free of charge! As you can see, this shows low interest among Ukrainians to integrate into German society even on a basic level, let alone start contributing anything to it! Has the German government ever considered the cost of millions of the so called refugees from Ukraine never even trying to integrate into their economy? Yes, they do have plans to cut their benefits to force them to work but what is going to be the success of that if the people you are hoping to force to work don't even speak your language and have no desire to learn it? What if many of them to choose to turn to crime instead? Who considered the cost of that? Nobody!
What is to say that other European countries do not have exactly the same or very similar issues? Nothing!
Even where Ukrainians do get jobs and pay taxes, most of the time the jobs they get are low paid and therefore the taxes they pay do not cover what they require from the system to educate their children, provide their healthcare etc, etc...
So, Europe will be dealing with the consequences of this war for a long, long time to come and it will be without the benefit of cheap Russian resources driving economic miracles like post 1960s Germany's!
Indeed. Like you, I doubt that many have thought about the longer term consequences of maintaining the war, without a plan B (which is where we are right now).
Like you, I also worry about the dependency culture we have created with Ukraine, not just in terms of the vast sums that have been given to the Ukrainian state, but also to the ease with which Ukrainian refugees (who most certainly do need some support) live in Europe with little investment of their energies, in some cases (not suggesting all Ukrainians are like this by any means).
At some point, Ukraine has to get back to running itself, as the democracy it says that it wants to be, driving its economy like other European nations. This umbilical cord of western generosity is at risk of making Ukraine version a much worse version of the country that it was in 2013, I fear. Time for Ukrainian leaders to take responsibility and chart a new path forward, starting with ending the war, and triggering new elections, to make a new start.
"It is clear that on many levels neither the US, nor Europe ever considered the consequences of this war"
The US doesn't really have to. As the Green Goblin told Trump to his face, the US is on an island a long way away from Ukraine (or Yemen, or Syria, or Libya, or Iraq or or or...)
Europe/Britain should have had alarm bells going off though. Any US-instigated war in Eurasia, Europe/Britain gets all the refugees, and consequences.
Alexander Mercouris (The Duran) has described several times how European leaders were "drunk" and "euphoric" at the prospect of war with Russia. Well, as long as the poor exploitable Ukrainians did the fighting while Europe/Britain cheered them on on Twitter. "Drunk" and "euphoric" doesn't sound like people who are thinking clearly. Three years later? All I see is the same 'leaders' meeting in London this week, Paris next, repeat ad nauseum, having their group photo taken again, like a class of dunces, agreeing to meet again in a week's time to do it all over again. How about running your countries instead? How about doing some actual work?
But. Big but. They must be thinking about the consequences now. Now they've gambled and lost. And that's why they are in Mercouris' words again: "panicking".
When Ukraine finally goes down, as it will, the mother of all refugee crises is heading for Europe/Britain. We will witness the unseemly sight of Ukraine's biggest cheerleader, Britain, suddenly turning their nose up and saying "We don't want any of your sort."
–––
"thousands of mentally and physically broken soldiers will come to Europe"
Indeed. With expertise in how to access arms, finance/crypto, etc. They'll be running organised crime (drugs trade) in the UK (and conti Europe) inside twelve months.
A lot of the Ukraine military are far right (some involved in committing atrocities) and they will be connected to the UK military and mercenary community (some of whom will have committed war crimes). The British lad who Russia recently caught in Kursk and sentenced to 20 years was covered with tattoos, including those of Nazi symbolism.
Some will be let into the UK. I dare say some war criminals will even find their way into jobs in Western private military contractors. The UK government will look the other way: "They might be Nazi war criminals but they are our Nazi war criminals."
Just like what happened after WWII. Getting plum jobs in the CIA etc: "Jeez, these Nazi guys are psychopaths. Let's hire them!"
I did some research into the UK legal system years ago. Court visits to observe trials. Came away thinking every Lithuanian in Britain must have been stopped by the police only to be found in possession of loaded guns, thousands of pounds of class A drugs.
That's just the Lithuanians. Now imagine people from a much bigger country, much angrier men, highly-trained killers who have killed and killed again, and not necessarily according to the conventions of war, men obsessed with Nazi ideology. Not good...
–––
"Even where Ukrainians do get jobs and pay taxes, most of the time the jobs they get are low paid"
You did say most of the time, granted, but Ukrainians, like any other peoples, will be rocket scientists, brain surgeons, toilet cleaners, shelf stackers, IT professionals...
The first Ukrainian I ever met was an IT developer, in London. Lovely guy. I try to keep him in my mind, to remind me that not all Ukrainians are murderous Nazi psychopaths, like your Budanovs, assassinating Russian journalists, plotting terrorist attacks, carrying out atrocities and then using Western media to lie and say the Russians did it.
Well you’re thinking about criminality. What if after the war, these battle hardened, war minded people ask the inevitable question out loud: “Why did you, the West, let our country be destroyed? For what?”
And what if, after having found that answer, they decide to take revenge? I think there is a chance, that these refugees become our own Chechens.
They considered it.
They considered it would be good for them and those politically favoured people connected to them.
They considered that the costs would be borne by others.
This is not ignorance nor whimsy on their part; it is avaricious criminal intent.
Thank you very much for your articles and interviews.
It is surprising that these seemingly most important questions: what will happen to Ukraine and what is happening to Ukraine - are not discussed in the UK. Neither is Britain's (and Europe's) strategy towards Russia and Ukraine in general. (Seems to me that even with regard to the US on the eve of big changes - not much discussion.) Individual dissenters exist (like you or Lord Skidelsky, for example, and I don't even know who else to name...), but the unanimity in society seems unbreakable so far.
At the same time, non-political people have a slightly different take on the issue: ‘it's a war between Russia and the US, but we (Britain) are running ahead of the locomotive as usual. If it weren't for nuclear weapons, we'd be fighting the Great War by now. And in general we don't believe anyone, everyone lies.’
Why do you think there are so critically few dissidents on this issue? If I may quote you (I am writing an article about British dissidents for Novaya Gazeta, Moscow). You have spoken many times about ‘state propaganda’, but this term can only be applied to the BBC, but where is the other view of the rest of the press?
I would be very grateful for your reply - if not for quotation, then just for my understanding.
Gene, by state propaganda, I don't simply mean whether the mainstream media outlet is state owned (as is the case, de facto, with the BBC which is paid for by a form of tax). Rather, I refer to the grip that the government communications apparatus has in ensuring that evenly privately owned media outlets relentlessly repeat and amplify government narratives. One of the best examples of this today is the Daily Telegraph, whose Russia commentary is driven by a hardcore group of staff with Russia experience or knowledge and connections into the UK Ministry of Defence. Is that helpful?
Thank you so much for your reply! Thank you very much for your time and efforts in these damn and bloody theme!
Did I understand correctly that some of the basic government materials were prepared very efficiently, and major media outlets have high-quality employees. But how do they get everyone to say the same thing? Sometimes literally? This is despite the fact that they have opposite points of view on all other issues: the Guardian and the Economist, the FT and the Telegraph, Sky and the Times…
In Russia, for example, editors-in-chief used to be literally gathered in one room and explained (now there are probably more sophisticated means). And how is it done here? How can this be achieved?
For example, your excellent article about how the chance for Minsk-2 was lost. These are facts, and none of the British wrote about them! And they don't discuss the article.
Or an equally egregious case: all media outlets have silenced the Istanbul Agreements in 2022. After all, the war could have ended a thousand days ago. And when Arahamiya mentioned Istanbul in the fall of 2023, everyone remained silent. Not like the discussions– some didn't even mention it. How is this even technically possible? After all, if there were "instructions", then it would definitely leak but there are none... So this is kind of self-censorship. Then how it can be that "carbon copy" style? Unclear.
Brave man, Ian, trying to make sense of any official numbers produced by (or for) Ukraine.
I have become so accustomed to everything coming out of Ukraine (whether Ukrainian- or Western-authored) being a lie that I now assume it's a lie, no matter what the subject matter.
Technically, they're bankrupt, aren't they, if their state is being paid for by the US and the EU.
I imagine much will depend on figures that aren't publicly available, such as how much foreign currency reserves the central bank of Ukraine has squirrelled away, or rather, how long before they run out.
It seems likely that attempting to maintain the hryvnia peg to the dollar will have hit those reserves, perhaps influencing the decision to let it float again around, I think, six months ago, although it has the distinct whiff of a 'managed float' to it, slowly drifting from around 36ish to the current 42ish, but inexorably by the look of it, such that 50 could be on the cards soon?
The cost of repaying external debt (likely all USD and EUR denominated) will only worsen as the currency drifts. Sure they can use USD and EUR reserves until they run out but you'd want to maintain levels of reserve currencies as far as possible. At some point this means buying them. And if you don't have the hryvnia to do so? Print some more? Currency drifts again. Print some more. Currency drifts again. And on we go until a cup of tea (builder's) costs a billion hryvnia.
I read somewhere that Ukraine's balance of payments deficit (net imports over exports) was around $20bn a year (recent/current estimate). I think that was just trade-related, excluding financing, so another layer of pressure on the hryvnia. Surely structural in the medium term?
Europe (including Britain) especially is in a damned-if-we-do and damned-if-we-don't scenario. If they pour money into Ukraine to keep the war going, they're damned in the court of public opinion. If they let Ukraine go down the pan, Europe/Britain will be flooded with (even more) Ukrainian refugees, leading to more chagrin (love that word) on the streets of London, Birmingham, and wherever else The Smiths mentioned. Humberside, I'm sure. Even Carlisle!
I'm afraid I've become very cynical and I believe that this fear of another big wave of refugees from a collapsed Ukraine is the main driver of policy in London and Brussels, but dressed up as us needing to beat Putin because 'Russia bad, we good' and all that old racist nonsense.
This is what happens when you blindly tie yourself to America's coat tails. The US get their military industrial complex partially funded by Europe through NATO, so the US can start illegal wars on the Eurasian continent ('aided' by the yappy Brits), wars that create irruptions of refugees that all head to Britain and Europe wanting safe haven. Same pattern for decades. America starts a war, Europe gets all the refugees and the associated social/political costs.
If Trump wants to reverse that trend, we should be grateful, not pissing our pants about it.
I fear you may be right in terms of war being better than peace, for EU policy makers, given potential spillovers, particularly in places like Poland. Sikorski actively calls for more war, but not by Polish troops, encouraging Ukraine to join the EU, but not at the expense of Polish subsidies etc..
Ironically enough, Russias demand for a de-militarised Ukraine maybe good for its budget.
We are already seeing a rush of asylum applications from Ukrainians in the UK. There are 3 varieties -
1) those who were here illegally before 2022,
2) those who came on the ukrainian scheme and are now trying to convert their temporary residency into permanent
3) new entrants (primarily men) who entered Ireland after March 2022 and then used the common travel area to enter the UK.
So far at least most of these people seem to be young, of working age and able to speak english. Of course none will ever return to Ukraine. And the British govt won't send them back.
None the less it still grates on me that their white skins and this absurd war has given them this privilege. Our racist politicians won't admit a single Palestinian from Gaza.
40 billion here, 40 billion there ... pretty soon you're talking about serious money.
I'm disgusted by our political classes' complete lack of awareness of what these figures represent.
Let's posit an average US income of USD$50,000 per year. How many man-years of this income level are required to pay sufficient federal taxes to provide 20 billion dollars? (2 million years of the average wage-earners federal taxes?) Or how many of your citizens average incomes for the entire year have you just donated to funding the death of Ukrainian and Russian military and civilians? (2 million of your people were just enslaved to another year of organised slaughter?)
I'm also disgusted by the yellow press' refusal to ever ask these questions. If these figures were stated publicly in the press I believe there'd be a lot more public resistance to this obscenely profligate waste of taxpayer funds.
Funding the interest on the US' national debt requires the federal taxes of 100 million average wage-earners. (This might be a clue as to what the debt is growing and will never be repaid?)
ECB stats show a massive increase in bond buying by European banks that started in Jan. Banks only become risk adverse for two reasons. They either expect NPLs (non-performing-loans) to go up at home or abroad. They need to cushion the blow. Ukraine is definitely a reason although the stats won't show that. All we know is European banks are exposed to something bad.
And probably not just banks (exposed).
The UK's (or rather KamiKwaze Kwarteng's and Liz Truss') recent crisis in the bond market was related to pension funds, not banks. From memory, a lack of liquidity in the bond markets was impacting on pension funds' ability to maintain certain ratios of assets to liabilities, which I think have to be complied with on a daily basis. Visions of Richard III, pension fund manager: "A bond! A bond! My Kingdom for a bong!"
Oops. A bond. Not a bong. Well. Maybe after the markets have closed for the day.
Thank you, that last line literally made me laugh out loud 🙏😂
I know things are bad when my typos are funnier than I am.
Glad you got a giggle out of it anyway.
isn't this just the effect of QT?
Not QT (as it only creates reserves). Banks create real money and instead of lending to the economy choose to buy bonds because lending to the economy is too risky. Shows how bad the economy is.
you clearly have no idea what you're talking about