Russia's Invasion of Ukraine Threatens Further Hikes in Food Prices

Among his other crimes, Putin’s war increases the suffering of the world’s poor and hungry.


Even before Russia invaded Ukraine, food prices were spiking around the world because of supply chain disruptions. A combination of always unpredictable nature, bad policy, and busted supply chains (also largely from policy decisions) hiked the cost of fertilizer for farmers. That threatened agricultural output even as pandemic-era economic disruptions impoverished many people. Now, war further threatens the cultivation of grain and the ability to put affordable meals on many tables. A year that already looked hungry may prove grimmer than expected.

"In a year when the world is already facing an unprecedented level of hunger, it's just tragic to see hunger raising its head in what has long been the breadbasket of Europe," David Beasley, executive director of the United Nations World Food Programme, commented last week. "The bullets and bombs in Ukraine could take the global hunger crisis to levels beyond anything we've seen before."

The immediate crisis is for the residents of Ukraine, whose lives have been disrupted or destroyed by the invasion of their country. As of March 8, an estimated 2 million refugees had sought refuge in neighboring nations. The millions remaining face combat, privation, and the suspension of normal life. For the world beyond, one important concern is that normal life in Ukraine includes growing massive quantities of grain eaten or fed to livestock elsewhere.

Ukraine exports roughly 7 percent of the world's wheat, according to MIT's Observatory of Economic Complexity (other sources have slightly different percentages). The country's farmers also produce 13 percent of all exported corn. Neighboring Russia, which invaded Ukraine and is now subject to economic sanctions as a result, exports 18 percent of the world's wheat and about 2 percent of corn. Some grain might make it to the global marketplace despite the war, but sanctions, ruined crops, and threats to shipping will dramatically reduce the supply. 

Months before the war began, prices for chemicals needed for producing fertilizer had already soared, increasing the cost of raising crops. That was, in part, a result of international demand for natural gas, from which ammonia is sourced to produce nitrogen-rich urea. Disputes over trade policy helped create shortages of other fertilizer inputs.

"In addition to being one of the largest producers of wheat, Russia has enormous resources in terms of nutrients," warns Svein Tore Holsether, president and CEO of fertilizer giant Yara International. "Plants need nitrogen, phosphate, and potash to grow.…In total, 25% of European supply of these three nutrients come from Russia."

Russia recently cut the export of those nutrients to guarantee domestic supply and, probably, to retaliate against nations imposing economic sanctions. That means more trouble for fertilizer production and higher costs for farmers as well as the people they feed. Holsether had predicted a looming "food crisis" long before Russian tanks crossed Ukraine's borders as result of fertilizer costs. Now, he adds that "a world with unstable food supply is a world with famine in parts of the world, increased mortality, armed conflict, migration, riots, and destabilized societies which can further accelerate geopolitical tensions."

Once again, the world was already in bad shape when it came to affordable meals. The food price index, calculated from a basket of commodities by the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization, was up in February by "24.1 points (20.7 percent) above its level a year ago. This represents a new all-time high." Continued conflict can only hike prices further for fuel, grain, and the overall cost of keeping people fed. That's certainly reflected in the commodities markets. Before Russia invaded Ukraine, wheat was priced between $8 and $9 per bushel; it's currently close to $13 per bushel. Corn has seen a similar price jump.

This is all without even getting into the rising cost of energy as a result of the war and international sanctions on Russia, a major exporter of oil and natural gas. The Biden administration has now banned the import of Russian petroleum, though shippers and refiners were already shunning the stuff for fear of reputational risk and restrictions to come. Now we're in for higher prices at the pump, but also for increases in the cost of food production and transport.

"Crude prices shot close to $140 a barrel, grain prices leapt and industrial metals rallied Monday as war in Ukraine and the West's response threatened to hit supplies of commodities that underpin much of the world economy," according to The Wall Street Journal. "The surge builds on weeks of gains for raw materials and stands to add to inflationary pressures ripping through the world economy."

Unfortunately, this all comes after restrictive economic interventions intended to fight the pandemic reversed decades of declining poverty that resulted from free markets and open societies. "In 2021, the average incomes of people in the bottom 40 percent of the global income distribution are 6.7 percent lower than pre-pandemic projections, while those of people in the top 40 percent are down 2.8 percent," the World Bank noted in October 2021. "Globally, three to four years of progress toward ending extreme poverty are estimated to have been lost" and lower-income people are especially vulnerable to rising food costs. Government actions are making the world poorer and hungrier, and there is no more destructive policy than war.

For prosperous countries, expensive food is worrisome and painful. But for developing countries, it can be absolutely catastrophic. "Concerns are growing across the Middle East and north Africa that the war in Ukraine will send prices of staple foods soaring as wheat supplies are hit, potentially fuelling unrest," reports The Guardian. Many countries in that region rely heavily on supplies from Russia and Ukraine. They'll turn to sellers in other agricultural countries, including the United States. But that means more buyers chasing reduced supply.

And, as the war drags on, Ukrainians may not even be able to plant the next year's crop, extending disruptions into the future. Eventually, farmers elsewhere will adjust to meet demand, but that takes time since plants need to grow before they can be harvested.

There's no easy solution to rising food prices and the hunger that will result, because there's no easy solution to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Russian dictator Vladimir Putin found a very effective way of increasing the suffering of an already-troubled world, and seems to have left himself little in the way of an off-ramp (at least, one that he would consider acceptable). The world will eventually recover from this moment and, hopefully, return to its old path of growing prosperity. But the hunger and pain people endure between now and then will have been worsened by the ambitions of a brutal autocrat.

NEXT: Brickbat: The Postman Always Rings Twice

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. "Among his other crimes, Putin’s war increases the suffering of the world’s poor and hungry."

    That may be true, but Nardz says that Putin's invasion of Ukraine is justified because the United States was developing biological weapons in Ukraine--and he has a tweet from a Russian source to prove it!

    And if Kremlin propaganda is making a claim, shouldn't we at least consider both sides?

    Think I'm kidding? I wish I were.

    Nardz really is that stupid.


    1. 1. Nardz did not say the labs justified the invasion.

      2. Victoria Nuland is a well known agent of Kremlin, apparently, parroting Putin's propaganda.

      1. You're an idiot who claims that Putin is shelling Ukrainian cities because he wants to minimize civilian casualties.

        "One of the reasons the Russians are bombarding the two largest Ukrainian cities from afar is because they fear what those irregular armed civilians will do to regular Russian army when the Russians move into those cities"

        ----Ken Shultz

        "Or, perhaps, it is because the Russians want to minimize civilian casualties and have no interest in killing, for all practical purposes, their own people. The cultural bonds between Russians and Ukrainians matter. Just something to consider".

        --------Geiger Goldstaedt

        Only an idiot could really believe that--or truly believe that someone else would find it persuasive. That you're also not smart enough to understand what you read isn't surprising. The Kremlin is using this to justify their invasion, and Nardz is spreading their propaganda. If you're not smart enough to understand what that means, no one is surprised by that either.

        1. Ken lies, then has a shit fit when called out, and posts some more copypasta.

          The only thing his post is missing is a link to the

          1. Pointing out your pro-Putin stupidity isn't a fit.

            That's what you said.

            That's what Narz posted.

            You're a moron, and I can prove it.

            General Premise: Only an idiot would truly believe that the reason Putin is shelling Ukrainian cities is to minimize civilian casualties.

            Specific Premise: Geiger Goldstaedt has repeatedly defended the claim that Putin is shelling Ukrainian cities to minimize civilian casualties.

            Conclusion: Therefore, Geiger Goldstaedt is an idiot.

            1. Ok, SQRSLY.

            2. Shut up, Ken.
              You're acting like sarcasmic right now. You started this thread with a deliberate troll.

              1. "Where can I read about the Russian side of the war? The telegram channel I follow has been cut off. Everything I’m reading is distorted and only showcasing the Ukrainian side. Some of it is obviously false. We need to hear both sides to get to the truth."



                I'm not gonna shut up about some useful idiot flooding a libertarian website with Kremlin propaganda--ever.

                I mean, you're not about to start arguing that Nardz isn't flooding the site with Putin-propaganda, are you? Because he really is.

                When someone is flooding a libertarian website with pro-Putin propaganda for weeks at a time, what should the appropriate reaction be?

                1. "When someone is flooding a libertarian website with pro-Putin propaganda for weeks at a time, what should the appropriate reaction be?"

                  I should add that I'm ruling out bothsideism.

                  1. You really didn't need to add anything, because nobody takes you seriously anymore.

                    1. because nobody takes you seriously anymore

                      Yeah. At this point, it's not clear that Ken wouldn't stand on both the side of Biden and Putin in order to slit Nardz throat for spreading propaganda.

                      I don't like Alex Jones, never listened to him. I don't think he deserved what he got and am fairly certain that from a classically liberal perspective his treatment was repugnant. I'm not even sure Ken wouldn't attack me for saying this.

                2. I mean, you're not about to start arguing that Nardz isn't flooding the site with Putin-propaganda, are you?

                  Or what? You'll denounce him as a Putin stooge? A holocaust denier? Have a stroke?

                  "Ghost of Joe McCarthy" is not a persona worth cultivating.

                  1. [JOIN NOW] I really make A LOT OF MONEY ($200-$300/hour) online from my laptop. Last month I received almost $50,000. this line work is simple and straightforward. uio You don’t need to go to the office, it’s online work from home. You become independent after joining this position. I really appreciate my friend who pointed.
                    It out to me SITE…..,

          1. I imagine ...

            Nobody cares.

          2. Lots of things leftists think is based on their imagination.

            1. Nardz isn't a capitalist, but he isn't a leftist either.

              He's a confused Trump supporter with no critical thinking skills.

              1. What does Nardz have to do with my comment?

                1. Nardz also thinks things based on his imagination. He's so stupid, he links to Russian propaganda on Twitter as an authoritative source.

                  1. Nardz is in your head, rent-free, and it's depressing to watch.

                    1. Nardz is spreading Kremlin propaganda on a libertarian website. We know this because we can see him linking to it with our own eyes.


                      If you don't see that after clicking his link, you're either dishonest or an idiot.

                    2. We have no idea what is actually propaganda, from EITHER side, Ken.

              2. And you've officially fallen into sarc territory with the Trump comment. Trump is anti Russia by the way. So not even sure what you are implying there other than a talking point.

                1. This.

                2. "And you've officially fallen into sarc territory with the Trump comment. Trump is anti Russia by the way."

                  I didn't say Trump was pro-Russia.

                  I was talking about Nardz not being a leftist.

                  Nardz' support for Putin and Trump is further evidence of his lack of critical thinking skills. And, yes, purposely linking to Russian propaganda uncritically is about as good evidence of a lack of critical thinking skills as anything can be.

                  1. Nardz' support for Putin and Trump is further evidence of his lack of critical thinking skills.

                    How is this any different than the stupid shit Rachel Maddow has been saying for the past five years?

                    You are literally parroting Rachel Maddow talking points, and expecting everyone to take you seriously.

                  2. Nardz looks at thing from multiple points of view, unlike the person accusing him of lacking critical thinking skills.

              3. He was clearly talking about Spiritus Mundi ...

            2. Just like Putin, all your detractors are Nazis leftists.

          3. And that's the way it should go.

            They should be treated like holocaust denialists crying, "BOFF SIDZ!"

            You've got this fact and that fact, but the fact is that Hitler murdered millions of Jews for being Jewish, and any claims to the contrary simply aren't worthy of serious consideration;.

            It really isn't hard to understand that Nardz linking to Russian propaganda on Twitter isn't a good reason to seriously consider anything.

            I don't believe in violating these people's rights to be so profoundly stupid. The correct reaction is ridicule and humiliation. When you see someone who openly links to Russian propaganda on Twitter as a justification for anything, we should exercise our First Amendment right to ridiculed and humiliate them for it. That's the American way.

            1. They should be treated like holocaust denialists ...

              Naturally, questioning prevailing government and media narratives surrounding a critical geopolitical conflict is exactly like denying the holocaust.

              The correct reaction is ridicule and humiliation ... [t]hat's the American way.

              Because being an American means ridiculing and humiliating people for considering opposing viewpoints since anyone expressing anything less than complete fealty to the cause is clearly a Russian agent, or dupe.

              This is how stupid neocon cunts talk --- and you, Ken, are a stupid neocon cunt.

              Don't ever pretend to be a libertarian again.

              1. "Naturally, questioning prevailing government and media narratives surrounding a critical geopolitical conflict is exactly like denying the holocaust."

                If you're not smart enough to understand what bothsideism means, that doesn't surprise me.

                Bothsidesism is a media bias in which journalists present an issue as being more balanced between opposing viewpoints than the evidence supports. Journalists may present evidence and arguments out of proportion to the actual evidence for each side, or may omit information that would establish one side's claims as baseless . . . . False balance is a bias, which usually stems from an attempt to avoid bias, and gives unsupported or dubious positions an illusion of respectability.

                ----False Balance


                Holocaust denial and Nardz' links to Russian propaganda on Twitter are the same in that neither one is worthy of serious consideration.

                1. Ken: "Citing Twitter is for idiots ...."


                  Fucking god, dude. You are gone. Lower than sarcasmic at this point. Pure trolling without even a pretense of an argument or a point.

                  1. Is that definition of bothsideism wrong, you idiot?

                    1. Troll harder, dude.

                      And, when you're done, take a look at the comment board. You're losing everyone that ever took you seriously because you are being a fucking troll. You are making sarc look like a decent person with your new brand of bullshit, and that is quite an achievement.

                    2. Ken has lost his fucking mind

        2. You're an idiot who claims that Putin is shelling Ukrainian cities because he wants to minimize civilian casualties.

          OK, so an idiot. But not wrong about Nardz not saying the labs justified the invasion and simply repeating the sworn testimony of "Fuck the EU" Nuland under oath.

          It reminds me of a time here on Reason when I postulated that the police shooting of a black man may've been orchestrated by a mayor, political group, or both and was denounced for, uh, defending/exonerating the police. Like positing them as henchmen in a larger scheme somehow exonerates them.

          Dude, get checked for rabies.

          1. "OK, so an idiot. But not wrong about Nardz not saying the labs justified the invasion and simply repeating the sworn testimony of "Fuck the EU" Nuland under oath."

            The point is that the Kremlin is pushing this as a justification for the invasion of Ukraine and has been since before the invasion.

            If Nardz is pushing Kremlin propaganda out of stupidity, that doesn't mean he isn't pushing Kremlin propaganda.

            My stance is that Nardz is a useful idiot. He's also pushing Kremlin propaganda on purpose--because he believes in it.

            And these are all established facts.

            1. It isn’t propaganda just for originating from Russia. Propaganda is lies and half-truths to manipulate an unreasoned position.

              If Nuland confirms the bio labs, then Putin claiming bio labs IS NOT propaganda. It is the truth.

              The only one I see falling hook line and sinker for propaganda are those otherwise reasonable people with the over-the-top, visceral and unreasoned reactions to the invasion going around calling anyone trying to modulate “Putin stooges”. It is tiresome.

    2. Among his other crimes, Putin’s war increases the suffering of the world’s poor and hungry

      That's some grade-A propaganda. Was it Putin's war that was driving prices up for the last year?

      1. The idea that taking Ukraine's grain off the world market will only serve to raise grain prices--higher than they would be otherwise--doesn't need much support. Decreasing the available supply of grain will lead prices that are higher than they are now OTBE. Because throwing kerosene on a preexisting fire didn't start the fire, doesn't mean it won't make the fire worse.

        1. That wasn't really directed at you, but in any case, this is simply an excuse to deflect from the Biden regime. This could be a non-issue for Americans if the government weren't actively making every supply chain problem worse. I would say the regime is a failure, but it's succeeding at its goal of punishing the American people.

          1. I think there's a lag while society shifts gears. New things happen, and we tend to see them in light of past events. But, sometimes, it really is about the new events.

            IF IF IF the Cold War is starting back up again, when you come back to this post a year from now, you might not think that a post condemning Putin for invading the Ukraine is about Biden.

            1. The cold war had been back for years in the form of China's struggle for world domination. Russia is a has been. The attempt to paint the Ukrainian border war as the new cold war is purely a distraction.

              Fuck Putin, and Russia is clearly wrong for invading Ukraine, and I also find the totally-not-pro-Russia stand staked out by a small minority of the commentariat rather bizarre, but lets not pretend that this war is any more important to the US than it really is just because the same well-funded cabal that has been transparently lying to us for political ends for years wants us to think it is.

              1. "The cold war had been back for years in the form of China's struggle for world domination."

                Among other aspects, the Cold War was a never ending series of proxy wars--much of it over commodities like oil and grain. Over the last 30 years, if oil or wheat was grown anywhere in the world, it was more or less available to the whole world economy. That wasn't true in the Cold War. In the Cold War, if Iran went from supporting the U.S. to being an ally of the Soviet Union, that meant their oil was no longer available to the U.S. market.

                Look at this graph of presidential approval ratings and how closely they tracked gas prices.


                We're decoupling Russia from the world economy is what I'm talking about here, and looking at the economic impact of a country that is effectively decoupled from the rest of the world taking over another country takes on a different meaning when we're talking about their resources effectively disappearing from the world market.

            2. But it is about inflation. And that inflation started long before Putin’s invasion, so pretending that it’s the main cause instead of a contributing factor to increased inflation is fucking asinine.

              I’d also note that it’s not like this fighting between the two just broke out. This has been simmering since at least 2014.

    3. I have lost pretty much all respect I had for you in the past few weeks after seeing your frothing zeal to drink this fresh cup of Kool-Aid, Ken.

      Putin can be a bastard and be correct at the same time. Acknowledging there is more in play than what we are being told SHOULD be considered a sane and sensible response, especially when the authors of Russia! and Pandemic! have put out a new book before midterms.

      1. "Acknowledging there is more in play than what we are being told" is playing falling right into Putin's nefarious trap, I am told.

        1. Better dead than Red!


      2. If you believe anything because Nardz linked to Russian propaganda on Twitter, then you're a retard.

        1. Ken is just surfing on waves of retard drool that the rest of us morons are producing because Putin has stimulated our salivary glands with his insidious propaganda!

          1. Consistently linking to Putin's propaganda over a series of weeks--and regurgitating it seriously--is good evidence that you're a Putin propaganda aficionado.

            1. Victoria Nuland confirmed the existence of biolaboratories in Ukraine under oath at a hearing before the Senate, and expressed concerns about their seizure by the Russian military. Until that admission, the government and nearly every major media outlet vociferously denied the existence of the labs at all, dismissing the allegation that they existed as a conspiracy theory or Russian propaganda.

              Is Victoria Nuland a stooge because her admission lends some support to what the Russians have been saying? Doesn't the sudden reversal from our government concern you, even a little?

              1. The U.S. did the same thing with the former Soviet Union's biological warfare labs in Ukraine that it did with Ukraine's nukes. We started working with them to repurpose those labs back in 1991. We became especially concerned about making them secure during the War on Terror because Ukraine was an incredibly corrupt country, and we were concerned that terrorists might acquire biological weapons from the Ukraine to use against us. So we had an interest in helping a poor country secure their labs.

                We've been doing this since 1991 and 2005, and anyone who believes Putin's propaganda when they say this was a justification for Putin's invasion of Ukraine is an idiot--much like someone who claims Putin is shelling Ukrainian cities to minimize civilian casualties or claims that the Ukrainian people would want to lick Putin's boot if it wasn't for the CIA. Anyone who believes Kremlin propaganda about this or anything else because Nardz links to it on Twitter is an idiot.

                Some things, like holocaust denialism, simply aren't worthy of serious consideration, and Putin's propaganda justifying the invasion of Ukraine is one of them. I don't expect you to understand that because you've repeatedly demonstrated that you're a moron. If you understand anything you read, it's probably by accident. And the fact that you read Putin's propaganda and regurgitate without criticism is further evidence that you lack critical thinking skills.

                1. Stop fucking dancing for two seconds and answer the question posed:

                  Is Victoria Nuland a stooge because her admission lends some support to what the Russians have been saying? Doesn't the sudden reversal from our government concern you, even a little?

                  1. Because the United States has had an interest in securing Ukraine's biological weapons facilities since 1991 is not a justification for Putin to invade the Ukraine in 2022, and anyone who believes otherwise is an idiot.

                    Anyone who believes the Ukrainian people would have wanted to be subjugated by Putin's cronies if it wasn't for the CIA is also an idiot--regardless of whether the CIA was in Ukraine.

                    Anyone who believes that Putin is shelling Ukrainian cities because he wants to minimize civilian casualties is an idiot, and anyone who believes anything because Nardz links to Russia propaganda on Twitter is an idiot.

                    All of these things are stupid, and if you believe all of them, then you believe stupid things for stupid reasons--and you are profoundly stupid.

                    1. Answer the question, Ken.

                    2. Dude, you've lost all credibility and have become a joke.
                      Anyone who wants to imitate you can simply post some long tirade followed with "If you disagree then you're stupid, inferior, mentally defective, and otherwise broken." Boom! They're Ken!

                    3. Sarc, I have no idea why you're crowing.

                      He sounds like you.

                    4. Sarc, I have no idea why you're crowing.

                      He sounds like you.

                      Really? When do I attack people? When do I say the only reason to disagree with me is being stupid or retarded?
                      No, I mute those who respond to me with sentences that are filled with "you" because they're about me, not what I said.
                      I consistently look at points of view that I disagree with without attacking the person.

                2. Shorter Ken: If you disagree with me then there's something physically wrong with you.

                  (not that I mind Ken showering trolls with shit, but he's still being an ass)

                    1. Look, you made a friend.

                3. We've been doing this since 1991 and 2005, and anyone who believes Putin's propaganda when they say this was a justification for Putin's invasion of Ukraine is an idiot

                  Wow. OK, so paying an admittedly corrupt foreign government to secure their weapons lab research = good. Paying an admittedly corrupt foreign lab to perform GOF research = bad. The real problem in Wuhan was that they weren't securing their facility. Your complaint about Fauci wasn't that he was paying Wuhan for what amounted to bioweapons out of the taxpayers' pockets. It's that he wasn't paying them enough to secure their work. Good to see you stand for good ole Libertarian principles like cutting spending, individualism, and non-intervention.

                  1. The question isn't whether it's good or bad.

                    The question is whether the U.S. helping the Ukrainians secure Soviet era biological weapons since the early 1990s is valid pretext for Putin to invade Ukraine in 2022.

                    That's Nardz' claim--citing Kremlin propaganda (in Russian).

        2. Ken, you're in complete denial of reality while substituting it woith propaganda. Take your statements on polish miss being a good thing. Yet the us blocked that transfer by not helping.

          You propagandized the announcement without realizing on follow it isnt happening.

          Your takes are how the Iraq war began.

          1. Polish migs

        3. It's not about Nardz... This is about the red flag waving in front of your face and you charging full tilt into the slaughterhouse, Ken.

          Think, Ken. Question sources. Confirm bias.

          Should you REALLY be trusting the people pushing Russia! 2.0?

      3. You don't get it. If someone like Nardz looks at something from another point of view, then that person must necessarily agree with that point of view. That's what makes Nardz a Putin apologist. Nardz has to agree that Putin is correct. Otherwise he wouldn't post the point of view. There is no other explanation. Merely looking at other points of view is the same as agreeing with them. Just like when I said that not every BLM protestor was a rioter. That meant that I fully support BLM. There is no other explanation. So Ken is just being like JesseAZ and the rest of the trolls you're trying to impress. You should be praising Ken.

        1. How cute. You can't stand someone else trolling without jumping in lol. You just did what you accuse Ken of dumbass.

        2. By the way. How long and how many times have you used trump cultist because of someone else's differing view?

          You truly are the biggest hypocrite I've ever see lol.

        3. You have absolutely no room to talk here, SQRLcasmic.

          1. Really? When did I start saying that the only explanation for people disagreeing with me is them having a physical or mental defect? I argue with what people say, not with people. You, like the trolls you apparently want to be like, attack me as a person while ignoring what I actually say. This is what Ken is doing. Rather than respond to what Nardz is saying, he attacks Nardz as a person.

            Oh and "You have absolutely no room to talk here, SQRLcasmic." is a textbook tu quoque.

            Look it up. Stop being an ass.

            1. lol, you want to be taken seriously now.

          2. And no I didn't ignore your totally clever and original attempt to say me and Squirrely are the same person. So clever. So original. So stupid.

    4. Ken, you've completely fallen into sarc territory with just trolling.

      1. Exactly this.

        Ken and Sarc are two sides of the same stupid coin.

        1. He even called Nardz a trump supporter to dismiss him despite the fact trump came out against Russia, his own side.

          Just like sarc attacking trump and anti mandate supporters while claiming to be anti mandate.

          1. I didn't say Nardz was a Putin supporter because she support Trump.

            Nardz is perfectly capable of being both a Trump supporter and irrational about Putin.

            For goodness' sake,

            1) Nardz is both a Trump supporter.

            2) Nardz is linking to Putin's bullshit propaganda justifications for invading Ukraine.

            Why is it wrong to think that Nardz is both a Trump supporter and a Putin supporter?

            Why is it impossible for Nardz to be an idiot--despite his idiotic behavior and lack of critical thinking skills?

            1. Why is it wrong to think that Nardz is both a Trump supporter and a Putin supporter?


              After 5 years of Russiagate, this is Ken's new shtick.

              1. 5 years of Russiagate and 2 (and running) of GOF research in Wuhan. The notion that Americans have an obligation to pay for securing Ukranian weapons labs is just astounding. Especially in the face of the CDC and FDAs mishandling of COVID.

                1. "The notion that Americans have an obligation to pay for securing Ukranian weapons labs is just astounding."

                  Whether we have an obligation wasn't the issue.

                  Ukraine was extremely corrupt, and Russia's old biological weapons were poorly secured. During the War on Terror, the U.S. government was worried that Al Qaeda, or some other terrorist group, would obtain those biological weapons, either by theft or buying them from some corrupt official, and so the U.S. government, correctly or incorrectly, decided it would be in our best interests to help the Ukrainians secure them.

                  Whether we think that was a good idea or a bad idea is immaterial. The question is whether having done this to some degree since the early 1990s represented a threat to Russian security sufficient to justify Putin's invasion of Ukraine, and the answer is no. It's a bullshit Kremlin propaganda excuse that Putin has been selling to his own people, and anyone who considers it seriously is making a fool of themselves--like Nardz.

                  1. It's not so much bullshit, as it is to simplistic and only part of the explanation. Russia's been voicing these concerns since Yeltsin. The reason Putin's acting now is high energy costs have put him in a place where he can afford the war (or so he predicted), at his age,time is running out to achieve any of his goals, US and Europe are weakened, and because of green policies Europe is now dependent on him for energy.

                  2. Whether we think that was a good idea or a bad idea is immaterial

                    It only matter what Ken thinks.

    5. Wow, you two have really gone full cunt at each other. How incredibly disappointing.

      1. As much as I like to make fun of Nardz, I'd never call him a cunt.

    6. Yikes. Ken is broken. US officials have said the labs exist. They were on our websites until last week.

    7. You know we did have bio labs there, right?

    8. This comment section is tearing apart!!!!

    9. Russia's Invasion of Ukraine Threatens Further Hikes in Food Prices
      Among his other crimes, Putin’s war increases the suffering of the world’s poor and hungry.

      To get this thread on the original topic, now's a great time to learn to can, get jars, lids, bands, pressure cookers, pots, jar lifters, recipes, a SodaStream, a food dehydrator, and a air cooker!

      Bonus points for homebrewing kegs, hygrometers, taps, bottles, and caps. Even if you ďon't drink, beer and wine can make for a great barter commodity!

      And if you can move to a place with even as much as 20' x 20' of raised bed garden space, Jackpot!

      Putin, Biden, Xi, The Saudi Royal Family, The Ayatollahs, and Maduro in Venezuela can all go screw if you have the means raise, grow, prepare, preserve and smartly purchase food and drink! Fight global tyranny and outlive the bastards!

  2. Reason's leading economics expert says there have been no increases in food prices. The i-word is a myth. Biden is doing such a fantastic job, you see, the only way to criticize him is to make stuff up.


    PS — Maybe spittin' tobaccy has gone up 10 cents per pouch, but that's not a proper "food" item.

    1. Weighed against a hiatoric decrease in hot dog prices, I think we can say America is fine, don't believe your lyin' eyes.

    2. Did you see that even Vox has stooped to levels?

  3. Many countries in that region rely heavily on supplies from Russia and Ukraine. They'll turn to sellers in other agricultural countries, including the United States. But that means more buyers chasing reduced supply.

    Is that not a good opportunity for U.S. farmers? Voids in the market will be filled ...

    1. It's almost like there are silos full of corn going to waste in ethonol scams...

    2. As far as it can help, yes, but there are factors beyond just the raw volume of food. I spent Nov 2020 - Dec 2021 driving a tractor trailer. Truck diesel has gone from $3.39 at the truck stop up the street from my shop (which, irritatingly, only opened like a month ago, because it would have been super convenient for that year...) to $5.01 in the last two weeks.

      I drove three trucks over the course of that year that averaged about 10.5, 6.5, and 8 MPG. (Freightliner Cascadia, Peterbilt 389 configured for heavy haul, and a Volvo VNL 760 respectively.) I did the math, and going from $2.50 / gallon I was seeing at the time, and looking at $5 a gallon based on predictions of Biden doing, well, basically exactly what he's done, I predicted that my company would have to go from an average minimum of $4.00 per mile from a broker, we'd have to move to a minimum of $5.00 per mile to cover the increased fuel costs, the continued costs of amortization of the truck purchase price, maintenance, etc. It would have worked out notionally well for me as a driver, because I was paid 25% of the brokered value of the load so I'd have effectively gotten a 25% raise, though I obviously realize it wouldn't really work out in the end.

      If shipping costs go up 25%, the price of food is bound to follow just because it will cost everyone more to get it to where it needs to go.

      This is especially true if we're trying to feed Europe with American corn and wheat. We need to fucking drill and drill hard. The only upside I can see to this is that it's going to boil the frog *way* too fast, and might inspire a serious backlash against this whole "not drilling" thing. But it's going to suck out loud in the interim.

      1. As far as the food supply issue goes, I have recently learned that Ukraine is approximately 80% of the size of Texas. Which, on one hand, was kinda surprising, because I didn't realize it was that large, mostly because it's always got big 'ol Russia lurking over its shoulder on the map. On the other hand, Texas is just one state. We have others. Some of them are even fertile. (Not mine, unless you like tumbleweeds and goatheads.) We could probably cover a 7% dip in food supplies, and it's actually pretty well timed as far as seasons go. Plant an extra 10% everywhere and we've pretty much solved that. Plenty of fields lie fallow for one or several years to rotate them, and they occasionally get left for longer than needed. I expect there's enough prepped but unused farmland in the US to cover it.

        1. Speaking of food supply, doesn't the government buy up a large portion of domestic food production just to burn it? Couldn't we just not burn that portion and cover what's missing?

          1. It hasn't been buying much the last couple of years because prices are above the cutoff. They purchase when prices are below the cutoff, but for two years now they've been above the cutoff price. And not to mention, yields have been decreasing due to expanding drought conditions for the past two years, and there hasn't been enough slack in demand to allow the government to purchase stocks.

        2. You have several mistakes. First, we couldn't make up the difference. Most of the grain producing regions are headed into year 3 or more of drought, so yields are far down. Operating costs are sky high. Most farmers don't practice fallow anymore, because they've switched to minimal till or no till systems that allow them to plant every year, without the need for fallow. About the only people still using fallow are organic growers because they can't use minimal or no till because of pesticide rules. And they're still an extremely small portion of the market. CRP acres have been decreasing every year for over a decade, and there are very few acres in CRP. And it's already to late to pull them out of CRP to plant this year (have to spray them out before your can plant, and remove the excess residue) many parts are already planting, and others will be starting within the next two weeks or so. And even if we did have many acres of fallow, there's a reason most of them would be in fallow, and has nothing to do with government programs. You put a field in fallow because it's depleted and you need a season for it to recover. So, if you planted it, it would yield very low, even with massive inputs of fertilizer and pesticides (another reason to fallow is to break disease and insect and weed cycles, which are addressed with pesticides in modern continuous cropping scenarios). No, we don't have enough slack to make up for Ukraine, let alone Ukraine and Russia, due to a variety of conditions, most of which pre-existed the current crisis.

          1. Not to mention, most have already bought seed, and there isn't much seed left at this time of year, to plant extra acres (besides seed prices have also risen).

    3. Not really as most of our important grain growing region are heading into year 3+ of a drought with the predictions it will break. Harvest last year was down, and will be down even further this year as a result. The few grain growing areas getting moisture are getting to much which will likely slow planting. Price of gas, price of fertilizer and price of pesticides are all up significantly, cutting into this. Also, with recent spikes many farmers are selling any stored grain they have left from last year, further reducing supplies. And they don't have much stored grains, I know our elevator is about empty and begging farmers to bring wheat in, but no one has much, last year most averaged under 20 bushels an acre, when normally the average 30-35 bushels an acre.

      Cattle inventory is also down because of the drought, I know I didn't retain any heifers, and most ranchers didn't either. Hay was up 50% from the previous year last summer from increased gas and second year of the drought. Guys were buying hay from four or five states away. The cattle inventory usually takes about three years to improve, as you don't breed your heifers until after their first year, usually around 15-18 months old. So, I don't see inventory increasing much, if at all. We'd love to increase but with grass shortages from the drought, increased operating costs and increased feed costs, I predict the national herd average will continue to decline this year. I won't be keeping any of my cows that lose a calf this spring, can't carry them and would rather use the grass I will have for those that have a calf at their side.

      1. In a good year, I would likely allow her to breed one more time, as a cow really doesn't pay for herself until she is 5 yo on averahe. I was trying to expand my herd before the drought, and now I'll most likely be contracting.

        Another thing to consider is machinery costs are up. Farmers and ranchers use their trucks hard, which means we replace them more often than most Americans, we also put a lot of miles on them. Already tight margins have resulted in fewer purchase of new equipment, which has resulted in less used equipment. The chip shortage really hurts production of farm and ranching equipment, modern farm equipment are highly computerized. With costs and drought, I wouldn't be surprised if they are planning on planting fewer acres to. There is almost no moisture in the soil profile, until you get way deep, and annual wheat and corn don't have deep roots. Plus you need moisture to get the seed started, and right now we'll be planting into dust. You also need moisture to activate nitrogen fertilizer, so I know many guys are just not going to use started fertilizer this year, because there's no moisture right now, and it cost to much (although many still have inventory from last year because they didn't do any in crop fertilizing or very little due to the drought). It's just a waste of money putting down fertilizer if you don't have any hope for moisture.

        Another consideration is the mild winter will likely increase our already high population of grasshoppers. It's not so much grasshopper numbers increase during drought (they do, but it's not as significant as most farmers think). No, the problem is grasshoppers concentrate in fields during drought, and the plants suffer more damaged because they can't repair the damage as well. I know looking at the USDA grasshopper forecast for Montana, it's pretty red across most the state. And spraying for grasshoppers only provided minimal relief, as many species have multiple life cycles during the summer. The only good thing going on this front is the upper plains are supposed to remain cool this spring which may delay emergence of grasshoppers. And grasshoppers do a lot of crop and pasture damage. They ate more of my pastures last year than my cows did. There are some decent bio-controls for hoppers but they take time, and I don't know how much time we'll have this year. I've been pretty lucky, as the topography around my ranch means I get all the run off, surface and subsurface from the surrounding area (I'm at the head waters of a major creek in the area) so last year I was one of the last areas that still had green grass during the summer. But the creek has been dry since last June, other than a few waterholes, and even those waterholes, which almost never go dry, were dry by the end of the fall.

        I sold 17% of my mature cows last year and 100% of my heifer calves. Fifty percent of my herd now is immature, first calf heifers. Which raises my operating costs too. Heifers require more monitoring during and following calving, which means starting in three weeks I am going to have to at least double my travel. And my truck really needs replacing, so the money I was budgeting for other projects this summer will now get spent on that, which means I will be robbing Peter to pay Paul for at least some of the projects I need to get done (I'll most likely be begging my banker to increase my operating loan). So my loan payments and truck payments are going up. Yeah, calf prices are good right now, and they shouldn't go down much because inventory is contracted, but buyers also don't like to spend money on calves when feed costs are so high.

        My calves are on the smaller side (because I calve later so I don't have to feed lactating cows for long), which buyers usually pay a premium for, as it's cheaper to feed them to finish (it sounds counterintuitive but trust me, it is) but the trade off is you get paid by the pounds. I would like to wait until January to sell, I made considerably more, especially on my heifers, than my friend did who sold in December, but it will depend on how much hay I can put up and purchase. Last year I took a pasture out of rotation to cut enough hay. I will probably have to do the same this year, but the yield is going to be lower.

  4. Let them drive Teslas eat cake!

  5. Does this mean we can finally be done with ethanol screwing up our engines? We can stop paying farms for not producing and actually feed our own nation?

    But then where will the kickbacks go?

    1. Bingo.

    2. I often get my gas at a station next to the local airport. They sell gas without ethanol. Why? Because ethanol ruins engines, and you can't have airplanes fall out of the sky because government forced them to use corrosive fuel.

      1. I often get my gas at a station next to the local airport.

        That's also where you got your syphilis.

      2. Didn't you mute me already? If no, can I see the list and entry requirements?

        1. Ahhh, so you want to be one of the cool kids I never read nor reply to because they talk about people instead of what they say. As you wish. You're cool now.

    3. Given the strength of the ethanol lobby, and the idiots who are in charge, I have zero hope that ethanol rules will change. The real solution is to start getting rid of the de o rats, then start in on the RINO’s.

  6. Put the blame where it’s due. Smack on the US. For fomenting civil war in Ukraine by funding Nazi mercenaries in 2014.

    There is no more concrete proof of being affiliated with a group than working for or funding that group.

    Every one of you supporting the current government of Ukraine is a Nazi. You work for Nazi goals.

    You can’t claim ignorance of this fact anymore. Just recognize the extent of this global conspiracy.

    If you or the current government of Ukraine don’t care about principles, what’s the civil war there about? Is war just how you get what you want?

    Impeach Biden for being a Nazi.

    “These people Mr. Biden is cutting checks to in Ukraine aren’t being labeled fascists the way the term is thrown around on Twitter. They are full-on, jackbooted, stiff-armed, “Heil Hitler,” cheering-at-Nuremberg Rallies Nazis — and they’re proud of it.”

    1. Look, Misek got disinvited to the Sturmfag reunion. Did you finally find something that wasn't blamed on Jews?

      1. Zelensky is a Jew.

        1. So were Hitler, Himmler and Goering, according to you.

          1. You’re a liar. Cite your proof.

            1. Already did that, stormfag. But you knew that.

              1. No cite. You’re a loser.

            2. No, you’re the liar. We’ve tried over and over to straighten your Nazi ass out, but you’re too stupid and bigoted to learn. You have zero credibility here. So why do you bother coming back? At this point you’re so reviled that we only want to crush your argument and beat you down. Which is still far better than you deserve.

              So take your Nazi ass out of here, or better yet, kill yourself.

              1. You’re a liar. Cite where you or anyone else has refuted anything I’ve said.

                You won’t because you can’t. Crush that.

                1. *gasps*

                  Is it... Time for the UBERMENTION? That singular Red Cross memo that proves the entire fucking world is lying about the Holocaust?

                  Lay it on me, big source daddy.

                  1. Jews working together with Nazis in Ukraine. Just like the old days.

                    Demonstrating clearly that Jews have no lasting hatred for Nazis. Jews simply use “Nazis” as a bogeyman scapegoat, to generate shekels from their waste of skin lying go fund me pages.

                    It’s gonna be interesting to see how Nazis take the fall in Ukraine after being funded by Jews and the US.

                    1. No, YOU are a Nazi. You’re a fascist and want to wipe out the Jews. You also keep posting some absurd nonsense that proves nothing and has been refuted many times. No one here be,wives you and no one wants to listen to a genocidal Nazi asshole. Which is what you are.

                    2. If you can’t demonstrate, cite any evidence at all of your claim that I “ want to wipe out the Jews.” You’re just a waste of skin liar.

                      That’s what you are.

    2. The blame is due on Putin for ordering tens of thousands of armed men to invade a neighboring country to kill people and blow things up. Stop excusing widespread murder and destruction.

      Certainly, Biden and the European leaders could have and should have done more to negotiate a peaceful resolution before the invasion, but don't lose sight of who the criminal is here.


        Can you read that print?

        1. More lies from Nazi scum. Fuck off and die, asshole.

          1. You deny what you can’t refute.

            1. Go away. We’re all Jooooosssssss here.

              1. That’s a typical response of someone who can’t prove what they claim nor refute what they deny, liar. You’re pathetic.

  7. Relax. Rumors are, we’re sending over Kamala to address the crisis. Her first priority is root causes, which likely will include some combination of racism, climate change, TDS, and, perhaps, Putin’s revanchism.

    I’m assuming she knows who Putin is.

    1. I don't think sleeping with Putin will resolve the conflict.

      1. Putin's standards are likely much higher than that.

        1. Russian Standards.

          1. Russian women are like Scandinavian women (which isn't surprising considering Russia and Ukraine cultures were formed by Scandinavian merchant lords intermarrying with Slavic people). Extremely attractive when they are young, but not so much once they've aged, for the most part.

    2. "Oh, Mr. Putin. I just love your fried potatoes with cheese curds and brown gravy."

      1. There's a menu idea. The Putin poutine, with lots of red sauce.

    3. Putin is the leader of a country called Russia...

      1. I see what you did there. Funny.

  8. Tuccille is in full-on gaslighting mode with this article.

    For the last two and a half years we've all known that massive inflation was on the way due to governments and international corporations spending more money than in all of history. And we all knew they planned to address their debt load through inflation.

    We also knew that the Democratic Party and it's international Davos pals were desperately searching for a wag the dog scenario, to save their asses from the furious serfs.

    Now, exactly as predicated, a whole slew of articles come out blaming a war that's only currently being fought by Russia and the Ukraine for all the worlds inflation.

    1. +1

    2. When goods like oil or food are suddenly taken off the market but demand remains constant, prices should rise, shouldn't they?

      Addressing debt through inflation benefits the debtor at the expense of the banks, doesn't it? You think governments are instituting policies that benefit debtors at the expense of the banks? Wouldn't that be a significant change in their direction?

      1. Oil and gasoline prices are responding to the supply disruption and sanctions. But that doesn't mean we should ignore the past year of transitory 7.5% inflation from the lockdowns and runaway spending before the war even started.

        1. I don't think anyone is ignoring it, but there's not much we can do about it, as you mention all this was in place years before. We can however do something about the conflict in Ukraine. Sanctions, embargoes and escalation will only make things worse. We need diplomatic solutions, something which doesn't seem to be on the horizon.

          Do you agree that the Democrats have switched sides and are now appeasing 'the serfs' at the expense of the bankers, heretofore their long time allies? The implication is the Republicans still side with the banks and want to address the debt by austerity for the debtors to the advantage of the bankers.

          1. Plenty of war hawks on both sides right now. And notice how the peace movement gets no coverage. No coverage for Code Pink and related groups. Since we now have a democrat as the resident president, who’s kind of in charge.

            Plus Biden is desperate for a diversion from his abortion of a presidency. So. now, one of the least capable human beings alive has to face down one of the most formidable sociopaths on the planet, with nukes in reserve all around.

            We are in deep trouble on a level that hasn’t existed since the Cuban mussel crisis.

      2. Prices have been skyrocketing for a lot longer than Russia has been in Ukraine.

        1. "Prices have been skyrocketing"

          The price of gas and oil has been skyrocketing since the invasion of Ukraine. I don't think it's wise to minimize the consequences of the invasion on the world economy.

          1. How about minimizing the consequences of shutting ourselves out of the Russian market?

            1. It's worked so well for Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea etc, what could possibly go wrong?

          2. Gas and oil rose precipitously in 2021, also, so the increase is on top of already high petroleum prices. Blaming it on Russia is a distraction. Even with out Russian military action gas prices and fertilizer prices and pesticide prices were already higher than most people could afford. They've become even worse now. Add in drought, a swine flu outbreak and avian flu outbreak, plus California's stupid pork laws, and we were already seeing tight livestock inventories, high feed prices, and higher operating costs. To most Americans this is a new worry, but farmers and ranchers have known about this since last year, and have been planning, as much as we can, to combat it. Russia-v-Ukraine just makes things worse. As always, the urban media is late to the party and still way behind the curve on understanding the depth of the problem.
            Two of the largest and oldest cattle ranches were sold last year in Montana, one of them completely liquidated, and was purchased by a group that's taking it out of production. Over a 1000 head of breeding cows gone. The other was bought by a consortium of investors headed by Taylor Sheridan, and they've said they plan on keeping it in production. With the success of Yellowstone and the spinoffs, he has the money to get into a tough market.

            1. "Blaming it on Russia is a distraction."

              Because the real enemy is Biden and his transgender toilets. This is why Russia is destined to come out ahead in this conflict and the US will find itself weakened.

              1. When it comes to the economy, yes, Biden is a bigger threat than Russia, as the current crisis will end, but Biden doesn't appear to want to end the policies that have put us in this situation any time soon.

                1. "When it comes to the economy, yes, Biden is a bigger threat than Russia"

                  You're mystifying the issue by giving far too much credit for Biden's power to direct things and underestimating the world wide scope and depth of the influence of the invasion.

              2. Yeah, Russia made the hole deeper, but if we hadn't already dug ourselves into a hole to start with, or had already started filling that hole, the hole wouldn't be nearly as deep.

                1. Focus on how deep the whole is going to get rather than how it would be fractionally shallower if your partisan wishes had come true.

          3. The price of gas and oil has been skyrocketing since

            ...the regime shut down a huge chunk of the American energy sector--nearly at the start of Biden's installation.

            But, hey, you go ahead and pretend that gas in over 4 bucks a gallon because of what they did yesterday.

            1. And they try to deflect by pointing to unused leases without realizing that no one wants to put the investment into developing leases with as much uncertainty as the administration's energy policies have created. Why spend millions developing a new well, if the government might shut you down at any moment. Add in worker shortages, some of which are due to the fact that the workers needed are older than the average American workers and we haven't been training or educating young people for these careers for several decades now and it has created a real problem. Trust me, I live in a heavy oil producing region, and we have plenty of oil and gas deposits that have been explored but not drilled, but the Biden administration's new rules on methane from wells, flare-offs, shutting down pipeline construction (both the major pipelines Dakota Access and Keystone would have been major transporters of oil from our fields) and opposition to new pipelines are all keeping the drillers from planning on much drilling this year. We produce a ton of natural gas, but it's to expensive to ship it anywhere but locally, so most of it gets burned off at the wells, because it's secondary to oil. They've been wanting to build a pipeline to deliver it from here in Eastern Montana and Western North Dakota, to St Louis since early in the Obama administration, but it hasn't been built because of the EPA and green policies (even under Trump, the EPA wasn't cooperative). The gas is being produced, can't get the oil without it, so it's getting burned at the wells for the most part, so it isn't like it's actually not getting burnt, it's just currently not getting used for anything when it gets burnt. All of our old coal fired plants have gone gas, and we've built new gas fired plants, but we're still only using a fraction of it. If we could transport it to St Louis, and other urban areas it would be used for a variety of beneficial uses, as well as it could be exported too, via the Mississippi. Once again the opposition to pipelines is doing more damage to the environment than preventing damage.

              Additionally, I've read several pieces today from the left saying even if Biden reversed his policies, and we increased drilling and restarted pipeline construction, it wouldn't have any impacts for awhile on production. That is true, but they are also being disingenuous when they extrapolate this to mean it would have no impact on oil prices. Oil and gas, like most commodities spot prices are based on future's prices and traders and retailers both want some stability in their predictions. They've been pricing in the President's policies since before he even took office. An announcement of a reversal of these policies (be even better if it was paired with legislation to make those changes more long term) would likely calm the market, and may even begin to decrease prices in the coming months. And nothing in any of his or the Whitehouse's communications indicates at all that he wants to or is planning on changing course.

              1. "And nothing in any of his or the Whitehouse's communications indicates at all that he wants to or is planning on changing course."

                He may nevertheless change course on this issue or any other. The current course which led us into the situation is politically and economically unsustainable.

                1. You would think, but all indications is he is digging in his heels. Maybe after November he'll maybe moderate or change courses.

                  1. Heels can be undug with the stroke of a pen or a phone call.

                2. The other thing that worries me, is that inflation may be tamed not by any policy change, but by the growing threat of recession.

      3. Can you loan me a couple hundred grand?

        I’m assuming you’re loaded because inflation fucks everyone, especially lower and middle class people.

        If you’re not loaded, stop shilling for the fucking aristocracy.

        1. For debtors it is better to pay off debt in inflated dollars.

          1. Only for people with slack in their income, but for the vast majority of the country, including many small and medium businesses, they don't have the necessary slack. So, it'll benefit the top but hurt most everyone else.

            1. Although if you can find some slack, it might be the time to start looking at a savings account or revising your savings account. I'm trying to get our church counsel to look at this.

          2. yes, but milk and gas costs hit everyone.
            not everyone that is poor is also a debtor, you fucking ass.

            1. Wages should inflate too. Given the recent events, inflation may be one of our lesser concerns.

              yes, but milk and gas costs hit everyone."
              A bicycle and a vegan diet may be part of your future. You'll need the bicycle to get to your job polishing wind mills.

              1. Vegan diets require much more inputs than animal agriculture, so their prices will be even higher, soon. The article mentioned wheat and corn but didn't look at soybeans and dry edible beans, major sources of protein for vegetarian and vegan diets. They're also experiencing price increases. And don't rely on fish or eggs. Gas prices are likely to result in many of the North American fishing fleet to retire, and the fleet has already been contracting and aging. Avian flu also resulted in massive slaughter of both egg and broiler chickens.

                1. "The article mentioned wheat and corn but didn't look at soybeans and dry edible beans, major sources of protein for vegetarian and vegan diets."

                  A lot of vegans and other food conscious types go to great lengths to avoid soy. It's hardly the vegan staple you make it out to be. Most of it goes into feeding the cattle whose meat you consume.

                  "Vegan diets require much more inputs"

                  Inputs are good. A varied diet is a wholesome diet.

                2. All of which proves that we can’t act fast enough to get rid of our democrats.

      4. Governments are the biggest debtors. Central banks cover for the banks.

    3. Yup. That was exactly my thought. It's not the government fucking us over, it's the darn war that we had nothing to do with!

      Food prices are going up because gas prices are going up, and if we hadn't responded by banning Russian gas and fucking ourselves over by banning all Russian commerce, we might not notice the very marginal effect this would have on the world's food supplies. Especially if this conflict gets resolved in the next two weeks.

      It was never COVID that caused the supply problems, it was the overbearing response to COVID. It's not the conflict that's causing insane gas prices, it's the overbearing response to the conflict.

      1. Food supplies were already tight, due to bad weather, high gas prices and high chemical and fertilizer prices (in January fertilizer was had increased by nearly 300% above last January). Ukraine is in the middle of their planting season and very few acres have been planted. Grains are a commodity and like all commodities priced based upon predictions of future conditions. If the war ended tomorrow, Ukraine would still be unlikely to plant close to normal acreage at this point. Additionally, Ukraine hasn't been able to ship stores grain because of the war. The Russians have basically turned the Black Sea into a no go zone for merchant shipping. Shipping by rail and truck to western European ports is costlier and less efficient, not to mention much of that infrastructure has been damaged as a result of the war. Like most urban based media, Reason seems to have only a shallow understanding of the depth of the problem. It was already going to be a tough year for American farmers and ranchers, but it just got even tighter. Additionally, farming and especially ranching, take much longer than a single season to recover from these problems. Food inflation was set to go up even more even before the war.

        The markets have been responding to it even before Russia invaded, even before Russia began their troop buildup. Just for an example, wheat was $9 a bushel national average last December but was $5.24 a bushel in December of 2020.

        The other benchmark to look at is wheat follows fairly predictable pattern, starting to decrease as spring progresses (southern hemisphere is harvesting spring wheat at that time, and the Southern plains are starting to harvest winter wheat so inventories are up), then slowly increases over the summer and then begin to decrease around the start of September as we in the northern hemisphere, are finishing harvest of spring wheat. The decrease usually continues through the end of October to mid November, when prices begin to steadily increase, usually spiking around mid-January, remaining flat until mid-February, as farmers in the Northern Hemisphere sell off stored grains, then prices begin to decrease again, for the reasons I listed. Last year prices started rising in June and didn't stop, and rose significantly after spring wheat harvest. Corn and soybeans have a similar pattern, though because of their longer growing season, the months vary a little. They both followed a similar pattern last year, continuing into this year, as wheat. Additionally, the USDA has been reducing it's prediction of planted acres for the growing season that is just starting, due to the drought conditions and operating costs. As I said before, nitrogen fertilizers don't work without moisture, so many used much less fertilizer last year and will likely use even less this year. This also impacts production, and especially protein content. Even putting it down is useless if you're planting into dust. Unless conditions change drastically, yields, which were already down across most the domestic grain growing regions last year, are set to be even lower. Canada isn't in much different conditions either, although they have gotten a little more moisture this winter. Europe's a little better off, but most of Western Europe grain production is used domestically, and they still have to import, so their contribution to the world market is minimal except Eastern Europe, and two of the biggest players there are sidelined for the foreseeable future.

  9. " The world will eventually recover from this moment and, hopefully, return to its old path of growing prosperity"

    That was true with the conflict over Georgian membership in NATO a few years back in 2008. This time around it seems the economic/political consequences will be more profound and longer lasting. America will remain a powerful country but the American Empire may never recover. The conflict is driving Russia, China and even India closer together than ever before. Meanwhile Ukrainian cities risk being reduced to rubble. This is the Afghan night goggle debacle times a million.

    1. The conflict is driving Russia, China and even India closer together than ever before.

      I am still on the fence. Feature, or bug?

      1. Feature. Propoganda value is immeasurable for a new "Axis of Evil."

      2. An America interminably mired in unproductive culture wars is beneficial to Russia which views NATO expansion into Ukraine as an existential threat and has been acting (even over reacting) accordingly.

    2. Putin is cutting his own throat. He thinks his tanks and ( original gangster) communism can still decide empires. Ain’t happening, Vlad. Those days are long over, regardless whether China or India or anyone geopolitically romances him or not.

      The Ukraine resistance, coupled with western support, will bleed him to death. He fucked up. And it’s irrelevant at this point as to the genesis of his invasion or of his revanchism (personally, I’m aligned with Kennan’s observation in the 90s (?) that we should have limited NATO expansion near Putin’s doorstep since his empire was fading, anyway.)

      But that genie is out of the bottle. He’s encircled. He feels, and for years has felt, threatened. Read his essays. With Ukraine implacably going pro-west/democracy/NATO-esque, Putin’s drawn his line in the sand. He said he’d do exactly that, months ago.

      I give him six months before his collapse, and maybe of Russia, too. I hope it’s sooner for him.

      1. The problem is all he has to do is turn off, or even decrease significantly exports to western Europe and it would send the world into a recession. Possibly even a depression. He may go down but he'll be taking everyone else with him.

        1. Good call. Maybe. I’m no oil expert, but I’m struggling to accept that the Saudi oil thugs would allow an economic disaster ( via Putin) of that magnitude when they can obviously thwart it-and continue in their riches.

          1. The US is the largest petroleum producer currently, Russia is second, OPEC, despite it still holding a prominent spot in our narrative, isn't as big a player as it used to be. They also don't have enough slack production to make up for Russian production and Biden's treatment of the Saudis and Qataris has so alienated them, that they refused to take calls from him yesterday but did take calls from Putin. They're much closer to Russia now than the US. Additionally, Venezuela and Iran can't increase production much without massive investments.

      2. "The Ukraine resistance, coupled with western support, will bleed him to death."

        This is wishful thinking. Ukraine's main backer, the US, can't stomach the idea of committing troops to the conflict. Russia didn't collapse after annexing regions of Georgia, they didn't collapse after annexing Crimea. You should rethink your expectations if you think they will collapse now.

        "that we should have limited NATO expansion near Putin’s doorstep since his empire was fading, anyway."

        We can still do this. It may be best for Ukraine and the world as a whole, though an embarrassment to the US and the empire.

        1. I don’t recall the west imposing similar eco-hardships on Russia after Crimea and Georgia. Not that I studied it. Plus, didn’t Putin already have troops in Crimea when he “ invaded” it?

          If so, that’s seriously less costly than his current war machine. But the big difference is the immediate ( and future guerrilla) resistance from these pro-west Ukrainians, coupled with western support, arms/money, all of which will continue in perpetuity. Nor do I doubt the CIA will soon buttress Zelenskyy. For Putin, this is an Afghanistan 2.0 redux.

          Yea, he’s got his oil money, but for how long.

          1. That analysis only hold if Putin is trying to occupy Ukraine. More likely he is using this war to extend his influence over Ukraine, which pretty much negates the occupation side of the equation. As for economic hardships, it's questionable how long those will last and how severe they will be, due to his close ties with China, and to a lesser extent India.

          2. Also, don't count on how pro-west the Ukrainian people will be after this war is over. They blame NATO for not doing more to prevent it, and not doing much to help them once it started. They may not like Russia, but they may see that Russia is their only alternative to a west that they see as all talk and little to no action.

          3. are the walls closing in on Putin?

      3. Putin is cutting his own throat. He thinks his tanks and ( original gangster) communism can still decide empires. Ain’t happening, Vlad.

        Assumes he intends to permanently occupy Ukraine rather than antagonize NATO/EU, which, his stated aims would say otherwise. For the US's part, I could see a resolution where the US says they'll never support Ukraine entering the NATO as a whole, we don't (despite Obama's feelings about Brexit) control who is and who isn't in the EU, and the bloodletting, on all sides, stopping tomorrow.

        I'm not saying we should do that, but that Poland was a relatively nascent state and the EU didn't exist when NATO was formed. The calculus on "We'll defend Poland, and NATO at all costs and in perpetuity." is an equally infinitely-dumb, subject to bloodletting strategy.

        1. “I could see a resolution where the US says they'll never support Ukraine entering the NATO as a whole,...”

          While that’s sensible-and might appease Putin-I don’t see it happening. Too many liberals amidst this Biden regime. They love spreading democracy and nation building, neocon-like, that maybe sprung from the idealism of JFK, or the hawkish scoop Jackson.

          Look at their secs of state, from Zbig to Maddie to even Hillary. All chasing windmills. They’ll gladly allow 20 bucks a gallon if it means flying the flag in Kiev or kicking Putin’s ass.

          1. Can we go back in time and, while we are killing baby Hitler, also strangle child Wilson?

      4. "The Ukraine resistance, coupled with western support, will bleed him to death."

        Putin doesn't need ground troops to blow up cities from above. Supplies can dropped by helicopters. There's a reason why Zelensky is begging for a no fly zone.

        The Ukranian resistance (commendable as it is) is being overhyped by the west. A few cities effectively surrendered without much of a fight. Russia is well positioned to cut off Ukraine from the sea or split it into two. They just don't have manpower to fully occupy cities, so they're surrounding it and hoping to starve them out.

        Russia almost certainly has what it takes to wipe out the Ukranian resistance. But total war risks massive civilian casualties, and Russia doesn't want to give the west any justification for entering this conflict.

    3. We had a chance to bring India closer to us, but when Trump did he was lambasted for supporting "tyrants" here and in other media, and Biden reversed course on even those policies.

      1. Trump made the decision to supply advanced arms to Ukraine in spite of Russian objections. Biden continued the policy. This and other advances of NATO which have been going on for decades had vastly greater affect on the current conflict than any diplomatic maneuvers with India. Don't overestimate the importance of any president or news story. The expansion of NATO has been going on for decades with bipartisan support.

        1. I didn't say India had anything to do with this. I was replying to your statement about India growing closer to Russia than the US. Biden also has managed to alienate the Saudis and Qataris also. They both refused to take calls from him last week, but both took calls from Putin.

          1. "I was replying to your statement about India growing closer to Russia than the US"

            If India is moving closer to Russia, It's got little to do with Biden. He also recently visited Moscow to persuade them to improve their relationship with the US and distance themselves from the Chinese, another evident failure, and I don't see any president getting better results in either case. They see a future where the US is no longer the global hegemon, and they want to get ahead of that. The real kicker will be when Israel says bye to Uncle Sam.

            1. India had been moving closer to America during the Trump years, Biden reversed that, even before this crisis.

              1. "India had been moving closer to America during the Trump years"

                Same with North Korea. That's the problem with Trump, he never follows through with his foreign policy initiatives, You can blame deep state blocking his wall, his promise not to send troops to Afghanistan, his idea of disbanding NATO, all half assed failures in perseverance and government maneuvering. Half his staff were rarely on the same page or even trying to counter his initiatives.

        2. It's also questionable if the weaponry made Putin more or less likely to invade. Yeah I know he claims it was one of his reasons, but that's taking his word for it. Also, Biden promised weapons deliveries but drug his feet on them all last year, and received bi-partisan criticism for his policy. He didn't reverse this until he started talking tough on Russia in January.

          1. "It's also questionable if the weaponry made Putin more or less likely to invade."

            If it made him less likely to evade, clearly it wasn't less enough.

            1. Nothing, except maybe nukes would have, because Russia's pre war population was over four times larger than Ukraine, and it's prewar military was ten times larger than Ukraine's.

  10. Tap the strategic reserve of government cheese harder.

  11. Invading a neighboring country, ordering your henchmen to kill people and blow things up are crimes.

    If causing inflation were a crime, Biden would be facing charges too.

    1. What are drone strikes filed under again?

  12. Is Putin creating an unsustainable refugee crisis into Europe through food scarcity?

  13. Arguing about something that is happening in real time and who drew first blood is irrational and Twitterati silly. Russia is going to do what they are going to do unless all of us desire a nuclear WWIII.

    1. Russia is going to do what they are going to do unless all of us desire a nuclear WWIII.

      Right and "what they are going to do" is annex Crimea and "liberate" Donetsk and Lugansk. Not exactly WWIII-worthy motives but, well, Franz Ferdinand.

      1. Russian demands haven't changed. They are:
        - constitutional amendment for Ukrainian neutrality
        - Kiev ceasing hostilities in Donbass
        - recognition of Crimea as Russian
        - recognition of LPR & DPR as independent.

        That's it. Those are Russia's goals. Righteous or evil, achieving those goals is why Russia invaded.
        At some point, it needs to be mentioned that the latter 2 demands are simply acknowledging reality, and the second demand is that Ukraine stop waging an 8 year long offensive war.
        Unless Ukraine, armed with NATO intervention, is planning to retake Crimea and the Donbass by force (that is: invade), all 3 demands were always inevitable outcomes.
        So the only point of contention, the only thing Ukraine's government went to war and Ukrainians are dying for... is the chance of joining NATO.
        Which doesn't want them.

        1. "...At some point, it needs to be mentioned that the latter 2 demands are simply acknowledging reality, and the second demand is that Ukraine stop waging an 8 year long offensive war..."

          This is the Russian claim, unsupported by anyone else.

        2. What did Darth Vader said when Lando confronted him for breaking the deal they made?

          "I'm altering the deal, pray I don't alter it any further"

          Yeah, it would be a good idea to take whatever Russia says with a grain of salt.

          1. Of course, but these are the demands Russia has had for years. They might add something about Zelensky, and/or other officials, stepping down; probably something about disbanding the extremist paramilitaries, maybe a trade agreement.
            But those are the core of Russian objectives. If Zelensky cares about his people, and is free to do so, there will probably be a peace fairly soon... absent external parties getting more directly or clandestinely involved to delay it.

            Main question: what, of that I've mentioned or otherwise, is worth more Ukrainians dying for?
            What is worth world war 3?

            1. "Main question: what, of that I've mentioned or otherwise, is worth more Ukrainians dying for?"

              Keeping THEIR government, scumbag.

              1. Then it's none of your concern, sqrlvo

            2. We need to avoid any direct entanglement and much indirect entanglement. Beyond any considerations of principle, the practical issue is that Biden and every goddamn member of his administration is completely incompetent. Especially Harris and Blinken. It is a mortal lock that any reasonable thing they try and do that has the slightest bit of risk will be fucked up and escalate matters.

              We need to stay out of this. We just don’t have a functional White a house that can deal with this, and everyone knows it.

  14. Let's just consider this thread a place of silent reflection...

    1. You're just going to remain silent while Putin is murdering civilians? Who else is he going to come for only to have you not speak up for them?

      1. It's like racism, if you aren't actively anti-racist, then you are racist. If you aren't actively anti-Putin, then you are pro-Putin. Hasn't the last several years not taught us that?

        1. When you fund Nazis, what are you?

          1. When you become a Nazi apologist, what are you, Nazi apologist?

            1. You should know. You advocate funding them.

    2. To consider any thread on to be "a place of quiet reflection" is comedy gold! You win The Internet For A Day for that one! 🙂

  15. lmao of course Nardz, Jesse and co. are Putin apologists. I thought them getting duped by Rudy and Sidney's election fraud scam was the height of embarrassing gullibility, but I think swallowing Putin's propaganda takes it to another level.

    1. "lmao of course Nardz, Jesse and co. are Putin apologists. "


    2. Which one of our flagellating faggots are you?

  16. Joe Biden has found someone else to blame after years of using BadOrangeMan.

    "I can't do much right now, Russia's responsible."

    1. Can I hope for mutual, simultaneous meteor strikes on all world leaders?


    Remarkable news for tech law nerds. EU sanctions against Russia Today and Sputnik require:

    * search engines to delist all their content, and
    * social media firms to delete posts by individuals which reproduce any of their content.

    Commission’s explanatory text in images. 1/


  18. Among his other crimes, Putin’s war increases the suffering of the world’s poor and hungry.

    Yes, yes! Because any action that impacts the market in a way that is bad for the poor and hungry is a crime! The means of production must be used in the way that maximizes equity and benefits the poor! That's what socialism fascism libertarianism says!


    Good read and analysis of the limits of our ability to counter Russian aggression.

    1. Politico also had a good story about the dangers of economic war with Russia. I know it's Politico, but it's worth the read.

  20. Shill! Shill! Shill! The Russian invasion did not cause this just as the pandemic did not cause the problems we are seeing now. Bad policy making decisions by our own leaders are the cause if this. The sanctions are not helping Ukraine but they are harming the rest of the world. Globalism created this mess. They can not fix it with more globalism.

  21. Biden thinks we're too fat anyway.

    1. Jeffy hardest hit.

  22. I know this is blatantly obvious, but all the US has to do to insulate itself from global economic collapse is stop restricting oil and gas production at home and stop exporting our oil. We can export food so long as we have a surplus, but if we don't tap in to the abilities we have to be energy independent, we will sink with the ship. The only ones who are going to survive ww3 are the isolationists. They are easy to identify because they are the ones not in the news.

  23. America has a surplus of food and energy. So don't fall for the propaganda that rising prices in the US are due to global events. We can can insulate ourselves from it, but we chose not to.

    1. Not with these Marxists in charge we won’t.

      1. Bingo! The health and happiness of the average American is opposite of their interest. Always has been.

  24. Hilarious! We cut of all sorts of development, business and put on economic sanctions to strangle the average Russian NOT Putin...So he says "Fine, then no oil or natural gas for you and no fertilizer."

    Suddenly there's panic because the bad man is taking away the resources he was selling us.

    You people are hypocrites.

  25. Hey build 29 weapon grade bio lab sites next to me...Bomb and kill 16,000 Russians in 8 years, try to build dirty bombs, talk about joining NATO and pointing nuclear missiles at me and I'll invade also.

    By the way, these garbage Russian troops are basically all conscripts...They were cannon fodder.

    Russia has not used their Shock Troops or bombed like they could...Minute they do...Ukraine will agree to the terms of the treaty.

    1. "Hey build 29 weapon grade bio lab sites next to me...Bomb and kill 16,000 Russians in 8 years, try to build dirty bombs, talk about joining NATO and pointing nuclear missiles at me and I'll invade also..."

      Hey, post bullshit like that and you'll rapidly get known as a lying pile of shit.

      1. Except it's seeming to be mostly true.

        Bio labs confirmed by multiple governments, including US.

        Death claims depend on how you view Donbass and other seperatists. I didn't pay enough attention at the time to be very infomed.

        Putin invaded Ukraine 4 days after Kamala Harris gave a speech encouraging Ukraine to join NATO.

        I can say Putin is a monster while admitting he's got a point on some things, and that our gov't is lying to us again.

        1. Bio labs, not "weapons" labs. To be sure, that was probably to do research that may have been more regulated in the US, like that which Fauci farmed out to Wuhan, for instance.

        2. It’s not that Putin is right, it’s that Biden has completely fucked everything up and pushed Putin while at the same time showcasing our complete incompetence. So what’s a megalomaniacal sociopath to do?

          1. Entirely too much "well gee" Nardz bullshit.
            One of the belligerents cut off all independent news reporting; Wanna guess which, Nardz?


    Now ask yourself this question:

    How could the transfer of MiG-29’s evolve from a “green light” position by the U.S. State Department Sunday, into a “high risk” assessment by the Pentagon today? 

    This is the question that no U.S. media will touch, because the answer is almost too jaw-dropping to contemplate.  However, this answer must be outlined in order to fully grasp what took place.

  27. "It became stunningly clear that Secretary Blinken had never discussed the issue with Poland before making his statement.  Obviously, given the nature of the statement from the Pentagon yesterday and affirmed again today by spokesperson John Kirby, Secretary Blinken also did not discuss his position on the transfer of Polish (NATO) jets with the Pentagon.

    Now pause for a moment and accept what is evident.  The US Secretary of State, seeking to leverage the public pressure of a global community aligned in favorability toward the Ukrainian people, unilaterally made a national security policy decision that would trigger an escalated NATO conflict with Russia.

    The U.S. State Department was willing, intentionally and willfully willing, to set up a scenario that would draw the United States into war with Russia, and Secretary Blinken intended to trigger this “escalation” by pushing Poland into a corner of compliance – without ever discussing it with them."

    1. Blinken’s incompetence is even more dangerous than Biden’s. Think about that.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.