It also seemed that the U.S. credit markets were in the grips of a (fallacious) complacency, shown on the proportionally milder reaction of the "junk" bonds on the current tightening cycle.
But, can the #Fed support the markets in the current situation? We're not so sure. 2/
The good news was that the "zombie-corporation" problem seemed to be less severe than previously thought.
However, we also know that the ultra-easy monetary policies has created weak highly indebted firms. 3/
Retail sales of the U.S. economy have held up, somewhat, albeit they fell heavily after the Russo-Ukrainian war started, showing how international shocks can affect also the U.S. economy.
However, this had been due to excess savings accumulated during the Covid -era. 4/
Excess savings are currently depleting rapidly with all but collapsed personal saving rate. Most importantly, lending standards of banks are tightening rapidly and they now correspond levels seen during H1 2008.
This implies that the U.S. economy can face a 'sudden stop'. 5/
Considering the above, it's no surprise that consumer sentiment is in deeply recessionary levels. 6/
And, while the QT of the #FederalReserve keeps manipulating the yield curves, it should be noted that both 10y/3mo and 10y/2y spreads are currently heavily inverted.
The #recession signal of the yield curve is thus strong. 7/
Alas, we conclude in our recent Special Issue that, while the U.S. #recession has been postponed, it's still very much on the cards.
Even if Russia leveled Ukraine with nukes, NATO would not dare lift a finger (well, maybe they would issue the "direst sanctions"). 1/5
This is due to the fact that if NATO were to retaliate for the leveling of Ukraine with a nuclear strike, Moscow would launch retaliation, destroying London, Berlin, Paris, Stockholm, and Washington DC (and possibly drowning the U.K.) before the first nuclear bombs would have hit Russian soil.
2/5
The likelihood that NATO high command would enable this under @POTUS is essentially zero.
The game would naturally change if Russia were to strike NATO countries with nuclear weapons. The response to this would depend on the weapons used (tactical vs. strategic).
If the strike were with strategic (high-yield, high fallout) nuclear weapons, a nuclear war would most likely erupt. If the strike were with tactical (low-yield, low fallout) nuclear weapons, the exchange would end after initial and retaliatory strikes.
3/5
When @POTUS took power, there were hope that he would A) restore the relationship between two nuclear powers and B) understand the actions leading to the Russo-Ukraine conflict, defusing them.
This hope has now (almost) failed. 🧵1/
President Trump started with a correct note by re-establishing connections with Moscow. He also put President Zelensky in the "presser" with @VP .
However, he seems to have used his position only to establish the mineral deal with Ukraine. This can be seen as a grave mistake because it 1) alienates Moscow and 2) ties the U.S. into the conflict.
2/
The problem it creates is that the deal yields to 'vested interest' for the U.S. in Ukraine. How can President Trump now act as a neutral party in a deeply entrenched conflict between Ukraine and Russia?
He cannot.
Naturally, he can (and will) try, but he has effectively pushed Moscow into the corner. What options do the Russian leadership now have?
3/
I hope @POTUS understands this. There will be no peace in the European continent as long as your bases are here.
There's no threat of a Soviet Union anymore. We've dealt with Russia for centuries without the U.S. "support". Those times were rather violent, but that was mostly because actions of western and central European states, not because of Russia.
The U.S. essentially created the Russo-Ukrainian war, leading to the slow economic demise of Europe. This is something the Deep State has been planning since, at least 1997.
I've explained this thoroughly in my piece detailing the history of NATO vs. Russia, which main points I will summarize here.
🧵1/9
What follows is a quote from Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski. He was a Polish-born political scientist, who served as a counselor to President Lyndon B. Johnson from 1966 to 1968 and as a National Security Advisor for President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981.
He was probably the most influential political scholar in the U.S., known for his very hawkish stance towards Russia and China, and as a major proponent of NATO enlargement.
2/
It follows that a wider Europe and an enlarged NATO will serve well both the short-term and the longer-term goals of U.S. policy.
A larger Europe will expand the range of American influence-- and, through the admission of new Central European members, also increase in the European councils the number of states with a pro-American proclivity-- without simultaneously creating a Europe politically so integrated that it could soon challenge the United States on geopolitical matters of high importance to America elsewhere, particularly in the Middle East.
This was, most likely, the plan with Ukraine. To make sure that the Eurasian alliance between China, Europe and Russia fails.
3/
You think you know what happened during the Great Financial Crisis of 2007-2008?
The road to the GFC is long and complex. In its heart lies an innocent innovation to manage risks better, until authorities messed everything up.
The road to an (epic) financial crash. 🧵
Basically since the birth of banking, banks have been in the forefront of risk distribution through diversification and hedging. In the US, banks started to sell mortgage-backed debt obligations to investors already in the 1960s.
The idea was to distribute risk outside the balance sheet of banks, which would make more funds available for bank lending.
2/
In the late 1970s, Salomon Brothers and Bank of America Corporation started to securitize the mortgages by pooling together their interest payments and selling investors tranches based on their riskiness. The tranches became known as: junior, mezzanine and senior.
Junior was the most-risky one, but it also received the highest payments. Senior tranche was thought to be very safe. If there would be defaults on mortgages, all the other tranches would be wiped out before senior, effectively implying a collapse of the housing market.
Lewis Ranieri was a central figure in opening up the markets for mortgage-backed securities. 3/
The level of war-propaganda in Finland is massive.
@iltalehti_fi speculates that Russia is planning to restore the 1743 borders established in Treaty of Åbo to create a "buffer-zone". Russia would also strike Helsinki with missiles.
And there's much more. 1/13🧵
Just six months ago, our government-funded (propaganda) channel @yleuutiset notified that Russian military bases near Finland are nearly empty.
I guess Russia plans to attack Finland "with shovels". 2/
Continuing on the first note, @iltasanomat (our second largest daily newspaper) has just published a lengthy article (for subscribers only) on where Finns should evacuate in the case of a war.
Preparation is required "because of Russia". We did not have this "problem" before. 3/
Russia and Israel are treated totally differently in spite of the fact that both are waging wars of invasion. The major difference is that while Russia is engaged in an existential war, Israel is waging a war of expansion.
Thread on Russia vs. Israel. 🧵1/12
For an untrained eye, it may appear that the motivation behind both wars, in Ukraine and the Middle East (Gaza/Lebanon/Syria), would be the same: threat.
The difference is in the level of threat experienced.
2/
The start of the second phase of the Ukrainian military conflict in February 2022 was presented to us as an over-reaction by Kremlin. The invasion was painted as an un-provoked attack of Russia to a friendly neighbor.
In reality NATO had fought a war of provocation towards Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union in early 1990s. 3/