Germany shelves Nord Stream 2 pipeline
politico.eu
politico.eu
Europe gas prices: How far is Russia responsible? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/58888451
Some key points in the BBC article:
- Russia supplies about 40% of the EU’s natural gas imports. Most of the rest comes from Norway and Algeria.
- Russia sends gas to Europe through several main pipelines - such as the Nord Stream, the Yamal-Europe and the Brotherhood (see the map in the article).
- Overall, Russian gas exports to Europe have been decreasing over the last couple of years - down 32% in February this year compared to February 2020. One factor - during the pandemic - has been falling demand as economic activity shrank. Stocks of gas across Europe have been depleted, which in turn is driving up prices.
- Gazprom, Russia's majority state-owned energy company, supplies gas to Europe under two different arrangements: 1. Long-term contracts often lasting from 10 to 25 years. 2. "Spot" deals or one-off purchases for a fixed amount of gas.
- It is understood that Gazprom met its obligations to European buyers last year under these contracts.
- "Spot" sales don't appear to be happening in any significant quantity, going by data from Gazprom's own electronic sales platform.
- The International Energy Agency's executive director, Fatih Birol, has accused Russia of reducing gas supplies to Europe for political purposes.
- Gas storage across Europe is well below the 10-year average, with levels currently at about 75% of storage capacity, according to Gas Infrastructure Europe data.
Question is, was gas ordered? I doubt anyone delivers without order. According to Gazprom the orders came only february 2nd.
https://www.ft.com/content/576a96f7-e41d-4068-a61b-f74f2b2d3...
Still the same,no order, no delivery.
Biden has discussed with US energy companies on how to get them into providing LNG capacity to European needs.
That's the assumption, but it doesn't follow natural economic laws.... where price ultimately prevails.
One only needs to look at how global oil prices were weaponized, in essence Persian-gulf oil producers openly conspired to sell barrels of oil cheaply to deprive their South American oil exporting competitors from realizing higher gains. And... one only needs to look to Argentina to see how that played out. The point is, energy importers prioritize lower price, and energy exporters are willing to maintain lower prices to protect their cartel or monopoly.
Russia has provided affordable cheap natural gas as a strategic goal to create an effective monopoly in Europe. Not recognizing this monopoly is a form of denial or rationalization, and isn't very helpful. Europe simply cannot cut away the lower energy prices, as that has deep macro economic consequences.
Spending that money, or a bit more, in the US, at least I’m not funding an openly hostile regime. Some would eve argue you could reduce your defence spending by some amount $Y.
And vice versa...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion
Of course it makes up a minuscule fraction of the Ukrainian national guard:
Another way of framing this is "Europe gas prices: How far is Europe responsible?" https://www.bloombergquint.com/gadfly/what-the-u-s-can-learn... | https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2017/01/bi...
Overall it will be much more expensive for Europe than for Russia. Who do you think will profit the most if gas prices hike?
If the greens try to sell shale gas against natural gas as something "green", I think they will get a huge invoice from the economy and from voters. Not even the most naive green voters will take that argument and they do take a lot.
Super green.
Please don't spread misinformation.
[1] https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/taxonomie-eu-kommission-...
> Minister Habeck said: "The idea of including fossil gas in the taxonomy system is also questionable. The European Commission does at least make it clear that gas from fossil fuels is only a bridging technology which needs to be substituted by green hydrogen. New gas-fired power plants must already be equipped for conversion to hydrogen, and from 2035 they must be operated on the basis of green hydrogen or low-carbon gas. This is ambitious and will require large amounts of hydrogen. Incentivising sufficient investment in the transition towards hydrogen, establishing the necessary infrastructure and ramping up hydrogen production are some of the major challenges we are currently facing."
There will be costs associated with transportation for EU, be that from China (as a middle man for Russia) or Canada/US.
In any case it's Qatar and other Arab states that produce LNG are the ones who'll be laughing all the way to the bank here.
If nothing else, is anyone keeping a very sharp eye out for what's going on around Taiwan or in the South China Sea, now that everyone's attention is on the Russian Kim's Ukrainian adventure?
Never going to happen. I would expect looking for alternative suppliers of gas, and developing renewables further.
What's their reasoning?
[1] https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/37985/umfrage...
For the last days, there was a lot of wind in Germany, causing the German wind energy production to sometimes even exceed French nuclear (up to 48GW of wind power). Germany most of all now has to correct the mistakes by the previous government and very quickly has to push for building up more wind and solar capacity.
All electricity basically turns to heat at some point. So why not?
And that is sure, while keeping the remaining nuclear power plants in service a little bit longer might be a consideration (though unlikely), investing in new nuclear infrastructure for sure isn't. There, renewables are the way to go.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-map-of-Nuclear-Power...
Larger energy capture devices can be more efficient. One highly-efficient fuel burning plant providing power to a hundred thousand electric resistive heaters can produce more useful heat per unit fuel than a hundred thousand small-scale self-maintained home furnaces.
Modern condensing heaters have an efficiency of 90%.
Combined cycle power plants can be 64% efficient [1] at turning heat into electricity. And if that power goes on to run a heat pump, 1 watt of electric power can deliver 3-4 watts of heating.
And modern gas combi boilers can be 92-98% efficient [2].
The days of people throwing away 80% of the energy they pay for are long gone.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle_power_plant [2] https://www.which.co.uk/reviews/boilers/article/boiler-energ...
(*estimated number out of thin air, but yes majority is gas or oil)
I can’t verify that easily, but this doesn’t seem disputed, so the retrofitting is maybe not so much of an issue. There is of course the initial installation cost, but also presumably lower maintenance costs.
If they're smart they can build support for modern designs, probably small nuclear, as long as they can convince their voter base that the risk of accidents and the problem of waste disposal are much smaller than with the outdated plants they helped close down.
From an economic perspective it's a hard sell compared to solar and wind plus storage, but with the resistance to new windfarms by NIMBYs you can probably justify some subsidies. The timescales involved are still a problem though.
Yes, "Green" Parties are a blight on the political landscape everywhere.
> Restarting or extending the lifetime of existing plants would be political suicide for the current government.
Well, for the bottom of the current "traffic-light" coalition, anyway... (We can but hope.)
If we compare Sweden to Germany, almost no homes in Sweden has gas lines connected to them. Swedish homes use heated up water (central or communal heating), or just heat up the air. Sweden has a lot of nuclear and hydro so the electricity prices has historically been low, and importing gas would be expensive. There have been few incentives to spend money and government resources into the infrastructure needed for gas. Germany in contrast seems to have done the opposite, with historical low prices for gas (didn't the coal industry produce also produce gas in the past?), and fairly high prices for electricity. By now there is a pretty large sunk costs into gas infrastructures, and a switch to electric heating would be both expensive for the government and for individual home owners.
On the positive side, a massive investment towards electric heating would be a major boon for the environment. Leaks from natural gas is considered a major contributor for green house gases, and burning it also not very good.
___
[1]: This moronic argument is most frequently brought up as "Single-payer health care can't work in the US as it does in [insert any country with single-payer health care], because the US population is [X] times bigger!" Yeah, but so fucking WHAT? That just means the US has X times more health care recipients, and an X times larger economy to supply health care! It's just the same thing, scaled up by a factor of X. Sheesh...
If any of what you say is true at all, how did France survive for so long on nuclear power?
France uses 40.7 billion cubic meters of gas (0.6 per capita), while Germany uses 86.5 (1.03 per capita). Given that France has a warmer climate the difference is not all that big. France does not survive on nuclear power alone.
Erm, no, that's just not true. Ironically, the best counter to that is... Russia, which successfully supplies a few million with extremely cheap hot water.
[1] https://www.nucnet.org/news/operation-begins-of-qinshan-nucl...
[2] http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202112/22/WS61c27b44a310cdd39...
[3] https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Chinese-nuclear-...
[4] https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newschinese-nuclear-compani...
This probably explains why Germany is not supporting Ukraine with fists. If they make Russia angry, the Germans will be enemies of Germany due to social unrest. This is a decision of morality vs economics, and the government will choose economics. I think for now, just like China, Germany is just stopping to appease the mass. But after a month they will take Russian gas.
And also probably because we don't want a war on our borders? Ukraine was supposed to be a buffer state between NATO and Russia, and then US promised that Ukraine would have joined NATO, and back at the time Germany and France pushed back[0]. But US has only to gain with disorders in the old continent, so here we are...
[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/world/europe/03nato.html
Russia actually does have an argument for protecting former Russians in some countries. These are people that suddenly lost their nationality with the collapse of the soviet union and don't want to relieve it in favor of the new countries. That puts them in a situation where they are not allowed to travel because of lacking passports. There is additional discrimination that the population faces. Of course that is not at all an excuse for an invasion. But if you deny that Russia has security interests in that region, you basically are asking for a war. And the Russians have made it very clear that it is seen that way and made their reaction very predictable. Yet, western nations ignored that completely.
After what the US media conjured as Russian election interference it certainly drove more animosity towards Russians. Completely irresponsible behavior and not a lesser extend of state propaganda than you would hear from Kremlin media. But people will completely deny this reality due to a religious self-image, even if they know it was bollocks. Shame on those that reiterated that message which was not restricted to the US at all.
The US might have some obligations towards Ukraine, as has Great Britain. But I don't think the involvement of the US has been very helpful. Bush wanted to be seen as strong everywhere after 9-11 and that extended to giving Ukraine and Georgia hope of Nato membership. At that time Russia didn't even react much. But the course for the escalation was set.
One common factor of those that asked for a strong response, which the west mostly gave with the exception of Germany perhaps, was being profoundly ignorant in how to talk to Russia and its interest. Ukraine has interests too, but there is no solution for them without a dialogue with its neighbor.
And just promising to not include Ukraine in a military alliance (it is not just a defensive pact) would have mostly ended the conflict and most arguments. Yet, some people decided not to do that.
No, these people are occupants. They should either deported or jailed.
Letting them stay is a democracy glitch that now terrorists like Putin is exploiting.
They put themselves in that situation by not getting new passports, so if there's any "additional discrimination" it's done by themselves. If they didn't want to become citizens of their newly independent ex-Soviet Republics but remain Russians, they should have moved to Russia.
> Of course that is not at all an excuse for an invasion.
It certainly is being used as one, just as it has in the past.
Russia's "security interests" are, as they have ever been, aggressive unilateral expansion. Nobody else was "asking for a war"; nobody needs to, because Russia is always only too willing to serve one up unasked. So yes indeed, "their reaction [is] very predictable". It always is, and it's of course even easier to predict when it's a "reaction" to circumstances they themselves engineered.
> Yet, western nations ignored that completely.
So WTF were they supposed to do? Acquiesce and appease, as so many times before? There has to be a limit somewhere. Putin cannot count on Munich 1938 going on forever.
Because normal international diplomatic relations and norms don't apply to Russia; one has to "talk to" Russia in a special way? How about fucking Russia just come down off its high horse, in stead?
> Ukraine has interests too, but there is no solution for them without a dialogue with its neighbor.
There is no solution for them with such a neighbour.
> And just promising to not include Ukraine in a military alliance (it is not just a defensive pact) would have mostly ended the conflict and most arguments. Yet, some people decided not to do that.
Here's what people with a dictatorial mindset[1] just can't seem to get: It's not a matter of what other powers should "promise" or "decide", but what the people of the sovereign nation of Ukraine themselves WANT to do. If they feel that they need to belong to an alliance in order to preserve their national security, then who the fuck is Putin to say they can't? He has his own nation to run; he is not the dictator of the Ukrainians. (Yet. :-( )
[1]: Like you are so convincingly demonstrating here.
Overall, rounded: 48% natural gas, 25% oil, 14% district heating
https://www.bmwi-energiewende.de/EWD/Redaktion/Newsletter/20...
Electrical heating is rare, because it's inefficient. And considering the former energy mix of Germany: not ecological.
You don't have to like Scholz, but talking about nuclear in this context and calling the head of a state dumb... ?!?!... doesn't make much sense.
There is also the European perspective. The cornerstone of European piece policy has been the integrity of state borders. This is now violated, so this is of very grave concern.
Putin himself stated yesterday, that he considers the Ukraine a part of Russia, so there is concern that he won't stop anytime soon, unless stopped. Ironically, an occupation of the Ukraine makes him what he claimed to try to prevent - a direct neighbor to the NATO states. We can only hope he stops before attacking NATO.
Now? What about Kosovo* and to lesser degree other conflicts in ex-Yugoslavia? Germany even had an active role in that.
Montenegro gets to declare independence, but Republika Srpska doesn't because Serbs don't matter.
Kosovo must be recognized as an "independent country" right next to Albania, but Eastern Ukraine never.
South Sudan, Eritrea, the list of "approved" places that are permitted independence, goes on and on.
Kosovo* is more comparable to Srpska in Bosnia or Krajina in Croatia, or Crimea and Donbass. While Montenegro is more like Scotland situation in the UK.
Not sure that's a good argument. Many in Germany also have friendships with people from Russia. Would that automatically mean that Germany has to support Russia? I doubt it.
It is just Ukraine, no “the” required nor preferred.
Or go campaign for a while for the French to drop the article from "Le Danemark", or something equally useful.
This line of thinking double prices to gas, natural gas and electricity in the last year. Please stop it!
They existing pipelines can deliver more easily. It's not like they've been running anywhere close to full capacity. Nordstream is more about taking leverage away from countries like Ukraine.
What Germany needs to do, stat!, is to undo its moronic decision to scrap nuclear power. It's not as if the North Sea is very prone to tsunamis. And most of Germany's nuclear plants were probably not even all that close to the coast.
Let's just fervently hope that any plants already decomissioned can be re-comissioned ASAP.
The German companies buy from Gazprom under the umbrella of the cheap long term contracts and now are selling to Poland. The German companies order from Netherlands way much more then in previous years (almost double), because of long term contracts, that Netherlands has to fulfill.
Here you have the companies, which are really profiting. It is not so much Gazprom as you may think.
On completely unrelated note is that our (Polish) current government is beyond stupid, voided long-term contracts during a period of cheaper gas prices, and is now forced to buy at spot prices for more than it saved on the long-term contract (also lots of political capital being involved between govt and opposition).
With the contracts, the current ruling coalition sold people the idea that they "got back" money from Gazprom over high prices of long-term contract when spot gas prices were lower. This, indeed, led to a considerable refund - but also meant we don't have guaranteed gas prices anymore, and now spot prices are much higher than they were when they renegotiated out the long-term contract ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Markets disagree here. The ruble tumbled as well as the main Russian index, 500% more than the USA/Europe did. Russia has a lot to lose.
This pipeline has an annual capacity of 55 billion cubic meters. It's the same capacity as the Nord Stream 1, which is already in operation. If Germany was truly meaning business, they'd stop Nord Stream 1 the moment Russian boots enter Ukrainian territory. But let's leave that aside.
55 billion cubic meters translate to about 0.6 billion MWh. The price today for natural gas Dutch TTF futures is EUR 78/MWh [1] , so that translates in about 40 billion EUR per year. It has been as low as EUR 13 and as high as EUR 165 over the last 2 years. It's quite likely that Russia would make a profit even at the lower range, so the 40 billion EUR/year is pretty much pure profit for them.
[1] https://www.theice.com/products/27996665/Dutch-TTF-Gas-Futur...
Like Biden always does, he just ignored the bi-partisan sanctions passed by congress because it'll be too late by the time the courts get done (Biden subverting the system to help Russia get what they want)
This is important because Ukraine said quite a while ago that sanctions of Nordstream 2 would go a long way toward preventing war[0]
Meanwhile, the Democrats spent a morning last week waxing eloquent about the evil of the filibuster only to use the filibuster that same day to stop a bi-partisan set of Nordstream 2 sanctions from passing because it was just under the requisite 60 votes.
[0] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/ukraine-us-not-too-l...
This has been in the US Constitution from the beginning of the country and is hardly controversial.
Interestingly, failing to uphold the Constitution and execute the laws passed by congress is serious grounds for impeachment (though it simply will not happen until at least 2023).
If something were actually bipartisan, surely it would be over the filibuster threshold?
It was 55 to 44. As some Republicans like Rand Paul always vote against sanctions, there were at least 6-7 democrats in favor.
In any case, it was merely stating AGAIN what had ALREADY been legislated before (and Biden simply refuse to execute what the Constitution demands)
If Germany is meaning business, they'd stop buying any gas from Russia. Why would the means how it gets to Germany even matter?
OTOH, not everyone in Europe is in a comfortable position where they can care about Russian expansion more than they care about heating their home.
But it’s true that Russia isn’t a driving force in that.
While it’s technically true that there’s shipping of LNG outside of pipelines, my impression is that the market for methane isn’t currently very global.
My point was that the resurgence of economies and cold winters has driven up US methane prices to 2-2.5x where they were a year ago.
I was specifically responding to a commenter implying Americans aren’t experiencing difficulty paying for heating this year.
How much higher are German rates for methane?
Noble principles do not heat homes, or feed the hungry.
You are free to construct a dichotomy of tanks rumbling over homes, or homes being deprived of heating during hard winter.... but you will only succeed in illustrating the Nash Equilibrium, and fail to be persuasive otherwise.
Try to look at the big picture.
b) Heat pump (installation, retrofitting existing heat distribution, if at all possible; largest problems might arise with wall mounted radiators since they much larger temperatures to operate) is very costly. Maintenance and running costs not so much.
c) Electricity prices even at the current tarriffs are not cheaper than CNG. This comes from data comparing data on similar volume and insulation buildings using heatpump and CNG heating. That will most likely change in favour of electricity, though its generation from natural gas is really popular around here. d) To change the type of heating from CNG to something else en-masse would require extreme financial, labor and supply expenses.
I'm pro giving up on the Russian CGN because I do not depend on it and I can offset price hikes. But assuming that would not be without major economic and other consequences is a nonsense.
Edit: formatting and a typo.
I'm building a house and ran the calculations (two years ago, before gas got expensive) for various forms of heating, and solar PV + heat pump came out the cheapest. We have net-metering but still need to pay "transmission fees" (7c/kWh) for electricity we later consume.
I also considered just using gas for heating in the winter, but the connection fees (installation and ongoing network fees) came out to be much more than the cost of the gas we would actually use.
This is just political theatre. Wait till Russia stops sending gas through Ukraine and paying Ukraine billions for the privilege (a move that can be easily justified from the Russian side as 'counter sanctions').
Then you'll hear the Germans scream XD
Nord Stream 2 was strictly speaking never needed, a lot consider it rather a strategy of Russia to be able to cut off Ukraine without severing their trade with Germany. As a consequence, a lot of people in Germany considered North Stream 2 a strategic mistake.
Putin already was playing with the gas supply as the signed contracts were fulfilled, but no extra gas was offered, even if Russia could have made some nice profits, unless North Stream 2 became operational.
Cutting gas below the existing contracts would be a whole different step of escalation.
I didn’t know until this article and comments that Nordstream 2 was already effectively on pause.
I kept waiting for something about the situation to pop up here where I could get opinion and info from actual grownups vs the rest of the internet.
All this Ukraine stuff is also supported by China. I bet they are ready to buy Russian oil and gas to compensate even if this costs them more than getting them from the open market.
Why? Because this is a wonderful test drive to check how the West (sorry for the approximation) is reacting to a country theoretically supported by the West being invaded by another one.
For me, the next one on the line is Taiwan.
I don't think China would have any objection to separatists of any nation who wanted to spread communism and get Chinese backing. Actually, the fact that there aren't Taiwanese separatists for China is probably a disappointment.
Or rather, it’s easy to turn it around.
Russia’s claim is basically, “this is ethnically Russian population speaking Russian”. That’s exactly the same claim that China could make about Taiwan.
It’s also the same claim Western non-Han China could make about itself, or India could make about Tibet.
This "if I apply the same logic to this other thing you did" simply doesn't work other than as a gotcha title for the media in opposition. Stories/opinions will be drown out by misinformation and propaganda.
It's even easier especially for autocrats, because if you ask them "isn't that the same claim Western non-Han China could make about itself?", they can just pretend not hearing the question and let the ministry of truth do the work.
And yet it's not China's claim over Taiwan (and the “speaking Russian” part is kind of difficult to transfer to China and Taiwan).
Isn't the main language in Taiwan the same as in south-east mainland China? (What used to be called Cantonese, but maybe it goes by another name nowadays?)
Cantonese is mainly spoken in Guangdong (historically known as Canton), and Hokkien mainly Fujian. They are two very different languages.
There are a lot of people in Taiwan speaking Hokkien.
Yeah, I thought I'd got that right: The region has been renamed (or, arguably, just had the spelling revised to be more in line with the native pronunciation?).
So why isn't the language now called Guangdongese? This modern PC-induced language revisionism can get pretty darn confusing in its inconsistency.
> There are a lot of people in Taiwan speaking Hokkien.
Which still seems to imply that even more people, i.e. a majority, speak Cantonese, right? I just meant that, since language is often a (sometimes minor, sometimes major) part of how "ethnicity" is defined, China could use an analogous "They even speak the same language!" argument. Not that I'm saying it's a valid argument -- just not logically impossible, as I think was argued or at least implied in some comment(s) above.
Logic is for PRC, UKR is sovereign, TW is not. RU invading UKR is international war. PRC invading TW is domestic civil war. RU is violating UKR sovereignty, whereas US intervening on PRC civil war with TW would be foreign power violating Chinese sovereignty. PRC would be UKR sorting out domestic issues whereas US would be RU, an outside aggressor. Note PRC has not endorsed RU annexation of Ukraine including Crimea. Doesn't mean PRC doesn't support RU security concerns, but PRC would like it addressed via diplomacy without normalizing violating sovereignty of countries recognized at UN, which again TW is not. PRC and RU are not aligned on invasion, but it doesn't mean PRC will loudly oppose RU if it's against PRC interest.
First it's very short term thinking by China. Victory is assured for them if the boat isn't rocked too much and they continue the path of economic integration and economic growth. Their economy will be 2x the US economy and then they will be in a better position to assert their geopolitical interests.
Second consider the consequences to China of NATO expansion in the East, which the UK has started to discuss as a good idea in the last few days. That is not good for China's geopolitical position.
I also wonder how this will impact certain regions differently since for example the now very famous Uyghurs and some other minorities were exempt from one child policy till it ended in 2016. Will their regions fare better economically or is this taxation and application of it in elderly care, pensions, etc a more top down federal thing?
China is not really comparable since there is still a substantial reserve army of rural inhabitants that can be drawn into industry (900 mil urban/500 mil rural). Until the rural pop is drained you'll continue to see strong growth in china.
Artificial wombs are very controversial in the West, but they seem to be technically feasible (at least experiments in other mammalian species indicate so), and an authoritarian country like China, being squeezeed by demography while having significant scientific know-how, seem to be the most likely candidates for actually trying this out on humans.
Russia has no practical way to transfer gas designated for Europe to China, there is no pipe they can use as gas comes from different sources.
But yes, China is looking how Europe, USA, NATO is handling the situation as this will give some hints if "the West" is still capable to defend Taiwan, Philippines, Japan...
Come on, China is bad enough as it is, no need to overdo it with imaginary threats.
(Edit: wow impressed by how fast these downvotes came. I wonder if it was triggered by the “China is bad” part or my point that a Chinese invasion of Japan or Philippines is a complete fantasy. In case it's the second part, you should probably take a break from American news…)
Interestingly, the Philippines were previously invaded and occupied by Spain, the US, and Japan but never China although one of their nearest neighbour... Likewise although there were conflicts and Northern Vietnam was briefly taken over by China 600 years ago, Vietnam was only fully colonised by France. This is just to point out that China is not historically as aggressive as we are in the West.
Or that there were failed attempts to conquer Japan? Incompetence doesn’t equal a peacenik attitude.
It's FUD to claim that China plans to invade its neighbours. Having a growing influence, sure, but it's quite different and they have along way to go before they can get even halfway to the level of control and influence the US have over many countries, for instance.
That being said, history is a poor proxy for future behavior: Japan is really unlikely to ever resume its aggressive expansionist policy, and it's not because China doesn't have a terrible track record of neighbors invasion that it will not start in this century. But that doesn't really excuse rewriting history…
And here you are with vitriolic claims that I was rewriting history.
No, they did not say that. What they actually said:
> This is just to point out that China is not historically as aggressive as we are in the West.
Now talk about “bad faith”…
What is more likely is China’s Sphere of Influence extending well beyond Taiwan. No invasion needed or even the installation of a friendly government - just a government that won’t pushback.
But in addition it seems like you’re ignorant of China’s Nine Dash Line, which has impacted Philippines and others. And their demand for control of the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, which has impacted Japan.
Condescension + ignorance is a killer combination
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/a-property-sells-10-....
From another source: https://lngprime.com/asia/chinas-zhejiang-energy-to-buy-stak...
> Furthermore, A-Property said that the project involves building a 1358 kilometers long pipeline that would connect Yatek’s fields in Yakutia to the 18 mtpa LNG plant near Ayan on the Sea of Okhotsk.
From there, it seems to be pretty close to China.
I said this in another thread yesterday:
I very much think that this contract is what gave Russia the upper hand. When the Western Europe was the majority market gor Russian gas, things were status quo. Once China starts buying more and more gas from Russia, Russia doesn’t have to please Europe anymore and Europe can impose any sanctions it wants.
Yep. If Europe (and Germany in particular) retaliates with economic warfare (err... sanctions) then Russia will simply turn off Nordstream 1. Options to sell to China instead make this much easier for them to do. Maybe there isn't currently a good way to deliver, but have you seen how fast China can build stuff if they really want to?
This idea of Germany voting not to turn on a pipeline that is currently not turned on is just an attempt to make it look like they're doing something when in fact, they are not doing anything.
> The firm said it expects Yatek’s gas reserves to rise to 567 billion cubic meters in the third quarter of 2022.
So the dependency will be reduced on both sides.
Yeah, but they're a bit of an exception: The decreasing motor gasoline consumption is due to an ever larger share of cars on Norwegian roads being electric. On the whole, though, electric cars are still rather expensive, and Norway is among the countries where they have a larger market share than elsewhere because it is richer than most countries. (Ironically, in large part because it is a major exporter of... fossil fuels.)
> The firm said it expects Yatek’s gas reserves to rise to 567 billion cubic meters in the third quarter of 2022.
Those 567 billion cubic meters might be a big deal for Yatek, but they're a drop in the bucket for the country as a whole.
The logical next move if the pipeline to Europe falls through is for those speedy Chinese builders to build a pipeline. Russia isn't going to defect and even if they do it wouldn't cripple China. It's in China's interest to keep the current political climate in Russia, since if Putin falls to a pro-democratic group like Ukraine did, Russia will snap hard to Nato. And to keep that political climate Russia has to move hydrocarbons.
Personally, I don't really see a way out of this. China is going to be more powerful than Nato. There is no reasonable way out of it. The sooner we recognize this, the faster we'll isolate our economies from Russian and Chinese influence.
This is partially our fault for not doing a Marshal Plan Part Duex in Russia / Ukraine after the iron curtain fell, but really the main problem is that we extended a hand out in good faith to China and it didn't break the way we wanted it to. Rather than join the club and be the most influential member they've decided to real politik and be the next hegemon. It didn't have to be this way, even with the Chinese Communist Party in charge. Vietnam is perfectly capable of joining the club (TPP) without a functioning democracy.
This is a weird extrapolation. Assuming Europe remains impotent, the UK, Australia and U.S. are going to have more mobile firepower than China has total firepower for decades to come.
As for mobile firepower, it takes time to invest in deployment capabilities, yes, but if their task is to dominate a specific target (vs global power projection) then they'll outmatch us within ten years. We do not have long. We need to fix our posture.
This is still playing out, and I'm extremely sceptical of this take. China has a lot of domestic problems to deal with and a lack of allies due to their geo-politiking. Then you have India waiting in the wings, ready to be to China, what China was to America. Keeping in mind, we are all nuclear powers.
Indian democracy makes this a non-starter. We cannot get simple things done because every single issue gets tied up in protests and courts for decades on end.[1][2]
[1] Indian Neutrino Observatory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India-based_Neutrino_Observato...)
[2] Tamil Nadu says ‘no’ in Supreme Court to neutrino observatory project (https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tn-says-no-in-supreme...)
China has 40% more population than Nato. Their culture is naturally harder to copy because of their extremely difficult language and tightened boarders. They work laughbly longer hours than we do in the west due to the 996 system. They're smart, make no bones about it. They're vicious when it comes to espionage and IP theft. They solve coordination problems with a brute force hammer of "do what I say" communism which cuts both ways, yes, but it will be a while before their generational concerns catch up to them. They are going to be the dominant power ten years from now and the only thing we can do in advance of this reality is to band together and limit our dependance on them.
The time for frienship making is over. The temporary strategy will be appeasement. The long term strategy will be disengagement. They'll go after gains in Africa and the Middle East and rule with an iron fist and we'll capture what we can from Eastern Europe before the next curtain falls on the world and hopefully Central and South America will come with us too. There will be two worlds. One in China's orbit with Russia as a strong second in the same way that the US and the UK operate and one in what we currently call The West or Nato for short. The Common Wealth, United States of America, European Union, Japan and some minor Asian states like Vietnam and South Korea, Mexico, Chile, and hopiful most of the rest of Latin America.
Being a nuclear power isn't enough. To use a nuclear weapon is to escalate to Defcon 1, which risks total castatrophe for your own nation. Real material still matters and China will outmatch us soon and the sooner we recognize that and prepare for it the better.
The fact is that China currently doesn't have an orbit. It doesn't have NATO, anything resembling the CT/TTP (the absence of the US is one of the major policy failures of the Trump presidency) or NAFTA. Belt and Road has developed the reputation of being completely exploitative, and a way to offload surplus construction capacity in China.
This ties in with the current problems we see in China, where the construction sector is far too large and not sustainable.
My point about nuclear is that China is very limited in where is can project its power.
For how much longer, as it is spreading its military / geopolitical power and economic / political model to Africa and the rest of the Third World? It'll be growing its own new customer / supplier markets along with its military / geopolitical allies / clients / satellites / puppets.
It is probably not a coincidence that the big move yesterday happened just after the Beijing Winter Olympics ended.
Tolerated is a better word. There was ample ex ante evidence that the offensive was to be delayed until after the Olympics. And Russia being more beholden to Beijing as an energy supplier is certainly not bad.
But supporting separatism, in any form, isn’t great for Beijing. And China has relations with Ukraine. Huawei has contracts. And China buys Ukrainian weapons.
Edit: seems like Ukraine services weapons bought from Russia after relations soured with Russia over claims of China copying the technology. (https://www.mei.edu/publications/why-ukraine-secret-weapon-c...).
RU actions are against PRC interests in terms of international norms. Also PRC has not spelled out alignment on RU/UKR issue in terms of sovereignty, while Russian did endorse PRC's sovereignty position on TW, PRC statement of the meeting side stepped RU position on UKR. PRC position has been RU security interests should be respected, preferably via political settlement (Minsk) that doesn't involve violation of Ukrainian sovereignty. The parallel is PRC security interest in taking TW (again a domestic issue) should be respected, without outsiders like US violating Chinese sovereignty.
It's going to be interesting to see how PRC attempts to square the circle now that Putin has invaded and stated UKR has no sovereignty.
They are not and I don’t believe Russia would do what it is doing in Ukraine without Chinese approval. The timing of the recent agreement between Russia and China is pretty much proof that Russia has China’s blessing.
Since 1960 China has had military incursions against Vietnam, Soviet Union, and India. It has blatantly violated norms regarding the laws of the seas and used pseudo naval vessels to blatantly overfish in the territory of other countries. It has told VW that if it wants to sell cars in China then VW must stop doing business with a Lithuanian company. Your views on the subject of China and international norms is weird to me and not supported by history.
I will not convince you of anything and likewise I doubt you’ll be able to convince me of anything. I stand by my assertion that China approves Russia’s actions.
>Since 1960 China
You basically listed a bunch of events that are consistent with what PRC considers to be domestic issues since the 1960s, i.e. territorial disputes, supporting secessionist forces in TW. Vietnam land war was over security (like Korea), PRC retreated after operations, and ideally PRC would hope RU does as well, hence no recognition of Crimea annexation. CCP does not endorse private companies fish in other countries EEZs. Nor is PRC in violation of UNCLOS norms at UN. Nor do secondary sanctions blocking PRC market which PRC adopted from US toolkit a violation of German sovereignty. Regardless, the point is the spectrum is more than binary approval / disapproval.
https://www.businessinsider.com/china-editor-says-must-suppo...
My contention that Russia has China’s blessing is correct. It’s ok to admit when you are wrong.
Yes, I think Taiwan will be back in China's hands by the end of the year.
As of today, the only operational pipeline carries about 3% of what Gazprom exports to Europe. It may be possible to boost that quickly, and the pipeline will eventually have a capacity of 30-40% of the European exports.
Even if Russia had as much pipeline capacity to China as it has towards Europe, simply switching its exports isn't possible like that. Diverting 20% of Russian exports from Europe would require increasing Chinese usage by 100%.
Doable, I'm sure, given the time to build a few dozen new gas-fired power plants and shutting down as much coal-fired capacity, but not done in a week.
Putin's invading Ukraine to distract from his own domestic issues and to try to boost his popularity with the general Russian population.
I don't think this has anything to do with China.
I guess we'll never know if I was right now, though, now that demand has fallen[0], supply has increased[1], and the people have been well distracted for some time to come.
0: https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-to-stop-nord-stream-...
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas_in_Ukraine#shale_g...
The West can ban Chinese companies and dependent states (S.Korea, Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan) from exporting chipsets and devices containing them to Russia.
It'd be an interesting thing to see, how Russia would try to go around this. They will, but it will still be a big problem.
Agree that this is also somewhat of a test, how far can you go militarily against NATO before there is a severe reaction. Pretty damn far I'd guess. The tests have been done when it comes to money, buying legitimacy and freedom to do whatever you want as far as rich and repressive regimes are concerned. The Olympics, FIFA and others come to mind. As does whatever the Saudis are usually up to.
This behavior was always there, to some extend. When the freedom, pro-human rights West started doing the same shit during the war of terror, so, it gave carte blanche to everyone else.
The situation around Taiwan is fundamentally different and can't be compared.
The US or even EU just care soso about Ukraine. The lost of trust of partners, lost face and potential follow up actions and consequences are things they care about more then the Ukraine itself. Hence why they didn't get too much involved in recent years.
But at least the US cares _a lot_ about Taiwan and the EU should too.
TSMC is a Taiwaneese company down to the core, they likely won't be around anymore if Taiwan is gone.
Plus building semiconductor factories takes a long time, weather it's TSMC or Samsung. So China would need to wait for another ~8 Years.
It's also a test to see what's left of America's power after the Afghanistan debacle.
Siding with Russia would further unify US and the EU, which is not something China desires.
China will stay out of this, they have absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose by siding with Russia.
It'll also worsen their status in the States where we've got the strange situation of crystallizing the situation in the States of not being sure who the bad guy is: is it China or Russia? If they are allies then it is obvious they both are. Why Americans need an agreed upon bad guy to hate on is a different topic...
Given the country's GDP, tech prowess and population, they could be a military and espionage powerhouse far exceeding the UK or France, even rivaling Russia; but historical and political reasons make them tread softly and prefer throwing money at problems (e.g. paying off other countries to join the EU through the CAP, or sending FDI or aid to emerging Europe and Africa) rather than to bully countries using cyber attack or spec ops or even more hardline trade/sanction policies...
Oh look where the corrupt Flinten-Uschi sits:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_European_Comm...
https://www.politico.eu/article/ursula-von-der-leyen-biograp...
And yes they even give free submarines to Israel and help the NSA to spy on other European country's....what a lovely nation.
>rather than to bully countries
Greece want's to have a word with you then.
I think that the only way out is that Ukraine cuts off its arm to save the head. It acknowledges the territories as lost, and consolidates what it has left. But I'm not sure how they do that without:
1. The current leader losing legitimacy, and likely resigning.
2. Opening the door for other parts of Ukraine to split off.
3. Opening the door to Russia to meddle in other parts of Ukraine/other nearby states to encourage them to split off.
I don't see Russia backing off in the near future; they've held onto Crimea for the last 8 years without blinking.
I don't see NATO involving itself militarily. If a US soldier dies defending Ukraine, I think that enough people will ask "why are we shedding American blood for something that has nothing to do with us?"
I don't know that economic sanctions will be enough. We've been doing that for years, and nothing's changed.
I don't know that providing weapons to Ukraine will be enough. While the Russians may lose soldiers in the coming months, I've heard that a lot of soldiers come from isolated parts of society (and so the people who mourn them aren't going to be able to organize political resistance).
Plus gaining territory = more access to raw materials and labor. Perhaps that's Putin's plan?
In that sense:
Freezing outside assets might be better to convince the Russian oligarchs to find a peaceful solution: They get their assets back if they can find it. I think Putin being pressured internally by them is probably the best way out of this.
On the other hand, taking outside assets away, or impacting income streams, and a peaceful solution doesn't have the upside anymore. The assets are gone, missed income is gone, and future income is uncertain. They might then support more military action. Out of vengeance, or because they see a better future in there.
Which is why it's been so stupid of the US and the EU to push for Ukraine's inclusion into the EU & NATO. All it has done is provoke Russia, who doesn't want foreign influence right on its borders and Ukraine isn't strategically relevant to NATO anyway.
Everyone comes out of this looking incredibly stupid.
Similarly for the EU, I don't think the EU strongly cares one way or another, but the EU cannot allow Russia to dictate who's allowed in or not. I don't think it's fair to say "the EU shouldn't let countries try to enter on the basis that Russia won't like it" and somehow it's stupid of them to allow a non-member to dictate who's allowed in.
Russia and China are still in the 50-100 years ago mentality and will ruthlessly enforce having buffer states between major powers. Sharing a border is simply not in their interests and they would rather destroy Ukraine than allow it to join the EU.
The US would do the same thing. Just think about how much we freaked out over the Cuban Missile Crisis. If China struck a deal with Canada to put a military base in Vancouver, we'd lose our shit, but we act shocked and insulted when Russia does the same.
And having "50-100 year ago mentality" doesn't mean "unintelligent" either, it means "no bs wokeness" and "meticulously calculating", which is a crucially important skill in modern day global politics, perhaps even more important than 50 years ago.
To be clear, their policy is "we will not ban nations from joining on the basis that a non-EU nation objects". I think they're aware that this may make some nations unhappy, but it's better than the alternative, which would make it very difficult to ever expand the EU (beyond how difficult it is already).
> Just think about how much we freaked out over the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Notice how that resolved though; the United States pledged (and followed through) with not invading or overthrowing Cuba. Cuba stayed as a USSR-aligned state on the border of the United States. Similarly in the Ukraine situation, Russia pledged to respect the sovereignty of Ukraine if they voluntarily handed over the nuclear weapons the USSR had planted there. Unlike the Cuban Missile Crisis, Russia has no intention of following through with its promises.
> If China struck a deal with Canada to put a military base in Vancouver, we'd lose our shit, but we act shocked and insulted when Russia does the same.
I agree that the US would panic, but Ukraine didn't strike any deals. They weren't in the process of joining NATO (and likely wouldn't be admitted due to "external territorial disputes") and they weren't in the process of joining the EU. In addition, the EU doesn't put military bases anywhere.
The analogous situation would be if the United States invaded Canada because China refused to promise that they wouldn't make exclusive trade deals with Canada, and also refused to promise to remove soldiers from Hong Kong because they made the US feel unsafe.
This is actually untrue. Ukraine has repeatedly stated their intention to become a NATO member state. It's even written into their Constitution. The Vilnius Summit joint declaration (which Ukraine's pro-Russia President at the time did not sign and ended up with his government being removed...) included language from the EU affirming Ukraine's intention to become a member state. Ukraine is currently preparing to put in its application to join the EU and has been formally working on this since Jan 2021.
Ever since the Eastern Partnership (2009) and Ukraine-EU Association Agreement (2012), Russia has been publicly condemning this chosen course of action.
Both NATO and the EU have been courting Ukraine since the early 2000s.
You should check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 it's worth a watch.
It's you who is bullshitting here.
That was not in Ukrainian Constitution until Russia invaded and occupied parts of Ukraine. Before that Ukraine declared itself as a completely neutral state relying entirely on the Budapest Guarantees.
How the fuck is that supposed to work, now that Russia is invading and obviously planning to incorporate Ukraine, which already borders on NATO and EU countries? That's Russia removing any buffer. Does that mean Russia now gets to dictate that Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania must leave NATO and the EU, and they and everyone else is just supposed to STFU and obey?
Seems more reasonable that Russia just gets to stick this bit of its "mentality" where the sun don't shine, doesn't it?
This is an incredibly stupid (and false) thing of you to say. With all due respect and apologies.
As far as we, Ukrainians, see it, we are being encouraged to be "EU worthy" or "NATO worthy", but we are being constantly told that we are years (decades) from joining either.
I'm saying it's been stupid/political suicide for the US and EU because they've both already made it clear that there is next to no strategic value of including Ukraine in these partnerships.
It shows the weakness of the EU itself because it exposes the tiered importance of member states and how some just aren't. I think the best thing for all parties involved would have been to maintain Ukraine as a neutral buffer state and make sure that it has a thriving, rich economy.
Because the alternative is the inevitable angering of Putin, who will not be made to look weak on a world stage. He would rather destroy your state's entire economy than have Russia look like it's not the dominant state in the region.
If you don't believe that the EU has been pushing for you to join, just read the various drafts of the Vilinus Summit joint declaration that went unsigned.
Or, it's been stupid of the US and the EU to talk about Ukraine's inclusion into the EU & NATO but not actually do it like, in 2015 - 17 sometime.
> All it has done is provoke Russia, who doesn't want foreign influence right on its borders and Ukraine isn't strategically relevant to NATO anyway.
Why the fuck is what Russia wants so holy? The rest of Europe wouldn't want a third-world country with nukes and a crazy tin-pot dictator on our eastern border, but are we getting that?
Russia will not stop until someone makes them unable or unwilling to continue expanding.
> I don't see Russia backing off in the near future; they've held onto Crimea for the last 8 years without blinking.
I think you answered your own question there, a little bit. Putin's speech yesterday really confirms it as well - he doesn't view Ukraine as a legitimate nation, and so the short-term goals are pretty clear: he'll take it all, if he's allowed to.
This is Crimea all over again; the West will keep making noises while Russia effectively annexes further portions of Ukraine.
- Too little force, which would allow the separatists to de-facto control the territories and lead to a Crimea situation.
- Too much force, which would lead to a Russia invasion triggered by either: Russians dying in Ukraine (since some Russian soldiers were in the region "on vacation") or conflict on the Ukrainian-Russian border (either accidental, or false flag).
I'm just trying to figure out what Ukraine can do aside from let itself get gobbled up. Holding its ground while the economic sanctions/protracted warfare eats into Russian morale might work, or it might take too long. Not sure what else will work though.
Whether they were unable to or not willing to, as you suggest, now things are a lot worse. Either way it was a strategic failure, so yes, they did fail to protect their borders even back then.
This is not really Crimea, it's just Kosovo but this time someone else is acting as the hypocrite.
Basically, the EU and US need to agree to completely blockade the country, limit travel to it, cut its access to global financial system, heck even cut its internet (yay less bitcoin hacks), and do absolutely everything but war for now.
As you've mentioned, I don't see NATO or Europe taking direct risks for Ukraine. But I expect that once Russia invades Ukraine proper and takes Kyiv, US and European sanctions will be the most severe we've seen. Russia has done a lot to prepare for this with limiting export dependency to just what the West needs (energy) and holding a lot of foreign currency. I will be interested to see what the UK does as they have been highly enriched by Putin's henchmen and acting as a playground for oligarchs.
Ukraine has been bumbling along since the Soviet Union collapsed and is in no position to do anything about it. There isn't enough pain to inflict on Russia to stop it from taking what it wants (which I believe is a infantile and subservient Ukraine). Immediately after the Soviet Union collapsed likely would have been a better time to prepare. The countries that took the reemergence of an aggressive Russia seriously right after the cold war have mostly fared better with stronger economies and ties to Europe to protect themselves. Even if all went well it would still be a very difficult challenge for Ukraine to get out of the sphere of Russia.
This is state craft so I wouldn't think along the lines of this year or this decade. I would look out decades to try and see where this is all going. I don't believe that Ukraine will be an EU or NATO member as long as Russia has its current military and economic capabilities. I speculate that Ukraine will be a vassal state for the rest of my lifetime. I would have to see some major fractures in the Russian political position and its economic and military capabilities for my opinion to change. Maybe post Putin the politics changes, I'm not clear on succession planning here. Maybe oil and gas prices go way down and Russia can't field an aggressive military. But I can't see anyone take back Ukraine once Russia invades and changes the political course in Ukraine.
an artificial shortage made by private investors.
the russians are selling the gas as per contract, but because it is cheaper than what you can get on the spot market, some idiots are making a quick buck by selling the cheap gas for the spot market price.
well, something like that
Nah, he now switched to explaining why it was expected and Putin had no other choice. I still can’t tell if he has been going crazy in recent years, or if I simply never realized how much bullshit he writes.
Figure out for yourself what that makes you for posting that characterization of him.
someone who gets why putin would act like he does
im just saying that it is in nobodies interest to only accept western views as valid
i can totally see how NATO's continuance and the veto against russia joining might be perceived as a persistent middle finger towards russia.
My opinion: the only reason why the NATO persists to this day, is to bully russia.
The west could have changed their tone along the way, but no. there needs to be a threat, otherwise nobody would need antimissile shields around russias borders. there needs to be someone to point all those weapons at.
Apparently humanity needs a common aggressor, I hope there will be an alien invasion of world ending proportions, otherwise I doubt we will ever get our shit together and overcome our differences.
The next step is to close the loophole and target the Russian banks as a whole, which will have consequences for non-billionaores in Russia too.
London is one of the key centers for global banking. That said, I can't imagine Russian billionaires don't have means to shelter funds, nested shells in some offshore bank I'd imagine.
“Approval of additional LNG exports from Freeport LNG furthers this Administration’s commitment to promoting American energy, American jobs, and the American economy. Further, increased supplies of U.S. natural gas on the world market are critical to advancing clean energy and the energy security of our allies around the globe. … for molecules of U.S. freedom to be exported to the world” [1].
"The Iron Curtain of the 1940s and ‘50s was ostensibly designed to isolate Russia from Western Europe – to keep out Communist ideology and military penetration. Today’s sanctions regime is aimed inward, to prevent America’s NATO and other Western allies from opening up more trade and investment with Russia and China. The aim is not so much to isolate Russia and China as to hold these allies firmly within America’s own economic orbit." [2]
[0]: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-be-worlds-biggest...
[1]: https://www.energy.gov/articles/department-energy-authorizes...
[2]: https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/02/11/americas-real-advers...
Uhh what? If I remember my history class correctly, it was the east that built the berlin wall and had emigration restrictions, not the other way around. The wikipedia article confirms this.
"The term symbolizes the efforts by the Soviet Union (USSR) to block itself and its satellite states from open contact with the West and its allied states. "
>[2]: https://www.counterpunch.org/
>"It has been described as left-wing.[3][4]"
Oh, figures.
>The Berlin Wall was a guarded concrete barrier that physically and ideologically divided Berlin from 1961 to 1989.
>It later became a term for the 7,000-kilometre-long (4,300 mi) physical barrier of fences, walls, minefields, and watchtowers that divided the "east" and "west". The Berlin Wall was also part of this physical barrier.
Regardless of whether you think the term refers to the political/metaphorical barrier or the physical barrier, it seems weird to characterize it as "designed to isolate Russia from Western Europe – to keep out Communist ideology and military penetration", when it was the warsaw pact countries that were erecting physical barriers. It makes as much sense as saying that the Mexico-US border was designed to keep out american "ideology and military penetration", when really it's obviously designed to prevent illegal crossings from Mexico into the US.
However, they assure us this won't be overly bad although there will be short-term consequences.
A winner is obviously USA with the shale gas production but I'm sure EU will diversify in otehr regards as well.
Altogether this feels like a painful but important step for a healthier energy supply in the future.
The existing pipelines have much more capacity. Nordstream just serves as a tool to take a bargaining chip away from Ukraine. The pipeline isn't actually scrapped, stuff is just halted. Additionally Russia didn't resupply it's storages in Western Europe much last year and we can now see why.
If Ukraine starts using it's bargaining chip i imagine we'll see those pipelines used real quick. A bigger issue is the growing demand with multiple countries scrapping nuclear powerplants without replacement.
>A winner is obviously USA with the shale gas production but I'm sure EU will diversify in otehr regards as well.
Whilst I've heard that before as well as talks about LNG terminals....the US barely registers as a supplier behind Algeria, Qatar, Libia, Nigeria,... It's not exactly cheap to transport across the atlantic.
Fools.
It he doesn't speak for the Germany navy then who does? Were the navy's intelligence reports wrong or was he briefed wrong or does he not believe his own intelligence people? What if he'd been still been in charge now? Would he still deny it was happening?
All possibilities point to something extremely foolish going on. Absolutely bizarre situation.
I wonder what he says now.
So all of this analysis and blame-gaming you're trying to do just are not of much import.
Yet there they are, right now.
Goes to show what he knows. Anyone with an IQ larger than their shoe size has seen this morning's events coming since Crimea at the latest. The only way to avoid it would have been to make Ukraine a full NATO member in 2015, -16. (For a while I held out hope that the West would see this and do it, but... More fool I, for even hoping.)
> He insinuated that (in his opinion) it is nonsense to claim Russia had an interest in a small piece of Ukrainian territory,
Well he was sure right there -- it's not "a small piece of Ukrainian territory" Putin is interested in taking -- but that doesn't seem to have been what he meant, so he "was right" in that respect purely by accident.
> and that Putin demands respect and "...probably also deserves it."
Yeah, right, kleptocratic tinpot dictators deserve soooo much respect.
> He was immediately fired afterwards
And rightfully so. Not just for blabbing where he shouldn't, but hopefully mainly because he seems to be an idiot with no fucking clue.
>>“Is Russia really interested in having a tiny strip of Ukrainian soil, to integrate into their country?” the 56-year-old said. “No. Putin is putting on pressure because he knows he can do it, he splits the European Union.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/23/german-navy-ch...
His point was: It's not about the "soil" but to split the eu....see the difference?
https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2022/1/23/german-navy-chi...
That's exactly what is happening.
There is also heating 49% (which is basically all gas and oil)
And Mobility 30% (which is basically all oil)
The only way Germany is getting rid of coal & gas is if France builds enough nuclear to power and heat Germany
The UK is denouncing dependency on Russian fossil fuels, and Germany is denouncing dependency on Russian money.
We'll know that they're serious when it's the other way around, and they act on it.
RU is both strong, and fragile in terms of economics.
Their energy exports are strong, so that is clearly the biggest target.
But depriving them import/export of non-energy stuff would probably cause significant economic impacts.
However, the RU economy/society is resilient to contraction, being a quasi-commie society.... One only need look to North Korea for an example of how economic sanctions function, and dysfunction.... The RU is large enough to sustain a level of economic sanctions.
If the western world only has economic consequences, well clearly that's a gambit RU is willing to accept.
A new cold war will take decades to play-out.
- Don't do anything AKA appeasement? Then Russia will keep on invading countries (Georgia Ukraine), fostering enclaves in other countries (Moldova) and maybe even annexing Belarus (who is one mistake away from that). Also, remember how appeasement usually worked in the past...
- War? Then you end up with WW3
By depriving as many resources as possible for Russia, you are limiting the scope they have to keep funding their huge armies. Maybe it won't help that much, but it's better than the alternatives.
Now we get to see if Putin will double down.
Are the Germans dumb enough to shoot themselves in the foot, or what? Goodbye German industrial competitiveness, and Hello to China taking over those German markets.
The basis of your point is not grounded in reality since the dawn of civilization.
Bulgaria was part of the Warsaw Pact, not of the Soviet Union.
Maybe you should bone up a bit on recent history, before so confidently spouting off on it? Your current views seem woefully unfounded in actual reality.
[1]: In the long run oil and gas prices should probably increase until solar and nuclear power become very profitable.
Russia is also a European democracy. Surprise
> I think, temporarily[1] until we get this mess sorted. > [1]: In the long run oil and gas prices should probably increase until solar and nuclear power become very profitable.
Won't happen during your lifetime.
Nasty surprises seem to happen to people who credibly oppose Putin. Without free press and free speech, elections don't mean much.
I believe, they just don't have/don't want to spend money on showing a real election circus, like in US. Russia is a poor country and making people believe that a cross in a white form means something if you are not a billionaire and can't get billionaires to support you with money, costs a lot.
You have "free press" and "free speech" in the internet, doesn't seem to help much, does it?
And the argument "we're too poor to be a democracy" is bullshit. The real issue is that the country is too corrupt to be a democracy. (The US also has this problem, but to a much lesser extent. Well, somewhat lesser, at least. Trump has certainly has certainly tried to follow Putin there.)
And of course the country is too oppressed to be a democracy. You can't have meaningful elections if you don't have free speech and free press.
Muahahahaa! Wow, man, you're funny!
> Surprise
Yes, indeed: I am surprised anyone with more than a vacuum between their ears could think that.
Not stopping Russia can create bigger problems in 1 or 2 years (and it will come on top of existing problems.)
Stopping Russia from copying 1930ies Germany and/or recreating USSR.
The last 20 years Russia has been salami slicing Eastern Europe, taking one slice at the time.
BTW: I think it would be a lot more consistent and believable if you didn't - in a short timespan - both try to criticise me for 1.) not wanting to give enough subsidized fuels to Europe 2.) wanting to subsidize fuels for Europe.
Russia is a poor country without science, technologies and a fossil fuel economy. Everything left from USSR is already fucked up or a one step from being fucked up. There are no means of production to even think about repeating smth like that. The market fall and the money which will be spent on that new "republic" is already enough to send everything to hell, not even talking about the global market fall. The only place you can get an image of it as an almighty Empire is in tv.
> The last 20 years Russia has been salami slicing Eastern Europe, taking one slice at the time.
The fact that Russia is less poor than other exUSSR republics and could easily conquer them doesn't mean that it has resources for a direct conflict with NATO, but Putin can frown intimidatingly in TV, that's for sure. 150k of military troops my ass.
> BTW: I think it would be a lot more consistent and believable if you didn't - in a short timespan - both try to criticise me for 1.) not wanting to give enough subsidized fuels to Europe 2.) wanting to subsidize fuels for Europe.
what
I mean transport by ship will be more expensive than a direct gas pipeline, but hopefully it will be enough to avoid scarcity / loss of gas pressure.
Anyway, it's not really Germany's fault is it? The pipeline came with a lot of strings attached, and with Russia posturing and capturing land, there already were a lot of tensions. It became a political tool. Existing gas pipelines run through the Ukraine, if those became obsolete due to Nord Stream 2, Ukraine would lose a bargaining chip with Europe.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_the_...
At least the Scottish have the argument that all things being equal they don't need Russian gas, so the only reason their prices are high is that if you've got a bunch of gas in Scotland, you should sell it all for $$$ to the Netherlands unless the price in Scotland rises too.
How is the Netherlands on Electricity? Are you like Scotland on that too, where despite notionally making most of your electricity without needing gas, the market clearing price is determined by gas generators and so it soars because gas prices are high?
And possibly partially to Poland because it has very similar concerns but to a lesser degree than Ukraine.
There's nothing wrong making this enterprise to be on par with other routes.
German corporations that collaborated gambled on getting unfair business advantage through geopolitics. They should loose. It doesn't matter they had political support of Germany initially. Political reality changed to the point German support of Russia can no longer be swept under a rug.
And with the despicable traitor not only to Germany but to Europe and arguably civilisation itself, ex-Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, fronting the whole enterprise.
It's not about intimidation.
Nord Stream 2 intention was to make it way more profitable than other routes so Putin can freely mess with countries those other routes go through.
By firmly taxing whatever comes out of NS2 you nullify it's attractiveness for consumers.
And giving Ukraine this much money would strengthen it economically so they can adavance faster towards western standards of living and western culture, further from Russia influence.
Losing two provinces that are basically huge coal mine populated with people speaking other language is not that painful if you can progress towards western knowledge based economies fast.
Also, there is no such thing as "irrevocably". Ukraine had just such irrevocable security guarantees granted when they agreed to let go of their nuclear inheritance.
There is no way to stop a determined despot via diplomacy or economical pressures. Putin is trying to replicate the first few years of Hitler's intimidation blitz and the world would do well to not appease him in any way.
That's true but it's true of any country to one degree of another. European union has a lot of mechanism for preventing misapplication of funds it awards to countries.
> Putin is trying to replicate the first few years of Hitler's intimidation blitz and the world would do well to not appease him in any way.
That's pure BS straight from the mouths of propagandist of USA military industrial complex that Putin is godsent enemy that justifies their existence with zero risk.
Putin just wanted to grab for himself a new coal mine which two republics of eastern Ukraine really are.
He just repeats scenario from Georgia (the one near Russia) .
Same as with Taiwan. It's an island off China and rebels flew there at some point and started to govern Taiwan as if it was theirs. China always insisted that Taiwan is part of China but because they never used military force to put an end to the game which those rebels played on that island it became harder for China to maintain the premise that Taiwan is in fact still part of China. Obviously the West has HUGE incentives to keep Taiwan seperate from China so will only portray one side of the story and the longer China was doing the objectively speaking right thing (not using force to exercise their right) the easier it is for the West to peddle the idea that Taiwan is in fact not part of China. It's almost like the West has been intelligently exploiting the good will of the East and I do feel like there is a lot of that going on between Ukraine and Russia as well.
Unfortunately there are no objective sources of news anymore and it's hard to really get a well balanced overview of the crisis. When I read on Wikipedia that for instance more than half of the Ukraine was not in favour of the Euromaiden protests, or other minor facts which shine a slightly different light on everything I am curious how much did the West contribute in stirring the crisis like we know they did in other countries in the world (Cuba, Middle East, Arab Spring, etc.)
It doesnt elucidate everything though. E.g. it's not clear from this who really killed the minsk protocols though.
That's a subjective way to put it, isn't it? You could also say that "rebels" took all of mainland China and Taiwan is the last remaining standoff of the "true" China.
EDIT: Also this argument if completely flawed because Taiwan has no leg to stand on. The only reason why it existed the way it has for so long is because China has actually been nice and not exercised its power. If China was to move troops into Taiwan next week there would be no actual opposition apart from fake outrage in the West, same as what happened with Hong Kong. HK was always part of China historically and the West initially agreed a deal with China to be allowed to have a base there and as time has moved on they thought they could infiltrate from within HK to make the independent and make it a US proxy state, but China, just like Russia now probably, has remained firm to the original roots of HK and now re-exercised their right claim over it and as we have seen the West has done nothing abou tit because they know they 1. cannot and 2. have no real right.