Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Ukrainian Conflict 2014 - ? (Take II)
Options
Comments
-
Wakeup I'm not going to quote and counter your whole post as that is getting very messy.
Imho and the opinion of a number of others is that this is not a civil war situation. It is a manufactured war produced by the Kremlin and seeded at leadership level by their men. It is a true Hybrid warfare scenario.
For any legitimate political solution the militias that are backed, armed, bolstered by official Russian forces need to be withdrawn from the territories of the Ukraine they have occupied. After a period of normalisation then the various political options like federalisation can then be discussed and put to a vote. Obviously the Crimea is gone, I do agree that the Russians will not move out of there with the naval base they have present, however they will have to pay massive reparations to the Ukrainians for this concession and guarantee the integrity of the rest of the Ukraine.
Economically Russia needs to be selling it's gas to Europe. It cannot afford not to. If it does decide to go down the crazy route of turning off the pipes most of the main European economies have enough reserves to last them nine months. Also the Middle Eastern Suppliers and the US would jump at the opportunity to displace the Russians and take a slice of that market. The cost will go up but it will be worth it to dilute or remove the reliance of power from a unstable country.
Back to the far right question. I have shown with figures that the problem is a minor one in comparison to the hyped propaganda being pushed by Kremlin backed media outlets. I think you will have to concede that this problem is present in a number of countries in Europe and the numbers involved are replicated in those countries and far from having a higher proportion of a far right problem the Ukrainians have numbers that are the norm. Again I would counter that I see Russia having a far worse problem with the far right and the policies and propaganda emanating from the Russian Government are definitely creating a atmosphere that aids its growth.
My opinion is that as Europeans we cannot let gun barrel diplomacy like this happen again in Europe no matter what weapons the aggressor has. If Russia uses Nukes, it will be turned to dust, that is not a threat that is a fact, if it was inverted and a European country or the US used nukes against them it will be the same outcome. We let a country get away with Gun Barrel diplomacy 76 years ago and millions lost their lives as results. As a continent we have to learn the lessons from history, aggressive nations need to be confronted. Russia is no longer an Empire, the Soviet Union is dead and buried. It cannot be phoenixed from the ashes no matter how hard Putins tries or wills it.0 -
IrishTrajan wrote: »If Western "volunteers" with Western weapons come flooding Ukraine, you really think the Russians are going to "light them up" and that'd be the end of it? Forgive me if I'm sceptical about Russia's soldiering abilities compared to Western ones, considering their last major engagements (Chechnya, Dagestan and Georgia) were all colossal feck ups.
Who would these western “volunteers” be you speak of people like you?.. When are you heading off to fight the Russians and the rebels so? Or do you expect other people to go fight and die yet you appear to be of the opinion that there is a military solution to this and thats the road to go down. When are you heading off to fight. Who are these volunteers you speak of or are you talking about actual troops. Also are you saying the Russians arent capable and wouldnt be motivated to fight on their border..what are you saying actually...what do you know about Russian soldiers and their capabilities why dont you elaborate on that a little please.....IrishTrajan wrote: »That in no way detracts from my point. They said they'd nuke Danish warships, the pretext is irrelevant. It was Russia trying to scare the Danes into doing what they want.
the pretext is entirely relevant.IrishTrajan wrote: »Of course NATO is directed at Russia. Russia was the de facto leader of the Soviet Union, the people NATO was designed to counter.
are you seriously comparing Russia to the soviet Union?...IrishTrajan wrote: »Why do you disagree with arming them? It's hardly the inevitable casualties, since the longer this war drags on, the higher the body count will be.
So by arming them then what this will lead to a reduction in the death and misery? Do you really believe some of the stuff you come out with. Arming them will make a bad situation worse and will lead to more misery death and chaos for all involved.IrishTrajan wrote: »I had thought you were talking about production and reserves, an unfortunate mix up.
You appear to be getting mixed up quite a bit. how can you confuse production and reserves with enrichment capacity. And even that aside the Russians are in a position currently or will be fairly soon to dominate the uranium market. You stated you didnt get a chance “to tackle me” over my statement that Russia was a globla energy superpower. see thats funny. I mean if you think that Russia isnt a global energy power there isnt much point really debating energy geopolitics with you as you havent a clue. Im not sure there is anyways as I dont think you are knowledgeable as you think you are or are attempting to show. You also stated China gets most of its oil from Turkmenistan. That was incorrect aswell where you got that from Ive no idea. Then you come out with this...It's easy. We pay a little more for our gas and get it from the Middle East, or Canada (the EU has nine months supply of gas, the UK/Ireland/Norway wouldn't even feel the pinch since we don't buy Russian oil/gas). I do believe we're actually working on a pipeline at the moment, as well.
It isnt easy far from it actually. The reality of the situation is that a portion of the EU will be reliant on Russian energy for the forseebale future. Thats how it is. we just pay a little more for our gas and get it from the middle east.?? do we now. really. or Canada. Hmmm. the logic behind your claim about Canada is strange to say the least. Considering Canada will not be in a position to export LNG for maybe another seven years. And they would also need to build export terminals. Then you have to factor in the economics of getting the LNG to Europe market prices will dictate that Canada send it elsewhere. And even if it did get here it would in all likelyhood be less than 1% of what we need. Canadian energy reaching the EU and playing a significant role in our energy requirements isnt going to happen its a myth similar to the US shale gas fairy tale that was trotted out not so long ago. Which pipeline would this be?...
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/energy/eu-dependent-russian-gas-foreseeable-future-warns-iea-310469EU dependent on Russian gas for 'foreseeable future', warns IEA
The European Union will remain dependent on Russian pipeline gas imports for the “foreseeable future”, the International Energy Agency (IEA) has warned.
As domestic fossil fuel production continues to decline fast, especially in Denmark and the Netherlands, gas imports are expected to increase between 2020 and 2030, according to the IEA’s 2014 review of EU energy policy.
Liquefied natural gas imports to the EU, vital to diversify supply, hit a record low in 2014, half of 2010 levels. Supplies are being re-exported to Asia, leaving the EU with about 70% of spare capacity, the IEA said. US LNG supplies for the medium term had already been sold to Asian markets, which had pushed up import prices.
Unconventional gas, such as shale, could bolster energy security but faced strong political resistance from some member states.
“The EU is set to be dependent on Russian gas for some time and that’s the reality,” the IEA’s executive director Maria van der Hoeven told the European Commission in Brussels today (1 December).IrishTrajan wrote: »Of course not. But you're implying Russia giving weapons to the rebels is fine, but us giving the Ukrainians weapons is a grave mistake. Ukraine's armouries and small-arms are poor quality.
where have I implied Russia giving weapons is “fine”...show me that please....IrishTrajan wrote: »
The press tv article pretty much says “the British said this” and the second link is to a study. Neither are this Kremlin document you alluded too.IrishTrajan wrote: »I know exactly how nuclear strategy works. I know exactly how nuclear deterrence and MAD works. And MAD only works if both sides know it's suicide. However, if both sides understand that, and one side uses a single nuke, it might not incur a direct response from the other party for fear of MAD. It's like calling a bluff in poker.
Like I said, it is unlikely, but it is entirely possible that Russia could attack the Baltics.
I've also not said it would remain conventional. I told you that the Russian strategy relies upon the use of tactical nukes, and why they had planned to target the Low Countries and Venice with them while rushing the Fulda Gap, because they knew France has a "soft-to-hard" stance (namely, if Russia targeted their military or civilian infrastructure, France would target civilian populated areas).
Do you now. so one side nukes the other and the other side wont reply. Because what a bluff..just like poker?..IrishTrajan wrote: »Yeah, Russia "rolling into Kiev" is going to work out perfectly fine for them. Especially when Poland and the Baltics surround Kaliningrad and could cut off any access to the Russian mainland. And when Poland sits right at the door to Ukraine, and would probably funnel thousands of weapons across the border.
If there's one thing you're underestimating here, it's that the Polish aren't as timid as the French or Germans, and the Polish know that the longer the Russians and Ukrainians are fighting, the better it is for them.
Why would Poland do that?....so what youre saying here is that if Russia rolls outright into Ukraine Nato will get involved? is that what you are stating...IrishTrajan wrote: »You keep saying that arming Ukraine to tackle the rebels is game over for them, and that it's a bad decision to make. How can you not support Ukraine's right to exercise its control over its territory, against a party who did the exact same thing in Chechnya?
They can do what they like. But I dont believe the west should arm them just like the Germans and French dont believe they should be armed. nothing to do with us.IrishTrajan wrote: »Yeah, much better to remain a vassal with the Russian boot on your neck.
from what I can see that boot is still firmly in place infact its now worse than it was.IrishTrajan wrote: »The "people in the east", the Kremlin-backed rebel groups. They don't get a say in separatism when they're firing at Ukrainian forces, not after they shot down a civilian airliner, bragged about it, realized they fecked up and removed the post before laying the blame on the Ukrainians.
They don't get a say. If they wanted a say, they'd do it democratically. They'd have the world backing them if they did, and Russia would have an actual reason to position troops there.
So the people in the east dont get a say. As per your previous comment arm kiev so they can “crush the rebels”. Is that your strategy and plan?...IrishTrajan wrote: »I agree and so does Stratfor.
thats nice.IrishTrajan wrote: »Because that is the usual go-to argument for pro-Russian people.
And your point is what exactly....IrishTrajan wrote: »There has never been a solely military solution to anything, that point is redundant. However, the military must be used to crush the rebel groups, in conjunction with economic and political measures, both of which are being exercised by the West.
So youre calling for war. when you heading off to fight?...IrishTrajan wrote: »[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)Countries by GDP[/url]
Compare the World Bank (2013) with IMF 2014. Russia's economy contracted by around $150bn, or if you want to compare it to the CIA's factbook, it contracted by around $40bn.
Even with the rouble crashing and people investing in consumer goods creating a flurry of economic activity, the Russian economy still fell in size.
That still doesnt explain your “death grip” comment...you were saying...IrishTrajan wrote: »What are they going to do, invade? Cut off our gas?
Europe has nine months of gas and oil stockpiled for emergencies. Ireland, the UK and Norway get our oil from non-Russian sources. We'll ride it out.
The country most affected would be Germany, and if the Germans need something, by god they'll throw everything they have into acquiring it. Canadian oil-rich sands (which was cleared to sell in Europe, I think,), US oil-rich sands, the planned Middle Eastern pipeline. Hell, the US alone was the third largest producer of oil in 2008 when oil was going high (at nearly 9 million barrels a day, with a capacity to refine around 18 million barrels a day).
If it's an emergency, you can bet your bottom dollar, the US and Canada will find it profitable to ship massive quantities to Europe.
Like I said, the price of importing oil and gas would go up.
Ride what out exactly and so what if Europe has nine months stockpiled thats beside the point. Germany would be largely affected. Apart from getting that right overall you dont know what youre talking about that much is obvious to me. I dont think theres much point in me addressing the above. Canada and the US swooping in to save the day is just a myth. a fairytale.IrishTrajan wrote: »So, we're at war with Russia? Strange, I don't see any Russian troops outside my window.
When you sanction or embargo a country what do you think it is? For the craic or something.....IrishTrajan wrote: »So, the EU doesn't tell countries to store nine months worth of gas? One
because nine months storage is the answer to EU energy supplies and dependency on certain suppliers. right so:rolleyes:IrishTrajan wrote: »What's your answer to the bad situation, let the Russians continue their advance? The Russians aren't going to stop with just Donetsk or Luhansk, they're going to keep pushing until they reach the Dnieper.
And do you think Poland will care about Germany or France's "push back" and not sell the Ukrainians small arms? Poland learned not to trust the French and Germans before, they are committed to driving up the cost of that war for the Russians.
Hell, it was even the Polish who were pushing for an integrated European energy market and it has started to gain traction in the last few months.
Whats your answer...moar war? there is no military solution to this some sort of federal structure is the only solution that will leave Ukraine intact.0 -
Wakeup I'm not going to quote and counter your whole post as that is getting very messy.
Imho and the opinion of a number of others is that this is not a civil war situation. It is a manufactured war produced by the Kremlin and seeded at leadership level by their men. It is a true Hybrid warfare scenario.
For any legitimate political solution the militias that are backed, armed, bolstered by official Russian forces need to be withdrawn from the territories of the Ukraine they have occupied. After a period of normalisation then the various political options like federalisation can then be discussed and put to a vote. Obviously the Crimea is gone, I do agree that the Russians will not move out of there with the naval base they have present, however they will have to pay massive reparations to the Ukrainians for this concession and guarantee the integrity of the rest of the Ukraine.
Economically Russia needs to be selling it's gas to Europe. It cannot afford not to. If it does decide to go down the crazy route of turning off the pipes most of the main European economies have enough reserves to last them nine months. Also the Middle Eastern Suppliers and the US would jump at the opportunity to displace the Russians and take a slice of that market. The cost will go up but it will be worth it to dilute or remove the reliance of power from a unstable country.
Back to the far right question. I have shown with figures that the problem is a minor one in comparison to the hyped propaganda being pushed by Kremlin backed media outlets. I think you will have to concede that this problem is present in a number of countries in Europe and the numbers involved are replicated in those countries and far from having a higher proportion of a far right problem the Ukrainians have numbers that are the norm. Again I would counter that I see Russia having a far worse problem with the far right and the policies and propaganda emanating from the Russian Government are definitely creating a atmosphere that aids its growth.
My opinion is that as Europeans we cannot let gun barrel diplomacy like this happen again in Europe no matter what weapons the aggressor has. If Russia uses Nukes, it will be turned to dust, that is not a threat that is a fact, if it was inverted and a European country or the US used nukes against them it will be the same outcome. We let a country get away with Gun Barrel diplomacy 76 years ago and millions lost their lives as results. As a continent we have to learn the lessons from history, aggressive nations need to be confronted. Russia is no longer an Empire, the Soviet Union is dead and buried. It cannot be phoenixed from the ashes no matter how hard Putins tries or wills it.
will reply to this later on in detail when I get a chance.0 -
So theory so far is only Russian troops are allowed to fight Ukrainians in Ukraine.
So if a few thousand well trained and well equipped wink wink nudge nudge volunteers from Poland ,Georgia Latvia ,Lithuania, British, American, Canadian ,all without unit markings or flags of course appeared over night of course
Along with modern heavy weapons and equipment .
Vladimir Putin would get all upset and what exactly.
He's not going to launch a nuke that's a fact .
Remember there are NO Russian forces in Ukraine, wink wink ..
The so called Russians should be given choice stay in Ukraine and face precision strikes against there vehicles and heavy equipment including artillery and other's.
Or return to Russia.
And have an ISAF force secure the border
All while ramping up sanctions against Moscow include blocking them access to the swift banking systems.
0 -
Wakeup I'm not going to quote and counter your whole post as that is getting very messy.
Imho and the opinion of a number of others is that this is not a civil war situation. It is a manufactured war produced by the Kremlin and seeded at leadership level by their men. It is a true Hybrid warfare scenario.
For any legitimate political solution the militias that are backed, armed, bolstered by official Russian forces need to be withdrawn from the territories of the Ukraine they have occupied. After a period of normalisation then the various political options like federalisation can then be discussed and put to a vote. Obviously the Crimea is gone, I do agree that the Russians will not move out of there with the naval base they have present, however they will have to pay massive reparations to the Ukrainians for this concession and guarantee the integrity of the rest of the Ukraine.
Economically Russia needs to be selling it's gas to Europe. It cannot afford not to. If it does decide to go down the crazy route of turning off the pipes most of the main European economies have enough reserves to last them nine months. Also the Middle Eastern Suppliers and the US would jump at the opportunity to displace the Russians and take a slice of that market. The cost will go up but it will be worth it to dilute or remove the reliance of power from a unstable country.
Back to the far right question. I have shown with figures that the problem is a minor one in comparison to the hyped propaganda being pushed by Kremlin backed media outlets. I think you will have to concede that this problem is present in a number of countries in Europe and the numbers involved are replicated in those countries and far from having a higher proportion of a far right problem the Ukrainians have numbers that are the norm. Again I would counter that I see Russia having a far worse problem with the far right and the policies and propaganda emanating from the Russian Government are definitely creating a atmosphere that aids its growth.
My opinion is that as Europeans we cannot let gun barrel diplomacy like this happen again in Europe no matter what weapons the aggressor has. If Russia uses Nukes, it will be turned to dust, that is not a threat that is a fact, if it was inverted and a European country or the US used nukes against them it will be the same outcome. We let a country get away with Gun Barrel diplomacy 76 years ago and millions lost their lives as results. As a continent we have to learn the lessons from history, aggressive nations need to be confronted. Russia is no longer an Empire, the Soviet Union is dead and buried. It cannot be phoenixed from the ashes no matter how hard Putins tries or wills it.
yeah fair enough Gandalf. I think weve covered most of this already in numerous conversations we have had on the other thread and some on this. I think you know my position at this stage now with regard to the points you have made above. on the far right fair enough they are everywhere not just Ukraine though they are active there aswell and have been and from what Ive read about them they are not a pleasant bunch.I was going to respond in detail though not really sure there is much merit in me doing so with your post as weve covered it all more or less and Ill just be repeating things unless you want me too? if you want me to go into detail I will no problem. if not all good. sure you can let me know what you think.0 -
Advertisement
-
Who would these western “volunteers” be you speak of people like you?.. When are you heading off to fight the Russians and the rebels so? Or do you expect other people to go fight and die yet you appear to be of the opinion that there is a military solution to this and thats the road to go down. When are you heading off to fight. Who are these volunteers you speak of or are you talking about actual troops. Also are you saying the Russians arent capable and wouldnt be motivated to fight on their border..what are you saying actually...what do you know about Russian soldiers and their capabilities why dont you elaborate on that a little please.....
*sigh*
The point goes whoosh over your head.are you seriously comparing Russia to the soviet Union?...
Let's take a look at it then. NATO was designed to stare down the USSR. Russia was the de facto power in the USSR. The former USSR nations in Europe rushed to join NATO as soon as they could. Russia has become increasingly belligerent against NATO, and believes NATO is coming to get them. Russia has all the nuclear weapons the former USSR possessed.
Gee, I wonder why people would equate Russia with the USSR.So by arming them then what this will lead to a reduction in the death and misery? Do you really believe some of the stuff you come out with. Arming them will make a bad situation worse and will lead to more misery death and chaos for all involved.
No, but the longer a conflict drags out, the bloodier it will be. It's more humane for a short, bloodier conflict than a long, slow-boiling one where both sides can take time to catch their breath and rearm. Here's an article that explains what I meanYou appear to be getting mixed up quite a bit. how can you confuse production and reserves with enrichment capacity. And even that aside the Russians are in a position currently or will be fairly soon to dominate the uranium market. You stated you didnt get a chance “to tackle me” over my statement that Russia was a globla energy superpower. see thats funny. I mean if you think that Russia isnt a global energy power there isnt much point really debating energy geopolitics with you as you havent a clue. Im not sure there is anyways as I dont think you are knowledgeable as you think you are or are attempting to show. You also stated China gets most of its oil from Turkmenistan. That was incorrect aswell where you got that from Ive no idea. Then you come out with this...
Our posts were deleted, and before they were, we were talking about uranium production capacity and uranium reserves, when you posted a diagram. It's hardly inconceivable that I missed you using the word "enrichment" rather than "production" or "reserves".
To say my points on geopolitics are invalid, when you think Poland isn't willing to stand up to Russia in Ukraine is absolutely farcical.It isnt easy far from it actually. The reality of the situation is that a portion of the EU will be reliant on Russian energy for the forseebale future. Thats how it is. we just pay a little more for our gas and get it from the middle east.?? do we now. really. or Canada. Hmmm. the logic behind your claim about Canada is strange to say the least. Considering Canada will not be in a position to export LNG for maybe another seven years. And they would also need to build export terminals. Then you have to factor in the economics of getting the LNG to Europe market prices will dictate that Canada send it elsewhere. And even if it did get here it would in all likelyhood be less than 1% of what we need. Canadian energy reaching the EU and playing a significant role in our energy requirements isnt going to happen its a myth similar to the US shale gas fairy tale that was trotted out not so long ago. Which pipeline would this be?...
If the gas was turned off, do you think it wouldn't be an emergency and we wouldn't throw everything we have into stabilizing? Canada and the US produce around 100 million tonnes of iron a year. Western metallurgy is much higher than the world average. Ukraine produced 80 million tonnes, Turkey produce 4.5 million tonnes, Norway 700,000, Germany 400,000 and so on. If it was a real emergency, we'd rush everything we had into securing our lifelines.
Yes, we're dependent on it for the foreseeable future, because nobody foresees Russia turning off the gas yet.where have I implied Russia giving weapons is “fine”...show me that please....
Your numerous comments about Russia "lighting up" any volunteers who would side with Ukraine, your complete opposition to the West giving Ukraine weapons to level the playing field.The press tv article pretty much says “the British said this” and the second link is to a study. Neither are this Kremlin document you alluded too.
So, if the British say something, it should be dismissed? If the Swedish say something, it should be dismissed? You were citing Sputnik News, and now you discredit the British?Do you now. so one side nukes the other and the other side wont reply. Because what a bluff..just like poker?..
Do you think people in London or New York want to get vaporized for people in Talinn or Riga? Like I said, if Russia calls it and uses their suitcase nukes, the West might not respond for fear of nuclear holocaust.Why would Poland do that?....so what youre saying here is that if Russia rolls outright into Ukraine Nato will get involved? is that what you are stating...
Yeah, why would Poland, the people who were raped for decades, had families eradicated, who were shipped to Siberia and left to rot... Why on earth would they be afraid of Russia?
If you know anything about Polish history, Poland has always feared Russia. Even when they were allies, the Polish kept one eye on the Russians and slept with swords under their beds.
If you think Poland isn't supplying small arms to the Ukrainians, you are sadly mistaken. The only reason they haven't sold them tanks over the counter (the Polish are reserving the right to sell weapons) is because the US isn't willing to do it as well.They can do what they like. But I dont believe the west should arm them just like the Germans and French dont believe they should be armed. nothing to do with us.
Of course it has something to do with us. These people were enticed by the EU by the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement into ousting Yanukovych. It is our problem, whether you like it or not.from what I can see that boot is still firmly in place infact its now worse than it was.
Yeah, and the Russians are being strung up by their own boot laces in the meantime.So the people in the east dont get a say. As per your previous comment arm kiev so they can “crush the rebels”. Is that your strategy and plan?...
Not when they hold arms, and shoot down civilians, they don't. Drop the weapons, let the UN oversee a referendum to joining Russia. Either they vote to join Russia, or they don't.
You asked me why I said that, and I explained it to you. Are you being wilfully dense?And your point is what exactly....So youre calling for war. when you heading off to fight?...
You've been the one arguing that it is a civil war. Let the Ukrainians fight on the ground, let the EU exercise its economic might into strangling the Russians to the table.That still doesnt explain your “death grip” comment...you were saying...
Yeah, a 5% contraction in their economy (a larger contraction than their economic growths) isn't at all a death grip. EU sanctions and oil prices didn't just chokeslam the Russian economy.Ride what out exactly and so what if Europe has nine months stockpiled thats beside the point. Germany would be largely affected. Apart from getting that right overall you dont know what youre talking about that much is obvious to me. I dont think theres much point in me addressing the above. Canada and the US swooping in to save the day is just a myth. a fairytale.
Russia needs to sell gas to Europe in order to even its books. It's all about who is going to crack first. The EU, who has 9 months stored, or the Russians who rely on Europe's €90bn market? Russia turning off the gas is bad for them.
Yeah, since when has the US ever utilized its vast industrial might to its advantage? Surely not in world war 1, or world war two, or the construction of the Panama Canal, or the rebuilding of Italy and West Germany, surely not the lend-lease of materials to Allied Powers in ww2.When you sanction or embargo a country what do you think it is? For the craic or something.....
Here, I'm going to link you a wikipedia article that you should read. [url=]Declaration of war[/url]. You should pay attention to the first paragraph. Here's another one State of War.because nine months storage is the answer to EU energy supplies and dependency on certain suppliers. right so:rolleyes:
Foreseeable. The likelihood of Russia turning the gas off is low. If the EU needed to, it would build, and build and build. The last time Germany exercised its full industrial might, it knocked France out in less than six weeks.Whats your answer...moar war? there is no military solution to this some sort of federal structure is the only solution that will leave Ukraine intact.
No, my solution is to give the Ukrainians weapons. My solution is to continue exerting our economic pressure on the Russian Federation. My solution is to grab the Bear by its scruff and pummel it into the ground until it lets go of Ukraine.
Russia is willing to dig in and pay a high price for Ukraine. The higher the price they pay, the better our position will be as a second party.0 -
IrishTrajan wrote: »*sigh*
The point goes whoosh over your head.
Did it now. and what exactly was your point again?,,,,IrishTrajan wrote: »Let's take a look at it then. NATO was designed to stare down the USSR. Russia was the de facto power in the USSR. The former USSR nations in Europe rushed to join NATO as soon as they could. Russia has become increasingly belligerent against NATO, and believes NATO is coming to get them. Russia has all the nuclear weapons the former USSR possessed.
Gee, I wonder why people would equate Russia with the USSR.
So you are comparing Russia to the Soviet Union. Because why...NATO, you are aware that a number of former Soviet Union members are now eh Nato members because you pointed out. thats hint number one. Russia is not the Soviet Union to even attempt a comparison is silly attempting a comparison, because Nato, is just bizzare. Not much else needs saying there.IrishTrajan wrote: »No, but the longer a conflict drags out, the bloodier it will be. It's more humane for a short, bloodier conflict than a long, slow-boiling one where both sides can take time to catch their breath and rearm. Here's an article that explains what I mean
Youre calling for moar war and destruction because its humane? You cant be serious. I dont want your articles “ with heres an article that explains what I mean” i.e telling me to go read something. that isnt proper debate you sure youre in the right forum. Why dont you explain what you mean. People being killed in war is humane because why? Please continue...IrishTrajan wrote: »Our posts were deleted, and before they were, we were talking about uranium production capacity and uranium reserves, when you posted a diagram. It's hardly inconceivable that I missed you using the word "enrichment" rather than "production" or "reserves".
To say my points on geopolitics are invalid, when you think Poland isn't willing to stand up to Russia in Ukraine is absolutely farcical.
farcial. youre some cookie. Your points on energy geopolitics are not only invalid and incorrect they are downright barmy and not to be taken seriously. Our posts were not deleted they are still on the other thread that was locked. You are of the opinion or sry you wanted to “tackle me” about my statement that Russia is an energy superpower. Only somebody who hasnt an iota about what they are talking about would remotely dispute Russias status.
Your claims and counter claims about uranium and Russian capabilities were wrong. You stated China gets most of its oil from Turkmenistan. Thats wrong too. where you got that from baffles me. You stated “its easy” for Europe to remove itself from its current dependence on Russian energy. Thats wrong too. I posted a link and paragraph twice to you and another poster with the EU admitting as much. Its the reality of the situation. You stated we can just “pay a little more and get it from the middle east” and sure it will be grand. Thats wrong too. you stated something similiar about Canada. Thats wrong too as its physically impossible. And even if it wasnt physically impossible to believe Canada is the answer to EU energy supplies is a flight of fancy on a level that is beyond amusing. But you “believe” “we” are working on a pipeline. All in all you have not got a god damn clue what you are talking about. Not one. stick around though.IrishTrajan wrote: »If the gas was turned off, do you think it wouldn't be an emergency and we wouldn't throw everything we have into stabilizing? Canada and the US produce around 100 million tonnes of iron a year. Western metallurgy is much higher than the world average. Ukraine produced 80 million tonnes, Turkey produce 4.5 million tonnes, Norway 700,000, Germany 400,000 and so on. If it was a real emergency, we'd rush everything we had into securing our lifelines.
Yes, we're dependent on it for the foreseeable future, because nobody foresees Russia turning off the gas yet.
what in the name of sweet jaysus are you talking about here. what has iron and western metallurgy got to do with EU energy supplies. Did you just pull those figures and state such a thing for the sake of it. and youre still harking on about Canada and the States. Not a clue do you have.IrishTrajan wrote: »Your numerous comments about Russia "lighting up" any volunteers who would side with Ukraine, your complete opposition to the West giving Ukraine weapons to level the playing field.
Yeah but where have I implied this is fine? The above and you havent shown that.....your logic and knowledge in lots of things is flawed to say the least. Judging by some of the thanks your posts are getting you arent alone there.IrishTrajan wrote: »So, if the British say something, it should be dismissed? If the Swedish say something, it should be dismissed? You were citing Sputnik News, and now you discredit the British?
You said Kremlin document this is what you said. Link please?IrishTrajan wrote: »Do you think people in London or New York want to get vaporized for people in Talinn or Riga? Like I said, if Russia calls it and uses their suitcase nukes, the West might not respond for fear of nuclear holocaust.
Ok one side can nuke the other and the other wouldnt respond. Right so.IrishTrajan wrote: »Yeah, why would Poland, the people who were raped for decades, had families eradicated, who were shipped to Siberia and left to rot... Why on earth would they be afraid of Russia?
If you know anything about Polish history, Poland has always feared Russia. Even when they were allies, the Polish kept one eye on the Russians and slept with swords under their beds.
If you think Poland isn't supplying small arms to the Ukrainians, you are sadly mistaken. The only reason they haven't sold them tanks over the counter (the Polish are reserving the right to sell weapons) is because the US isn't willing to do it as well.
are you saying Nato will get involved yes or no?...IrishTrajan wrote: »Of course it has something to do with us. These people were enticed by the EU by the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement into ousting Yanukovych. It is our problem, whether you like it or not.
No the civil war in Ukraine doesnt have anything to do with us. It isnt our problem and if you really feel its your problem what are you doing here why dont you head over there and fight. Instead of calling for war from the comfort of your computer.IrishTrajan wrote: »Yeah, and the Russians are being strung up by their own boot laces in the meantime.
Are they now. you sure about that. but then again youre calling for war you must see such things a lot.IrishTrajan wrote: »Not when they hold arms, and shoot down civilians, they don't. Drop the weapons, let the UN oversee a referendum to joining Russia. Either they vote to join Russia, or they don't.
but the rebels are there to stay they arent going anywhere. You want to crush them right. When you heading over to fight. What size are your boots.IrishTrajan wrote: »You asked me why I said that, and I explained it to you. Are you being wilfully dense?
so now Im dense. After you swooping into the other previous thread and telling me you had “slapped” me down . then alluding to me being both an idiot and stupid. Who dafuq do you think you are lol what did you explain....IrishTrajan wrote: »You've been the one arguing that it is a civil war. Let the Ukrainians fight on the ground, let the EU exercise its economic might into strangling the Russians to the table.
So moar war. you do like war dont you. from the comfort of your computer.IrishTrajan wrote: »Yeah, a 5% contraction in their economy (a larger contraction than their economic growths) isn't at all a death grip. EU sanctions and oil prices didn't just chokeslam the Russian economy.
a 5% contraction this your death grip is it. That doesnt explain anything either. You said death grip details and projections please with your opinion added as to why this is going to happens and how.IrishTrajan wrote: »Russia needs to sell gas to Europe in order to even its books. It's all about who is going to crack first. The EU, who has 9 months stored, or the Russians who rely on Europe's €90bn market? Russia turning off the gas is bad for them.
Yeah, since when has the US ever utilized its vast industrial might to its advantage? Surely not in world war 1, or world war two, or the construction of the Panama Canal, or the rebuilding of Italy and West Germany, surely not the lend-lease of materials to Allied Powers in ww2.
you keep on about nine months storage as if this is some sort of solution advantage what are you on about. Youre not making sense here. the Panama canal? the rebuilding of Italy? Huh?IrishTrajan wrote: »Here, I'm going to link you a wikipedia article that you should read. [url=]Declaration of war[/url]. You should pay attention to the first paragraph. Here's another one State of War.
I dont want your links with a “here im going to link you” type nonsense. This is how you debate and argue your point is it. Why dont you summise those links in your own words instead of telling me to go read something. are you serious.IrishTrajan wrote: »Foreseeable. The likelihood of Russia turning the gas off is low. If the EU needed to, it would build, and build and build. The last time Germany exercised its full industrial might, it knocked France out in less than six weeks.
It would build build build what? What are you talking about?IrishTrajan wrote: »No, my solution is to give the Ukrainians weapons. My solution is to continue exerting our economic pressure on the Russian Federation. My solution is to grab the Bear by its scruff and pummel it into the ground until it lets go of Ukraine.
Your solution is moar war and misery and death and destruction. from the comfort of your computer.IrishTrajan wrote: »Russia is willing to dig in and pay a high price for Ukraine. The higher the price they pay, the better our position will be as a second party.
the higher the price they pay the better our position as a "second" party will be. I really cant wait to hear your "logic" behind that statement..do please elaborate for me...0 -
Wakeup I'm not going to quote and counter your whole post as that is getting very messy.
I did reply to this post asking you did you want me to leave it not sure you seen my reply or not or if you did and ignored but all good I shall adress your post. In fairness Gandalf it was yourself who decided to break down my paragraphs into sentences and respond in that way. See post 12 and 13 on this thread. I dont think its getting messy not sure where you are getting that from or why you have decided it so but sure how and ever thats up to you. If you dont want to repsond in detail to particular sentences/points then dont.Imho and the opinion of a number of others is that this is not a civil war situation. It is a manufactured war produced by the Kremlin and seeded at leadership level by their men. It is a true Hybrid warfare scenario.
That would be your opinion of which you are entitled mine and a number of others as you have pointed out above, would be different.For any legitimate political solution the militias that are backed, armed, bolstered by official Russian forces need to be withdrawn from the territories of the Ukraine they have occupied.
That isnt going to happen and I think you know that. knowing this then the question needs to be asked what is your solution? They arent going to do what you have outlined above. Knowing this what do you suggest?...After a period of normalisation then the various political options like federalisation can then be discussed and put to a vote. Obviously the Crimea is gone, I do agree that the Russians will not move out of there with the naval base they have present, however they will have to pay massive reparations to the Ukrainians for this concession and guarantee the integrity of the rest of the Ukraine.
I would agree and advocate that Russia should pay in either money or resources for the annexation of Crimea and I think they should do that. but the federalisation structure which I agree with again and something Ive been calling for is not going to happen minus the rebels in the east/Donabass region. They are not going anywhere unless they are forcefully removed. Ive of the opinion that to believe otherwise is detached from reality , what has happened, what has been stated, and what is and will be taking place on the ground.Economically Russia needs to be selling it's gas to Europe. It cannot afford not to. If it does decide to go down the crazy route of turning off the pipes most of the main European economies have enough reserves to last them nine months. Also the Middle Eastern Suppliers and the US would jump at the opportunity to displace the Russians and take a slice of that market. The cost will go up but it will be worth it to dilute or remove the reliance of power from a unstable country.
Economically Europe needs Russia too the will cost will go up? thats the least of our issues. Again with this nine months stuff. Nine months is nothing in the grand scheme of things it just isnt. You suggest that its a “crazy” route/possibility that Russia might turn off the tap. Yet on the other hand you believe it rational and appropriate course of action to kick them out of the international monetary system via swift. That doesnt add up. The middle east and certainly the US are not in a position to just displace the Russians. did you read the link and paragraph I posted for you? Where the EU admit as reality that we will be dependent on Russian energy for the forseeable future? Or are you just choosing to ignore it. The US being in a position to supply Europe with our energy in the short to medium term is 100% complete and utter horsesh1te. A fairytale.Back to the far right question. I have shown with figures that the problem is a minor one in comparison to the hyped propaganda being pushed by Kremlin backed media outlets. I think you will have to concede that this problem is present in a number of countries in Europe and the numbers involved are replicated in those countries and far from having a higher proportion of a far right problem the Ukrainians have numbers that are the norm. Again I would counter that I see Russia having a far worse problem with the far right and the policies and propaganda emanating from the Russian Government are definitely creating a atmosphere that aids its growth.
I did concede that the far right are active in other places and not just Ukraine. but lets be straight about something they are certainly active and fighting in this war. thousands of them. This has been documented and not only that as per a statement from the Ukrainian ministry of defence their actions are now being corordinated and carried out with the Ukrainian army.My opinion is that as Europeans we cannot let gun barrel diplomacy like this happen again in Europe no matter what weapons the aggressor has. If Russia uses Nukes, it will be turned to dust, that is not a threat that is a fact, if it was inverted and a European country or the US used nukes against them it will be the same outcome. We let a country get away with Gun Barrel diplomacy 76 years ago and millions lost their lives as results. As a continent we have to learn the lessons from history, aggressive nations need to be confronted. Russia is no longer an Empire, the Soviet Union is dead and buried. It cannot be phoenixed from the ashes no matter how hard Putins tries or wills it.
This is assuming that longterm the Russians have plans to roll into Europe or take on Nato or attack a Nato country. Again what are you basing this on? Im of the opinion Ukraine is a pawn in a much bigger game hence why the Americans are involved. and that isnt taking away from what the Russians have done. But theres a bigger game being played out here and unfortunately for Ukraine they are stuck in the middle of it.0 -
So you are comparing Russia to the Soviet Union. Because why...NATO, you are aware that a number of former Soviet Union members are now eh Nato members because you pointed out. thats hint number one. Russia is not the Soviet Union to even attempt a comparison is silly attempting a comparison, because Nato, is just bizzare. Not much else needs saying there.
Because Russia has all the characteristics and nuclear weapons of the former Soviet Union. Because the Kremlin ruled the USSR, it rules Russia today. Because their tactics and their policies have not changed.Youre calling for moar war and destruction because its humane? You cant be serious. I dont want your articles “ with heres an article that explains what I mean” i.e telling me to go read something. that isnt proper debate you sure youre in the right forum. Why dont you explain what you mean. People being killed in war is humane because why? Please continue...
I link stuff to read, and you think it isn't relevant because it contradicts your opinion? Why do you even bother wanting to have a debate if you just stick your fingers in your ears? I'm not even going to bother responding to the rest of your post.
Have a good day.0 -
IrishTrajan wrote: »Because Russia has all the characteristics and nuclear weapons of the former Soviet Union. Because the Kremlin ruled the USSR, it rules Russia today. Because their tactics and their policies have not changed.
Russia is the Soviet Union because it has nuclear weapons and all the "characteristics" of the former. this is why in your opinion Russia is the soviet union. youre having a laugh right. pulling the auld leg arent you.IrishTrajan wrote: »I link stuff to read, and you think it isn't relevant because it contradicts your opinion? Why do you even bother wanting to have a debate if you just stick your fingers in your ears?
you link stuff to read. well isnt that just phucking delightful. but you see linking "stuff to read" and telling me to ya know go read it is not a proper way to either argue/put forward your point or debate your point. and thats on the assumption you even have a point to begin with thats relevant. by not reading your "stuff" and youre descriptive then follow up surely you mean Im closing my eyes as opposed to sticking my fingers in my ears unless you think I read with my ears.IrishTrajan wrote: »I'm not even going to bother responding to the rest of your post . Have a good day.
wait a second, not so fast where are you going. I would appreciate it if you would respond to the points Ive raised in relation to your posts. theres lots of things Im interested in hearing about. Im taking the dag out for a stroll as its such a delightful evening out but shall log back in later. Im particularly keen to hear how you believe state and think that moar war death and destruction is somehow "humane". you can start with that please. you were saying....0 -
Advertisement
-
WakeUp I responded to all those points already. You already know my position. We fundamentally disagree on most of them. I'm not going over everything in detail again.
Why do I think Russia are a danger to stability and peace in the region because they have invaded their neighbours and used Hybrid warfare tactics in a number of countries. It is logical to assume left to their devices they will try this tactic again especially if they only suffer minor reparations as a consequence. It is prudent to make the cost of using these tactics on a sovereign nation as high as possible to ensure this Rogue regime do not attempt them again.
I agree with you the far right fighting with the Ukrainian armed forces do number in the thousands (Right Sector have stated this themselves). However on examination they make up 2% of the standing force of the Ukrainian armed forces. The representation in the Ukrainian Parlimanent is an even more pathetic number that is a fraction of a percent. You are over stating their importance as the standard Kremlin apologists are and doing so you are doing yourself a disservice because I can see where you are coming from with the exception of this point. (Inversely we have the leader of Russia Putin as a patron of a Far Right bikers club, I don't see you or others getting into a lather over that. You and others seem to be suffering from selective Nazi blindness.)
The leaders of the so-called rebels are all seeded from Moscow. For any agreement to work they need to be removed and the armed forces under them need to be stood down and those who are not from the Ukraine need to leave. How that is achieved needs to be negotiated.
If Russia turns off the gas to Europe it will be hastening its demise. Europe can survive on reserves I doubt the Russians can survive without that revenue stream over any sustained period. Also if there truly is a co-ordinated attempt to "hurt" Russia from the US Industrial Military complex then I am sure they will find a way to get the supplies to Europe to press home the advantage if Russia decides to blow its own legs off to spite Europe. One thing is for sure it is going to be interesting now the EU are going after Gazprom for abusing its position in the European Gas market. They lose this and it could cost them very dearly indeed.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2015/04/20/eus-antitrust-charge-against-gazprom-another-putin-disaster/
I think no one will argue that Putins failed adventure in the Ukraine has cost Russia a lot already but if the Russians do not amend and reverse their ways then I hope Europe keeps the strength to push home the message to this regime. You act like a Rogue nation in Europe then the EU and other European nations will shun you as one.0 -
I agree with you the far right fighting with the Ukrainian armed forces do number in the thousands (Right Sector have stated this themselves). However on examination they make up 2% of the standing force of the Ukrainian armed forces. The representation in the Ukrainian Parlimanent is an even more pathetic number that is a fraction of a percent. You are over stating their importance as the standard Kremlin apologists are and doing so you are doing yourself a disservice because I can see where you are coming from with the exception of this point. (Inversely we have the leader of Russia Putin as a patron of a Far Right bikers club, I don't see you or others getting into a lather over that. You and others seem to be suffering from selective Nazi blindness.)
It isnt being overstated and the reason its an issue for me anyways is because the EU/West/Americans are backing/supporting them/In their corner call it whatever. All nazis are scumbags and Ive never denied the Russian nazi element but “we” arent backing the Russian nazi element. The Ukrainian side however. Nothing to do with selective nazi blindness. Are western forces training these nazis I wonder. And if they are I wonder how they feel about that. considering far right operations are now being coordinated outright with the Ukrainian army and a high level far right head is now “advising the army”. Really though this shouldnt surpirse me what with western trained/backed/whatever jihadis sry moderate rebels in the middle east. Lots of things seem back to front these days.If Russia turns off the gas to Europe it will be hastening its demise. Europe can survive on reserves I doubt the Russians can survive without that revenue stream over any sustained period. Also if there truly is a co-ordinated attempt to "hurt" Russia from the US Industrial Military complex then I am sure they will find a way to get the supplies to Europe to press home the advantage if Russia decides to blow its own legs off to spite Europe. One thing is for sure it is going to be interesting now the EU are going after Gazprom for abusing its position in the European Gas market. They lose this and it could cost them very dearly indeed.
But how long can Europe survive without Russian energy nine months is nothing and thats without factoring in usage/how cold the entailing Winter might be. If the Americans/EU decide to kick the Russians out of the international monetary system then the Russians turning off our gas becomes a distinct possibility. And say they are booted out of the swift system how do they propse we pay the moneis owed for our energy magic beans or something .the EU have stated we are and will be dependent on Russian energy for the forseeable future. Thats the reality. If they could realistically source it elsewhere they would do so. This isnt something you just can click your fingers with or decide ok so we can get our energy elsewhere it doesnt work like that. that article from Forbes whilst his figure are all well and good and ill go into them with you if you want he along with anyone else from what I can see hasnt suggested nor put forward a realistic workable plan to source our energy in the short-medium term from somewhere else. Russians could do with our cash but we need their energy. Going after Gazprom that could backfire on us. South stream went to Turkey because of third party ownership issues aswell as some other things. Europe going after Gazprom yep that could hurt them financially but it could also hurt us. Especially when you consider the current state of affairs. And just on the Americans being able to displace the Russians and supplying our gas...
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-20/us-gas-will-never-replace-russian-gas-europeUS Gas Will Never Replace Russian Gas For Europe
Charif Souki, Cheniere’s chief executive, said that the idea of his company’s exports alone liberating Europe from Russia’s Gazprom was “nonsense” and that only six to eight of 20-plus proposed rival export projects were “real”.
The east-west stand-off over Ukraine has sparked a political debate over whether the US should loosen its energy export restrictions so Europeans can buy liquefied natural gas, or LNG, from America’s shale energy boom.
Asked if Cheniere’s terminal could rescue eastern European countries from their dependence on Russia, Mr Souki said: “It’s flattering to be talked about like this, but it’s all nonsense. It’s so much nonsense that I can’t believe anybody really believes it.”
Recent entreaties by various US politicians to help wean Europe off of Russian gas are simply preposterous. The numbers don't add up, and they never will.
Let's begin with the facts:
If the US wants Europe entirely off of Russian natural gas (NG), it will have to immediately replace 5.7 trillion cubic feet per year, or 15 billion cubic feet per day.
The entire set of US shale gas plays, which consist of 8 major plays and a slew of minor ones, cumulatively provide the US with 27 billion cubic feet per day. That is, just over half of the entire current US shale gas play would have to be dedicated to the European cause of eliminating Russian natural gas dependency.
And even with the shale plays, in April 2014 the US remains a net gas importer. In 2013, the most recent full year of data, the US had to import 1.3 trillion cubic feet to satisfy domestic consumption.
More pointedly, 2013 was a pretty cold winter, the kind that comes along every so often, and the US barely made it through that period without running dangerously low on NG as it was.
To make it through the heavy demands of winter natural gas must be stockpiled in advance. As a result, the gas storage report always shows seasonal builds and draw downs of natural gas:
In all my years of watching the energy statistics I've never seen NG storage get this low. Look how far below the average 5 year range it got...all the way down to just 800 billion cubic feet in storage.
And this was with the "shale gas miracle" chugging along merrily in the background.
If the US had magically managed to have the appropriate liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals all built and had wanted to completely supply Europe with US gas to replace Russian gas, it could have only done so for 53 days (800 bcf/15 bcf/day) before the US would have completely run out of its gas in storage.
Of course, this could never be done. If NG ever gets too low in storage, you run the risk of having the pressure drop in all the associated pipelines and delivery systems to such a low level that things have to be shut down. Pilot lights go out, system pressures falter in some areas before others, turbines can't be run, and industrial processes terminate.
If you thought the winter of 2013 was hard, imagine it with the added specter of having to re-light every residential pilot light in a region. There are not enough service people to do that.
And well before a crisis moment like that arrives, a form of utility triage would be implemented; Step 1 of which would be shutting off exports of LNG to Europe and any other ex-US destinations.
What then would Europe do? Freeze and suffer through its own chain of shortage-related failures because the US could not actually supply what was needed?
What would quickly happen is that Europe would return to Russia for at least part of its gas needs. So all that the US could ever do, realistic or not, is supplant some of Russia's role as NG supplier to Europe.
Rising US Production
At this point, some might say that the ability of the US to export natural gas will rise because US domestic production is rising. While true, two things weigh on this view to render it moot.
The first is that European domestic gas production is falling. Norwegian production is going down, and North Africa remains a mess that cannot be counted upon to reliably increase its production over its consumption over any time frame you care to choose. So rising US production will be countered by rising US demand and falling European production, both of which will erode the apparent 'surplus' in the US that so many are (innumerately) counting on.
The second is because liquefying natural gas is enormously energy-intensive and expensive. To ship vast quantities of natural gas across the Atlantic, we'd need to liquefy it first. Fully 25% of the energy embodied in natural gas (NG) is wasted during the process of turning it into a liquid (LNG). That energy is simply gone: those expended BTUs cannot ever be used for anything else.
So when it's noted that Russia supplies 5.7 trillion cubic feet, that's of ordinary gas in its rightful gaseous form (NG).
The equivalent in US gas would be (5.7/0.75) = 7.6 trillion cubic feet (of NG) to account for the energy loss in the liquefying process (to make LNG).
In short, LNG is just an energetically stupid thing to do. It is wasteful.
Economically Unworkable
The final nail in the "US will supply Europe's gas" coffin is simple economics.
US LNG could be produced and shipped for about $9 per thousand cubic feet. Russia produces theirs for $.50 for the same amount and can sell it for a price well below $9 for as long as they wish.
People investing in an LNG terminal are tying up billions and billions in the project. They cannot invest in such a project because Europe might need gas for the next 2 or even 20 months because of temporary hostilities with Russia. They need 20 years of expected profitable sales to justify the expense.
Who thinks that the West is in any position to place a 20+ year permanent ban on Russian energy exports to Europe? Anybody?
A sanctions regime is the only thing that would make LNG from the US to Europe an economically workable proposition.
The truth is, there are a great many voices asking for LNG to be exported from the US but the real reason has nothing to do with Russia or Europe. The real reason is that the domestic NG industry would love to get much higher prices for their product than they are currently getting and LNG terminals is one way to help level the price playing field between the US and the rest of the world.
Europe won't get its independence from Russia, but US consumers will pay more.
Conclusion
There's nothing sensible about the recent attempts to link US LNG exports to freeing Europe from its dependence on Russian NG.
The numbers just don't work.
Worst of all, those proposing such schemes seem delightfully unaware that even the robust quantities of NG that the US seems to have are also finite, and that you get to use the embodied energy exactly once. But that's it.
Use that energy to liquefy the NG in LNG and you cannot then use that energy to make fertilizer, or erect a new electrical pylon, or build out a next generation mass transit system, or rebuild depleted soils.
By this viewpoint, calls to turn our domestic NG into LNG are ignorant at best; a crime against future generations at worst. Perhaps they're both.
But have no fear, Europe is not staffed by ignorant dummies and they will not risk their present and future prosperity by cutting off Russian imports of NG simply to appease US policy hawks or help the sitting president achieve some sort of political victory back home.
So it's highly unlikely that Europe will be clamoring for US LNG to the point that it would agree to a 20-year ban on Russian NG exports. Given this, it's doubtful that the Ukrainian situation will translate into any significant actions on the US LNG front.
that last part in bold is an important part a big part of the reason why the Germans and French are proceeding with caution and attempting to find a diplomatic way out of this. we need Russian energy. thats how it is.0 -
Again not going to pick into it but you are suffering from Nazi blindness. Russia and Putin unleashed ultra nationalist into the Ukraine. You do remember Igor Strelkov the man who was the leader of the "Rebels" from day one? He is a Russian Ultra Nationalist whose goal is the restoration of a bastardised hybrid of the USSR and Imperial Russia.
The far right you talk about are still Ukrainians. I again have shown they only make up a fraction of their forces yet you are blowing their involvement out of all proportion. You do ignore the "Lebensraum" operations of the New Russian Reich though. TBH only one Regime is behaving like the reincarnation of the Nazi's and it is not the Ukrainian government. It is Putins Russia.
Again Europe will experience pain when it weans itself off dependence on Russian Gas but given the noises coming from within Russia of Gazprom and Rosneft asking the Government for funds to keep their companies alive it is obvious that Russia is in no position to carry out a prolonged shut-down of resources to Europe or any market.
BTW I wouldn't use Zerohedge as a prime source either, it's a breeding ground for conspiracy theories and used by kranks all over the world.
This paper would have more gravitas and it does say we are dependent on Russian Gas and that it would cost a lot to to find alternatives. If that is what it takes to cease pandering to a dictator with Ultra Nationalistic tendencies then so be it.0 -
Again not going to pick into it but you are suffering from Nazi blindness. Russia and Putin unleashed ultra nationalist into the Ukraine. You do remember Igor Strelkov the man who was the leader of the "Rebels" from day one? He is a Russian Ultra Nationalist whose goal is the restoration of a bastardised hybrid of the USSR and Imperial Russia.
The far right you talk about are still Ukrainians. I again have shown they only make up a fraction of their forces yet you are blowing their involvement out of all proportion. You do ignore the "Lebensraum" operations of the New Russian Reich though. TBH only one Regime is behaving like the reincarnation of the Nazi's and it is not the Ukrainian government. It is Putins Russia.
Again Europe will experience pain when it weans itself off dependence on Russian Gas but given the noises coming from within Russia of Gazprom and Rosneft asking the Government for funds to keep their companies alive it is obvious that Russia is in no position to carry out a prolonged shut-down of resources to Europe or any market.
BTW I wouldn't use Zerohedge as a prime source either, it's a breeding ground for conspiracy theories and used by kranks all over the world.
This paper would have more gravitas and it does say we are dependent on Russian Gas and that it would cost a lot to to find alternatives. If that is what it takes to cease pandering to a dictator with Ultra Nationalistic tendencies then so be it.
Im not ignoring Russian nazis which Ive stated and at this stage you are picking on it a bit but fair enough. but "we" arent backing Russian nazis are we no "we" are backing the Ukrainian nazis. this would appear to be ok with you even if you claim to not "like" the idea. thats akin to turning a blind eye no? because it suits. as for your comments about zerohedge thats your opinion and up to you. a lot of very bright people post there its like any online forum you get all sorts dont you. I will have a look at that oxford paper and though the fact we are dependent on Russian energy without a viable alternative that makes sense for now, I dont need to read that article to know that. its been and is the case and will be for the forseeable future. why dont you address the points in the zerohedge article as opposed to attacking the source considering we were talking about the US and their claimed/trumpeted ability to meet our needs. I mean the myth about the US being in a position to supplement Russian gas supplies to Europe has always been a bullsh1t fairytale put out there for other reasons than the ones believed yet it still gets held up and trumpeted as some sort of answer and viable solution. that zerohedge article destroys that myth with facts and reality. As for Europe weaning itself off Russian gas. many a moon will rise and fall before that fully comes to fruition.0 -
wait a second, not so fast where are you going. I would appreciate it if you would respond to the points Ive raised in relation to your posts. theres lots of things Im interested in hearing about. Im taking the dag out for a stroll as its such a delightful evening out but shall log back in later. Im particularly keen to hear how you believe state and think that moar war death and destruction is somehow "humane". you can start with that please. you were saying....
There's no point in me summarizing the article when the answer is already in the article. You post links to back up your claims, I do the same and you ignore them. That's what we call cognitive dissonance, and it is a logical fallacy. That's why I'm not going to bother addressing any of your other points.thing is for sure it is going to be interesting now the EU are going after Gazprom for abusing its position in the European Gas market. They lose this and it could cost them very dearly indeed.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2015/04/20/eus-antitrust-charge-against-gazprom-another-putin-disaster/
Nice link, it'd be a shame if someone... refused to read it.0 -
Im not ignoring Russian nazis which Ive stated and at this stage you are picking on it a bit but fair enough. but "we" arent backing Russian nazis are we no "we" are backing the Ukrainian nazis. this would appear to be ok with you even if you claim to not "like" the idea. thats akin to turning a blind eye no? because it suits. as for your comments about zerohedge thats your opinion and up to you. a lot of very bright people post there its like any online forum you get all sorts dont you. I will have a look at that oxford paper and though the fact we are dependent on Russian energy without a viable alternative that makes sense for now, I dont need to read that article to know that. its been and is the case and will be for the forseeable future. why dont you address the points in the zerohedge article as opposed to attacking the source considering we were talking about the US and their claimed/trumpeted ability to meet our needs. I mean the myth about the US being in a position to supplement Russian gas supplies to Europe has always been a bullsh1t fairytale put out there for other reasons than the ones believed yet it still gets held up and trumpeted as some sort of answer and viable solution. that zerohedge article destroys that myth with facts and reality. As for Europe weaning itself off Russian gas. many a moon will rise and fall before that fully comes to fruition.
No, you're right. We're not backing Russian Nazis. The Russians are doing that. You're wrong, we're not backing Ukrainian Nazis, because we're not giving them arms.
The US could produce some 9 million barrels of oil a day (compared to Russia's 10 million a day, which doesn't all go to Europe). If the EU really needed that oil, do you think we'd just say "oh there's an ocean in the way, I guess we're not getting it" or do you think we'd use the reserves we have to build a large enough infrastructure to get that oil over here?
The article you linked? Yeah, I'm not going to read it because I don't want to, so whatever is in it doesn't matter. That's your angle, right?0 -
IrishTrajan wrote: »There's no point in me summarizing the article when the answer is already in the article. You post links to back up your claims, I do the same and you ignore them. That's what we call cognitive dissonance, and it is a logical fallacy. That's why I'm not going to bother addressing any of your other points.[/i].
are you sure thats the reason you arent going to bother addressing my other points.? people being killed in war, death murder misery and destruction, men women children and animals being blown up, killed, mutilated and many another really horrific things, this in your opinion is somehow "humane"...explain that to me....you were saying....0 -
are you sure thats the reason you arent going to bother addressing my other points.? people being killed in war, death murder misery and destruction, men women children and animals being blown up, killed, mutilated and many another really horrific things, this in your opinion is somehow "humane"...explain that to me....you were saying....
Since you refuse to (or can't) read I'll give you a simple question:
Which is worse, losing 100,000 people over ten months, or 10,000 people in one month?0 -
IrishTrajan wrote: »No, you're right. We're not backing Russian Nazis. The Russians are doing that. You're wrong, we're not backing Ukrainian Nazis, because we're not giving them arms.
The US could produce some 9 million barrels of oil a day (compared to Russia's 10 million a day, which doesn't all go to Europe). If the EU really needed that oil, do you think we'd just say "oh there's an ocean in the way, I guess we're not getting it" or do you think we'd use the reserves we have to build a large enough infrastructure to get that oil over here?
The article you linked? Yeah, I'm not going to read it because I don't want to, so whatever is in it doesn't matter. That's your angle, right?
that post wasnt addressed to you so whether you read that link or not I dont care. as for your comments about US oil :rolleyes: you havent a clue youve shown that yet here you go again. like I said Id appreciate it you replied to my posts in reply to yours....0 -
IrishTrajan wrote: »Since you refuse to (or can't) read I'll give you a simple question:
Which is worse, losing 100,000 people over ten months, or 10,000 people in one month?
explain how war death misery and chaos is "humane"...how is it humane?...0 -
Advertisement
-
explain how war death misery and chaos is "humane"...how is it humane?...
Let's see. On one hand you have war that lasts a couple years that's on a slow boil, that will kill a couple hundred thousand people. On the other side you have a quick, brutal war that kills a fraction of that but in a shorter time frame.
Which war is more cruel, the one with 100,000 dead over a year, or the one with 10,000 dead over a month?
Get off the moral high horse, you're backing the team who started this mess in the first place. It's not anyone's fault but Russia's that they are in this position, and the sooner this war is over and Ukraine can control its territory, the better for everyone. If Russia wants to dig its claws in and hold on, we should drive the cost of such a move up until they reach their breaking point.
We have 500 million people and an economy nine times their size, with the backing of the world superpower, 300 million people and an economy almost as large as ours... Against a decaying power who is only relevant because they have nuclear weapons.
Who do you think will crack first?0 -
No Wakeup we are not supporting Nazis at all we are supporting the Government and the sovereign nation of the Ukraine as we should against an aggressive neighbour who has created a situation via hybrid warfare that is destabilising the Ukraine. Again the only people I see shouting from the rooftops about "Ukrainian Nazis" are the apologists for the illegal actions of Russia in the territory of a sovereign European Nation.0
-
Join Date:Posts: 13623
Mod: Irish Trajan and Wake Up, dont make me repeat the mod warning in post 1. I consider you both to be equally culpable in attempting to derail the thread so I give you three options:
1. Debate the issues reasonably;
2. Hang together; or
3. Hang apart.
Your choice0 -
Looks like the Gazprom is in the EU line of fire .
E.U. Charges Russian Energy Giant Gazprom With Abusing Its Dominance
BRUSSELS — European antitrust regulators on Wednesday charged the Russian energy giant Gazprom with abusing its dominance in natural gas markets, a move amounting to a direct challenge to the authorities in Moscow.
The European Commission, the European Union’s executive arm, said that unfair pricing might have resulted in higher gas prices in Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, which have long been wholly or substantially dependent on Russian gas. In those countries, the commission said, Gazprom was suspected of charging wholesalers prices that were significantly higher compared with the company’s costs or to benchmark prices.
The commission also said that Gazprom might have been leveraging its dominant market position in Bulgaria and Poland by making supplies of gas conditional on those countries’ participating in infrastructure plans such as building a new pipeline route to Europe under the Black Sea.
“Keeping national gas markets separate also allowed Gazprom to charge prices that we, at this stage, consider to be unfair,” said Margrethe Vestager, the European Union’s competition commissioner.
If found guilty .
Gazprom could potentially face a €10bn fine
0 -
Looks like the Gazprom is in the EU line of fire .
Old news just being publically floated for a slow news day. This is part of an ongoing investigation that started three years ago.
Predictably (I guess maskirovka isn't quite so masking after all ... ) the Kremlin claims its politically motivated. The putin-bots will of course lap this up.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13623
do big explosions and such things excite you.
This is not constructive debating.youre doing your own shouting from the rooftops is the irony lost on you or something. and those who point out the Ukrainian nazis are "apologists" are they. can you be a little bit more creative with your presumptions its a little tedious and boring at this stage.
Nor is this. The reference to tedious and boring is a kind of personal abuse.ok some of the above is lacking basic sense Ill point it out if you want me too. no actually its quite clear what you said. would you like me show you again I can do that for you too if you want no problem? shall I? and then when you cant come back with something you resort to the above type spiel and whataboutery resorting to type. what you have "shown" does not take away from what you have said. numerous times you have stated you have "shown" this that and the other which is nice and all. but ya know you still said what you said.
This is just nonsense and you are on the one hand asking a question and on the other answering your own question. You are clearly not interested in debating but just want to derail this thread.phucktardophobes
Not acceptable language.youre still attempting to dodge and bluff. are you willing to let your nazi stuff go? its you that is continuing to hark and shout from the rooftop about it. Ill ask you again but if you want to let it go , which I think you should now at this stage , then thats ok with me because I already know the answer to this question no matter how much and as many times as your try to whataboutery your way out of it.
Abusive trolling.
Mod: WakeUp, you have been given more chances than most and you keep trolling, pestering other posters, personally abusing them, etc. I could go on.
It's clear to me that you have no real interest in debating this issue and have continued to attempt to derail the discussion after a very specific mod warning. I'm banning you from the forum, and when you come back please just don't post in this thread anymore - you clearly can't or don't want to debate the issues like an adult.
EDIT: I've deleted all the non-sense but I will keep the above on thread as examples of how not to debate.0 -
I suppose the EU have to make these noises every now and then to keep Uncle Sam happy!Looks like the Gazprom is in the EU line of fire .
E.U. Charges Russian Energy Giant Gazprom With Abusing Its Dominance
The "abusing its dominance" bit I find nauseating, Bulgaria would have benefited from the South Stream but it seems after "talks" they were "persuaded" not to act in their own National interest!
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-277550320 -
Missed this during Vladimir Putin 4 hour annual phone in recently.
A totally different tone from Putin
* Moscow used to complain that former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was the innocent victim of neo-Nazi mobs in Kiev. On Thursday Mr. Putin explained his ouster differently. Ukrainians had grown “sick and tired of poverty, stealing and the impudence of the authorities, their relentless greed and corruption.” This sort of misrule always generates populist anger. It happened in Russia in the 1990s—and now, Mr. Putin said, it has happened in Ukraine.
No coup .no right wing faccists.
0 -
Missed this during Vladimir Putin 4 hour annual phone in recently.
A totally different tone from Putin
* Moscow used to complain that former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was the innocent victim of neo-Nazi mobs in Kiev. On Thursday Mr. Putin explained his ouster differently. Ukrainians had grown “sick and tired of poverty, stealing and the impudence of the authorities, their relentless greed and corruption.” This sort of misrule always generates populist anger. It happened in Russia in the 1990s—and now, Mr. Putin said, it has happened in Ukraine.
No coup .no right wing faccists.
No.... Eggy & Elmer & similar quislings have been carping about Nazism for a year now.
Surely they must by right & czar Putin the one in error?0 -
Advertisement
-
BoJack Horseman wrote: »No.... Eggy & Elmer & similar quislings have been carping about Nazism for a year now.
Surely they must by right & czar Putin the one in error?
Here's the article forgot to post it earlier
http://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-WB-54658
I'm completely suprised it wasn't already picked up on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement