Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov repeated Russia’s demand for
a written response this week from the US and its allies to Moscow’s request for binding guarantees that NATO will not embrace Ukraine or any other ex-Soviet nations, or station its forces and weapons there.
I have a written response for him.
“Nuts.”
The Harris half of Biden-Harris, Vice President Kamala Harris (D) has made an impressive claim. She said—and she was serious—that
legislators standing in the way of passing the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act are failing to uphold their oath to defend the Constitution.
She added
I’m not going to absolve—nor should any of us—absolve any member of the United States Senate from taking on a responsibility to follow through on the oath that they all took to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
The Right Reverend Progressive-Democrat Kamala Harris presumes to withhold absolution.
That’s just Progressive-Democratic arrogance.
The Constitution—Art I, Section 4—assigns in clear, certain terms primary responsibility for determining [t]he Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives to each State’s legislature. The changes to those Times, Places, and Manner that are demanded by Party’s Federal level Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act require an Amendment to our Constitution, altering that Art I, Sect 4.
Senators upholding our Constitution when they stand[] in the way of passing those bills being castigated by Harris for not uphold[ing] their oath to defend the Constitution? That’s broad irrationality.
That’s what passes for Party’s politics.
USAF General and Supreme Allied Commander Europe (NATO) from 2013-2016 Philip Breedlove, along with “former officials and analysts,” have posited a scenario for a partial invasion of Ukraine by Russian President Vladimir Putin. The image below Breedlove’s supposition also is supplied by the WSJ. I’m disregarding Putin’s naval maneuvering in the Black Sea in this post.
The northern portion of Russian forces arrayed against Ukraine could easily drive due west through Belarus and arrive very close to Kyiv relatively unopposed. Ukraine’s best forces are tied down on the line of contact on the border of Donbas. So this northern thrust would bypass the most capable Ukrainian forces.
Such a thrust could be used by the Kremlin to put pressure on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s government and attempt to force concessions or perhaps try to bring about its collapse, former officials and analysts said.
A separate group of Russian forces in the east, General Breedlove said, could push into Donbas to support the Russian garrison there and Russian-backed separatists.
Still a third group of Russian forces in Crimea and southwest Russia could seize terrain along the coast and encircle the port city of Mariupol to cut it off from the rest of Ukraine.
I think Breedlove understates the case. If Putin is going to take that northern route, he won’t stop with merely threatening the government in Kiev; he’ll take all of Ukraine—which is what he wants, anyway.
Beyond that, a thrust up from occupied Crimea won’t be used merely to isolate Mariupol; it will form the other side of the pincer to be used in seizing all of the nation. The attack into the Donbas will serve only to keep the bulk of the Ukrainian military occupied there.
If this is the invasion plan, look, too, for the attack into the Donbas to proceed for a couple of days before the attacks through Belarus and up from Crimea go in; Putin will be looking to get those best forces fully involved and their destruction well in progress first.
In the end, too, the whole invasion and conquering affair will take just four to six days—far too fast for Biden-Harris’ “we’ll sanction the hell out of you if you invade” nonsense even to begin to do anything. Fast enough, even, to be well inside Biden-Harris’ decision loop of beginning recognize the invasion in progress, then beginning to think about applying those “devastating sanctions.”
Jason Furman, ex-President Barack Obama’s (D) Council of Economic Advisers Chairman, wrote about four things about which to worry regarding the current inflation increase and its durability. Three of them were reasonably accurate. He also predicted a Fed response.
First, the economy is beginning 2022 with much tighter labor markets than a year ago. …
Second, demand should remain above pre-pandemic trends, while supply will likely continue to lag behind. …
Third, consumers, businesses, forecasters and financial markets all expect near-term inflation to be about 1 to 3 percentage points higher than a year ago. …
So far, so OK. But his fourth, not so much.
Fourth, the trajectory of Covid and its effect on inflation are highly uncertain.
In fact, it’s badly off the mark. What’s highly uncertain is the Federal government’s trajectory of variable, and often panic-hyped, (over)reaction to the Wuhan Virus. This one is beyond the ken of the Fed, or it should be, and is completely under the control of President Biden-Harris (D).
The Furman’s predicted Fed answer isn’t all that, either.
He [Fed Chairman and nominee for continuation as Chairman Jerome Powell] proved that the Fed’s actions will depend on the data, and the Fed is now on course to start raising rates in March. If inflation remains as high as I fear it will, expect him to continue to follow the data by pivoting further. Given the uncertainty, however, he should stay the course—for now.
No.
If the Fed is going to be serious about lowering inflation back into the neighborhood of its target rate of 2%, it needs to
Progressive-Democrats are looking at “adjusting” Party’s proposed child tax credit in order to appease Senator Joe Manchin (D, WV).
Some Democrats have started exploring how to pare back their proposed expansion of the child tax credit in ways that are aimed at winning the critical support of Sen. Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.), according to people familiar with the matter.
Among the possibilities: Reducing the size of the credit’s expansion and limiting which Americans are eligible for it, according to the people.
Tweaking to appease a single Senator. Never mind any effort at looking for bipartisan support.
If the child tax credit, in any form, were a good idea, the Progressive-Democrats would put it into a separate, stand-alone bill and put that up for debate and a vote.
It’s instructive that Party won’t do that. It’s instructive that Party can’t even conceive of such a move.