back in my map era, we're ukrainemaxxing right now
Declarations of the imminent doom of Ukraine are a news megathread specialty, and this is not what I am doing here - mostly because I'm convinced that whenever we do so, the war extends another three months to spite us. Ukraine has been in an essentially apocalyptic crisis for over a year now after the failure of the 2023 counteroffensive, unable to make any substantial progress and resigned to merely being a persistent nuisance (and arms market!) as NATO fights to the last Ukrainian. In this context, predicting a terminal point is difficult, as things seem to always be going so badly that it's hard to understand how and why they fight on. In every way, Ukraine is a truly shattered country, barely held together by the sheer combined force of Western hegemony. And that hegemony is weakening.
I therefore won't be giving any predictions of a timeframe for a Ukrainian defeat, but the coming presidency of Trump is a big question mark for the conflict. Trump has talked about how he wishes for the war to end and for a deal to be made with Putin, but Trump also tends to change his mind on an issue at least three or four times before actually making a decision, simply adopting the position of who talked to him last. And, of course, his ability to end the war might be curtailed by a military-industrial complex (and various intelligence agencies) that want to keep the money flowing.
The alignment of the US election with the accelerating rate of Russian gains is pretty interesting, with talk of both escalation and de-escalation coinciding - the former from Biden, and the latter from Trump. Russia very recently performed perhaps the single largest aerial attack of Ukraine of the entire war, striking targets across the whole country with missiles and drones from various platforms. In response, the US is talking about allowing Ukraine to hit long-range targets in Russia (but the strategic value of this, at this point, seems pretty minimal).
Additionally, Russia has made genuine progress in terms of land acquisition. We aren't talking about endless and meaningless battles over empty fields anymore. Some of the big Ukrainian strongholds that we've been spending the last couple years speculating over - Chasiv Yar, Kupiansk, Orikhiv - are now being approached and entered by Russian forces. The map is actually changing now, though it's hard to tell as Ukraine is so goddamn big.
Attrition has finally paid off for Russia. An entire generation of Ukrainians has been fed into the meat grinder. Recovery will take, at minimum, decades - more realistically, the country might be permanently ruined, until that global communist revolution comes around at least. And they could have just made a fucking deal a month into the war.
Please check out the HexAtlas!
The bulletins site is here!
The RSS feed is here.
Last week's thread is here.
Israel-Palestine Conflict
Sources on the fighting in Palestine against Israel. In general, CW for footage of battles, explosions, dead people, and so on:
UNRWA reports on Israel's destruction and siege of Gaza and the West Bank.
English-language Palestinian Marxist-Leninist twitter account. Alt here.
English-language twitter account that collates news.
Arab-language twitter account with videos and images of fighting.
English-language (with some Arab retweets) Twitter account based in Lebanon. - Telegram is @IbnRiad.
English-language Palestinian Twitter account which reports on news from the Resistance Axis. - Telegram is @EyesOnSouth.
English-language Twitter account in the same group as the previous two. - Telegram here.
English-language PalestineResist telegram channel.
More telegram channels here for those interested.
Russia-Ukraine Conflict
Examples of Ukrainian Nazis and fascists
Examples of racism/euro-centrism during the Russia-Ukraine conflict
Sources:
Defense Politics Asia's youtube channel and their map. Their youtube channel has substantially diminished in quality but the map is still useful.
Moon of Alabama, which tends to have interesting analysis. Avoid the comment section.
Understanding War and the Saker: reactionary sources that have occasional insights on the war.
Alexander Mercouris, who does daily videos on the conflict. While he is a reactionary and surrounds himself with likeminded people, his daily update videos are relatively brainworm-free and good if you don't want to follow Russian telegram channels to get news. He also co-hosts The Duran, which is more explicitly conservative, racist, sexist, transphobic, anti-communist, etc when guests are invited on, but is just about tolerable when it's just the two of them if you want a little more analysis.
Simplicius, who publishes on Substack. Like others, his political analysis should be soundly ignored, but his knowledge of weaponry and military strategy is generally quite good.
On the ground: Patrick Lancaster, an independent and very good journalist reporting in the warzone on the separatists' side.
Unedited videos of Russian/Ukrainian press conferences and speeches.
Pro-Russian Telegram Channels:
Again, CW for anti-LGBT and racist, sexist, etc speech, as well as combat footage.
https://t.me/aleksandr_skif ~ DPR's former Defense Minister and Colonel in the DPR's forces. Russian language.
https://t.me/Slavyangrad ~ A few different pro-Russian people gather frequent content for this channel (~100 posts per day), some socialist, but all socially reactionary. If you can only tolerate using one Russian telegram channel, I would recommend this one.
https://t.me/s/levigodman ~ Does daily update posts.
https://t.me/patricklancasternewstoday ~ Patrick Lancaster's telegram channel.
https://t.me/gonzowarr ~ A big Russian commentator.
https://t.me/rybar ~ One of, if not the, biggest Russian telegram channels focussing on the war out there. Actually quite balanced, maybe even pessimistic about Russia. Produces interesting and useful maps.
https://t.me/epoddubny ~ Russian language.
https://t.me/boris_rozhin ~ Russian language.
https://t.me/mod_russia_en ~ Russian Ministry of Defense. Does daily, if rather bland updates on the number of Ukrainians killed, etc. The figures appear to be approximately accurate; if you want, reduce all numbers by 25% as a 'propaganda tax', if you don't believe them. Does not cover everything, for obvious reasons, and virtually never details Russian losses.
https://t.me/UkraineHumanRightsAbuses ~ Pro-Russian, documents abuses that Ukraine commits.
Pro-Ukraine Telegram Channels:
Almost every Western media outlet.
https://discord.gg/projectowl ~ Pro-Ukrainian OSINT Discord.
https://t.me/ice_inii ~ Alleged Ukrainian account with a rather cynical take on the entire thing.
(continued)
What is the role of US treasuries post-1971?
expand
However, after 1971 the US has abandoned the Bretton Woods (Michael Hudson calls this the superimperialism phase) and the dollar is now a fiat currency with a floating exchange rate. It is no longer pegged to anything, and there is nothing to defend. As such, the government cannot go default from overspending.
So, then, what is the role of US treasury post-1971 where the US dollar is now a fiat currency?
While technically the US government no longer need to issue bonds (debts) to “finance its spending” (more accurately, now that we have learned, to take money out of circulation), the US treasury as an institutional mechanism is still useful when serving as a drain for interbank reserves (to maintain the interest rate set by the federal government) and for the excess dollars spent overseas (Hudson’s superimperialism). In other words, the US treasury is simply serving as a drain or a “sponge” to soak up all the surplus dollars/reserves.
We will now look into each of these roles, because it is very important to get this into your head that the US treasury does NOT finance US government spending.
First, let’s look at how the US treasury helps maintain the target interest rate set by the central bank aka Federal Reserve in the US.
Have you ever taken a check to a bank and deposit it into your account? How does this “transfer of money” work, especially if the payer has an account from a different bank? Does the payer bank ships its money to the recipient bank?
The answer is no, they simply run up and down the numbers in their reserve accounts held at the central bank (Federal Reserve in the US). All commercial banks have special reserve accounts at the central bank and this is a very important part of the banking system to ensure that millions and millions of transactions taking place every day can be rapidly validated and cleared. Without such a system in place, there is no way for the government to monitor and validate billions of dollars worth of transactions that occur every single minute across the entire world, and without which some banks will very quickly run out of money when large transactions take place! Imagine what chaos that would be.
Every commercial bank is required by law to maintain a minimum (and positive) daily reserve (although technically they are only checked over the weeks or through averages over time, not every single day). This means that at the end of every day, some banks will have a surplus (more) of the minimum required reserve in their account (maybe because more checks transferred more money to their banks) and some banks will have a deficit (less) of the minimum reserve required (maybe because a lot of withdrawals took place in their banks).
In any case, the banks that do not meet the minimum reserve requirement will have to fill up that reserve account, and banks that have a surplus of reserve will be looking to lend them out (because every single excess dollar is dead money and banks really do not want to carry any dead money that does not bring any profit!)
Of course, because the central bank (Federal Reserve) will never run out of money, the commercial banks running low on reserves can always borrow from the central bank to fill them up. However, to discourage such persistent behavior of commercial banks keep running out of reserves, the central bank typically charges a penalty rate every time a commercial bank asks to draw from this discount lending (this is known as the “discount window” in technical terms).
As such, commercial banks would typically avoid borrowing directly from the central bank, and instead borrow from the interbank market that occurs within the central bank (the Fed fund market). This is where the banks with surplus reserves will be looking to lend out their extra reserves to the banks that need them. However, because of competition, and every bank really really does not want to hold even a single extra dollar above their minimum requirement for reserve balance because it doesn’t bring any profit, this competition to lend out their reserves will very quickly drive the interest rate down to 0%, and this is a problem for the central bank whose mission is to target a particular interest rate.
Let’s say the central bank (Federal Reserve) wants to target a 2% interest rate, and they want to prevent the interest rate being driven down to 0% in the Fed fund market, so here the Federal Reserve can sell government-backed securities (US treasuries) at a specific rate (say 2%) to set the minimum price of borrowing, and thus stopping the competition from driving the market interest rate down to 0%. Commercial banks with surplus reserves will now prefer to lend to the government (2% interest) than to compete in the interbank market which is being driven down to 0%. Thus, simply by selling US treasuries at a certain price, the Federal Reserve can maintain its interest rate target and ensures that no bank will lend below 2% among each other.
In other words, the US treasuries act as a drain that soaks up the excess reserves that are flowing in the Fed fund market while allowing it to target a particular interest rate.
Now, there is another role for the US treasuries that Michael Hudson described in Super-imperialism, which is to act as a vehicle/drain to soak up excess dollars that the US empire has spent overseas. Because the US federal regulations prohibit foreign governments and entities from purchasing critical assets, most net exporter economies who sold their goods and services will end up with surplus dollars (after spending their trade revenues to import whatever they need in dollars). Where else could all these dollars go? Nowhere except US treasuries because that’s where you can at least earn some interests.
This is also the reason why China has largely stopped buying US treasuries since 2013 and started to lend out their dollar revenues in the Belt and Road Initiative, because they have realized that they were simply accumulating junk papers after selling actual goods and services made using Chinese labor and resources to America. At least with BRI, you are gaining some diplomacy benefits by helping the developing countries build their infrastructures.
But the fundamental problem remains the same: this simply kicks the can down the road and the BRI countries now have to earn dollars to pay back their Chinese creditors. And this is part of the reason why all these talks about China accumulating more dollars make no sense at all.
To conclude, the US treasuries (government debt) do NOT finance US government spending, and it doesn’t matter even if nobody buys US treasuries since it only functions as a drain for the surplus dollars.
The misconceptions about it persist because many people are still thinking in gold standard/Bretton Woods terms. This works neatly into the neoliberal narrative that the US has run into too much deficits and that austerity is needed to make sure that “our country will not be owned by China and our children won’t have to pay back the debt we are accumulating.”
The US government (or any government with monetary sovereignty) is thus not constrained by such spending rules. The power of fiat currency backed by the state has been discovered many times (e.g. greenbacks during the US Civil War, Beihai currency issued by the CPC Beihai Bank in Shandong during the war against Japanese and KMT invented by the legendary Marxist economist Xue Muqiao), but the first known case of this usage in peacetime was Stalin’s war communism, 40 years before the US independently discovered it!
—-
What can a $100 billion dollar-denominated bond issued by China do?
expand
We now answer the question based on the wild extrapolation that somehow, this $2 billion dollar-denominated bond, if being scaled up to $100 billion dollar, will somehow wreck the US financial system.
Let’s have some perspective: the $780 billion US treasuries currently owned by China comprise about 2.7% of the total treasuries, or ~9% of all treasuries held by foreign owners, amidst a gigantic $27 trillion US treasury.
Even if China sells off its entire reserve, it would barely make a dent to the US treasury market, let alone a $100 billion bond. This is pure scaremongering tactics used especially by the Republicans to make the American people fear about a foreign threat coming to take away their life savings.
What China can do, however, is to strategically use those dollar reserves to pay back Africa’s $700 billion dollar debt, and quickly flush the region with yuan (the institutions need to be well prepared in advance, of course), and that would be a real challenge to the US hegemony in the region and tip the balance of US monetary imperialism by allowing African nations to escape the US debt trap.
However, if China had wanted to do that, they can simply do it directly. All the fantastical imagination about how China issues more dollar bonds (which effective dollarizes the world) and accumulate more dollar surplus (which would require someone or some countries to sell more shit to America in order to earn the dollars to buy the China-issued bonds) so that China can somehow use those money to help the BRI countries pay back their dollar debt (which are mostly owed to private creditors including many Chinese creditors) is quite preposterous if you think about it.
Remember that the US can pump out dollars like opening a tap, while China and the rest of the world have to earn those dollars with real labor and resources. You are already at a huge disadvantage if you try to play the dollar game. China cannot control the dollar in the same way that the US cannot control the yuan. Monetary sovereignty confers the currency-issuing government with a lot of power to perform their tasks.
It's my understanding that treasury rates are set at auction, so these rates can be driven by demand (and not just internally as bidding is done by outside governments). The easier way to affect interbank lending is through interest on excess reserves - https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reserve-balances.htm
This very transparently sets a floor while discount window rates sets the cap on interbank lending, and of course feeds back in to the treasury auction results as banks will allocate excess reserves to treasuries if they are paying substantially more than the interbank/fed IOER rates
IORB is a relatively recent tool (since 2008 because the Fed bought so much of the treasury securities since the financial crisis) but for a long time since the US abandoned the Bretton Woods, the interest rate was set mostly by the Federal Reserve selling treasuries in the interbank market.
What this means is that US treasuries are even more useless these days (in terms of having an actual function on the banking operations). At this point, the US government selling treasuries is a choice (they enrich the rich people, let’s put it bluntly).
As a general note, there are plenty of instruments that the government and the central bank use to manipulate the flow of currencies, but getting into each one of those only adds confusion to the lay audience wanting to understand how the system works on a fundamental level (which remains unchanged in its principles).
yep agreed, I really appreciate your posts and write ups. I'm like 5% through superimperialism