Questions Of The Day (Politics)

[Wile E. Coyote]

[Mick Harper]

[Mick Harper]

This Week's Exercise in Grand Strategy

A grain silo two miles inside the Polish-Ukrainian border has been destroyed by an explosion. Some missile parts have been found in the vicinity, of a type used by both Russians and Ukrainians. You are to rank the following possibilities in order of likelihood

1. It is a Russian missile that has missed its Ukrainian target
2. It is a Russian missile that has been sent off course by Ukrainian counter-missile measures
3. It is a Ukrainian missile that has been sent off course as part of a counter-missile measure
4. It is a Russian attack on NATO.

Choose (4) only if you are

(a) unofficially briefing western news correspondents
(b) officially briefing the US president
(c) appearing on Newsnight.

[Hatty]

There is another (Russian) version. Zelensky(y) directed the missile, now officially claimed to be a Ukrainian anti-aircraft missile, presumably so that Poland, i.e. Nato, would have to get involved.

[Mick Harper]

It could have been little green men but this was an official AEL-conducted exercise so only feasible possibilities were canvassed. That said, what were the chances that a grain silo -- symbol of Ukraine to a hungry world -- would be hit? One in a zelinion. So reluctantly

5. Non-Russian person or persons unknown dunnit.

[Wile E. Coyote]

I think the more interesting question of the day is, why, oh why, when you are trying to get negotiations going, even just to buy time to regroup, decide to fire off 90 cruise missiles?

It won't change the military course of the war.

It will not dent Ukrainiain morale.

It is only going to encourage folks to give more support to Ukraine.

The answer is something like, it's being done for the same reason that Hamas launches Rockets at Tel Aviv, ie it gives excitable Russian folks something to cheer about, even though it actually is strategically insignificant other than..... it scuppers peace talks. It's a $4oo million firework display. So a couple happened to go astray.....will it really make a difference?

[Mick Harper]

Mark Urban introduced us to an exciting new concept called 'advantageous ambiguity'. Pointing out that the perpetrators of the undersea pipeline explosions have not (yet!) been identified, St Mark said this might be a case of the West knowing who dunnit but forbearing to say it woz the Bear for reasons I could not entirely follow. He then proceeded to apply the principle to the grain silo explosion with a definitely ambiguous expression on that aging but still leonine face of his.

Careful ignoral continues to send out shock waves that (will one day) rock the world.

[Mick Harper]

The Polish explosions continue to amaze. Let's get one thing straight: anyone with the intelligence of a mid-range pot plant could see this was an unfortunate accident and of nil importance in the overall scheme of things. Now we hear that a meeting of world leaders in Indonesia had to break off from solving the world's ills to discuss it. 'Are these people serious?' I expect the Chinese were saying to themselves.

Back in the land of Outside-the-Top-Twenty, ol' Prez Zee is making a right fool of himself -- and by all accounts making himself thoroughly unpopular with his allies -- by not rising to the level of a pot plant and insisting NATO go to Defcon Eight because it wasn't an accident. It has been an observable trait of the Great Man ever since the war started to scream bloody murder on a daily basis. But then, let us not forget, he is half-Russian.

[Mick Harper]

[Wile E. Coyote]

You might have noticed that Moldova is threatoning to sue Gazprom over its decision to reduce their supply of gas by 40%, after they unwisely denounced the Russia invasion of Ukraine. The Germans are unable to sue Gazprom as the Anglo Saxons made the schoolboy error of blowing up the Nord Stream pipelines, well, that is according to the Russians.

If India and the Chinese think that accidents to Gazprom pipeline will never happen, they need to reconsider. Russian gas is cheap but this comes at a price.

[Mick Harper]

Russia has short-, medium- and long-term problems about what to do with its gas and oil. Far and away the most lucrative market for both is Europe-by-pipeline. In order to service any other significant market e.g. China and India, it will be competing with better-placed suppliers.

There is currently a small capacity pipeline from Siberia to China and, as part of the Putin/Xi love-in, it was agreed that this will be boosted. That's a long way into the future, construction-wise, and a long way short of optimal where-Russian-energy-assets-are-wise. I can't see many prospects for pipelines over the Hindu Kush. After that it is a question of shoving it on an oil or LNG tanker and sailing it round the seven-seas.

It is difficult to see either India or China or anyone else going in for really long-term commitments with a supplier which has a lengthy track record of using long-term commitments for political purposes. Me, I'd go for nasty ol' Saudi Arabia o.n.o.

[Grant]

Here’s a nice example of “careful ignoral” this time by the economic experts employed by the media.

We are told that because of Liz and Kwasi we have a 50 billion shortfall in tax receipts necessitating cuts and taxes etc even during the coming recession. But we spend 30 billion a year paying back the Bank of England for the 250 billion they created to save us in 2008. The Bank of England do nothing with this money but delete the original money they created during the last fake crisis.

Essentially we pay them 30 billion and they metaphorically burn the fucking money! It would be the work of a moment to just delete the entry in the ledger and we save ourselves hundreds of billions

[Mick Harper]

I would burn the Bank of England down while I was about it. There is no need for a central bank in this day and age. A crutch that beats us over the head.

[Wile E. Coyote]

The Bank of England does not create money, the banks do, by making electronic loans. It's about 80% of money in our economy (printed notes and coins are about 3%). Loans do need to be paid back to the banks. If you get a £10,000 loan from the bank, the fact that it is electronically created by the bank does not mean that it is not real money that does not need to be paid back, although it would be nice if it did. If you got rid of the Bank of England this would still be the case, although it is true that the banks would probably lend you more..... The Bank of England would not be around to supervise, set lending levels on the banks.... so they probably would create more electronic money.

[Mick Harper]

People can do anything they like with their pounds sterling. I accept there is a need for a government department to attend to the technical requirements of issuing and maintaining a national currency, my objection is having an overarching body (only taken into formal public ownership in 1946, by the way) that busies itself with the economy. Trying to control the rate of inflation, for example. Quantitative easing, for example. Stimulating growth, for example. Curbing overheating, for example. Making forecasts, for example. Setting benchmarks for lending to and borrowing money from banks, for example.

Get lost! All these things are best left to the markets and/or better done by others and/or unnecessary and/or impossible.