Author: Warren Coats

I specialize in advising central banks on monetary policy and the development of the capacity to formulate and implement monetary policy.  I joined the International Monetary Fund in 1975 from which I retired in 2003 as Assistant Director of the Monetary and Financial Systems Department. While at the IMF I led or participated in missions to the central banks of over twenty countries (including Afghanistan, Bosnia, Croatia, Egypt, Iraq, Israel, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kosovo, Kyrgystan, Moldova, Serbia, Turkey, West Bank and Gaza Strip, and Zimbabwe) and was seconded as a visiting economist to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (1979-80), and to the World Bank's World Development Report team in 1989.  After retirement from the IMF I was a member of the Board of the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority from 2003-10 and of the editorial board of the Cayman Financial Review from 2010-2017.  Prior to joining the IMF I was Assistant Prof of Economics at UVa from 1970-75.  I am currently a fellow of Johns Hopkins Krieger School of Arts and Sciences, Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise.  In March 2019 Central Banking Journal awarded me for my “Outstanding Contribution for Capacity Building.”  My recent books are One Currency for Bosnia: Creating the Central Bank of Bosnia and Herzegovina; My Travels in the Former Soviet Union; My Travels to Afghanistan; My Travels to Jerusalem; and My Travels to Baghdad. I have a BA in Economics from the UC Berkeley and a PhD in Economics from the University of Chicago. My dissertation committee was chaired by Milton Friedman and included Robert J. Gordon. I live in National Landing Va 22202

Propaganda

The arguments I present at the dinner table to convince you of my position/proposal, will succeed or fail depending on their merits and the skill with which I present and defend them. My freedom to make my case at home or your home or in the public square (Kiwanis Club, Facebook, X, etc.) and yours to challenge it and/or to make your own, is an essential feature of our free and flourishing society. It is a right guaranteed in the First Amendment to our Constitution. The give and take and challenges of such debate improve the prospect of adopting better policies and proposals and of their broad public support.

The Woke movement to prevent, shout down, or otherwise silence hate speech (at least in the eyes of some) violated our freedom of speech and the virtues of its protection. It was rightly opposed and seems in retreat, last year’s measures by Columbia and many other Universities to prevent pro-Palestinian demonstrations notwithstanding. Demonstrations that violate or threaten the rights and/or safety of others are not protected speech and should be banned.

The anti-free speech virus has spread to elements of the right wing as well. According to Jacob Mchangama in “Reflections on right-wing cancel culture”:

 “’The Left started it.’

“That was the common retort from right-wing X accounts like Libs of TikTok and their supporters, who attempted and often succeeded at getting people fired for making tasteless social media posts about the assassination attempt on Donald Trump back in July. 

“Most of their victims weren’t public figures but regular Americans like Home Depot employees, firefighters, chefs, and school counselors. This was fine and good, many argued, because it constituted sweet revenge for cancel culture excesses driven by the Left.” 

Constructive civil discourse is a valuable skill some have forgotten or never learned. Efforts to strengthen such skills by Braver Angles and other groups are encouraging.

On the other hand, measures by an increasing number of governments to ban speech they disapprove of seem to be growing. It is not all together surprising that the governments of Russia, China, Pakistan, Hungary, Brazil have banned unfriendly news sources and reporters. Measures in the U.S. to remove what our government considers false information for social media is shocking. Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta the owner of Facebook, recently expressed regret for the company’s past decisions regarding content moderation, particularly concerning COVID-19. In a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, he revealed that senior officials from the Biden administration pressured Facebook to censor certain content, including humor and satire related to the pandemic. Zuckerberg stated, “I believe the government pressure was wrong, and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it”

More shocking still, Scott Ritter, a former UN weapons inspector and US Marine Corps intelligence officer, had his home searched by the FBI, potentially due to allegations related to his failure to register as a foreign agent. It is more likely that the real reason is our governments anger at his attacks on its efforts to suppress “disinformation” in the press. He recently participated in a discussion titled “Free Speech & The DOJ attack on Independent Journalism,” highlighting concerns about governmental interference in free speech and press freedoms. Ritter has been vocal on social media, urging authorities to respect the Constitution and stop restricting free speech and press activities. This interview of Ritter is well worth watching: Scott Ritter interview

If that doesn’t shock freedom loving Americans, surely this will. Pavel Durov, the CEO and founder of the messaging app Telegram, was recently arrested in France. He was detained as part of an ongoing judicial investigation into alleged criminal activities facilitated by Telegram, including the spread of child pornography, cyberscams, and organized crime. Durov has criticized the charges as “surprising” and “misguided,” arguing that it is unreasonable to hold a platform or its CEO accountable for user-generated content. He emphasized that Telegram complies with European Union regulations and has robust content moderation practices. The arrest has sparked discussions about the balance between free speech and the responsibility of social media platforms in moderating harmful content.

And then there are evil people who deliberately lie and deceive for the purpose of doing harm? Russia, for example, might judge it in its interest to weaken the United States by undermining America’s public trust in our institutions thus diminishing our effectiveness as a nation. “The Russian government’s covert efforts to sway the 2024 presidential election are more advanced than in recent years, and the most active foreign threat this political season, U.S. intelligence officials said Friday.” “Russia-election-covert-disinformation” But which way would Russia’s interests be best served. Ritter argues that Russia’s interest in the outcome of the American Presidential election is for a President whose policies will be predictable. That hardly describes Donald Trump.

A more challenging question is what to do about those unknowingly spreading false information believing it’s true (e.g. Antivaxxers).  In which of these boxes should we put someone like Tucker Carlson—deliberately deceiving –unknowingly deceiving—or sometimes right? These are not easy questions. I urge you to read Damon Linker’s exploration of Tucker Carlson’s diabolical motives: “The anti-liberal right builds a usable past”

So, what should we do? Defending our freedom to speak should be a top priority. “Do we really need free speech?”  Where should we look for the facts and to expose fake information? Social media and fake news”. What role should government play?

At the end of the day, it is what each of us believes that matters. It is in our own interest to evaluate the reliability of various sources of information. The government can help by being such a source, but it must earn our trust for the objectivity of its research and disclosure. It must never censor the information provided by others.  Government can require and promote the transparency of the information provided by others (e.g, who has paid for it).  This role for government will minimize the incentive for private parties to exert pressure on the government to support one version of the truth and suppress others. We must decide for ourselves, but our institutions can and should contribute to our filtering fact from fiction and help expose liars.  Freedom isn’t free.

Econ 101 – Price gouging

The good news is that the Presidential campaign has moved on to the presentation of policy positions—at least on Kamila Harris’s part–Trump’s response at a Pennsylvania campaign stop over the weekend was that “she’s gone “full communist.”

The bad news is that in addition to continuing some of Trump’s bad economic policies (tariffs, buy American protectionism, etc.) some of Harris’s economic policies are bad. Here I will take a closer look at her promise to ban “price gouging” by grocery stores.

In March of 2020 US. Broad Money (M2) growth jumped from its usual 5 to 6% per annum growth to over 25% a year later. As a result, U.S. Inflation (CPI) began to increase rapidly above its 2% target at the beginning of 2021. The Federal Reserve did not begin to tighten monetary policy until a year later when inflation had already reached 8% per annum. In addition, federal government deficit spending exploded over the same period. To fight this inflation the Fed’s policy interest rate was increased from almost zero from March 2022 to 5.3% by mid 2023 where it remains, thus ending M2 growth.

Since its disastrous late start in monetary tightening, the Fed’s management of the return of inflation to its 2% target has been as good as I could hope. Inflation has fallen below 3% without (yet) causing an economic slowdown. My guess is that the Fed is slightly behind the curve and should have started reducing it policy rate earlier this month.

So what is Harris’s ban on price gouging all about? “Perhaps Harris’s most surprising policy announcement was her plan to ban “price gouging” in grocery and food prices. While details were sparse, the measure would include authorizing the Federal Trade Commission to impose large fines on grocery stores that impose “excessive” price hikes on customers, her campaign said. Grocery prices remain a top concern for voters: Even though the rate of increase leveled off this year, grocery prices have jumped 26 percent since 2019, according to Elizabeth Pancotti, director of special initiatives at the Roosevelt Institute.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/08/16/kamala-harris-2024-policy-child-tax-credit/

In an excellent editorial last Friday (I urge you to read it) the Washington Post asked: “‘Price gouging’ is not causing inflation. So why is the vice president promising to stamp it out?”   https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/08/16/harris-economy-plan-gimmicks/

Stores only offer goods for sale when they can be sold for more than their cost to the story by enough to pay for their own employees, cost of their store and its maintenance and “normal” profit (return on the investment made by the store’s owners). The erratic economic events of the last few years create disruptions in these normal relationships that can produce temporary losses and/or usually large profits.

The supply and demand for a good can be matched by its price or by some other form of rationing. If a pandemic suddenly spikes the demand for facemasks, it will take a while for manufacturers to increase the supply. Until that happens demand will exceed supply.  Dr. Fauci and the government can ban sales to us common people in order to reserve the existing supply for doctors and nurses, or the market will increase the price such that only those with the most pressing need (or desire) will pay the higher price of the available supply. Rationing by prices has two big advantages. The first is that each individual (rather than government bureaucrats) determines whether their need is strong enough to pay the higher price. This makes it MUCH more likely that face masks will go to those with the highest need. Second it maximizes the market incentive to increase production and supply faster.

It the supply (relative to demand) shortage is not rationed by price, some other rationing mechanism and criteria must take its place. One is first come first served until the shelves are empty. During the wage and price freeze imposed by President Richard Nixon starting on Aug 15, 1971, gasoline was rationed by long lines of cars waiting for their turn at gas stations. It is not surprising that freely determined market prices have served us so well.

From the River to the Sea

The subtitle of my memoire is “From the River to the Sea, All should be Free.” I deliberately chose this potentially provocative statement to warn readers to expect to encounter my political views and to refuse to allow the English language to be twisted by the political views of others. In the same spirit, I always stated that “All Lives Matter” rather than the more restrictive “Black Lives Matter.”  I have always defended the rights of All people to peace, justice and equal rights.

I asked my AI search engine the following:

What different groups chant “From the River to the Sea “ and what does each group mean by that?

The reply was:

The phrase “From the River to the Sea” is used by various groups with differing interpretations:

  1. Pro-Palestinian Activists: For many, it symbolizes the aspiration for Palestinian liberation and equality across the region from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, often seen as a call for peace and justice.
  2. Jewish and Pro-Israel Groups: Many perceive it as a threat to Israel’s existence, viewing it as a call for the elimination of the Jewish state, especially when used by groups like Hamas.

“When someone says from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free, I question, ‘Where do you see the Jews going?'” said Yair Szlak, president and CEO of Montreal-based Federation CJA. ‘That is hate speech, right, because it is into the sea that they seek to send the Jews.’”

Take a close look at this amazing statement. Mr. Sziak implies that the only way Palestinians can be free is by getting rid of the Jews!!  Aside from being a absurd statement, it is sadly revealing of the thinking of some Israelis.

“Yousef Munayyer, head of the Palestine-Israel program at the Arab Center Washington D.C., has written extensively about the meaning of the slogan before and since Hamas’s attacks on Oct. 7, which led to Israel’s current bombardment of the Gaza Strip. 

“Munayyer says today, the phrase is used to reference the lack of freedoms Palestinians have in the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, which includes the state of Israel as well as the Gaza Strip and the occupied territories of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. 

“’That’s what has to change. That doesn’t mean that there should be any violence against Israelis,’ Munayyer said.” https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/from-the-river-to-the-sea-palestine-1.7033881

Labor Unions

To maximize a company’s market value, it must maximize its expected profits over time (its current market price reflects the discounted present value of expected future profits). To do so it must offer products or services that the public wants at prices they are prepared to pay that exceed the cost of supplying them. These products must be produced with the quality desired and as cheaply as possible. But that requires hiring workers of appropriate skills and providing them with appropriate tools (investments in equipment and other inputs) while paying them no more than is required to attract and retain them. “Appropriate” in these contexts means cost effective (best output at lowest cost).

Unions can help a firm’s management find, train, keep and manage the most appropriate workers. The general work environment is part of what attracts workers in addition to wages and related benefits. The optimal mix of the “right” capital and the “right” labor to produce market demanded products, produces the biggest pie to split between labor and shareholders (i.e., maximizes profits). So, both labor and owners share an interest in getting it right (maximizing). When unions deal with management in this positive sum, win-win frame of mind both they and shareholders benefit. But unions that see the process as zero sum and simply seek to maximize their share of the pie, reduce the size of the pie (loss-loss). American unions too often fall into this trap.

My personal experiences with American unions have not been good. I will share the experiences of my parents and myself that have influenced my views.

During the summers of my undergraduate studies at the U of California at Berkeley, I worked in the oil fields of Kern County for Shell Oil. Children of Shell employees like my dad were given preference for such jobs (typical profit maximizing behavior). A typical summer day in Kern County was dry, with temperatures ranging from 105 degrees to an occasional 112. This was more comfortable than a typical humid day of 95 degrees here in the Washington DC area. The first summer I worked in the fields north of Bakersfield, and the second summer at the ten-section refinery fields where my dad had worked in the refinery west of Bakersfield.

The full-time Shell employees I worked with, along with two other summer hires, were all pleasant and talked about their families and such things during our lunches together in the “doghouse,” as they called it. I had no idea whether they were union members or not. Digging up leaky pipes as a roustabout in such heat was a challenge.

My second year I was promoted to working on a well pulling rig. The traditional rocker-arm wells that you have surely seen in pictures are fairly shallow and push the oil up a pipe as the rocker moves up and down. The pump is attached to the bottom of this pipe and opens to let the oil in, and then closes as it pushes it up the pipe with each rock. We pulled the pipes, with their pump on the bottom end, out of existing wells for repair.

Every now and then the pump at the bottom failed to open to allow the oil to flow out as our rig pulled it up. Those were called wet wells as rather than draining out, the oil spouted out the top and rained down on the rig platform. The first time I encountered a wet well, the guys recommended that I put on a wet suit to keep the oil off me. As I recall it was 110 degrees that day and I turned down the wetsuit. However, as I become covered in oil my sweat stopped evaporating and I almost passed out. I had to sit out the rest of the day in great embarrassment.

My third summer I was paired with the full-time employee in the supply yard behind Shell’s Kern County headquarters that provided all the parts needed out in the fields. We rode around in a forklift to load needed supplies onto trucks that delivered them to the fields. My “partner” was a union member, All he could talk about was how Shell was exploiting us. I hated it and hated him and his antagonistic rather than cooperative attitude. This added to my dislike of American unions.

Many years earlier when Shell workers went on strike, my dad had to strike as well, as he had to belong to the union to work in the refinery. After a month or two, when it was clear that the strike was about to end, several union guys came to our house and threatened my pregnant mother (with my seven-year younger brother), that it would be unhealthy for her if my dad went back to work already.

Many years later, when my mother had become an elementary school teacher, she disliked the teacher’s union as having little real interest in the kids, but spent their time protecting the jobs of mediocre teachers.

It seems to me that unions are helpful or detrimental (good or bad) depending on whether they see their negotiations with their companies in positive sum or zero-sum terms. Mandatory union membership is more likely to result in the latter, detrimental relationship.

Where have all the flowers gone?

My mornings these days are spent reading email and news reports sitting in a swing on our master bedroom balcony, from which I can view Reagan National Airport and further south the skyline of Alexandria Va. Ito serves my coffee and a cut orange to me there. Life is wonderful (age adjusted). Thankfully I am no longer faced with life defining choices—forks in the road.  Luckily most of my choices worked out well. But I am happy to no longer face them.

While reading the Post, WSJ, etc. on my iPad, I listen alternatively to Opera areas and my favorite folk singers of my youth.  This morning while listening to Peter, Paul and Mary sign “Where have all the Flowers Gone,” I broking into tears and thought I would share with you why. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgXNVA9ngx8

I believe that the hearts of most young people seek to “do good”– to prosper by or while making the world a better place, which is the essence of capitalism. There are, of course, a few bad apples, but most of us are born with good hearts and a desire to prove themselves worthy. Over too much of history young men too often proved their worthiness by going to war to defend their country, or, at the instigation of those bad apples, to expand their empire. So, the impulse to reach out and help others has often been subverted in our youth to standing up to kill them instead, dying themselves in large numbers. World War II, alone killed 70-85 million people and injured multiples of that. Where have all the flowers gone.

My tears flowed from the sadness that we have failed and still fail to nurture those good hearts into an even better world to the extent we could. The enterprise of our fellow man once liberated to pursue their dreams has lifted the wellbeing of the average person to unbelievable heights. But every young person knows that a good life consists of more than material wealth. We are again (or still?) in a period when far too many people can only think of dealing with our fellow man by beating them down in war.  What a sad misuse of our potential. Where will all the flowers go?

The alternative to war

As Israel continues to slaughter women and children in Gaze, Hezbollah continues to flatten norther Israel, Russia continues roll back Ukrainian troops in Ukraine, I have tried to follow the pronouncements from all sides. The solution proposed by each is to win the war.

But can winning the war bring peace and security to Israel, to West Bank and Gaza, or to Ukraine? Israel wants to eliminate the Palestinians, but Germany’s genocide of six million Jews did not eliminate Jews. Israel’s genocide of Palestinians will not illuminate them either and even its systematic assassinations of Hamas rulers (most recently Ismail Haniyeh in Iran) will not eliminate Hamas. Peace will not come to Israel, the WBGS, Lebanon, or Syria by winning THE WAR.

 “While Israel has not yet issued an official statement, with the attack [on Haniyeh], it has reinforced the message that it speaks with the language of force above all else…. Assassinating Haniyeh, perhaps the most important member of Hamas’s negotiating team, fits within Israel’s narrative that the only way to achieve an end to the Gaza war is to force Hamas to surrender militarily. To most of the rest of the world, the assassination of a lead negotiator for a potential peace deal is certainly viewed as a bloody sabotage of multinational efforts to end the genocidal war.” “Assassination of Hamas leader Haniyeh”  “From Paris to Beirut-Israels long record of assassinating Palestinians”

As long as the focus remains on winning wars, none of the Middle Eastern countries will be safe and at peace. The countries of the Middle East (or anywhere else) must determine and accept the terms for mutual treatment appropriate for good neighbor relationships. “Israel Hamas Iran Gaza Middle East”   Arriving at such agreements will not be easy, and will not be possible without large majorities of the populations of these countries truly wanting peace and security and being willing to treat each other fairly. “Best way to end Israels war with Gaza” “Why Palestinian unity matters”  But the search for such genuine peace must start with giving up the idea of winning the war and ending the current fighting.

The latest on Social Security Benefits

If no changes are made to the Social Security law: “Starting in 2034… Social Security will only have enough money to pay 79% of its promised benefits.” “Day of reckoning for Social Security draws closer”  The system promises a given pension upon retirement (a defined benefit) that is financed by a given payroll tax. It is not a pool of saving that is drown down at retirement. It is pay as you go. “Saving Social Security”.

This financial problem results from the fact that Americans are living longer and thus receive their SS pension for more years if there is no change in the retirement age. Moreover, the growth in the population has slowed so that the ratio of workers (i.e. those paying the tax financing the pensions of the retired) to retirees has fallen from approximately 3.3 in 1970 to 2.9 in 2020. It is projected to fall further to 2.0 by 2030.

The system must and will change, the only question is how. Legal immigration could be increased to increase the number of workers. The wage tax could be increased. Retirement age could be increased (20% voluntarily work after retirement already). As people live longer many choose to work longer for more than just the extra income. Pension benefits could be indexed to inflation rather than to wage growth (which has been greater than inflation). But more recently I have proposed replacing Social Security and other safety net programs with a Universal Basic Income for every man, woman and child without exception. Such a remake of our social safety net would have several very good features. “Replacing Social Security with a Universal Basic Income”

Econ 101: Trade balance

Everyone understands that we are each wealthier if we buy most of what we consume from others and pay for it with what we specialize in producing ourselves. But at dinner last night one of our guests (Chatham House Rules prevent me from revealing his identity) asked how we can compete with China when their workers are so cheap? The teacher in me rises up to unpack this statement and the related issue of trade balance. It is both complicated and simple.

  1. Are Chinese goods cheaper? Chinese workers are paid in their currency (RMB) and American’s buy China’s output in our currency (USD). If an LED light bulb made in China is sold for 140 RMB is that cheap for American’s? If the exchange rate of RMB for USD is 4 RMB per USD it will cost us $35 per bulb (expensive), but if the exchange rate is 10 RMB per USD it will cost us $14 per bulb (cheap).
  2. So will we buy everything from China? What will the Chinese do with the dollars they receive from exporting to us? They might buy goods from the US (made by workers who used to make LED light bulbs). If the exchange rate is “right”, the Chinese will spend all of those export dollars on imported US products. Trade (imports and exports) will balance.  An exchange rate that makes dollars more expensive in China (RMB cheaper in the US) will decrease China’s imports from the US relative to its exports (a Chinese trade surplus). What will they do with the remaining dollars held in China?
  3. What happens with Chinese trade surplus holding of USD? The Chinese can invest them in the US (buy US Treasury securities, stocks, property, etc.). Or sell them for their own currency driving the exchange rate of RMB for USD down (or up depending on what you put in the denominator). The reduced cost in China of US goods will increase Chinese imports and the higher cost of Chinese good in the US will reduce US imports from China. The Chinese trade surplus (US trade deficit) will vanish (or adjust to the rate of capital flow desired by cross border investors). The incomes of Chinese and American workers will be higher because each will be producing the goods for which they each have a comparative advantage (the win-win of free trade).
  4. Exchange rate manipulation or production subsidies distort the outcome. EU tariffs on Chinese EVs are explicitly set at a level to compensate for Chinese government subsidies of EVs. This is allowed by WTO trade rules to put Chinese and German car manufacturers on a fair, competitive basis. The US’s much higher tariff on Chinese EVs makes no mention of complying with WTO rules (the US again does whatever it wants to the detriment of the global trading system).
  5. Trade balance between US and China is used as a simplification. What matters is the balance between each country and the rest of the world but distilling the world into two countries simplifies the discussion.
  6. Time for the dessert.

The Right to Choose

I have always supported a woman’s right to choose whether to complete a pregnancy up to the point at which another person (her fetus) acquires existence and thus the protection of the law. In my view a fetus becomes a person when viable, i.e. when they are able to live outside the womb. In my opinion, laws that permit abortions that comply with that standard, should not force those who disagree to pay for such abortions. Thus I do not support allowing the Armed services to pay for its member’s wanting an abortion for the travel and related expenses of the abortion. Tax payers should not be forced to pay for such individual choices.

A similar argument has been made about taxpayer funding of elementary education. A Jewish taxpayer should not have to pay for a catholic child’s education in a catholic school or visa versa. But I also favor school choice. How do I defend this use of taxpayer’s money? An abortion up to the allowed age of the fetus is an individual choice. But elementary education is required for all children in the public interest. Thus, it is appropriate that the government (taxpayers) pay for it. But, providing public (i.e. taxpayer’s) money for each child’s education can and should leave the choice of school to each parent. It is appropriate that schools eligible to receive public funds meet minimum standards of curriculum to be covered. School choice not only maximizes the freedom of choice among parents with different religious beliefs and views on the most effect approach to education, but the competition among schools improves the over quality of education. https://wcoats.blog/2021/05/09/the-great-divide-who-decides/

Russia

Russia has become a pain in the ass. Why and what should we do about it? First we must realize and accept that Russia will always be here. Just as Nazi Germany’s Holocaust did not eliminate Jews and Israel’s effort to eliminate Palestinians (sufficiently to have a democratic Jewish Israel from the River to the Sea as stated in Zionist documents) will not succeed, it is not possible, nor would the world accept the morality of eliminating Russia.

So the goal must be to carrot and stick Russia into a neighbor we can live with—even productively and happily live with.  Our approach to Ukraine provides many lessons for what not to do. With the collapse of the USSR, Russia and the other former Soviet Republics passionately wanted to become part of Western “normal” world. It was great fun working with them toward that goal in the early 1990s.

Russia’s great cultural offerings were more open to us. Russia was added to the G7, which became the G8. Russians are a proud people, who had just been humiliated, and wanted respect. But our embraces were more stumbling than they should have been. After reassuring Russia that NATO would not expand one inch East in exchange for the reunification of Germany as a NATO. We lied. NATOs membership doubled from 16 to 32.

Russia swallowed hard and offered conditions for Ukrainian neutrality that were larging acceptable to Ukraine and in any event negotiable. But we didn’t support/encourage Ukraine to negotiate so Russia invaded it. Even two months later when Russia and Ukraine had virtually agreed on the terms for ending the war, we discouraged it. Two and a half years later 100,000 have been confirmed dead. About 60% of the total were Russian. Twice that many are estimated to have died. And damage to Ukrainian cities and country side will take trillions of dollars to repair. https://wcoats.blog/2022/05/15/ukraines-and-russias-war%ef%bf%bc/

A May 24 report from Reuters, stated that Putin himself “is ready to halt the war in Ukraine with a negotiated ceasefire that recognizes the current battlefield lines.” We seem to prefer that “they” continue fighting to the last Ukrainian. After all we have been able to test our military equipment in the field without the loss of American lives. But we must remember the lessons of the Holocaust and Gaza. We can’t wipe Russia off the map. They will be here five, ten, twenty years from now. What do we want our relationship with Russia to be then? What carrots and sticks will get us there?