

Most countries maintain a nominal split between fiscal and monetary policy (or however you want to describe it). Japan has the Bank of Japan and the Ministry of Finance, the EU has the Europe Central Bank and dozens of finance ministries, the UK has the Bank of England and the Treasury, China has the People’s Bank of China and the Ministry of Finance, and the USA has the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department. The people in charge of the finance departments are appointed with different goals and objectives then those in monetary ones. The fact remains that these are all political agencies subject to political will. Central bankers are supposed to be “above politics”, because in liberal theory economics and politics are separate.
Trump represents a split in government and economic priorities from within Washington, compared to the past. i would argue that he also represents a factional squabble over profits and contracts within the USAmerican bourgeoisie. Trump calling for the Federal Reserve to do what exactly he wants to support a tariff policy most liberals (read USAmerican liberals and conservatives) think is stupid had Powell dragging his feet and saying no. China owns over 800 billion dollars of USAmerican debt/ dollars. A different situation could see them cooperate.
To give an example, the Plaza Accords of 1985 are mostly known for the effect of kneecapping a rising Japan. The actual agreement was for Europe and Japan to lower the value of the dollar, because they felt it was too high. The agreement did fix the trade deficit the US had with Europe. The dollar had appreciated after Volcker of the Federal Reserve raised rates, which created currency depreciation that led other countries to the negotiating table. When the Empire is at stake, both hands can work together just fine. If the various finance theorists and decision makers decide that some policy is necessary for containing China and maintaining US financial hegemony, Powell will call an emergency meeting on the spot.
Sykes is saying that negotiating with Russia right now is the same as Chamberlain meeting Hitler. The implication is that the Ukrainians/ NATO ought to fight to the bitter end, because this is literally Putler. Serge is mocking the logic of saying that negotiation is bad (because that’s famously how you enable Hitler), so instead we ought to fight to the bitter end no matter what (because that’s famously how Hitler decided to go out). Serge is mockingly taking Sykes at his word, and then ‘regretfully’ realizing that the actual conclusion is “We shouldn’t act like we’re helping Hitler, so instead we should act directly like him.”