Finally...

 

somebody is making a lil sense finally.

The West must stop ‘shooting behind the duck’ and provide Ukraine the weapons it needs

"Retired Capt. Garrett I. Campbell (writer of the piece) directed the U.S Navy’s Staff OPNAV N5 Russia Strategy, Policy, and Engagement Branch, and served as a federal executive fellow at the Brookings Institution."

"Eight months into Russia’s invasion, Vladimir Putin remains committed to the territorial conquest and destruction of Ukraine. Ukrainians have had successes, such as the recent counteroffensive around Kharkiv and now Russia’s ordered pullout from Kherson. Still, the future is uncertain, with winter approaching and the outcome of Putin’s mobilization in play. The West must stop “shooting behind the duck” regarding its military aid to Ukraine."

(It's not about Ukraine, its territorial conquest or its destruction, it's about NATO, the EU and the "collective west" and their destruction. "Winter approaching", everybody seems to think the next Russian offensive will be in the spring, I think it will be in the middle of the winter, just because everybody seems to think it will be in the spring, if you can follow that bouncing ball.)

"Ukraine has shown it can defeat Russian forces and deter future Russian aggression, but it requires Western leaders to recognize what Russia is doing militarily and what is needed to defeat it. It’s time for the West to send a strong message to Putin and his generals that come spring, their military will meet a worse fate if they renew the offensive."

(We've always been behind the 8 ball w this conflict, "requires Western leaders to recognize what Russia is doing militarily" we were slow to do that and have been playing catch up ever since. Theres another article w Fionna Hill that Ive been meaning to do a piece on, that was published when hostilities first broke out that where she says largely the same thing. It's a war against NATO, EU the West etc, sending food and energy shocks through the world and us being slow to recognize that has put us behind. were playing somebody elses game folks and this isnt Iraq or Afganistan. "A strong message to Putin and his generals that come spring"...What if it's not spring but say, Dec 24th? 25th? 31st? Jan 1st? Then where is our strong message to him and his generals?)

"Russia’s strategic approach to the war is neither haphazard nor representative of a military power grasping at straws. Russia is pursuing a war-of-attrition strategy meant to slowly wear down the Ukrainian military while relentlessly destroying civilian infrastructure. Putin is playing the long game and, predictably, has fallen back on traditional Russian military strategy and doctrine."

(Well glory hallelujah, somebody finally said it. Whose that sound like? Who has been saying that since day 3 or 4?)

"After its defeat in the initial phase of the war and the battle for Kyiv, Russia shifted its military strategy to seizing the Donbas. The shift represented a definitive return to Russia’s traditional doctrinal approach of attrition warfare. It quickly became evident that Ukraine needed weapons to offset Russian firepower advantages, more than simply Javelins and Stingers. Withholding heavier weapons contributed to the destruction of Ukrainian cities such as Mariupol, Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk."

(This is where I disaree, Russia has never shifted it's military strategy "after its defeat in the initial phase of the war and the battle for Kyiv." It was part of the game plan all along Taking Kyiv in three or four days like they could have would have sent the shock waves through the worlds food and energy markets? Would have the EU, NATO and the US pouring Billions into Ukraine? Money they dont have? With all the above mentioned economies on verge of recession/depression? That would have served Putin's goals of destroying the "Collective West", the EU and NATO? Or a prolonged struggle would better accomplish his aims? You decide. "Russia’s traditional doctrinal approach of attrition warfare", its been in play since the get go.)

"Wars of attrition go both ways, however, and the Russian strategy of attrition effectively exhausted their own army."

(Baloney, its not the regular Russian army that has been employed, and Ive said this over and over again, it's militias in the eastern providences of Ukraine, it's volunteers, It's prisoners, It's Chechens, It's mercenary groups, elements from The Wagner group etc.)

"With the momentum again swinging in favor of Ukraine, the Russian military responded by shifting their strategy — again in line with Russian military doctrine. The shift to an air and missile campaign with the aim of decimating Ukraine’s civil and military infrastructure is central to attrition warfare. However, the West once more found itself shooting behind the duck and scrambling to bolster Ukraine’s air defenses."

(Again, it's not "a shift" it has been part of the plan all along. And "the West once more found itself shooting behind the duck and scrambling to bolster Ukraine’s air defenses." 100% agree with that statement. He knows what he is going to do, he has known all along and we have been playing catch up from the start.)

"While rightfully characterized as a “terror campaign” against Ukrainian civilians, we are witnessing the execution of well-known elements of Russian military doctrine — strategic aerospace operations against critical infrastructure meant to disorganize and undermine an adversary’s war effort. It’s a rough version of Russian strategic aerospace operations (SAO) and strategic operations to destroy critical infrastructure targets (SODCIT), two of the four Russian military strategic operations developed for war with NATO."  

(Given Capt Campbell's previous position and experience, I would say he knows what he is talking about here in regards to the "Russian military strategic operations developed for war with NATO". My point is this: to the Russians THIS IS THEIR WAR WITH NATO! That is why they are employing the "strategic operations" that they are.)

"The recognizable shifts in Russian military strategy provide Western leaders with a guide for future security assistance efforts that might deter and defeat Russian forces. With this in mind, it is likely the aerospace campaign will be followed by a return to major ground offensives. Now is the time to stop shooting behind the duck and proactively provide the Ukrainians what they need to continue to alter the course of the war."

(Shifts in strategy or not, the effect is the same and Capt. Campbells assertation that; "shifts in Russian military strategy provide Western leaders with a guide for future security assistance efforts that might deter and defeat Russian forces." is 100% spot on.  As is his thinking that, "With this in mind, it is likely the aerospace campaign will be followed by a return to major ground offensives." But why would you wait till spring to return to "major ground offensives" if you are currently conducting the aerospace campaign?

.)

"Now is the time to stop shooting behind the duck and proactively provide the Ukrainians what they need to continue to alter the course of the war."

(Again, I 100% agree, but the fact of the matter is we simply can not afford to do what we need to do in Ukraine and take on China in the pacific at the same time. So it's going to be one or the other and the fact that the US has made overtures to Zelenskyy that he should try and reach a settlement with Russia tells you exactly which way that wind is blowing.)

"Of course, this will require more of the same weapons that have forced the Russian military to change its strategy — artillery, HIMARS, Guided Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (GMLRS), and armored vehicles — as well as new ones that we have been reluctant to provide. Some will require training that can be undertaken during the winter; others can be transferred now to ensure the Ukrainians can both keep the Russian military on its heels and remain ready come spring."

(Everybody just keeps talking like we got till springtime to do what we need to do. We might wanna reconsider that.)

"The arrival of NATO air defense systems is welcomed, but it is time to revisit the strike-fighter debate and provide modern aircraft. Russia’s response to the West’s earlier self-deterrence regarding the transfer of MiG-29 aircraft has been continuous escalation using air and missile attacks on Ukraine’s cities. In addition to drones, Iran reportedly now may provide Russia with advanced missile systems to replace its depleted inventory. This cannot go unanswered. We should no longer deny the Ukrainians armed combat drones such as the MQ-1 Predator/Gray Eagle and MQ-9 Reaper. 

(Okay, great, "provide modern aircraft" and who exactly is gonna fly em? "Russia’s response to the West’s earlier self-deterrence regarding the transfer of MiG-29 aircraft has been continuous escalation using air and missile attacks on Ukraine’s cities." It most certainly has been. One side is all in, one side hopes things dont go the direction they seem headed toward and it isn't very hard to figure out who is who in that scenario.)

"The attack on the Black Sea Fleet on Oct. 29 should be just the beginning. The West should continue to provide such systems, as the strategic implications of Russia’s ability to wage unrestricted drone and missile strikes on NATO’s Black Sea periphery and project maritime power from southern Russia are obvious.

(This is a very good point, "Russia’s ability to wage unrestricted drone and missile strikes on NATO’s Black Sea periphery and project maritime power from southern Russia are obvious." That is a capability we most certainly do not want them to possess.)

"There are also short-term answers to meet the next shift in Russian strategy, likely to springtime ground offensives. Ukraine needs Army Tactical Advanced Missile Systems (ATACMS) with greater ranges to destroy Russian logistics and C2 nodes and drone bases. GMLRS and 155mm cluster munitions, specifically the Dual-Purpose Improved Conventional Munitions (DPICM), are needed. These munitions are compatible with current systems, bring efficiencies, and can be provided immediately. The Ukrainians understand the risks associated with these weapons and we should honor that. For naysayers who rebuke the idea of transferring cluster munitions because the United States has a moratorium on providing them, or for fear of escalation, we have failed to get out in front of the Russian military strategy to date and, as a result, the Ukrainians have been unable to set conditions for negotiated conflict termination.

(I just think It's a mistake to just assume the next offensives will be in the springtime, as consequential as this conflict is expecting the unexpected would seem to be a more prudent course of action.

In regards to the types of  munitions that need to be supplied? See my earlier note about we wont be able to do so 1) Because were broke, 2) Because were already running short on 155 shells according to various sources and we need our own stocks to be kept up (perhaps were not short the specific ones Capt Campbell mentions but others), this is indeed Putin's long game, the war of attrition etc) 3) We are more concerned about being able to take on China in the pacific. "as a result, the Ukrainians have been unable to set conditions for negotiated conflict termination." There's not ever going to be any "negotiated conflict termination, they are all in, all or nothing, put the west, NATO and the EU in their collective graves etc or they never would have started this conflict in the first place. Get that out of your head, worse comes to worse? Tactical nukes will be employed. There will never be a negotiation so vying for that angle? Pointless.)

"This is no ordinary time. The West has acknowledged the stakes that Putin’s war presents to the European security environment and international order. If we continue to shoot behind the duck, allowing the Russians to reconstitute their forces and launch springtime offensives, we will be confronted with these same decisions again, after more Ukrainian lives and territory have been lost."

("This is no ordinary time" 

Matthew 24:21

2For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

"The West has acknowledged the stakes that Putin’s war presents to the European security environment and international order."

Took us long enough, some of us saw it right away.

"...allowing the Russians to reconstitute their forces and launch springtime offensives."

It's a mistake to make that assumption.)

"Putin has responded to Western self-deterrence with escalation, reinforcing his belief that he is winning and the West is weak and strategically inept. Shifts in Russia’s strategy aligned with their military doctrine provide us with clues to where they are going. These trends may be imperfect, but they are still evident — and the West must send a strong message by providing weapons for not only today’s fight, but also tomorrow’s. That could irreversibly alter Putin’s strategic calculus and level of risk, and thus the course of this war."

("Putin has responded to Western self-deterrence with escalation, reinforcing his belief that he is winning and the West is weak and strategically inept." 

I said at the onset, the longer this goes on the more it benefits Russia, so why on earth take Kiev in four days? How does that benefit what Russia's stated goals are? 

"...his belief that he is winning." 

Unfortunately? He is, and the longer it goes on the more he will be. 

"his belief...the West is weak and strategically inept."

Again, correct. If we weren't "strategically inept"? we would have seen his long game right up front, we didnt and we have been playing catch up like capt Campbell is saying.

"the West must send a strong message by providing weapons for not only today’s fight, but also tomorrow’s. That could irreversibly alter Putin’s strategic calculus and level of risk, and thus the course of this war.

Unfortunately, doing so lands us right square in the trap of his war of attrition and then here comes the Chinese in the pacific. I agree 100% with what Capt. Campbell says we should do, unfortunately, we are just not going to be able to do so, or if we do? We wont be able to face China in the manner we should, either situation is bad, and there are no good options. 

Christ alone is your exit strategy."

Anybody else notice something that wasn't mentioned in this article?

HYPERSONICS

They are playing a bigger role in our leaders decision making processes than we are being told.

Discernment yo.

God speed everybody.

I love you honey.

Grand Rising Massive

 

my sunshine.

I love you honey...you aggravate me to death...butt I love you sweetheart.

If it

 

was theirs?

Why wouldn't you include them in the investigation and/or allow them to see the data you have?

Ukraine refuses to accept it was behind Poland missile strike, despite NATO forgiveness

(The wording of the headline alone is promoting an agenda)

"Zelenskyy said Wednesday on Ukrainian TV that his top military commanders had assured him that “it was not our missile and not our missile strike” that was the cause of the incident.

The explosion in southeastern Poland provoked a diplomatic storm and fears that a wider conflict between NATO and Russia could erupt."

(Ive been saying all along somebody wants a fight and somebody doesn't and it's pretty easy to tell which side is which in that equation.)

"He  (Zelenskyy)  reiterated calls from Kyiv to provide it with access to the site of the explosion, near the village of Przewodow in southeastern Poland and just 4 miles from the Ukrainian border, and for Ukraine to be part of a joint investigation being led by Poland and the U.S."

(If it really is theirs? Why wouldn't you let them participate?)

“I believe that we have the right to this. Is it possible not to announce the final conclusions until the investigation is completed? I think it is fair. If someone says that this is our rocket, should we be in a joint investigative group? I think we should, it is only fair.”

(100% concur)

"Oleksiy Danilov, head of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, tweeted that Kyiv wanted to see the evidence held by its allies that suggested it was involved.

Danilov said on Twitter that Ukraine was “ready to hand over the evidence of the Russian trail that we have” but Kyiv was still awaiting “information from our partners, on the basis of which a conclusion was made that it is a Ukrainian air defense missile.”

Einstein

 

Kinda butchered that quote the other day :-)...

Discernment Alert

 

Poland, NATO say missile strike wasn’t a Russian attack

"NATO member Poland and the head of the military alliance both said Wednesday that a missile strike in Polish farmland that killed two people appeared to be unintentional and was probably launched by air defenses in neighboring Ukraine. Russia had been bombarding Ukraine at the time in an attack that savaged its power grid."

(It's not just the power grid they are going after, it's the radars and the relay stations of real time information as well. Thats the part were not being told about, it's all about civilian infrastructure and the power grid in western media accounts.)

“Ukraine’s defense was launching their missiles in various directions, and it is highly probable that one of these missiles unfortunately fell on Polish territory,” said Polish President Andrzej Duda. “There is nothing, absolutely nothing, to suggest that it was an intentional attack on Poland.”

(Like all the qualifying terms yet? Just wait.)

"The assessments of Tuesday’s deadly missile landing appeared to dial back the likelihood of the strike triggering another major escalation in the nearly 9-month-old Russian invasion of Ukraine."

(lets just completely ignore Putin's stated goals of fracturing the alliance shall we?)

"Zelenskyy told reporters he had “no doubts” about a report he received from his top commanders “that it wasn’t our missile or our missile strike.” Ukrainian officials should have access to the site and take part in the investigation, he added.

“Let’s say openly, if, God forbid, some remnant (of Ukraine’s air-defenses) killed a person, these people, then we need to apologize,” he said. “But first there needs to be a probe, access — we want to get the data you have.”

(Okay tons of questions raised here:

The people who supposedly fired the missile say it wasnt theirs.

Their leader (Zelenskyy) says he has "no doubts" it wasn't theirs based on information received from his top commanders.

Ukrainian officials apparently dont have access to the site of the blast and aren't taking part in the investigation. (That I can understand as they aren't part of NATO but it would still seem to be a good idea to include the people you say fired the missile in the investigation dont you think?

And they dont even have the data Poland and NATO do? the people that fired the missile dont have the data about where it landed or why? Why is that?)

On Tuesday, he (Zelenskyy)  called the strike “a very significant escalation.”

(I agree for a variety of reasons I'll explain later.)

"Before the Polish and NATO assessments, U.S. President Joe Biden had said it was “unlikely” that Russia fired the missile but added: “I’m going to make sure we find out exactly what happened.”

(Just because you dont want to believe it doesn't mean its not true.)

"The Polish president said the missile was probably a Russian-made S-300 dating from the Soviet era."

"Ukraine’s military said 77 of the more than 90 missiles fired were brought down by air defenses, along with 11 drones."

(Thats just a lil unrealistic, even by Patriot  or THADD or Iron Dome or NASMS metrics that's just a lil skewed to say the least.

And besides, Russia is running out of missiles says all the think tankers right? remember that? If they are running out of missiles? Why does each missile barrage keep getting bigger? 

.)

"A Washington-based think tank, the Institute for the Study of War, said Ukraine’s downing of so many Russian missiles Tuesday “illustrates the improvement in Ukrainian air defenses in the last month,” which are being bolstered with Western-supplied systems."

(So lets think about this for a second...

The people that dont know where their missile went? 

Are saying they shot down 77 of the 90 that Russia launched? 

Seems to me like if you knew how many enemy missiles came into your territory and you knew how many you shot down? 

You'd know where yours landed. 

The Ukrainians themselves are saying, "It wasnt ours.")

"Army Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he tried to speak to his Russian counterpart Wednesday, but those efforts were not successful. Milley didn’t elaborate on the efforts, but the lack of a conversation, at a time when there were questions about whether Russia had struck a NATO ally, raises concerns about high-level U.S.-Russian communications in a crisis."

(I dont know what that says to you? but is says a lot to me. It ought to raise concerns alright, on a wide variety of levels.)

"Power shortages caused extensive train delays extending into Wednesday, but there were no cancellations because diesel locomotives were pressed into service, rail officials said.

Kyiv resident Margina Daria said Tuesday’s strikes knocked out cellphone service in her area.

“We have already adapted to life without light, because we have scheduled outages every day, but without communication it was quite disturbing,” she said. “There was no way to even tell our families that we were OK.”

(Its not about attacking civilian infrastructure. It's about knocking out power to the radars and the relay stations.)

Lets review the list of "qualifiers" in that article shall we?:

I got:

"appeared to be unintentional"

"was probably launched"

"highly probable that one of these missiles unfortunately fell on Polish territory"

"appeared to dial back"

“unlikely” that Russia fired the missile"

"the missile was probably a Russian-made S-300"

by my count.

For this day in age?

Thats a lot of qualifiers.

Particularly a day or two later.

Submitted for your consideration:

the positioning of our and China's forces in the pacific from 10/28 until now.

(That was a lot of movement in a short amount of time basically)

Add to that, the fact that Washington was recently trying to persuade Ukraine to negotiate with Russia.

The missile landed in Poland when Biden was out of the country.

 Ukraine commanders  says it wasn't theirs and they are not being included in the investigation etc.

The fact that gen Millay couldn't reach his Russian counterpart speaks volumes, or at least it should.

I think it's pretty easy to deduce the following:

If more and more "stray" missiles hit other NATO countries, or keep landing in Poland?

Then it should be pretty obvious who is behind it and its not the Ukrainians.

Everybody ready to go to war to fight for Poland and Lithuania raise your hand.

Exactly.

It's kinda what somebody else figures too.

This

 

article makes some really valid points.

Why Ukraine’s Remarkable Attack On Sevastopol Will Go Down In History

"On October 29 2022 seven small ‘maritime drones’, called USVs (uncrewed surface vessels) in navy parlance, attacked the Russian Navy at Sevastopol. Barely the size of a canoe, they raced across the waves, skimming towards their intended targets. A frigate and minesweeper were hit."

"The damage was less than may have been hoped, the warheads barely scratching their victims. But their impact went far beyond the sound of their explosions. It sent the Russian Navy into protection mode, essentially locking them in port."

"The maritime drones penetrated the protected harbor. This must have had a dramatic effect on the Russian Navy’s morale and sense of security. New defenses were quickly added, new procedures imposed and there was much less activity. Russia’s most powerful warships in the war are now mostly tied up in port."

I agree with what the article is saying but I got some questions (go figure :-).

Where did the "USVs (uncrewed surface vessels)...Barely the size of a canoe" come from?

Who manufactured them?

How did they get to their designation?

Who trained who on how to use them etc?

Just wondering...

This guy

 

should be your Fed Chairman.

At least he makes sense in what he says.

Fed's Bullard: Even 'dovish' policy assumptions require more rate hikes

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Even under a "generous" analysis of monetary policy, the Federal Reserve needs to keep raising interest rates given that its tightening so far "had only limited effects on observed inflation," St. Louis Fed President James Bullard said on Thursday.

(The reason that its only had "limited effects on observed inflation" is because its root cause is systemic, The increase in money supply has decreased the worth of our currency and thats why you are paying more for goods and services, among other things including, corporate greed, shocks to food and energy sectors, Ukraine war etc. But the major cause is to much "liquidity" in the system.)

"Bullard said the Fed's target policy needs to rise to at least a range between 5.00% and 5.25% from the current level of just below 4.00% to be "sufficiently restrictive" to curb inflation, though he would defer to Fed Chair Jerome Powell regarding how much higher to move rates at upcoming policy meetings."

(Translation: sufficiently restrictive = enough to slow it down but not enough to stop it, and 5.0 to 5.25 gonna crash us anyway...)

"However, he said it was clear rates needed to continue rising, and that recent reports showing slower than expected inflation provided only "tentative" evidence that a disinflationary trend was taking hold.

Data showing that consumer inflation slowed in October "could easily go the other way in the next report," Bullard said, noting the Fed had been "burned" for two years running now by inflation well above its 2% target."

(Like I said, at least somebody is making sense...Have we even mentioned the OPEC production cuts that are soon to take place and the Russian oil price caps and the fact that petroleum goes into 3000 consumer goods ? Why isn't anybody saying what all that's gonna do to inflation?)

"Bullard showed that using even "dovish" assumptions, a basic monetary policy rule would require the Fed's policy rate to rise to around 5%, while stricter assumptions would recommend it climb above 7%."

(Were suck either way yo...)

"That entire range could fall if inflation falls more rapidly than expected, Bullard said, noting that "market expectations are for declining inflation in 2023."

(Based on what exactly? OPEC production cuts? 

No more SPR drawdown? 

Russia just gives in to price caps for its oil?

Isaiah 30:10

Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits:

1 Thessalonians 5:3

While people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.)

"If that occurs, he said, a "very good dynamic" could develop that allows the United States to avoid a recession, as strong corporate, household, and local government balance sheets allow the economy to keep growing at a slow pace even as inflation falls."

(I wouldn't hold my breath on that one, would you? Here's good reason not to listed right below:)

"But he said that "caution is warranted" since investors and Fed officials "have been predicting declining inflation just around the corner for the past 18 months."

They are just not seeing things through the lens of rose colored glasses, those tinted with the blood of Christ.

OMGoodness

 

these people...

They just kill me.

October CPI: Inflation moderates, rising at annual 7.7% over last year

"The Consumer Price Index (CPI) in October reflected a 7.7% increase over last year and 0.4% increase over the prior month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said Thursday. Economists had expected prices rose at an annual 7.9% clip and 0.5% month-over-month, per Bloomberg consensus estimates."

(I love how we concentrate on the fact that inflation was .2% lower than expectations on an annual basis and .1% lower than expectations on a month to month basis...Yippie! Break out the champagne honey.)

(Thats 9.1% at it's highest on 6/1/22 and 7.7% here with the latest numbers the other day.)

"While October's figures showed inflationary pressures remained elevated, some signs of cooling prices were present in the release. The indexes for used cars and trucks, medical care, apparel, and airline fares all declined over the month. Meanwhile, shelter — which comprises nearly one-third of the basket for consumer price inflation — contributed to over half of the monthly all-items increase. Prices on gasoline and food also continued to rise."

"If this constitutes improvement, we’ve set a very low bar," Bankrate Chief Financial Analyst Greg McBride said in a note. “The pervasiveness of price increases remains problematic."

(Amen. We have to set the bar low because we are not going to see the kind of decreases in inflation we need to. We just wont, because the interest rates we need to see to get inflation under control will have us default on just the INTEREST PAYMENT on the national debt. Period.)

"The areas posting declines are for the most part either irregular or more discretionary in nature – airfare, used cars, and apparel," McBride added. "Any meaningful relief for household budgets is still somewhere over the horizon.”

(Like...way over the horizon...)

"While CPI cooled more than expected in October, opening the door for a possible easing in the U.S. central bank's tightening plans, inflation remains well above the Fed's target of 2%."

"Federal Reserve officials have repeatedly signaled that while the size and magnitude of hikes may slow, the fight against inflation is nowhere near over, and signaled the likelihood of a higher than expected liftoff of its key policy interest rate."

("a higher than expected liftoff of its key policy interest rate." the Fed knew all along it was going to have to raise rates higher than it was saying.)

"Goldman Sachs was the first among big banks in the days leading up to November’s FOMC meeting to warn rates may rise as high as 5% by March 2023."

(Thats enough to make us default right there.)

"Bank of America upwardly revised their projections to a terminal rate of 5.0-5.25% from 4.75-5.0% and said the institution anticipates a 0.50% increase for December.

TD Securities lifted its terminal rate forecast from a range of 4.75%-5.00% to 5.25%-5.50% and sees a 50-basis-point hike at the next meeting Dec. 13-14. BNP Paribas expects a fifth 75-basis-point increase next month and a terminal fed funds level of 5.25% in the first quarter of next year."

("terminal rate" is when they quit raising rates. 5.0% to 5.5% would help to slow down inflation, but it wont get it anywhere close to the Feds target of 2% and it will have us default on the national debt.

Think of it this way, lets go back to the chart included in this article for a second:

The lil dip there on the right at the end?

Thats inflation falling from it's height of 9.1% on 6/1 to 7.7% where it is today, that's a reduction of  1.4%.

It took us 238 million barrels of oil released from the strategic petroleum reserve (SPR) and a 3.5% increase in interest rates to get it to drop 1.4%.

So lets just extrapolate (love that word BTW, WOD :-) those numbers, all things being equal, to see what it would take us to get to the feds targeted rate of 2% inflation.

If 238 million barrels of oil and 3.5% interest rate increases got us a reduction of inflation by 1.4%? And its still at 7.7%? So how many more times would we have to do all that to get it where we want it?

7.7% Current CPI inflation (forget the PCE the Feds "preferred method" of measuring inflation, remember, these are the people who told us the money supply didn't matter anymore, that inflation isn't going to be a problem and then when it was a problem they said it would only be transitory, anyway back to the point) 7.7%  CPI inflation currently - 2% (The Fed's target for inflation) / 1.4  (The reduction we've seen with the measures weve taken to date) = 7.7% (Current) -2% (feds inflation target) = 5.7/1.4 (Reduction we have seen so far) = 4.07. So we would have to do all of this over 4 more times (Everything being the same) to get inflation to the feds target of 2%. 

So that's 4.07 x 238 million barrels of oil and 4.07 x 3.5 (rise in interest rates to date).

Thats 969 million barrels of oil yet to release ( We cant, there's only about 400 million barrels of oil in the in the SPR right now) and 14.25 % interest rates to get to the FEDs target rate of inflation.

Quite simply?

It's just never going to happen.

Americans are already existing on credit cards just to get by.

Household debt soars at fastest pace in 15 years as credit card use surges, Fed report says

China and Russia already know all of this, it's why they are making the geopolitical moves they are, anything else anybody says is just nonsense, and I really dont care who they are.

Buckle up, the ride ahead gonna be bumpier than you ever imagined. Think the worse case scenario you could have ever imagined and then think that's just the start.

"The depression gonna seem like a picnic compared to this" 

I remember somebody saying...

Yup...

Who was that BTW?

You gonna be able to praise god during all of that?

I sure hope so.

Job 2:9-10

His wife said to him, “Are you still maintaining your integrity? Curse God and die!”

He replied, “You are talking like a foolish[a] woman. Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?”

In all this, Job did not sin in what he said.

"The Hebrew word rendered foolish denotes moral deficiency."

I love you baby.

TTYS honey.

i'd

 

go with option #2.

If there is anything that the Russians are good at? 

It's holding out.

Oil Volatile as Traders Await Price Cap Details, Russian Sanctions

"Scenario 1: 

Russia Gives In

The first scenario explains how policymakers envision the price cap policy working and is based on the premise that Russian President Vladimir Putin is desperate for revenue and needs to sell Russian oil."

(Putin wouldn't have started this if he was just gonna give in.)

"Scenario 2: 

Russia Holds Out

The second scenario is how the price cap policy could play out if Putin doesn’t react as the G7 expect. It is based on the premise that Putin, even if he is desperate to sell oil, won’t act out of desperation. He will refuse to sell Russian oil at or below the price cap and will hold out on maritime supplies to India, China, Turkey, and others until they agree to pay his price (which is already discounted from the market price). He will do this even at the risk of damage to Russian oil fields or storing oil in less-than-ideal conditions."

(Yeah, you can pretty much count on it.)

"Russian oil will remain on the market, some Saudi and Iraqi oil will get rerouted to customers in Europe, but consumers everywhere will pay higher prices for a longer time because of the “Russian holdout” effect on the market. Because prices are higher, OPEC might be inclined to increase production so more Saudi and Iraqi oil is available for European consumers.

(The Saudis have already switched sides...and dont count on increased OPEC production, etc)

"Until the G7 finalize their price cap mechanism, the market will continue to be volatile because customers don’t know what to expect. Once the policies go into effect, traders should be prepared for both of the above scenarios and their impact on the oil market."

(Like I said, go with option #2)

Looks

 

pretty dog-gone sweet :-).

And good reviews.

The New Royal Enfield Super Meteor 650 Will Make You Forget Your Harley-Davidson

Luke 17:20-21

 

"Check yuh subconscious self, man. 

And try ta live with yuh subconscious self - which is God, dat; 

that's the spirit of God inside a-yuh - in a positive way." 

King James Version

And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Grand Rising Massive

 

my sunshine.

I love you baby.

:-)

 

I cant wait honey :-).

This

 

was my initial feelings on the matter:

"But the attack could also be a direct provocation or a Russian testing of the waters to gauge NATO’s resolve."

What is Article 5 of the NATO treaty?

Breaking the alliance is part of his (Putin's) objectives in Ukraine. He has been setting a trap for us all along. 

Sand bagging all the way.

Godspeed everybody.