I'm unsure if you read your source complete or just stopped at the point you saw something that sounded like what you wanted to hear. But in any case, if you read about the subject in its completeness, you will see that in the context of debt monetization, "creating new money" is an euphemism, as it do not necessarily involves money emission, but the potential injection of existing money into the economy. The key term here is the word potential, i.e., it's possible to avoid. And that's what happened. If you read the links in the original post, you will see that the money was moved, to ensure liquidity, to an account of the Treasury in the same Central Bank, resulting in a net zero monetary increment. Then that money was gradually used to pay for debts in sync with with real money demand as the economy recovered, and other contracting measures like selling bonds, thus having no effect on inflation. Which is an actual thing, if you look it up, you will see inflation is down dramatically respect to the initial spike the previous regime left. You may then rightfully ask "why did they had to make such a level of financial juggling?", and the answer is that the previous regimes, in their reckless attempt to keep up their populist agenda to remain in power at any cost, committed infinite financial atrocities that had to be untangled and deactivated with the nerve and meticulousness of a bomb disposal expert.