Russia Invades Ukraine

[downzy]

The idea that the US would risk the wrath of a continent that is already in the midst of a severe energy crisis by sabotaging one of its key sources is laughably absurd. 

In what world would it make sense right now for the US to make its allies in Europe suffer even further?  And for what purpose?  It doesn’t really hurt Russia, since Russia has found steady customers for its oil and natural gas in Asia.

Putin’s game plan is to to literally freeze the rest of Europe this coming winter in the hopes that it weakens European resolve and decreases the support given to Ukraine.  Blowing up Nord 1 would help Putin’s strategy.  He is the one to gain from such a move, not the US and certainly not the rest of Europe. 

[dontdamnmeuyi2015]

Wow! The part of Ukraine that Putin said was Russia territory was re-captured by Ukraine and forced the Russian army out or captured them. I would imagine Putin isn't happy right now.

Wonder what the crack pot will do now?

[-Jaro-]

13 hours ago, dontdamnmeuyi2015 said:

Wow! The part of Ukraine that Putin said was Russia territory was re-captured by Ukraine and forced the Russian army out or captured them. I would imagine Putin isn't happy right now.

Wonder what the crack pot will do now?

Norhing strange, sonce parts of claimed land were under Ukraine control in moment of Putin speach...

[Lio]

17 hours ago, downzy said:

The idea that the US would risk the wrath of a continent that is already in the midst of a severe energy crisis by sabotaging one of its key sources is laughably absurd. 

In what world would it make sense right now for the US to make its allies in Europe suffer even further?  And for what purpose?  It doesn’t really hurt Russia, since Russia has found steady customers for its oil and natural gas in Asia.

Putin’s game plan is to to literally freeze the rest of Europe this coming winter in the hopes that it weakens European resolve and decreases the support given to Ukraine.  Blowing up Nord 1 would help Putin’s strategy.  He is the one to gain from such a move, not the US and certainly not the rest of Europe. 

People keep ignoring other winners of this crisis. It's easy to point fingers at Putin when countries like Norway and the US are making record profits by selling us their gas at ultra high prices. Hypocrites.

[EvanG]

I don't know how it is elsewhere in Europe, but in my neck of the woods it is getting absurd. More and more people can't pay their bills anymore and it's not even winter yet.

[downzy]

1 hour ago, Lio said:

People keep ignoring other winners of this crisis. It's easy to point fingers at Putin when countries like Norway and the US are making record profits by selling us their gas at ultra high prices. Hypocrites.

The US has sent tens of, if not close to a hundred, billions of financial and military aid to Ukraine.  The US government does not own or operate oil companies.  Hundreds of millions of Americans have had to pay a lot more for gas since last February due to the conflict in Ukraine.

Please explain how the US is “winning” in this situation. 

[SoulMonster]

I don't think Norway is winning either, in addition to the aid we provide, we are experiencing triple energy prices and an inflation of 7%. That being said, I wouldn't mind a political decision to spend every extra dollar in gas revenue we receive on military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine. 

[downzy]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I don't think Norway is winning either, in addition to the aid we provide, we are experiencing triple energy prices and an inflation of 7%. That being said, I wouldn't mind a political decision to spend every extra dollar in gas revenue we receive on military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine. 

The US will find itself in a precarious position as we head into winter.  The increased exports of LNG to Europe comes at a cost of reducing domestic supply, which results in higher prices for Americans.  The last thing the Biden administration wants in this situation, so close to the mid term elections, is a dramatic drop in LNG coming through Nord 1.  That would force it to essentially choose between helping Europe with its LNG supply or helping Republicans in the mid-terms due to energy cost spikes right before the election. 

[Lio]

23 minutes ago, downzy said:

The US has sent tens of, if not close to a hundred, billions of financial and military aid to Ukraine.  The US government does not own or operate oil companies.  Hundreds of millions of Americans have had to pay a lot more for gas since last February due to the conflict in Ukraine.

Please explain how the US is “winning” in this situation. 

The US became the biggest exporter of liquid gas in 2022. 70% of US export of LNG goes to Europe, and not for a friendly price, as we here know all too well. Do you mean that the US doesn't benefit from that at all? That's hard to believe.

If those exporting countries would accept lower (normal, fair) prices, that would mean less income for Putin too and his army, because he couldn't ask these ridiculous prices if others didn't. That would be a way to hurt Putin.

But all they think about is their own wallets and how to make even more money. They don't care about freezing Europeans. Putin is a gift for them, as he can take all the blame, the perfect scapegoat for anything and everything. And meanwhile people here have to close their businesses because they can't afford to keep them open with these energy prices and ordinary people have to sit in the cold and worry about not showering too often, praying for a mild winter. Yay for climate change.

[Lio]

17 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I don't think Norway is winning either, in addition to the aid we provide, we are experiencing triple energy prices and an inflation of 7%. That being said, I wouldn't mind a political decision to spend every extra dollar in gas revenue we receive on military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine. 

Hm? This is what we learn about that in the press here.

Quote

In a normal year, the income from oil and gas already brings in more than 50 billion euros, good for roughly 10,000 euros per Norwegian. But since the invasion of Ukraine, Norway has replaced Russia as Europe's largest gas supplier. At today's extortionate prices, that means an annual revenue of perhaps 200 billion euros, or 40,000 euros per inhabitant. That means that every Norwegian gets about 770 euros richer every week.

 

[downzy]

8 minutes ago, Lio said:

The US became the biggest exporter of liquid gas in 2022. 70% of US export of LNG goes to Europe, and not for a friendly price, as we here know all too well. Do you mean that the US doesn't benefit from that at all? That's hard to believe.

Because little to none of the revenue goes directly to the US government, taxes not withstanding. The US doesn’t own the gas, private companies do.  The idea that the US military would go out of its way to further the interests of private energy companies at the cost of European stability is nonsense. 

The higher cost for US LNG is due to higher extraction and transportation costs.  It’s still largely determined by energy markets, not some maniacal ploy to hose Europeans. 

8 minutes ago, Lio said:

If those exporting countries would accept lower (normal, fair) prices, that would mean less income for Putin too and his army, because he couldn't ask these ridiculous prices if others didn't. That would be a way to hurt Putin.

Again, countries do not set energy prices.  Even private energy companies don’t have a huge hand in setting prices.  They’re determined by energy markets, plus the cost of extraction (relative to other sources) and transportation costs (shipping across the Atlantic ocean is significantly higher than transporting through a pipeline beneath the baltic sea). 

[Lio]

16 minutes ago, downzy said:

Because little to none of the revenue goes directly to the US government, taxes not withstanding. The US doesn’t own the gas, private companies do.  The idea that the US military would go out of its way to further the interests of private energy companies at the cost of European stability is nonsense. 

The higher cost for US LNG is due to higher extraction and transportation costs.  It’s still largely determined by energy markets, not some maniacal ploy to hose Europeans. 

Again, countries do not set energy prices.  Even private energy companies don’t have a huge hand in setting prices.  They’re determined by energy markets, plus the cost of extraction (relative to other sources) and transportation costs (shipping across the Atlantic ocean is significantly higher than transporting through a pipeline beneath the baltic sea). 

I haven't said anything about who is responsible for the sabotage and I don't think there's a plan to hose Europeans. I'm just saying there are winners in this story and they don't only live in Russia.

[SoulMonster]

33 minutes ago, Lio said:

Hm? This is what we learn about that in the press here.

There is no disagreement between what I wrote and this. 

[Blackstar]

The notion that governments are not interested in increasing their countries' exports, hence they would have no reason to promote the interests of their countries' private companies that produce these goods, couldn't be further from reality (it's even attested in the links I posted earlier, as well as in this one, for example) - it's absolutely ridiculous.

Of course that doesn't mean that ordinary Americans are benefited. Just like if Putin wins, it doesn't mean that Russian people win.

[downzy]

42 minutes ago, Lio said:

I haven't said anything about who is responsible for the sabotage and I don't think there's a plan to hose Europeans. I'm just saying there are winners in this story and they don't only live in Russia.

Right, but the assertion underlining your posts is that the conflict in Ukraine is one that benefits the US or other western nations.  But outside the US and global LNG and military industries, the conflict benefits no one.  It is in the US political interest to see the conflict come to a peaceful resolution.  Looking at the conflict through the lens of global energy markets and players is extremely limited and narrow and does not reflect the larger concerns and interests at play. 

27 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

The notion that governments are not interested in increasing their countries' exports, hence they would have no reason to promote the interests of their countries' private companies that produce these goods, couldn't be further from reality (it's even attested in the links I posted earlier, as well as in this one, for example) - it's absolutely ridiculous.

Of course that doesn't mean that ordinary Americans are benefited. Just like if Putin wins, it doesn't mean that Russian people win.

Of course nations have an interest in promoting their exports.  But not in vacuum.   Larger political and security interests need to be considered.  

[action]

we all play along, and "act" like this is really about lines on a map, and country A fighting country B, one is good, other is bad.

it's really about the rich getting richer, at the cost of human lives. its, as they say, a human grocery store

every fool understands this, and if not, then you really are a fool.

this time, a lunatic in russia is messing it all up though, that's why this war is unpredicatble and a liability. not even the rich are safe this time around, with all these suspicious "accidents" killing all sorts of hot shots

 we are not supposed to know the inner workings of these wars, I don't believe anything they say in the media

[grouse]

Money makes the world go round, it will always be a game of resources that is just how everything works. For anyone stating this is not the case for their home country well all I can say is you might be a bit blinded by patriotism. There are no such things as a freebie in life this rings especially true on a geopolitical scale.  

Edited October 2, 2022 by grouse

[downzy]

3 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

Ehhh...USA starts entire wars for things like oil, poppy fields(heroin) and of course enriching the military industrial complex. USA is splayed out for lobbyists like a cheap whore lol. The idea that private interests are entirely separated is overzealous nonsense.

Countering someone saying something like "they're only involved in this situation for this" etc? Sure. But let's not sell too hard.

Your post has no bearing on the conversation as it relates to the war in Ukraine. 

No one is arguing that past American endeavours weren't always launched for the sake of selfish altruism.  At no point has anyone argued that the US isn't swayed by private interests.

What is at issue here is whether the US is at fault for the conflict in the Ukraine and whether it has an economic, political, defensive interest in limiting LNG to the rest of Europe.  Every one of my responses in the last 24 hours has been directed towards that contention.

What I find insufferable about these kinds of conversations in general (so not specific to OG) is how people don't seem to bother reading what others are saying or contending with the reasons and evidence provided.  This is partly why you don't see me post as much as I use to: too many are not really interested in genuine discourse where what others are saying are acknowledged or contended with.  Good faith discussions are few and far between anymore.  

3 hours ago, action said:

we are not supposed to know the inner workings of these wars, I don't believe anything they say in the media

Right...  Easy way to believe whatever you want, regardless of whether it stacks up to scrutiny...

What a fucking useless discussion.  

2 hours ago, grouse said:

Money makes the world go round, it will always be a game of resources that is just how everything works. For anyone stating this is not the case for their home country well all I can say is you might be a bit blinded by patriotism. There are no such things as a freebie in life this rings especially true on a geopolitical scale.  

See above.

[SoulMonster]

3 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

Such as Norway apparently deciding to charge 400% or the military industrial complex etc. And it's more than fair to condemn and criticize that sort of thing, especially when the resulting shit lands on your own doorstep, in spite of however the way of the world it may be.

Some comments to this:

- Although Norway may be perceived as a quasi-communist country, the oil and gas industry was privatized back in the 70s or so, and although Norway holds a large equity stake in our largest oil company, Equinor, that doesn't mean Norway is pulling the strings, especially not insofar as setting oil prices. So Norway hasn't decided to charge 400%.

- Secondly, the prices aren't set by Equinor, either, or any other individual oil and gas company, but through the open market trade in crude oil which is mostly affected by supply and demand. OPEC has increased the supply (not out of altruistic reasons, but because the demand has increased after Putin reduced oil trade to Europe) which limits the increase in crude oil price to some extent (while still keeping revenues high because they get to sell more oil), but it is inevitable that prices will soar in today's market. I am not an oil economist by any stretch of the imagination, but I don't think individual oil companies have many means to affect prices other than by decreasing or increasing oil extraction, and here in Norway the extraction amount is politically set because of environmental concerns.

- Domestically here in Norway, most of our oil and gas are traded to Germany and other European countries because Norway is connected to the European energy network and this has caused substantial protests as it is perceived that if we had kept the oil and gas to ourselves, we could have been able to keep the prices lower (although this assertion is being contested by at least some oil and gas analysts). So right now, the prices here in Norway has increased similarly to the rest of Europe with up to 4x and with a high inflation on top of that Norwegians are experiencing exactly the same as other Europeans with higher cost of living and salaries that don't keep up. The Norwegian government is subsidizing some of the increased energy costs of households, but people are still struggling to make ends meet.

So going back to the original question, who is winning? In my opinion, Putin is winning because he can sell his oil to other markets, and the oil companies are winning because their products are in increasing demand. You might argue that Norway as a nation is winning because of more in taxes from the domestic oil and gas industry but at the same time we have to look at the whole picture with increased costs due to inflation and additional costs because of the war. And Norwegians, like other Europeans, are certainly not winning here, either.

Edited October 3, 2022 by SoulMonster

[Sweersa]

On 9/21/2022 at 1:16 PM, Serial Killer said:

I'm not saying Russia is going to conquer EU, but war in the continent is happening and that means WWIII, nuclear weapons and millions of dead. I live there unfortunately. Thanks NATO. Thanks EU. Thanks Biden. Thanks WEF. They've been planning this catastrophe for decades.

The US will come, as they did before to help if it comes to another world war. But, I don't think it will. If Ukraine (with support) is giving big bad Russia the spanking it is, imagine if NATO stepped in full force. It wouldn't be long before  Putin would be forced to surrender or worse (for him). 

Many people would die, of course which is always horrible.

NATO should have took Ukraine in after they peacefully turned in their nukes after the fall of the USSR, that was bad on them. I'm sure it's more complicated than that, but if Ukraine was NATO prior to 2014, I don't think Putin would of had the balls to attack a NATO country.

At least COVID stopped when this war began.

[grouse]

21 hours ago, downzy said:

See above.

I did not quote you nor was I responding to you downzy, hold your horses.

Edited October 3, 2022 by grouse

[ShadowOfTheWave]

It's true that a lot of the people sporting Ukrainian avatars and whatnot are jumping on the bandwagon and going along with the narrative of corporate news and western elites. However, the inverse is also true. There's a lot of people that cheer on Russia simply because it's the anti-establishment or anti-western thing to do. Saying "Joe Biden and CNN are shilling for Ukraine so Putin must be the good guy" is just as mindnumbingly stupid as going along with the anti-Russian narrative because it's the trendy thing to do. It's important to take a nuanced view of these issues, something 99% percent of people seem uninterested in.

[kanecrescente]

1 hour ago, ShadowOfTheWave said:

It's true that a lot of the people sporting Ukrainian avatars and whatnot are jumping on the bandwagon and going along with the narrative of corporate news and western elites. However, the inverse is also true. There's a lot of people that cheer on Russia simply because it's the anti-establishment or anti-western thing to do. Saying "Joe Biden and CNN are shilling for Ukraine so Putin must be the good guy" is just as mindnumbingly stupid as going along with the anti-Russian narrative because it's the trendy thing to do. It's important to take a nuanced view of these issues, something 99% percent of people seem uninterested in.

Precisely. Best not to jump on any bandwagons incase any future revelations perhaps bring shame towards it.

[jekylhyde]

3 hours ago, ShadowOfTheWave said:

It's important to take a nuanced view of these issues, something 99% percent of people seem uninterested in.

No. You don't need take a nuanced view on the Ukraine War. It's a dictator invading a neighboring, sovereign country. His army is killing and torturing civilians. Ukraine is fighting for their independence, their lives. There's your nuances. 

Every democratic European country, especially those who share border with Russia, like mine, and their people are very concerned.

Ukraine and Russia aren't equal here. You wouldn't listen to the reasoning of a school yard bully and go "hmm, he has some good points, go ahead". Or a rapist. Or a murderer. It's the same with this.

It sounds so uneducated to me, when people see this as an issue that has two equal points of view. It's not.

Sorry for the off topic. 

[ShadowOfTheWave]

35 minutes ago, jekylhyde said:

No. You don't need take a nuanced view on the Ukraine War. It's a dictator invading a neighboring, sovereign country. His army is killing and torturing civilians. Ukraine is fighting for their independence, their lives. There's your nuances. 

Every democratic European country, especially those who share border with Russia, like mine, and their people are very concerned.

Ukraine and Russia aren't equal here. You wouldn't listen to the reasoning of a school yard bully and go "hmm, he has some good points, go ahead". Or a rapist. Or a murderer. It's the same with this.

It sounds so uneducated to me, when people see this as an issue that has two equal points of view. It's not.

Sorry for the off topic. 

I never said they were equal. Just not to jump on one position 100% with no questions. Nothing is ever 100% black and white, that is the "uneducated", childish view. For example, for the past eight years there been many alleged atrocities committed against Russian minorities in the Donbass, which are ignored and dismissed by western media. When the reverse happens and Ukraine alleges Russian war crimes, the western media accepts this with no question.

Edited October 5, 2022 by ShadowOfTheWave