In 1991 the Soviet Union fell apart and NATO faced an existential crisis: its reason for being no longer existed. But rather than disband, it came up with a new mission: to expand. And in a self-referential loop, NATO expansion would create the hostility needed to justify itself. Bureaucracies often take on a life of their own and end up causing the very problems they were supposed to solve.

NIH was supposed to prevent pandemics, so it funded gain-of-function research, causing a pandemic.

NATO was supposed to prevent a war, so it expanded to Russia’s border and sought to encircle it, provoking a war.

Didn’t see this one coming. Budanov is the CIA’s man in Kiev. So why start telling the truth now? He’s directly contradicting Nuland’s narrative. 🤔

The U.S. can only produce about 1,000 artillery shells per day. The Europeans even less. The Russians are producing & using around 10,000/day. This is one of the reasons Ukraine is losing the war. Congressional action won’t fix this. Another reason is air defense. Ukraine has run out, and the U.S. can’t deliver more without putting our own troops in the Middle East at risk. The Russians have total air superiority and are precision-bombing Ukrainian targets at will.

This is John F. Sopko, one of America's most dedicated and effective public servants. As Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), Sopko and his team rooted out billions of dollars of waste, fraud, and abuse in Afghanistan. They generated 427 audits, 10 comprehensive Lessons Learned reports, and 160 criminal convictions. With the Afghanistan mission winding down, Senator @RandPaul proposed that Sopko and his team pivot to Ukraine. They were ready to take on the assignment. But that idea was rejected by the White House and Senate. If Sopko were working in the private sector, I have no doubt that he would be promoted for his efforts. But in government, he might just be a little too effective for his own good. After all, if he was place in charge of Ukraine oversight, what do you think he would find? In lieu of Sen. Paul’s proposal, the Department of Defense named the Hon. Robert Storch as first Lead IG and then Special IG for Operation Atlantic Resolve, a role in which he will provide Ukraine oversight for DoD. He will also coordinate with IGs from the State Department and USAID with respect to their oversight efforts. While I have no reason to doubt that Storch will do a fine job, the advantage of the Paul proposal is that it was both more sweeping and more focused, creating a single office for all Ukraine oversight with the proven track record of the SIGAR team.

You can almost feel the panic online that the $61 billion won’t pass. For many, this is the last big payoff they will ever see. They will say anything to get it. They will do anything to get it. The pressure on Speaker Johnson must be enormous. I compliment him for holding firm so far. But at the end of the day, I expect something will pass. Pockets don’t line themselves.

Ronald Reagan’s signature foreign policy achievement was negotiating a peaceful end to the Cold War. Neocons opposed him at the time. Now they have started a new Cold War with Russia and, invoking Reagan’s memory, insist we can’t negotiate a peaceful end. These people are sick. Two excellent articles on this subject from @CatoInstitute:



cato.org/commentary/rea…
cato.org/commentary/bet…

The Biden administration could have gotten Gonzalo Lira back with a phone call but didn't lift a finger. Therefore the Ukrainian government knew it could act with impunity. Still, the sheer brazenness to kill an American citizen in custody reveals a thuggish and unmoored regime. If you want to quibble and argue that Lira wasn't killed by the Ukrainian government, but rather he was just wrongfully imprisoned (for exercising First Amendment rights), abused and denied vital medical treatment, I don't see much of a difference.

Another remarkable confessional by the MSM in which we learn that everything we were told over the last 5 months about Ukraine making progress in its Counteroffensive was a lie.

https://twitter.com/nbcnews/status/1720607177180688865

“Stalemate” has replaced “Counteroffensive” as the main media narrative about the war. But it is not accurate. Ukraine is *losing* a war of attrition. This is why officials believe they only have until the end of the year before “urgent discussions” are necessary.

The average age of a soldier in the US military is 23. In Ukraine it’s 43. Think about what that means. For every 23 year-old remaining, Ukraine would need a 63 year-old or two 53 year-olds just to maintain the average. An entire generation of young people has been wiped out. According to TIME, the shortage of personnel has become even more dire than the deficit in arms and ammunition. One of Zelensky’s close aides says that even if the U.S. and its allies come through with all the weapons they have pledged, “we don’t have the men to use them.”

I suspect most establishment politicians looking at the Joe & Hunter Biden arrangement are quietly thinking “Wow this was really brazen. I can get away with a lot more than I thought.” This has been going on a long time. Obama aids were forced to defend their VP pick back in 2008.

Nice try. The expert class touted the upcoming counteroffensive for months, crowing about the benefits of “combined arms operations” and “maneuver warfare” and promising to “punch through” quickly. For example:

https://twitter.com/radiofreetom/status/1681012088540364800

Just days before it began, Petraeus said the counteroffensive would be “very impressive” with progress after 3-4 days.

Wait what Previously:

Zaluzhny says current plans are not feasible, and simple math indicates why: Ukraine has recaptured ~50 square miles at a cost of over 10,000 lives. Since Russia occupies 50,000 sq miles (1000x), at this rate it will cost Ukraine 10,000,000 lives to liberate the entire country. It’s worth pointing out that the 50 sq miles, obtained at a cost of 200+ lives per mile, are in the security (or “grey”) zone. Ukrainian forces have not even made it to the Russians’ first fortified line yet.

THE FAILING COUNTEROFFENSIVE AND THE PEACE THAT COULD HAVE BEEN

With each passing day, it’s becoming clear that the Ukrainian counteroffensive is failing to achieve any of its originally stated objectives. Recall: the Biden administration’s bet was that the counteroffensive would roll back Russian territorial gains, cut the land bridge to Crimea, and force Russia to the negotiating table. That is almost certainly not going to happen. On the contrary, a stalemate is more likely, or even that Russia will take more territory and win the war, as Mearsheimer has predicted.

What are Biden’s options now? Either escalate or admit defeat. In preparation for NATO’s Vilnius Summit, Blinken has been floating a proposal to give “Israel status” to Ukraine. This means multi-year security guarantees including weapons, ammunition and money that would continue even if Biden loses the next election.

This is not what the American people signed up for. Many Americans supported the $100+ billion in appropriations for Ukraine believing it was a one-time deal to reverse Russian territorial gains. If they had been told that it was the basis for an annual appropriation in a new Forever War, they would have preferred an alternative, especially if they had known that one was available.

THE PEACE THAT COULD HAVE BEEN

New evidence is emerging that a peace deal was achievable at the beginning of the war. At a recent meeting with the African delegation, Putin showed the draft of an outline or preliminary agreement signed by the Ukrainian delegation at Istanbul in April 2022. It provided that Russia would pull back to pre-war lines if Ukraine would agree not to join NATO (but Ukraine could receive security guarantees from the West).

This document has not been publicly released yet, but no one seriously contests that it exists. The only dispute is over what happened subsequently; Ukraine (via reporting in Reuters) contends the deal fell apart. However, the availability of a deal based on Ukrainian Neutrality is consistent with previous comments from Naftali Bennett, who said a deal was attainable but rejected by the West.

Why would the West do this? Ukrainska Pravda (UP), a pro-Ukraine publication, reported in May 2022:

“As soon as the Ukrainian negotiators and Abramovich/Medinsky [the Russian negotiators], following the outcome of Istanbul, had agreed on the structure of a future possible agreement in general terms, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson appeared in Kyiv almost without warning. "Johnson brought two simple messages to Kyiv. The first is that Putin is a war criminal; he should be pressured, not negotiated with. And the second is that even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they are not. We can sign (an agreement) with you (Ukraine), but not with him. Anyway, he will screw everyone over", is how one of Zelenskyy's close associates summed up the essence of Johnson's visit.”


Johnson (who must have been speaking not just for himself but for the Western alliance) wanted to pressure Putin, not make peace, and promised new weapons systems if Ukraine would keep fighting.

At the time of UP’s article, Ukraine appeared to be doing well, so UP portrayed Zelensky’s decision to accept Johnson’s offer as a smart gamble. Now, in hindsight, it looks like a disaster.

AFGHANISTAN REDUX?

I know some of you may find it hard to believe that the realities on the ground are so at odds with the mainstream media's coverage. But it’s worth recalling that the American public was assured for two decades that we were winning in Afghanistan. All of that reporting was revealed as a pack of lies when the Afghan army that we were supposedly “standing up” collapsed within a matter of weeks. At that point, the media stopped reporting on Afghanistan, just like it had stopped reporting on Iraq, instead of holding anyone accountable.

Unfortunately, it looks like we're headed for a similar kind of outcome in Ukraine. The only question is when, and how long Biden will be able to perpetuate a proxy war of choice that could have easily been avoided. Update: in an interview with WashPo, Ukraine’s top general Zaluzhny confirms that the Western equipment provided so far (at a cost of $100B+) is insufficient to achieve the originally stated goals of the counteroffensive: “these plans are not feasible at all.”

Hot jobs report today. I don’t know where they’re finding all these jobs. All I see are layoffs. Summers is already talking up a 50bp rate hike in July. That won’t be good for CRE, banks, or stocks.

https://twitter.com/lhsummers/status/1664693459741966336?s=46&t=zECbvxu15I9N7PaeLOlVJg

Simplest way for corporate journalists to get blue checks en masse would be for their organizations to go gold and affiliate them. Stop pretending this is a personal expense. It’s a business expense.

https://twitter.com/verified/status/1641596848921276417

Similarly, it would be a smart idea for Hollywood talent agencies to pay for their celebrities via the Verified Org Affiliates feature. Celebs would get blue checks. The agencies would get the benefit of the association.

When the Fed spiked interest rates from ~0 to ~5% over the past year, it had 3 main effects:
1. Undercut value of bonds, especially long-dated bonds.
2. Made lending more expensive, particularly for large purchases like real estate that have to be financed.
3. Increased… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… Update: “The balance-sheet risks for mismanaged states and municipalities have been hiding in plain sight just as they were at Silicon Valley Bank.”

apple.news/AUa4aTaoaSm6ya…

Team SIBs vs Team Regional Banks

https://twitter.com/kanekoathegreat/status/1636517323858378754

Sen. Jim Lankford raises an excellent line of questioning here. If some banks are “systemically important” (where deposits are fully protected) and some banks aren’t (where deposits are only partially protected), won’t all the money move to the SIBs?

https://twitter.com/QTRResearch/status/1636524076108767233/video/1

It’s painful for me to watch so many smart pundits and politicians on both the right and the left buy into a media narrative that seeks to blame “wealthy speculators” or “tech bros” or VCs for a banking crisis that ultimately started in Washington. Let me explain. 🧵 If you want to understand the context for the crisis, look at the FDIC Chair’s March 6 testimony — a week before SVB’s collapse — where he explains that banks were sitting on $620 billion of unrealized losses from long-dated bonds. This provided the tinder for the crisis.

The basic formula here is actually correct…
1. No bailout for SVB stockholders/bond holders.
2. But we will meet the needs of depositors.
3. And prevent contagion…

But it all sounds hopeless vague. Half-measures won’t stop a banking crisis.

What Yellen should have said:
1. No bailout for SVB stockholders/bond holders.
2. But deposits are safe—not just at SVB but at all regional banks. You can trust the US banking system.
3. We will backstop it if necessary to prevent contagion. We will defend the US banking system.

I’m not asking for a bailout. I’m asking for banking regulators to ensure the integrity of the system. Either deposits in the US are safe or they’re not. If not, look out below. We have a very big problem on our hands.

https://twitter.com/thestalwart/status/1634663799742504961

SVB’s customers are being treated like they engaged in some incredibly risky behavior for which they’re being unfairly bailed out. But all they did was open a bank account! That’s not an investment, it’s a deposit.