Russian oil production considered to be at "over peak" stage with increases mainly due
to offshore drilling. In 2014 total petroleum and other liquids production in 2014 were 10.8 Mb/d
(EIA). Russia
crude oil production in late 2015 was around 10.20M, up from 10.08Mb/done year ago. That's was
an unanticipated, even by Russian Ministry of Energy result of activities of small companies. which
managed to increase of production by 1.12% from one year ago, when most analysts expected
a slight decline (Russia
Crude Oil Production (Monthly, Barrels per Day).
Despite severe depreciation of ruble and sanctions, in 2015 Russia managed to reach
the level of production that exceed the level of former USSR period. At the same time most of Russia's
fields are mature fields and the production from them is declining for long time, offset only
by new more expensive projects with less total volume. Unless Arctic oil and other expensive oil are
economical to produce (which requires over $100 bbl price) the national path for Russian production
is iether long plato fed by projects coming online, which were started during "good times" (and now
face losses, not profits) or straight down as capital expenses were slashed in 2015 tot he bones.
Russian oil extraction (red) and oil exports (green) in metric tons
In 2015 Russia managed to increase exports the first time in six years, but that does
not change general situation: internal consumption is growing pretty robustly with growth of car fleet
and decline of production due to national depletion of conventional oil wells. The latter became
more and more difficult to compensate with new discoveries. And new fields, even if such exist, can't
be now tapped because capital expenditures by most Russian oil companies now are slashed to the bone
(Russia is more like the USA in this respect with over dozen of major oil companies producing
oil).
At current oil prices Arctic oil now is out of reach and only existing platforms will
remain in production. All of them are losing money. conventional wells are still profitable with same
remaining profitable up to $20 per barrel. Still for the next several years Russia probably will be
able to keep the current level of production due to huge previous investments dome in 2010-2014 in a
few new fields (Bloomberg
Business, December 20, 2015):
The other big boosts to Russian production this year have come from a few mid-sized new fields
like those of Severenergia in the Arctic Yamal region. Co-owners Novatek OJSC and Gazpromneft PJSC
invested in the $9.2 billion project back when oil prices were high. With most of the capital
already committed, operating costs now are relatively low and output of gas condensate, a light and
especially valuable form of crude, is up five-fold this year.
One side effect of falling oil prices -- the 52 percent plunge in the ruble over the last
two years -- has helped Russian oil producers, chopping their costs in dollar terms since between
80 and 90 percent of their spending comes in rubles.
... ... ...
To be sure, few in the industry expect Russia to be able to sustain the current performance
for more than a few years. Tax hikes and lack of financing have cut deeply into exploration
drilling, which is down 21 percent this year, and handicap the larger new projects that are needed
to replace the country’s older fields as they run dry.
... ... ...
In some parts of the Russian oil patch, low prices are already causing pain. At $40 a barrel,
“half of our fields could be stopped. Heavy oil, low horizons, mature horizons are all unprofitable
at a price of $40-45. We are waiting for better times,” Russneft OJSC Board Chairman Mikhail Gutseriev
said in an interview on state television early this month.
Unfortunately just before the oil prices crush Russia was engaged in several high cost
drilling projects in Arctic and was caught naked when oil price dropped. ( see
Petroleum industry
in Russia - Wikipedia). Timing can't be more bad as this is a really expensive oil, probably
around $60 per barrel or higher at wellhead. Which are now sold at a huge discount.
Igor Sechin proved to be a weak
leader of the Russia major state owned oil company
Rosneft. Government refused
to bail out the company which faces large external debt and it was saved by some "white knife" billionaire.
Undeterred by OPEC’s decision to keep pumping and drive out U.S. shale rivals,
Russian oil output continued to grow, in October setting a new monthly record for the post-Soviet
era. Explorers have remained profitable under a friendly tax system and low production costs.
Mystery Benefactor
Rosneft assuaged concerns over the sustainability of Russia’s biggest corporate debt load after
the company received a $15 billion advance payment for oil supplies from a source the company
didn’t identify, according to quarterly reports published Nov. 13. The inflow of cash will help
Rosneft meet $2.5 billion in debt due in the fourth quarter, $13.7 billion in 2016 and $11.3 billion
in 2017, according to a presentation on its website.
On December 18, Rosneft Board of Directors considered in Vladivostok interim
results of its 2015 operations, the business-plan for 2016-2017, the Long-term development program
and the energy efficiency program of the Company.
The following decisions were taken:
1. The Board of Directors considered and acknowledged 2015 Rosneft interim results and the intermediate
results of the implementation of the long-term development program of the Company. The Board of
Directors welcomed the results of the implementation of programs aimed at raising efficiency in challenging
economic environment: the Company maintained low levels of OPEX and eased its debt burden.
2. The Board of Directors considered and acknowledged the business-plan for 2016-2017, structured
in accordance with a conservative macroeconomic scenario and focused on the implementation of the
Long-term development program of the Company, approved by the Government of the Russian Federation.
Within the ambit of delivering strategic goals of boosting production, securing deliveries
of oil and oil products, maintaining a market share (both in Russia and abroad), the Company plans
to increase capital expenditures by a third (compared to 2015 levels). The investment development
program envisages the achievement of strategic goals of hydrocarbon production growth by means of
accelerated commencement of oil and gas greenfields whilst exercising a balanced external financing
program. After the completion of transition to Euro-5 motor fuels production in December 2015, refineries’
modernization program will be focused on increasing processing depth. Also, the program of cutting
operating costs and enhancing operating and financial efficiency will be continued. Hence the leadership
in the industry by the operating costs and capital costs will be guaranteed.
... .... ...
Commenting on the results of the Board meeting, Rosneft Chairman of the Management Board Igor
Sechin said: “Measures taken by the Company for strengthening its oilfield services business
dimension in 2015 enabled Rosneft to increase production in order to guarantee supplies to its traditional
markets while keeping operating and capital expenditures at the record-low levels.The
Company consistently generates free cash flow, providing funding sources for its investment decisions
in accordance with 2015-2016 business plan approved by the Board of Directors and the Long-term Development
Program”.
In August 2014, it was announced that preparations by the
Russian government to
sell a 19.5 percent stake in the company were underway and would most likely be sold in two tranches.
So far this chunk of the company was not sold, probably because of low oil prices.
Russia oil internal consumption is generally more or less stable and growling at a very
slow page outside several 'abnormal" years. In 2016 it will not probably grow much as the economy remain
is conditions close to recession. Lukoil chairman has said that he expects Russia to produce less
oil in 2016 than in 2015
Russia internal oil consumption is currently around 3.3 Mb/d, up from 3.2 Mb/d one year ago. This
is a change of 3.15% from one year ago.
2005
2,785.14
1.25 %
2006
2,803.47
0.66 %
2007
2,885.10
2.91 %
2008
2,981.92
3.36 %
2009
2,888.53
-3.13 %
2010
3,081.82
6.69 %
2011
3,352.11
8.77 %
2012
3,395.11
1.28 %
2013
3,320.00
-2.21 %
It is expected that it will continue to grow by around 0.1 Mb/d per year as car fleet is rapidly
growing.. Also Russia will process more raw oil in 2016 then in 2015 which also negatively influence
export of raw oil. Russia oil consumption per capita is still four times less then in the USA (15 vs
60 bbl/day per 1000 people)
Russian leadership have found itself unprepared to the dramatic drop of oil prices and now will take
moves to refine more oil at home, and selling less raw oil. The fact that Russia sells mostly unprocessed
oil was a blunder that costs Russia billions and Putin had shown ability to learn from mistakes.
Thanks for your reply! Some years ago prior to Russia's Syrian intervention, I examined
where genuine Turkish national interests lay and concluded they weren't in the EU given the
numerous repulses when attempting membership but rather they lay to the North and East in
rekindling relations with longtime rivals Russia and Iran. Putin noted this rekindling's been
ongoing for awhile:
"I would like to note that Russia has been exporting gas to Turkey for 30 years, even
though not everyone knows about it. It was initially shipped through the Trans-Balkan gas
pipeline, then through the direct, transit-free Blue Stream pipeline. Last year alone, 24
billion cubic metres of fuel was delivered to our Turkish partners."
Turkey discovered how dependent its economy had become on Russia during the trade embargo
that ensued upon the shootdown of the Mig, which IMO is the main reason a spiteful Erdogan
released the torrent of refugees into the EU as he finally realized Turkey's been used for
decades by the West with no real tangible benefits to show. And yes, IMO he was returning to
sender Terrorists to Libya, and it was no small number as it was several thousand.
IMO, Qatar and Turkey have Seen the Light when it comes to sponsoring terrorist affiliated
organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood; That all they've done is contribute to the Evil
Outlaw US Empire's plan for continuous destabilization of the Persian Gulf region as part of
its strategy to interdict Eurasian Integration, the latter of which is in both Qatar's and
Turkey's genuine national interest.
Nordstream II cost $12 billion. Russia is selling 55 billion M3 of LNG to Europe. Add
Nordstream I, another 55 billion, Power of Siberia to China and Turkstream just opened.
And for $5 trillion spent bombing unoffending MENA countries the US has gotten what? Moar
war. That's it.
Russia is building infrastructure while the US destroys.
After having forbidden the Chinese company Huawei to compete in the calls for tender for the
5G network, the United States are now forbidding the Europeans to increase their supplies of
Russian gas. While the first decision was aimed at maintaining the coherence of NATO, the
second is not a result of Russophobia, but of the 1992 " Wolfowitz doctrine " - preventing the
EU from becoming a competitor of the " American Empire ". In both cases, the point is to
infantilise the EU and keep it in a situation of dependence. Voltaire Network | Rome (Italy) |
30 December 2019 français italiano
Español PortuguêsTürkçe română Deutsch
norsk
German chancellorAngela Merkel and her Minister of the Economy, Olaf Scholz, immediately
denounced US interference.
Although they were locked in a convoluted struggle concerning the impeachment of President
Trump, Republicans and Democrats in the Senate laid down their arms in order to vote, in
quasi-unanimity, for the imposition of heavy sanctions on the companies participating in the
construction of North Stream 2, the doubling of the gas pipeline which delivers Russian gas to
Germany across the Baltic Sea. The main victims were the European companies which had helped
finance the 11 billion dollar project with the Russian company Gazprom. The project is now 80 %
finished. The Austrian company Omy, British/Dutch Royal Dutch Shell, French Engie, German
companies Uniper and Wintershall, Italian Saipem and Swiss Allseas are also taking part in the
laying of the pipeline.
The doubling of North Stream increases Europe's dependence on Russian gas, warn the United
States. Above all, they are preoccupied by the fact that the gas pipeline – by crossing
the Baltic in waters belonging to Russia, Finland, Sweden and Germany – thus avoids the
Visegrad countries (Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland and Hungary), the Baltic States and
Ukraine. In other words, the European countries which have the closest ties to Washington
through NATO (to which we must add Italy).
Rather than being economic, the goal for the USA is strategic. This is confirmed by the fact
that the sanctions on North Stream 2 are included in the National Defense Authorization
Act , the legislative act which, for fiscal year 2020, hands the Pentagon the colossal sum
of 738 billion dollars for new wars and new weapons (including space weapons), to which must be
added other posts which bring the US military expenditure to approximately 1,000 billion
dollars. The economic sanctions on North Stream 2 are part of a politico-military escalation
against Russia.
An ulterior confirmation can be found in the fact that the US Congress has established
sanctions not only against North Stream 2, but also against the Turk-Stream, which, in its
final phase of realisation, will bring Russian gas across the Black Sea to Eastern Thrace,the
small European area of Turkey. From there, by another pipeline, Russian gas should be delivered
to Bulgaria, Serbia and other European countries. This is the Russian riposte to the US action
which managed to block the South Stream pipeline in 2014. South Stream was intended to link
Russia to Italy across the Black Sea and by land to Tarvisio (Udine). Italy would therefore
have become a switch platform for gas in the EU, with notable economic advantages. The Obama
administration was able to scuttle the project, with the collaboration of the European
Union.
The company Saipem (Italian Eni Group), once again affected by the US sanctions against
North Stream 2, was severely hit by the blockage of South Stream – in 2014, it lost
contracts to the value of 2.4 billion Euros, to which other contracts would have been added if
the project had continued. But at the time, no-one in Italy or in the EU protested against the
burial of the project which was being organised by the USA. Now German interests are in play,
and critical voices are being raised in Germany and in the EU against US sanctions against
North Stream 2.
Nothing is being said about the fact that the European Union has agreed to import liquified
natural gas (LNG) from the USA, an extract from bituminous shale by the destructive technique
of hydraulic fracturation (fracking). In order to damage Russia, Washington is attempting to
reduce its gas exports to the EU, obliging European consumers to foot the bill. Since President
Donald Trump and the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, signed in
Washington in July 2018 the Joint Statement of 25 July: European Union imports of U.S.
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) , the EU has doubled its importation of LNG from the USA,
co-financing the infrastructures via an initial expenditure of 656 million Euros. However, this
did not save European companies from US sanctions. Manlio Dinucci
@Situational
Lefty
...The world is not dependent on Iranian oil. But it is dependent on Gulf oil and gas. A few
missiles fired into a Q-Max
will cause a real problem - mainly in Europe. Without a steady supply of gas and oil from the
Saudis and Emirates it will very quickly get cold and dark in Europe this winter and they'll
soon regret allowing Uncle Sammmy to put a kink in Nord Stream 2 and TurkStream.
Speaking of TurkStream, Putin will be going to Turkey to attend the official
launching with Erdogan right after his pleasant visit with Assad . I wonder
what in the world Putin and Erdogan are going to do with those extra 31.5 billion cubic
meters of natural gas?
Russia and China are relatively isolated. American actions in the last 2 decades have
caused the two to elope and their love affair is going strong. Putin and Xi have already had
30 intimate dates discussing just this very scenario.
Of course, the extra transport costs to ship America's shoes, underwear and pots to piss
in is going to be a bitch for the now burgeoning poor class.
Today Tass (or Tacc) gave a big update on Nord Stream-2.
Number one, Academic Cherskiy will remain in the Far East, because it is essential in
completion of far more important projects than Nord Stream. Pipes from Sakhalin (and through
Amur river? I am not sure on that) together have to deliver 80 [huge units] per year, and
they will be laid by Tschersky (Nord Stream 2 has capacity 55 HU)
Number two. Danes softened their requirements. Concerning the specs for a pipe laying
vessel, they can be satisfied by Fortuna that is finishing some bits in the German sector.
Danes added requirement that the sea has to be sufficiently calm during the work, seems like
weather when swimming is forbidden on Baltic beaches, but on summer usually it is permitted.
So Fortuna will finish the job on the Baltic.
A bit weird how Danes oscillate between obstructing and just harrassing. Both USA and
Germany seem to have influence.
So new progressive Danish government issued the permission in November, after full three
months. And now they still make a gesture as if the wanted to inflict huge extra cost. That
said, they were perhaps a bit slow in correcting disinformation.
After having forbidden the Chinese company Huawei to compete in the calls for tender for the
5G network, the United States are now forbidding the Europeans to increase their supplies of
Russian gas.
While the first decision was aimed at maintaining the coherence of NATO, the second is not a
result of Russophobia, but of the 1992 " Wolfowitz doctrine " - preventing the EU from becoming
a competitor of the " American Empire ". In both cases, the point is to infantilise the EU and
keep it in a situation of dependence.
lthough they were locked in a convoluted struggle concerning the impeachment of President
Trump, Republicans and Democrats in the Senate laid down their arms in order to vote, in
quasi-unanimity, for the imposition of heavy sanctions on the companies participating in the
construction of North Stream 2, the doubling of the gas pipeline which delivers Russian gas to
Germany across the Baltic Sea. The main victims were the European companies which had helped
finance the 11 billion dollar project with the Russian company Gazprom. The project is now 80 %
finished. The Austrian company Omy, British/Dutch Royal Dutch Shell, French Engie, German
companies Uniper and Wintershall, Italian Saipem and Swiss Allseas are also taking part in the
laying of the pipeline.
The doubling of North Stream increases Europe's dependence on Russian gas, warn the United
States. Above all, they are preoccupied by the fact that the gas pipeline – by crossing
the Baltic in waters belonging to Russia, Finland, Sweden and Germany – thus avoids the
Visegrad countries (Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland and Hungary), the Baltic States and
Ukraine. In other words, the European countries which have the closest ties to Washington
through NATO (to which we must add Italy).
Rather than being economic, the goal for the USA is strategic. This is confirmed by the fact
that the sanctions on North Stream 2 are included in the National Defense Authorization
Act , the legislative act which, for fiscal year 2020, hands the Pentagon the colossal sum
of 738 billion dollars for new wars and new weapons (including space weapons), to which must be
added other posts which bring the US military expenditure to approximately 1,000 billion
dollars. The economic sanctions on North Stream 2 are part of a politico-military escalation
against Russia.
An ulterior confirmation can be found in the fact that the US Congress has established
sanctions not only against North Stream 2, but also against the Turk-Stream, which, in its
final phase of realisation, will bring Russian gas across the Black Sea to Eastern Thrace,the
small European area of Turkey. From there, by another pipeline, Russian gas should be delivered
to Bulgaria, Serbia and other European countries. This is the Russian riposte to the US action
which managed to block the South Stream pipeline in 2014. South Stream was intended to link
Russia to Italy across the Black Sea and by land to Tarvisio (Udine). Italy would therefore
have become a switch platform for gas in the EU, with notable economic advantages. The Obama
administration was able to scuttle the project, with the collaboration of the European
Union.
The company Saipem (Italian Eni Group), once again affected by the US sanctions against
North Stream 2, was severely hit by the blockage of South Stream – in 2014, it lost
contracts to the value of 2.4 billion Euros, to which other contracts would have been added if
the project had continued. But at the time, no-one in Italy or in the EU protested against the
burial of the project which was being organised by the USA. Now German interests are in play,
and critical voices are being raised in Germany and in the EU against US sanctions against
North Stream 2.
Nothing is being said about the fact that the European Union has agreed to import liquified
natural gas (LNG) from the USA, an extract from bituminous shale by the destructive technique
of hydraulic fracturation (fracking). In order to damage Russia, Washington is attempting to
reduce its gas exports to the EU, obliging European consumers to foot the bill. Since President
Donald Trump and the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, signed in
Washington in July 2018 the Joint Statement of 25 July: European Union imports of U.S.
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) , the EU has doubled its importation of LNG from the USA,
co-financing the infrastructures via an initial expenditure of 656 million Euros. However, this
did not save European companies from US sanctions. Manlio Dinucci
Nothing untrue in this article. Secondary sanctions are evil because they prevent minor
transactions because banks don't think it is worth the severe penalties. So Iranian cancer
patients aren't allowed to buy chemotherapy medications. Trump has gone overboard because he
has learned that there is no political cost to doling these out.
I think this is how US dominance will end. No challengers will end it, although some may
rise in the vacuum. The internal changes the US needs to make to come back are politically
impossible. Sanctions are big government on steroids, and having the US Government sitting
atop the global economy will cause it to seize up. The question is how long commerce will be
able to continue under these conditions.
With the USA help Ukraine got three billions from Russia. But that might mean that if Ukraine
does not switch sides the Ukrainian transit will became minuscule and unable to help Ukraine to
survive financially. Then what ?
The introduction of us sanctions against Nord stream 2, immediately signed by President
trump, created a new situation in Europe at the request of the Congress.
The Stockholm verdict
Gazprom retreated from its positions and agreed to an agreement with Naftogaz on transit,
including the payment of 2.9 billion dollars to Kiev according to the verdict of the Stockholm
arbitration, this is a difficult compromise for Moscow and a consequence of American sanctions
that actually suspended the construction of the SP-2 for at least six months.
I can't help remembering how President Yanukovych received three billion dollars of credit
from Moscow, and now President Zelensky also received almost three billion, although on other
grounds, according to the decision of the Stockholm arbitration.
But Moscow gave money, and immediately, although it could stretch these payments with gas
supplies, which Naftogaz agreed to. Moscow seems to be banking on Zelensky in his projected
clash with the nationalists behind Poroshenko. As a lesser evil.
Big European game
The Stockholm billions and Ukrainian transit are also a big European policy. For the first
time, us sanctions hit Germany and Europe as a whole: all energy and construction companies
related to the SP-2. Germany's energy supply was under threat.
In this situation, Russia is making compromises and concessions on Ukrainian transit, and
Ukraine is also making compromises on its part, apparently under pressure from Germany and the
European Union. As a result, Russia and Germany with their friends and the SP-2 are
situationally in the same boat against US sanctions. This is an important episode in the
unfolding Great European game for gas and its delivery routes.
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov makes a sharp statement: "Russia will definitely respond to
the sanctions against the SP-2." So as not to"shoot yourself in the foot." Almost
simultaneously, the US intelligence agencies are giving Moscow information about the upcoming
terrorist attacks in St. Petersburg -- an incredible fact, given the current relations between
Washington and Moscow, unless President trump wants to soften Moscow's reaction to the
sanctions against SP-2, hinting that he was forced to sign them.
By the sum of circumstances
Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Kozak called the payment of $ 2.9 billion to Kiev "a
difficult decision, a choice between bad and very bad." What is the difference between "
bad " and "very bad"?
Here are the congressional sanctions that really slowed down the construction of the SP-2,
and the judicial burden in the international courts under the influence of the United States,
and the situation in Ukraine. And soon there will be a trial in London on a
three-billion-dollar loan from Russia to Ukraine during the time of President Yanukovych --
this seems to be another reason why we had to pay for the Stockholm gas verdict.
If Russia refused to pay the debt awarded in Stockholm, the London court could on this
basis refuse to consider the claim of Russia. And so, too, Moscow paid 2.9 billion dollars to
Kiev immediately in money. Of course, the London court may follow the Stockholm path, but then
the West and its financial system will lose their reputation in the non-Western world, and
Russia may declare the West a non-legal community.
Victory as treason (Peremoga as zrada)
In General the Ukrainian "Naftogaz" behaves very recklessly and boldly with "Gazprom",
flooding it with lawsuits. His" victory " is undoubtedly Pyrrhic, since Gazprom, as an energy
supplier, will be able to recoup its Stockholm losses.
"Naftogaz" as if Ukrainian, because it is really run by American managers, for them
"Naftogaz – - only a tool to counter Russia, and what will happen then, it does not
matter. What could it be? There may not be a discount of 25 percent, which was in the rejected
package of "Gazprom". New agreements – new discounts.
On the other hand, Gazprom's concessions are due to the entire sum of the political and
economic circumstances of the great European game: Moscow is still trying to create a
Moscow-Berlin axis against us sanctions pressure.
"... With Nordstream II becoming operational, Russia can bypass Ukraine completely in supplying gas to EU countries and Ukraine will only receive enough gas for its own needs. Ukraine becomes a liability to the West as that country continues its slow and agonising collapse. Perhaps in 2020 the Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts may officially declare their independence and apply for inclusion into the Russian Federation, or combine into a new nation. Other adjoining oblasts (Kharkiv?) may follow suit. Transcarpathia oblast in the far west of Ukraine may declare independence and then apply to join Hungary. ..."
Nordstream II should be completed in 2020 in spite of the many handicaps and threats of
sanctions the US has applied against Germany if the pipeline project continues. Its
completion is bound to change the geopolitical landscape in central and eastern Europe
considerably.
With Nordstream II becoming operational, Russia can bypass Ukraine completely in
supplying gas to EU countries and Ukraine will only receive enough gas for its own needs.
Ukraine becomes a liability to the West as that country continues its slow and agonising
collapse. Perhaps in 2020 the Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts may officially declare their
independence and apply for inclusion into the Russian Federation, or combine into a new
nation. Other adjoining oblasts (Kharkiv?) may follow suit. Transcarpathia oblast in the far
west of Ukraine may declare independence and then apply to join Hungary.
Volodymyr Zelensky may not last long as President and is likely to be turfed out in a
coup. Civil war will come again to Ukraine but not in its Russian-speaking east.
Belarus should be monitoring its own southern borders. Maybe crunch-time is coming for
President Lukashenko there as to whether he should align Belarus more closely with Russia or
with the EU instead of trying to get the best of both worlds by playing one against the
other.
My predictions for 2020 are that Ukraine's final collapse and fragmentation will start,
that the use of threats and sanctions continues to isolate the US to its detriment, and that
(maybe, just maybe) the collapse of Ukraine will lead to some of the truth of what actually
happened to Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 becoming public with whistleblowers in the
investigation finally coming forward.
Re Jen @37 "With Nordstream II becoming operational, Russia can bypass Ukraine completely in
supplying gas to EU countries and Ukraine will only receive enough gas for its own needs."
I am hoping this is a bad joke, but perhaps not. I suppose, if true, it will prevent a lot
of Ukrainians from freezing to death this winter. But considering the benefits it will
provide to the Ukro-nazis who hate Russia, I have to wonder about the decision-making process
in Moscow.
Plain English Foundation has voted freedom gas as the worst word or phrase of 2019.
The term comes from the United States Department of Energy, which rebranded natural gas as
"freedom gas" and boasted about bringing molecules of US freedom to the world.
"When a simple product like natural gas starts being named through partisan politics, we
are entering dangerous terrain," said the Foundation's Executive Director, Dr Neil James.
"Why can't natural gas just remain natural gas?"
Each year, Plain English Foundation gathers dozens of examples of the worst words to
highlight the importance of clear and ethical public language.
The full list of 2019's worst words and phrases follows.
Europe is willing to defy the U.S. on Nordstream to the point of forcing the U.S. to openly and nakedly destroy its reputation
with European contractors and governments to stop one pipeline in a place where multiple gas pipelines will be needed for future
growth.
This is the diplomatic equivalent of the nuclear option. And the neocons in the Senate just pushed the button. Europe understands
what this is really about, the U.S. retaining its imperial position as the policy setter for all the world. If it can set energy
policy for Europe then it can set everything else.
And it's clear that the leadership in Europe is done with that status quo. The Trump administration from the beginning has used
NATO as an excuse to mask its real intentions towards Europe, which is continued domination of its policies. Trump complains that
the U.S. pays into NATO to protect Europe from Russia but then Europe buys its energy from Russia. That's unfair, Donald complains,
like a little bitch, frankly, even though he right on the surface. But if the recent NATO summit is any indication, Europe is no
longer interested in NATO performing that function. French President Emmanuel Macron wants NATO re-purposed to fight global terror,
a terrible idea. NATO should just be ended.
But you'll notice how Trump doesn't talk about that anymore. He wants more billions pumped into NATO while the U.S. still sets
its policies. This is not a boondoggle for the MIC as much as it's a Sword of Damocles to hold over Europe's head. The U.S.'s involvement
in should be ended immediately, the troops brought home and the billions of dollars spent here as opposed to occupying most of Europe
to point missiles at a Russia wholly uninterested in imperial ambitions no less harboring any of them.
And Trump also knows this but thinks stopping Nordstream 2 is the price Europe has to pay him for this privilege. It's insane.
The time has come for Europe to act independently from the U.S. As much as I despise the EU, to untangle it from the U.S. on energy
policy is the means by which for it to then deal with its problems internally. It can't do that while the U.S. is threatening it.
Circling the wagons against the immediate threat, as it were.
And that means protecting its companies and citizens from the economic depredations of power-mad neoconservatives in the U.S.
Senate like Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham.
Allseas, the Swiss company laying the pipe for Nordstream 2,
has halted construction for now
, awaiting instructions from the U.S. Gazprom will likely step in to finish the job and Germany will green light any of the necessary
permits to get the pipeline done. Those people will be put out of work just in time for Christmas, turning thousands of people against
the U.S. Commerce drives people together, politics drives them apart.
But, at the same time, the urgency to finish Nordstream 2 on time is wholly irrelevant now because Ukraine and Russia came to
terms on a new five-year gas transit contract. This ensures Gazprom can meet its contractual deliveries to Europe that no one thought
could be done on time. But when the Nazi threat to Zelensky meeting with Merkel, Macron and Putin in Paris failed to materialize,
a gas deal was on the horizon.
And, guess what? U.S. LNG will still not have the marginal lever over Europe's energy policy because of that. Putin and Zelensky
outmaneuvered Cruz, Graham and Trump on this. Because that's what this boils down to. By keeping Russian gas out of Europe, it was
supposed to constrain not only Russia's growth but also Europe's. Because then the U.S. government can control who and how much energy
can make it into European markets at critical junctures politically.
That was the Bolton Doctrine to National Security. And that doctrine brought nothing but misery to millions.
And if you look back over the past five years of U.S./EU relations you will see this gambit clearly for what it was, a way to
continue European vassalage at the hands of the U.S. by forcing market share of U.S. providers into European markets.
Again, it gets back to Trump's ideas about Emergy Dominance
and becoming the supplier of the marginal erg of energy to important economies around the world.
The smart play for the EU now that the gas transit deal is in place is to threaten counter-sanctions against the U.S. and bar
all LNG shipments into Europe. Gas prices are at historic lows, gas supplies are overflowing thanks to fears of a deal not being
in place.
So, a three to six month embargo of U.S. LNG into Europe to bleed off excess supply while Nordstream 2 is completed would be the
right play politically.
But, in reality, they won't need to, because the U.S. won't be able to import much into Europe under current prices and market
conditions. And once Nordstream 2 is complete, LNG sales to Europe should crater.
In the end, I guess it's too bad for Ted Cruz that economics and basic human ingenuity are more powerful than legislatures. Because
Nordstream 2 will be completed. Turkstream's other trains into Europe will be built. Venezuela will continue rebuilding its energy
sector with Russian and Chinese help.
There is no place for U.S. LNG in Europe outside of the Poles literally burning money virtue signaling their Russophobia. Nordstream 2 was a response to the revolt in Ukraine, to replace any potential losses in market share to Europe. Now Russia will
have what it had before passing through Ukraine along with Nordstream 2. By 2024 there will be at least two trains from Turkstream
coming into Europe.
Iran will keep expanding exports, settling its oil and gas trade through Russian banks. And the U.S. will continue to fulminate
and make itself even more irrelevant over time. What men like Ted Cruz and Donald Trump refuse to understand is that when you go nuclear you can't ever go back. If you threaten
the nuclear option, there's no fall back position.
And when those that you threaten with annihilation survive they are made all the stronger for passing through the eye of the needle. Looking at Gazprom's balance sheet right now, that's my take.
Being almost 100% sure that Israeli cornering East Mediterranean gas reserves was a done
deal
and after Cyprus gerrymandered its EEZ under UNCLOS -- and Greece signing up
as pipeline terminus in Europe -- Trump put this cart before horse -- and sanctioned
Nord Stream. Europe was to get Israeli gas. Then Turkey and Libya declared EZZ,
and pipeline cannot go!
Also. there will be other claimants to reserves -- Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza.
Nice try -- but Israel will not be supplying Germany gas any time soon.
Like it was earlier noted, the "New Detente" isn't perfect, as seen most recently by the US'
decision to impose sanctions on
the companies involved in Nord Stream II's construction, but once again, the state of relations
in general are still comparatively better than their nadir in mid-2014 immediately after the
EuroMaidan coup and Crimea's reunification with Russia. The US is still trying to "contain"
Russia with mixed success, while Russia is undertaking its best efforts to break out of this
"containment" noose and even "flip" some of the US' traditional partners such as Turkey, so the
New
Cold War probably won't end anytime soon. Nor, for that matter, did anybody reasonably
expect that it would, but just like during the Old Cold War, there comes a time when the
involved parties believe that it's in their best interests to proverbially take a break and
enter into a period of detente. It seems as though that phase is only now just beginning but
which has finally borne some fruit after Trump promised to pursue this outcome all throughout
the 2016 campaign.
One can argue over why that hasn't already happened to the extent that he promised (or even
if he was fully sincere in the first place), but the point to focus on in the here and now is
that some tangible progress has finally been made concerning the future of Russia's
trans-Ukrainian gas supplies to the EU. From the looks of it, all the relevant players --
Russia, Ukraine, the EU, and the US -- have concrete interests in seeing that this agreement is
upheld. It's convenient for Russia to continue using existing pipelines, Ukraine wants to get
paid for its transit role, the EU desires reliable but cheap gas imports, and the US recognizes
that this outcome perpetuates the geostrategic role of its Ukrainian proxy that it could then
leverage as a "bargaining chip" for reaching a more substantive "New Detente" with Russia
sometime next year or the one afterwards. That said, while each player has their interests,
they don't exactly trust one another for different reasons, which means that the "New Detente"
might still be offset if any of them decides to play the spoiler or is undermined by their
"deep states".
"... Sorry to burst your bubble, but since the end of the Soviet System (with Western criminal thieving BILLIONAIRES who rushed in to plunder Russia (Yeltsin Years) ---- Russians now live longer than the degraded, and impoverished Americans with what the Junk Food Nation serves in the US of A. ..."
https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=4777 Washington's Unmasked Imperialism Towards
Europe And Russia by Tyler Durden Sat, 12/28/2019 - 07:00 0
SHARES
Washington must think the rest of the world is as stupid as many of its own politicians are.
Its passing into law – signed by President Trump this week – of sanctions to halt
the Nord Stream-2 and Turk Stream gas supply projects is a naked imperialist move to bludgeon
the European energy market for its own economic advantage.
US sanctions are planned to hit European companies involved with Russia's Gazprom in the
construction of the 1,225-kilometer pipeline under the Baltic Sea which will deliver natural
gas from Russia to Germany and elsewhere across the European Union. The €9.5 billion
($11bn) project is 80 per cent complete and is due to be finished early next year.
It is quite clear – because US politicians have openly acknowledged it – that
Washington's aim is to oust Russia as the main natural gas exporter to the giant EU market, and
to replace with more expensive American-produced gas.
What's hilarious is the way American politicians, diplomats and news media are portraying
this US assault on market principles and the sovereignty of nations as an act of chivalry.
Washington claims that the sanctions are "pro-European" because they are "saving Europe from
dependency on Russia for its energy". The American hypocrisy crescendoes with the further claim
that by stopping Russia earning lucrative export revenues, then Moscow will be constrained from
"interfering" in European nations. As if Washington's own actions are not interference on a
massive scale.
European politicians and businesses are not buying this American claptrap. The vast
overstepping by Washington into European affairs has prompted EU governments to question the
nature of the trans-Atlantic relation. About time too. Thus, Washington's hubris and bullying
are undermining its objective of dominating Europe for its own selfish interests.
Russia, Germany and others have defiantly
told Washington its weaponizing of economic sanctions will not halt the Nord Stream nor the
Turk Stream projects.
As German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas
said earlier this month, "it is unacceptable" for the US to brazenly interfere in European
and Russian energy trade. The American pretext of supposedly "protecting" the national security
of its purported European allies is frankly laughable.
The American agenda is a blatantly imperialistic reordering of the energy market to benefit
US economic interests. To pull off this audacious scam, Washington, by necessity, has to
demonize and isolate Russia, while also trampling roughshod over its European allies. Europe
has partly aided this American stitch-up of its own interests because it has foolishly indulged
in the US antagonism towards Russia with sanctions due to the Ukraine conflict, Crimea and
other anti-Russia smears.
The legislation being whistled through the American Congress by both Republicans and
Democrats (collectively dubbed the War Party) is recklessly fueling tensions between the US and
Russia. In trying to gain economic advantages over Europe's energy, Washington is wantonly
ramping up animus towards Moscow.
Apart from the sanctions against Russian and European companies partnering on Nord Stream,
the US Congress passed separate legislation which seeks to boost American oil and gas
production in the East Mediterranean.
A Radio Free Europe
report this week was headlined: 'Congress Passes More Legislation Aimed At Curbing Russia's
Energy Grip On Europe'.
The headline should more accurately have been worded: 'Congress Passes More Legislation
Aimed At Bolstering America's Energy Grip On Europe'.
The RFE report states: "The bipartisan Eastern Mediterranean Security and Energy Partnership
Act, which was approved on December 19, is the latest piece of US legislation passed this year
that aims to diversify [sic] Europe's energy sources away from Kremlin-controlled
companies."
Again, the American double-think is jaw-dropping. Such is the arrogance of a flailing,
delusional empire when it can publicly justify with a straight face an energy-market-grab with
a veneer of virtue.
US oil and gas giants are moving into the East Mediterranean. Exxon Mobil
announced the discovery of a major natural gas field off Cyprus in February this year.
American firms are also
partnering with Israeli companies to begin gas production in the Leviathan Field located
off the coast at Haifa.
There is no doubt that the US sanctions targeting Nord Stream and Turk Stream are part of a
bigger concerted pincer movement by Washington to corner the EU energy market of 500 million
consumers (more than double the US population).
Colin Cavell, a US professor of political science, commented to Strategic Culture
Foundation: "What should be hammered down in this continuing debate over which country will be
able to deliver oil and natural gas to Europe is the fact that neither the United States nor,
and especially, the Republican Party, stand for so-called free trade."
Free-trade capitalism is supposed to be an ideological pillar of the US. In this ideology,
governments should not interfere with market supply and demand. But paradoxically as far as
US-imposed sanctions on Russian-European energy companies are concerned the American Congress
is "quintessentially anti-free market", notes Cavell.
In its shameless profiteering, Washington is acting aggressively towards Russia and Europe
while flouting its own supposed economic principles and relying on brute force to win its
arguments. America's imperialist agenda towards Europe and Russia is how world wars are
instigated.
"You will buy our more expensive, less efficient, non-market solution, you will pay for it
with King Dollars, and by gawd, YOU WILL LIKE IT, now shuddup, Vassals!" -- Uncle Scam and
the Reloonicans
I live in Denmark, a country Nord Stream 2 is going through. We are (used to be?) one of
the strongest allies to the US. But recent developments have alienated a lot of danes to the
US.
First Trump publicly announced he wanted to buy the isle of Greenland from Denmark.
Greenland is the largest isle in the world and of strategic importance. But you don't just
buy a part of another country, and this offer was firmly refused. As response to the refusal
Trump cancelled a previously planned official visit to Denmark. This was seen by most danes
as an insult.
Denmark was the last country holding out on permissions needed to build Nord Stream 2, but
after this incident we allowed the project to go forward. I believe the Greenland incident
caused the change making Denmark approve Nord Stream 2.
After this we have had other incidents. One is on the Faroe Islands (a part of Denmark),
where both US and Chinese ambassadors interfered in our internal affairs trying to influence
if Huawei could be used for 5G in this self-governing part of our country. Another is a
follow-up to the Greenland incident mentioned, where the US now wants to open a diplomatic
mission on the island, probably in an attempt to influence the local government to accept
that the US buys the island.
During the last year I have seen sentiment among my fellow citizens going from "the US is
great, let us support and follow them" to "we have to be careful of these guys, they
interfere in our internal affairs and try to break up our country".
I believe the US government is underestimating how much they are alienating the Europeans
with this line of foreing policy.
Its a guess but I think there are other hidden issues here nobody wants to talk about. Of
course, Trump idea of buying the island was stupid but I believe it arouse out of
frustration. You see, US wants to build huge military base there. Danes won't permit that.
The reason US wants to do it is because sea between Iceland and England/Norway is a
chokepoint aimed against Russian subs. This is the only place where they can be reasonably
stopped. It is nothing new, the same thing happened during WWII war at so called "war of
Atlantic" where the most of the fighting happened between German U-boats and alliance
marines.
You most certainly can buy land from other countries. Thomas Jefferson purchased the
entire center of N. America from the French and for pennies. We also purchased Alaska from
the Russians for next to nothing as well. Both land masses are much larger than all of
Europe.
You guys don't need Greenland so give it to us for pennies.
Russia has the largest proven reserves of easily recoverable oil and natural gas on Earth.
The US has about a decade to choke Russia to death. Economic sanctions, regime change, cyber
attacks...whatever it takes. If the US doesn't utterly break Russia soon, Russia will become
the next, (and last) empire on Earth. NeoConThink.
"The US has about a decade to choke Russia to death. "
Actually you are absolutely wrong on this. It is the other way around. Russia has to get
out of US chokefold NOW or it will likely disintegrate.
Why? In short, economy, geogaphy and even more importantly demographics.
Today there are about 110 million native Russians there. Next to them are about 40 million
muslims living there. Muslims have about twice as big reproduction rate as Russians do. It is
estimated that in 30 years if current trends stand it will be 50/50. Worse, in ten years
there will be only about 90 million Russians living there.
There are other issues as well. About 25 percent of Russian men die before the age of 55.
The reason? Alcoholism and drug abuse. Have you ever heard about cheap Rusian drug called
Krokodil?
It kills you slowly first then fast. Your body just ROTS AWAY and falls off. Literally!
Like you have bare bones instead of feet. No kidding. Just check on you tube.
Another problem is soldier materiel. It is estimated that only about 30 percent of males
between the age of 18-25 are healthy enough to join military. As of today it is barely
sufficient to fill the ranks. In 10 years Russian military will have to shrink by 20 percent.
From that perspective it is do or die for Russia right now. This is most likely the peak of
their military power, then it will slowly deteriorate. Putin knows that, hence he lashes out
at its neighbours, most notably Poland. Economy shrinks, military is on vane, hence he needs
an enemy to rally his people around. Or else!
Then there is China. Make your best bet what they will do in the far east when Russia lies
prostate.Remember, Russia took over a lot of Chinese territory in late XIX century there.
Yep, the area around Vladivostok and other nearby territories, the size close to that of
today's France..There are millions of Chinese already living there.In the Asian south Chinese already took controll of the former
Russian stans. They rule there, not Putin. You didn't know that?
"There are other issues as well. About 25 percent of Russian men die before the age of 55.
The reason? Alcoholism and drug abuse. Have you ever heard about cheap Rusian drug called
Krokodil?
It kills you slowly first then fast. Your body just ROTS AWAY and falls off. Literally!
Like you have bare bones instead of feet. No kidding. Just check on you tube."
Sorry to burst your bubble, but since the end of the Soviet System (with Western criminal
thieving BILLIONAIRES who rushed in to plunder Russia (Yeltsin Years) ---- Russians now live
longer than the degraded, and impoverished Americans with what the Junk Food Nation serves in
the US of A.
" Washington must think the rest of the world is as stupid as many of its own
politicians are"
No, washington thinks no such thing. It doesnt really understand how stupid its own
politicians are. Nor DOES IT CARE!.
Did anyone watch the impeachment proceedings? Now, THAT was stupid, stupid for the
whole world to watch. And then there is the chocoate cake diplomacy of Trump, the elegance
and sophistication of Pompeo, Bolton, and the digniity of Nikki Haley. Putting Raytheon to
run our Pentagon is a magical touch.
Comment from a friend of mine concerning the statement below. He has excellent security
credentials:
"Our President has made the world far more dangerous by withdrawing from treaties without
attempting to negotiate new ones. No country is well served by this. The situation is very
destabilizing."
The Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation Sergey Shoigu:
- I hope that a full-scale war is not a question today. And all the risks and consequences
that such a full-scale war entails are obvious to everyone.
Regarding the third world war, there are a very large number of different statements. The
most accurate and adequate of them seems to me: "I do not know exactly what the third world
war will be. But I know for sure that she will be the last. "
However, if we talk about the number of threats to our country, then they do not become
less. The United States has already withdrawn from two important nuclear arms control
treaties. So far, the START-3 treaty remains, which is also under discussion in the USA: to
renew it or not to renew it?
As a result of this approach, the world is becoming more unpredictable and less secure. At
the current level of informatization and automation, there is a high probability of errors in
the weapons control system.
That is why recently issues of ensuring information security have come to the fore. When
you are aware of your vulnerability and are interested in maintaining balance and universal
equal security, it makes you turn on your head.
And when you think how the United States continues to believe by inertia that a balance of
power has developed in your favor, a variety of ideas may come to your head, including not
the most reasonable ones. It is in this situation that I see the main threat now, and not
only for Russia, "the minister replied.
It's good cop/bad cop nonsense. Europe is occupied territory, and American huffing and
puffing at Russia is just meant to get Europe "better deals" for their projects with Russia.
The only ones who don't get it are spooks and Neo-Libs/Cons
What is not expected is rational discussion on what I have described here. But since facts
contrary to my expose here are missing I doubt it will happen.
" But remember also that todays Russia is ruled by a Tsar named Putin"
Im amazed at how long this silly meme can be maintained.
Putin is NOT and autocrat, he has to struggle with a delicate balance. between the Atlantic integrationists and Eurasiaon soveriigntists. The oligarchy installed by the US is still strong in Russian. They have not won their
soveriignty yet.
"... Time and time again Washington has tightened Russian sanctions in an effort to crush the Russian economy. When virtually every legal outlet had been sanctioned, Washington has turned to sanctioning third parties that cooperate with Russia. ..."
"... North American investors, led fully by Wall Street, account for over half of the foreign capital flowing into Russian stocks, according to the Moscow Exchange. By comparison, Russia's next door neighbors in Europe account for only 26%. ..."
"... Speaking on German TV, Finance Minister Olaf Scholz said the sanctions were an infringement of sovereignty... The US sanctions have also angered Russia and the European Union, which says it should be able to decide its own energy policies. ..."
"... "As a matter of principle, the EU opposes the imposition of sanctions against EU companies conducting legitimate business," a spokesman for the trading bloc told AFP news agency on Saturday. ..."
"... According to German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, the American sanctions amount to "interference in autonomous decisions taken in Europe." ..."
"... Iran, Malaysia, Turkey and Qatar are considering trading among themselves in gold and through a barter system as a hedge against any future economic sanctions on them, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said on Saturday. ..."
"... They have their own undersea pipe-laying equipment and experience. These sanctions will only delay the completion date for a few more months. Russia under Putin is very patient, resolute and not prone to rash decisions. They play the long game and will win out in the end. ..."
"... The Great Gas Game: Vesti Presents a New Documentary Film About Pipelines and Power youtube.com ..."
"... Nord Stream 2 is financed by leading energy companies from France, Germany, the Netherlands, Great Britain and Austria, ENGIE, OMV, Shell, Uniper and Wintershall Dea. A multi-billion Euro investment in European industry and services, the project involves more than 200 companies from 17 countries worldwide. ..."
"... Well, congratulations Congress and Trump. This will drive a wedge between the US and Europe. Can you just imagine how those investing in NS2 feel about the US. The US is saying in effect - lose all of your investment because we have determined that the project is against our geopolitical/economic interests. And to make matters worse the pipeline will be completed, probably only 2 months behind schedule. So the financial backers will get hit, but will eventually see returns due to Russian efforts. Russia could have built the entire pipeline themselves, but preferred to have European partners. ..."
"... to Europe at the start of the 1980's, the US had just gone through the Oil Shock of 1978–79 . The US has not been a net exporter of oil for well over 75 years. It is only this year that this has changed through the extensive use of fracking. ..."
own goalnoun: (in soccer) a goal scored inadvertently when the ball is struck into the goal by a player on the defensive team.
Time and time again Washington has tightened Russian sanctions in an effort to crush the Russian economy. When virtually every
legal outlet had been sanctioned, Washington has turned to sanctioning third parties that cooperate with Russia.
So what is the
net effect of all of these sanctions?
The Russian stock market has reached record highs this year but still has room to climb further in coming months before paring
gains towards the end of 2020, a Reuters poll of market experts found... The rouble-based MOEX index has reached an all-time high of 3,009.1 in November, taking its year-to-date gain to over 25%, and
is seen finishing this year at 3,000.
That's not exactly what Washington had in mind.
However the real kicker is
this .
North American investors, led fully by Wall Street, account for over half of the foreign capital flowing into Russian stocks,
according to the Moscow Exchange. By comparison, Russia's next door neighbors in Europe account for only 26%.
So what is happening is that Washington is punishing Europe for cooperating with Russia, while turning a blind eye to when their
Wall Street donors cooperate with Russia.
As you may have guessed, this has created some hard feelings
.
Speaking on German TV, Finance Minister Olaf Scholz said the sanctions were an infringement of sovereignty...
The US sanctions have also angered Russia and the European Union, which says it should be able to decide its own energy policies.
"As a matter of principle, the EU opposes the imposition of sanctions against EU companies conducting legitimate business,"
a spokesman for the trading bloc told AFP news agency on Saturday.
Imagine that: countries making their own policy decisions that don't align with Washington's interests? What's the world coming
to?
Allseas, a Dutch-Swiss private company, is going to be significantly harmed by the newest sanctions, and it will delay the Nord
Stream 2 pipeline (but it will only delay it).
However, there is a
bright side
to all of this.
While it costs Moscow hundreds of millions in lost income and additional investments, the country is benefitting on a geostrategic
and political level.
For a mere $9.5 billion, NS2's price tag, Moscow has unintentionally managed to drive another wedge between key Western allies.
Berlin is furious about the sanctions and its already fraught relations with Washington are set to escalate even further. According
to German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, the American sanctions amount to "interference in autonomous decisions taken in Europe."
What is certain is that NS2 will be completed eventually. Most of the work on the 1,230 kilometer or 765 mile long pipeline has
already been finished. Also, the vast majority of the $9.5 billion in investments have already been spent.
Much like our GWOT, we've reached a point in sanctions where staying the course just makes things worse.
It isn't just Russia. The Muslim world is looking for an
alternative trading system to avoid sanctions that Washington hasn't even threatened yet.
Iran, Malaysia, Turkey and Qatar are considering trading among themselves in gold and through a barter system as a hedge against
any future economic sanctions on them, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said on Saturday.
..."I have suggested that we re-visit the idea of trading using the gold dinar and barter trade among us," Mahathir said, referring
to the Islamic medieval gold coin.
"We are seriously looking into this and we hope that we will be able to find a mechanism to put it into effect." The leaders agreed they needed do more business among themselves and trade in each other's currencies.
You know that you are using sanctions too much when other nations expect to be sanctioned by you before you even consider doing
it. As for the gold dinar, this is what was proposed by Libya's former leader Gaddafi, and also what got him eventually
killed .
The most recent batch of Clinton emails reveals perhaps the most bizarre morsel of Blumenthal-baked intelligence to date. An April
2, 2011 memo titled "France's client/Q's gold" quotes "knowledgeable individuals" with insider information about French President
Nicolas Sarkozy's motivation for bombing Libya. The military campaign, the anonymous sources say, was designed to quash plans
by Gaddafi to use $7 billion in secret gold and silver to prop up a new African currency. The French worried the move would undercut
the currency guaranteed by the French treasury, known as CFA franc, that's widely used in West Africa and acts as a strong link
between France and many of its former African colonies. After French intelligence officials got wind of this secret plan, the
Blumenthal memo reports, Sarkozy freaked out: "This was one of the factors that influenced [his] decision to commit France to
the attack on Libya."
Kruschev Many remember the quote "We will bury you". I think he was quoting someone else. Lenin?
But they forget the second sentence. "And the capitalists will sell us the shovel."
Greed is indeed a sickness, a mental illness. Not ordinary greed, but Scrooge McDuck greed. The need to have more more more,
when it cannot possibly make any difference in your life.
Not like the guys I worked with that volunteered for every Holiday, every overtime opportunity. The money did make a difference
there, although one can question whether it is worth it. But pursuing an extra billion when you already have tens of billions?
How much is enough? How high is up.
EDIT:
I'm reminded of the old sitcom "Mama's Family". Dim bulb son, Vinton, hears of a new larger lottery jackpot and says, "Wow! Imagine
how many lottery tickets you could buy with that much money!"
EDIT2:
Like an alcoholic that just drinks more and more until he passes out.
@entrepreneur
that capitalism selects for people with this mental illness. A person with a healthy view of life will never be selected as fortune
500 CEO.
excessive are the mountains of paper they accumulate are still stimulated by acquiring more. #1
And whether it be newspapers solidly packing every room in their homes to a depth of 6 feet, leaving barely a 12" crawl space
between the top of the stacks and the ceiling, or be it a pile of money, more than they and their extended family and descendants
can spend in 100 years, it is hoarding, a mental illness.
They have their own undersea pipe-laying equipment and experience. These sanctions will only delay the completion date for
a few more months. Russia under Putin is very patient, resolute and not prone to rash decisions. They play the long game and will
win out in the end.
Nord Stream 2 is financed by leading energy companies from France, Germany, the Netherlands, Great Britain and Austria,
ENGIE, OMV, Shell, Uniper and Wintershall Dea. A multi-billion Euro investment in European industry and services, the project
involves more than 200 companies from 17 countries worldwide.
Well, congratulations Congress and Trump. This will drive a wedge between the US and Europe. Can you just imagine how those
investing in NS2 feel about the US. The US is saying in effect - lose all of your investment because we have determined that the
project is against our geopolitical/economic interests. And to make matters worse the pipeline will be completed, probably only
2 months behind schedule. So the financial backers will get hit, but will eventually see returns due to Russian efforts. Russia
could have built the entire pipeline themselves, but preferred to have European partners.
At the end of WWII most of Europe used coal for energy. The US had a goal to convert Europe to oil, since the US was the major
world exporter of oil. One of the stated reasons was to make Europe dependent on US oil and give the US political leverage over
European countries. So this whole thing is about the US projecting their geopolitical dominance schemes to Russia. As it has turned
out, for more than 70 years Russia and previously the USSR has never done that as a policy. The reason being that once you do
that you lose trust as a trade partner. But this is even worse as the US is interfering in trading among European partners that
has nothing to do directly with the US.
to Europe at the start of the 1980's, the US had just gone through the
Oil Shock of 1978–79 . The US
has not been a net exporter of oil for well over 75 years. It is only this year that this has changed through the extensive use
of fracking.
The oil shortage of the 1970's brought about the end of power generation using oil. The US, a major exporter of coal, was pushing
the use of American coal for energy security in Europe
since WWII.
Trump Makes American Coal Great Again -- Overseas
U.S. coal exports have exploded. Can that continue?
April 4, 2018
...
The export boom is the one part of Trump's pledge to help the coal sector that is coming true.
Production ticked up a bit last year after a disastrous 2016 but is still at the lowest level since 1978. And despite plenty
of promises to bring back jobs to coal country, coal mining employment only grew by some 1,100 jobs last year; mining employment
is down about 40 percent since 2012. Meanwhile, closures of coal-fired power plants continue apace, with more than two dozen
plants shutting down early last year alone, which means less domestic demand for coal.
...
And the Trump administration's other policies don't look like they'll end up helping coal much either. The push to increase
exports of natural gas to Europe, Asia, and Latin America undermines the overseas market for U.S. coal, since both can be used
to generate electricity. And as U.S. coal is shipped abroad, its price at home tends to rise slightly -- making coal even less
attractive as a power source there.
"Unfortunately, most of the policies the Trump administration is pursuing inside and outside of energy do not help domestic
coal production," Book says.
Try this: Wheel of Fortune: The Battle for Oil and Power in Russia – May 15,
2017
by Thane Gustafson
A review @ Amazon:
Thane masterfully succeeded in uncovering the fundamental drivers of the Russian oil
industry and its interdependency with the political complex through a comprehensive and
convincing historical analysis, with plenty of meaningful insights and endearing anecdotes.
Rooted in Soviet legacy and having gone through the 90s bust-boom roller coaster and 2000s
state reconsolidation the industry is a unique globally isolated eco system, and, with
Russia as a whole, is at a crossroads. A must read for any decision maker in the O&G
business.
It's official: "Freedom gas" is the Worst Phrase of the Year, according to the Plain
English Foundation. But where does the expression come from? EURACTIV did not have to look
far to get the answer
So where does the whole story come from?
On 1 May, EURACTIV's energy and climate reporter Frédéric Simon attended
a briefing with US energy secretary Rick Perry in Brussels. He recalls the events
below.
The four journalists in the room had spent about an hour asking Perry a basic question:
why would Europeans choose to pay for expensive LNG imported from the US when they have
access to cheap Russian gas?
"But my surprise soon turned to dismay when Perry suddenly took a grave face and
started talking about the Normandy landings during WWII for which commemorations were planned
days after."
Here's what Perry went on to say: Seventy-five years after liberating Europe from Nazi
Germany occupation, "the United States is again delivering a form of freedom to the European
continent," the US energy secretary told reporters that day.
"And rather than in the form of young American soldiers, it's in the form of liquefied
natural gas," he added. "So yes, I think you may be correct in your observation," he said in
reference to Fred's suggestion about 'Freedom gas' .
####
Quite instructive about the mindset (f/king nuts) they are over in the States. They really
do live in their own universe where no-one picks up their dogs' (and their own) crap. They
neither notice the smell nor link to the slipperyness underfoot to their own actions. They
don't care either.
They like to talk about the European "blood-debt" to the USA.
I don't know what they think a large number of unfortunate young men were doing on Gold,
Juno and Sword beaches in June, 1944, or indeed that there were such beaches. Even moreso,
they are apparently unaware of the over 22 million Soviet citizens who died 1941-1945 during
what is known as "The Great Patriotic War for the Fatherland, 1941-1945"..
Analysts have identified a way to increase the export of Gazprom to bypass the Ukraine The
Eugal pipeline built to deliver gas from "Nord Stream-2 " to end users, will be operating
in 2020, despite US sanctions. "Gazprom" will redirect gas to this pipeline from "Northern
stream-1", experts say
The capacity of the Eugal onshore gas pipeline, built specifically for delivering gas from
the Nord Stream-2 offshore gas pipeline to end users, may allow Gazprom to increase supplies to
Europe bypassing the Ukraine, despite the fact that the United States has imposed sanctions
against laying the Nord Stream-2 gas pipeline. , said experts interviewed by RBC.
The Gascade Gastransport operator,
controlled by Gazprom and the German Wintershall Dea , will commission the first of two Eugal
pipelines with a capacity of 30.9 billion cubic metres per year from January 1, 2020 (total
pipe capacity should be 55 billion cubic metres), which will go from German Greifswald on the
Baltic Sea to the south to the border with the Czech Republic, the Eugal press service said on
December 20. And the next day it became known that the European pipe-laying company Allseas had
suspended the construction of Nord Stream-2 (which should pump 55 billion cubic meters per
year) in the Baltic Sea.
Eugal will lay another 36 billion cubic metre capacity OPAL landline, built to pump gas from the first
Baltic gas pipeline of Gazprom and partners, Nord Stream-1, which achieved at full capacity 55
billion cubic metres per year back in October 2012. Since 2013, Gazprom could only use 50% of
OPAL capacity because of restrictions, and in 2016, the company received permission to connect
to 90% of the pipeline capacity. However, in September 2019, Gazprom was forced to reduce gas
pumping through OPAL, and then through Nord Stream-1, because of a decision of the European
Court of Justice, which, in lawsuit filed by Poland, limited supply by almost half – from
90 to 50% of capacity , or up to 18 billion cubic metres per year.
"The launch of Eugal will ensure a full load of Nord Stream-1. About 20 billion cubic
metres of gas per year can be delivered via a new land gas pipeline, which volume was lost
because of restrictions imposed as a result of Poland's victory in court", said Mikhail
Korchemkin, director of East European Gas Analysis, to RBC. The remaining 17–20 billion
cubic metre Gazprom can pump through a second branch from the offshore gas pipeline
NEL , which runs only through
Germany to the west of Greifswald, so Poland could not achieve restrictions on its
capacity.
At the peak of capacity, OPAL pumped up to 103 million cubic metres of gas per day owing to
a decision of the European Court to decrease transit to 50 million cubic metre. Last week, it
fell to 12 million cubic metres per day. This is due to an increase of 115 million cubic metres
per day in supplies to the NEL gas pipeline, as well as an increase in transit to Europe
through the territory of the Ukraine, Korchemkin points out.
"Now most of the gas from Nord Stream-1, which continues to operate at its design capacity,
is sent to the markets of northwestern Europe through NEL, that is, the limitation of the use
of OPAL by the decision of the European Court has practically had no affect on the load of Nord
Stream", added Deputy General Director of the National Energy Policy Fund, Alexey Grivach.
According to him, after the introduction of Eugal, part of the gas can go to Central Europe
through a new onshore gas pipeline, depending on the current market needs and the optimization
of Gazprom's export portfolio.
Despite the impending U.S. sanctions, the possibility of using Eugal to pump Gazprom's gas
was recognized in November by Arno Bux, chief commercial officer of gas transmission operator
Fluxys, which is a minority shareholder in Gascade. According to him, since 2020, from 80 to
90% of the Eugal capacity has already been booked for 20 years at auctions. "Since the
transportation facilities are reserved on a ship-or-pay basis (" transport or pay "), the
potential delays of the Nord Stream-2 project do not affect Eugal's revenues", he told
Interfax, noting that the flows from the gas pipeline Nord Stream 1 can be routed through
Eugal.
"We cannot predict the volumes that will be transported through Eugal, because it
depends on requests from transport customers", Gascade spokesman Georg Wustner told RBC on
December 23, declining to specify whether gas supplies from Nord Stream-1 will begin on
January 1 through a new onshore pipeline. A representative of Gazprom Export declined to
comment; the press service of Nord Stream AG (operator of the Nord Stream-1 project) did not
respond to a request from RBC.
Lavrov on the 22nd appeared on what looks to be an interesting program on Russia's Channel
One--
"The Great Game Show" with a transcript at the link. Most of the questions deal with
Lavrov's recent trip to the Outlaw US Empire and his meetings with Trump and Pompeo. I found
Lavrov's remarks about Congress most revealing as they're very similar to what he says about
the tiny Russophobic nations other NATO nations seem to feel they can't break with the
overall consensus despite its being idiotic. His response is related to the illegal sanctions
laid against the construction of Nord Stream 2:
"They are threatening it. I said it will be built, no matter what, despite all these
threats. First, I am convinced that the Europeans understand their commercial interest.
Second, this implies an interest in the context of maintaining long-term energy security.
Third, they were, of course, humiliated. The statements were, nevertheless, made, including
those from Berlin which shows that our European partners still retain a sense of dignity.
"I am confident that, just like the TurkStream project, Nord Stream 2 will be implemented,
and TurkStream will start operating some two or three weeks from now.
"US President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo want to expand trade, but
the US Congress continues to bombard our relations with sanctions. A situation that has now
shaped up in the United States shows that, in their striving to revise election results and
the will of the American people, these Congressmen are ready to do anything, including
absolutely reckless things that, I would say, are not worthy of serious politicians."
As you read the transcript, you'll realize that this is a very serious program where the
truth of the overall situation is being revealed and remarked upon in a manner that would be
unimaginable here within the Outlaw US Empire, and I presume the program is viewed by a
majority of Russians. It should certainly be read in relation to what Putin said at
his presser on
the topics covered and at the Informal CIS Summit .
Many are busy with their plans for the holidays, and the combined transcripts will take
4-6 hours to read, so perhaps bookmark them to read before New Year when more time's
available.
"... It would have been simpler and much cheaper to supply the gas through land pipelines via Ukraine, the Baltics and Poland. But the undersea pipelines had to be built because the Levantine dual nationals parachuted in by the State Department to rule over Ukraine and the Baltics on Washington's behalf have shown themselves to be totally unreliable economic partners. Ukraine refused to pay for gas that was supplied and stole gas intended for European countries. The rabid Levantines in the Baltics and Poland were equally hostile. They could have made billions in transit fees, but they always insisted on cutting off their noses to spite their faces. Bulgaria blocked South Stream on Washington's instructions and lost a reliable source of cheap gas and $400 million a year in transit fees. A lot of money and a lot of jobs for a poor country. US satellites pay a high price to kowtow to Uncle Sam. Russia developed its own port facilities in the Baltic and Riga is now a ghost town. ..."
"... Its surprising how history repeats itself. In the first decade of the nineteenth century, Napoleon achieved dominance over continental Europe. Only Britain stood against him. Napoleon tried to bring Britain to heel through economic warfare, the Continental System, ordering European countries not to trade with his sole remaining enemy. His orders were ignored all the way from Spain to Russia, and this lucrative trade continued. The invasion of Russia and the debacle at Moscow were an attempt to enforce the Continental System. In a similar fashion, Washington's hubris and unbridled arrogance are now alienating even its most abject, cringing, servile satraps like Macron, Merkel, and Erdogan. With the same result. ..."
"... Uncle Sam sees Nord-2 as an energy superpower challenge to energy supremacy which equates to American supremacy & hegemonic supremacy writ large across the world. If the pinko commie bastards in the Russian Federation make inroads by unilaterally making massive energy deals with the entire EU we will see American interests clamoring for market inroads & market share so that the pinko commie bastards in the Russian Federation don't make a dime. ..."
"... Uncle Sam is in actuality a waning ex-superpower thug that is yesterday's man but can't stand being taken out of the limelight being the narcissist nation it is. ..."
"... Zackarova is bang on in that the USA is wholly incompetent to govern their own business interests let alone other sovereign interests. Nord-2 is necessary infrastructure that the USA wants to thwart for their own monetary benefit. ..."
"... Stepping aside from the geopolitics for a moment. In terms of economics the US is attempting to push Russia out of natural gas markets. ..."
"... Greenpeace is yet another "NGO" that is heavily influenced by the National Endowment for Democracy a CIA front that supports US Imperialism. ..."
"... One wonders if the invertebrates of the EU will ever tire of being bullied by the Global Bullying Thug in Chief? The clerico-fascists of priest-ridden Poland one can understand, and the phony 'greens' of Greenpeace the sell-out specialists, but the others are just like mongrel dogs-the more you kick them, the more they lick your boots. ..."
What would Dr Kampmark consider to be an ecologically cleaner alternative to Nordstream I and 2? The US proposal to supply LNG
via an endless conga line of tankers across the North Atlantic would be an ecological nightmare, to say nothing of the specialised
port facilities that need to be built to accommodate the tankers, the extra pipelines needed to pipe the gas to areas of Europe
away from the Atlantic and the potential for accidents and disasters during annual hurricane season. Europe needs the best energy
supply solution possible from a sustainability POV and other POVs and while Nordstream I and 2 may not be perfect, other solutions
are either worse, more expensive or less certain and stable in the long term.
Shale gas is also poop. Only someone totally corrupt or totally insane would buy such junk from the USA.
The collapse of an empire brings up such interesting stuff.
I am of course a Russian troll for stating the obvious, so a merry Christmas from the Kremlin.
Let nuclear bombers fly, baby. Who wants another Christmas. The majority of the present American government (including Trump) are evangelical Christians who believe in
the Rapture . You wouldn't put such people in charge of a
car park, let alone put them in charge of the biggest nuclear weapons arsenal on the planet.
I find this a bit of a strange piece, for reasons that many others have pointed out here in the comments.
With regard to the environmental angle, I should perhaps point out that by far the biggest polluter on the planet is the US
military.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
The US Military pollutes everything under the sun far past Internet & the over 900 worldwide bases it occupies. Heck, the US MIC
pollutes all sports venues with their propagandistic parades of adherence to state & flag military shows.
In the USA they make you stand in honour of the military at sports events.
I'm glad I don't go down to the USA for the USA Grand National Drag Racing events just because of the MIC pollution at events.
Their propaganda pollution is all over the Internet and that is toxic waste that we all have to sift through on our way to real
news aside from institutional American killing of the third world.
GI-Joe turned out to be anything but a good hippie in my book.
MOU
ttshasta ,
The article mentions Rex Tillerson, yet fails to mention Qatar. Exxon Mobil & Exxon Mobil Qatar, that Tillerson worked for, want
to run an LP pipeline from the Norths Pars gas field, the worlds largest, and Qatar owns 2/3 of,through Saudi Arabia, through
Jordan, Syria, through Alleppo then through Turkey on to Europe. Thus Qatar, S.A. and Turkey have sponsored the foreign invasion
of Syria that the the dolts at NPR to this day call a civil war. The US's Al Udeid air base in Qatar is the largest in the region,
Cheney has been to Qatar many times as have Barack and Michele Obama, John Ashcroft was paid $2.5 million to defend Qatar from
post 911 terrorism charges.
Does it seem the article misses the elephant in the room? US Qatari investments must profit?
Never forget the Clintons, Qatar donates to Clinton Foundation, State Dpt. sells weapons to Qatar (diverted to Syria?), candidate
Clinton to declare no fly zone over Syria as POTUS.
In 2016 Thierry Messan's Voltairenet dot org translated an article from Petra the official Jordanian press paper that S.A. financed
20% of Clinton's campaign, which is illegal under US law. Subsequently, and conveniently, Saudi Prince M.B.S. declared Petra had
been hacked and the report was false. I rely on Thierry's translations, and his voluminous site.
Excellent comment. As always, one should follow the money trail.
paul ,
I've never understood the argument that buying Russian gas is a threat to the security of European countries. Russia doesn't supply
the gas out of altruism, it does so because it wants their money. They are dependent on Russian gas. Russia is dependent on their
money. Mutual dependence, mutual gain.
During the Cold War, Russia always supplied every last gallon of oil and every cubic foot of gas that contracts obliged it
to deliver. It did so, again because it wanted their money. Simple as that.
It would have been simpler and much cheaper to supply the gas through land pipelines via Ukraine, the Baltics and Poland. But
the undersea pipelines had to be built because the Levantine dual nationals parachuted in by the State Department to rule over
Ukraine and the Baltics on Washington's behalf have shown themselves to be totally unreliable economic partners. Ukraine refused
to pay for gas that was supplied and stole gas intended for European countries. The rabid Levantines in the Baltics and Poland
were equally hostile. They could have made billions in transit fees, but they always insisted on cutting off their noses to spite
their faces. Bulgaria blocked South Stream on Washington's instructions and lost a reliable source of cheap gas and $400 million
a year in transit fees. A lot of money and a lot of jobs for a poor country. US satellites pay a high price to kowtow to Uncle
Sam. Russia developed its own port facilities in the Baltic and Riga is now a ghost town.
Uncle Sam is now waging economic warfare and imposing sanctions on its previously most loyal and obedient satellites, Canada,
Mexico, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Turkey.
Its surprising how history repeats itself. In the first decade of the nineteenth century, Napoleon achieved dominance over
continental Europe. Only Britain stood against him. Napoleon tried to bring Britain to heel through economic warfare, the Continental
System, ordering European countries not to trade with his sole remaining enemy. His orders were ignored all the way from Spain
to Russia, and this lucrative trade continued. The invasion of Russia and the debacle at Moscow were an attempt to enforce the
Continental System. In a similar fashion, Washington's hubris and unbridled arrogance are now alienating even its most abject,
cringing, servile satraps like Macron, Merkel, and Erdogan. With the same result.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
Uncle Sam sees Nord-2 as an energy superpower challenge to energy supremacy which equates to American supremacy & hegemonic supremacy
writ large across the world. If the pinko commie bastards in the Russian Federation make inroads by unilaterally making massive
energy deals with the entire EU we will see American interests clamoring for market inroads & market share so that the pinko commie
bastards in the Russian Federation don't make a dime.
Uncle Sam is in actuality a waning ex-superpower thug that is yesterday's man but can't stand being taken out of the limelight
being the narcissist nation it is.
Can you imagine being dependent on the usa for anything never mind fracked gas at twice the price.no doubt brave new worlder boris
will go for it.gb inc looks over and done with.
Guy ,
"Can you imagine being dependent on the usa for anything"
Yes I can .I live in Canada and they basically own our country, for all intent and purposes .
They did not conquer us militarily but they so corporately.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
Zackarova is bang on in that the USA is wholly incompetent to govern their own business interests let alone other sovereign interests.
Nord-2 is necessary infrastructure that the USA wants to thwart for their own monetary benefit.
The USA is anachronism, insolvent, and lacks common sense as well as entrepreneurial spirit & business acumen.
MOU
padre ,
How very concerned about environment we are, when somebody else is "destroying" it!
paul ,
The US certainly showed how concerned it was about the environment with the North Dakota pipeline.
Francis Lee ,
Stepping aside from the geopolitics for a moment. In terms of economics the US is attempting to push Russia out of natural gas
markets. If a company did this it would be attempting to construct a monopoly and be subject to anti-competitive laws. If the
US becomes the sole supplier in Europe then it has a stranglehold, both economic and political, on Europe. That's the strategy,
and it seems blatantly obvious.
But the construction being put on this sordid little play by the Anglo-American MSM is that the
US frackers – who never make a profit – are doing Europe a really big favour by enabling them not to become dependent on Russian
gas. The Europeans should there for be grateful for US LNG since it will enable to diversify away from Russian gas.
The reality is, however, that once you become dependent on a single overseas crucial energy source you have been unceremoniously
grabbed by the short and curlies.
Antonym ,
Simply connect more European harbors to the existing gas pipeline network and choose the LNG supplier you want.
Not rocket science but Dutch PM Rutte was sold on abolishing natural gas because of CO2, while trees from North America for burning
in power plants was fine.
Neighbour PM Merkel Germany wants gas but not nuclear (a scientist!). France wants nuclear but rely on a new unproven expensive
design.
Political inmates are running the EU madhouse.
John Deehan ,
In this article, it misses the whole point of why the USA wants to impose sanctions, rather late in the day, on companies involved
in its construction. Namely, the continued attempts by it to isolate The Russian Federation and its its long term strategy of
preparations for war. Moreover, the omission of the reasons why Russia built the gas pipeline could not be more striking. The
coup in the Ukraine made the transit of Russian gas to western Europe via its territory open to pressure from the USA. Hence why
the Russians built the pipeline in the first place. It's the same reasons why the USA is attempting to prevent other Russian gas/oil
pipelines in other parts of the world.
Francis Lee ,
If anything illustrates the reality of the EU-NATO 'alliance' it is this. The US to Germany – and by extension the rest of the
EU – 'You will take expensive US LNG gas and like it' Me Tarzan you Jane. This brazen realpolitik illustrates the true nature
of the vassalised EU. And of course Poland, Romania – please station your inter-mediate range missiles here – and the Baltic uber-Petainist
elites come chiming in 'America the Beautiful.' More than anything this explodes the idea of the EU as a third geopolitical bloc.
It is an occupied region always has been and is composed of countries which can't actually defend their own interests whilst privileging
the US.
Gutless and spineless!
George Cornell ,
Indeed. And as reluctant as I am to entertain it, the Brutish ( spellcheck wants it to be British, no irony there) US is forcing
any vertebrate in the EU to crave armed forces.
Why poor EU countries buy the bollocks that is the relentless pressure or requirement from NATO to buy American and Israeli arms
is beyond me. They should be much more frightened of the Americans than the imaginary bogeymen to the East.
You mean like the Azov Battalion, Right Sector and C-14?
Those bogeymen Tim? Some of whom are now in Hong Kong helping Joseph Wong and his mates fight for 'freedom and democracy' with
some help from people in, er, Langley Virginia. Oh, and Nancy Pelosi.
Well, I support the right of all peoples to self-determination as a universal right and oppose imperialism/neo-imperialism regardless
of who does it, so your false dichotomy does not apply to me.
I thought you were referring to the neo nazi thugs in Ukraine that sprung up like weeds after rain following the overthrow of
Yanukovych by you know who. No, it wasn't Putin. And no, I'm not a fan either.
All bullshit pushed by Mr Hopey Changey that has put the world in grave peril.
In fact the changes of nuclear war are greater than any time in history.
And what happened when the Berlin Wall came down Tim?
Bush solemnly promised Gorbachev that NATO would not move one inch eastward.
And where are NATO now?
paul ,
Then no doubt you support the right of the Crimea and Donbas to self determination from the CIA installed Fascist Coup Regime.
George Cornell ,
Oh for Chrissake! And where were you about Gitmo? And Iraq, and Yemen, and Syria, and Libya? And the lithium in Afghanistan makes
it morally justified? Put the photo of Kissinger on a bearskin rug in your drawer and tell me about how the 95% of Crimeans who
wanted to be part of Russia invalidates what happened there.
Come back to me about the sandbars in the South China Sea. Now there's a place to increase your debt.!
lundiel ,
Russia isn't occupying any of Ukraine. There are Russian volunteers and Russia is giving them some weapons and no doubt finance
but the Russian army isn't at war with Ukraine.
Jay ,
If they were, the war would have been on Kiev's doorstep.
Francis Lee ,
The only people 'taking' seven percent of the Ukraine are those who already live in the Donbass and Crimea are the Russian-speaking
inhabitants who have lived there for generations and who are defending their homeland against the Ukie Army and its Waffen SS
look-alikes in the Azov Battalion and various other neo-nazi outfits like Praviy Sektor, and the Tornado Battalion and Dnipro1
and other charming little outfits such as 'Patriots of the Ukraine' – backed by right-wing fanatics in the Ukrainian Rada namely
Biletsky and Parubiy.
These people are the direct descendants of the scum of the murderous Banderist pro-Nazis who were responsible for mass extermination
of Russians, Jew, and above all, Poles in Volhynia in the far west of the Ukraine between 1943-45. The Ukrainian Insurgent army
(UPA – led by Shukeviych) was the military wing of Bandera's OUN-B (Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists). Unfortunately for
for Mr B, he had an unfortunate rendezvous with a KGB hit-man in Munich in 1955. RIP.
Long live the heroic resistance of the Peoples Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk.
Frank Speaker ,
Exactly Francis.
Some of my family were massacred by these bastard who were their neighbours: a woman cut upon at the front, a woman with a
wooden stake driven through her head, two children thrown down a well. That NATO aided and abetted these same evil scum to overthrow a democratically elected government and re-start their murderous
ways – this time around upon the ethnic Russians in the wast of the country – I cannot forgive my political leaders who have done
this.
That our MSM completely ignore this situation, I cannot forgive them, and that's why I am here.If there's a place called hell, I hope there's a special place reserved for our leaders and media owners who have done this.
eddie ,
They are occupying Jacque Schitt, but their 93rd aid convoy to the Donbas in November, consisting of 45 trucks, was not imaginary.
Greenpeace is yet another "NGO" that is heavily influenced by the National Endowment for Democracy a CIA front that supports US
Imperialism.
I'm ambivalent on the issue of pipelines ( see Keystone XL Pipeline being driven through Indian Land in total violation of
the Laramie Treaty) since they are environmentally destructive but the fact is that this is all about politics and has nothing
to do with protecting the environment.
If "Russia's" Greenpeace was so concerned about the environment they'd worry about their backyard first such as the network
of pipelines being run through Siberia.
richard le sarc ,
One wonders if the invertebrates of the EU will ever tire of being bullied by the Global Bullying Thug in Chief? The clerico-fascists
of priest-ridden Poland one can understand, and the phony 'greens' of Greenpeace the sell-out specialists, but the others are
just like mongrel dogs-the more you kick them, the more they lick your boots.
Boats of LNG floating across the Atlantic to Poland is not energy security. Whatever the politics of Nord Stream 2 we may be assured
the US has not got our back in Europe on this.
We may also be in need of energy sooner than we think, as professor Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University suggests.
Unlike the Guardian her catastrophe theory goes in the other direction where in the next few years Earth will enter into a cooling
phase. That will set off a series of events leading to a mini ice age as happened with the Maunder Minimum of the 17th Century.
"Gazprom has purchased a pipe-laying ship which would allow the company to build undersea
pipelines despite sanctions. The new vessel may be used to build the Nord Stream-2 gas
pipeline to Europe."
Apparently the Russians think several steps ahead of the Americans.
This article has all one
needs to know about Russia/Gazprom's ability to finish the job abandoned by the Swiss
cowards, although their ships are apparently still on station. Yes, there'll be a delay, but
that won't matter much. Pissing off the Germans was the absolute wrong move!
@80 Jen It is much too late for the Danes to step in and stop Nord Stream 2.
Their permission was required because the pipe enters their economic zone, but once that
permission was given then the pipelaying started on the basis of "good faith". If the Danes
attempted to renege then I would imagine that it would be Russia and Germany who would tie up
Denmark in legal red-tape, not the other way around, and by the time this got to court the
pipeline would be completed and the gas would be flowing.
The USA's only hope now is that its sanctions scare off companies like Allseas, but that
hope relies on the western conceit that Russia is too technologically backward to be able to
take over and finish the job.
But the Russians are very capable, and extremely wily: if you look at my original post you
will see a link from 2016 where the Russians are already spelling out exactly what they
intend to do.
They acquired a suitable pipeline-laying ship at last three years. They admitted at the
time that they acquired it that it made no economic sense for them to acquire such a
ship.
Economics be damned. They bought it because they had to consider the possibility that the
USA is run by a bunch of duplicitous shits.
As I'm following the case closely, a few supplements.
The problem with the high tech Russian pipelaying vessel is that it is deployed in the Far
East and would need months to get to the scene. The Russian Fortuna lacks the technical
permission from the Danes to work in their waters, but it is suspiciously idling at the
German Coast. NorthStream 2 could ask Denmark to get a special allowance for the Fortuna to
work, and that is not so far-fetched as it seems because Denmark has a new government since
last June.
The Fortuna will at least finish the German part of the pipeline. A German court yesterday
has turned down a complaint by environmentalists who are worried about wintering birds.
The sanctions are a huge strategical blunder of the USA. Yes, the Germans are pissed off,
from the bosses of the chemical industry to the "ordinary people". You can almost hear the
tectonic subterranean crack that moves Germany away from the Anglosphere towards Russia.
In German politics, the Transatlanticians are now in the defensive. The most powerful
transatlantic institutions are IMO the various intelligence services, BND, BfV and so on.
They have certainly initiated the "scandal" about the murdered Georgian djihadist (you
remember, two Russian diplomats were expelled immediately) in order to sabotage the Normandy
talks and NordStream 2 and push Merkel to distance herself from Russia. This has failed,
obviously. Stupid white men.
An excellent show from last week. However still relevant with some reminders from the 80s
that are quintessential irony. Sanchez's journalistic delivery is impressive.
Rapoza's latest effort, for Forbes, is his review of the Russia/Ukraine gas deal that
everyone is talking about. His take, in summary, is that Russia did not really have to give
up very much, it would be to Ukraine's advantage to stop fucking around and concentrate now
on the issues, that Ukraine dropped a very large amount in claims in return for not very much
money (although he does not say how likely Ukraine would have been to win them in court, and
my personal opinion is not very), that Nord Stream II will be completed with not a
significant amount of delay, and that Russia can implement the same no-gas-through-Ukraine in
five years if it does not like the way things are going.
As usual, the range of interpretations of gas agreements is wide and full of water. Most of them have hidden recognition of
groundlessness, because even a simple reading of the document requires above average schooling.
Here is this document, where it is written in black and almost white that the parties agreed on such and such conditions:
All talk about a Ukrainian victory or a Russian victory should be left to politicians for domestic consumption, although,
to be fair, it is worth noting: Ukrainian functionaries immediately claimed it is a victory for Ukraine. This sounded against
the background of the absence of fanfare in Russia, which, in the face of the most difficult negotiations, would be extremely
inappropriate.
Why?
Because
Gazprom
is Gazprom, not Russia. Confusion in concepts is a very characteristic phenomenon for immature structures and
individuals on both sides. So talk of Russia allegedly forgiving Ukraine $3 billion in credit has nothing to do with the topic
at all. There is no word in the document about this, which is natural, because, I will repeat: Russia is not Gazprom.
However, the
Naftogaz
fanfare coming from Vitrenko's mouth is also understandable on the other hand: the board (8 people) will not have
to return millions of dollars already distributed to their pockets as part of the prize according to the results of the
Stockholm Arbitration
. Moreover, now, if Gazprom pays the claim amount, the premium will increase significantly.
As for the amount Gazprom has pledged to pay – about $3 billion – it is less than 1% of the assets of the Russian gas giant
(not to be confused with capitalisation). Few will notice this drop in the ocean. And for Naftogaz? In the absence of
up-to-date information about the assets of this structure, I believe that the figure is comparable to all assets, especially
since, according to the current reform, the Ukrainian gas transit system, the market value of which is no more than $1.5
billion (according to the Chairman of the Board
Kobolev
), leaves from under Naftogaz in general.
Conclusion: tactically Naftogaz and its board benefited from a contract with Gazprom. Strategically, as it seems, Gazprom
at least did not lose, firstly, significantly reducing the term of the contract and the volume of pumping on the gas transit
system of Ukraine, taking into account the forthcoming and inevitable implementation of "
Nord
Stream-2
" and, secondly, leaving itself the right to disagree with transit tariffs, which remain the subject of
negotiations:
Point 2.2.3 The organising company [Naftogaz] will contact LLC "Operator of gas transit system of Ukraine" for the
reservation of capacities of the gas transit system of Ukraine
Provided that at the time of reservation by NCSREPU [National Commission for State Regulation of Energy and Public
Utilities] a
competitive tariff
recognised by the Organising Company and corresponding to the level of gas
transportation tariffs applied in the countries of western and central Europe will be established.
Point 3.2 The Ukrainian side
will take all necessary measures
(create all necessary conditions) by
29.12.19:
for ensuring reliable legal protection of the interests of the client of services [Gazprom] on transit,
predictability, transparency, economic validity, and stability of tariff formation
;
What went on behind the scenes went almost unnoticed:
1. Ukraine's demand for imported gas, which is still falling due to the decline in production capacity, will be covered
from the volumes approved by the agreement (65 billion m3 in 2020 and 40 billion m3 in the following 4 years). The volume of
imports according to various estimates remains at about 20 billion m3 per year. Tariffs will not be applied on all the Russian
gas that Ukraine will consume from pumping on the gas transit system and will be implemented on the territory of Ukraine at
its own expense. The volume subject to a transit tariff will be determined by the difference between the entrance to the
Ukrainian gas transit system and the exit to Europe.
2. All preliminary talk about gas discounts for Ukraine was not included in the agreement. Thus, the price of gas remains
the subject of bargaining and is inevitably dependent on the transit tariff: the higher the price of transit – the higher the
price of gas and, accordingly, vice versa.
3. In fact, the issue of direct gas supplies to Ukraine is not worth discussing at all. I.e., in the event of a
non-agreement on the price, all gas will come to Europe, Ukraine will earn from transit, but these earnings will be offset by
the increased price of gas on the reverse. Thus, even in the event of pumping all gas to Europe, earnings from transit,
according to experts, will not even cover the cost of servicing the Ukrainian gas transit system.
Lastly, Gazprom – which is not Russia, but behind whose back Russia certainly stands, and was opposed by both Ukraine and
the European Union, represented by the European Commission, as well as the United States with its global interests – managed,
at a minimum, to minimise its tactical losses and preserve strategic Russian interests.
The gas war appears to have retreated, but the most interesting thing is yet to come.
I linked a Russian newspaper article above which analysed the deal and in which it was
pointed out that the $3 billion that Gazprom coughed up is 1% of the annual turnover of that
company. And another thing that the article pointed out was that the deal is between Gazprom
and Naftogaz notRussia and the Ukraine. In return for that $3 billion,
which will be pocketed by many Yukitard bastards, I am sure, Gazprom's never ending
altercations with the Yukie gas outfit over compensation and claims and counter-claims have
had a line drawn under them. I suppose that's really why the Porky bloc in the rada is taking
action against the deal: they fear that their nice little earner is being stifled, in that
penalties imposed by arbitration courts against Gazprom have seemingly ended.
All talk about a Ukrainian victory or a Russian victory should be left to politicians
for domestic consumption, although, to be fair, it is worth noting: Ukrainian functionaries
immediately claimed it is a victory for Ukraine. This sounded against the background of the
absence of fanfare in Russia, which, in the face of the most difficult negotiations, would be
extremely inappropriate.
Why?
Because Gazprom is Gazprom, not Russia. Confusion in concepts is a very characteristic
phenomenon for immature structures and individuals on both sides. So talk of Russia allegedly
forgiving Ukraine $3 billion in credit has nothing to do with the topic at all. There is no
word in the document about this, which is natural, because, I will repeat: Russia is not
Gazprom.
However, the Naftogaz fanfare coming from Vitrenko's mouth is also understandable on
the other hand: the [Naftogaz] board (8 people) will not have to return
millions of dollars already distributed to their pockets as part of the prize
according to the results of the Stockholm Arbitration. Moreover, now, if Gazprom pays the
claim amount, the premium will increase significantly.
As for the amount Gazprom has pledged to pay – about $3 billion – it is
less than 1% of the assets of the Russian gas giant (not to be confused with
capitalisation). Few will notice this drop in the ocean. And for Naftogaz? In the absence of
up-to-date information about the assets of this structure, I believe that the figure is
comparable to all assets, especially since, according to the current reform, the Ukrainian
gas transit system, the market value of which is no more than $1.5 billion (according to the
Chairman of the Board Kobolev), leaves from under Naftogaz in general.
Conclusion: tactically Naftogaz and its board benefited from a contract with Gazprom.
Strategically, as it seems, Gazprom at least did not lose, firstly, significantly reducing
the term of the contract and the volume of pumping on the gas transit system of Ukraine,
taking into account the forthcoming and inevitable implementation of "Nord Stream-2" and,
secondly, leaving itself the right to disagree with transit tariffs, which remain the subject
of negotiations
The USA government acts as a gangster and should expect that other power will behave equally
bad toward the USA. That's a very bad, disastrous calculation, even in view of the current USA
technological superiority (which might shrink in the future)
Pride goeth before a fall. Washington is proud of itself, but a day will come when it will
count the cost, and mutter, "What the fuck was I thinking?" It was not ever going to actually
interrupt, and then seize for itself, Russia's share of the European gas market – that
was just another example of its addled belief in exceptionalism and its ability to overcome
any and all limiting factors, including distance and capacity.
What it HAS done is reveal itself as a petulant global child who will break anything that
does not please it, and therefore a dangerous and unpredictable business partner.
Thus spake the official Washington arsehole in Germany:
The American Ambassador in Berlin Richard Grenell, about whom it has already been
requested in Germany that he be recognized as persona non grata because of his
repeated attacks against the German leadership, has said that the sanctions imposed by
Washington against the pipeline "Nord Stream-2" had been introduced in the interests of the
EU and many countries of Europe are grateful for them.
"Seriously: from 15 European countries, the European Commission and the European
Parliament have all expressed their concerns about the project. We have long heard from our
European partners that the United States should support their efforts. Therefore, sanctions
represent a very Pro-European solution", said Grenell to the publication
Bild am Sonntag . [A German arsewipe publication of the first magnitude -- ME]
According to him, European diplomats have allegedly already repeatedly expressed their
gratitude for the measures taken by Washington.
Recall that the United States, which from time to time has opposed the emergence in
Europe of a strong competitor for its gas, imposed sanctions against the pipelines "Nord
Stream-2" and "Turkish Stream", requiring that the companies involved in their laying
immediately stop construction. In response, the German government has said it "rejects such
extraterritorial sanctions" directed "against German and European companies.
Just two events that occurred during Saturday night have turned into one of the main news
stories in recent months and years: Russia, the Ukraine and the European Commission signed a
trilateral agreement on the transit of gas over the coming years from Russia to the EU via
the Ukrainian GTS, and President Trump signed a law on the defence budget, in which US
parliamentarians have written separate clauses concerning sanctions against companies
involved in the construction of the pipeline "Nord stream – 2″
If anyone has forgotten, allow me to remind you that Vladimir Putin has never talked about
the categorical refusal as regards the transit to Europe via the Ukraine of Russian gas.
Always, he has only stressed that it is a question exclusively of a commercial nature,
without any political overtones, and that such transit be carried out on favourable terms.
Vice-Premier of the Russian government Dmitry Kozak has said about the new contract to be
signed before the New Year that he parties had agreed on favourable terms. In addition to
this, the Ukrainian side said that "Gazprom" had agreed to pay "Naftogaz" $3 billion,
according to the decision of the Stockholm arbitration. So, can the Ukraine celebrate a
"victory"?
So far, only Kiev has stated this figure of $3 billion. On the Russian side, there has
been no confirmation of this yet, but even if the Kiev figure is correct, I do not see much
reason to celebrate "victory", for if Russia has paid this money to the Ukraine ($2.6 billion
+ penalties), then the Ukraine is obliged to return $4.5 billion to Russia (3 billion
Eurobonds + penalties). The balance is not in favour of Kiev. In addition, the Ukraine has
pledged to stop all legal disputes on gas issues. Yes, in one case there is a dispute between
economic entities, and in a second case there is a dispute about sovereign debt. However,
since both Naftogaz and Gazprom are budget-forming state companies, to a certain extent this
difference in debt statuses is leveled.
Now on transit. There is no denying that for Russia it is not only important but necessary
to transit gas through the Ukraine at the moment, since under long-term contracts with
Europe, Gazprom is obliged to supply the volumes of gas stipulated in them, regardless of the
circumstances. Otherwise, the Russian company would have to pay heavy fines and penalties. By
concluding the contract, Gazprom has once again proved its reliability as a supplier, which,
by the way, was has already been emphasized by the European Commission following the
negotiations.
The only thing currently known about the transit contract is that it has been concluded
not for 10 years as Kiev had wanted, but for 5 years. Apparently, a longer term is not
relevant, chiefly because of complete uncertainty about the future of the Ukraine -- by the
way, in the next few days Kiev is likely to start an active struggle against the agreements
already reached, and if something threatens them at the moment, it is only Ukrainian
instability. According to data received from the Russian company, the volume of transit
through the Ukraine next year will be about 65 billion cubic metres. This is certainly a very
significant figure, but it is significantly less than the 90 billion cubic metres pumped
through the Ukrainian GTS in 2017. In 2021-2024, the annual transit volume will drop to 40
billion cubic metres. This volume allows the Ukrainian GTS to operate at a plus rather than a
minus, but Kiev will not receive any significant financial gain through it.
By the way, a certain demand for Ukrainian transit will remain after the Nord Stream-2 gas
pipeline has reached its design capacity, as European gas demand grows annually and a number
of fields operated in the EU countries are decommissioned in the coming years. As for NS-2
itself, by the time the sanctions are imposed, less than 50 kilometres will have been left on
one pipeline and about 70 kilometres on the other. Even if the Swiss company gathers up its
belongings, Russian pipe-laying ships will finish the job, and even though they lay pipes 3
times slower, they have absolute immunity from American sanctions. One of them is now located
in the area of Indonesia, and the second pipe-laying ship, "Fortuna", which, by the way, has
already participated in the implementation of "NS-2", is in a German port and is ready to
start working within a few days. [My stress! See that Finnish troll? -- ME]
So, by and large, the question is only one of time. But in any case "SP-2" will be
completed in terms of installation, testing and commissioning, and can be put into operation,
at most, at the end of the first half of 2020.
I really really doubt that the US military will attack overtly or covertly. The US already
announced that it will sanction other Russian energy projects if North Stream is placed in
operation.
I don't imagine that will be necessary. Be pretty hard to argue then that they were not
acting solely in their own interests, wouldn't it? It would make a hell of a thriller novel,
though – the pipeline is on the seabed, so any American efforts to tamper with it would
probably have to be from underwater. A submarine has no business being there, so its mission
would have to be super-secret and plausibly deniable. And in that scenario, if it simply
disappeared, the Americans would have to just proceed as if it never existed. There you go,
Karl; a great book idea, you should write it. But I want 20%; 30% if I have to proofread it
before publication to take out all the rhapsodizing about freedom and democracy, and rewrite
the ending where the Americans blow up the pipeline and miraculously escape, sailing home to
a ticker-tape parade and leaving Putin with angry tears running down his face.
Bulgaria is an instructive example here. Remember when it stopped South Stream in its
tracks, and was the hero of America and the EU? And Bulgaria strutted and swaggered, and was
pretty proud of itself while it waited for the rewards of its bravery. And then the USA built
them a Middle School or a new fence or something, I forget, and there were lots of 'well
done, old chap!' compliments, and and then that was it. Bulgaria did not become everyone's
preferred business partner and the destination of enormous foreign investment. And then,
gradually, everybody stopped talking about what a great and brave thing Bulgaria did, and it
just sort of sat there with its mouth half-open, trying to take in how skillfully it had been
creampied, and evidently all for nothing.
And eventually, Bulgaria repented, and went back to Russia and Putin, cap in hand. And
Russia received it warmly, like a brother who fell in with a bad crowd but was not really, at
heart, bad himself. It did not say that Bulgaria must prove itself by repudiating its former
friends. It seemed willing to let bygones be just that.
It is not even too much of a stretch to imagine that might one day be Ukraine as well,
although it certainly could not be under the current conditions. The nationalists would have
to be purged, hard. And there would have to be a completely new political administration. But
there's time, and lots of it. The west is not going to make a prosperous paradise of Ukraine,
it is only interested in stripping it of anything of value, and in the meantime it will go
down and down, because nobody wants to put any money into it. Except, ahem; Russia.
Party Poroshenko initiates sanctions against the supply of gas from Russia
The faction of "European solidarity" in the Ukrainian Parliament initiates sanctions
against the Russian gas supplies directly, reports RIA "Novosti".
As stated by the ex-President and leader of the faction of Petro Poroshenko, the
political force will require the convening of the national security Council on this issue,
and "implementation of sanctions" against the gas supplies from Russia
The people who elected Zelensky expected him to put Porky behind bars. But, surprise
surprise, Zel is a wimp who couldn't bring himself to buck his American overlords.
Said Overlords like Porky and want to keep him around, as the new leader of the Opps, with
hope he gets back into power some day.
Porky is the Ukrainian version of Saakashvili, there is simply no getting rid of him!
What if Germany, angered by American high-handedness, decided to move away from the US
dollar. Could that happen?
It could. Analysts caution that it would be unwise for Washington to laugh at efforts by
nations to make themselves less dependent on the dollar, because it also makes those nations
less susceptible to American sanctions. The world outside America is getting fed up with the
USA's sanctions-happy punishments, which have mushroomed from 5 targeted countries at the
start of the George W. Bush administration to 22 targeted countries at the end of 2018.
One of the ways Russia has hardened its economy against American tampering is in
increasing its use and accumulation of gold as a hedge, which is immune to 'freezing' by the
USA, so long as the gold is held in Russian vaults. That's the key, and momentum is slowly
gathering in other countries. Hungary repatriated all its gold from the Bank of England in
October of this year, and increased its holdings tenfold as well. Romania has submitted a
bill to parliament which mandates that only 5% of the country's gold can be stored abroad.
Currently about 60% of its 103 tonnes is stored at the Bank of England. In 2017 Germany
repatriated around $31 Billion worth of gold which had been stored in New York and Paris.
This week, Poland and Slovakia called for a return of their gold, which is being held by, you
guessed it, the Bank of England. The lesson of Venezuela's stolen gold was not lost on
anyone, and the less foreign gold the Bank of England has in its vaults, the less useful it
is to Washington and its 'freeze' orders.
Germany was chafing at US bullying back in 2018, and talking up policies to pull away from
the US dollar. Would this latest example of American meddling make them more, or less
inclined to pursue financial policies which did not include the United States as a partner,
do you think?
"According to S&P Global Platts Analytics, Nord Stream 2 would have to seek
alternative vessels and contractors to complete the remaining section of pipe in Danish
waters if the sanctions are enacted.
"While the most challenging parts of Nord Stream 2 have been laid in water depths of
around 200 meters, the remaining section in Danish waters at 90 meters depth remains
complicated," it said.
Russian companies operate capable offshore pipe-lay vessels, which have completed projects
in challenging Arctic conditions, including the MRTS Defender, which worked on the offshore
stretch of the Bovanenkovo-Ukhta pipeline.
Platts Analytics believes MRTS Fortuna could be used to complete Nord Stream 2, but is
capable of laying just 1 km/d.
A further obstacle, according to Platts Analytics, is that the Danish permit application
states that it is assumed that the vessels used to complete the Danish section will have
dynamic positioning capabilities (such as those of the Allseas vessels) which are not present
on MRTS Fortuna.
A Russian pipelaying vessel that already has dynamic positioning capabilities, Akademik
Cherskiy, could be used, but it would take up to two months to arrive to Danish waters as it
is currently stationed in Russia's Far East."
It is surprising that the Gazprom management didn't prepare for this situation! If this
article is correct the only Russian vessel that can be used to finish the project is
currently stationed in Vladivostok, and it will take about two months for it to arrive to
Danish waters.
The sanction threat has been looming for months, but it seems that Gazprom did not prepare
for it in any meaningful way.
I would be pleasantly surprised if this project is finished in 2020.
Karl, this is no attitude for the Christmas season – don't be so dour and pessimistic.
It takes two years to build a specialized ship, at a minimum, and that's just a regular
design like an LNG tanker – should Gazprom have built two or three, only to have the
Americans laugh and not impose sanctions? Then you would have chuckled ruefully over how
foolish Gazprom was to waste its money; there's no pleasing you. Only two days ago you were
moaning over how the entirety of the funds spent so far would be wasted; the pipeline could
not be completed, America is just too strong. You can go back and look. Now it looks as if it
can be completed, just the remainder will be done at about a third the speed it could have
been. But the money which would have gone to Allseas will be saved, and really there's no
hurry now; they have 5 years if they need it. In 2 months the worst of the winter weather
should be over, and any further slowdowns between now and completion can be blamed on the
Americans, whose fault of course it is. It would have been done now but for American pressure
on Denmark to hold out.
I wouldn't say it couldn't have turned out better, but all things considered the results
are not that bad for Russia and not very good for the USA, which has incurred a lot of
resentment and ill-will in exchange for really nothing. It is not going to stop the pipeline
from completing, but it has made a lot of enemies, and even the Poles have stopped yapping
and do not appear to be celebrating too loudly, lest they anger other Europeans.
""While the most challenging parts of Nord Stream 2 have been laid in water depths of around
200 meters, the remaining section in Danish waters at 90 meters depth remains complicated,"
it said."
Norwegian divers welded pipelines at 900 meters depth (And, yes they had some
problems).
Let me guess – the United States has threatened to confiscate the assets in the USA of
any company which sells dynamic-positioning systems to the Soviets (oops! I mean the
Russians!), and so now they will have to develop the technology themselves. Why not just
threaten to slap sanctions on anyone giving 'aid and comfort' to the Russians? I mean,
they're the enemy, right? Right?? So nobody sell them boots or warm clothes, or anything. See
how they like laying pipe in their skivvies, barefoot.
Say, I'll bet that attitude is good for market share for the remaining American businesses
still operating in Russia. And speaking of that, here's another example – gosh, there
are so many – of America's love affair with sanctions; CAATSA, the Countering America's
Adversaries Through Sanctions Act. According to an analyst at the Foreign Policy Research
Institute,
it's a failure , because it did not prevent Turkey from buying the S-400 system from
Russia when they were supposed to buy the Patriot from the USA, or
prevent Egypt from buying the Sukhoi S-35 from Russia when they were meant to buy the
F-35. Oh, but they were frustrated in that because Israel did not want them to have it.
Washington never misses an opportunity to show Israel it still loves it despite all the
actions Israel makes it take against its own best interests.
"Egypt turned to Moscow for the Su-35 aircraft after being frustrated in repeated
attempts to get a foothold in the F-35 program, a move closely watched in Israel, which
remains the only country in the region to receive the fifth-generation aircraft."
America threatened Egypt with – you guessed it – sanctions if it continued
with plans to buy Russian fighters worth $2 Billion in sales, but Egypt basically ignored
them, only not laughing because it would be impolite to laugh.
"The Egyptian leadership views the US threats as not credible, based on a long history
of Egyptian/US relations where the US has made threats and even withheld assistance, but in
the end has always capitulated," said Andrew Miller, who was director for Egypt and Israel
military issues in the Obama administration's National Security Council."
Egypt also bought the two MISTRAL class light assault carriers that Washington made France
cancel the sale of when Russia had already paid a security deposit, which had to be returned.
Egypt quickly purchased helicopters from Russia to outfit its new ships.
In fact, America seems to be losing its grip on the Middle East and Africa. And its
newly-discovered and somewhat childlike faith in sanctions as a cure-all is ruining its
traditional alliances and eroding its global reach. Much less-powerful countries now
routinely ignore its threats to impose sanctions and more sanctions. The fewer foreign
businesses interested in locating significant assets in the United States – so as to
prevent their being seized in a fit of pique – the less influence Washington can bring
to bear through sanctions. Its most loyal toady, the UK, will soon no longer be a part of the
EU, while nations jostle one another in eagerness to get their gold back from the Bank of
England where the United States cannot slap a 'hold' order on it through its devoted
proxies.
Russian dolts just don't have the technology, isn't that right ?
From the Finnish naysayer:
In retrospect the biggest mistake Russia did was to start the Nord Stream 2 project
without possessing the technology to complete the project and relying on the Western
technology. This made Nord Stream 2 and Russia vulnerable for the sanctions and this
vulnerability was exploited.
Will Russia learn and not start any major project in the future without having the
means to complete the project itself without relying on the West? I doubt it.
As mentioned earlier, commercial contracts normally include provisions for frustration
– supervening illegality can prevent performance of obligations contracted under
different circumstances and no one would expect a company to commit suicide. It's just a
business problem. But a business problem which, as Mark states, leaves the instigator –
the USA – diminished by its own actions.
Every contract has Force Majeure provisions to address factors beyond the control of the
supplier. The list includes of acts of God (weather, for example), civil unrest, labor
disputes, etc. "US sanctions" need to be added.
According to ME they were within 50 kilometers of landfall. According to Karl the replacement
vessel can lay pipe at a 1km/day rate. The resulting calculation isn't rocket science
mathematics. Ribbons will be cut and valves will be turned on in a few months to the clink of
vodka and champagne glasses.
Peskov did not say a fuckin' thing about "hope" that the pipeline will be completed. He
stated that the sanctions will NOT work to bring about substantial delay.
Two pipelines are being laid in parallel. One line , if I rightly recall, has 50 kms left to
be laid, the other 75 kms. The Russian pipelayers, again if I rightly recall, lay at one
third of the speed as did the Allseas vessel. The Russians are also aware of the
geopositioning requirement that the Danes may impose. Only one Russian pipelayer, the one at
present in the Far East, has this capability. from here
"Pioneering Spirit" and" Solitaire" crossed the border of Swedish and Danish waters on
27 and 28 November, respectively, since which time the former has covered 89 km, the latter
-- a little less than 70 km, i.e. they move at a speed of 3.5–4.5 km per day. This
means that they should be able to complete the construction within a month. But maintaining
this momentum depends on the weather conditions.
There was only 1 month's worth of laying left when Allseas fucked off.
The Russians are seemingly, from the troll's point of view, faced with such insurmountable
odds that he is coming in his pants. They'll never finish the job.
Like when they said they would never finish that bridge, across the petersburg-Simferopol
train crosses for the first time this coming Christmas Day?
From same source as above, namely Moskovskiy Komsomolets :
According to a representative of one of the contractors involved in the creation of the
offshore section of "Nord Stream – 2", Gazprom began to insure against sanctions
against companies involved in laying the pipeline in October. The Fortuna pipe-laying barge,
built in 2010 at a Russian shipyard and later upgraded at Chinese shipyards, has been used.
This vessel has been based for about two months in the German port of Mukran, where the pipes
required for the gas pipeline construction are shipped.
According to an MK interlocutor who wished to remain anonymous, despite the fact that
Fortuna is the most powerful domestic vessel in its class, it is unlikely that it can fully
replace Allseas pipelayers. "Fortuna" is able to do such works, but the speed of the project
will be slowed down. "Fortuna specializes in laying infield and linear pipelines on land,
while Gazprom charters vessels with foreign registration for offshore sections.
At the same time, Fortuna has experience working in deep water areas. As part of the
Sakhalin-3 project, the barge was deploying an underwater production facility in the
Kirinskoye field at a depth of 100 meters. The depth of the sea in the Danish section of the
NS-2, which remains to be completed by Gazprom, does not exceed this mark, while Fortuna has
a depth limit of 200 meters", explains the MK interlocutor.
Yeah, according to the Troll:
it is surprising that the Gazprom management didn't prepare for this situation! If this
article is correct the only Russian vessel that can be used to finish the project is
currently stationed in Vladivostok, and it will take about two months for it to arrive to
Danish waters.
The sanction threat has been looming for months, but it seems that Gazprom did not
prepare for it in any meaningful way.
I would be pleasantly surprised if this project is finished in 2020.
For "pleasantly surprised" above, read: "bitterly disappointed".
The United States is less concerned with matters green. Nord Stream 2 poses a security
threat.
Trump's former secretary of state, Rex Tillerson,
saw it as "undermining Europe's overall energy security and stability."
US energy secretary Rick Perry
argues that "Russian gas has strings attached." The claim is that Germany will be come too
reliant and Ukraine further weakened. Ukraine had been the premier gatekeeper for Russian gas
supply, with 40 percent of Europe's total amount transiting through Ukrainian soil. A
slump in gross domestic product occasioned by an end to transit fees is considered
imminent.
Other European states have been crankily concerned about the prospect of Gazprom's deepening
involvement in the continent's energy market. Poland's anti-monopoly body UOKiK showed a
measure of that opposition
by fining France's Engie Energy (ENGIE.PA) 40 million euros in proceedings against
Gazprom.
In February, EU ambassadors agreed that the project be subjected to greater scrutiny. A
Franco-German compromise was struck : Nord Stream 2 would be placed
"under European control".
The Trump administration's actions against Gazprom and Russia's energy influence, found in a
provision of the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), can hardly be seen as noble
endeavours.
The provision threatens
sanctions and the freezing of assets against entities laying down the pipeline unless their
activities cease "immediately". The United States has its own energy interests in Europe, and
wishes to frustrate the effort. Market share is at stake.
The suspension of laying activities on the part of Allseas, a Swiss company, suggests that
Trump's announcement is already biting.
"In anticipation of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA),"
went a
company statement , "Allseas has suspended its Nord Stream 2 pipelay activities." The
company would "proceed, consistent with the legislation's wind down provision and expect
guidance comprising the necessary regulatory, technical and environmental clarifications from
the relevant US authority."
The angle taken by the European Union, Germany and Russia can hardly surprise. Themes of
energy security are reiterated. The Nord Stream 2 consortium makes the claim that, "Completing the
project is essential for European supply security." Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman
Maria Zakharova spikily condemned the
sanctions measure. "A state with a $22 trillion national debt prohibits creditworthy countries
to develop the real sector of their economies!"
For a EU spokesman, this
constituted "the imposition of sanctions against EU companies conducting legitimate
business." A German government spokesman suggested that such actions "affect German and other
European businesses, and we see the move as meddling in our internal affairs." Finance Minister
Olaf Scholz has sees
it as an infringement of sovereignty. "It is up to the companies involved in the
construction of the pipeline to take the next decisions."
Nothing is quite so simple. Gas pipeline politics has always been contentious. One state's
sovereign promise is another's weakening. Concessions made to corporate monopolies are risky,
capable of fostering insecurity as much as reassurance. Those who control the tap control a
country's future.
But the imposition of any sanctions regime signals another bout of economic violence. In
the international market, where governments operate as ready gangsters for corporate interests,
prompted by such motivations as seeking more natural resources, tools of state become
handmaidens of economic self-interest...
Trump is expected to sign into law the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 2020
which mandates the imposition of sanctions on companies involved in Nord Stream II's
construction, but while this crafty move isn't expected to seriously impede the project since
it's already in its final stages, its importance derives in the fact that it signals extremely
strong support for the interests of the US-backed "Three Seas Initiative" whose Polish leader
has objected to this game-changing pipeline on geopolitical grounds.
***
The US Senate's
approval of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 2020 means that Trump will likely
sign it into law very soon, which is troublesome for Trans-Atlantic relations because it
mandates among its many sometimes unrelated provisions the imposition of sanctions on companies
involved in Nord Stream II's construction. This crafty move isn't expected to seriously impede
the project since it's already in its final stages after Russia
secured Denmark's permission back in October to construct a crucial segment of this
pipeline through its maritime territory, which will facilitate the project's completion and
thus strengthen Russia's strategic partnership with EU-leader Germany. That outcome will likely
accelerate the ongoing rapprochement between Russia and the bloc's Western European members
that became obvious to all after Macron's successful visit
to Moscow in late August, but which is in turn compelling the US to double down on its
commitment to the Polish-led " Three
Seas Initiative " (TSI) that it envisages functioning as its wedge for retaining influence
in the strategic Central European space between those two.
The impending NDAA 2020-connected sanctions should therefore be seen as an extremely strong
signal of support for this trans-regional integration structure because they satisfy the
demands of its Polish leader for the US to impose costs upon Germany for its reinvigorated
strategic partnership with Russia. Barely reported on at the time, it's significant to mention
that a bipartisan
resolution was submitted to the House of Representatives at the end of October shortly
after Russia secured Denmark's support for Nord Stream II mandating that Congress prioritize
its support for the TSI in the aftermath of that development, with a specific focus on energy
and physical connectivity projects. The grand strategic goal that the US is aiming to achieve
is to create a so-called "cordon sanitaire" that would serve to divide Russia from Western
Europe by exploiting the preexisting animosity that the many states between them have towards
Moscow, and it will likely end up being one of the main drivers of American foreign policy
towards the continent for the foreseeable future.
In pursuit of that objective, the US is also making strategic outreaches to
Belarus , knowing very well that its wily leader Lukashenko is more than willing to
"balance" between the West and Russia in a risky attempt to extract more (mostly economic)
"concessions" from each of them. It goes without saying that this policy will probably ramp up
now that Nord Stream II is a fait accompli and the "cordon sanitaire" is more significant than
ever in the current context. That former Soviet Republic, however, is unlikely to engage in a
decisive "pivot" against Russia, though from a zero-sum standpoint, the gradual moves that it's
making towards the West can indeed be interpreted as being "mildly" against Russia's long-term
interests. Still, there isn't much that Russia can do since it must avoid the perception that
it's putting overwhelming pressure on Belarus or even plausibly considering doing so since that
notion would only accelerate the very same trend that Moscow wants to reverse. Minsk, it must
be said, recognizes how geostrategic its position is for both the Russian-led Eurasian Union
(EAU) and the Polish-led TSI, so it'll try to play them off against the other, all with the US'
passive support.
The US isn't the only Great Power spreading its influence through the TSI, as China is also
rapidly on the ascent there too. The Balkans are becoming more important of a destination for
Chinese foreign direct investment than ever through the Belt & Road
Initiative (BRI), most visibly manifesting itself in Beijing's plans to construct a
high-speed railway from the Hungarian capital of Budapest to the Greek port of Pireaus (the
"Balkan Silk Road"). It also holds yearly meetings with the leaders of the TSI countries and
others in this region through the 17+1
format that was recently expanded to include Greece (having been the 16+1 previously). In
addition, Belarus is a key node on the Eurasian Land Bridge, with China investing in the "
Great Stone " industrial
park that it envisages becoming a major export center along that route. None of this is to
imply whatsoever that China is "teaming up" with the US to "contain" Russia in Central &
Eastern Europe, but just to point out that China's infrastructure investments will greatly help
to connect the region along the north-south axis, after which the US will likely exploit these
apolitical and purely economic projects for its strategic ends vis-a-vis Russia.
Even so, while the TSI space is certainly geostrategic, its economic importance pales in
comparison to Western Europe's. The German economy alone is larger than all of those states'
combined, so Russia isn't exactly losing out in the economic sense as a result of the US' TSI
plans. It is, however, at risk of this "cordon sanitaire" being used as its rival's
trans-regional platform for putting military pressure upon it, which has already been happening
ever since most of its states joined NATO and then doubled down on their commitment to it after
the onset of the New
Cold War in 2014 following Crimea's reunification with Russia in response to the US-backed
coup in Ukraine. Poland and increasingly Greece
bookend this pro-American military structure, while Ukraine and possibly soon even Belarus
could ultimately become its eastern-most appendages by proxy. Russia still has instruments of
influence that it can leverage in an attempt to keep this trend under control, though it's
seemingly on the defensive in recent years and appears unable to gain any successes on this
front, instead choosing to concentrate on Western Europe through Nord Stream II and other
measures.
Looking forward, the rise of the TSI as the US' preferred continental proxy is all but
assured, though it's unclear whether or not it'll succeed with its fundamental purpose of
keeping Russia and Western Europe apart. Classical geopolitical thought suggesting that it
would doesn't take into consideration the much more complex nature of contemporary
International Relations whereby a conventional military clash between the TSI states and Russia
is unlikely for reasons of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) stemming from many of the
former's memberships in NATO, and their other memberships in the EU mean that a successful
EU-Russian detente would force them to facilitate trade between Western Europe and Russia if
even a single state vetoes the continuation of sanctions in the future. Altogether, it can
therefore be said that Russia's successful completion of Nord Stream II would flip the
strategic dynamics by once again returning Moscow to a position of strength whereas Washington
would then be the Great Power on the defensive instead. Still, the TSI's potential shouldn't be
underestimated either since it might lead to some surprises for both Western Europe and Russia
if its American patron has a few tricks up its sleeve that it's wiling to teach its regional
partners.
"... Are the security forces loyal to him to the extent that he could realistically counted on them to carry out a crackdown on the "Nazis"? ..."
"... I am sympathetic to a lot of what Putin has felt it necessary to do, but I must say, I don't buy the incessant use of the term "Ukronazi." Sounds propagandistic. ..."
"... What about the Ukrainian people? A large majority of them voted for some sort of reconciliation with the separatists and Russia. They did so twice: once for Zelenskii, and once again for his party. Does that count for nothing? ..."
"... I think the plan is to wait until Russia collapses from Western sanctions, and then invade Crimea and Donbass. They didn't give up on the territory by any means, which is why I don't think that any ceasefire in Donbass will hold. It is going to remain a slow-burning conflict, the regime will continue to complain about "Russian invasion" and international investors will continue to avoid the Ukraine. ..."
The Unz Review - Mobile The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection A Collection of Interesting, Important,
and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media User Settings: Max Comment Length?
Version? Social Media? Read Aloud w/
Show Word Counts
No Video Autoplay
No Infinite Scrolling
Save Cancel
https://www.facebook.com/plugins/share_button.php?app_id=&channel=https%3A%2F%2Fstaticxx.facebook.com%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter.php%3Fversion%3D44%23cb%3Df37bb1611d8b04a%26domain%3Dwww.unz.com%26origin%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.unz.com%252Ff3ea3417868fcbc%26relation%3Dparent.parent&container_width=0&href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.unz.com%2Ftsaker%2Fautopsy-of-the-minsk-agreements%2F&locale=en_US&sdk=joey&type=button
Email This Page to Someone
Remember My Information
=>
List of Bookmarks ◄ ► Bookmark
◄ ► ▲ ▼ Toggle All ToC
▲ ▼ Add to Library Remove from Library
B Show Comment Next New Comment Next New
Reply Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or
LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember
My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period. Email Comment Ignore Commenter Follow
Commenter Search Text Case Sensitive
Exact Words
Include Comments
Search Clear Cancel
The recent Paris summit and the few days following the summit have brought a lot of clarity about the future of the Minsk Agreements.
Short version: Kiev has officially rejected them (by rejecting both the sequence of steps and several crucial steps). For those interested,
let's look a little further.
First, what just happened
First, here are the key excerpts from the Paris Conference and from statements made by "Ze" and his superior, Arsen Avakov right
after their return to Kiev:
The Minsk agreements (Minsk Protocol of 5 September 2014, Minsk Memorandum of 19 September 2014 and the Minsk Package of Measures
of 12 February 2015) continue to be the basis of the work of the Normandy format whose member states are committed to their
full implementation ( ) The sides express interest in agreeing within the Normandy format (N4) and the Trilateral Contact
Group on all the legal aspects of the Special Order of Local Self-Government – special status – of Certain Areas of the Donetsk
and Luhansk Regions – as outlined in the Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements from 2015 – in order
to ensure its functioning on a permanent basis .They consider it necessary to incorporate the "Steinmeier formula" into the Ukrainian
legislation, in accordance with the version agreed upon within the N4 and the Trilateral Contact Group.
President 'Ze' statement on Ukrainian TV: (unofficial, in-house, translation) source
" The most difficult question is the question of the transfer of the border control to Ukraine. It's very funny, because
its our border and the transfer of the control to us. But, it's a weak sport, the Achilles' heel of the Minsk Agreement." "It's
what was signed by us, unfortunately. We can discuss this for a very long time. Possibly, the conditions were as such." "But we
signed that we will get the control over our border only after the elections on the temporarily occupied territories." "We dedicated
a very long time to this question, we discussed it in details, we have a very different positions with the president of
Russia ." "But this is the Minsk position, we have to understand this. I only like one thing, that we started talking about
this. We agreed that we will continue talking about this in details and with the different variations during our next meeting."
"This is also a victory, because we will have a meeting in four months."
Q. What do you think, is it possible to change the Minsk Agreement? source
" This will be very difficult to do, but we have to do it. We have to change it . First, we have to understand
that it's been over four years since the Minsk Agreement was signed. Everything changes in our life. We have to understand that
it wasn't my team that signed the Minsk Agreement, but we as a power have to fulfill the conditions that our power at the time
agreed back then. But? I am sure that some things we will be able to change. We will be changing them." "Because the transfer
of the Ukraine's border after our control only after the elections, – it's not our position. I said about this don't know how
many times, but this is the final decision ."
Arsen Avakov's statement on Ukrainian TV: (unofficial, in-house, translation):
" The philosophy of the border control the part of the border that we don't have control over is 408 kilometers. It's not that
easy to take it over, to equip it, even to get there across the enemy territories. It's a procedure. As a compromise, we offered
the following scheme: we will start taking the border under our control stating with the New Year, little by little, reducing the
length of the border that is not controlled by us, and a day before the local election we will close the border, we will close this
bottleneck. And this way will get the control over the border. Why isn't this a good compromise? Considering, that at the same time
according to the Steinmeier Formula, they have to disarm all the illegal armed formations of this pseudo-state DNR. This is how we
see the compromise."
In other words, both the official President and real President of the Ukraine agree: the Ukraine will not implement the Minsk
Agreements as written, made law by the UNSC and clarified by the so-called Steinmeier Formula.
Ukrainian propagandists on Russian TV (yes, Urkonazi and hardline nationalist propagandists do get air time on Russian TV on a
daily basis – for an explanation why, see here and here ) went into damage
control mode and explained it all away by saying " these are only words, what matters is what Zelenskii signed in Paris ".
They are wrong. First of all, statements made in their official capacity by the President or the Minister of Internal Affairs do
represent OFFICIAL policy statements. Second, this explanation completely overlooks the reason why Ze and Avakov said these things.
That reason is very simple: Ze caved in to the Urkonazis, completely. He now uses EXACTLY the same rhetoric as Poroshenko did, in
spite of the fact that the only reason he was elected is that he presented himself as the ultimate anti-Poroshenko. Now all we see
is Poroshenko 2.0.
So in the behind-the-scenes (but very real) struggle between the Zionist camp (Kolomoiskii and Zelenskii) and the Urkonazi camp
(Avakov and Poroshenko), the latter have successfully taken control of the former and now the chances for saving a unitary Ukraine
are down to, maybe not quite zero, but to something like 0.0000001% (I leave that one under the heading "never say never" and because
I have been wrong in the past).
So what happens next?
ORDER IT NOW
That is the interesting question. In theory, the Normandy Four will meet again in 4 months. But that assumes that some progress
was made. Well, it is possible that in a few sections of the line of contact there will be an OSCE supervised withdrawal of forces.
But, let's be honest here, the people have seen many, many such promised withdrawals, and they all turned out to be fake. Either
the Ukronazis return to the neutral zone (claiming huge victories over the (sic) "Russian armed force"), or they resume bombing civilians,
or they never even bother to change position. Any withdrawal is a good thing if it can save a single life! But no amount of withdrawals
will settle anything in this conflict.
Second, there are A LOT of Ukrainian politicians who now say that the citizens of the LDNR have to "return" to Russia if they
don't like the Urkonazi coup or its ideology. They either don't realize, or don't care, that there are very few Russian volunteers
in Novorussia and that the vast majority of the men and women who compose the LDNR forces are locals. These locals, by the way, get
the Ukie message loud and clear: you better get away while you can, because when we show up you will all be prosecuted for terrorism
and aiding terrorists, that is ALSO something the Urkonazis like to repeat day after day. By the way, while in Banderastan all Russian
TV channels are censored, and while they also try to censor the Russian language Internet, in Novorussia all the Ukrainian (and Russian)
TV stations are freely available. So as soon as some Nazi freak comes out and says something crazy like "we will create filtration
camps" (aka concentration camps) this news is instantly repeated all over Novorussia, which only strengthens the resolve of the people
of the LDNR to fight to their death rather than accept a Nazi occupation..
I said it many times, Zelenskii's ONLY chance was to crackdown on the Nazis as soon as he was elected. He either did not have
the courage to do so, or his U.S. bosses told him to leave them unmolested. Whatever the case may be, it's now over, we are back
to square one.
The most likely scenario is a "slow freezing" of the conflict meaning now that Kiev has officially and overtly rejected the Minsk
Agreements, there will be some minor, pretend-negotiations, maybe, but that fundamentally the conflict will be frozen.
That will be the last nail in the coffin of the pro-EU, pro-NATO so-called "Independent Ukraine", since the most important condition
to try to salvage the Ukrainian economy, namely peace, is now gone. Furthermore, the political climate in the Ukraine will further
deteriorate (the hated Nazi minority + an even worse economic crisis are a perfect recipe for disaster).
For the Novorussians, it's now clear: the rump-Ukraine* does not want them, nor will Kiev ever agree to the Minsk Agreement. That
means that the LDNR will separate from the rump-Ukraine and, on time, rejoin Russia. Good bye Banderites and Urkonazis!
The rump-Ukraine will eventually break-up further: Crimea truly was the "jewel of the Black Sea" and its future appears to be
extremely bright while the Donbass was the biggest source of raw materials, energy, industry, high-tech, etc. etc. etc.). What is
left of the Ukraine is either poor and under-developed (the West) or needs to reopen economic ties with Russia (the South).
Besides, Zelenskii and his party are now trying to rush a new law through the Rada which will allow the sale of Ukrainian land
to private interests (aka foreign interests + a local frontman). As a result, there is now a new "maidan" brewing, pitting Iulia
Timoshenko and other nationalist leaders against Zelenskii and his party. This could become a major crisis very fast, especially
now that is appears that Zelenskii will also renege on this promise to call for a national referendum on the issue of the sale/privatization
of land .
As for the Russians, they already realize that Ze is a joke, unsurprisingly so since he is a comic by trade, and that the Ukrainians
are "not agreement capable". They will treat him like they did Poroshenko in the last years: completely ignore him and not even take
his telephone calls. Right now, there is just a tiny bit of good will left in Moscow, but it is drying up so fast that it will soon
totally disappear. Besides, the Russians really don't care that much anymore: the sanctions turned out to be a blessing, time is
on Russia's side, the Ukronazis are destroying their own state and, finally, the important stuff for Russia is happening in Asia,
not the West.
The Europeans will take a long time to come to terms with two simple facts:
Russia was never a party to this conflict (if she had, it would have been over long ago). The Ukronazis are the ones who won't implement
the Minsk Agreements
This means that the politicians who were behind the EU's backing of the Euromaidan (Merkel) will have to go before their successors
can say that, oops, we got our colors confused, and white is actually black and black turned out to be white. That's okay, politicians
are pretty good at that. The honeymoon between Kiev and Warsaw on the one hand and Berlin on the other will soon end as bad times
are ahead.
Macron looks much better, and he will probably pursue his efforts to restore semi-normal relations with Russia, for France's sake
first, but also eventually the rest of the EU. The Poles and the Balts will accuse him of "treason" and he will just ignore them.
As for Trump, he will most likely make small steps towards Russia, but most of his energy will be directed either inwards (impeachment)
or outwards (Israel), but not towards the Ukrainian conflict. Good.
Conclusion
It's over. Crimea and the Donbass are gone forever, the first is de jure , the latter merely de facto . The rump-Ukraine
is completely unconformable (barring some kind of coup followed by a government of national unity supported Moscow – I consider this
hypothesis as highly unlikely).
If you live in the West, don't expect your national media to report on any of this. They will be the LAST ones to actually admit
it (journos have a longer shelf life than politicians, it is harder for them to make a 180).
PS: to get a feeling for the kind of silly stunts the "Ze team" is now busying itself with, just check this one: they actually
tried to falsify the Ukrainian version of the Paris Communique. For details, see Scott's report here: https://thesaker.is/kiev-attempted-to-change-the-letter-and-meaning-of-paris-summit-communique/
. If the Ukraine was a Kindergarten, then "Ze" would be a perfect classroom teacher or visiting entertainer. But for a country
fighting for its survival, such stunts are a very, very bad sign indeed!
(*rump-Ukraine: In broad terms, a "rump" state is what remains of a state when a portion is carved away. Expanding on the "butcher"
metaphor, the rump is what is left when the higher-value cuts such as rib roast and loin have been removed.)
I said it many times, Zelenskii's ONLY chance was to crackdown on the Nazis as soon as he was elected. He either did not
have the courage to do so, or his U.S. bosses told him to leave them unmolested.
Are the security forces loyal to him to the extent that he could realistically counted on them to carry out a crackdown
on the "Nazis"?
For the Novorussians, it's now clear: the rump-Ukraine* does not want them, nor will Kiev ever agree to the Minsk Agreement.
So what is the Ukrainian thinking here -- that they are better off simply cutting bait on the east and letting Russia deal
with the headache of the Donbass's antiquated infrastructure? And that a truncated Ukraine would at least be mostly free of internal
pro-Russian sentiment?
I am sympathetic to a lot of what Putin has felt it necessary to do, but I must say, I don't buy the incessant use of the
term "Ukronazi." Sounds propagandistic.
What about the Ukrainian people? A large majority of them voted for some sort of reconciliation with the separatists and Russia.
They did so twice: once for Zelenskii, and once again for his party. Does that count for nothing?
I think the plan is to wait until Russia collapses from Western sanctions, and then invade Crimea and Donbass. They didn't
give up on the territory by any means, which is why I don't think that any ceasefire in Donbass will hold. It is going to remain
a slow-burning conflict, the regime will continue to complain about "Russian invasion" and international investors will continue
to avoid the Ukraine.
"That reason is very simple: Ze caved in to the Ukronazis, completely. He now uses EXACTLY the same rhetoric as Poroshenko did,
in spite of the fact that the only reason he was elected is that he presented himself as the ultimate anti-Poroshenko. Now all
we see is Poroshenko 2.0."
This is interesting. It implies z actually meant what he said in order to gain votes to get elected. In fact, he is very similar
to trump in this respect. Lied about desiring an end to the conflict (conflicts in the case of trump), but once in office continued
the aggressive policies (and expanded them in the case of trump). Actually, if one considers poroshenko as the ukraine version
of obama/clinton and zelinsky as trump, it looks like the ukrainian regime is following in the footsteps of the american regime.
It's not just Minsk that has been abandoned by the Kiev junta. Kiev itself has been abandoned by the EU, which now looks to Nordstream-2
for its energy supplies from Russia, thus bypassing the thieves in Ukraine. Even sanctions from the Supreme Sanctioner in DC is
not going to persuade the Germans to shiver in the winter.
"Nord Stream 2: Trump approves sanctions on Russia gas pipeline"
The Russians will probably finish that last segment themselves but the German reaction
will be the one to watch out for – if there is one. Without Nord Stream 2, Germany will
have to accept having a smaller economy because of insufficient energy to power it which will
have knock-on effects in taxation, revenue raising & allocation, etc.
This will make them less competitive against the US and other economies and if they are
forced to buy US gas shipments, it will play hell with their budget due to the excessive
cost. Having a US Ambassador that thinks of himself as a Proconsul of Germany has not
lessened any tensions either. So we will see if there is any German reaction.
When Russia finishes the pipeline, which is not really sure since the swiss special ships
might finish in time or might be actually needed to finish the pipeline, then why would a
reaction from Germany be needed?
If/when the pipeline is done, Germany will take the gas from it for e.g. its chemical
industry. From what I understand, the US hasn't sanctioned users of russian gas in general,
"only" companies who actively build on the pipeline, like the owner of the special ships
used.
If the US however doubles down and sanctions users of russian pipeline gas, then it will
probably have a big fight on its hand. Then not only Germany is affected but almost all EU
countries, except Poland and the Baltics of course.
Frankly, I just don't get the logic behind this move by Trump. Is he saying that he thinks
that Germany is a colony of the US and that the US gets to determine where they get their
resources? That is pretty high-handed, even for the US.
I think that's exactly what these sanctions are about. "The US considers the project a
security risk to Europe" certainly sounds colonialist, and "The Trump administration fears
the pipeline will tighten Russia's grip over Europe's energy supply and reduce its own share
of the lucrative European market for American liquefied natural gas" sounds like the USA
wants to tell Europe what to buy and where.
I'm not sure about pinning it all on Trump though: " Congress voted through the
measures as part of a defence bill last week and the legislation, which described the
pipeline as a "tool of coercion", was signed off by Mr Trump on Friday."
(Quotes from the BBC article)
Why have NATO. Do you need a military against a country that you buy gas from. You give
them enormous amounts of money and they can shut the switch at any time. Maybe we should
bring Russia into NATO to defend against aliens.
Russia asked to join NATO, but were rejected. NATO needs a bogey man enemy to justify
forcing all its members to spend 2% of GDP on US military equipment. The first thing American
arms salespersons did when the Berlin Wall fell was to head to Eastern Europe to sell
arms.
It might be high-handed, but it's not new. Variations of this game have gone on since the
80s, when the first gas exports from Russia were starting. This is an upswing in aggression,
but it's mostly a continuation of standard US policy.
I am not even sure that the increased aggression comes from Trump. It's more that gas
producers in the US are now more powerful than a decade ago (and somewhat desperate due to
low gas prices in the US), so their interests add to the old-school geopolitics.
Well Germany and EU are sure behaving as if they are colonies. Zero fight for what is good
for EU. Think Russia sanctions. Hurt only EU, not US and a little bit Russia, which now have
moved to produce themselves the stuff EU was selling to Russia. EU has screwed itself on the
long-term by order from the US. US is not Europe's friend, but is making sure that it gets
weaker and cannot offer an alternative, economical, social or military.
If you want to amuse yourself you can see the ships here :
They appear to be returning to port. Were last working just to the SSE of Bornholm (the
Danish island).
Here is a gazprom map of the route as of Oct .
Most of the remaining route, the segment in German EEZ waters going in the southwest directon
from Bornholm, is shallow water.
I keep wondering when Europe will decide to throw off the shackles. A complicating factor
may be history: they'd rather an American master, mostly far away, than a German one.
Didn't we interfere with Japanese oil supplies once? For large values of happy, I can say
I'm happy with synopsizing the result of World War 2 as being about 'Who had the most oil?' I
feel like we are now vaporizing so many kinds of capital to maintain energy dominance. Can
the US please stop fighting WWII sometime before WWIII
The new US defense bill, agreed on by both parties, includes sanctions on executives of companies involved in the completion
of Nordstream 2. This is companies involved in laying the remaining pipe, and also companies involved in the infrastructure around
the arrival point.
This could include arrest of the executives of those companies, who might travel to the United States. One of the companies
is Royal Dutch Shell, who have 80,000 employees in the United States.
Some people believe 'the market' for crude oil is a fair and effective arbiter of the industry supply and demand.
But if we step back an inch or two, we all can see it has been a severely broken mechanism during this up phase in oil.
For example, there has been long lags between market signals of shortage or surplus.
Disruptive policies and mechanisms such as tariffs, embargo's, and sanctions, trade bloc quotas, military coups and popular revolutions,
socialist agendas, industry lobbying, multinational corporate McCarthyism, and massively obese debt financing, are all examples
of forces that have trumped an efficient and transparent oil market.
And yet, the problems with the oil market during this time of upslope will look placid in retrospect, as we enter the time beyond
peak.
I see no reason why it won't turn into a mad chaotic scramble.
We had a small hint of what this can look like in the last mid-century. The USA responded to military expansionism of Japan by
enacting an oil embargo against them. The response was Pearl Harbor. This is just one example of many.
How long before Iran lashes out in response to their restricted access to the market?
People generally don't respond very calmly to involuntary restriction on food, or energy, or access to the markets for these things.
President Trump is expected to sign legislation into law
AllSeas Group SA
said it would halt operations on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline from Russia to Germany on
expectations the U.S. Congress will pass legislation to sanction companies working on the
project, which critics say will bind Europe more tightly to Moscow.
The contractor said in a two-line statement it would suspend work "in anticipation of the
enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act."
... ... ...
Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz, the main Senate sponsor of the sanctions,
wrote a letter with Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson to AllSeas Chief Executive Officer Edward
Heerema Wednesday warning the company that it would face "crushing and potentially fatal"
sanctions if it continued work on the pipeline.
"The consequences of your company continuing to do the work -- for even a single day after
the President signs the sanctions legislation -- would expose your company to crushing and
potentially fatal legal and economic sanctions," they wrote.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday that Moscow planned to keep gas transit
via Ukraine irrespective of a number of gas pipelines Moscow currently builds to bypass its
ex-Soviet neighbor.
...
"This is a very difficult, sensitive topic. We would like to solve this problem," Putin said
at his annual press conference in Moscow.
"We will look for a solution that is acceptable for all parties, including Ukraine. That's
despite the construction of infrastructure such as Nord Stream 1, Nord Stream 2, TurkStream.
We will preserve gas transit through Ukraine."
...
Putin said on Thursday that Russia would be ready to give Ukraine a discount of 20-25% for
gas purchases. "I am confident we will reach an agreement ... We have no desire to exacerbate
the situation ... or use this to influence the situation in Ukraine itself."
...
This gives Ukraine three options:
keep buying Russian gas from Europe
swallow their pride and buy discounted gas direct from Russia
Yes it was corrupt before the violent coup, but at least people could live nicely and be
warm during winter. People have frozen during the winters since and many of them had to go
back to work because of the damn IMF loans that hurt big time.
Congress said that they had to put sanctions on Nordstream because of Russia aggression.
One article listed all of the aggressions they have done.
Invaded Iraq.
Supported the Honduran coup.
Invaded Libya
Invaded Syria....well you get the drift. Sorta like how Iran has destabilized the Middle East
as pompous Pompeo is saying. It's the effing hypocrisy!
The anti-Russian insanity that dominates the politics of America is dangerous, stupid and
detached from facts. Two news items from Wednesday (December 18th) should scare the hell out of
you.
The first concerns Russia's Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline, which is nearing completion
and will deliver gas to Europe.
According to Reuters :
The U.S. Senate on Tuesday passed legislation to slap sanctions on companies building a
massive underwater pipeline to bring Russian natural gas to Germany, but it was uncertain
whether the measures would slow completion of the project.
Senator Jim Risch, a Republican and the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
said the sanctions will prevent the project's completion and are an "important tool to counter
Russia's malign influence and to protect the integrity of Europe's energy sector."
Nord Stream 2, led by state-owned Gazprom, would allow Russia to bypass Poland and Ukraine
to deliver gas under the Baltic Sea to Germany. U.S. lawmakers say Ukraine could lose billions
of dollars in transit fees if it is built.
This is not the fault of the Democrats. This is being driven by Republicans, with Senator
Ted Cruz
leading the charge .
The Trump administration should use sanctions to halt the construction of a pipeline that
would allow Russia to transport natural gas directly to Europe, potentially generating cash to
fuel President Vladimir Putin's military aggression, says Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.
The Nord Stream 2 pipeline "would make Europe even more dependent on Russian energy," Cruz
told FOX Business' Maria Bartiromo on Wednesday. "And that makes Europe susceptible to economic
blackmail, because Putin has already demonstrated he's perfectly willing to cut off the gas in
the dead of winter to try to force people to do what he wants."
Russia's "military aggression?" Did Russia invade Iraq twice in the last 29 years? Did
Russia launch a war in Libya? Did Russia arm and train insurgents in Syria? I think Ted Cruz
has not been paying attention to world events over the last thirty years. The number one
country engaged in foreign military aggression is the United States. Hands down.
Here are the actual military facts about Russia:
Russia's 2018 GDP of $1.66 trillion, which is just 8% of America's total GDP of $21.5
trillion.
Russia's annual manufacturing value added is currently about $200 billion compared
to $2.2 trillion for the US economy.
Russia's working age population of about 85 million is already just a fraction of the US
working age population of 255 million.
Russia's $61 billion of military outlays in 2018 amounted to less than 32
days of Washington's current $750 billion of expenditures for defense.
During the Cold War Russia armed itself to the teeth via a forced-draft and allocated
upwards of 40% of the GDP of the Soviet empire to the military. Today the Russian defense
budget amounts to less than 4% of the country's anemic economy.
The US has eleven such carrier strike groups. Russia has zero modern
carrier strike groups and one beat-up, smoky old (diesel) aircraft carrier. A carrier based
strike group is composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, at least one cruiser, a squadron of
destroyers and/or frigates, and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft.
The United States dwarfs Russia's ability to project force via air power-- the US has
6,100 helicopters to Russia's 1,200 and 6,000 fixed wing fighter and attack aircraft versus
Russia's 2,100. More importantly, the US has 5,700 transport and airlift aircraft compared to
just 1,100 for Russia.
The only military category where Russia enjoys a decisive edge is tanks -- 22,710 versus
8750 for the United States. This is a legacy of WW II, where Russian tanks played the
critical role in pushing the Nazis back to Germany.
As recently as 2017, the Russian fleet operated 61 submarines. "Historically the backbone
of the Russian navy, 75 percent of the 61 operational submarines are over 20 years old and
are slowly being replaced." The United States has 75 and is building two new ones each year
at a cost of $5 billion.
So why is this pipeline now a redline in the sand that Russia dare not cross? Apparently
because it will give Russia a way to make more money to finance its massive military buildup
(hopefully you understand sarcasm) and, more importantly, will cost Ukraine lost income. Can't
afford to have Ukrainian oligarchs running out of money that they are sending to Democrat and
Republican consulting firms and candidates.
While it is unlikely that the sanctions will prevent the pipeline from being completed,
largely because they come too little, too late, this is not going to
hinder efforts to punish Russia :
A new Bloomberg headline reads "U.S. Concedes Defeat on Gas Pipeline It Sees as Russian
Threat" just following new sanctions included in the House and Senate passed 2020 National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) this week.
But two administration officials tell Bloomberg it's too little too late, despite Trump's
heightened rhetoric of calling Germany "a captive to Russia" and charging Berlin with
essentially giving "billions" of dollars to Russia:
Senior U.S. administration officials, who asked not to be identified discussing the
administration's take on the project, said sanctions that passed Congress on Tuesday as part of
a defense bill are too late to have any effect. The U.S. instead will try to impose costs on
other Russian energy projects, one of the officials added.
Seriously, that United States has no right to threaten Russia in this way. It is reminiscent
of the sanctions that the United States imposed on Japan prior to World War II that blocked
Japan's access to critical oil and rubber supplies. That was a precipitating factor in Japan's
decision to attack us on December 7, 1941.
NATO exercises near the border with Russia reflect the alliance's preparations for a
large-scale military conflict, Russia's chief military officer said in remarks published
Wednesday.
The chief of the General Staff of the Russian armed forces, Gen. Valery Gerasimov, said at
Tuesday's meeting with foreign military attaches that NATO's activities have heightened
tensions and reduced security along the Russian border.
Asked if the Russian military sees a potential threat of war, Gerasimov said that Moscow
doesn't see "any preconditions for a large-scale war."
He added, however, that Western pressure on Russia could trigger "crisis situations" that
may spin out of control and provoke a military conflict.
The anti-Russia hysteria in the United States is tying the hands of Donald Trump to act
responsibly to protect America. If he vetoes the bill put forward by the Congress he will be
accused, as he has been for more than two years, of catering to Putin.
The fanatics and frauds waving the Russian threat ignore the fact that the United States and
Russia work closely and productively on the Space Station. Our astronauts and their cosmonauts
co-exist peacefully in space and we rely on the Russians to haul our folks to and from the
Space Station. In Syria, the Combined Air Operations Center (i.e., CAOC) communicates daily
with Russian counterparts to ensure that their respective air assets do not fire on each other
or inadvertently wander into a combat space. This has been going on for more than three
years.
Russia still has nuclear weapons. It is their ultimate deterrent against another invasion.
The memory of losing more than 12 million soldiers in World War II remains vivid and painful.
The U.S. public can barely remember that we lost less than 500,000 soldiers, marines and
sailors in World War II. Our inability to remember coupled with unjustified belligerence is
pushing us towards a war with Russia that would be beyond catastrophic.
''The Trump administration should use sanctions to halt the construction of a pipeline that
would allow Russia to transport natural gas directly to Europe, potentially generating cash
to fuel President Vladimir Putin's military aggression, says Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas''
I don't know how many times I have ..Who do these politicians think they are !!??
They were not elected to 'run the world'. WE must get rid of them.
The Col told me awhile ago that the CIA doesn't do 'accidental deaths' ....too bad.
At least, these sanctions are not only directed against Russia, but also against Western
Europe.
First,the sanctions directly affect not only Gasprom, but also Western European companies
that are involved in building the pipelines (since only a small part of the work remains to
be done, Nordstream 2 can probably be finished without some of them, but if everything
continues as before, some Western European companies involved in building the pipelines would
clearly be affected by US sanctions, among them a specialized Swiss company).
Second, the purpose of the pipelines clearly is not only to help Russia selling gas, but also
to help Germany buying Russian gas.
The sanctions are not anti-Russian sanctions, but sanctions against Europe, including Russia,
Germany, and other European countries.
Especially in Germany, there is absolutely no tolerance for such sanctions with which the US
wants to force Europeans to buy uncompetitive expensive US fracking gas. There are talks
about European countersanctions against the US. The US may hope to exploit disagreements
among EU countries. After all some EU countries like Poland are against Nordstream. But the
US should not rely on this - such blatant interference in European matters is clearly not
tolerated by the EU. An appropriate countermeasure might be punitive Tarifs on US fracking
gas exports - there is not much demand for it, anyway, but it would make sense to prevent any
significant amounts of US fracking gas from being bought in Europe as long as the US wants to
force Europeans to buy it.
In any case, these anti-European sanctions show once more that the US has become a pariah
nation that has isolated itself and has no real allies any more (except perhaps Saudi Arabia
and Israel).
I would not call these sanctions only anti-Russian sanctions. They are just as well directed
against Western Europe.
First, it is not only Gasprom which is involved in building the pipeline (although it is
the owner), but also European companies (among them a Swiss one). Since Nordstream II is
almost finished, the services of some of these companies may not be necessary any more, but
if they continued normally, also some Western European companies would be sanctioned.
Second, obviously, the purpose of the pipelines is not only to help Russia selling gas,
but also to help Germany (and other Western European countries that will receive it via
Germany) buying Russian gas.
In Germany, there is very little tolerance for such sanctions, and people talk about
counter-sanctions against the US. An appropriate measure could be punitive tariffs on US
fracking gas. There is little demand for US fracking gas in Europe, anyway, since it is more
expensive, but it may make sense to make sure than no significant amounts of US gas are sold
in Europe as long as the US wants to force Europeans to buy it.
The US may hope to exploit disagreements about Nordstream within the EU. After all, some
countries like Poland are against it. But the US should not rely on this tactic working. Such
blatant interference in European energy supplies with sanction will hardly be tolerated by
the EU.
In any case, these anti-European sanctions show one more how much the US has become a
pariah country that has isolated itself and hardly has allies any more (except perhaps Saudi
Arabia and Israel).
I agree that one of the motives for these anti-European sanctions is anti-Russian insanity
in the US. But another important motive is disrespect of the US for Western Europe, which it
seems to regard as a kind of colonies or vassal states it can tell what to do.
In Europe, there is still a certain gap - while polls show that the US is very unpopular,
among European elites, pro-US forces still have a certain influence. But probably, it won't
take very long until European countries will adapt their policies towards the US in the
direction a majority of their citizens wants. Another such example of US folly is the idea
that Germany should pay more for the presence of US troops. According to polls, about half of
the German population wanted US troops to leave, anyway, even before the question of
increased payments was raised, and if the US is serious about this demand, the consequence
that it will lose its military bases is obvious.
I credit you with possessing the good sense, seemingly rare, to not wish to enter into a
direct military conflict with Russia, particularly out of some hyper inflated sense of
threat, owing (no less) to their aggression. Kudos to you for acknowledging which country is
the number one threat of military aggression in the world.
The sarcasm of referring to a mounting Russian threat is merited insofar as their military
budget is actually falling as a proportion of output.
I would suggest, however, when assessing the strength of the enemy you rightly argue that
it is stupid to provoke, that you do not limit yourself to the prevailing think-tank
approaches to assessing that threat. It's pretty obvious to most people that comparing an
Su-35 to an F-35 in dollar terms makes the F-35 3 or 4 times the military threat of the
Sukhoi. Ditto with an Su-57 to F-22 comparison.
But it would be better to listen to actual military experts with technical training in the
STEM disciplines needed to provide the analysis. I would suggest you look at the work of A.
Martyanov's work, a retired Russian naval officer writing occasionally US Naval institute
Blog. Or visit his blog, Reminiscence of the Future, through which you could get more
background on his books, including the latest, The (Real) Revolution in Military Affairs.
His concern is that (while some of us use these CIA factbook-type analysis to cool off the
hysterical claims of threat) Russia hawk politicians and think-tank military pseudo-experts
are using these to seriously downplay Russia's capacity to counter American aggression. Would
welcome your thoughts on his work.
Russia's 2018 GDP of $1.66 trillion, which is just 8% of America's total GDP of $21.5
trillion.
Larry, it is patently and, actually, grossly untrue on both counts. Nor comparison of
military budgets is legitimate tool. In fact, all this is in the foundation of the United
States failing, time after time, having a good grasp of the military balance.
Last winter LNG from the Russian Yamal gas field was delivered to the United States. Perhaps
Washington should deal with its own dependence on Russian energy before it starts pressuring
Europe.
The goal is to overturn the government of Russia, just like the goal has been to overturn the
government of Bolivia (Mission Accomplished), Venezuela, Cuba, China, Russia, North Korea,
Libya, Lebanon, Iran, Syria... This is imperialism. It's history is long and has been
successfully practiced by far by the British and Americans. And it's goal is the theft of the
resources, human and natural, of the countries targeted. It is old news. Nothing has changed
for two hundred years. My God, the original Crimean War was fought for exactly the same
reasons as the current Crimean War although the actual fighting is of a different scale and
different style. Permit me to include in the litany above Native Americans who were
slaughtered for their territory. It is astonishing that President Trump seems to be less than
enthusiastic about this program, but it certainly recommends him highly if he is. And today,
we may ask who is behind this program. It is certainly not the American people.
A new Bloomberg headline
reads "U.S. Concedes Defeat on Gas Pipeline It Sees as Russian Threat" just following new
sanctions included in the House and Senate passed 2020 National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA) this week.
But two administration officials tell Bloomberg it's too little too late , despite Trump's
heightened rhetoric of calling Germany "a captive to Russia" and charging Berlin with
essentially giving "billions" of
dollars to Russia :
Senior U.S. administration officials, who asked not to be identified discussing the
administration's take on the project, said sanctions that passed Congress on Tuesday as part
of a defense bill are too late to have any effect . The U.S. instead will try to impose costs
on other Russian energy projects, one of the officials added.
The admission is a rare concession on what had been a top foreign-policy priority for the
Trump administration and highlights how European allies such as Germany have been impervious
to American pressure to abandon the pipeline. It also shows how the U.S. has struggled to
deter Russia from flexing its muscles on issues ranging from energy to Ukraine to election
interference.
The resolution contained in the defense spending bill, expected to be immediately signed
into law by Trump, are measures which specifically target companies assembling the pipeline --
a last ditch US effort to block the controversial 760-mile, $10.2BN project that would allow
Russia to export natural gas directly to Germany, depriving Ukraine of badly needed gas transit
fees along the current route for Russian supplies.
Washington's position has long been that it weakens European energy security, while Merkel's
Germany has rejected Trump's
"meddling" in European energy affairs, which the Europeans have lately sought to
diversify.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo during a February visit to Poland said Nord Stream 2
ultimately "funnels money to Russians in ways that undermine European national
security."
It's expected to double Russian gas shipments to the EU's biggest economy Germany, while
others fear --
including dissenters within Merkel's own ruling coalition -- it will give Moscow
significant geopolitical leverage over Europe while also punishing Ukraine.
The new US sanctions measures will target executives of companies operating vessels laying
the pipeline , and will further seek to hinder those companies' ability to operate on the
project. It's been spearheaded by Russian giant Gazprom and five European energy companies,
including French electricity and gas firm Engie SA and Royal Dutch, and the Swiss company
Allseas Group SA, among others, and is nearing completion, expected soon this coming year.
Bloomberg
reports further, "Trump has indicated that he'll sign the legislation passed Tuesday. The
penalties on companies building the project, led by Russian energy company Gazprom PJSC, would
be effective immediately, according to a Senate Republican aide."
In total, continues Bloomberg, "Some 350 companies are involved in building the undersea
link, most notably the Swiss company Allseas Group SA, whose ships are laying the last section
of pipe in Danish waters."
Regardless, Gazprom head Alexei Miller has for months said it's "past the point of no
return" and that nothing would derail it. "We are working from the idea that Nord Stream 2 will
be realized strictly in accordance with the planned timetable," he
previously told shareholders.
THE UNITED STATES CORPORATION needs to keep its nose out of European energy policy! In
fact, it needs to keep its nose out of everybody else's business.
My apologies if this has been posted before, but here is a news conference broadcast by
Interfax a few days ago detailing a joint French-Ukrainian journalistic investigation into a
huge money laundering scheme using various shadow banking organizations in Austria and
Switzerland, benefiting Clinton friendly Ukrainian oligarchs and of course the Clinton
Foundation.
The link is short enough to not require re-formatting:
Of course. I have said this repeatedly. I say this with confidence because I have read a
book that is solely about Gazprom and all aspects of gas production, distribution, payment
etc. etc. within and outside Russia. Which of course includes the major special problem of
Ukraine. You cannot understand any Ukraine politics and scams (and Uk-RF politics and
conflicts) without understanding the role of gas, and of Ukraine as a bottleneck for a LOT of
the gas flowing between Russia and the EU. The Ukrainians have always been fiddling the
Russians and their gas. And then the EU got into the picture and caused more trouble for
Russia. Anyhow, it is fitting that the scam described in the video runs on GAS.
This doesn't seem very complicated to me.
Turkey is emboldened by Turkstream (and by the Ukraine/Georgia stalemate) - Erdogan clearly
believes he can monopolize gas transit between Central Asia/Middle East/Eastern Mediterranean
and Europe. This would be a huge geopolitical and economic benefit for Turkey - far above and
beyond any religion based "leadership" Turkey could benefit from the Muslim world.
Russia doesn't really care as it already has a pole position regarding natural gas to Europe
- Erdogan's actions will only serve to slow down any buildout of competing supply from
Central Asia/Middle East. Erdogan is likely being financially backed by Qatar as well - they
also stand to benefit if Turkey can carve out a pipeline domination in the Eastern Med.
"Follow the money..." If I recall correctly, Haftar got a nice pile of money from Russia in
the form of Libyan banknotes that he ordered, and the status of those banknotes was unclear,
but in LNA zone they are as good as the central bank notes. Legally, payments for Libyan oil
have to go to that bank, and the operations, location and loyalty of that bank deserve an
investigative article.
Erdogan has too little money to succeed, IMHO. If he were flushed, he would place nice
weapon orders in UK, France, Germany and USA, as KSA + UAE did, and as we know from Yemen,
that secures NATO blessings, either verbal or quiet. His military is probably in a better
shape than Egyptian, if vulnerable to attacks by mysterious submarines. The coastal highway
from Egypt is surely good enough for military vehicles, but it is vulnerable to attacks from
air.
Putin's priority number 2 in the region is South Stream, so he will probably not supply
mysterious submarines, Greece could being irate over maritime claims, and Egypt would have
the most obvious motif. My conclusion is that the sultan's dog's barks a lot, and sometimes
bites, but with some caution. Libyan expedition has the smell of Sicilian Expedition, a
notable event during the Peloponessian war.
Egypt will not tolerate a Muslim Brotherhood led Libya as its neighbor. Before the Turkish
support allows the GNA government to defeat Haftar Egypt will intervene. The situation can
thereby soon develop into an intense war during which Turkish troops fight on Libyan grounds
against the Egyptian military.
<=I think if Egypt intervenes in Libya it will strengthen the brotherhood in Egypt and
Libya and may terminate brother Sisi's rule.
i agree with Psychohistorian's Mezran quote.. a Russian Turkey agreement will foreclose
USA and British access to oil from Libya, Egypt and Turkey( new OPEC will form).
Now the GNA is a UN construct so Turkey supporting it should not be a big deal politically
for the west. As for the CIA fellow, if he is working as closely as he appears to be with
Russia, I think Turkey stepping in is just as suggested:
"...from the karlof1 link:
""Mezran suggested. "If the Turks become the major supporter of the GNA, not the Europeans or
the Americans, and the Russians are the ones who are the major supporter of Haftar, then all
it would take is an agreement between Moscow and Ankara to solve the Libyan problem, causing
much damage to American and European power.""Posted by: psychohistorian | Dec 17 2019 20:25
utc | 11.
I particularly like the strategy cutting out the Central Bank by the General and Russia,
looks to me like there is a master plan being rolled out and it is moving quickly. Perhaps
Peace is breaking out:)
b said; "After the NATO war destroyed Africa's richest country Libya is still split."
Another "mission accomplished" by the evil empire. They couldn't stand for any leader to
share the wealth of the nation with it's people, so a lesson was given, and is still in
effect.
@ Posted by: ben | Dec 17 2019 22:58 utc | 20 who wrote
"
b said; "After the NATO war destroyed Africa's richest country Libya is still split."
Another "mission accomplished" by the evil empire. They couldn't stand for any leader to
share the wealth of the nation with it's people, so a lesson was given, and is still in
effect.
"
Thanks for that perspective. That is THE reason that I continue to call out Hillary "We
came, we saw, he died" Clinton as the war criminal I hope she is prosecuted for in her
lifetime.
Does anyone have an idea of both the size and combat readiness of Egyptian forces?
Would Sisi be in a position to send in a force of, say, 50,000 or 100,000 troops with
armour and air cover? If so, he could end both the Muslim Brotherhood/Al-Quaeda problem in
Libya as well as nip one of Erdogan's meddlesome adventures in the bud.
I want what Libyans want, but it seems nobody can be arsed to find that out. I strongly
suspect Libyans' preference would be for neither of these two foreign funded options since
both of these grubby groups are committed to maintaining the repeal of the petroleum act
which has protected Libyans from rapacious foreign corporations and foreign-state owned
enterprises who put sweet FA into any of their hosts' economies while meddling unceasingly in
host politics to ensure everyone but them gets screwed.
IMO the amerikan interest is less about oil & other Libyan resources than ensuring
that Libya can never again support North African nations who the empire is determined to
annex and form into a vast super-national state where governments have no control, but
corporations do.
AFAIK, both cliques in Libya are proponents of Arab nationalism which intend to pretend
the black african and berber populations are all foreigners despite both groups having a
longer history of living in the region than arabs do.
Arabs entered this region, the Magreb, about 647 AD fighting to take control off the
indigenous population of the Magreb which up until then comprised myriad african ethnicities
& language groups until around 709 when Arabs united under the banner of Islam had
complete control.
There really hasn't been a demographic based census in Libya, most likely because the role
of black africans or as the imperialists like to refer to them 'sub-saharan' (which of course
implies they are outsiders) has always been contentious among some Libyans who consider
themselves to be 'Arabs' or as they like to claim, the ruling class.
Generally the bulk of lighter skinned Libyans class themselves as Berber-Arabs, while other
Libyans (eg Muamar Ghaddaffi -may he rest in peace) consider themselves to be Berber.
The iFUKUS intervention promoted a mob claiming to be solely Arab and therefore the
legitimate rulers of the nation. They also reckoned all black africans in Libya were
foreigners. A genocidal campaign of terror and good old amerikan style lynching of black
folks followed. We rightly see the sociopath in H Clinton at this time, but what about
Oblamblam, WTF was he thinking?
Eventually some bright spark saw that killing was wasteful, so those black Libyans
remaining were rounded up and sold into slavery - to 'owners' primarily in Saudi Arabia and
the UAE.
Who knows if Libya can ever find another leader as enlightened as the Colonel? All we do
know is that there is no chance of such a leader emanating from either Haftar's gang or the
'UN-recognised' gang.
Libyans don't deserve either of these agglomerations of arseholes which is why they are
copping them. A big message from the big states that any nation which indulges in such caring
and sharing of neighbours & friends as Libya did, must be severely punished so no other
decent society will dare try that on.
"<=I think if Egypt intervenes in Libya it will strengthen the brotherhood in Egypt and
Libya and may terminate brother Sisi's rule."
I think Snake is on to something here. The power balance in Egypt is fairly evenly divided
with only a slight advantage to Sisi over Muslim Brotherhood forces.
What Turkey is seeking is fair treatment and recognition of rights it feels that it has in
the Mediterranean Sea. What a group of nations (Israel, Egypt, Greece and the US –
hereafter referred to as The Group) is attempting to do is deny Turkey any rights at all.
Those that disagree with Turkish claims have the following position:
1. Greek "owned" islands, which in some cases (e.g. Kastellorizo) go really close to the
Turkish coast, exclude Turkey from any significant rights to the Mediterranean.
2. Turkey has no claim to the area around Cyprus.
3. Cyprus is partnered with Israel, Egypt, Greece and the US for energy exploration in the
Mediterranean Sea and Turkey is not included.
4. In January 2019, the Eastern Mediterranean Gas Forum was convened as a means for
Cyprus, Egypt, Greece, Jordan, Israel, Italy and the Palestinian Authority to develop a
regional natural gas market. Turkey was excluded from this forum and was very upset. (A month
later ExxonMobil announced a new gas discovery in Cypriot waters.)
In other words it is a melange of denying rights, legal assertions and exclusion
tactics.
Now look at a map of the Eastern Mediterranean Sea and then tell me - Is it reasonable
that Turkey should have practically no rights at all? Any fair-minded person would recognise
that Turkey does and all reasonable people would recognise that all the countries bordering
the area of exploration have rights and should cooperate and work together and none should be
excluded. What is happening is that The Group wants it all.
It is a very big mistake to believe that Turkey is in the wrong and also that it will back
down on this.
In addition to Turkey, the countries that are excluded appear to be Syria, Lebanon, and
Libya. It is right that The Group is seeking to exclude all these other countries?
It doesn't matter whether the oil and gas are viable (it may or may not be) what is
happening is that Turkey is not being allowed any recognition and they are choosing to assert
(take) their rights (because there is no other option available to them). If Turkey did not
do so then they would lose any future rights to the Mediterranean at all.
Syrian, Lebanon and Libya are obviously too weak to assert their rights. Although the
Palestinian Authority participated in Eastern Mediterranean Gas Forum I don't really expect
Palestine to benefit much and it should be noted the Palestinian Authority is are far too
weak to do anything – I'm afraid they are just being used.
Greece and Cyprus are being used as pawns by the US (why else would US Ambassador Pyatt be
based in Greece? This kind of disruption is his speciality) and Greece is being set to
confront Turkey.
Now look at a map of the Eastern Mediterranean Sea and then tell me - Is it reasonable
that Turkey should have practically no rights at all? Any fair-minded person would recognise
that Turkey does and all reasonable people would recognise that all the countries bordering
the area of exploration have rights and should cooperate and work together and none should be
excluded. What is happening is that The Group wants it all.
The reason why Turkey does not want the Libyan GNA to fall is because they fear that
Haftar will fall into line with The Group and further strengthen Turkey's exclusion from the
Mediterranean energy exploration. So it is in Turkey's great national interest to secure
Libya as an ally. Also, the GNA are still recognised as the legitimate government of Libya by
the UN so in legal terms Turkey is not doing anything wrong in recognising and supporting the
Libyan GNA.
As regards the Turkey/Libyan Maritime Zone - What is happening is that Turkey and Libya
are showing The Group that it to can carve out areas and claim to areas of the Mediterranean
Seas just as much as they can.
It was widely believed that the 2015-17 Cyprus reunification talks where positive and the
closet ever to reaching a settlement. Who should be blamed for the collapse? Many believe
that is was the Greek Cypriot side that was a fault. The big sticking point was that the
Turkish Cypriot side wanted some 40,000 Turkish troops to remain based in the North of the
Island because of fears over security. At the time the Greek Cypriot side said it was
impossible to accept the continued presence of Turkish troops. This was a big mistake, Cyprus
would have been federally united and in 10 years time the Turkish troops could well have been
greatly reduced. When the talks collapsed the talk was of inevitable partition.
And what do we see in 2019? Anastasiades, the Greek Cypriot President, wants to reopen
talks "exactly where they left off" - A belated recognition that it was the Greek Cypriots
that threw away what would have been a fantastic settlement and a fairly blatant attempt to
peel away Turkish Cypriots from Turkey (Anastasiades call for a resumption of talks seems to
have come with some unnecessary hostile remarks directed at Turkey), and hasty desire (now
that there has been a gas discovery off the coast of Cyprus) to rescue the agreement because
The Group now they can use this agreement to further marginalise Turkey.
I like Frances's take on this...ie smells like a master plan between Russia and Turkey...
Why not...?...the Sultan and VVP deciding to carve up some territory, as in the old
colonial days...?
Russia and Turkey are getting closer all the time...Helmer's take about the 'Stavka' not
being fully on board with this notwithstanding...
The very useful clue is from that Atlantic Council article...the rule to apply here is to
just be for everything they are against...and be against whatever they are for...
In this case they are agitating for the West to step up to the plate and arm the
GNA...even a fly zone for farg's sakes...
Yeah...everything but let Turkey and Russia divide the spoils among themselves
right...?...throw a wrench into the spokes at any cost...?
But the thing is that Trump is not interested in any new wars or proxy wars...and I think
a Libya 2.0 is going to be an extremely hard sell anywhere, with the disaster of Killary's
2011 adventure still fresh in everyone's minds...
So nobody is stepping in...there is a vacuum there and I think that there may be some
grand bargain cooking behind the scenes with VVP and the Sultan...who knows how far
this thing could go...?
It's already causing HUGE headaches in Sodom on the Potomac...as is clear from the shrieks
of agony from the likes of the Atlantic Council and many others...
Turkey may not be the best militarily; they are slow and ponderous but they are strong
enough to move forward, occupy and hold space and take a significant amount of attrition
while doing so. Turkey is strong enough to be able to assert "facts on the ground" even if
they have to absorb several hard blows - they have been learning a lot from Russia on
this.
With regards to Libya, Turkey cannot be prevented from moving forward, occupying space,
supplying the Libyan GNA, providing military equipment and troops, etc. UNLESS their lines of
supply are cut and this means that The Group would have to attack first and sink a Turkish
ship.
And this would mean that Greece (the obvious party that might be set-up for this role)
would attack Turkey and sink a Turkish ship? This would be an act of war against Turkey and
Turkey would, as a result of such action, be fully (and legally) entitled to respond. So,
commonsense tells you that Greece and The Group can't really do this.
If The Group enables Haftar to sink a Turkish ship then Turkey will be able to claim an
attack against them, and retaliate and occupy Libya and expect NATO support whilst doing so.
The effect of such an act by Haftar's forces would inevitably result in victory for Erdogan
(counter-intuitive though that may seem).
While Turkey and Erdogan's association with the Muslim Brotherhood can be seen as a vector
that ensures Egypt's hostility towards Turkey's presence in Libya can this really express
itself militarily?
The Muslim Brotherhood is a strong movement in Egypt which has been around for a very long
time. Effectively this excludes Egypt from joining any direct attack on Turkey because they
will fear the unintended consequences that will arise within Egypt.
I'm afraid The Group, in seeking to exclude a major country like Turkey (with an obvious
major interest in the Mediterranean), is taking the first step towards war. Sinking a Turkish
ship would be another step towards war. Turkey will win any conflict as long as they are
prepared to accept some hard blows (and they will be). The Group will lose any conflict
because they are only able to strike small (sink a ship at most) or strike huge
(annihilation); they have no middle game – Turkey will be able to absorb small blows
and China & Russia will not allow Turkey to be destroyed.
At present, Turkey has nothing to lose (as far as the Mediterranean Sea energy exploration
goes) - it follows that in any military conflict that Turkey will gain. Military conflicts
have to be settled by negotiation - it is only a western delusion that wars are fought to
unconditional surrender or absolute destruction. It is The Group and, in particular, Greece
that will lose (Greece has a lot to lose in any conflict - no matter how well it goes for
Greece - they will have to give up something, even if they think they have won, because that
will be price of ending any conflict (because it always is unless you can annihilate your
adversary).
It is not Turkey that is over-reaching- it is The Group (Israel, Egypt, Greece, Cyprus and
the US) that have overplayed their hand and have most to lose.
The only thing that makes any sense in terms of a strategic plan is that it nothing more
than machinations by the US seeking to bring chaos closer to the heart of Europe. From the
outset, The Group knew what they were doing to Turkey and they knew how Turkey would feel
about it and how Turkey was likely to react.
div> On paper, Erdogan may have easy superiority in Libya, but he may get
into troubles for two reasons:
1) Libyans, currently quite fractured, actually both major coalitions are riven by internal
lack of cohesion. To compare, Assad government had no business surviving, but the opposition
was split into moderates, i.e. small time gangsters and bandits having difficulties making
units of more than 100 people, and jihadists who had some abstruse reasons to hate each other.
And Turkey did not make such a good job in Idlib, Afrin and north Aleppo.
2) Egypt. Forget about ground troops, they would probably focus on air supremacy. This is an
Achilles heel of an expeditionary force. If they are intelligent (a risk that has to be
consider), they may hit the moment Turkey attempts to expand its foothold. Just letting it
slide would be a considerable loss of face for al-Sisi
Posted by: Piotr Berman , Dec 18 2019 2:19 utc |
36
On paper, Erdogan may have easy superiority in Libya, but he may get into troubles for two
reasons:
1) Libyans, currently quite fractured, actually both major coalitions are riven by internal
lack of cohesion. To compare, Assad government had no business surviving, but the opposition
was split into moderates, i.e. small time gangsters and bandits having difficulties making
units of more than 100 people, and jihadists who had some abstruse reasons to hate each
other. And Turkey did not make such a good job in Idlib, Afrin and north Aleppo.
2) Egypt. Forget about ground troops, they would probably focus on air supremacy. This is an
Achilles heel of an expeditionary force. If they are intelligent (a risk that has to be
consider), they may hit the moment Turkey attempts to expand its foothold. Just letting it
slide would be a considerable loss of face for al-Sisi
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Dec 18 2019 2:19 utc |
36
Kastellorizo – A Greek Island off the Turkish Coast
Greece "owns" Kastelorizo, an island which is only about 2 kilometres off the coast of
Turkey. "Ownership" of islands such as Kastellorizo is meant to "give" Greece the "right" to
exclude Turkey from the Mediterranean Sea? I'm afraid that this is an absolutist, simplistic
and unrealistic position.
The "ownership" of Kastellorizo has changed many times throughout history and has been
"owned" by Turkey (the Ottomans) on a number of occasions. If you look at the maps you can
see that Kastellorizo is part of the same geological formation as the nearby Turkish coast.
It's akin to claiming "ownership" of my doorstop and then claiming that you "own" everything
outside the walls of my house (including my garden, car, garage, dog, cat, etc. and then
telling me I can't even use my doorstep or leave my house. If you did that to me, I would
push you aside and that is what Turkey is doing to Greece.
I know that many, many Greeks fundamentally disagree but they are just being partisan,
unfair and realistic and are allowing themselves to getting carried away with hostility
towards Turkey.
Kastellorizo could have been assigned to Turkey at the end of the WWII as part of the
Paris Peace Treaties of 1947 but instead, the "ownership" of Kastellorizo was removed from
Italy and given to Greece.
In any military conflict between Turkey and Greece (like, for instance) sinking a Turkish
Ship, then islands Kastellorizo will be immediately taken into "ownership" by Turkey and it
will be a long time, if ever, that Greece can think about re-"owning" Kastellorizo.
Essentially, the issue of Kastellorizo and its "ownership" would be settled and there would
be very little Greece could do about it.
When Greece asserts is rights to the Mediterranean Sea based on "ownership" of islands
such as Kastellorizo and uses such "ownership" to deny Turkey rights to the Mediterranean Sea
it is just being provocative and unreasonable and inducing Turkey.
Turkey is wrong if it thinks something in international law allows it to annul the freedom of
the seas and block pipelines. I will repost what
I wrote on October 31:
MARITIME LAW EXPLAINED
The United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) from 1958 guarantees to all countries the right to lay
cables and pipes in international waters. This is part of the freedom of the seas. Laying
cables and pipes is not "economic" activity as defined in the 1982 treaty that gave
countries the right to a 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone
(EEZ).
Pipe laying is affected only by the little-known
Espoo Convention from 1991 that obliges the parties to carry out an environmental
impact assessment of certain activities at an early stage of planning. Nowhere in the
treaty does it say that it can be used to stop the freedom of navigation or other freedoms
of the seas.
Turkey does not need and doesn't intend to conquer Libya.
All Turkey has to do is maintain the Libyan GNA which is the government legally recognised
by the UN.
Only the Security Council can remove recognition of the Libyan GNA and this would be a
fairly cynical move by the West if attempted (and, I imagine, would be vetoed by more than
just Russia and China).
Military aircraft are vulnerable when ground troops have access to modern surface to air
missiles and are trained in their use. Expect Libyan GNA forces to have copious supplies of
the ground and shoulder-launched versions of these weapons. What good did aircraft do for
Saudi Arabia in Yemen? There is no winner here, only stalemate and that's more than good
enough for Turkey.
The only way to prevent Turkey from achieving its aims is to sink it's supply ships. This
would be a rash and extremely inadvisable act.
I would advise policymakers and Governments (particularly, The Group) to see where this is
all heading and not go down this path.
The coming debacle may present few heroes for our consideration. The weakest states are
probably headed for the smash-and-grab treatment at the end of the day. How is one to believe
that Erdogan gives a damn about the government in Libya?--any government? Hafter and the GNA
are both pretenders who have only marginal support in that country. These are but stick
figures in a land that's been thrown into a howling anarchy, thanks to the military operation
that Obama green-lighted. Since Erdogan is dealing with virtual nonentities, this aggression
is his aggression. And this illegal sea lane is his insult to international law and prior
agreements that recognize the rights of regional nations. It looks a lot like an act of war
or at least a pretty serious provocation.
Greece, for one, ought to be worried about this development, as some of the resources it
counts on as its territorial right is threatened here.
I don't believe that any of the Mediterranean Sea is "international waters" it's all been
carved up into Exclusive Economic Zone's (EEZ)- there's nothing left! The Group are carving
everything up for themselves and left Turkey (and a number of other countries e.g. Syria)
with very little.
Any person thinking rationally would be able to see that Turkey has been treated unfairly
and will see Turkey has been left with no effective (peaceful) way to get any redress.
All Greece and the rest of the Mediterranean nations need to do is get together, cooperate
and share.
The actions of The Group (Israel, Egypt, Greece, Cyprus and the US) are the ones that are
causing all the difficulties because they have tried to grab everything for themselves and
exclude everyone else.
Greece and the rest of The Group need to include Turkey, Lebanon, Libya, Syria and
Palestine (and remove the US).
When Greece asserts is rights to the Mediterranean Sea based on "ownership" of islands
such as Kastellorizo and uses such "ownership" to deny Turkey rights to the Mediterranean Sea
it is just being provocative and unreasonable and inducing Turkey to consider military
options.
Turkey controls the Dardanelles (the entrance to the Black Sea) by treaty. Turkey has been
treated as it deserves. The Aegean Sea is recognized as Greek waters; and that probably
includes the seabed beneath it. When Greece was at its most vulnerable after the recent
financial collapse, Turkish air force ramped up overflights of Greek territory, some of it
pretty aggressive, just to rub salt in the wound. It wasn't very neighborly. It looks like
Erdogan's new sea lane trespasses the Greek island of Rhodes and several others.
What Andrew Korkblko suggests is that the pipeline, that Turkey is obstructing with the
"Turkey/Libyan Maritime Zone", is not really about Cypriot gas (which b. believes will be too
small and uneconomic to justify a pipeline) but about Israeli gas which is intended to be
piped under the Mediterranean Sea into Europe as a competitor to Russian gas. Maybe the whole
thing about Cypriot gas is just a smokescreen to disguise the true origins (Israel) of the
gas.
What, I suppose, Israel is trying to achieve is to minimise the number of nations that
have a say about (and, I guess, a cut of) the pipeline. So, the attempt to cut Turkey and
other weaker countries out of share (gas transit fees) has forced Turkey to move on its
long-held grievance about being treated unfairly in the Mediterranean Sea.
Are we about to see a war in the Mediterranean between Greece and Turkey caused by US and
Israeli machinations?
I am not talking about rights that are legally justified by "ownership" - what I am saying
is that the whole of the Mediterranean Sea and its resources should be shared fairly and
reasonably by all nations of the Mediterranean.
The proposed gas pipeline is just an example where a small group of nations (Israel,
Egypt, Greece, Cyprus and the US - The Group) have got together to grab what they can for
themselves and exclude others.
Your argument is essentially we have the legal right, we are recognised under
international law, therefore we can do what we like, we can have it all, and you, who have
been excluded, you will have nothing. But, anyone can see that this is unreasonable and the
path to disaster.
But in some ways all this is now moot. The pipeline appears to be really about Israeli gas
and the lack of wisdom in trying to exclude Turkey. If The Group has any sense they will
share the booty with Turkey. If not, they will get Greece to sink a Turkish ship - the
outcome won't be good for Greece.
Speaking of Shane Gustafson: this is an excellent book:
Crisis amid Plenty: The Politics of Soviet Energy under Brezhnev and Gorbachev
(Princeton Legacy Library) Paperback – February 1, 1991
Although the Soviet Union has the most abundant energy reserves of any country, energy
policy has been the single most disruptive factor in its industry since the mid-1970s. This
major case study treats the paradox of the energy crisis as an essential part of larger
economic problems of the Soviet Union and as a key issue in determining the fate of the
Gorbachev reforms.
One of the theses of the book is that the Soviet industry had a "silo" structure: the
various components (exploration, drilling, production, transport, export) didn't coordinate
with one another and depended on the glue of communist party apparatchiks to keep the system
functioning. Gorbachev is said to have eliminated that glue and chaos ensued.
Schmoe@ 36
Re: "Due to an EU ruling related to foreign-affiliated pipelines (or some variation of
that), it will likely be forced to operate at 50% of capacity."
"... The sanctions against Russia are not that broad but they have impacted Russian energy E&P efforts in difficult to reach environments. ..."
"... That is just common sense...large Euro energy companies are partners in Nordstream and have invested billions...do you think they are just going to throw up their hands and say 'Ok we give up'...? ..."
"... And supposedly the owners of those ships [there is actually only one company in the world, Swiss-based Allseas, that operates these deep sea pipe-laying ships] are going to drop Nordstream because they don't want to lose potential US business in the Gulf of Mexico... ..."
"... That is bullshit...what pipelines are being planned for the Gulf...?...Zero... ..."
We shall see how strong. I'd put money on the Germans doing business with their natural
Eastern partners. Business is business, suzerain occupation since 75 years
notwithstanding.
Actually I harbor doubts about the strength of imperial ability, as the natural reaction
every time they use dollarweapon, is the weakening of the weapon...
That Good Man V Putin, I'm sure we all recall, recently spoke to this matter...signing off
with "they (or the dollar) will collapse soon."
zerohedge > "The Dollar Enjoyed Great Trust Around The World. But For Some Reason It Is
Being Used As A Political Weapon, Imposing Restrictions. Many Countries Are Now Turning Away
From The Dollar As A Reserve Currency. US Dollar Will Collapse Soon."
We will see on Nordstream 2 sanctions' effectiveness. Generally, US sanctions, when
aggressively enforced, are extremely effective (and lethal in many cases). The sanctions
against Russia are not that broad but they have impacted Russian energy E&P efforts in
difficult to reach environments.
I would also add that:
a) LNG prices are currently at incredibly low levels and if they hold at these levels
importation of LNG could minimize Germany's hit, and Qatar last week announced it will expands
its LNG export capabilities;
b) Russia / Gazprom did not finance Nordstream 2's construction; initially I believe Gazprom
did so but a consortium of 4 Netherlands (including Royal Dutch Shell), Austrian and German
companies later assumed the financing obligation;
c) Due to an EU ruling related to foreign-affiliated pipelines (or some variation of that),
it will likely be forced to operate at 50% of capacity.
Based on a) - c) there is much less than meets to eye for Nordstream 2.
A more likely outcome than violation of US sanction IMO is an asymmetric response from
Germany; perhaps the EU aviation authorities will deny whatever Band Aid Boeing puts our for
the 737 Max's MCAS system. Or Germany approves Huawei's 5g equipment.
I'm not sure how I missed those Nov 16 posts so thanks for forwarding. This quote will be
interesting:
"With some 85% of the pipeline already laid, new congressional sanctions aimed at
companies participating in the pipeline's construction will not stop it.
Instead, they will become a new bone of contention between the United States and
Europe.
That is just common sense...large Euro energy companies are partners in Nordstream and
have invested billions...do you think they are just going to throw up their hands and say 'Ok
we give up'...?
Even a child can see this Spiegel diarrhea for what it is...
And supposedly the owners of those ships [there is actually only one company in the world,
Swiss-based Allseas, that operates these deep sea pipe-laying ships] are going to drop
Nordstream because they don't want to lose potential US business in the Gulf of Mexico...
That is bullshit...what pipelines are being planned for the Gulf...?...Zero...
Yet the Russians are the world's gas and pipeline superpower and have more pipeline
projects in the works...
As if Allseas is going to risk their biggest customer for some bullshit US
sanctions...[they are also laying the Turkstream pipeline..."
Any company whose operations are all international will unfortunately have to think long
and hard about losing accessing to dollars. Open violations of US Sanctions are still almost
unheard of - Rosneft in Venezuala, Reliance Industries might now be buying Venezuelan oil -
so I would not be pollyanish about their power. Note that European companies will not use
Instinex out of fear of losing access to dollars.
Your questions are absolutely justified. The original story was written by Georg Mascolo,
the German Dana Milbank, i.e. the chief mouth piece of the intelligence services. This is an
obvious attempt to put pressure on Merkel to hamper relations with "Evil Russia" just prior
to a possible breakthrough in the Normandy talks. The German services, especially the BND,
are the last strongholds of Transatlanticism here, and they try to brace themselves against
any rapprochment between Russia and Germany. But this will be in vain. It's simply that the
geopolitical imperative is too strong: the two countries fit together perfectly in terms of
their respective needs and abilities.
Power of Siberia is here. It's finished. Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese
Premier Xi Jinping christened the pipeline to begin the month. Next month Putin will travel to
Turkey to join President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to open the first of four potential trains of the
Turkstream pipeline.
It is only Nordstream 2 that continues to lag behind because of insane levels of pressure
from the United States that is dead set against this pipeline coming online.
And the reason for that is the last of the major energy issues surrounding Gazprom needing
resolution this month, the gas transit contract between it and Ukraine's Naftogaz.
The two gas companies have been locked in legal disputes for years, some of which center on
Crimea's decision to break away from Ukraine and rejoin Russia in 2014. Most of them, however,
involve disputes over costs incurred during the previous and expiring gas transit contract.
The particulars today are ultimately irrelevant as these lawsuits have been used as nothing
more than blackmail to keep a new contract from getting signed. Ukraine has sued Gazprom in
courts, like in Sweden, that rule not by the tenets of contract law but rather through the lens
of social justice.
These have been political decisions that allowed Naftogaz to seize Gazprom's European
assets, further complicating any resolution to the conflict. These policies were pursued
aggressively by former Ukrainian President and long-time US State Department asset Petro
Poroshenko and they have done nothing to help Ukraine.
All they have done is strip-mine the country of its assets while keeping a war to prevent
the secession of the Donbass alive.
This dovetails with the external pressure applied to EU member states, like Denmark, to
delay if not outright thwart completion of Nordstream 2.
Opposition to Nordstream 2 in the US is all about leveraging influence in Ukraine and turn
it into a client state hostile to Russia sharing a border with Russia. If there's no gas
transit contract and there's no Nordstream 2 then US LNG suppliers can sell gas there and
deprive Russia of the revenues and the business.
It's truly that simple. But that strategy has morphed over the years into a convoluted chess
match of move/countermove in the vain hope of achieving something that looks like a victory.
But this isn't a game of real chess but rather a timed match.
Because the end of 2019 was always coming. And Ukraine would eventually have to decide as to
which direction it wanted to go. Moreover, that same choice was put in front of the EU who have
clearly, in the end, realized that the US under President Trump is not a long-term reliable
partner, but rather a bully which seeks its goals through threat and intimidation.
Stay with the US or green light Nordstream 2. The choice in Europe was clear. Nordstream 2
gets finished, as Denmark finally granted the final environmental permit for its construction
in October.
That delay moves the completion date out into 2020. And that now gives the US Senate one
last chance to stop the completion of the pipeline because everything else to this point has
failed, including the EU changing the rules on its gas pipeline rules to force Gazprom to
'unbundle' the pipeline from the gas flowing through it.
Germany amended that directive to allow Nordstream 2 to be regulated at the German federal
level and not at the EU level. This was as much of a win as could have been hoped for.
"The reason for the push is that this window is closing. A lot of Nord Stream is done
already. It will cost them dearly. I think if those sanctions pass [the companies] will shut
down, and I think the Russians will have to look for another way to do this if they can do
this," Risch said.
In reality the window has closed.
At the end of the day even if this legislation passes there will be no way to stop the
pipeline from being completed or the gas to flow through it. With so little of the pipeline
left to complete there is no practical way to stop it from happening. Risch and other US
senators are hoping to strand Nordstream 2 as an unfinished boondoggle but that's folly.
The German government wants this pipeline, therefore the German government will put up the
funds to ensure the contractors are paid and the pipeline completed.
There is a limit to the extent which sanctions can block commerce and once completed the US
will have no ability to sanction the gas flowing through the pipeline. It's a sad and pathetic
state of affairs that so much time, manpower and capital was wasted to stop a pipeline that is
necessary for Germany's future.
It also highlights the hypocrisy of US policy since there isn't a peep out of the US on
Turkstream, which will stitch NATO ally Turkey to Russia via 15.75 cm of natural gas every
year. Eventually it will replace the lost South Stream pipeline as the other trains are built
and contracted for.
All of the countries in eastern Europe are hungry for a piece of Turkstream's future. Serbia
Hungary, Bulgaria, Italy and Greece are all potential customers.
And all of these countries that currently get their gas from Ukraine are at risk if nothing
gets resolved between it and Russia. This is why the meeting between Putin and Ukrainian
President Zelensky is so important. It has the opportunity to begin reversing the damage done
to the basic fabric of Ukraine and Europe by agreeing to a path to ending the war in the
Donbass and coming to an agreement on gas transit.
There are more than $12 billion in lawsuits outstanding that Naftogaz has pending against
Gazprom. With Nordstream 2 a fait accompli that is all the leverage Zelensky has at that
meeting.
This game is a microcosm of the way the US foreign policy establishment uses Europe as the
battleground in the war against Russia. And given the way the political winds are shifting,
Europeans are getting very tired of it.
This is why gas storage facilities in Europe are full, there is real fear that Gazprom will
walk away from the talks with Ukraine and will wait out the completion of Nordstream 2. Gazprom
offered an extension of the current contract on the condition that Ukraine drop the
lawsuits.
Naftogaz said no. We'll see if Zelensky is smart enough to say yes.
China-Russia east-route natural gas pipeline in operation
HARBIN -- The China-Russia east-route natural gas pipeline was put into operation on
Monday.
At the gas-distributing and compressing station in the city of Heihe, northeast China's
Heilongjiang Province, the data screen was switched on, indicating parameter variations of
the gas passage. The station is the first stop after the Russia-supplied natural gas enters
China.
The pipeline is scheduled to provide China with 5 billion cubic meters of Russian gas in
2020 and the amount is expected to increase to 38 billion cubic meters annually from 2024,
under a 30-year contract worth 400 billion U.S. dollars signed between the China National
Petroleum Corp (CNPC) and Russian gas giant Gazprom in May 2014.
The cross-border gas pipeline has a 3,000-km section in Russia and a 5,111-km stretch in
China.
Shao Hua, general manager of Heihe City Natural Gas Development Co., Ltd. of China Gas,
said that the border city of Heihe still largely relies on coal for heat. With the
Sino-Russian natural gas pipeline's operation, the city now has access to a stable supply of
clean energy.
Heihe has registered 30,000 households for switching to natural gas for heating. It will
take one year to complete full coverage of the gas network in the city, according to the
company.
China's natural gas consumption reached 280.3 billion cubic meters in 2018. The country's
demand for natural gas will continue to soar toward 2040, outstripping domestic output by
around 43 percent, according to an International Energy Agency report.
China aims to raise the use of natural gas to 10 percent of the country's energy mix by
2020 and 15 percent by 2030, said the National Development and Reform Commission.
How Russia-China Gas Pipeline Changes Energy Calculus
By Olga Tanas, Anna Shiryaevskaya and Dan Murtaugh - Bloomberg
Russia is pivoting its energy business to the east. The world's largest exporter of
natural gas has built an enormous pipeline running from Siberia to the Chinese border to feed
China's insatiable energy appetite. The new conduit, called the Power of Siberia, is part of
a plan by Russian President Vladimir Putin to reduce his country's dependence on gas markets
in Europe and tap into the fast-growing economies of Asia. For China, whose domestic energy
production can't keep up with demand, the pipeline offers a vital new source of
supply....
This has no small strategic significance: previously, for foreign sales, Russia was
dependent on customers in Europe who are all, to a greater or lesser extent, subject to
pressure from the war party.
Added to which transport was affected by Kiev's whims. Turkstream (scheduled to start next month) and
the two pipelines to Germany help with the second problem and this one with the first. Sooner
or later, Russia-China pipelines would have appeared but I think Ishchenko's
argument that the Western war on Russia speeded up the process is credible.
(Come to think of it, now that Putin's hand is imagined everywhere, maybe it's time to
consider that he's the American war party's real backer; after all, everything it's touched has
turned to dust: from the forever wars, to Iran's increased influence, to the Russia-China
alliance and now the furore in the USA over Ukraine – itself another disastrous
project.)
MOSCOW, November 28. /TASS/. Russian-Ukrainian gas consultations with the participation of
Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak, the Minister of Energy and Environmental Protection of
Ukraine Alexey Orzhel, Gazprom CEO Alexey Miller, the heads of Naftogaz of Ukraine and LLC Gas
Transmission System of Ukraine were held in Vienna on Thursday.
This is according to statements by the Russian Energy Ministry and Gazprom. Read also
GECF believes Russia and Ukraine
will manage to agree on gas transit to EU this year "The parties discussed
Russian-Ukrainian cooperation in the gas sector -- settlement of mutual claims for the
implementation of contracts, the terms for the transit of Russian gas to Europe from 2020, the
prospects for direct purchase of Russian gas for Ukrainian consumers," the statement said.
Russia, the European Commission and Ukraine have been holding consultations on gas transit
after 2020. The dialogue is complicated by the ongoing legal disputes between Russia's Gazprom
and Naftogaz of Ukraine. Moscow offers a "package solution" that includes a settlement
agreement on legal disputes and direct gas purchases at reduced prices. As a fallback, Russia
is ready to extend the current transit agreement for the whole year of 2020.
Ukraine considers the settlement agreement on legal disputes and the signing of a
short-term contract to be unacceptable. Earlier this month, Naftogaz' executive director, Yury
Vitrenko, announced that Ukraine would pump Russian transit gas to its underground storage
facilities (UGS), if this gas entered the country without an appropriate contract starting from
January 1, 2020.
The next round of trilateral consultations on the transit of Russian gas to Europe through
Ukraine from 2020 is scheduled for the first week of December.
The existing contracts for the supply and transit of Russian gas through Ukraine expire on
December 31.
At a meeting of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine on November 27, a gas price for the
population was fixed at 8 hryvnias per cubic meter. KIEV, November 30. /TASS/. The gas price
for Ukrainians may increase to 12,000 hryvnias (about $500) per 1,000 cubic meters in the event
of the termination of transit from Russia from January 1, 2020, Minister of Energy and
Environment of Ukraine Alexey Orzhel said on Friday.
"The price of 12,000 hryvnia is possible in the absence of transit," he said speaking on the
national television.
Orzhel also recalled that the government had offered Ukrainians the so-called guaranteed
price of gas in the amount of 8,000 hryvnias (about $333) per 1,000 cubic meters in case the
gas transit is halted from the new year and the cost of gas increases significantly.
At a meeting of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine on November 27, a gas price for the
population was fixed at 8 hryvnias per cubic meter.
Gazprom began construction of the offshore section of the Turkish Stream gas pipeline in May
2017. The pipeline with a length of 930 km runs along the bottom of the Black Sea to the coast
of Turkey. Further, a land section will stretch for 180 km to the border of Turkey with
neighboring countries.
Gazprom began construction of the offshore section of the Turkish Stream in May 2017,
managed by South Stream Transport B.V. (100% subsidiary of Gazprom). The offshore section of
the pipeline runs along the bottom of the Black Sea to the coast of Turkey. Its length is 930
km. The pipeline will be continues by a 180-km land transit line to the border of Turkey with
neighboring countries. The first line will be designed for the Turkish market, the second - for
gas supply to the countries of South and Southeast Europe. The capacity of each line is 15.75
billion cubic meters of gas per year. The first deliveries are scheduled for the end of 2019.
Gazprom announced the completion of deep-sea laying of the offshore section of the first
Turkish Stream in April 2018. Turkey is Gazprom's second largest export market. Currently,
Russian energy is supplied to this country through the Blue Stream pipeline and the
Trans-Balkan gas pipeline. In 2017, Gazprom exported a record volume of gas to the Turkish
market - 29 billion cubic meters, which is 17.3% more than in 2016, and 1.7 billion cubic
meters (6.2%) more than in 2014 when the previous maximum was set (27.3 billion cubic meters).
At the end of May, Gazprom and the Turkish government signed a protocol on the land section of
the Turkish Stream pipeline transit line to supply Russian gas to European consumers. Gazprom
and the Turkish company Botas concluded an agreement on the basic conditions and parameters for
the construction of the section. Joint venture TurkAkim Gaz Tasima A. S. will carry out
construction of the land section.
Earlier, Deputy Chairman of the Board of Directors of Gazprom Alexander Medvedev said that
in the near future the company would finally determine the route of the second line of the
Turkish Stream for gas supply to countries in Southern and Southeast Europe. According to him,
two main options are being discussed in accordance with the procedures in the European Union
and the European Commission. Medvedev cited Greece, Italy, Bulgaria, Serbia, and Hungary as
potential markets.
Gazprom's investments in the construction of the Turkish Stream for 2018 are planned at the
level of 182.4 bln rubles ($2.76 bln) against almost 93 bln rubles ($1.4 bln) in 2017. The
company estimates the cost of laying the pipeline at 7 bln euro.
The Ukies imagine they are so clever! They will waive a claim they have pretty much no chance
of ever being awarded, in return for a lesser amount of guaranteed cold, hard cash plus a
transit deal which will commit Russia to giving them at least another $20 Billion in transit
fees over 10 years. Russia should pretend to consider it, just to wind them up, and run out
the clock on the signing of a new contract. Then say, "I've decided not to after all, old
chap".
"... the United States' high-handedness is taking it dangerously close to making an enemy of Europe. ..."
"... There is nothing remotely fair about carving out markets for your product by eliminating all other choices. I realize Washington will say it is only trying to stop Nord Stream II so that Russia will be forced to transit gas across Ukraine and pay it exorbitant transit fees, and that it is doing Ukraine a favour while not restricting Europe from getting pipeline gas. ..."
"... American strategy is always all about getting everyone else by the balls so that they have no choice but to accept American control and orders. That's called American Global Leadership, which they figure is good for the world because it's certainly good for American investors. ..."
In the U.S. Senate, they have spoken about how to block "Nord stream -- 2"
06:37 24.11.2019 (updated: 06:54 24.11.2019)
MOSCOW, 24 Nov – RIA Novosti. The U.S. Congress intends to include sanctions
against the Russian gas pipeline "Nord stream -- 2" in the 2020 defence budget, says Jim
Risch, head of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, in the latest edition of "Defense
News".
Sanctions against companies involved in the construction of the pipeline have been
included in a draft law "On National Defense for 2020", said Rish. "The reason for this step
is that the window of opportunity is closings. Most of "Nord stream" has already been
constructed", said the Senator. However, he expressed the opinion that the sanctions "will
convince" the construction company to stop work on the project because the American
restrictions "will cost them dearly".
If sanctions are included in the US defence budget, companies involved in the
construction of Nord Stream 2 will close, and Russia will, supposedly, have to look for other
contractors, says Riesch.
However, he noted that the House of Representatives and the Senate have not yet reached a
final agreement on the bill as a whole.
The US Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted in late July to pass a bill on
sanctions against Nord Stream 2. It was prepared by Republican Senator Ted Cruise and
Democrat Gene Shahin, and, in particular, involves a ban on the entry into the United States
and the freezing of US assets under the jurisdiction of persons involved in the "sale, lease,
provision or assistance in providing" ships for laying at sea Russian pipelines at a depth of
30 metres.
For the bill to enter into force, it must be approved by the House of Representatives
and the US Senate, as well as US President Donald Trump.
Let the Liberty Bell ring out loud! -- albeit that it is cracked and was never rung on 4th
July, 1776, but, as usual, bullshit baffles brains!
And that'd be Jean Shaheen; the translation managed to get both her name and her gender
wrong.
As I have said before now, the United States' high-handedness is taking it dangerously
close to making an enemy of Europe. It has made it clear it is trying to restrict Europe's
energy choices to American LNG or American LNG.
There is nothing remotely fair about carving
out markets for your product by eliminating all other choices. I realize Washington will say
it is only trying to stop Nord Stream II so that Russia will be forced to transit gas across
Ukraine and pay it exorbitant transit fees, and that it is doing Ukraine a favour while not
restricting Europe from getting pipeline gas.
But Washington still aims to control Ukraine
and use it as a bastion against Russia, and if it can arrange things so that Russian gas must
pass across Ukraine under American control, why, it can conjure stoppages and interruptions
of service at its pleasure, as well as helping Ukraine to jack up transit fees so that Russia
must either raise its gas prices until American LNG is competitive, or sell at a loss.
American strategy is always all about getting everyone else by the balls so that they have no
choice but to accept American control and orders. That's called American Global Leadership,
which they figure is good for the world because it's certainly good for American
investors.
Except when he says "we all", he is talking about less than ten thousand people in a country
of 147 million. Yes, few Russians get to breathe the rarefied air of true mental clarity.
So far as I am aware, the latest offer on the table is still for a one-year extension of
the current contract, although Russia did agree to drop legal claims and counter-claims
between itself and Ukraine, in which Russia claimed Ukraine underpaid/did not pay at all for
gas it received. Ukraine has thus far not replied.
Moscow has made some concessions, but there has been no movement at all toward a long-term
contract that I have seen. I maintain that a cold winter of frozen bums in Europe would offer
a salutary effect. Russia is actually better-placed to deliver LNG by vessel than the USA, as
well, as it is much closer.
There must be a limit to European loyalty to the USA in the face of conditions so markedly
against its interests, a limit to how much shit it will smear on its own face to keep its
partner happy and amused.
Apparently U-ropean gas storage networks are full, not to mention that there has been heavy
investment in the Austrian Baumgarten storage network, Germany, France, infact just about
everywhere except the UK (coz the French will store it for them and sell the gas back at a
nice mark up)
Ukraine has already stated publicly that although its own gas storage bunkers are full, that
amount will not likely carry it through the winter if there is an interruption owing to
non-renewal of the gas contract, and if the winter is cold and harsh as usual. I imagine
Europe is the same; storage facilities are not so extensive that they could take the entire
region through a cold winter.
Not surprising that Navalny and his ilk oppose Nord Stream. They oppose anything that is good
for Russia. They don't seem to be interested in developing russia into a better place, but
tear it apart and ruin it from within. It is rather odd that Russia has these types of people
as "opposition politicians". People who hate their own country and don't even pretend to hide
their hatred.
I don't see them that dangerous though because they seem to lack wider support and Russia is
not currently facing any troubles that would turn people against the current rulers.
And I'm not saying that Russia is ruled by a very competent government currently. The economy
should be growing a lot faster than it has been growing for the past ten years. But the
current government is still 100x better than Navalny would be. He would probably bring down
Russia even worse than Yeltsin did.
"Naftogaz" has promised turn off the gas valve
03:01 28.11.2019 (updated: 10:45 28.11.2019)
KIEV, November 28 – RIA Novosti. The Ukraine does not intend to shut off the gas
valve, even if Russia fails to sign a new contract on gas transportation, Executive Director
of "Naftogaz of the Ukraine", Yuriy Vitrenko, has said in an interview with Deutsche Welle.
In his opinion, the valve will be turned off by Gazprom, not Naftogaz.
"But I remind you, that in a letter sent by Gazprom to Naftogaz, in black and white
[it states] that on January 1st at 10 am Moscow time Gazprom has no reason to keep the gas
flowing in the direction of the Ukraine", he said.
So you Russia is going to hold Europe to ransom, not the Ukraine, right?
What happened to all the leverage Ukraine gained by its blinding victory in Swiss
arbitration? They should be able to lead Moscow around by the nose now.
"... Gazprom sent about 200 BcM to Europe last year, of which 70 BcM went via Ukraine. If Ukraine is completely cut out now, Gazprom could manage about 195 BcM, with every other available pipeline to Europe straining at the rivets. But you need a 'technical reserve' capability, which would take Russia's requirement to 230 BcM. Obviously, the intent is that they should commit to sending this amount through Ukraine, forever. ..."
"... The other interesting figure is included in the claim that 'Ukraine's economy is growing nicely, but loss of transit income would shave 4% off of GDP.' When the initial threat that eventually transit would be stopped was floated, Ukraine squealed that it would bilk it of 2% of GDP. But now somehow that loss would be double but the economy is 'growing nicely'? Ummm .how do you figure? ..."
The appeal court in Sweden has refused to satisfy the appeal of "Gazprom" in a dispute
with the Ukrainian concern "Naftogaz", according to Tass. Executive Director of "Naftogaz of
Ukraine" Yuriy Vitrenko on "Facebook" called the decision a "complete victory".
"Complete victory, Ukraine wins again! We won the appeal at the first complaint of
"Gazprom" the decision of the Stockholm arbitration!" said his statement.
It is anticipated that decisions in two other cases in court between the same parties
will be taken in 2020.
The Stockholm arbitration court in December 2017 and February 2018 issued decisions on
disputes between Gazprom and Naftogaz in respect of contracts for supply and transit of gas,
obliging as a result, Russian the Ukrainian company to pay more than $ 2.5 billion. Gazprom
appealed against the decision in March 2018, and in May demanded the complete abolition of
the "transient" solution.
Ukraine allegedly offered to do a deal in which they would not drop their claim of being
owed $2.5 Billion by Gazprom, but would take it in free gas. They say they have not had a
reply yet. The same article suggests Russia would be perfectly happy to just run out the
clock. Even happier now, I would think.
A few interesting figures are included in the article. For one, the author claims that in
order to completely circumvent Ukraine for gas delivery to Europe, it would need pipeline
capacity of 230 BcM. Here's how it breaks down – Gazprom sent about 200 BcM to
Europe last year, of which 70 BcM went via Ukraine. If Ukraine is completely cut out now,
Gazprom could manage about 195 BcM, with every other available pipeline to Europe straining
at the rivets. But you need a 'technical reserve' capability, which would take Russia's
requirement to 230 BcM. Obviously, the intent is that they should commit to sending this
amount through Ukraine, forever.
The other interesting figure is included in the claim that 'Ukraine's economy is
growing nicely, but loss of transit income would shave 4% off of GDP.' When the initial
threat that eventually transit would be stopped was floated, Ukraine squealed that it would
bilk it of 2% of GDP. But now somehow that loss would be double but the economy is 'growing
nicely'? Ummm .how do you figure?
The way I see it, Russia has a couple of options; it can just let the clock run out, carry
on with Nord Stream II, and pump everything it can right to capacity, without any going
through Ukraine. That would leave it about 5 BcM short, obviously with no reserve capability.
The USA could be invited to make that shortfall up with its Molecules of Freedom. But that
relies on Merkel not suddenly deciding to slap more restrictions on Nord Stream II so that it
could not pump to its full capacity – she has apparently said all along that Nord
Stream II will not be allowed unless some gas continues to go through Ukraine – the
obvious clash of wills is that Russia is trying to ensure that amount is as small as
possible, while the west and Ukraine are trying to ensure that amount is as large as
possible.
Another option is for Russia to speed up and intensify its own LNG-export capability, and
perhaps it can make up the shortfall with its own LNG carriers. Either way, it is plain the
Ukies think they have Russia by the balls, and can dictate terms as they like – perhaps
they will even add the return of Crimea to their demands for a gas deal, they seem to feel so
confident. Let's see how it plays out; only a couple of weeks remain to get a deal done, and
it's everyone against Russia.
The look on Vitrenko's face will be priceless if the Russians just close up their
briefcases and go home. Not to mention the look on Sefcovic's face. Not to mention the jump
in gas prices in Europe.
"... this is why the US went into Afghanistan, to get in between China & Iran ..."
"... The implication of what you just said is that the United States will never leave Afghanistan as in ever. Even if the Taliban take the whole country leaving only Kabul and its surroundings, the US will still opt to stay to have bases to launch drones and aircraft from to dominate the region. ..."
From the moment that the U.S. re-imposed sanctions in earnest on Iran late last year,
Pakistan has been looking at ways to resuscitate a deal that had been agreed in principle
before the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) last
May. This deal involved moving as much gas as Pakistan needs from Iran's Asalouyeh into
Pakistan's Gwadar and then on to Nawabshah for further transit if required. At the same time,
China has been in long-running discussions with Pakistan over the specific projects that
Beijing wanted to place in Pakistan as part of its 'One Belt, One Road' (OBOR) programme. All
the while, the U.S. has been
trying to stymie any such arrangement but OilPrice.com understands that the
Iran-China-Pakistan deal is now back on, and with a vengeance.
China's covert strategic deals are virtually always buried in interminably long anodyne
statements that belie the true laser-focused intentions of Beijing and this time is no
different. Joint statements just over a week ago from both Pakistan and China sides laid out
four projects that are part of a 'broader co-operation' between China and Pakistan. They all
sound relatively run-of-the-mill affairs, although still major undertakings, and are: the
upgrading of the Pakistan Refinery Karachi, the building out of a coal to liquid engineering
plant based on Thar coal at Thar Sindh, the utilisation of Thar Block VI for coal gasification
and fertiliser projects, and the finalisation of the feasibility study on South-North Gas
Pipeline Project that traverses Pakistan.
The fact that they are much more significant to the global geopolitical balance was
evidenced by the U.S.'s furious warnings to Pakistan, based on the fact that all of these
projects are in reality a key part of Beijing's planned China-Pakistan Economic Corridor
(CPEC), which, in turn, is a cornerstone of the OBOR initiative. Even as it was, U.S. South
Asia diplomat, Alice Wells, warned that CPEC – which, vitally, includes heavy financing
from Beijing and, therefore, a massive debt obligation to China by the host country over time
– will only profit Beijing. As it stands, the cost of just the first round of CPEC
projects has risen from an initial costing of US$48 billion to at least US$62 billion right
now. "It's clear, or it needs to be clear, that CPEC is not about aid," said Wells. "[The CPEC]
corridor is going to take a growing toll on the Pakistan economy, especially when the bulk of
payments start to come due in the next four to six years," she added. "Even if loan payments
are deferred, they are going to continue to hang over Pakistan's economic development
potential, hamstringing Prime Minister [Imran] Khan's reform agenda," she underlined.
The U.S.'s fury would have been much worse if it knew that, in fact, the 'finalisation of
the feasibility study on South-North Gas Pipeline Project' whilst true, is just proverbially
the tip of the iceberg. "The actual plan is to resuscitate the Iran-Pakistan oil and gas
pipelines over time, beginning with the gas pipeline, moving unlimited amounts of Iranian gas
to Pakistan, and then into China and the rest of Asia should it be needed," a senior source who
works closely with Iran's Petroleum Ministry told OilPrice.com last week. "It is being done in
conjunction with Russia, with the twin aims of firstly ensuring that China's 'One Belt, one
Road' initiative continues to run smoothly from the East through Pakistan and then Westwards
into Iran and onwards into Europe," he said. "And, secondly, to ensure for Russia that Iran's
gas does not start flowing freely into Europe as and when the U.S. sanctions are lifted, as
this would undermine Russia's power over Europe, which is founded on supplying over a third of
Europe's gas," he added.
For China, the new pipeline – integral to its plan of making Iran and Pakistan its
client states over time – has the added benefit of putting the U.S. on the backfoot in
the ongoing trade war. For Iran, the incentives of closer ties with China and Russia are
principally financial but also relate to China being just one of five Permanent Members on the
U.N. Security Council (the others being Russia, the U.S., the U.K., and France). For Pakistan
as well there is the added incentive that it is tired of being lambasted by the U.S. for its
duplicity in dealing with international terrorism. Not that long ago, the U.S. accused Pakistan
of supporting the Taliban (correct but it was catalysed by the U.S.'s key Middle Eastern
'ally', Saudi Arabia), Al Qaeda (correct but catalysed, funded and logistically supported by
the Saudis), the Haqqani network (correct but also funded and logistically supported by the
Saudis), and Islamic State (sort of correct but that was also mainly, of course, the Saudis)
against U.S. forces, despite taking hundreds of billions of dollars in aid payments.
Islamabad has also been an outspoken critic of renewed U.S.
sanctions against Iran. Just after the first wave of the new sanctions were rolled out on 7
August last year, Pakistan's Foreign Office spokesman Muhammad Faisal said that: "We are
examining the implications of the U.S.'s re-imposed sanctions on Iran, however, Pakistan, being
a sovereign state, reserves the right to pursue legitimate economic and commercial interests
while respecting the international legal regime." Later, in his inaugural speech as Pakistan's
then-new Prime Minister, Imran Khan, called for improving ties with the country's immediate
neighbours, including Iran, from whose President, Hassan Rouhani, he also accepted an
invitation for an early state visit to Tehran. Bubbling back at that time to the top of the
list of practical initiatives that could be advanced quickly was the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline
(IPP), which, according to the Iran source: "[Imran] Khan personally backs and has made a
priority project."
In practical terms, Pakistan certainly needs all the sustainable energy sources it can get.
As it stands, the country has seen domestic natural gas production stagnate at around 4 billion
cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) against demand of more than 6 Bcf/d, which has led to repeated load
shedding in many major cities of up to 15 hours a day. Moreover, the supply and demand
disparity is set to become even worse very soon, as industry estimates project that Pakistan's
domestic gas production is set to fall to nearer 2 Bcf/d by 2020, due to aging infrastructure,
whilst demand will rise to around 8 Bcf/d by the same time, driven by rising demand from the
power, industry, and domestic sectors as the economy continues to grow by around 5% per year.
According to Pakistan's Ministry of Energy (MoE), the planned 0.75 Bcf/d of gas (for five
years, in the first instance) that would flow from Iran's supergiant South Pars natural gas
field would add around 4,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity into the Pakistan grid, via a direct
Iran-Pakistan pipeline.
The original agreement for the IPP, signed between Iran and Pakistan in 1995, was predicated
on the pipeline running from Iran's supergiant South Pars non-associated natural gas field into
Karachi but the most recent iteration of the route involves the gas running from Iran's
Asalouyeh and into Pakistan's Gwadar and then on to Nawabshah. The latest projection of the
cost of the pipeline is around US$3.5 billion, according to industry sources, although US$2.5
billion of this has already been invested in the 900 kilometre stretch on Iran's side that has
already been completed. Pakistan's 780 kilometre stretch has yet to be started.
Given the geopolitical importance of both Iran and Pakistan to Russia and China, though, as
analysed in greater depth in my
new book on the global oil markets , finding the money for the remainder of the project
will not be a problem at all For China, there is a threefold motivation. First, its plans to
integrate the IPP into the CPEC project means that Gwadar is earmarked to be a key logistical
node in China's 'One Belt, One Road' initiative. Second, it wants to keep Iran as one of its
key suppliers of oil and gas in the future. And third, it regards supporting those who the U.S.
opposes as being a central plank of its foreign policy, even over and above the short-term
tactic of wrong-footing the U.S. in the ongoing trade war. "One immediate reaction [of China to
the burgeoning trade war with the US], will be to seek to expand and broaden economic links by
offering improved market access to non-U.S. companies, by strengthening supply chain links and
by replacing American commodities with imports from emerging market nations," according to
Jonathan Fenby, China research chairman at TS Lombard, in London.
"There is a tectonic shift going on that goes well beyond the tariff war, as China
seeks to assert itself regionally and tries to establish a wider global role for itself while
the U.S. moves from the 'constructive engagement' of the Clinton, Bush and Obama
administrations to regarding China as a 'strategic competitor'," he added. The U.S. clearly
sees it the same way, not just based on the latest comments by Wells but also on the fact that
as long ago as January 2010, the U.S. formally requested that Pakistan abandon the project in
return for which it would receive assistance from Washington for the construction of a
liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal and for the importing of electricity from Tajikistan
through Afghanistan's Wakhan Corridor.
The implication of what you just said is that the United States will never leave
Afghanistan as in ever. Even if the Taliban take the whole country leaving only Kabul and its
surroundings, the US will still opt to stay to have bases to launch drones and aircraft from
to dominate the region.
So in twenty years time we might see a story how some young soldier has just arrived
in-country to Afghanistan who will be proud that his grandfather took part in the original
invasion and that he is now following in his grandfather's and father's footsteps.
China, the new world-engineers, has gotta be looking at Pakistan as an industrial water
source. They're probably already building several dams to catch the runoff. Perhaps mining
too – same mountains as Afghanistan, just the other side, no?
China has the money and
manpower. Iran the energy. In fact, we could be thinking the same thing.
Ambassador Wells' warning "..is going to take a growing toll on the Pakistan economy,
especially when the bulk of payments start to come due.." indicates the lack of a mirror in
the State Dept or a copy of the text of the 13th IMF 'bailout' signed last July.
From the point of view of election promise of detente with Russia, Trump clearly betrayed them. He was a neocon puppet
from the beginning to the end, His policy was not that different from hypothetical policy of Hillary administration.
Notable quotes:
"... Caitlin Johnstone discredits a CNN listicle on Trump's "softness" towards Moscow. In fact, she writes, the U.S. president has actually been consistently reckless towards Moscow, with zero resistance from either party. ..."
"... It would be understandable if you were unaware that Trump has been escalating tensions with Moscow more than any other president since the fall of the Berlin Wall; it's a fact that neither of America's two mainstream political factions care about, so it tends to get lost in the shuffle. Trump's opposition is interested in painting him as a sycophantic Kremlin crony, and his supporters are interested in painting him as an antiwar hero of the people, but he is neither ..."
"... Anyone who has not read Orwell's 1984 should do so sooner rather than later. The official control of narrative in the novel is what we are presently drowning in. To watch it work so spectacularly is beyond depressing. ..."
"... The complete corruption of Western MSM is the reason many of us regularly read Caitlin and Consortium, all desperately trying to get some sort of a reality-check in an otherwise "Orwellian" media environment. ..."
"... The simple truth here is that in regard to the military (read 'military complex', which includes the deep state and shadow government [intelligence agencies] every president is a puppet. ..."
"... The coup in Ukraine was a major provocation to Russia, but was also a repeat of the Americans' rape and pillaging of Russia under Yeltsin, Clinton's puppet. The per capita median income of Ukrainians has dropped in half from 2013, despite pumping $billions in from the US. ..."
"... Failing impeachment, from the attempts by the Clinton Campaign, to the Congressional sanctions on Russia, to sabotage of Syria withdrawal to the Mueller hoax, to the State Dept hawks protests on Ukraine, the effort to prevent Trump from following through on his campaign promise has been the primary goal of the intelligence community. It is instructive to note that the phone call that has led to the current impeachment inquiry was made on July 26, the day following Robert Mueller's clownish testimony before Congress, effectively ending that line of impeachment. ..."
"... Also note that although the phone call was made in July, nothing was said about it until after John Bolton was fired in September, 2 months later. ..."
Caitlin Johnstone discredits a CNN listicle on Trump's "softness" towards Moscow. In fact,
she writes, the U.S. president has actually been consistently reckless towards Moscow, with
zero resistance from either party.
CNN has published a fascinatingly manipulative and falsehood-laden article titled "
25 times Trump
was soft on Russia ," in which a lot of strained effort is poured into building the case
that the U.S. president is suspiciously loyal to the nation against which he has spent his
administration escalating dangerous new cold war aggressions.
The items within the CNN article consist mostly of times in which Trump said some words or
failed to say other words; "Trump has repeatedly praised Putin," "Trump refused to say Putin is
a killer," "Trump denied that Russia interfered in 2016," "Trump made light of Russian
hacking," etc. It also includes the
completely false but oft-repeated narrative
that "Trump's team softened the GOP platform on Ukraine", as well as the utterly ridiculous and thoroughly
invalidated claim that "Since intervening in Syria in 2015, the Russian military has
focused its airstrikes on anti-government rebels, not ISIS."
CNN's 25 items are made up almost entirely of narrative and words; Trump said a nice thing
about Putin, Trump said offending things to NATO allies, Trump thought about visiting Putin in
Russia, etc. In contrast, the 25 items which I am about to list do not consist of narrative at
all, but rather the actual movement of actual concrete objects which can easily lead to an
altercation from which there may be no re-emerging. These items show that when you ignore the
words and narrative spin and look at what this administration has actually been doing ,
it's clear to anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty that, far from being "soft" on
Russia, Trump has actually been consistently reckless in the one area where a US president must
absolutely always maintain a steady hand. And he's been doing so with zero resistance from
either party.
It would be understandable if you were unaware that Trump has been escalating tensions with
Moscow more than any other president since the fall of the Berlin Wall; it's a fact that
neither of America's two mainstream political factions care about, so it tends to get lost in
the shuffle. Trump's opposition is interested in painting him as a sycophantic Kremlin crony,
and his supporters are interested in painting him as an antiwar hero of the people, but he is
neither. Observe:
1. Implementing a Nuclear Posture Review with a more aggressive stance
toward Russia
Last year Trump's Department of Defense rolled out a Nuclear Posture Review which
CNN itself called "its toughest line yet against Russia's resurgent nuclear forces."
"In its newly released Nuclear Posture Review, the Defense Department has focused much of
its multibillion nuclear effort on an updated nuclear deterrence focused on Russia," CNN
reported last year.
This revision of nuclear policy includes the new implementation of
"low-yield" nuclear weapons , which, because they are designed to be more "usable" than
conventional nuclear ordinances,
have been called "the most dangerous weapon ever" by critics of this insane policy. These
weapons, which can remove some of the inhibitions that mutually assured destruction would
normally give military commanders, have already been rolled off the assembly line.
2.
Arming Ukraine
Lost in the gibberish about Trump temporarily withholding military aide to supposedly
pressure a Ukrainian government who was never even aware of being
pressured is the fact that arming Ukraine against Russia is an entirely new policy that was
introduced by
the Trump administration in the first place. Even the Obama administration, which was
plenty hawkish toward Russia in its own right, refused to implement this extremely provocative escalation
against Moscow. It was not until Obama was replaced with the worst Putin puppet of all time
that this policy was put in place.
3. Bombing Syria
Another escalation Trump took against Russia which Obama wasn't hawkish enough to also do
was bombing the Syrian government, a longtime ally of Moscow. These airstrikes in April 2017 and
April 2018 were perpetrated in retaliation for chemical weapons use allegations that there
is
no legitimate reason to trust at this point.
4. Staging coup attempts in
Venezuela
Venezuela, another Russian ally, has been the subject of relentless coup attempts
from the Trump administration which persist unsuccessfully to this very day .
Trump's attempts to topple the Venezuelan government have been so violent and aggressive that
the starvation sanctions which he has implemented are believed to have
killed tens of thousands of Venezuelan civilians .
"Signals coming from certain capitals indicating the possibility of external military
interference look particularly disquieting," the Russian Foreign Ministry said. "We warn
against such reckless actions, which threaten catastrophic consequences."
5. Withdrawing
from the INF treaty
For a president who's "soft" on Russia, Trump has sure been eager to keep postures between
the two nations extremely aggressive in nature. This administration has withdrawn from the 1987
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, prompting UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres to
declare that
"the world lost an invaluable brake on nuclear war." It appears entirely possible that Trump
will continue to adhere to the John Bolton school of nuclear weapons treaties until they all
lie in tatters, with the administration strongly criticizing the crucial New START
Treaty which expires in early 2021.
Some particularly demented Russiagaters try to argue that Trump withdrawing from these
treaties benefits Russia in some way. These people either (A) believe that treaties only go one
way, (B) believe that a nation with an economy the size of South
Korea can compete with the U.S. in an arms race, (C) believe that Russians are immune to
nuclear radiation, or (D) all of the above. Withdrawing from these treaties benefits no one but
the military-industrial complex.
6. Ending the Open Skies Treaty
"The Trump administration has taken steps toward leaving a nearly three-decade-old agreement
designed to reduce the risk of war between Russia and the West by allowing both sides to
conduct reconnaissance flights over one another's territories," The Wall Street Journalreported last month , adding that the
administration has alleged that "Russia has interfered with American monitoring flights while
using its missions to gather intelligence in the US."
Again, if you subscribe to the bizarre belief that withdrawing from this treaty benefits
Russia, please think harder. Or ask the Russians themselves how they feel about it:
"US plans to withdraw from the Open Skies Treaty lower the threshold for the use of nuclear
weapons and multiply the risks for the whole world, Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai
Patrushev said," Sputnik
reports .
"All this negatively affects the predictability of the military-strategic situation and
lowers the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons, which drastically increases the risks for
the whole humanity," Patrushev said.
"In general, it is becoming apparent that Washington intends to use its technological
leadership in order to maintain strategic dominance in the information space by actually
pursuing a policy of imposing its conditions on states that are lagging behind in digital
development," he added.
7. Selling Patriot missiles to Poland
"Poland signed the largest arms procurement deal in its history on Wednesday, agreeing with
the United States to buy Raytheon Co's Patriot missile defense system for $4.75 billion in a
major step to modernize its forces against a bolder Russia," Reuters
reported last year .
8. Occupying Syrian oil fields
The Trump administration has been open about
the fact that it is not only maintaining a military presence in Syria to control the
nation's oil, but that it is doing so in order to deprive the
nation's government of that financial resource. Syria's ally Russia strongly opposes this,
accusing the Trump administration of nothing short of "international state banditry".
"In a statement, Russia's defense ministry said Washington had no mandate under
international or US law to increase its military presence in Syria and said its plan was not
motivated by genuine security concerns in the region," Reutersreported last
month.
"Therefore Washington's current actions – capturing and maintaining military control
over oil fields in eastern Syria – is, simply put, international state banditry,"
Russia's defense ministry said.
9. Killing Russians in Syria
Reports have placed Russian casualties anywhere between a handful and
hundreds , but whatever the exact number the U.S. military is known to have killed Russian
citizens as part of the Trump administration's ongoing Syria occupation in an altercation last
year.
exact number the U.S. military is known to have killed Russian citizens as part of the Trump
administration's ongoing Syria occupation in an altercation last year.
10. Tanks in
Estonia
Within weeks of taking office,
Trump was already sending Abrams battle tanks, Bradley infantry fighting vehicles and other
military hardware right up to Russia's border as part of a NATO operation.
"Atlantic Resolve is a demonstration of continued US commitment to collective security
through a series of actions designed to reassure NATO allies and partners of America's
dedication to enduring peace and stability in the region in light of the Russian intervention
in Ukraine," the Defense Department said in a statement.
11. War ships in the Black
Sea
12. Sanctions
Trump approved new sanctions against Russia on August 2017. CNN reports the following:
"US President Donald Trump approved fresh sanctions on Russia Wednesday after Congress
showed overwhelming bipartisan support for the new measures," CNN reported at
the time . "Congress passed the bill last week in response to Russia's interference in the
2016 US election, as well as its human rights violations, annexation of Crimea and military
operations in eastern Ukraine. The bill's passage drew ire from Moscow -- which responded by
stripping 755 staff members and two properties from US missions in the country -- all but
crushing any hope for the reset in US-Russian relations that Trump and Russian President
Vladimir Putin had called for."
"A full-fledged trade war has been declared on Russia," said Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev in
response.
13. More sanctions
"The United States imposed sanctions on five Russian individuals on Wednesday, including the
leader of the Republic of Chechnya, for alleged human rights abuses and involvement in criminal
conspiracies, a sign that the Trump administration is ratcheting up pressure on Russia," The
New York Timesreported in December
2017 .
14. Still more sanctions
"Trump just hit Russian oligarchs with the most aggressive sanctions yet," reads
a Vice headline from April of last year.
"The sanctions target seven oligarchs and 12 companies under their ownership or control, 17
senior Russian government officials, and a state-owned Russian weapons trading company and its
subsidiary, a Russian bank," Vice reports. "While the move is aimed, in part, at Russia's role
in the U.S. 2016 election, senior U.S. government officials also stressed that the new measures
seek to penalize Russia's recent bout of international troublemaking more broadly, including
its support for Syrian President Bashar Assad and military activity in eastern
Ukraine."
"The Trump administration on Thursday imposed new sanctions on a dozen individuals and
entities in response to Russia's annexation of Crimea," The Hill
reported in November of last year. "The group includes a company linked to Bank Rossiya and
Russian businessman Yuri Kovalchuk and others accused of operating in Crimea, which the U.S.
says Russia seized illegally in 2014."
17. Oh hey, more sanctions
"Today, the United States continues to take action in response to Russian attempts to
influence US democratic processes by imposing sanctions on four entities and seven individuals
associated with the Internet Research Agency and its financier, Yevgeniy Prigozhin. This action
increases pressure on Prigozhin by targeting his luxury assets, including three aircraft and a
vessel," reads
a statement by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo from September of this year.
18.
Secondary sanctions
Secondary
sanctions are economic sanctions in which a third party is punished for breaching the
primary sanctions of the sanctioning body. The U.S. has leveled sanctions against both
China and
Turkey for
purchasing Russian S-400 air defense missiles, and it is
threatening to do so to India as well.
19. Forcing Russian media to register as
foreign agents
Both RT and
Sputnik have been forced to register as "foreign agents" by the Trump administration. This
classification forced the outlets to post a disclaimer on content, to report their activities
and funding sources to the Department of Justice twice a year, and could arguably place an unrealistic
burden on all their social media activities as it submits to DOJ micromanagement.
20.
Throwing out Russian diplomats
The Trump administration joined some 20 other nations in casting out scores of
Russian diplomats as an immediate response to the Skripal poisoning incident in the
U.K.
21. Training Polish and Latvian fighters "to resist Russian aggression"
"US Army Special Forces soldiers completed the first irregular and unconventional warfare
training iteration for members of the Polish Territorial Defense Forces and Latvian
Zemmessardze as a part of the Ridge Runner program in West Virginia, according to service
officials," Army Times
reported this past July.
"U.S. special operations forces have been training more with allies from the Baltic states
and other Eastern European nations in the wake of the annexation of Crimea by the Russian
Federation in 2014," Army Times writes. "A low-level conflict continues to simmer in
eastern Ukraine's Donbas region between Russian-backed separatists and government forces to
this day. The conflict spurred the Baltics into action, as Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia
embraced the concepts of total defense and unconventional warfare, combining active-duty,
national guard and reserve-styled forces to each take on different missions to resist Russian
aggression and even occupation."
22. Refusal to recognize Crimea as part of the Russian
Federation
Key point: Trump agreed to send more forces to Poland to defend it against Russia.
What Happened: U.S. President Donald Trump agreed to deploy approximately 1,000 additional
U.S. troops to Poland during a meeting with Polish President Andrzej Duda on the sidelines of
the U.N. General Assembly in New York City, Reuters reported Sept. 23.
Why It Matters: The deal, which formalizes the United States' commitment to protecting
Poland from Russia, provides a diplomatic victory to Duda and his governing Law and Justice
ahead of November elections. The additional U.S. troops will likely prompt a reactive
military buildup from Moscow in places like neighboring Kaliningrad and, potentially,
Belarus.
24. Withdrawing from the Iran deal
Russia has been consistently opposed to Trump's destruction of the JCPOA. In a statement
after Trump killed the deal, the Russian Foreign Ministry said
it was "deeply disappointed by the decision of US President Donald Trump to unilaterally refuse
to carry out commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action", adding that this
administration's actions were "trampling on the norms of international law".
25.
Attacking Russian gas interests
Trump has been threatening Germany with sanctions and troop withdrawal if it continues to
support a gas pipeline from Russia called Nord Stream 2.
"Echoing previous threats about German support for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, Trump said
he's looking at sanctions to block the project he's warned would leave Berlin 'captive' to
Moscow," Bloomberg
reports . "The US also hopes to export its own liquefied natural gas to Germany."
"We're protecting Germany from Russia, and Russia is getting billions and billions of
dollars in money from Germany" for its gas, Trump told the press.
I could have kept going, but that's my 25. The only reason anyone still believes Trump is
anything other than insanely hawkish toward Russia is because it doesn't benefit anyone's
partisanship or profit margins to call it like it really is. The facts are right here as plain
as can be, but there's a difference between facts and narrative. If they wanted to, the
political/media class could very easily use the facts I just laid out to weave the narrative
that this president is imperiling us all with dangerous new cold war provocations, but that's
how different narrative is from fact; there's almost no connection. Instead they use a light
sprinkling of fact to weave a narrative that has very little to do with reality. And meanwhile
the insane escalations continue.
In a cold war, it only takes one miscommunication or one defective piece of equipment to set
off a chain of events that can obliterate all life on earth. The more things escalate, the
greater the probability of that happening. We're rolling the dice on Armageddon every single
day, and with every escalation the number we need to beat gets a bit harder.
We should not be rolling the dice on this. This is very, very wrong, and the U.S. and Russia
should stop and establish detente immediately. The fact that outlets like CNN would rather
diddle made-up Russiagate narratives than point to this obvious fact with truthful reporting is
in and of itself sufficient to discredit them all forever.
Our historians here seem to be forgetting the brutal takeover of Ukraine by the USSR in
the 50's, in which millions of Ukrainians were shot, raped, beaten and starved out, while
"ethnic Russians" moved in and took over. Kruschev didn't "give" Crimea away, he simply
transferred the administration thereof to the Soviet Republic of "the" Ukraine (a term
Ukranians have always decried as a way to make it seem as if Ukraine had always been a part
of the USSR). The "ethnic Russians" wouldn't have been there at all if the Soviets hadn't put
them there. That argument is the same one Hitler used as his excuse to annex Poland, and Polk
used to annex Texas. It's true Russia's self-interest (and well-founded fears of foreign
betrayal) have been largely ignored, but it's also disingenuous to ignore their murderous
20th-century imperialism. Just because we're not the good guys doesn't mean they are
either.
anon4d2 , November 20, 2019 at 18:12
Perhaps you forgot that the USSR actions in eastern Europe after WWII were in direct
response to the murder of 20 million Russians in WWII by the Nazi forces, attacking through E
Europe just as Napoleon had done. All US casualties in all its wars are less than five
percent of that, and 95 percent of Nazi division-months were spent in the USSR. On that front
they had nearly all of the casualties and did nearly all of the fighting. No wonder they were
a bit uncomfortable afterward with leaving open the favorite attack route of the west. What
would the US have done if a hundred times its WWII casualties were caused by two invasions
through (for example) Mexico? Would we have left the door open? Such circumstances cannot be
ignored. Starting one's version of history after the world's greatest provocation cannot be
said to clarify the history.
Toby McCrossin , November 21, 2019 at 02:56
"Our historians here seem to be forgetting the brutal takeover of Ukraine by the USSR in
the 50's"
Nice alternative facts. Ukraine was one of the original constituent republics of the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1922!
" Kruschev didn't "give" Crimea away"
Huh? Crimea had been part of Russia since 1783. You know you can check this stuff yourself
using Google, right?
"The "ethnic Russians" wouldn't have been there at all if the Soviets hadn't put them
there."
Right, so the Soviets put the Russians in Crimea in 1783, 139 years before it was in
existence. I guess the Soviets mastered time travel.
I know reading's hard and all but you might wanna try it some time.
Jon Anderholm , November 20, 2019 at 02:22
An essential article by Caitlin .. Thanks so much .
Sam F , November 19, 2019 at 22:56
Another excellent article by Caitlin Johnstone.
Jeff G. , November 19, 2019 at 19:59
Given the laws of cause and effect, our nuclear missiles might as well be considered to be
pointed straight at ourselves. Like shooting at one's image in a mirror or joining in a
mutual suicide pact. Sheer insanity.
ranney , November 19, 2019 at 17:26
WONDERFUL article, Caitlin. You are so right! I agree with Alan Ross, you deserve an award
for this, and I hope this gets passed around for a wide readership.
Antonio Costa , November 19, 2019 at 15:14
When elected POTUS you are elected, no matter the campaign rhetoric, to take the reins of
the imperial empire.
Trump did that willingly, in fact to a fault given his "big mouth". He's no more nor less
dangerous than his predecessors. And like them, his is a mass of rhetorical contradictions.
Policy is all that should really matters. It is our only means of identifying some truth.
Trump knows what most here know regarding US invasions and assassinations. What he thinks
about any leader is anyone's guess (including his). For him it's all deal making as if it's
his private Trump Towers Enterprises. But in the end he's playing the chief gangsta role of
his like. (If you've ever listened to Sinatra at the Sands (the full concert), you'll hear
how Trump has mimicked the popular gangsta singer to the last "love ya baby ").
The media is not free. It is an arm of the national security state, with occasional
outages of truth telling, all the more to tell the big lies. It's purpose is to pacify and
repress any rebellions. Since the end of Vietnam it has succeeded. And here we are, never
knowing truth from lie. (I think of Obama as deceitful to the max, while Trump just tells
transparent lies so you don't know when he's actually telling a profound truth.)
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to
believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people
from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the
mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the
State."
-- Joseph Goebbels (was a German Nazi politician and Reich Minister of Propaganda of Nazi
Germany from 1933 to 1945)
Mark Thomason , November 19, 2019 at 14:22
We can go one step further than to say that Trump was reckless toward Russia, "with zero
resistance from either party."
Both parties demanded it. They approved it as "Presidential" whenever he did it, and
attacked him for any effort to be less reckless. They'd done the same to Obama, but Trump
proved weaker and more malleable.
Jeff Harrison , November 19, 2019 at 14:14
Verra nice peroration. I have two objections. One, I doubt that the people of the Donbass
are Russian backed in the same sense that the "moderate" rebel scum in Syria is US backed
with weapons, intelligence, and training but the people of the Donbass are ethnic Russians.
With a steady stream of anti-Russian legislation coming out of Kiev, I imagine they're
looking for an out. Putin is trying to get it for them without starting a war with Ukraine.
The real question that Washington has yet to address is what are they going to do if the
people of Ukraine notice that since they signed on to the neo-liberal dictates of Washington
and Brussels they've become the poorest nation in Europe. I know that there are a number of
Ukrainians who think wistfully of the days when they were part of Mother Russia. But you
never know, the CIA is notorious for its subversion and the Ukrainians might prove to be
spectacularly stupid. After all, they weren't doing badly until they let the US and EU foment
a coup for them.
And, two, "We should not be rolling the dice on this. This is very, very wrong, and the
U.S. and Russia should stop and establish detente immediately." While I agree with the
sentiment, don't bring Russia into this. Everything that Russia has done has been a reaction
to what is usually an American violation of international law. Putin has been very clear that
he wants to back off this cold war but he has also been very clear that we started it and
we're going to have to be the ones to start backing off.
David Hamilton , November 20, 2019 at 02:11
I absolutely agree with your number two reaction to Caitlin's suggestion that Russia and
the U.S. should stop it and establish detente immediately. Everything Russia's leadership is
doing is a reaction to American imperial dares to defy their law violations. They exhibit
extreme and principled restraint to the Orwellian madness emanating from this place.
I think it is important that this be understood. Russians have been used and abused once
before by American largesse in the form of Clinton's puppet's assistance in the rape of the
former Soviet Union by the Harvard-sponsored project. That was the one during the nineties
that privatized national industries and created a dozen neoliberal oligarchs. The cost was a
huge increase in death rate that lowered life expectancy into the 50's from 70 years I think.
Cynical foreign policy, isn't it?
Lois Gagnon , November 19, 2019 at 13:16
Anyone who has not read Orwell's 1984 should do so sooner rather than later. The official
control of narrative in the novel is what we are presently drowning in. To watch it work so
spectacularly is beyond depressing.
Many thanks to Caitlin Johnstone, Consortium News and all the others pushing back against
this system of perception management. I keep repeating it because it rings true. It's like
waking up in the Twilight Zone.
John Neal Spangler , November 19, 2019 at 12:44
She is right. CNN. MSNBC, NYT, and Wapo totally irresponsible. Fox not much better. So
many anti-Russian bigots in US
Jimmy gates , November 19, 2019 at 12:37
Thank you Caitlin. The neoliberals and neocons both desperately want a greatly intensified
cold war with Russia, but want it started by Trump ( because he is personally an
outsider).
This gives the Democrat and Republican donors contracts for the war machine. Ever since
Clinton administration moved NATO to the Russian border, the process has worked for the
oligarchs who control all US policies, foreign and domestic.
The complete corruption of Western MSM is the reason many of us regularly read Caitlin and
Consortium, all desperately trying to get some sort of a reality-check in an otherwise
"Orwellian" media environment.
For anyone who has been waiting for the publication of reporter Udo Ulfkotte's best
selling book (in Germany), a book based on his experience as a well respected journalist
whose reporting was completely compromised by Western intelligence services and business
interests, it is finally available in an English language edition. The English language
edition has been quite obviously suppressed for the last several years and the book was
published in 9 languages BEFORE this English edition became available. It is a book that is
well worth reading to better understand why literally NOTHING written by MSM should be
believed at face value, ever:
See:
I would urge anyone interested in buying this book to get it directly from the publisher-
Progressive Press. Amazon and other mega monopolies are a big part of our problems. Take the
time to make a few extra clicks and boycott Jeff Bezos.
Noah Way , November 19, 2019 at 10:58
The simple truth here is that in regard to the military (read 'military complex', which
includes the deep state and shadow government [intelligence agencies] every president is a
puppet. Nobel Peace Prize winner oBOMBa bombed 7 countries, overthrew Ukraine's democratic
government, invaded Syria, armed terrorists as proxy armies, authorized drone assassinations,
and bombed a Nobel Peace Prize winner.
The last president to resist the military complex? JFK
Caitlin Johnstone's list points to growing tensions with Russia. Failure of the political
and media establishment to see this makes the task of avoiding world war three all the more
difficult. In the West the end of the Cold War was seen as the dawn of peace. But the Cold
War was the peace, a post-world war environment: we are now in a pre-world war
environment.
Jimmy gates , November 19, 2019 at 12:45
The Democratic Party members have not " missed" anything that Trump has done. They will
not impeach him on those grounds, because they too are guilty of complicity in those war
crimes.
As Pelosi said regarding impeaching GWB for the torture program or invasion of Iraq and
Afghanistan " it's off the table". Because she was complicit.
Lois Gagnon , November 19, 2019 at 13:23
Russia did not illegally annex Crimea. A referendum was held and 90% of the voters voted
to rejoin Russia. Most people in Crimea are ethnic Russians and speak Russian. They were
understandably scared to death of what their fate would be under the rule of the fascists the
US installed in Ukraine.
And frankly, Russia had every right to protect its only warm water port in Sevastopol that
would have been taken over by NATO if Crimea had remained part of Ukraine. Too many Americans
have been indoctrinated in the belief that Russia has no legitimate self interest to
defend.
michael , November 19, 2019 at 18:22
In addition to what Lois Gagnon points out, you have to realize that the re-patriation of
Crimea to Russia in March 2014 was the direct result of Obama, Biden, Nuland et al
overthrowing the democratically elected President of Ukraine, Yanukovych, in the Maidan coup
in February, 2014, and replacing him with a neoNAZI regime. Russian speech was outlawed,
which has been the language of the majority of Crimea since Catherine the Great.
The coup in Ukraine was a major provocation to Russia, but was also a repeat of the
Americans' rape and pillaging of Russia under Yeltsin, Clinton's puppet. The per capita
median income of Ukrainians has dropped in half from 2013, despite pumping $billions in from
the US.
Jeff G. , November 19, 2019 at 20:25
Crimeans have an absolute right of self-determination as a fundamental human right under
established international law, just as the Kosovars did when we were supporting the breakup
of Serbia when Clinton was president. Ethnic Russians voted in an overwhelming majority in a
free and fair plebiscite to rejoin Russia, which they had been part of for centuries, because
the neo-Nazi US coup government allied with Azov battalions in Kyiv terrified them and they
wanted nothing further to do with them. Crimea had every right to decide. Russia did nothing
to interfere, not a bullet was fired. Russia's troops were already stationed in Crimea by
treaty and did not invade. Russia warned NATO against the Kosovo precedent that it would come
back to bite them someday, and it was ignored. NATO is unhappy because it was denied an
illegitimate geostrategic advantage they thought they would gain. Crimea is happy, so what's
the problem?
DH Fabian , November 19, 2019 at 21:08
"We," who? Regardless, the issues you raise can't be understood outside of their
historical context, and Americans never try to understand the world within that historical
context.
anon , November 19, 2019 at 22:54
Crimea was part of Russia for roughly 200 years before the USSR premier (Kruschev?) gave
it to Ukraine, although its inhabitants were nearly all of Russian heritage and language,
like E Ukraine. So not surprising that they wanted to go back to being part of Russia.
dean 1000 , November 20, 2019 at 19:26
Couldn't agree more Lois Gagnon. Washington did an illegal coup. Russia did a legal
annexation.
btw – The Autonomous Republic of Sevastopol on SW Crimea is no longer the only
ice-free port of the Russian Navy. Kaliningrad (on the Baltic sea) has been part of Russia
since 1945. Its deep ice-free harbor is the home port of Russia's Baltic fleet according to
the 2012 world book DVD.
Good one Caitlin. Again
jdd , November 19, 2019 at 09:51
This article properly puts to rest the absurd notion that President Trump is a "tool of
Putin, " and correctly notes that it has created a potentially disastrous situation.
However,
let's put the blame squarely where it belongs: on the Anglo/American led forces arrayed
against Trump from the moment he announced his intention to run on a platform of "getting
along" with Russia and joining with Putin to defeat ISIS.
Failing impeachment, from the
attempts by the Clinton Campaign, to the Congressional sanctions on Russia, to sabotage of
Syria withdrawal to the Mueller hoax, to the State Dept hawks protests on Ukraine, the effort
to prevent Trump from following through on his campaign promise has been the primary goal of
the intelligence community. It is instructive to note that the phone call that has led to the
current impeachment inquiry was made on July 26, the day following Robert Mueller's clownish
testimony before Congress, effectively ending that line of impeachment.
Nick , November 19, 2019 at 16:50
Also note that although the phone call was made in July, nothing was said about it until
after John Bolton was fired in September, 2 months later.
Alan Ross , November 19, 2019 at 09:47
This article alone deserves an award for public service. And in a more sensibly run world
Caitlin Johnstone would have gotten at least fifty such awards for past articles.
"... "In direct contravention of U.S. interests" says the NBC and quotes a member of the permanent state who declares "it is clearly in our national interest" to give weapons to Ukraine. ..."
"... But is that really in the national U.S. interest? Who defined it as such? ..."
"... And that's where the policy community and I part company. It is the president, not the bureaucracy, who was elected by the American people. That puts him -- not the National Security Council, the State Department, the intelligence community, the military, and their assorted subject-matter experts -- in charge of making policy. If we're to remain a constitutional republic, that's how it has to stay. ..."
"... The constitution does not empower the "U.S. government policy community", nor "the administration", nor the "consensus view of the interagency" and certainly not one Lt.Col. Vindman to define the strategic interests of the United States and its foreign policy. It is the duly elected president who does that. ..."
"... Mr. Kolomoisky, widely seen as Ukraine's most powerful figure outside government, given his role as the patron of the recently elected President Volodymyr Zelensky, has experienced a remarkable change of heart: It is time, he said, for Ukraine to give up on the West and turn back toward Russia. ..."
"... "They're stronger anyway. We have to improve our relations," he said, comparing Russia's power to that of Ukraine. "People want peace, a good life, they don't want to be at war. And you" -- America -- "are forcing us to be at war , and not even giving us the money for it." ..."
"... Mr. Kolomoisky [..] told The Times in a profanity-laced discussion, the West has failed Ukraine, not providing enough money or sufficiently opening its markets. ..."
"... Instead, he said, the United States is simply using Ukraine to try to weaken its geopolitical rival. "War against Russia," he said, "to the last Ukrainian." Rebuilding ties with Russia has become necessary for Ukraine's economic survival, Mr. Kolomoisky argued. He predicted that the trauma of war will pass. ..."
"... Kolomoisky's interview is obviously a trial balloon for the policies Zelensky wants to pursue. He has, like Trump, campaigned on working for better relations with Russia. He received nearly 73% of all votes. ..."
"... Ambassador Taylor and the other participants of yesterday's clown show would certainly "mess it up and get in the way" if Zelensky openly pursues the policy he promised to his voters. They are joined in this with the west-Ukrainian fascists they have used to arrange the Maidan coup: ..."
"... Only some 20% of the Ukrainians are in favour of continuing the war against the eastern separatists who Russia supports. During the presidential election Poroshenko received just 25% of the votes. His party European Solidarity won 8.1% of the parliamentary election. Voice won 5.8%. ..."
"... on Yovanovitch, She added: "If our chief representative is kneecapped, it limits our effectiveness to safeguard the vital national security interests of the United States." ..."
"... She wasn't fired, she was kneecapped, and Ukraine is a US vital national security interest, especially after it installed a new government with neo-fascism support.. . .Kneecapping is a form of malicious wounding, often as torture, in which the victim is injured in the knee ..."
NBC News
is not impressed by the first day of the Democrats' impeachment circus. But it fails to
note what the conflict is really about:
It was substantive, but it wasn't dramatic.
In the reserved manner of veteran diplomats with Harvard degrees, Bill Taylor and George
Kent opened the public phase of the House impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump on
Wednesday by bearing witness to a scheme they described as not only wildly unorthodox but
also in direct contravention of U.S. interests.
"It is clearly in our national interest to deter further Russian aggression," Taylor, the
acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine and a decorated Vietnam War veteran, said in explaining why
Trump's decision to withhold congressionally appropriated aid to the most immediate target of
Russian expansionism didn't align with U.S. policy.
But at a time when Democrats are simultaneously eager to influence public opinion in favor
of ousting the president and quietly apprehensive that their hearings could stall or
backfire, the first round felt more like the dress rehearsal for a serious one-act play than
the opening night of a hit Broadway musical.
"In direct contravention of U.S. interests" says the NBC and quotes a member of the
permanent state who declares "it is clearly in our national interest" to give weapons to
Ukraine.
But is that really in the national U.S. interest? Who defined it as such?
President Obama was against giving weapons to Ukraine and never transferred any to Ukraine
despite pressure from certain circles. Was Obama's decision against U.S. national interest?
Where are the Democrats or deep state members accusing him of that?
Which brings us to the really critical point of the whole issue. Who defines what is in the
"national interest" with regards to foreign policy? Here is a point where for once I agree with
the right-wingers at the National Review where Andrew McCarthy writes :
[O]n the critical matter of America's interests in the Russia/Ukraine dynamic, I think the
policy community is right, and President Trump is wrong. If I were president, while I would
resist gratuitous provocations, I would not publicly associate myself with the delusion that
stable friendship is possible (or, frankly, desirable) with Putin's anti-American
dictatorship, which runs its country like a Mafia family and is acting on its revanchist
ambitions.
But you see, much like the policy community, I am not president. Donald Trump is.
And that's where the policy community and I part company. It is the president, not the
bureaucracy, who was elected by the American people. That puts him -- not the National
Security Council, the State Department, the intelligence community, the military, and their
assorted subject-matter experts -- in charge of making policy. If we're to remain a
constitutional republic, that's how it has to stay.
The U.S.
constitution "empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly
negotiate agreements between the United States and other countries."
The constitution does not empower the "U.S. government policy community", nor "the
administration", nor the "consensus view of the interagency" and certainly not one Lt.Col.
Vindman to define the strategic interests of the United States and its foreign policy. It is
the duly elected president who does that.
The president does not like how the 'American policy' on Russia was built. He rightly
believes that he was elected to change it. He had stated his opinion on Russia during his
campaign and won the election. It is not 'malign influence' that makes him try to have good
relations with Russia. It is his own conviction and legitimized by the voters.
...
[I]t is the president who sets the policies. The drones around him who serve "at his
pleasure" are there to implement them.
There is another point that has to be made about the NBC's assertions. It is not in
the interest of Ukraine to be a proxy for U.S. deep state antagonism towards Russia. Robber
baron Igor Kolomoisky, who after the Maidan coup
had financed the west-Ukrainian fascists who fought against east-Ukraine, says so directly in
his
recent NYT interview :
Mr. Kolomoisky, widely seen as Ukraine's most powerful figure outside government, given his
role as the patron of the recently elected President Volodymyr Zelensky, has experienced a
remarkable change of heart: It is time, he said, for Ukraine to give up on the West and turn
back toward Russia.
"They're stronger anyway. We have to improve our relations," he said, comparing Russia's
power to that of Ukraine. "People want peace, a good life, they don't want to be at war. And
you" -- America -- "are forcing us to be at war , and not even giving us the money for
it."
... Mr. Kolomoisky [..] told The Times in a profanity-laced discussion, the West has failed
Ukraine, not providing enough money or sufficiently opening its markets.
Instead, he said, the United States is simply using Ukraine to try to weaken its
geopolitical rival. "War against Russia," he said, "to the last Ukrainian." Rebuilding ties
with Russia has become necessary for Ukraine's economic survival, Mr. Kolomoisky argued. He
predicted that the trauma of war will pass.
...
Mr. Kolomoisky said he was feverishly working out how to end the war, but he refused to
divulge details because the Americans "will mess it up and get in the way."
Kolomoisky's interview is obviously a trial balloon for the policies Zelensky wants to
pursue. He has, like Trump, campaigned on working for better relations with Russia. He received
nearly 73% of all votes.
Ambassador Taylor and the other participants of yesterday's clown show would certainly "mess
it up and get in the way" if Zelensky openly pursues the policy he promised to his voters. They
are joined in this
with the west-Ukrainian fascists they have used to arrange the Maidan coup:
Zelenskiy's decision in early October to accept talks with Russia on the future of eastern
Ukraine resulted in an outcry from a relatively small but very vocal minority of Ukrainians
opposed to any deal-making with Russia. The protests were relatively short-lived, but
prospects for a negotiated end to the war in the eastern Donbas region became more remote in
light of this domestic opposition.
...
The supporters for war with Russia are ex-president Poroshenko and two parliamentary
factions, European Solidarity and Voice, whose supporters are predominantly located in
western Ukraine. Crucially, however, they can also rely on right-wing paramilitary groups
composed of veterans from the hottest phase of the war in Donbas in 2014-5.
Only some 20% of the Ukrainians are in favour of continuing the war against the eastern
separatists who Russia supports. During the presidential election Poroshenko received just 25%
of the votes. His party European Solidarity won 8.1% of the parliamentary election. Voice won
5.8%.
By pursuing further conflict with Russia the deep state of the United States wants to ignore
the wishes not only of the U.S. voters but also those of the Ukrainian electorate. That
undemocratic mindset is another point that unites them with the Ukrainian fascists.
Zelensky should ignore the warmongers in the U.S. embassy in Kiev and sue for immediate
peace with Russia. (He should also investigate
Biden's undue influence .) Reengaging with Russia is also the easiest and most efficient
step the Ukraine can take to lift its desolate economy.
It is in the national interest of both, the Ukraine and the United States.
Posted by b on November 14, 2019 at 18:23 UTC |
Permalink
next page " agree with mccarthy about who conducts foreign policy, disagree about who
the aggressor is; it's the USA, trying to weaken Russia, which is the aggressor.
thanks b... typo - immediate piece with Russia - 'peace' is the spelling here...
the comments from Kolomoisky in the recent nyt interview are very telling.. aside from
being a first rate kleptomaniac who will willingly play both sides if he can profit from it,
he is also speaking a moment of truth..for him Ukraine is available to the highest bidder...
he could give a rats ass about Ukraine or the people... but still, it is refreshing that the
NYT published his comments in this regard..
the quote "the Americans "will mess it up and get in the way." is very true... it was true
before kolomisky picked a side too.. this guy is very shrewd.. i wonder if his own country is
able to see thru him?
national interest.... yes, trump gets to decide and he won on the idea of having closer
relations with russia, but the cia-msm has been lambasting him and anyone else associated
with him since before the election over the clinton e mails... they have painted a scenario
that it is all russias fault and have been relentless in this portrayal... hoping trump is
going to turn this around is like hoping someone is going to turn the titanic around from
hitting a giant iceberg... the usa is too far gone and will be hitting the iceberg.. they are
in fact...
From NYT about Kolomo???? (spelling in English is highly variable)
George D. Kent, a senior State Department official, said he had told Mr. Zelensky that his
willingness to break with Mr. Kolomoisky -- "somebody who had such a bad reputation" -- would
be a litmus test for his independence. [If is good to be independent, i.e. to do what we
want.]
And William Taylor, the acting ambassador in Kiev, said he had warned Mr. Zelensky: "He,
Mr. Kolomoisky, is increasing his influence in your government, which could cause you to
fail." [La Paz is a fresh reminder for Kiev?]
Well the thing about Zelensky is he's still there, and he is making changes in Donbass.
Kolomoisky was interested in the fracked gas in Donbass, the completion of NordStream II
has made a mess of that idea. It is good that he has seen the light, as it means Zelensky
will have support in his attempts to adapt to reality. But Kolomoisky is still a crook no
doubt.
My immediate reaction was that Kolomoisky realises he has to act - the Ukrainian oligarchs
have got too close to America. I agree with James that he is a extremely clever man.
Ukraine's traditional business is playing both ends against the middle and sending the
proceeds to Switzerland (or the Caribbean in Porosyonok's case). Since 1990 a few of these
robber barons have made a very good business winding up the west against Russia, it could go
on ever - why spoil it by lifting the rock and seeing all the insects scurrying around in the
light?
Another rock that has been lifted is in Washington, where the khokhol diaspora are
desperately trying to get Uncle Sam to right the wrongs of a century ago.
"Deep state" is misleading and actually a false construction.
There is an Imperial State (the ruling faction)which consists of imperial apparatchiks
placed in every key position in government.
There is one and only one Western Empire and its deep state spreads throughout Western
governments and society. They are the owners oif the world and they run the world they
own.
... @ b -- "Only some 20% of the Ukrainians favor to continue the war against the eastern
separatists who Russia supports."
The are not 'separatists', but rather Ukrainians who want to stay in a federated Ukraine
as 'provinces' with powers to pass their regional laws, similar to those in Canada.
The segment of empire in the US that are against Russia act so because it was Russia that
stymied them in Syria and continues to be in their way of expanding the control from that
part of empire...the US segment.
I still believe that the global private finance core segment of empire is behind Trump and
throwing America(ns) under the bus as the world turns more multilateral. The cult of global
private finance intends on still having some overarching super-national role in the new
multilateral world and holding debt guns to everyones heads to make it ongoing.
I don't believe that strategy will work but as long as they can be fronted by a MAD player
of some sort (Occupied Palestine comes to mind) they can be bully players in international
matters.
As the world economies grind to a "halt" there will be lots of pressure everywhere and
very little clarity about the key civilization war over public/private finance, IMO
For a military dictatorship, diplomacy is the continuation of war by other means. The US has
been at war with Russia since the right-wing coup at the Democratic convention of 1944. All
presidents have been servants of the military, which includes the police/intel/security
apparatus; the few who did not entirely accept their figurehead role were "dealt with."
Kennedy, Nixon, Carter and now Trump. The Washington permanent state bureaucrats are shocked
and understandably offended; they have after all, been running US foreign policy for 75
years!
Wow! The depth of delusion on display is as breathtaking as its complete projection of the
intentions and actions of the Evil Outlaw US Empire! Oh so many saying I'm displaying four
fingers instead of two. Too bad there isn't a padded cell big enough to contain all the
lunatics. I recall the pre- and post-coup discussions from 2014--that Russia was going to
make NATO own Ukraine until it was forced to concede it has no business being there; that
Russia would teach the would-be leaders of Ukraine a serious lesson in where their national
interests lay. NATO is ready to cede and the lesson's been learned.
IMO, two referendums must be held. The first within Russia: Will you accept portions of
Ukraine wanting to merge with Russia: Yes/No? Second to be given within Ukraine provided Yes
wins in #1: Do you wish to join Russia or remain in Ukraine? IMO, this is a very longstanding
unresolved issue of consequence for the people involved. The political leaders of Russia and
Ukraine might both be against such a vote, but IMO that merely kicks the can further down the
road and opens the door for more mischief making by the Evil Outlaw US Empire. Assuming a Yes
from Russia and some from Ukraine, a strategic threat to Russia and Europe would be
mitigated. Additional questions about those parts of Ukraine not wanting to join Russia could
be solved via additional referenda in the Ukraine and neighboring nations that might prove
willing to absorb the remnants and their people. Such action would of course negate the Minsk
Agreements.
Given the ideological passions of those living in Western and Northern Ukraine, I don't
see any hope for the continuation of the Ukrainian state as currently arranged, thus the
proposed referenda. However, if Russia says Nyet, then Minsk must be implemented.
"Democracy" is not about letting the people as a whole have a say in how the country is
governed. That would be fascist, and racist, and populist, and LITERALLY HITLER. Letting the
people decide on things like foreign policy, is literally anti-democratic.
No, "Democracy" is about privatizing power and socializing responsibility. The elites get
to set the policy, but the public at large gets to take responsibility when things go wrong.
Because you see, we are a "Democracy."
Breaking off long established economic and cultural ties with a large neighbouring country,
virtually overnight, is a rash act, and certain to create dislocation and hardship. The
craziness of the idea was only achievable through the traumatizing psy-op of the sniper
event, leading directly to the coup and the state of war. The EU and the US were clearly
malevolent in orchestrating the Association agreement with its ridiculous terms and the
corresponding Maidan pressures.
The fools in Hong Kong, after protester-sponsored screenings of the World On Fire
documentary, were actually quoted as presuming the Maidan protests had "won" and expressed
their hopes that they too could "win". Good luck to them.
Kolomoisky and Zelensky know what needs to be done, but they fear the blood that will flow
with Nazi-Banderist scum! Zelinski's balls are not that big, and has no options left after
compromising his position from day one. Who will make the first move, I fear not him? Russia
has time, and patience, which is sorely lacking in the west who feel they have to push the
envelope.
The Minsk II protocol was agreed to on 12 February 2015 by the leaders of Ukraine, Russia,
France, and Germany, It included provisions for a halt in the fighting, the withdrawal of
foreign forces, new constitution to allow special status for Donbass, and election in Donbass
for local self governance. Control of the present border of Ukraine would be restored to the
Ukraine government. Donbass would continue to be in Ukraine with some autonomy here (scroll down).
There are many such autonomous zones in the world, and in Europe, seen here .
The problem in Ukraine is that the neo-Nazi factions promoted by the US don't want to see a
resolution, and will fight it with US support.
Kolomoysky is obviously a master thief and general scumbag...but he is no fool...
I think the writing on the wall became obvious with the Nordstream 2 finalization, where,
it is noted, Denmark came in just under the wire in terms of not disrupting the
timetable...
Obviously the interests of German business have prevailed...and rightly so in this
case...
And what of the famous EU line about 'protecting' Ukraine as a gas transit
corridor...?
LOLOLOL...that is in the same category of nothingburger as the EU noises about 'alternate
payment' mechanisms for trade with Iran...
As soon as the Denmark story broke, Gazprom and Russian energy analysts talked openly
about the tiny volumes that Ukraine could expect to see transiting its territory...as part of
a new agreement to replace the one that has expired...
It works out to a small fraction of the several billion dollars in transit fees the
Ukraine was getting...
Also considering that the IMF appears to be finally shutting off the tap of loans to this
failed gangster state...and that the promises from the EU in 2013 were just so much fairy
tales...hard-nosed operators like Kolomoysky are recalculating...
The chaos and national ruin has really cost these gangster capitalists nothing [in fact
they have profited wildly]...so it is easy for them to reverse course and come begging back
to Russia...
Bryan MacDonald has a good piece about this today in RT...
So, here we are, almost six years since the first "EuroMaidan" protests in Kiev, and
Ukraine's most prominent oligarch has finally voiced the unmentionable: the project has
failed.
As for Kolomoysky...like Trump, there is something to like about dirtballs who speak their
minds openly...LOL
Quite a turnaround by Kolomoisky. Wasn't he once caught on a tapped phone call admitting
while chuckling about Ukrainian complicity in shooting down MH-17? i.e. NOT Donbas rebels and
NOT Russia.
@12 karlof1... a referendum... as if the usa would agree to that, lol.... look how they
processed the one in crimea...
@18 flankerbandit... last line is true, but it pales in relation to the ugliness these 2
exhibit 99% of the time, although the 1% when they don't it's refreshing! ukraine will
continue to be used as a tool by the west..
forget about any referendum.. that makes too much sense and won't be allowed..
Nordstream 2 will come online in less than 2 months and the Ukrainian gas exports at that
time will cease (I.e. no oil for the Oligarchs to steal), no matter what the US says they
can't replace the Russian oil exports in terms of money & support to Ukraine, so the
Oligarchs are now positioning themselves to abandon the US in order for the Russians to keep
even a tiny bit of oil flowing into their pockets
It's a tough balancing act, being a Ukrainian oligarch. For two decades they stole what they
could from the Ukraine (and from perverting the various sweetheart deals Russia was
providing). Once the industry and energy money was stripped, and Russia started closing the
spigots, they managed to get the West to pump in ungodly amounts of cash so long as they
would agree to talk mean about Russia, and didn't mind the US machine taking its cut of the
loot.
But now the Ukrainian thieves are beginning to realize that the Western thieves are going
to steal the very ground from under their feet, so there will be no more Ukraine to steal
from. That's not a very good business model. Plus they're no doubt seeing how the US treats
its partners in crime in Syria and elsewhere, and realize they could easily find themselves
the next meal for the US beast. Pretty easy to see why the smarter ones are getting
nervous.
they need to make peace with Russia or they will be left out in the cold, literally. They
seemed to have previously bought into some insane lie that they'd be a part of the EU and
NATO if theyd do Washington's bidding. The Deep state vastly underestimated Putin's resolve
when it became clear to the Russians that Washington may try and turn Crimea into a NATO port
one day. The game is over. Ukraine needs to find a way forward now for itself or it will be a
failed state in the near future. It's clear Merkel and Europe want no part of this headache
I don't think Russians want to 'own' any part of Ukraine...at least that is the nearly
unanimous opinion of my own contacts and colleagues in Russia...so I don't think any
referenda will be on the table...
What I do think is possible is what Yanukovich and Russia agreed to in terms of a trade
and economic deal...which was a lot more practical [not to mention generous] than the EU
'either or' nonsense...
Ukraine has run itself into the ground, literally...now they are selling vast tracts of
agricultural land to huge Euro agribusiness concerns...literally dispossessing themselves of
their own food security...
At the time of the Soviet dissolution, Ukraine had the highest living standards and some
of the world's prime industry and technology...including for instance the Yuzhnoye design
bureau [rocket engines and spacecraft] and many more such cutting edge aerospace
concerns...
For years these crucial enterprises were able to keep going due to the Russian
market...that all ended in 2014 [and in fact was tapering off even before due to the massive
corruption]...
Now the Chinese are looking to scoop up these gems at firesale prices...
It is really quite unbelievable that the nutcases in the Ukraine would be willing to cut
off their own arm just to bleed on Russia's shirt...
Why did the Ukraine never recover from the gangster capitalism like Russia did...because
no Putin ever came along to reign in the oligarchy...[It could be argued Putin hasn't done
nearly enough in this regard].
The Ukraine is actually a preview of what we can expect to see in our own future...as the
unleashed oligarchy similarly runs everything into the ground in order to extract maximal
wealth for a parasite elite...already we are nothing but a Ponzi Scheme on the verge of
toppling...
Kolomoisky is talking his book and helping USA to make the case that Nordstream is a NATO
security issue. To pretend that he's serious about a rapproachment with Russia just plays
into that effort.
And b ignores my comment on the prior thread that he references (about Trump being
Constitutionally charged with foreign policy). Repeating: the "Imperial Presidency" has flung
off Constitutional checks and balances by circumventing the need to get Congressional
approval for spending. Wars (like Syria) are now be funded by Gulf Monarchies, black ops, and
black budgets.
While for practical reasons the Executive Branch of USA government has the power to
negotiate treaties and manage foreign relations, Constitutionally he does so for the
sovereign (the American people) and his efforts are subject to review and approval of the
people's representatives via the power of the purse.
Ignoring how the "Imperial Presidency" has usurped power leads to faulty analysis that
supports that power grab.
Ukrainegate IS a farce, but for other reasons. Chief among them being the inherent fakery
of 'managed democracy' which manifests as kayfabe.
There is an Imperial State (the ruling faction)which consists of imperial apparatchiks
placed in every key position in government.
There is one and only one Western Empire and its deep state spreads throughout Western
governments and society. They are the owners of the world and they run the world they
own.
Nicely put:- that is the reality. Thanks b for your intrepid reports.
Paul Craig Roberts has a deeply aggrieved rant at zero hedge if barflies want a chuckle.
What a shitshow.
Crimea?
It has been part of Russia about as long as the USA has been a country.
9 out of 10 residents are of Russian origin, and Russian is the spoken language.
I guess it could be returned to the 10%-- but out of fairness, we must turn the USA over to
its original occupants.
If you live in the USA, get your ass ready to leave.
One of the problems that the anti-nazis face in Ukraine is that there are occupying armies in
the country. Armies which cannot be trusted to obey instructions which are not agreed upon by
NATO warmongers.
One such army is Canadian, commanded I believe by a descendant of the Ukrainian SS refugees
and reporting to the Foreign Minister in Ottawa, a Russophobe with a family background of
nazi collaboration.
The actual political situation is much more delicate than media reports suggest: what are
called elections feature, in the Washington approved fashion, the banning of socialist and
communist candidates. Bans which are enforced by a combination of fascist commanded police
forces and, even less responsible, private nazi militias. Opponents of the Maidan regime are
driven into exile, jailed or murdered.
Those who wonder as Jackrabbit, in a rare essay into rationality, does above, about the
nature of the US Constitution after decades of the erosion of checks and balances thanks to
the Imperial Presidency, will recognise that a dialectic is at work here. Washington's
support for fascism abroad has instituted fascism at home which has led in turn to the
installation of fascist regimes abroad, not just occasionally but routinely. Wherever the US
intervenes it leaves a fascist regime, in which socialists are banned and persecuted, behind
it.
And what this means is that, among other things, the ability of the population to effect
political change is cancelled: there is no way that the people of Ukraine can decide what
they want because the decisions have been taken for them, in weird cult like gatherings of SS
worshiping Bandera supporters in Toronto and Chicago. It is no accident that most of the
'Ukrainians' being wheeled out by the Democrats to testify against Trump are actually greedy
expatriates who have never really lived in Ukraine.
There was a moment, not long ago, when it looked as if the Minsk accords promised a path to
peace and reconciliation. Unfortunately the plain people of Ukraine, the poorest in Europe
though living in one of the richest countries, Washington, Ottawa and NATO didn't like the
sound of Minsk. Nor did the fascists in the Baltic states and Poland, for whom, for
centuries, Ukraine has been a cow to milk, its people slaves to be exploited and its rich
resources too tempting to ignore.
As Thomas Jefferson explained the President's role in foreign affairs in 1790, and the lack
of advisors' policy making decisions: ''as the President was the only channel of
communication between the United States and foreign nations, it was from him alone 'that
foreign nations or their agents are to learn what is or has been the will of the nation';
that whatever he communicated as such, they had a right and were bound to consider 'as the
expression of the nation'; and that no foreign agent could be 'allowed to question it,' or
'to interpose between him and any other branch of government, under the pretext of either's
transgressing their functions.' Mr. Jefferson therefore declined to enter into any discussion
of the question as to whether it belonged to the President under the Constitution to admit or
exclude foreign agents. 'I inform you of the fact,' he said, 'by authority from the
President.'
Might also be worth yesterdays hero's asking if dear Mr Kolomoisky, joint Uki/Israeli
national, took a part in authorising the shoot down of MH17 as a news cover for Operation
Protective Edge. Heave ho zionist USA ....et al.
1.The decisions to with hold and release aid have nothing to do with the President making
foreign policy but with his campaign. Saying it was about foreign policy is a damned lie.
2.Trump as president is supposed to lead foreign policy, which means actually setting a
policy. Military aid to Ukraine, yes, except no, except yes, personal handling without asking
anybody with experience how to achieve the national goal desired, national agenda kept secret
from the people who have to carry it out, abuse of officials, demands for dubiously legal
actions without rationale...Saying it was about the president's executive role is a damned
lie.
3.Trump has not made even a tweet that questions US support for fascists. That not even a
issue for Trump. Saying this is about support for fascism is a damned lie.
4.Kolomoyskiy is a bankroller of fascists. It is not impossible even a billionaire might get
frightened by the genie he's let out of the bottle, even if he's Jewish and rich enough to
run away. But actually undoing the fascist regime means taming the paramilitaries and this is
not even on the horizon. Given the rivalry between Poroshenko and Kolomoyskiy it's not even
certain it's a real change of heart or just soothing words for the non-fascist people. Nor is
it even clear the Zelensky will follow even the Steinmeier formula. If he does, good, but
until something actually happens? Saying it's about the antifascist turn is a damned lie.
The only thing that isn't a lie is that Trump was not committing treasons, "merely" a
campaign violation. But then, Clinton never did either. The crybabies who dished it out but
can't take it deserve zero respect, and zero time.
Curious to know how Kolomoisky is working "feverishly" to end the war in the Donbass region.
Wonder if he is planning to come clean on what he knows of the Malaysia Airlines MH17
shootdown and crash in an area not far from Slavyansk and near where his Privat Group's
subsidiary company Burisma Holdings holds a licence to drill for oil and natural gas. What
does he know about Kiev and Dnepropetrovsk air traffic control personnel's direction to MH17
to fly at 10,000 metres in the warzone and not an extra 1,000 metres above as the flight crew
had requested? He had been governor of Dnepropetrovsk region at the time.
Somewhere I read it alleged that the actual owner of Burisma was or is Kolomoiski.
Anything to this?
And via John Helmer (via Checkpointasia and dances with bears) comes the perspective that
it's not so much Kolomoiski floating trial balloons (though that may also be true) but that K
is being given space in the NYT to build his credentials as the new Borg villain, thereby
making it still harder for Zelensky to reconcile with Russia.
fb @ 25 said;"The Ukraine is actually a preview of what we can expect to see in our own
future...as the unleashed oligarchy similarly runs everything into the ground in order to
extract maximal wealth for a parasite elite...already we are nothing but a Ponzi Scheme on
the verge of toppling..."
Yup, aided and abetted by our current regime, while pretending not to...
@23
"It's a tough balancing act, being a Ukrainian oligarch. For two decades they stole what they
could from the Ukraine (and from perverting the various sweetheart deals Russia was
providing). Once the industry and energy money was stripped, and Russia started closing the
spigots, they managed to get the West to pump in ungodly amounts of cash so long as they
would agree to talk mean about Russia, and didn't mind the US machine taking its cut of the
loot."
This is it in a nutshell. The Russians were fed up with Ukraine stealing gas. Hence, Nord
Stream 2. That was always the plan. Whether the Yanks truly grasped the rationale here
---Russia is cutting off gas to Ukraine, simple---has never been clear to me. Although it is
a fairly simple plot. The Russians had decades of shenanigans with the Ukes and said Basta.
By not overreacting to the Ukrainian-USA freakout and keeping their eyes on the prize (Nord
Stream and disengaging, gas-wise, from Uk), they have managed to reach their goal of getting
Nord Stream 2 online.
Kolomoiski is the bankroller and commander of the Azov Battalion. Has close arrangements with
other paramilitaries. And is the current principal of Burisma. And is Privatbank, the only
bank left in Ukraine. He gets a cut of all the action.
When Trump queries Zelensky, all that Zelensky is thinking is this guy does not know the
score. This guy does not know who's on first. He wants me to investigate the boss? Let him
talk to the boss. And who does Z talk to in D.C.? Pointless getting into detail with
Trump.
Trump has no team. No one in D.C. is on his side. He's unable to finish anything.
1) Say the fantasy happens and the US/Russia become BFFs like US/UK...
- Say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss?
- Tough to answer, many unknowns- Russia may act different once its on top, actors may
derail schemes, Deep State temper tantrum, etc...
In general, governments are the order-providing solution for chaos and problems that only
first existed inside the minds of those seeking power over others.
Kolomoiski is a U.S. asset. His interview with the NYTimes proves it.
His threats are meant to mobilize NATO and Russia haters in general; because Trump and
most of his cadre care nothing for Ukraine.
Does anyone think Russia will give Kolomoiski 100 million dollars? Why was he given an
opportunity to threaten the USA? For no reason? Something else is afoot but Russia still
won't take the bait because they are winning.
Russia is quite happy with the status quo. The war in Ukraine keeps the war against Russia
on a level which is easy to manipulate and therefore geostrategically beneficial. Kolomoiski
will get nothing.
Thank you, b, for that snippet from NY Interview with Kolomoisky . I had glanced the headline
on RT but didn't read it because of RT's usual clumsy writing.
Kolomoiski is taunting the empire: investigate my crimes and
ukraine will seek reconciliation and alliance with russia.
Russia won't fall for it. They want kolomoiski's scalp even
more than the empire. From the statements putin has made, maybe
the only concession russia would accept is the dissolution of
ukraine as a sovereign entity and reintegration with russia, minus galicia.
Putin has remarked that they are not one people but one state. Ukraine
already knows that its domestic industry is only viable in competition
with the eu industrial powerhouses if it is integrated with russia.
What does [Kolomoysky] know about Kiev and Dnepropetrovsk air traffic control
personnel's direction to MH17 to fly at 10,000 metres in the warzone and not an extra 1,000
metres above as the flight crew had requested?
Okay..so an interesting can of worms here...
First is the fact that Kolomoysky was the governor of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast at the
time...
Now as to the flight and Dnipro Radar [the regional air traffic control facility that
controls a very big chunk of airspace over eastern Ukraine]...
First the issue of the airplane cruising altitude...the crew had filed their flight plan
to climb from flight level 330 [33,000 ft] to FL350 after passing a certain waypoint in
eastern Ukraine...
Now the controllers did instruct the crew to go ahead and climb to their planned altitude,
but the crew declined the clearance and opted to stay at FL330...this was done very
likely because the atmospheric conditions at that height were better for fuel economy...
[To be even more specific...the Boeing manual gave an optimum flight altitude of 33,800
ft, but flying eastward you only have odd numbered flight levels to choose from, so the crew
figured they would be better off staying at 33 than climbing to 35...]
BUT...there are a couple of very curious things here...
First is the fact that Dnipro controllers deviated the airplane from its flight
plan just before it went down...ostensibly due to other traffic...
We can see this in the following map, which is what's called a high altitude en route
chart, which is used by pilots to plan and execute their flight...
You will note a couple of things here...the airplane is flying on the L980 airway
[basically a highway in the sky] when it is turned south by controllers to the RND waypoint,
which is in Russian territory...
This is NOT the route filed by the crew...which can be seen here...
They were supposed to continue flying on L980 right to the TAMAK waypoint, which is
visible on the previous chart and is right on the border with Russia...
They would have continued on the A87 airway to their next waypoint in Russia which is
TIKNA...
Now here is the thing...right after they were turned south, they got shot down...
According to the radio transcripts, the crew acknowledged the course change, but did not
object...however, usually these kinds of course changes aren't appreciated on the flight deck
because the crew is trying to minimize wasted time and wasted fuel on course
deviations...
Most times you will just not bother to complain to controllers...but for sure there will
always be chatter between the captain and copilot about being yanked around like that...
No mention is made in the Dutch Safety Board report about such chatter from the cockpit
voice recorder, which I find very odd...
Also odd is the fact that Dnipro ATC primary radar was down, and only the so-called
'secondary' was working which uses the transponder signals from the airplane...
This is very busy airspace because a lot of flights from western Europe to South Asia
traverse this territory...the plan is always to fly what's called a 'great circle route'
which is basically a straight line, if you flattened out the globe...
Plus considering that you have a war going on underneath...it's very unusual to have your
PRIMARY radar inoperable...
This is significant also because military aircraft will not be using transponders and so
will not be visible to the secondary surveillance...
The Russian primary radar did pick up two other aircraft very nearby MH17...but the Dutch
have made some kind of excuse about that data not being in 'raw' form and thus not
usable...
So we see some very suspicious anomalies here...
The Ukrainian authorities did have a NOTAM [notice to airmen] in effect up to FL320
[32,000 ft] so commercial traffic could not fly under that height...but clearly they should
have closed the airspace over the hot conflict area...
They didn't do that...and Kolomoysky was in charge...
The Deep State's view on the members' God given right to make foreign policy decisions (it
must be the God who has give it to them, because the people certainly have not) just reminds
the of the general attitude of the Government's bureaucracy. Give any fartbag a position in
the government and he/she becomes "a prince/princes over the people", give him or her a
monopoly over violence and you got yourself a king/queen. All these police and military kings
& queens milling around and lording over us. "Deep State" is such a totally natural
consequence of the government bureaucracy corrupted by power that it appropriated.
Pillaging taxes from the sheeple (and taking young maidens like Sheriff of
Nottingham/Epstein) could have never ever been enough. Did you seriously think that the Deep
Staters would constrain themselves to only stealing your money, taking your children for
their pleasure and to die in their wars of conquest, and putting you into a totally unsafe
airplanes to die for their profit? Constrain themselves when there is a whole globe out there
to be lorded over, like Bidens over Ukraine? It is the poor people of Ukraine who just have
too much money, thus had to give it through the gas monopoly to the Biden gang, which
selflessly brought them "democracy" at $5B in US taxpayers' expense. Therefore, it is the
Deep State which has been chosen by God, or someone just like that, to make the decisions
about the imperialist/globalist foreign policy and have billions of dollars thrown by the
grateful natives into their own pockets, as consulting fees:
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/leaked-bank-records-confirm-burisma-biden-payments-morgan-stanley-account
So far the only clear-cut globalization is that one of crime, which has become
global.
What is the US National Interest b asks? Who defines it as such?
Ome magazine that might know is none other than The National Interest. Hopefully I won't
get attacked for quoting from what seems like a fairly sane article to me....
"The US should consider whom they are giving weapons to. Ukraine is a debt-ridden state
and only five years beyond an extralegal revolution. Should the government collapse again,
then American weapons could end up in the possession of any number of dubious paramilitary
groups.
It wouldn't be the first time. In the 2000s, CIA operatives were forced to repurchase
Stinger missiles that had fallen into the hands of Afghani warlords -- at a markup.
Originally offered to the Mujahideen in the 1980s, the Stingers came to threaten American
forces in the region. Similarly, many weapons provided with US authorization to Libyan rebels
in 2011 ended up in the possession of jihadists."
It's difficult to find clean information on happenings within Ukraine and those involving
Russia. The Ministry of Foreign affairs has this page
dedicated to the "Situation Around Ukraine." Of the three most recent listings,
this one --"Comment by Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova on the NATO
Council's visit to Ukraine"--from 1 November is quite important as it deals with the reality
on the ground versus the circus happening thousands of miles away, although it's clear the
delusions in Washington and Brussels are the same and "continue to be guided by the Cold War
logic of exaggerating the nonexistent 'threat from the East' rather than the interests of
pan-European security."
In the
second most recent listing --"Remarks by Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian
Federation to the OSCE Vladimir Zheglov at the OSCE Permanent Council meeting on the
situation in Ukraine and the need to implement the Minsk Agreements, Vienna, October 31,
2019"--the following was noted:
"There's more to it. The odious site Myrotvorets continues to function using servers
located in the United States. The UN has repeatedly stated that this violates the presumption
of innocence and the right to privacy. Recently, Deputy Head of the UN Human Rights
Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, Benjamin Moreau, reiterated the recommendation to shut down
this website. A similar demand was made by other representatives of the international
community, including the German government. The problem was brought to the attention of the
European Court of Human Rights. The other day, the representative of Ukraine at the ECHR was
made aware of the groundlessness of the Ukrainian government's excuses saying that it
allegedly 'has no influence' on the above website.
"In closing, recent opinion polls in Ukraine indicate that its residents are expecting the
government to do more to bring peace to Donbas. The path to a settlement is well known, that
is, the full implementation of the Minsk Package of Measures of February 12, 2015, that was
approved by the UN Security Council."
Clearly, Zelensky's government is much like Poroschenko's when it comes to listening to
those who empowered it, the above citation is one of several from the overall report.
The latest report deals with an ongoing case at the International Court of Justice at The
Hague that reveals some of the anti-Russian bias there. It has no bearing on this discussion,
although it does provide evidence of the contextual background against which the entire
affair, including the circus in Washington, operates.
MoA consensus is Minsk backed NATO and its Ukrainian minions into a corner from which
there's only one way out, which is the implementation of the Accords they continue to oppose
to implement despite their promise to do so. Clearly an excellent example of not being
agreement capable that hasn't changed since 2015.
If the Republicans had any brains, they'd turn the Ukrainian aspect of the hearings into
an indictment against Obama/Biden for illegally overthrowing Kiev and trying to obtain their
piece-of-the-action, but then that would be the logical thing to do and thus isn't an option.
The prospect of each day providing similar spectacle is mind numbing as it airs the sordid,
unwashed underwear if the Evil Outlaw US Empire.
I normally do not reply to trolls, but I make an exception for you. Pedo-dollar? Do you have
any more such crap to dilute the valid points discussed here?
i liked what @ 32 tod said - "he's just doing the old Jewish threatening/begging
dance!
"And you are forcing us to be at war, and not even giving us the money for it." Wink!
Wink!"
stating the obvious is one remedy for any possible confusion here..
@54 karlof1... i don't believe trump is allowed to shine any light on the usas illegal
actions as that would be sacrilege to all the americans who see their country in such a
great, exceptional-ist light... how would trumps MAGA concept swallow that? it wouldn't, so
it won't happen...
You are a bit off on that story. NS2 pipeline will increase the capacity not transitioning
via Ukraine and reduce the price banditry by the Ukrainian & US gangs, but it will not
make gas transit via Ukraine unnecessary. The planned switch off of the German nuclear and
coal power plants will gradually increase the German demand for gas, that is the Russian gas
by so much that NS1 and NS2 will not be enough. Primarily, NS2 is a signal to the Ukrainian
& US Democrat gangs that if they try excessive transit fees and stealing of gas again,
that they will be circumvented within a few years by NS 3,4,5 ...
BTW, the globalized pillaging of the population is clearly not an invention of the DNC
crime gang only. For example, the 737Max is a product of primarily Republican activity on
deregulating what should have never been deregulated and subjugation to the Wall Street (aka
financialization). The pillaging of the World is strictly bipartisan, just differently
packaged:
1) R - packaging the deregulation to steal & kill as "freedom" or
2) D - packaging the regime change as responsibility to protect R2P (such regime change and
stuffing of own pockets later).
karlof1 @54 - "Minsk backed NATO and its Ukrainian minions into a corner from which
there's only one way out, which is the implementation of the Accords"
Yes. As you well know, and as we have well discussed, Minsk was in its very essence the
surrender terms dictated to the US by NAF and Russia in return for letting the NATO
contractors go free and secretly out of the Debaltsevo cauldron. Either actually or
poetically, this was the basis. The US lost against NAF. The only way to prevent Donbass
incursion into the rest of Ukraine was to freeze the situation. The US had no choice, and
surrendered.
Out of the heat and fog of warfare came a simple document made of words which, even so,
illustrated perfectly just how elegantly the Kremlin had the entire situation both war-gamed
and peace-gamed. Minsk from that day until forever has locked the Ukraine play into a lost
war of attrition for the US sponsors, with zero gain - except for thieves.
To attempt to parse Ukraine in terms of statecraft is to miss the point that Ukraine can
only be parsed in terms of thievery. This is not cynicism, simply truth.
Now they sell their land because this is all there is left to sell. Kolomoisky proposes
selling the entire country to Russia for $100 billion but not only will Russia not bite, the
country isn't worth even a fraction of that - because of Minsk, it can cause zero harm to
Russia. But this ploy raises the perceived value (Kolomoisky hopes) in the eyes of the west,
and starts the bidding.
In Russia the people see all this very clearly, including on their TV. Yakov Kedmi in this
Vesti News clip of
Vladimir Soloviev's hugely popular talk show, discusses the situation. He baits Soloviev by
saying that the Ukrainian thieves are only doing what the Russian thieves did in the 1990's -
and one must filter through this badinage to take out the nuggets he supplies. Here are
three:
1. Zelensky has no security apparatus that follows his command, therefore how can he be
considered the leader of the country?
2. There is no power in Ukraine, only forces that contend over the scraps of plunder.
3. These forces are creating the only law there is, which is the sacred nature of private
property for the rich - the only thing the US holds sacred.
Therefore sell the very soil.
~~
The Minsk agreement is a sheer wall of ice reaching to the sky. No force imaginable can
scale it or break it. Against that ultimate, immovable wall the US pounds futilely, with
Ukraine caught in the middle, while Russia waits for Ukraine to devolve into whatever it
can.
And the Russian people and government regard the people of the Ukraine as brothers and
sisters. But until the west has worn itself down, and either gone away or changed the
equation through a weakening of its own position in some significant way, nothing can be done
by Russia except to wait.
What Tod @32 described is spot-on, "the old Jewish threatening/begging dance". It is not that
the Russians do not know this about Kolomoyskyi. They will play along not expecting anything
from the Zelo-on-a-String and his master. The Russians like to let those scumbags (Erdo comes
to mind) huff & puff and embarrass themselves by flips. They know - it could always be
worse if those did something intelligent. Kolomoyskyi is vile but he ain't no genius, not any
more than Erdo.
Sure Cheeza...everybody's a 'bit off' except you...
Gazprom is talking about 10 bcm a year through Ukraine for the new 10 year deal, as
opposed to the 60 bcm [billion cubic meters] that Ukraine is hoping for...
"Deep state" is misleading and actually a false construction.
There is an Imperial State (the ruling faction/)which consists of imperial apparatchiks
placed in every key position in government. Babyl-on @ 8
? before I begin , how do you measure the political and economic power of money
as opposed to the political and economic power of the intentions and needs of the masses.
Does $1 control a 100 people? A million dollars control 100,000,000 people? How do we measure
the comparative values between money power and people power? I think the divisions of
economics and the binaries of politics established by the nation state system means that the
measurement function (political and economic values) varies as a function of the total wealth
vs the total population in each nation state. If true, become obvious how it is that: foreign
investments displaces the existing homeostatis in any particular nation state, the smaller
the poorer the nation state, the more impact foreign wealth can have; in other words outside
wealth can completely destroy the homeostatis of an existing nation state. I think it is this
fact which makes globalization so attractive to the ruling interest (RI) and so damning to
the poorest of the poor.
Change by amendment is impossible There is one and only one Western Empire but
there is also an Eastern Empire, a southern empire, and a Northern Empire and I believe the
ruling interest (faction) manipulate all nations through these empires. In fact, they can do
this in any nation they wish. The world has been divided into containers of humans and
propaganda and culture have highly polarized the humans in one container against the humans
in other containers. <=divide, polarize, then exploit: its like pry the window, and gain
access to the residence, then exploit. It is obvious that the strength of the resistance to
ruling class exploitation is a function of common cause among the masses. But money allows to
control both the division of power and the polarization of the masses. The persons who have
the powers described in Article II of the US Constitution since Lincoln was murdered can be
controlled (Epstein, MSM directed propaganda, impeachment, assassination, to accomplish the
objects of the ruling interest (faction). Article II of the USA constitution removes foreign
activity of the USA from domestic view of the governed at home Americans. Article II makes it
possible for the POTUS to use American assets and resources to assist his/her feudal lords in
exploiting foreign nations almost at will and there is no way governed Americans can control
who the ruling interest place in the Article II position.
A little History Immigration to NYC from Eastern (the poor) and Western (the
rich) Europe transitioned NYC and other cities from Irish majority to a Jewish majority; and
the wealthy interest used the Jewish majorities in key cities to take control over both
Article I and Article II constitutional powers by electing field effect controlled
politicians (political puppets are elected that can be reprogrammed while they are in office
to suit the ruling interest. The source code is called rule of law, and money buys the
programmers who write the code. So the ruling interest can reprogram in field effect fashion,
any POTUS they wish. Out of sight use of the resources of America in foreign lands is nothing
new, it was established when the constitution was written in Philadelphia in 1787 and
ratified in 1788.
Propaganda targeted to the Jewish Immigrants allowed the wealthy interest to
control the outcome of the 1912 election. That election allowed to destroy Article I,
Section 9, paragraph 4 " No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid unless in
Proportion to the Census of enumeration herein before directed to be taken". and to enact a
law which privatized the USA monopoly on money into the hands of private bankers (the federal
reserve act of 1913)
What was the grand design Highly competitive, independent too strong economic
Germany was interfering with Western hegemony and the oil was in the lands controlled by the
Ottomans. It took two wars, but Germany was destroyed, and the Ottoman empire (basically the
entire Middle East) became the war gained property of the British (Palestine), the French
(Syria) and the USA (Israel). Since then, the ruling interest have used their (field effect
devices to align governments so the wealthy could pillage victim societies the world over.
Field effect programming allows wealth interest to use the leaders of governments to use such
governments to enable pillage in foreign places. The global rich and powerful, and their
corporations are the ruling interest.
psychohistorian says it well "..the global private finance core segment of empire is
behind Trump and throwing America(ns) under the bus as the world turns more multilateral. The
cult of global private finance intends on still having some overarching super-national role
in the new multilateral world and holding debt guns to everyone's heads to make it
ongoing..." by psychochistorian @ 10
NOBITs @ 11 says it also "All presidents have been servants of the military, which includes
the police/intel/security apparatus; the few who did not entirely accept their figurehead
role were "dealt with." Kennedy, Nixon, Carter and now Trump. The Washington permanent state
bureaucrats are shocked and understandably offended; they have after all, been running US
foreign policy for 75 years!" by: NOBTS @ 11
According to TG @ 13 "Democracy" is about privatizing power and socializing
responsibility. The elites get to set the policy, but the public at large gets to take
responsibility when things go wrong. Because you see, we are a "Democracy."by: TG @ 13 <=
absolutely not.. the constitution isolates governed Americans from the USA, because the USA
is a republic and republics are about privatizing power and socializing responsibility;
worse, there ain't nothing you can do about it.
Vonu @ 19 says "According to Kevin Shipp, the National Security Council really runs the
executive branch, not the president. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=11&v=XHbrOg092GA"
by: Vonu @ 19 <=but it is by the authority of Ariicle II that the NSC has the power to run
the executive branch?
KAdath @ 22 says "the Oligarchs are now positioning themselves to abandon the US in
order for the Russians to keep even a tiny bit of oil flowing into their pockets by: Kadath @
22" <=exactly.. but really its not abandoning the USA, its abandoning the oligarchs local
to the pillaged nation..
J Swift @ 23 says "the US treats its partners in crime in Syria and elsewhere,"
[poorly] but its not the USA per say, because only one person has the power to deal in
foreign places. Its that the POTUS, or those who control the Article II powers vested in the
POTUS, have or has been reprogrammed.. J. Switft @23>>
flankerbandit @ 25 says " Ukraine has run itself into the ground, literally...now they
are selling vast tracts of agricultural land to huge Euro agribusiness concerns...literally
dispossessing themselves of their own food security..." flankerbandit @ 25 <=Not really
the wealthy (investor interest) have pushed the pillage at will button.. since there is no
resistance remaining, the wealthy will take it all for a song..
Jackrabbit @ 26 says "Trump [is].. Constitutionally charged with foreign policy. Repeating:
the "Imperial Presidency" has flung off Constitutional checks and balances by circumventing
the need to get Congressional approval for spending. Wars (like Syria) are now be funded by
Gulf Monarchies, black ops, and black budgets.by Jackrabbit @ 26 <== Trumps orders
military to take 4 million day from Syria in oil?
your observation that the money has circumvented Article I of the COUS explains why the
democraps are so upset.. the wealthy democrap interest has been left to rot? Your comment
suggest s mafia is in charge?
Tod @ 32 says "As soon as some money goes his way, he'll discover democracy again.
Sorry to burst you bubbles." by: Tod @ 32" <==understatement of the day.. thanks.
Bevin @ 32 says "a dialectic is at work here. Washington's support for fascism abroad
has instituted fascism at home which has led in turn to the installation of fascist regimes
abroad, not just occasionally but routinely. Wherever the US intervenes it leaves a fascist
regime, in which socialists are banned and persecuted, behind it. this means.. the ability of
the population to effect political change is cancelled" by bevin @ 33 <= yes but there is
really no difference in a republic and its rule of law, and a fascist government and its
military police both rule without any influential input from the governed.
michael @ 34 reaffirms "The President was the only channel of communication between the
United States and foreign nations, it was from him alone 'that foreign nations or their
agents are to learn what is or has been the will of the nation'" michael @ 34 well known to
barflies, the design of national constitutions is at the heart of the global problem. Until
constitutional powers are placed in control of the governed there will never be a change in
how the constitutional powers ( in case of the USA Article II powers) are used and
abused.
OutofThinAir @45 says "In general, governments are the order-providing solution for
chaos and problems that only first existed inside the minds of those seeking power over
others.by: OutOfThinAir @ 45" <+governments are the tools of wealth interest and the
governors their hired hands.
by: War is Peace @48 " Trump is a moron, groomed by Jewish parents ( Mother was Jewish,
Father buried at biggest Jewish cementary in NYC ) to be a non-Jew worked for the mob under
Cohen ( lawyer for 1950's McCarthy ); Became the 'Goyim Fool" real estate developer as a
cover for laundering mob money. So that it didn't appear that it was Jewish Mafia Money, so
they could work with the Italian Mafia. Trump went on for his greatest role ever to be the
"fool in Chief" of the USA for AIPAC. What better way to murder people, than send out a fool,
it causes people to drop their guard. by War is Peace @48 <= yes this is my take, What
does it mean. com suggest the global wealth interest may be planning to reprogram Trump to
better protect the interest of the global wealthy.
Kiza @ 51 the reason for globalization is explained see above=> response to Babyl-on @
8
dh @ 53 says ""The US should consider whom they are giving weapons to." by dh @53 <
the USA cannot consider anything, if its foreign the POTUS (Article II) makes all decisions
because Art II gives the POTUS a monopoly on talking to, and dealing with, foreign
governments.
Deagel @ 56 says "The American people don't care, they're all drugged out, and shitting
on the side-walks all over the USA, and sleeping in their own shit. This is the best time in
USA history for the Zionists to do anything they wish." by: Deagel @ 56 <= I think you
under estimate the value Americans place on democracy and human rights, until recently
governed Americans believed the third party privately produced MSM delivered propaganda that
nearly all overseas operations by the USA were to separate the people in those places from
their despotic leaders, and to help those displaced people install Democracy.. many Americans
have come to understand such is far from the case.. the situation in the Ukraine has been an
eye opener for many Americans. thoughts are sizzling, talk is happening, and people are
trying to shut google out of their lives. that is why i think Trump is about to be
reprogrammed from elected leader to .. God in charge
I watched that Soloviev segment with Kedmi the other day...always interesting to say the
least...
Btw...I'm not really up to speed on that whole Debaltsevo cauldron thing...I've heard
snippets here and there...[there is a guy, Auslander, who comments on the Saker blog that
seems to have excellent first hand info, but I've only caught snippets here and there]...
I hadn't heard this part of the story before about Nato contractors as bargaining
chips...if you care to shed a bit more light I will be grateful...
I suggest going to The Saker Blog and
enter Debaltsevo Cauldron into the site's search box and click Submit where you'll be greeted
with numerous results.
Grieved @62--
Thanks for your reply and excellent recap. As I recall, Putin wants Donbass to remain in
Ukraine and Ukraine to remain a whole state, although I haven't read his thoughts on the
matter for quite some months as everything has revolved around implementing Minsk. The items
at the Foreign Ministry I linked to are also concerned with Minsk.
The circus act in DC is trying to avoid any mention of Minsk, the coup or anything
material to the gross imperial meddling done there to enrich the criminal elite, which
includes Biden, Clinton, other DNC members--a whole suite of actors that omits Trump in this
case, although they're trying to pin something on him. The issue being studiously ignored is
Obama/Biden needed to be busted for their actions at the time, but in time-honored fashion
weren't. And the huge rotted sewer of corruption related to that action and ALL that came
before is the real problem at issue.
Typical reaction of a zelf-zentered person as evidenced by The New Yorker 737Max article
in the previous thread. This good article could only be measured by how much it agrees with
your own opinion that MCAS was put in to mimic the pilots' usual fly-stick feel. If anyone
does his home work, such as the journalist of this article, then he must agree with you,
right? With experts such as you out there, why would anyone dare apply common sense and say
that it would be an unimaginably stupid idea to put in ANY AUTOMATED SYSTEM which pushes
the plane's nose down during ascent (the most risky phase of a civilian flight, when almost
desperately trying to get up and up and up) for any DUMBLY POSSIBLE REASON !? What could
ever go wrong with such an absolutely dumbly initiated system relying on one sensor? Maybe it
was a similar idea to putting a cigarette lighter right next to the car's gas tank because it
lights up cigarettes better when there are gasoline vapors around. Or maybe an idea of
testing the self-driving lithium battery (exploding & flammable) cars near kindergartens
(of some other people's children)!?
An intelligent person would have said - whatever the reason was to put in MCAS it was a
terribly dumb idea, instead of congratulating himself on understanding the "true reason".
"If I were president, while I would resist gratuitous provocations, I would not publicly
associate myself with the delusion that stable friendship is possible (or, frankly,
desirable) with Putin's anti-American dictatorship, which runs its country like a Mafia
family and is acting on its revanchist ambitions."
Really?
From what have gleaned from the alternative media available on the internet ,of which MOA is
an important part. Putin and Lavrov are the two most moral and diplomatic statesmen on the
world stage today Compared to Trump, Johnson, Macron, Merkel, Stoltenberg, Pompeo, Bolton and
whoever else blights the international scene these days these two are colossi.
To describe
them as like a Mafia family seems to me to be 180 degrees wrong. Maybe Putin overreacted, in
his early days in power, to the Chechen conflict but look at the situation today.
Look at how
Gorbachev and Yeltsin were played by the west. I appreciate you did not write the words
quoted above but you said you agree with them and I find that startling given I am usually
very admiring of your insight and knowledge of geopolitical events.
According to the Impeachniks, it is Schiff's staff who decides how Schiff votes and his
policies. It would be illegal for Schiff to make decisions. But Schiff's recommendation will
make or break the careers of his staff, so elected Schiff has some influence. That's not true
for elected Trump, because those in his service already have made careers and/or a host of
outsiders looking to place them.
Although, he didn't get impeached for it Obama did get criticized for not sending the aid to
Ukraine. He was also criticized when he did intervene, but not fast enough for the deep
state. Remember "leading from behind" in response to Libya. Obama was much more popular and
circumspect than Trump, which protected him from possible impeachment when he went off the
deep state's script.
Discussion of the USC and the responsibilities assigned therein is probably a foolish and
merely moot exercise, as law is, ultimately simply custom over time, and since '45 or so the
custom has become dissociated from the documents' provisions, particularly with regard to
war-making and the "licensed" import and sale of dangerous drugs, dope. The custom in place
is essentially ukase - rule by decree. Many decree are secret.
I do not object, simply pointing to the obvious.
This is a public secret anybody can know. Inter alia see The Politics of Heroin in
Southeast Asia (McCoy)
...........
Custom includes also permitted theft, blackmail, trafficking children and so forth.
...........
zerohedge put up some documents tying TGM Hunter B to the money from Ukraine...
................
I would not worry about the name of the person called president. The real sitrep is more
like watching rape and murder from the dirty windows of a runaway train.
Upon the dissolution of the USSR, Ukraine was left with the fifth-largest nuclear arsenal in
the world. In exchange for financial assistance in the costs of removing all the nukes, the
West guaranteed to defend Ukraine's territorial integrity.
In the meantime, Russia has annexed the Crimea and rebels have taken control of parts of
Eastern Ukraine. The West has not provided any direct military assistance to restore those
territorial infringements.
Since the West has reneged on its end of the deal, would it not only be fair to return
Ukraine's nukes so it can defend itself like the Big Boys do, namely with threat of nuclear
annihilation?
I hate this trope. The Russian Fed. is not launching offensive operations to capture
Kharkov or Kiev. Western Ukraine is shelling ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine. What would
U.S. Congressman say if these were Jews? (I would condemn that as well).
The next time someone pontificates, 'Ukrainians are dying because Trump held up aid' ask
them how many. The number is ZERO. Javelins are not being used on the front line.
Mr. Kolomoisky is spot on, i.e. when he says that the Americans will only use Ukrainians as
their little bitches to fight and die for America's gain against Russia. Just like the
Americans fucked over the Kurds in Syria, using them as proxy fighters to do USA/Israel's
dirty work. Wherever the USA shows up and starts interfering, everything turns into shit:
Iraq...Afghanistan...Venezuela...Bolivia...Ukraine...Libya...Yemen...Nicaragua...Ecuador...the
list is quite long. It remains to be seen if Mr. Kolomoisky can bring about rapprochement
with Russia. He'd better watch his back.
"Wow. My opinion of Kolomoisky has just improved ... somewhat." --Seamus Padraig @73
Yes, Kolomoisky has moved up a notch in my estimation as well; from the low of
"monstrously inhuman spawn of satan" all the way up to "rabid dog" . That's
quite the dramatic improvement, I must admit.
I am very glad to see you back, Grieved, and your 'wall of ice' metaphor is indeed accurate.
To me, the promising signs in Ukraine were even as here in the US when voters fought back
against what b calls Deep State, which I am sure in my heart was even more of an overwhelming
surge than registered - the best the corrupters of the system could do was make it close
enough to be a barely legitimate win for their side, and they didn't succeed. Maybe somewhere
along their line of shenanigans a small cog in the wheel got religion and didn't do their
'job'. An unsung hero who will sing when it's safe.
I hope, dearly hope, it gets safe in Ukraine very soon. They are us only further down the
line than we are, but we will get there if we can't totally remove the cancer in our midst.
That's our job; I wish Ukraine all the best in removing theirs.
Jen...I should have made clear that the two aircraft picked up by Russian PRIMARY RADAR were
unidentified...
The two commercial flights you mention were in the area and were known to both Russian and
Ukrainian controllers by means of the SECONDARY SURVEILLANCE RADAR, which picks up the
aircraft transponder signals...
However, secondary WILL NOT pick up military craft that have their transponders
off...which is normal operating procedure for military craft...
So the airspace situation was this...you can see this from one of the illustrations I
provided from the DSB prelim report...
You had MH17...you had that other flight coming from the opposite direction [flying
west]...and you had that airplane that overtook the MH17 from behind [they were in a hurry
and were going faster, so when MH17 decided to stay at FL330, they were cleared to climb to
FL350 so they could safely overtake with the necessary vertical separation...]
Those three aircraft were all picked up on the Ukrainian SECONDARY [transponder]
surveillance...as well as the Russians...on both their PRIMARY AND SECONDARY...
But what the Russians picked up were two craft ONLY ON THEIR PRIMARY...those would have
been military aircraft flying with their transponders off [they're allowed to do that and do
that most of the time in fact]...
That's why those two DIDN'T SHOW UP ON THE SECONDARY DATA HANDED OVER TO THE INVESTIGATORS
BY THE UKRAINIANS...
Only primary radar would pick those up...and, very conveniently, the Dnipro primary was
inop at the time...[so the data handed to investigators by the Ukrainians would have no trace
of any military aircraft nearby]...
But with the Russian primary radar data, there is in fact evidence that there were
military aircraft in the air at the time...just that the Dutch investigators simply decided
to exclude the very vital Russian radar data on some stupid technicality...
[Really this is a very poorly done report, both prelim and final, and I've read many over
the years...]
The other thing I should have emphasized more clearly is about that course deviation that
controllers steered MH17 to, just seconds before it was hit...
The known traffic was those three commercial aircraft, as shown on the chart...here it is
again...
Those three commercial flights are clearly labeled...and the big question is... why was
MH17 DIVERTED SOUTH...OFF ITS PLANNED ROUTE...?
We can see the deviation track by the dotted red line...
Clearly there was no 'other traffic' that required MH17 to be vectored south by the
controllers...
In fact we see that there was a FOURTH commercial flight [another B777] that was flying
south exactly to that same waypoint that MH17 was diverted to...we see this airplane is
flying west on the M70 airway and is heading to the RND waypoint...
This does not make sense...why would you divert MH17 from going to TAMAK as flight
planned...in order to go south toward RND where another airplane is heading...
If nothing else this is very bad controller practice right there...yet again, the DSB
[Dutch Safety Board] does not even raise this question...
Like I said, leaving aside any guesswork, these are the simple facts and they raise
serious questions...both about the competence of the Dutch report, and the way the
controllers handled that flight...
Ukrainian think tank Ukrainian Institute of the Future and Ukrainian media outlet Zerkalo
Nedeli (both anti-Russian, but slightly more intellectual than typical Ukrainian outlets)
have contracted a Kharkov-based pollster to conduct a poll among DNR/LNR residents from
October 7 to October 31 (method: face-to-face interviews at the homes of the respondents,
sample size: 806 respondents in DNR and 800 respondents in LNR, margin of error: 3.2%) and
published its results in an article: Тест
на сумісність
[Compatibility Test] (in Ukrainian).
It's a long and rambling article, interspersed with
Ukrainian propagandistic clichés (perhaps to placate Ukrainian nationalists), but the
numbers look solid, so I've extracted the numbers I consider important and put them in a
table format. Here they are:
GENERAL INFORMATION
Gender 46.5% male 53.5% female
Age 8.3% <25 years old 91.7% ≥25 years old
Education 31.5% no vocational training or higher education 45.2% vocational training 23.3% higher education
Religion 57% marry and baptize their children in Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) 31% believe in God, but do not go to any church 12% other churches, other religions, atheists
Political activity 3% are members of parties 97% are not members of parties
Language 90% speak Russian at home 10% speak other languages at home
Nationality 55.4% consider themselves Ukrainians 44.6% do not consider themselves Ukrainians
ECONOMY
Opinion about the labor market 24.3% there are almost no jobs 39.3% high unemployment, but it's possible to find a job 15.7% there are jobs, even if temporary 17.1% key enterprises are working, those who want to work can find a job 2.9% there are not enough employees
Personal financial situation 4.9% are saving on food 36.4% enough money to buy food, but have to save money to buy clothing 43.6% enough money to buy food and clothing, but have to save money to buy a suit, a mobile
phone, or a vacuum cleaner 12% enough money to buy food, clothing, and other goods, but have to save money to buy
expensive goods (e.g. consumer electronics) 2.7% enough money to buy food, clothing, and expensive goods, but have to save money to buy a
car or an apartment 0.4% enough money to buy anything
Personal financial situation compared to the previous year 28.4% worsened 57.3% stayed the same 14.2% improved
Personal financial situation expectations for the next year 21% will worsen 58.6% will stay the same 18.7% will improve
Opinion on the Ukraine's (sans DNR/LNR) economic situation compared to the previous
year 50.3% worsened 41.4% stayed the same 6.3% improved
CITIZENSHIP
Consider themselves citizens of 57.8% the Ukraine 34.8% DNR/LNR 6.8% Russia
Russian citizenship 42.9% never thought about obtaining it 15.5% don't want to obtain it 34.2% would like to obtain it 7.4% already obtained it
Considered leaving DNR/LNR for 5.2% the Ukraine 11.1% Russia 2.9% other country 80.8% never considered leaving
Visits to the Ukraine over the past year 35.1% across the DNR/LNR–Ukraine border (overwhelming majority of them -- 32.2% of all
respondents -- are pensioners who visit the Ukraine to receive their pensions) 2.6% across the Russia–Ukraine border 62.3% have not visited the Ukraine
WAR
Is the war in Donbass an internal Ukrainian conflict? 35.6% completely agree 40.5% tend to agree 14.1% tend to disagree 9.3% completely disagree
Was the war started by Moscow and pro-Russian groups? 3.1% completely agree 6.4% tend to agree 45.1% tend to disagree 44.9% completely disagree
Who must pay to rebuild DNR/LNR? (multiple answers) 63.6% the Ukraine 29.3% Ukrainian oligarchs 18.5% DNR/LNR themselves 17% the U.S. 16.5% the EU 16% Russia 13% all of the above
ZELENSKIY
Opinion about Zelenskiy 1.9% very positive 17.2% positive 49.6% negative 29.3% very negative
Has your opinion about Zelenskiy changed over the past months? 2.7% significantly improved 7.9% somewhat improved 44.8% stayed the same 22.9% somewhat worsened 20.5% significantly worsened
Will Zelenskiy be able to improve the Ukraine's economy? 1.4% highly likely 13.3% likely 55.3% unlikely 30% highly unlikely
Will Zelenskiy be able to bring peace to the region? 1.7% highly likely 12.5% likely 59% unlikely 26.5% highly unlikely
MEDIA
Where do you get your information on politics? (multiple answers) 84.3% TV 60.6% social networks 50.9% relatives, friends 45.9% websites 17.4% co-workers 10% radio 7.4% newspapers and magazines
What social networks do you use? (multiple answers) 70.7% YouTube 61% VK 52.3% Odnoklassniki 49.8% Viber 27.1% Facebook 21.4% Instagram 12.4% Twitter 11.1% Telegram
FUTURE
Desired status of DNR/LNR 5.1% part of the Ukraine 13.4% part of the Ukraine with a special status 16.2% independent state 13.4% part of Russia with a special status 50.9% part of Russia
Desired status of entire Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts 8.4% part of the Ukraine 10.8% part of the Ukraine with a special status 14.4% independent state 13.3% part of Russia with a special status 49.6% part of Russia
Just listening to a bit of the testimony of the ex-ambassador to Ukraine.
It is all BS hearsay!
Also, this lady doesn't seem to grasp that as an employee of the State Department, she
answers to Trump. Trump is her boss.
The questioning is full of leading questions that contains allegations and unproved
premises built into them. I can't imagine that such questioning would be allowed in a normal
court of justice in the USA.
Sure, Trump is a boor. But he is still the boss and he gets to pull out ambassadors if he
wants to.
This is total grandstanding.
Also, a lot of emotional stuff like "I was devastated. I was shocked. Color drained from
my face as I read the telephone transcript . . . "
This is BS!
IIRC the Russian radar showed that the two mystery planes in questions were flying in
MH17's blindspot . That's way too close to be half an hour away. Also, the fact that
the two planes were flying over a war zone with their transponders turned off (which is why
they couldn't be conclusively identified) strongly suggests that they were military.
@ Posted by: ralphieboy | Nov 15 2019 11:24 utc | 71
When the US launched a coup in Kiev, wasn't that a violation of Ukraine's sovereignty
too?
@ Posted by: Christian J Chuba | Nov 15 2019 12:36 utc | 72
You know the real reason why they have yet to deliver the javelins to Ukraine? It's
because they're afraid that they'll be sold on the black market and end up in the ME
somewhere targeting US tanks. That's why.
@ Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 15 2019 13:30 utc | 75
That's quite the dramatic improvement, I must admit.
on Yovanovitch,
She added: "If our chief representative is kneecapped, it limits our effectiveness to
safeguard the vital national security interests of the United States."
She wasn't fired, she was kneecapped, and Ukraine is a US vital national security
interest, especially after it installed a new government with neo-fascism support.. .
.Kneecapping is a form of malicious wounding, often as torture, in which the victim is
injured in the knee
Cheeza decides to launch a personal attack...also completely off topic...
Typical reaction of a zelf-zentered person [sic]...With experts such as you out there,
why would anyone dare apply common sense...an intelligent person would have said...blah
blah blah...
Look man...I'm not going to take up a lot of space on this thread because it's not about
the MAX...
BUT...I need to set the record straight because you are accusing me here of somehow
muddying the waters on the MAX issue...
That is a complete inversion of the truth...I have been very explicit in my [professional]
comments about the MAX...and it is the exact opposite of what you are trying to tar me with
here...
Yes, it is important to understand these things...which is why I have made the effort to
explain the issue more clearly for the layman audience...
Your pathetic attack here shows you have no shame, nor self-respect...
Let's rewind the tape here...I said that Gazprom is looking to cut supplies to Ukraine in
the new 10 year deal that comes up for negotiation in January...and that they are going to be
pumping much less gas through Ukraine because NS2 now allows to bypass Ukraine...
You took a run at this comment, calling it wrong, and putting up a bunch of your own
hypothesizing...
I responded by linking to the
Russian news report quoting officials saying exactly that...that gas to Ukraine will be
greatly reduced...
Instead of responding to that by admitting you were full of shit...you decide to attack me
on the MAX issue...everybody here knows my [professional] position on the MAX...and that I
have said repeatedly THAT IT CANNOT BE FIXED...[which is also why I have offered detailed
technical explanations...]
I'm not going to let you screw with my integrity here...everything you attributed to me
on the MAX is completely FALSE and in fact turning the truth on its head...
As Kiza #55 noted - Nordstream 1 and 2, combined, only equal half of Ukraine's transit
capacity.
The primary impact is that Ukraine can't hold far Western European customer gas hostage
anymore with its gas transit "negotiations" as Nordstream allows Russia to sell directly to
Germany.
There can still be Russian gas sold via Ukraine, but this will be mostly to near-Ukraine
neighbors: Romania, Slovakia, Austria, Czech as well as Ukraine itself.
Bulgaria, Serbia and Romania can transit from Turk Stream, but there are potential Turk (and
Bulgarian) issues.
Poland is already committing to LNG in order to not be dependent on Russian gas transiting
Ukraine - a double whammy.
The ultimate effect is to remove Ukraine's stranglehold position over Russian gas exports,
which in turn severely undercuts Ukraine's ability to both get really cheap Russian gas and
additional transit fees - a major blow to their economy.
Therefore, the continuation of gas transit via Ukraine in volumes greater than the 26 bcm/y
suggested above will depend on the European Commission and European gas importers, and
their insistence that gas transit via Ukraine continues.
Otherwise, gas transit via Ukraine will be reduced to delivering limited volumes for
European storage re-fills in the 'off-peak' summer months...
This prospect will undoubtedly complicate any negotiations between Gazprom and its
Ukrainian counterparty over a new contract to govern the transit of Russian gas via
Ukraine, once the existing contract expires at the end of December 2019.
...Gazprom may be willing to commit to only limited annual transit volumes...
European gas importers don't give a shit about Ukraine...and they have the final
word...they care only about getting the gas they need from Russia in a reliable way and at a
good price...
The news report I linked to makes it perfectly clear that the Europeans are demanding that
the Ukranians get their act together on the gas issue, or they will be dropped
altogether...
You know...FOOL...it really makes me wonder how fools like you decide to make statements
here with a very authoritative tone...when it is quite clear you are talking out your rear
end...
Nobody needs that kind of bullshit here...if you don't know a subject sufficiently well,
then maybe you should keep quiet...or when making a statement, phrase it as your own OPINION
and nothing more...
Brilliant! Acting Ambassador Bill Taylor's testimony today was unabashed and explicit: the
real issue is how best to bring Ukraine into the Western orbit–a bipartisan 30-year
effort.
For a follow-up, dig deeper into Burisma Holdings and its strange set of directors: Hunter
Biden, Devon Archer, Cofer Black, Alan Apter, and the former president of Poland, among
others. Then Google "Burisma and LNG," as in liquified natural gas.
That will lead to the
business press: Forbes 9/30/2019, Reuters 8/30/2019, and Petroleum Economist 8/8/2017.
The
apparent plan, still in process, is to ship U.S. LNG to Ukraine via a port on the Baltic
coast of Poland, thereby weaning Ukraine away from Russian natural gas and hurting Russia's
export-dependent economy. Cold War II stuff. Check it out.
The EU sees US leadership failing while the Russian beast to its east are getting stronger. The lessons of Russia wielding power
over Ukraine by cutting off energy supplies have been noted: energy security is a long-term threat to the EU and Russia is on the
verge of controlling Middle Eastern supplies as well. Furthermore, the lessons of China's economic successes through non-democratic
government control will also have been noted as something for European statists to emulate.
The EU's response to the energy threat from Russia has been to adopt a radical green agenda without reservation. Despite about
98% of transport and logistics being delivered by diesel and gasoline, some member states in the EU are banning the sales of internal
combustion engines as motive power from as soon as 2030 . This accelerated path to zero emissions will require massive investment.
Clearly this is being viewed as economically stimulative at a time of declining optimism over the general economic outlook.
These views are articulated in UNCTAD's Trade and Development Report 2019, Financing a Global Green Deal [iii]. The authors argue
that internationally coordinated action between governments pursuing reflationary monetary and fiscal policies, while restricting
international capital flows, will generate the economic growth and capture the resources to finance the investment. The charts below
are indicative of their thinking, and are copied from Page 56 of the report.
Excellent laying out of the situation but little in the way of digestible solutions. Demonizing Russia as "the Beast" is both
unhelpful and shows a prejudice of the author shared by the genuinely evil powers of the world. Russia has a huge interest in
keeping Europe as an energy trading partner. The troubles with Ukraine were due to the US / Globalist efforts in that country
to destabilize a competitor (Russia) in their global hegemonic bid.
Russia is well led and debt free. The gold backed crypto is well underway in that country but was not mentioned in this otherwise
breathy article. Crypto is a bridge too far at the moment for general consumption. I am betting on a return to a fractional gold
tie down. The mis-leaders and the bankers will not enjoy having their print-fest party spoiled but it is the only practical solution
and carries the much desired mechanism of tying their dirty hands.
Debt is the noose which will hang the central banks and this hanging needs to be done in public whether 5% or 50% of the people
understand it. Some people will only understand how the system works when Starbucks declines their cattle card.
Again pathetic assholes making plans against Russia.
It is a terrible shame: only two countries at the UN opposed Russia's resolution on the fight against Nazism.
The third committee of the UN General Assembly on social and humanitarian issues by a majority vote adopted a draft Russian
resolution to combat the glorification of Nazism. Thanks to this initiative, radical groups can have big problems.
Representatives of 121 countries supported the idea of Russian diplomats. As expected, only two countries voted against -
the United States and Ukraine. Another 55 countries abstained from voting.
No wonder. Americans are behind any Nazism. Hitler's fascism in particular, they grew up in the hope of inciting Hitler to the
USSR. Well, Ukro-Nazis today are the favorite Nazi whores of Americans. Therefore, such results: the owner and his whore.
As Nikita Khrushchev said, we did not finish you off near Stalingrad, but we will finish you off!
Perry is another neocon in Trump administration and it looks like he pushed Trump under the train.
Notable quotes:
"... In November, Perry touted a shipment of Pennsylvania coal to Ukraine as "just one example of America's readiness and commitment to help diversify Europe's energy markets." ..."
"... Another major priority for Perry is opposing the construction of Nord Stream 2, a proposed gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany that many nations, including the United States, fear will increase the European Union's reliance on Russia for its energy needs. While in Ukraine in May, Perry promised that Trump would back a bill sanctioning companies involved in the project. ..."
Congressional Democrats want to know more about Rick Perry's travels to Ukraine and
conversations with officials there, signaling that the mild-mannered energy secretary won't
escape the intense of heat of the impeachment inquiry into President Trump.
In a memo released Wednesday, House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.)
said he plans to issue a subpoena for White House documents by the end of the week centered on
Trump's requests to the Ukrainian government to open an investigation into one of his chief
political rivals, former vice president Joe Biden.
Among the records his committee is seeking are any related to Perry's attendance of
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's inauguration on May 20 as well as a White House
meeting Perry attended three days later.
Robert Menendez of New Jersey, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
similarly sent a letter to Perry on Tuesday asking him what instructions Trump gave him when
the Cabinet official flew to Ukraine in May, as well as who asked Perry to go there in the
first place. And three House committees on Monday issued a sweeping subpoena to Trump's
personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, in part seeking documents related to Perry.
The multiple congressional inquiries have put a spotlight on Perry, who has distinguished
himself during his time in the job for avoiding controversy. Though the energy secretary is not
accused of wrongdoing and has not been directly subpoenaed, Perry and his Energy Department
spent Wednesday reassuring congressional Democrats they will cooperate with the impeachment
probe.
"We're going to work with Congress and answer all their questions," Perry told reporters
Wednesday at a departmental event in Chicago on artificial intelligence.
Leading a department he once called to eliminate when running for president in 2012, Perry
has kept his head down and avoided the scandals that embroiled some of Trump's original energy
and environmental policy team members, including former Environmental Protection Agency chief
Scott Pruitt and ex-Interior Department secretary Ryan Zinke, who were both ousted amid ethics
investigations. Perry's easygoing demeanor has let him develop productive relationships with
members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.
"Regardless of subject, the Department is always willing to work with Congress in response
to requests that follow proper procedures," Energy Department spokeswoman Shaylyn Hynes wrote
by email.
An explosive whistleblower complaint from an anonymous U.S. intelligence official alleged
Trump did not want to meet with Zelensky until he saw how the new Ukrainian leader "chose to
act" in office. In May, Perry led the American delegation to Zelensky's inauguration in lieu of
Vice President Pence after Pence canceled his planned trip, according to the complaint.
Two months later, on July 25, Trump repeatedly urged Zelensky in a phone call to investigate
Biden, offering to enlist Attorney General William P. Barr in that effort while dangling the
possibility of a White House meeting, according to a rough transcript of the call the White
House released.
On Wednesday, Perry declined to say to reporters whether he was on the July phone call. He
joked that he was asked to fill in for Pence in Ukraine in May because he is "just such a darn
good Cabinet member."
As energy secretary, Perry has regularly traveled to Eastern Europe to promote the sale of
U.S.-produced natural gas and coal. "I've had the opportunity to go into so many different
countries to represent the United States, our energy opportunities," Perry said Wednesday.
"Ukraine is one of those."
It is not unusual for energy secretaries to have a hand in foreign policy. Ernest Moniz, a
nuclear physicist who served as President Barack Obama's energy secretary, played a central
role in brokering the Iran nuclear deal in 2015.
Energy secretaries "do get involved from time to time on diplomatic issues," said Susan
Tierney, a former assistant secretary for policy at the Energy Department under Obama.
Curbing Eastern and Central European countries' dependence on Russia for electricity and
heating fuel was "very early on a priority" for the Trump administration, according to George
David Banks, a former Trump White House energy policy adviser. Given Perry's happy-go-lucky
charm -- and the fact that former secretary of state Rex Tillerson was recused from dealing
with several energy issues because of his previous job as ExxonMobil's chief executive -- it
made sense for Perry to work on Ukraine, Banks said.
"He's a natural-born diplomat," Banks said.
Ukraine, rich with its own natural gas reserves, does not import gas from the United States,
unlike some Eastern European nations such as Poland and Lithuania. But it does take in and burn
American coal -- about 4.8 million tons of it in 2018, according to the U.S. Energy Information
Administration. Most of that U.S.-to-Ukraine-bound coal is of a special grade often used in
manufacturing steel, a major industry in Ukraine. The United States is only one of a few
coal-exporting countries that has that type of coal.
The country has its own coal reserves, but much of them are located in contested territory
in eastern Ukraine. Facing costly imports from Russia, Ukraine has begun getting coal supplies
from the United States, Australia, Kazakhstan, and others places in recent years, according to
EIA.
In November, Perry touted a shipment of Pennsylvania coal to Ukraine as "just one example of
America's readiness and commitment to help diversify Europe's energy markets."
Another major priority for Perry is opposing the construction of Nord Stream 2, a proposed
gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany that many nations, including the
United States, fear will increase the European Union's reliance on Russia for its energy needs.
While in Ukraine in May, Perry promised that Trump would back a bill sanctioning companies
involved in the project.
U.S. efforts to derail Nordstream 2 have failed. Hehehe. All those sanctions were bypassed;
the partnerships of Nordstream 2 - Wintershall, Austria's OMV, France's Engie, and the
Netherlands' Royal Dutch Shell - were converted to loans and Gazprom owns it all.
COPENHAGEN/BUDAPEST (Reuters) - Denmark on Wednesday gave the go-ahead to the Nord Stream 2
gas pipeline, removing the last major hurdle to completion of the Russian-led project that
has divided opinion in the European Union.[.]
For the past three years the U.S. has fought the construction of the Nordstream 2
pipeline from Russia to Germany every inch of the way.
The battle came down to the last few miles, literally, as Denmark has been withholding the
final environmental permit on Nordstream 2 for months.
The U.S., especially under Trump, have committed themselves to a 'whole of government
approach' to stop the 55 bcm natural gas pipeline from making landfall in Germany.[.]
In a sense, this pipeline is Germany's declaration of independence from seventy-plus years
of U.S. policy setting. Never forget that Germany is occupied territory with more than
50,000 U.S. troops stationed there.
So it is supremely rich of President Trump call Nordstream 2 something that could make
Germany a "hostage of Russia" when it's been a hostage of the U.S. since 1945.
Then again, history isn't one of Trump's strong suits.[.]
How is that song again? do not know much about geography or geology.
@23 Thanks for the Nordstream 2 news. The Danish objections were critical to completing the
pipeline. Apparently the problem was more environmental than political as far as the Danes
were concerned.
@23 Likklemore.
Northstream II is a gift from Trump. Remember how he insulted the Danes by suggesting to buy
Greenland and then again insulted the Queen by
cancelling his trip to the country because she refused to discuss the offer? It was that
moment back in August when I thought "Thank you Trump, you just gave us Northstream II". This
is how Trump defeats the Borg so now and then.
@ Likklemore 23
There's also UNCLOS as a factor on the Denmark decision for Nordstream 2:
In the exclusive economic zone, all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy, subject
to the relevant provisions of this Convention, the freedoms referred to in article 87
["freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines"] of navigation and overflight and of the
laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and other internationally lawful uses of the sea
related to these freedoms, such as those associated with the operation of ships, aircraft
and submarine cables and pipelines, and compatible with the other provisions of this
Convention. . . here
@30 The Danes had geographic and economic reasons for sure. I like joost's theory too.
Offering to buy Greenland and insulting the Queen was no way to get the Danes to block the
pipeline.....if that's what Trump really wanted. That would be sheer genius on Trump's part.
But I don't think the Danes will say that was the reason. I'm guessing they'll say they
had environmental concerns.
Nordstream II follows Nordstream I closely near Bornholm, which makes one wonder what the
environmentally based objections were to the second pipeline's route. The pipeline can be
laid down in three to four weeks so construction issues would not appear to be a major
problem.
Posted by: Breadonwater | Oct 31 2019 20:05 utc | 45
Why is Denmark's approval needed for Nordstream 2? Is it due to the Danish island of
Bornholm?
MARITIME LAW EXPLAINED
The United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) from 1958 guarantees to all countries the right to lay
cables and pipes in international waters. This is part of the freedom of the seas. Laying
cables and pipes is not "economic" activity as defined in the 1982 treaty that gave countries
the right to a 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone
(EEZ).
Pipe laying is affected only by the little-known
Espoo Convention from 1991 that obliges the parties to carry out an environmental impact
assessment of certain activities at an early stage of planning. Nowhere in the treaty does it
say that it can be used to stop the freedom of navigation or other freedoms of the seas.
NordStream 2 will NOT pass through Danish territorial waters, as Russian and Western media
often falsely impliy.
Denmark was instructed to delay the European/Russian Nordstream2 approval. The delay
forced the consortium to redirect the pipeline to avoid Danish waters and so now whatever
they decide is completely moot and irrelevant. They are only trying to save face because they
recently approved a pipeline to Poland for expensive US freedom gas. This is how it works,
small countries like Denmark and Poland have no say of their own when the US wants
something.
Precious! After all those years Ukraine tried to force Gazprom to prolong transportation
contracts, including in western Courts, now it is EUROCOMMISSION that plays their 3rd Energy
Package card, but how!
After Zelensky so daringly kissed up to Trump and talk dirt about Merkel and Macron
– EC says the prolongation of Gazprom-NaftaGaz contract is "not legally possible" and
that Ukraine has to kill and "unbundle" NaftaGaz, and when they done – only then the
new pipes-only company would be free to try negotiate a new unrelated contract for gas
transportation.
The Holy Grail of Ukrainian foreign economics is dead, backstabbed by EU.
What a fine present to President Ze :-DDDD
I think the EU may have just fucked Nord Stream II. An EU General Court overturned the 2016
EU Commission decision to allow Gazprom to use more than 50% of the Opal pipeline, a critical
choke point for both legs of Nord Stream II to get gas to the hub. If that decision can't be
reversed again, a reasonable argument will be made that Nord stream II is not necessary, as
Nord Stream alone can easily supply 50% capacity. The kicker is they do not have any other
exporter who could make up the other 50% to use the pipeline to capacity. But this is a very
shrewd move, as the Opal pipeline was always the weak link.
Ukraine, of course, will be dancing in the streets with delight. But I wouldn't be too
quick to do that. Russia might still decline to renew the contract with Ukraine, and just let
Europe go short, to teach it a lesson. Past time, in my opinion. Of course Uncle Sam will see
that as the opportunity long looked for, and offer to step up with LNG imports. And that
might be good, too, for a couple of years – let the Yurrupeans pay extortionate gas
prices, and learn to be wary of America's temper tantrums translated to supply 'problems'
which can only be resolved by making political concessions. Russia has always pretty much let
Europe do its thing without pressuring it much, despite the hysterics you see in the media
about weaponization of energy.
It is absolutely typical of Europe to wait until the pipeline is almost complete to
offload that bomb. I suppose they figure Russia will have to agree to anything they say so as
not to waste all that work and money. It also showcases Europe's complete unreliability in
any business relationship, exactly in lock-step with American unreliability.
I saw that news too. But then remember the original Nord Stream had a cap that was then
lifted. If the EU insists on paying top $$$ for imported LNG from the US rather than lifting
any sort of cap, I'd be interested to see how they justify that to EU citizen consumers.
I think the point is, again, not to react immediately to whatever outrage Brussels or its
friends pick out of their ass. I could well imagine that NSII partners may well sue Brussels
about this, actually file the papers. Brussels would argue 'But it's not us, it's the court',
to which the lawyers would say 'We specifically asked you, and you came up with nothing in
law'.
I think we will find the general court has taken a certain 'interpretation' of competition
law that was 'advised' by Brussles. How NSII could get this far after all of these years and
have a court come out with such a ruling. Expect egg on face and 'It's not me!'. I don't see
how this 'ruling' can stand.
"The Europeans apply antitrust legislation, which is designed to develop the competition.
Why it is necessary to free up 50% of the gas pipeline's capacity? According to the idea of
the legislators, it has to allow competition to arise. But when nobody can physically come to
the start point of the OPAL gas pipeline, alternative suppliers have nowhere to come from.
There physically isn't and can't be another supplier in OPAL!!! It's like banning water from
being carried in full buckets!"
The very inspiration of competition is the introduction of anti-monopoly procedures to
establish a lowest price by pitting the competitors against one another. I am pretty
confident that Russia has always had the lowest prices, and can usually be induced to do a
deal for lower prices yet in exchange for other considerations. When other countries do it,
it's what dealing's all about – when Russia does it, it's weaponizing energy.
If you have a reliable supplier who has access to years of reserves and who consistently
sells to you at a reasonable price, why do you have to impose a raft of new rules to bring in
competitors who cannot match its prices and do not have access to plentiful supplies? Once
again, for Yurrupeans who do not get it, competition is to arrive at a low price. If you
start from a low price, it is stupid to mandate room for competitors who cannot get under
it.
I suspect the Poles are behind this latest charade. But why is Germany going along with
it? Opal lies entirely within Germany, and anything that risks constraining available supply
risks Germany's status as a gas hub.
Anyway, as I suggested earlier, it would do Europe a world of good for Russia to short
them gas for a little while and let them pay prices for outside supplies that would have
their hair on fire. A period of throwing money away when you know there is a cheaper supply
to which you cannot get access can be extremely educational. Uncle Sam would jump at the
chance to sell Europe LNG and, at least in the beginning, would cut prices to the bone in
order to establish market share. But it would still insist on making a profit, and it can't
do that and match Russian prices, while its lengthy logistic chain depends on a lot of
factors. If it became confident that its market share was both secure and relied upon,
Europeans would quickly see how it was leveraged against them to American advantage.
Helping the Ukraine in it's gas talks fit in my opinion. This 50% cap can be lifted,
reintroduced/whatever and whenever by Brussels. It's a gangsta move.
Well, actually, it can't. Be lifted and re-imposed willy-nilly, I mean. If it is, it would be
pointless to build the pipeline in the first place, as Opal would merely take the place of
Ukraine. The western tacticians want to keep Ukraine in the mix because they can use it to
introduce complications and problems in gas delivery from Russia, which can at the same time
be used to paint Russia as an unreliable partner. If Opal can't be relied upon to supply the
opportunity to transit major volumes, Russia will have to make a deal with Ukraine so as to
preserve a Plan B option. It would have been better to not build the pipeline, and still
cease transit through Ukraine, labeling it instead as the unreliable part of the logistics
chain, and Europe would just have to be satisfied with what it could get out of existing
pipelines – minus Ukraine – running flat-out. After all, Europe maintained that a
twin line for Nord Stream was not needed; mind you, when they said that, they were
envisioning continued transit through Ukraine, complete with the prima donna antics Ukraine
exhibits when it believes it has leverage.
The price of gas would go through the roof, and Russia would probably make just as much
money, while the Europeans were weeping and tearing out their hair.
Ukraine's offer for the gas talks is 60 Billion Cubic Meters transit annually for 10
years. Russia will tell them to go fuck themselves. They're basically asking for a contract
to transit the same amount they're transiting now, when there is no alternative, for ten more
years.
I wish I could be so sure. Brussels likes to think it is kleva (sic 'field pipes'/TAP
exemptions). I've looked for more details, and it is appealable (is that a word)?
For several years, Russia could use only 50% of the pipeline's capacity, as prescribed
in the EU's Third Energy Package. Gazprom asked for permission to use OPAL's 100%
capacity,
.In the summer of 2017, the Dusseldorf Higher Regional Court decided to remove interim
measures on Gazprom's use of Opal's facilities imposed by the lawsuit. Poland finds that now
the decision of the European Court of Justice will not allow Gazprom to abandon gas transit
through the territory of Ukraine.
On September 10, on considering Poland's lawsuit, the EU Court of Justice overturned
the European Commission's decision of 2016, according to which Gazprom could fully use the
capacities of the OPAL gas pipeline. The Russian company reserves the right to use 50% of
OPAL's capacity, but it will no longer be able to participate in auctions for the remaining
40%.
####
So it is a continuation of previous legal ding-dongs.
The ruling is also important because of the reasoning behind it. The justices said the
main reason for their decision was not to preserve third-party access to pipelines that run
through Europe but to maintain the EU's energy-solidarity policy. This opens the door to
future litigation based on such policy
####
WTF? So it's not about allowing 3rd party access after all. The Court is ruling on
a completely different aspect! So this is about a different rule of the EU's Third Energy
Package that a) post dates the original Nord Stream; b) ignores that NSII follows the
same route and is not substantially different to NS1. The Third Energy Package entered in to
legislation in September 2009.* Excuse me, but 10 years late?
So it looks to me that the multipronged offensive against NSII though it has failed to
stymie off-shore NSII because it is almost completely outside the EU (well, we'll see what
happend with Denmark), it's temporarily struck gold with OPAL because it is on-shore EU.
Buuut, in leverageing against Russia to the benefit of Ukraine, it will directly impact
Russia-EU-Ukraine talks:
Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak "I think that, in terms of negotiations, this
situation will be taken into account," **
Yet: Šefčovič said the decision was still very fresh, that his
services were still studying it, and that it underlined how important the principle of energy
solidarity is for Europe.
The ECJ ruled that the 2016 decision is "in breach of the principle of energy
solidarity" because it failed to properly assess how to balance Germany's interests against
the negative impacts on other EU member states .
Šefčovič avoided a direct answer, but insisted in the need of
long-term contracts with Gazprom .
He explained that the Ukrainian side was willing to apply European law, saying this
would bring clarity, transparency and efficiency. The letters sent by the Commission to both
parties also stressed the importance of long-term contracts, he said . ***
Cake and eat it, Brussels? Kiev complying with 'European Law' when even EU member states
do not? Ha ha ha! It all rather looks like vague horseshit to me. Open to creative
interpretation a la Marcel Marceau.
When I said, "Actually, it can't", I didn't mean Europe can't do it, I meant that the
uncertainty it introduces will not likely prove satisfactory for Russia to play the game,
since Brussels could arbitrarily decide to apply the cap any time it wishes Russia to transit
more gas through Ukraine, and pay it more money. The only real solution for Russia is to make
it crystal clear to Brussels that it is not going to sign a big fat transit contract with
Ukraine, and then business as usual, with Ukraine getting up to its monkeyshines and
demanding cheaper gas against the possibility of restricting exports to Europe. Ukraine has
demonstrated that it is just like the United States in the sense that if it has any leverage
over you, it will use it for its own ends. The west has made it clear it approves of these
tactics, even when they cause a temporary shutdown of gas exports to Europe.
Brussels thinks it is being cute, and that Russia will now have to do as Brussels wants it
to. Russia has little choice but to play hardball, and let it be known that it has no
intention of signing a long-term agreement with Ukraine to transit the same volumes of gas it
always did – what the fuck was Nord Stream II all about? If Europe – and
especially those perfidious krauts – want to cap the amount going through the Opal line
at 50% of capacity, so be it. Europe will just have to adjust to 60 BcM less supply; maybe
Uncle Sugar can send a fleet of LNG tankers to make up the difference, at double the cost.
But if Russia signs on to transit 60 BcM annually through Ukraine, it is right back where it
started, and built an expensive pipeline for nothing. Stand firm, Russia. Europe does not
have an alternative gas supplier, and nothing would teach it that lesson like a year or so of
scraping to find enough gas, and paying through the nose for it. It's always chunnering about
alternative suppliers – go and find them!
Absolutely insane. The EU/Anglo/US fascists are making their last stand and forcing Russia
into a corner with the only way out to continue transit through Ukraine. Oh, the humiliation
will be so sweet!
I think the Russian reaction will be a big Fuck You. Its all about LNG and the need to
save the US gas frackers and their debt. Oh, and to drive a wedge to further separate Russia
from Europe. Perfect, Russia can now focus on its future and forget that rotting corpse of
Western civilization.
Oh, I think Nord Stream II will still go through anyway, in the end. But a great deal depends
on Russia not signing another 10-year gas deal with Ukraine for 60 BcM annually. If it does
that, then there really is no difference from today, and Nord Stream II would just be an
extra line for use in emergencies. I can't believe any of the partners want that, as there
would be little opportunity for them to profit, which is why I wonder why Germany is being so
passive. Have they been persuaded to take one for Team Ukraine? Again, I find that hard to
believe. It is essentially a question of Ukraine being Europe's gas hub, or Germany. And it
should be more than plain to Europe by now that Ukraine will happily toss a wrench in the
transit works any time Washington tells it to.
Europe needs Russian gas. But it wants it on entirely its own terms, with Brussels in
control. Apparently it is not obvious that Europe is already in control – it is the
buyer. If it doesn't want gas, it doesn't need to buy it. But it does want it. It just wants
to wave the rule-book around every time it makes a purchase. Which would be obvious to it, if
ever there came a time when it wanted it and couldn't get it.
"... One problem with these sanctions is that they are largely after-the-fact when it comes to laying underwater pipe. Turkstream is already done. Nord Stream is about 75% done, but Congress still believes they can stop it . ..."
"... That gas for chicken deal can't be right. Russia produces twice as much chicken meat as the world average. In fact, they're overproducing so much they've started slowing down production. ..."
"... The energy sector is down to 10% of the economy. However all three new pipelines will turn on by the end of the year generating huge cash streams. Russia has solid trading partnerships with nations representing the vast majority of the people and trade on the planet. Food in Russia is great, and I mean really great. It's also very eclectic with cuisine from all over the world and produced to extremely high standards. GMO is illegal. No weird proteins in your cereal in the morning. American fast food tastes better in Russia because it's made with locally grown produce. ..."
"... My impression is that Russia is a continuing work in process in construction and reconstruction, everywhere. The stuff that is done is above Western standards, it amazes in gigantic scope and innovativeness. ..."
"... Some day soon we will need Russia as a friend. At that point we will have to deal with the incredibly bad karma that we created, out of irrational pure hatred and meaness. ..."
"... So the xenophobes claim that Nord Stream 2 would allow Russia to manipulate Europe's gas supply for political and other devious purposes. I searched and could not find any example in the past. But I was using Google which has become increasingly useless when searching on a number of topics. I did find articles about the Ukraine stealing the gas. Russia needs the money. I highly doubt they will screw over their investment. ..."
gjohnsit on Mon, 09/16/2019 - 6:22pm Congress is looking to impose
new sanctions on
Russia and any company that works with Russia.
Two bills in the House and the Senate, instead of penalizing the major gas companies involved, would target a perceived weak link:
the specialized pipe-laying companies working on Nord Stream 2 (and on the Russian state-controlled gas company Gazprom's TurkStream
project, which will bring Russian gas across the Black Sea to Turkey and eventually to Europe). The bills would sanction pipe-laying
companies involved in the project, freezing their U.S. assets and prohibiting them from doing U.S. business.
One problem with these sanctions is that they are largely after-the-fact when it comes to laying underwater pipe. Turkstream
is already done. Nord Stream is about 75% done, but Congress still believes they
can stop
it .
President Donald Trump has recommended Germany buy U.S. liquefied natural gas. That would benefit Cruz's home state of Texas,
the country's largest producer of natural gas.
A second problem is that Germany doesn't want us dictating their foreign policy. According to a recent survey, only 19 percent
of Germans considered the United States a trustworthy partner (well behind Russia).
Pluto's Republic on Mon, 09/16/2019 - 6:42pm snoopydawg on Mon, 09/16/2019 - 7:27pm
Oleg D.....something had a part in the Russia Gate saga and so his aluminum factory was punished. But then Trump relaxed them
after Oleg sold his part. Now McConnell is allowing Oleg to build a huge aluminum plant in Kentucky so off course he too is under
Vlad's thumb. I recently found out that Oleg has had ties to Mueller and others in our intelligence agencies. I don't think there
is one supposed Russian bad man involved in Russia Gate that doesn't have connections to Mueller and his goons. Misfud, Halpern
(?), and too many other people who played "the spy who loved me" game. Most of them tried to entrap someone in Trump's campaign.
If Europe wants to spend more money importing our gas and make their citizens pay higher prices then they need to be voted
out. Do their citizens even know about this? Do the people in Ukraine know why they are expected to freeze this winter or pay
higher prices for gas? Russia does seem to be made of teflon. Nothing seems to stick to them.
Oleg D.....something had a part in the Russia Gate saga and so his aluminum factory was punished. But then Trump relaxed
them after Oleg sold his part. Now McConnell is allowing Oleg to build a huge aluminum plant in Kentucky so off course he too
is under Vlad's thumb. I recently found out that Oleg has had ties to Mueller and others in our intelligence agencies. I don't
think there is one supposed Russian bad man involved in Russia Gate that doesn't have connections to Mueller and his goons.
Misfud, Halpern (?), and too many other people who played "the spy who loved me" game. Most of them tried to entrap someone
in Trump's campaign.
If Europe wants to spend more money importing our gas and make their citizens pay higher prices then they need to be voted
out. Do their citizens even know about this? Do the people in Ukraine know why they are expected to freeze this winter or pay
higher prices for gas? Russia does seem to be made of teflon. Nothing seems to stick to them.
I remember TOP making a big point about the aluminium saying it was Trump really kowtowing to Putin as sanctions were lifted.
Turns about that the majority of production was in Western Europe in particular Ireland. Something like upwards of 30K people
would end up losing their jobs.
around the web that Russia has become self-sufficient in food following a push by government. Food, btw that has no GMOs by
law. I think even their food exports have grown greatly. If true, even when Europe shakes off the leash, EU farmers won't have
the Russian market anymore.
What I know for a fact is that conscious enemy moles hell-bent on destroying the US could all retire; comforted that job is
being done by swiftly and completely by our rulers (both visible and not).
between Russia and China. Russian oil and gas in exchange for Chinese chickens. At the time I wondered at a nuclear power that
can't raise chickens as any peasant in America (and China) can.
around the web that Russia has become self-sufficient in food following a push by government. Food, btw that has no GMOs
by law. I think even their food exports have grown greatly.
If true, even when Europe shakes off the leash, EU farmers won't have the Russian market anymore.
What I know for a fact is that conscious enemy moles hell-bent on destroying the US could all retire; comforted that job
is being done by swiftly and completely by our rulers (both visible and not).
That gas for chicken deal can't be right. Russia produces twice as much chicken meat as the world average. In fact, they're
overproducing so much they've started slowing down production.
As of early 2019, Russia was manufacturing 33.7 kg of poultry per capita, the fourth-highest rate in the world, said Elena
Stepanova, deputy director of Rosptitsesoyuz, speaking at the Russian Meat and Feed Industry conference in Moscow.
The world's 2019 average rate is 16.2 kg per capita, and current production in Russia was already equal to domestic demand,
Stepanova said.
"In 2019, we forecast some increase in production, but this growth will be attributed primarily to exports. We consider
the balance on the domestic poultry market as fully built," Stepanova said, adding that overall poultry production in Russia
in 2019 was expected to grow by 2.7% compared to the previous year, to 5.11 million tons.
@jim
p Russia really played the long game when Putin put a halt to all EU food imports. Besides the food ban, the Russian government
began an investment program to bolster domestic production of its own food replacements. Russian cheese anybody? And the programs
just did not go to Russia's version of Big Agriculture factory farms--it went to small farmers also.
around the web that Russia has become self-sufficient in food following a push by government. Food, btw that has no GMOs
by law. I think even their food exports have grown greatly.
If true, even when Europe shakes off the leash, EU farmers won't have the Russian market anymore.
What I know for a fact is that conscious enemy moles hell-bent on destroying the US could all retire; comforted that job
is being done by swiftly and completely by our rulers (both visible and not).
Russian President Vladimir Putin has suggested Saudi Arabia should buy Russian air defense systems to protect its oil facilities
from drone attacks, pointing to Iran and Turkey, who operate S-300 and S-400 missiles, respectively.
"Saudi Arabia needs to make a smart decision, as Iran did by buying our S-300, and as Mr. Erdogan did by deciding to buy
the most advanced S-400 Triumph air defense systems from Russia," Putin told reporters in Ankara on Monday. "These kinds of
systems are capable of defending any kind of infrastructure in Saudi Arabia from any kind of attack."
Putin was answering a question about the recent drone attack on Saudi Arabian oil facilities, which Washington has blamed
on Iran, though Yemen's Houthi rebels have claimed responsibility. A coalition led by Saudi Arabia invaded Yemen in 2015 and
has fought the Houthis there since.
the most advanced S-400 Triumph air defense systems
According to some, these are the advanced Trump air defense systems. Guaranteed to put out lots of hot air with stench of aftereffect.
He who dealt it.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has suggested Saudi Arabia should buy Russian air defense systems to protect its oil
facilities from drone attacks, pointing to Iran and Turkey, who operate S-300 and S-400 missiles, respectively.
"Saudi Arabia needs to make a smart decision, as Iran did by buying our S-300, and as Mr. Erdogan did by deciding to
buy the most advanced S-400 Triumph air defense systems from Russia," Putin told reporters in Ankara on Monday. "These kinds
of systems are capable of defending any kind of infrastructure in Saudi Arabia from any kind of attack."
Putin was answering a question about the recent drone attack on Saudi Arabian oil facilities, which Washington has blamed
on Iran, though Yemen's Houthi rebels have claimed responsibility. A coalition led by Saudi Arabia invaded Yemen in 2015
and has fought the Houthis there since.
... CLEAN ENERGY THAT OBSOLETIZES FOSSIL FUELS, ASSHOLES!!!
WE COULD LITERALLY SAVE THE WORLD, BE EVERYONE'S HEROES AGAIN, RESURRECT OUR ECONOMY, END OUR WARS, AND PULL THE FLOOR RIGHT
OUT FROM UNDERNEATH RUSSIA AND ALL THOSE GOSHAWFUL ISLAMIC TERRORISTS!
... CLEAN ENERGY THAT OBSOLETIZES FOSSIL FUELS, ASSHOLES!!!
WE COULD LITERALLY SAVE THE WORLD, BE EVERYONE'S HEROES AGAIN, RESURRECT OUR ECONOMY, END OUR WARS, AND PULL THE FLOOR RIGHT
OUT FROM UNDERNEATH RUSSIA AND ALL THOSE GOSHAWFUL ISLAMIC TERRORISTS!
@The
Liberal Moonbat to stop Islamist terrorists, we fund them to keep the forever wars going. I realize you know that, I just
could not help myself there. Whenever I hear we must "fight terrorism" my brain automatically goes back to all the things I have
read showing how we not only actively created those terrorists to fight our enemies who will not accept our American interests
dominating the world, but how many more we make every day we are there destroying their countries.
... CLEAN ENERGY THAT OBSOLETIZES FOSSIL FUELS, ASSHOLES!!!
WE COULD LITERALLY SAVE THE WORLD, BE EVERYONE'S HEROES AGAIN, RESURRECT OUR ECONOMY, END OUR WARS, AND PULL THE FLOOR RIGHT
OUT FROM UNDERNEATH RUSSIA AND ALL THOSE GOSHAWFUL ISLAMIC TERRORISTS!
The Russian economy is arguably the healthiest in the world. It's national debt barely shows as a blip on a bar graph with
other nations. She has enough cash to pay it off all her debt today. She sold almost all of her US government bonds.
Elvira Nabuillina, head of the Russian Bank, is perhaps the most competent national economic manager in the world. The
feeling in Russia is that she is too conservative and high interest rates are the major factor in slower economic growth.
Russia is the largest grower and exporter of wheat in the world, passing the US by a factor of two.
The energy sector is down to 10% of the economy. However all three new pipelines will turn on by the end of the year generating
huge cash streams. Russia has solid trading partnerships with nations representing the vast majority of the people and trade on
the planet. Food in Russia is great, and I mean really great. It's also very eclectic with cuisine from all over the world and
produced to extremely high standards. GMO is illegal. No weird proteins in your cereal in the morning. American fast food tastes
better in Russia because it's made with locally grown produce.
My impression is that Russia is a continuing work in process in construction and reconstruction, everywhere. The stuff
that is done is above Western standards, it amazes in gigantic scope and innovativeness.
I just visited the new aquarium in Vladivostok. It towers above the ones in Boston and LA, maybe by an order of magnitude.
The tallest building in Europe is in St. Petersburg, the next 5 tallest in Moscow City Center.
The longest bridge in Europe is in Russia. My impression is that Russia is a dynamic fast growing country and in contrast the
US can't do anything new. The US must have that gigantic defense budget, ten times that of Russia, to protect it from what? (hmmm).
There is nothing, I repeat nothing, that the US congress can do to slow down Russia today.
Some day soon we will need Russia as a friend. At that point we will have to deal with the incredibly bad karma that we
created, out of irrational pure hatred and meaness.
So the xenophobes claim that Nord Stream 2 would allow Russia to manipulate Europe's gas supply for political and other
devious purposes. I searched and could not find any example in the past. But I was using Google which has become increasingly
useless when searching on a number of topics. I did find articles about the Ukraine stealing the gas. Russia needs the money.
I highly doubt they will screw over their investment.
But to the Europeans I say, go fer it. You want to see manipulation of your energy: start up a heavy reliance on American LNG.
With the U.S, Russia, and China all jostling for position in Iraq's oil and gas industry both
north and south, Iraq's oil ministry last week reiterated its desire to have one or more foreign
partners in the Mansuriya gas field.
Situated in Diyala province, close to the Iran border,
Mansuriya is estimated to hold around 4.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, with plateau
production projected at about 325 million standard cubic feet per day
.
For the U.S., encouraging Iraq to optimise its gas flows so that it reduces its
dependency
for
power from Iran is the key consideration.
For Russia, Rosneft essentially bought control of the semi-autonomous region of Kurdistan in
northern Iraq in November 2017, so power in southern Iraq figuratively will complete the set.
Securing oil and gas contracts across all of Iraq will allow Russia to establish an
unassailable political sway across the entire Shia crescent of power in the Middle East, stretching
from Syria through Lebanon (by dint of Iran), Jordan, Iraq (also helped by Iran), Iran itself, and
Yemen (via Iran).
From this base, it can effectively challenge the U.S.'s vital oil, gas,
and political ally in the region – Saudi Arabia. China, in the meantime, is operating to its own
agenda in South Pars Phase 11 and its West Karoun holdings.
Iraq, like Turkey, is still – nominally at least – not committing to either the Russia
or the U.S.,
preferring to play each off against the other for whatever they can get, and
the same applies in microcosm to the field of Mansuriya. Turkey itself was a key player in this gas
field through its national oil company Turkiye Petrolleri Anonim Ortakligi (TPAO) until the middle
of last year – holding a 37.5 per cent stake – along with the Oil Exploration Company (25 per
cent), Kuwait Energy (22.5 per cent), and South Korea's KOGAS (15 per cent).
TPAO had signed the original development deal for Mansuriya back in 2011, promising Iraq's oil
ministry that it could be trusted to reach plateau production within 10 years at most, a senior
figure in the ministry told
OilPrice.com
last week. This was not an unreasonable schedule,
for which TPAO would be remunerated US$7.00-7.50 per barrel of oil equivalent, a relatively
generous amount compared to many of the previous awards from the ministry. TPAO agreed that the
first phase would mean production of at least 100 million cubic feet a day within 12 months from
the signing date.
Usually a forum for anodyne statements about international cooperation and proper
environmental stewardship, the lid was blown off the latest Arctic Council meeting in May when
Pompeo delivered an unabashedly martial and provocative speech that deserves far more attention
than it got at the time. So let's take a little tour of what may prove a historic proclamation
(in the grimmest sense possible) of a new Washington doctrine for the Far North.
"In its first two decades, the Arctic Council has had the luxury of focusing almost
exclusively on scientific collaboration, on cultural matters, on environmental research," the
secretary of state began mildly. These
were, he said, "all important themes, very important, and we should continue to do those. But
no longer do we have that luxury. We're entering a new age of strategic engagement in the
Arctic, complete with new threats to the Arctic and its real estate, and to all of our
interests in that region."
In what turned out to be an ultra-hardline address, Pompeo claimed that we were now in a new
era in the Arctic. Because climate change -- a phrase Pompeo, of course, never actually uttered
-- is now making it ever more possible to exploit the region's vast resource riches, a scramble
to gain control of them is now officially underway. That competition for resources has
instantly become enmeshed in a growing geopolitical confrontation between the U.S., Russia, and
China, generating new risks of conflict.
On the matter of resource exploitation, Pompeo could hardly contain his enthusiasm.
Referring to the derision that greeted William Seward's purchase of Alaska in 1857, he
declared:
"Far from the barren backcountry that many thought it to be in Seward's time, the
Arctic is at the forefront of opportunity and abundance. It houses 13% of the world's
undiscovered oil, 30% of its undiscovered gas, and an abundance of uranium, rare earth
minerals, gold, diamonds, and millions of square miles of untapped resources."
Of equal attraction, he noted, was the possibility of vastly increasing maritime commerce
through newly de-iced trans-Arctic trade routes that will link the Euro-Atlantic region with
Asia. "Steady reductions in sea ice are opening new passageways and new opportunities for
trade," he enthused. "This could potentially slash the time it takes to travel between Asia and
the West by as much as 20 days Arctic sea lanes could come [to be] the 21st century's Suez and
Panama Canals." That such "steady reductions in sea ice" are the sole consequence of climate
change went unmentioned, but so did another reality of our warming world. If the Arctic one day
truly becomes the northern equivalent of a tropical passageway like the Suez or Panama canals,
that will likely mean that parts of those southerly areas will have become the equivalents of
uninhabitable deserts.
As such new trade and drilling opportunities arise, Pompeo affirmed, the United States
intends to be out front in capitalizing on them. He then began bragging about what the Trump
administration had already accomplished, including promoting expanded oil and gas drilling in
offshore waters and also freeing up "energy exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge ," a pristine stretch
of northern Alaska
prized by environmentalists as a sanctuary for migrating caribou and other at-risk species.
Additional efforts to exploit the region's vital resources, he promised, are scheduled for the
years ahead.
A New Arena for Competition (and Worse)
Ideally, Pompeo noted placidly, competition for the Arctic's resources will be conducted in
an orderly, peaceful manner. The United States, he assured his listeners, believes in "free and
fair competition, open, by the rule of law." But other countries, he added ominously,
especially China and Russia, won't play by that rulebook much of the time and so must be
subject to careful oversight and, if need be, punitive action.
China, he pointed out, is already developing trade
routes in the Arctic, and establishing economic ties with key nations there. Unlike the United
States (which already has multiple military bases in the Arctic, including one at Thule in
Greenland, and so has a well-established presence there), Pompeo claimed that Beijing is
surreptitiously using such supposedly economic activities for military purposes, including,
heinously enough, spying on U.S. ballistic missile submarines operating in the region, while
intimidating its local partners into acquiescence.
He then cited events in the distant South China Sea, where the Chinese have indeed
militarized a
number of tiny uninhabited islands (outfitting them with airstrips, missile batteries, and the
like) and the U.S. has responded by
sending its warships into adjacent waters. He did so to warn of similar future military
stand-offs and potential clashes in the Arctic. "Let's just ask ourselves, do we want the
Arctic Ocean to transform into a new South China Sea, fraught with militarization and competing
territorial claims?" The answer, he assured his listeners, is "pretty clear." (And I'm sure you
can guess what it is.)
The secretary of state then wielded even stronger language in describing "aggressive Russian
behavior in the Arctic." In recent years, he claimed, the Russians have built hundreds of new
bases in the region, along with new ports and air-defense capabilities. "Russia is already
leaving snow prints in the form of army boots" there, a threat that cannot be ignored. "Just
because the Arctic is a place of wilderness does not mean it should become a place of
lawlessness. It need not be the case. And we stand ready to ensure that it does not become
so."
And here we get to the heart of Pompeo's message: the United States will, of course,
"respond" by enhancing its own military presence in the Arctic to better protect U.S.
interests, while countering Chinese and Russian inroads in the region:
"Under President Trump, we are fortifying America's security and diplomatic presence in the
area. On the security side, partly in response to Russia's destabilizing activities, we are
hosting military exercises, strengthening our force presence, rebuilding our icebreaker fleet,
expanding Coast Guard funding, and creating a new senior military post for Arctic Affairs
inside of our own military."
To emphasize the administration's sincerity, Pompeo touted the largest NATO and U.S. Arctic
military maneuvers since the Cold War era, the recently completed " Trident Juncture " exercise (which he
incorrectly referred to as "Trident Structure"), involving some 50,000 troops. Although the
official scenario
for Trident Juncture spoke of an unidentified "aggressor" force, few observers had any doubt
that the allied team was assembled to repel a hypothetical Russian invasion of Norway, where
the simulated combat took place.
Implementing the Doctrine
And so you have the broad outlines of the new Pompeo Doctrine, centered on the Trump
administration's truly forbidden topic: the climate crisis. In the most pugnacious manner
imaginable, that doctrine posits a future of endless competition and conflict in the Arctic,
growing ever more intense as the planet warms and the ice cap melts. The notion of the U.S.
going nose-to-nose with the Russians and Chinese in the Far North, while exploiting the
region's natural resources, has clearly been circulating in Washington. By August, it had
obviously already become enough of a commonplace in the White House (not to speak of the
National Security Council and the Pentagon), for the president to offer to buy Greenland.
And when it comes to resources and future military conflicts, it wasn't such a zany idea.
After all, Greenland does have abundant natural resources and also houses that U.S. base in
Thule. A relic of the Cold War, the Thule facility, mainly a radar base, is already being
modernized , at a cost of some $300 million, to better track Russian missile launches.
Clearly, key officials in Washington view Greenland as a valuable piece of real estate in the
emerging geopolitical struggle Pompeo laid out, an assessment that clearly wormed its way into
President Trump's consciousness as well.
Iceland and Norway also play key roles in Pompeo's and the Pentagon's new strategic
calculus. Another former Cold War facility, a base at Keflavik in Iceland has been reoccupied
by the Navy and is now being used in antisubmarine warfare missions. Meanwhile, the Marine
Corps has
stationed several hundred combat troops at bases near Trondheim, Norway, the first
permanent deployment of foreign soldiers on Norwegian soil since World War II. In 2018, the
Pentagon even
reactivated the Navy's defunct Second Fleet, investing it with responsibility for
protecting the North Atlantic as well as the Arctic's maritime approaches, including those
abutting Greenland, Iceland, and Norway. Consider these signs of heating-up times.
And all of this is clearly just the beginning of a major buildup in and regular testing of
the ability of the U.S. military to operate in the Far North. As part of Exercise Trident
Juncture, for example, the aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman and its flotilla of
support ships were sent into the Norwegian Sea, the first time a U.S. carrier battle group had
sailed above the Arctic Circle since the Soviet Union imploded in 1991. Similarly,
Secretary of the Navy Richard Spencer recently announced
plans to send surface warships on trans-Arctic missions, another new military move. (U.S.
nuclear submarines make such journeys regularly, sailing beneath the sea ice.) This article first appeared on TomDispatch. More articles by:Michael T. Klare
Ukraine appears not to have noticed that its backing for the United States to persuade Europe
to reject Nord Stream II is supporting American pressure for Europe to buy American LNG
instead. Would they be transiting that to Europe through Ukraine? Hardly.
President Trump has repeatedly criticized the project, saying it would make Germany
"captive" to Russian interests, and urging the Europeans to buy fuel from the U.S. instead.
During their talks in Kyiv this week, Danilyuk discussed this issue at length with Bolton,
and he urged the U.S. government to block the project by imposing economic sanctions against
it. "Bolton was very supportive," Danilyuk says. "He understands that Nord Stream 2 is bad
for the United States."
If – extremely unlikely – that initiative were ever successful, and the EU
blew off Nord stream II in favour of American imported LNG the Ukies would still be out $3
Billion a year in transit fees. The USA wants to replace Russian gas supplies to Europe, not
supplement them.
As usual, Ukraine is so eager to hurt Russia that it does not care if it hurts itself in
doing it. Just the sort of ally the USA loves.
KIEV: Ukraine 's gas transport company
Ukrtransgaz has upgraded several gas pumping stations so it can provide gas to eastern and
southern regions of the country if there is a disruption in supply from Russia, the company
said on Wednesday.
More than a third of Russia's gas exports to the European Union cross
Ukraine, providing Kiev with valuable transit income.
Ukraine traditionally uses some of the gas pumped by Russia to European consumers for its
own needs in eastern and central regions and then compensates for this by deliveries from gas
storage located in the west of the country.
But the Russia-Ukraine gas transit agreement is due to expire in January and Ukrainian
energy authorities are worried that Moscow could stop gas supplies
through Ukraine, leaving some Ukrainian regions without gas in winter.
"As of today, Ukrtransgaz has implemented all the necessary technical and regulatory
solutions to create a reliable reverse scheme and it is ready for regular operation and can be
activated immediately if necessary," Uktransgaz said in a statement.
It said Ukraine had already reversed gas flows in 2009 when Russian gas giant Gazprom halted gas
supplies to Ukrainian consumers because of a price dispute.
Last month, Russian energy minister and several sources said Russia wanted to strike a
short-term deal with Kiev on gas transit to Europe when the current 10-year agreement expires
to buy time to complete pipelines that will bypass Ukraine.
But Kiev and its European allies want guarantees that Ukraine will remain a transit route
for Russian gas to Europe.
In January, European Commission Vice President Maros Sefcovic floated a proposal for the two
countries to agree a new 10-year transit contract, with a guaranteed minimum yearly transit
volume of 60 bcm and 30 bcm of additional flexibility.
Ukraine's energy firm Naftogaz said last month Kiev was still counting on Sefcovic's
proposal.
The potential for problems with the transit agreement, which brings Kiev around $3 billion
revenue per year, prompted Ukraine to increase its winter gas reserves by 18% compared with
last year to 20 billion cubic meters (bcm).
Naftogaz said this week Ukraine had stored 16.6 bcm of gas by Aug. 10, up from 13.38 bcm at
the same time last year.
Ukraine consumed 32.3 bcm of gas in 2018, 10.6 bcm of which was imported from European
markets outside Russia.
Relations between Kiev and Moscow plummeted after Russia's annexation of Ukraine's Crimea
peninsula in 2014.
Ukraine halted its own purchases of Russian gas in 2015.
Federico Pieraccini's provides a useful review of the global Big Picture where he implies
in conclusion that Washington, London, Tel Aviv and Riyadh are understood to be the unhealthy
part of the globe by the vast majority of nations, which is the context of how we should view
Russia's Persian Gulf Collective Security proposal and the SCO & ASEAN's increasingly
collaborative security efforts reported by Escobar as linked above.
Trump continues his tree sitting on the thin unstable branches he forced himself to
occupy. One wonders what he'll do next to force himself even higher. Given NordStreaam 2's
almost finished completion, I'd expect a last-ditch sanctioning of EU nations if they use the
product it conveys.
Meanwhile, TurkStream is on schedule to begin
shipping gas in the last Q of 2019, the exact time not yet announced. Both strings, one for
Turkey another for Southeast Europe, will have a "throughput capacity of 15.75 billion cubic
meters each."
As we've seen, the desire to control energy sources has driven much conflict and underlies
Geopolitics to a large degree. The big problem already existing is the Saudis and the
animosity they have for Iran and Qatar. For those two heavily NatGas endowed nations, the
most logical destination for their product is Africa via pipeline across Saudi, under Red Sea
and emerging in Eritrea and/or Egypt. Such a project won't be undertaken until there's a
drastic change in Saudi attitude/leadership. And since Iran and Qatar face the same
distribution challenges for their product, I expect to see more joint efforts by them now
that Qatar's leadership has come to its senses.
"... One pressure on Putin comes from the Atlanticist Integrationists who have a material stake in their connections to the West and who want Russia to be integrated into the Western world. ..."
"... We agree with President Putin that the sanctions are in fact a benefit to Russia as they have moved Russia in self-sufficient directions and toward developing relationships with China and Asia. ..."
"... It is a self-serving Western myth that Russia needs foreign loans. This myth is enshrined in neoliberal economics, which is a device for Western exploitation and control of other countries. Russia's most dangerous threat is the country's neoliberal economists. ..."
"... Neoliberals argue that Russia needs privatization in order to cover its budget deficit. Russia's government debt is only 17 percent of Russian GDP. According to official measures, US federal debt is 104 percent of GDP, 6.1 times higher than in Russia. If US federal debt is measured in real corrected terms, US federal debt is 185 percent of US GDP. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/07/08/deteriorating-economic-outlook/ ..."
"... Russia's most dangerous threat is the country's neoliberal economists. ..."
"... Most of Russia's economic block has to be literally purged from their sinecures, some, indeed, have to be "re-educated" near Magadan or Tyumen, or Saransk. Too bad, two of these places are actually not too bad. Others deserved to be executed. Too bad this jackass Gaidar (actually no blood relation to Arkady whatsoever) died before he could be tried for crimes against humanity and genocide. Albeit, some say he died because of his consciousness couldn't take the burden. Looking at his swine face I, somehow, doubt it. ..."
"... This is not a US vs Russia issue. The real conflict is ... Globalism vs Russian nationalism and American nationalism. But since Jews control the media, they've spread the impression that it's about US vs Russia. ..."
"... Trump is an ultra-zionist for Sheldon Adelson and prolongs & creates wars for the Goldman banking crimesyndicat. ..."
"... Voltaire once said, "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." ..."
"... You write about Russia but have not done your homework. Russia is very dependent on Western technology and its entire high-tech industry depends on the import of Western machinery. Without such machinery many Russian factories, including military ones, would stall. Very important oil industry is particularly vulnerable. ..."
An article by Robert Berke in oilprice.com, which describes itself as "The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News," illustrates how interest
groups control outcomes by how they shape policy choices.
Berke's article reveals how the US intends to maintain and extend its hegemony by breaking up the alliance between Russia, Iran,
and China, and by oil privatizations that result in countries losing control over their sovereignty to private oil companies that
work closely with the US government. As Trump has neutered his presidency by gratuitously accepting Gen. Flynn's resignation as National
Security Advisor, this scheme is likely to be Trump's approach to "better relations" with Russia.
Berke reports that Henry Kissinger has sold President Trump on a scheme to use the removal of Russian sanctions to pry President
Putin away from the Russian alliance with Iran and China. Should Putin fall for such a scheme, it would be a fatal strategic blunder
from which Russia could not recover. Yet, Putin will be pressured to make this blunder.
One pressure on Putin comes from the Atlanticist Integrationists who have a material stake in their connections to the West
and who want Russia to be integrated into the Western world. Another pressure comes from the affront that sanctions represent
to Russians. Removing this insult has become important to Russians even though the sanctions do Russia no material harm.
We agree with President Putin that the sanctions are in fact a benefit to Russia as they have moved Russia in self-sufficient
directions and toward developing relationships with China and Asia. Moreover, the West with its hegemonic impulses uses economic
relationships for control purposes. Trade with China and Asia does not pose the same threat to Russian independence.
Berke says that part of the deal being offered to Putin is "increased access to the huge European energy market, restored western
financial credit, access to Western technology, and a seat at the global decision-making table, all of which Russia badly needs and
wants." Sweetening the honey trap is official recognization of "Crimea as part of Russia."
Russia might want all of this, but it is nonsense that Russia needs any of it.
Crimea is part of Russia, as it has been for 300 years, and no one can do anything about it. What would it mean if Mexico did
not recognize that Texas and California were part of the US? Nothing.
Europe has scant alternatives to Russian energy. Russia does not need Western technology. Indeed, its military technology
is superior to that in the West. And Russia most certainly does not need Western loans. Indeed, it would be an act of insanity
to accept them.
It is a self-serving Western myth that Russia needs foreign loans. This myth is enshrined in neoliberal economics, which is
a device for Western exploitation and control of other countries. Russia's most dangerous threat is the country's neoliberal economists.
The Russian central bank has convinced the Russian government that it would be inflationary to finance Russian development
projects with the issuance of central bank credit. Foreign loans are essential, claims the central bank.
Someone needs to teach the Russian central bank basic economics before Russia is turned into another Western vassal. Here is the
lesson: When central bank credit is used to finance development projects, the supply of rubles increases but so does output from
the projects. Thus, goods and services rise with the supply of rubles. When Russia borrows foreign currencies from abroad, the money
supply also increases, but so does the foreign debt. Russia does not spend the foreign currencies on the project but puts them into
its foreign exchange reserves. The central bank issues the same amount of rubles to pay the project's bills as it would in the absence
of the foreign loan. All the foreign loan does is to present Russia with an interest payment to a foreign creditor.
Foreign capital is not important to countries such as Russia and China. Both countries are perfectly capable of financing their
own development. Indeed, China is the world's largest creditor nation. Foreign loans are only important to countries that lack the
internal resources for development and have to purchase the business know-how, techlology, and resources abroad with foreign currencies
that their exports are insufficient to bring in.
This is not the case with Russia, which has large endowments of resources and a trade surplus. China's development was given a
boost by US corporations that moved their production for the US market offshore in order to pocket the difference in labor and regulatory
costs.
Neoliberals argue that Russia needs privatization in order to cover its budget deficit. Russia's government debt is only 17 percent
of Russian GDP. According to official measures, US federal debt is 104 percent of GDP, 6.1 times higher than in Russia. If US federal
debt is measured in real corrected terms, US federal debt is 185 percent of US GDP.
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/07/08/deteriorating-economic-outlook/
Clearly, if the massive debt of the US government is not a problem, the tiny debt of Russia is not a problem.
Berke's article is part of the effort to scam Russia by convincing the Russian government that its prosperity depends on unfavorable
deals with the West. As Russia's neoliberal economists believe this, the scam has a chance of success.
Another delusion affecting the Russian government is the belief that privatization brings in capital. This delusion caused the
Russian government to turn over 20 percent of its oil company to foreign ownership. The only thing Russia achieved by this strategic
blunder was to deliver 20 percent of its oil profits into foreign hands. For a one-time payment, Russia gave away 20 percent of its
oil profits in perpetuity.
To repeat outselves, the greatest threat that Russia faces is not sanctions but the incompetence of its neoliberal economists
who have been throughly brainwashed to serve US interests.
When Russia borrows foreign currencies from abroad, the money supply also increases, but so does the foreign debt. Russia
does not spend the foreign currencies on the project but puts them into its foreign exchange reserves. The central bank issues
the same amount of rubles to pay the project's bills as it would in the absence of the foreign loan. All the foreign loan does
is to present Russia with an interest payment to a foreign creditor.
Yes, correct. But this is an IMF rule, and Russia is an IMF member. To control its monetary policy it would have to get out.
Another pressure comes from the affront that sanctions represent to Russians. Removing this insult has become important
to Russians even though the sanctions do Russia no material harm.
Oh dear, neolibs at their "finest"!
This "theory" is simply not true. If anything, Russians don't want the sanctions to be lifted, because this will also force
us to scrap our counter-sanctions against the EU. The agro-business in Russia had been expanding by leaps and bounds for the last
two years. This persistent myth that "the Russians" (who exactly, I wonder – 2-3% of the pro-Western urbanites in Moscow and St.
Pete?) are desperate to have the sanctons lifted is a self-deception of the West, who IS desparate of the fact that the sanctions
didn't work.
Russia's most dangerous threat is the country's neoliberal economists.
Yes! Ulyukayev is, probably, feeling lonely in his prison. I say – why not send Chubais, Siluanov and Nabiulina to cheer him
up?
Berke reports that Henry Kissinger has sold President Trump on a scheme to use the removal of Russian sanctions to pry President
Putin away from the Russian alliance with Iran and China.
Kissinger, like Dick Cheney or George Soros, will probably never be completely dead.
Berke reports that Henry Kissinger has sold President Trump on a scheme to use the removal of Russian sanctions to pry President
Putin away from the Russian alliance with Iran and China.
Kissinger, like Dick Cheney or George Soros, will probably never be completely dead.
Another pressure comes from the affront that sanctions represent to Russians. Removing this insult has become important to
Russians even though the sanctions do Russia no material harm.
Oh dear, neolibs at their "finest"! This "theory" is simply not true. If anything, Russians don't want the sanctions to
be lifted, because this will also force us to scrap our counter-sanctions against the EU. The agro-business in Russia had been
expanding by leaps and bounds for the last two years. This persistent myth that "the Russians" (who exactly, I wonder - 2-3% of
the pro-Western urbanites in Moscow and St. Pete?) are desperate to have the sanctons lifted is a self-deception of the West,
who IS desparate of the fact that the sanctions didn't work.
Russia's most dangerous threat is the country's neoliberal economists.
Yes! Ulyukayev is, probably, feeling lonely in his prison. I say - why not send Chubais, Siluanov and Nabiulina to cheer him
up? ;)
I say – why not send Chubais, Siluanov and Nabiulina to cheer him up?
Most of Russia's economic block has to be literally purged from their sinecures, some, indeed, have to be "re-educated"
near Magadan or Tyumen, or Saransk. Too bad, two of these places are actually not too bad. Others deserved to be executed. Too
bad this jackass Gaidar (actually no blood relation to Arkady whatsoever) died before he could be tried for crimes against humanity
and genocide. Albeit, some say he died because of his consciousness couldn't take the burden. Looking at his swine face I, somehow,
doubt it.
If the US continues to antagonize Russia, Russia will have to grow even more independent, nationalist, and sovereign. At any
rate, this issue cannot be addressed until we face that the fact that globalism is essentially Jewish Supremacism that fears gentile
nationalism as a barrier to its penetration and domination.
This is not a US vs Russia issue. The real conflict is ... Globalism vs Russian nationalism and American nationalism. But
since Jews control the media, they've spread the impression that it's about US vs Russia.
Same thing with this crap about 'white privilege'. It is a misleading concept to fool Americans into thinking that the main
conflict is between 'privileged whites' and 'people of color'. It is really to hide the fact that Jewish power and privilege really
rules the US. It is a means to hoodwink people from noticing that the real divide is between Jews and Gentiles, not between 'privileged
whites' and 'non-white victims'. After all, too many whites lack privilege, and too many non-whites do very well in America.
I say – why not send Chubais, Siluanov and Nabiulina to cheer him up?
Most of Russia's economic block has to be literally purged from their sinecures, some, indeed, have to be "re-educated"
near Magadan or Tyumen, or Saransk. Too bad, two of these places are actually not too bad. Others deserved to be executed.
Too bad this jackass Gaidar (actually no blood relation to Arkady whatsoever) died before he could be tried for crimes against
humanity and genocide. Albeit, some say he died because of his consciousness couldn't take the burden. Looking at his swine
face I, somehow, doubt it.
I'm generally a big fan and admirer of Putin, but this is definitely one criticism of him that I have a lot of sympathy for.
It is long past time for Putin to purge the neoliberals from the Kremlin and nationalize the Russian Central Bank. I cannot fathom
why he hasn't done this already.
Does PCR really think that Putin is stupid enough to fall for Kissinger's hair-brained scheme? I mean, give Putin a little
bit of credit. He has so far completely outmaneuvered Washington on virtually ever subject. I'm sure he's clever enough to see
through such a crude divide-and-rule strategy.
The Russians can't be flummoxed, they aren't children. Russia and China border each other so they have a natural mutual interest
in having their east-west areas be stable and safe, particularly when the US threatens both of them. This geography isn't going
to change. Abandoning clients such as Syria and Iran would irreversibly damage the Russian brand as being unreliable therefore
they'd find it impossible to attract any others in the future. They know this so it's unlikely they would be so rash as to snap
at any bait dangled in front of them. And, as pointed out, the bait really isn't all that irresistible. It's always best to negotiate
from a position of strength and they realize that. American policy deep thinkers are often fantasists who bank upon their chess
opponents making hoped-for predictable moves. That doesn't happen in real life.
I'm generally a big fan and admirer of Putin, but this is definitely one criticism of him that I have a lot of sympathy for.
It is long past time for Putin to purge the neoliberals from the Kremlin and nationalize the Russian Central Bank. I cannot fathom
why he hasn't done this already.
I cannot fathom why he hasn't done this already.
Partially, because Putin himself is an economic liberal and, to a degree, monetarist, albeit less rigid than his economic block.
The good choices he made often were opposite to his views. As he himself admitted that Russia's geopolitical vector changed with
NATO's aggression against Yugoslavia–a strengthening of Russia has become an imperative. This comeback was impossible within the
largely "Western" monetarist economic model. Russia's comeback happened not thanks but despite Putin's economic views, Putin adjusted
his views in the process, his economic block didn't. But many of them still remain his friends, despite the fact that many of
them are de facto fifth column and work against Russia, intentionally and other wise. Eventually Putin will be forced to get down
from his fence and take the position of industrialists and siloviki. Putin's present for Medvedev's birthday was a good hint on
where he is standing economically today and I am beginning to like that but still–I personally am not convinced yet. We'll see.
In many respects Putin was lucky and specifically because of the namely Soviet military and industry captains still being around–people
who, unlike Putin, knew exactly what constituted Russia's strength. Enough to mention late Evgeny Primakov. Let's not forget that
despite Putin's meteoric rise through the top levels of Russia's state bureaucracy, including his tenure as a Director of FSB,
Putin's background is not really military-industrial. He is a lawyer, even if uniformed (KGB) part of his career. I know for a
fact that initially (early 2000s) he was overwhelmed with the complexity of Russia's military and industry. Enough to mention
his creature Serdyukov who almost destroyed Command and Control structure of Russia's Armed Forces and main ideologue behind Russia's
military "reform", late Vitaly Shlykov who might have been a great GRU spy (and economist by trade) but who never served a day
in combat units. Thankfully, the "reforms" have been stopped and Russian Armed Forces are still dealing with the consequences.
This whole clusterfvck was of Putin's own creation–hardly a good record on his resume. Hopefully, he learned.
I'm generally a big fan and admirer of Putin, but this is definitely one criticism of him that I have a lot of sympathy
for. It is long past time for Putin to purge the neoliberals from the Kremlin and nationalize the Russian Central Bank. I cannot
fathom why he hasn't done this already.
He has not done it already because he just cannot let go of his dream to have it as he did in 2003, when Russia Germany and
France together blocked legality of US war in Iraq. Putin still hopes for a good working relationship with major West European
powers. Italy France and even Germany.
He still hopes to draw them away from the US. However the obvious gains from Import substitution campaign make it apparent
that Russia does benefit from sanctions, that Russia can get anything it wants in technology from the East rather than the West.
So the break with Western orientation is in the making. Hopefully.
You forgot to mention the "moderate" jihadis, including the operatives from NATO, Israel, and US. (It seems that the Ukrainian
"patriots" that have been bombing the civilians in East Ukraine, also include special "patriots" from the same unholy trinity:
https://www.roguemoney.net/stories/2016/12/6/there-are-troops-jack-us-army-donbass
). There has been also a certain asymmetry in means: look at the map for the number and location of the US/NATO military bases.
At least we can see that RF has been trying to avoid the hot phase of WWIII.
http://russia-insider.com/sites/insider/files/NATO-vs-Russia640.jpg
If the US continues to antagonize Russia, Russia will have to grow even more independent, nationalist, and sovereign.
At any rate, this issue cannot be addressed until we face that the fact that globalism is essentially Jewish Supremacism that
fears gentile nationalism as a barrier to its penetration and domination.
This is not a US vs Russia issue. The real conflict is Jewish Globalism vs Russian nationalism and American nationalism. But
since Jews control the media, they've spread the impression that it's about US vs Russia.
Same thing with this crap about 'white privilege'. It is a misleading concept to fool Americans into thinking that the main
conflict is between 'privileged whites' and 'people of color'. It is really to hide the fact that Jewish power and privilege really
rules the US. It is a means to hoodwink people from noticing that the real divide is between Jews and Gentiles, not between 'privileged
whites' and 'non-white victims'. After all, too many whites lack privilege, and too many non-whites do very well in America.
On the power and privilege that really rule the US:
"Sanctions – economic sanctions, as most of them are, can only stand and 'succeed', as long as countries, who oppose Washington's
dictate remain bound into the western, dollar-based, fraudulent monetary scheme. The system is entirely privatized by a small
Zionist-led elite. FED, Wall Street, Bank for International Settlement (BIS), are all private institutions, largely controlled
by the Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan et al clans. They are also supported by the Breton Woods Organizations, IMF and World Bank,
conveniently created under the Charter of the UN.
Few progressive economists understand how this debt-based pyramid scam is manipulating the entire western economic system. When
in a just world, it should be just the contrary, the economy that shapes, designs and decides the functioning of the monetary
system and policy.
Even Russia, with Atlantists still largely commanding the central bank and much of the financial system, isn't fully detached
from the dollar dominion – yet."
"I cannot fathom why he hasn't done this (nationalize the "central bank) already".
I read about a rumor a few years ago that Putin has been warned that nationalizing the now private Russian central bank will
bring absolutely dire consequences to both him and Russia. It is simply a step he cannot take.
How dire are the potential consequences? Consider that the refusal of the American government to reauthorize the private central
bank in the US brought about the War of 1812. The Americans learned their lesson and quickly reauthorized the private bank after
the war had ended.
Numerous attempts were made to assassinate President Andrew Jacksons specifically because of his refusal to reauthorize the
private central bank.
Here it is in audio form so you can just relax and just listen at your leisure.
*ALL WARS ARE BANKERS' WARS* By Michael Rivero https://youtu.be/WN0Y3HRiuxo
I know many people have a great deal of difficulty comprehending just how many wars are started for no other purpose than to
force private central banks onto nations, so let me share a few examples, so that you understand why the US Government is mired
in so many wars against so many foreign nations. There is ample precedent for this.
Here is proof that there is no real Leftist power anymore.
Voltaire once said, "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
If the Left really rules America, how come it is fair game to criticize, condemn, mock, and vilify Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin,
Bakunin, Emma Goldman & anarchists, Castro, Che(even though he is revered by many, one's career isn't damaged by attacking him),
Tito, Ceucescu, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Gramsci, Eurgene Debs, Pete Seeger, Abbie Hoffman, Bill Ayers, and etc.
You can say whatever you want about such people. Some will agree, some will disagree, but you will not be fired, blacklisted,
or destroyed.
If the Left really rules, why would this be?
Now, what would happen if you name the Jewish Capitalists as the real holders of power?
What would happen if you name the Jewish oligarchic corporatists who control most of media?
What would happen if you said Jews are prominent in the vice industry of gambling?
What would happen if you named the Jewish capitalists in music industry that made so much money by spreading garbage?
What would happen if you said Jewish warhawks were largely responsible for the disasters in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine?
And what would happen if you were question the MLK mythology and cult?
What would happen if you were to make fun of homos and trannies?
Now, keep in mind that blacks and homos are favored by Jews as their main allies.
(Some say the US is not a pro-minority nation, but it's still permissible to criticize, impugn, and vilify Chinese, Iranians,
Muslims, Mexicans, Hindus, and etc. Trump was hard on China, Iran, Muslims, and Mexicans, and he got some flak over it but not
enough to destroy him. Now, imagine what would have happened if he'd said such things about blacks, Africa, homos, Jews, and Israel?
American politics isn't necessarily pro-minority. If it is, it should favor Palestinian-Americans just as much as Jewish-Americans.
Actually, since there are fewer Palestinian-Americans than Jewish-Americans, the US, being pro-minority, should favor Palestinians
over Jews in America. In reality, it is AIPAC that draws all the politicians. America is about Pro-Power, and since Jews have
the Power and since Jews are a minority, it creates the false impression that the US is a minority-supremacist nation. But WHICH
minority? Jews would like for us think that all minorities are represented equally in the US, but do Eskimos, Hawaiians, Guatemalans,
Vietnamese, and etc. have the kind of power & protection that the Jewish minority has? Do we see politicians and powerbrokers
flock to such minorities for funds and favors?)
So, what does it about the real power in America? So many 'conservatives' say the Left controls America. But in fact, an American
can badmouth all true bonafide leftist leaders and thinkers(everyone from Lenin to Sartre). However, if an American were to badmouth
Sheldon Adelson as a sick demented Zionist capitalist oligarch who wants to nuke Iran, he would be blacklisted by the most of
the media. (If one must criticize Adelson, it has to be in generic terms of him a top donor to the likes of Romney. One mustn't
discuss his zealous and maniacal views rooted in Zionist-supremacism. You can criticize his money but not the mentality that determines
the use of that money.) Isn't it rather amusing how the so-called Liberals denounce the GOP for being 'extreme' but overlook the
main reason for such extremism? It's because the GOP relies on Zionist lunatics like Adelson who thinks Iran should be nuked to
be taught a lesson. Even Liberal Media overlook this fact. Also, it's interesting that the Liberal Media are more outraged by
Trump's peace offer to Russia than Trump's hawkish rhetoric toward Iran. I thought Liberals were the Doves.
We know why politics and media work like this. It's not about 'left' vs 'right' or 'liberal' vs 'conservative'. It is really
about Jewish Globalist Dominance. Jews, neocon 'right' or globo-'left', hate Russia because its brand of white gentile nationalism
is an obstacle to Jewish supremacist domination. Now, Current Russia is nice to Jews, and Jews can make all the money they want.
But that isn't enough for Jews. Jews want total control of media, government, narrative, everything. If Jews say Russia must have
homo parades and 'gay marriage', Russia better bend over because its saying NO means that it is defiant to the Jewish supremacist
agenda of using homomania as proxy to undermine and destroy all gentile nationalism rooted in identity and moral righteousness.
Russia doesn't allow that, and that is what pisses off Jews. For Jews, the New Antisemitism is defined as denying them the supremacist
'right' to control other nations. Classic antisemitism used to mean denying Jews equal rights under the law. The New Antisemitism
means Jews are denied the right to gain dominance over others and dictate terms.
So, that is why Jews hate any idea of good relations with Russia. But Jews don't mind Trump's irresponsible anti-Iran rhetoric
since it serves Zionist interest. So, if Trump were to say, "We shouldn't go to war with Russia; we should be friends" and "We
should get ready to bomb, destroy, and even nuke Iran", the 'liberal' media would be more alarmed by the Peace-with-Russia statement.
Which groups controls the media? 'Liberals', really? Do Muslim 'liberals' agree with Jewish 'liberals'?
Anyway, we need to do away with the fiction that Left rules anything. They don't. We have Jewish Supremacist rule hiding behind
the label of the 'Left'. But the US is a nation where it's totally permissible to attack real leftist ideas and leaders but suicidal
if anyone dares to discuss the power of super-capitalist Jewish oligarchs. Some 'leftism'!
300 Words @Quartermaster
Trump has not been neutered. Buchanan has the right on this and Flynn's actions.
Sorry, but Crimea is Ukraine. Russia is in serious economic decline and is rapidly burning through its reserves. Putin is almost
down to the welfare fund from which pensions are paid, and only about a third of pensions are being paid now.
If Sanctions are of benefit to Russia, then the sanctions against Imperial Japan were just ducky and no war was fought.
Roberts is the next best thing to insane.
This is rich from a Ukrainian nationalist ruled by Groysman/Kagans.
First, figure out who is your saint, a collaborationist Bandera (Babiy Yar and such) or a triple-sitizenship Kolomojski (auto-da-fe
of civilians in Odessa). If you still want to bring Holodomor to a discussion, then you need to be reminded that 80% of Ukrainian
Cheka at that time were Jewish. If you still think that Russians are the root of all evil, then try to ask the US for more money
for pensions, education, and healthcare – instead of weaponry. Here are the glorious results of the US-approved governance from
Kiev: http://gnnliberia.com/2017/02/17/liberia-ahead-ukraine-index-economic-freedom-2017/
"Liberia, Chad, Afghanistan, Sudan and Angola are ahead of Ukraine. All these countries are in the group of repressed economies
(49.9-40 scores). Ukraine's economy has contracted deeply and remains very fragile."
Here are your relationships with your neighbors on the other side – Poland and Romania:
"The right-winged conservative orientation of Warsaw makes it remember old Polish-Ukrainian arguments and scores, and claim its
rights on the historically Polish lands of Western Ukraine"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/01/17/poland-will-begin-dividing-ukraine/
" the "Assembly of Bukovina Romanians" has recently applied to Petro Poroshenko demanding a territorial autonomy to the Chernivtsi
region densely populated by Romanians. The "Assembly" motivated its demand with the Ukrainian president's abovementioned statement
urging territorial autonomy for the Crimean Tatars."
https://eadaily.com/en/news/2016/06/30/what-is-behind-romanias-activity-in-ukraine
And please read some history books about Crimea. Or at least Wikipedia:
"In 1783, Crimea was annexed by the Russian Empire. In 1954, the Crimean Oblast was transferred to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist
Republic by Nikita Khrushchev (a Soviet dictator). In 2014, a 96.77 percent of Crimeans voted for integration of the region into
the Russian Federation with an 83.1 percent voter turnout." You see, the Crimeans do not like Nuland-Kagan and Pravyj Sector.
Do you know why?
100 Words @Seamus
Padraig Does PCR really think that Putin is stupid enough to fall for Kissinger's hair-brained scheme? I mean, give Putin
a little bit of credit. He has so far completely outmaneuvered Washington on virtually ever subject. I'm sure he's clever enough
to see through such a crude divide-and-rule strategy.
well it depends. if putin is just out for himself, I can see him getting in bed with kissinger and co. if he is about russia,
he would not. that is how I see it. it isn't about if putin is smart or stupid. just a choice and where his royalty lies.
100 Words @Quartermaster
Trump has not been neutered. Buchanan has the right on this and Flynn's actions.
Sorry, but Crimea is Ukraine. Russia is in serious economic decline and is rapidly burning through its reserves. Putin is almost
down to the welfare fund from which pensions are paid, and only about a third of pensions are being paid now.
If Sanctions are of benefit to Russia, then the sanctions against Imperial Japan were just ducky and no war was fought.
Roberts is the next best thing to insane.
Sorry, but Crimea is Ukraine.
How so? #Krymnash
Russia is in serious economic decline and is rapidly burning through its reserves.
If by "decline" you mean "expects this year a modest growth as opposed to previous years" then you might be right.
I've been reading about Russia's imminent collapse and the annihilation of the economy since forever. Some no-names like you
(or some Big Names with agenda) had been predicting it every year. Still didn't happen.
Putin is almost down to the welfare fund from which pensions are paid, and only about a third of pensions are being paid
now.
Can I see a source for that?
If Sanctions are of benefit to Russia, then the sanctions against Imperial Japan were just ducky and no war was fought.
False equivalence.
P.S. Hey, Quart – how is Bezviz? Also – are you not cold here? Or are you one of the most racally pure Ukrs, currently residing
in Ontario province (Canada), from whence you teach your less lucky raguls in Nizalezhnaya how to be more racially pure? Well,
SUGS to be you!
@Quartermaster
Trump has not been neutered. Buchanan has the right on this and Flynn's actions.
Sorry, but Crimea is Ukraine. Russia is in serious economic decline and is rapidly burning through its reserves. Putin is almost
down to the welfare fund from which pensions are paid, and only about a third of pensions are being paid now.
If Sanctions are of benefit to Russia, then the sanctions against Imperial Japan were just ducky and no war was fought.
Roberts is the next best thing to insane.
Do you have any links to verify this that Russia is down to bedrock,from everything I read and have read Russia's do pretty
damn good, or is this just some more of your endless antiRussian propaganda,,
A scandal of a EU member Poland:
http://thesaker.is/zmiana-piskorski-and-the-case-for-polish-liberation/
Two days after he [Piskorski] publicly warned that US-NATO troops now have a mandate to suppress Polish dissent on the grounds
of combatting "Russian hybrid war," he was snatched up by armed agents of Poland's Internal Security Agency while taking his children
to school on May 18th, 2016. He was promptly imprisoned in Warsaw, where he remains with no formal charges to this day."
With the Poland's entry into EU, "Poland did not "regain" sovereignty, much less justice, but forfeited such to the Atlanticist
project Poland has been de-industrialized, and thus deprived of the capacity to pursue independent and effective social and economic
policies Now, with the deployment of thousands of US-NATO troops, tanks, and missile systems on its soil and the Polish government's
relinquishment of jurisdiction over foreign armed forces on its territory, Poland is de facto under occupation. This occupation
is not a mere taxation on Poland's national budget – it is an undeniable liquidation of sovereignty and inevitably turns the country
into a direct target and battlefield in the US' provocative war on Russia."
" it's not the Russians who are going to occupy us now – they left here voluntarily 24 years ago. It's not the Russians that
have ravaged Polish industry since 1989. It's not the Russians that have stifled Poles with usurious debt. Finally, it's not the
Russians that are responsible for the fact that we have become the easternmost aircraft carrier of the United States anchored
in Europe. We ourselves, who failed by allowing such traitors into power, are to blame for this."
More from a comment section: "Donald Tusk, who is now President of the European Council, whose grandfather, Josef Tusk, served
in Hitler's Wehrmacht, has consistently demanded that the Kiev regime imposed by the US and EU deal with the Donbass people brutally,
"as with terrorists". While the Polish special services were training the future participants of the Maidan operations and the
ethnic cleansing of the Donbass, the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs made this official statement (02-02-2014): "We support
the hard line taken by the Right Sector The radical actions of the Right Sector and other militant groups of demonstrators and
the use of force by protesters are justified The Right Sector has taken full responsibility for all the acts of violence during
the recent protests. This is an honest position, and we respect it. The politicians have failed at their peacekeeping function.
This means that the only acceptable option is the radical actions of the Right Sector. There is no other alternative".
In short, the US has been the most active enabler of the neo-Nazi movement in Europe. Mrs. Clinton seemingly did not get a
memo about who is "new Hitler."
Do you happen to know anything about western financial giants' influence upon Russia's "Atlanticist Integrationists"?
It's low hanging fruit for me to take a pick, but I am thinking The Goldman Sachs Group is well ensconced among Russian "Atlanticist
Integrationists."
You guys are top seeded pros at uncovering Deep State-banker secrets. In contrast, I drive school bus and I struggle to even
balance the family Wells Fargo debit card!
However, since our US Congress has anointed a seasoned G.S.G. veteran, Steve Mnuchin, as the administration's Treasury Secretary,
he has become my favorite "Person of Interest" who I suspect spouts a Ural Mountain-level say as to how "Atlanticist Integrationists"
operate.
Speaking very respectfully, I hope my question does not get "flummoxed" into resource rich Siberia.
Berke reports that Henry Kissinger has sold President Trump on a scheme to use the removal of Russian sanctions to pry President
Putin away from the Russian alliance with Iran and China.
Kissinger, like Dick Cheney or George Soros, will probably never be completely dead.
Kissinger, like Dick Cheney or George Soros, will probably never be completely dead
.
Most likely the Spirit of Anti-Christ keeping them alive to do his bidding.
@Priss Factor
Here is proof that there is no real Leftist power anymore.
Voltaire once said, "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
If the Left really rules America, how come it is fair game to criticize, condemn, mock, and vilify Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin,
Bakunin, Emma Goldman & anarchists, Castro, Che(even though he is revered by many, one's career isn't damaged by attacking him),
Tito, Ceucescu, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Gramsci, Eurgene Debs, Pete Seeger, Abbie Hoffman, Bill Ayers, and etc.
You can say whatever you want about such people. Some will agree, some will disagree, but you will not be fired, blacklisted,
or destroyed.
If the Left really rules, why would this be?
Now, what would happen if you name the Jewish Capitalists as the real holders of power?
What would happen if you name the Jewish oligarchic corporatists who control most of media?
What would happen if you said Jews are prominent in the vice industry of gambling?
What would happen if you named the Jewish capitalists in music industry that made so much money by spreading garbage?
What would happen if you said Jewish warhawks were largely responsible for the disasters in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine?
And what would happen if you were question the MLK mythology and cult?
What would happen if you were to make fun of homos and trannies?
Now, keep in mind that blacks and homos are favored by Jews as their main allies.
(Some say the US is not a pro-minority nation, but it's still permissible to criticize, impugn, and vilify Chinese, Iranians,
Muslims, Mexicans, Hindus, and etc. Trump was hard on China, Iran, Muslims, and Mexicans, and he got some flak over it but not
enough to destroy him. Now, imagine what would have happened if he'd said such things about blacks, Africa, homos, Jews, and Israel?
American politics isn't necessarily pro-minority. If it is, it should favor Palestinian-Americans just as much as Jewish-Americans.
Actually, since there are fewer Palestinian-Americans than Jewish-Americans, the US, being pro-minority, should favor Palestinians
over Jews in America. In reality, it is AIPAC that draws all the politicians. America is about Pro-Power, and since Jews have
the Power and since Jews are a minority, it creates the false impression that the US is a minority-supremacist nation. But WHICH
minority? Jews would like for us think that all minorities are represented equally in the US, but do Eskimos, Hawaiians, Guatemalans,
Vietnamese, and etc. have the kind of power & protection that the Jewish minority has? Do we see politicians and powerbrokers
flock to such minorities for funds and favors?)
So, what does it about the real power in America? So many 'conservatives' say the Left controls America. But in fact, an American
can badmouth all true bonafide leftist leaders and thinkers(everyone from Lenin to Sartre). However, if an American were to badmouth
Sheldon Adelson as a sick demented Zionist capitalist oligarch who wants to nuke Iran, he would be blacklisted by the most of
the media. (If one must criticize Adelson, it has to be in generic terms of him a top donor to the likes of Romney. One mustn't
discuss his zealous and maniacal views rooted in Zionist-supremacism. You can criticize his money but not the mentality that determines
the use of that money.) Isn't it rather amusing how the so-called Liberals denounce the GOP for being 'extreme' but overlook the
main reason for such extremism? It's because the GOP relies on Zionist lunatics like Adelson who thinks Iran should be nuked to
be taught a lesson. Even Liberal Media overlook this fact. Also, it's interesting that the Liberal Media are more outraged by
Trump's peace offer to Russia than Trump's hawkish rhetoric toward Iran. I thought Liberals were the Doves.
We know why politics and media work like this. It's not about 'left' vs 'right' or 'liberal' vs 'conservative'. It is really
about Jewish Globalist Dominance. Jews, neocon 'right' or globo-'left', hate Russia because its brand of white gentile nationalism
is an obstacle to Jewish supremacist domination. Now, Current Russia is nice to Jews, and Jews can make all the money they want.
But that isn't enough for Jews. Jews want total control of media, government, narrative, everything. If Jews say Russia must have
homo parades and 'gay marriage', Russia better bend over because its saying NO means that it is defiant to the Jewish supremacist
agenda of using homomania as proxy to undermine and destroy all gentile nationalism rooted in identity and moral righteousness.
Russia doesn't allow that, and that is what pisses off Jews. For Jews, the New Antisemitism is defined as denying them the supremacist
'right' to control other nations. Classic antisemitism used to mean denying Jews equal rights under the law. The New Antisemitism
means Jews are denied the right to gain dominance over others and dictate terms.
So, that is why Jews hate any idea of good relations with Russia. But Jews don't mind Trump's irresponsible anti-Iran rhetoric
since it serves Zionist interest. So, if Trump were to say, "We shouldn't go to war with Russia; we should be friends" and "We
should get ready to bomb, destroy, and even nuke Iran", the 'liberal' media would be more alarmed by the Peace-with-Russia statement.
Which groups controls the media? 'Liberals', really? Do Muslim 'liberals' agree with Jewish 'liberals'?
Anyway, we need to do away with the fiction that Left rules anything. They don't. We have Jewish Supremacist rule hiding behind
the label of the 'Left'. But the US is a nation where it's totally permissible to attack real leftist ideas and leaders but suicidal
if anyone dares to discuss the power of super-capitalist Jewish oligarchs. Some 'leftism'!
What an amazing whoring performance for the war-manufacturers! And here is an interesting morsel of information about the belligerent
Frau der Leyen:
http://www.dw.com/en/stanford-accuses-von-der-leyen-of-misrepresentation/a-18775432
"Stanford university has said Ursula von der Leyen is misrepresenting her affiliation with the school. The German defense minister's
academic career is already under scrutiny after accusations of plagiarism." No kidding. Some "Ursula von der Leyen' values" indeed.
I doubt we'll see little change from the Trump administration toward Russia.
From SOTT:
Predictable news coming out of Yemen: Saudi-backed "Southern Resistance" forces and Hadi loyalists, alongside al-Qaeda of
the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), launched a new offensive against the Houthis in western Yemen on Wednesday.
This is not the first time Saudi-backed (and by extension, Washington-backed) forces have teamed up with al-Qaeda in Yemen
.
Yemen is quickly becoming the "spark that lights the powder keg". The conflict has already killed, maimed and displaced
countless thousands (thanks to the stellar lack of reporting from trustworthy western news sources, we can only estimate the
scale of Saudi/U.S. crimes in Yemen), but now it seems that elements of the Trump administration are keen on escalation, likely
in hopes of giving Washington an excuse to carpet bomb Tehran.
Apparently, we feel satisfied fighting with our old allies, al-Qaeda and Saudis.
I think that the authors may be underestimating Putin in his determination to keep Russia and the Russian economy independent.
For example, I find this rumoured offer of "increased access to the huge European energy market" very funny, for at least two
reasons:
1) US wants to sell hydrocarbons (LPG) to the European market at significantly higher prices than the Russian prices, and
2) the current dependence of EU countries on the Russian energy would have never happened if there were better alternatives.
In other words, any detente offer that the West would make to Russia would last, as usual, not even until the signature ink
dries on the new cooperation agreements. Putin does not look to me like someone who suffers much from wishful thinking.
The Russian relationship with China is not a bed of roses, but it is not China which is increasing military activity all
around Russia, it is the West. Also, so far China has shown no interest in regime-changing Russia and dividing it into pieces.
Would you rather believe in the reform capability of an addict in violence or someone who does not need to reform? Would the West
self-reform and sincerely renounce violence just by signing a new agreement with Russia?
The new faux detente will never happen, as long as Putin is alive.
Trump is an ultra-zionist for Sheldon Adelson and prolongs & creates wars for the Goldman banking crimesyndicat.
The only one stopping Trump is Putin or Russia's missile defenses.
Indeed, Putin's main inside enemy is Russia's central bank, or the Jewish oligarchs in Russia (Atlanticists). Also Russia needs
to foster and encourage small&medium enterprises, that need cheap credit, to create competitive markets, where no prices are fixed
and market shares change. These are most efficient resource users.
In the US, Wallstreet controls government = fascism = the IG Farben- Auschwitz concentration camps to maximize profits. This
is the direction for the US economy.
Meanwhile in the EU, the former Auschwitz owners IG Farben (Bayer(Monsanto), Hoechst, BASF) the EU chemical giants, who have
patented all natures molecules, are in controll again over EU. Deutsche bank et allies is eating Greece, Italy, Spain's working
classes, using AUSTERITY as their creed.
So what is new? Nothing, the supercorporate-fascist elites are the same families, who 's morality is unchanged in a 100 years.
I'm generally a big fan and admirer of Putin, but this is definitely one criticism of him that I have a lot of sympathy
for. It is long past time for Putin to purge the neoliberals from the Kremlin and nationalize the Russian Central Bank. I cannot
fathom why he hasn't done this already.
I would really love to like Putin and I am trying but him protecting all those criminals and not reversing the history greatest
heist of 90′s makes it impossible. While I am behind all his moves to restore Russian military and foreign policy, I am still
waiting for more on home front. Note, not only the Bank must be nationalized. Everything, all industries, factories and other
assets privatized by now must be returned to rightful owner. Public which over 70 years through great sacrifice built all of it.
Partially, because Putin himself is an economic liberal and, to a degree, monetarist, albeit less rigid than his economic block.
The good choices he made often were opposite to his views. As he himself admitted that Russia's geopolitical vector changed with
NATO's aggression against Yugoslavia--a strengthening of Russia has become an imperative. This comeback was impossible within
the largely "Western" monetarist economic model. Russia's comeback happened not thanks but despite Putin's economic views, Putin
adjusted his views in the process, his economic block didn't. But many of them still remain his friends, despite the fact that
many of them are de facto fifth column and work against Russia, intentionally and other wise. Eventually Putin will be forced
to get down from his fence and take the position of industrialists and siloviki. Putin's present for Medvedev's birthday was a
good hint on where he is standing economically today and I am beginning to like that but still--I personally am not convinced
yet. We'll see. In many respects Putin was lucky and specifically because of the namely Soviet military and industry captains
still being around--people who, unlike Putin, knew exactly what constituted Russia's strength. Enough to mention late Evgeny Primakov.
Let's not forget that despite Putin's meteoric rise through the top levels of Russia's state bureaucracy, including his tenure
as a Director of FSB, Putin's background is not really military-industrial. He is a lawyer, even if uniformed (KGB) part of his
career. I know for a fact that initially (early 2000s) he was overwhelmed with the complexity of Russia's military and industry.
Enough to mention his creature Serdyukov who almost destroyed Command and Control structure of Russia's Armed Forces and main
ideologue behind Russia's military "reform", late Vitaly Shlykov who might have been a great GRU spy (and economist by trade)
but who never served a day in combat units. Thankfully, the "reforms" have been stopped and Russian Armed Forces are still dealing
with the consequences. This whole clusterfvck was of Putin's own creation--hardly a good record on his resume. Hopefully, he learned.
Smoothie, you seem to have natural aversion towards lawyers
Albeit, the first Vladimir, I mean Lenin also was a lawyers by education still he was a rather quick study. Remember that military
communism and Lenin after one year after Bolsheviks took power telling that state capitalism would be great step forward for Russia
whcih obviously was backward and ruined by wars at the time and he proceeded with New Economic Policy and Lenin despite not being
industry captain realized pretty well what constituted state power hence GOELRO plans and electrification of all Russia plans
and so forth which was later turned by Stalin and his team into reality.
Now, Lenin was ideologically motivated and so is Putin. But he clearly has been trying to achieve different results by keeping
same people around him and doing same things. Hopefully it is changing now, but it is so much wasted time when old Vladimir was
always repeating that time is of essence and delay is like death knell. Putin imho is away too relax and even vain in some way,
hence those shirtless pictures and those on the bike. And the way he walks a la "Я Московский озорной гуляка". As you said it
looks like he is protecting those criminals who must be prosecuted and yes, many executed for what they caused.
I suspect in cases when it comes to economical development he is not picking right people for those jobs and it is his major
responsibility to assign right people and delegate power properly, not to be forgotten to reverse what constitutes the history
greatest heist and crime so called "privatization". Basically returning to more communal society minus Politburo.
There is a huge elephant in the room too. Russia demographic situation which I doubt can be addressed under current liberal
order. all states which are in liberal state of affairs fail to basically procreate hence these waves of immigrants brought into
all Western Nations. Russia cannot do it. It would be suicide which is what all Western countries are doing right now.
Russia does not need Western technology. Indeed, its military technology is superior to that in the West.
You write about Russia but have not done your homework. Russia is very dependent on Western technology and its entire high-tech
industry depends on the import of Western machinery. Without such machinery many Russian factories, including military ones, would
stall. Very important oil industry is particularly vulnerable.
Some home reading (sorry, they are in Russian, but one ought to know the language if one writes about the country).
"... The control of the energy corridors is of capital importance. By accusing Iran of attempting to " interrupt the flow of oil through the Straights of Hormuz ", Mike Pompeo announced that " the United States will defend freedom of navigation ". In other words, he has announced that the United States want to gain military control of this key area for energy supplies, including for Europe, by preventing above all the transit of Iranian oil (to which Italy and other European countries cannot in any case enjoy free access because of the US embargo). ..."
"... Natural gas might also have arrived directly in Italy from Russia, and from there be distributed to other European countries with notable economical advantages, via the South Stream route through the Black Sea. But the pipeline, already in an advanced stage of construction, was blocked in 2014 by the pressure of the United States and European Union itself, with heavy prejudice for Italy. ..."
"... In fact it was the reproduction of North Stream which continued, making Germany the centre of triage for Russian gas.. Then, on the basis of the " USA/EU strategic cooperation in the energy field " agreement stipulated in July 2018, US exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to the EU tripled. The triage centre was in Poland, from which was distributed the " Freedom Gas " which also arrived in Ukraine. ..."
"... Washington's objective is strategic – to hurt Russia by replacing Russian gas in Europe with US gas ..."
"... So what does Matteo Salvini have to say about all that? When he arrived in the " greatest democracy in the Western world ", he proudly declared - " I am part of a government which in Europe is no longer satisfied with breadcrumbs " ..."
Manlio Dinucci invites us to take a step back. He replaces the sabotage of these petrol tankers, for which Washington
accuses Teheran, in the context of the global energy policy of the United States. By doing so, he demonstrates that, contrary to
appearances, Mike Pompeo is not targeting Iran, but Europe.
While the United States prepared a new escalation of tension in the Middle East by accusing
Iran of attacking petrol tankers in the Gulf of Oman, Italian vice-Prime Minister Matteo
Salvini met with one of the artisans of this strategy in Washington, Secretary of State Mike
Pompeo, assuring him that " Italy wants to regain its place as the major partner on the
European continent of the greatest Western democracy ". Thereby he has allied Italy with the
operation launched by Washington.
The " Gulf of Oman affair " , a casus belli against Iran, is a carbon copy of the " Gulf of
Tonkin affair " of 4 August 1964, itself used as a casus belli to bomb North Vietnam, which was
accused of having attacked a US torpedo boat (an accusation which was later proved to be
false).
Today, a video released by Washington shows the crew of an alleged Iranian patrol boat
removing an unexploded mine from the hull of a petrol tanker in order to conceal its origin
(because the mine would allegedly have borne the inscription " Made in Iran ").
With this " proof " - a veritable insult to our intelligence - Washington is attempting to
camouflage the goal of the operation. It is part of the strategy aimed at controlling the world
reserves of oil and natural gas and their energy corridors [ 1 ]. It is no coincidence that Iran
and Iraq are in US crosshairs. Their total oil reserves are greater than those of Saudi Arabia,
and five times greater than those of the United States. Iranian reserves of natural gas are
approximately 2.5 times those of the USA. Venezuela finds itself targeted by the USA for the
same reason, since it is the country which owns the greatest oil reserves in the world.
The control of the energy corridors is of capital importance. By accusing Iran of attempting
to " interrupt the flow of oil through the Straights of Hormuz ", Mike Pompeo announced that "
the United States will defend freedom of navigation ". In other words, he has announced that
the United States want to gain military control of this key area for energy supplies, including
for Europe, by preventing above all the transit of Iranian oil (to which Italy and other
European countries cannot in any case enjoy free access because of the US embargo).
Low-cost Iranian natural gas might also have reached Europe by way of a pipeline crossing
Iraq and Syria. But the project, launched in 2011, was destroyed by the USA/NATO operation to
demolish the Syrian state.
Natural gas might also have arrived directly in Italy from Russia, and from there be
distributed to other European countries with notable economical advantages, via the South
Stream route through the Black Sea. But the pipeline, already in an advanced stage of
construction, was blocked in 2014 by the pressure of the United States and European Union
itself, with heavy prejudice for Italy.
In fact it was the reproduction of North Stream which continued, making Germany the centre
of triage for Russian gas.. Then, on the basis of the " USA/EU strategic cooperation in the
energy field " agreement stipulated in July 2018, US exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to
the EU tripled. The triage centre was in Poland, from which was distributed the " Freedom Gas "
which also arrived in Ukraine.
Washington's objective is strategic – to hurt Russia by replacing Russian gas in
Europe with US gas. But we have no guarantees, neither on the price, nor on the time-scale for
US gas extracted from the bituminous shale by the technique known as fracking (hydraulic
fracturation), which is disastrous for the environment.
So what does Matteo Salvini have to say about all that? When he arrived in the " greatest
democracy in the Western world ", he proudly declared - " I am part of a government which in
Europe is no longer satisfied with breadcrumbs ". Manlio Dinucci
https://cdn.districtm.io/ids/index.html Russia's oil production in June was 50,000 bpd below
the level Moscow had pledged under the OPEC and non-OPEC production cut agreement, Russian
Energy Minister Alexander Novak said on Monday, as carried by Russian news agency Interfax .
As part of the OPEC+ production cuts between January and June, Russia is taking the lion's
share of the non-OPEC cuts and pledged to reduce production by
230,000 bpd from October's post-Soviet record level of 11.421 million bpd, to 11.191
million bpd.
You gotta love the SCI. This shallowly-disguised Russian propaganda arm writes in the most
charming awkward idiomatic English, bouncing from a "false neutral" tone to a jingoistic
Amercia-phobic argot to produce its hit pieces.
Russian propaganda acts like Claude Raines in "Casablanca" : "i am shocked, shocked to
discover (geopolitics) going on here!" Geeeee, Europe and the US are in a struggle to
avoid Europe relying on Russia for strategic necessities like fuel, even if it imposes costs
on European consumers. If you have a dangerous disease, and your pharmacist is known for
cutting off their customers' vital drugs to extort them, you might consider using another
provider who not only doesn't cut off supplies, but also provides the police department that
protects you from your pharmacist's thugs who are known to invade customers' homes using the
profits from their own business.
The US provides the protective umbrella that limits Putin's adventurism. Russia cuts of
Ukraine's gas supplies in winter to force them into submission. Gasprom is effectively an arm
of the Russian military, weaponizing Russia's only product as a geopolitical taser. Sure, it
costs more to transport LNG across the Atlantic and convert it back to gas, but the profits
from that business are routinely funneled back to Europe in the form of US trade,
contributions to NATO, and the provision of the nuclear umbrella that protects Europeans from
the man who has publicly lamented the fall of the Soviet Union, called for the return of the
former SSRs, and violated the IRM treaty to place nuclear capable intermediate-range missiles
and cruise missiles within range of Europe and boasted about his new hypersonic weapons'
theoretic capability to decapitate NATO and American decision-making within a few minutes of
launch.
Oh, for pity's sake, Laugher. Everything...absolutely everything you attribute to Russia
in your post can be said of the U.S. I'm not much of a Wiki fan, but for expediency, here's
their view on military bases.
The establishment of military bases abroad enables a country to project power , e.g. to conduct
expeditionary
warfare , and thereby influence events abroad. Depending on their size and
infrastructure, they can be used as staging areas or for logistical,
communications and intelligence support. Many conflicts throughout modern history have
resulted in overseas military bases being established in large numbers by world powers and the
existence of bases abroad has served countries having them in achieving political and
military goals.
And this link will provide you with countries worldwide and their bases.
Note that Russia, in this particular list, has eight bases all contiguous to Russia. The
U.S. has 36 listed here with none of them contiguous to the U.S.' borders.
See better discussion at
platts.com "But US LNG could face problems of its own – the current low prices are forcing ever growing numbers of US producers
into bankruptcy. According to a recent report by Haynes and Boone, 90 gas and oil producers in the US and Canada have filed for bankruptcy
between January 2015 and the start of August 2016." So $2 price at Henry Hub should rise to at least $4 for companies to stay in business.
Notable quotes:
"... Less than half of the gas necessary for Europe is produced domestically, the rest being imported from Russia (39%), Norway (30%) and Algeria (13%). In 2017, gas imports from outside of the EU reached 14%. Spain led with imports of 31%, followed by France with 20% and Italy with 15%. ..."
"... The South Stream project, led by Eni, Gazprom, EDF and Wintershall, should have increased the capacity of the Russian Federation to supply Europe with 63 billion cubic meters annually, positively impacting the economy with cheap supplies of gas to Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, Serbia, Hungary, Austria and Slovenia. Due to the restrictions imposed by the European Union on Russian companies like Gazprom, and the continuing pressure from Washington to abandon the project and embrace imports from the US, the construction of the pipeline have slowed down and generated tensions between Europe and the US. Washington is piling on pressure on Germany to derail Nord Stream 2 and stop the construction of this important energy linkage. ..."
"... Further tension has been added since ENI, an Italian company that is a leader in the LNG sector, recently discovered off-shore in Egypt one of the largest gas fields in the world, with an estimated total capacity of 850 billion cubic meters. To put this in perspective, all EU countries demand is about 470 billion cubic meters of gas in 2017. ..."
"... s mentioned, LNG imported to Europe from the US costs about 20% more than gas traditionally received through pipelines. This is without including all the investment necessary to build regasification plants in countries destined to receive this ship-borne gas. Europe currently does not have the necessary facilities on its Atlantic coast to receive LNG from the US, introduce it into its energy networks, and simultaneously decrease demand from traditional sources. ..."
"... This situation could change in the future, with LNG from the US seeing a sharp increase recently. In 2010, American LNG exports to Europe were at 10%; the following year they rose to 11%; and in the first few months of 2019, they jumped to 35%. A significant decrease in LNG exports to Asian countries, which are less profitable, offers an explanation for this corresponding increase in Europe. ..."
"... Washington, with its LNG ships, has no capacity to compete in Asia against Qatar and Australia, who have the lion's share of the market, with Moscow's pipelines taking up the rest. The only large remaining market lies in Europe, so it is therefore not surprising that Donald Trump has decided to weaponize LNG, a bit as he has the US dollar . This has only driven EU countries to seek energy diversification in the interests of security. ..."
"... The European countries do not appear to be dragging their feet at the prospect of swapping to US LNG, even though there is no economic advantage to doing so. As has been evident of late, whenever Washington says, "Jump!", European allies respond, "How high?" ..."
"... The generalized hysteria against the Russian Federation, together with the cutting off of Iranian oil imports at Washington's behest, limit the room for maneuver of European countries, in addition to costing European taxpayers a lot. ..."
One of the most important energy battles
of the future will be fought in the field of liquid natural gas (LNG). Suggested as one of the main solutions to
pollution , LNG offers the possibility
of still managing to meet a country's industrial needs while ameliorating environmental concerns caused by other energy sources.
At the same time, a little like the US dollar, LNG is becoming a tool Washington intends to use against Moscow at the expense of
Washington's European allies.
To understand the rise of LNG in global strategies, it is wise to look at a
graph (page 7)
produced by the International Gas Union (IGU) where the following four key indicators are highlighted: global regasification capacities;
total volumes of LNG exchanged; exporting countries; and importing countries.
From 1990 to today,
the world has grown from 220 million tons per annum (MTPA) to around 850 MTPA of regasification capacity. The volume of trade
increased from 20-30 MTPA to around 300 MTPA. Likewise, the number of LNG-importing countries has increased from just over a dozen
to almost 40 over the course of 15 years, while the number of producers has remained almost unchanged, except for a few exceptions
like the US entering the LNG market in 2016.
There are two methods used to transport gas.
The first is through pipelines, which reduce costs and facilitate interconnection between countries, an important example of
this being seen in Europe's importation of gas. The four main pipelines for Europe come from four distinct geographical regions:
the Middle East, Africa, Northern Europe and Russia.
The second method of transporting gas is by sea in the form of LNG, which in the short term is more expensive, complex and
difficult to implement on a large scale. Gas transported by sea is processed to be cooled so as to reduce its volume, and then
liquified again to allow storage and transport by ship. This process adds 20% to costs when compared to gas transported through
pipelines.
Less than half of the gas necessary for Europe is
produced domestically, the
rest being imported from Russia (39%), Norway (30%) and Algeria (13%). In 2017, gas imports from outside of the EU reached 14%. Spain
led with imports of 31%, followed by France with 20% and Italy with 15%.
The construction of infrastructure to accommodate LNG ships is ongoing in Europe, and some European countries already have a limited
capacity to accommodate LNG and direct it to the national and European network or act as an energy hub to ship LNG to other ports
using smaller ships.
"All of Europe's LNG terminals are import facilities, with the exception of (non-EU) Norway and Russia which export LNG. There
are currently 28 large-scale LNG import terminals in Europe (including non-EU Turkey). There are also 8 small-scale LNG facilities
in Europe (in Finland, Sweden, Germany, Norway and Gibraltar). Of the 28 large-scale LNG import terminals, 24 are in EU countries
(and therefore subject to EU regulation) and 4 are in Turkey, 23 are land-based import terminals, and 4 are floating storage and
regasification units (FSRUs), and the one import facility in Malta comprises a Floating Storage Unit (FSU) and onshore regasification
facilities."
The countries currently most involved in the export of LNG are Qatar (24.9%), Australia (21.7%), Malaysia (7.7%), the US (6.7%),
Nigeria (6.5%) and Russia (6%).
Europe is one of the main markets for gas, given its strong demand for clean energy for domestic and industrial needs. For this
reason, Germany has for years been engaged in the Nord Stream 2 project, which aims to double the transport capacity of gas from
Russia to Germany. Currently the flow of the Nord Stream is 55 billion cubic meters of gas. With the new Nord Stream 2, the capacity
will double to 110 billion cubic meters per year.
The South Stream project, led by Eni, Gazprom, EDF and Wintershall, should have increased the capacity of the Russian Federation
to supply Europe with 63 billion cubic meters annually, positively impacting the economy with cheap supplies of gas to Bulgaria,
Greece, Italy, Serbia, Hungary, Austria and Slovenia. Due to the restrictions imposed by the European Union on Russian companies
like Gazprom, and the continuing pressure from Washington to abandon the project and embrace imports from the US, the construction
of the pipeline have slowed down and generated tensions between Europe and the US. Washington is piling on pressure on Germany to
derail Nord Stream 2 and stop the construction of this important energy linkage.
Further tension has been added since ENI, an Italian company that is a leader in the LNG sector, recently discovered off-shore
in Egypt one of the largest gas fields in the world, with an estimated total capacity of 850 billion cubic meters. To put this in
perspective, all EU countries demand is about 470 billion cubic meters of gas in 2017.
ENI's discovery has generated important planning for the future of LNG in Europe and in Italy.
Problems have arisen ever since Donald Trump sought to oblige Europeans to
purchase LNG from the US in
order to reduce the trade deficit and benefit US companies at the expense of other gas-exporting countries like Algeria, Russia and
Norway. As mentioned, LNG imported to Europe from the US costs about 20% more than gas traditionally received through pipelines.
This is without including all the investment necessary to build regasification plants in countries destined to receive this ship-borne
gas. Europe currently does not have the necessary facilities on its Atlantic coast to receive LNG from the US, introduce it into
its energy networks, and simultaneously decrease demand from traditional sources.
This situation could change in the future, with LNG from the US seeing a sharp increase recently. In 2010, American LNG exports
to Europe were at 10%; the following year they rose to 11%; and in the first few months of 2019, they jumped to 35%. A significant
decrease in LNG exports to Asian countries, which are less profitable, offers an explanation for this corresponding increase in Europe.
But Europe finds itself in a decidedly uncomfortable situation that cannot be easily resolved. The anti-Russia hysteria drummed
up by the Euro-Atlantic globalist establishment aides Donald Trump's efforts to economically squeeze as much as possible out of European
allies, hurting European citizens in the process who will have to pay more for American LNG, which costs about a fifth more than
gas from Russian, Norwegian or Algerian sources.
Projects to build offshore regasifiers in Europe appear to have begun and seem unlikely to be affected by future political vagaries,
given the investment committed and planning times involved:
"There are currently in the region of 22 large-scale LNG import terminals considered as planned in Europe, except for the planned
terminals in Ukraine (Odessa FSRU LNG), Russia (Kaliningrad LNG), Albania (Eagle LNG) – Albania being a candidate for EU membership
– and Turkey (FSRU Iskenderun and FSRU Gulf of Saros).
Many ofthese planned terminals, including Greece (where one additional import terminal is planned – Alexandroupolis), Italy
(which is considering or planning two additional terminals – Porto Empedocle in Sicily and Gioia Tauro LNG in Calabria) , Poland
(FSRU Polish Baltic Sea Coast), Turkey (two FSRUs) and the UK (which is planning the Port Meridian FSRU LNG project and UK Trafigura
Teesside LNG). LNG import terminal for Albania (Eagle LNG), Croatia (Krk Island), Cyprus (Vassiliko FSRU), Estonia (Muuga (Tallinn)
LNG and Padalski LNG), Germany ( Brunsbüttel LNG), Ireland (Shannon LNG and Cork LNG), Latvia (Riga LNG), Romania (Constanta LNG),
Russia (Kaliningrad LNG) and Ukraine (Odessa).
Nine of the planned terminals are FSRUs: Albania, Croatia, Cyprus, Greece, Ireland, Poland, Russia, Ukraine and the UK. "In
addition, there are numerous plans for expansion of existing terminals, including in Belgium, France, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands,
Poland, Spain, Turkey and the UK."
Washington, with its LNG ships, has no capacity to compete in Asia against Qatar and Australia, who have the lion's share
of the market, with Moscow's pipelines taking up the rest. The only large remaining market lies in Europe, so it is therefore not
surprising that Donald Trump has decided to weaponize LNG,
a bit as he has the US dollar . This has only driven EU countries to seek energy diversification in the interests of security.
The European countries do not appear to be
dragging their feet at the prospect of swapping to US LNG, even though there is no economic advantage to doing so. As has been
evident of late, whenever Washington says, "Jump!", European allies respond, "How high?" This, however, is not the case with
all allies. Germany is not economically able to interrupt Nord Stream 2. And even though the project has many high-level sponsors,
including former chancellor Gerhard Schröder, the project constantly seems to be on the verge of being stopped – at least in Washington's
delusions.
Even Eni's discovery of the gas field in Egypt has annoyed the US, which wants less competition (even when illegal, as in the
case of Huawei) and wants to be able to force its exports onto Europeans while maintaining the price of the LNG in dollars, thereby
further supporting the US dollar as the world's reserve currency in the same manner as the
petrodollar .
The generalized hysteria against the Russian Federation, together with the cutting off of Iranian oil imports at Washington's
behest, limit the room for maneuver of European countries, in addition to costing European taxpayers a lot. The Europeans appear
prepared to set whatever course the US has charted them, one away from cheaper gas sources to the more expensive LNG supplied from
across the Atlantic. Given the investments already committed to receive this LNG, it seems unlikely that the course set for the Europeans
will be changed.
I live in Europe. I can honestly say that the people I know here prefer Russian gas. People are very ticked off about how the
US meddled in their gas supply and the structuring of the pipelines. Most feel that even if US LNG WAS competitive with Russian
gas price for now, that the US would in some way either increase prices or use it in some other way to control or manipulate the
EU. And sentiment towards USA tends toward resentment and distrust. That's not to say they are necessarily pro-Russia, but definitely
a wave of anti US is present.
US LNG pricing is based on Henry Hub which today is under $2.30/mmbtu.
Even adding in liquefaction and shipping costs, the price to the end user is extremely low.
Henry hub is projected to be sub $3 for DECADES!
Combine the low price with spot deliveries (pipe usually demands long term contracting commitments), and US LNG actually has
strong rationale for being accepted.
The statement above that US LNG cannot compete against Australia in Asia is preposterously false due to the VERY high buildout
costs of the Aussie LNG infrastructure.
Next year, Oz's first LNG IMPORT terminal at Port Kembla may well be supplied with US LNG.
The US has shown itself to be unreliable as a supplier of anything. Political posturing will always take precedence over any
international transaction.
Oh, for pity's sake, Laugher. Everything...absolutely everything you attribute to Russia in your post can be said of the U.S.
I'm not much of a Wiki fan, but for expediency, here's their view on military bases.
The establishment of military bases abroad enables a country to
project power , e.g. to conduct
expeditionary warfare , and thereby influence
events abroad. Depending on their size and infrastructure, they can be used as
staging areas or for logistical, communications and
intelligence support. Many conflicts throughout modern history have resulted in overseas military bases being established in
large numbers by world powers and the existence of
bases abroad has served countries having them in achieving political and military goals.
And this link will provide you with countries worldwide and their bases.
Note that Russia, in this particular list, has eight bases all contiguous to Russia. The U.S. has 36 listed here with none
of them contiguous to the U.S.' borders.
Whilst the left wants to go full throttle towards Wind and Solar, no one knows that the natural gas lobby is behind these sources
because both sources need a backup. While everyone talks "carbon footprint" they never discusses plant efficiency ( or
in the terms of engines brake specific fuel consumption and turbine specific fuel consumption ) in terms of thermal efficiency.
You know the boring stuff that plant operators stress over to make sure when your wife wakes up @ 3 in the morning to feed the
baby, the lights do go on, and they are creating that wattage in an cost affective manner. With that said, the king of thermal
efficiency i.e. burning a fuel to create electricity, is the Combined Cycle Natural Gas Power Plant. These plants combines a stationary
gas turbine buring natural gas to spin a generator and a boiler on the back side capture the waste heat to create steam to spin
a turbine to again add an input to the generator for a current state of the art of 61% efficiency . That means only 39%
going up the stack or for steam cooling to get your "Delta T" for the steam cycle to work. This 61% is vs maybe in the mid 40's
for a coal, oil plant or in the case of Nuclear just waste heat with nothing going out a stack. The greater wattage per fuel burned,
and the modularization of these Combined Cycle Plants aka have a series of 100mw turbines and bring them on line as needed, make
this a win-win IMHO for a massive refurbishing of our Utility base, with a host of benefits, before Gen 3 & Gen 4 Nuclear truly
take off again. These plants could be a great stop gap before Gen 3 & 4 are a reality. All the macinations towards wind and solar
and their disavantages aka being bird vegamatics, vistas being spoiled and huge swaths of land being used for panels make no sense
vs energy density of efficient plants. We are the Natural Gas King, lets not flare it anymore, and really, really leverage it
here, help allies, and use it for bringing bad behaving children of the world to the table ifyou will, if you want the candy,
behave....
Why do we have to treat other countries like we're the parent? We aren't. They are equal and fully functioning countries quite
capable of determining their own political and economic future...which may involve not trading or interacting with the U.S. Particularly
if we demand of them conditions we ourselves would never accede.
The Lithuanian FSRU "Independence" which was delivered from Hyundai Heavy Industries in 2014 to the port of Klaipeda drove
energy costs for heating through the roof and perhaps is one of the reasons the Prime Minister at the time only came in third
in the latest presidential elections. You can stay reasonably warm, eat or have money for medicine and other necessities. Pick
2 ONLY. Thank you USSA
Brainsick as Pompeo the US Pork without character.
As Long as Russia dlivery theier gas constantly and for a much better price then Us-Shale idiots, the ziocons only can lose.
We Europeans are not very impressed.
The biggest Capitalist economy on the planet needs to use mob tactics to push its over priced wares- seems 'long term' is not
part of their hit-and-run operation.
Now as for the article; apart from a few Eastern European Countries (The Ukraine, Poland etc.), I have seen no proof whatsoever,
that Europe is shifting to US LNG.
As for "As has been evident of late, whenever Washington says, "Jump!", European allies respond, "How high?""; I am sorry,
but I think those days are over..... this can be seen in our Iranian stance, the 2 Russian pipelines - 1 being Nordstream II and
the other Turk-stream, increased trade with Russia, joining the the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and so on and
so on......
Slowly but surely the anti-Russia propaganda is dying. You can fool all the people some of the time, you can fool some people
all of the time (libtards), but you can't fool all the people all of the time. Europeans (the citizens) will question why they
should pay 20-30% more for their natural gas just to please America. Politicians better have an answer or change of policy if
they want to be reelected.
"... The control of the energy corridors is of capital importance. By accusing Iran of attempting to " interrupt the flow of oil through the Straights of Hormuz ", Mike Pompeo announced that " the United States will defend freedom of navigation ". In other words, he has announced that the United States want to gain military control of this key area for energy supplies, including for Europe, by preventing above all the transit of Iranian oil (to which Italy and other European countries cannot in any case enjoy free access because of the US embargo). ..."
"... Natural gas might also have arrived directly in Italy from Russia, and from there be distributed to other European countries with notable economical advantages, via the South Stream route through the Black Sea. But the pipeline, already in an advanced stage of construction, was blocked in 2014 by the pressure of the United States and European Union itself, with heavy prejudice for Italy. ..."
While the United States prepared a new escalation of tension in the Middle East by accusing
Iran of attacking petrol tankers in the Gulf of Oman, Italian vice-Prime Minister Matteo
Salvini met with one of the artisans of this strategy in Washington, Secretary of State Mike
Pompeo, assuring him that " Italy wants to regain its place as the major partner on the
European continent of the greatest Western democracy ". Thereby he has allied Italy with the
operation launched by Washington.
The " Gulf of Oman affair " , a casus belli against Iran, is a carbon copy of the " Gulf of
Tonkin affair " of 4 August 1964, itself used as a casus belli to bomb North Vietnam, which was
accused of having attacked a US torpedo boat (an accusation which was later proved to be
false).
Today, a video released by Washington shows the crew of an alleged Iranian patrol boat
removing an unexploded mine from the hull of a petrol tanker in order to conceal its origin
(because the mine would allegedly have borne the inscription " Made in Iran ").
With this " proof " - a veritable insult to our intelligence - Washington is attempting to
camouflage the goal of the operation. It is part of the strategy aimed at controlling the world
reserves of oil and natural gas and their energy corridors [ 1 ]. It is no coincidence if Iran and
Iraq are in US crosshairs. Their total oil reserves are greater than those of Saudi Arabia, and
five times greater than those of the United States. Iranian reserves of natural gas are
approximately 2.5 times those of the USA. Venezuela finds itself targeted by the USA for the
same reason, since it is the country which owns the greatest oil reserves in the world.
The control of the energy corridors is of capital importance. By accusing Iran of attempting
to " interrupt the flow of oil through the Straights of Hormuz ", Mike Pompeo announced that "
the United States will defend freedom of navigation ". In other words, he has announced that
the United States want to gain military control of this key area for energy supplies, including
for Europe, by preventing above all the transit of Iranian oil (to which Italy and other
European countries cannot in any case enjoy free access because of the US embargo).
Low-cost Iranian natural gas might also have reached Europe by way of a pipeline crossing
Iraq and Syria. But the project, launched in 2011, was destroyed by the USA/NATO operation to
demolish the Syrian state.
Natural gas might also have arrived directly in Italy from Russia, and from there be
distributed to other European countries with notable economical advantages, via the South
Stream route through the Black Sea. But the pipeline, already in an advanced stage of
construction, was blocked in 2014 by the pressure of the United States and European Union
itself, with heavy prejudice for Italy.
In fact it was the reproduction of North Stream which continued, making Germany the centre
of triage for Russian gas.. Then, on the basis of the " USA/EU strategic cooperation in the
energy field " agreement stipulated in July 2018, US exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to
the EU tripled. The triage centre was in Poland, from which was distributed the " Freedom Gas "
which also arrived in Ukraine.
Washington's objective is strategic – to hurt Russia by replacing Russian gas in
Europe with US gas. But we have no guarantees, neither on the price, nor on the time-scale for
US gas extracted from the bituminous shale by the technique known as fracking (hydraulic
fracturation), which is disastrous for the environment.
So what does Matteo Salvini have to say about all that? When he arrived in the " greatest
democracy in the Western world ", he proudly declared - " I am part of a government which in
Europe is no longer satisfied with breadcrumbs ".
For those who still look in occasionally on what is happening with Nord Stream II, the
Americans are still blustering about killing it with new sanctions targeted against
pipelaying vessels and those who finance them, insure them, and so on. Its typical
dog-in-the-manger pressure is applied with a view to supplying Europe itself, with 'freedom
gas'. That, of course, is not using energy as a weapon – just so we're clear. It's
trying to force Europe to buy higher-priced American gas by using economics as a weapon.
Anyway, Germany is getting pretty fed up with it. Mutti Merkel has let the Americans know
that they are not going to be able to stop the project. She has let it be known that the
project already has European approval 'in principle', and that she is aware this is all about
Ukraine and forcing Russia to continue gas transit through it and supplement its budget with
transit fees. Germany's Ambassador to the United States, Emily Haber, has allegedly been even
more pointed than that.
"In particular, according to Bild, the German Ambassador to the United States, Emily
Haber, has sent a letter to the US Congress urging them to stop threatening Russian companies
PJSC NOVATEK and PJSC Gazprom, operating in Germany, with new sanctions. In her words, such
actions jeopardize the energy security of Germany and of the entire European Union.
In her letter, Emily Haber points out that since countries of the European Union have
adopted amendments to the Gas Directive, the issue of blocking the construction of the Nord
Stream-2 gas pipeline is closed for Europe: "All countries that criticized the Nord Stream-2
approved this document " . Given the situation, the German diplomat described any further
steps that Washington might take in order to hinder the development of the project as
counterproductive and potentially threatening the energy security of the EU."
Gosh; that reminds me – Chinese tariffs on American LNG more than doubled a couple
of weeks ago. As of June 1st, the tariff went from 10% to 25%. Not having much of an effect,
though – Chinese imports of American LNG have only dropped from 1.4 million tons during
the first 4 months of last year to .3 million tons over the same period this year. The
unclaimed LNG must be sold on the open market, and that drives the price down. Price has a
direct effect on American production, and if it goes too low production must be reined
in.
You're doing a great job, Mr. Trump – keep it up! Make America great again!
This is a typical Trump. He understands that "protection of Germany" is a profitable "protection racket" for the USA, but still lies.
Notable quotes:
"... U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry said during a visit to Ukraine in May that he expected Congress to prepare legislation to sanction companies involved in the pipeline's construction. ..."
U.S. president reiterates threats over Nord Stream 2 project
Russia says efforts to block pipeline amount to 'blackmail'
'Germany Is Making a Tremendous Mistake by Relying on Pipeline,' says Trump 'Germany Is Making a Tremendous Mistake by Relying on
Pipeline,' says Trump Close Share
Donald Trump upped his criticism of Germany on
Wednesday as he threatened sanctions over Angela Merkel's continued support for a gas pipeline from Russia and warned that he could
shift troops away from the NATO ally over its defense spending.
Echoing previous threats about German support for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, Trump said he's looking at sanctions to block the
project he's warned would leave Berlin "captive" to Moscow. The U.S. also hopes to export its own liquefied natural gas to Germany.
"We're protecting Germany from Russia, and Russia is getting billions and billions of dollars in money from Germany" for its gas,
Trump told reporters at the White House during a meeting with Polish President Andrzej Duda.
The comments were the latest sign of how U.S.-German ties have eroded in recent years. The U.S. president has repeatedly rebuked
Merkel's government over the pipeline project, trade policies and defense spending. Germany, in turn, has criticized Trump's moves
to abandon international agreements, including on climate change and Iran.
Though he didn't say which companies or governments could potentially face sanctions, Trump's comments about the pipeline generated
a swift response from Moscow, which said the American president was engaging in "nothing other than blackmail and a form of unfair
competition," according to Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov.
Merkel and Trump met most recently last week during anniversary celebrations of the 1944 D-Day invasion. That gathering came days
after the EU's longest-serving leader took Trump to task at a commencement address at Harvard University, urging students to "tear
down walls" and not to treat "lies as truth." Without naming the U.S. leader, Merkel left little doubt as to whom she might mean
to a crowd who cheered her on.
U.S. opposition to the gas pipeline is bipartisan, out of concern that Russia could use its supplies of natural gas to exert pressure
on Western European nations dependent on the fuel. U.S. lawmakers also fear that with an added northern pipeline for its gas, Russia
could more easily cut off fuel to Ukraine, which is now a key transit country to Europe.
"Germany is making a tremendous mistake" by relying on the pipeline from Russia, Trump said during a joint news conference with
Duda.
Regardless of the political controversy, the Nord Stream 2 project has
faced delays and may not be ready to transport gas until the second half of 2020, according to a report made public by Denmark's
Energy Agency.
Nord Stream 2 organizers argue a new pipeline is needed to guarantee supplies will continue to flow in the coming decades as EU
domestic reserves shrink and import needs rise. Opponents of the project say it hurts the bloc's cohesion and weakens its Energy
Union strategy aimed at integrating the region's gas and power markets, diversifying energy supplies and improving security.
Uniper SE, Engie SA, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, OMV AG and BASF SE's Wintershall are European partners of Russia's Gazprom PJSC in
financing the project to expand Nord Stream by 55 billion cubic meters a year. Russia supplies a third of Europe's gas and has no
plans to give up its share to the expanding list of competitors from Norway to the U.S.
Trump, speaking during the news conference Wednesday, said that Poland signed a contract to purchase an additional $8 billion
of liquefied natural gas from U.S. companies, on top of $25 billion already under contract.
Trump said he'll meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Group of 20 summit in Japan at the end of the month, though
its not clear the pipeline project will be on their agenda.
2016 data. Source: Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators
U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry said during a visit to Ukraine in May that he expected Congress to prepare legislation to sanction
companies involved in the pipeline's construction.
Senators Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, and Jeanne Shaheen, a New Hampshire Democrat, have drafted a bill that would target U.S.
sanctions at vessels laying the pipeline and deny U.S. visas to executives from companies linked to the ships. The legislation would
also block transactions in U.S.-based property or interests belonging to those individuals and would penalize entities that provide
insurance to the project.
In the latest sign of Trump's frustration over German defense spending, the president said he's discussed sending as many as 2,000
more U.S. troops to Poland -- and might take them from Germany since he believes Berlin isn't spending enough on defense as a partner
in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. There are more than 30,000 U.S. troops in Germany.
Under an agreement reached during the Obama administration, NATO members committed to spending 2% of GDP on defense by the mid-2020s,
a level only seven
nations were estimated to have reached in 2018.
"Germany's at 1%, they should be at 2%," Trump said. According to NATO documents, spent about 1.2 percent of GDP on defense in
2018.
The U.S. already has a few thousand troops in Poland as part of its role in NATO. Trump's move, if carried out, would add to that,
but it wasn't clear if the forces would be permanently based there or just rotated through.
-- With assistance by Daryna Krasnolutska, Nick Wadhams, Daniel Flatley, Stepan Kravchenko, Ewa Krukowska, and Vanessa Dezem
"... They will be the ones to blackmail Europe and Germany if Europe becomes dependent on LNG from the U.S. So everything U.S. administrations are yelling at others is just projection, one knows immediately that it is in fact what the U.S. is doing under the veil or will be doing when the need/opportunity will arise. ..."
"... Trump is not an aberration, it is just how the U.S. always behaved, but now it is in the open, for all to see, the crassness and the bullying. ..."
"... Germany is the linchpin of the world and the U.S. (and others) is becoming hysterical at the possibility of not keeping the Germans down any longer… ..."
"... American Jewish intellectuals have really jumped the shark since the Iraq War. The most outlandish, slandering statements are stuffed into their essays and they trash whole peoples at the slightest “offence” to their worldview. ..."
If Daenerys Targaryen had announced her desire to use her last dragon to torch Moscow and
Saint Petersburg, the Neocons would have lionized her as the womanly exemplar of democracy
and wise foreign policy that produces peace and justice for all.
Neocons are very much the evil they call us to battle.
I had to rub my eyes with incredulity when I read that.
If Russia wants to weaken Ukraine, why did it ever build a pipeline through it in the first
place? Russia didn't stop using the Ukraine pipeline intially for political reasons. It was
because Ukraine was stealing gas meant for pass-through to other European countries and it
wasn't paying its bills. Don't pay your utility bills and see what happens.
Russia does not want to "control" Germany with Nord Stream, it wants to make money. And
Germany wants cheap gas. Strictly business.
And how can Russia control Germany with Nord Stream when it knows that the first time it
shuts off gas for political reasons would be the last. Because Russia knows that Germany will
find alternative suppliers and never come back. The Russians ain't stupid.
Russia wants bilateral trade with Europe without the Global Cop Gorilla perpetually in the
background arrogant calling the shots.
The final reconciliation of Europe and Russia should have occurred 25 years but didn't
because the ham-fisted United States threw up the fear-monger barriers. And that was because
its National Security States wants an existential "enemy" to justify its massive costs.
The sooner Europe ejects the U.S. War Machine from its territories the better. Better for
Europe, better for Russia and better for the American taxpayers.
I am with SteveM here. And I was shocked to see MarkVA’s comment. Mark has proved to
be a respectable commentator, especially on Rod’s Blog, with very astute and sensible
observations. It seems that tribalism is clouding his judgment when observing the world outside
the U.S.
It is well known that the Soviets and the Russians always keep their end of the bargain and
they know if they don’t do so they will end up loosing and being vilified. Whereas the
U.S. always breaks its agreements, it is not thrust worthy (not agreement capable). Imagine
depending on such an economic partner?!
They will be the ones to blackmail Europe and Germany if Europe becomes dependent on LNG
from the U.S. So everything U.S. administrations are yelling at others is just projection, one
knows immediately that it is in fact what the U.S. is doing under the veil or will be doing
when the need/opportunity will arise.
Trump is not an aberration, it is just how the U.S. always behaved, but now it is in the
open, for all to see, the crassness and the bullying.
Germany is the linchpin of the world and the U.S. (and others) is becoming hysterical at
the possibility of not keeping the Germans down any longer… And Germany is moving
ahead. It just sacrificed West Bank, and declared the BDS movement illegal as a soap to
Israelis, to burnish its credentials with those blackmailers, so that it will become free to
re-orient its politics and strategic configuration as it needs and wants.
fabian, May 23, 2019 at 2:33 pm
Gas? Where is the problem? Russian gas is cheaper that’s it. Furthermore, there is
another pipeline that’s going to bring gas from the Mediterranean to Europe and another
from Qatar.
And if all else fails and Russia flexes its muscles (which ones by the way) do you think
that the over-indebted America will not sell its gas to the Germans?
And yes, it’s not a good strategy to be too dependent on America. It quickly takes the
goods away when its interests are at stake.
Tiktaalik, May 24, 2019 at 5:14 pm
@MarkVA
>>The Nord Stream I and II gas pipe lines (aka Molotov-Ribbentrop Gas Lines), a
Gazprom initiative, has everything to do with weakening Ukraine and increasing German energy
dependence on Russia;
How could NS increase German energy dependence on Russia? It will be the very same gas which
at the moment flows through the Ukraine.
Surely, NS would decrease anybody’s dependence from the Ukraine. So what?
Tiktaalik, May 24, 2019 at 5:18 pm
@MarkVA
>>Oh, and some lesser European countries were partitioned by the important European
countries. So yes, Europe was quite busy spreading joy and happiness all around:
It’s a bit rich when it’s coming from an American. You’re still in
Plymouth, right?
Kouros, May 24, 2019 at 11:35 pm
@MarkVA (May 23, 2019 at 8:12 pm )
That was a hit with the posting on Ukraine…
To bad it wasn’t accompanied by the Recognition of the US administration that the
Golan Heights, taken from Syria by Israel after a war, against all worlds dictum, now belongs
to Israel.
At least in Crimea, which by administrative fiat was moved within USSR from Russia to
Ukraine in the 1950s, there was a referendum.
And for me, US is Devil Incarnate since it put a target of nuclear missiles on my mother
country. May the curse of a 1000 hells be upon it.
Josep, May 25, 2019 at 5:05 am
Reading sites like Russia Insider gave me the notion that Germany would be better off as
allies with Russia than with the USA. After all, Russia and Germany:
* are on the metric system
* have languages that use grammatical gender
* share the same 220-volt “Schuko” power plugs and sockets
* implement Civil Law, and most importantly
* aren’t separated by a whole ocean.
American Jewish intellectuals have really jumped the shark since the Iraq War. The most
outlandish, slandering statements are stuffed into their essays and they trash whole peoples at
the slightest “offence” to their worldview.
There are strong anti-German currents in American culture and politics, going back to at
least WW1 and also manifest today (no other treaty ally is treated with such dismissive
hostility by the Trump administration as Germany). But they are regarded as completely normal
and rarely get critical attention, whereas German anti-Americanism is treated as a pathology or
some kind of sacrilege…the German-American relationship (calling it
“friendship” is a lie) is profoundly asymmetrical.
Agreed in both counts. The casual anti-white racism thrown about by the likes of such people
(let’s not forget Davids Medienkritik, Little Green Footballs, Grouchy Old Cripple and
Dissident Frogman) is a lot scarier than any jumpscare I’ve encountered. And in the case of
German_reader’s comment, It’d be interesting to consider how Trump reconciles his
hostility towards Germany with his own German heritage.
At one point in the Iraq War, the German news outlet Der Spiegel had readers rate their
opinion of president Bush on their website on a scale of 1 (most favorable) to, if I recall
correctly, 6 (least favorable). After seeing public opinion of Bush in Germany overwhelmingly
“least favorable”, users of FreeRepublic went to this poll and attempted to
gerrymander the results by selecting “most favorable”, deleting their site cookies,
and repeating so as to make it look like more people in Germany supported Bush than opposed. This
was called “freeping”.
So oil prices with rise which threaten Trump bid in 2020. Interesting times.
Notable quotes:
"... As is now known, however, appearances can be very misleading, and in actuality the same country that was vowing to "defy" the US actually ended up quietly implementing its new patron's will. ..."
The announcement by India's Oil Minister that his country will replace US-sanctioned
Iranian oil imports with those from "major oil-producing countries" despite the dramatic Bollywood show that New Delhi has made up until this point out of "defying" US sanctions makes
one seriously wonder whether India's preparing to ditch Russia next if the US imposes CAATSA
sanctions against it over the S-400s.
Shattering The "Indian Illusion"
The "
Indian Illusion " has been shattered after India's Oil Minister tweeted that his country will
replace US-sanctioned Iranian oil imports with those from "major oil-producing countries" such
as the Islamic Republic's hated GCC foes of Saudi
Arabia and the UAE that America said will
step up their exports in order to stabilize global prices after Washington announced that
it won't renew its anti-Iranian oil sanction waivers. New Delhi made a dramatic Bollywood-like
show over the past year out of "defying" US sanctions, with External Affairs Minister Sushma
Swaraj announcing last May that India will
only obey UNSC sanctions and not those unilaterally imposed by the US in contravention of
international law.
The Oil Minister himself said back in October before the waivers were issued that India will
continue buying Iranian oil in spite of the US sanctions, later
crediting Prime Minister Modi a month later when the US eventually granted it the waiver.
Adding "credibility" to the illusion that India's perception managers were masterfully
creating, it was then reported that the country will
use rupees instead of dollars when trading with Iran, a bold move that even fooled an RT
columnist who headlined his op-ed on this development as a " response to US global
bullying ".
As is now known, however, appearances can be very misleading, and in actuality
the same country that was vowing to "defy" the US actually ended up quietly implementing its
new patron's will.
Some pretty strange ideas if we are taking about oil. What they are smiling at RAND?
Notable quotes:
"... That evaluation is quite strange. The U.S. government does not produce oil. Private companies do so but only if they can make a profit. Increasing production beyond the global demand will decrease the oil price for all producers. All recent new U.S. production comes from shale oil. Optimistic estimates put the break even point for good shale oil fields at around $50 per barrel. Few fields can produce at lower costs. Most shale oil fields have a higher break even point. There is also a danger in suppressing oil prices. Many oil producing countries have U.S. friendly regimes. They need high oil prices to survive. Ruining them will not come cheap for the U.S. in geopolitical terms. ..."
"... of the 8 most promising suggestions - 6 of them are military... it seems to me these think tanks are great pr tools for the military industrial complex... who cares if the usa continues to move into 3rd world status as a nation, so long as more money for weapons can be acquired?? that is what these think tanks - rand and etc seem to want to foist on the public... it is all so very sad.. ..."
"... No, I think most US weapons procurement gives weapons that don't work as advertised, and wouldn't win wars anyway. I think it's one reason why the US military is largely only capable of spoiler wars, not actually conquering any place. (The other is the general unreliability of mercenary forces, which the US army basically is, however much they try to cultivate a militant Christian ethos.) ..."
"... I also do not believe spoiler wars help the country as a whole (as opposed to some of the owners) I think pretty much all a burden, immoral to boot and should be massively reduced. ..."
"... Even if you’re sure those companies are entirely private, if you print the current global reserve currency, can you not give “free” money to frackers and thereby make them more competitive than global peers? Sure, that’s flooding the market with an illegal subsidy. But, who can conduct proper accounting in opaque markets? ..."
According to RAND the best option to overextend and unbalance is to produce more oil:
Expanding U.S. energy production would stress Russia's economy, potentially constraining its government budget and, by extension,
its defense spending. By adopting policies that expand world supply and depress global prices, the United States can limit Russian
revenue. Doing so entails little cost or risk, produces second-order benefits for the U.S. economy, and does not need multilateral
endorsement.
That evaluation is quite strange. The U.S. government does not produce oil. Private companies do so but only if they can make
a profit. Increasing production beyond the global demand will decrease the oil price for all producers. All recent new U.S. production
comes from shale oil. Optimistic estimates put the break even point for good shale oil fields
at around $50 per barrel. Few fields can produce at lower costs. Most shale oil fields have a higher break even point. There
is also a danger in suppressing oil prices. Many oil producing countries have U.S. friendly regimes. They need high oil prices to
survive. Ruining them will not come cheap for the U.S. in geopolitical terms.
The second best option says RAND is to increase sanctions of Russia. This also doesn't make much sense. Russia can produce everything
it needs and it has free access to the world's largest markets, China and India.
The best military options listed by RAND are all useless. All the new weapon systems Russia has revealed over the last two years
are way more capable than anything the U.S. is able to field. If the U.S., as RAND advocates, invest more in certain fields, it will
only be to catch up. That does not impose any new costs on Russia.
... ... ...
In all I find it a bit impertinent to publicly argue for "overextending and unbalancing Russia". Where is the need to do such?
The study demonstrates again that strategic analysis by U.S. think tanks is woefully shallow-minded. The "experts" writing these
have no deep understanding of Russia, or even of the economic-political complexity of the real world.
Four of the eight best options the RAND study found start with the words "Invest more in ...". It is a sign that the foremost
motive its writers had in mind is to grab more taxpayer money. Fine. Give it to them already. Overextending and unbalancing the U.S.
by more abstruse expenditure for weapon systems that do not work will neither hurt me nor Russia.
thanks b.. of the 8 most promising suggestions - 6 of them are military... it seems to me these think tanks are great pr tools
for the military industrial complex... who cares if the usa continues to move into 3rd world status as a nation, so long as more
money for weapons can be acquired?? that is what these think tanks - rand and etc seem to want to foist on the public... it is
all so very sad..
@1 steven.. well, as i read you, you are essentially supporting a continuation of the usa pouring endless
money into the military then, regardless the accuracy of the accounts on the new Russian weapons.. do i have that right?
No, I think most US weapons procurement gives weapons that don't work as advertised, and wouldn't win wars anyway. I think
it's one reason why the US military is largely only capable of spoiler wars, not actually conquering any place. (The other is
the general unreliability of mercenary forces, which the US army basically is, however much they try to cultivate a militant Christian
ethos.)
However, since I also do not believe spoiler wars help the country as a whole (as opposed to some of the owners) I think
pretty much all a burden, immoral to boot and should be massively reduced.
>> The U.S. government does not produce oil. Private companies do so but only if they can make a profit. Increasing production
beyond the global demand will decrease the oil price for all producers.
Even if you’re sure those companies are entirely private, if you print the current global reserve currency, can you not give
“free” money to frackers and thereby make them more competitive than global peers? Sure, that’s flooding the market with an illegal
subsidy. But, who can conduct proper accounting in opaque markets?
Of course, the money is not “free”. Depreciating the currency, an inflation tax, shows up in lower-quality goods (like frankenfood—
we cannot afford healthy food any more) and higher prices in everything. But, again, who’s counting? The BLS and the media? Yep.
"... North Stream is a problem as the goal is to economically weaken Russia, tie the EU to the USA via energy supplies and support
our new client state -- Ukraine. ..."
"... But this is also related to attempts to prevent/weaken the alliance of Russia and China. As geopolitical consequences of this
alliance for the USA-led neoliberal empire are very bad ..."
Best bet is for Russia to want to trade with the US and Europe. The gas pipeline will not be enough leverage on Germany
as it provides 9% of their needs.
Yes. And that's against the USA interests (or more correctly the US-led neoliberal empire interests). North Stream is a
problem as the goal is to economically weaken Russia, tie the EU to the USA via energy supplies and support our new client state
-- Ukraine.
As you know, nothing was proven yet in Russiagate (and DNC hacks looks more and more like a false flag operation, especially
this Guccifer 2.0 personality ), but sanctions were already imposed. And when the US government speaks "Russia" in most cases
they mean "China+Russia" ;-). Russia is just a weaker link in this alliance and, as such, it is attacked first. Russiagate is
just yet another pretext after MH17, Magnitsky and such.
To me the current Anti-Russian hysteria is mainly a smokescreen to hide attempt to cement cracks in the façade of the USA neoliberal
society that Trump election revealed (including apparent legitimization of ruling neoliberal elite represented by Hillary).
And a desperate attempt to unite the society using (false) war propaganda which requires demonization of the "enemy of the
people" and neo-McCarthyism.
But this is also related to attempts to prevent/weaken the alliance of Russia and China. As geopolitical consequences of
this alliance for the USA-led neoliberal empire are very bad (for example, military alliance means the end of the USA global
military domination; energy alliance means that is now impossible to impose a blockade on China energy supplies from Middle East
even if Iran is occupied)
In this sense the recent descent into a prolonged fit of vintage Cold War jingoistic paranoia is quite understandable. While,
at the same time, totally abhorrent. My feeling is that unless Russia folds, which is unlikely, the side effects/externalities
of this posture can be very bad for the USA. In any case, the alliance of Russia and China which Obama administration policies
forged spells troubles to the global neoliberal empire dominated by the USA.
Trump rejection of existing forms of neoliberal globalization is one sign that this process already started and some politicians
already are trying to catch the wind and adapt to a "new brave world" by using preemptive adjustments.
Which is why all this Trump-Putin summit hysteria is about.
Neither hard, nor soft neoliberals want any adjustments. They are ready to fight for the US-led neoliberal empire till the
last American (excluding, of course, themselves and their families)
The Saker: What will happen once Nord Stream II is finished? Where is Europe heading
next, especially in its relationship with the USA and Russia?
Dmitry Orlov: The new pipelines under the Baltic and the Black Sea will be completed, along
with the second LNG installation at Sabetta, and Russia will go on supplying natural gas to
Europe and Asia. I suspect that the fracking extravaganza in the US is entering its end game
and that the dream of large-scale LNG exports to Europe will never materialize.
The nations of Europe will gradually realize that its relationship with Russia is mostly
beneficial while its relationship with the US is mostly harmful, and will make certain
adjustments. The Ukraine, its natural gas pipeline system decrepit and beyond repair, will
continue to import natural gas from Europe, only now the methane molecules will actually flow
to it from the west rather from the east.
This MIC prostitute Karan, like his wife Nuland are un-reformable. They just earn their living ing by warmongering. And they
will screem like pigs if they are deprived from those money, and do not care one bit how many people will be
killed as the result of their policies.
There is no war that those neocon chickenhawks do not like. It's their family racket.
Notable quotes:
"... Kagan's preferred foreign policy requires that there is some global "ideological confrontation" for the U.S. to be engaged in. If there isn't one, it has to be invented. ..."
"... Kagan isn't all that interested in details or accuracy. Those are "beside the point." ..."
"... Kagan doesn't make it explicit in this essay, but his larger goal in all of this is to advocate for a more confrontational foreign policy mobilized against the authoritarian enemies that he has described. He hints at this when he disparages contemporary "realists" ..."
"... realists, non-interventionists, and progressives that see no compelling reason for the U.S. to engage in destructive rivalries with major authoritarian powers in their own backyards. Except for a lame, overused comparison to the 1930s, Kagan doesn't even try to explain why we are wrong to think this. Kagan assumes that such destructive rivalries are both necessary and desirable, and this essay is the latest part of his effort to lay the groundwork for the ideological justification for those rivalries. ..."
"... A recent WSJ article (03/11/19) titled "Russian Gas Plan Divides U.S., Allies" with the subtitle "Washington fears undersea project would make Germany too reliant on Moscow" tells the tale of what the real reasons for America to demonize Russia and Putin. The U.S. leaders fear that the German-Russian pipeline project, Nord Stream 2, will make Europe reliant on Russian energy instead of Europe purchasing it energy from the United States. What gives the U.S. the right to stop one nation from doing commerce with other nations? The answer is "Greed." ..."
"... Kagan is and will until the bitter end defend American hegemony and the ideological mantle will be used as a cover ..."
"... People also forget that US is not a democracy, but a managed Republic, and according to all indicators, it is not even that liberal ..."
"... The fallout from the actions of these "interventionists" is millions are dead in a number of countries. Millions are refugees and thousands of soldiers are dead or maimed. More facts on these war criminals at link below. https://graysinfo.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-facts-on-crimes-of-war-criminals.html ..."
"... This Kagan family, with Robert now the lead figure, has done a great deal towards furthering conflicts and violence in the world. It is long past time that they be put in their place, whatever that is, but it will not happen because their Zionist mindset is very well funded. ..."
"... "The U.S. has spent the last twenty years fighting wars that Kagan and other like-minded interventionists advocated for and endorsed. We shouldn't make the same mistake again when the stakes are even higher." We ought to do more than that. He should be muzzled and sent to live in a cave somewhere to repent the consequences of the terrible damage he and other incompetents have done to America. That people like this still have access to the media is almost beyond belief. ..."
Brookings Senior Fellow and author Robert Kagan in March 2018. (Brookings Institution/Paul Morigi) Robert Kagan
warns us about global authoritarianism:
Of all the geopolitical transformations confronting the liberal democratic world these days, the one for which we are least
prepared is the ideological and strategic resurgence of authoritarianism. We are not used to thinking of authoritarianism as a
distinct worldview that offers a real alternative to liberalism.
We are not used to thinking of authoritarianism as a distinct worldview because it isn't one. All authoritarian states share certain
things in common, and they may see some of the same things as threats, but there isn't a single worldview that all authoritarian
governments subscribe to. There is no one ideology that binds them together. Most of them are nationalistic to one degree or another,
but because of that they usually have competing and opposing goals. Treating all authoritarian regimes as part of the same global
threat lumps illiberal and majoritarian democracies together with kleptocracies, communist dictatorships, and absolute monarchies.
That exaggerates the danger that these regimes pose, and it tries to invent a Cold War-like division between rival camps that doesn't
really exist. If the U.S. treats these states as if they are all in league with one another, it will tend to drive together states
that would otherwise remain at odds and keep each other at arm's length.
Kagan's preferred foreign policy requires that there is some global "ideological confrontation" for the U.S. to be engaged in.
If there isn't one, it has to be invented. His account of the history of the 20th century shows how determined he is to see international
politics in terms of grand ideological battles even when there wasn't one. He takes seriously the idea that WWI is one of these struggles:
"But for those who fought it, on both sides, it was very much a war between liberalism and authoritarianism." Kagan makes the mistake
of treating wartime propaganda descriptions of the war as the real motivation for the war, and he relies on stereotypes of the nations
on the other side of the war as well. The world's largest colonial empires were not fighting for "the liberties of Europe" and they
certainly weren't fighting for the rights of small nations, as wartime British propaganda would have it, and that became abundantly
clear in the post-war settlement. It was primarily a war among empires for supremacy in Europe, and the surviving Allied empires
consolidated their hold on their own colonial possessions and gained more. To the extent that Americans genuinely believed that joining
the war had something to do with vindicating the cause of democracy, they were quickly disabused of that notion when they saw the
fruits of the vindictive settlement that their allies imposed on the losing side.
Kagan admits that there are many differences of regime type that he is trying to collapse into one group:
We have become lost in endless categorizations, viewing each type of non-liberal government as unique and unrelated to the
others -- the illiberal democracy, the "liberal" or "liberalizing" autocracy, the "competitive" and "hybrid" authoritarianism.
These different categories certainly describe the myriad ways non-liberal societies may be governed. But in the most fundamental
way, all of this is beside the point.
In other words, Kagan isn't all that interested in details or accuracy. Those are "beside the point." What matters is dividing
up the world into two opposing camps: "Nations are either liberal, meaning that there are permanent institutions and unchanging norms
that protect the "unalienable" rights of individuals against all who would infringe on those rights, whether the state or the majority;
or they are not liberal." The criteria for qualifying as a liberal nation are extremely demanding. What institutions can honestly
be called "permanent" and what norms are ever truly "unchanging"? Judged against this extreme and unreasonable standard, there won't
ever be many nations that qualify as liberal, including quite a few that we would normally consider liberal democracies in good standing.
That makes it a lot easier for Kagan to exaggerate the power of "resurgent authoritarianism."
Kagan doesn't make it explicit in this essay, but his larger goal in all of this is to advocate for a more confrontational foreign
policy mobilized against the authoritarian enemies that he has described. He hints at this when he disparages contemporary "realists"
whom he doesn't name or cite:
Just as during the 1930s, when realists such as Robert Taft assured Americans that their lives would be undisturbed by the
collapse of democracy in Europe and the triumph of authoritarianism in Asia, so we have realists today insisting that we pull
back from confronting the great authoritarian powers rising in Eurasia.
To be much more accurate, there are realists, non-interventionists, and progressives that see no compelling reason for the U.S.
to engage in destructive rivalries with major authoritarian powers in their own backyards. Except for a lame, overused comparison
to the 1930s, Kagan doesn't even try to explain why we are wrong to think this. Kagan assumes that such destructive rivalries are
both necessary and desirable, and this essay is the latest part of his effort to lay the groundwork for the ideological justification
for those rivalries.
Kagan's analysis suffers from the problem of mirror-imaging that always plagues ideologues. He assumes that everyone sees the
world in starkly ideological categories just as he does, and he thinks that other actors are just as determined to export their ideology
as he is. His entire worldview depends on linking great power competition with larger ideological causes, and for almost thirty years
there has been no such "ideological confrontation" for Kagan to theorize about. Despite Kagan's insistence to the contrary, there
still isn't. He wants the U.S. to take a more confrontational approach to dealing with Russia and China, and in order to sell that
today he has to dress it up as something more than the destructive and costly pursuit of hegemony that he has been pushing for decades.
The U.S. has spent the last twenty years fighting wars that Kagan and other like-minded interventionists advocated for and endorsed.
We shouldn't make the same mistake again when the stakes are even higher.
A recent WSJ article (03/11/19) titled "Russian Gas Plan Divides U.S., Allies" with the subtitle "Washington fears undersea
project would make Germany too reliant on Moscow" tells the tale of what the real reasons for America to demonize Russia and Putin.
The U.S. leaders fear that the German-Russian pipeline project, Nord Stream 2, will make Europe reliant on Russian energy instead
of Europe purchasing it energy from the United States. What gives the U.S. the right to stop one nation from doing commerce with
other nations? The answer is "Greed."
All wars are predicated on lies, and all wars are fought for economic reasons and not the so called humanitarian reasons that
are fed to the people.
Always insightful indeed: Kagan is and will until the bitter end defend American hegemony and the ideological mantle will
be used as a cover (Mel Gibson screaming "Freedom!" in Bravehart; killing the babies and stealing the incubators!).
People also forget that US is not a democracy, but a managed Republic, and according to all indicators, it is not even
that liberal
So better save this post because you are still young and in 30 years from now you will be able to re-post it and just change
a couple of names
Anytime, anywhere, anyone comes out and destroys kagan's Zionist globalist babble as you have done, it is a very commendable
exercise for the good of mankind and America.
This Kagan family, with Robert now the lead figure, has done a great deal towards furthering conflicts and violence in
the world. It is long past time that they be put in their place, whatever that is, but it will not happen because their Zionist
mindset is very well funded.
"The U.S. has spent the last twenty years fighting wars that Kagan and other like-minded interventionists advocated for
and endorsed. We shouldn't make the same mistake again when the stakes are even higher."
We ought to do more than that. He should be muzzled and sent to live in a cave somewhere to repent the consequences of the
terrible damage he and other incompetents have done to America. That people like this still have access to the media is almost
beyond belief.
"... Everything I understand about German behavior in regards to 3rd parties is totally in lockstep with the US - never mind that Germany has been occupied by the US since WW2 - so why not a scheme to build more Russian dependency on the West? ..."
"... The people who destroyed the USSR are still in power; their whole existence depends on whoring out Russia to the West because that is all they have ever done. They can't not stop because to stop would be an act of self-annihilation. Russian elites, at least a large faction of them, desperately want back into the clubhouse, if they cant get in they will find something else to do until the moment the clubhouse door is opened to them again, and then they will fall all over themselves to get in. ..."
Only a few weeks ago, German politicians and media were up in arms protesting to the Trump
administration for interfering in Berlin's internal affairs. There were even outraged
complaints that Washington was seeking "regime change" against Chancellor Angela Merkel's
government.
Those protests were sparked when Richard Grenell, the US ambassador to Germany,
warned German companies involved in the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline with Russia that they
could be hit with American economic sanctions if they go ahead with the Baltic seabed
project.
Earlier, Grenell provoked fury among Berlin's political establishment when he openly gave
his backing to opposition party Alternative for Germany. That led to consternation and
denunciations of Washington's perceived backing for regime change in Berlin. They were public
calls for Grenell to be expelled over his apparent breach of diplomatic protocols.
Now, however, Germany is shamelessly kowtowing to an even more outrageous American
regime-change plot against Venezuela.
... ... ...
Perhaps this policy of appeasement is also motivated by Berlin's concern to spare the
Nord Stream 2 project from American sanctions.
When NS2 is completed later this year, it
is reckoned to double the capacity of natural gas consumption by Germany from Russia. That will be
crucial for Germany's economic growth.
Another factor is possible blackmail of Berlin by Washington.
Recall the
earth-shattering revelations made by American whistleblower Edward Snowden a few years back when he
disclosed that US intelligence agencies were tapping the personal phone communications of
Chancellor Merkel and other senior Berlin politicians.
Recall, too, how the German state
remarkably
acquiesced
over what should
have been seen as a devastating infringement by Washington.
The weird lack of action by Berlin over that huge violation of its sovereignty by the Americans
makes one wonder if the US spies uncovered a treasure trove of blackmail material on German
politicians.
Berlin's pathetic kowtowing to Washington's interference in Venezuela begs an ulterior
explanation. No self-respecting government could be so hypocritical and duplicitous.
Whatever Berlin may calculate to gain from its unscrupulous bending over for Washington,
one thing seems clear, as Russian envoy Nebenzia warned: "One day you are next" for American
hegemonic shafting.
Well, Merkel is doing a good job of protecting Germany's interests by opposing the U.S.
regarding North Stream 2.
The German stand on Venezuela is disappointing, but they might be
figuring no skin off their back, since Venezuela is not in Europe, so might as well appease cheeto head.
I am personally suspicious of Nord Stream 2 and think Russia is making a HUGE mistake.
Everything I understand about German behavior in regards to 3rd parties is totally in
lockstep with the US - never mind that Germany has been occupied by the US since WW2 - so why
not a scheme to build more Russian dependency on the West? The Russians are fools to have
built this pipeline - they should be moving away from Europe, not foolishly trying to sew
themselves onto it as an appendage. This will come back to bite them on the ***, mark my
words.
And this, in a nutshell, is why Russia is always taking one step forward and two back. The
people who destroyed the USSR are still in power; their whole existence depends on whoring
out Russia to the West because that is all they have ever done. They can't not stop because
to stop would be an act of self-annihilation. Russian elites, at least a large faction of
them, desperately want back into the clubhouse, if they cant get in they will find something
else to do until the moment the clubhouse door is opened to them again, and then they will
fall all over themselves to get in.
The Duran's Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the Munich Security Conference,
and Angela Merkel's stunning defiance of Mike Pence, after the United States Vice President urged Germany to cease
its economic activities with Russia and China, starting with Nord Stream 2 and the deepening energy links to
Russia.
> It is very likely that Russia+ Canada will peak within the next two years.
I agree that Russia is close to its peak. But, at the same time, Russia has a huge Arctic
territory with a very low density of population (due to harsh conditions), which probably is
not explored that well. Also with their gas reserves, they might be able to increase the
condensate production considerably, repeating the USA path.
The other possibility is Russia sliding in chaos after Putin retirement, as there is no
any politician of equal caliber able to pick up the helm among the current elite. And there
will be "external helpers" like after Brezhnev's death who will try to get some comprador at
the top. Also, the leadership change historically is a huge problem in Russia.
Russia is a kind of 'A riddle wrapped up in an enigma.' Everybody wrote Russia off in late
90th. It is difficult to make predictions about Russia.
If I remember correctly, Fernando Leanme used to work at Russia in the past, and he might
share his thoughts about this issue.
What is interesting is that due to the use of natural gas in transport, Russia does not
consume that much oil internally, which makes an important difference with KSA.
Increasing Russia's Arctic production is feasible, but this will take many years, and I don't
think it can offset decline to make much of a difference. Yamal has huge gas condensate
reservoirs located under the Cenomanian, but they need many more wells. I believe they can
produce 1 mmbopd of condensate, but that would take 15 to 20 years.
I believe Putin is smart enough to set up a successful replacement, and the Russian elite
will also be keen on a smooth transition because they think they are under attack (yes, they
are convinced the USA, Germany, France and others are very keen on making them submit).
1.Russians are not very happy with Putin
2. Most Russians will support him in any circumstances. This is a principle. Otherwise,
chaos.
3.95% Rosiyan has a negative attitude towards liberals, as well as to "democratic values"
(this is a declaration that has no common with reality)
4.Most Russians dissatisfied with property inequality that appeared in the last 25 years
5. The greatest dissatisfaction is the destruction of industry. The lack of productive labor.
(We live with the income of hydrocarbons, the country-gas station). The consequence of
globalism.
>>>
During 2016-2017 Rosneft and the Russian government have been elaborating in details
additional options for the development of unique Samotlor field. As a result a joint decision
was made for an investment incentive in the form of an annual mineral extraction tax
reduction of RUB 35 billion during 10 years.
The Board has confirmed the Company's obligations to drill over 2,400 wells during
2018-2027 that would provide additional output in the amount of more than 50 mtoe. The
extended Samotlor development program would result in an increase of tax liabilities to
budgets of all administrative levels to RUB 1.7 trln. The investment incentives should give
new momentum to the development of one of the largest fields in the country and bring
significant multiplicative effect for Russian economy.
<<<
2,400 wells in a decade is 240 a year. This article is discussing just Samotlor.
A conventional field drilling a well more often than once every two days. Quite a bit more
than that I imagine in the good time of the year with the swings in Siberian weather
conditions.
That's nuts. It's also going to shark fin at some point.
Interesting, Schlumberger said during q&a in their q3 they they had a contract for 400
wells 2019-2021 for the saudis, it was ghawar and one neighbouring field to the west that i
cant remember name of that all 400 wells were going into. They were also quite honest about
its purpose that it was to mitigate declines.
So that makes it pretty much exactly 50% of the russian drill rate per day in samotlor you
mention abowe.
I asked in previous thread why that many wells were needed if we are to believe saudis
200gb+ of world class reserves remaining. In my opinion i didn't get any answer to that
question.
Somebody way up above said because Russia uses natgas for transport they don't consume much
oil.
Gas consumption growth last year was 1.3% Oil consumption growth was 1%.
Russian car sales grew 18% last year after a double digit gain the previous year. Lada
dominates their sales, and as best I can see they are all petrol fueled. Hyundai and Kia are
a substantial presence as well, but I see no evidence in general of natgas dominating
transport.
American model sales seem at best obscure. It's Lada, Hyundai, Kia, BMW, VW.
The statement about Russia using natural gas heavily for transport is simply inaccurate.
Russia "only" consumes 3.2 million barrels per day of oil. But that's more because the
country does not have anywhere near the continent-wide car infrastructure and other wealthy
sprawl the United States built out.
How come Poland's at 6% & Lithuania is at 29%? Don't they both import American LNG?
And how come Estonia is at 3%? Sounds like the Estonians import Russian gas. Bulgaria's at
37%. Now what were the assurances John McCain gave Sofia regarding alternative gas options to
Southstream? Please spell them out for me again, I'm pretty slow, you know!
What is so ridiculously ClusterFrack-Failed about this, is that BGR nixed a CNG Pipeline
Deal with RUS under pressure from the EU_EXECUTIVES.
Instead of Jobs and Transit Fee Income, BGR will have to stand in line and pay more for
CNG since TRK picked up the Pipeline. The Southeastern EUROZONE are STILL going to Import
that same RUS_CNG.
The project created controversy due to non-compliance with European Union competition and energy
legislation, in particular the Third Energy Package , which
stipulates the separation of companies' generation and sale operations from their
transmission networks.
It was seen as rival to the Nabucco pipeline project. Construction
of the Russian onshore facilities for the pipeline started in December 2012. The project
was cancelled by Russia in December 2014 following obstacles from Bulgaria and the EU, the
2014 Crimean
crisis , and the imposition of European sanctions on Russia. The project has been
replaced by proposals of Turkish Stream and Tesla pipeline .
Its interesting that in Asia, the USG also says it wants to help build infrastructure for
LNG use (as an element of its anti China strategy) but then also wants Asian nations like
Vietnam to buy American LNG (to reduce America's trade deficits, etc.) once the
infrastructure is in place.
Except it would be economically stupid for anyone in Asia to buy more expensive US LNG,
when adequate supplies of LNG at lower costs are available from nations like Australia,
Malaysia and Indonesia and of course Qatar.
I guess when you really can't compete because you subsidize the military and FIRE sectors
and don't invest in your society, you resort to government interference in the market or
"regime change", and then criticize anyone for doing the same thing. Hypocrisy at its
finest.
" it has offered to sell high-priced LNG from the United States (via port facilities that do
not yet exist in anywhere near the volume required)." -- facilities that are themselves
dangerous and highly controversial. Oregon is in the midst of one of those controversies,
trying to stop construction of an LNG export "facility" at Coos Bay, a scenic but impoverished
port on the southern Oregon coast. It would come with a pipeline across the state, which is
also highly unwelcome. LNG facilities are a fuel-air bomb waiting to happen, if it should leak
-- the Oregon coast is subject to Magnitude 9 subduction quakes and tsunamis. The project would
also involve massive dredging that would threaten the local seafood industry. And gas pipelines
are subject to their own threats, doubly so in earthquake country. Maybe they can be built
uncontested in Europe -- but I doubt it.
"... Good article. It accurately spells it out about the contempt and disrespect that America has of other countries, and the coercive tactics that America often applies to them. ..."
"... It really goes back to what Marine corps Major General Smedley Butler once reflected on, in 1933, about the U.S.,. He said: "I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism". Apparently, that is how other countries see us operating as too. ..."
For another example I turn to U.S. Ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell, who just sent a
letter to both Uniper and BASF to stop work on the Nordstream 2 pipeline or else face
further U.S. sanctions.
The Bild report raised the ire of some German politicians in Berlin. Fabio De Masi, a top
Left Party MP, demanded that the government reprimand Grenell, saying
: "The US Ambassador seems to make an impression that he is a viceroy of the Washington
emperor.
This is the real face of Trumpian diplomacy. Stop acting in your own best interest or we'll
bankrupt you.
The situation at this point is pretty clear. While our military strength is formidable it is
not, however, a blank check to enforce political edicts anymore.
In a world where U.S. prosperity is dependent on the prosperity of the entire world,
threatening financial ruin is just as much of a bluff as threatening physical ruin.
And we're seeing that bluff being called a lot. Country after country are now simply showing
U.S. strongmen like Pompeo, Bolton, Mattis and even Trump himself, the door and there is little
to no real response from them.
Trump tried to scare Erdogan into submission with sanctions and a collapse of the lira
last year. When it didn't work, Erdogan knew where his allies were. He acted accordingly,
siding with Putin's energy security for Turkey rather than a mercurial U.S.
India did the same thing over the purchase of Russian S-400 missile defense systems. They
said some nice things, invited us to talks and then sent us packing without a deal.
Germany refuses to yield on Nordstream 2.
Qatar was the first to pull out of the Syrian conflict and then turned around and
negotiated a major exploration and development deal with Iran in the North Pars gas
field.
Even Japan is in constant talks with Russia about working out their differences
officially (again, against U.S. wishes) and sign a peace treaty. Japan needs Russian energy
badly and Putin is patient enough to wait Prime Minister Shinzo Abe out while calling out his
hypocrisy.
Good article. It accurately spells it out about the contempt and disrespect that America
has of other countries, and the coercive tactics that America often applies to them.
It
really goes back to what Marine corps Major General Smedley Butler once reflected on, in
1933, about the U.S.,. He said: "I spent thirty-three years and four months in active
military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I
served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that
period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall
Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism".
Apparently, that is how other countries see us operating as too.
Things have been quite active in the Eastern Mediterranean lately, with Israel, Cyprus and
Greece pushing forward for the realization of the EastMed pipeline, a new gas conduit destined
to diversify Europe's natural gas sources and find a long-term reliable market outlet for all
the recent Mediterranean gas discoveries. The three sides have reached an agreement in late
November (roughly a year after signing the MoU) to lay the pipeline, the estimated cost of
which hovers around $7 billion (roughly the same as rival TurkStream's construction cost). Yet
behind the brave facade, it is still very early to talk about EastMed as a viable and
profitable project as it faces an uphill battle with traditionally difficult Levantine
geopolitics, as well as field geology.
The EastMed gas pipeline is expected to start some 170 kilometers off the southern coast of
Cyprus and reach Otranto on the Puglian coast of Italy via the island of Crete and the Greek
mainland. Since most of its subsea section is projected to be laid at depths of 3-3.5
kilometer, in case it is built it would become the deepest subsea gas pipeline, most probably
the longest, too, with an estimated length of 1900km. The countries involved proceed from the
premise that the pipeline's throughput capacity would be 20 BCM per year (706 BCf), although
previous estimates were within the 12-16 BCm per year interval. According to Yuval Steinitz,
the Israeli Energy Minister, the stakeholders would need a year to iron out all the remaining
administrative issues and 4-5 years to build the pipeline, meaning it could come onstream not
before 2025.
The EastMed gas pipeline is expected to start some 170 kilometers off the southern coast
of Cyprus and reach Otranto on the Puglian coast of Italy via the island of Crete and the
Greek mainland.
Cyprus,Crete,Greece, Italy....
Yes, very stable EU supply line going through the most stable countries in the EU.
Yeah, I'm having trouble with the sub sea depth numbers too, despite the route cuts the
conflicts to a half a dozen from an infinite number.
Intuitively, shipping LNG offers comparable delivery price albeit at lower volumes,and can
be done off shore.
Even here in bucolic Pensyltucky, delivery of natty to market is limited by a lack of
piping infrastructure, limiting the gas boom. It gives the tree huggers time to throttle the
business. Figuring that the political climate and costs are going to get better with time
passing is foolish.
Also considered is price, still cheap, cheap, cheap.
Our local natty supplier just applied for, and received a price reduction, effective next
fall.
Since most of its subsea section is projected to be laid at depths of 3-3.5 kilometer,
in case it is built it would become the deepest subsea gas pipeline, most probably the
longest, too...
oh yeah bitchez. nothing could possibly go wrong with that plan. /s
none has even discovered the goods yet ... and we are told we have to go to war about
building some (((PIPELINES))) on something to be discovered in the future ... if ever
....
as Abba Waterloo song said the history books on the shelf just keeps repeating itself ...
that is why is not that difficult to see through the BS ...
World War I we are told was over some archiduke being killed by some extremist ...as a
result 1/3 of the Serb nation was killed ...
"... Senate Resolution on December 19, 2019 which calls for "a prompt multinational freedom of navigation operation in the Black Sea and urging the cancellation of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline ..."
"... Calling for a prompt multinational freedom of navigation operation in the Black Sea and urging the cancellation of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. ..."
Senator Ron Johnson (R- Wis) and Richard Durban (D-Ill) and 39 of their colleagues introduced a Senate Resolution on December
19, 2019 which calls for "a prompt multinational freedom of navigation operation in the Black Sea and urging the cancellation of
the Nord Stream 2 pipeline" as shown
here :
Here is a list of co-sponsors of the resolution:
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Ok.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee; Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), ranking member of the
Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Europe and Regional Security Cooperation; and Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Ben Cardin
(D-Md.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), Christopher Coons (D-Del.), James Risch (R-Idaho),
Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Ben Sasse (R-Neb.),
Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), John Hoeven (R-N.D.), Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.),
Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Doug Jones (D-Ala.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.),
Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Roger Wicker
(R-Miss.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), John Thune (R-S.D.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Mitch
McConnell (R-Ky.), and Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.).
Here is the resolution (currently unnumbered) in its entirety:
Calling for a prompt multinational freedom of navigation operation in the Black Sea and urging the cancellation of the
Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
... ... ...
Whereas the United States has important national interests in the Black Sea region, including the security
of three NATO littoral states, the promotion of European energy market diversification by ensuring unfettered European access
to energy exporters in the Caucuses and central Asia, and combatting use of the region by smugglers as a conduit for trafficking
in persons, narcotics, and arms;
Whereas the Nord Stream 2 pipeline is a proposed underwater natural gas pipeline project that would provide
an additional 55,000,000,000 cubic meters of pipeline capacity from the Russian Federation to the Federal Republic of Germany
through the Baltic Sea;
Whereas the Russian Federation's state-owned oil and gas company, Gazprom, is the sole shareholder of the Nord
Stream 2 project;
Whereas, in 2017, there was spare capacity of approximately 55,000,000,000 cubic meters in the Ukrainian gas
transit system;
Whereas Gazprom cut off natural gas exports to Europe via Ukraine in 2006, and again in 2009, over supply and
pricing disputes with Ukraine's state-owned oil and gas company, Naftogaz;
Whereas transit of Russian natural gas to Europe via Ukraine declined precipitously after the completion of
Nord Stream 1 in 2011, falling from 80 percent to between 40 and 50 percent of Russia's total exports to Europe;
Whereas, in 2017, Russian gas accounted for 37 percent of Europe's natural gas imports, an increase of
5 percent over 2016;
Whereas, on December 12, 2018, the European Parliament overwhelmingly passed a resolution condemning both the
Russian Federation's aggression in the Kerch Strait and the construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline; and
Whereas, on December 11, 2018, the United States House of Representatives passed a resolution calling upon
the European
Union to reject the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and urging the President to use all available means to promote energy policies in
Europe that reduce European reliance on Russian energy exports:
... ... ...
(9) applauds and concurs with the European 2 Parliament's December 12, 2018, resolution condemning Russian aggression in the
Kerch Strait and
the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, calling for the pipeline's cancellation due to its threat to European energy security, and calling
on the Russian Federation to
7 guarantee freedom of navigation in the Kerch Strait;
and
(10) urges the President to continue working with Congress and our allies to ensure the appropriate policies to deter the Russian
Federation from further aggression.
Fortunately, these two neocons can make all the proclamations they want but without President Trump's support it's all just
words; neocon virtue signalling. And of course President Trump won't support what they're doing because he campaigned on and governs
as an anti-war president.
Ron Johnson is a Bushie neocon who actively supported the neocon ˇJebe! (Please Clap) Bush while Durbin is a Hillary Clinton
neocon who actively supported that drunken, corrupt, warmongering shrew.
Thank all that's holy that we have a genuine anti-war POTUS in office and not either of those two neocons, both of whom were
utterly in the pockets of defense contractors.
Thanks for your research on relevant naval law. The Ukrainian vessel is reported to have violated the ongoing protocol by failing
to take on a Russian pilot as it transited the strait and an important bridge could potentially have been attacked by those vessels.
This was a provocation by Ukraine that seems to have its desired effect on the U.S. Senate. For essential background on the Ukrainian
civil war, I recommend reading Stephen F. Cohen's article in the Nation in 2014, titled "Kiev's atrocities and the Silence of
the Hawks." https://www.thenation.com/article/kievs-atrocities-and-silence-hawks/
Russia is not as desperate for higher oil prices as is Saudi Arabia. There are a few reasons
for this. One of the key reasons is that the Russian currency is flexible, so it weakens when
oil prices fall. That cushions the blow during a downturn, allowing Russian oil companies to
pay expenses in weaker rubles while still taking in U.S. dollars for oil sales. Second, tax
payments for Russian oil companies are structured in such a way that their tax burden is
lighter with lower oil prices.
Saudi Arabia needs oil prices at roughly $84 per barrel for its
budget to breakeven.
... ... ...
Igor Sechin, the head of Russia's state-owned Rosneft, said that oil prices "should have
stabilized, because everyone was supposed to be scared" by the enormous OPEC+ production cuts.
"But nobody was scared," he said, according to Bloomberg. He blamed the Federal Reserve's rate
tightening for injecting volatility into the oil market, because traders have sold off
speculative positions in the face of higher interest rates.
...
Novak
offered the market some assurances that the OPEC+ coalition would step in to stabilize the
market if the situation deteriorates, suggesting that OPEC+ has the ability to call an
extraordinary meeting. He
told reporters on Thursday that the market still faces a lot of unknowns. "All these
uncertainties, which are now on the market: how China will behave, how India will behave...
trade wars and unpredictability on the part of the U.S. administration... those are defining
factors for price volatility," Novak said.
Nevertheless, Novak predicted the 1.2 mb/d cuts announced in Vienna would be sufficient.
Some analysts echo Novak's sentiment that, despite the current panic in the market, the cuts
should be sufficient. "We are looking at oil prices heading towards $70 to $80 quite a recovery
in 2019. That's really predicated on the thought that first of all, OPEC still is here. And I
think that the market is underestimating that they are going to cut supply by 1.2 mb/d,"
Dominic Schnider of UBS Wealth Management told CNBC
. "And demand looks healthy so we might find ourselves into 2019 in a situation where the
market is actually tight."
Don't ,forget John Bolton's late October visit to Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia where he
pragmatically refined US priorities for each country including the indication for sanction
waving in respect of South Stream energy. Bolton's tour followed on from a visit to Moscow.
DJT had a 50 minute private meeting with Erdogan at the G20 followed by a further extended
phone call on the 14th December and the final call on the 21st immediately prior to the
Policy announcement. This marks considered policy and unfortunately for the Rojave Kurds
their interest were found wanting in the balance. There will be complementary side deals
involving Iran, Assad, Putin and Netanyahu. There then remains Idlib.
https://www.dailysabah.com/...
https://www.tccb.gov.tr/en/...
https://www.tccb.gov.tr/en/...
"... "The 10 Bcm/year into Europe is not a game-changer from a volume point of view, but it is a game-changer from a new source of product into mainland Europe perspective and it can be expanded." ..."
"... Meanwhile, however, Russia and Turkey are building another pipeline, Turkish Stream, that will supply gas to Turkey and Eastern Europe, as well as possibly Hungary. The two recently marked the completion of its subsea section. Turkish Stream will have two lines, each able to carry up to 15.75 billion cubic meters. One will supply the Turkish market and the other European countries. ..."
"... In this context, the Southern Gas Corridor seems to have more of a political rather than practical significance for the time being , giving Europe the confidence that it could at some future point import a lot more Caspian gas because the infrastructure is there. ..."
The Southern Gas Corridor on which the European Union is pinning most of its hopes for
natural gas supply diversification away from Russia is coming along nicely and will not just be
on schedule, but it will come with a price tag that is US$5-billion lower than the original
budget , BP's vice president in charge of the project
told S&P Global Platts this week.
"Often these kinds of mega-projects fall behind schedule. But the way the projects have
maintained the schedule has meant that your traditional overspend, or utilization of
contingency, has not occurred," Joseph Murphy said, adding that savings had been the top
priority for the supermajor.
The Southern Gas Corridor will carry natural gas from the Azeri Shah Deniz 2 field in the
Caspian Sea to Europe via a network of three pipelines : the Georgia South Caucasus Pipeline,
which was recently expanded and can carry 23 billion cubic meters of gas; the TANAP pipeline
via Turkey, with a peak capacity of 31 billion cubic meters annually; and the Trans-Adriatic
Pipeline, or TAP, which will link with TANAP at the Turkish-Greek border and carry 10 billion
cubic meters of gas annually to Italy.
TANAP was
commissioned in July this year and the first phase of TAP is expected to be completed in
two years, so Europe will hopefully have more non-Russian gas at the start of the new decade.
But not that much, at least initially: TANAP will operate at an initial capacity of 16 billion
cubic meters annually, of which 6 billion cubic meters will be supplied to Turkey and the
remainder will go to Europe. In the context of total natural gas demand of 564 billion cubic
meters in 2020, according to a forecast from the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies released
earlier this year, this is not a lot.
Yet at some point the TANAP will reach its full capacity and hopefully by that time, TAP
will be completed. Surprisingly, it was the branch to Italy that proved the most challenging,
and BP's Murphy acknowledged that. While Turkey built TANAP on time to the surprise of the
project operator, TAP has been struggling because of legal issues and uncertainty after the new
Italian government entered office earlier this year.
At the time, the government of Giuseppe Conte said the pipeline was pointless but, said
Murphy, since then he has accepted the benefits the infrastructure would offer, such as transit
fees. And yet local opposition in southern Italy remains strong but BP still sees first
deliveries of gas through Italy in 2020.
The BP executive admitted that at first the Southern Gas Corridor wouldn't make a
splash.
"The 10 Bcm/year into Europe is not a game-changer from a volume point of view, but it is
a game-changer from a new source of product into mainland Europe perspective and it can be
expanded."
Meanwhile, however, Russia and Turkey are building another pipeline, Turkish Stream, that
will supply gas to Turkey and Eastern Europe, as well as possibly Hungary. The two recently
marked the completion of its subsea section. Turkish Stream will have two lines, each able to
carry up to 15.75 billion cubic
meters. One will supply the Turkish market and the other European countries.
In this context, the Southern Gas Corridor seems to have more of a political rather than
practical significance for the time being , giving Europe the confidence that it could at some
future point import a lot more Caspian gas because the infrastructure is there.
Comments while mostly naive, are indicative for the part of the US society that elected Trump
and that Trump betrayed.
But the fact that gas went not to Europe, but to Turkey is pretty indicative. And even larger volume with go to China. At some
point Europe might lose part or all Russia gas supply as Russian gas reserved are not infinite. That the perspective EU leaders
are afraid of.
US shale gas is OK as long as the USA is supplied from Canada, Russia and other places as well. Some quantity can be
exported. But the USA can't be a large and stable gas supplier to Europe as shale gas is capital intensive and sweet spots
are limited.
Notable quotes:
"... Some worthy observations, especially with all the US "Think Tanks." But I would include the number of non-Jewish elites who have banded together with the Jewish elite and who have greatly aided in eating out the very heart of America. ..."
"... History also shows that ANY smaller entity (Israel) that depends on a larger entity (America) for its survival becomes a failed entity in the long run. Just saying. ..."
"... The American Empire is all cost and no benefit to the great majority of Americans. The MIC and that's it. Politicians on the right wave the flag and politicians on the left describe a politically correct future. All on our dime. ..."
While the Trump Administration still thinks it can play enough games to derail the
Nordstream 2 pipeline via sanctions and threats, the impotence of its position geopolitically
was on display the other day as the final pipe of the first train of the Turkstream pipeline
entered the waters of the Black Sea.
The pipe was sanctioned by Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep
Tayyip Erdogan who shared a public stage and held bilateral talks afterwards. I think it is
important for everyone to watch the response to Putin's speech in its entirety. Because it
highlights just how far Russian/Turkish relations have come since the November 24th, 2015
incident where Turkey shot down a Russian SU-24 over Syria.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/TkFR25SArYM
When you contrast this event with the strained and uninspired interactions between Erdogan
and President Trump you realize that the world is moving forward despite the seeming power of
the United States to derail events.
And Turkey is the key player in the region, geographically, culturally and politically.
Erdogan and Putin know this. And they also know that Turkey being the transit corridor of
energy for Eastern Europe opens those countries up to economic and political power they haven't
enjoyed in a long time.
The first train of Turkstream will serve Turkey directly. Over the next couple of years the
second train will be built which will serve as a jumping off point for bringing gas to Eastern
and Southern Europe.
Turkstream will bring 15.75 bcm annually to Turkey and the second train that same amount to
Europe. The TAP – Trans Adriatic Pipeline -- will bring just 10 bcm annually and won't do
so before 2020, a project more than six years in the making.
Political Realities
The real story behind Turkstream, however, is, despite Putin's protestations to the
contrary, political. No project of this size is purely economic, even if it makes immense
economic sense. If that were the case then the STC wouldn't exist because it makes zero
economic sense but some, if not much, political sense.
No, this pipeline along with the other major energy projects between Russia and Turkey have
massive long-term political implications for the Middle East. Erdogan wants to re-take control
of the Islamic world from the Saudis.
This is why they have the Saudis on a residual-poison-type drip
feed of information relating to the death of Jamal Khashoggi to extract maximal value from
the situation as Erdogan plays the U.S. deep state against the Trump/Mohammed bin Salman (MbS)
alliance.
The U.S. deep state wants Trump weakened and MbS removed from power. Trump needs MbS to
advance his plans for securing Israel's future and prolong the dollar's long-term health.
Erdogan is using this rift to extract concessions left and right while continuing to do
whatever he wants to do vis a vis Syria, Iran and his growing partnership with Russia.
Erdogan is in a position now to drive a very hard bargain over U.S. involvement in Syria,
which neither faction in the U.S. government (Trump and the deep state) wants to give up
on.
By controlling the oil fields in the eastern part of Syria and blocking the roads leading
from Iraq the U.S. is playing a game it can't win because ultimately the Kurds will either have
to be betrayed by the U.S. to keep Erdogan happy or cut a deal with the Syrian government for
their future alienating the U.S.
This has been the ultimate end-game of the occupation of eastern Syria for months now and
time is on both Putin's and Erdogan's side. Because the U.S. can't pressure Turkey to stop
growing closer to Russia and Iran.
Eventually the U.S. troops in Syria will be nothing more than an albatross around Trump's
neck politically and he'll have to announce a pull out, which will be popular back home helping
his re-election campaign for 2020.
The big loser in this is Israel who is now having to circle the wagons politically since
Putin put the screws to Benjamin Netanyahu for his part in the deaths of 15 Russian airmen back
in September by closing the Syrian airspace and allowing mostly free movement of materiel to
Lebanon.
Netanyahu, as I talked about last week, is now in a very precarious position after Israel
was forced to sue for peace thanks to the unprecedentedly strong response by the Palestinians
in Gaza.
Elijah Magnier commented
recently that it this was the net result of Trump's unconditional support of Israel which
united the Arab resistance rather than dividing and conquering it.
But the US establishment decided to distance itself from the Palestinian cause and
embraced unconditionally the Israeli apartheid policy towards Palestine: the US supports
Israel blindly. It has recognised Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, suspended financial aid
to UN institutions supporting Palestinian refugees (schools, medical care, homes), and
rejected the right of return of Palestinians. All this has pushed various Palestinian groups,
including the Palestinian Authority, to acknowledge that any negotiation with Israel is
useless and that also the US can no longer be considered a reliable partner. Moreover, the
failed regime-change in Syria and the humiliating conditions place on Arab financial support
were in a way the last straws that convinced Hamas to change its position, giving up on the
Oslo agreement and joining the Axis of the Resistance.
Project Netanyahu,
as Alistair Crooke termed it , was predicated on keeping the support of the Palestinians
split with Hamas and the Palestinian Authority at odds and then grinding out the resistance in
Gaza over time.
Trump's plans also involved the formation of the so-called "Arab NATO" the summit for which
has been put off until next year thanks to Erdogan's deft handling of the Saudi hit on
Khashoggi. There are still a number of issues outstanding -- the financial blockade of Qatar,
the war in Yemen, etc. -- that need to be resolved as well before any of this is even remotely
possible.
At this point that plan has failed and the clash with Israel last week proved it is
unworkable without tacit approval of Turkey who is gunning for the Saudis as the leaders of the
Sunni world.
Show me the Money
But, more importantly, over time, a Turkey that can ween itself off the U.S. dollar over the
next decade is a Turkey that can survive politically the upheaval to the post-WWII
institutional order coming over the next few years.
Remember, all of this is happening against the backdrop of a U.S. and European political
order that is failing to maintain the confidence of the people it governs.
The road to dollar independence will be long and hard but it will be possible. Russia is the
model for this having successfully removed the dollar from a great deal of its trade and is now
reaping the benefits of that stability.
And projects like Turkstream and the soon to be completed Power of Siberia Pipeline to China
will see the gas from both trade without the dollar as the intermediary.
If you don't think this de-dollarization of the Russian economy is happening or significant,
take one look at the Russian ruble versus the price of Brent crude in recent weeks. We've had
another historic collapse in oil prices and yet the ruble versus the dollar hasn't really moved
at all.
The upward move from earlier this year in the ruble (not shown) came from disruptions in the
Aluminum market and the threat of further sanctions. But, as the U.S. puts the screws even
tighter to Russia's finances by forcing the price of oil down, the effect on the ruble has been
minimal.
With today's move Brent is off nearly $30 from its October high ( a massive 35% drop in
prices) just seven weeks ago and the Ruble hasn't budged. The Bank of Russia hasn't been in
there propping up its price. Normally this would send the ruble into a tailspin but it
hasn't.
The other so-called 'commodity currencies' like the Canadian and Australian dollars have
been hit hard but not the ruble.
Set the Way Back Machine to 2014 when oil prices cratered and you'll see a ruble in free
fall which culminated in a massive blow-off top that required a fundamental shift in both
fiscal and monetary policy for Russia.
This had to do with the massive dollar-denominated debt of its, you guessed it, oil and gas
sector. Today that is not a point of leverage.
Today lower oil prices will be a forward headwind for Russian oil companies but a boon to
the Russian economy that won't experience massive inflation thanks to the ruble being sold to
cover U.S. dollar liabilities.
Those days are over.
And so too will those days come for Turkey which is now in the process of doing what Russia
did in 2015, divest itself of future dollar obligations while diversifying the currencies it
trades in.
Stability, transparency and solvency are the things that increase the demand for a currency
as not only a medium of exchange but also as a reserve asset. Russia announced the latest
figures of bilateral trade with China bypassing the dollar and RT had a very interesting
quote from Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev.
No one currency should dominate the market, because this makes all of us dependent on the
economic situation in the country that issues this reserve currency, even when we are talking
about a strong economy such as the United States," Medvedev said.
He added that US sanctions have pushed Moscow and Beijing to think about the use of their
domestic currencies in settlements, something that "we should have done ten years ago."
" Trading for rubles is our absolute priority, which, by the way, should eventually turn
the ruble from a convertible currency into a reserve currency, " the Russian prime minister
said.
That is the first statement by a major Russian figure about seeing the ruble rise to reserve
status, but it's something that many, like myself, have speculated about for years now.
Tying together major economies like Turkey, Iran, China and eventually the EU via energy
projects which settle the trade in local currencies is the big threat to the current political
and economic program of the U.S. It is something the EU will only embrace reluctantly.
It is something the U.S. will oppose vehemently.
And it is something that no one will stop if it makes sense for the people on each side of
the transaction. This is why Turkstream and Nordstream 2 are such important projects they
change the entire dynamic of the flow of global capital.
Oil and commodity markets were used as a finishing move on the Soviet system. The book,
"The Oil Card: Global Economic Warfare in the 21st Century" by James R. Norman details the
use of oil futures as a geopolitical tool. Pipelines change the calculus quite a bit.
Soros funded 'migration' to Europe has also failed and created a massive cultural and
economic burden on Europe.
The Soros/Rothschild plan to destroy Middle Eastern countries and displace the people was
- of course - motivated by the Rothschilds 'bread and butter ' - OIL ( the worlds largest
traded commodity ) !!
...Where ever they go, they [neoliberals] get organised, identify the institutions/establishments/courts to infiltrate and then use that
influence to -
* Hijack the economy.
* Corrupt the society.
As the current trend shows, the nexus of the international economic activity is shifting
east. Turkey is not making a mistake aligning itself with the goals of Russia, Iran and
China. Although there is still a huge debt of the previous deeds that has to be paid.
"Half of the US billionaires are Jews while only being less then 3% of the population. And
it doesn't stop there. They work collectively to hijack the institutions critical for the
operations of the democracy."
Some worthy observations, especially with all the US "Think Tanks." But I would include
the number of non-Jewish elites who have banded together with the Jewish elite and who have
greatly aided in eating out the very heart of America.
I read on here previously some dimwit comment about "America prints a bill for 2 cents
while other countries have to earn a dollars worth of equity to buy it and we can do this
forever" kind of thing. Not if other countries don't supply the demand you can't :)
History also shows that ANY smaller entity (Israel) that depends on a larger entity
(America) for its survival becomes a failed entity in the long run. Just saying.
I think you could quite reasonably replace the term 'depends on a larger entity', with a
term that better describes a (smaller) ' parasite ' on a (larger) host...
From your lips to God's ear. The American Empire is all cost and no benefit to the great majority of Americans. The MIC
and that's it. Politicians on the right wave the flag and politicians on the left describe a
politically correct future. All on our dime.
Israhell is losing its status via Putins peaceful diplomacy and trade with ME countries
who are not onboard with the Yinon plan. This is why RUSSIAGATE, led by dual Israhelli democrats in Congress. There is always a
foreign policy issue attached to their demonizing of other countries. This is also why the UK just sent UK soldiers to Ukraine declaring war on Russia for
"invading Ukraine" and not telling parliament or the UK people.
UK/US blind support for Israhell will get us all killed.
We do know that UK soldiers have been sent to the Ukraine. We also know that, according to elements in the Government and the Civil Service, Russia
invaded and annexed the Ukraine, which is just another reason to not trust the
Government--any Government.
WRONG!!!!! NordStream Eins und Zwei are the Prizes, because DEU, Scandinavia, CHE, and FRA will
Benefit. TRK Wins 2nd Prize with TRKStream and SouthStream Pipelines. Losers are BGR and EU_PARAGOV, since BGR went from Prime Partner to Trickledown
Transiteer.
Ultimately, along with Nordstream and Turkstream, there will also be a Polarstream
(leading to UK and Iceland) and Southstream (which was already begun but temporarily
suspended after Obama threatened Bulgaria via Angela Merkel).
And, oh...I am sure there will also be a Ukrostream (also known as Mainstream)
unfortunately the Ukronazi government of Ukrainistan doesn't know this just yet. They will
find out in due course, I am sure.
First PolarStream is highly unlikely both because laying it would be extremely difficult
and expensive and because Iceland has no need for gas as it is sitting on thermal reserves
and the UK won't deal with Russia.
You are correct on SouthStream.
As to UkroStream (I assume you mean Ukraine) it is already in existence and has been for
50 plus years. Given the bad history between the parties the Russians will want to stop that
route asap, hence the timing of NordStream 2 and TurkStream. So in the future UkroSream is
going to end, not start.
long-term political implications for the Middle East. Erdogan wants to re-take control of
the Islamic world from the Saudis.
SA still has control of the Hajj -- religious tourism - command by the Magic Book that
even Turkish mohammadist must complete. +/- 18% of SA GDP-- and SA isn't sharing any of that
loot.
Ticip is required to go and throw rocks at the black orb -- and do the Muslim Hokey Pokey
along with all the rest.. oh, and pay the SA kings for the privilege !
The new 3D Grand Chessboard is being played very quietly out of Moscow.
The article is a wee bit deceptive. Whilst this was indeed the last bit of under sea pipe
they were celebrating, it should be pointed out the stunning speed that they achieved, about
a mile a day some to a depth of over 1000 feet, quite an achievement on land, let alone at
sea. This is quite interesting, especially the map
Also, as its landfall in Turkey is west of the Bosphorus, that is west of Istanbul, maybe
that 'for Turkish use' is a cover for its primary purpose, supplying the Balkans as well as
Turkey from January 2020.
Note the significance of the start to pump date, December 2019, the same as NordStream 2.
What else happens then? Oh yes, the gas transit contract with Ukraine ends. The combination
of these two new pipelines to a very great extent replace that agreement. Even though
politically everyone is saying Ukraine ($4B p.a. transit fees) should be protected.
Take another look at the map, note that it takes a dogleg south to Turkey. If at that
point it had gone straight ahead it would have gone to Bulgaria as SouthStream. But the US
and its EU vassal stopped that. Maybe the second pipeline the Russians are now discussing
will resurrect that route.
These American fucktards actually think they can replace Russian gas supply to the EU. With
what you utter void heads? America had a net export capacity of 5 bcm in 2017 because it
imported about 87 bcm from Canada. When you fuckwad, douchebags get 150 bcm export capacity,
then start yapping. Until then, STFU.
Of course, it is clear to anyone with a functional brain that the US is totally dishonest
on claiming to want to supply the EU. In fact, it wants to saddle the EU with onerous LNG
contracts to third parties (e.g. Qatar) who can currently and for the near term supply the
volumes of LNG needed. At the same time the US damages the Asian tigers by increasing LNG
prices.
It is time for all the US bootlicks (Japan, the EU) to tell Uncle Scumbag to shove himself
in his own ass. The US is not even pretending to treat these countries with respect.
The US has repeatedly taken position against Nord Stream 2, a Russia-sponsored pipeline
planned to bring gas to Germany under the Baltic Sea. But this time Washington warned against
another such pipeline, bringing Russian gas under the Black Sea.
US Energy Secretary Rick Perry called on Hungary and its neighbors to reject Russian gas
pipelines which Washington says are being used to cement Moscow's grip on central and eastern
Europe.
Energy diversification would be crucial for the region, as Russia has used energy as a
weapon in the past, he said, as quoted by Reuters.
"Russia is using a pipeline project Nord stream 2 and a multi-line Turkish stream to try to
solidify its control over the security and the stability of Central and eastern Europe," Perry
added during a visit to Budapest.
Last July, Hungary signed a deal with Russia's Gazprom to link the country with the Turkish
Stream pipeline by end-2019.
Rick Perry is a salesman. He wants us Europeans to buy USA gas. Which is why he is against
North Stream 2 and Turkish Stream. Not because Russia may use gas to blackmail Europe --
unlike the USA, which blackmails Europe to sanction Iran and Russia –. No, he just
wants us to buy America.
Despite the fact that gas produced in the USA is far more expensive
than Russia's. Well, what can you expect from a minister in the government of a tycoon? What
else can you expect from today's USA?
One way or another, Gazprom is going to have to pay Ukraine $2.6 Billion, so they might as
well just do it and have it over with. Of course the Ukies will prance and jump up and down
in the streets and yell 'Slava Ukrainy' – and hasten off to prepare new lawsuits in
search of more money from the Russian state. But a Swiss court has ordered all Nord Stream
partners to not make any payments to Gazprom, instead to pay all monies owed to Gazprom to
Swedish bailiffs, who will redistribute it to Ukraine until they recover all their money.
"... Later, it emerged that QIA and Glencore planned to sell the majority of the stake they had acquired in Rosneft to China's energy conglomerate CEFC, but the deal fell through after Beijing set its sights on CEFC and launched an investigation that saw the removal of its chief executive. The investigation was reportedly part of a wide crackdown on illicit business practices on the part of private Chinese companies favored by Beijing. ..."
Russian VTB, a state-owned bank, funded a significant portion of the Qatar Investment
Authority's acquisition of a stake in oil giant Rosneft , Reuters
reports , quoting nine unnamed sources familiar with the deal.
VTB, however, has denied to Reuters taking any part in the deal.
"VTB has not issued and is not planning to issue a loan to QIA to finance the
acquisition," the bank said in response for a request for comment.
The Reuters sources, however, claim VTB provided a US$6 billion loan to the Qatar sovereign
wealth fund that teamed up with Swiss Glencore to acquire 19.5 percent in Rosneft last year.
Reuters cites data regarding VTB's activity issued by the Russian central bank that shows VTB
lent US$6.7 billion (434 billion rubles) to unnamed foreign entities and the loan followed
another loan of US$5.20 billion (350 billion rubles) from the same central bank.
The news first made
headlines in December, taking markets by surprise, as Rosneft's partial privatization was
expected by most to be limited to Russian investors. The price tag on the stake was around
US$11.57 billion (692 billion rubles), of which Glencore agreed to contribute US$324 million.
The remainder was forked over by the Qatar Investment Authority, as well as non-recourse bank
financing.
Russia's budget received about US$10.55 billion (
710.8 billion rubles ) from the deal, including US$ 270 million (18 billion rubles) in
extra dividends. Rosneft, for its part, got an indirect stake in Glencore of 0.54 percent.
Later, it
emerged that QIA and Glencore planned to sell the majority of the stake they had acquired
in Rosneft to China's energy conglomerate CEFC, but the deal fell through after Beijing set its
sights on CEFC and launched an investigation that saw the removal of its chief executive. The
investigation was reportedly part of a wide crackdown on illicit business practices on the part
of private Chinese companies favored by Beijing.
Seeking protection against possible new U.S. sanctions, Russian energy majors are
heaping pressure on Western oil buyers to use euros instead of dollars for payments, as
well as penalty clauses in contracts.
Russia supplies over 10% of global oil, so severe sanctions could affect crude prices.
Global oil majors further rely on Russia to feed their refineries, especially in Europe and
Asia, so they cannot just walk away from annual contract negotiations.
+ 45
DR
Members
+ 45
28 posts
Posted
Wednesday
at 03:48 AM
On 10/18/2018 at 11:38 PM,
Jan van Eck
said:
The problem that Qatar faces is one of population and geography. Qatar is dominantly Sunni, but
not the really severe branch that envelops KSA. And it sits next door to Bahrain, which is
apparently about 70% Shia. Qatar also juts way out into the Gulf, and is thus a convenient
sea-land bridge from Iran. Were Iran to go for a land invasion of KSA, then crossing into Qatar
with landing craft, or seizing a Qatari airport, is logical. To prevent this, the USA has built
a major air base in Qatar, specifically to cut off this route. That big US base is a natural
(and juicy) target for Iran should a shooting war break out, and the USA join in against Iran
(and that would be logical).
Meanwhile Qatar has this bizarre and unfathomable dysfunctional relationship with MbS, and a
very difficult relationship with Bahrain, which has cut off diplomatic relations and sent the
Qatari diplomats packing, in 2017. Now Iran is under sanctions, which is stressing their cash
receipts. Iran pushes back, against their ideological and religious rivals and enemies the
Sunnis, by threatening to either invade or to sink tankers with gas coming out of Qatar. The
problem for gas LNG tankers is that the stuff is kept docile by bringing the temp down to minus
176 degrees. If you whack an LNG tanker with a torpedo and breach the container spheres, easy
enough to do, then that ship is likely to blow up; one little spark and all that gas will be a
salient lesson for all the others.
The deterrent effect of this will be that nobody will dare to tempt fate by sending in an LNG
tanker. So Iran can shut down LNG traffic without firing a shot, all they have to do is go
crazy and start threatening. Iran has these subs that can go sit on the bottom of the Gulf and
pop up to launch a torpedo, and everyone knows it. That is one heck of a deterrent.
Meanwhile you have Europe now heavily dependent on gas. Either the Europeans continue to
genuflect to the Russians, which some Europeans at least find unpalatable, or they have to find
an alternative source. That is likely going to be the USA. I predict that the aggressions of
the Russians, and the problems of Qatar in any real ability to fill long-term contracts, and the
threat of
force-majeure
hovering in the background, brings Europe to buy US LNG.
Qatar delivered 80 million tons last year, as number 1 LNG exporter by a long shot. Australia
trailed behind at 56 million, followed by Malaysia 26M, Nigeria 21M, Indonesia 16M, USA 13M, Algeria
12M.
Qatar was responsible for 17M tons exported to EU, followed by Algeria at 10.4M. US Liquefaction
capacity is estimated to match the whole Middle East by 2025 with Calcasieu, LA at 4 bcf/day,
Brownsville, TX at 3.6 bcf/day; Plaquemines at 3.4 bcf/day; and Nikiski Alaska at 2.6 Bcf/day for the
Asian market.
BP has its new 'Partnership Fleet', Shell is chartering heavily and owns a large fleet as well.
Gaslog has over 25 modern large capacity vessels on the water, and the order book for 2019-2020
deliveries is extensive, and they will be available for US to EU transport (Tellurian and Cheniere
have already chartered Gaslog ships for their exclusive use)
The catch here is that Russia is delivering 10.8 million tons per year via Yamal, and their
upcoming Arctic 2LNG that will be on the ice in the Arctic circle adding even more to that production.
They have a fleet delivering year round of Teekay and Dynagas ice breaker LNG carriers, and their
primary clients have been Belgium, France and Spain during their debut ice breaking season. They are
centrally located to maximize deliveries to Asia and Europe.
I doubt that Russia will cut off Europe after spending all that money to secure liquefaction and
transport capabilities in the Arctic, but who knows. They are geared up to deliver to Asia, but could
only do so in the Summer months, or during the Winter months with the assistance of a Nuclear
Icebreaker to lead the ships.
Honestly, I hope that Germany completes the Hamburg LNG Terminal quickly and begins buying US LNG
so that we can diversify from our usual Mexico, S Korea, Japan, Spain, Portugal, Chile, Egypt, Jordan
clientele. Germany consumed over 90 million CBM of natural gas last year (controversial because they
stopped 'officially' disclosing the numbers after 2016, these are OECD estimates from the IEA), and
are getting close to Japan's 120 million CBM.
Qatar/Iran tensions could be the perfect storm for a US to EU energy boom.
Despite the almost unprecedented divisive nature of Donald J. Trump's presidency, he is
chalking up some impressive foreign policy victories, including finally bringing Beijing to
task over its decades long unfair trade practices, stealing of intellectual property rights,
and rampant mercantilism that has given its state-run companies unfair trade advantages and as
a result seen Western funds transform China to an emerging world power alongside the U.S.
Now, it looks as if Trump's recent tirade against America's European allies over its
geopolitically troubling reliance on Russian gas supply may also be bearing fruit. On Tuesday,
The Wall Street Journal reported that earlier this month German Chancellor Angela Merkel
offered government support to efforts to open up Germany to U.S. gas, in what the report called
"a key concession to President Trump as he tries to loosen Russia's grip on Europe's largest
energy market."
German concession
Over breakfast earlier this month, Merkel told a small group of German lawmakers that the
government had made a decision to co-finance the construction of a $576 million liquefied
natural gas (LNG) terminal in northern Germany, people familiar with the development said.
The project had been postponed for at least a decade due to lack of government support,
according to reports, but is now being thrust to the center of European-U.S. geopolitics.
Though media outlets will mostly spin the development, this is nonetheless a geopolitical and
diplomatic win for Trump who lambasted Germany in June over its Nordstream 2 pipeline deal with
Russia.
In a televised meeting with reporters and NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg before a
NATO summit in Brussels,
Trump said at the time it was "very inappropriate" that the U.S. was paying for European
defense against Russia while Germany, the biggest European economy, was supporting gas deals
with Moscow.
Both the tone and openness of Trumps' remarks brought scathing rebukes both at home and
among EU allies, including most media outlets. However, at the end of the day, it appears that
the president made a fair assessment of the situation. Russia, for its part, vehemently denies
any nefarious motives over its gas supply contacts with its European customers, though Moscow's
actions in the past dictate otherwise.
Moscow also claims that the Nordstream 2 gas pipeline is a purely commercial venture. The
$11 billion gas pipeline will stretch some 759 miles (1,222 km), running on the bed of the
Baltic Sea from Russian gas fields to Germany, bypassing existing land routes over Ukraine,
Poland and Belarus. It would double the existing Nord Stream pipeline's current annual capacity
of 55 bcm and is expected to become operational by the end of next year.
Russia, who stands the most to lose not only in terms of regional hegemony, but economically
as well, if Germany pushes through with plans to now build as many as three LNG terminals,
always points out that Russian pipeline gas is cheaper and will remain cheaper for decades
compared to U.S. LNG imports.
While that assessment is correct, what Moscow is missing, or at least not admitting, is a
necessary German acquiescence to Washington. Not only does the EU's largest economy need to
stay out of Trump's anti-trade cross hairs, it still needs American leadership in both NATO and
in Europe as well.
Russian advantages
Without U.S. leadership in Europe, a vacuum would open that Moscow would try to fill, most
likely by more gas supply agreements. However, Russia's gas monopoly in both Germany and in
Europe will largely remain intact for several reasons.
First, Russian energy giant Gazprom, which has control over Russia's network of pipelines to
Europe, supplies close to 40 percent of Europe's gas needs.
Second, Russia's gas exports to Europe rose 8.1 percent last year to a record level of 193.9
bcm, even amid concerns over Russia's cyber espionage allegations, and its activities in Syria,
the Ukraine and other places.
Moreover, Russian gas is indeed as cheap as the country claims and will remain that way for
decades. Using a Henry Hub gas price of $2.85/MMBtu as a base, Gazprom
recently estimated that adding processing and transportation costs, the price of
U.S.-sourced LNG in Europe would reach $6/MMBtu or higher – a steep markup.
Henry Hub gas prices are currently trading at $3.151/MMBtu. Over the last 52-week period
U.S. gas has traded between $2.64/MMBtu and $3.82/MMBtu. Russian gas sells for around $5/MMBtu
in European markets and could even trade at lower prices in the future as Gazprom removes the
commodity's oil price indexation.
Naftogaz has now begun to help itself to money from Russia's gas-transit payments, arguing
that it is owed money from the Stockholm Arbitration ruling which Gazprom has refused to pay.
Apparently Russia is still paying the old rate, from before the ruling (because to do
otherwise would be to recognize the debt and accept responsibility for it), which results in
an overpayment since it is higher than Naftogaz would charge, if I understand correctly. So
Naftogaz has decided to confiscate it as owing.
This, obviously, sets the stage for another shutdown of European gas supplies, just as
winter is coming on. Perhaps Ukraine has realized that nothing it can do or say is going to
stop Nord Stream II from going ahead, and so it might as well recover what it can, and who
cares if it results in a shutdown of Europe's gas, regardless where the blame ends up? Once
again Ukraine's maneuvering puts Russia in a difficult spot – it can recognize the
Stockholm award and pay Ukraine $2.6 Billion or whatever it was. Or it can accept that
Ukraine will keep part of its transit payments against the debt until it can shut down gas
transit across Ukraine altogether. Or it can shut off the gas now.
If it were up to me, I would take the middle option. Let Ukraine congratulate itself on
one-upping me with its native cleverness (assuming here that I am Russia), and let them keep
$9 or $10 million of the transit fees each month; that would probably be a lot cheaper than
acknowledging the Stockholm award and paying Ukraine billions, in view of the fact that
Ukraine never paid back the money it was lent by Russia; Stockholm neatly solved that for
them, by awarding them huge damages, part of which was understood to be the amount Ukraine
owed. Okay, that goes toward Ukraine's debt to Russia, and now you owe Ukraine $2.6 Billion
more.
I would just focus on getting Nord Stream II completed. Then I would not only stop gas
transit through Ukraine, I would tell them to kiss my ass if they wanted to buy gas for
themselves. You were so pleased with yourselves for not buying any gas from Russia last year
– obviously you can get along fine without it. But I sure hope Europe is going to keep
giving you money to buy European gas forever.
Ukraine Naftogaz Commercial Director Yuriy Vitrenko, in an interview with "The Fifth
Channel" has spoken of a plan that has been prepared in order to protect Naftogaz interests
in the event of the launch of "Nord Stream-2".
According to him, if the gas pipeline project is indeed implemented, then Kiev will demand
that a penalty against against Russia be awarded the Ukraine for the loss it will suffer
because of the redundancy of its gas transport system.
The loss incured has been estimated by the Ukraine to be $12 billion. A lawsuit has
already been filed by Naftogaz for international arbitration.
So for several years I have been shopping at a Pyatyorochka supermarket around the corner
from our house. Now there's a new Billa supermarket around the other corner. It has a wider
range of goods and is very competitive as regards its Pyatorocka prices, so I now do most of
my shopping at Billa.
Does this mean Pyatyorachka can sue me for damages because of the loss of income it is
suffering because of my choice to use another retail outlet?
I shall check with the Swedish court of arbitration.
Perhaps they would get further by suing the US Department of State. I'm pretty sure that if
it were not for them, Ukraine's gas transit system would still be in use. Ukraine could at
least make a sensible case, which they cannot do against Russia. Mind you, a UK judge would
probably rule in their favour, because simply wanting to get at Russia seems to be good
enough these days – making a sensible case is not required.
In another stellar example of simply making up an optimistic headline that makes readers feel
good – those readers who only read headlines, for example – a French analyst is
apparently willing to go out on a limb and say that Nord Stream II 'won't be built as
planned'. That's already a little hedgy, but if you read the article itself, he doesn't say
anything remotely like that. In fact, he says Russian gas is the cheapest option, and most
American LNG cargoes thus far to Europe are promptly sold on to someplace else where the
Europeans can get more for it.
The major issue is that US LNG may come if we have higher prices. But why would we need
them? They are quite high already. If China is prepared to overbid us, we don't need the
American gas. We can ask for more Russian gas
Russia's Energy Minister sees the potential to double Russian gas exports by 2035. Russia's
gas exports are growing by 6-7%/yr while global gas demand growth is at 2.6%/yr until 2035.
Probably not the greatest news for the environment, as most analysts agree we need to
start immediately moving away from a petroleum-based energy policy. But getting rid of all
use of coal would be a good start for the present; gas is relatively clean, although I don't
know if that makes any real difference to greenhouse-gas emissions.
Ryan Chilcote : Let's return to energy, or at least more directly to energy,
President Putin, and talk about Nord Stream 2. That's the pipeline that Gazprom wants to build
between Russia and Germany. Again, the President of the United States has said his opinion
about this. He says that Germany is effectively a hostage already of Russia, because it depends
on Russia for so much of its energy and gas supplies, and that it's vulnerable to "extortion
and intimidation" from Russia. What do you make of that?
Vladimir Putin : My response is very simple. Donald and I talked about this very
briefly in Helsinki. In any sale, including the sale of our gas to Europe, we are traditionally
the supplier, of pipeline gas I mean. We have been doing this since the 1960s. We are known for
doing it in a highly responsible and professional manner, and at competitive prices for the
European market. In general, if you look at the characteristics of the entire gas market, the
price depends on the quantity and on sales volumes. The distance between Russia and Europe is
such that pipeline gas is optimal. And the price will always be competitive, always. This is
something all experts understand.
We have a lot of people here in this room, in the first row, who could easily be seated next
to me, and I would gladly listen to them, because each one is an expert, so each of them can
tell you that. And so Nord Stream 2 is a purely commercial project, I want to emphasise this,
warranted by rising energy consumption, including in Europe, and falling domestic production in
European countries. They have to get it from somewhere.
Russian gas accounts for around 34 percent of the European market. Is this a lot or a
little? It is not insubstantial, but not a monopoly either. Europe certainly can and does
actually buy gas from other suppliers, but American liquefied gas is about 30 percent more
expensive than our pipeline gas on the European market. If you were buying products of the same
quality and you were offered the same product for 30 percent more , what would you choose? So,
what are we talking about?
If Europe starts buying American gas for 30 percent more than ours, the entire economy of
Germany, in this case, would quickly become dramatically less competitive. Everyone understands
this; it is an obvious fact.
But business is business, and we are ready to work with all partners. As you know, our
German partners have already begun offshore construction. We are ready to begin as well. We
have no problems with obtaining any permits. Finland agreed, and so did Sweden, Germany, and
the Russian Federation. This is quite enough for us. The project will be implemented.
< >
Ryan Chilcote : President Putin, did you want to jump in here?
Vladimir Putin:(following up on the remarks by CEO of Royal Dutch Shell Ben van
Beurden) We understand the realities and treat all our partners with respect. We have very
good, amiable long-term relations with all our partners, including the company represented by
my neighbour on the left. This company is working in the Russian market and working with great
success, but we understand everything very well and understand the realities. We are carrying
out the project ourselves. We do not and will not have any problems here. That is to say, they
may arise, of course, but we will resolve them.
Some things are beyond the realm of political intrigue. Take supplies to the Federal
Republic of Germany. Not everyone knows that the decision was made there to shut down the
nuclear power industry. But that is 34 percent of its total energy balance. We are proud of the
development of the nuclear power industry in the Russian Federation, although the figure for us
is just 16 percent. We are still thinking about how to raise it to 25 percent and are making
plans. Theirs is 34 percent and everything will be closed down. What will this vacuum be filled
with? What?
Look at LNG [liquefied natural gas ] which is sold by our various competitors and partners.
Yes, LNG can and should be in the common basket of Europe and Germany. Do you know how many
ports built in Europe are used for LNG transfer? Just 25 percent. Why? Because it is
unprofitable.
There are companies and regions for which it is profitable to supply LNG and this is being
done. The LNG market is growing very fast. But as for Europe, it is not very profitable, or
unprofitable altogether.
Therefore, in one way or another we have already seen Nord Stream 1 through and its
performance is excellent. Incidentally, our gas supplies to Europe are continuously growing.
Last year, I believe, they amounted to 194 billion cubic metres and this year they will add up
to 200 billion cubic metres or maybe even more.
We have loaded practically all our infrastructure facilities: Blue Stream to Turkey, Nord
Stream 1 is fully loaded. Yamal-Europe is fully loaded – it is almost approaching 100
percent, while the demand is going up. Life itself dictates that we carry out such
projects.
Ryan Chilcote : President Trump's position on American LNG exports is perhaps a
little bit more nuanced. His point is that instead of buying Russian gas, even perhaps if it's
a bit more expensive, the Germans and other European allies of the United States, because the
United States is paying for their defence, should be buying American gas even if there is, I
guess the argument suggests, a little bit of a higher price for that
Vladimir Putin : You know, this argument doesn't really work, in my opinion. I
understand Donald. He is fighting for the interests of his country and his business. He is
doing the right thing and I would do the same in his place.
As for LNG, as I have already said, it is not just a little more expensive in the European
market but 30 percent more. This is not a little bit more, it is a lot more, beyond all reason,
and is basically unworkable.
But there are markets where LNG will be adopted, where it is efficient, for instance in the
Asia-Pacific region. By the way, where did the first shipment of LNG from our new company
Yamal-LNG go? Where did the first tanker go? To the United States, because it was profitable.
The United States fought this project but ended up buying the first tanker. It was profitable
to buy it in this market, at this place and time, and it was purchased.
LNG is still being shipped to the American continent. It's profitable.
It makes no sense to fight against what life brings. We simply need to look for common
approaches in order to create favourable market conditions, including, for example, conditions
conducive to the production and consumption of LNG in the United States itself and securing the
best prices for producers and consumers. This could be achieved by coordinating policy, rather
than just imposing decisions on partners.
As for the argument, "We defend you, so buy this from us even if it makes you worse off", I
don't think it is very convincing either. Where does it lead? It has led to the Europeans
starting to talk about the need to have a more independent defence capability, as well as the
need to create a defence alliance of their own that allegedly will not undermine NATO while
allowing the Europeans to pursue a real defence policy. This is what, in my view, such steps
are leading to.
This is why I am sure that a great many things will be revised. Life will see to that.
"... So, Donald Trump finally folding on stopping Nordstream 2 is yet another example of the limits of what power the U.S. has and of its threats. When he denounced the project he said, ..."
"... "I never thought it was appropriate. I think it's ridiculous. And I think it's certainly a very bad thing for the people of Germany. And I've said it very loud and clear." ..."
"... But notice that he never said why. Because there is no downside for Germany. That's the point. Russian piped gas is simply cheaper and more reliable than LNG produced more than 3000 miles away. The downside is for the U.S. ..."
"... It begins the process of Germany and Russia re-establishing stronger economic ties cut in half by the 2014 sanctions over Crimea. It keeps Merkel in power a little while longer having stood up to the bully Trump and showing some German independence. ..."
"... Most importantly, this gas will be paid for in euros, not dollars. And this further undermines the effectiveness of U.S. sanctions as Gazprom will have a steady supply of euros to pay back its investors and diversify Russia's currency reserves. ..."
"... We saw this last winter when vicious cold snaps forced a hostile Britain to buy a few tankers of Yamal LNG from Novatek to keep its citizens from freezing. With the planet cooling rapidly, expect this source of spot demand to Europe to increase. ..."
"... But, for Germany, and the EU as a whole, more cheap energy is the path to remaining somewhat relevant in the global economy. With Germany ending the use of nuclear power it needs the type of energy Nordstream 2 supplies. In fact, Germany will eventually need Nordstream 3. ..."
Since its first announcement I have been convinced the Nordstream 2 pipeline would be built.
I have followed every twist of this story from my days writing for Newsmax.
And the reason for my confidence can be summed up in one word. Money.
Nordstream 2 simply makes too much economic sense for any amount of political whining from
the U.S. and Poland to stop it. Poland has no power within the European Union.
Germany does. And while I'm no fan of Angela Merkel getting another political weapon to hold
over the heads of the Poles, their attempts to derail the project were always going to end in
tears for them.
And so now Poland and the U.S. cried a lot of crocodile tears recently when President Trump
finally acceded to reality and ended the threat of sanctioning five of the biggest oil majors
in the world over doing business with Gazprom over Nordstream 2.
Nordstream 2's investors are Uniper, OMV, Wintershall, Royal Dutch Shell and Engie. After
all the permits were issued and construction begun the only thing that could stop Nordstream
from happening was these five companies folding to U.S. pressure and backing out of the project
by calling in their loans to Gazprom.
And when they were unwilling to do that, Trump had to fold because you can't cut these
companies out of the western banking system and starve them of dollars and euros without an
extreme dislocation in oil prices and global trade.
Bluff called. Nordstream 2? Holding Aces.
Trump? Holding two-seven offsuit.
Lack of Polish
The big loser here is Poland unless they come down off their Russophobic high horse.
Why is Nordstream 2 so important to Poland? Because it forces Poland into choosing between
two things the current ruling Law and Justice Party doesn't like.
Renegotiating a gas transit deal with Gazprom through Ukrainian pipelines without as much
leverage. Because the current agreement expires at the end of 2019.
If they reject this first option then they are at the mercy of buying gas from Nordstream
2 putting them politically in the hands of Germany.
Merkel is angry with Poland for trying to assert its sovereignty having begun Article 7
proceedings over their law putting Supreme Court justices under review from the legislature,
which the EU has termed a violation of its pledge to protect 'human rights.'
And so, expect Poland to now open up talks with Gazprom to negotiate a new deal or be stupid
and buy LNG from the U.S. at two to three times the price they can get it from
Gazprom.
Keeping Them Distant
From the U.S. side of the equation there are few things in this life that Donald Trump and
Barack Obama agree upon, and stopping Nordstream 2 was one of them. This, of course, tells you
that this opposition is coming from somewhere a lot higher than the Presidency.
U.S. and British foreign policy has been obsessed for more than a hundred years with
stopping the natural alliance between Germany's industrial base and Russia's vast tracts of
natural resources as well as Russia's own science and engineering prowess.
These two countries cannot, in any version of a unipolar world dominated by The Davos
Crowd, be allowed to form an economic no less political alliance because the level of
coordination and economic prosperity works directly against their goals of lowering everyone's
expectations for what humans can accomplish.
That is their greatest source of power. The complacency of our accepting low
expectations.
So, Donald Trump finally folding on stopping Nordstream 2 is yet another example of the
limits of what power the U.S. has and of its threats.
When he denounced the project he said,
"I never thought it was appropriate. I think it's ridiculous. And I think it's certainly a
very bad thing for the people of Germany. And I've said it very loud and clear."
But notice that he never said why. Because there is no downside for Germany. That's the point. Russian piped gas is simply
cheaper and more reliable than LNG produced more than 3000 miles away. The downside is for the U.S.
It begins the process of Germany and Russia re-establishing stronger economic ties cut in
half by the 2014 sanctions over Crimea. It keeps Merkel in power a little while longer having
stood up to the bully Trump and showing some German independence.
This is something she sorely needs right now coming into regional elections in October.
Most importantly, this gas will be paid for in euros, not dollars. And this further
undermines the effectiveness of U.S. sanctions as Gazprom will have a steady supply of euros to
pay back its investors and diversify Russia's currency reserves.
The Flow of Money
There is no way for U.S. LNG supplies to be competitive in Europe without massive artificial
barriers-to-entry for Russian gas. And even if Nordstream 2 was somehow stopped by the U.S.,
Russia's massive Yamal LNG facility on the Baltic Sea would still out compete U.S LNG from
Cheniere's terminal in Louisiana.
Location. Location. Location.
We saw this last winter when vicious cold snaps forced a hostile Britain to buy a few
tankers of Yamal LNG from Novatek to keep its citizens from freezing. With the planet cooling
rapidly, expect this source of spot demand to Europe to increase.
And this is why Russia also benefits from Poland building an LNG terminal. Because don't for
a second think Poles will suffer extreme cold because Andrej Duda hates Russians.
That's just funny, right thar!
But, for Germany, and the EU as a whole, more cheap energy is the path to remaining somewhat
relevant in the global economy. With Germany ending the use of nuclear power it needs the type
of energy Nordstream 2 supplies. In fact, Germany will eventually need Nordstream 3.
Each intervention by the U.S. or one of its satraps (and Poland's leadership certainly fills
that bill) to block any further business between Russia and Europe, but especially Germany,
keeps the world on edge and inches us closer to a military confrontation while open trade and
travel moves us farther from that outcome.
And anyone who argues otherwise is simply talking their book. They profit from war
and tension. They profit from manipulating markets and, in effect, stealing the wealth someone
else created.
So, this is not to say that Nordstream 2 is some kind of messianic gift from the gods or
anything. It is the result of massive interventions into the free market for energy born of
necessity in a world governed by nation-states for more powerful than they have any right to be
because of control of the issuance of money and the rent-seeking behavior of the
people who most benefit from the creation of endless supplies of that money.
But, that said, in the current state of things, rapprochement between Germany and Russia via
projects like the Nordstream 2 points us towards a future without such nonsense.
I said points, not achieves. It's a beginning not an end. Lost in all of this discussion of
European energy security is the fact that even at the height of the Cold War the U.S.S.R. never
once shut off gas supplies to its enemies. And under Putin that fact remains.
And how's that for an inconvenient truth.
To support more work like this and get access to exclusive commentary, stock picks and
analysis tailored to your needs join my more than 180 Patrons on Patreon and see if
I have what it takes to help you navigate a world going slowly mad.
Порошенко
заявил немцам,
что
строительство
"Северного
потока – 2" не
имеет никакого
смыслаPoroshenko has told Germans that the
construction of "North Stream 2" makes no sense. По его словам,
российский газ
европейцам
гораздо
выгоднее
получать через
Украину, а
новый
газопровод –
лишь
"инструмент
давления" на
Европу According to him, it is much more profitable to send Russian gas to Europe through the
Ukraine, and the new pipeline is just a "tool to pressurize" on Europe
Please help me get even more wealthier, I beg you!
The leader of "Independent" Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, has once again tried to convince
Europeans that they do not need the "North Stream 2", pipeline, which is being constructed on
the bed of the Baltic sea, bypassing the Ukraine
"This pipeline makes no sense from an economic point of view. This is a Russian attempt
to weaken the Ukraine, which previously received about three billion dollars annually for
transit", he said in an interview with German newspaper "Rheinische Post".
According to Poroshenko, "Why spend $20 billion on a pipeline", if his country "has
more than sufficient logistical capacity for the delivery of Russian gas to Europe". He
stressed that "the facts speak against" this project.
The President of the Ukraine has decided to warn his "European friends" that the gas
pipeline "North Stream 2" is "a geopolitical instrument of pressure on Western Europe, and
that the dependence of European countries on gas supplies from Russia is opening up a wide
area for their blackmailing".
Recall, as reported by the website kp.ru previously, the Chancellor of Germany, Angela
Merkel, speaking at a joint press conference with the President of Lithuania, Dalia
Grybauskaite, and the Prime Ministers of the three Baltic State countries, stated the
importance of the "North Stream 2" project for Germany, noting that the need of her contry
for natural gas supplies will only grow.
Put a sock in it, Banderatard. Nord Stream II makes sense merely because it removes the $3
billion per year of transit fees you parasites charge. The Banderatard thinks that everyone
is an innumerate moron.
I notice the estimated transit fees have gone up by almost a billion dollars. I wonder if
they have budgeted in planned increases if they are successful at getting Nord Stream II shut
down. Or were they just low-balling the figures before, like when they were joking about the
planned pipeline and how it would make no difference to Ukraine?
Ignoring reality and focusing just on a comparison of a $3 billion recurring expense versus a
$20 billion CAPEX, a ROI of less than 7 years is quite respectable for a major project.
Russia and the West are facing the worst crisis since the Cold War. According to US Special
Envoy Amos Hochstein, Washington's goal is to reduce Russia's gas market share in Eastern
Europe by 20% by 2020.
Russia cannot be allowed to build a gas pipeline that would bypass
Ukraine, as it would pose a threat to Europe's energy security
Pipeline bypassing Ukraine = threat to Europe's energy security
That is a total non sequitur. Also, Russia is part of Europe. The EU is not the whole of
"Europe". In fact, the EU is not even the EU as evidenced by Hungary and Italy.
And Washington can have Eastern Europe. Go ahead – take them as customers, and sell
them expensive LNG they can't afford. Russia would probably be glad to be shut of Poland and
the Baltics. And having to pay way more for their gas would teach them a lesson. Win/win.
Pipeline bypassing Ukraine = threat to Europe's energy security
That is a total non sequitur. Also, Russia is part of Europe. The EU is not the whole of
"Europe". In fact, the EU is not even the EU as evidenced by Hungary and Italy.
And Washington can have Eastern Europe. Go ahead – take them as customers, and sell
them expensive LNG they can't afford. Russia would probably be glad to be shut of Poland and
the Baltics. And having to pay way more for their gas would teach them a lesson. Win/win.
Doesn't the pipeline via the lo-land of Po-land go via Belarus? Warsaw buying gas from
elsewhere would starve Minsk of transit fees, no? Maybe the idea is similarly to undermine
Belarus and thus impose further costs/indirect sanctions on Russia?
Another problem is how much gas for sale the USA actually has? Or they want to resell gas
they buy for Russia Sakhalin? They already did a couple of times.
Oh, please, God, let the USA impose sanctions on European companies in an attempt to stop the
building of Nord Stream II (which, incidentally, has begun and is already underwater).
I can't think of anything more likely to incite European fury against America, and while
we're on the subject, under what authority would the USA fine European companies for not
obeying sanctions imposed by the USA? I can see how they could get away with further
penalizing Russia – they are piggybacking on the Skripal affair, that's why they
pretend so fervently to believe Britain's accusations even though it has offered no proof at
all, just more accusations. The legal instrument it is using is a national-security clause
(big surprise) meant to stop the spread of chemical-warfare threats. But how is it going to
justify imposing a big fine on BASF-Wintershall, for example, and what would it do if the
latter simply said, "Cram it up your chuff!" and refused to pay?
Anyway, the calling-out of Britain's 'evidence' in front of the UN is going to be
extra-special, in that light. Because the Skripal thing is the USA's whole basis for further
sanctions. Without it – if the case is demolished, and I frankly can't see how the UK
government could sensibly respond to all the discrepancies picked up at sites like Slane's
'Blogmire' – they've got nothing; no grounds for further sanctions.
And that was perfectly possible, had it been started years ago, and had the USA come to
Europe with a business plan which answered the question, "What's in it for me?" Everybody in
business likes to make money; it's kind of what keeps business going. And if the USA could
still sell to Europe under those circumstances – because it has a lot of a product it
can sell at a competitive price and still make money – it would still be possible to do
it. The problem there is that the USA cannot sell LNG at a competitive price against pipeline
gas and still make money. A further problem is that in business dynamics, the guy who has
control in a business relationship is the guy who supplies you with a product you can't get
anywhere else at the same or a lower price.
The USA wants the profits realized by selling gas to Europe, and right away, that's not
going to work, because shipborne LNG cannot compete with pipeline gas for price. The USA
would have to sell it for a lot less than it takes to recover and ship it, and it's not
willing to do that because it is contrary to every principle of business. But that's a big
problem, because the profit is actually secondary. What Washington really wants is the power
conveyed by being Europe's main supplier – then it can play energy politics like it
constantly accuses Russia of doing, although actual evidence of Russia threatening to cut off
Europe's gas if it does not, let's say, drop sanctions against Russia, is zip, Nada. No
evidence. But Washington would do it, and you know they would, and so does Brussels. So it is
trying to muscle Europe's main supplier out of the market by coercion, because it can't do it
simply by offering a better price.
Which leaves it in the ridiculous position of arguing, "We should be your supplier instead
of Russia, because ain't we the bestest of friends and allies?", at the same time it is
conducting a trade war for American business advantage and threatening to impose sanctions
against European companies who participate in the pipeline project as investors.
Here we go again with reliable pot-stirrer the UK, in the form of a ruling by the UK Court of
Appeals that Ukraine does have a valid case, after all, of grieving the ordered repayment of $3
Billion it was lent by Moscow after Yanukovych decided to reject the European Association
Agreement, and petitioned Russia for assistance.
Some facts that should be recalled here; Ukraine has to the very best of my knowledge
never paid this debt, although the IMF
grudgingly backed Russia's claim that it was a bilateral loan . Then Ukraine imposed a
moratorium on further payments, trying to squeeze Russia into accepting a 'restructuring' of
the debt, a colourful euphemism for 'write off some of it and give us until forever to pay
the rest', allowing Ukraine to simply roll over its outstanding debt each year and put off
payment until the promised western flood of incredible prosperity finally arrives.
The ever-helpful IMF then rewrote its own laws so that it could continue lending to
Ukraine although it exhibited all the classic symptoms of a bad debtor. Most of us said it
would all end in tears for the IMF, and where is it now, again? How much of that $17 Billion
aid package has been disbursed?
Georgetown University Professor Anna Gelpern offered Ukraine
an out , stating that in her legal opinion, the obligation amounted to 'odious debt',
which consequently did not have to be repaid. Longtime kook Anders Aslund enthusiastically
embraced that view, bleating that really Russia should be repaying Ukraine, for invading and
plundering it.
Let me give you my not-legal opinion; Ukraine does not have a hope of winning this case.
The UK is just trying to help it kick the can a little further down the road, and put off
repayment for another year or two while the courts wrangle the issue out all over again, and
lawyers pocket hefty fees. It also serves the British hobby of sticking its thumb in Russia's
eye every chance it gets to do it. The money is probably not a big issue to Russia; it's the
principle, and it would probably suit the Kremlin to duke it out in court again just on the
probability that Ukraine will suffer another humiliating defeat, although that will make no
difference at all to its willingness to pay. I propose, though, another option; one to be
exercised immediately, and one down the road a bit. First, communicate to Kuh-yiv that if it
goes ahead with this, Russia will pull out all foreign investment in Ukraine, immediately and
finally. I personally do not think the economy could sustain that kind of hit, since it is on
life support now. Second, Russia should communicate to Britain that once Brexit becomes
operative, the UK will have to negotiate with Europe for energy supplies and pay their asking
price, since there will be no direct transfers of energy to the UK. That might have been the
case anyway, since to the best of my knowledge no systems serve the UK directly from Russia
except LNG cargoes. But it would not hurt to remind them.
It occurs to me that the west has only itself to blame for Ukraine's current and ongoing
dysfunction and 'cutie-pie' criminality, since the west keeps encouraging it to greater
heights of irresponsibility, covering for it and then rewriting its own rules so that
behaviour previously illegal is magically permissible.
The London High Court is not going to like being reversed; such reversals often do not look
good for the judges, although there certainly cannot be any murmuring of 'political
motivation' here, since the court was most decidedly motivated to rule for Ukraine in the
original judgment if it could. As I said, this is just kicking the can down the road a piece,
and buying time for Kuh-yiv. And that might be a valid strategy, if a burgeoning economy was
about to break free in Ukraine. Is that the case? I'm afraid I don't think so. In fact,
Ukraine is broke and living on handouts, its reserves down to record lows; it doesn't have
the money, so the UK is trying to rig the judgment so as to head off its having to pay, at
least temporarily. More short-term thinking, such as is characteristic of crisis management.
The Appeals Court is likely ruling on a technicality because it believes (or has been
encouraged to believe) it deserves further examination. But, again, I have to believe that in
such a politically-charged case, the court which rendered the original verdict would have
carefully picked over every argument which might have worked in Ukraine's favour, since the
UK was highly motivated to support Ukraine if there were any way it could legally do so. The
efficacy, reliability and non-volatility of Eurobonds is at stake here, and a ruling now for
Ukraine is likely to provoke a drawback from Eurobonds and European financial instruments by
every nation that perceives it is or might one day be perceived as a foe of a Europe still in
thrall to the United States. Russia chose such an instrument precisely because of the high
risk of a Ukrainian default even if Yanukovych had remained in power, and that was a wise
decision to the extent that the west has had to completely rewrite the book in order to
challenge the stratagem. That, too, will play to its great disadvantage down the road, as
every debtor nation has the right of precedent to exercise such options.
The funny thing is that if Europe simply laid out the situation bluntly to Moscow, as an
equal and a respected partner to the deal, and asked for mercy for Ukraine, there is every
chance Moscow would find a way to accommodate, provided it was given due credit for its
magnanimity. Instead, as usual, Europe has gone with a strategy of creating the appearance
that Moscow fucked Ukraine, breaking the law in the process. It will be interesting to see
what Alexander Mercouris has to say about this, and I am sure he will offer an opinion, but
I'm afraid I haven't time now as I have to get ready for work. But I should like to once more
point out that all the advantage lies with Russia here, if it only remains patient and keeps
its temper; it is Russia which is keeping Ukraine alive now, through transit fees and
significant FDI. It can choose to withdraw one at any time it pleases, and the other as soon
as Nord Stream II is completed. The west's attempts to change the beloved 'facts on the
ground' amount to no more than scrabbling at the noose that is tightening around Ukraine's
throat.
Below is a New Silk Strategies translation from the Russian site teknoblog.ru .
It is clear from Trump's enthusiastic sales talk to the Polish authorities on July 6, 2017
(as we reported here
) that the centrepiece of Trump's economic policy is LNG exports. The US has no major economic
projects even remotely comparable to China's One Belt One Road initiative, the biggest
infrastructure project in history. But worse, all of the energy companies involved in fracking
are
running in the red with no prospects of ever making profits unless oil prices skyrocket to
new highs and stay there. The wells are short-lived and by the time they are producing
steadily, they are already drying up, necessitating new drilling and more borrowing. Worse,
that big deal with China to sujpply a major portion of their gas needs may be about to fizzle,
thanks to Trump's tough guy act.
In 2016, Henry Kissinger
floated the idea of using Russia to oppose China and shared the idea with an enthusiastic
Donald Trump. Kissinger had entertained this idea in the 1970s as Nixon's national security
adviser. The problem is, the whole notion of granting China "most-favoured nation" status, ie,
doing essentially free trade with it, was based on just the opposite mission of opposing
Russia using China as a club, and both ideas have their die-hard supporters
in Washington. Keen observers know neither approach will succeed. In fact, recently the
National Interest reported that China and Russia are planning joint military drills.
"... In return for the EU dropping billions of dollars in penalty fees, GazProm agreed to end limitations on the use of gas purchased by EU members, allow them to re-sell the gas ..."
"... About the Author ..."
"... Ukraine Over the Edge: Russia, the West, and the 'New Cold War ..."
"... Russia's Revolution From Above: Reform, Transition and Revolution in the Fall of the Soviet Communist Regime, 1985-2000 ..."
"... Russia's Islamic Threat ..."
"... The Caucasus Emirate Mujahedin: Global Jihadism in Russia's North Caucasus and Beyond ..."
Russia has advanced forward in something of a tactical and potential strategic victory in
the Russo-Western gas war. This is a three-party war, with the US, EU, and Russia each
promoting separate interests. It is one sphere where a united West has failed to 'isolate
Russia.' The US seeks move in on the European energy market with LNG supplies and replace
Russian pipeline-delivered natural gas supplies to Europe. Washington is using the risks of
dependence on Russian gas and Russia's 'bad behavior' as leverage in attempting to convince
Europeans to reject Russia's Nord Stream 2 pipeline. Russia is said to be unreliable and prone
to shut off gas supplies to Europe.
Due to past Russian-Ukrainian gas crises, the Ukrainian crisis, and general Russian-Western
tensions, Europe has decided on a gas diversification policy in which each EU member should
have at least three sources of natural gas supply. One additional option that could facilitate
this diversification policy is US liquified natural gas (LNG), but the US is still unable to
supply enough LNG to offset Russian gas supplies that might be rejected by Europe. In the
process, Washington is looking less like a 'team West' player and more like a solely
self-interested power maximizer in European eyes and therefore no more reliable than Moscow. As
a result, Europeans are deciding to stick with the Russians while finding new options in the
east, such as Turkey and Azerbaijan. This is creating competition if not tensions in present
and potential gas transit countries in southeastern and eastern Europe, for example.
The Battle Over Re-Sale: No Victors
One recent battle was largely inconclusive, but if a victor has to be designated it may be
Moscow. In May, the European Commssion concluded a settlement with Russia's Gazprom in May
ending a seven-year anti-trust dispute. In return for the EU dropping billions of dollars in
penalty fees, GazProm agreed to end limitations on the use of gas purchased by EU members,
allow them to re-sell the gas. Some EU members, such as Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia,
Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Slovakia have re-sold or wanted to re-sell gas. Moscow
frowned, for example, on Slovakia's resale of natural gas to Ukraine at cheaper prices than
Moscow sought to charge Kiev.
The agreement will also restrict Moscow's ability to charge
different countries different prices. So EU members in central and eastern Europe can get a
price close to that paid by Germany and appeal to an arbitration court in case of a dispute.
The agreement guarantees Russia's presence on the European gas market at a time when the
latter's reliance on the former has peaked.
The Northern Front: Nord Stream 2
At the same time, the battle over Russia' Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline has heated up.
When it comes on line in 2019, the 759-mile pipeline will carry GazProm natural gas along the
bed of the Baltic Sea to Germany and double the supply Nord Stream pipeline's current annual
capacity of 55 billion cubic meters (bcm). The Trump administration has threatened yet more
sanctions on third-party companies, this time with those that work on the pipeline. The US
sanctions threat is an attempt to promote American LNG interests as well as to protect
Ukrainian interests, though it contradicts the view that Ukraine should eschew its dependence
on Russian gas.
US officials have been hammering home to Europeans the 'Russian threat' in tandem with the
risk of reliance on Russian gas may pose, which will increase with Nord tream 2, but to no
avail. Public opinion is not working in the US favor, with Germans trusting Moscow more than
Washington, despite all the crimes laid at the Kremlin's door by the West. A recent ZDF
Television opinion survey found that only 14 percent of Germans regard the U.S. as a reliable
partner, while 36 percent view Russia as reliable (
www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-17/trump-s-global-disruption-pushes-merkel-closer-to-putin-s-orbit
). Thus, notwithstanding Ukraine, Syria and alleged chemical attacks, Russiagate, and the
Skrypals, GazProm's supplies to Europe have risen to hold nearly 40 percent of its gas market,
growing last year by 8.1 percent last year to a record level of 193.9 billion cubic metres
(bcm).
Nevertheless, with the EU decision, the U.S., Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania and others have
stepped up their pressure on Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark and other western Eureopean EU
members to abandon the Nord Stream 2 project. Germans and other western Europeans are unlikely
to give up the short-term gain of energy security for the US LNG given the higher price and
unproven nature of Washington's numerous allegations against the Kremlin. German officials say
they still have no proof from 10 Downing on Russia's culpability for the Skrypal poisoning so
loudly trumpeted by British PM Theresa May.
One motivation for the Russians in building Nord Stream 2 is to obviate the need to
transport gas through Ukraine, which will hurt Ukraine's own energy supply – given
Ukrainian skimming -- and overall economy beyond the present non-sale of Russian gas to
Ukraine. Another Russian motivation is to avert the unreliable Ukrainians, who have failed to
make payments according to contract in the past causing Russian gas cutoffs to Ukraine and thus
Europe with the resulting crises blamed solely on Moscow. The Trump sanctions threat has put
Germany and the other Nord Stream 2 supporting countries between a rock and a hard place,
between Russia and the US. Therefore, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, while supporting Nord
Stream 2, has called for guarantees from Russia that Ukraine will remain a gas transit country.
Ukraine's current contract with Russia ends in 2019 at the very time Nord Stream 2 is to go on
line and the EU has urged re-starting EU-mediated negotiatons now in order to avoid another gas
crisis. Putin agreed to do this at his meeting with Germany's merkel in late May. Nord Stream 2
significantly strengthens Putin's hand in any such talks.
The Southern Front: Turkish Stream, SGC and the Azeri and Bulgarian Factors
Russia is strengtheining its position on the European gas war's southern front by building
the Turkish Stream (TS) gas pipeline to Europe. TS consists of a sea and a land leg. The former
runs under the Black Sea from Russia to Turkey and is built, with Russo-Turkish talks on the
land leg ongoing.
Russia's Turkish Stream is being challenged by the Southern Gas Corridor (SGC) backed by
Western powers, including the EU (along with Turkey and Azerbaijan), which sees the SGC as a
means of diversifying from dependence on Russia. Not just Turkey, but Azerbaijan is emerging as
a major player on the EU gas market, with a shift in policy accenting gas supplies to Europe as
well as oil supplies as in the past. The SGC consists of three components: an expanded South
Caucasus Pipeline and the to be constructed Trans-Anatolian Natural Gas Pipeline (TANAP) and
Trans-Adriatic Pipeline (TAP). TANAP is 51 percent Azerbaijani owned, 37 percent Turkish, and
12 percent belonging to British Petroleum. The SGC will carry Azerbaijani gas through Turkey to
Europe and will be able to supply up to one-third of the gas consumed by Bulgaria, Greece and
Italy ( https://en.trend.az/business/energy/2910573.html
). However, the source of the gas supplying the pipeline demonstrates the limits of Western
attempts to isolate Russia (and Iran). Azerbaijan's Shah-Deniz gas field is co-owned by British
Petroleum (29 percent), Turkey's Turkish Petroleum (19 percent), Azerbaijan's SOCAR (17
percent), Malaysia's Petronas (15 percent), Russia's LukOil (10 percent), and Iran's NICO (10
percent). Moreover, Russia's LukOil is negotiating with SOCAR a stake in Azerbaijan's
second-largest gas field, Umid-Babek, which also includes Britain's Nobel Upstream (
https://newsbase.com/topstories/lukoil-talks-join-umid-babek-project
).
Again the Ukrainian issue is part of the picture here, as a good portion of GasProm supplies
to Bulgaria go through Ukraine. Turkish Stream can replace at least some of that supply should
Moscow decide to entirely avert Ukraine's pipeline system. It is of interest that no one in the
West has offered to include in any of these projects or attempted to fashion a pipeline or
pipeline extension that could link up with the Ukrainian network.
During Bulgarian President Rumen Radev's late may visit to Moscow, Putin reported to Radev
that during his meetings with Turkish President Recip Tayyip Erdogan, the latter said he would
pose no oppsotion to extending the Turkish Stream gas pipeline to Bulgaria. In response, Radev
seemed to suggest making Bulgaria a "a gas redistribution center, a hub" for the Turkish
Stream's supplies further into Europe ( http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/57608
).
Moreover, one gets the impression that Bulgaria is wary more about its dependence on Turkey
and Ankara's new offensive energy policy in Europe than on Russia and might help Moscow detour
Ukraine.
In 2015, Erdogan declared a major policy initiative of making Turkey a, if not
the major energy transit hub for supplies heading from the east to Europe.
Russia's
annexation of Crimea could help Russia in its talks both with Erdogan over the Turkish Stream
and pose the threat of undermining the SGC. It may also help Putin deal with Merkel, Kiev and
the EU over the Ukraine pipeline system's future role. Bulgarian President Radev also said in
Moscow that Sofia supports building a direct gas pipeline under the Black Sea to bring Russian
gas to Bulgaria ( https://echo.msk.ru/news/2206394-echo.html ).
The Bulgarian option could be used by Putin to threaten Erdogan with reducing the Turkish
Stream's supplies or abandoning it altogether in favor of a Black Sea Russian-Bulgarian Stream
and to reduce Russia's dependence on Ukraine as well.
Implications
Thus, EU energy diversification policies are transforming Turkey, Azerbaijan and perhaps
even Bulgaria into key players on the southern gas transit front, while Ukraine falters to
Germany, and eastern Europe to Western Europe on the northern front.
Tensions between Ankara
and Sofia on these grounds cannot be excluded, and they could draw in Turkey's semi-ally
Azerbaijan. US, EU, Russian and Ukrainian energy diplomacy is likely not only to be focused on
each other, therefore, but also on Ankara, Baku, and Sofia over the next year.
Unless, the US
can rapidly reduce the cost of extracting and shipping LNG to Europe, it is unlikely to be able
to become a major alternative to these players, and Russia will continue to dominate the
European gas market, with a balance of competition and cooperation with Azerbaijan.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
About the Author – Gordon M. Hahn, Ph.D., Expert Analyst at Corr
Analytics, http://www.canalyt.com and a
Senior Researcher at the Center for Terrorism and Intelligence Studies (CETIS), Akribis Group,
San Jose, California, www.cetisresearch.org .
Dr. Hahn is the author of Ukraine Over the Edge: Russia, the West, and the 'New Cold
War (McFarland Publishers, 2017) and three previously and well-received books:
Russia's Revolution From Above: Reform, Transition and Revolution in the Fall of the Soviet
Communist Regime, 1985-2000 (Transaction Publishers, 2002); Russia's Islamic
Threat (Yale University Press, 2007); and The Caucasus Emirate Mujahedin: Global
Jihadism in Russia's North Caucasus and Beyond (McFarland Publishers, 2014). He has
published numerous think tank reports, academic articles, analyses, and commentaries in both
English and Russian language media and has served as a consultant and provided expert testimony
to the U.S. government.
Dr. Hahn also has taught at Boston, American, Stanford, San Jose State, and San Francisco
State Universities and as a Fulbright Scholar at Saint Petersburg State University, Russia. He
has been a senior associate and visiting fellow at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies and the Kennan Institute in Washington DC as well as the Hoover Institution at Stanford
University.
"... If the reports are true, the situation is an ironic one for Europe: while trying to reduce its dependence on Russian gas it is inadvertently increasing it and is even paying more for it than it would if it bought the extra loads directly from Gazprom. ..."
The documents suggest that a company with US ownership is buying Russian
gas from petrochemical giant Sibur, and then selling it -- at a profit, of course -- to the
European Union, which is in a rush to build as many LNG terminals as it can in a bid to reduce
its dependence on Russian gas.
If the reports are true, the situation is an ironic one for Europe: while trying to reduce
its dependence on Russian gas it is inadvertently increasing it and is even paying more for it
than it would if it bought the extra loads directly from Gazprom.
One might wonder how a U.S. company is able to do business with a Russian one. It's simple:
Wilbur Ross himself said earlier this week that
Sibur is not a subject to sanctions, so for Navigator Holdings and the petrochemical giant,
everything is business as usual.
According to Balmasov, while the number of voyages via the Northern Sea Route so far
this year has been roughly the same as last year, the main difference compared to 2017 is LNG
traffic out of the port of Sabetta, the port that Russia's gas producer Novatek uses to ship
the Yamal LNG cargoes to Europe and to Asia.
Arctic Logistics data compiled by Bloomberg shows that by early July, a total of 34
tankers made the voyage from Sabetta to Europe, and one to the east. Since early July,
another two LNG tankers have shipped the fuel to Asia
In mid-July, Novatek said that it had shipped its first LNG cargoes from Yamal LNG to
China via the Northern Sea Route, with the voyage from Sabetta completed in 19 days, compared
to 35 days for the traditional eastern route via the Suez Canal and the Strait of
Malacca
####
Tut tut! Cannot have LNG going via Russia's northern passage (fnar! fnar!).
Vis ship pollution, why simply hold LNG carriers up to much higher environmental
standards? After all most of them are much newer and are specialist vessels. Or are they
already? Indeed they are, the use of duel-fuel engines that can make use of boil-off:
As of 2005, a total of 203 vessels had been built, of which 193 were still in service.
At the end of 2016, the global LNG shipping fleet consisted of 439 vessels.[3] In 2017, an
estimated 170 vessels are in use at any one time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LNG_carrier#Reliquefaction_and_boil-off
According to WGI, on a typical voyage an estimated 0.1–0.25% of the cargo converts to
gas each day, depending on the efficiency of the insulation and the roughness of the
voyage.[16] In a typical 20-day voyage, anywhere from 2–6% of the total volume of LNG
originally loaded may be lost.[16]
Normally an LNG tanker is powered by steam turbines with boilers. These boilers are
dual fuel and can run on either methane or oil or a combination of both. ..
I love how an eventuality we were all raised to dread – the melting of the polar
ice caps – is now spun as a net positive. Make hay while the sun shines! When life
hands you lemons, make lemonade! Pick your metaphor. We are destroying the planet we live on,
inch by irrecoverable inch, but the merchants of Stay-Positive maintain it is
AWESOME.
I don't know if you heard – probably not, since it was never much of an
international story – but the Canadian Federal Court of Appeals, in a surprise
decision, overturned the government's commitment to the Trans-Mountain pipeline.
Alberta's Rachel Notley reportedly bent spoons with her teeth, since she had just
jubilantly reported that the court challenge by the city of Burnaby (British Columbia) was
defeated. "To date, Alberta has won every case brought against Trans Mountain. Your Alberta
government will not back down until this pipeline is built and the national interest is
secured", she crowed on Twitter; the modern equivalent of a legislature, I guess, since all
politicians who are anybody turn first to Twitter to get their message out.
That one, of course, was "a victory for all Canadians". Except for British Columbia's
crybabies, of course, who did not want to play host to Alberta's tanker armada, considering
Alberta has no seacoast. So you would think she would quietly accept this later decision by
the legal system she purports to revere. Not a bit of it. She immediately withdrew Alberta
from the national climate-change plan, and restarted her rhetoric about cutting off BC's gas
supply.
Get it? When the court rules in Alberta's favour, it is just – the solemn power
of the law makes you want to weep with awe. When it rules against Alberta, it is a clown show
of unevolved primates. That's modern politics.
All this theatre when the completion of the pipeline is inevitable – the very
day, almost to the hour that the Court of Appeals rendered its decision, the shareholders of
Kinder-Morgan Canada voted 99% in favour of selling the pipeline to the government of Canada.
So now the government owns it, and although it may be delayed a couple of years, it's down
but not out. Now the government has to re-do its consultations with all the native bands,
this time selling the impression that it is actually listening and the consultative process
is real, and it has to conduct a review of the environmental impact of increased tanker
traffic (which it formerly declaimed as outside its purview). I'd say if there is agreement
on changing some routes and perhaps permissible speed until well offshore, it will almost
certainly pass next time.
You seem ignorant about economic issues. For example, when it comes to natural gas market,
European countries are not in the same boat. Britain and Spain import virtually no gas from
Russia. These countries built lots LNG terminals and import from Qatar.
Germany, Italy and France have a well-diversified supply from multiple sources. The
countries that are truly dependent on Russia are in ex-communist Eastern Europe. They still
rely on a network of pipelines built by USSR, and would go into energy crisis if Russia
suddenly ended supply.
There is no Chinese FDI in Belarus, and in Russia it accounts for 1% of the total FDI.
Nobody is learning Chinese in Russia or Belarus. I don't know what you're smoking.
Your comment implies that people should continue to bang their heads against a wall.
In fact, no one has said NOT to participate in politics. To be effective, it's important
to understand the reality of politics and the power structure.
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing
business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while
average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination
...
That's why candidates like Ron Paul on the Republican side and Denis Kucinich on the
Democratic side never stood a chance. They made way too much sense; they dared speak truth to
power so they had to be marginalized by their respective parties so no one would take them
seriously. They were literally swallowed up by the duopoly and relegated to
quasi-obscurity.
I would say 'contra-Russia'. Trump is just the current vessel.
Let us not forget, that under the mighty and loved O-bomber, a group of US Senators back
in 2014 made Bulgaria drop South Stream with god knows what threats, whereas Brussels had
previously failed (intentionally?) to do so. Guess who was the lead Senator?
At this time there is a request from the European Commission, after which we've suspended
the current works, I ordered it," Oresharski told journalists after meeting with John McCain,
Chris Murphy and Ron Johnson during their visit to Bulgaria on Sunday. "Further proceedings
will be decided after additional consultations with Brussels."
McCain, commenting on the situation, said that "Bulgaria should solve the South Stream
problems in collaboration with European colleagues," adding that in the current situation
they would want "less Russian involvement" in the project.
"America has decided that it wants to put itself in a position where it excludes anybody
it doesn't like from countries where it thinks it might have an interest, and there is no
economic rationality in this at all. Europeans are very pragmatic, they are looking for cheap
energy resources – clean energy resources, and Russia can supply that. But the thing
with the South Stream is that it doesn't fit with the politics of the situation," Ben Aris,
editor of Business New Europe told RT .
####
See, nothing has changed. At least it looks like U-rope has learned its lesson. Not so the
US. Russia hatin' is a too good 'dead cat on the table' to give up.
Underneath everyone's observations/comments lurks the basic question: Why?
Enter the Big Picture provided yesterday by Pepe Escobar who also links to and cites the
controversial Alastair Crooke ideological essay I linked to last week. Part of the Big
Picture is the #1 policy goal of the Outlaw US Empire--Full Spectrum Dominance of the
Planet--and its recently published National Defense
Strategy(NDS) related to that goal:
"The central challenge to U.S. prosperity and security is the reemergence of long-term,
strategic competition by what the National Security Strategy classifies as revisionist
powers. It is increasingly clear that China and Russia want to shape a world consistent with
their authoritarian model -- gaining veto authority over other nations' economic, diplomatic,
and security decisions."
Do please note the combination of prevarication with ideology in the above as it's
reflective of the point Crooke tried to make in his piece. A strategy based upon lies to
oneself is a sure recipe for defeat as you're deceiving yourself which violates the first law
of war as pronounced by so many: "All war is based on deception." But then given the
political-economic nature of the USA's Keynesian Militarism, perhaps this deception is aimed
domestically so as to transfer even more tax dollars upwards to the 1%. So, actions must be
closely observed even more than usual.
During the election campaign, it was speculated that Trump's desire to ease tensions with
Russia was a last-ditch gambit suggested by Kissinger to split the Chinese-Russian alliance.
So, Russiagate served to defeat that gambit while pushing China and Russia even closer
together. With the Syrian regime change ploy rapidly being defeated and Ukraine going
nowhere, Deep State planners were left without an oar, so the reversion to Cold War
Russophobia with an occasional bout of Sinophobia thrown in for good measure--neither of
which is any sort of strategy.
Another quote from the NDS:
"Today, we are emerging from a period of strategic atrophy, aware that our competitive
military
advantage has been eroding."
That was realized before Putin's display of highly advanced Russian weaponry, which was
announced in March, the NDS was released in January. What's amazing is "strategic atrophy"
with budgets beyond $600 billion must mean a massive portion's being wasted--delivered to the
1%--such that it's corruption that's caused the erosion of "our competitive advantage." I'd
opine much of the chaos we see being played-up is done to obscure interpretations like mine
so that even more $$$ can be wasted, although lip service is given to improvements.
So, who/what's really in charge? Big Money rules as it has since the Civil War within the
USA and much earlier when we include London and Amsterdam. Big Money's angry because it's
locked out of BRI, BRICS, EAEU, and developing nations are mostly on to IMF's and World
Bank's disingenuous "development" plans because it abhors the notion that it's not Top Dog.
So, the dollar got weaponized and the Trade and Financial War--the Hybrid Third World
War--was finally begun in earnest after earlier fits and starts. Yet it appears that the
effort will fail since Big Money is finding itself trapped inside a web of its own making
that's based on a fiat currency supported by Junk Economics.
It is reported that the German company and partner in Nord Stream II, Uniper, may pull out
of the project due to the risk of US sanctions (previously it said Uniper will pull
out sic see link.).* In related news, construction has been started in German waters.
Still silence from Denmark as to whether they will block it or not.
If I were Moscow, I would announce that the pipeline's route will avoid Danish waters and
sit back to see the reaction. Why? Coz you can bet that some will claim it is
punishment/bribe/threat/anti-competitive to Denmark, to whit, Russia can simply reply that
Denmark has XXX days to provide the permits before it is no longer economically feasible for
the route to go through its waters.
What p* me off about the reported 'threat from NSII' and even in articles like the one
above that point out it is in Europe's interest, none of them mention the preceding sabotage
of South Stream II under the mighty Obama and the impact from that led directly to
Nord Stream II.
At this time there is a request from the European Commission, after which we've
suspended the current works, I ordered it," Oresharski told journalists after meeting with
John McCain, Chris Murphy and Ron Johnson during their visit to Bulgaria on Sunday. "Further
proceedings will be decided after additional consultations with Brussels."
McCain, commenting on the situation, said that "Bulgaria should solve the South Stream
problems in collaboration with European colleagues," adding that in the current situation
they would want "less Russian involvement" in the project.
"America has decided that it wants to put itself in a position where it excludes
anybody it doesn't like from countries where it thinks it might have an interest, and there
is no economic rationality in this at all. Europeans are very pragmatic, they are looking for
cheap energy resources – clean energy resources, and Russia can supply that. But the
thing with the South Stream is that it doesn't fit with the politics of the situation," Ben
Aris, editor of Business New Europe told RT .
####
Yes kids. Warmonger McCain was at the forefront of getting it killed after interference
from Brussels failed to shift the asshole Borissov's government. So when a European asks
"What has John McCain done for us? , he's already f*ed you over for the benefit of the US
and U-ropean poodle Krazy K**t Klan.
And let's remember what a hard lesson Bulgaria learned from its leap of faith into
Brussels' arms.
On May 30, Bulgarian PM Boyko Borisov met with Russian President Vladimir Putin. During
the joint press conference, Borisov apologized to Putin for the failure of South Stream and
for his responsibility in causing the deterioration of relations between the two countries.
Borisov said: "We know about the difficult relations in the past and are grateful to our
colleagues for not being vindictive and the fact that Russian-Bulgarian relations do not
depend on the extent of guilt of some politicians
"I would like to thank President Putin for his attitude once again. I am to blame for
creating certain tensions When it came to the worst and I wanted to talk, my calls were
always answered. And I really accept part of the guilt for those developments."
Putin then added that he regrets that the South Stream project has not been
implemented, since it would have "greatly benefited" Bulgaria.
In response, Borisov blamed the EU of having imposed Bulgaria diktats that other
countries do not respect anyway. Borisov said: "We are the most loyal and the most
disciplined country in the European Union. This is the reason why all the pipelines bypassed
our territory. We hope that today we have redressed an injustice.
Bulgaria stepped up when the European Commission called and got absolutely fuck-all in the
way of thanks or compensation – to the contrary, the decision cost Bulgaria a great
deal of money. Let that be a lesson to other EU countries; Brussels is big on ideas, but it
does not have your back and if your stepping-up causes your country grief and it turns out
you made a terrible mistake, and want to talk about it
There is absolutely nobody else to blame but Borissov himself, a third rate playa .
The position of neither Brussels nor Washington was a surprise at all. They are very well
known quantities. Big surprise. Not.
Borissov vacillated and played the same failed and weak gambit we have seen for years in
the Ukraine. That he is still around as the biggest fish in the local fish shop is that he is
the biggest spineless shit that floats to the surface while the opposition is little more
than useless. That is repeated elsewhere in the neighborhood to various degrees and where it
is not, it's a choice between two sides of the same gangster/clan coin. To misquote Douglas
Adams, So long, and thanks for none of the fish.
Well, I don't think a decision has been made yet. But the consortium has 'applied to
Denmark for an alternate route' – which, since the alternate route would not go through
Danish territorial waters, implies Denmark does not really have any say over it, and is
essentially a challenge to Denmark to either veto the original route on security grounds (you
never know, Putin might hide submarines in it, or Novichok or something) or get on with it.
But Denmark is presented with more or less the Bulgarian Alternative: do Washington's bidding
and get a pat on the head, or defy it and get transit fees.
All the news on the subject that I saw announced that the consortium is 'exploring' an
alternate route. It seems they are still hopeful the original route will be cleared, but are
getting it on the table that denying it will not stop the project.
But of course western 'analysts' continue to squeal that Putin and the Kremlin are using
the Nord Stream II pipeline to 'invade Europe'. Curiously, the same people who once smirked
scornfully that Nord Stream II was not needed because the current pipeline is only running at
half-capacity now claim "even with Nord Stream 2 on line Russia would still need to send
substantial amounts of gas through Ukraine – at least until the upcoming TurkStream
pipeline is also finished." Whoa – wut? Even both legs of Nord Stream running at full
capacity will not be enough? You don't say.
Once again, nobody is forcing Europe to take more Russian gas than it needs, although the
draw-down of domestic supplies suggest it will need more all the time unless 'green energy'
becomes more commercially viable and reliable. Certain players want Europe's gas to go
through Ukraine for two reasons – one, Ukraine badly needs the money from transit fees
to prop up its calamitous economy. Two, it is a ready tickle-trunk of conflict whenever the
west wants to make problems for Russia; presto! Ukraine is in a new fight with Russia over
gas prices, and Europe is trembling with fear that its gas supplies will be shut off.
Here, you numpties – let me solve the problem for you. Soon there is going to be a
perfectly good (according to Ukraine and the west) pipeline network idling without much to
do. Why not let all those competitors Europe is always gibbering about use Ukraine's pipeline
network to send their gas to Europe? They could have the whole thing all to
themselves, completely cutting Gazprom out of Ukraine! What a victory that would be! And they
could pay Ukraine transit fees, saving the day there and bringing enormous comfort to
Ukrainian economists! It's win/win!
See,
this is why I enjoy Leonid Bershidsky's writing . Despite his idealistic prattling that
Russia is actually guilty of all the things America says it is – his ultimate loyalty
is still to his adopted homeland, the land of milk and honey – he remains essentially a
realist. And his take on the economic dynamics is brutally realistic; the United States
cannot 'bring the Russian economy to its knees'. Once again, America's ridiculously-high
opinion of itself and its power fail to take account of consequences.
Oh, it could, I suppose, in a way. A way that would see the world's largest economy
– arguably, and certainly in its last days if it is actually still the world's largest
economy – wreck the global economy and its own trade relationship with the world in
order to damage Russia. Is it willing to go that far? You just never know, as decades of
feeding itself exceptionalism have addled its thinking.
Bershidsky points out – correctly, I think – that Russia has held off on
punishing American companies in Russia just as the USA has not dared to sanction the energy
industry in Russia. Neither wants to take that step, although one will certainly provoke the
other.
In fact, it occurs to me that if Russia were really as malignant and evil as Washington
pretends it is, Russia would be first to take that step, booting American companies out of
Russia, perhaps giving them 72 hours to clear out their desks and get out. What would happen
then? America would be bound to drop the sanctions hammer on oil and gas. And what would
happen then? Europe would say, it's been a lovely party, but I must be going. I give that an
8 of 10 chance of happening, and solely because of the stupid actions heretofore by the Trump
government. Had America been reasonable, it would have stood a chance of carrying Europe with
it to a war against Russia. But Trump and his blowhard bullying have hardened European
resolve against the USA.
This "Trump vs Davos globalists" theme is unconvincing. Trump actions
are ruthless globalist actions, who wnat to preverse the US status of
superpower at all costs, even by abrogating important treaties.
He might be not a neoliberal globalist thouth -- he does not offere equl
seats on the table to vassals.
Trumpo statement that if Germany buy Russian gas it does not need NATO
is very shroud indeed.
Notable quotes:
"... Optics are important and this image captures what both parties wanted to convey. This meeting is the beginning of a shift in the relationship between Germany and Russia for the better. ..."
"... The obvious answer is necessity brought about by pressure being placed on both countries by Donald Trump through sanctions and tariffs and their shared interests represented by the Nordstream 2 pipeline. ..."
"... But, this meeting went far deeper than that, especially since Merkel's Foreign Minister Heiko Maas boldly proclaimed that Europe needs an alternative to the SWIFT system of international electronic payments so as to keep global trade alive while the U.S. further weaponizes the U.S. dollar ..."
"... Why would Merkel allow Maas to state this publicly and why was it picked up by that establishment stenographer The Financial Times ? ..."
"... If Trump's goal, as presented by much of the European press (as presented here by Gilbert Doctorow), is to regain complete subjugation of Europe to American dominance, then this seems counter-productive. ..."
"... SWIFT is the main lever on which much of the U.S.'s sanctions power rests. Because it is through SWIFT that transactions can be tracked, payments halted and fines imposed. That none of this is strictly legal is irrelevant in the game of power-politics. ..."
"... This undermines the EU's credibility at a foundational level. It shows them to be the toothless and, in EU President Donald Tusk's case, witless when faced with opposition to their rule that isn't supported by The Davos Crowd, which Trump most definitely doesn't represent. ..."
"... And I've talked about these in the past. His real goal is the destruction of that post WWII institutional order which in his mind bankrupts the U.S. treasury through massive trade deficits. ..."
"... I said back in June that Trump's leaving the JCPOA was all part of his strategy to drive a wedge between the U.S. and Germany. The Davos Crowd needs that deal to keep the dream of transferring the power of the world back to Europe from the U.S. via cheap, Iranian energy and keep the conflict between Israel/Saudi Arabia and Iran front and center to foment global chaos awhile keeping Russia from getting rich again. ..."
"... It needs that to support the narrative we need NATO to protect us from the inevitable Russian attack after we provoke them into it. This keeps the money flowing through the banks and lobbyists while draining the U.S. dry through the military/industrial complex. ..."
"... And despite relentless Russia bashing since before Trump was elected, the American people overwhelmingly want peace with Russia, not war. ..."
"... By driving a wedge between Germany and the US over NATO and attacking the foundations of the German economy Trump is ensuring the current rapprochement between Germany and Russia? ..."
Vladimir Putin's charm tour of Germany and Austria last weekend is a significant sign of
change to come.
To the U.S. and European press Putin is only a step or two away from Hitler reincarnated
(thanks chiefly to Bill Browder). It serves the purpose of maintaining the post WWII
institutional order.
But, Putin is always nothing but relentlessly patient in his diplomatic efforts, even when
European leaders, like Merkel, treat him and Russia poorly. She is, after all, the leading
mouthpiece and political ally of The Davos Crowd that believes they run the world.
The conduct of his Foreign Ministry under Sergei Lavrov always strikes the perfect balance
between bluntness and diplo-speak.
So, color me surprised when I see the official photos of his meeting with Merkel carefully
framed to paint him in a positive light.
Putin in light blues and grays, Merkel in green, the fountain in the background, leaning in
looking directly at each other and a simple Sunday morning chat.
If I didn't know better I'd be expecting them to share photos of their grandkids, well,
Putin's grandkids anyway.
Optics are important and this image captures what both parties wanted to convey. This
meeting is the beginning of a shift in the relationship between Germany and Russia for the
better.
And the question is why?
The obvious answer is necessity brought about by pressure being placed on both countries by
Donald Trump through sanctions and tariffs and their shared interests represented by the
Nordstream 2 pipeline.
But, this meeting went far deeper than that, especially since Merkel's Foreign Minister
Heiko Maas boldly proclaimed that Europe needs an alternative to the SWIFT system of
international electronic payments so as to keep global trade alive while the U.S. further
weaponizes the U.S. dollar.
The U.S. just seized another $5 billion of Russian 'oligarch' money using Credit Suisse as
its enforcement arm.
SWIFT is the main lever on which much of the U.S.'s sanctions power rests. Because it is
through SWIFT that transactions can be tracked, payments halted and fines imposed. That none of
this is strictly legal is irrelevant in the game of power-politics.
Banks like Credit Suisse can't function without access to SWIFT.
So they will roll over to the pressure. That's why the response from EU leadership to
Trump's abandoning the JCPOA has been far more bark than bite. Because the measures implemented
to protect European businesses from U.S. retaliation against them hold no weight with the
companies staring at billions in losses.
Case in point: France's Total pulling out of a multi-billion exploration deal with Iran.
This undermines the EU's credibility at a foundational level. It shows them to be the
toothless and, in EU President Donald Tusk's case, witless when faced with opposition to their
rule that isn't supported by The Davos Crowd, which Trump most definitely doesn't
represent.
So, again, the question is why?
All of this seems incredibly contradictory, at times even to a jaded and cynical observer
like me. Until you step back for a second and think bigger picture and ask the most important
question of all.
What are Trump's real goals?
It's Good to Have Goals
And I've talked about these in the past. His real goal is the destruction of that post WWII
institutional order which in his mind bankrupts the U.S. treasury through massive trade
deficits.
And in a word that means . NATO.
Trump goal is the dissolution of NATO. He wants it dismantled because it is a massive drain
on our capital base. Building weapons and maintaining bases in Europe is expensive and that
money is needed here. He knows this.
Even the mere hint of this has The Davos Crowd in apoplexy. Hence, the post-Helsinki freak
out. Hence, the drive to impeach him over Stormy Freaking Daniels. It's pathetic.
I said back in June that Trump's leaving the JCPOA was all part of his strategy to drive a
wedge between the U.S. and Germany. The Davos Crowd needs that deal to keep the dream of transferring the power of the world
back to Europe from the U.S. via cheap, Iranian energy and keep the conflict between
Israel/Saudi Arabia and Iran front and center to foment global chaos awhile keeping Russia from
getting rich again.
It needs that to support the narrative we need NATO to protect us from the inevitable
Russian attack after we provoke them into it. This keeps the money flowing through the banks
and lobbyists while draining the U.S. dry through the military/industrial complex.
The problem is that that narrative is garbage. And despite relentless Russia bashing since
before Trump was elected, the American people overwhelmingly want peace with Russia, not
war.
Poland and the Baltics sound like Democrats unhinged hysterical children over the 'threat of
Russian aggression.'
This is why Trump is also pressuring Turkey at the same time. He knows Europe is vulnerable
to Turkey's implosion. Turkey and Germany are major trading partners and the vast bulk of
Turkey's foreign currency exposure is owned by European banks, making them, as
I've said previously, Ground Zero for the debt bomb.
So the final question then is this.
Has this been Trump's goal the entire time? Is this what Trump and Putin discussed behind
closed doors in Helsinki?
The NATO Wedge
By driving a wedge between Germany and the US over NATO and attacking the foundations of
the German economy Trump is ensuring the current rapprochement between Germany and Russia?
Merkel, for her part, has been so terminally weakened by her immigration policy and
strong-armed approach to dissent that this whirlwind weekender by Putin was as much for her
benefit, politically, as his.
The implication being that if Merkel wants to stay in power with her weakening coalition and
poll numbers it's time for her to reverse course. And if that means cozying up to Russia then
so be it.
Merkel will continue to talk a good game about Crimea and Ukraine while Putin will speak
directly to the German people about ending the humanitarian crisis in Syria as a proxy for
ending the threat of further immigration.
This outflanks Merkel's position and undermines George Soros' goals of the cultural
destruction of Europe. At this point, politically, how can Merkel even argue against that
without betraying her true loyalties?
And that's what makes the implications of this Summit-That-Wasn't so interesting.
If this is indeed the case then the future of the world rests on the mid-term elections and
whether Trump is not indicted for having sex with a couple of porn stars.
I almost feel dirty writing that.
* * *
To support more work like this and get access to exclusive commentary, stock picks and
analysis tailored to your needs join my more than 155 Patrons on Patreon and see if
I have what it takes to help you navigate a world going slowly mad.
"... Meanwhile, what is surely the single most urgent issue for both sides was not mentioned at all in their opening statements: namely how to respond to US President Donald Trump's new sanctions on Russia and on participants in the Nord Stream II gas pipeline project that both countries support. ..."
"... The Washington Post ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... The Washington Post ..."
"... New York Times' ..."
"... I close out this little survey of English-speaking media by pointing to an article in The Guardian ..."
"... Both Merkel and Putin are now facing the same challenge: US foreign policy has become unpredictable, both for its allies and for rivals like Moscow. Notwithstanding the warm discussions Donald Trump had with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, the American administration has just announced a new wave of sanctions on Russia relating to the Skripal affair. ..."
"... La Libre Belgique ..."
"... "Germany is not the only 'Western' nation to return to the Kremlin. Putin is taking full advantage of the boomerang effect caused by the policies of Donald Trump, who, by hammering away at his customary allies is pushing them to other interlocutors. By looking for confrontations, imposing taxes and sanctions while thinking that this rampant isolationism will make the United States 'great again,' Trump is helping to build a wall that he no doubt did not imagine, that of the anti-Trump people." ..."
"... Frankfurter Allgemeine ..."
"... Putin is under economic pressure to find closer ties with Europe. In Austria, which now chairs the European Council, he has allies in the government, namely the extreme right populists of the Freedom Party which installed Kneissl. But the way to Europe passes by way of Merkel and Putin knows that. ..."
"... Vremya Pokazhet ..."
"... Frankfurter Allgemeine ..."
"... In my view, Trump's use of sanctions and tariffs here, there, everywhere has a totally different logic from what is adduced in the writings of my peers in the analyst community. He invokes them because 1. they are within his sole power as Chief Executive and 2. they are in principle as American as apple pie and do not require grand explanations in Congress or before the public. As to why he invokes them, there you have to look at Trump's foreign policy from a 360 degree perspective and not merely as it relates to Putin or to Erdogan or to any of the small slices we see discussed in the news. ..."
"... When viewed in the round, it is obvious that Trump is reshuffling the deck. He is doing what he can to break up NATO and the other military alliances around the world which are consuming more than half of the U.S. defense budget and do not arguably provide greater security to the American homeland than the country can do for itself without fixed alliances and overseas bases. ..."
"... By contrast, what Trump is now doing is not a blunder or a bit of bluster. Even if he is not conversant with the whole of the Realist School of international relations, as surely he is not, he does grasp the fundamentals, namely the centrality of the sovereign nation-state and of the balance of power mechanism by which these states are constantly changing alignments of these nation-states to ensure no one enjoys hegemony . ..."
"... Accordingly, I insist that the possible rapprochement of Russia and Germany will be in line with Trump's reshuffling of the deck not in spite of it. ..."
Reading the tea leaves of the Putin-Merkel meeting
During this past Saturday, 18 August, Russian President Vladimir Putin made a brief visit to
Austria to attend the wedding of the country's Minister of Foreign Affairs Karin Kneissl. Per
the Kremlin, this stop of several hours in the Styrian wine country not far from the border
with Slovenia was a "purely private" side excursion "on the road to Germany" for the state
visit with Chancellor Angela Merkel starting later in the day at the Meseberg Palace, the
federal guest house 60 km north of Berlin.
Journalists were admitted to film the wedding party, including Putin's dance with the 53
year old bride. No questions were taken and no statements were issued by the President's Press
Secretary, who also was present. We know only that on the return journey to Graz airport, Putin
was accompanied by Austria's Chancellor Sebastian Kurz. Presumably they had some issues to
discuss that may be characterized as official talks.
Prior to their meeting both Putin and Angela Merkel made statements to the press listing the
topics they intended to discuss. We may assume that these lists were not exhaustive. Comparing
their lists, we find that the respective priorities of the parties were in inverted order, with
economic cooperation at the head of Putin's list while regulating the Donbass crisis in Ukraine
was the top concern of Merkel. Moreover, the content of issues bearing the same heading was
very different. Both sides spoke of Syria, but whereas for Putin the issue for discussion is
the humanitarian crisis of refugees, ensuring their return to their homes from camps in
Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey by raising funds to repair and replace fundamental infrastructure
destroyed in the war. For Merkel, the number one issue in Syria is to prevent the
Russian-backed Syrian armed forces from creating a new humanitarian disaster by their ongoing
campaign to retake Idlib province from the militants opposed to Bashar Assad.
Meanwhile, what is surely the single most urgent issue for both sides was not mentioned at
all in their opening statements: namely how to respond to US President Donald Trump's new
sanctions on Russia and on participants in the Nord Stream II gas pipeline project that both
countries support.
As was explained at the outset, there was to be no press conference or joint statement
issued at the conclusion of the talks. The only information we have is that Merkel and Putin
conferred for more than three hours, which is in itself quite extraordinary and suggests that
some understandings may have been achieved.
In a word, the potentially very important diplomatic developments of Saturday remain, for
once, a state secret of the parties, with no leaks for the press to parse. And yet there is
material here worthy of our consideration. I have in mind the interpretations of what might
transpire before, during and after the events of Saturday in the news and commentary reportage
of various countries having greater or lesser interest in Russian affairs. Indeed, my perusal
of French, Belgian, German, British, American and Russian news media shows great diversity of
opinion and some penetrating and highly pertinent remarks based on different information bases.
This material is all essential if we are to make sense of the behavior of the parties on the
international stage in the coming weeks.
In this essay, I will set out what I have found per country, starting with the least
attentive to detail - the United States - and ending with those who offered the best informed
and most interested reportage, Germany and Russia. I will conclude with my own reading of the
tea leaves.
* * * *
Let us take The Washington Post and The New York Times as our markers for
how US mainstream media reported on Putin's meetings this past Saturday.
On the 18th, The Washington Post carried in its online edition two articles dealing
with the Putin diplomatic doings. "At Austrian foreign minister's wedding, Putin brings the
music, the flowers and the controversy" was written by the newspaper's bureau chief in Berlin,
Griff Witte. It is accompanied by video clips of Vladimir Putin dancing with the bride and
speaking, in German, to the wedding party seated at their banquet table. The journalist touches
very briefly on the main political dimensions of Putin's visit to Austria, including the party
relations between United Russia and the far right Freedom Party in Austria's ruling coalition
which nominated Kneissl for her post, the criticism of Putin's participation in the wedding
coming from the Opposition parties in Austria who see it as a violation of the government's own
ambition to be a neutral bridge between East and West, and the issue of Putin's sowing division
on the continent. The only criticism one might offer is that the article is superficial, that
each of the issues raised deserves in-depth analysis separately.
The newspaper's second article online, which spread its net more broadly and covered the
meeting with Merkel in Germany as well as the visit in Austria, came from an Associated Press
reporter, not its own staff. Here again, the problem is that issues surrounding the meetings
are not more than bullet points, and the reader is given no basis for reaching an independent
finding on what has happened..
The New York Times' feature article "Merkel and Putin Sound Pragmatic Notes After
Years of Tension," also published on the 18th and datelined Berlin was cited by Russian
television news for a seemingly positive valuation of the talks in Meseberg Palace. However,
the content of the article by reporter Melissa Eddy is more cautious, highlighting the pattern
of "conflicts and reconciliations" that have marked German-Russian relations over the centuries
and seeing the present stage not as a warming of relations but instead as reaching for
compromises "on Syria, energy and other key issues while maintaining their differences over
Russia's role in the conflict in Ukraine." She sees the Syrian issue as one where German and
Russian interests may be closest given that refugees from the Middle East are now a German
preoccupation with political weight. The reporter cites several experts attached to well-known
institutes in Germany that are generally skeptical about Russia's intentions. But the end
result is better informed than most NYT reporting on Russia even if it leaves us
wondering what will result from the Saturday diplomacy.
In both mainstream papers there is no attempt to find a link between Putin's two visits on
Saturday.
I close out this little survey of English-speaking media by pointing
to an article in
The Guardian from the 18th entitled "Putin urges Europe to help
rebuild Syria so refugees can return." This piece comes from the Agence France-Presse in Berlin. It is not much
more than a recitation of the lists of topics for discussion that Putin and Merkel issued
before their talks. But the reporter has made his choice for the most important of them, Syria
and refugees.
The French-language press does not seem to have been very interested in Putin's "private"
trip to the wedding of the Austrian foreign minister, but was definitely keen to discuss
Putin's trip to Berlin. On the day preceding the Putin-Merkel meeting, the French press offered
a clear concept of where things were headed. We read in Figaro , "Merkel receives
Putin Saturday to renew a difficult dialogue." A caption in bold just below is more
eye-catching: "While the German Chancellor has become the main opponent to the Russian
President within the EU, the policy of sanctions conducted by Washington has led to a
rapprochement between Berlin and Moscow with regard to numerous issues."
The reporter notes that following the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014, relations
between the two heads of state had become quite bad and in four years they met only when
obliged to do so during international summits.
"But starting three months ago, their diplomatic exchanges have intensified: in May Angela
Merkel met the chief of the Kremlin in Sochi, Russia. In July, she met the head of the Russian
diplomatic corps, Sergei Lavrov, in Berlin. By inviting Vladimir Putin this time, the German
Chancellor has promised 'in-depth discussions.' "She is pursuing a pragmatic attempt at
normalization of German-Russian relations, because the international realities have changed,'
explains Stefan Meister, director of the Robert Bosch Center for Russia."
And how has the calculus of international relations changed? Both Merkel and Putin are now
facing the same challenge: US foreign policy has become unpredictable, both for its allies and
for rivals like Moscow. Notwithstanding the warm discussions Donald Trump had with Vladimir
Putin in Helsinki, the American administration has just announced a new wave of sanctions on
Russia relating to the Skripal affair.
"The American policy represents a danger for the Russian economy and a threat to German
interests."
A spokesperson from Merkel's CDU party responsible for foreign policy is quoted on the
possible dangers of secondary sanctions being directed at Germany through the application of US
extraterritoriality against those failing to respect the new sanctions on Russia.
The article explains the issues surrounding the Nord Steam 2 pipeline, and in particular
Trump's hostility to the project for its locking in German dependence on Russian
hydrocarbons.
And the author points to the common interests of Germany and Russia over maintenance of the
Iranian nuclear deal as a factor powering the rapprochement of the two countries. Here again
the common threat is Donald Trump and American sanctions against those companies which continue
to trade with Iran.
The article concludes that divergent views of Russia and Germany over Ukraine and Syria
exclude any breakthrough at the meeting on Saturday. But nonetheless the dialogue that was
lacking these several past years is being recreated.
In its weekend edition issued on 18 August, the Belgian mainstream daily La Libre
Belgique was even more insistent on interpreting the Merkel-Putin meeting as a consequence
of the policies of Donald Trump. Their editorial captures the sense very nicely in its
tongue-in-cheek headline: "Trump is the best 'ally' of Putin."
La Libre sees Vladimir Putin's latest diplomatic initiatives as directly resulting
from the way his host at the White House has annoyed everyone. Moreover, his outreach is
welcomed:
"Germany is not the only 'Western' nation to return to the Kremlin. Putin is taking full
advantage of the boomerang effect caused by the policies of Donald Trump, who, by hammering
away at his customary allies is pushing them to other interlocutors. By looking for
confrontations, imposing taxes and sanctions while thinking that this rampant isolationism
will make the United States 'great again,' Trump is helping to build a wall that he no doubt
did not imagine, that of the anti-Trump people."
The editors point to Turkish President Erdogan's clear signal that he is now
looking for other allies. He has done his calculations and has said he has more to gain with
Moscow than with Washington.'
The editorial concludes that a summit on reconstruction of Syria might even take place at
the start of September between Moscow, Ankara, Paris and Berlin. The conclusion? "Putin has
taken center stage on the chessboard. Thank you, Mr. Trump."
The article filed by La Libre 's correspondent in Berlin, Sebastien Millard, bears
a heading that matches the editorial view of the newspaper: "Merkel and Putin - allies of
convenience facing Trump." The author credits Donald Trump with being the catalyst for the
resumption of dialogue between Germany and Russia; they are telling Washington that they do not
accept its blackmail. He notes that we should not expect any reversal of alliances. There are
too many differences of view between Berlin and Moscow on a variety of issues.
* * * *
The German press paid a good deal of attention to Vladimir Putin's visit to Austria for the
wedding of Foreign Minister Karin Kreissl.
In an article posted on the 16th entitled "Suspicion that Austria is a Trojan horse,"
Die Welt highlighted the negatives of Putin's presence. Quoting an "expert from the
University of Innsbruck" this does not cast a good light on the country. They anticipate
political fall-out. This will impair Austria's ability as chair of the European Council to play
a role of intermediary in the Ukraine conflict. The only beneficiary of the visit will be the
the Russia-friendly be the Russia-friendly Freedom Party. For Putin, being a guest provides him
with the opportunity to demonstrate that he is not isolated but is instead highly welcome in
society of an EU country.
As for the coming meeting with Merkel on Saturday evening, Die Welt in a related
article of the same day lists the issues for discussion. Without taking a position, it cites
experts for and against the Nord Stream II pipeline and other issues on the list.
Welt's report from the wedding party on the 18th was gossipy and unfriendly, comparing it to
a wedding of some European royal family because of the extraordinary guest list that included
the country's chancellor, vice chancellor, and defense minister as well as the head of OPEC
and...Vladimir Putin. With typical German petty financial accounting, they reckon that the 500
police and other security measures needed for the safety of the highly placed guests cost the
Austrian tax payers 250,000 euros.
A separate article in Die Welt deals with Putin's meeting with Merkel at the
Meseberg Palace. The emphasis here is on Merkel's remarks during the Statement prior to the
talks that cooperation with Russia is "vital" to deal with many conflicts globally and that
both sides bear responsibility to find solutions.
The article quotes from the opening statements of the leaders on all the issues in their
list for discussion - Syria, Ukraine, Nord Stream II. We are given bare facts without any
analysis to speak of.
The other major mainstream daily Frankfurter Allgemeine in its Saturday, 18 August
edition offered separate articles on Putin's visits to Austria and Germany.
The article on Karin Kneissl's wedding heads off in a very different direction from the
reporting in other media that I have summarized above. FAZ notes that Kneissl is
rarely in the headlines and it asks: who is she? They answer the question with some curious
details. We learn that Kneissl was once active in competitive sports and even now swims a
kilometer every day. For many years she has lived on a small farmstead with a couple of boxers,
two ponies, hens and cats. Each morning her chauffeur takes her and the dogs to her office in
Vienna, to return in the evening. Regrettably, FAZ does not take this curious
biographical sketch further. No connection is drawn between her personality and the Russian
President's acceptance of her invitation to her wedding.
FAZ similarly has chosen to amuse rather than inform in its coverage of the meeting
in Berlin entitled "Sparkling wine in Austria, sparkling water in Meseberg." They comment on
how Putin arrived half an hour late, on how it is hard to see how the meeting could be
characterized as a success. They stress that we know nothing about the content of the
consultations. Then they tick off the opening positions of the sides as set out in their
statements before the talks.
Spiegel online risks more by giving more interpretation and less bare facts. Its
article entitled "Something of a new start" suggests that a rapprochement is underway and that
both Merkel and Putin have a lot in play. Unlike the other German press we have mentioned,
Spiegel sees a direct link between Putin's attending the wedding in Styria and his visit to
Merkel.
Putin is under economic pressure to find closer ties with Europe. In Austria, which now
chairs the European Council, he has allies in the government, namely the extreme right
populists of the Freedom Party which installed Kneissl. But the way to Europe passes by way of
Merkel and Putin knows that.
Meanwhile, says Spiegel , Germany also is interested in improving relations with
Russia despite all the controversy, namely due to the growing conflicts with US President
Donald Trump. We don't know the exact content of the talks which were confidential, but there
is some movement now between Germany and Russia.
Spiegel remains cautious. Cordiality does not enter into the relationship. The
parties keep their distance. There is no laughter to lighten the atmosphere. Yet, it concludes:
"The talks have prospects and we can see the wish to make progress through common positions,
and without being silent about contradictions. Diplomatic normality, as it were. A step
forward."
* * * *
If the great bulk of commentary in the West about Putin's diplomatic weekend was reserved
and stayed by the bare facts without speculation, Russian television more than made up for
dryness. I point in particular to two political talk shows which invited a mixture of experts
from different backgrounds.
Let us begin with the show Vremya Pokazhet (Time will tell) on
state television's Pervy Kanal . Their Friday, 17 August program focused on Putin's
forthcoming visit to the wedding 'on the road to Berlin,' which several panelists saw as a
strong signal to Germany that Russ1+
ia had other channels to the EU if Germany refuses to be its intercessor.
The visit was said to be breaking new ground in diplomatic practice. According to panelist
Andrei Baklanov, deputy chair of the association of Russian diplomats, this kind of positive,
human diplomacy is Russia's answer to the negative behavior in international affairs that has
occupied center stage in the recent past - sanctions, fake news, etc. As another panelist
interjected, this is the first time that a Russian head of state attended a wedding abroad
since Tsar Nicholas did so in Germany in 1913.
Baklanov proceeded to provide details about the bride, however, bringing out aspects of her
career that are far more relevant to her attracting the attention of Putin than the
Frankfurter Allgemeine produced. We learn that she grew up in Amman, Jordan, that she
speaks 8 languages: Arabic, Hebrew, Magyar, French, Spanish, Italian, English as well as her
native German. She studied Near Eastern languages in Vienna University, in the Jewish
University of Jerusalem, in the University of Jordan and also graduated from the National
School of Administration in France. She holds a doctorate in law. She is a non-party minister,
which also attests to her generally recognized professionalism. For all of these reasons, she
is a good fit with Putin's determination to find supporters in Europe for investments to
restore Syrian infrastructure and enable the return of refugees.
Sergey Mironov, leader of the socialist party Fair Russia said that despite Merkel's warning
in advance not to expect breakthroughs it is likely progress was made in agreeing how to deal
with US sanctions. This would be tested in the coming days.
As for the link between the visits to Austria and Germany, the representative of a
pro-business party Sergey Stankevich reminded viewers that Germany and Austria are the market
makers in Europe for Russian gas. Nord Stream II gas may land in Germany but a large part of it
will be pumped further to Austria's hub for distribution elsewhere in Europe. Whatever may have
been said publicly, Stankevich believes that Merkel and Putin did agree on many if not all the
subjects named before the start: Iran, Syria, Ukraine, Nord Stream.
Russian media coverage of the Saturday travels of their President continued on Russian news
programs into Monday, with video clips of Putin dancing at the wedding and speaking alongside
Merkel before entering into their talks at Meseberg Palace.
* * * *
Looking back at the media coverage of Putin's visits to Austria and Germany on 18 August,
and with all due respect to those who opinions are different from mine, I find that the most
helpful for our understanding of the present day international situation were the report and
editorial in Belgium's Libre Belgique and the unruly, risky but at times brilliant
insights on Russian television.
What comes out of this is the understanding that the visits to a wedding in Austria and to
the federal Chancellor outside Berlin were directly linked in Russian diplomatic strategy, that
Russia is playing the Austrian card during the country's six months at the helm of the European
Council in Brussels, that Russia is pushing for a multi-party relief effort for Syria to
facilitate the return of refugees to their home and pacification of the war-torn country. The
web of common interests that Russia is pursuing has at its core the fragility of the current
world order and generalized anxiety of leading countries due to America's aggressive pursuit of
narrow national interest under Donald Trump as seen in his tariff wars and sanctions directed
at friends and foes alike.
Where I differ from the interpretations set out in the foregoing press reports is in my
understanding of what Trump is doing and why.
The nearly universal assumption of commentators is that Trump's policies known as "Make
America Great" are ignorant and doomed to fail. They are assumed to be isolationist,
withdrawing America from the world community.
However, Trump did not invent bullying of US allies. That was going strong under George W.
Bush, with his challenge "you are either with us or against us" when he sought to align the
West behind his invasion of Iraq in 2003 without authorization of the UN Security Council. His
more urbane successor Barack Obama was no kinder to U.S. allies, who were slapped with crushing
fines for violations of U.S. sanctions on Iran, just to mention one way in which they were kept
in line. And the U.S. Congress today is no more reasonable and diplomatic than the President in
the brutal unilateral sanctions it has on its own initiative advocated against not just Russia
but also against Turkey and other states which are not snapping to attention with respect to
purchases of military materiel from Russia.
What made U.S. bullying tolerable before Trump was the ideological smokescreen of "shared
values," namely democracy promotion, human rights and rule of law, that all members of the
alliances could swear to and which set them apart from the still unenlightened parts of the
globe where autocrats hold sway.
In my view, Trump's use of sanctions and tariffs here, there, everywhere has a totally
different logic from what is adduced in the writings of my peers in the analyst community. He
invokes them because 1. they are within his sole power as Chief Executive and 2. they are in
principle as American as apple pie and do not require grand explanations in Congress or before
the public. As to why he invokes them, there you have to look at Trump's foreign policy from a
360 degree perspective and not merely as it relates to Putin or to Erdogan or to any of the
small slices we see discussed in the news.
When viewed in the round, it is obvious that Trump is reshuffling the deck. He is doing what
he can to break up NATO and the other military alliances around the world which are consuming
more than half of the U.S. defense budget and do not arguably provide greater security to the
American homeland than the country can do for itself without fixed alliances and overseas
bases.
The first two presidencies of this millennium undid the country's greatest geopolitical
achievement of the second half of the 20th century: the informal alliance with China against
Russia that put Washington at the center of all global politics. Bush and Obama did that by
inattention and incomprehension of what was at stake. That inattention was an expression of
American hubris in the unipolar world which, it was assumed, was the new normal, not a
blip.
By contrast, what Trump is now doing is not a blunder or a bit of bluster. Even if he is not
conversant with the whole of the Realist School of international relations, as surely he is
not, he does grasp the fundamentals, namely the centrality of the sovereign nation-state and of
the balance of power mechanism by which these states are constantly changing alignments of
these nation-states to ensure no one enjoys hegemony . We see this understanding when he speaks
about looking out for American interests while the heads of state whom he meets are looking out
for the interests of theirs.
In his tweets we find that our allies are ripping us off, that
they are unfair competitors. His most admiring remark about Russia is that it is a strong
competitor. The consistent element in Trump's thinking is ignored or willfully misunderstood in
the press.
Accordingly, I insist that the possible rapprochement of Russia and Germany will be in line
with Trump's reshuffling of the deck not in spite of it.
Good Optics · about 3 hours ago
This nuanced analysis rings true and speaks to the fact that -
though Trump may not exactly be playing 47D chess - he certainly
does have some good intentions that, left to follow their course,
would have a chance of making the world a better place. But that
will not be allowed to happen by those in the US with firm
commitments to pursue the world's subjugation through any means
possible.
The Cs did tell us that Trump's heart is in the right place, unlikely
though that does appear a lot of the time . . .
Gazprom leads the world in capital expenditure (capex) on global energy projects, by a
wide, wide margin – $160 Billion to be spent on 84 projects worldwide, including Nord
Stream II and Turkish Stream. That's nearly double the spending of its next-closest
competitor, Sinopec, at $87 Billion. Royal Dutch Shell is third, and Exxon a distant
fourth.
If you add Rosneft, that's another $50 Billion in capex for Russia. Odd behaviour for an
isolated country whose economy is in tatters. One whose government debt is 12.6 % of GDP and
declining.
Speaking of government debt, how's that parameter looking for The Exceptional Nation?
Whoa: that's exceptional. Not even much point in expressing it as a percentage of GDP, I
guess.
Just to drive the point home for any who might not have gotten it, Russia –
friendless, alone against the world, and reeling from the bite of American sanctions –
is outspending the USA nearly three to one on global energy investments, although its debt is
a tiny fraction of America's out-of-control spending on other important things, like its
bloated defense budget.
Oh, that's right – Vladimir Putin is a tyrant and a dictator, squeezing the country
dry in neverending pursuit of self-enrichment. I almost forgot.
"Russian influence will flow through that pipeline right into Europe, and that is what we
are going to prevent," an unnamed U.S. official told the
Wall Street Journal just as Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chancellor Angela
Merkel meet outside of Berlin on Saturday centered on the two countries moving forward with the
controversial Russian-German Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, but also involving issues from the
Iran nuclear deal to ending the war in Syria.
Intense pressure from Washington is overshadowing the project, construction of which is
already in advanced stages, as
the WSJ cites current and former US officials who say sanctions are under discussion and
could be mobilized in a mere matter of weeks .
These potential sanctions, ostensibly being discussed in response to US intelligence claims
of Russian interference in the 2016 election, could target companies and financial firms
involved in the massive pipeline's construction . This comes after comments from President
Trump at the opening of a NATO summit in July made things uncomfortable for his German
counterpart when he said that Germany is so dependent on Russia for energy that it's
essentially being "held captive" by Vladimir Putin and his government.
"Germany is captive of Russia because it is getting so much of its energy from Russia. They
pay billions of dollars to Russia and we have to defend them against Russia,"
Trump told NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg at a televised opening breakfast.
The pipeline has been opposed by multiple US administrations, who have long accuse the
Kremlin of seeking to accrue political leverage over Europe given the latter's already high
dependence on Russian natural gas. The pipeline has been a frequent talking point and target of
attacks by Trump,
who has threatened to escalate the trade war against Germany going back months if it
supported the construction of the pipeline. US officials have also expressed concern that
Russia will pull pack significantly from delivering natural gas via Ukraine when its Gazprom
tranit contract expires by the close of 2019. Ukraine is currently the chief Russian
natural-gas export point to the EU and depends heavily on levying fees on this trade.
Both Russia and Germany have sought to calm US concerns over the Ukraine issue, with Putin
himself reportedly telling both Merkel and Trump that he is "ready to preserve" gas transit
through Ukraine even after Nord Stream 2 was completed.
US officials speaking to the WSJ , however, downplayed the Ukraine issue, instead focusing
on the urgency of allowing such significant and irreversible Russian economic, political, and
infrastructural inroads into the heart of Europe .
Richard Grenell, the U.S. ambassador to Germany, told the
WSJ , "We have been clear that firms working in the Russian energy export-pipeline sector
are engaging in a line of business that carries sanctions risk," -- something which he's
repeatedly emphasized with officials in Berlin. President Trump himself has also reportedly
raised the issue directly with Chancellor Merkel on multiple occasions. But for all the shrill
US media claims that Trump is somehow doing Putin's bidding, the WSJ
has this illuminating line : "Officially, the European Commission, the EU's executive body,
is coordinating the gas-transit talks, but Ms. Merkel also has played a leading role because of
her regular contacts and longstanding relationship with Mr. Putin, European officials say
."
Meanwhile, it appears that Washington has a losing hand even while making threats of
sanctions in an attempt to block the pipeline project.
A European energy executive familiar with the discussions said company representatives had
told John McCarrick, deputy assistant secretary in the State Department's Bureau of Energy
Resources, that the five European companies and Gazprom had already provided €5.5
billion ($6.3 billion) in financing and that the project wouldn't be stopped even if the U.S.
were to impose sanctions .
The Nord Stream 2 project was started in 2015 and is a major joint venture between Russia's
Gazprom and European partners, including German Uniper, Austria's OMV, France's Engie,
Wintershall and the British-Dutch multinational Royal Dutch Shell.
The pipeline is set to run from Russia to Germany under the Baltic Sea - doubling the
existing pipeline's capacity of 55 cubic meters per year, and is therefore critical for
Europe's future energy needs.
Currently, the second phase involves utilizing an existing pipeline already channelling
smaller amount of gas from Russia to Germany. Construction for the second phase started in May
of this year.
With much joviality and humour, Ukraine prepares to sever all remaining public-transit links
with Russia. I suppose there are still roads, and if you have a car and can afford gas, you
can still drive there.
This, according to the transport minister, is 'like the good old days'. I'll tell you
something else that's like the good old days, Mr. Minister – the living wage in
Ukraine.
And yet Ukraine still seems to think Europe must force Russia to continue transiting
Russian gas through Ukraine, and paying Kuh-yiv for the privilege.
It took more than 20 years for littoral states of the Caspian Sea to reach an agreement that
would lay the legal foundations for the full utilization of the region's resources. The Fifth
Caspian Summit in Aktau, Kazakhstan, brought the long-sought breakthrough after leaders of
Russia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Iran signed the Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea
– a remarkable feat considering that heretofore, barring bilateral deals, the Caspian has
been governed by an obsolete 1940 convention between the Soviet Union (of which four current
littoral states were a part) and Iran.
As the current Convention incorporates a plethora of tradeoffs between countries, let's look
at them in greater detail so as to grasp the implications of the deal.
The Convention stipulates that relations between littoral states shall be based on
principles of national sovereignty, territorial integrity, equality among members, non-use of
threat of force (it was only 17 years ago that Azerbaijan and Iran almost started a full-blown
naval war over contested fields) and non-intervention.
The military-related clauses of the document can be considered a net diplomatic success for
the Russian Federation as it prohibits the physical presence of any third-party armed forces,
along with banning the provision of a member state's territory to acts of aggression against
any other littoral state. Since Russia is by far the most power nation in terms of both general
military clout and military presence around the Caspian, this will placate Russian fears about
any potential US (or other) encroachment in the area.
Then there's energy... Although the Convention establishes a general legal framework for
territorial disputes to be solved, it refrains from any particularities. Therefore prolonged
negotiations are to be expected with regard to many disputed oilfields, stemming predominantly
from Irani and Azerbaijani claims . Iran advocated throughout the entire negotiation process an
egalitarian approach to delimiting the seabed (each nation would get 20% of the coast), running
counter the other countries' aspirations. The things is that when Russia concluded its seabed
delimitation agreements with Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan in 2001 and 2003, respectively, the
parties split their parts using the median line. Point 8.1. effectively keeps the delimitation
task in the hands of relevant governments, thereby providing a very modest boost to the
demarcation of the Southern Caspian (the Northern part is fully delimited).
There are two main territorial conflicts to be settled – the Irani-Azerbaijani and the
Azerbaijani-Turkmen disputes. The row between Baku and Teheran revolves around the
Araz-Alov-Sharg field (discovered in 1985-1987 by Soviet geologists), the reserves of which are
estimated at 300 million tons of oil and 395 BCm of natural gas. Even though the field is only
90 kilometers away from Baku and should seemingly be under Azerbaijan's grip, if one is to draw
a straight line from the Azerbaijani-Irani border most of the field ought to be allotted to
Iran (the median would keep most of it in Azerbaijan). As those old enough to remember the 2001
naval ship hostilities would attest, it does matter at what angle the final line is drawn.
The Serdar/Kapaz field (estimated to contain 50 million tons of oil) is the bone of
contention between Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. Considered to be an extension of Azerbaijan's
main oil-producing unit, the Azeri-Chirag-Guneshli field, Baku sees it as an indispensable
element in its quest to mitigate decreasing oil output numbers. Geographically, Serdar/Kapaz is
closer to Turkmenistan, yet here too Azerbaijan might come out the ultimate winner. The
Apsheron peninsula stretches out some 60km into the Caspian Sea, in effect extending
Azerbaijan's geographical reach. Absent previous demarcation agreements between Baku and
Ashgabat, the settlement will once again boil down to getting the angles right, as in the case
of Araz-Alov-Sharg. However, it must be said that a resolution might come about as a by-product
of new gas endeavors.
Clause 14, dealing with laying subsea pipelines and cables, is the one most coveted by
energy analysts , since it has the potential to significantly alter Europe's gas supply
options.
According to point 14.2., all parties have the right to construct subsea pipelines given
that they comply with environmental standards (which are particularly strict in the Caspian
Sea). With no further caveat included, some analysts might be tempted to think that Russia will
inevitably use the "environmental protection" card when trying to stop the construction of the
Trans-Caspian pipeline (TCP) from Turkmenistan, a pipeline it spent many years to halt .
Under current circumstances, when US-Russian relations falling ever deeper into an
insurmountable ditch, Moscow's decision to allow for the construction of the mightily
Washington-backed TCP to take place might be perceived as a massive omission.
Since the Turkmen gas is unlikely to find demand in Azerbaijan or Turkey, it would need to
take the whole route via the South Caucasus Pipeline, TANAP and TAP. Merely the transportation
tariffs from these pipelines would render any transportation economically unviable unless
European gas prices rise substantially to levels above $300/MCm. Moreover, the estimated cost
of building the subsea TCP of $2 billion is a disabling burden for either Türkmengaz or
SOCAR. Thus, allowing the construction of Trans Caspian gas pipelines might be a brilliant ruse
from the Russians – cognizant of all the deficiencies above, they can wield it as a sign
of good will in their never-ending negotiations with the European the economics for supplying
gas to Europe via the Southern Gas Corridor are far from being Union.
This being said, there are natural impediments to see the TCP implemented anytime soon.
Azerbaijan might be interested in getting transit fees for Turkmen natural gas, yet it lacks
the required infrastructure to include the above volumes in its traditional conduit via
Turkey.
All in all, the Caspian convention is a good basis for further negotiations, even though it
falls short of being an all-encompassing legal framework. Territorial disputes will most likely
remain frozen for quite some time and no new gas pipeline projects will see the light of day
unless market conditions change.
Patient Observer says:
August 6, 2018 at 1:46 pmPublic opinion polling suggests that many Americans would
not think twice if there were a great many casualties against evildoers. For example, a
2017 survey found that 60 percent of Americans would support a nuclear attack on Iran that
would kill 20 million civilians, to prevent an invasion that might kill 20,000 American
soldiers.
"We were not surprised by the finding that most Americans place a higher
value on the life of an American soldier than the life of a foreign noncombatant.
What was surprising, however, was the radical extent of that preference.
Our experiments suggest that the majority of Americans find a 1:100 risk ratio
to be morally acceptable. They were willing to kill 2 million Iranian civilians to
save 20,000 U.S. soldiers. One respondent who approved of the conventional
air strike that killed 100,000 Iranian civilians candidly expressed even more
extreme
preferences regarding proportionality and risk ratios, while displacing
U.S. responsibility for the attack onto the Iranian people: "I would sacrifice
1 million enemies versus 1 of our military. Their choice, their death."
But the state of American 'journalism' is such that the media must portray America as
winning, and will not acknowledge catastrophe until major damage has already been done, because
it is patriotic to report on American success.
FYI Officials from three leading US groups that support increased exports of US LNG separately
addressed concerns on Aug. 3 over the Chinese Ministry of Commerce's announcement that
tariffs ranging 5-25% will be imposed on US LNG.
"China's retaliation will hit America's energy industry particularly hard," said
American Petroleum Institute Vice-Pres. for Regulatory and Economic Policy Kyle Isakower.
"American oil and gas already hit by US tariffs on industrial products and specialty steel
essential to our industry will now be faced with Chinese tariffs on critical US exports,
affecting American jobs that rely directly and indirectly on the energy industry."
August 5, 2018 at 7:17 pm Oh, look; Ukraine already is down to about half the gas in
storage that it will need for winter. Turning to the west certainly made it
'energy-independent' at least to the extent that the west must 'lend' it money to buy gas which
is reverse-flowed from eastern-European countries so that all the Russian is squeezed out of
it, and it becomes European freedom gas. Nice work if you can get it, and since Ukraine will
not be able to pay it back, it becomes a gift! Why worry, as long as Uncle Sugar is paying the
bills?
Speaking of gas, once-bitten-twice-shy Bulgaria is eager to get a piece of the action,
signifying up front its willingness to tap into Turkish Stream for transit to Europe.
There seems to be a tremendously broad American – and western – assumption that
US production is going to 'soar' and continue to ramp ever upward. Is it? Bear in mind that
the USA's own consumption of natural gas is growing steadily, at least partly based on this
assumption that natural-gas bounty will just continue to increase. What if it doesn't? Then
America will have refashioned itself as another huge natural-gas market which has
insufficient domestic supply to sustain itself.
The headline is pure tabloid and not supported in the body of the article apart from
'opinions' by certain people or through use of qualifiers. This is not journalism .
Only further proof in my opinion that Euractiv has become part of the EU's unofficial
channels of hybrid warfare . Euractiv/Neuters has also expanded in to the Balkans to
provide 'services' in Croatia/Serbia etc. which just so happens to coincide with all the
shrill headlines about Russia 'influencing the Balkans' – which are of course BS. Just
look at the map. Short of Macedonia (not for long) and Serbia, they are all NATO
states . Russia only helps states who want to help themselves (Syria/Serbia – more
or less).
Not a shred of proof, nay evidence, that Germany is shifting away from NordStream II. FAKE
NUDES!
Ten years ago, in August 2008, Russia and Georgia went to war over South Ossetia, a small
separatist Georgian region which Moscow would later controversially recognise as independent,
in the face of international criticism.
Ten years later, Moscow has still not softened its position towards its neighbours and
its rift with the West has only deepened.
Russia launched armed action against Georgia to come to the rescue of South Ossetia, a
small pro-Russian separatist region where Tbilisi had begun a military operation. The Russian
army rapidly outnumbered the Georgian forces and threatened to take the country's
capital.
A peace treaty was finally hammered out by then-French President Nicolas Sarkozy that
led to the withdrawal of Russian forces. But Moscow recognised as independent the breakaway
regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, where it has stationed a large military presence ever
since.
Russia demonstrated its military might over the five days and showed its readiness to
defend – by force, if necessary – its interests in the region it considers its
sphere of influence .
####
Well shove that in your pipe and smoke it!
Yet again, no attribution, no name. It smacks of a thinktank piece peddled through their
Slovak branch.
But this is how things work in the West. No-on is ordered on pain of death to produce
certain items, but is is made very clear that it is in their interests to do so, from
without & from within, but remember kids, it is voluntary ! Neither
self-censorship exists. Those in positions of influence may convince themselves, but for the
rest of the great unwashed, no so much. We've already seen the system fail and produce
not only BREXIT, but other referendums contrary to EU dogma. The evidence is all around us
and plain to see, but still the structures persist in the same old ways, which only bodes
ill. Apparently they still think the sheeple are too stupid to notice let alone act.
"... It looks as if Zuckerman's 'nightmare situation' has come about. I don't know that these were ever proven reserves, and in fact I have the impression that the supposed energy bounty of the Caspian did not turn out quite as imagined, but Washington once thought – not long ago, either – that it was imperative America controlled the Caspian region because it was about 'America's energy security'. Which is another way of saying 'America must have control over and access to every oil-producing region on the planet.' ..."
"... Richardson was correct, though, that Russia 'does not share America's values'. In fact, Americans do not share America's values, in the sense that most Americans by far would not support the actions of the Saudi military in Yemen, the clever false-flag operations of the White Helmets in Syria, the deliberate destabilization of Venezuela, regime-change operations to the right and left in order to obtain governments who will facilitate American commercial and political control, and many other things that official America considers just important tools in the American Global Dominance Toolbox. ..."
"... Washington has long nurtured the dream of being Europe's primary, if not only, energy supplier, and owning the Caspian (had the reserves expectations played out) would have brought them closer to their dream. ..."
The other backstory being that NATO wanted to stick its nose in the Caspian Sea, but has been
pushed out. Not sure exactly what the pretext was. I have a piece in VZGLIAD that explains the whole
thing, but I haven't worked through it yet, will probably do a piece on my own blog in the
near future. But I have a couple of other projects in the queue first.
Dick Cheney, among others, was convinced that the Caspian Basin holds massive deposits of oil
and gas and is strategically significant for that reason.
"Central Asian resources may revert back to the control of Russia or to a Russian led
alliance. This would be a nightmare situation. We had better wake up to the dangers or one
day the certainties on which we base our prosperity will be certainties no more. The
potential prize in oil and gas riches in the Caspian sea, valued up to $4 trillion, would
give Russia both wealth and strategic dominance. The potential economic rewards of Caspian
energy will draw in their train Western military forces to protect our investment if
necessary."
Mortimer Zuckerman
Editor, U.S. News and World Report
"This is about America's energy security. Its also about preventing strategic inroads
by those who don't share our values. We are trying to move these newly independent countries
toward the West. We would like to see them reliant on Western commercial and political
interests. We've made a substantial political investment in the Caspian and it's important
that both the pipeline map and the politics come out right."
Bill Richardson
Then-U.S. Secretary Energy (1998-2000)
It looks as if Zuckerman's 'nightmare situation' has come about. I don't know that these
were ever proven reserves, and in fact I have the impression that the supposed energy bounty
of the Caspian did not turn out quite as imagined, but Washington once thought – not
long ago, either – that it was imperative America controlled the Caspian region because
it was about 'America's energy security'. Which is another way of saying 'America must have
control over and access to every oil-producing region on the planet.'
Richardson was correct, though, that Russia 'does not share America's values'. In fact,
Americans do not share America's values, in the sense that most Americans by far would not
support the actions of the Saudi military in Yemen, the clever false-flag operations of the
White Helmets in Syria, the deliberate destabilization of Venezuela, regime-change operations
to the right and left in order to obtain governments who will facilitate American commercial
and political control, and many other things that official America considers just important
tools in the American Global Dominance Toolbox.
Washington has long nurtured the dream of being Europe's primary, if not only, energy
supplier, and owning the Caspian (had the reserves expectations played out) would have
brought them closer to their dream. A pipeline network would have carried Caspian oil and gas
to Europe. Agreement among the Caspian nations was most definitely not in American interests,
and if you dig you will probably find American interventions to prevent that from coming
about.
"... Chart: Demonization of Russia centers on competition for oil and gas revenues. Pipelines to deliver oil and gas from the Middle East to Europe run through North Africa (Libya) and Syria and / or Turkey. These pipelines are substantially controlled by Western interests with imperial / colonial ties to the U.S., Britain and 'developed' Europe. Russian oil and gas did run through Ukraine, which is now negotiating to join NATO, or otherwise hits a NATO wall before entering Europe. ..."
The indictments are a major political story, but not for the reasons given in
mainstream press coverage. Once Mr. Mueller's indictment is understood to charge the
exploitation of existing social tensions (read it and decide for yourself), the FBI, which Mr.
Mueller directed from 2001 – 2013, is precisely the wrong entity to be rendering
judgment. The FBI has been America's political police since its founding in 1908. Early on
former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover led legally dubious mass
arrests of American dissidents. He practically invented the slander of conflating
legitimate dissent with foreign agency. This is the institutional backdrop from which Mr.
Mueller proceeds.
In the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s the FBI's targets included the civil rights movement, the
antiwar movement, the American Indian Movement (AIM), the Black Panther Party and any other
political organization Mr. Hoover deemed a threat. The secret (hidden) FBI program COINTELPRO was intended to
subvert political outcomes outside of allegations of criminal wrongdoing and with no regard for the lives of its
targets . Throughout its history the FBI has sided with the powerful against the powerless
to maintain an unjust social order.
Robert Mueller became FBI Director only days before the attacks of September 11, 2001. One
of his first acts as Director was to arrest 1,000 persons without any evidence of criminal
wrongdoing. None of those arrested were ever charged in association with the attacks. The frame
in which the FBI acted -- to maintain political stability threatened by 'external' forces, was
ultimately chosen by the George W. Bush administration to justify its aggressive war against
Iraq.
It is the FBI's legacy of conflating dissent with being an agent of a foreign power that Mr.
Mueller's indictment most insidiously perpetuates. Russians are 'sowing discord,' and they are
using Americans to do so, goes the allegation. Black Lives Matter and Bernie Sanders are listed
in the indictment as roadblocks to the unfettered ascension of Hillary Clinton to the
presidency. Russians are sowing discord, therefore discord is both suspect in itself and
evidence of being a foreign agent.
The posture of simple reporting at work in the indictment -- that it isn't the FBI's fault
that the Russians (allegedly) inserted themselves into the electoral process, runs against the
history of the FBI's political role, the tilt used to craft criminal charges and the facts put
forward versus those put to the side. Given the political agendas of the other agencies that
the FBI joined through the charges, they are most certainly but a small piece of a larger
story.
In the aftermath of the indictments it's easy to forget that the Pentagon created the internet ,
that the NSA
has its tentacles in all of its major chokepoints, that the CIA has been heavily
involved in funding and 'using' social media toward its own ends and that the FBI is only
reputable in the present because of Americans' near-heroic ignorance of history. The claim that
the Russian operation was sophisticated because it had corporate form and function is countered
by the fact that it was, by the various agencies' own claims, ineffectual in changing the
outcome of the election.
I Have a List
While Robert Mueller was busy charging never-to-be-tried Russians with past crimes, Dan
Coats, the Director of National Intelligence,
declared that future Russian meddling has already cast a shadow over the integrity of the
2018 election. Why the Pentagon that created the internet, the NSA that has its tentacles in
all of its major chokepoints, the CIA that has been heavily involved in funding and 'using'
social media toward its own ends and the FBI that just landed such a glorious victory of good
over evil would be quivering puddles when it comes to precluding said meddling is a question
that needs to be asked.
The political frame being put forward is that only these agencies know if particular
elections and candidates have been tainted by meddling, therefore we need to trust them to tell
us which candidates were legitimately elected and which weren't. As generous as this offer
seems, wouldn't the creation of free and fair elections be a more direct route to achieving
this end? Put differently, who among those making the offer, whether personally or as
functionaries of their respective agencies, has a demonstrated history of supporting democratic
institutions?
The 2016 election was apparently a test case for posing these agencies as the meddling
police. By getting the bourgeois electocracy -- liberal Democrats, to agree that the loathsome
Trump is illegitimate, future candidates will be vetted by the CIA, NSA and FBI with impunity.
It's apparently only the pre-'discord, ' the social angst that the decade of the Great
Recession left as its residual, that shifts this generous offer from the deterministic to the
realm of the probable. The social conditions that led to the Great Recession and its aftermath
are entirely home grown.
More broadly, how do the government agencies and people that spent the better part of the
last century undermining democracy at home and abroad intend to stop 'Russian meddling?' If the
FBI couldn't disentangle home grown 'discord' from that allegedly exploited and exacerbated by
the Russians, isn't the likely intention to edit out all discord? And if fake news is a problem
in need of addressing, wouldn't the
New York Times and the Washington Post have
been shut down years ago?
The Great Satin (sic)
While Russia is the villain of the day, week and year due to alleged election 'meddling,'
the process of demonization that Russia has undergone has shown little variation from (alleged)
villain to villain. It is thanks to cable news and the 'newspaper of record' that the true
villainy of Vladimir Putin, Muammar Gadhafi, Saddam Hussein, Nicolas Maduro and the political
leadership of Iran has been revealed. In the face of such monsters, questions of motivation are
moot. Why wouldn't Mr. Putin 'sow discord?'
The question as yet unasked, and therefore unanswered is: is there something besides base
villainy that brought these national leaders, and the nations they lead, into the crosshairs of
America's fair and wise leadership? This question might forever go unanswered were it not for
the secret list from which their names were apparently drawn. No, not that secret list. This one is publicly available -- hiding in plain sight, as it
were. It is the list of proven oil reserves by country (below). This is no doubt unduly
reductive -- evil is as evil does, but read on.
The question of how such a list could divide so evenly between heroes and villains I leave
to the philosophers. On second thought, no I won't. The heroes are allies of a small cadre of
America's political and economic elite who have made themselves fabulously rich through the
alliances. The villains have oil, gas, pipelines and other resources that this elite wants.
Reductive, yes. But this simple list certainly appears to explain American foreign policy over
the last half-century quite well.
Source: gulfbusiness.com
It's almost as if America's love for humanity, as demonstrated through humanitarian
interventions, is determined by imperial competition for natural resources -- in this case oil
and gas. Amongst these countries, only one (Canada) is 'democratic' in the American sense of
being run by a small cadre of plutocrats who use the state to further their own interests. Two
-- Iraq and Libya, were recently reduced to rubble (for the sake of humanity) by the U.S.
Nigeria is being 'brought' under the control of AFRICOM. What remains are various and sundry
petro-states plus Venezuela and Russia.
Following the untimely death of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, the horrible tyrant kept in office
via free
and fair elections , who used Venezuela's petro-dollars to feed, clothe and educate his
people and was in the process of creating a regional Left alliance to counter American abuse of
power, the CIA joined with local
plutocrats to overthrow his successor, Nicolas Maduro. The goal: to 'liberate' Venezuela's oil
revenues in their own pockets. At the moment Mr. Maduro is down the list of villains, not
nearly the stature of a 'new Hitler' like Vladimir Putin. But where he ends up will depend on
how successfully the CIA (with Robert Mueller's help) can drum up a war against nuclear armed
Russia.
What separates Russia from the other heroes and villains on the list is its history as a
competing empire as well as the manner in which Russian oil and gas is distributed. Geography
placed it closer to the population centers of Europe than to Southeastern China where Chinese
economic development has been concentrated. This makes Europe a 'natural' market for Russian
oil and gas.
The former Soviet state of Ukraine did stand between, or rather under, Russian pipelines and
Europe until Hillary Clinton had her lieutenants engineer a coup there in 2014. In contrast to
the 'new Hitler' of Mr. Putin (or was that Trump?) Mrs. Clinton and her comrades demonstrated a
preference for the old Hitler in the form of Ukrainian fascists who were the ideological
descendants of 'authentic' WWII Nazis. But rest assured, not all of the U.S.'s allies in this
affair
were ideological Nazis .
Chart: Demonization of Russia centers on competition for oil and gas revenues. Pipelines
to deliver oil and gas from the Middle East to Europe run through North Africa (Libya) and
Syria and / or Turkey. These pipelines are substantially controlled by Western interests with
imperial / colonial ties to the U.S., Britain and 'developed' Europe. Russian oil and gas did
run through Ukraine, which is now negotiating to join NATO, or otherwise hits a NATO wall
before entering Europe.
In contrast to the alternative hypotheses given
in the American press, NATO, the geopolitical extension of the U.S. military in Europe,
admits that the U.S.
engineered coup in Ukraine was 'about' oil geopolitics with Russia. The American storyline
that Crimea was seized by Russia ignores that the Russian navy has had a Black Sea port in Crimea for decades. How
amenable, precisely, might Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and his friends be if
Russia seized a major U.S. naval port given their generous offer to take over the U.S.
electoral system because of a few Russian trolls?
Although Russia is toward the bottom of the top ten countries in terms of oil reserves, it
faces a problem of distribution that the others don't. Imperial ties and recent military
incursions have left the distribution of oil and gas from the Middle East to Europe largely
under Western control. Syria, Turkey and North Africa are necessary to moving this oil and gas
through pipelines to Europe. That Syria, Libya and Turkey are now, or recently have been,
militarily contested adds credence to the contention that the 'international community's'
heroes and villains are largely determined by whose hands their oil and gas resources are
currently in.
Democratic Party loyalists who see Putin, Maduro et al as the problem first need to
answer for the candidate they put forward in 2016. Hillary Clinton led the carnage in Libya
that murdered
30,000 – 50,000 innocents for Western oil and gas interests. Russia didn't force the
U.S. into its calamitous invasion of Iraq. Russia didn't take Americans' jobs, houses and
pensions in the Great Recession. Russia didn't reward Wall Street for causing it. Democrats
need to take responsibility for their failed candidates and their failed Party.
Part of the point in relating oil reserves to American foreign entanglements is that the
countries and leaders involved are incidental. Vladimir Putin certainly seems smarter than the
American leadership. But this has no bearing on whether or not his leadership of Russia is
broadly socially beneficial. The only possible resolution of climate crisis requires both
Russia and the U.S. to greatly reduce their use of fossil fuels. Reports have it that Mr. Putin
has no interest in doing so. And once the marketing chatter is set to the side, neither do the
Americans.
By placing themselves as arbiters of the electoral process, the Director of National
Intelligence and the heads of the CIA, NSA and FBI can effectively control it. Is it accidental
that the candidate of liberal Democrats in the 2016 election was the insiders' -- the
intelligence agencies' and military contractors,' candidate as well? Implied is that these
agencies and contractors are now 'liberal.' Good luck with that program if you value peace and
prosperity.
There are lots of ways to create free and fair elections if that is the goal. Use
paper ballots that are counted in public, automatically register all eligible voters, make
election days national holidays and eliminate 'private' funding of electoral campaigns. But why
make elections free and fair when fanciful nonsense about 'meddling' will convince the liberal
class to deliver power to grey corpses in the CIA, NSA and FBI for the benefit of a tiny cabal
of stupendously rich plutocrats. Who says America isn't already great?
The USA can't compete on price and volume. But dir to dvassal status of EU can still force
"diversification"
Notable quotes:
"... As a result, Europeans are deciding to stick with the Russians while finding new options in the east, such as Turkey and Azerbaijan. This is creating competition if not tensions in present and potential gas transit countries in southeastern and eastern Europe, for example. ..."
Russia has advanced forward in something of a tactical and potential strategic victory in
the Russo-Western gas war. This is a three-party war, with the US, EU, and Russia each
promoting separate interests. It is one sphere where a united West has failed to 'isolate
Russia.' The US seeks move in on the European energy market with LNG supplies and replace
Russian pipeline-delivered natural gas supplies to Europe. Washington is using the risks of
dependence on Russian gas and Russia's 'bad behavior' as leverage in attempting to convince
Europeans to reject Russia's Nord Stream 2 pipeline. Russia is said to be unreliable and prone
to shut off gas supplies to Europe.
Due to past Russian-Ukrainian gas crises, the Ukrainian crisis, and general Russian-Western
tensions, Europe has decided on a gas diversification policy in which each EU member should
have at least three sources of natural gas supply. One additional option that could facilitate
this diversification policy is US liquified natural gas (LNG), but the US is still unable to
supply enough LNG to offset Russian gas supplies that might be rejected by Europe. In the
process, Washington is looking less like a 'team West' player and more like a solely
self-interested power maximizer in European eyes and therefore no more reliable than Moscow. As
a result, Europeans are deciding to stick with the Russians while finding new options in the
east, such as Turkey and Azerbaijan. This is creating competition if not tensions in present
and potential gas transit countries in southeastern and eastern Europe, for example.
The Battle Over Re-Sale: No Victors
One recent battle was largely inconclusive, but if a victor has to be designated it may be
Moscow. In May, the European Commssion concluded a settlement with Russia's Gazprom in May
ending a seven-year anti-trust dispute. In return for the EU dropping billions of dollars in
penalty fees, GazProm agreed to end limitations on the use of gas purchased by EU members,
allow them to re-sell the gas. Some EU members, such as Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia,
Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Slovakia have re-sold or wanted to re-sell gas. Moscow
frowned, for example, on Slovakia's resale of natural gas to Ukraine at cheaper prices than
Moscow sought to charge Kiev. The agreement will also restrict Moscow's ability to charge
different countries different prices. So EU members in central and eastern Europe can get a
price close to that paid by Germany and appeal to an arbitration court in case of a dispute.
The agreement guarantees Russia's presence on the European gas market at a time when the
latter's reliance on the former has peaked.
The Northern Front: Nord Stream 2
At the same time, the battle over Russia' Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline has heated up.
When it comes on line in 2019, the 759-mile pipeline will carry GazProm natural gas along the
bed of the Baltic Sea to Germany and double the supply Nord Stream pipeline's current annual
capacity of 55 billion cubic meters (bcm). The Trump administration has threatened yet more
sanctions on third-party companies, this time with those that work on the pipeline. The US
sanctions threat is an attempt to promote American LNG interests as well as to protect
Ukrainian interests, though it contradicts the view that Ukraine should eschew its dependence
on Russian gas.
US officials have been hammering home to Europeans the 'Russian threat' in tandem with the
risk of reliance on Russian gas may pose, which will increase with Nord tream 2, but to no
avail. Public opinion is not working in the US favor, with Germans trusting Moscow more than
Washington, despite all the crimes laid at the Kremlin's door by the West. A recent ZDF
Television opinion survey found that only 14 percent of Germans regard the U.S. as a reliable
partner, while 36 percent view Russia as reliable (
www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-17/trump-s-global-disruption-pushes-merkel-closer-to-putin-s-orbit
). Thus, notwithstanding Ukraine, Syria and alleged chemical attacks, Russiagate, and the
Skrypals, GazProm's supplies to Europe have risen to hold nearly 40 percent of its gas market,
growing last year by 8.1 percent last year to a record level of 193.9 billion cubic metres
(bcm).
Nevertheless, with the EU decision, the U.S., Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania and others have
stepped up their pressure on Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark and other western Eureopean EU
members to abandon the Nord Stream 2 project. Germans and other western Europeans are unlikely
to give up the short-term gain of energy security for the US LNG given the higher price and
unproven nature of Washington's numerous allegations against the Kremlin. German officials say
they still have no proof from 10 Downing on Russia's culpability for the Skrypal poisoning so
loudly trumpeted by British PM Theresa May.
One motivation for the Russians in building Nord Stream 2 is to obviate the need to
transport gas through Ukraine, which will hurt Ukraine's own energy supply – given
Ukrainian skimming -- and overall economy beyond the present non-sale of Russian gas to
Ukraine. Another Russian motivation is to avert the unreliable Ukrainians, who have failed to
make payments according to contract in the past causing Russian gas cutoffs to Ukraine and thus
Europe with the resulting crises blamed solely on Moscow. The Trump sanctions threat has put
Germany and the other Nord Stream 2 supporting countries between a rock and a hard place,
between Russia and the US. Therefore, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, while supporting Nord
Stream 2, has called for guarantees from Russia that Ukraine will remain a gas transit country.
Ukraine's current contract with Russia ends in 2019 at the very time Nord Stream 2 is to go on
line and the EU has urged re-starting EU-mediated negotiatons now in order to avoid another gas
crisis. Putin agreed to do this at his meeting with Germany's merkel in late May. Nord Stream 2
significantly strengthens Putin's hand in any such talks.
The Southern Front: Turkish Stream, SGC and the Azeri and Bulgarian Factors
Russia is strengtheining its position on the European gas war's southern front by building
the Turkish Stream (TS) gas pipeline to Europe. TS consists of a sea and a land leg. The former
runs under the Black Sea from Russia to Turkey and is built, with Russo-Turkish talks on the
land leg ongoing.
Russia's Turkish Stream is being challenged by the Southern Gas Corridor (SGC) backed by
Western powers, including the EU (along with Turkey and Azerbaijan), which sees the SGC as a
means of diversifying from dependence on Russia. Not just Turkey, but Azerbaijan is emerging as
a major player on the EU gas market, with a shift in policy accenting gas supplies to Europe as
well as oil supplies as in the past. The SGC consists of three components: an expanded South
Caucasus Pipeline and the to be constructed Trans-Anatolian Natural Gas Pipeline (TANAP) and
Trans-Adriatic Pipeline (TAP). TANAP is 51 percent Azerbaijani owned, 37 percent Turkish, and
12 percent belonging to British Petroleum. The SGC will carry Azerbaijani gas through Turkey to
Europe and will be able to supply up to one-third of the gas consumed by Bulgaria, Greece and
Italy ( https://en.trend.az/business/energy/2910573.html
). However, the source of the gas supplying the pipeline demonstrates the limits of Western
attempts to isolate Russia (and Iran). Azerbaijan's Shah-Deniz gas field is co-owned by British
Petroleum (29 percent), Turkey's Turkish Petroleum (19 percent), Azerbaijan's SOCAR (17
percent), Malaysia's Petronas (15 percent), Russia's LukOil (10 percent), and Iran's NICO (10
percent). Moreover, Russia's LukOil is negotiating with SOCAR a stake in Azerbaijan's
second-largest gas field, Umid-Babek, which also includes Britain's Nobel Upstream (
https://newsbase.com/topstories/lukoil-talks-join-umid-babek-project?utm_campaign=466286_GERD%2031%20May%202018&utm_medium=email&utm_source=NewsBase%20LTD&dm_i=4NTN,9ZSE,2Q5R2D,13DVS,1
).
Again the Ukrainian issue is part of the picture here, as a good portion of GasProm supplies
to Bulgaria go through Ukraine. Turkish Stream can replace at least some of that supply should
Moscow decide to entirely avert Ukraine's pipeline system. It is of interest that no one in the
West has offered to include in any of these projects or attempted to fashion a pipeline or
pipeline extension that could link up with the Ukrainian network.
During Bulgarian President Rumen Radev's late may visit to Moscow, Putin reported to Radev
that during his meetings with Turkish President Recip Tayyip Erdogan, the latter said he would
pose no oppsotion to extending the Turkish Stream gas pipeline to Bulgaria. In response, Radev
seemed to suggest making Bulgaria a "a gas redistribution center, a hub" for the Turkish
Stream's supplies further into Europe ( http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/57608
). Moreover, one gets the impression that Bulgaria is wary more about its dependence on Turkey
and Ankara's new offensive energy policy in Europe than on Russia and might help Moscow detour
Ukraine. In 2015, Erdogan declared a major policy initiative of making Turkey a, if not
the major energy transit hub for supplies heading from the east to Europe. Russia's
annexation of Crimea could help Russia in its talks both with Erdogan over the Turkish Stream
and pose the threat of undermining the SGC. It may also help Putin deal with Merkel, Kiev and
the EU over the Ukraine pipeline system's future role. Bulgarian President Radev also said in
Moscow that Sofia supports building a direct gas pipeline under the Black Sea to bring Russian
gas to Bulgaria ( https://echo.msk.ru/news/2206394-echo.html ).
The Bulgarian option could be used by Putin to threaten Erdogan with reducing the Turkish
Stream's supplies or abandoning it altogether in favor of a Black Sea Russian-Bulgarian Stream
and to reduce Russia's dependence on Ukraine as well.
US wants to leverage his dominance in Europe into gas market. That's can work as long as gas
is plentiful. As soon as it became a scarcity the situation will radically change.
This month, the Wall Street Journal
reported that U.S. President Donald Trump has been pressuring Germany to drop its support
for a major new Russian gas pipeline if Europe wants to avoid a trade war with Washington,
while a senior U.S. diplomat warned that the project could be hit with U.S. sanctions; Russian
President Vladimir Putin responded
defiantly . This development, sadly, fuels the further politicization of the European gas
market -- a space that, in many ways, has reflected the triumphs of a depoliticized, pro-market
technocracy, which has managed to stimulate competition and lower prices irrespective of
changing political trends. Just last year, Trump called on European countries to buy American
liquefied natural gas, or LNG, which, for now, remains more expensive than Russia's pipeline
gas. Certainly, the U.S. has much to gain on the global gas market, which has changed
drastically over the past decade, as America rapidly transformed from an importer to an
exporter. Europe's gas market, meanwhile, has much to gain from additional supply. But Trump's
approach, especially if the latest reports are true, both alienates Western European partners
and feeds into a sensationalist, simplistic portrayal of the new U.S. role's effect on Russia
-- as a zero-sum game, in which these new, plentiful U.S. gas supplies serve as an antidote to
Russia's "gas dominance" in Europe and hence to Moscow's political leverage.
In fact, even if Russia remains Europe's dominant gas supplier in the coming years -- as is
likely -- it now has to play by EU rules and vie hard for market share, ultimately benefiting
European consumers. America's gas boom has catalyzed this thriving competition, but an equally
important factor has been a massive, long-term investment in infrastructure and regulation by
Brussels. These EU efforts have done a great deal to weaken Moscow's geopolitical "gas power,"
which has never been uniform across the continent. Today, gas is a prized commodity but not a
major weapon in East-West relations: Russia's gas leverage cannot harm the West, and neither
does competition with U.S. gas pose a major threat to Russia as a state or, for now, to its gas
behemoth, Gazprom. Moreover, in the near to medium term, Russian and U.S. gas companies may
face many
challenges in common : Both will be competing against new, price-lowering producers and
grappling with ever "greener" regulations on the European market, while also trying to profit
from Asia's thirst for energy.
How cheap could Russia produce to compete with growing US LNG exports?
Gazprom needs price around 4 $ per mmbtu in Europe to be profitable. Today in Europe are close to 8 $. US LNG long term imho
need about 8 to 9 $ per mbbtu.
European
Union representatives told me that they would start buying soybeans from our great farmers immediately. Also, they will be buying
vast amounts of LNG!
Hysteria is at fever pitch. After the NATO summit in Brussels, the definitive Decline of the West has been
declared a done deal as President Trump gets ready to meet President Putin in Helsinki.
It was Trump himself who
stipulated that he wants to talk to Putin behind closed doors, face-to-face, without any aides and, in theory,
spontaneously, after the preparatory meeting between Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Russian Foreign Minister
Sergey Lavrov was canceled. The summit will take place at the early 19
th
century Presidential Palace in
Helsinki, a former residence of Russian emperors.
As a preamble to Helsinki, Trump's spectacular NATO blitzkrieg was a show for the ages; assorted "leaders" in
Brussels simply didn't know what hit them. Trump didn't even bother to arrive on time for morning sessions dealing
with the possible accession of Ukraine and Georgia. Diplomats confirmed to Asia Times that after Trump's stinging
"pay up or else" tirade, Ukraine and Georgia were asked to leave the room because what would be discussed was
strictly an internal NATO issue.
Previewing the summit, Eurocrats indulged in interminable carping about "illiberalism" taking over, from Viktor
Orban in Hungary to Sultan Erdogan in Turkey, as well as mourning the "destruction of European unity" (yes, it's
always Putin's fault). Trump though would have none of it. The US President conflates the EU with NATO,
interpreting the EU as a rival, just like China, but much weaker. As for the US "deal" with NATO, just like NAFTA,
that's a bad deal.
NATO is 'obsolete'
Trump is correct that without the US, NATO is "obsolete" – as in non-existent. So essentially what he did in
Brussels laid bare the case for NATO as a protection racket, with Washington fully entitled to up the stakes for
the "protection".
But "protection" against what?
Since the dismemberment of Yugoslavia, when NATO was repositioned in its new role as humanitarian imperialist
global Robocop, the alliance's record is absolutely dismal.
That features miserably losing an endless war in Afghanistan against a bunch of Pashtun warriors armed with
Kalashnikov replicas; turning functional Libya into a militia wasteland and headquarters for Europe-bound
refugees; and having the NATO-Gulf Cooperation Council lose its bet on a galaxy of jihadis and crypto-jihadis in
Syria spun as "moderate rebels".
NATO has launched a new training, non-combat mission in Iraq; 15 years after Shock and Awe, Sunnis, Shi'ites,
Yazidis and even Kurdish factions are not impressed.
Then there's the NATO Readiness Initiative; the capacity of deploying 30 battalions, 30 battleships and 30
aircraft squadrons within 30 days (or less) by 2020. If not to wreak selected havoc across the Global South, this
initiative is supposedly set up to deter "Russian aggression".
So after dabbling with the Global War on Terror, NATO is essentially back to the original "threat"; the
imminent Russian invasion of Western Europe – a ludicrous notion if there ever was one. The
final
statement
in Brussels spells it out, with special emphasis on item 6 and item 7.
The combined GDP of all NATO members is 12 times that of Russia. And NATO's defense spending is six times
larger than Russia's. Contrary to non-stop Polish and Baltic hysteria, Russia does not need to "invade" anything;
what worries the Kremlin, in the long term, is the well being of ethnic Russians living in former Soviet
republics.
Russia can't be both threat and an energy partner
Then there's Europe's energy policy – and that's a completely different story.
Trump has described the Nord Stream 2 pipeline as "inappropriate", but his claim that Germany gets 70% of its
energy (via natural gas imports) from Russia may be easily debunked. Germany gets at best 9% of its energy from
Russia. In terms of Germany's
sources
of energy
, only 20% is natural gas. And less than 40% of natural gas in Germany comes from Russia. Germany is
fast transitioning towards wind, solar, biomass and hydro energy, which made up 41% of the total in 2018. And the
target is 50% by 2030.
Yet Trump does have a sterling point when, stressing that "Germany is a rich country", he wants to know
why America should
"protect
you against Russia"
when energy deals are on the table. "Explain that! It can't be explained!" as he
reportedly said to Nato Secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg on Wednesday.
In the end, of course, it's all about business. What Trump is really aiming at is for Germany to import US
shale gas, three times more expensive than pipeline-delivered Russian gas.
The energy angle is directly linked to the never-ending 2% defense spending soap opera. Germany currently
spends 1.2% of GDP on NATO. by 2024, it's supposed to reach at best 1.5%. And that's it. The majority of German
voters, in fact, want US troops
out
.
So Trump's demand for 4% of GDP on defense spending for all NATO members will never fly. The sales pitch should
be seen for what it is: a tentative "invitation" for an increased EU and NATO shopping spree on US military
hardware.
In a nutshell, the key factor remains that Trump's Brussels blitzkrieg did make his case. Russia cannot be a
"threat" and a reliable energy partner at the same time. As much as NATO poodles may be terrified of "Russian
aggression", the facts spell out they won't put their money where their rhetorical hysteria is.
Foreign ministers attend a working dinner during the NATO Summit in Brussels on July 11, 2018. They gathered to
discuss Russia, Iraq and their mission in Afghanistan. Photo: AFP/ pool/ Yves Herman
Are you listening now?
"Russian aggression" should be one of the top items discussed in Helsinki. In the – remote – possibility that
Trump will strike a deal with Putin, NATO's absurd
raison d'etre
would be even more exposed.
That's not the US "deep-state" agenda, of course, thus the 24/7 demonization of the summit even before it
happens. Moreover, for Trump, the transactional gambling man's Make-America-Great-Again point of view, the ideal
outcome would always be to get even more European weapons deals for the US industrial-military-intelligence
complex.
Terrified by Trump, diplomats in Brussels over these past few days have conveyed to Asia Times fears about the
end of NATO, the end of the World Trade Organization, even the end of the EU. But the fact remains that Europe is
absolutely peripheral to the Big Picture.
In
Losing Military Supremacy
, his latest, groundbreaking book, crack Russian military-naval analyst
Andrei
Martyanov
deconstructs in detail how, "the United States faces two nuclear and industrial superpowers, one of
which fields a world-class armed forces. If the military-political, as opposed to merely economic, alliance
between Russia and China is ever formalized – this will spell the final doom for the United States as a global
power."
The US deep state (its influential bureaucrats) may be wallowing in perpetual denial, but Trump – after many a
closed-door meeting with Henry Kissinger – may have understood the suicidal "strategy" of Washington
simultaneously antagonizing Russia and China.
Putin's landmark
March
1 speech
, as Martyanov stresses, was an effort to "coerce America's elites, if not into peace, at least into
some form of sanity, given that they are currently completely detached from the geopolitical, military and
economic realities of the newly emerging power configurations of the world". These elites may not be listening,
but Trump seems to indicate he is.
As for the NATO poodles, all they can do is watch.
"... Global Energy Dominance is now part of the US National security Strategy. Although not labeled as global, when reading through the energy dominance section of the NSS, it can clearly been seen to be global. This is not just about sell oil produced in the US. Trump is going for the Achilles heel of Eurasia - energy. ..."
"... Rather than a creative accounting scam that simply racks up huge amounts of debt, Trump is looking for a monopoly or near monopoly business to take over and rake in the profits. ..."
"... As for oil supremacy. This has been an Anglo-american joint venture for over a century and was one reason for WWI being fought as well as the Balfour Declaration to give the Brits a future pro-British state in the region at some point. ..."
"... As for Saudi oil, this was lockef up well before 1945. It was left untouched by the British after WWI and King Saud handed the concessions to the Americans in 1933 because he felt they had no imperialist designs like the British. He was not a fan of the British due to various skirmishes before he solidified power and Saudi borders. . ..."
The latest article at the Saker site by Rostislav Ishchenko - Trump's Geopolitical Cruise - I
think is the best take on Trump's and his backers mindset. Worth a read and covers what I
think was the cause of the split in the US elite.
The petro dollar, kicking off in the late 70s was a piece of creative accounting to give
unlimited credit. This should have been ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, but
greed got the better of most. Trump and the people backing him could see that this was now in
its terminal stages and US close to collapse itself.
Rostislav Ishchenko, like many thinks that Trump is pulling the US back to a form of
isolation from the world, but I don't think this is the case.
Global Energy Dominance is now part of the US National security Strategy. Although not
labeled as global, when reading through the energy dominance section of the NSS, it can
clearly been seen to be global. This is not just about sell oil produced in the US.
Trump is going for the Achilles heel of Eurasia - energy.
Rather than a creative accounting scam that simply racks up huge amounts of debt, Trump is
looking for a monopoly or near monopoly business to take over and rake in the profits.
Russia supply energy to Eurasia from the North. The opening for the Trump mob is in the
south. The meet with Putin may well be to sound out the possibilities of forming a cartel.
Putin/Russia is also the only entity that can prevent Trump's US from simply walking in and
taking over the rich energy hub (Mafia style) to the south of Eurasia.
"Global Energy Dominance is now part of the US National security Strategy."
Yes, it absolutely is. But this is not a new "Trump policy." Certainly Zbiginew Brzezenski
laid this out quite clearly in his 1997 book, "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its
Geostrategic Imperatives." It's really all in there, just as you're now identifying. If you
can't take the time to read it, please consider at least reading some book reviews. As I've
noted before, Ziggy apparently didn't foresee Putin rising to power and restoring the Russian
state, which threw the proverbial monkey wrench into the globalists' plans, but really, US
foreign policy has continued to follow his plans otherwise.
Kissinger has written much the same, though I don't recall in which books/articles. This
page from the US Navy seems a fine reading list, designed as it appears to indoctrinate
officers in AZ Empire geopolitics.
IMO, the US took the lead in the Empire's Global Energy Dominance quest when FDR met with
King Saud on Great Bitter Lake in the Suez Canal in 1945 (swinging by after the final
post-war world planning meeting with Churchill and Stalin at Yalta). This was when the US
largely replaced Great Britain in primacy over Asian/Middle Eastern energy dominance.
The US is in the Persian Gulf to stay. Trumps face face meet with Putin will be so Trump
can try and gauge what Putin will do - if he will run any blocking moves, his reaction to a
fait accompli ect. Most likely a few more face to face meetings before any move on Iran.
Peter, thanks for pointing out the new and unwanted US base in Iraq. I just read that the US
was building the world's largest Embassy Compound in "Iraqi Kurdistan." I wonder it they're
the same thing?
In a quick web search, failing to find an answer, I noticed that besides the "Green Zone"
compound we built in Baghdad at the start of the current military occupation, the record
holder was the US Embassy Compound in Pakistan.
James and I have discoursed here a bit on the history of US military occupations since WW
II. Boils down to the US has never removed its military from any country it's occupied with
the exception of Vietnam.
veritas semper vincit @103 linked blogpost notes that the US has 40,000 troops still
occupying Germany. His (I presume) post is quite entertaining considering the severe
seriousness of the topic.
Dis is a nice little country ya gotz heyah. Id be a shame if sumpin' bad was ta happen to
it.
Have to disagree on the impact of FDR meeting with Saudi Arabias King Saud. That was more
about feeling him out on a future Israeli state in Palestine. His death a couple of months
later may have been related because King Saud made an impression on FDR as to what an Israeli
state would mean for peace in the region. Also, FDR was close to Uncle Joe and unlikely to
back the planned Cold War supported by some of the same folks wanting a destabilized Middle
East and preventing a rebirth of the Ottoman Empire which would control much of the worlds
oil reserves.
As for oil supremacy. This has been an Anglo-american joint venture for over a century and
was one reason for WWI being fought as well as the Balfour Declaration to give the Brits a
future pro-British state in the region at some point.
As for Saudi oil, this was lockef up well before 1945. It was left untouched by the
British after WWI
and King Saud handed the concessions to the Americans in 1933 because he felt they had no
imperialist designs like the British. He was not a fan of the British due to various
skirmishes before he solidified power and Saudi borders. .
"The 1933 concession agreement
between Saudi Arabia and Standard Oil of California (SOCAL) went like this: SOCAL could
search for and produce oil in eastern Saudi Arabia -- a region 20 percent larger than the
state of Texas -- for 60 years; it also received preferential rights to explore elsewhere in
the future. The kingdom received an immediate loan of £30,000 in gold and, 18 months
later, another loan of £20,000 in gold -- an amount equivalent to about $250,000 today
-- plus yearly rentals of £5000 and royalties of four shillings in gold -- about $1 --
per ton of oil produced. (Only later would oil be measured in barrels.)"
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak said on Friday that a deal under which
Russia would provide goods to Iran in exchange for oil is still possible.
Russia is studying all legal issues related to the possible deal, he said.
Looks like OPEC 14 peaked two years. Can they beat it?, perhaps by a small amount in a world
without chaos.
Today orange fatty called out Germany for being captive to Russia. I'm pretty sure he was
referring to German dependence on imported fossil energy from Russia.
As of 2015 Germany net energy imports are 64% of total [USA 12% for comparison]. If this
means 'captive', then perhaps we should acknowledge that 11 of our top 13 trading partners
are highly dependent on imported energy from either Russia or the big OPEC producers.
'Captives' so to speak. Better get used to that idea, and learn how to get along with
others. Only Canada and Mexico aren't 'captives', but we don't look to good at being friends
with them either.
"... Trump seems to enjoy antagonizing the Europeans one way or the other. As to NATO, Trump made the same complaints during his campaign while calling it "obsolete." Sometimes it sounds like he would rather have the US out of NATO. One theory I have is that he is limited in what he can do so he works around TPTBs to get closer to his goals. So he antagonizes and threatens Europe on NATO. The same goes for Syria. He talked about wanting to pull out but kept being drawn back in by the usual suspects. So he's pulled monetary support in certain cases and refused to dig the US in any deeper than it is. And it will be interesting to see what happens with his upcoming meeting with Putin considering how much he had to backtrack on his talk of better relations during his campaign. Those who've wanted him to join the "hate Russia" team may get frustrated. ..."
"... Within this new "mulit-polar" world, only Russia is cutting its military budge. And they still seem to have at least one of the most effective conventional war-fighting capability, and their next generation nuclear deterrence looks nothing short of awesome. They have pipelines to build, and like China, long-term economic contracts to sign. ..."
"... I'm no fan of Angela, but she/Germany have been trying to tamp down this AZ Empire New Cold War against Russia since at least 2013. When she, Putin, Yanukovych (elected President of Ukraine) and the leaders of the Maidan protests got together and signed an agreement in which Yanukovych acquiesced to essentially all of the "peaceful, pro-democracy protesters'" demands, it was the Asst. Secretary of the US State (Vickie Nuland) who said, "F*ck the EU" "We can midwife this thing" and even appointed the new PM "Yats is the guy." ..."
"... The US can't keep funding your crappy little joke of a disintegrating "European Union" for ever. Sooner or later you'll have to put on big-boy pants. ..."
"... USA govt's assessment of China and Russia as "revisionist" should be understood as a determination to remain the hegemonic power. Thus, we have Cold War II. From that perspective, European objections to more "defense" spending are considered naive (or worse) as Europe's fate is views as tied to that of the Empire. ..."
"... I think European elites are much more likely to side with USA than European people. If the Trump's talk with Putin doesn't go well, we are likely to see increased scaremongering to rectify public opinion. ..."
"... Chaos can make doing business harder, but that can also increase profits. As the posters said in the '60s, "War Is Not Good For Children And Other Living Things." But it's great for the psychopaths. ..."
"... Here is an article that explains the relationship between Russian pipelines, USA sanctions on Russia, MH17, Crimea, and Syria. It is an excellent background to comprehend Trump's accusations about Germany's purchase of gas from Russia. Patrick Armstrong and Pat Lang seem to think that Trump is about to cut NATO support, reduce/eliminate sanctions against Russia, and redirect relations with Israel, but I am not persuaded. https://www.unz.com/article/why-was-malaysian-airlines-flight-mh17-shot-down/ by Kees van der Pijl He also wrote a book on this topic. ..."
"... Everything the US does works to undermine its old power in the new world. We see this continually. Trump is an accelerator. But whether any of this is intentional and actually desired by a part of US vested interests, is still an open question. ..."
"... Nevertheless, as we watch, we see every action of the US working to cement the bonds of its opposition in the rest of the world. From the Escobar article linked by karlof1 above, we see the pressure on the Middle East to reject the US and turn for safety to the Eurasian institutions of commerce, finance and national security. The same thing is happening to Europe. ..."
"... he equation as it stands now is this: A muscle-bound USA + an anaemic Europe "deterring" a Russian Federation that has no intention of invading. ..."
"... Since Russia is no threat either way then there is no need - none whatsoever - for the Europeans to increase their military expenditure to "defend themselves" against a non-existent Russian threat. ..."
"... Indeed, the only reason the Europeans would feel that they might have to prepare to "defend themselves" would be because that muscle-bound US military is now outside the tent pissing in, not inside the tent pissing out. ..."
"... Since whenever, America has been the proxy front for the current instantiation of empire with the core of control being ongoing private finance with global tools like BIS, IMF, World Bank, etc. Since WWII and even before the goal of empire is to have all of the world under its control. Since the engine of empire is a supra-national matrix of private finance control, the enemy becomes any nations who do not want to be impregnated with the Western model of private Central Bank, an oligarchy , inheritance, private property, etc. ..."
"... The empire model of growth through wars and boom/bust expansion has reached its "logical" limits and the the existential question has become, blow everything all up or agree to a multipolar world. I think that the elite hope Trump's bluster will make it so they do not have to answer that existential question.....yet ..."
"... If Trump's fake argument gambit was intended to inspire people inside and outside the EU to think outside the box then it seems to have worked. ..."
"... I LUV how Trump stomped on all those preaning European elite scumbags. ..."
"... Agree with Patrick. It is surprising to still see so much animosity towards a president who has done more to combat the absurdity of NATO and globalism than I can remember any other President doing. The ball is in the EU elites court, now. Put up or shut up and I believe it makes no difference to Trump. We are about to find out who is REALLY to blame for marching lockstep with the current of hypercentralization (globalism): the Trump admin or the EU elitez. ..."
"... The US has been manipulating NATO ever since it was formed. Most NATO officials are vetted by the US. Trump is an idiot, like the bulk of US politicians. ..."
"... Trump's "reasoning" makes sense in an infantile sort of way, but there's more too it than meets the eye, is there not? Trump doesn't just want to Europe to "pay their fair share" for NATO, which we all know is code for buying more US mil.gear but also to buy their LNG from US too. It's like NATO is some sort of grotesque, evil franchise where the franchisees can only buy goods/services from that single source, even though it's crap & inordinately expensive, and even if you can get it cheaper elsewhere, i.e Russia. ..."
"... Wow! You don't feel that Trump has, by his mere existence and by winning the presidency, been given a platform of which to decry the myriad injustices of globalization and to utter things unspeakable by any Prez in the last fifty years? ..."
"... Europe has an arms industry of their own. I doubt European countries invest their money into US stuff - they buy their own. Most of the money does not go into weapons anyway, but personel and administration. Germany contributes to the maintenance and infrastructure of US bases, but those bases are business, too. This is not Saudi Arabia buying protection. The real news is that Trump has started a trade war negotiating by tantrum. ..."
You are agreeing with an idiot, no matter what...Europe has nothing to worry about with
regards to Russia. Unless they threaten Russia. 'Love this exchange at breakfast;
"Stoltenberg: [ ] I think that two World Wars and the Cold War taught us that we
are stronger together than apart.
Trump: But how can you be together when a country is getting its energy from the
person you want protection against or from the group that you want protection?
Stoltenberg: Because we understand that when we stand together, also in dealing
with Russia, we are stronger. I think what we have seen is that --
Trump: No, you're just making Russia richer. You're not dealing with Russia.
You're making Russia richer."
You'd have to be an idiot not to agree with Trump here.
Trump seems to enjoy antagonizing the Europeans one way or the other. As to NATO, Trump
made the same complaints during his campaign while calling it "obsolete." Sometimes it sounds
like he would rather have the US out of NATO. One theory I have is that he is limited in what
he can do so he works around TPTBs to get closer to his goals. So he antagonizes and
threatens Europe on NATO. The same goes for Syria. He talked about wanting to pull out but
kept being drawn back in by the usual suspects. So he's pulled monetary support in certain
cases and refused to dig the US in any deeper than it is. And it will be interesting to see
what happens with his upcoming meeting with Putin considering how much he had to backtrack on
his talk of better relations during his campaign. Those who've wanted him to join the "hate
Russia" team may get frustrated.
Will he take direct action on any of these things? I doubt it. The indirect route seems to
go in the right direction.
karlof!. Good to "see" you back. The following is specifically to you, but it does continue
from your first comment. [I couldn't get some links to embed, sorry]
My best short term hope is that all this war-blustering is just to convince we commoners
to bend over so the military/industrial contractors can make lots of gelt. The Global War OF
Terror has been terrific for their bank accounts, but with SAA and the MoD of the RF beating
the snot out of terrorists wherever they go to such an extent that the Pentagon is
considering ISIS essentially defeated.
Besides, the really "big ticket products" are things like aircraft carriers,
"upgraded" nuclear weapons, 5th Generation fighters, etc. etc. etc., that are harder to
excuse when their targets are guys in sandals with AK47s and IEDs. That could be why the 2018
National Defense Strategy plan has shifted from fighting "terrorism" back to " the long-term,
strategic competition between nations."
https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2018-National-Defense-Strategy-Summary.pdf
Same with our "adversary" across the big pond in China. Just the other day, the CPC warned
of "China's army infiltrated by 'peace disease' requiring a major new "defense posture" just
like the US and NATO.
Within this new "mulit-polar" world, only Russia is cutting its military budge. And
they still seem to have at least one of the most effective conventional war-fighting
capability, and their next generation nuclear deterrence looks nothing short of awesome. They
have pipelines to build, and like China, long-term economic contracts to sign.
No dear b, for once I think you've got it wrong. I see Trump asking three question for all of
which there is one answer.
1. Angela. You tell us that NATO ought to concentrate on the Russian threat. If Russia is a
threat, why are you buying gas from it?
2. Angela, You tell us that Russia is a reliable energy supplier. If Russia is a reliable
supplier, why are you telling us it's a threat?
3. Angela. I hope you're not saying Russia is a threat and its gas is cheap but the USA will
save us.
The answer to all 3 questions is: we're out of here, defend yourselves. It's Trump cutting
the Gordian Knot of obligations.
Aarrgghh! Besides some continuity problems when I recut and pasted the above since the links
weren't working, I also left out the following completely.
That could be why, even though the US 2018 Nuclear Posture Review observes we are changing
from: "For decades, the United States led the world in efforts to reduce the role and number
of nuclear weapons." To " the current, pragmatic assessment of the threats we face and the
uncertainties regarding the future security environment." Which conveniently can use up, or
more likely go over budget on former President CareBear's additional $10 Billion in nuclear
weapons development over the succeeding 10 years.
I'm no fan of Angela, but she/Germany have been trying to tamp down this AZ Empire New
Cold War against Russia since at least 2013. When she, Putin, Yanukovych (elected President
of Ukraine) and the leaders of the Maidan protests got together and signed an agreement in
which Yanukovych acquiesced to essentially all of the "peaceful, pro-democracy protesters'"
demands, it was the Asst. Secretary of the US State (Vickie Nuland) who said, "F*ck the EU"
"We can midwife this thing" and even appointed the new PM "Yats is the guy."
She was then an active participant in the Minsk Agreement to end the "anti-terrorism
action" Which our gal Vickie shredded publicly the next day because the AZ Empire thought the
Uki-Nazis would finish off those Muscovite, Colorado hicks and (can I post the Ukie terms for
Jews?) in the east like they'd done in the south.
Then, Angela was involved in the Minsk II cease-fire/road to peace (when the Uki-Nazis
were being driven out of the east, and were about to lose Mariupol).
I know there are others in addition to b here who know this stuff better than I. Isn't
this about right?
"It is extremely hypocritical for Poland to lobby against Nord Stream when it significantly
contributes to Poland's energy security."
There are other explanations that could be better documented, like stupidity and insanity.
BTW, Poland has big pollution problem, and a major part is that many older multifamily
buildings and new single family building has polluting heating with coal furnaces and stoves.
Natural gas does not generate pollutants except for CO2 which is not affecting health, plus
it uses less than half of carbon than coal.
On the other note, merely to get enough gas for internal needs, Poland could get enough
through Belorus. But if you need to add re-export to Ukraine, that is not enough. So Poles
can pride themselves of not being as stupid and insane as their southeastern neighbors.
Well stated. There are many gordian knots. The BIS should be dissolved
""Responsible fiscal practice requires a government to fill spending gaps left by
fluctuations in non-government spending patterns. In that way, the government takes
responsibility for maintaining full employment. What the Troika did in Greece was the
exemplar of irresponsible fiscal practice.""
I really really like the way you include a 'solution' to a global problem in this analysis b.
To many times we just speak to the choir and rarely are solutions presented regardless where
they lie on the possible/probable line. Did I mention I really like this SA. Thanks.
karlof1 @7. In graph 1, of actual dollar expenditure, NATO spending was going down until
2012, then it started to rise again, and has been a net increase every year since 2015.
In graph 4, per nation spending relative to GDP went up from 2014 to 2017 in almost all
member states notably, except the US and UK, but even then, US went from 3.58% to slightly
over 3.5% and UK from 2.14% to a touch over 2.1%, so both are above the 2% "minimum."
Graphs 5, 6, 7 all show actual dollar expenditures dropping from 1010 to 2014, but then
increasing every year since then.
Perhaps I misunderstood your point. But it sure looks like NATO spending has been rising
since this "New Cold War" really kicked into gear in 3024/2015.
"One big reason they deposed the Shah who was planning to go big with nuclear power with
orders for about 20 French and /or German reactors"
Another hat in the ring for CIA/MI6/Mossad helping to install the Islamic part of the
Iranian Revolution? WooHoo!
"China basically has a monopoly on these metals"
Yes. Bear in mind though that "discovered" after the US invasion/occupation is that
Afghanistan has perhaps the world's largest reserves of lithium. And the "Democratic
Republic" of Congo also has much rare earth wealth. As in fact do other parts of central
Africa. Hence, the AZ Empire's new "AfriCom" military classification and the reinstallation
of French Colonialism.
I'm not so up on this whole tariff thing. Hasn't Germany had substantial tariffs on
automobiles for years now? Do those tariffs apply to other EU states?
Daniel
I have read in the past that Afghan is very rich in a number of minerals and China was
looking at development there as part of it road belt intuitive. Going by the state
Afghanistan is in I can't see the US extracting minerals there. US squatting in Afghanistan
may be simply to deny Chinese access to the mineral deposits.
If NS2 goes online and EU goes dark to Qatar, especially if Iran corks Qatar with a South
pipeline, the Middle East economies will collapse into chaos, and nobody will be buying
either US guns or butter.
US'own economy is going down the crapper with No Taxes for the Rich running an $800B
Deficit, and private Fed Bank ratcheting up $50B at a gulp in interest-only Debt financing
...forever. Collapse of MediCare and MediCaid will bleed even more out of the retsil economy,
which will increase the Deficit, into a National Debt death spiral, and collapse of the
public pensiin systems.
If you project MIC arms spendung and Fed interest-only bleed out, Trump's illegal 25% Fed
VAT sales tax (aka 'tariffs) and EU/RU/CH counter-tariffs, all US health and human services
will be insolvent by 2025.
When that happens, and could happen much sooner, the world we knew in 20C will be
inverted, upended, chaos, albeit, only chaos for the Lower Classes, Workers and Private
Pensioners/401Ks. The Deep Purple Mil.Gov UniParty will...uhh...find a way!
@kgw
"You are agreeing with an idiot, no matter what...Europe has nothing to worry about with
regards to Russia. Unless they threaten Russia."
Well shit or get off the pot why don't you - "idiot" Trump is calling your bluff - stop
freeloading off a (by your assessment) non-existent threat, or he'll stop it for you. Can't
have it both ways. The US can't keep funding your crappy little joke of a disintegrating
"European Union" for ever. Sooner or later you'll have to put on big-boy pants.
James, @44. I largely agree with (and have called for) Patrick's recommendations for what
Ukraine should do now. I don't see anything in there that contravenes what I wrote about
Germany's role in the AZ Empire's coup and resulting war, though.
Do you remember those events, or should I dig out citations? I was following it pretty
closely from mid/late 2013 until it quieted down in 2015. Since then, I just pick up articles
here and there.
When you'd have to be an idiot to agree with Trump ($1 TRILLION MIC arms profiteering
slash National Police State slash MIC Indefinite Detention Gulags), but now you'd have to be
an idiot NOT to agree with Trump (drag EU into the funeral pyre)m then you know it must be
the Red Army v Blue Army media spewfest and the National Novitiate in November is near.
Rahhh.
E pluribus now get back to work. Your 2Q ONE TRILLION Deep Purple State tithe-tibute is
due in 3 more days, ONE TRILKION that you and your hiers will never see again.
USA govt's assessment of China and Russia as "revisionist" should be understood as a
determination to remain the hegemonic power. Thus, we have Cold War II. From that
perspective, European objections to more "defense" spending are considered naive (or worse)
as Europe's fate is views as tied to that of the Empire.
I think European elites are much more likely to side with USA than European people. If
the Trump's talk with Putin doesn't go well, we are likely to see increased scaremongering to
rectify public opinion.
Not to mention those same rare earth metals are getting out of DRC despite millions of
murderous deaths and disease.
And the oil started flowing out of Libya before Gaddafi was even lynched. Oil's been
flowing out of "Kurdish" Iraq into Israel come hell or high water. And of course, ISIL was
shipping Syrian oil through Turkey and Jordan (if not Israel) throughout.
Chaos can make doing business harder, but that can also increase profits. As the
posters said in the '60s, "War Is Not Good For Children And Other Living Things." But it's
great for the psychopaths.
Trump's native approach I suspect may be something like that of fellow-New Yorker and great
American chess player Bobby Fischer who famously said: "Try something!"
That sounds about right. I would only add that Minsk Accord is another example of a
non-agreement. Ukraine never signed yet Russia is accused of not implementing this
non-agreement whenever people feel the need for some more Russia-bashing.
Here is an article that explains the relationship between Russian pipelines, USA
sanctions on Russia, MH17, Crimea, and Syria. It is an excellent background to comprehend
Trump's accusations about Germany's purchase of gas from Russia. Patrick Armstrong and Pat
Lang seem to think that Trump is about to cut NATO support, reduce/eliminate sanctions
against Russia, and redirect relations with Israel, but I am not persuaded. https://www.unz.com/article/why-was-malaysian-airlines-flight-mh17-shot-down/
by Kees van der Pijl He also wrote a book on this topic.
Trump follows the footsprints of the post-USA Civil War Republican Party policy. From
Chapter 1 of The Politicos 1865-1896 by Matthew Josephson (published in 1938)
"The new industrialist and financial class and the farmers of the North emerged the
greatest gainers by far among the mixed coalition of classes which fought to win the social
revolution underlying the War Between the States. But no less triumphant and dominent was the
war party itself, the youthful organization of professional politicians and officeholders
known as the Republican Party. A minority party in 1860, and victor in a three-cornered
electoral contest, it knew during the war the intoxication of unchallenged power and fortune
beyond calculation, leaving it in command of all the offices of the Federal Government!"
From Beard, Contemporary American History, p.91
It had the management of the gigantic war finances, through which it attached to itself
the interests ... of the great capitalists and bankers throughout the North. It raised
revenues by a high tariff which placed thousands of manufacturers under debt to it and
linked their fortunes also with its fate ... Railway financiers and promoters of all kinds
had to turn to it for privileges and protection...
jackrabbit@59
surprised to hear you say Ukraine did not sign MinskII. On the contrary, I read that it was
signed by LD Kuchma, Second President of Ukraine. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Signatories
The document was signed by:[23]
Swiss diplomat and OSCE representative Heidi Tagliavini
Former president of Ukraine and Ukrainian representative Leonid Kuchma
Russian Ambassador to Ukraine and Russian representative Mikhail Zurabov
Separatist's leaders Alexander Zakharchenko and Igor Plotnitsky https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_II#Signatories
All-night negotiations on Wednesday ended with the signing of the Declaration of Minsk in
support of the "Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements" by Angela
Merkel of Germany, Francois Hollande of France, Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine and Vladimir
Putin of Russia and release of the full agreement. The talks, according to some reports,
almost collapsed near the end as Ukraine and rebel leaders balked at signing.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2015/02/13/putin-comes-out-on-top-in-new-minsk-agreement/#21ffe18f4ede
From Chapter 1 of The Politicos 1865-1896 by Matthew Josephson (published in 1938):
"The prosecution of the war against rebellion had been associated with a protective tariff
levied against a hated England. which profited and sought to profit further from our
disaster. With the close of the war, a cry arose from the Northeastern region that high
tariffs were needed to pay the war debt. and an outburst of high Protectionism followed in
1866."
Everything the US does works to undermine its old power in the new world. We see this
continually. Trump is an accelerator. But whether any of this is intentional and actually
desired by a part of US vested interests, is still an open question.
Nevertheless, as we watch, we see every action of the US working to cement the bonds
of its opposition in the rest of the world. From the Escobar article linked by karlof1 above,
we see the pressure on the Middle East to reject the US and turn for safety to the Eurasian
institutions of commerce, finance and national security. The same thing is happening to
Europe.
Some days I think that Trump was a brilliantly inspired choice of some deep state players
to further their agenda of fragmenting the old arrangements to allow new alignments to come
into place - to modernize the elite control of the world. But most days I just don't know.
What can one say about a force this magisterial and still this enigmatic?
I was talking with a friend today about Trump. She said she sees his approach as quite
typical of US business style. You come out with the big stick, knowing it will get chopped in
half by the time you get to agreement. But at least you end up with half a stick. Gotta start
big. You don't ask, you don't get.
This style worked perfectly with North Korea, which was a standout among the nations of
the world, in my opinion, for understanding superbly well how Trump played the game, and
played it right back. The result was a meeting of equals, where something could actually get
done. But NK worked hard to develop the bargaining chip to put on the table too. Words
without substance don't work.
I'm not seeing many other countries responding with this same kind of exaggerated bravado
- it is a very US way of doing business. Most countries are simply working to go around the
US. Europe seems to be doing the same thing, simply rejecting and turning away. But the
European countries could certainly create bargaining chips if they wanted to play the Trump
game of negotiation. I truly suspect his style is something they're still getting to grips
with. Perhaps they should call Kim for pointers.
I think ultimately we are seeing two things at work, and in tandem: the natural style of
Trump, and the very real and unstoppable current of history. Whether either force is aware of
the other, I can't say. Like the success or failure of the French Revolution, it's too soon
to tell.
@65 Good summary. I think the Europeans simply don't know what to make of him. The look on
Stoltenberg's face said it all. They just don't know how to respond to someone so direct.
Maybe Putin is the only one who can talk his language....but not in public.
China's taking a page from Mahan regarding sea power. NATO graphs: I mentioned Obama
ordered an increase in spending and the chart shows the compliance. The ups and downs
correlate well with wars and major recessions.
@53 daniel... what you said earlier - i think much the same way... i would be curious to know
more of how patrick armstrong sees all that, but i think it is much the same as us too..
those links @53 reflect how messed up ukraine is at present.. having a failed state on your
doorstep doesn't sound like fun and that works both ways for europe and russia.. i guess that
was the usa ( and israels?) plan... screw up countries so they don't function properly, so
you have to spend a lot of imf money to fix them.. works for wall st, lol..
@38 "The answer to all 3 questions is: we're out of here, defend yourselves"
Patrick, I'm confused: they are meant to defend themselves against whom, exactly? T he
equation as it stands now is this: A muscle-bound USA + an anaemic Europe "deterring" a
Russian Federation that has no intention of invading.
Remove the muscle-bound Americans from the equation and this is what remains: An anaemic
Europe "deterring" a Russian Federation that has no intention of invading.
Since Russia is no threat either way then there is no need - none whatsoever - for the
Europeans to increase their military expenditure to "defend themselves" against a
non-existent Russian threat.
Indeed, the only reason the Europeans would feel that they might have to prepare to
"defend themselves" would be because that muscle-bound US military is now outside the tent
pissing in, not inside the tent pissing out.
@68 Maybe they thought Ukraine would join the EU at some point but Crimea was the prize. The
plan was to turn Crimea into a NATO base. Putin spoiled everything.
Wikipedia also says (as part Leonid Kuchma's bio):
Since July 2014, Kuchma has been Ukraine's representative at the semi-official peace
talks regarding the ongoing War in Donbass.
Why are they "semi-official"? Because Ukraine would not talk to the rebels
directly. They believe that the rebels are sponsored by Russia so the dispute is between
Russia and Ukraine. They would not talk to the rebels as that might convey legitimacy to the
rebels. That's why the Trialteral Contact Group was set up. The signers of Minsk II (Russia,
Germany, France, Kuchma/Ukraine) are merely "guarantors" of an agreement between Ukraine and
the Donbas rebels - neither of which has actually signed.
Kuchma "represents" Ukraine but can't bind Ukraine. Although Poroschenko attended some of
the talks, he never signed the agreement.
Minsk and Minsk II have reduced conflict somewhat but Ukraine has dragged its feet every
step of the way. For example: they were slow to pull back heavy artillery as called for under
the accord, then they wouldn't pass laws that were necessary for other provisions of the
accord.
The Minsk accords outlined a detailed procedure through which Donetsk and Luhansk would
receive "special status," hold internationally-recognized elections, and then negotiate
their reintegration into Ukraine directly with Kiev, including basic constitutional reforms
to federalize the country. No substantive steps have ever been undertaken by either side to
implement these terms, and the new "Donbass Integration Law" now makes clear that Kiev
expects the country to be re-united on its terms alone, though probably not anytime
soon.
Ukrainian lawmakers, who overwhelmingly passed the bill on Jan. 19, argue that it
simply normalizes a situation that has long existed but was clouded by misleading jargon
and official fealty to the non-functioning Minsk accords .
Poroschenko signed the bill into law in February 2018.
@dh "Maybe Putin is the only one who can talk his language"
Going by what Putin said of Trump after their 2 1/2 hour meeting in Vietnam, it seems more
likely Trump talks in Putin's language when meeting actual leaders. Same would go for his
meeting with KJU, and I would guess Xi.
Since whenever, America has been the proxy front for the current instantiation of
empire with the core of control being ongoing private finance with global tools like BIS,
IMF, World Bank, etc. Since WWII and even before the goal of empire is to have all of the
world under its control. Since the engine of empire is a supra-national matrix of private
finance control, the enemy becomes any nations who do not want to be impregnated with the
Western model of private Central Bank, an oligarchy , inheritance, private property,
etc.
The empire model of growth through wars and boom/bust expansion has reached its
"logical" limits and the the existential question has become, blow everything all up or agree
to a multipolar world. I think that the elite hope Trump's bluster will make it so they do
not have to answer that existential question.....yet
The EU has always been a bastard child with little chance of growing up because there was
no finance core agreements to manage the national variations within. I am surprised it has
lasted as long as it has given the historical tension between the nations. The US has similar
social tensions but our structure has homoginized the economy enough that we haven't
imploded...yet
The key to this process which I believe is being managed by the elite is at what point are
the big decisions made and by whom. Given the accelerated nature of the managed
deconstruction, I suspect the elite believe they will retain their mystique of power long
enough to not lose grip on private finance running the Western world. The EU countries will
have to come to terms with their oligarchs and determine what path forward works for all of
eurasia. I don't see the current leadership of any EU countries as having the public's best
interest in mind or action.
Are we seeing Western plutocracy fail of its own "weight"? Perhaps so.....nice
I LUV how Trump stomped on all those preaning European elite scumbags. He's my hero
for pooping all over their little pride parade. Tell em like it is Donald they call you
stupid and all those other useless names. Your stinking GENIUS. MORE and an ENCORE!!!!
Agree with Patrick. It is surprising to still see so much animosity towards a
president who has done more to combat the absurdity of NATO and globalism than I can remember
any other President doing. The ball is in the EU elites court, now. Put up or shut up and I
believe it makes no difference to Trump. We are about to find out who is REALLY to blame for
marching lockstep with the current of hypercentralization (globalism): the Trump admin or the
EU elitez.
Sorry for the break in the Trump-bashing. Let's all get back to that good ol'
America-hatin' catharsis.
Since the start of the 70ties I have heard exactly the same tune from the US and the
blathering idiot in charge now has not changed the tune; ever since have I had to listen to
this "The Russians are coming" tune, with the rhetoric getting ever more shrill and false,
1989 brought a brief and marvelous, albeit very short pause to this tune, and for a few years
the US Kleptocracy was happy plundering the former USSR. When Russia resisted the plunder i.
e. Putin was elected, the tune started over again from where it was paused, disregarding the
fact that Russia does not in any way compare to the former USSR.
N, noooe , it is still "The Russians are coming" playing, but with a new beat, pepped up,
but same substance. But we are not listening anymore, the disgraceful actions and evil
behavior of The United States of Mordor, have come into the open (The internet, appreciate
it, we will not for long have it in its present form), even the most daft of us quietly
starts wondering.
Well I am not daft, and the questioning ended 4 decades ago, The US must be resisted. Our
politicians here on the continent must wake up and reject US imperialism and militarism, and
devise our own defenses if deemed necessary, many European nations are not at the living
standards we enjoy in Scandinavia, surely the money were better spent on that.
If the Poles and Baltic's want American troops on their soil, withdraw EU spending, we do
not need their insane sabre rattling. (Especially the Poles are vile, they forget that when
Hitler invaded, they had been a fascist dictatorship for years).
What exactly has Trump done to combat the absurdity of globalization and NATO besides
talk? While he stopped TPP and TIPP he is negotiating similar agreements bilaterally. Also
his Personal Empire benefits from globalization.
US only contributes 1% of their defense budget to NATO's direct costs so pulling out of
NATO would make hardly a dent in the budget except to increase costs to relocate all the
personnel and hardware. Those bases are invaluableHis calling for NATO countries to increase
defense spending benefits US and Israeli companies who make up the military and security
industrial complex and wont do squat to lower the defense budget
Born and raised in Southern California, been here 70 years... The US has been
manipulating NATO ever since it was formed. Most NATO officials are vetted by the US. Trump
is an idiot, like the bulk of US politicians.
@kgw
"You are agreeing with an idiot, no matter what...Europe has nothing to worry about with
regards to Russia. Unless they threaten Russia."
Well shit or get off the pot why don't you - "idiot" Trump is calling your bluff - stop
freeloading off a (by your assessment) non-existent threat, or he'll stop it for you. Can't
have it both ways. The US can't keep funding your crappy little joke of a disintegrating
"European Union" for ever. Sooner or later you'll have to put on big-boy pants. Methinks this
guy has a good take on this.
You're assuming Europe's leaders aren't bought and paid for by Wall Bank Street Banksters.
The system is rigged. I wouldn't doubt that they go into lapdog mode and bow to blowhard
Trump.
Mrs Merkel emphasised that the German armed forces would remain commanded by parliament and
not the government, and "would not take part in every mission".
This here is a clear description of the issues
involved . Of course, in the rivalry between the US and Russia, Europe's interest is best
served playing the two off each other united. It is no surprise both - the US and Russia -
have a strategic interest to split Europe. You don't believe Russia doing this, too? This
here is from Greece . No, their government is not anti-Russian.
Macedonia is expecting an invitation at the NATO summit in Brussels this week to join
following its landmark deal with Greece whereby it will change its name to the Republic of
North Macedonia. Moscow strongly opposes NATO expansion.
...
The Greek diplomatic source told Reuters Athens would expel two diplomats and bar two
other Russians from entering the country due to concerns that they were involved in rallies
in Greece against the deal with Macedonia and that they had attempted to offer money to
Greek state officials.
Becoming a "neutral" military force would end this type of nonsense. Trump acting like
mafia is another strong incentive.
"The U.S. military is the biggest socialist organization of the world. It is
egalitarian and its citizens, i.e. the soldiers, are extremely well cared for. It runs its
own healthcare system through the Veterans Health Administration."
A wonderful conclusion b.
Does anyone know of any in-depth economic analysis of the U.S. military as a state
welfare system for its members, as well as the impact of aggregate military spending on the
general purchasing power of citizens within the society at large?
And US military spending is also an enormous job-creation and wealth-redistribution
program in the form of defense contractors spread all over the nation, where they are
especially vital for areas with weak employment.
The US winds up with a lot of projects it does not need because Congresspeople are not
about to kill a program that employs thousands in their districts.
Why should Germany spend 4% on its military? Didnt see that coming from this blog. Are
germany facing an enemy? If not, its a waste of more money. All this useless money could be
spend to actually strenghten the welfare state. Something that actually matters and are much
needed. So which enemy is Germany facing? Either Trump is right that Russia is a threat to
Germany or hes not. What is it?
The nonbinding motion, which came as the Senate voted to reconcile its version of the
annual defense policy bill with that of the House, expresses the Senate's support for NATO
and calls on negotiators to reaffirm the U.S. commitment to it. The 97-2 vote in the Senate
comes as Trump heads to Brussels.
Trump's "reasoning" makes sense in an infantile sort of way, but there's more too it
than meets the eye, is there not? Trump doesn't just want to Europe to "pay their fair share"
for NATO, which we all know is code for buying more US mil.gear but also to buy their LNG
from US too. It's like NATO is some sort of grotesque, evil franchise where the franchisees
can only buy goods/services from that single source, even though it's crap & inordinately
expensive, and even if you can get it cheaper elsewhere, i.e Russia.
I would love to see those fence-sitting NATO countries tell the US "sure, we'll increase
our mil. spending, but after what we saw in Syria, we'll be buying our gear from Russia"
(more bang for the buck too!) - that would be game, set & match right there!
I think you are wrong, Bernard. It will sell well in Europe too. To what extend were the
themes of the Brexit campaign based on Germany as the slave master of Europe, to exaggerate
slightly? It will also sell well in the US.
Wow! You don't feel that Trump has, by his mere existence and by winning the
presidency, been given a platform of which to decry the myriad injustices of globalization
and to utter things unspeakable by any Prez in the last fifty years?
I don't think you've been paying attention. The proof is in the pudding but what will be
the benefit of raising the spectre of doubt over bad deals like NATO, the current iteration
of world trade, and for animosity towards Russia? Evidently, it ain't worth shit to
predictable TDS-sufferers that hang around here.
So much for those who projected that Trump's demands for an increase in the defense spending
of other members and his scolding of Germany would lead to a weaker Nato! Nato members just
caved to Trump and are increasing their spending and Trump is touting that Nato is stronger
and everyone's doing the kumbaya.
When I say that Trump is establishment on steroids; it's an understatement. Trump is doing
the kissy, kissy with Putin because the plan is to pull Russia away from collaborating with
China. Zionist oligarchs are in league with Trump and Russia will eventually be under their
complete control.
@98 You just don't get it. Trump is fascist establishment. Trump is separating kids from
their mothers. Who does that??? He's a sick sadist.
Europe has an arms industry of their own. I doubt European countries invest their
money into US stuff - they buy their own. Most of the money does not go into weapons anyway,
but personel and administration. Germany contributes to the maintenance and infrastructure of
US bases, but those bases are business, too. This is not Saudi Arabia buying protection. The
real news is that Trump has started
a trade war negotiating by tantrum.
But Trump has a great point: if you claim that Russia is ready to invade you, why you are
buying gas from potential occupier?
Notable quotes:
"... Russia is a near neighbor to Germany. Commerce between relatively close countries is the normal course of events, so what is Trump suggesting, a 1970's style energy embargo on Russia? Depriving Russia the opportunity all trade with her neighbors 'because we said so' is no better than a blockade. ..."
Donald Trump, the 'America First' salesman, came to Brussels today to demand more tribute
to the empire. He wants Europe to buy more U.S. made weapons and to use U.S. liquefied
natural gas (LNG). But his arguments are all wrong. The people in Europe are not impressed by
them and they will reject his appeals.
His first talk in Brussels was
a profoundly wrong bashing of Germany to push it into buying very expensive LNG from U.S.
fracking producers. Trump, Putin's puppet according to the 'resistance', used the Russian
bogeyman to set the scene:
Well, I have to say, I think it's very sad when Germany makes a massive oil and gas deal
with Russia, where you're supposed to be guarding against Russia, and Germany goes out and
pays billions and billions of dollars a year to Russia. ... So we're protect you against Russia, but they're paying billions of dollars to Russia, and
I think that's very inappropriate. And the former Chancellor of Germany is the head of the
pipeline company that's supplying the gas. Ultimately, Germany will have almost 70 percent
of their country controlled by Russia with natural gas.
So you tell me, is that appropriate? I mean, I've been complaining about this from the
time I got in. It should have never been allowed to have happened. But Germany is totally
controlled by Russia , because they will be getting from 60 to 70 percent of their energy
from Russia and a new pipeline. ... Now, if you look at it, Germany is a captive of Russia because they supply. They got rid of
their coal plants. They got rid of their nuclear. They're getting so much of the oil and
gas from Russia. ... I think trade is wonderful. I think energy is a whole different story. I think energy is a
much different story than normal trade. And you have a country like Poland that won't
accept the gas . You take a look at some of the countries -- they won't accept it, because
they don't want to be captive to Russia. But Germany, as far as I'm concerned, is captive
to Russia, because it's getting so much of its energy from Russia. So we're supposed to
protect Germany, but they're getting their energy from Russia. Explain that. And it can't
be explained -- you know that.
Trump was talking about the Nordstream II pipeline which will supply Germany and other
European countries with natural gas from Russia.
It is indeed hard to believe that western european governments would agree to what
Christopher Black calls a "US shakedown". Except that they have been doing so since 1949.
It is important to remember that the US Embassy exerts at least as much influence on the
government as Parliament does. And that Parliaments are full of agents of the the US empire,
in some cases they are actually on the payroll, many more are either US educated, marinated
in the imperialist ideology or in the service of corporations which know that the Empire is
the final guarantor of their survival and capable of crushing them with ease.
That having been said, things are changing, The imperialists cling to power only by exerting
the most extraordinary, and unsustainable, pressure. An example of which is the ludicrously
over-wrought campaign against the left in the UK being waged by the Israeli Embassy, with the
assistance of the entire MSM.
B's arguments are correct but it will take a mobilised and politically conscious public
opinion to impose them on governments full of people who see themselves as Washington's
servants and expect to be rewarded one day for being loyal to the US and for betraying their
countrymen and, of course, women.
The question is if Europe will truly continue to bark and bite at the deep state or if this
is all just for show and they'll eventually capitulate. I'm worried that this is nothing more
than political theatre. I'm not expecting much from the Europeans. But we'll see.
Europe buying LNG from the US just makes no sense at all. Aside from the cost, LNG is
difficult to transport and work with; the whole idea is just nuts, especially considering the
quantities involved. In addition, Russian gas is plentiful and cheap, so to expect Europe not
to use it is also nuts.
Could it be that Trump fully understands this and the hidden agenda is to get out of NATO and
bring home the troops?
Russia is a near neighbor to Germany. Commerce between relatively close countries is the
normal course of events, so what is Trump suggesting, a 1970's style energy embargo on
Russia? Depriving Russia the opportunity all trade with her neighbors 'because we said so' is
no better than a blockade.
One of these days, my country is going to get a taste of, 'no soup for you' and we will be
screaming like stuck pigs.
Yes, I am obsessed w/Sean Hannity
It's his earnest, self-righteous, mind numbingly idiotic voice, I'm hypnotized. Ollie
North was on his show and they were going on about 'Iran's' saber rattling by threatening to
close the Straits of Hormuz. Sean rattled off how the EU would wake up and it would be the
end of Iran's belligerence.
He neglected to mention that this 'threat' is only coming after our act of war by actively
trying to cut off all of Iran's oil exports which is no better than a naval blockade.
Much can be gleaned from
this NATO Defence Expenditure pdf with special attention given to graphs 5, 6
& 7. Since the dissolution of the USSR, military spending as share of GDP by EU &
Canada decreased about 50% as shown in Graph 5. It should also be noted that the demand made
by the Outlaw US Empire for EU NATO members to increase their wastage of monies on military
equipment began with Obama in 2015, with compliance noted by the graphs in 2016. When Obama
gave his orders, very little squawking was heard from EU/Canada governments, although it was
quite different from the public. Of course, EU/Canada are caught in a trap of their own
design--Russia's quite obviously not the "aggressive" nation that must be defended against
using all necessary means as promoted by Russophobic Media Propaganda as they all trade and
benefit from commercial interactions; thus, bean counters see NATO as a wastage of vital,
finite monies that ought to be spent on productive endeavors advancing the human condition.
In national legislatures: "Russia's a growing threat to humanity!!--BUT--No, I'm voting
against any increase in military spending as there's no need for it."
European members of NATO don't need such an organization. If they were to join the Russian
and Chinese enterprises to unite Eurasia into a common economic zone, then the need for NATO
would become indefensible. And their finally becoming independent of the Outlaw US Empire's
diktats would provide the impetus required to finally solve the status of Palestine and
reaffirmation of the paramountcy of International Law as a greatly expanded Multipolar Order
would be established. The United Nations might actually begin to function as designed.
Is Trump trying to push NATO apart by injecting it with a dose of American Chaos? Force
EU/Canada to declare their independence from the Outlaw US Empire for numerous reasons? All
of which would force the contraction of the Overseas element of the Empire and install an
actual defense policy, not one aiming to control the world? Is this Trump's way to force a
Neocon retreat?
Meanwhile, China charms Arabia
"Under the radar,..., the eighth ministerial meeting of the China-Arab States Cooperation
Forum (CASCF), established in 2004, sailed on in Beijing, hosted by President Xi Jinping."
Please note the article's citing of new demands made to Iraq by the Outlaw US Empire, which
has their roots in Trump's appraisal of the situation.
I'd say this is why you do not mix a military alliance with politics. Nor allow federal
presidents to command and represent an army. Trump's retarded bullshit aside the USA
shouldn't be holding committee meetings with allies without an war. An alliance shouldn't be
considered active during peacetime. An ally is a figment of political imagination until
military necessity requires it in actuality. Historically and currently a military alliance
is treated as a contract for warmongering against an outnumbered enemy while at peace or at
war. Which is why honorable people (currently very few) eschew alliances or non-aggression
agreements until they become a defensive requirement. If President Trump want's to crash NATO
with no survivor's, more power to him.
The bright side of Trump bullying is revealing NATO astronomical hypocrisy as they join
psychotic delusions about Russian menace they refuse to put money where their mouth is and
shamelessly disclose their vassal status begging for American military support for free.
All that knowing well that there is no threat from Russia that cannot be eliminated simply
by good neighborly relation with Russia not by spending $billions on otherwise useless
fraudulent US MIC junk.
Is that nor reverse psychology that is in play here, put up or shut up, let me make deal
with Russia so you do not have to spend on military rediculous sums to match your delusional
rhetorics about Russian threat.
Trump is s gambling man, wants to make money for US MIC on anti Russian lies or make money
for US industry on Russia peace and cooperation truths.
"Stoltenberg: [ ] I think that two World Wars and the Cold War taught us that we are
stronger together than apart.
Trump: But how can you be together when a country is getting its energy from the person
you want protection against or from the group that you want protection?
Stoltenberg: Because we understand that when we stand together, also in dealing with
Russia, we are stronger. I think what we have seen is that --
Trump: No, you're just making Russia richer. You're not dealing with Russia. You're making
Russia richer."
You'd have to be an idiot not to agree with Trump here.
A notable difference between the way Trump treats the likes of Putin, Xi, and Kim Jong Un
- all leaders in their own right - to the way he treats the EU poodles. Zero respect for the
poodles.
Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jul 11, 2018 6:40:20 PM |
22
"... The big advantage for Germany is that (Nordstream I and Nordstream II] pipelines
do not run through any other country ..."
That's because idiot EU / NATO countries like Denmark, who would gladly accept having the
pipelines pass through their land and maritime territories (and the transit fees that go with
them) if Russian gas were not flowing through them, prefer to support the Nazi whacko
Banderites ruling Ukraine who whine that all Russian gas should transit Ukrainian territory
in deteriorating pipelines. So Denmark and others refuse to host any part of the pipelines at
all.
When Gazprom starts sending all gas through Nordstream I and II and pipelines through the
Black Sea, completely bypassing Ukraine, then that country will be close to bankruptcy.
Denmark and everyone else in the EU and NATO had better be ready to rescue the
Banderites.
Der Speigel 's fact-checking article of Trump's assertions provides some
interesting facts, all in German, which I used Yandex to translate. To counterargue Trump's
most pointed assertion that Germany's a captive of Russia, the author provides this rebuke:
"Russland ist auf den Abnehmer Deutschland angewiesen. Die Deutschen benötigten die
Russen vor allem als Lieferanten für Erdgas." (Russia is dependent on the customer
Germany. The Germans needed the Russians mainly as suppliers of natural gas.) Overall:
"Für Russland ist Deutschland als Handelspartner wichtiger als andersherum. Von allen
deutschen Importen kamen 2017 nur drei Prozent aus Russland - und lediglich zwei Prozent der
Exporte gehen in Putins Reich. Für die Russen war die Bundesrepublik mit einem Anteil
von 8,6 Prozent ihres gesamten Außenhandels der zweitwichtigste Partner hinter China.
Und mehr als zwei Drittel der russischen Exporte nach Deutschland waren Erdgas, Öl und
Steinkohle." (For Russia, Germany is more important as a trading partner than elsewhere. Of
all German imports, only three percent came from Russia in 2017 - and only two percent of
exports go to Putin's Reich. For the Russians, Germany was the second most important Partner
behind China, accounting for 8.6 percent of its total foreign trade. And more than two-thirds
of Russian exports to Germany were natural gas, Oil and coal.)
Clearly, the total trade turnover between Russia and Germany represents just a small
fraction of their totals, and both nations would likely find a replacement if a total embargo
was to ensue.
The US began pressuring countries to forego nuclear power to support the Petro Dollar in
1978. One big reason they deposed the Shah who was planning to go big with nuclear power with
orders for about 20 French and /or German reactors
The TMI accident was likely a false flag run by the newly established FEMA.
If the restrictions on recycling nuclear fuel rods were eliminated there would not be a
disposal problem.
Germanys decision to phase out nuclear makes US happy. Germany will only accept Nord
Stream 2 if it does not bypass Ukraine. This also makes US happy although they would prefer
no Nord Stream 2. As said up thread this is as much about posturing before the Putin meeting
and gaining leverage.
A bit O/T but it appears rare metals needed by US military and tech industries are on the
list of products subject to tarrifs. China basically has a monopoly on these metals so the
only short term purpose is to drive up prices for weapons and tech gadgets which get passed
onto the taxpayer/consumer. In effect the tarrifs are just another revenue source to finance
tax cuts to corporations and the rich.
Longer term of course the tarrifs make mining some of these metals in the US more
feasible, at some cost to the environment , seeing as EPA has been gutted. But for that to
happen the tarrifs need to be more or less a permanent thing. Its not like they dont have
tarrifs on food and clothes from China. Just expanding the revenue base. The middle class
takes the hit in the end, whats left of it anyways
Trump as a used car salesman does not make much sense either. In fact I don't think he can
spell to sense. It telling that he is impervious to the mood in both NATO and the EU.
His middle name should be clueless. He is truly clueless, he will not get an increase in
defense expenditure, it would be political self goal (Hello Engeland, no not football, that's
more like clueless) for any major political party to demand that, the electorate across
Europe are firmly against it. Ohh and who cares about Perfidious Albion, they are not part of
Europe anymore, they are some Islands with bad weather in the North Sea.
Seabird sanctuary ?
Europe hopefully comes to its senses and casts of the American yoke, and fashion its own
defences, based on ITS needs.
thanks b.. informative and interesting comments from everyone too.. thanks..
trump is a hard guy to read in some respects... he is like a blunt object on the one hand,
but he might have some alternative purpose in mind, which would include the meet with trump
in 5 days..
if he wants to get rid of nato, i think he is going about it the right way.. i can't see
why he would though as that wouldn't benefit the mil complex...i can't see the purpose of
nato either way and perhaps it would be best if the poodles let go of having the usa as it's
leader in the 21st century.. consider a different approach... i am not sure what canada and
other western type poodles can do with all this..
@7 karlof1.. thanks for the pepe link... i just don't see the approach - bullying - taken
by the usa to iraq, as working out.. i am listing the demands for others to see
firsthand..
"
1. 30% of all the oil in Iraq should be American-controlled – and it's up to the US do
what it wants with it.
2. Washington must have full access and control of Iraqi banks.
3. All business and trade with Iran must cease right now.
4. The Hashd al-Shaabi, known as People Mobilization Units (PMUs), instrumental in the
victorious fight against Daesh (Islamic State),
must be immediately disbanded."
the usa takes this approach based on weakness, not strength... in fact - if one was to
read trumps comments on the surface here - it is the same thing that b has highlighted in
this post.. again - the usa is not working from a place of strength.. it is like a wild
animal in the last phase of it's life - not good..
Lost in the story is fact it is not new supply of natural gas to Europe. It is new pipe
lines including two others with the sole intent of bypassing Ukraine. Presently near all
Russian natural gas passes through Ukraine on its way to Western Europe and particularly ..
Germany. The Ukraine regime has been reaping the benefit of transmission fees and stealing
billions of cubic meters of gas, on which they also charged transmission fees. This was the
basis behind a recent dispute panel finding in favor of Ukraine and the gas theft. The
Americans and willing European Poodles would very much like to keep the gas flowing through
Naziville where they would maintain a strangle hold. Gazprom, the principle Russian supplier,
more or less said f**K you and formed consortiums to build new pipe lines
@32 So if Germany gets gas through Nordstream they are 'controlled by Russia' but if they
get it via Ukraine they aren't. Seems Nordstream would be good insurance against Ukrainian
meddling. Cheaper too, a very sound business strategy that Trump should appreciate.
Russia is certainly being creamed. The massive infill is visible from satellites and they
haven't found/opened anything new of size, yet have outlasted what everyone (including them)
calculated would be the start of their decline.
Russia needs the oil revenue badly. But is their ultimate decline going to look like
China? Very likely.
I encourage you to give the Escobar article a second reading. I just did to make sure I knew what it was saying. I think karlof1
is making the right points from it.
The collaboration between Saudia Arabia and Russia is a very small part of the article, and no one disputes that this collaboration
is occurring. Russia may even be part of OPEC soon, if it chooses. The relationship works against the US but it's not specifically
made for this reason. Read Adam Garrie's take on this to see that the moves into OPEC by Russia in recent years are clearly from
its own interest as a hugely major supplier, and that Saudi Arabia needs Russia:
The New Russia-Saudi Partnership Has Riyadh's US Ally Over a Barrel
I just skimmed it a third time and I don't see Escobar saying anywhere that the Saudi-Russia relationship is to kill US shale.
He does say that both Russia and Iran are interested in countering it. I think the point here is that all serious oil producers
with profitable reserves take alarm at the US shale oil because it's hard to say that it's a real commodity with an inbuilt profitability.
It's a short-term entry into the market that can serve to disrupt the market temporarily, but it has no staying power. I suspect
most nations would prefer it simply not intrude.
No one actually has to act against US shale - it's something of a pretender in the real oil world anyway, and this has long
been commented upon. Escobar's point that the US shale is largely a myth is not a new concept. At best the reserve will deplete
within 15 years, and that's at best - along the way it will destroy the US potable water table. And its intrinsic value is far
from clear, since the entire industry is dubiously financed using relatively free Federal Reserve money. As Escobar points out,
many call $100 per barrel the profit threshold for shale - that's a ludicrously high bar for profitability in the oil world.
Much of Escobar's article was about the relationship between Russia and Iran, and it served also as a very good primer in world
oil and petro-currency numbers. I found it pretty sound.
"... You don't need to give use Northstream 2. We will build it ourselves. ..."
"... Nordstream II only blocking party is Denmark, and they can and will bypass it at some price, if need be. ..."
"... Almost all of the countries that Nord Stream 2 passes through have signed on to its construction. The only holdout is Denmark. In response Gazprom has said it will reroute the pipeline through international waters. There is nothing the US can do about that and Denmark can say goodbye to its share of transit fees. ..."
"... A lot of that sort of crap was being pumped out by trolls and regulars alike a few weeks back on Putin, Nutty and SW Syria. Putin had done a deal and was giving SW Syria to nutty cetra cetra. Like Putin and Xi, Iran and others are too stupid to realize they have to work together against US attacks. ..."
"... Russia has to defend Iran. There is no chance that Putin will sell it to Trump. Once again we see the dreaded "US can do anything" disease arising. In fact US options are limited and evaporating. ..."
"... The most likely outcome of the 'summit'is a renewal or strengthening of old agreements on arms control and much high sounding chatter: in geopolitics the die is cast. ..."
Almost all of the countries that Nord Stream 2 passes through have signed on to its
construction. The only holdout is Denmark. In response Gazprom has said it will reroute the
pipeline through international waters. There is nothing the US can do about that and Denmark
can say goodbye to its share of transit fees.
Also Crimea is non-negotiable for Russia. It is Russian territory irrespective of what
happens.
A lot of that sort of crap was being pumped out by trolls and regulars alike a few weeks back
on Putin, Nutty and SW Syria. Putin had done a deal and was giving SW Syria to nutty cetra
cetra. Like Putin and Xi, Iran and others are too stupid to realize they have to work
together against US attacks.
Russia has to defend Iran. There is no chance that Putin will sell it to Trump.
Once again we see the dreaded "US can do anything" disease arising. In fact US options are
limited and evaporating.
Incidentally it is very easy and probably wise to promise the US, in June, not to buy oil in
November. It costs nothing and fits into bazaar bargaining strategies.
The most likely outcome of the 'summit'is a renewal or strengthening of old agreements on
arms control and much high sounding chatter: in geopolitics the die is cast.
Antony C. Sutton, ´Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution', 1974 New Rochelle,
N.Y.
describes how Wall Street supported bolsjewism in order to prevent that German, suppose also
Dutch and other, trade, with Russia was resumed.
WII and the aftermath created the Atlantic alliance.
Just yesterday Pieter Hoekstra, USA ambassador in the Netherlands, stated that Russia should
be punished for MH17 by more sanctions, no new gas pipeline from Russia to Germany.
What he did not say that this implies our buying of USA gas, 20% more expensive. The MH17
show, in my opinion is run like the Sept 11 show. Or even the holocaust show, constant
reminders.
The USA fear about Russia and the EU member states seems to be twofold:
more trade with Russia, and the railway connections with China, threaten to turn the USA
into an economic backwater
Precisely. US could eventually (20-30 years from now) turn into a country similar to many
Latin American countries: rich in resources, demographically messy and ungovernable, weak
infrastructure, but above all remote and quasi-provincial.
The 'Atlanticist' project is meant to forestall the provincial Latin American future.
Washington does have some tools: dollar domination, military force, Hollywood, technology.
But none of those are necessarily sustainable without also actively messing up
Euro-Russia-China economic convergence. It might require a war to delay the inevitable slow
descend into a backwater across the Atlantic.
read deep into the article -- the best oil goes to China. Europe gets only what is left.
Haven't needed it, but the North Sea is dying. Iran is the next supplier but if sanctions
eliminate them, Russian oil of whatever quality will be the only choice.
Or Europe could ignore sanctions, if they have the courage.
I
wanted to make a comment about the OPEC(and Russia) meeting coming up and a possible production
increase. The speculation going around is that OPEC and Russia might increase production up to
1.80 mbpd. The minimum production increase would be around 500kbpd. What is the most likely
production increase based on past production?
The only four countries that have any ability to increase production are
1) Russia: Current production 10.9mbpd. High production 11.3mbpd Difference -400kbpd 2) Saudi Arabia: Current production 10.0mbpd. High production 10.6mbpd Difference -600kbpd 3) UAE: Current production 2.9mbpd. High production 3.10mbpd Difference -200kbpd 4) Kuwait: Current production 2.70mbpd. High production 2.8mbpd Difference -100kbpd
The high watermark in production for these countries happened from Mid 2016 to Mid 2017.
Currently these four countries are producing about 1.3mbpd below their all-time high production
limits. Ask yourself what is the likelihood that these four countries will increase production
to all-time highs and potentially surpass their highs which would be required to increase
production to 1.80mbpd? When OPEC did announce production cuts at the end of 2016 many believe
they had increased production to unsustainable levels to give each country a higher quota from
the production cuts. The guys a Core Labs believed they had to cut because it would have
threaten the long term integrality of their fields.
My guess is that the most OPEC and Russia can bring back for a sustainable period is about
half of the 1.30mbpd they reduced from their production highs .maybe about 600kbpd
"... Just yesterday Pieter Hoekstra, USA ambassador in the Netherlands, stated that Russia should be punished for MH17 by more sanctions, no new gas pipeline from Russia to Germany. What he did not say that this implies our buying of USA gas, 20% more expensive. The MH17 show, in my opinion is run like the Sept 11 show. Or even the holocaust show, constant reminders. ..."
"... The USA fear about Russia and the EU member states seems to be twofold: (1) more trade with Russia makes subjugation of Russia impossible; (2) more trade with Russia, and the railway connections with China, threaten to turn the USA into an economic backwater ..."
Antony C. Sutton, ´Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution', 1974 New Rochelle, N.Y.
describes how Wall Street supported bolshevism in order to prevent that German, suppose also Dutch and other, trade, with Russia
was resumed.
WWII and the aftermath created the Atlantic alliance.
Just yesterday Pieter Hoekstra, USA ambassador in the Netherlands, stated that Russia should be punished for MH17 by more
sanctions, no new gas pipeline from Russia to Germany. What he did not say that this implies our buying of USA gas, 20% more expensive.
The MH17 show, in my opinion is run like the Sept 11 show. Or even the holocaust show, constant reminders.
The USA fear about Russia and the EU member states seems to be twofold: (1) more trade with Russia makes subjugation of
Russia impossible; (2) more trade with Russia, and the railway connections with China, threaten to turn the USA into an economic
backwater
One and a half years after Russia and Turkey signed a deal to build the strategic "Turkish
Stream" gas
pipeline in October 2016 , putting an end to a highly contentious period in Russia-Turkish
relation which in late 2015 hit rock bottom after the NATO-member state shot down a Russian jet
over Syria, on Saturday Russian state energy giant Gazprom and the Turkish government
reached a deal on the construction of the land-based part of the Turkish Stream branch that
will bring Russian gas to European consumers.
According
to Reuters , the two counterparts signed a protocol that would allow the construction,
which was stalled by a legal rift over gas prices, to go forward. Gazprom and Turkey's
state-owned BOTAS agreed on the terms and conditions of the project, Gazprom said in a statement ,
adding that the deal "allows to move to practical steps for the implementation of the project."
The actual construction would be carried out by a joint venture called TurkAkim Gaz Tasima
which will be owned by Gazprom and BOTAS in equal shares, Gazprom said.
Earlier on Saturday, Turkish president Erdogan said that Gazprom and BOTAS resolved a
long-running legal dispute over import prices in 2015-2016, and as a result Turkey would gain
$1 billion as part of the gas-price settlement reached with Gazprom, in which Turkey and the
Russian natgas giant agreed on a 10.25% price discount for gas supplied by Russia in 2015 and
2016.
"We agreed on a 10.25% reduction in the price of natural gas in 2015-2016," Erdogan
announced while speaking at a rally on Saturday. "We got our discount. We get about $ 1 billion
worth of our rights before the election," the Turkish President said, as cited by Anadolu
Agency.
BOTAS had refused to approve the building of the land-based part of the pipeline until the
import price issue was resolved. Until now, it only permitted Gazprom to construct the undersea
part of the line. The construction is currently underway.
Russia and Turkey officially agreed on the project, which consists of two branches, in
October 2016. The first branch will deliver gas to Turkish consumers, while the second one will
bring it to the countries in southern and south-western Europe. The European leg is expected to
decrease Russia's dependence on transit through Ukraine. Each of the lines has a maximum
capacity of 15.75 billion cubic meters a year.
Gazprom finished the construction of the deep-water part of the first line of the Turkish
Stream in April. The first Russian gas could start flowing through both legs of the Turkish
Stream by December 2019.
The greenlighting of the Turkish Stream project is sure to infuriate the US which previously
announced it was
considering sanctions of European firms that would participate in the Nothern Stream
Russian gas pipeline.
President Trump went as far as to threaten
Angela Merkel two weeks ago , telling her to either drop the Russian gas pipeline or the
trade war with the US was set to begin.
How Europe reacts to US threats involving the Northern Stream and, soon, the Turkish Stream,
will determine whether Europe will once again find itself a subservient vassal state to US
military and energy lobbying powers, or if Brussels will side with Putin in this growing
conflict, resulting in an unprecedented breach within the so-called " democratic west. "
[May 27, 2018] Turning on Russia by Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould
"... Coming Next, Part 2: The post WWII global strategy of the neocons has been shaped chiefly by Russophobia against the Soviet Union and now Russia ..."
"... * Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould are the authors of Invisible History: Afghanistan's Untold Story , Crossing Zero The AfPak War at the Turning Point of American Empire and The Voice . Visit their websites at invisiblehistory and grailwerk .com ..."
In this first of a two-part series, Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould trace the origins
of the neoconservative targeting of Russia.
By Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould April 29.2018
The German newsmagazine Der Spiegel last September reported
that, "Stanley Fischer, the 73–year-old vice chair of the U.S. Federal Reserve, is
familiar with the decline of the world's rich. He spent his childhood and youth in the British
protectorate of Rhodesia before going to London in the early 1960s for his university studies.
There, he experienced first-hand the unravelling of the British Empire Now an American citizen,
Fischer is currently witnessing another major power taking its leave of the world stage the
United States is losing its status as a global hegemonic power, he said recently. The U.S.
political system could take the world in a very dangerous direction "
With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the creation of the so called Wolfowitz
Doctrine in 1992 during the administration of George Herbert Walker Bush, the United States
claimed the mantle of the world's first and only. Unipower with the intention of crushing any
nation or system that would oppose it in the future. The New World Order, foreseen just a few
short years ago, becomes more disorderly by the day, made worse by varying degrees of
incompetence and greed emanating from Berlin, London, Paris and Washington.
As a further sign of the ongoing seismic shocks rocking America's claim to leadership, by
the time Fischer's interview appeared in the online version of the Der Spiegel , he had
already announced his resignation as vice chair of the Federal Reserve -- eight months ahead of
schedule. If anyone knows about the decline and fall of empires it is the "globalist" and
former Bank of Israel president, Stanley Fischer. Not only did he experience the unravelling of
the British Empire as a young student in London, he directly assisted in the wholesale
dismantling of the Soviet Empire during the 1990s.
As an admitted product of the British Empire and point man for its long term imperial aims,
that makes Fischer not just empire's Angel of Death, but its rag and bone man.
Alongside a handful of Harvard economists led by Jonathan Hay, Larry Summers, Andrei
Shleifer, and Jeffry Sachs, in the "Harvard Project," plus Anatoly Chubais, the chief Russian
economic adviser, Fischer helped throw 100 million Russians into poverty overnight –
privatizing, or as some would say piratizing – the Russian economy. Yet, Americans never
got the real story because a slanted anti-Russia narrative covered the true nature of the
robbery from beginning to end.
As described by public policy scholar and anthropologist Janine R. Wedel in her 2009 book
Shadow Elite: "Presented in the West as a fight between enlightenment Reformers trying
to move the economy forward through privatization, and retrograde Luddites who opposed them,
this story misrepresented the facts. The idea or goal of privatization was not controversial,
even among communists the Russian Supreme Soviet, a communist body, passed two laws laying the
groundwork for privatization. Opposition to privatization was rooted not in the idea itself but
in the particular privatization program that was implemented, the opaque way in which it
was put into place, and the use of executive authority to bypass the parliament."
Intentionally set up to fail for Russia and the Russian people under the cover of a false
narrative, she continues "The outcome rendered privatization 'a de facto fraud,' as one
economist put it, and the parliamentary committee that had judged the Chubais scheme to 'offer
fertile ground for criminal activity' was proven right."
If Fischer, a man who helped bring about a de facto criminal-privatization-fraud to
post-empire Russia says the U.S. is on a dangerous course, the time has arrived for post-empire
Americans to ask what role he played in putting the U.S. on that dangerous course. Little known
to Americans is the blunt force trauma Fischer and the "prestigious" Harvard Project delivered
to Russia under the leadership of Boris Yeltsin during the 1990s. According to The American Conservative's James Carden "As the Center for Economic and Policy
Research noted back in 2011 'the IMF's intervention in Russia during Fischer's tenure led to
one of the worst losses in output in history, in the absence of war or natural disaster.'
Indeed, one Russian observer compared the economic and social consequences of the IMF's
intervention to what one would see in the aftermath of a medium-level nuclear attack."
Neither do most Americans know that it was President Jimmy Carter's national security
advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski's 1970s grand plan for the conquest of the Eurasian heartland that
boomeranged to terrorize Europe and America in the 21 st century. Brzezinski spent
much of his life undermining the Communist Soviet Union and then spent the rest of it worrying
about its resurgence as a Czarist empire under Vladimir Putin. It might be unfair to say that
hating Russia was his only obsession. But a common inside joke during his tenure as the
President's top national security officer was that he couldn't find Nicaragua on a map.
If anyone provided the blueprint for the United States to rule in a unipolar world following
the Soviet Union's collapse it was Brzezinski. And if anyone could be said to represent the
debt driven financial system that fueled America's post-Vietnam Imperialism, it's Fischer. His
departure should have sent a chill down every neoconservative's spine. Their dream of a New
World Order has once again ground to a halt at the gates of Moscow.
Whenever the epitaph for the abbreviated American century is written it will be sure to
feature the iconic role the neoconservatives played in hastening its demise. From the chaos
created by Vietnam they set to work restructuring American politics, finance and foreign policy
to their own purposes. Dominated at the beginning by Zionists and Trotskyists, but directed by
the Anglo/American establishment and their intelligence elites, the neoconservatives' goal,
working with their Chicago School neoliberal partners, was to deconstruct the nation-state
through cultural co-optation and financial subversion and to project American power abroad. So
far they have been overwhelmingly successful to the detriment of much of the
world.
From the end of the Second World War through the 1980s the focus of this pursuit was on the
Soviet Union, but since the Soviet collapse in 1991, their focus has been on dismantling any
and all opposition to their global dominion.
Pentagon Capitalism
Shady finance, imperial misadventures and neoconservatism go hand in hand. The CIA's
founders saw themselves as partners in this enterprise and the defense industry welcomed them
with open arms. McGill University economist R.T. Naylor, author of 1987's Hot Money and the
Politics of Debt , described how "Pentagon Capitalism" had made the Vietnam War
possible by selling the Pentagon's debt to the rest of the world.
"In effect, the US Marines had replaced Meyer Lansky's couriers , and the European central
banks arranged the 'loan-back,'" Naylor writes. "When the mechanism was explained to the late
[neoconservative] Herman Kahn – lifeguard of the era's chief 'think tank' and a man who
popularized the notion it was possible to emerge smiling from a global conflagration – he
reacted with visible delight. Kahn exclaimed excitedly, 'We've pulled off the biggest ripoff in
history! We've run rings around the British Empire.'" In addition to their core of
ex-Trotskyist intellectuals early neoconservatives could count among their ranks such
establishment figures as James Burnham, father of the Cold War Paul Nitze, Senator Daniel
Patrick Moynihan, Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, Jeane Kirkpatrick and Brzezinski himself.
From the beginning of their entry into the American political mainstream in the 1970s it was
known that their emergence could imperil democracy in America and yet Washington's more
moderate gatekeepers allowed them in without much of a fight.
Peter Steinfels' 1979 classic The
Neoconservatives: The men who are changing America's politics begins with these fateful
words. "THE PREMISES OF THIS BOOK are simple. First, that a distinct and powerful political
outlook has recently emerged in the United States. Second, that this outlook, preoccupied with
certain aspects of American life and blind or complacent towards others, justifies a politics
which, should it prevail, threatens to attenuate and diminish the promise of American
democracy."
But long before Steinfels' 1979 account, the neoconservative's agenda of inserting their own
interests ahead of America's was well underway, attenuating U.S. democracy, undermining
détente and angering America's NATO partners that supported it. According to the
distinguished State Department Soviet specialist Raymond Garthoff, détente had been
under attack by right-wing and military-industrial forces ( led by Senator "Scoop"
Jackson ) from its inception. But America's ownership of that policy underwent a shift
following U.S. intervention on behalf of Israel during the 1973 October war. Garthoff writes in
his detailed volume on American-Soviet relations Détente
and Confrontation , "To the allies the threat [to Israel] did not come from the Soviet
Union, but from unwise actions by the United States, taken unilaterally and without
consultation. The airlift [of arms] had been bad enough. The U.S. military alert of its forces
in Europe was too much."
In addition to the crippling Arab oil embargo that followed, the crisis of confidence in
U.S. decision-making nearly produced a mutiny within NATO. Garthoff continues, "The United
States had used the alert to convert an Arab-Israeli conflict, into which the United States had
plunged, into a matter of East-West confrontation. Then it had used that tension as an excuse
to demand that Europe subordinate its own policies to a manipulative American diplomatic gamble
over which they had no control and to which they had not even been privy, all in the name of
alliance unity."
In the end the U.S. found common cause with its Cold War Soviet enemy by imposing a
cease-fire accepted by both Egypt and Israel thereby confirming the usefulness of
détente. But as related by Garthoff this success triggered an even greater effort by
Israel's "politically significant supporters" in the U.S. to begin opposing any
cooperation with the Soviet Union, at all.
Garthoff writes, "The United States had pressed Israel into doing precisely what the Soviet
Union (as well as the United States) had wanted: to halt its advance short of complete
encirclement of the Egyptian Third Army east of Suez Thus they [Israel's politically
significant supporters] saw the convergence of American-Soviet interests and effective
cooperation in imposing a cease-fire as a harbinger of greater future cooperation by the two
superpowers in working toward a resolution of the Israeli-Arab-Palestinian problem."
What happens when a country decides to decouple itself from the US/Saudi axis of evilglobinfo
freexchange
T he role of Qatar and Saudi Arabia in the Middle East chaos is quite well known . Recall that
in a letter
of the Podesta email series, John Podesta admitted that both Qatar and Saudi Arabia we re
helping ISIS. Podesta also mentioned that the US should exercise pressure to these countries in
order to stop doing it: " ... we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional
intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are
providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in
the region. "
Of course Hillary Clinton wouldn't do anything about this problem too, as in another
letter of the Podesta email series, it was revealed that Bill Clinton was receiving
"expensive gifts" from the Qataris!
As reported by Antimedia , in 2009 Qatar
proposed a pipeline to run through Syria and Turkey to export Saudi gas. Assad rejected the
proposal and instead formed an agreement with Iran and Iraq to construct a pipeline to the
European market that would cut Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar out of the route entirely.
Since, Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia have been staunch backers of the opposition seeking to
topple Assad. Collectively, they have invested billions of dollars, lent weapons, encouraged
the spread of fanatical ideology, and helped smuggle fighters across their borders.
The Iran-Iraq pipeline will strengthen Iranian influence in the region and undermine their
rival, Saudi Arabia -- the other main OPEC producer. Given the ability to transport gas to
Europe without going through Washington's allies, Iran will hold the upper-hand and will be
able to negotiate agreements that exclude the U.S. dollar completely.
Yet, less than a year ago, a crisis erupted between 'unholy' allies, apparently because Qatar
has chosen to change camp and proceed into a deeper approach with Iran.
As reported by Guardian , Saudi Arabia and its allies have issued a threatening 13-point
ultimatum to Qatar as the price for lifting a two-week trade and diplomatic embargo of the
country, in a marked escalation of the Gulf's worst diplomatic dispute in decades. The onerous
list of demands includes stipulations that Doha close the broadcaster al-Jazeera,
drastically scale back cooperation with Iran , remove Turkish troops from Qatar's soil,
end contact with groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and submit to monthly external
compliance checks. Qatar has been given 10 days to comply with the demands or face unspecified
consequences.
Then, apparently, Rex
Tillerson tried to persuade Qatar to stay in the unholy alliance and move away from
Iran a day after wrapping up discussions with the king of Saudi Arabia and other officials from
Arab countries lined up against Qatar.
We can tell now that Qatar has not changed stance and chosen to continue its approach with the
winning alliance in the Syrian battlefield. We have the first signs showing that the US empire
and its allies in the Middle East will move against Qatar, beginning with a typical first step:
propaganda war.
A Pentagon "propagandist," who previously headed a company that was paid half a billion dollars
to produce fake terrorist videos in Iraq, was hired by a Dubai based company to create a film accusing Qatar of links to terrorism , the Bureau of
Investigative Journalism has revealed.
Charles Andreae, the CEO of Andreae & Associates which was contracted to produce the film,
used to work for PR firm Bell Pottinger, the UK PR firm that was payed $540 million dollars to
create fake terrorist videos in Iraq.
The firm was employed to produce the anti-Qatari film amidst a diplomatic row in which the
Saudi and UAE governments cut ties with Doha, which it accused of supporting terrorism. Qatar
has strongly denied the accusation and accused its neighbours of fabricating stories. US
intelligence agencies have since confirmed that the UAE orchestrated the hacking of Qatari
government news and social media sites to justify its unprecedented attack against Qatar.
According to the Bureau, Andreae was given over $500,000 to produce a six-part film linking
Qatar with global terrorism. The film, entitled "Qatar: A Dangerous Alliance," features a
number of neo-conservative pundits making the UAE and Saudi case against Qatar in a 37-minute
video.
Washington's double standards and hypocrisy are quite evident in this case too. After this
crisis between allies erupted, a number of US officials immediately launched a series of
statements through which they depicted Qatar as the sole supporter of terrorist groups in the
Middle East. Again, Saudi Arabia, the most authoritarian regime in the region and probably the
biggest supporter of jihadist extremists, was miraculously vanished from their radar and,
naturally, the radar of the Western corporate media.
In case Qatar will not compromise and keep walking the path towards decoupling itself from the
US/Saudi axis of evil, the next steps will be a new series of upgraded, Iranian-type sanctions,
or even a military invasion as the last option. The only thing that can save Qatar for now is
the fact that it hosts the largest US military base in the Middle East .
"The US is looking for sales markets. We can understand this, and we are prepared to take
effort to ensure this gas reaches Germany easier. Presently, however, it remains much more
expensive than the gas delivered via the pipeline," the minister told ARD.
In addition, if the US does not change its tactics of behaviour and continues thinking only
of its economic interests, then Europe will act similarly, the minister added.
Earlier, Us officials said that the United Stats may impose sanctions on the companies
involved in the implementation of the Nord Stream 2
project. US Assistant Secretary of State Sandra Oudkirk said that Washington could consider
retaliatory measures within the framework of Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions
Act. She explained the US position as follows: the construction of the gas pipeline will
strengthen Europe's dependence on the Russian natural gas.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that Germany regards the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline as
a safe economic project for Europe.
Nord Stream is an offshore natural gas pipeline from Vyborg in the Russian Federation to
Greifswald in Germany that is owned and operated by Nord Stream AG. The project includes two
parallel lines. The first line was laid by May 2011 and was inaugurated on 8 November 2011. The
second line was laid in 2011-2012 and was inaugurated on 8 October 2012. At 1,222 kilometres
(759 mi) in length, it is the longest sub-sea pipeline in the world, surpassing the Langeled
pipeline. It has an annual capacity of 55 billion cubic metres (1.9 trillion cubic feet), but
its capacity is planned to be doubled to 110 billion cubic metres (3.9 trillion cubic feet) by
2019, by laying two additional lines.
Sandra Oudkirk, US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Energy,
has just threatened to sanction the Europeans if they continue with the Nord Stream 2
pipeline project to bring gas in from Russia across the Baltic Sea. That country is also seen
by the US as an adversary and its approach is by and large the same – to issue orders for
Europe to adopt a confrontational policy, doing as it is told without asking too many
questions.
Iran and Nord Stream 2 unite Moscow and Brussels in their opposition to this diktat. On May
17, Iran
signed a provisional free-trade-zone agreement with a Russia-led Eurasian Economic Union
(EEU) that seeks to increase the current levels of trade valued at $2.7 billion. The deal
lowers or abolishes customs duties. It also establishes a three-year process for reaching a
permanent trade agreement. If Iran becomes a member of the group, it would expand its economic
horizons beyond the Middle Eastern region. So, Europe and Russia are in the same boat, both
holding talks with Iran on economic cooperation.
In their March 15
letter , 39 US senators
called on the Treasury and State Departments to utilize all the sanction tools at their
disposal to fight the Nord Stream 2 project to bring cheap Russian gas to Europe. On March 29,
US Ambassador to Russia Jon Huntsman told Russia's RBK TV that he cannot rule out the
possibility that Russian assets in America could be seized over the Skripal case. If Washington
goes that far, it will be pure highway robbery. And the response will not be long in coming.
That interview took place right after the British parliament had
announced an investigation into some money-laundering schemes allegedly associated with
Russia. The UK government has unveiled its
"Fusion Doctrine" to counter what it's calling Russian propaganda.
The US policy of making Europeans bow to pressure has been largely successful. The leading
European powers -- the UK, Germany and France – --
are pushing to force the EU to impose new sanctions on Iran, in order to persuade the US
not to pull out from the Iran nuclear deal. This is a last-minute attempt to keep the agreement
in effect, as it is widely expected that President Trump will not certify it in May. Europeans
may bow to American pressure in a bid to appease Washington, but Russia is also a party to the
agreement, which cannot be scuttled without Moscow's consent. Adding additional conditions will
violate the terms of the deal. It won't be supported internationally. If new Iran sanctions are
introduced unilaterally by the West, the issue will become a bone of contention that will
further worsen relations with Moscow.
"... How about the West which has been trying to build a gas pipeline through Syria into Turkey to supply Europe with gas and break Russia's monopoly of European gas supplies. Don't believe me read the Doha agreement where the west recognised the Syrian rebels, this pipeline was a pre requisite for that recognition. ..."
"... And why would Assad who is winning the war do the one thing that would give America and other western countries the chance to get involved because of outrageous moral indignation. Assad and Outing really aren't that stupid. ..."
How about the West which has been trying to build a gas pipeline through Syria into
Turkey to supply Europe with gas and break Russia's monopoly of European gas supplies. Don't
believe me read the Doha agreement where the west recognised the Syrian rebels, this pipeline
was a pre requisite for that recognition.
Israel? which is not happy with Iran and Lebanon having a presence in Syria, worried that
America was withdrawing.
AlQaeda or the Syrian Rebels, many are both who are losing the war and this is a last
desperate attempt to drag in America and the west?
You've also got Turkey and the Kurds (the Kurds were abandoned by the West after they had
fulfilled their useful purpose), both also players in the region but I can't see a motive
here.
And why would Assad who is winning the war do the one thing that would give America
and other western countries the chance to get involved because of outrageous moral
indignation. Assad and Outing really aren't that stupid.
Any or all of the above could be the true motivation. I am no fan of Assad, Putin, or
Trump or May (or the Blair clone Macron) but the question you have to ask yourself is who
gains from this? And is. this in the interests of a resolution to a conflict, to your safety
or is it something else?
Report post " What exactly do we get from Russian that we couldn't do without? " <== The
willingness to ally with the U.S. vs the Chinese.
There is no denial of what Russia has done in the last few years, and it's wrong! However,
what is entirely missing from the western media is the U.S. ambassador to the USSR, Jack
Matlock, and George Kennan have been warning the American political elites since the 90's,
prior to Putin was even known and in politics, that the American foreign policy is steering us
straight into confrontations with Russia! It's not if but when it will happen REGARDLESS OF who
is in Kremlin! Nobody cared to heed because we were indulging ourselves as the sole superpower
in the world.
Neither has the American media reported even our old friend, Gorbachev, is praising Putin
and has harsh words for the U.S. In a nutshell, the Russians don't like to be treated as a
nobody country, ie. with decisions of world affairs already made and shoved at their face, and
they can either put up or shut up! However, that is exactly how Washington has conducted
business with Russia until the crisis in Ukraine in 2014. Would the American public put up with
a revolution led by a Russian politician in Mexico City or Ottawa, even though it's Mexican or
Canadians self-determination? Then what makes us think the Russians would tolerate John McCain
leading an anti-Russian revolution in Kiev, even if it's Ukrainian self-determination? Don't
forget the U.S. directly invaded Grenada when they were exercising their self-determination to
ally with the USSR!
This is not about defending Russia. The Russians can take care of that themselves. Rather,
can the U.S. afford to have Russia and China solidify their alliance again? It's already
happening unless we can adopt a sensible Russian policy to turn it around. Who would you rather
ally with? Someone (like the U.S.) who expects you to be a subordinate vs another (like China)
who is willing to treat you as an equal?
One can certainly argue how it is possible to ally with a country like Russia, who sponsors
dictators, meddles in our elections and tramples on other nation's self-determination. If you
are willing to be honest with yourself, just Google it. There is not one thing we accuse of the
Russians that our politicians are not doing it overseas, by MULTIPLE magnitude! The biggest
gripe the Russians have toward the U.S. is "are you preaching democracy or hypocrisy?" Yes, one
sin doesn't justify another, but why our politicians can't uphold this principle when they are
committing treacheries overseas?
I suggest that Russia act as "marginal producer" and refuse to sell oil,
gas or raw petroleum products for less than double the price of other
suppliers.
All of a sudden... thing will change.
After the treatment Russia has gotten for the past year or more, they
are more than justified to adopt this policy.
What's going on?
Read this:
"In late March, the U.S. State Department warned European corporations that
they will likely face penalties if they participate in the construction of
Russia's Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, on the grounds that "the project
undermines energy security in Europe"
The Nord Stream 2 project and the
denial of pipelines through Syria territory is what's eating at the zio-cons.
This is power politics and Russia / China are too much of a threat.
The Russian central bank opened its first overseas office in Beijing
on March 14, marking a step forward in forging a Beijing-Moscow alliance
to bypass the US dollar in the global monetary system, and to phase-in a
gold-backed standard of trade.
Apr 3 2017 - Europe approves Nordstream 2 gas pipeline from Russia to
Germany
April 6 2017 - need to attack Syria.
Coincidentally, with a new government a gas pipelin can be run from
Qatar to Europe and cut-off Russian gas revenue.
*Three Mediterranean EU countries and Israel agreed on Monday to
continue pursuing the development of a gas pipeline ... EU countries and
Israel ... April 3, 2017 ...*
EU, Israel agree to develop Eastern Mediterranean gas pipeline
The Optics of the Inter National Geo Political Crises would suggest
that The Criminal Oligarch Cabal Bankster Intelligence Deep State Crime
Syndicate are going "All In."
The petroyuan project is the key. It will smash the petrodollar zio-world.
Saddam Hussien thought of doing that in the 80's by consolidating
Arab oil into a basket of currencies backed by gold. The problem for
him was he was a disposable puppet and not able to defend that
project. China and Russia are a different matter. It's driving the
zios batty.
And, the Yuan is now in the IMF basket of SDR's. Ultimately, the
Petro Dollar will meet its demise & it will be decided by which is
the cleanest, dirtiest shirt to put on among the SDR's.
"... I think the only that would really cause the Russians serious economic hardship at this point would be a total EU embargo on Russian oil/natgas. That, of course, would cause the rest of Europe a fair amount of hardship, too, as they would then have to pay 3 or 4 times as much for frack-gas from the US. ..."
I think the only that would really cause the Russians serious economic hardship at this
point would be a total EU embargo on Russian oil/natgas. That, of course, would cause the
rest of Europe a fair amount of hardship, too, as they would then have to pay 3 or 4 times as
much for frack-gas from the US.
Of course, oil/gas being fungible, the EU in such an eventuality would buy higher priced
gas/oil from us or someone and the Russians would just end up selling to other entities.
Whatever we sell to Europe is fuel we can't sell to others and it's not like our export
market is infinitely expandable. The EU has a huge need for natural gas which it mostly gets
from Russia via pipeline. Even if the US had that much surplus capacity, it would take years
to come up with the means to export that much LNG..
Hagios | Apr 11, 2018 8:50:17 AM |
58 I think that the read target here is the Nord Stream II pipeline. They're currently
unwilling to cancel it out of economic considerations, but they think that they could get away
with cancelling it if NATO attacks Syria and Russia responds with "unprovoked aggression."
NATO's attack IMO will be just large enough that Russia has to respond, then Trump and co. will
cease further military action and continue with economic warfare.
Transit of Russian natural gas via Ukraine will be reduced to just about 10-12 billion cubic
meters annually after the completion of two new pipelines -- Turkish Stream and Nord Stream 2.
That's what Gazprom's chief executive Alexei Miller told a Russian TV channel yesterday, confirming Kiev's
fears that Nord Stream 2 will deprive it of a lot of income in the form of transit fees.
The significance of the new figure can easily be seen when compared with the transit
quantities for last month: Gazprom sent
8.1 billion cubic meters of gas via Russia's eastern neighbor in March, a 21.3-percent
increase on the year. In other words, when Turkish Stream and Nord Stream 2 are ready, Ukraine
will receive something like a 12th of its current annual gas transit revenues from Gazprom.
This is reason enough for Kiev to be so vocally against Nord Steam 2, but unfortunately for
Ukraine, Germany is just as vocally supportive of the project, of which it will be the biggest
beneficiary. The expanded Nord Stream pipeline will have a capacity of 110
billion cubic meters annually.
Still, Miller said, not all transit via Ukraine will be suspended. "We are not saying we
will stop entire transit via Ukraine, since there are neighboring countries that border Ukraine
on the side of Europe. Naturally, supplies to these European countries will continue via
Ukraine."
While the news is bad for Ukraine, it makes sense for Russia as European countries eagerly
seek alternatives to Russian gas, including the "neighboring countries that border Ukraine,"
notably Poland. Yet Germany is by far Gazprom's biggest client in Europe and Russian gas is the
cheapest for Europe's largest economy, hence the support for a project seen as controversial by
the European Commission.
Turkish Stream, for its part, will send Russian gas to the European part of Turkey up to the
border with Greece, to supply gas to southeastern Europe. Its capacity is much smaller than
Nord Stream's, but still larger than the future transit via Ukraine, at 15.75
billion cubic meters of gas.
Russian elite already views May's government as bandits, who staged this despicable provocation. So stakes for British elite are
very high.
And the way May government tried to capitalize on this "poisoning" is really like going "all in". May clearly went what French call
"va bank". Reckless statement of Johnson, who is a very weak diplomat, but no fool, if a clear testament that they expect to prevail
with pretty weak cards. With ultimate reliance on power of the USA to secure favorable outcome.
Looks more and more that this is a part of Russiagate, or color revolution against Trump, however you want to call the effort: the
collusion between the intelligence heads of the Obama administration with British intelligence to oust President Trump.
The Russian Foreign Ministry is now openly pointing the possibility of a UK intelligence involvement. That sheds a very bad light
on EU vassals who without any questioning and with any proof immediately fell into line behind Theresa May.
The Chinese Foreign Ministry even said this was a tool used by the Europeans and the United States to try to get unity at a point
when they were completely disunified. And this is the old geopolitical game, that in order to create unity you create a war, and then
everybody has to fall into line before attacking Iran.
Compare with Ron Paul views on this incident: www.youtube.com
Notable quotes:
"... The UK foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, in a speech late on Wednesday waxed lyrical about how the Skripal episode represented a turning point in the west's approach to Russia, but his officials are aware that this mood can easily dissipate as other considerations, such as commerce, energy security or the Middle East come into play. ..."
"... The UK will try to push for further measures against Russia at the June meeting of the EU heads of state. If it is ambitious, it may may challenge German support for Nord Stream 2, the gas pipeline from Russia that could put European energy demand at the mercy of Moscow. ..."
That does not mean the crisis will necessarily end there, or that the crisis is contained.
Russia, whose standing among the international community
is badly damaged, is determined to do go further to clear its name, or at least throw up enough chaff so that a chunk of western
public opinion doubts the British intelligence service's account of Skripal's poisoning. Moscow has already suggested a meeting on
Monday of the executive of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to have "an honest conversation" about
the poisoning.
The OPCW is studying samples – provided by the UK – of the novichok nerve agent allegedly used, but does not have the ability
to judge the identity of the person that
placed the agent by the door of Skripal's house . But the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, is determined to put the UK
on the defensive and has already claimed that "if our western partners dodge the meeting then it will be further evidence that every
thing that is happened is a provocation".
Russia has also responded to the apparent recovery of Yulia Skripal, who was poisoned alongside her father. She may be able to
provide insights into how the poisoning occurred, or even reveal whether she knows of some other motive by some other non-state actor.
The British intelligence services will be debriefing her as soon as her health permits. It would clearly be a huge embarrassment
for the UK government if it emerged she believed the Russian state was not involved.
As it is, the UK government is aware that some allied leaders, despite the public show of solidarity, face skeptical voters at
home who are either against a confrontation with Vladimir Putin, or expect more convincing proof to be provided.
The UK foreign secretary, Boris Johnson,
in a speech late on Wednesday waxed lyrical about how the Skripal episode represented a turning point in the west's approach
to Russia, but his officials are aware that this mood can easily dissipate as other considerations, such as commerce, energy security
or the Middle East come into play.
The UK will try to push for further measures against Russia at the June meeting of the EU heads of state. If it is ambitious,
it may may challenge German support for Nord Stream 2, the gas pipeline from Russia that could put European energy demand at the
mercy of Moscow.
I am not a fan of LNG. If I was a Euro there is no way I would allow LNG in, whether
from Sabetta in Russia or from Sabine Pass in the US.
Being fan or no fan of specific type of energy hardly factors into economic reality of
Europe and coercing it into buying American LNG. If Europe continues to buy Russian gas --
that will be bad news for US. The US, however, may yet succeed in sabotaging Nord Stream II
and thus, in a long run, kill European industrial competitiveness thus opening European
market for US products. At least that is the plan. Here is a small taste of what is at
stake.
Turkish press is reporting that 'TurkStream' , the pipeline to bring natural gas from
Russia to Turkey, is now 80% complete and to be in operation by later this year. It is
expected to deliver close to 16 billion cubic meters per year from Gazprom to Turkish gas
distribution networks. A second phase scheduled for next year will reportedly deliver an
equal amount to Greece and other points in southern Europe.
This is in addition to the existing 'BlueStream' pipeline from Russia to Turkey,
operational since 2005, that also has a 16 billion cubic meter per year throughput.
Why the Western concern about NordStream pipeline but none about TurkStream? Are there no
sanction problems for the Swiss company working with GazProm? Plus I wonder if this is one of
the reasons why Russia has lately become paranoid regarding US Navy FON operations in the
Black Sea?
Why the Western concern about NordStream pipeline but none about TurkStream? Are there no
sanction problems for the Swiss company working with GazProm? Plus I wonder if this is one of
the reasons why Russia has lately become paranoid regarding US Navy FON operations in the
Black Sea?
The main concern has the name Sabetta--it is the port and a hub to a largest Liquid
Natural Gas operation, which also happened to be (in relative terms) next to Europe's LNG
ports. I usually don't do this but I apologize, here is a link to my blog's piece on
that:
LNG is precisely a commodity which is counted by US as a major component in possibly (and
most likely not very probable) US re-industrialization. For that, the US has to sell her LNG
to Europe. This implies removing Russian LNG from the EU market which dwarfs that of Turkey
and some South European nations. Germany, France, UK, Holland among others are the prize
here. Russian LNG must be verboten, in US mind, or at least pushed back. As per FON--it has
nothing to do with FON but has everything to do with:
1. Flag demonstration--that is presence and Fleet In Being.
2. Signals collection from Sevastopol, Novorossyisk and, in general, all Russia's Southern
Military District emitters.
"... When I read: "As X becomes increasingly aggressive, even reckless geopolitically," frankly Russia was not the first country that came to mind. ..."
Yves
here. I trust readers will be able to filter out the new Cold War assumptions in the piece to
focus on the price of Germany's plans. Does anyone have an informed take on how significant the
broader economic impact might be?
By Tim Daiss, an oil markets analyst, journalist and author working out of the
Asia-Pacific region for 12 years who has covered oil, energy markets and geopolitics for
Forbes, Platts, Interfax, NewsBase, Rigzone, and the UK-based Independent (newspaper) as well
as providing energy markets analysis for subscription newsletters. Originally published at
OilPrice
More problems are mounting for Russia's oil and gas sector. This time it's coming from
Germany, which until recently usually gave Russia's energy sector more lead way than the U.S.
or other allies.
But now it seems that German Chancellor Angela Merkel has also had enough. On Monday,
Bloomberg reported that Merkel's government is seeking to build a liquefied
natural gas (LNG) industry in Germany basically from scratch to reduce the nation's dependence
on supplies arriving by pipeline from Russia and Norway.
Merkel backs "all initiatives supporting further diversification of gas supply -- whether
from different regions or means of transporting gas," said German Economy and Energy Ministry
spokeswoman Beate Baron.
The move comes as natural gas resources from the UK and the Netherlands are depleting, and
Germany is forced to rely more on Russian gas. Merkel's newly formed coalition has a "coalition
contract" that among other policies sets out energy agenda including LNG for the next four
years, the Bloomberg reported added.
Germany, for its part, is Europe's largest gas consumer. In
2015, the country consumed 7.2 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) of natural gas, according to
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) data. According to the German energy research
group, AG Energiebilanzen, imports account for about 90 percent of Germany's total natural gas
supply, while most imports come from three countries: Russia (40 percent of total imports in
2015), Norway (21 percent) and the Netherlands (29 percent).
Moreover, German companies are participating in Russia's controversial Nord Stream 2
pipeline, an expansion of an existing route for gas to flow from Russia to Europe under the
Baltic Sea. The U.S., Poland and others have recently condemned the pipeline as a threat to
European security.
As Russia becomes increasingly aggressive, even reckless geopolitically, the security threat
to not only the EU but to Germany is apparent, causing the country of some 83 million people to
do an abrupt energy policy about face.
Germany's LNG pivot also comes as a geopolitical storm between the U.K. and Russia
intensifies over an alleged Moscow-orchestrated nerve-agent attack on British soil against what the
BBC called a double spy and his daughter.
British Prime Minister Theresa May retaliated last week by expelling Russian diplomats and
seeking alternatives to Russian gas, including LNG produced at its new Arctic plant, the Yamal
LNG export project. Addressing the UN Security Council last week, the U.K.'s deputy UN
ambassador, Jonathan Allen, accused Russia of breaking its obligations under the Convention on
the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
The U.S. for its part also condemned the nerve agent attack. U.S. ambassador Nikki Haley
said that Washington stood in "absolute solidarity" with Britain, citing the "special
relationship" between the two countries and saying that Washington would "always be there" for
the UK.
Germany's Abrupt LNG Pivot
However, until recently many in Germany accused the U.S., notably President Trump, of using
U.S.-sourced LNG as a geopolitical weapon to challenge Russia's decades' old dominance of
European gas markets -- an accusation that played perfectly into the hands of Russian energy
companies and even Vladimir Putin.
When Trump singed fresh sanctions against Russia's energy sector in August, Uniper -- a
German utility and one of Europe's largest energy firms -- said the new sanctions were an
American economic move as much as a political one.
"The core reason (for the sanctions) is strategic economic interests, meaning the targeted
dominance of the US in energy markets," Uniper CEO Klaus Schaefer told journalists shortly
after Trump signed the sanctions bill. Uniper is one of five companies that have invested in
Nord Stream 2.
Brigitte Zypries, Germany's economy minister, claimed last year that the sanctions violated
international law and said that the EU should take action against the U.S. "Of course we don't
want a trade war. But it is important the European Commission now looks into countermeasures,"
she said. "The Americans can't punish German companies because they have business interests in
another country."
Cost Factors Could Impede Pivot
However, any Germany pivot to LNG away from Russian gas will come at a cost. Shipping LNG by
one of several suppliers, including Qatar, the U.S. or Angola to name a few, is simply more
expensive than Russian piped gas. While Russia already has an extensive pipeline network in
place, LNG is more expensive when transportation, liquefaction and regasification costs are
added.
Using a Henry Hub gas price of $2.85/MMBtu as a base, Russian energy giant Gazprom recently
estimated that adding processing and transportation costs, the price in Europe would reach
$6/MMBtu -- a steep markup.
Henry Hub gas prices are currently trading at $2.657/MMBtu. Over the last 52-week period
U.S. gas has traded between $2.64/MMBtu and $3.82/MMBtu.
Russian gas sells for around $5/MMBtu in European markets. Moreover, Russian gas exporter
Gazprom is also moving away from oil-indexation for gas prices to a European gas hub
indexation, which will allow additional price savings and unfortunately for Germany -- an
incentive to stick with Russian gas, even if it's geopolitically distasteful.
Meanwhile, Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak
said yesterday that Russia is Europe's most flexibly and reliable source of energy that is
needed.
Its a long long way from a political announcement to an industrial reality. Also, the
quote:
Merkel backs "all initiatives supporting further diversification of gas supply" is
telling.
Germany does not want to be caught out in a Russia/US energy squeeze while its pursuing an
alternative energy path. Nor does Merkel want to overtly pick sides.
Plus if you will note, given the momentum of current German/Russian energy initiatives, I
rather doubt that this "announcement" will have a lot of traction in the near future.
The Oilprice site, although very informative is somewhat shrill from day to day
(everything is a BIG DEAL).
Yes, its a telling quote -- it can basically be paraphrased as 'if someone is willing to
pay for these facilities, we would be happy to hear that'. There are quite a few stalled
projects for LNG terminals in Europe -- but they are expensive and even the promise of cheap
US LNG won't unlock them so long as Russia can supply relatively cheap gas. If European
governments want more LNG terminals for security reasons then they'll have to pay for them.
Thats not likely to happen, there are far more pressing infrastructural needs.
Is anyone considering the possibility that the US's ability to deliver LNG may not exist
for long enough to pay the cost of building the infrastructure necessary to use it?
Is anyone factoring in the damage to our environment, including our fresh water when
calculating the cost of poking Russia in the eye?
At first glance, this whole play appears short-sighted, at least, probably foolish.
Of course the big oil companies have never gone unrewarded for their fealty to the whims
of the MIC, even when any objective analysis finds massive foolishness.
Dont worry, Novatek already delivered a shipment of LNG from the Yamal peninsular to the
UK.
I would bet that Nord Stream will not eliminate the need to export across the Ukraine.
Undersea pipelines dont have great capacity. But additional marginal pipeline capacity does
reduce the bargaining power of the Ukraine. Im sure LNG capacity does the same.
We're deep into our malinvestment phase where uneconomic industries are being sustained
with monetary policy to prop up an unsustainable status quo.
The question is whether the left can coordinate collective action before the right can
start WW3. It will be real events somewhere that cause real change: financialized capitalism
with its own hand on the money spigot of fiat money is, with reference to itself, a perpetual
motion machine.
It will either be a force of life, or thermodynamics that finally overthrow this machine.
The stresses for dramatic external political events are building everywhere.
However, this is where market capitalism excels. As long as there is enough money in the
hands of the average person (a major issue), the average person will install solar panels and
batteries and heat pumps and buy an EV and say "to hell with you" to the oil, gas, and coal
industries.
Less money is going to those average folks, but local EV is hopeful. Tons of money goes to
supporting facking, which in the absence of QE and the spigot of free money for
(mal)investors, would not be economical.
LNG ports to receive a fuel with what is approaching negative EROEI are pure
mal-investment.
MMT was used to incentivize net positive public goods by Mariner Eccles making the US the
richest nation in the world. We're now seeing the global financial cabal use the same tool to
despoil real wealth, monetizing it along with trust wherever it can find either. It is an
epic of short-termism that will ultimately destroy the money itself by liquidating the real
productive social and economic constellations that support it.
I read the statement as that Germany is looking for a replacement of its Dutch and
Norwegian gas sources. As Germany does not want to depend for 100% of its gas from Russia,
they do need to look for alternatives.
It is just smart policy not to depend from a single source, for whatever purpose.
Dutch and Norwegian gas reserves are in
long term decline , so its likely that Russian gas will become a higher proportion of
supply in the medium to longer term.
i) the cost of transport is very high and there is a linear relationship between distance
and transport costs
ii) both the client and the supplier would like stable long-term contracts to secure
investments and supply.
There is always interdependence if you want durable supply.
Constructing some LNG facilities, besides the cost factors mentioned above won't reduce
such interdependence by much given that Russia provides 40% of current consumption. Also,
Russia migth seek providing NG to fast growing asian markets. I think that Germany is trying
to diversify just because Norway, Netherlands, and its own production are declining. I also
think that this means that fracking gas in Europe is not seen as an alternative.
I wouldn't say that Germany will "pivot" from russian gas, that is giving too much weigth
to potential LNG supplies.
Another point is that if the issue is security, it would most likely be more cost
effective to build up a buffer in underground storage facilities than building new LNG
terminals.
I could be that Germany is buckling under the pressure of attacks as the US is threatening
to sanction European firms involved in the Russian/EU Nord Stream 2 project ( https://www.rt.com/business/421900-us-sanctions-nord-stream-companies/
) which if true, would mean that the EU would have to ask the permission of Washington in
dealings with any countries not to Washington's liking.
The Poles have already built a LNG gas delivery terminal so you would think that Germany
would just pipe it in from there unless Germany wanted to build their own terminal so that
they would not have to pay Poland any fees as Poland is one of the counties opposing Nord
Stream 2.
Poland has already received at least one LNP shipment from the US but the price of the
delivery is a state secret apparently.
The Russians could always turn around and sell their cheaper gas to China so no big loss
to them. Thing is, it will take a decade to build a fleet of tankers to carry the gas that
Germany needs annually as these ships would just be going back and forth like clockwork. Who
pays for that? Germany would also need years just to build the LNP port facility to receive
these shipments. I believe too that the US export terminal is in the Gulf so tough luck if a
hurricane shut down that terminal at any time. Remember, this winter the Russians had to ship
two tankers of gas to the US because of shortages so how reliable could a US supply be?
Add up the costs of building the port facility, a fleet of tankers and the infrastructure
to deal with it all, then top up with the gas not only being more expensive than the Russian
gas but also less reliable and the Germans will have to take a knife to their budget to pay
for it all. Trump would have a fit if it was their defense budget so that means the social
budget. Good luck with that. One last factor of which I have even less knowledge of is the US
gas supply. I believe that it comes from shale deposits aka fracking but I know that these
wells deplete rapidly so if true, would suggest that US gas as a supply source may be self
limiting over time. I don't think that the economics work out here for Germany somehow.
It's not a pivot. The only important thing is North Stream 2: if the US or the
transatlantic lobby manages to kill that, then there is a pivot. Otherwise, it's business as
usual.
So unless one wants to be ~90% dependent on russian gas, there has to be some alternatives
to keep the russians honest. Only realistic way is LNG. So Germany has to build the
infrastructure for it to have a credible bargaining position. The marketshare of russian gas
will increase over the next few years in any way.
Also, I would like to add that the German Press isn't treating this like some sort of
revelation.
As everywhere else, if a politician wants to get a little patriotic push on their side,
they hold a speech touting "energy independence". Germany is no different in that regard and
Merkel needs to appear a bit more nationalistic right now.
Current headlines are all about social issues like immigration, Facebook data breaches,
internal politics, etc. No one is obsessing about LNG facilities or things like Brexit.
There are major offshore gas fields in the Mediterranean -- on the coast of Cyprus and all
the way offshore from Syria to Egypt. Their exploitation is still largely pending resolution
of local crises (Turkey vs EU re Cyprus, Israel vs Palestine and Lebanon, in Syria because of
war). Once those fields come on line, the need for special-purpose ports to bring in LNG from
afar to Europe no longer makes much economic sense.
Besides, Algeria continues to provide gas (and oil) to the EU.
Germany is a major shareholder in the EPR reactor, but isn't building any
because its proven far too expensive, much more expensive than domestic renewables.
Its untrue to say that Germany buys a lot of French nuclear energy, imports from France are minor at a net
of around 4 terawatt hours a year, similar to the amount of wind energy Germany buys from
Denmark. Its dwarfed by the huge renewable sector in Germany which produces over 200 TWh per annum . Germany is
actually a net exporter of energy to France in most summers as the inland nuclear plants
often go off-line due to water shortages.
"Germany's LNG pivot also comes as a geopolitical storm between the U.K. and Russia
intensifies over an alleged Moscow-orchestrated nerve-agent attack on British soil against
what the BBC called a double spy and his daughter."
When one thinks about the geopolitical repercussions of this nerve gas attack on $$ for
USA LNG, the control of energy supplies to the EU by the USA and its middle east puppets, the
quickly identified fingerprint and emotionally charged finger pointing, a complex technical
topic to which the general public has general knowledge and therefore must rely on
"authorities", the high level of media attention for a relatively minor character, and the
ongoing attempts to vilify and isolate Russia -- one has to wonder if this is just another
CIA false flag event similar to Iraq WMDs and the Syrian chemical weapons attacks -- another
false flag that will eventually fall apart after it has served its purpose. Examined in the
light of past and ongoing CIA atrocities (Renditions and torture in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo,
droning, MKULTRA, Operation Mongoose, Phoenix Program, Iran-Contra, numerous assassinations
and coups -- just to name a few), it seems quite in line with what I would expect from this
criminal organization. Not that we can really know the truth at this time, but those who
dutifully believe the corporate media on this topic might want to open a skeptical eye. There
are likely cover stories within cover stories -- much like cover stories one finds in the
Wormwood documentary.
This news along with Trudeau's support for Kinder Morgan Canada's Trans Mountain oil/tar
sands pipeline expansion should make it clear that the Paris Accords were a cruel joke on
humanity. We will keep extracting every single last drop of recoverable oil until we run out
of energy to continue or we nuke ourselves.
So, it's easy enough for Germany to pivot away from gas *if* they switch to heating with
electricity. However, Merkel refuses to push this. Because Merkel.
The Senators' argument is that dependence on Russian gas undermines European security.
Whereas to the Russians, it is obvious that the Americans wish to replace cheap Rusian
piped gas with expensive liquefied American gas, which is a bi-product of fracking for oil
and currently in surplus. Some frackers in Canada are even having to pay someone to take
their gas.
Surprisingly, no one has yet pointed out that Russia could deliver Novichok to the whole
of Europe via Nordstream 2.
"... This is a European energy issue. From the start. The US either wants to be the middle-man or cut Russia off from it entirely. No other options have been tabled or would be acceptable to Washington. Remember the Trump quote "Why don't we just take their oil and gas?" ..."
"... Look at the opposition gaining speed against Nord Stream II. And also look, the UK and all of Europe may be in for some cold summers and winters now, it's a trend they cannot ignore as it gets colder for longer periods, this trend isn't relaxing with the stratosphere doing some flips and turns and sending "The Beast From The East" towards the once Great Britain. ..."
The Skripal anti-Russia hysteria effort is just another step in the US/CIA campaign to
interfere with the Russian hosting of the World Cup -- the next step will be to attempt to
have the qualifying European countries boycott the event ... remember, to them, every Russian
loss is an American win.
However, I will go on record to predict that the US will have its Ukrainian neo-Nazi
vassals mount a major attack on the Donbass within week of the beginning of the World Cup
tournament.
I agree the World Cup is on the agenda, but this effort is multi-pronged, like Octi-putin,
they will want to boycott it and you will see all sorts of FIFA related articles in the
coming months, corruption and so on. It's all predictable.
This is a European energy issue. From the start. The US either wants to be the
middle-man or cut Russia off from it entirely. No other options have been tabled or would be
acceptable to Washington. Remember the Trump quote "Why don't we just take their oil and
gas?"
Look at the opposition gaining speed against Nord Stream II. And also look, the UK and
all of Europe may be in for some cold summers and winters now, it's a trend they cannot
ignore as it gets colder for longer periods, this trend isn't relaxing with the stratosphere
doing some flips and turns and sending "The Beast From The East" towards the once Great
Britain.
It is about bankrupting Russia and also trying to get European
nations to turn the Russian gas tap off, and so Europe will have to resort
to buying gas through Western controlled natural gas resources, liquid gas
shipments, and a proposed Qatar-Turkey pipeline through Syria. Once most
Western people discover the actual history of our wars and what ruthless,
unconscionable bastards our Western power brokers actually are, they will
automatically want to support Russia.
This is the May-Johnson excuse for not going through with Brexit. Now they
will say they need their partner in the EU to protect them. Good luck with
that one.
I wouldn't write NATO off just yet. Rothschild bought Naftogaz which has an
office in Egypt. Igor Kolomoisky has some interesting ties also the
temporary occupation of Crimea by Russia. And who is Genie Energy?
"... Another background to the British provocation might be the Nord Stream gas pipeline from Russia to Germany. Construction is to start now and once it is finished Ukraine can´t blackmail Europe anymore by holding up gas delivery. Poland, the Baltics, the US and of course Ukraine are violently opposed to Nord Stream 2. ..."
...The British noise about the alleged nerve gas agent is then nothing more but another
attempt to force Washingtons´s hand to increase hostility towards Russia.
Interestingly enough today Germany´s defense minister who is a close confident of
Merkel echoed the outrage about the alleged nerve gas attack but called for a "UN
investigation". That is she didn´t endorse the British claim.
Another background to the British provocation might be the Nord Stream gas pipeline from
Russia to Germany. Construction is to start now and once it is finished Ukraine can´t
blackmail Europe anymore by holding up gas delivery. Poland, the Baltics, the US and of
course Ukraine are violently opposed to Nord Stream 2.
Sanctions on Russia are being ignored. China is investing its US Trillions. Under US imposed
sanctions, ExxonMobil withdrew and China said "Thank You" and took the partnership.
Chinese state-controlled Huarong Asset Management has bought a 36.2 percent stake in the unit
of CEFC China Energy through which CEFC is acquiring a $9.1 billion stake in Russian oil
giant Rosneft.
According to CEFC filings seen by Reuters, Huarong has bought the stake in CEFC in two
tranches, one in December and one in February. Huarong is controlled by China's Ministry of
Finance.
In September, CEFC Energy announced plans to acquire 14.16 percent of Rosneft shares from
Glencore and the Qatar Investment Authority (QIA).
"The final structure of Rosneft's shareholders has been formed," Rosneft CEO Igor Sechin
told Rossiya 24 television.
As part of a long-term agreement, Rosneft and CEFC Energy inked a deal on crude oil
deliveries in 2017. According to the agreement, the Russian oil major will supply CEFC with
60.8 million tons of oil annually until 2023.
The agreement covers the development of exploration and production projects in Siberia.
The two companies plan to cooperate in refining, petrochemicals and crude trading.
The Ukrainian authorities have started the seizure of assets belonging to the Russian gas
giant Gazprom, citing its alleged non-compliance with the decision of the Stockholm arbitration
court. "Under the current circumstances, the Ukrainian cabinet initiates action aimed at
recovering [a] penalty from Gazprom," the Ukrainian government's press service said in a
statement published on its official website. It also claimed that the move was conducted in
compliance with the decision of the Stockholm court and involves collecting a fine from the
Russian company over its alleged violation of Ukrainian anti-monopoly legislation. Read more
Ukraine is
overpaying for European gas & wants Russia to foot the bill
The Swedish arbitration body initially ruled on the three-year dispute between Gazprom and
the Ukrainian energy company, Naftogaz, back in December 2017. The policy of the court prevents
it from even acknowledging that it's mediating a case, which makes it impossible to obtain its
own account of the final ruling. Both energy companies, which have opposing takes on the
outcome, initially claimed victory in the case.
In late February, the same court ordered Gazprom to compensate Naftogaz $4.6 billion for
what the latter sees as lost profit from the transit of Russian gas to Europe.
The legal battle between the two energy companies in the Arbitration Institute of the
Stockholm Chamber of Commerce had rumbled on since June 2014. Gazprom's claims related to fines
for insufficient withdrawal and use of gas by the Ukrainian side, in accordance with a
'take-or-pay' rule. The Russian gas giant also demanded payment of a debt for gas
delivered to Ukraine between May and June 2014.
Naftogaz pushed for a retroactive change in the price of gas, the reimbursement of
overpayments and the repeal of a ban on reselling Russian gas. The court eventually satisfied
some of the Ukrainian company's demands, in particular by setting a minimum amount of gas that
Naftogaz must buy from Gazprom annually (from 2018) at a volume that was 10 times lower than in
the original contract. At the same time, it also obliged Gazprom to pay for the transit of the
Russian gas through the Ukrainian territory between 2009 and 2017 even though the gas was not,
in fact, transited over that period.
The Head of Gazprom, Alexei Miller, then called the court's decision "asymmetric"
and "very politically motivated." The court justified its decision by referring to a
difficult economic situation in Ukraine.
"... Bullshit. The Ukrainians have been on a pay before delivery tariff from Russia for years. They have chosen war over trade. They currently prefer to spend what income they get that survives oligarch looting on trying to kill the East Ukrainians (currenly 6.9% of GDP). ..."
Sat, 03/03/2018 - 21:13 Last week, Russia's state-run gas giant and quasi-monopolist when it
comes to European natgas supplies, Gazprom, announced it would not restart shipments of natural
gas to Ukraine's Naftogaz starting March 1 after the two sides failed to reach an agreement,
Gazprom deputy chairman, Alexander Medvedev, told journalists.
Russian gas deliveries to Ukraine were supposed to restart on Thursday following a foreign
court ruling aimed at ending years of disputes between Kiev and Moscow, including two halts to
Russian gas supplies to Europe through Ukraine. But Gazprom unexpectedly refused to resume
deliveries, returning the prepayment for supplies made by Kiev, claiming amendments to a
contract had not been completed.
The decision came as the sides reportedly failed to extend a supplemental agreement to the
current gas contract, RT
reported.
"So far, the supplemental agreement to the operating contract with Naftogaz has not been
approved, and that is a compulsory condition for launching the shipments," Medvedev said. "So,
we have to recover the amount paid by the company in full. And it is obvious that the shipments
in March won't start."
In response, Ukraine's state monopoly said that Gazprom had failed to deliver prepaid gas.
Naftogaz is reportedly planning to claim damages for supply failure from the Russian energy
major.
And while the long-running dispute may, but likely won't, be resolved in court, Ukraine has
suddenly found itself without heat and on Friday urged schools to close and factories to cut
production, while residents shivered as the country strained to save on gas supplies.
The decision coincided with freezing temperatures all over Ukraine, and the government
called on Friday for measures to reduce consumption.
" Starting today, we recommended ... to stop the work of kindergartens, schools and
universities ," Ukraine energy minister Igor
Nasalyk told lawmakers , while urging Ukrainian companies to adjust their operations to
save gas, while power companies were ordered to switch to fuel oil where possible.
Nasalyk said these savings measures would be in effect until Tuesday, when temperatures are
expected to rise.
* * *
Meanwhile, on Friday, Gazprom director Alexei Miller said that the company would immediately
turn to the Stockholm arbitration court to break its contract with the Ukrainian operator
Naftogaz, Russian news agencies reported. A ruling by the same court last year was meant to
halt disputes over gas prices and shipments, which had often been a proxy for political
disputes between Moscow and Kiev. The court set a price and ordered Kiev to resume purchases it
had cancelled following the breakout in "proxy" violence between the two nations in 2014.
Also on Friday, Naftogaz said that Gazprom had not only refused to resume deliveries meant
for it, but lowered the pressure in gas pipelines by 20 percent and minimized sales to other
customers. In a statement, Naftogaz said that Gazprom was trying to portray Ukraine in a
negative light and suggest that it was willing either to let its own population freeze or make
it out to be "an unreliable transit company that takes the gas away" from European
countries.
In response,
Reuters reported today that Gazprom said there had so far been no impact on supplies
through its pipelines to Europe, despite the sharp escalation in tensions with the key transit
nation.
Russia's Energy Minister Alexander Novak told European Commission Vice President Maros
Sefcofic in a phone conversation that gas transit would not be at risk until Gazprom and
Naftogaz fully terminated their agreement.
"Minister Novak assured that the gas transit from Russia to Europe is under no threat. The
transit remains as reliable as in the past," the ministry said.
* * *
Kiev and Moscow have a history of clashing over prices and obligations under contracts for
the delivery of Russian gas to Ukraine as well as transit to Europe. The standoff in the winter
of 2006 triggered supply disruptions, with Russia accusing Ukraine of stealing gas intended for
the European market.
The gas giants are currently involved in a long-standing litigation over the terms of the
current delivery contract. Ukraine's lawyers are struggling for annulment of the so-called
take-or-pay provision that obliges Kiev to purchase a minimum annual quantity of gas. Earlier
this week, Naftogaz claimed it had won a $2.56 billion victory in another round of its legal
battle with Gazprom.
Karma can be a bitch Ukraine. Still, I'm sure your friends in Washington will immediately
provide you with an endless supply of free LNG? Call Vicky.
Incidentally, to the author, your map is incorrect (i'm sure that was just an error like
Goolag's deletion of Themtube sites). Crimea is no longer a part of Ukraine after 95%+ of its
population excercised their right to self-determination after the Maidan coup.
Ukraine's already connected to Poland's LNG port. And by the way, days at sea for a ship
with Qatari LNG is the same as a saudi tanker hauling oil to the U.S.
Ukraine is in a total meltdown, forget about Venezuela which at least has energy stores.
Ukraine has to import most of its energy. Donbass has all the coal. Putin is a genius, he is
starving Ukraine of energy. There will be mass unrest in the country. Expect a government
friendly to Russia to come back into play. The only thing that can prevent this is if Europe
and the USA are willing to pay for Ukraine's energy needs.
Where otherwise will Ukraine get
the hard currency. Well for a while it will get it by selling off its farmland and its women.
In ww2 you could buy a woman with a package of pantyhose, an MRE, or a pack of cigarettes.
Now you will be able to buy them again the same way and with a lump of coal.
"Ukraine Freezes After Russia Halts Gas Deliveries"
Bullshit. The Ukrainians have been on a pay before delivery tariff from Russia for years.
They have chosen war over trade. They currently prefer to spend what income they get that
survives oligarch looting on trying to kill the East Ukrainians (currenly 6.9% of GDP).
On
March 1, Ukraine closed all schools, colleges and universities to conserve energy. Following
a Stockholm arbitration court decision on March 1, Gazprom has started the process of
cancelling the contracts for supply of gas to and through Ukraine. They are at liberty to
purchase it at market rates ($600 per 100 cubic metersversus the subsidised $300 from Russia)
from the Europeans.
Joe Biden's son, Hunter, was hired by a Ukraine company, Burisma Holdings Limited,
promoting energy independence from Moscow. So hows it goin Hunter??
Too busy fooling around with his late brother's widow. No time for Ukraine. Murica can help
fund some gas, if they can throw away a couple billion for the coup, c'mon Guys, Porky is
yoar Bro.
Most likely he was fooling around with her before his brother died. Some of his nieces and
nephews may be his kids. The Bidens are a microcosm of the perverse behavior in DC.
"Kathleen Biden accused estranged husband Hunter of reckless spending on 'drugs,
prostitutes, and an $80,000 diamond' in divorce docs - days before his affair with widowed
sister-in-law Hallie was revealed"
" Kathleen claims Hunter spends money on 'drugs, alcohol, prostitutes, strip clubs and
gifts for women with whom he had sexual relations' in her new motion "
I live in Minneapolis. The weather here isn't too different from much of Ukraine. For
early March we're having a very warm day, nearly 50 F. But next week we get back to more
seasonal highs around freezing, with maybe 6" of slushy snow on Monday.
I really like it when my heat works. I do have a wood-burning fireplace but if I have to use it for heat we've got a lot of
problems all at once. Ukraine is a great example of what always happens when Nazis get in charge. Everything
goes to hell in a handbasket, quickly.
The fools just might do that to keep the riots out of the government buildings in Kiev.
Russia doesn't want the basket case either so who knows what the war would look like. Kiev is
totally screwed either way this goes.
No Russia knows that any dealings with Kiev or ukr companies are disastrous. Russia acts
very carefully within the law. Hence immediate return of first gas payement since 2014, so
not legally bound. Hence Gasprom requiring a signed contract under mutually agreed conditions
which they did not get.
Already Ukraine is say there is a 20 percent drop off in pressure on transit gas thru.
ukr. Russia says not, it is gas pressure as usual.
Looks like Ukraine is stealing 20percent of transit gas immediately.
The Ukrainian economy is in a catastrophic state after four years of "euro-reforms," said
Viktor Medvedchuk, head of the public movement "Ukrainian Choice – People's
Right." "At the end of 2013. Ukraine's state and publicly guaranteed debt was 40% of GDP, and
by the end of 2017 it had more than doubled, exceeding 80% of GDP. In 2013, Ukraine's GDP per
capita was more than $ 4,075, and in 2016 decreased to $ 2221.
The average monthly salary in 2017 as a whole for the country was $ 267 (in 2013 it exceeded
$ 408), pensions are also 2.3 times lower than before the euro reform. Today, it is slightly
more than $ 48, while in 2013 it was almost $ 112, " Medvedchuk said.
The Polish leadership intends to implement a project of its own with the Baltic Pipe gas
pipeline - in face of the "Nord Stream - 2". This is reported by the German newspaper
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung .
The Polish party "Law and Justice" decided to revive the Baltic Pipe project and connect to the
Norwegian gas network. According to press releases, at the end of last year the Polish state
oil and gas company PGNiG reserved the capacity of the gas pipeline for 15 years, at a cost of
two billion dollars. It is assumed that the Polish project with an annual capacity of 10
billion cubic meters per year will begin to function in 2022, but the final decision on this
project will be taken later in 2018.
Poland actively opposes the construction of the Russian "Nord Stream - 2". Earlier, the Polish
Prime Minister called on the US leadership to extend American sanctions for the implementation
of this project. In addition, he said that European companies involved in the construction of
the gas pipeline should be fined.
Germany has rebuffed such statements, stating that the project guarantees energy security for
Europe.
Nord Stream -2 is a project worth 9.5 billion euros, which involves the construction of two
lines of pipeline across the Baltic Sea from the coast of Russia to Germany. The total capacity
will be 55 billion cubic meters of gas per year.
F Y I :> Putin prefers Aramco to Trump's sword dance
Hardly 10 months after honoring the visiting US president, the Saudis are open to a
Russian-Chinese consortium investing in the upcoming Aramco IPO
By M.K. BHADRAKUMAR
FEBRUARY 16, 2018
[extract]
In the slideshow that is Middle Eastern politics, the series of still images seldom add up
to make an enduring narrative. And the probability is high that when an indelible image
appears, it might go unnoticed -- such as Russia and Saudi Arabia wrapping up huge energy
deals on Wednesday underscoring a new narrative in regional and international security.
The ebb and flow of events in Syria -- Turkey's campaign in Afrin and its threat to
administer an "Ottoman slap" to the United States, and the shooting down of an Israeli F-16
jet -- hogged the attention. But something of far greater importance was unfolding in Riyadh,
as Saudi and Russian officials met to seal major deals marking a historic challenge to the US
dominance in the Persian Gulf region.
The big news is the Russian offer to the Saudi authorities to invest directly in the
upcoming Aramco initial public offering -- and the Saudis acknowledging the offer. Even
bigger news, surely, is that Moscow is putting together a Russian-Chinese consortium of joint
investment funds plus several major Russian banks to be part of the Aramco IPO.
Chinese state oil companies were interested in becoming cornerstone investors in the IPO,
but the participation of a Russia-China joint investment fund takes matters to an entirely
different realm. Clearly, the Chinese side is willing to hand over tens of billions of
dollars.
Yet the Aramco IPO was a prime motive for US President Donald Trump to choose Saudi Arabia
for his first foreign trip. The Saudi hosts extended the ultimate honor to Trump -- a
ceremonial sword dance outside the Murabba Palace in Riyadh. Hardly 10 months later, they are
open to a Russian-Chinese consortium investing in the Aramco IPO.
Riyadh plans to sell 5% of Saudi Aramco in what is billed as the largest IPO in world
history. In the Saudi estimation, Aramco is worth US$2 trillion; a 5% stake sale could fetch
as much as $100 billion. The IPO is a crucial segment of Vision 2030, Saudi Crown Prince
Mohammad bin Salman's ambitious plan to diversify the kingdom's economy.
A production sharing agreement (PSA) between Royal Dutch Shell and Ukraine's Nadra Yuzivska
for the development of Yuzivske shale gas deposits located in Ukraine's Kharkiv and Donetsk
regions was signed in Davos on 24 January 2013 through the mediation of Ukrainian president
Viktor Yanukovych and Netherlands prime minister Mark Rutte. The agreement was inked by
Ukraine's energy and coal industry minister Eduard Stavitsky and Royal Dutch Shell CEO Peter
Voser.
Prior to the signing ceremony Yanukovych told journalists that Ukraine would benefit from
the agreement since it would allow attracting investments, which Ukraine could use to increase
the domestic natural gas production thus creating jobs, raising the level of the country's
economy as well as increasing the budget revenues and providing funds for social needs.
On 23 January Ukraine's cabinet of ministers approved a draft PSA between Shell Exploration
and Production Ukraine Investments B.V. and Nadra Yuzivska for Yuzivske shale gas field
(7,886m2 acreage) development.
Yuzivske field prognostic resources are estimated at 2-4trln m3 of gas, which can be a viable
alternative for costly natural gas volumes Ukraine imports form Russia. In the meanwhile US
Energy Information Agency (EIA) estimates Ukraine's shale gas potential at 1.2trln m3 in this
way making the country's shale gas reserves the 4th largest in Europe after Poland, France and
Norway. Totally consuming some 60bn m3 of natural gas annually, Ukraine has to import 40bn m3
of natural gas from Russia priced $430 per 1,000 m3 based on the terms of agreements inked in
2009.
Ukraine's prime minister Mykola Azarov stated earlier that Yuzivske field commercial
development over the span of a decade could give Ukraine an additional 8-10bn m3 of gas
annually.
As Eduard Stavitsky put it in Davos, Ukraine could possibly meet its domestic natural gas
demand in full in about 5 years of shale gas production cooperation with Shell. "According to
Shell's optimistic scenario about 20bn m3 of gas could be extracted annually; according to the
pessimistic one, at the very least 7-8bn m3. If the top forecasts were fulfilled, we would
tackle the gas shortfall problem in Ukraine or might even go into surplus", Stavitsky was
quoted as saying. He stated earlier that Shell saw investments under the deal of at least $10bn
under the most likely scenario and possibly as much as $50bn.
OILMARKET Info
In May 2012 Shell was chosen the successful bidder for 7,800km2 Yuzivske acreage (Kharkiv and
Donetsk regions, Ukraine) development with projected reserves estimated at 4.054trln m3 of gas
of various categories. The project calls for raising at least $20mn (UAH1.6bn) in investments
for the geological study phase, and $3.75bn (UAH30bn) for the industrial production phase. The
agreement envisages stage-by-stage exploration, development and hydrocarbons production. Both
companies (Shell and Nadro Yuzivske) will hold a 50% participation stake, with Shell chosen the
project operator responsible for carrying out works under the terms of agreement.
According to Shell press service, the mentioned PSA was signed for 50 years period. The
initial geological study phase at Yuzivske field implies 2D and 3D seismics as well as 15 well
drilling, which is expected to enable effective exploration and assessments of hydrocarbon
deposits potential especially that of natural gas trapped in compacted sandstone. Yuzivske
field development will be implemented in line with the highest international HSE standards. In
this way Shell is to carry out comprehensive possible environmental, social and public health
impact assessment of the project prior to launch.
"... "The top American diplomat said his country is ready to help Poland continue to diversify its fuel supplies, including through the sale of U.S. liquefied natural gas, to reduce its dependence on Russia" ..."
Tillerson apes Hillary Clinton PR lines on Russia:
WARSAW (Reuters) - The United States sees the planned Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline between
Russia and Germany as a threat to Europe's energy security, U.S. Secretary of State Rex
Tillerson said on Saturday.
The rest of the Reuters article is garbage, so I'm not bothering with a link. . . Bloomberg
seems to spell out the larger rationale, at least:
"The top American diplomat said his country is ready to help Poland continue to diversify its
fuel supplies, including through the sale of U.S. liquefied natural gas, to reduce its
dependence on Russia"
Notice also that Secretary of Defense Mattis says that the US military is now focused on
"Great Power Conflicts" - so what is this, right back to the Hillary Clinton gameplan? At
least, Trump is unlikely to get any international support for reckless military actions, so
that's one good thing about him over Clinton.
LNG tanker Gaselys was scheduled to arrive in Boston Saturday. Vessel reversed course to
Spain after almost 21 days en route
... ... ...
While unusual, it's not unheard of for LNG cargoes that aren't tied into a contract with
fixed destination to change course en route as cargo owners seek the highest price and the best
market. Companies with access to wide global supplies can also swap shipments between regions.
What's more, the tanker may still make it to Boston with a delay, as was the case with
deliveries earlier this month, according to Kpler SAS, a cargo-tracking company.
"We have still not canceled the Everett port call for Gaselys," Madeleine Overgaard, an LNG
market analyst at Kpler, said by email. "Her course is currently not very different from the
average delivery at Everett in 2017, she is probably just diverting to delay arrival."
Engie SA's North American unit bought the spot cargo for delivery to the U.S. from
Malaysia's Petroliam Nasional Bhd. to supplement its contracted volumes from Trinidad and
Tobago into its Everett terminal near Boston, it said last week. Engie declined to comment on
the tanker's movement on Friday.
The Yamal LNG project, co-owned by Russia's Novatek PJSC, Total SA, China Natural Petroleum
Corp. and China's Silk Road Fund, started production in December despite U.S. financial
sanctions imposed in 2014 because of Russia's involvement in the Ukrainian conflict. It plans
to deliver 14 spot cargoes by April, when long-term contracts kick in.
With the opening of the new ESPO oil pipeline connecting Siberia to China doubling the
amount of oil China can import to 600,000 barrels per day we'll see those numbers continue to
accelerate.
And that's the key. Remember, the massive $400 billion gas deal China made with Gazprom in
2014 hasn't begun delivering gas. The first Power of Siberia pipeline isn't due to be completed
until 2019. The second Power of Siberia pipeline is on the table after this one.
And the two countries just agreed to a third pipeline to bring gas in from Russia's far east
last month.
So, despite back-biting from western media about the profitability of these projects, they
are going forward and the two countries continue to strengthen fundamental ties to one
another.
... ... ...
The important takeaway is that China has created the first unassailable and above-ground
challenge to the petro-dollar oil trade. To break the world's use of the dollar as the sole
settlement currency for oil required the right contract issued by a country the U.S. can't
immediately invade and conduct a regime change operation in – like in Iraq and Libya.
Russia wins here because now there is a path for its Urals grade to become an international
benchmark like WTI and Brent. And since Gazprom prefers to price its long-term gas contracts
based on underlying oil prices rather than the more volatile natural gas price, this is also a
win in the long run for them.
Gold convertibility is a means to deepen China's sovereign debt markets by making it less
risky to hold Chinese bonds. The lack of true yuan convertibility is the big impediment to
people holding them. So, gold convertibility creates a viable exit route.
Bob, when you control 40% of the World's Oil & Gas Reserves and can turn the tap on
and off then you can hardly be considered POOR, especially when you make up 20% of the
world's Land Mass ( am also thinking Fresh Water ).
Vichy DC's Sanctions on Russia are in Essence, Sanctions on Exxon & the Majors (who
soon won't be Majors at this rate ) and the EUROPEAN UNION.
The vice tightens inexorably and US foreign policy thrashes about in response to the
pressure. What will the parasitic Jewish overlords do to save their declining host?
Are companies which produce it profitable or they survive by generating a parallel stream
of junk bonds and evergreen loans?
Most of them are also shale oil producers and might well depend on revenue from shale oil
to produce gas. Shale oil proved to unsustainable at prices below, say $65-$75 per barrel or
even higher, excluding few "sweet spots". Also a lot of liquids the shale well produce are
"subprime oil" that refiners shun.
They are not only much lighter but also they have fewer hydrocarbons necessary for
producing kerosene and diesel fuel. Mixing it with heavy oil proved to be double edged sword
and still inferior to "natural" oil. So right now the USA imports "quality" oil and sells its
own" subprime oil" at discount to refineries that are capable of dealing with such a mix.
Say, buying a barrel for $60 and selling a barrel of "subprime oil" at $30.
And without revenue from oil and liquids it can well be that natural gas production might
be uneconomical.
I wonder what percentage of the total US oil production now is subprime oil.
Modern multistage shale well now cost around $7-10 million. And that's only beginning as
its exploitation also costs money (fuel, maintenance, pumping back highly salinated and often
toxic water the well produces, etc). So neither oil nor gas from such wells can be very
cheap.
Generally such a well is highly productive only the first couple of years. After that you
need to drill more.
Also there is a damage to environment including such dangerous thing as pollution of
drinking water in the area,
From what I can tell, in Europe there was a policy of encouraging LNG terminals in order
to provide leverage against Russian supply. But there seems to have been a significant
slowdown in construction – quite simply, LNG is too expensive relative to Russian and
domestic (Norwegian, Dutch, UK, Mediteranean) supplies. It makes much more sense for Europe
to broaden out its pipeline network. So I think the only appetite for US LNG comes from the
more anti-Russian eastern European countries such as Poland, which hates dependency on
Russian gas.
Poland would suffer without revenue from pipelines that transport Russian natural gas to
Western Europe. That's why they adamantly oppose North Stream II.
Not as much as Ukraine, for which it might mean the economic collapse, but still.
"... By Wolf Richter, a San Francisco based executive, entrepreneur, start up specialist, and author, with extensive international work experience. Originally published at Wolf Street ..."
"... Exports to Mexico via pipeline have been rising for years as more pipelines have entered service and as Mexican power generators are switching from burning oil that could be sold in the global markets to burning cheap US natural gas. The US imports no natural gas from Mexico. ..."
"... This is just the Sabine Pass export terminal. In addition, there are five other LNG export terminals under construction, according to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), with a combined capacity of 7.5 Bcf/d. This brings total LNG export capacity to over 11 Bcf/d over the next few years and will make the US the third largest LNG exporter globally, behind Australia and Qatar. ..."
"... According to the Institute of Energy Research, global LNG demand is currently around 37 Bcf per day. This is expected to grow substantially as China is shifting part of its power generation capacity from coal to natural gas. And US LNG exports to China have surged from nothing two years ago to 25.6 billion cubic feet in October (for the month, not per day): ..."
"... US natural gas production has been booming since 2009 as fracking in prolific shale plays took off, and the price has collapsed – it currently is below $3 per million British thermal units (mmBtu) at the NYMEX, despite tthe majestic cold wave that is gripping a big part of the country. ..."
"... This caused some immense price differences between the US market -- where a gas "glut" crushed prices, pushing them from time to time even below $2/mmBtu -- and, for example, the Japanese LNG import market, with prices that were in the $16-$17/mmBtu range in 2013 and 2014. Even the average spot price contracted in November 2017, the most recent data made available by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry , was $9/mmBtu. US LNG exporters hope to arbitrage these price differentials. ..."
"... Meanwhile, US producers are hoping that this overseas demand will mop up the glut in the US and allow them to finally boost prices, including the prices LNG exporters pay. But funding continues pouring into the oil and gas sector to pump up production, and prices have remained low, and drillers continue to bleed. ..."
"... Poland may have one built but think about this – the Ukraine may be happy to pay for American coal which is twice as expensive as what they could buy from the Donbass regions but will Europe be happy to pay double or more for LNG from the US just to spite the Russians? ..."
By Wolf Richter, a San Francisco based executive, entrepreneur, start up specialist, and
author, with extensive international work experience. Originally published at
Wolf Street
Even China is Buying U.S. LNG
In 2017, the US became a net exporter of natural gas for the first time. It started small in
February, when the US exported 1 billion cubic feet more than it imported. By October, the last
month for which data from the Energy Department's EIA is available, net exports surged to 45
billion cubic feet. For the first 10 months of 2017, the US exported 86 billion cubic feet more
than it imported. And this is just the beginning.
Exports to Mexico via pipeline have been rising for years as more pipelines have entered
service and as Mexican power generators are switching from burning oil that could be sold in
the global markets to burning cheap US natural gas. The US imports no natural gas from
Mexico.
Imports from and exports to Canada have both declined since 2007, with the US continuing to
import more natural gas from Canada than it exports to Canada.
What is new is the surging export of liquefied natural gas (LNG) by sea to other parts of
the world.
This chart shows net imports (imports minus exports) of US natural gas. Negative "net
imports" (red) mean that the US exports more than it imports:
The first major LNG export terminal in the Lower 48 – Cheniere Energy's Sabine Pass
terminal in Cameron Parish, Louisiana – began commercial deliveries in early 2016 when
the liquefaction unit "Train 1" entered service. Trains 2 and 3 followed. The three trains have
a capacity of just over 2 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d). In October 2017, the company
announced that Train 4, with a capacity of 0.7 Bcf/d, was substantially completed and is likely
to begin commercial deliveries in March 2018. Train 5 is under construction and is expected to
be completed in August 2019. The company is now lining up contracts and financing for Train 6.
All six trains combined will have a capacity of 4.2 Bcf/d.
This is just the Sabine Pass export terminal. In addition, there are five other LNG export
terminals under construction, according to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), with a combined capacity of 7.5 Bcf/d. This brings
total LNG export capacity to over 11 Bcf/d over the next few years and will make the US the
third largest LNG exporter globally, behind Australia and Qatar.
In addition, there are several other export terminals that FERC has approved but
construction has not yet started. And other projects are in the works but have not yet been
approved.
According to the Institute of Energy Research, global LNG demand is currently around 37 Bcf
per day. This is expected to grow substantially as China is shifting part of its power
generation capacity from coal to natural gas. And US LNG exports to China have surged from
nothing two years ago to 25.6 billion cubic feet in October (for the month, not per day):
US natural gas production has been booming since 2009 as fracking in prolific shale plays
took off, and the price has collapsed – it currently is below $3 per million British
thermal units (mmBtu) at the NYMEX, despite tthe majestic cold wave that is gripping a big part
of the country.
Exporting large quantities of LNG is a momentous shift for the US because it connects
previously landlocked US production to the rest of the world. Unlike oil, the US natural gas
market has largely been isolated from global pricing.
This caused some immense price differences between the US market -- where a gas "glut"
crushed prices, pushing them from time to time even below $2/mmBtu -- and, for example, the
Japanese LNG import market, with prices that were in the $16-$17/mmBtu range in 2013 and 2014.
Even the average spot price contracted in November 2017, the most recent data made available by
the Ministry of
Economy, Trade and Industry , was $9/mmBtu. US LNG exporters hope to arbitrage these price
differentials.
Meanwhile, US producers are hoping that this overseas demand will mop up the glut in the US
and allow them to finally boost prices, including the prices LNG exporters pay. But funding
continues pouring into the oil and gas sector to pump up production, and prices have remained
low, and drillers continue to bleed.
And there are already global consequences – including in Europe, where large regions,
including Germany, increasingly depend on natural gas from Russia as production in Europe is
declining. The new competition from the US – though it really hasn't started in earnest
yet since most of US LNG goes to places other than Europe at the moment – is already
reverberating through the Europe-Russia natural gas trade.
The first major LNG export terminal in the Lower 48 began commercial deliveries in early
2016
Hmmm, is this a case of build it and they will come? Somebody has to sink the capital in
to build a fleet of LNG containers which will take a decade to come online. Somebody also has
the build the LNG terminals as well as the infrastructure to go along with it.
Poland may
have one built but think about this – the Ukraine may be happy to pay for American coal
which is twice as expensive as what they could buy from the Donbass regions but will Europe
be happy to pay double or more for LNG from the US just to spite the Russians?
Consider this as well. That LNG terminal is in Louisiana. Which is in the Gulf. Which has all
those annual hurricanes. Which is getting worse through climate change. Would the Europeans
want to risk depending on American deliveries under these conditions? I will reword that.
Will the Europeans want to risk their economies over this? Last year they shut down the place
for a month for repairs. What if Hurricane Harvey had slammed into the place. How will the
Europeans be able to trust that a future Trump doesn't shut down LNG deliveries in winter
time to get them to commit to some American policy? Too many variables with no net gain and
all loss – on their part.
The key here is whether Russia will stop transit of gas via Ukraine or not.
Notable quotes:
"... A more far-reaching result from the Stockholm proceedings was the intention to void the traditional (Gazprom) formula for gas prices which is based on a linkage to the price of oil. Instead, the price of gas will be tied directly to the spot gas market such as the European hub. ..."
"... In traditional Gazprom contracts, the price of gas depends on the price of oil, and only up to 15% of the price is a spot gas component. For decades, this contractual linkage of the price of gas to oil was largely accepted as being open and fair. ..."
"... the Stockholm arbitration declared that Naftogaz must honor their contract, and buy from Gazprom 5 billion cubic meters of gas annually. As it turns out the "take or pay" clause remains in force, but the volume has been significantly reduced. ..."
"... The irony is that while this is a loss of face for Kiev politically, economically it benefits the Ukrainian consumer. To date, Ukraine's purchases of "reverse gas" from Europe has been far more expensive than that which was contracted reliably over the years by Gazprom. ..."
After 2014, Ukraine claimed that it was being overcharged, and therefore Naftogaz refused to
pay Gazprom their contracted price for gas. Instead, it paid unilaterally a different amount
that it subjectively considered "fair."
Gazprom, in keeping with mutually contracted terms and conditions, could only issue an
invoice for the resulting underpayment, and after Naftogaz still refused to pay (a debt of
approx. $2 billion), made any further deliveries of gas contingent on prepayment.
The arbitration additionally upheld Gazprom's position and denied Naftogaz any right to a
refund for gas priced between May 2011 and April 2014 or collect any of the claimed
"overcharged gas" totaling approximately $14 billion for that period. In sum, the price Kiev
claimed was "inflated" was judged as in Stockholm as baseless.
Therefore, the question of who is accountable and responsible for settling debt has been
clarified in Stockholm. Naftogaz must pay Gazprom $2 billion plus a fine calculated at 0.03%
per day for each day this debt remains unpaid. This fine has already reached $3 million since
the court decision on December 22nd, and if it not paid can reach an annualized figure of $216
million and still keep growing daily.
Like any political and economic story, there is quite a bit that does not make the flashy
headlines, but plays a role in contributing to the noise surrounding an issue. Naftogaz takes
satisfaction in that the settlement allowed that the gas price for the second quarter of 2014
was to be reduced from $485 to $352 per 1000 cubic meters, or 27%, thereby "saving" Ukraine
about $ 1.8 billion for 2014-2015. The price of $485 was in fact fixed for that one quarter,
and it was higher than the market price. The reason was that the March referendum and
subsequent reunification of Crimea within the Russian Federation happened then. Up until that
time, Russia had given Ukraine a discount of $100 per one thousand cubic meters of gas as
payment for renting the Crimean base for the Black Sea fleet. The Kharkov treaty with Ukraine
which dealt with the naval base was therefore canceled, as Crimea was once again Russia.
Without this discount, the price increased by that same discounted $100 in the contracted
quarterly price fix.
Key is Stockholm's recognition that the Russian gas price for Ukraine in 2011-2014 was fair,
which is much more important than the price fixed in that second quarter in question. It is
worth noting in the next third quarter of 2014 Gazprom was prepared to provide Ukraine with a
market price for gas again. However, as we all know today, since June 2014 Naftogaz has refused
to buy gas from Russia for political reasons and calling it an "aggressor nation."
A more far-reaching result from the Stockholm proceedings was the intention to void the
traditional (Gazprom) formula for gas prices which is based on a linkage to the price of oil.
Instead, the price of gas will be tied directly to the spot gas market such as the European
hub. Should this occur, then the future gas price for Ukraine will be linked to the cost of
fuel in the European hub. This would be a major departure from the traditional pricing Gazprom
has used for decades, and might set a precedent for other buyers of Russian gas, who might also
want to change their price formulation. In traditional Gazprom contracts, the price of gas
depends on the price of oil, and only up to 15% of the price is a spot gas component. For
decades, this contractual linkage of the price of gas to oil was largely accepted as being open
and fair.
Since 2014, Ukraine has been buying reverse gas from Europe at such European spot hub
prices, and it has so far been more expensive than the traditional Gazprom contract. It is also
worth noting that spot prices are far more volatile, are seasonally demand-affected, and as
winter is a peak consumption season the prices can and do increase dramatically.
Why did Gazprom take their initial large claims to court knowing beforehand that it would be
impossible to get the tens of billions of dollars from Naftogaz or Ukraine without ruining both
through default? The first reason is that a "take or pay" clause was a key and mutually agreed
covenant of the contractual relationship, not a point to be discarded unilaterally by any
single party. The second reason was as a response to Naftogaz multi-billion lawsuit on the
transit of gas from Russia through Ukraine to Europe. The Ukrainian side believes that Gazprom
should pay them extra for not sending 110 billion cubic meters of gas through pipelines
annually across Ukraine. In the transit contract, there is no obligation for any such volumes
to be transited through Ukraine's pipelines.
To sum up this drama, the Stockholm arbitration declared that Naftogaz must honor their
contract, and buy from Gazprom 5 billion cubic meters of gas annually. As it turns out the
"take or pay" clause remains in force, but the volume has been significantly reduced. How this
volume of 5 billion cubic meters was arrived at remains a mystery, but one which will surely
become clear over time. The political spin, however, will be interesting to observe since
Ukraine must now buy (and pay for) this Russian gas. How will Kiev explain now having to buy
Russian gas when since 2014 it stridently proclaimed it shall never buy fuel from "that
aggressor nation."
The irony is that while this is a loss of face for Kiev politically, economically it
benefits the Ukrainian consumer. To date, Ukraine's purchases of "reverse gas" from Europe has
been far more expensive than that which was contracted reliably over the years by Gazprom. Now
Kiev will have to find the funds to pay for Gazprom's gas, settle their debt and ever-growing
fines, plus meet the rest of their energy needs by purchasing expensive reverse gas from
Europe. It will take spin that is a lot more imaginative from Kiev to package this settlement
into a believable political victory, and very creative accounting to get the money to pay for
it.
The key here is whether Russia will stop transit of gas via Ukraine or not.
Notable quotes:
"... A more far-reaching result from the Stockholm proceedings was the intention to void the traditional (Gazprom) formula for gas prices which is based on a linkage to the price of oil. Instead, the price of gas will be tied directly to the spot gas market such as the European hub. ..."
"... In traditional Gazprom contracts, the price of gas depends on the price of oil, and only up to 15% of the price is a spot gas component. For decades, this contractual linkage of the price of gas to oil was largely accepted as being open and fair. ..."
"... the Stockholm arbitration declared that Naftogaz must honor their contract, and buy from Gazprom 5 billion cubic meters of gas annually. As it turns out the "take or pay" clause remains in force, but the volume has been significantly reduced. ..."
"... The irony is that while this is a loss of face for Kiev politically, economically it benefits the Ukrainian consumer. To date, Ukraine's purchases of "reverse gas" from Europe has been far more expensive than that which was contracted reliably over the years by Gazprom. ..."
After 2014, Ukraine claimed that it was being overcharged, and therefore Naftogaz refused to
pay Gazprom their contracted price for gas. Instead, it paid unilaterally a different amount
that it subjectively considered "fair."
Gazprom, in keeping with mutually contracted terms and conditions, could only issue an
invoice for the resulting underpayment, and after Naftogaz still refused to pay (a debt of
approx. $2 billion), made any further deliveries of gas contingent on prepayment.
The arbitration additionally upheld Gazprom's position and denied Naftogaz any right to a
refund for gas priced between May 2011 and April 2014 or collect any of the claimed
"overcharged gas" totaling approximately $14 billion for that period. In sum, the price Kiev
claimed was "inflated" was judged as in Stockholm as baseless.
Therefore, the question of who is accountable and responsible for settling debt has been
clarified in Stockholm. Naftogaz must pay Gazprom $2 billion plus a fine calculated at 0.03%
per day for each day this debt remains unpaid. This fine has already reached $3 million since
the court decision on December 22nd, and if it not paid can reach an annualized figure of $216
million and still keep growing daily.
Like any political and economic story, there is quite a bit that does not make the flashy
headlines, but plays a role in contributing to the noise surrounding an issue. Naftogaz takes
satisfaction in that the settlement allowed that the gas price for the second quarter of 2014
was to be reduced from $485 to $352 per 1000 cubic meters, or 27%, thereby "saving" Ukraine
about $ 1.8 billion for 2014-2015. The price of $485 was in fact fixed for that one quarter,
and it was higher than the market price. The reason was that the March referendum and
subsequent reunification of Crimea within the Russian Federation happened then. Up until that
time, Russia had given Ukraine a discount of $100 per one thousand cubic meters of gas as
payment for renting the Crimean base for the Black Sea fleet. The Kharkov treaty with Ukraine
which dealt with the naval base was therefore canceled, as Crimea was once again Russia.
Without this discount, the price increased by that same discounted $100 in the contracted
quarterly price fix.
Key is Stockholm's recognition that the Russian gas price for Ukraine in 2011-2014 was fair,
which is much more important than the price fixed in that second quarter in question. It is
worth noting in the next third quarter of 2014 Gazprom was prepared to provide Ukraine with a
market price for gas again. However, as we all know today, since June 2014 Naftogaz has refused
to buy gas from Russia for political reasons and calling it an "aggressor nation."
A more far-reaching result from the Stockholm proceedings was the intention to void the
traditional (Gazprom) formula for gas prices which is based on a linkage to the price of oil.
Instead, the price of gas will be tied directly to the spot gas market such as the European
hub. Should this occur, then the future gas price for Ukraine will be linked to the cost of
fuel in the European hub. This would be a major departure from the traditional pricing Gazprom
has used for decades, and might set a precedent for other buyers of Russian gas, who might also
want to change their price formulation. In traditional Gazprom contracts, the price of gas
depends on the price of oil, and only up to 15% of the price is a spot gas component. For
decades, this contractual linkage of the price of gas to oil was largely accepted as being open
and fair.
Since 2014, Ukraine has been buying reverse gas from Europe at such European spot hub
prices, and it has so far been more expensive than the traditional Gazprom contract. It is also
worth noting that spot prices are far more volatile, are seasonally demand-affected, and as
winter is a peak consumption season the prices can and do increase dramatically.
Why did Gazprom take their initial large claims to court knowing beforehand that it would be
impossible to get the tens of billions of dollars from Naftogaz or Ukraine without ruining both
through default? The first reason is that a "take or pay" clause was a key and mutually agreed
covenant of the contractual relationship, not a point to be discarded unilaterally by any
single party. The second reason was as a response to Naftogaz multi-billion lawsuit on the
transit of gas from Russia through Ukraine to Europe. The Ukrainian side believes that Gazprom
should pay them extra for not sending 110 billion cubic meters of gas through pipelines
annually across Ukraine. In the transit contract, there is no obligation for any such volumes
to be transited through Ukraine's pipelines.
To sum up this drama, the Stockholm arbitration declared that Naftogaz must honor their
contract, and buy from Gazprom 5 billion cubic meters of gas annually. As it turns out the
"take or pay" clause remains in force, but the volume has been significantly reduced. How this
volume of 5 billion cubic meters was arrived at remains a mystery, but one which will surely
become clear over time. The political spin, however, will be interesting to observe since
Ukraine must now buy (and pay for) this Russian gas. How will Kiev explain now having to buy
Russian gas when since 2014 it stridently proclaimed it shall never buy fuel from "that
aggressor nation."
The irony is that while this is a loss of face for Kiev politically, economically it
benefits the Ukrainian consumer. To date, Ukraine's purchases of "reverse gas" from Europe has
been far more expensive than that which was contracted reliably over the years by Gazprom. Now
Kiev will have to find the funds to pay for Gazprom's gas, settle their debt and ever-growing
fines, plus meet the rest of their energy needs by purchasing expensive reverse gas from
Europe. It will take spin that is a lot more imaginative from Kiev to package this settlement
into a believable political victory, and very creative accounting to get the money to pay for
it.
"... By contrast the reduction in the gas price Naftogaz refers to from $485/tcm to $352 tcm which Naftogaz makes much of in its statement appears to apply only to gas supplied to Ukraine by Gazprom in the second quarter of 2014 and still sets the price of gas supplied to Ukraine by Gazprom higher than was demanded by Ukraine during this period. ..."
"... Ukraine recently borrowed $3 billion on the international financial markets at very high interest almost certainly in order to pay the $3 billion the High Court in London has ordered it to pay Russia. Whilst the $2 billion is technically a debt owed by Naftogaz not Ukraine and its non-payment would does not place Ukraine in a state of sovereign default, Gazprom is in a position to enforce the debt against Naftogaz's assets (including gas it buys) in the European Economic Area. It is difficult to see how Naftogaz and Ukraine can avoid payment of this debt. ..."
"... Has Ukraine actually gained anything from its long running gas dispute with Russia? ..."
On Friday 21st December 2017 the Stockholm Arbitration Court made a ruling in the legal
dispute between Ukraine's state owned gas monopoly Naftogaz and Russia's largely state owned
gas monopoly Gazprom.
In the hours after the decision – which like all decisions of the Stockholm
Arbitration Court – is not published, Naftogaz claimed victory in a short statement.
However over the course of the hours which followed Gazprom provided details of the decision
which suggests that the truth is the diametric opposite.
Here is how the Financial Times reports
the competing claims
Both Ukraine's Naftogaz and Russia's Gazprom both on Friday claimed victory as a Stockholm
arbitration tribunal issued the final award ruling in the first of two cases in a three-year
legal battle between the state-controlled energy companies, where total claims stand at some
$80bn.
An emailed statement from the Ukrainian company was titled:
"Naftogaz wins the gas sales arbitration case against Gazprom on all issues in
dispute."
The Stockholm arbitration tribunal -- in its final award ruling in a dispute over gas
supplies from prior years -- had, according to Naftogaz, struck down Gazprom's claim to
receive $56bn for gas contracted but not supplied through controversial "take-or-pay"
clauses. They were included in a supply contract Ukraine signed in 2009 after Gazprom dented
supplies to the EU by cutting all flow amid a price dispute -- including transit through the
country's vast pipeline systems. In a tweet Ukraine's foreign minister
Pavlo Klimkin wrote: "The victory of Naftogaz in the Stockholm arbitration: It's not a
knockout, but three knockdowns with obvious advantage."
But later Gazprom countered that arbitors "acknowledged the main points of the contract
were in effect and upheld the majority of Gazprom's demands for payment for gas supplies",
worth over $2bn. A Naftogaz official responded that the company never refused to pay for gas
supplied, but challenged price and conditions.
Given the tribunal does not make its decisions public, doubt loomed over which side was
the ultimate winner. Anticipation also grew over the second and final tribunal award expected
early next year over disputes both have concerning past gas transit obligations.
Friday's final Stockholm arbitration ruling follows a preliminary decision from last May
after which both sides were given time to settle monetary claims outside of the tribunal but
failed to reach agreement.
Here is the full Naftogaz statement:
"Today, the Tribunal at the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce has
completely rejected Gazprom take-or-pay claims to Naftogaz amounting to USD 56 billion for
2009-2017.
– Naftogaz succeeded at reducing future contract volume obligations by more than 10
times and made them relevant to its actual import needs.
– Price for gas off-taken by Naftogaz in 2Q 2014 reduced 27% from USD 485/tcm to USD
352/tcm. – Naftogaz saved USD 1.8 billion on gas purchased in 2014-2015 due to revision
of the contract price.
– Destination clause and other discriminatory provisions were declared invalid to
bring the contract in line with current European market standards.
– Naftogaz estimates the total positive financial effect of the arbitration over the
lifetime of the supply contract at over USD 75 billion.
– Naftogaz claims up to USD 16 billion in transit contract arbitration against
Gazprom; decision expected on 28 February 2018."
Gazprom said that in a separate decision on May 31 of this year, the tribunal denied
Naftogaz's application to review prices from May 2011 to April 2014, ordered it to pay $14bn
for gas supplies during that period, and said that the take-or-pay conditions applied for the
duration of the contract. Gazprom claimed that Naftogaz would have to pay it $2.18bn plus
interest of 0.03 per cent for every day the payments were late, and then pay for 5bn cm of
gas annually starting next year.
When the different sides give opposite accounts of the same decision it obviously becomes
difficult to say what the real decision actually is. However Gazprom says that the court upheld
(1) the main provisions of the contract; (2) the contract's take-or-pay provisions, these being
a particularly contentious issue in the contract; and (3) that Naftogaz has been ordered to pay
Gazprom $2 billion, presumably immediately, with interest for every day the amount is
unpaid.
By contrast the reduction in the gas price Naftogaz refers to from $485/tcm to $352 tcm
which Naftogaz makes much of in its statement appears to apply only to gas supplied to Ukraine
by Gazprom in the second quarter of 2014 and still sets the price of gas supplied to Ukraine by
Gazprom higher than was demanded by Ukraine during this period.
The key point here is that Russia agreed to reduce the price of gas supplied to Ukraine by
an agreement Russia's President Putin reached with Ukraine's President Yanukovich in December
2013. After the Maidan coup the new Ukrainian government went back on the agreement causing the
Russians to demand payment of the original price. However over the course of 2014, as energy
prices began first to slide and then crashed, and as it became clear that Ukraine was simply
not paying for its gas, Russia again reduced the price of the gas Ukraine had to pay.
What seems to have happened is that the Stockholm Arbitration Court decided to smooth out
the price of gas payable by Ukraine throughout 2014, which is the sort of thing arbitration
tribunals are regularly known to do, whilst leaving the essentials of the contract
unchanged.
If so then this is not a victory by Ukraine but a clearcut defeat, which Naftogaz and the
Ukrainian government have tried to spin into a victory by citing the reduction in the gas price
in the second quarter of 2014 and the reduction in future gas import volumes, neither of which
were contentious issues. By contrast it is clear that Ukraine and Naftogaz must pay the full
contractual price and abide by the contract's take-or-pay provisions for the whole of the
period of the contract prior to the second quarter of 2014.
What this means in terms of hard cash is that Ukraine must now pay Russia a further $2
billion on top of the $3 billion it was recently ordered to pay by the High Court in London.
Just as it is holding back on paying the $3 billion it was ordered to pay by the High Court
until the appeal process in London is finished, so it will try to hold off paying the $2
billion it has just been ordered to pay to Gazprom until the final decision of the Stockholm
Arbitration Court (thus the brave talk of Naftogaz's claims of "up to $16 billion transit
contract arbitration against Gazprom") but thereafter payment of the $2 billion will fall due.
I say this because the claim Gazprom owes Naftogaz "up to" $16 billion in transit fees looks
like it has been plucked out of the air.
What this means is that over the course of 2018 Ukraine will have to pay Russia $5 billion
($3 billion awarded by the High Court in London and $2 billion awarded by the Stockholm
Arbitration Court). Since the $2 billion awarded by the Stockholm Arbitration Court is
technically an arbitration award, Gazprom will need to convert it into a court Judgment before
it can enforce it, but that is merely a formality. At that point this debt will become not
merely due but legally enforceable as well.
Ukraine recently borrowed $3 billion on the international financial markets at very high
interest almost certainly in order to pay the $3 billion the High Court in London has ordered
it to pay Russia. Whilst the $2 billion is technically a debt owed by Naftogaz not Ukraine and
its non-payment would does not place Ukraine in a state of sovereign default, Gazprom is in a
position to enforce the debt against Naftogaz's assets (including gas it buys) in the European
Economic Area. It is difficult to see how Naftogaz and Ukraine can avoid payment of this
debt.
Has Ukraine actually gained anything from its long running gas dispute with Russia?
Naftogaz brags that Ukraine has saved up to $75 billion because it is no longer buying gas
from Russia. However this begs the question of whether the gas Ukraine is now importing from
Europe really is significantly cheaper than the gas Ukraine was buying from Russia? This is
debatable and with energy prices rising it is likely to become even less likely over time.
As reported by the permanent representative of the International Monetary Fund in the
Ukraine, Jost Longman, the Kiev authorities should increase Ukrainian gas tariffs to the level
of import parity. Longman argues that an increase in gas prices will have a positive effect on
the development of the free market and will teach the Ukrainians to use natural gas
economically. "In the end, the final goal is the implementation of a free gas market. On the
way to this, it is important to continue to adjust the price of gas in accordance with the
price of imports", said Longman. "One price for all types of consumer also eliminates the space
for corruptio," he added.
On 20 Dec., a court in Slovakia stopped gas supplies to "Naftogaz of Ukraine". The
decision was made pursuant to the decision of the Stockholm arbitration over a claim made by
the Italian company IUGas that its Ukrainian consumer owed it money.
The total amount of the claim, including interest and penalties, is approximately $21
million. An arbitration ruling was accepted on 19 December 2012 and relates to unpaid 2007
transactions .
Under international law, if the defendant has not fulfilled the resolution of the
arbitration, the plaintiff may apply to the courts of other states with a request that the
ruling be executed.
"Naftogaz of Ukraine" is analyzing the situation to determine its next steps, according
to the Ukrainian edition "Mirror of the Week".
For 11 months of 2017, "Naftogaz of Ukraine" had bought in Eastern Europe 20.9 billion
cubic metres of gas. Most of the supplies -- more than 8 billion cubic metres -- are in
Slovakia.
As written in iz.ru, arbitration is under consideration in Stockholm as regards the
lawsuit made by "Gazprom" against "Naftogaz", the decision on which will be issued by the court
no later than February next year. The adjusted amount of the claims made by the Russian company
was more than $ 37 billion.
All this is the Aggressor State's doing!
For the sake of freedom and democracy, the Ukraine must be supported!
Gazprom has responded to Naftogaz's statements about victory in court
The Stockholm arbitration has satisfied most of Gazprom's claims made against Naftogaz
Ukraine regarding payment for supplied gas, the company has said in a statement. In Moscow.
They stressed that the main demands of the Ukrainian side by the court had been
rejected.
The court did not recognize the right of Naftogaz to review the price of gas, the
deliveries of which were carried out from May 2011 to April 2014. Also, the Ukrainian side
was denied recovery of overpayment. Gazprom noted that the court found it necessary to apply
the "take or pay" principle (annual payment of a minimum amount of gas) before the expiry of
the contract.
"Naftogaz" has to pay back $2 billion in arrears and interest for late payment to
Gazprom. The Ukrainian side is also obliged from next year to take 5 billion cubic metres
from Russia annually.
Earlier on Friday, Naftogaz said that the court had awarded the victory to the
Ukrainian side. In Kiev, they stressed that Gazprom's "take-or-pay" requirements had been
"completely" rejected by the court, and the gas price for the second quarter of 2014 had been
lowered to $ 352 per thousand cubic metres.
The court considered contracts for the supply of gas from Russia to the Ukraine, as
well as gas transit through the Ukraine. They were signed back in 2009. The Ukraine, insisted
"Gazprom", did not get any gas 2012-2014, and also in individual quarters of 2015 and 2016.
"Naftogaz" asked the court to review the gas prices, and that overpayment be reimbursed and
that the ban on further resale of gas be cancelled.
Kremlin propaganda from a "Kremlin controlled" newspaper?
"Naftogaz won the gas sales arbitration case against Gazprom on all issues in dispute,"
Naftogaz said in an emailed statement.
It said the ruling was worth around $75 billion to Naftogaz in the long term, but
did not give a breakdown on how it reached the estimate. [My stress -- ME]
Meanwhile Gazprom said the court had satisfied most of Gazprom's claims and ruled that
the main terms of the contract between Naftogaz and Gazprom were valid.
Gazprom said the Stockholm court had ordered Naftogaz to pay more than $2 billion to
Gazprom for gas supply arrears and that it had also ordered Naftogaz to buy 5 bcm of gas from
Gazprom annually from 2018.
Estimated $75 billion in the "long term"?
Have to pay $2 billion to Gazprom in arrears now (not mention interest).
From 2018 (i.e. in just over a week's time) have to buy annually 5 bcm of gas off the
"aggressor state".
Of course; that's what Klimkin told them. Why should they check? Klimkin is always reliable,
and I'm sure he tweeted a press statement directly to them. Let them hold a Naftogaz victory
party if that's what they feel like doing. Just don't spend Russia's money on it. Because I
notice Ukraine has to pay Russia. I did not see anything in there about Russia having to pay
Ukraine. And so Ukraine can have all of that kind of victories it wants.
Ultimately, the court greatly reduced the amount of gas that Ukraine is contractually
obligated to buy from Russia. From 2018, "Naftogaz" should annually take and pay for up to 5
billion cubic metres instead of the original 52 billion cubic metres in any case it means the
resumption of gas purchases in Russia, which stopped in 2015, since when "Naftogaz" has been
buying all its fuel through reverse flow from Europe.
Investors should "think twice" about putting money into Nord Stream 2 due to
"uncertainties" around the Russian pipeline, the EU energy commissioner told
EUobserver.
"I would really think twice, or many more times, simply because there are a lot of
uncertainties," Maros Sefcovic said in an interview.
"It's the decision of the project promoters if they want to proceed in this atmosphere
which might lead to legal disputes down the line," he said
"Nord Stream 2 is supported by five major western European energy companies that have
each committed up to almost €1 billion to the implementation of the pipeline," the
consortium's Sebastian Sass said.
"It shows that there is both market demand and great confidence in Nord Stream 2," he
added.
Stefan Meister, an expert at the German Council on Foreign Relations, a think tank in
Berlin, also said Russia had little to worry about from the EU.
"In Germany the overall impression is, that the project will come Merkel is not against
it. That means she supports it," he said.
Meister said the fact Gazprom was prepared to dig into its own pockets meant "the
investment risks are limited". He added that energy companies were used to working "in an
even more risky environment" in other parts of the world.
"Except the US sanctions, there are no real risks to stop the project," he said
####
Plenty more of Sefcovic blowing hot air out of every orifice at the link. Did someone slip
him some cocaine instead of sugar in his coffee before the interview? All mouth and no
trousers.
The US sanctions were partially anticompetitive move to block Russia selling its hydrocarbons to lucrative EU market.
Now Russia is becoming a major player in LNG and things might become more complex for the USA as all US efforts to built LNG
infrastructure int he USA in order to export the US LNG to Europe now are can backfire.
Notable quotes:
"... Russia plans to build 15 tankers as big as the 'Christophe de Margerie'. ..."
"... "Russia must accelerate work on development capacity to produce liquefied natural gas," Putin said at the ceremony. ..."
"... Costing $27 billion, the plant will have three production lines and a total capacity of 16.5 million tons of LNG per year. ..."
"... Shareholders of the Novatek project - Total and CNPC - will purchase LNG on a long-term basis. ..."
"... The ceremony was also attended by a member of Saudi Aramco's board of directors. The kingdom is considering taking part in Novatek's new project, Arctic LNG 2, according to Russian Energy Minister Aleksandr Novak. ..."
Russia has opened a liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant in the country's northern region of
Yamal. The first tanker with LNG was launched on Friday by Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The ice-breaking tanker is named after the former CEO of Total Christophe de Margerie who died
in a plane crash in Russia. The tanker can carry up to 173,000 cubic meters of LNG. Russia
plans to build 15 tankers as big as the 'Christophe de Margerie'.
"Russia must accelerate work on development capacity to produce liquefied natural
gas," Putin said at the ceremony.
The controlling stake in the enterprise belongs to Russian energy major Novatek. Twenty
percent each is owned by Total, and China's CNPC, and the remaining 9.9 percent belongs to the
China-based Silk Road Fund. Costing $27 billion, the plant will have three production lines and a total capacity of 16.5
million tons of LNG per year.
Almost 96 percent of the Yamal LNG plant's production has already been contracted. The main
customers will be the countries of the Asia-Pacific region, Novatek reported. Shareholders of the Novatek project - Total and CNPC - will purchase LNG on a long-term
basis.
The ceremony was also attended by a member of Saudi Aramco's board of directors. The kingdom
is considering taking part in Novatek's new project, Arctic LNG 2, according to Russian Energy
Minister Aleksandr Novak.
"... "President Trump instructed [his generals] in a very open way that the YPG will no longer be given weapons. He openly said
that this absurdity should have ended much earlier ," Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu told reporters after the phone call. ..."
"... The YPG is the Syrian sister organization of the Turkish-Kurdish terror group PKK. Some weapons the U.S. had delivered to the
YPK in Syria to fight the Islamic State have been recovered from PKK fighters in Turkey who were out to kill Turkish security personal.
Despite that, supply for the YPG continued. In total over 3,500 truckloads were provided to it by the U.S. military. Only recently the
YPK received some 120 armored Humvees , mine clearance vehicles and other equipment. ..."
"... The generals in the White House and other parts of the administration were caught flat-footed by the promise Trump has made.
The Washington Post writes : "Initially, the administration's national security team appeared surprised by the Turks' announcement and
uncertain what to say about it. The State Department referred questions to the White House, and hours passed with no confirmation from
the National Security Council." ..."
"... The U.S. military uses the YPG as proxy power in Syria to justify and support its occupation of north-east Syria, The intent
of the occupation is , for now, to press the Syrian government into agreeing to a U.S. controlled "regime change": ..."
"... When in 2014 the U.S. started to use Kurds in Syria as its foot-soldiers, it put the YPG under the mantle of the so called
Syrian Democratic Forces and paid some Syrian Arabs to join and keep up the subterfuge. This helped to counter the Turkish argument
that the U.S. was arming and supporting terrorists. But in May 2017 the U.S. announced to arm the YPG directly without the cover of
the SDF. The alleged purpose was to eliminate the Islamic State from the city of Raqqa. ..."
"... A spokesperson of the SDF, the ethnic Turkman Talaf Silo, recently defected and went over to the Turkish side. The Turkish
government is certainly well informed about the SDF and knows that its political and command structure is dominated by the YPK. The
whole concept is a sham. ..."
"... Sometimes it's hard to see if Trump actually believed what he was saying about foreign policy on the campaign trail -- but
either way it doesn't matter much as he seems incapable of navigating the labyrinth of the Deep State even if he had in independent
thought in his head. I don't expect US weapons to stop making their way into Kurdish hands as they try to extend their mini-Israel-with-oil
foothold in Syria. But it would certainly be a welcome sight if the US left Syria alone for once! ..."
"... Trump personally sent General Flynn to recruit back Erdogan and the Turks right before the election. Flynn wrote his now infamous
editorial "Our ally Turkey is in crisis and needs our support" and published in "The Hill". http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/foreign-policy/305021-our-ally-turkey-is-in-crisis-and-needs-our-support
..."
"... But if you know the role he played for Trump in the campaign and then the post-election role as soon to be NSC advisor, you
will see that Trump was sending him to bring Turkey back into the fold after the coup attempt by CIA, Gulen and Turkey's AF and US State
Dept failed. ..."
"... Trump wanted to prevent the Turkish Stream. It was a huge rival to his LNG strategy. All these are why Flynn did what he did
for Trump. Now Trump has to battle CIA and State, as well as the CENTCOM-Israeli plans for insurgencies in Syria. It's not just the
Kurd issue or the other needs of NATO to hold the bases in Turkey. It's the whole southwest containment of Russian gas and Russian naval
power, and the reality of sharing the Mediterranean as well as MENA with the Bear. ..."
"... Furthermore, I've always been suspicious of Erdogan's 'turn' toward Russia. Many have suspected that the attempted coup was
staged by Erdogan (with CIA help?) so as to enable Erdogan to remain in office. IMO Erdogan joined the 'Assad must go!' effort not just
because he benefited from the oil trade but because he leans toward Sunnis (Surely he was aware of the thinking that: the road to Tehran
runs through Damascus .) ..."
President Trump is attempting to calm down the U.S.
conflict with Turkey . The
military junta in the White House has different
plans. It now attempts to circumvent the decision the president communicated to his Turkish counterpart. The result will be more
Turkish-U.S. acrimony.
Yesterday the Turkish foreign minister surprisingly
announced a phone call
President Trump had held with President Erdogan of Turkey.
United States President Donald Trump and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan spoke on the phone on Nov. 24 only days after
a Russia-Turkey-Iran summit on Syria, with Ankara saying that Washington has pledged not to send weapons to the People's Protection
Units (YPG) any more .
"President Trump instructed [his generals] in a very open way that the YPG will no longer be given weapons. He openly said
that this absurdity should have ended much earlier ," Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu told reporters after the phone call.
Will be speaking to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey this morning about bringing peace to the mess that I inherited
in the Middle East. I will get it all done, but what a mistake, in lives and dollars (6 trillion), to be there in the first place!
12:04 PM - 24 Nov 2017
During the phone call Trump must have escaped his minders for a moment and promptly tried to make, as announced, peace with Erdogan.
The issue of arming the YPG is really difficult for Turkey to swallow. Ending that would probably make up for the
recent NATO blunder of presenting the founder of modern Turkey Kemal Atatürk and Erdogan himself as enemies.
The YPG is the Syrian sister organization of the Turkish-Kurdish terror group PKK. Some weapons the U.S. had delivered to
the YPK in Syria to fight the Islamic State have been
recovered from PKK fighters in Turkey who were out to kill Turkish security personal. Despite that, supply for the YPG continued.
In total over
3,500 truckloads
were provided to it by the U.S. military. Only recently the YPK received
some 120 armored Humvees ,
mine clearance vehicles and other equipment.
The generals in the White House and other parts of the administration were caught flat-footed by the promise Trump has made.
The Washington Post
writes : "Initially, the administration's national security team appeared surprised by the Turks' announcement and uncertain
what to say about it. The State Department referred questions to the White House, and hours passed with no confirmation from the
National Security Council."
The White House finally released what the Associated Presscalled :
a cryptic statement about the phone call that said Trump had informed the Turk of "pending adjustments to the military support
provided to our partners on the ground in Syria."
Neither a read-out of the call nor the statement AP refers to are currently available on the White House website.
The U.S. military uses the YPG as proxy power in Syria to justify and support
its
occupation of north-east Syria, The intent of the occupation is , for now,
to press the Syrian government into agreeing to a U.S. controlled "regime change":
U.S. officials have said they plan to keep American troops in northern Syria -- and continue working with Kurdish fighters --
to pressure Assad to make concessions during peace talks brokered by the United Nations in Geneva, stalemated for three years
now. "We're not going to just walk away right now," Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said last week.
To solidify its position the U.S. needs to further build up and strengthen its YPG mercenary forces.
When in 2014 the U.S. started to use Kurds in Syria as its foot-soldiers, it put the YPG under the mantle of the so called
Syrian Democratic Forces and paid some Syrian Arabs to join and keep up the subterfuge. This helped to counter the Turkish argument
that the U.S. was arming and supporting terrorists. But in May 2017 the U.S.
announced
to arm the YPG directly without the cover of the SDF. The alleged purpose was to eliminate the Islamic State from the city of Raqqa.
The YPG had been unwilling to fight for the Arab city unless the U.S. would provide it with more money, military supplies and
support. All were provided. The U.S. special forces, who control the YPG fighters, directed an immense amount of aerial and artillery
ammunition against the city. Any potential enemy position was destroyed by large ammunition and intense bombing before the YPG infantry
proceeded. In the end few YPG fighters died in the fight. The Islamic State was let go or eliminated from the city but
so was the city of Raqqa . The intensity
of the bombardment of the medium size city was at times ten
times greater than the bombing in all of Afghanistan. Airwarsreported :
Since June, an estimated 20,000 munitions were fired in support of Coalition operations at Raqqa . Images captured by journalists
in the final days of the assault show a city in ruins
Several thousand civilians were killed in the indiscriminate onslaught.
The Islamic State in Syria and Iraq is defeated. It no longer holds any ground. There is no longer any justification to further
arm and supply the YPG or the dummy organization SDF.
But the generals want to continue to do so to further their larger plans. They are laying grounds to circumvent their president's
promise. The Wall Street Journal seems to be the only outlet to
pick up on the subterfuge:
President Donald Trump's administration is preparing to stop sending weapons directly to Kurdish militants battling Islamic State
in Syria, dealing a political blow to the U.S.'s most reliable ally in the civil war, officials said Friday.
...
The Turkish announcement came as a surprise in Washington, where military and political officials in Mr. Trump's administration
appeared to be caught off-guard. U.S. military officials said they had received no new guidance about supplying weapons to the
Kurdish forces. But they said there were no immediate plans to deliver any new weapons to the group. And the U.S. can continue
to provide the Kurdish forces with arms via the umbrella Syrian militant coalition
The "military officials" talking to the WSJ have found a way to negate Trump's promise. A spokesperson of the SDF, the ethnic
Turkman Talaf Silo, recently
defected and went over to the Turkish side. The Turkish government is certainly well informed about the SDF and knows that its
political and command structure is dominated by the YPK. The whole concept is a sham.
But the U.S. needs the YPG to keep control of north-east Syria. It has to continue to provide whatever the YPG demands, or it
will have to give up its larger scheme against Syria.
The Turkish government will soon find out that the U.S. again tried to pull wool over its eyes. Erdogan will be furious when he
discovers that the U.S. continues to supply war material to the YPG, even when those deliveries are covered up as supplies for the
SDF.
The Turkish government released
a photograph showing
Erdogan and five of his aids taking Trump's phonecall. Such a release and the announcement of the call by the Turkish foreign minister
are very unusual. Erdogan is taking prestige from the call and the public announcement is to make sure that Trump sticks to his promise.
This wide publication will also increase Erdogan's wrath when he finds out that he was again deceived.
Posted by b on November 25, 2017 at 12:14 PM |
Permalink
Sometimes it's hard to see if Trump actually believed what he was saying about foreign policy on the campaign trail -- but
either way it doesn't matter much as he seems incapable of navigating the labyrinth of the Deep State even if he had in independent
thought in his head. I don't expect US weapons to stop making their way into Kurdish hands as they try to extend their mini-Israel-with-oil
foothold in Syria. But it would certainly be a welcome sight if the US left Syria alone for once!
Some
interpret this act on Election eve as a pecuniary fulfillment by Flynn of a lobbying contract (which existed).
But if you know the role he played for Trump in the campaign and then the post-election role as soon to be NSC advisor,
you will see that Trump was sending him to bring Turkey back into the fold after the coup attempt by CIA, Gulen and Turkey's AF
and US State Dept failed.
Flynn understood the crucial need for US and NATO to hold Turkey and prevent the Russians from getting Erdogan as an ally for
Syria and the Black Sea, the Balkans and Mediterranean as well as Iran, Qatar and Eurasia. Look at what has transpired between
Turkey and Russia since. Gas will be flowing through the Turkish Stream and Erdogan conforms to Putin's wishes.
Trump wanted to prevent the Turkish Stream. It was a huge rival to his LNG strategy. All these are why Flynn did what he
did for Trump. Now Trump has to battle CIA and State, as well as the CENTCOM-Israeli plans for insurgencies in Syria. It's not
just the Kurd issue or the other needs of NATO to hold the bases in Turkey. It's the whole southwest containment of Russian gas
and Russian naval power, and the reality of sharing the Mediterranean as well as MENA with the Bear.
Flynn was on it for Trump. And the IC and State want him prosecuted for defying their efforts to replace Erdogan with a stooge
like Gulen. It looks like Mueller is pursuing that against the General.
Its not a problem for US to drop Kurds if they are no longer needed, BUT for now they are essential for US/Israel/Saudi goals,
therefore you can bet 100% Kurds support will continue. Trump's order (he hasn't made it official either) will be easily circumvented.
The real question is, what Resistance will do with the backstabbing Kurds? It wont be easy to make a deal while Kurds
maintain absurd demands and as long as they have full Axis of Terror support.
Go Iraq's way like they reclaimed Kirkuk? US might have sitten out that one, I doubt they'll allow this to happen in Syria
as well, unless they get something in return.
While America's standard duplicity of saying one thing while doing the opposite has been known for decades, they have been able
to play games mainly because of the weakness of the other actors in the region.
The tables have turned now, but America still thinks it holds top dog position.
Wordplay, semantics and legal loopholes wont be tolerated for very long, and when hundreds of US boots return home in body bags
a choice will have to be made - escalate, or run away.
Previous behavior dictates run away, but times have changed.
A cornered enemy is the most dangerous, and the USA has painted itself into a very small corner...
Gee. While reading B's article what got to my mind is: "Turkey is testing the ground". Whatever Trump said to Erdogan on the phone,
it seems to me that the Turks are playing a card to see how the different actors in the US that seems to follow different agendas
will react. If Turkey concludes that the US will continue to back YPG, it's split from the US and will be definitive.
Erdogan is shifting away from US/NATO. He even hinted today that he might talk to Assad. That's huge! I wouldn't be surprised
if Turkey leaves NATO sooner than later. And if it's the case, it will be a major move of a tectonic amplitude.
Trump.. "Will be speaking to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey this morning about bringing peace to the mess that I inherited
in the Middle East. I will get it all done, but what a mistake, in lives and dollars (6 trillion), to be there in the first place!"
Surely by now Erdogan must realise that whatever the US President says and promises will be circumvented by the State Department,
the Pentagon, the 17 US intel agencies (including the CIA and the NSA) and rogue individuals in these and other US government
departments and agencies, and in Congress as well (Insane McCain comes to mind)? Not to mention the fact that the Israeli government
and the pro-Israeli lobby on Capitol Hill exercise huge influence over sections of the US government.
If Erdogan hasn't figured out the schizoid behaviour of the US from past Turkish experience and the recent experience of Turkey's
neighbours (and the Ukraine is one such neighbour), he must not be receiving good information.
Though as Jean says, perhaps Erdogan is giving the US one last chance to demonstrate that it has a coherent and reliable policy
towards the Middle East.
Well, the US policy has been coherent and reliable in the last years. It enhanced local conflicts, supported both sides at
the same time but with different intensities. Whoever wins would be "our man". Old stuff since the Byzantine period. It always
takes a lot of time to prove the single actions that were done. In most cases we learn about it years later. The delay is so big
and unpleasant that quite a number of folks escapes to stupid narratives that explain everything in one step, and therefore nothing.
By the way: is the interest of Kurds to remain under the umbrella of the Syrian state but not be governed by Baath type of Arabic
nationalism illegitimate?
The Kurds (PKK basically) are only necessary to give a "face" to the force the US is trying to align in E. Syria. The "fighting"
against ISIS (if there really was any) is coming to a close. The Chiefs of ISIS have been airlifted to somewhere nearby, and the
foreign mercenary forces sent elsewhere by convoy. ALL the valuable personnel have now become "HTS2" with reversible vests. These,
plus the US special forces are the basis of a new armed anti-Syrian force. (Note that one general let slip that there are 5'000
US forces in E-Syria - not the 500 spoken of in the MSM).
So Trump may well be correct in saying that the Kurds (specifically) will not get any more arms - because they have other demands
and might make peace with the Syrian Government, to keep at least some part of their territorial gains. The ISIS "bretheren" and
foreign mercenaries do not want any peaceful solution because it would mean their elimination.. So The CIA and Pentagon will probably
continue arms supplies to "HTS2" - but not the Kurds.
(ex-ISIS members; Some are from Saudi Arabia, Qatar - the EU and the US, as well as parts of Russia and China. They are not
farming types but will find themselves with some of the best arable land in Syria. Which belonged to Syrian-arabs-christians-Druzes-Yadzis
etc. Who wil want their properties back.)
Note that the US forces at Tanf are deliberately not letting humanitarian help reach the nearby refugee camp. Starvation and
deprivation will force many of the younger members to become US paid terrorists.
thanks b.. i tend to agree with @4 jean and @5 jen... the way i see it, there is either a real disconnect inside the usa where
the president gets to say one thing, but another part of the establishment can do another, or trump has made his last lie to turkey
here and turkey is going to say good bye to it's involvement with the usa in any way that can be trusted.. seems like some kind
of internal usa conflict to me at this point, but maybe it is all smoke and mirrors to continue on with the same charade.. i mostly
think internal usa conflict at this point..
Odd that no one has mentioned the fact the US was behind the attempted coup, where Erdogan was on a plane with two rogue Syrian
jets that stood down rather than execute the kill shot. I have read opinion that the fighter pilots were "lit up" by Russian missile
batteries and informed by radio they would not survive unless they shut down their weapons targeting immediately. This is probably
a favour Putin reminds Erdogan of on a regular basis, whenever Erdo tries to play Sultan. The attempted coup/asassination also
shows Erdogan exactly how much he can trust the US/Zionists at any level.
And Edrogan must also know Syria was once at least partly in the US-orbit, as Syria was the destination for many well-documented
US-ordered rendition/torture cases. It is probable Mossad (or their proxy thugs) killed Assad's father and older brother, so Erdo
knows he's better relying on Putin than Trumpty Dumbdy.
Erdogan is about to make a u-turn toward Syria. He is furious at Saudi Arabia for boycotting its ally Qatar, for talking about
owning Sunni Islam and by the continuous support of Islamists and Sunni Kurds in Syria.
Erdogan is preparing the turkish public opinion to a shift away from the USA-Israeli axis. This may get him many points in the
2019 election if the war in Syria is stopped, most Syrian refugees are back, Turkish companies are involved in the reconstruction
and the YPG neutralized. Erdogan has 1 year and half to make this to happen. For that he badly needs Bashar al Assad and his army
on his side.
Therefore he is evaluating what is the next move and he needs to know where the USA is standing about Turkey and Syria. Until
now the messages from the USA are contradictory yet Erdogan keeps telling his supporters that the USA is plotting against Turkey
and against Islam. Erdogan's reputation also is been threatened by the outcome of Reza Zarrab's trial in the US where the corruption
of his party may be exposed.
That is why Erdogan is making another check about the US intentions before Erdogan he starts the irreversible shift toward
the Iran-Russia (+Qatar and Syria) axis.
missing in this analysis is oil gas ... producers, refiners, slavers, middle crooks, and the LNG crowd :Israel, Fracking, LNG
and wall street... these are the underlying directing forces that will ultimately dictate when the outsiders have had enough fight
against Assad over Assad's oil and Assad's refusal to allow outsiders to install their pipelines. Until then, gangland intelligence
agencies will continue the divide, destroy and conquer strategies sufficient to keep the profits flowing. The politicians cannot
move until the underlying corruptions resolve..
The word 'byzantine' has been used for centuries to describe the intricate and multi-leveled forms of agreement, betrayal, treachery
and achievement among the shifting power brokers in the region. The US alone has three major and another three minor players at
work - often fighting each other. If however, it thinks it can outplay people whose lives are steeped in such a living tradition,
it is sadly deluded and will one day be in for a very rude surprise. Even the Russians have had difficulty navigating that maze.
When confronted with such a 'Gordian knot' of treachery and shifting alliances, Alexander the Great drew his sword and cut
through it with a vision informed by the sage Socrates as taught by Aristotle.
Despite claiming to represent such a western heritage, the US has no such Socratic wisdom, no Aristotelian logic, and no visionary
leadership that could enable it to do what Alexander did. Lacking this, it is destined to get lost in its' own hubris, and be
consumed by our current version of that region's gordian knot.
'...By the way: is the interest of Kurds to remain under the umbrella of the Syrian state but not be governed by Baath type
of Arabic nationalism illegitimate?..'
...showing that he either knows only the crap spouted by wikipedia...or nothing at all about the Baath party...
...which happens to be a socialist and secular party interested in pan-Arab unity...not nationalism...[an obvious oxymoron
to be pan-national and 'nationalist' at the same time...]
Of course there is always a 'better way'...right Hausmaus...?
The Baath socialism under Saddam in Iraq was no good for anyone we recall...especially women, students, sick people etc...
A 'better way' has since been installed and it is working beautifully...all can agree...
Same thing in Libya...where the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya was no good for anyone...
Of course everyone wanted the 'Better Way'...all those doctoral graduates with free education and guaranteed jobs...a standard
of living better than some European countries...etc...
Again...removing the 'socialist' Kadafi has worked out wonderfully...
We now have black African slaves sold in open air markets...where before they did all the broom pushing that was beneath the
dignity of the Libyan Arabs...
...and were quite happy to stay there and have a job and paycheck...instead of now flooding the shores of Italy in anything
that can float...
Oh yes...why would anyone in Syria want to be governed by the socialist Baath party...?
...especially the Kurds...who just over the border in Turkey are not even recognized as humans...never mind speaking their
own language...
I'd really hoped that Donald Trump® would be the "outsider" that both the MSM and he have been insisting he is for the past couple
of years. Other than the Reality TV Show faux conflicts with which the MSM entertains us nightly, I see no such "rogue" Administration.
This say one thing, and do the other has been US foreign policy forever.
Recall, for instance that on February 21, 2014, Obama's State Department issued a statement hailing Ukrainian President Yanukovych
for signing an agreement with the "pro-democracy Maidan Protest" leaders in which he acquiesced to all of their demands.
Then, on February 22, 2014, the US State Department cheered the "peaceful and Constitutional" coup after neo-nazis stormed
the Parliament.
A few months later, Secretary of State Kerry hailed the Minsk Treaty to end the war in Ukraine. Later that day, Vickie Nuland
said there was no way her Ukies would stop shelling civilians, and sure enough they didn't (until they'd been on the retreat for
weeks, and came whimpering back to the negotiations table).
A couple years later, Kerry announced that the US and Russia would coordinate aerial assaults in Syria. The next day, "Defense"
Secretary Carter said, "no way," and within a week or so, we "accidentally" bombed Syrian forces at Deir ez Zoir for over an hour.
From my perspective, they keep us chasing the next squirrel, while bickering amongst each other about each squirrel. But the
wolves are still devouring the lambs, with only the Bear preventing a complete extinction.
What we know with at least some level of confidence...
Dump is not the 'decider'...the junta is...he's just a cardboard cutout sitting behind the oval office desk...
And he's got no one to blame but himself...he came in talking a big game about cleaning house and got himself cleaned out of
being an actual president...
This was inevitable from the moment he caved on Flynn...the only person he didn't need to vet with the senate...and a position
that wields a lot of power...
This was his undoing on many levels...not only because he faced a hostile deep state and even his own party in congress with
no one by his side [other than Flynn]...
...but because it showed that he had no balls and would not stand by his man...
This is not the stuff leaders are made of...
The same BS we see with Turkey is playing out with Russia on the Ukraine issue...
Now the junta and their enablers in congress want to start sending offensive arms to Ukraine...Dump and his platitudes to Putin...no
matter how much he may mean it...mean nothing...he's not in charge...
I think that Jean @4 has the best take on this: Erdoğan went very public on Trump's "promise" in a classic put-up-or-shut-up challenge
to the USA.
Either the word of a POTUS means something or it doesn't, and if it doesn't then Turkey is going to join Russia in concluding
that the USA as simply not-agreement-capable.
Erdoğan will then say "enough!!!", give the USA the two-finger-salute, and then take Turkey out of NATO.
And the best thing about it will be that McMaster, Kelly and Mathis will be so obsessed with playing their petty little games
that they won't see it coming.
It's hard to tell what Erdoğan is doing or intending other than that he is navigating something - objective TBD. It'll be interesting
to see if he constrains the use of Incirlik airbase should the US keep arming the YPG/PKK forces. Airpower is the enabler (sole
enabler, IMO) of the/any Kurdish overreach inside Syria. Seems like Erdoğan holds the ace card in this muddle but has yet to play
it.
Seems like Turkey has more than one card to play. A commenter on another site mentioned recently that the US really doesn't
want Erdogan to have that S-400 system from Russia. Got me thinking, could Russia have deliberately loaded Erdogan's hand with
that additional card to help him negotiate with the US?
Turkey may well leave NATO and as others have pointed out, this would be a game changer far beyond the matter of the US's illegal
presence in NE Syria. This possibility brings immense existential gravitas to Erdogan's position right now. He could ask
for many concessions at this point, not to leave. And from the Eurasian point of view, it doesn't matter if he leaves or stays,
while from the western view, it matters greatly.
Would the US give up Syria, in order to keep Turkey in NATO? It's a western dichotomy, not one that affects Asia. It would
be simple to throw S-400 at that dynamic to watch it squirm.
The plays the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the King.
- Hamlet
As the endgame plays out, Erdogan's conscience may be revealed.
b has made the point that the partition that US-led proxy forces have carved out is unsustainable. But it would be sustainable
if Erdogan can be convinced to allow trade via Turkey.
For that reason, I thought Trump's ceasing direct military aid to the Kurds made sense as it provided Erdogan with an excuse
to allow land routes for trade/supply. Erdogan can argue that he wants to encourage such good behavior and doesn't want to make
US an enemy (Turkey is still a NATO country).
Furthermore, I've always been suspicious of Erdogan's 'turn' toward Russia. Many have suspected that the attempted coup
was staged by Erdogan (with CIA help?) so as to enable Erdogan to remain in office. IMO Erdogan joined the 'Assad must go!' effort
not just because he benefited from the oil trade but because he leans toward Sunnis (Surely he was aware of the thinking that:
the road to Tehran runs through Damascus .)
Hasn't Erdogan's vehement anti-Kurdish stance done R+6 a disservice? It seems to me that it has helped USA to convince
Kurds to fight for them and has also been a convenient excuse for Erdogan to hold onto Idlib where al Queda forces have refuge.
If Erdogan was really soooo angry with Washington, and soooo dependent on Moscow, then why not relax his anti-Kurdish
stance so as to bring Kurds back into the Syrian orbit?
Jackrabbit @20:
Erdogan may feel that if he relaxed his stance against the Syrian Kurds, it could embolden Turkish Kurds to further pursue their
agenda. It would also make him appear weak towards his supporters.
Erdogan is NOT going to leave NATO. Why should he? It would be the stupidest chess move ever? He's in the club and they can't
kick him out. He can cause all the trouble he wants and hobble that huge machine that is the western alliance. He will not get
EU membership, but he has his NATO ID CARD and that ain't bad. Erdo now knows that the poor bastard Trumps is WORTHLESS that he
is a toothless executive in name only. This is a wake up call, if I were Erdo, I would be very afraid of the USA and it's Syria,
MENA policy. It is being run by LUNATICS and is a slow moving train wreak. So for now, Erdo must be looking at Moscow, admiring
Putin for this is a man who has his shit together and truly knows how to run a country. Maybe even a sense of admiration and more
respect for Putin is even present. If I were Erdo, I'd double down in my support for Russia's Syria policy.
You do not get it:
„...which happens to be a socialist and secular party interested in pan-Arab unity...not nationalism..."
According to this ideology the coherence of a society comes from where? And who is excluded if one applies it?
So your contribution is just a rant using rancidic rhetoric tools. But I will not call you „flunkerbandit". My advice is to move
to this area and have a look into such a society from a more close position. Armchair type of vocal leadership does not help.
@23 "Erdogan is NOT going to leave NATO. Why should he?"
I guess one possible reason would be this: as long as Turkey remains in NATO then he is obliged to allow a US military presence
in his country, and that's just asking for another attempt at a military coup.
After all, wasn't Incirlik airbase a hotbed of coup-plotters during the last coup attempt?
"when the Syrian settlement is achieved, Syria's democratic forces will join the Syrian army." "When the Syrian state stabilizes, we can say that the Americans did what they said, then withdraw as they did in Iraq and
set a date for their departure and leave."
Nothing new here, nothing good either. Kurds so far are keeping up their demands of de-facto independence under fig-leaf of
"we are part of federalised Syria" with weak central government and autonomous Kurds. Thats how US plan to castrate Syria. Russia
offered cultural autonomy, Kurds rejected.
As for Americans "withdrawing" willfully, it never happened. Iraq had to kick them out, and then US used ISIS and Kurds to
get back in.
As for Syria's stabilization part, US is doing everything in its power to prevent it.
@Yeah Right #26
Turkey is not obliged to keep foreign troops in their country to remain in NATO. De Gaulle invited the US to leave France in 1967
but is still a member of NATO
@31 France actually withdrew from NATO in 1966. It remained "committed" to the collective defence of western Europe, without being,
you know, "committed" to it.
So, yeah, France kicked all the foreign troops out of France in 1967, precisely because its withdrawal from NATO's Integrated
Military Command meant that the French were no longer under any obligation to allow NATO troops on its soil.
But France had to formally withdraw from that Command first, and the reason that de Gaulle gave for withdrawing were exactly
that: remaining meant ceding sovereignty to a supra-national organization i.e. NATO Integrated Military Command.
That France retained "membership" of NATO's political organizations even after that withdrawal was little more than a fig-leaf.
After all, NATO's purpose isn't "political", it is "military".
"The Decider" is Trump's apparent self image. He can't be enjoying the Presidency and the controls exerted upon him by others
among the "Deep State" (whom I suppose have effectively cowed him into behaving via serious threats).
If he already had money and power, as it appears that he had, he gained little by taking the crown. He has less power because
he is now controlled by a number of forces (CIA, NSA, Media, MIC and etc.) as he remains under constant assault by his natural
opposition.
Big mistake dumping Flynn.
Now you take another kind of asshole in the person of Obama - a guy that had nothing - you have a malleable character who enjoys
the pomp and circumstance. Really didn't need any persuading to do anything required of him.
Here is a recent report from the Turkish Prime Minister supporting Trump's "lie" about ending support for the Kurds....what will
history show occured?
ISTANBUL, Nov. 26 (Xinhua) -- Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim said on Sunday that his country is expecting the United
States to end its partnership with the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) and its military wing, the People's Protection
Units (YPG).
"Since the very beginning, we have said that it is wrong for the U.S. to partner with PKK's cousin PYD and YPG in the fight
against Daesh (Islamic State) terrorist group," Yildirim told the press in Istanbul prior to his departure for Britain.
Ankara sees the Kurdish groups as an offshoot of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) fighting against the Turkish government
for over 30 years, while Washington regards them as a reliable ground force against the Islamic State (IS), also known as Daesh.
U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday spoke to his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan over the phone, pledging not to
provide weapons to the YPG any more, an irritant that has hurt bilateral ties, according to the Turkish side.
Yildirim noted that Washington has described it as an obligation rather than an option to support the Kurdish groups on the
ground. "But since Daesh (IS) is now eliminated then this obligation has disappeared," he added.
It would be nice if Erdogan when withdrawing from NATO (Assuming he does this in the next 12-18 months) would say something like.
"We really like President Trump - and we trust his word implicitly. The problem is, although we trust his word, we know
he is not in control so his word is useless and best ignored. Though of course - we still trust he means well."
That would be a nice backhander to hear from Erdopig.
Speculation about Turkey leaving NATO seems farfetched. Turkey has NATO over a barrel. It has been a member for decades and what
would it gain by leaving? Nothing. By staying it continues to influence and needle at the same time. Turkey will only leave when
NATO throws it out, which isn't going to happen.
"... Alaska LNG, backed by the state-run Alaska Gasline Development Corp, anticipates a long pipeline carrying the fuel from the North Slope, which has proven gas reserves of over 35 trillion cubic feet. The state governor Bill Walker plans to sign final agreements by the end of next year, with groundbreaking in 2019. ..."
A preliminary gas deal worth over $43 billion sealed between China and the US State of Alaska
is far from guaranteed, according to experts. On Thursday, China's biggest state-run energy corporation
Sinopec, along with one of the country's top banks and a sovereign wealth fund agreed to go ahead
with an export terminal for liquefied natural gas (LNG) in Alaska as well as a 1,290-kilometer pipeline
to deliver fuel to China. The project is aimed at developing facilities so gas can be piped to the
Alaska coast, where it can be liquefied and shipped to China and other Asian countries.
The announcement, which lacked any details about binding agreements or financing, was made during
US President Trump's visit to China. However, some analysts are saying the project is not likely
to go ahead.
"This is a typical announcement that comes out of these big summits. You really can't build,
or get financing for a big project, unless all those pieces are in place," said Jason Feer of
energy consultancy Poten & Partners, as quoted by Reuters.
Alaska LNG, backed by the state-run Alaska Gasline Development Corp, anticipates a long pipeline
carrying the fuel from the North Slope, which has proven gas reserves of over 35 trillion cubic feet.
The state governor Bill Walker plans to sign final agreements by the end of next year, with groundbreaking
in 2019.
The lengthy pipeline could cost a billion dollars, according to Larry Persily, former US coordinator
for Alaska natural gas projects. Persily added that multinationals such as BP, ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips
had been working on the pipeline enterprise, but stepped away.
"If companies don't think this is a good time to put their money into it, why should the state?
As the governor has explained, the state has an overriding interest in getting this done -- companies
have other places they can invest their money," he said as quoted by AP.
China is trying to fight pollution and get rid of its reliance on coal and is chasing more supplies
of natural gas, according to Mark Barteau, director of the University of Michigan's Energy Institute,
as quoted by the agency.
"They have exhibited a long-term interest in having a large and secure gas supply, and I think
this is just perhaps the largest -- but by no means the first -- step they've taken to achieve that,"
he said.
The EU executive sees Russia's plan to double the gas it could pump under the Baltic
Sea to Germany, bypassing traditional routes via Ukraine, as undercutting EU efforts to
reduce dependence on Moscow and its support for Kyiv.
The move dovetails with the Commission's proposal for a mandate from member states to
negotiate with Russia over objections to the pipeline.
Even with the changes, EU regulators say they may need to seek talks with Russia as it
cannot impose its law on the stretch of the pipeline that is outside its territory.
"This proposal does not solve all the problems and some of those need to be
negotiated," an EU official said.
Under the proposed changes to the gas directive, seen by Reuters, all import pipelines
would have to comply with EU rules requiring pipelines not be owned directly by gas
suppliers, non-discriminatory tariffs, transparent operations and at least 10% of capacity be
made available to third parties.
"The Gas Directive in its entirety will become applicable to pipelines to and from
third countries, including existing and future pipelines, up to the border of EU
jurisdiction," the proposals says .
####
More stupidity at the link, but this looks like the same rubbish leaked to EUObserver a
week or so ago that I posted here. I have a question. If this is actually becomes the case,
then will Brussels rule that TAP and 'field pipes' which currently have an exemption from EU
law then become illegal ?
I don't see how they could keep them as exceptions. Brussels is just trying itself in
knots to make is seem relevant where it is actually powerless to do anything. As for the line
above ' may need to seek talks with Russia..', WTF?
You have to give the European Commission credit for grit and persistence; they never give up . So what should be named
the Stop Nord Stream II Commission now announces it is contemplating a 'legal tweak' which
will allow it to declare the Nord Stream II pipeline subject to the Third Energy Package
rules, while the first pipeline was not. That would be quite a feat, and I'm betting it will
never happen because too many European states oppose it. But it is significant that only the
complainers get to be heard – Poland, the Baltics and Brussels. And ukraine, of course,
which always has a voice because I guess it is an honorary member of the EU or something.
Keep that term in mind – 'legal tweak', because it basically means changing the law
to allow you to do something it previously would not, without any requirement to show why
such a change was broadly necessary. You might want to think about 'legal tweaks' of your own
to announce you are arbitrarily raising the speed limit on your route home, because it will
allow you to get home faster.
Airheads like Maros Sefcovic seem to have the idea that they can force Russia to continue
transiting gas through Ukraine by putting ever more stumbling blocks in its way. But they
should be careful. Even in the very unlikely event they achieved success, Russia could simply
announce
the new delivery point is the Russia/Ukraine border , and that the EU and its new bestest
buddy are responsible for transit beyond that point. It could cover itself by insisting on
official EU signature at the transit point that x amount had been delivered to the border, so
that there could be no accusations that Russia was withholding gas. Then the EU would end up
paying to fix Ukraine's rusty-teakettle pipeline network, as well as having to tolerate all
its staged outages and extortion tactics to squeeze more money for itself.
Russia should sign a deal with Germany for the latter to build a stub gas pipeline to
international waters to connect to the Nord Stream II pipe. The EU has zero jurisdiction over
international waters. Germany controls its own EEZ and the EU can't hijack it by definition.
Germany would then buy Russian gas and resell it to the other EU members. Let's see these EU
legal eagles counteract this.
An ambitious gas pipeline project connecting Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary and Austria
received a shot in the arm on Thursday (28 September), when all of the involved parties
signed a memorandum of understanding for the project, a vital part of Europe's efforts to
wean itself off Russian gas
"We are at a very advanced stage with the BRUA project. We issued the building permit, we
are conducting procedures for assigning the construction works, and contracts have already
been signed for the design part and for the part concerning equipment for stations," Romanian
Energy Minister Toma Petcu revealed.
"In December, the contracts for the execution part are going to be signed and pipe
procurement is going to be finalised," Petcu added
####
BRUA will be able to transport gas from the Black Sea and, when supply comes online at the
end of the decade, from the Caspian too.
It is intended to cut Eastern and Central Europe's dependence on Russian gas, an
important part of the European Commission's third energy package and the CESEC group's
objectives.
Black Sea gas? Where again? Crimea does apparently have significant off-shore deposits of
undeveloped gas. It is difficult to find an article via Google on the subject that does not
have an anti-Russian slant (you know, something like just facts) but here is something on the
topic:
Thinking more about the BRUA pipe line, It could be a make work project for the region with
PC overtones (e.g. Crimea's little escapade will soon end bringing Black Sea gas back to
Europe). The usual graft and corruption will also keep Brussels bureaucrats and local
counterparts fat and happy.
It fits in to the Energy Union progapanda that Brussels is spreading. There at least it makes
some sense that where ever you are in the EU, member states will have access to energy
resources from wherever else in the EU. Of course, the real question is of price and is
something completely different. Does anyone else think it is insane to ship LNG to Krk off
Croatia to be pipelined to the rest of the Balkans? Is this a bribe to Qatar or something? Or
American LNG to say Antwerp or through the Med?
Still, the EU pipeline projects are small change compared to the amount spend on the
Common Agricultural Policy and other stuff. I guess its just another 'Do Something' schtick
to make Brussels seem relevant to EU citizens like me. Speaking of which, I enjoyed data and
telecoms free roaming this summer when I went to the g/f's folk's place this summer. It was..
surreal. And normal. The fact that national EU telecomms operators have been shafting their
own customers so hard and for so long and it took f($*ing Brussels to force it through
shows which side their own states are on. A sorry state indeed!
It must be said again – Russia does not intend to sit idle in the LNG business either.
And if the planned Kaliningrad terminal comes online by the end of this year as planned , it will not
only position Russia attractively in the LNG market (does it cost more to bring European gas
cargoes from Kaliningrad, or across the Atlantic?), it will bring increased energy
independence to Kaliningrad itself. A cruise terminal is planned as well.
These clowns are a combination of corrupt and delusional. The only non-Russian gas coming via
the Black Sea would be hypothetical sources via Turkey from Qatar/Iran and the Caspian basin.
There is no source of natural gas in the Black Sea that, for example, Bulgaria could develop
to feed this pipe.
Europe is forever bragging about weaning itself off of Russian gas, when what it is mostly
doing is taking Russian gas and moving it around through connectors, and then reselling it to
each other. A prime example – although not European – is Ukraine, which claims to
have taken no Russian gas throughout 2015 and 2016 during which time it sourced most of its
gas from Slovakia, supplied at 90% and above levels by Russia.
Ukraine claims to be getting gas from Yurrup at cheaper prices than Gazprom offered for
direct supplies. If that's true, Slovakia is selling gas to Ukraine for less than it paid for
it. And there's a word for people like that.
No so fast... Five years later (the article was written in 2013) the US empire is still
going strong. meanwhile from 2013 to 2017 it managed to counterattack resource
nationalists (killing Kaddafi) and and win in Libya, making the country a colony again.
I think Venezuela is the next. Oil prices
dropped more then 50% in 2014 (from over $100 to less then $50 per barrel ) and did not yet recovered...
Notable quotes:
"... For an example of the ethical problems of empire, think about the completely unjustifiable attacks on civilians done by the U.S. in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and most prominently in Pakistan and Yemen, especially done by drones. Or consider U.S. use of torture, from Abu Ghraib to Guantanamo Bay. As everyone knows by now, ethical and humanitarian appeals have been completely and categorically rejected by U.S. leaders, not beginning with 9-11, certainly rejected with greater vigor since then. ..."
"... But there is another, often overlooked, analysis of U.S. actions, that is the logical result of engaging in the actions of Empire, and that concerns the logical consequence of using massive amounts of resources to attempt to control the resources being used (the second use of the term resources here includes citizens; the people of a city or nation). As the economic, logistic, and humanitarian costs all rise in direct proportion to Empire's actions, the sustaining of the Empire becomes impossible, on the basis of its own internal logic. ..."
"... When the issue of blowback is added "i.e. that other nations and peoples are unlikely to cooperate willingly in having their resources, humanity, and very lives removed from them "the end result, Empire's fall, could be hastened, and is certainly assured. We can now predict not only how it will happen, but also its imminent coming. ..."
"... First, the heaviest resource consumers of fossil fuels, in order, are the U.S. military, U.S. citizens, China, and India. The Department of Defense per capita energy consumption is 10 times more than per capita energy consumption in China, or 30 times more than that of Africa. ..."
"... Oil accounts for more than three-fourths of DoD’s total energy consumption. The Post Carbon Institute estimates that abroad alone, the U.S. military consumes about 150,000 barrels per day. In 2006, for example, the Air Force consumed 2.6 billion gallons of jet-fuel, which is the same amount of fuel U.S. airplanes consumed during all of WWII (between December 1941 and August 1945) (from The Resilience Group of the Post Carbon Institute, www.resilience.org ). ..."
"... This essays suggests that these two solid arguments should now be combined with an institutional-logical analysis to demonstrate not only the intrinsic, natural limits to empire, but to show reasons how and why empire must and will ultimately disintegrate due to the hubris of ignoring natural limitations of unbridled consumption coupled with attempts at singular control over others' resources and peoples. ..."
There are numerous legal and ethical arguments that can and have been made in opposition to
U.S. foreign policy of raw aggression. For an example of the illegalities of U.S. Empire,
examine the Geneva Conventions, all four of which directly proscribe what they each call
outrages to human dignity, in particular
humiliating and degrading treatment (I, 1, 3). The
outrages are named specifically as torture, mutilation, cruel
treatment, taking hostages, murder, biological experimentation, and passing sentences on
prisoners without benefit of a regularly constituted
court.
Additionally, the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 both underscore the Geneva Conventions
and expand the traditional ethical concerns to rights and duties of neutral states by banning
the use of poison gases or arms, destroying or seizing enemy private property, attacking towns
and cities that are undefended, pillaging, collective punishment, servility of enemy citizens,
and bullets made to wreak havoc once inside the human body. Prescriptions to limit the conduct
of war include the requirements to warn towns of impending attacks, to protect cultural,
religious, and health institutions, and to insure public order and safety.
For an example of the ethical problems of empire, think about the completely unjustifiable
attacks on civilians done by the U.S. in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and most prominently
in Pakistan and Yemen, especially done by drones. Or consider U.S. use of torture, from Abu
Ghraib to Guantanamo Bay. As everyone knows by now, ethical and humanitarian appeals have been
completely and categorically rejected by U.S. leaders, not beginning with 9-11, certainly
rejected with greater vigor since then.
But there is another, often overlooked, analysis of U.S. actions, that is the logical result
of engaging in the actions of Empire, and that concerns the logical consequence of using
massive amounts of resources to attempt to control the resources being used (the second use of
the term resources here includes citizens; the people of a
city or nation). As the economic, logistic, and humanitarian costs all rise in direct
proportion to Empire's actions, the sustaining of the Empire becomes
impossible, on the basis of its own internal logic.
In whatever historical epoch you choose, if you take your compass and draw a circle around
any given tribe, you can see the desired extent of their territorial claims for resource
control. One thus can see that particular group's
resource consumption;
and
circle of desired resource control. But when two further historical developments are
added, such as
technologically-driven consumption (e.g. fossil-fuel guzzling appliances and
cars, etc.); and
now necessary desires for global resources needed to feed that
group's consumption habits "then the situation expands
sufficiently to become one of using extensive amounts of the very resources one is attempting
to control (in the U.S. case, oil and money) for the sake of controlling the resources over
which one needs to exert control! This circular logic cannot be maintained when it meets
a
scarcity of resources; and
the natural-institutional-logical antinomy of using resources in
massive amounts to control the resources you are using for control. In other words, the empire
based on this pattern must end when it runs headlong into resource scarcity, and/or
natural-logical contradictions involving its own internal (economic and resource) limitations.
This argument against U.S. Empire is not based on ethical or legal grounds (although those
remain the best arguments in favor of voluntarily ending empire and regaining our citizenship
[civil rights] and humanness) "since those arguments have been put asunder by the
U.S. administrators of empire. Rather, the institutional-logical analysis argues that an empire
such as the U.S. has constructed exhausts itself by being unable to expand fast enough to
control everything it seeks in order to continue its dominance.
When the issue of blowback is
added "i.e. that other nations and peoples are unlikely to cooperate willingly in
having their resources, humanity, and very lives removed from them "the end result,
Empire's fall, could be hastened, and is certainly assured. We can now
predict not only how it will happen, but also its imminent coming. Here's
how.
First, the heaviest resource consumers of fossil fuels, in order, are the U.S. military,
U.S. citizens, China, and India. The Department of Defense per capita energy consumption is 10
times more than per capita energy consumption in China, or 30 times more than that of Africa.
Oil accounts for more than three-fourths of DoD’s total energy consumption. The Post
Carbon Institute estimates that abroad alone, the U.S. military consumes about 150,000 barrels
per day. In 2006, for example, the Air Force consumed 2.6 billion gallons of jet-fuel, which is
the same amount of fuel U.S. airplanes consumed during all of WWII (between December 1941 and
August 1945) (from The Resilience Group of the Post Carbon Institute, www.resilience.org ).
Second, concerning the global dimension of resource control, one needs only to understand
the preferred method that U.S. Empire acolytes use to justify their actions abroad: the
state of emergency that was declared after 9/11 has continued
unabated since then, due to the ongoing threat of
terrorism (see Jeremy Scahill, Dirty Wars: The World is a
Battlefield , for the latest detailed instances of this process.). The domestic equivalent
to his war has been well underway since 9-11. (For detail on
the domestic front, see also Trevor Aaronson, Terror Factory , regarding FBI domestic
use of the ongoing threat of terrorism to deny basic civil
rights to citizens).
This allows U.S. government administrators to maintain a state of
exception to the rule of law. Georgio Agamben, in his book States of
Exception , defines this phrase as extraordinary governmental actions resulting from
distinctively political crises. As such, the actions of such administrators are in-between
normal political operations and legal ones. This no
man's land of government policy is not only difficult to
define, but brings in its wake a suspension of the entire existing
juridical order. Thus, states of exception are those in which a government in fact
suspends the rule of law for itself, while attempting to maintain some semblance of legal
order, for the purpose of consolidating its power and control (see Georgio Agamben, States
of Exception , Chapter Two).
Regarding the scarcity of resources issue, none other than the World Bank produced a
detailed study of demand and supply projections for the immediate future. The study projects
that, on the basis of current consumption and immediately precedent rises in it, the demand for
food will rise by 50% by 2030, for meat by 85%, for oil by 20 million barrels a day, and for
water by 32%, all by the same year.
This is met by alarming statistics and predictions from the
supply side. In their report, they state that global food growth rates fell by 1.1% over
the past decade, and are continuing to fall, while global food consumption outstripped
production in seven of the eight years between 2000 and 2008. Further, the Food and
Agricultural Organization and the UN Environment Program estimate that 16% of the arable
land used now is degraded. Intensifying competition between different land uses is
likely to emerge in future, including food crops, livestock, etc., and the
world's expanding cities. Current rates of water extraction from
rivers, groundwater and other sources are already unsustainable in many parts of the world.
Over one billion people live in water basins in which the physical scarcity of water is
absolute; by 2025, the figure is projected to rise two billion, with up to two thirds of the
world's population living in water-stressed conditions (mainly in non-OECD
countries).
On oil , the International Energy Agency has warned consistently that there
is a significant risk of a new supply crunch as the global
economy recovers. Additionally, the IEA's
chief economist argues that peak production could take place by 2020 (from the
World Development Report 2011, Background Paper: Resource Scarcity, Climate
Change and the Risk of Violent Conflict, www.worldbank.org ).
The conclusion from all of these points is nearly obvious: if resources are even relatively
scarce, and the habits of and desires for consumption continue to rise among nations, and
especially among the citizens of Empire (as has been documented in part above), and if control
over those resources is the goal of Empire, but if the Empire consumes more resources than it
can logistically or economically control due to natural limitations of those resources
themselves, and/or to the consumption of more resources than is either available to it or that
it needs to survive, then the power of the Empire will naturally-logically end in a sharp
decline, and soon (For applicable details on this, see Richard Heinberg,
The Brief, Tragic Reign of Consumerism "and the Birth of a
Happy Alternative, www.postcarbon.org ).
With all indicators predicting that the contradictions of Empire's
resource consumption, circle of desired resource control, scarcity of resources, and
contradiction in resource use and control, are all about to collide in a few years, not
decades, it is time to start planning for a post-Empire future. To that end, any psychologist
reading this analysis will recognize themes of realistic conflict
theory, which is a theory which explains how intergroup hostility can arise as a
result of conflicting goals and competition over limited resources
The key point in bringing
this psychological theory into the discussion is that in this theory, it is concluded that
friction between groups can be reduced only in the presence of superordinate goals that promote
united, cooperative action (see Wikipedia on Realistic Conflict
Theory for a good overview, summarized here. https://en.wikipedia.org ). Note the agreement of the ethical,
legal, and psychological analyses of Empire's oppression: the most effective
resolution to oppression, (empire) dominance, and conflict is united, cooperative action, not
the attempt to control or destroy people and nations who stand in the way of our control.
We have seen that progressives have had available to them a standard two-pronged argument
against empire "American or any other". Progressives have for good reason appealed
consistently to the ethical and the legal arguments available to help stem the desires for
world and resource domination.
This essays suggests that these two solid arguments should now
be combined with an institutional-logical analysis to demonstrate not only the intrinsic,
natural limits to empire, but to show reasons how and why empire must and will ultimately
disintegrate due to the hubris of ignoring natural limitations of unbridled consumption coupled
with attempts at singular control over others' resources and peoples.
"... I know it's an analogy I have used before – as Lucy in the Peanuts ..."
"... Washington is the big brother Poroshenko turns to when he wants help to stymie Russia's efforts to build circumferential commercial links around Ukraine, and instead for Ukraine to have an important linking role in Russia's energy business with Europe – in short, for Russia to continue using Ukraine to transit its gas to Europe. ..."
"... In Ukraine's current condition, it is at serious risk of collapse. And a country that sends its gas across Ukraine is a country that cannot afford to let Ukraine turn into a failed state, at any cost. Just to put a cherry on top of this splendiferous vision, complications actually can be introduced, at a whim, into Europe's energy supply, should they get uppity. ..."
"... This is no time for Russia to weaken in its resolve. But it is also no time for Germany to allow itself to be rolled. Somebody is going to be a major gas hub for Europe, and in the current climate it is going to be Germany or Ukraine. Germany should ask itself what Ukraine has done for it which would merit such sacrifice. ..."
First, I ran across
an hilarious post on Interfax Ukraine, which I was just going to offer for everyone's amusement.
It featured the 17-year-old CEO of Naftogaz, Andriy (it's very important to Ukrainians that they
spell their names differently from the Russian spelling, because they are not ignorant Slavs like
the Russians, but the descendants of billion-year-old-carbon extraterrestrials) Kobolev, blubbering
about how Siemens had caved in to pressure from the Russians, and stopped the sale of compressors
to Naftogaz that it needed to modernize its Gas Transit System (GTS). He's not really 17, of course;
he just has that
Richie Cunningham kind of face that makes him look perennially pubescent, complete with red hair.
That's part of what makes the article funny. There's more, but we'll get to that, in a bit.
Then it occurred to me that I've seen a loose series of pieces lately which mention Ukraine and
gas transit, such as Ken Rapoza's
piece for Forbes (which I mentioned already, in the comments to the previous post), where he
unaccountably suggests that Russia has discovered it still needs Ukraine. As I argued on that occasion,
Ukraine's soulful big-eyed caricature of trustworthiness is unlikely to fool anyone in Russia, and
merely underscores how important it is for Russia's continuing progress and uncoupling from the west
that it circumvent Ukraine, and not rely on it for anything.
But then I ran across
this . The EU is again taking the position, or at least it appears so from the gobbling of the
human turkey Maros Sefcovic, that transit of Russian gas through Ukraine after 2020 is a priority.
And I thought, holy shit. Are we really going to go through all this all over again? And
then I thought, what's a word for people who are incapable of learning? It's plain that western bureaucrats
see themselves – and I know it's an analogy I have used before – as
Lucy in the
Peanuts comic strips , holding the football for Charlie Brown (Russia), only to snatch
it away at the last second so that Charlie Brown/Russia falls ignominiously on his ass, to great
amusement. What's a word for people who are so stupid that they believe everyone else is too stupid
to see through their self-interested mendacity?
So I searched "What do you call people who are incapable of learning?"
This site – somewhat unkindly – suggested "thick". Fair enough, I thought.
... ... ...
But that wasn't the part that made me laugh. No, what I found funny was Kobolev's
pouty insistence that Nord Stream II be opposed as a 'politically-motivated project'. Just as if
leaning on the jellyfish President of the European Commission to force Russia to continue transiting
Europe's gas through the slow-motion collapse that is Ukraine had nothing whatsoever to do with politics.
Nope, that just stands out as a solid business decision in every way, doesn't it?
Let's get something up-front and on deck right now, so that there is no ambiguity to confuse the
issue. Washington was behind the Maidan turning into a violent insurrection, and the USA remains
behind the scenes
pulling the strings at the SBU . A
very frank phone conversation
between State Department neoconservative cookie-distributor Victoria Nuland and United States Ambassador
to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, in which the eventual composition of the coup government was planned in
unambiguous detail should be all the evidence anyone needs that the entire process was manipulated
and micromanaged. Lest anyone forget, Nuland's choice, 'Yats' – Arseniy Yatsenyuk – was
such a political dung-magnet that he lasted only 26 months in the job. To be fair to him, he
was tasked with implementing the IMF's favourite reform (because it's the only one the IMF really
knows); austerity, in the poorest country in Europe. And it is the United States of America which
continues to have its arm up the back of Kiev's shirt, making its mouth move. Washington is the big
brother Poroshenko turns to when he wants help to stymie Russia's efforts to build circumferential
commercial links around Ukraine, and instead for Ukraine to have an important linking role in Russia's
energy business with Europe – in short, for Russia to continue using Ukraine to transit its gas to
Europe.
Why is that, do you suppose? What's in it for Washington?
Dragging Ukraine into the west's orbit has long been a goal for Washington, dating back to the
late and mostly-unlamented Zbigniew Brzezinski's 'grand chessboard' strategy – a geostrategic imperative,
he said, to ensure American primacy in the world. Russia without Ukraine, quoth the pushing-up-daisies
Pole, would never attain great-power status. And America has sort of gotten to like the feeling of
being the only great power in the world.
The strategic value of Ukraine, then, is manifold. It can be stirred at any time to whip up global
ire against Russia. NATO military exercises in Ukraine can be used to parade western might across
Russia's doorstep. But its real value lies in continued gas transit by Russia between the source
and Russia.
For one thing, it's the money – more than $ 2 Billion a year out of Russia's pocket and into Ukraine's,
in transit fees. Once Russia is committed to continuing to use Ukraine as a transit country, transit
fees can always be used as leverage to negotiate sweet energy deals for Ukraine, against the threat
of interrupting Europe's gas supply. Europe would play its part by acting hysterically terrified
and victimized. But that's still pretty small potatoes.
In Ukraine's current condition, it is at serious risk of collapse. And a country that sends its
gas across Ukraine is a country that cannot afford to let Ukraine turn into a failed state, at any
cost. Just to put a cherry on top of this splendiferous vision, complications actually can be introduced,
at a whim, into Europe's energy supply, should they get uppity.
There is no room in this sugarplum daydream for an independent Germany which is a gas hub for
Europe, perhaps not even with Mutti Merkel at the helm.
Perhaps some sort of medal could be struck for Sefcovic, for his relentless determination to herd
Russia into a horrible bargain which would see it constantly bargaining and negotiating with greedy
and lawless Ukraine for the expensive privilege of transiting its gas through Ukraine's whistling,
creaking pipelines. In other circumstances, such dedication might be admirable. But I'm pretty confident
that nobody in Russia is buying it. Europe has made an increasingly half-hearted attempt to stop
Nord Stream II, and has learned instead that if it wanted to make a sensible legal argument, it should
never have allowed the first pipeline; that's what, in the legal business, is known as 'precedent'.
All of which leads us to suspect that the real remaining antagonist to the Nord Stream II pipeline
is somebody whom it should not by rights concern at all, since that entity is neither part of the
supply chain nor the end user of the product – Uncle Sam.
This is no time for Russia to weaken in its resolve. But it is also no time for Germany to allow
itself to be rolled. Somebody is going to be a major gas hub for Europe, and in the current climate
it is going to be Germany or Ukraine. Germany should ask itself what Ukraine has done for it which
would merit such sacrifice.
"... The critics allege that Nord Stream 2 is a political project. So what? When the Obama Administration authorised liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports from the United States, did it have politics in mind? Sure. When the Lithuanians turned to LNG to lessen their reliance on Russia, were they pursuing a political project? Well, the importing vessel is called "Independence." Saying that Nord Stream 2 is a political project does not get you very far ..."
"... I can't believe it has taken this long for Euractiv to post a normal article on NordStream II. Sure, it is not the Russophobic shitrag that EUObserver carrying bs opinions from self-acclaimed 'apolitical' energy expert Srijben de Jong, but absence of common sense articles on the issue are few and far between. I'll give this a '1 Hurrah!'. Let see if if it spreads. ..."
Nord Stream 2 continues to divide Europe. That's a pity. For all the noise, Nord Stream 2 is
just a distraction – it doesn't really matter. Here's why, writes Nikos Tsafos.
Nikos Tsafos is president of enalytica, an energy consulting firm, and an adjunct lecturer
at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS).
The critics allege that Nord Stream 2 is a political project. So what? When the Obama Administration
authorised liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports from the United States, did it have politics in
mind? Sure. When the Lithuanians turned to LNG to lessen their reliance on Russia, were they pursuing
a political project? Well, the importing vessel is called "Independence." Saying that Nord Stream
2 is a political project does not get you very far
####
I can't believe it has taken this long for Euractiv to post a normal article on NordStream
II. Sure, it is not the Russophobic shitrag that EUObserver carrying bs opinions from self-acclaimed
'apolitical' energy expert Srijben de Jong, but absence of common sense articles on the issue
are few and far between. I'll give this a '1 Hurrah!'. Let see if if it spreads.
The specially-built ship completed the crossing in just six-and-a-half days setting a
new record, according to tanker's Russian owners.
The 300-metre-long Sovcomflot ship, the Christophe de Margerie, was carrying gas from
Norway to South Korea .
The Christophe de Margerie is the world's first and, at present, only ice-breaking LNG
carrier.
The ship, which features a lightweight steel reinforced hull, is the largest commercial
ship to receive Arc7 certification, which means it is capable of travelling through ice up to
2.1m thick. ..
####
Another misleading headline, which is a pity because I wanted to say that the downside
would be that it makes for shit Gin & Tonics if there is no ice!
Just as a reminder of FAKE news by the previous President that was met with raptured
adulation by the professional media:
You are absolutely correct about her not being "pro-Russian", albeit she is an "ethnic"
Russian: she is pro-Yulia Tymoshenko, nothing else..
Tymoshenko started off as a businesswoman in Dnepropetrovsk (now Dnipro), her home town,
and with the help of the former governor of her home province, the unbelievably corrupt
former Ukrainian prime minister, "Mr. 50%" Lazarenko, became immensely wealthy in an
amazingly short time, not least because, for an appropriate fee, Prime Minister Lazarenko
gave her control of the Ukrainian gas industry.
Tymoshenko was a brunette when she started of her business career and at that time only
spoke Russian, which is both her mother tongue and the first (and probably only) language of
her Russian mother. Her first foray into business was running a video-hire firm in
Dnepropetrovsk, where she flogged off bootleg soft-porn imported from Poland.
The "Gas Princess" then saw that there was much more wealth to be further garnered by her
entering what is laughably called in the Ukraine "politics". She changed her image to one of,
I suspect, a latter-day Lesya Ukrainka, and the rest is history.
She also seriously studied the Ukrainian language, which on her own admission, she did not
speak until she was in her 30s: she speaks nothing else now, in public at any rate.
The "Orange Revolution" for dear Yulia was just another opportunity for her to make even
more lolly.
Ukrainians remember that in the 1990s, before the braids, Tymoshenko was a shrewd
businesswoman with dark hair and a dark side: tough, unrelenting, unforgiving, and in a
league with then-Prime Minister Pavlo Lazarenko. She amassed an enormous fortune in the
natural gas business. People started calling her "The Gas Princess." And there she was helped
by the sweetheart deals Lazarenko allegedly sent her way.
Given all the talk that later charges against Tymoshenko were trumped up or falsified
in the Ukraine, it's probably important to know that her ally Lazarenko was prosecuted in the
United States, where he was convicted and imprisoned for money laundering and other crimes.
Tymoshenko was not charged in that case and she has denied wrongdoing, but she was named
explicitly as part of the conspiracy detailed in the indictment.
"Lazarenko received money from companies owned or controlled by Ukrianian [sic]
business woman Yulia Tymoshenko in exchange for which Lazarenko exercised his official
authority in favor of Tymoshenko's companies, and Lazarenko failed to disclose to the people
and government of Ukraine that he was receiving significant amounts of money from these
companies."
Tymoshenko moved from business to politics when she entered parliament in 1996. Three
years later, when Lazarenko fled the country (claiming people were out to kill him),
Tymoshenko helped found the Fatherland Party on an anti-Lazarenko anti-corruption
platform.
That prosecution is important, because the USA knows full well many of the details of
Tymoshenko's business relationship with Lazarenko. Consequently, it could probably make or
break her – exactly the position Uncle Same likes to be in with his relentless spying
and snooping on everyone and everything.
The same Naftogaz which plans to
tack on an extra $5 Billion
to its demands from Gazprom – already $12.3 Billion
– for what it says was underpayment of transit fees between 2009 and 2016. The same
Naftogaz that squeals what a reliable partner it is whenever there is mention of building a
pipeline around Ukraine so Russia will not have to transit gas through it.
Certainly doing a lot to help themselves, aren't they?
Lithuania helps America conquer Europe
Lithuania has accepted the first batch of liquefied natural gas from the USA
.... ... ...
The first consignment of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the United States has arrived
at the port of Klaipeda. The Lithuanian authorities hope that the country will become a
regional distribution centre (hub) for US gas. They also believe that supplies of overseas
raw materials will help reduce gas prices in neighbouring countries and Lithuania
itself.
Analysts do not consider Lithuania's gas policy rational and effective, noting that
Russian pipeline gas is now much cheaper than LNG.
There is nothing you can do to stop an ideologue who turns up his/her nose at cheaper local
supply of a particular commodity because he/she dislikes the supplier, and elects to purchase
more expensive goods from an alternate source. The fact is, Lithuania could become a hub for
US LNG, and bring down gas prices for its customers so that they were eager to purchase it.
Lithuania could accomplish this through the simple expedient of buying American gas at a high
price – compared with Russian pipeline gas – and selling it at a lower price than
Russia was willing to do. Of course, somebody would have to absorb the cost of the price
difference, and that would be Lithuania. If Lithuania is willing to do that, as I said, she
cannot be stopped from doing it by anything short of the poverty which will eventually
result.
Knock yourself out, Grybauskaitė. If you were ordered to describe her policies in one
word, 'irrational' would probably do quite well. Americans will be comforted to know there is
more than one irrational president in the world.
Sanctions, but US still buying billions of dollars worth (including baksheesh) of rocket
engines and screwing around with international space station boondoggle (million dollar
toilet seats, hammers and widgets). And more baksheesh.
Try to google search a fixed price on one Russian rocket engine.
The pipeline hypotheses do not stand up to the realities of how energy is transported through
the Middle East in the 21st century
3. No Qatari offer to Damascus
The pipeline narrative, from 2013 onwards, also makes much mention of Damascus rebuffing
an alleged Qatari offer in 2009 to build a pipeline. This part of the story hinges around
statements by unnamed diplomats in a 2013 Agence France-Presse article about a meeting
between Russia's President Vladimir Putin and Saudi Arabia's Bandar bin Sultan.
Qatar's then-Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani (R) and First Lady Sheikha Mozah
bint Nasser al-Misned (L) welcome Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his wife Asma at
Doha airport in January 2010 (AFP)
The report says: "In 2009, Assad refused to sign an agreement with Qatar for an overland
pipeline running from the Gulf to Europe via Syria to protect the interests of its Russian
ally, which is Europe's top supplier of natural gas."
But Dargin says:
"There are no credible sources that show that Qatar even approached
Syria in 2009 and was rebuffed in the process. I am not saying it definitely did not occur,
rather there is no evidence supporting this claim."
Syrian experts also support Dargin's rebuttal, highlighting the burgeoning economic and
political ties between Doha and Damascus.
'An important aspect that we don't talk about is the Syrian government never said the
Qataris were fighting for a pipeline'
- Jihad Yazigi, Syria Report
Yassin-Kassab says: "The absurdity is that relations between the Assad regime and the
Qataris were excellent until summer 2011. Assad and his wife and the Qatari royal couple
were also being portrayed as personal friends."
Although Assad may have repeatedly criticized Qatar since late 2011 onwards for
supporting "terrorists," he has never publicly stated that Qatari support for the rebels
was over a future pipeline.
Jihad Yazigi, editor of economy website Syria Report, says: "An important aspect that we
don't talk about is the Syrian government never said the Qataris were fighting for a
pipeline; that is telling in itself, that Assad never mentioned it."
4. The Moscow-Tehran connection
Then there's the other part of the Pipelineistan puzzle – the Iran-Syria pipeline,
also known as the Islamic Pipeline.
Yazigi explains: "The Islamic pipeline has been talked about for years. There were
pre-contract memorandums of understanding, but
until July 2011, there was no formal
signing [between Syria and Iran]. You can't argue this is a serious reason to destroy the
whole country.
"
While the project was politically expedient, it ignored economic and energy realities.
First, the project was estimated to cost $10 billion, but it was unclear who would foot the
bill, particularly as Tehran was – and still is – under US and international
sanctions, as is Syria, since 2011.
Second,
Iran lacks the capabilities to export significant amounts of gas.
Sanctions mean it cannot access the advanced US technology that would allow it to exploit
gas from the South Pars field that borders Qatar.
@71 James, there are many small contractors involved in Nordstream in several countries. The
sanctions are designed to squeeze them out and make Nordstream impossible.
It's not unlike the strategy being used against NK. They are designed to make life even
more difficult for ordinary people....perhaps drive them into China and cause China to attack
NK.
"Not me! Term limits mean nothing more than the elimination of the ability of the voters
to assess candidates based on legislative track records. The result is that every two years
the voters will have to choose representatives with no past history of legislation.
Disaster."
Gag me with a spoon. This argument is so old and so worn thin. Statistically 95+% of these
fools are reelected because the highly cerebral voters you refer to have elevators that
almost never go to the top of the building.
Money, money money. That's what drives the engine of elections. Incumbents have it working
for them in so many ways: PACs, corporate centers of influence; radio and teevee.
All of the alternatives you propose are red herrings. They are only workable in heaven,
not here on Terra Firma.
Remember, all of that institutional memory brought about by all of the 'experienced'
members of congress got us where we are today. And, it's gotten them a 10% approval
rating.
Something to consider when dealing with the Revolutionary time period is what part of the
populous is considered "The People," as in "We The People"? And just how equal in reality
were those people in 1776 when the phrase "All men are created equal" appeared?
This is of great importance when we look at the proportion of the populous that was
allowed to have a stake in the process and compare that with the amount of time it took until
a majority was finally deemed to have equal rights under the law--1920 within USA
Although it can be argued that full equality under the law is still lacking as Glenn
Greenwald did to great affect in
With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to
Destroy Equality
. Two works providing info on this issue are
The Right to Vote: The
Contested History of Democracy in the United States
and
People of Paradox: An Inquiry
Concerning the Origins of American Civilization
, although there are many others.
Is the United States federal government reformable? IMO, as currently constituted, no. A
new document and associated institutions needs to be written and built, although some current
institutions will have a place within the new construct.
Yes, I did write a Constitution 3.0 using Madisonian principles not long after the fiasco
of the 2000 election to use as a classroom discussion tool. But to have any chance at making
that reality, the Rule of Law must be reinstated within the Outlaw US Empire in order to
bring the Deep State to Justice and thus its destruction.
One jewish journalist (link was posted here few days ago) nicely pointed out these sanctions
are the stupidest thing US could have possibly done. Not only it forges even closer
Russia-China-Iran alliance, it also alienates the closest and strongest ally US have - the
EU.
@18 - or the opposite. If Trump really is isolationists and if he wants USA isolate itself
on the two Americas, then he has two options: make America turn its back on the world, or
make the world turn its back on America. The first option he failed, DC regime is stronger
than POUTS. Then - the second option.
Not only it forges even closer Russia-China-Iran alliance, it also alienates the closest
and strongest ally US have - the EU.
Posted by: Arioch | Aug 7, 2017 1:30:51 PM | 96
What's wrong about that statement is that the EU nations are not US Allied states - they
are US vassal states. A bit of a difference between those two: "allied state" and "vassal state"
New U.S. sanctions will make it harder for Russia to build two gas export pipelines to Europe
but the projects are unlikely to be stopped.
U.S. President Donald Trump has reluctantly signed into law further sanctions on Russia but some
of the measures are discretionary and most White House watchers believe he will not take action against
Russia's energy infrastructure.
This would allow Gazprom's two big pipeline projects to go ahead, although at a higher price and
with some delays.
... ... ...
Gazprom warned investors last month that the sanctions "may result in delays, or otherwise impair
or prevent the completion of the projects by the group."
With all that in mind, the Russian gas giant is taking steps to reduce the impact of sanctions.
It has accelerated pipe-laying by Swiss contractor Allseas Group under the Black Sea for TurkStream
- even though there is no final agreement on where the pipeline will make landfall in Turkey. It
is also hurriedly building a second TurkStream line to export gas to Europe.
"The construction of the second line is underway just in case the sanctions hit," a senior Gazprom
source told Reuters.
A spokesman for Allseas said 100 km of the 900-km first line have been built since June 23 and preparatory
work is underway for the second line.
THE UKRAINIAN CONNECTION
The biggest cost of any delays to the new lines could come from increased transit fees paid to
Ukraine, the route by which Russian gas has traditionally reached Europe. Nord Stream 2 and TurkStream
bypass Ukraine, but if they are brought into use late, Gazprom will have to continue using the Ukrainian
route and may have to pay more for the privilege.
The European Union, fearing sanctions will hurt oil and gas projects on which it depends, said
it was ready to retaliate unless it obtained U.S. guarantees that European firms would not be targeted.
Five Western firms that have invested in Nord Stream 2 - Wintershall (BASFn.DE) and Uniper (UN01.DE)
of Germany, Austria's OMV (OMVV.VI), Anglo-Dutch Shell (RDSa.L), and France's Engie (ENGIE.PA) -
say it is too early to judge the impact of sanctions.
For now, they are standing by their pledge of up to 950 million euros ($1.13 billion) each to
finance the 1,225 km (760 mile) Nord Stream 2.
... ... ...
RISK PREMIUM
The sanctions law is however expected to hamper Gazprom's efforts to raise money. "The price of
any project automatically increases," said Tatiana Mitrova, director of the Skolkovo Energy Center.
"... The sanctions bill has been promoted as one that appropriately penalizes Russia for its international misbehavior. The always-cited examples being the invasion of Georgia in 2008 and the (alleged) invasion of Ukraine in 2014. (As though these in any way rival in their impact and ramifications of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, based on lies, in 2003, or the U.S./NATO-led assault on Libya sold in the UN Security Council as a "humanitarian" intervention supported by Russia, that turned out to be a grotesque regime change operation culminating with Hillary Clinton's public orgasm following Muammar Gadaffi's sodomy-murder. "We came, we saw, he died!") ..."
"... Russia is always depicted in the corporate media as an "adversary." It acts, we are told ad nauseam, against U.S. "interests" around the world. Its involvement in Syria is (to support the survival of the secular modern Syrian state against the most savage opponents imaginable) is somehow objectionable (whereas U.S. bombing of Syria, condemned by Damascus as a violation of Syrian sovereignty and clearly in violation of international law, is treated as a matter of course). Its role in the bombing of Aleppo, resulting in the reconquest of the city from al-Nusra and its allies, was depicted by the U.S. media as a bad thing. Meanwhile U.S. bombing of Mosul, to retake that city from ISIL, is treated as heroic, however many thousands perish in "collateral damage." Anyway CNN won't cover it and has fewer reporters on the ground there than RT does. ..."
"... Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev matter-of-factly tweeted: "The Trump administration has shown its total weakness by handing over executive power to Congress in the most humiliating way." But where will this power lead? ..."
But U.S. policy now, under the Trump administration, is to promote U.S. energy exports to Europe
to replace Russian ones. It is both old-fashioned Cold War Russophobia and old-fashioned inter-capitalist,
inter-imperialist contention.
The sanctions bill has been promoted as one that appropriately penalizes Russia for its international
misbehavior. The always-cited examples being the invasion of Georgia in 2008 and the (alleged) invasion
of Ukraine in 2014. (As though these in any way rival in their impact and ramifications of the U.S.
invasion of Iraq, based on lies, in 2003, or the U.S./NATO-led assault on Libya sold in the UN Security
Council as a "humanitarian" intervention supported by Russia, that turned out to be a grotesque regime
change operation culminating with Hillary Clinton's public orgasm following Muammar Gadaffi's sodomy-murder.
"We came, we saw, he died!")
Hillary Clinton on Gaddafi: We came, we saw, he died
Russia is always depicted in the corporate media as an "adversary." It acts, we are told ad nauseam,
against U.S. "interests" around the world. Its involvement in Syria is (to support the survival of
the secular modern Syrian state against the most savage opponents imaginable) is somehow objectionable
(whereas U.S. bombing of Syria, condemned by Damascus as a violation of Syrian sovereignty and clearly
in violation of international law, is treated as a matter of course). Its role in the bombing of
Aleppo, resulting in the reconquest of the city from al-Nusra and its allies, was depicted by the
U.S. media as a bad thing. Meanwhile U.S. bombing of Mosul, to retake that city from ISIL, is treated
as heroic, however many thousands perish in "collateral damage." Anyway CNN won't cover it and has
fewer reporters on the ground there than RT does.
Russia is depicted as "provocative" when it mobilizes military forces within its own territory
(and Belarus), in response to massive NATO exercises involving 31,000 troops in Poland last June
that the German foreign minister criticized as "warmongering."
Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev matter-of-factly tweeted: "The Trump administration has
shown its total weakness by handing over executive power to Congress in the most humiliating way."
But where will this power lead?
The concept, as articulated by Sen. John McCain and Sen. John Hoeven in a 2014 Wall Street Journal
op-ed, is to "liberate our allies from Russia's stranglehold on the European natural-gas market."
But as the Washington Post has observed, "The problem is that Europeans don't necessarily want to
be liberated. Russian gas is much cheaper than American LNG, and could become even cheaper to undercut
the United States if it entered the European market. American LNG suppliers prioritize their own
profits over America's strategic advantage anyway, and are likely to want to target more lucrative
markets than Europe, such as Japan. Finally, the Russian gas supply is likely to be more reliable
than the United States', since it involves predictable long-term contracts, whereas U.S. production
capacity rises and falls, as it becomes cheaper and more expensive to extract American unconventional
hydrocarbons."
The McCain-Hoeven piece was of course written before there was any talk about Russian "election
meddling." But that issue was used to justify the sanctions bill. That, plus miscellaneous Russian
actions, basically in response to U.S. actions (as in Ukraine, where!as everyone should know!Hillary
Clinton's crony Victoria Newland helped organize a putsch in February 2014, designed to pull Ukraine
into NATO, although that effort has failed and anyway lacks German support).
The U.S. at this point (under Trump) is taking actions towards Russia that recall those of the
Truman administration. The warm, fuzzy (and miserable, abjectly weak) Russia of the 1990s under Yeltsin
is now a reviving world power within an emerging Eurasian trade system. The relationship between
Russia and China will stay strong even if the U.S. takes measures to sabotage trade relations between
Russia and Europe.
Meanwhile, the sanctions law has produced general European outrage. This is not the anti-Trump
outrage that accompanied his withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. It is outrage at the U.S. legislature
for its arrogance in demanding Europe shoot itself in the foot, to show Washington deference. In
other words, the entirety of the divided, troubled U.S. polity is seen as a problem. This is as a
new Pew Research Center report showing that only 49% of the world's people now hold a positive view
of the U.S.
German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel and Austrian Chancellor Christian Kern have publicly condemned
the law, which could prevent them from benefiting from the planned Nord Stream 2 pipeline, declaring:
"we cannot agree with threats of illegal extraterritorial sanctions against European companies which
take part in the development of European energy supply." Brigitte Zypries, head of Germany's Ministry
for Economic Affairs and Energy, says the new sanctions are "against international law, plain and
simple Americans cannot punish German companies because they [do business] in another country." The
foreign ministers of Germany, France, Austria, Italy and Spain have protested. Jean-Claude Juncker,
president of the European Commission, said the bill could have "unintended unilateral effects" on
the EU's energy security, adding, "America first cannot mean that Europe's interests come last."
This is not just a provocation of Russia, but of the whole world. It's leveled by a bipartisan
effort, and general (although insane) consensus that Russia is trying to revive the Soviet empire,
is constantly interfering in foreign countries' elections, and represents an "existential" threat
to the U.S. and its freedoms, etc. (Because!reputable media talking heads opine routinely!Putin hates
freedom and wants to oppose it, by electoral interference in Germany, France, Italy, etc.)
U.S. politicians!many of whom who do not believe in global warming or evolution, and cannot find
Syria or Ukraine on the map!have boldly gone where no one has gone before: to risk a trade war with
traditional allies, to force them to more firmly embrace the principle of U.S. hegemony. This when
the U.S. GDP has dropped below that of the EU, and U.S. clout and credibility in the world!in large
part due to global revulsion at the results of U.S. regime-change wars!is at low ebb.
Medvedev predicts that "relations between Russia and the United States are going to be extremely
tense regardless of Congress' makeup and regardless of who is president. Lengthy arguments in international
bodies and courts are ahead, as well as rising international tensions and refusal to settle major
international issues." No bromance here.
Meanwhile Sen. Lindsey Graham!an extreme reactionary and warmonger now lionized my the mainstream
media as some sort of "moderate" and adult in the room!informs NBC's Today Show that reports that
"there is no military option" on North Korea are "just false."
"There is a military option: to destroy North Korea's nuclear program and North Korea itself.
He's not going to allow -- President Trump -- the ability of this madman [Kim Jong Un] to have a missile
that could hit America. If there's going to be a war to stop him, it will be over there. If thousands
die, they're going to die over there. They're not going to die over here -- and he's told me that
to my face."
"... Of course they are; and it's so bloody transparent that nobody is fooled. Please check the link below: http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/eu-ready-retaliate-if-us-imposes-new-russia-sanctions/ri20467 ..."
"... The U.S. is waging full scale war against Russia; economic sanctions are war and Japan attacked Pearl Harbour for almost identical sanctions on oil and energy imports. Vladimir Putin is the Cool Hand Luke of Russia; let hope the outcome is not like the movie. The E.U. seems to have had a recent spinal transplant; let's just see how it plays out ..."
"... The Western, eastern stuff is irrelevant. Russia isn't the aggressor in the situation. Putin will enjoy a population much more willing to stand against U.S. aggression which is largely dependent on an ignorant U.S. population. ..."
"... Merkel will be under pressure as these sanctions are simply a tax on EU citizens and corporations to support American corporate profits without providing better products. Given the EU political structure and the lack of a "cool" President, I suspect the next Congressional delegation will be shocked to find they aren't well received. ..."
"... I personally doubt that the Blob/US financial interests are 'jealous' of them -- they just think that Russia, like other countries, should kowtow to them, and allow them to buy whatever part of the Russian society and economy and land they like. ..."
"... I had thought of it the other way around: that the insistence on unprofitable fracking was to support America as a world power. Got to have some way to bribe Europe away from the Russians. Is there actually enough gas to do that? I know there's quite a bit. ..."
The U.S. is waging full scale war against Russia; economic sanctions are war and Japan
attacked Pearl Harbour for almost identical sanctions on oil and energy imports. Vladimir Putin
is the Cool Hand Luke of Russia; let hope the outcome is not like the movie. The E.U. seems to
have had a recent spinal transplant; let's just see how it plays out
I dare say, Russia is more self sufficient than the U.S. and almost every other country on
the planet. Do the research; it's very enlightening.
The U.S. is a very jealous hegemon and can't bear this reality
Have you ever thought to question your comparitive references? Most views of Russia are western-centric
in the extreme. Russia is not western or European in any sense of that reality; Russia is a very
different culture/s and sees things drastically different than the western-centric POV. Just sayin
The Western, eastern stuff is irrelevant. Russia isn't the aggressor in the situation.
Putin will enjoy a population much more willing to stand against U.S. aggression which is largely
dependent on an ignorant U.S. population.
Merkel will be under pressure as these sanctions are simply a tax on EU citizens and corporations
to support American corporate profits without providing better products. Given the EU political
structure and the lack of a "cool" President, I suspect the next Congressional delegation will
be shocked to find they aren't well received.
I'm confused. Who was it who brought up "Russia is more self-sufficient than the US
and almost every other country on the planet? That implies that you feel self-sufficiency (with
respect to certain metrics) is something that one should value. Let's say other people do not
share that meta value: does that then mean they are wrong?
I personally doubt that the Blob/US financial interests are 'jealous' of them -- they just
think that Russia, like other countries, should kowtow to them, and allow them to buy whatever
part of the Russian society and economy and land they like.
I had thought of it the other way around: that the insistence on unprofitable fracking
was to support America as a world power. Got to have some way to bribe Europe away from the Russians.
Is there actually enough gas to do that? I know there's quite a bit.
It's looking like quite the little diplomatic spat between the EU and Capitol Hill.
Here's the Russian envoy to the EU on talks to ban funding by EU banks for US business, if
the US law is declared invalid in the EU : http://tass.com/politics/957927
Note the bill bans not just business with Russians in Europe, but also Eurasia.
OBOR is clearly a target too.
So are the Chinese going to pipe up?
For this is nothing less than gloves – off imperialism .
Anyone know if it's possible the German's will act w/o the EU? In other words, unilaterally?
I'm asking because the article says EU may not be the "required" unanimous in responding to
the U.S. sanctions & LNG so there may not be an official EU retaliation (though it seems there
was much stronger opposition to the EU imposing Russian sanctions in 2014 in the first place but
supposedly that was a "unanimous" decision).
Will Germany be a total puppet to the U.S.? Or might it start to move towards Russia which
seems to be in Germany's business interest?
Germany wants to ensure stable gas supply for as long as possible. A pipeline thas goes through
the sea and does not depend on third countries that migth disconnect the pipeline (like Ukrania)
allows for a durable contract. So the US is not only intefering with russian interests but with
german ones. I don't think Germany considers US shale LNG supply a robust enough alternative competitive
in price and duration with russian gas. My guess is that in this case, Germany won't be a total
puppet.
Anti Schmoo put it very well "The E.U. seems to have had a recent spinal transplant"
EU has been following every global US initiative enthusiastically even though it only hurts
Europeans: wars and invasions, TTIP, TiSA, CETA etc.
On top of being emasculated and spineless with regards to national and continental interests
the current leaders of EU are neoliberals so they don't care about a new 'market solution' for
gas. Will subsidize the higher prices for companies while the citizens pay the price.
:) q.v. Frank Herbert's very old novel The Dragon in the Sea (aka Under Pressure
.) Being by Frank Herbert, it's about psychology, but it's also about petroleum pirating by submarine.
Yeah, I guess the price per barrel must have been pretty high.
The pipelines that go under the sea have lower capacities. They work to reduce the impact of
ukrainians et al blackmailing gas supplies. They do not eliminate the need to route gas overland.
He's an opportunitist and may advocate something one day and oppose it the next day.
He is absolutely not trustworthy. A total pushover.
And I wouldn't expect much from the rest of the german government, too.
The german media could pick it up and put pressure on politicians.
But due to the pathetic state the germain mainstream media are in (with exceptions),
I expect they'll just stop bringing up this issue and let people forget about it.
Maybe other european countries will be more resistant, maybe
Plus Japan -- a big LNG importer historically as it has no conventional energy sources of its
own -- is going to lessen its LNG demand as the
nuclear restart gathers pace. Whatever you might think of the safety aspects, Japan has 50+gW
of embedded nuclear generating capacity with a residual economic life of 20+ years on average.
It is simply inconceivable that this plant, much of which, unlike Fukushima which was end-of-life,
is mid-life and has decades of viable reactor runtimes available, will be mothballed and decommissioned
without generating another kW of power ever again.
The LNG glut will only continue and probably get noticeably worse once all, or at least the
vast majority, of Japanese reactors are brought back on line, which will be 5 years from now at
the outer limit. Cutting off Russian gas into Europe (and the rest of the world) will be a big
plus for the US. LNG liquefaction plant is a massive capital outlay, has big fixed costs
and is highly operationally geared, so even small reductions below peak output have a big hit
on plant profitability. It is those "wheels" the US plant operators will want to keep turning.
Conversely, the regasification plants (based in EU countries) don't need to operate flat out,
they're designed to have peaks and troughs as LNG consignments come in and get processed, then
sit around for a bit waiting for the next one. Which, again, is why the US is bothered about restricting
Russian supply, the EU not so much.
there is no surplus US LNG to be forced on Europe, it's a myth we are still importing more
natural gas from Canada than we are exporting to Mexico and liquifying for export moreover, our
own natural gas production has been falling year over year for 15 months straight i wrote about
exactly this situation two weeks ago:
http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/great-us-natural-gas-exports-myth-6112
all the data is included. you can repost it if you want.
we are contracting to sell US natural gas at below the cost of US production, and it's gonna come
back and bite US natgas users big time when a shortage develops here..
IS natgas users would be anyone who uses American electricity, right? Another 'regressive'
tax on the way. Really, this is not New Cold War oriented, but Class War materiel.
Time for work.
there's been a gradual shift back to coal for generating over the past half year or so whether
that's because of price or because the utilities see what's coming i couldn't tell you..
maybe i'm projecting too much, but i see us heading down the same path that Australia took
How energy-rich Australia exported its way into an energy crisis - Australia exported 62%
of its gas production last year, according to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy. Yet its
policy makers didn't ensure enough gas would remain at home. As exports increased from new LNG
facilities in eastern Australia, some state governments let aging coal plants close and accelerated
a push toward renewable energy for environmental concerns. That left the regions more reliant
on gas for power, especially when intermittent sources such as wind and solar weren't sufficient.
Shortages drove domestic gas prices earlier this year in some markets in eastern
Australia
to as high as $17 per million British thermal units for smaller gas users such as manufacturers.
On the spot market, gas prices have gone from below $1 in 2014 to roughly $7 today .. In
March, Australia's largest aluminum smelter cut production and laid off workers because it said
it couldn't secure enough cheap energy.
the problem is that we are are contracting to export natural gas at today's low prices, which
wont pay for tomorrow's production..
The U.S. much like Team Blue hid behind our "cool" President and 9/11 for so long, no one knows
how to act. This is a trade war where we picked a fight with our most loyal vassals on behalf
of one industry which needs to be replaced anyway. Do you remember Hollande? He joined with Obama
against "OMG Russia." Macron's honey moon is over.
Due to resignations early in the Trump administration, and refusal of the Senate to approve
new FERC nominees, the FERC, whose approval is needed for building interstate energy transport
infrastructure, now lacks a quorum (having only 1 of the minimum 3 members out of 5 total). A
number of pipeline projects originating in marcellus were approved around end of 2016 prior to
the resignations, and are due to come on line in 2018, but many dozens more are now awaiting permitting -- both for domestic use and to transport to LNG export, as the piece above states.
The other interesting thing is that in the past, the explicit strategy of the US was to use
domestic natgas domestically, but no longer, it seems.
Pipelines would raise prices at the wellhead and lower prices elsewhere in the country. If
the lack of approval goes on for a few more years, it may have an impact on: the battle between
natgas and wind for the medium-term dominance of newly added utility scale electric generation
in the US, and the timing of how fast we can retire coal electric.
Lastly, besides Russia, Qatar is also a major natgas exporter to Europe, so they'll get their
gas either way, they'll just pay more. A points of reference there -- I belive Germany is currently
using coal as its main domestic baseload electric fuel – as prices were relatively high until
recently, they're using NG for home heating only. Now everyone needs to retire coal for obvious
reasons.
Jamming up FERC shouldn't be underestimated. They've got a huge amount of discretionary authority
to blast through state and local laws and regulations at will. It's amazing how the oil/gas industry
gets 1-stop shopping for all it's regulatory requirements.
It's sickening to see how much power the Petroleum companies have over Congress. Bribes work
well in our country. We need a wholesale re-haul of CON gress.
Regarding possible EU development of a spine, a recent George Webb video from just about 3
days ago said he's been told by some of his IC sources that Germany has been printing DMs on the
quiet. I take this with a pinch of salt but it's intriguing nonetheless. If true, Germany must
also be looking at the IT issue as well.
EU is still threatening to cancel Poland voting rights for 1 year, even after the President
vetoed the legislation regarding judiciary reform (which was to my understanding the main bone,
albeit the country is keen on going full Adolph). Maybe it has something to do with this?
thanks for this article, it's really a remarkable powerplay. the stakes are so high that it's
unfathomable that it doesn't backfire spectacularly. this looks like an exercise in hubris that
future historians will be long discussing.
more than forcing the EU to use american LNG, it is an attempt to force the EU to back american
efforts to replace assad in syria. remember, syria is what stands in the way between bahraini/saudi
gas and oil pipelines to europe.
the US is already at war against russia, they just haven't yet started shooting at each other.
but also, any chinese silk road to europe will have to use russian assets and infrastructure,
so this, potentially, affects them, too.
All stupidity with the Russia hysteria aside this may be all the faster at forcing a move to
renewables in the US. NG is the bounciest of all carbon based fuels WRT price. Once they start
pumping US NG into more foreign markets the price will climb, which will squeeze utilities that
have moved en mass into NG based generation and prove that renewables are even more cost effective.
Petty politics may end up having a silver lining 5 years down the road, and at this point I am
open to any route to renewables, even the sloppiest, unintentional ones.
Sure, but the ball is in another (higher) cup as the cost graphs go. I suspect it is going
to get increasingly difficult to transition back and forth with the lowering costs of renewables.
Also, coal is not getting any cheaper to extract and it definitely hasn't reduced its externalities.
We'll see, big utilities move in herds and it takes years to make a full transition. They may
flood back to coal, and build new plants (I doubt it), but they will eventually get burnt and
have to swing back again. In the absence of purposeful national level policy (what I prefer) this
is the only way the market based approach will turn away from fossil fuels.
"Instruments of political sanctions should not be connected with economic interests"?
This echoes the rationalizations of Wall Street when they crashed the economy in '08. Let's
not let politics interfere with the right to make money?
The sanctions against Russia were put in place in response to its annexation of Crimea and
its support of insurrection in Eastern Ukraine. They have been extended, and expanded, in response
to Russian meddling in the recent presidential election. To what extent their cyber warfare had
an effect is debatable, but Trump's stonewalling on the issue practically guaranteed the lopsided
vote on the latest sanctions.
The LNG issue has some valid points, but it ignores an issue which I have not seen addressed
on Naked Capitalism: Just how much is Trump- and those in his administration (infested with alumni
of the vampire squid)- beholden to Putin and his fellow oligarchs?
Trump appears to be the Pied Piper of Putin Patsies. I can't help but wonder why.
Crimea was not "annexed". The US destabilized Ukraine. The government in Kiev came in as a
result of a coup even thought elections were scheduled for a mere six weeks later and Yanukovich
would clearly have been voted out. The new government tore up the current constitution and went
through no legal process whatsoever to do that. That is not the behavior of a legitimate government.
Even though neo-Nazis are a very small percentage of the voters, they got 15% of government
positions. The head of the defense department gave a speech in which he encouraged ethnic cleansing
of Ukrainians of Russian origin, saying that any soldiers who removed them could keep their property.
Crimea petitioned to join Russia after a referendum that approved of that move by a large margin.
The US used precisely the same mechanism with Kosovo. Are you about to call that an annexation?
We have repeatedly discussed how the idea that Russia has influence over Trump is nonsense.
Did you suggest it at the time? The newsflow is a gusher right now. It's simply not possible
to give notice to everything. So do feel free to stifle your amazement.
Adding, it is a very good story (although I'm not a Russia hand). So readers may enjoy it even
at this late date which was, I take it, the real point of your comment.
Plus the assertion of Russian "meddling" in the 2016 election was never proven–it was only
asserted and repeated ad nauseum. Recent investigations have shown that in fact the DNC and Podesta
emails were insider leaks, they were not outsider hacks. The technical analysis showed evidence
that Russian "footprints" had been specifically inserted to cause Russia to be blamed.
In contrast the US has a well-established track record of meddling in other countries elections
and setting up regime change in various ways. Ukraine is one example, as Yves described. There
are many others, think of the US-sponsored coups in Latin America. They seem to be trying to pull
off another coup in Venezuela since their 2002 attempt didn't work out. And Obama didn't hesitate
to publicly endorse Macron just a couple days before the French election.
"the latest US sanctions against Russia, which passed the House today by a 419-3 margin ".
and
"Republicans and Democrats agreed almost unanimously, by 97 votes to 2 , to impose new sanctions
on Russia in the Senate on Wednesday"
I have been a member of many organizations, and do not recall seeing this kind of "unanimity"
when voting on significant and controversial resolutions. Clearly, a majority of US Americans
want peace, particularly with Russia (a Christian democracy). How and why did the People's Representatives/Senators
find the "courage" to vote against the People's wishes??? Hmmmmmmmm?
To put the vote into a context, 77 years ago; on
" ..July 14–15, 1940 – Rigged elections held in Latvia and the other Baltic states. Only one
pre-approved list of candidates was allowed for elections for the "People's Parliament". The ballots
held following instructions: "Only the list of the Latvian Working People's Bloc must be deposited
in the ballot box. The ballot must be deposited without any changes." The alleged voter activity
index was 97.6% . Most notably, the complete election results were published in Moscow 12 hours
before the election closed. Soviet electoral documents found later substantiated that the results
were completely fabricated. Tribunals were set up to punish "traitors to the people." those who
had fallen short of the "political duty" of voting Latvia into the USSR. Those who failed to have
their passports stamped for so voting were allowed to be shot in the back of the head.
July 21, 1940 – The fraudulently installed Saeima meets for the first time. It has only one
piece of business!a petition to join the Soviet Union. (The consideration of such an action was
denied throughout the election.) The petition carried unanimously. .."
Read Petrodollar Warfare and The Hidden Hand of American Hegemony for a start and a lot of
this will become more clear. The Iraq war, the U.S. instigated coup in Ukraine, U.S. backed attempt
at regime change in Syria and the demonization of Russia all concern oil supplies and who will
be allowed to supply what to whom, and more importantly in what currency such sales will be denominated.
All of this stuff is about trying to maintain the dollar's reserve currency status. Isn't this
becoming clear by now. Americans are still trying to understand why they invaded Iraq. Was it
WMDs, Al Qaeda, to bring freedom and democracy to the towel heads? Hussein decided in 2000 that
Iraqi oil sales would be denominated in Euros, three years later he was conveniently dead.
While I agree that the US has hegemonic aspirations, the petrodollar thesis is all wet.
Since the 1600s at least, countries have pursued mercantilist policies. That means first of
all that they like running trade surpluses. That allows them to have more jobs than their own
economies would support, keeping their citizens happy. They can also be net savers without having
a drag on the domestic economy.
But who will be the chump that exports jobs and has crappy growth to accommodate the mercantlists?
The US has signed up for that role, in large measure because the US cares more about the 1%, the
0.1%, and the interest of US multinationals than its citizens.
As long as everyone else wants to run trade surpluses and we are the only big player willing
to run sustained trade deficits, the dollar will remain the reserve currency. China has absolutely
zero interest in running trade deficits despite pining after the cachet of having the reserve
currency. The Eurozone maybe could have been a contender, but not with Germany being fiercely
mercantlist and Germany's insistence on not rebalancing within the Eurozone creating perceived
breakup risk.
@Yves
In order to answer your question to German language readers in the article.
There are several differences this time compared to previous instances of perhaps controversial
US-policy in Europe.
First of all the official positions of the German and Austrian government as well as the EU-Commission
are in harsh opposition to the bill while previously only opposition politicians or fringe business
interests voiced negative opinions.
Secondly the issue has been spread around in the relevant German business press a great deal,
yesterday alone about a dozen news agency reports were published, all with pretty much the same
tone and content. It has also been picked up by the op-ed pages in the papers today. This is in
stark contrast to previous instances like a leader from Die Linke blaming the refugee crisis on
US wars in 2015, Nato expansion to the east and troop build up in the Baltic or the planned upgrade
of US nuclear weapons stationed in Germany. All three topics are out of mainstream discussion
and anyone bringing up a negative opinion, like the mentioned politician from Die Linke, is ridiculed.
Thirdly while the EU needs the approval of all members to establish sanctions it could do a great
deal to prosecute a trade war via executive decisions by the EU-Commission alone. While there
has been no official indication how the threatened retaliation is going to look like several simple
measures come to mind. For instance the EU could suspend the EU-US privacy shield agreement thereby
increasing the cost of doing business in the EU for US companies by a significant amount, it would
also be likely that cartell/market dominance investigations might result in harsher fines for
US companies and more restricted mergers, something which has been brought up by EU officials
sometime ago is to require all foreign or only US banking and maybe other financial institutions
to be seperate concerns with full capitalisation and no dependencies on the US-holdings.
To summarise: it looks like a significant amount of the German "business community" is not
amused and views the bill as a direct attack on its interests and tries to use their influence
with the goverment against it. This raises the likelihood of something more than mere talk to
above 0%. In any case the image of the US has taken another hit, this time with a group of people
with mostly very positive opinions about close US-German relations.
thanks for this article, it's really a remarkable powerplay. the stakes are so high that it's
unfathomable that it doesn't backfire spectacularly. this looks like an exercise in hubris that
future historians will be long discussing.
more than forcing the EU to use american LNG, it is an attempt to force the EU to back american
efforts to replace assad in syria. remember, syria is what stands in the way between bahraini/saudi
gas and oil pipelines to europe.
the US is already at war against russia, they just haven't yet started shooting at each other.
but also, any chinese silk road to europe will have to use russian assets and infrastructure,
so this, potentially, affects them, too.
All stupidity with the Russia hysteria aside this may be all the faster at forcing a move to
renewables in the US. NG is the bounciest of all carbon based fuels WRT price. Once they start
pumping US NG into more foreign markets the price will climb, which will squeeze utilities that
have moved en mass into NG based generation and prove that renewables are even more cost effective.
Petty politics may end up having a silver lining 5 years down the road, and at this point I am
open to any route to renewables, even the sloppiest, unintentional ones.
Sure, but the ball is in another (higher) cup as the cost graphs go. I suspect it is going
to get increasingly difficult to transition back and forth with the lowering costs of renewables.
Also, coal is not getting any cheaper to extract and it definitely hasn't reduced its externalities.
We'll see, big utilities move in herds and it takes years to make a full transition. They may
flood back to coal, and build new plants (I doubt it), but they will eventually get burnt and
have to swing back again. In the absence of purposeful national level policy (what I prefer) this
is the only way the market based approach will turn away from fossil fuels.
"Instruments of political sanctions should not be connected with economic interests"?
This echoes the rationalizations of Wall Street when they crashed the economy in '08. Let's
not let politics interfere with the right to make money?
The sanctions against Russia were put in place in response to its annexation of Crimea and
its support of insurrection in Eastern Ukraine. They have been extended, and expanded, in response
to Russian meddling in the recent presidential election. To what extent their cyber warfare had
an effect is debatable, but Trump's stonewalling on the issue practically guaranteed the lopsided
vote on the latest sanctions.
The LNG issue has some valid points, but it ignores an issue which I have not seen addressed
on Naked Capitalism: Just how much is Trump- and those in his administration (infested with alumni
of the vampire squid)- beholden to Putin and his fellow oligarchs?
Trump appears to be the Pied Piper of Putin Patsies. I can't help but wonder why.
Crimea was not "annexed". The US destabilized Ukraine. The government in Kiev came in as a
result of a coup even thought elections were scheduled for a mere six weeks later and Yanukovich
would clearly have been voted out. The new government tore up the current constitution and went
through no legal process whatsoever to do that. That is not the behavior of a legitimate government.
Even though neo-Nazis are a very small percentage of the voters, they got 15% of government
positions. The head of the defense department gave a speech in which he encouraged ethnic cleansing
of Ukrainians of Russian origin, saying that any soldiers who removed them could keep their property.
Crimea petitioned to join Russia after a referendum that approved of that move by a large margin.
The US used precisely the same mechanism with Kosovo. Are you about to call that an annexation?
We have repeatedly discussed how the idea that Russia has influence over Trump is nonsense.
Do they know what they are doing? When the U.S. Congress adopts draconian sanctions aimed mainly
at disempowering President Trump and ruling out any move to improve relations with Russia, do they
realize that the measures amount to a declaration of economic war against their dear European "friends"?
Whether they know or not, they obviously don't care. U.S. politicians view the rest of the world
as America's hinterland, to be exploited, abused and ignored with impunity.
The Bill H.R. 3364 "Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act" was adopted on July
25 by all but three members of the House of Representatives. An earlier version was adopted by all
but two Senators. Final passage at veto-overturning proportions is a certainty.
This congressional temper tantrum flails in all directions. The main casualties are likely to
be America's dear beloved European allies, notably Germany and France. Who also sometimes happen
to be competitors, but such crass considerations don't matter in the sacred halls of the U.S. Congress,
totally devoted to upholding universal morality.
Economic "Soft Power" Hits Hard
Under U.S. sanctions, any EU nation doing business with Russia may find itself in deep trouble.
In particular, the latest bill targets companies involved in financing Nord Stream 2, a pipeline
designed to provide Germany with much needed natural gas from Russia.
By the way, just to help out, American companies will gladly sell their own fracked natural gas
to their German friends, at much higher prices.
That is only one way in which the bill would subject European banks and enterprises to crippling
restrictions, lawsuits and gigantic fines.
While the U.S. preaches "free competition", it constantly takes measures to prevent free competition
at the international level.
Following the July 2015 deal ensuring that Iran could not develop nuclear weapons, international
sanctions were lifted, but the United States retained its own previous ones. Since then, any foreign
bank or enterprise contemplating trade with Iran is apt to receive a letter from a New York group
calling itself "United Against Nuclear Iran" which warns that "there remain serious legal, political,
financial and reputational risks associated with doing business in Iran, particularly in sectors
of the Iranian economy such as oil and gas". The risks cited include billions of dollars of (U.S.)
fines, surveillance by "a myriad of regulatory agencies", personal danger, deficiency of insurance
coverage, cyber insecurity, loss of more lucrative business, harm to corporate reputation and a drop
in shareholder value.
The United States gets away with this gangster behavior because over the years it has developed
a vast, obscure legalistic maze, able to impose its will on the "free world" economy thanks to the
omnipresence of the dollar, unrivaled intelligence gathering and just plain intimidation.
European leaders reacted indignantly to the latest sanctions. The German foreign ministry said
it was "unacceptable for the United States to use possible sanctions as an instrument to serve the
interest of U.S. industry". The French foreign ministry denounced the "extraterritoriality" of the
U.S. legislation as unlawful, and announced that "To protect ourselves against the extraterritorial
effects of US legislation, we will have to work on adjusting our French and European laws".
In fact, bitter resentment of arrogant U.S. imposition of its own laws on others has been growing
in France, and was the object of a serious parliamentary report delivered to the French National
Assembly foreign affairs and finance committees last October 5, on the subject of "the extraterritoriality
of American legislation".
Extraterritoriality
The chairman of the commission of enquiry, long-time Paris representative Pierre Lellouche, summed
up the situation as follows:
"The facts are very simple. We are confronted with an extremely dense wall of American legislation
whose precise intention is to use the law to serve the purposes of the economic and political
imperium with the idea of gaining economic and strategic advantages. As always in the United States,
that imperium, that normative bulldozer operates in the name of the best intentions in the world
since the United States considers itself a 'benevolent power', that is a country that can only
do good."
Always in the name of "the fight against corruption" or "the fight against terrorism", the United
States righteously pursues anything legally called a "U.S. person", which under strange American
law can refer to any entity doing business in the land of the free, whether by having an American
subsidiary, or being listed on the New York stock exchange, or using a U.S.-based server, or even
by simply trading in dollars, which is something that no large international enterprise can avoid.
In 2014, France's leading bank, BNP-Paribas, agreed to pay a whopping fine of nearly nine billion
dollars, basically for having used dollar transfers in deals with countries under U.S. sanctions.
The transactions were perfectly legal under French law. But because they dealt in dollars, payments
transited by way of the United States, where diligent computer experts could find the needle in the
haystack. European banks are faced with the choice between prosecution, which entails all sorts of
restrictions and punishments before a verdict is reached, or else, counseled by expensive U.S. corporate
lawyers, and entering into the obscure "plea bargain" culture of the U.S. judicial system, unfamiliar
to Europeans. Just like the poor wretch accused of robbing a convenience store, the lawyers urge
the huge European enterprises to plea guilty in order to escape much worse consequences.
Alstom, a major multinational corporation whose railroad section produces France's high speed
trains, is a jewel of French industry. In 2014, under pressure from U.S. accusations of corruption
(probably bribes to officials in a few developing countries), Alstom sold off its electricity branch
to General Electric.
The underlying accusation is that such alleged "corruption" by foreign firms causes U.S. firms
to lose markets. That is possible, but there is no practical reciprocity here. A whole range of U.S.
intelligence agencies, able to spy on everyone's private communications, are engaged in commercial
espionage around the world. As an example, the Office of Foreign Assets Control, devoted to this
task, operates with 200 employees on an annual budget of over $30 million. The comparable office
in Paris employs five people.
This was the situation as of last October. The latest round of sanctions can only expose European
banks and enterprises to even more severe consequences, especially concerning investments in the
vital Nord Stream natural gas pipeline.
This bill is just the latest in a series of U.S. legislative measures tending to break down national
legal sovereignty and create a globalized jurisdiction in which anyone can sue anyone else for anything,
with ultimate investigative capacity and enforcement power held by the United States.
Wrecking the European Economy
Over a dozen European Banks (British, German, French, Dutch, Swiss) have run afoul of U.S. judicial
moralizing, compared to only one U.S. bank: JP Morgan Chase.
The U.S. targets the European core countries, while its overwhelming influence in the northern
rim – Poland, the Baltic States and Sweden – prevents the European Union from taking any measures
(necessarily unanimous) contrary to U.S. interests.
By far the biggest catch in Uncle Sam's financial fishing expedition is Deutsche Bank. As Pierre
Lellouche warned during the final hearing of the extraterritorial hearings last October, U.S. pursuits
against Deutsche Bank risk bringing down the whole European banking system. Although it had already
paid hundreds of millions of dollars to the State of New York, Deutsche Bank was faced with a "fine
of 14 billion dollars whereas it is worth only five and a half. In other words, if this is carried
out, we risk a domino effect, a major financial crisis in Europe."
In short, U.S. sanctions amount to a sword of Damocles threatening the economies of the country's
main trading partners. This could be a Pyrrhic victory, or more simply, the blow that kills the goose
that lays the golden eggs. But hurrah, America would be the winner in a field of ruins.
Former justice minister Elisabeth Guigou called the situation shocking, and noted that France
had told the U.S. Embassy that the situation is " insupportable " and insisted that "we
must be firm".
Jacques Myard said that "American law is being used to gain markets and eliminate competitors.
We should not be naďve and wake up to what is happening."
This enquiry marked a step ahead in French awareness and resistance to a new form of "taxation
without representation" exercised by the United States against its European satellites. They committee
members all agreed that something must be done.
That was last October. In June, France held parliamentary elections. The commission chairman,
Pierre Lellouche (Republican), the rapporteur Karine Berger (Socialist), Elisabeth Guigou (a leading
Socialist) and Jacques Myard (Republican) all lost their seats to inexperienced newcomers recruited
into President Emmanuel Macron's République en marche party. The newcomers are having a
hard time finding their way in parliamentary life and have no political memory, for instance of the
Rapport on Extraterritoriality.
As for Macron, as minister of economics, in 2014 he went against earlier government rulings by
approving the GE purchase of Alstom. He does not appear eager to do anything to anger the United
States.
However, there are some things that are so blatantly unfair that they cannot go on forever.
there are some things that are so blatantly unfair that they cannot go on forever.
LOL! Naďve, I think. As long as European countries (and the UK) are prepared to carry on acting
as Washington's bitches, Washington will go on treating them as such.
The political, media and business elites need to be thoroughly cleansed of US apologists. That
won't be easy, especially when Europe and the UK are in the grip of an ideologically anti-nationalist
culture that is essentially treasonous and utterly lacking in national self-respect.
Ending NATO and suppressing the US-backed anti-Russian propaganda that keeps Europe and the
UK subordinate would be the bare minimum first steps, along with cooperating with China and Russia
to promote and use financial systems independent of the dollar.
or even by simply trading in dollars, which is something that no large international enterprise
can avoid
The countries that are regularly targeted for US bullying are building structures that avoid
vulnerability. European countries and the UK need to join with them in doing so (though it's unlikely
they will be trusted very far given their track records of collaboration with Washington).
Also companies that decline to deal in the US market should be protected and supported, on
national security grounds. It should be straightforwardly illegal in all sovereign countries for
the US to try to impose its laws on any company merely for dealing in dollars, and the US should
be held directly responsible when its courts seek to do so. US extraterritoriality has always
been a gross intrusion into and threat to national sovereignty.
In 2014, France's leading bank, BNP-Paribas, agreed to pay a whopping fine of nearly nine
billion dollars, basically for having used dollar transfers in deals with countries under U.S.
sanctions.
Ideally this kind of extortion will be to some extent counterbalanced by retaliatory extractions
from US business assets such as Google and Facebook.
entering into the obscure "plea bargain" culture of the U.S. judicial system, unfamiliar
to Europeans. Just like the poor wretch accused of robbing a convenience store, the lawyers
urge the huge European enterprises to plea guilty in order to escape much worse consequences
The US plea bargain system is a disgrace to any kind of concept of justice and basically means
that no US confessions or guilty pleas can be regarded as meaningful, and nor should any sovereign
country agree to extradition of its own citizens to the US. It is basically a system of organised
blackmail, coerced confessions and corruption of witnesses.
Well, Europe could consider all of these payouts to the US as "reparations for Nazi atrocities".
This will make it go down easier, after all who wouldn't want to enslave himself to Yankees to
repair Nazi atrocities?
"... The near-unanimous vote in both houses of Congress (all "no" votes in the House were from Republicans) testifies to the degree to which the CIA, NSA and other spy agencies directly control the institutions of the state and the personnel that compose them."*** ..."
"... By far the new U.S. bill place the most distressing question mark on the pipeline to northern Europe known as Nord Stream II. Five of Europe's biggest energy companies are all signed on to partner Gazprom in pumping gas westwards. ..."
"... "The Europeans intensely dislike U.S. extraterritoriality, and this will widen the breach between the EU and U.S.," Sir Lyne says. "For the Russians, that is a silver lining." ..."
"... All the Europeans need do is tell Uncle Sam to go fuck himself with his sanctions That will pull the rug out from under the American psychos behind the rabid sanction lunacy ..."
"... American politicians are also under the bizarre delusion that they can replace Russia's piped gas with LNG exports. This delusion is something else. America imports natural gas! It would have to take a major consumption hit, thereby driving up prices since demand will remain, to supply the EU with 150+ billion cubic meters of gas per year that currently comes from Russia. The USA consumed about 780 bcm of gas in 2016. It does not have a spare 150 bcm to sell. ..."
"... As I alluded yesterday, the USA has staked out a position from which it cannot back away, one which is of surpassing stupidity, because it has accustomed itself to being obeyed and fancies itself such a clever manipulator that it will always get its way. It is critical now that Europe actually stand together and speak with one voice; otherwise, America will begin probing for lack of resolve and unlimbering its divide-and-conquer game. ..."
"... It will also be pretty funny if Russia struggled and pleaded and accepted all manner of small-minded insults just to get into the World Trade Organization, only to see it collapse only a few years later. Because I'm pretty sure what America is trying to pull off here is in gross violation of WTO rules as well. ..."
"The new sanctions expose the essential issues behind the "election hacking" campaign of
the US media and political establishment, spearheaded by the intelligence agencies that are
opposed to any shift away from the anti-Russia policy developed under the Obama
administration.
****
The near-unanimous vote in both houses of Congress (all "no" votes in the House were from
Republicans) testifies to the degree to which the CIA, NSA and other spy agencies directly
control the institutions of the state and the personnel that compose them."***
"One key question now is how Europe will react," Sir Lyne says. "Over Ukraine, the US and
EU marched in step. That is not the case now; and the new bill has the potential to make
Europe pay a much higher price than the US."
The EU has never been more dependent on Russian gas, according to Bloomberg, as Russia's
state-run gas monopoly Gazprom now pumps over a third (34 percent) of Russia's gas. At
present, Gazprom has put the kibosh on one pipeline to the EU, known as South Stream but
agreed one that will bring gas on the EU's borders, to Turkey.
By far the new U.S. bill place the most distressing question mark on the pipeline to
northern Europe known as Nord Stream II. Five of Europe's biggest energy companies are all
signed on to partner Gazprom in pumping gas westwards.
Anglo-Dutch group Royal Dutch Shell, Austria's OMV, France's Engie and Germany's Uniper
and Wintershall have agreed to work with Gazprom on the pipeline, collectively covering
around half of the nearly $11 billion cost.
The European Commission President Jean Claude-Juncker warned Wednesday that Brussels needs
to act "within days" if the U.S. does provide Europe with reassurance that the sanctions will
not jeopardize EU interests. A U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity told
European news site EUobserver, that the European companies would likely not be punished by
the U.S. as part of the sanctions but called the situation a "risk" regardless.
"The Europeans intensely dislike U.S. extraterritoriality, and this will widen the breach
between the EU and U.S.," Sir Lyne says. "For the Russians, that is a silver lining."
All the europeans need do is tell Uncle Sam to go fuck himself with his sanctions That
will pull the rug out from under the American psychos behind the rabid sanction lunacy
All the Europeans need do is tell Uncle Sam to go fuck himself with his sanctions That
will pull the rug out from under the American psychos behind the rabid sanction lunacy
Of course that is not going to happen, at least not publicly – there will be no
outward sign of European rebellion, because that would be 'playing into Putin's hands', and
the European elite still loathes Putin enough to not want to be seen doing that. At the same
time, Uncle Sam does not want to back down, and an arrangement – even secret –
that America would not apply the sanctions to European companies would completely nullify
their effect. European companies would simply ignore them and carry on with their plans. So
the possibility they might be invoked has to stay, with all the attendant fury that is likely
to cause. Juicy as a mango, I think. Official America has been a bully for so long that it's
the only problem-solving approach it remembers.
The question that keeps nagging at the corner of my mind, though, is "What if the USA were
successful at stopping the construction of Nord Stream II and Russia ceased transit through
Ukraine anyway?" After all, this whole effort is focused on forcing Russia to continue
transiting a big part of Europe's gas supplies through Ukraine, both to keep Ukraine viable
by forcing Russia to engage with it despite its objectionable ideological government, and to
keep Ukraine as a bargaining chip to make Russia appear to be an unreliable supplier.
Washington's assumption is that Russia will continue to transit gas through Ukraine if its
alternatives are removed – after all, it's just a big gas station, and it can't live
without its gas sales to Europe. But what if, once again, Washington guessed wrong? If I were
running Russia – let's pretend, because I'm not – I would orchestrate a series of
'rebel' sabotage attacks on Naftogaz's pipeline network, blowing up substantial parts of it,
and then use that as a reason to cease transit of gas through the line: it's just not safe. I
would then maximize transit through existing pipelines
except
Ukraine, perhaps
accelerating the completion of Turkish Stream, and publicly and loudly blame any shortfall on
American meddling – if Nord Stream had been twinned, you wouldn't have this problem. If
it were managed correctly and everything went according to plan, I think it would
resonate.
Also, Russia has reduced its dependence on energy exports. It might be worth it to allow a
scenario in which Washington got the opportunity to make up for Russian shortfalls, because
it would be a complete failure – the export capability is just not there, and if they
redoubled their efforts they would lose money like crazy because they could not do it for
Russia's prices. Either they would flop at the delivery end, or the Europeans would squeal
like pigs because their gas rates went out of sight, or Uncle Sam would take a bath on
American exports. Those are the only possible scenarios, it should be emphasized.
We have clear evidence that the politicians in the USA do not have a grip on Russia's economy
and exports dependence. By 2019 Russia will have a massive gas pipeline to China. Gas for
this pipeline has to come from somewhere and filling it up with Banderastan transit gas would
be a good start to put the USA and its EU colony in its place. According to the most recent
Awara Group report, the fraction of oil and gas industry in Russia is down to 8% of GDP. Not
only is Russia not dependent on oil and gas for its GDP, it will lose nothing by shifting
supply away from the EU.
American politicians are also under the bizarre delusion that they can replace Russia's
piped gas with LNG exports. This delusion is something else. America imports natural gas! It
would have to take a major consumption hit, thereby driving up prices since demand will
remain, to supply the EU with 150+ billion cubic meters of gas per year that currently comes
from Russia. The USA consumed about 780 bcm of gas in 2016. It does not have a spare 150 bcm
to sell.
"The European powers reacted sharply yesterday to the US House of Representatives' passage
of a bill imposing sanctions on Russia, Iran and North Korea, indicating that it was
unacceptable to European interests and that the European Union (EU) was preparing retaliatory
measures."
"Angry commentary over the sanctions bill in the German press underscore that influential
forces in the German ruling class see the sanctions bill as yet further evidence of hostile
US intent towards Germany and Europe.
"What is particularly dangerous is that supporters of Russia sanctions in Washington are not
only trying to put Putin and Trump in the same bag, but also helping the US economy against
foreign competition," wrote the Sueddeutsche Zeitung. Under the bill, the daily added,
"Europeans would be forced to burn less Russian natural gas and more American liquefied
natural gas. This is an unfriendly act, especially against Germany."
The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung wrote that, "with all due respect for the Senate and its
ambition to tie President Donald Trump's hands on Russia policy, the draft law is
unacceptable from a European perspective. First, it breaks the diplomatic alliance between
Europe and the United States in deciding on sanctions against Russia. The argument that
America is promoting Europe's energy security is also quite insolent. That is Europe's
responsibility. This is how you lose friends."
The question that is emerging is whether the US-EU military rivalry and bitter trade
conflicts will now coalesce and escalate into a catastrophic breakdown in US-EU relations!in
the form of a trade war that would bring the world economy to its knees, or of outright
military conflict."
Hmmm .So the RWETA is born.. Russia &Western EuropeTrade Allliance
Why make it more complicated than it is? The French are in the lead for once – such
sanctions are a violation of international law. Consequently no other nations are obligated
to abide by them. If America levied a massive fine against BASF Wintershall, and that company
simply ignored it, what would America do? Start booting out German companies in the USA? Melt
BMW's and pour them down the drains in the street?
As I alluded yesterday, the USA has staked out a position from which it cannot back away,
one which is of surpassing stupidity, because it has accustomed itself to being obeyed and
fancies itself such a clever manipulator that it will always get its way. It is critical now
that Europe actually stand together and speak with one voice; otherwise, America will begin
probing for lack of resolve and unlimbering its divide-and-conquer game.
The really funny part in this, from my viewpoint, is the way the Europeans blame Trump and
his presidency. Granted, he did frame the 'America first' policy, but that's just a
convenient handle for the angry Europeans to grab. Trump entered office with the declared
intention of mending the damaged relationship with Russia, and it was the Democrats who
created an hysterical firestorm of accusation that Russia had greased Trump's way into
office. It has been ideologues outside Trump's circle who crafted the sanctions legislation
with a view to preventing him from lifting the sanctions under his own recognizance.
It will also be pretty funny if Russia struggled and pleaded and accepted all manner of
small-minded insults just to get into the World Trade Organization, only to see it collapse
only a few years later. Because I'm pretty sure what America is trying to pull off here is in
gross violation of WTO rules as well.
"... An increase in Libyan output, together with a surge in US production and signs of recovery in Nigeria, may undercut Opec's strategy to re-balance the market and boost prices. ..."
"... The US frackers (along with all other high-cost producers around the globe) will go bust before the end of the decade. ..."
"... It is garbage articles. Only trading oil shares on stock market is zero sum game so when Mr Buffet makes $1 million many others lost a little bit each to the tune of $1 million. But country producing oil and exporting is not stock market. It is life and life is not zero-sum game. If oil companies in one oil producing country lost 10-20-30 billion it does not mean that oil companies in other oil producing country gained 10-20-30 billion. Glenn, this is so basic. ..."
"... Let the Saudis, the Russians and the cheap money wallstreet companies shoot out their battle – when the first topples (perhaps SA running out of money first, Venezuala soon goes bottom-up) prices will be north of 70$ again. ..."
"... Northsea-oil is another candidate for going bottom-up, the same with old giant fields like chinese super fields where they stopped injecting at 60$. Together with a healthy 1.4 mb demand growth there will be times when even a wide deveoloped Permian can't sustain all demands at 40-50$. ..."
"... Financing in the oil industry will take care of it. If loans and investments dry up as lenders and investors find better deals to make, there will be less drilling. It's the oil industry itself to blame for low prices. ..."
Russia is making less money on oil and gas exports, according to the data published today
by the Federal Customs Service. In 2016, the revenues from oil and gas exports declined by
17.7% (compared to 2015) and amounted to $73.676 billion. Gazprom's revenues from gas exports
declined by 25% and amounted to $31.28 billion.
While output curbs introduced at the start of the year are working, global inventories aren't
yet at the level targeted by Opec and its allies, Saudi energy minister Khalid Al-Falih said
Monday in Beijing alongside his Russian counterpart, Alexander Novak. The ministers agreed
the deal should be extended through the first quarter of 2018 at the same volume of reductions,
they said .
An increase in Libyan output, together with a surge in US production and signs of recovery
in Nigeria, may undercut Opec's strategy to re-balance the market and boost prices.
Oil prices were about 1 percent lower on Monday as investors continued to await strong indications
that an OPEC-led effort to drain a glut was proving effective .
U.S. shale oil production was forecast to rise for the eighth consecutive month, climbing
112,000 barrels per day (bpd) to 5.585 million bpd in August .
Oil prices are less than half their mid-2014 level because of a persistent glut, even after
the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries with Russia and other non-OPEC producers
cut supplies since January.
U.S. shale oil production is forecast to rise for the eighth consecutive month, climbing
112,000 barrels per day (bpd) to 5.585 million bpd in August, the U.S. Energy Department said
in a report on Monday.
The increase comes amid market concerns that rising shale output will dampen the Organization
of the Petroleum Exporting Countries' efforts to curb a global supply glut.
The U.S. shale production level would be the highest since record-keeping began in 2007,
according to the EIA's monthly drilling productivity report.
It is garbage articles. Only trading oil shares on stock market is zero sum game so when
Mr Buffet makes $1 million many others lost a little bit each to the tune of $1 million. But country
producing oil and exporting is not stock market. It is life and life is not zero-sum game. If
oil companies in one oil producing country lost 10-20-30 billion it does not mean that oil companies
in other oil producing country gained 10-20-30 billion. Glenn, this is so basic.
Look this way, very simple way, if you and your neighbour are earning oil royalties on your
Texas land in US$ with exactly same interest and he has to live in Texas (and has to pay living
expense in $US) and you live in Mexico (paying expenses in pesos) it is not the same. For you
"It's morning in Mexico" but for your Texas neighbour is so so.
It depends on your costs whats the best – If you have 49$ costs, the first least will still generate
612.000$ profit, the second only 120.000$ despite pumping the 10 fold amount.
If you have only 1 piece of land and can wait(it's your land, and you have the money), the
first option is the best – if you are a shale company with 1 zillion in debt, the second option
is the best to dish out all your assets to hit your payment rates.
Someone here described at a rule of a thumb you should earn the 3 fold price of drilling costs
to make a good fortune since you have additional costs – so waiting a bit before calling for the
fracking pump can pay out here.
Let the Saudis, the Russians and the cheap money wallstreet companies shoot out their battle
– when the first topples (perhaps SA running out of money first, Venezuala soon goes bottom-up)
prices will be north of 70$ again.
Northsea-oil is another candidate for going bottom-up, the same with old giant fields like
chinese super fields where they stopped injecting at 60$. Together with a healthy 1.4 mb demand
growth there will be times when even a wide deveoloped Permian can't sustain all demands at 40-50$.
But if the total BO from the lease is the same whether it comes out slowly or quickly, then getting
the oil out quickly at a low price is not as good as getting the oil out slowly at a higher price.
Your lifetime return on your lease would be the most important number.
Well that certainly is the conclusion that the Pure and the Humble (aka John D. Rockefeller)
came to in the 1930s after the discovery of the East Texas Field.
But just exactly how do you propose that those "higher prices" be achieved in a competitive,
free market economy?
Or do you advocate for the re-cartelization of the market place for oil, the way it was between
1936 and the 1970?
Financing in the oil industry will take care of it. If loans and investments dry up as lenders
and investors find better deals to make, there will be less drilling. It's the oil industry
itself to blame for low prices.
That's how the business cycle works in a competitive, free-market economy. The down-cycle is
unkind to many, but some make it through and go on to fight another day.
Do you prefer a system where the government picks the winners and losers?
Between depletion and increased production costs and a temporary glut of oil, the market is making
oil and gas investments less attractive.
The government IS stepping in, to the industry's detriment, by selling more leases right now
and encouraging what might be overproduction at the moment.
If market conditions hasten the decline of gas and oil, I won't be sorry because I think we
need alternatives anyway.
Countries that don't want to be dependent on fossil fuel imports have an incentive to find alternatives.
Even if they pay a bit more for them (which doesn't appear will be the case), renewables offer
them more energy independence. If that is America's goal, it is likely to be other countries'
goal as well.
Alternative energy sources also provide an economic advantage for some countries because they
can become energy players even without their own fossil fuels.
Think of alternative energy the way you do military preparativeness. There is value to countries
which taxpayers and governments will support even if there is no direct financial benefit. However
money spent for alternative energy WILL have more economic benefit than military spending.
"A lease that produces 12,000 BO per year at $100/BO generates $1.2 million in revenue.
A lease that produces 120,000 BO per year at $50/BO generates $6 million in revenue."
Glenn,
The only problem is that FEW 120.000 BO cannot pay MANY 12,000 BO. So, picking 120.000 BO wells
is losing game in long term. It is like a stock picking vs indexing in investing. Indexing always
wins. Shale carpet drilling is like trying to find that one 120.000 BO well that will pay for
all losers that are 12,000 BO. Losing game in the long term...
State-owned gas monopoly ahead of schedule on politically important Siberian pipeline
The Power of Siberia gas pipeline, the first to connect Russia and China, will start pumping
in December 2019, Gazprom said on Tuesday, paving the way for a 30-year supply agreement of more
than 1.15tn cubic metres of gas for the Kremlin-controlled export monopoly
Mr Miller's affirmation is important. The project, which will cost Gazprom more than $55bn
just to build the necessary infrastructure to get the gas flowing, is one of the most critical
investments for Russia's energy sector, which has targeted a long-term strategic supply link with
China to match its market penetration in Europe. ..
Power of Siberia is expected to run significantly below capacity in its first few years
of operation, as China instead runs down its domestic gas reserves. The 30-year supply agreement
is set to kick in around 2025 .
####
The report's loaded with info. Production can certainly be increased, but it's all the
other infrastructure that's required for the market to expand, particularly regasification
terminals.
The Saudis tried to make a public IPO of Aramco a while back. This has fizzled, probably in
recognition of the fact that Saudi is almost running on empty. One reason behind the Qatar
lunacy might be a wish to take over Qatar's resources to keep Saudi solvent for a while at
least.
interview with Chas Freeman last week: Qatar Crisis Could Lead to War: Veteran US Diplomat
if you don't know who Chas is, please wiki was ambassador to Saudi, was Nixon's
interpreter in China, that's right, he speaks mandarin and arabic not just knowledgeable,
also very funny remember when AIPAC vetoed his appointment by Obama?
Yes, that's exactly how that Reuters story reads to me too. The prime target is the US.
Extraordinarily powerful move by Qatar, using a weapon that it knows and owns completely and
in massive scale, and with an understanding of the damage it can do to its enemies.
Asymmetrical warfare indeed. Priceless.
~~
I'm really hoping that over the years, as Qatar rubs shoulders with the multi-polar world,
it will reform itself to renounce and atone for its former support of terrorism. As I watch
its moves in this situation I'm struck with a certain admiration. It would be nice to be able
to root for it someday as one of the good guys.
Unless the Saudis can reconfigure their economy and train their populous to do actual
work, their kingdom will sink ..
karlof1 at 1
This is impossible.
Laguerre at 10. > see also response from karlof1 at 20.
The curse of black gold + a rentier economy coupled with an authoritarian repressive State
that enslaves the 'people.' The two are often soldered: dominating class capts the profits
and co-opts slave labor, and pays off citizens with 'stipends.' Escaping or changing such a
template is imho incredibly difficult or impossible in the case of KSA.
The rentier class, aka Royals and hangers-on is several tens of thousands of ppl, not
detailed on wiki. (Comp. with US not the 1%, but the 20%..) In fact it is one of the problems
of such arrangements, some gang of 'hangers on' has to be appeased and maintained, they have
quite some power. Because the 'authoritarian' schema deploys in a clear top-down, to down
further, a fixed ladder - way, and once some lower layer is stiffed, objections and
obstructions may fly and richochet to the top. For the system to endure, these HAVE to be
appeased.
A power sharing scheme like this also mandates that women are kept from acting in any way.
The easiest and cheapest way to control half the population, plus all children, ask the MB,
the Taliban, KSA.
The crazed moves of the new Prince are vain attempts to escape the self-constructed trap.
Floundering, flailing, about, considering that killing others, war, (e.g. Yemen), engaging in
aggro (Qatar) might help - as that might please the USA, who encourages all aggro and sells
arms, etc. Won't end well for KSA for sure all Internationals are wondering who will grab
what when collapse it is.
Try to put aside, for the moment, the insufferable arrogance of American meddling in Europe's
energy market, with a view to restricting its choice while – laughably – pretending it is broadening
European energy options.
The readers and commenters of this blog will be well aware, since it has been a topic of discussion
for years here, that a critical underpinning of the western plan to seize Ukraine and wrest it into
the western orbit was the premise that Russia would be forced by simple momentum to go along with
it. As long as events continued to unfold too quickly to get ahead of, Russia would have to help
supply the sinews of its own destruction. And a big part of that was the assumption that Russia would
help to finance Ukraine's transition to a powerful western fulcrum upon which to apply leverage against
it, through continued trade with Ukraine and continued transit of Europe's energy supply through
Ukraine's pipeline system.
But Russia slapped a trade embargo on most Ukrainian goods, and rescinded its tariff-free status
as it became clear Brussels planned to use it to stovepipe European trade goods into the Russian
market, through Ukraine – thus crushing domestic industries which would not be able to compete on
economically-favorable terms. The armchair strategists nearly shit a brick when construction of the
South Stream pipeline commenced, bypassing Ukraine and depriving it of about $2 billion annually
in transit fees. But
pressure ultimately forced Bulgaria to throw a wrench into the works, and the pipeline plans
were shelved, to much victory dancing in the west. There was
not quite as much happy-dancing in Bulgaria , but they were only ever a pawn anyway.
Sidebar for a moment, here; while the $2 Billion annually in transit fees is extremely important,
Ukraine's pre-crisis GDP was $163 Billion. The funds realized for transit fees are important because
(a) Russia has to pay them and (b) the west will have to come up with the equivalent in aid if Ukraine
loses out on them. But the real value intrinsic to Ukraine as a transit country is its physical
reality as an interface for Russian gas transit to Europe – what is a bridge can be easily turned
into a wall. Any time Washington thinks Russia needs some more shit on its face, Ukraine can be prodded
to announce a doubling of its transit fees, or to kick off some other dispute which the popular press
will adroitly spin to make Russia appear to be an unreliable supplier. Therefore, it is essential
to western strategy that significant amounts of Russian gas continue to transit Ukraine. Sufficiently
so that Europe continues to evolve
ever-more-desperate contingency plans in order to keep receiving gas through the country which
was known to have provoked the previous shutoff of European supplies by siphoning Europe-bound gas
for its own use. That's despite the assurances of Germany and western partners of Gazprom in the
Nord Stream line that it will mean cheaper gas prices for Europe.
"... Yamal is projected to double Russia's share of the growing global LNG market by the time it reaches full capacity of 16.5m tonnes a year - equivalent to more than 80 per cent of China's annual demand - by 2021. Construction is three-quarters complete and production from the first phase of the project is due to commence by the end of this year. ..."
"... More than 95 per cent of Yamal's expected output has already been sold through 15 to 20 year contracts, with customers mostly in Asia and Europe. ..."
Truth is Russia has been looking for an excuse to get out of the business of Shipping Natural
Gas to the West and the South, altogether and these US Sanctions and EU Complaints about Gazprom
Pipeline Construction, may just be the out they have been looking for. In Jan 2016, Russia completed
7 Massive High-Pressure Gas Pipelines, 2 to India and 5 to China. The ones to India make 4 total
Gas Lines to India, but the 5 to China are the first time China, has had access to Russian Natural
Gas. The contracts India and China signed with Gazprom are 50 years, and the price of NG starts
at more than double the highest rate Gazprom charges in Europe, the icing on the cake however
is that the currency is not US Paper Promissory Notes(Petro Dollars), but Gold Bullion. At full
capacity those pipelines can use every single NG resource Gazprom, has at the present time, and
all future NG resources. So, Gazprom would be foolish not to want to cut all off its Western and
Southern pipelines off, and divert Maximum Flow East. In addition to these NG Pipelines, there
are Crude Oil and Diesel pipelines under construction, going to China and India – Completion date
scheduled for between November 2017 and January 2018. Chinese and Indian Construction Crews completed
their internal distribution pipeline networks in 2016, and have 7 Oil Refineries in various stages
of completion. -– All American III Percenter and Combat Disabled US Veteran"
Now..remind me what was this stuff about 'Murica shipping LNG to europe???
LOL!!!!
That would indeed be delightful if there were even the whiff of truth about it; but, unfortunately,
there is not. Europe is still Russia's most important gas market by far. Numbers on the Russia-China
gas deal are hard to come by and
reporters who quote the price China will pay are just guessing because nobody has officially
disclosed that figure and will not; it is strictly confidential.
However, the China-vs-EU figures are not even close; starting next year, Russia will export
30-38 BcM annually to China, and that might go as high as double as the agreement evolves. So,
say 65 BcM annually, in a couple of years. That's still far less than half
what Gazprom exports annually
to Europe – 178.3 BcM in 2016, a significant jump over the previous year's 158.6 BcM.
Moreover, nearly all the increases in the past decade have been to imports by western
Europe. Despite all the preaching in the media, the only countries which seem to be seriously
trying to wean themselves off of Russian gas – with little to limited success, it must be said
– are eastern European countries. One of the biggest yappers in the west is the UK but the UK
went from zero imports of Russian gas in 2003 to the
fourth-biggest European importer in 2013 .
That little quick-reference pocket guide is actually chock-full of useful facts which you can
whip out and quote whenever some pea-brained bucket-mouthed know-nothing is trying to blizzard
you with blue-sky bullshit. Here's a few:
1. All the blather and angst about reducing Europe's dependency on Russian gas imports conveniently
ignores one buzzing fly in the ointment – long-term contracts. Of 178.6 BcM imported by Europe
in 2013, 166 BcM of it was under 30-year contracts. By far the most of it. And you know what would
happen if the EU broke a contract in order to reduce its imports, even if it could practically
do so under conditions in which domestic sources of supply are rapidly drying up, which it can't.
Also, contract supplies are by definition sanctions-exempt.
2. Home-grown Shale gas is not going to ride to the rescue. Even if Europe could tap supplies
which are not sour with so much nitrogen that you can't even burn it, in order to reach shale
gas supplies of only 28 BcM annually Europe would have to drill 800-1000 new wells every year
for 10 years. Let's see that spun as fiscally viable, or sensible in any way, shape or form.
3. Blabber about the Southern Gas Corridor was always nothing more than that – supplies from
Azerbaijan to Europe were never expected to total more than 30 BcM, about what Russia expects
to export to China starting in 2018, and it would have taken until 2030 to reach that capacity.
4. LNG actually holds the best promise of undercutting Russian supply, and Europe's regassification
terminals actually could handle more than the combined total of Russian imports now; 200 BcM.
But LNG supplies to Europe depend entirely on whether they can be profitable, and all current
objective studies find that Russia can keep LNG away as long as it likes, simply by consistently
pricing its pipeline supplies lower than LNG. Given what it would cost Uncle Sam to get his supplies
to market, Gazprom can still easily do that and turn a handsome profit.
I'm glad you brought that up; quite apart from the very interesting information contained in
the article itself, it is a springboard to a larger discussion – is Russia equally committed
to reducing its dependency on European pipelines as the Europeans are? Some say yes: Russia's
$27 Billion icebreaking LNG Carrier project is an eye-opener which has been more or
less entirely left out of energy discussions. And
its target market is Asia .
Yamal is projected to double Russia's share of the growing global LNG market by the
time it reaches full capacity of 16.5m tonnes a year - equivalent to more than 80 per cent
of China's annual demand - by 2021. Construction is three-quarters complete and production
from the first phase of the project is due to commence by the end of this year.
More than 95 per cent of Yamal's expected output has already been sold through 15 to
20 year contracts, with customers mostly in Asia and Europe.
That's hardcore! Thanks Mark. So the Chinese stepped in to take up the slack created by US
sanctions against Timchenko's Novatek part of the project. Another US epic fail.
It's curious that the West's interpretation of 'globalization' hasn't turned out as expected.
They saw it as western globo-corporations buying in around the world, but globalization has
naturally progressed as 'multi-polarization' of global power, away from the US & the West's
dominance. The Chinese stepping in is a perfect example. It shows that Russia has real options
which it is building and if needs be, at some point in the future, tell the 'No thanks!'.
"... The U.S. is on track to produce 10 million barrels of oil per day on average next year, according to a forecast from the Energy Information Administration -- a milestone that would shatter a record set in 1970. ..."
"... Although "dominance" may be hyperbole in that context as well -- given totals that exporters such as Qatar are achieving -- capturing world markets for US LNG exporters is a major driver of US policy. Ukraine, the nonsense about Russian interference in US elections, and the new Senate sanctions against European companies working with Russia on the Baltic Sea pipeline are three cases in point. ..."
Trump is set to deliver a speech at the Energy Department on Thursday focused
almost entirely on energy exports -- describing how the foreign sale of U.S.
natural gas, oil and coal helps strengthen the country's influence globally,
bolster international alliances, and help stabilize global markets. Energy
Secretary Rick Perry may touch on similar themes when he speaks Tuesday with
analysts and executives at the U.S. Energy Information Administration
conference in Washington.[..]
Ironically, some of Trump's policies could exacerbate the market challenges
facing oil, gas and coal, by spurring more domestic production at a time when a
supply glut is already suppressing prices.
The U.S. is on track to produce 10 million barrels of oil per day on average
next year, according to a forecast from the Energy Information Administration
-- a milestone that would shatter a record set in 1970.
'Dominance' Sought
Trump's theme of "energy dominance" marks an evolution. For years, the catch
phrase of choice has been "energy independence," as politicians and industry
officials sought to highlight how a new era of abundance was helping the U.S.
wean itself from foreign sources of oil and natural gas.
That was in turn a dramatic change from the 1970s, when former President
Jimmy Carter turned down the White House thermostats and used a televised
address in February 1977 to urge consumers to conserve energy amid a permanent
"shortage." After that, federal energy policy became rooted in the view that
oil and gas were in short supply.[.]
"Trump is reorienting our national rhetoric toward 'dominance,'" said Kevin
Book, analyst with ClearView Energy Partners LLC. "Captives crave independence;
competitors strive to dominate. It's a shift from getting by to getting ahead."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Reminds of the old song – "Dream, dream, dream"
Forecast is 10 million bbls per day 2018 and we are proposing dominance in
global energy production!! What a twit.
48) Yep, it is funny. According to above quoted US Energy Information administration
the US consumed 19.68 million barrels of petroleum products per day in 2016.
Mainly the reference to "dominance" applies to liquefied natural gas. Comparing
LNG exports during the first 3 months of 2015 with the first 3 months of 2017
shows an increase by a factor of 30.
Although "dominance" may be hyperbole in that context as well -- given totals
that exporters such as Qatar are achieving -- capturing world markets for US LNG
exporters is a major driver of US policy. Ukraine, the nonsense about Russian
interference in US elections, and the new Senate sanctions against European
companies working with Russia on the Baltic Sea pipeline are three cases in point.
Mainly the reference to "dominance" applies to liquified natural gas. Comparing LNG exports
during the first 3 months of 2015 with the first 3 months of 2017 shows an increase by a factor
of 30.
.[capturing] world markets for US LNG exporters is a major driver of US policy.
My comment was it's on someone's wish list and dreaming on.
Do you have any idea the cost to set up LNG terminals and cost to transport from US to global
- for starters, to compete with Russia, Iran, Qatar and others in the EU and Asian markets?
Austrian Federal Chancellor Christian Kern (SPÖ) and German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel
(SPD) commented as follows today (15 June) on the approval by the United States Senate of legislation
regarding sanctions against Russia:
...
It is in the common interest of the EU and the US to take resolute and unified action with
a view to resolving the conflict in Ukraine.
We cannot, however, accept the threat of illegal extraterritorial sanctions being imposed
on European companies that are participating in efforts to expand Europe's energy supply network!
The draft bill of the US is surprisingly candid about what is actually at stake, namely
selling American liquefied natural gas and ending the supply of Russian natural gas to the
European market. The bill aims to protect US jobs in the natural gas and petroleum industries.
Political sanctions should not in any way be tied to economic interests. Threatening to
impose penalties on companies in Germany, Austria and other European countries with regard
to their business in the United States if they participate in, or fund, natural gas projects
involving Russia, such as Nord Stream 2, impacts European-American relations in a new and very
negative way. This is about the competitiveness of our energy-intensive industries, and about
thousands of jobs. We therefore strongly support the efforts of the US Department of State
to amend this draft bill.
"... A pipeline through Syria would have been a great boost to national economy for a number of years & could raise a port of the country to one of global importance, just at a time that Turkey started turning the spigot of Euphrates off ..."
"... Consider that Qatar would have been a captive ally for Syria, a commodity rather in short supply for that country. The best part of it is, perhaps, that Syria presumably had a natural aversion to the transit fees. ..."
"... There is another interesting story in this regard, which is to do with (at least) three rounds of exploration for gas in Saudi Arabia, all failed, and the special need for gas to service its petrochemical industry. If memory serves, the reason is they want to upgrade the heavy crude portion of their production, which has steadily been growing, and which the Saudis might have to sell as bunker oil at great discount, if they fail to find gas. ..."
"... the Qataris were told in no uncertain terms that their gas 'had to remain in the peninsula' (Arabian subcontinent) for consumption, to serve the oil sector. ..."
"... If this is right (honestly, I do not know), it might explain quite a bit about the rivalries of the extremist Moslem clergy, and their activities both within the Moslem world and abroad, why not, even developments in Europe & the States. ..."
|Jen@31 writes about the legendary Qatari pipeline. That story made its appearance early in
the conflict, and if anybody knows its origin, I would be keen to be let know.
That story goes that Assad would not let Qatar have its pipeline because, presumably, Russians
wanted to retain their stranglehold on European gas supplies.
The subtext is that those Russians
must be very hard task masters and Assad, the lowliest of low lives, a terrified thug. And when
the troubles started, Assad did not go back to the Qataris to discuss the matter over.
Sorry, I cannot square that.
A pipeline through Syria would have been a great boost to national economy for a number of
years & could raise a port of the country to one of global importance, just at a time that Turkey
started turning the spigot of Euphrates off (this is a sense I have, do not know if it is right)
& a protracted drought and economic hardship all hit the country at the same time.
Consider that
Qatar would have been a captive ally for Syria, a commodity rather in short supply for that country.
The best part of it is, perhaps, that Syria presumably had a natural aversion to the transit fees.
There is another interesting story in this regard, which is to do with (at least) three
rounds of exploration for gas in Saudi Arabia, all failed, and the special need for gas to service
its petrochemical industry. If memory serves, the reason is they want to upgrade the heavy crude
portion of their production, which has steadily been growing, and which the Saudis might have
to sell as bunker oil at great discount, if they fail to find gas.
The story was run in the English papers of the Gulf circa 2012, whereby the Qataris were told
in no uncertain terms that their gas 'had to remain in the peninsula' (Arabian subcontinent) for
consumption, to serve the oil sector.
Once I chanced on an article on the educational proclivities of the thousands of the Saudi
princes. Any guess? Yes, a good portion of them goes in for religious studies! Somehow I do not
think they aspire to be lowly priests; but if not, where might they wish to have their sees? What
if the other principalities of the Gulf have nobilities with similar outlooks & hopes?
If this is right (honestly, I do not know), it might explain quite a bit about the rivalries of
the extremist Moslem clergy, and their activities both within the Moslem world and abroad, why
not, even developments in Europe & the States.
@36 & @31 I think you are both right. The Pipelinistan angle is a major part of this feud.
A probable change of heart from Qatar who has seen the light that no regime change will happen
in Syria therefore making a Fars --> Iraq --> Syria -> Lebanon LNG pipeline a realistic endeavor
is causing panic in KSA/US/IS who are trying to pressure Qatar to back-off from any deals with
Iran..
If Turkey is firm on protecting Qatar then the ultimatum will come to pass and be null
and void..
Don Bass | Jun 24, 2017 1:34:34 AM | 57
@ Vic
Y'know, when I read a comment such as yours: "~ I don't reckon its got anything to do with
a pipeline ~" I immediately think of that old trope: Better to remain silent and be thought a
fool, than to open ones mouth and remove all doubts"
Vic: instead of visiting here to blatantly display your ignorance, how about more usefully
spending that typing time to research the topic, hmmm?
The Imperial drive to crush Syria has been in play since the early 1980s, when Assad senior
was in power.
"... "In my view this is a deep power struggle between Qatar and Saudi Arabia that has little to do with stated reasons regarding Muslim Brotherhood and Iran. The action to isolate Qatar was clearly instigated during US President Trump's recent visit in Riyadh where he pushed the unfortunate idea of a Saudi-led "Arab NATO" to oppose Iranian influence in the region. ..."
"... Moreover, Qatar was acting increasingly independent of the heavy Wahhabite hand of Saudi Arabia and threatening Saudi domination over the Gulf States. Kuwait, Oman, as well as non-Gulf Turkey were coming closer to Qatar and even Pakistan now may think twice about joining a Saudi-led "Arab NATO". Bin Salman has proven a disaster as a defense strategist, as proven in the Yemen debacle. ..."
"... Kuwait and Oman are urgently trying to get Saudi to backdown on this, but that is unlikely as behind Saudi Arabia stands the US and promises of tens of billions of dollars in US arms. ..."
"... This foolish US move to use their proxy, in this case Riyadh, to discipline those not "behaving" according to Washington wishes, could well be the turning point, the point of collapse of US remaining influence in the entire Middle East in the next several years." ..."
"... KSA could not have taken this course of action all by itself. Someone somewhere must be egging them on. But who? The US seems to have no interest in a Saudi-Qatari conflict. Israel might, but only if said conflict is resolved in Saudi favor. ..."
"... I am therefore coming to the conclusion that there is no longer clear leadership of US policy and there are different factions within the US government. The white house and CIA are supporting the Saudis while the Pentagon supports Qatar. This is just a hunch, but it seems like it could make sense. Perhaps this is what happens when a government is in a state of decompensation. ..."
"... It is mind boggling that a fundamental reshaping of the Middle East was most likely put in motion by Trump completely oblivious of what he was doing shooting from the hip on his Saudi trip. ..."
"... Outside of an outright invasion of Qatar by Saudi Arabia, it is hard to see this as a once in a life time geopolitical gift to Russia, Iran, Turkey, Syria, and Iran. ..."
"... Now when July 3 comes and goes, Saudi Arabia will look completely impotent in the eyes of the countries in the region. ..."
"... Gaddafi's speech to the Arab League in Syria 2008 was so prescient ..."
"... "We [the Arabs] are the enemies of one another I'm sad to say, we deceive one another, we gloat at the misfortune of one another, and we conspire against one another, and an Arab's enemy is another Arab's friend. ..."
"... I quite like the WWI parallel. Trump as Kaiser Wilhelm? There certainly are some striking similarities in character. ..."
"... "...gifted, with a quick understanding, sometimes brilliant, with a taste for the modern,-technology, industry, science -- but at the same time superficial, hasty, restless, unable to relax, without any deeper level of seriousness, without any desire for hard work or drive to see things through to the end, without any sense of sobriety, for balance and boundaries, or even for reality and real problems, uncontrollable and scarcely capable of learning from experience, desperate for applause and success, -- as Bismarck said early on in his life, he wanted every day to be his birthday-romantic, sentimental and theatrical, unsure and arrogant, with an immeasurably exaggerated self-confidence and desire to show off, a juvenile cadet, who never took the tone of the officers' mess out of his voice, and brashly wanted to play the part of the supreme warlord, full of panicky fear of a monotonous life without any diversions, and yet aimless, pathological in his hatred against his English mother." ..."
"... It also stands to reason if you simply consider Saudi's importance regionally: A lot is made of Iran's threat to Saudi influence, but Turkey - thanks in part to considerable investment by Qatar currently while investment from elsewhere has reduced massively -- is also very threatening to Saudi's influence, especially on the religious front. ..."
"... Iran representing Shia interests in the region and Turkey representing Sunni interests is not a difficult future to imagine. It would of course grate with Saudi Arabia given that it had poured vast amounts of money into the Turkish economy and the diyanet. ..."
"... Hassan Nasrallah has given his annual International Al-Quds Day speech with plenty of fire aimed at the usual suspects. The Daily Star reports: 'Nasrallah accused Saudi Arabia of "paving way for Israel" in the region. ..."
"... Actually, I hope for many more benefits will show up from this quarrel than improved profits for Iranian produce growers. It is worthwhile to observe that Dubai, a component emirate of UAE, has gigantic economic links with Iran, which must be tolerated by overlords from Abu Dhabi: they had to bail out their cousins after real estate collapse, so they have big money stake in Dubai being prosperous. Potentially, Dubai and especially the hapless vegetable and dairy producers in KSA can lose a bundle (the latter had to invest a lot in farms for Qatari market, it is not like letting cows graze on abundant grasslands plus planting cucumbers and waiting for the rain to water them). Aljazeera and Muslim Brotherhood are more irritating to KSA and UAE than an occasional polite missive to Iran. ..."
"... Qatar opened the Middle East's first centre for clearing transactions in the Chinese yuan on Tuesday, saying it would boost trade and investment between China and Gulf Arab economies. ..."
"... The only hope for Saudi Arabia is to re-denominate oil sales in multiple currencies such as the WTO drawing rights, of course based on another formula, perhaps based on the countries that purchase the most oil. This would be the only way for the royalty to gain longevity as rulers of the country. Any other scenario spells disaster. ..."
William Engdahls views. "In my view this is a deep power struggle between Qatar and Saudi
Arabia that has little to do with stated reasons regarding Muslim Brotherhood and Iran. The action
to isolate Qatar was clearly instigated during US President Trump's recent visit in Riyadh where
he pushed the unfortunate idea of a Saudi-led "Arab NATO" to oppose Iranian influence in the region.
The Saudi move, clearly instigated by Prince Bin Salman, Minister of Defense, was not about
going against terrorism. If it were about terrorism, bin Salman would have to arrest himself and
most of his Saudi cabinet as one of the largest financiers of terrorism in the world, and shut
all Saudi-financed madrasses around the world, from Pakistan to Bosnia-Herzgovina to Kosovo. Another
factor according to informed sources in Holland is that Washington wanted to punish Qatar for
seeking natural gas sales with China priced not in US dollars but in Renminbi. That apparently
alarmed Washington, as Qatar is the world's largest LNG exporter and most to Asia.
Moreover, Qatar was acting increasingly independent of the heavy Wahhabite hand of Saudi
Arabia and threatening Saudi domination over the Gulf States. Kuwait, Oman, as well as non-Gulf
Turkey were coming closer to Qatar and even Pakistan now may think twice about joining a Saudi-led
"Arab NATO". Bin Salman has proven a disaster as a defense strategist, as proven in the Yemen
debacle.
As to the future, it appears that Qatar is not about to rollover and surrender in face of Saudi
actions. Already Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani is moving to establish closer ties with Iran,
with Turkey that might include Turkish military support, and most recently with Russia.
Kuwait and Oman are urgently trying to get Saudi to backdown on this, but that is unlikely
as behind Saudi Arabia stands the US and promises of tens of billions of dollars in US arms.
This
foolish US move to use their proxy, in this case Riyadh, to discipline those not "behaving" according
to Washington wishes, could well be the turning point, the point of collapse of US remaining influence
in the entire Middle East in the next several years."
KSA could not have taken this course of action all by itself. Someone somewhere must be egging
them on. But who? The US seems to have no interest in a Saudi-Qatari conflict. Israel might, but
only if said conflict is resolved in Saudi favor.
I am therefore coming to the conclusion that there is no longer clear leadership of US
policy and there are different factions within the US government. The white house and CIA are
supporting the Saudis while the Pentagon supports Qatar. This is just a hunch, but it seems like
it could make sense. Perhaps this is what happens when a government is in a state of decompensation.
It is mind boggling that a fundamental reshaping of the Middle East was most likely put in motion
by Trump completely oblivious of what he was doing shooting from the hip on his Saudi trip.
Outside
of an outright invasion of Qatar by Saudi Arabia, it is hard to see this as a once in a life time
geopolitical gift to Russia, Iran, Turkey, Syria, and Iran.
Now when July 3 comes and goes, Saudi Arabia will look completely impotent in the eyes of the
countries in the region.
I wonder if there is some sort of interest between Russia, Turkey, Qatar,
and Iran on a coup in Saudi Arabia. I can't imagine it would be that difficult. I know it is not
Putin's policy to play these types of games like the US Regime, but one has to assume that people
are just fucking done with the clowns running Saudi Arabia.
Gaddafi's speech to the Arab League in Syria 2008 was so prescient..
"We [the Arabs] are the enemies of one another I'm sad to say, we deceive one another, we
gloat at the misfortune of one another, and we conspire against one another, and an Arab's
enemy is another Arab's friend.
Along comes a foreign power, occupies an Arab country [Iraq] and hangs its President,and
we all sit on the sidelines laughing. Any one of you might be next, yes.
Peter AU "Is Qatar, like Turkey, already heading for a multi-polar world? For 25 years, the US
was the only game in town, but with Russia's move into Syria there are now options."
Hard to see the world heading in that direction:
Russia and China will no longer allow the US Regime to use the same tactics to start wars
against Iraq and Libya anymore.
China is methodically closing off the South China Sea to the US Regime
The Shanghai Cooperation Organization is starting to increase their shared defense
Europe is openly talking about creating its own independent defense force
I wonder if Qatar is already in talks with China about joining the Silk Road Initiative now
that it is openly moving into the Russia and Iran sphere.
@17 The best is yet to come. There's a chance Netanyahu will fly into Riyadh to tell everybody
what to do. I'm sure he wants what's best for the region.
I quite like the WWI parallel. Trump as Kaiser Wilhelm? There certainly are some striking
similarities in character.
Quote from Thomas Nipperdey:
"...gifted, with a quick understanding, sometimes brilliant, with a taste for the modern,-technology,
industry, science -- but at the same time superficial, hasty, restless, unable to relax, without
any deeper level of seriousness, without any desire for hard work or drive to see things through
to the end, without any sense of sobriety, for balance and boundaries, or even for reality
and real problems, uncontrollable and scarcely capable of learning from experience, desperate
for applause and success, -- as Bismarck said early on in his life, he wanted every day to
be his birthday-romantic, sentimental and theatrical, unsure and arrogant, with an immeasurably
exaggerated self-confidence and desire to show off, a juvenile cadet, who never took the tone
of the officers' mess out of his voice, and brashly wanted to play the part of the supreme
warlord, full of panicky fear of a monotonous life without any diversions, and yet aimless,
pathological in his hatred against his English mother."
Last month at the China-Arab Cooperation Forum in Doha, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi postulated
that Qatar should take part in the realization of China's Silk Road Initiatives.
Yeah, you're right. I hadn't looked into the question sufficiently. Of course the Chinese are
looking for more external finance for the project. They don't want to be the only ones who pay.
Fat chance, though. The Qataris have been in austerity since the decline in the oil price. Someone
I know who works in the Qatar Museum has seen all her colleagues let go. And now the crisis with
Saudi.
The Qataris may even have signed contracts with China. But if you know anything about the Gulf,
there's a wide gap between signing a contract, and actually getting paid. It depends upon how
the prince concerned feels about the project when the question of payment comes up. A company
I worked for in the 80s took two years to get payment, even though they were experts in Gulfi
relations.
The issue of the threat regarding the Turkish base didn't surprise me much, though. I think
it's clear that if MB is the target, then of course Turkey has to become a target, and Qatar -
Turkey ties have to be broken. It stands to reason.
It also stands to reason if you simply consider Saudi's importance regionally: A lot is
made of Iran's threat to Saudi influence, but Turkey - thanks in part to considerable investment
by Qatar currently while investment from elsewhere has reduced massively -- is also very threatening
to Saudi's influence, especially on the religious front.
Iran representing Shia interests in the region and Turkey representing Sunni interests
is not a difficult future to imagine. It would of course grate with Saudi Arabia given that it
had poured vast amounts of money into the Turkish economy and the diyanet.
On a slightly different note there's a scandal going on in western Turkey, in Duzce, at the
moment because the local authority has unveiled a statue of Rabia - the four fingered Muslim Brotherhood
salute! :-)
Hassan Nasrallah has given his annual International Al-Quds Day speech with plenty of fire
aimed at the usual suspects. The Daily Star reports: 'Nasrallah accused Saudi Arabia of
"paving way for Israel" in the region.
You did not address the argument I made, namely, that Aljazeera editors apparently belong
to "Muslims, who immediately set out to support it [Darwinian theory of evolution] unaware
of the blasphemy and error in it." These guys pretend to be nice Wahhabis, dressing in dishdashas,
their womenfolks in abayas, but in fact they spread heretical and blasphemous doctrines. However,
I am more of a Khazar than a Wahhabi and I do not treat this argument seriously.
It is the fact that compared to other government supported TV/online venues, say RT or PressTV,
Aljazeera is well written and edited, has plenty of valuable material, etc. It is a worthwhile
place to check when you want to get a composite picture on some issues. And it irritates KSA
potentates in a myriad of ways, precisely because it targets "politically engaged Muslim".
It is a good example that pluralism has inherent positive aspects, devils that quarrel are
better than "One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all,
and in the darkness bind them."
====
Actually, I hope for many more benefits will show up from this quarrel than improved profits
for Iranian produce growers. It is worthwhile to observe that Dubai, a component emirate of UAE,
has gigantic economic links with Iran, which must be tolerated by overlords from Abu Dhabi: they
had to bail out their cousins after real estate collapse, so they have big money stake in Dubai
being prosperous. Potentially, Dubai and especially the hapless vegetable and dairy producers
in KSA can lose a bundle (the latter had to invest a lot in farms for Qatari market, it is not
like letting cows graze on abundant grasslands plus planting cucumbers and waiting for the rain
to water them). Aljazeera and Muslim Brotherhood are more irritating to KSA and UAE than an occasional
polite missive to Iran.
One pattern in Syrian civil war were persistent and bloody feuds between jihadists that formed
roughly four groups:
"salafi", presumably funded by KSA,
"brothers", presumably funded by Qatar and Turkey,
al-Qaeda/al-Nusra/something new that was forcing the first two groups to surrender some
weapons (and money?),
and ISIS that had more complex sources (or more hidden).
Medium term strategy of Syrian government and allies for the near future is to "de-escalate"
in the western part of the country and finish off ISIS, partitioning hitherto ISIS territories
in some satisfactory way, while maintaining some type of truce with the Kurds. Then finish off
the jihadists, except those most directly protected by Turkey. Finally, take care of the Kurds.
Some sufficiently safe federalism can be part of the solution, but nothing that would lead to
enclaves with their own military forces and their own foreign policy, like Iraqi Kurdistan.
That requires the opposing parties to exhibit somewhat suicidal behavior. A big time official
feud between "brothers" and "salafi + Kurds" (a pair that shares some funding but with scant mutual
affection" can help a lot. Most of all, a big time feud between Turkey and KSA can stabilize the
situation in which jihadists from Idlib and northern Hama observe a truce/de-escalation, while
their colleagues from south Syria get clobbered, and definitely will induce them to refrain from
attacking Syrian government while it is busy against ISIS. After Erdogan was prevented from marching
onto Raqqa, he has two options: "Sunnistan" in eastern Syria under domination of YPG or a much
smaller YPG dominated territory that can be subsequently digested. Option one is a true nightmare
for Erdogan, more than a mere paranoia. However, Erdogan is also "pan-Sunni" Islamist, so he could
be tempted to backstab infidels from Damascus, as he was doing before. An open feud with Sunnistan
sponsors should help him to choose.
Qatar opened the Middle East's first centre for clearing transactions in the Chinese yuan
on Tuesday, saying it would boost trade and investment between China and Gulf Arab economies.
"The launch of the region's first renminbi clearing center in Doha creates the necessary
platform to realise the full potential of Qatar and the region's trade relationship with China,"
Qatar's central bank governor Sheikh Abdullah bin Saud al-Thani said at a ceremony.
"It will facilitate greater cross-border renminbi investment and financing business, and
promote greater trade and economic links between China and the region, paving the way for better
financial cooperation and enhancing the pre-eminence of Qatar as a financial hub in MENA (Middle
East and North Africa)."
Industrial and Commercial Bank of China's (ICBC) Doha branch is the clearing bank for the centre,
which intends to serve companies from around the Middle East.
A clearing bank can handle all parts of a currency transaction from when a commitment is
made until it is settled, reducing costs and time taken for trading.
The centre "will improve the ease of transactions between companies in the region and China
by allowing them to settle their trade directly in renminbi, drawing increased trade through
Qatar and boosting bilateral and economic collaboration between Qatar and China," said ICBC
chairman Jiang Jianqing.
At present, Qatar and the Gulf's other wealthy oil and gas exporters use the U.S. dollar
much more than the yuan. Most of their currencies are pegged to the dollar, and most of their
huge foreign currency reserves are denominated in dollars.
Laguerre @27
Date of article April 24, 2017
In April 2015, Qatar opened Qatar Renminbi Centre (QRC), the region's first clearing centre
for the Chinese currency. This allows for trades priced in RMB to be cleared locally in Qatar
rather than in other centres such as Shanghai or Hong Kong.ICBC has since become the designated
clearance bank servicing the QRC, which has handled more than 350bn yuan ($52.6bn) since its inception.
http://emerge85.io/blog/the-middle-kingdoms-big-four-and-the-gulf
~ ~ ~ ~
Trending and not very far to seeing what is now held under the table. Oil will also be priced
in RMB because KSA, to maintain their share of exports to China, will need to get on board. For
now, it's been reaffirmed, SA does the whipping and USA protects the Royals.
About Sunni-Shia split. My impression is that this is mostly KSA + UAE obsession. For example,
there is a substantial Shia minority in Pakistan, but the dominant thinking among the Sunnis seems
to be "Muslim solidarity". There is a minority that is virulently anti-Shia, but they are politically
isolated and despised exactly on the account of breaking that solidarity. After all, Pakistan
forms the boundary of the Umma with non-Muslim India. I base that opinion on comments in online
Pakistani newspapers, and what I have heard from an acquaintance who was a religiously conservative
Sunni Pakistani. To him, the attack on Yemen by KSA was wrong "because they are Muslim". So even
if Pakistan is to a certain extend in Saudi pocket, and its deep state has an extremist Sunni
component, overt siding against "fellow Muslim" is out of the question.
Egypt is another case. One can find rather isolated anti-Shia outbursts, like writings of some
fossils in Al-Azhar (who are responsible for the state religion), but the government steers away
from that, and in spite of hefty subsidies, it joined Yemen war only symbolically and for a very
short time (unlike Sudan that really needs the cash for its mercenaries). As you move further
away from the Persian Gulf, the indifference to the "split" increases. As far as Qatar and Aljazeera
are concerned, probably no one detests them more than Egyptian elite, as they were valiantly fighting
Muslim Brotherhood for the sake of progress with some occasional large massacres (killing several
hundreds of protesters, issuing hundreds of death penalties to participants in a single protest,
in absentia! incredible idiocy+cruelty). That explains why al-Sisi joined KSA against Qatar.
However, the civil war in Libya that embroils Egypt is a classic case of unexpected alliances.
Egypt with a help from Russia, KSA and UAE supports the "eastern government" that bases legitimacy
on democratic parliament re-assembled in Tobruq on Egyptian border, and dominated by military
strongman Haftar. The latter has the best chance of all people to become a military strongman
of all Libya, but apparently has meager popularity and thus, too few troops. He patched that problem
by an alliance with a Salafi group that had a numerous militia, currently partitioned into smaller
units and incorporated into Haftar's brigades. Even with that, his progress on the ground is very,
very gradual. Against him is the government in Tripolis, legitimized by a more fresh parliament
and UN/EU, plus a military force that includes several militias. Part of the parliamentary support
stems from Muslim Brotherhood, and some part of military support comes from Salafi militias. There
are also aspects of a "war of all against all", seems that Saharan tribes collected a lot of fresh
blood feuds.
Thus Qatari+Turkish support for Tripoli government is aligned with EU, and Egyptian support
for Tobruq government is aligned with Russia and KSA.
I thought I might just throw this out there and see what sticks. US policy is based on power and
control. Saudi Arabia has been a good ally but it does not serve use policy or strategic goals
any longer. Not really. I think the grand prize for destabilizing the middle east is Saudi Arabia.
It would be the only way to truly control the development of other nations or more specifically,
to control their rivalries and save the the US from complete economic breakdown. The Saudi's are
being plumbed by the best of them, telling them they are you friends, we have your back and so
long as Saudi Arabia loses more money and keeps lossing money in needless wars etc.
The only hope for Saudi Arabia is to re-denominate oil sales in multiple currencies such
as the WTO drawing rights, of course based on another formula, perhaps based on the countries
that purchase the most oil. This would be the only way for the royalty to gain longevity as rulers
of the country. Any other scenario spells disaster. Of course, it would be a rough go for
them for a while, but in the end, a slight change in outlook and the unfair advantage given to
the US would go a long way, economically to stabilizing large blocks of countries. They also could
of course change their outlook on the world, but that is certainly a difficult challenge. If the
Muslim world came together based on their similarities, they could be a very powerful block.
The US no longer has the financial velocity it once maintained and this is much more due to
insane ideas about being a hegemon. I never thought revolution would be possible in the US, but
it is coming and it won't take much. The country does not appear to have intelligence peddle back
a number of policies, drunk on its own poison, it makes capitalism look disgusting. A new business
model is needed, one that developes mutual trade based on respect from within the exchange itself.
Saudi Arabia needs to cultivate multi-channel support for its biggest resource so that when the
returns are no longer there, they will have also developed multiple avenues to prosperity. Just
a thought.
No LNG carriers are currently registered under the US flag, and if the USA plans to be a serious
exporter it is going to need about 100 new LNG carriers over the next 30 years, something which is
frankly not practically achievable considering it takes about 2 years to build one, at a cost of
about $200 Million apiece". Of course, miracles can be made to happen if you pour enough money into
them.
The US's intervention is even more pathetic than it seems.
This is not a stand alone anti-Russia bill which would signal strength from the US, but an
adjunct to the anti-I-ran sanctions bill that continues to seek to punish I-ran in the vague hope
that it will pull the plug on the cast-iron nuclear deal it has signed with international partners.
The irony there is that I-ran Air is recapitalizing with both Airbus & Boeing (also ATR),
100 odd a piece, not to mention other significant investment opportunities for western firms.
They're quite the Gordian Tits!
Not only is there the potential of the Levianthan gas field off Cyprus/Israel/whatever, brutal
dictator Azeri gas will also be arriving in (larger, but not gigantic) quantities. Not to mention
that significant buyers of LNG, like the UK, have it come straight from Qatar. Is the US prepared
to sell LNG at a discount compared to Qatar that has strategic agreements and its own fundamental
interests to be protected by the Western (European) states as well?
So if this plan seems to damage not only the USA's allies but the USA itself, then what is
its purpose? Stick it to Trump. Mire any plans to re-balance relations with Russia almost at
any cost . It's a no brainer for Democrats as they neither hold a majority in the House or
the Senate, and there seem to be enough dog whistle Republicans willing to go along with it, including
those with mental problems like John 'Insane' McCaine. Ukraine is almost peripheral except as
a convenient tool. It think the US accepts they've screwed the pooch on the Ukraine so its only
value is to be used as a festering sore on Russia's frontier. Kiev mops up the completely free
public political support whilst it is being kicked in the bollox by the same people.
some interesting info on the sale of jets to qatar worth 12 billion and stuff like that..
and this
"QUESTION: Switching gears, Germany and Austria sharp – have sharply criticized the U.S. Senate
today for moves aimed at advancing a new legislation packaging new sanctions against Russia, which
tangentially deal with European countries as well. Austrian federal chancellor and German foreign
ministry released a joint statement, and I wanted to read one line from it to get your response
to this particular line: "The draft bill of the U.S. is surprisingly candid about what is actually
at stake, namely selling American liquefied natural gas and ending the supply of Russian natural
gas to the European markets."
MS NAUERT: Sorry, back up for a second? What did you say about the liquefied natural gas?
QUESTION: That the bill is trying to basically peddle U.S. LNG to the – to the European markets
– markets instead of the Russian natural gas. The bill aims to protect U.S. jobs and the natural
gas and petroleum industries. So what's your response to that?
MS NAUERT: Well, first, I'm not going to comment on anything that those nations said and their
criticism of anything going on on Capitol Hill. We would see it – and we talked about this last
week – we welcome the shipment of liquefied natural gas to Poland, to countries in that region,
if that were to come – become available to them, because it helps give them another option, another
option to get natural gas from other countries that are perhaps more stable or other countries
that can perhaps provide a regular flow of natural gas.
Much of the natural gas in Poland, as I understand it, comes from Russia, and that can be inconsistent.
Russia has the ability, as you well know, to turn off that natural gas, and that puts the Polish
people in a very difficult situation. So the U.S. provided another option. A regular source of
natural gas, especially in the winter months, we see as important for the United States and for
our allies."
Although unlikely, it would be amusing if support for Qatar led to an improvement in the
Iran/Turkey relationship.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 17, 2017 3:00:24 PM | 34
I agree Turkey is having its problems, but the Russian pipeline is moving along and managed
by Russia; Syria, Iraq and Iranian gas could all become clients of the pipeline, generating
significant revenue and jobs for Turkey as its hub. Far better that Turkey looks to Russia
with its sane international policies than to the the US's EU puppet.
Turkey has fallen in yet another trap set by the USA to weaken Erdogan.
Turkey has no more 'neighbors' friends, no more European friends, little american
sympathy, and now it is about to loose his rich Gulf friends.
Erdogan's foreign policy is close to total disaster.
The AKP success came from the economical reforms stimulated by the EU promises of
adhesion and to the smart and peaceful influence of Gulen in Turkey's institutions
and foreign policy.
Now Gulen and his allies are enemies. Turkey has gradually become a rogue state
controlled exclusively by a megalomaniac man blinded by religion and money.
After the Syria quagmire, the Qatar-Saudi conflict and its impact on Turkey's
economy, may turn to be fatal to Erdogan ruling.
Any Darwin Awards fans out there? For those few who have never heard of them, the Darwin Awards
celebrate those individuals who have rendered a significant service to mankind by taking themselves
out of the global gene pool. In preparing to discuss today's subject, I am reminded of unfortunate
1999 award-winner 'James' from Missouri, who became so fixated upon his love interest that he
tried to lop off
his own head with a chainsaw to demonstrate his commitment to an outcome on his terms. Although
he was ultimately unsuccessful on both counts, he did fatally injure himself, and died in hospital.
Ashes to ashes; dust to dust.
My intent today is to demonstrate clear destructive similarities between the above emotional decision
and the equally
simpleminded decision of the US Senate to impose further economic sanctions on Russia, this time
explicitly tying them to penalizing of European companies which do business with Russia – moreover,
in a clear attempt to stop the latter from proceeding with the Nord Stream II gas pipeline project.
This, in turn, is clearly an attempt by the USA to make Europe a captive market for its own energy
products, in the form of shipborne LNG. Significantly, that goal is also finally becoming clear to
Europe; or at least to the parts of it that matter, such as Germany (thanks for the tip, James!)
Try to put aside, for the moment, the insufferable arrogance of American meddling in Europe's energy
market, with a view to restricting its choice while – laughably – pretending it is broadening European
energy options.
The readers and commenters of this blog will be well aware, since it has been a topic of discussion
for years here, that a critical underpinning of the western plan to seize Ukraine and wrest it into
the western orbit was the premise that Russia would be forced by simple momentum to go along with
it. As long as events continued to unfold too quickly to get ahead of, Russia would have to help
supply the sinews of its own destruction. And a big part of that was the assumption that Russia would
help to finance Ukraine's transition to a powerful western fulcrum upon which to apply leverage against
it, through continued trade with Ukraine and continued transit of Europe's energy supply through
Ukraine's pipeline system. But Russia slapped a trade embargo on most Ukrainian goods, and rescinded
its tariff-free status as it became clear Brussels planned to use it to stovepipe European trade
goods into the Russian market, through Ukraine – thus crushing domestic industries which would not
be able to compete on economically-favourable terms. The armchair strategists nearly shit a brick
when construction of the South Stream pipeline commenced, bypassing Ukraine and depriving it of about
$2 billion annually in transit fees. But
pressure ultimately forced Bulgaria to throw a wrench into the works, and the pipeline plans
were shelved, to much victory dancing in the west. There was
not quite as much happy-dancing in Bulgaria , but they were only ever a pawn anyway.
Sidebar for a moment, here; while the $2 Billion annually in transit fees is extremely important,
Ukraine's pre-crisis GDP was $163 Billion. The funds realized for transit fees are important because
(a) Russia has to pay them and (b) the west will have to come up with the equivalent in aid if Ukraine
loses out on them. But the real value intrinsic to Ukraine as a transit country is its physical
reality as an interface for Russian gas transit to Europe – what is a bridge can be easily turned
into a wall.
Any time Washington thinks Russia needs some more shit on its face, Ukraine can be prodded to
announce a doubling of its transit fees, or to kick off some other dispute which the popular press
will adroitly spin to make Russia appear to be an unreliable supplier. Therefore, it is essential
to western strategy that significant amounts of Russian gas continue to transit Ukraine. Sufficiently
so that Europe continues to evolve
ever-more-desperate contingency plans in order to keep receiving gas through the country which
was known to have provoked the previous shutoff of European supplies by siphoning Europe-bound gas
for its own use. That's despite the assurances of Germany and western partners of Gazprom in the
Nord Stream line that it will mean cheaper gas prices for Europe.
But we knew this was coming, didn't we? Yes, we did, because as recently as last month, Democratic
senator Jean Shaheen, who sits on the Senate Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on European Affairs, announced
that the United States was
considering involving itself in the Nord Stream II pipeline project , with a view to killing
it stone dead. The purpose, as already mentioned, is to make way for LNG cargoes to Europe, cutting
Russia out of the business, on the assumption that without energy sales the Russian economy will
crumble and the country will collapse. Destroying Russia remains Washington's overriding strategic
objective.
So the stakes are high; high enough to provide context for Washington's bizarre and aggressive
behavior, and for its continued ridiculous insistence that Russia tampered with the 2016 US presidential
election. What are the chances Washington will succeed with its latest adventure in global bullying?
Not good, according to multiple sources. Let's take a look at how Platts views the prospects;
Platts, a division of S&P Global , is
headquartered in London and employs over 1,000 people in more than 15 offices worldwide. These include
global business centers such as New York, Shanghai and Sao Paulo, and major energy centers such as
Houston, Singapore and London, where Platts is based. Having hopefully established the firm's credentials
as someone who knows what they are talking about in the energy business, let's see what Platts has
to say about
the potential American LNG market in Europe . Mmmm .the review is mixed. At the outset, Platts
is admiring of Cheniere Energy's go-to-hell expansion. But a couple of things about that are cause
to curb enthusiasm. One, only 8 American LNG cargoes had gone to Europe so far; that was as of April
this year, when the report was released. Of those, 4 went to Spain, 3 to Portugal and 1 to Italy.
Two, the Iberian Peninsula is acknowledged by Platts as not particularly significant in terms of
gauging Europe's welcome of American LNG.
"Indeed, the fact that Portugal and Spain were the first European countries to import LNG
from the US is telling The Iberian Peninsula is considered an "island market" with poor interconnection
to the rest of Europe, so the delivery of US LNG into the region is not likely to be seen as a
sign that it will take hold in the wider European market."
The same passage points out that Russia does not supply the Iberian Peninsula with pipeline gas,
and so is unlikely to be very concerned about the impact of US LNG on that market.
Three, Cheniere's rapid expansion has come at a terrifying cost, and the company is currently
– as of fall 2016 –
overleveraged
with approximately $20 Billion in long-term debt . It is unprofitable, with interest payments
representing 60% of revenues, the living embodiment of 'bicycle economics'; the second you stop pedaling,
you crash.
For what it's worth, few great business breakthroughs have occurred without risk, and while Cheniere
is plunging ahead with what seems like recklessness, it could just as easily pay off with complete
domination of the North American export market. That's a hell of a debt load, though; not much margin
for bad news. That does expose a flaw in the American strategy, as well – wrestling control of the
European supply market from Russia would be frighteningly expensive.
No LNG carriers are currently registered under the US flag, and if the USA plans to be a serious
exporter it is going to need about
100 new LNG carriers over the next 30 years , something which is frankly not practically achievable
considering it takes about 2 years to build one, at
a cost
of about $200 Million apiece . Of course, miracles can be made to happen if you pour enough money
into them. But we've already somewhat nervously mentioned how much all this is costing – how does
the likely return on investment shape up?
Well, what the fuck? Platts comes right out and says that Russia has the option of cutting
its prices to ensure it undercuts LNG costs in order to keep its share of the European market!
"Russia clearly does have the option to undercut the US LNG price to ensure it keeps its
share of its key European markets and could flood the market with cheap gas, maximizing revenues
and cash flow at a time when producers worldwide are suffering from the impact of such low prices."
So, let me get this straight. All the attempts by the west, led as usual by Washington, to force
energy prices down and keep them low actually benefit Russia by putting the USA in an unacceptable
profit/loss loop so that it cannot afford to sell its LNG to Europe and still make money? That appears
to be pretty much how it shakes out.
"Russia, thanks to the bearish oil price environment and an enhanced export strategy from Gazprom,
increased its exports to Europe by 15% (through the Nord Stream, Yamal, and Brotherhood pipelines)
to 118 Bcm, taking back its place as Europe's largest gas supplier in the process."
Wait! I think I see a solution. All the USA needs to do is apply its global leverage to make energy
costs rise!
"But US LNG could face problems of its own – the current low prices are forcing ever growing
numbers of US producers into bankruptcy. According to a recent report by Haynes and Boone, 90
gas and oil producers in the US and Canada have filed for bankruptcy between January 2015 and
the start of August 2016."
Oh, hey; I just realized – if forcing energy prices back up were an option, how is that going
to hamstring an opponent who was already able to undercut you at the lower price, and still turn
a profit?
Platts closes out this dismal synopsis with the consolation prize that, while US LNG is less competitive
with pipeline gas given narrow Henry Hub-NBP spreads, it is coming to Europe regardless. More of
that old American can-do. It will have to be, though, on what is described as a short-run marginal
cost basis. Would you feel comfortable with that forecast if you were carrying, say, $20 Billion
in debt?
And it's not just Platts who sounds a warning; Forbes has a similar, if slightly more mocking
outlook of the situation .
"Most of this is just political posturing and noise. The U.S. is not now and nor will it be
in the near future a key resource for Europe's energy needs According to EIAs Annual Energy Outlook,
published in April, the United States remains a net importer of fuels through 2040 in a low oil
price scenario. In a high oil and gas price scenario, the United States becomes a net exporter
of liquid fuels due to increased production by 2021. A lot can happen in seven years. By then,
Exxon will likely be back to its deal with Rosneft in Russia's Arctic Circle."
As well, Forbes adds the interesting perspective that foreign sales of American gas will be a
tough sell domestically if the pressure remains on the American leadership to achieve greater energy
self-sufficiency and reduced dependence on foreign sources. This situation can only be exacerbated
by a rise in anti-American sentiment around the world, and is likely to spike if energy prices rise.
But if they stay low, American LNG exports won't make any money. If they go up, pipeline gas will
undercut LNG prices and make it noncompetitive. Jeez, we just seem to be going around in circles.
Say, did you notice that little item in there, in which the author mentions the only possible way
the USA could compete with Russia in the natural gas market in Europe would be if it had national
rights to substantial supplies of gas abroad? Did that give your memory a little tickle, and make
you think of
Burisma Holdings, and Hunter Biden ?
The Brookings Institute, for God's sake,
warned that US LNG could not compete price-wise before the first LNG cargo ever left the USA.
Given its sympathies, it seems probable it was intended as a sobering restraint meant to keep the
United States from doing something stupid that might expose it to failure and even ruin; it is much
less likely to have been an endorsement of Russia's global business practices.
As so often happens, an unhealthy fixation on taking down a largely imagined enemy results in
increased risk-taking and a totally unrealistic appraisal of the likelihood of success – it becomes
worth doing simply to be doing something. The costs in this instance have included the alienation
and infuriating of Germany, the European Union's anchor economy, and angry murmurs from the Gulf
States that Washington negotiated production cuts simply to make its own product more competitive.
All for nothing, as it happens, because a nation with surplus swing production can always undercut
your price, and the nation with the world's lowest production costs should be last on your list of
"People I Want To Start A Price War With".
If you were opposed to official Washington's swaggering, bullying modus operandi , this
whole unfolding of events probably seems pretty delicious to you. But I've saved the most delicious
for last – Trump dares not make any effort to overrule the Senate vote, or get it reframed, because
of the successful media campaign to portray him as Putin's secret agent. Any effort to mollify Germany's
fury will be seized upon by the reality-challenged Democrats as an opportunity to further discredit
the Trump government, by making it appear to be negotiating in Russia's behalf.
One should never underestimate peoples` willingness to spend vast sums of money on worthless projects.
Witness the Canadian government's recent announcement of its plans to increase defense spending
by 70%.
When the dust finally settles, the Chinese will end up on top.
I think you're probably right about that. And if it turns out to be the case, British Columbia
will turn out to be the most progressive province in Canada, with its large numbers of Chinese
citizens and its Chines-language television stations. At bottom I am mostly a peaceful guy and
I don't really care very much who rules the world so long as it doesn't impact my lifestyle.
Once I would have argued strongly for American global leadership, based on a perception that
it offered the best chance for prosperity and enlightenment for everyone, but events since have
changed my view. Now I think other countries should be left alone in terms of interference, helped
where you can lend a hand, and global leadership is an unrealistic aspiration for any country
led by humans, since human nature tends to favour self-interest.
I don't know what the Liberals think they are doing, pushing what is essentially an unachievable
Conservative platform where defense is concerned. To what end? So we can interfere more effectively
on the USA's behalf? We have a good military. There's nothing wrong with keeping it up to date
and well-supplied and trained. But a 70% increase is impractical and is only likely to incur the
wrath of the non-military portion of the electorate, since the money has to come from somewhere.
I hadn't been aware of the connection between the sanctions and LNG, so thanks for pointing that
out.
Meanwhile, I read this:
'Germany and Austria on Thursday sharply criticized the U.S. Senate's plan to add sanctions
on Russia, describing it as an illegal attempt to boost U.S. gas exports and interfere in Europe's
energy market. [ ]
"We cannot accept a threat of extraterritorial sanctions, illegal under international law,
against European companies that participate in developing European energy supplies," [German
Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel and Austrian Chancellor Christian Kern said in a joint statement].
"Europe's energy supply is Europe's business, not that of the United States of America."'
After all, many other European leaders have publicly clamored for U.S. LNG imports as a
way to ease their dependence on Gazprom.
Who? The Baltics? Thanks for that. It's mostly a rehash of the other article, but it does include
some interesting insights, and it has a little more credibility than ZeroHedge, although there's
little in that with which I can find fault and its breaking news is usually accurate.
That the EU's energy policies are completely outside the USA's remit is correct, but it's a
surprise to hear someone of Gabriel's stature actually say it. It seems the USA has decided that
forcing Germany to abandon its support for the project is worth trying. That will turn out to
be a disastrous mistake, because the business community in Germany contains some of America's
staunchest supporters, while anti-Americanism among the German population – especially its youth
– is a growing problem. This will do nothing to help it, and it most certainly is not going to
persuade Germany to order American LNG.
I urge you to digest the Platts Report in detail, at your leisure – it's illuminating, and
I'm sure you will note that Russia's LNG export capability is already far, far ahead of the USA's.
So even if pipeline gas proved only competitive with LNG, why would anyone depend on supplies
which have to cross the ocean rather than supplies that can come from Kaliningrad?
She's funny: "How can you shout about the transition to renewable, environmentally safe energy
and at the same time make plans to increase gas flows into Europe?"
Uhh, Zhenichka, Russia is part of Europe, you can shout about it if you are increasing your
energy dependence on both, and if one pipeline is simply replacing another. That's how. That was
easy.
"Five European companies are involved but for some mysterious reason, 100% of the shares belong
to Gazprom."
Because GazProm is paying $$$ for it. Zhenichka, in a Capitalist Society, those who pay for
the shares, get the shares. Did I solve that mystery for you?
"Five European companies are involved but for some mysterious reason, 100% of the shares
belong to Gazprom."
There is nothing mysterious about it; in fact, it is typical Guardian dishonesty. The Nord
Stream II Project originally included minority shareholders
as shown here . Then Poland introduced its anti-monopoly action and announced the pipeline
could not be built. The partners dropped out, and left Gazprom to take the heat alone. When Poland
failed in its bid to stop the project and it became clear the EU was all out of arrows – having
never had a defensible legal basis – the partners hopped back on, but as investors only. I daresay
they stand to make a good return on their investment even without being shareholders. Meanwhile,
American meddling is only likely to make Europeans grateful attempts to stop the pipeline failed.
I would not like to see their reaction if it ever became clear their governments had committed
them to paying higher gas prices just to spite Russia, particularly in view of the USA's limited
ability to provide reliable and constant supply.
The Guardian is just being a good American footsoldier, and trying to throw mud in the works
for Uncle Sam.
Beautiful article, and great timing Mark! I love it. This was one of the dumbest bills ever passed.
It aimed at Russia, but it's just a take down of Germany. Reminds me of a recent Russian joke:
Obama: "America is mighty! Because of us, Russia's Economy is in ruins!"
Poroshenko: "not Russia's, sir. Ukraine's."
Obama: "Who gives a shit! It's in ruins!"
Also, here's what I'm wondering – can't Russia deliver it by truck or train? Won't that still
be less expensive than delivering it by ship?
Nordstream 2 is primarily a gas pipeline project under the Baltic Sea.
The main attraction of Nordstream 2 is it avoids transit through countries where tolls and
transit fees would have to be paid, whether through land-based pipes, truck or train, and all
these expenses added to the eventual cost that would be paid by the end consumer (ie the general
public). Plus trucks and trains can be held up or subjected to attacks and gas in land-based pipelines
can be siphoned off and diverted as was being done when the gas was passing through Ukraine originally.
No such problems if the gas were being delivered through underwater pipelines though we can be
sure that Swedish naval submarines (how many of those are there – one?) will be watching them
very closely for phantom Russian subs.
Ah, I thought UCGS' original comment referred to your original post, not the one you sent at 5:58
pm yesterday.
Wouldn't transporting LNG by underground pipeline under its own pressure be a less risky and
cheaper option than sending it by train? Trains carrying LNG can only carry so much and have to
be specially adapted to transporting it. Plus they share rail networks with other trains so there
are issues like how saturated the rail networks supporting LNG rail traffic, other cargo traffic
and passenger traffic become, and the pressure this puts on drivers and maintenance of railway
tracks, and building more rail lines in and through areas where pipelines could be laid down instead.
It's possible; I'm afraid I don't know enough about it. It seems that when they speak of an LNG
'train', it refers to the liquefaction
and purification facility , not a transport vehicle. In order to transport LNG it must be
liquefied, which implies freezing it to below -161C. Naturally it must be maintained at a temperature
which guarantees its stability as a liquid, until it is appropriate to return it to its gaseous
form for use in that form. That's the purpose of the huge
container vessels on an LNG tanker – you have to get it cold and then keep it cold.
I just don't know how you would do that in a pipeline. And obviously it would be wildly impractical
for a train, I don't know what the hell I thought I was talking about. It could be done, but why?
You'd need a hundred miles of teeny little flatcar-sized container vessels to equal what you can
transport in an LNG carrier.
Your pipeline would have to originate at an LNG 'train' and terminate at another, somewhere
else, so that the liquefaction/gasification process could be practically carried out, much as
current NG pipelines use pumping stations. But you would also have to keep the LNG below -160C
all the time it was in the pipeline. That's probably physically possible, too, if expense is no
consideration, but it seems terribly impractical when NG already goes by pipeline safely at a
fraction of what it would cost to transport LNG the same way.
Ah, I see now of course you wouldn't need to transport NG in liquid form under 160C through
pipelines. To transport it by ship or train though, it must be in liquefied form, presumably because
as a liquid NG can be measured and quantified, and then exporters can work out how much they can
charge for producing and transporting LNG. Not to mention of course that transporting commodities
in gaseous form by train and ship is harder and riskier than transporting them as liquids.
As well, it needs to be liquefied in order to be compressed, to
get the volumes
you are looking for . One of those container vessels full of uncompressed NG wouldn't be much
more than a good-sized European town would need for its barbecues.
LNG achieves a higher reduction in volume than compressed natural gas (CNG) so that the
(volumetric) energy density of LNG is 2.4 times greater than that of CNG or 60 percent that of
diesel fuel. This makes LNG cost efficient to transport over long distances where pipelines do
not exist. Specially designed cryogenic sea vessels (LNG carriers) or cryogenic road tankers are
used for its transport. LNG is principally used for transporting natural gas to markets, where
it is regasified and distributed as pipeline natural gas.
That does highlight, as well, that if you can use road tankers there really is no reason you
could not use trains. But anywhere it is practical to use trains or road transport, you would
be asking yourself, "why can't I use a pipeline here?"
The US's intervention is even more pathetic than it seems.
This is not a stand alone anti-Russia bill which would signal strength from the US, but an
adjunct to the anti-I-ran sanctions bill that continues to seek to punish I-ran in the vague hope
that it will pull the plug on the cast-iron nuclear deal it has signed with international partners.
The irony there is that I-ran Air is recapitalizing with both Airbus & Boeing (also ATR),
100 odd a piece, not to mention other significant investment opportunities for western firms.
They're quite the Gordian Tits!
Not only is there the potential of the Levianthan gas field off Cyprus/Israel/whatever, brutal
dictator Azeri gas will also be arriving in (larger, but not gigantic) quantities. Not to mention
that significant buyers of LNG, like the UK, have it come straight from Qatar. Is the US prepared
to sell LNG at a discount compared to Qatar that has strategic agreements and its own fundamental
interests to be protected by the Western (European) states as well?
So if this plan seems to damage not only the USA's allies but the USA itself, then what is
its purpose? Stick it to Trump. Mire any plans to re-balance relations with Russia almost at
any cost . It's a no brainer for Democrats as they neither hold a majority in the House or
the Senate, and there seem to be enough dog whistle Republicans willing to go along with it, including
those with mental problems like John 'Insane' McCaine. Ukraine is almost peripheral except as
a convenient tool. It think the US accepts they've screwed the pooch on the Ukraine so its only
value is to be used as a festering sore on Russia's frontier. Kiev mops up the completely free
public political support whilst it is being kicked in the bollox by the same people.
"Try to put aside, for the moment, the insufferable arrogance of American meddling in Europe's
energy market, with a view to restricting its choice while – laughably – pretending it is broadening
European energy options."
"Invisible Hand of the Market" [nod, nod].
"And a big part of that was the assumption that Russia would help to finance Ukraine's transition
to a powerful western fulcrum "
At first I read it as "western furuncle". That's what it became in the end.
First Rule of the Ukraine: "Every Peremoga turns into Zrada".Want to hear about yet another
zrada ? Russia (okay – Mikhail Friedman) bought a German firm Rheinisch-Westfälisches Elektrizitätswerk
(RWE) for $5.72 blns in 2015
. Why it's important? Well, because this firm carries out the reverse gas transition to the
Ukraine, thus ensuring its [ha-ha, sorry, sorry!] "Energy Independence" which was officially
proclaimed in the same 2015 A.D.
"No LNG carriers are currently registered under the US flag, and if the USA plans to be
a serious exporter it is going to need about 100 new LNG carriers over the next 30 years, something
which is frankly not practically achievable considering it takes about 2 years to build one, at
a cost of about $200 Million apiece". Of course, miracles can be made to happen if you pour enough
money into them.
And usual stuff, said by the people who believe that the Free Market will "Get the Things Straight"
without governmental meddling. Like, Musk will invent cheap multi-use drone-rackets which will
deliver gas to the clients across the Ocean. Why not?! They believe in all kinds of stupid stuff
already!
The article is fresh breeze of actual facts and hard data – not your usual hurr-durring opinion
pieces, passed as "analytics" by the esteemed think-tankers.
Thanks very much, NS!! I read a book some time ago which used newspaper and wire reports of the
various times to thoroughly debunk most of the incidents of ships and aircraft 'disappearing without
a trace' in the Bermuda Triangle. In incidents which resulted in total losses of the crew, the
author also offered reasonable explanations for what likely happened. I have sailed through it
many times myself and observed nothing untoward, although that does not mean much considering
the amount of marine traffic which routinely does the same without incident.
Owners of LNG Carriers likewise play up how safe they are, and to the best of my knowledge
there has never been a serious accident. However, on the scale of supply the USA is suggesting
it wishes to achieve for itself, there could be no days taken off for bad weather, and carriers
would have to transit the North Atlantic in winter – which is not generally a fun place to be.
Most of my concern with the shipped method is its inherent unreliability compared with pipeline
gas.
"But Gazprom could block a lot of those cargoes by stepping up export volumes and selling them
at prices below what can be achieved by U.S. LNG. Gazprom can export pipeline gas to Europe for
$3.50 per million Btu (MMBtu) while American LNG would need prices of $4 to $5/MMbtu. Currently,
Gazprom sells gas to Europe at a price of about $5.80/MMBtu on average, but could lower the price
to beat U.S. LNG"
I do not see how the USA could begin to economically prevail over the Russians in a
"gas' war..given the above numbers.
"Of course, viewed another way, the growing U.S. export capacity – the mere existence of a
competing source of supply – should push down the price that Gazprom is able to charge, a victory
for Europe and a blow to Gazprom. Without U.S. LNG, its proponents argue, Russia would not be
forced to accept lower prices. "It's the start of the price war between U.S. LNG and pipeline
gas," said Thierry Bros, an analyst at Société Générale, according to the WSJ."
Moreover doesn't keeping a lid (cap) on what the Russians can charge for Gazprom gas ipso facto
prevent the Americans from competitively pricing their LNG product..particularly in view of the
first quote????
Either I'm a little dense today,or the American strategy here makes no sense whasoever.!!!!
The latter – the American strategy makes no sense, and its proponents are so high on can-do that
you might have to shoot them to get them down. The USA cannot supply either the volume or the
consistency of supply to snatch the gas market from Russia, and that must be evident to all but
the crazy. As usual, Washington just hopes to get itself into the mix so it will have a seat at
the table, because it cannot bear being left out of things and has long been of the opinion that
America makes its own reality. Once again, if America owned or controlled substantial gas reserves
on the continent and it were practical for the USA to run its own pipeline to Europe, it might
be in with a chance if it had sufficient supply, and it is attempts to do that that we should
be watching out for. There was speculation much earlier that control of substantial gas holdings
was exactly what Burisma Holdings and Hunter Biden were up to in Ukraine, but gas extraction is
not practical there right now and id assay results had been positive you can bet there would be
a lot more American pressure to bring the war to a close.
On that note, I noticed over at Sputnik yesterday that Turchynov was pressuring Poroshenko
to bag the ATO and turn it into a full-press military operation, which is just what recent reports
said they did not dare to do in case the Ukrainian Army loses. The same report said Poroshenko
is about to sign legislation which orders by decree that Donbas resume its place as part of Ukraine.
If they say "Pound sand up your ass" as we know they will, Poroshenko may have little alternative
to throwing everything he has at them. Of course, I can't find it now; I knew I should have drawn
attention to it when I saw it.
I assume the (shipped) American LNG would have to be regasified at a european import terminal.
Consulting page six at the link, is it not problematic to then transport the regasified lng product
to its (receiving) nation destination. The whole scheme smacks of going around the well to get
an expensive cup of water!!!!!
http://documents.jdsupra.com/c6c4403f-ad9f-4740-b184-9fc1f88550ab.pdf
The liquid LNG can only be unloaded at an LNG terminal, and so far as I am aware a feature of
them is that they are connected to a gas hub, so that they can regasify the product directly into
the system.
What I do not understand is why Russians can't increase natural gas consumption dramatically and
need to export that much: is it so difficult to build several large chemical plants, increase
usage in city transport as less polluting fuel to 100%, promote dual fuel private cars, etc.
In this case they can export saved oil instead using regular tankers which is much simpler
then LNG.
I think the current suppression of oil prices by Wall Street (and the new US method of production
using along with production of shale oil a parallel production stream of junk bonds which will
never be repaid) can't last forever. "Break even" oil price for most shale wells is probably over
$60 per barrel. If not $80.
Also without capital investment the annual decline of conventional fields is around 5% a year
(most of those fields are really old). Which means approximately 5 million barrels per day are
taken off the market automatically each year (no OPEC action is needed), if zero capital investment
are done.
Of course Sechin is IMHO a corrupt player here, who cares mostly about his own pocketbook (and
stupidly increased investment just before the crash, which later required bailout of the company
by the government), but still Russian government has the means to enforce its will even on rogue
players.
MOSCOW - The American and European sanctions against the Russian
oil industry
have dashed, at least for now, the Western oil majors' ambitions to
drill in the Arctic Ocean.
But drilling will continue all the same, Russian government and state oil company
officials have been taking pains to point out, ever since
the sanctions
took effect over the summer.
"We will do it on our own," Igor I. Sechin, the president of Russia's
state-controlled oil company, Rosneft, told journalists in October. "We'll continue
drilling here next year and the years after that."
Rather than throw in the towel in the face of Western sanctions intended to halt
Russia's Arctic oil ambitions by stopping technology transfers, the Russians have
responded with plans to "Russify" the technology to be deployed in the world's
largest effort to date to extract oil from the thawing Arctic Ocean.
The solution to tapping the Arctic, Yevgeny Primakov, a former prime minister, told a
group of high officials in October, "is found first of all in our own industrial
base."
A major hurdle is already cleared: An Exxon-led joint venture discovered oil in the
Russian sector of the Arctic Ocean in September, proving the region holds
commercially viable volumes of oil.
Rosneft is already laying plans to drill without Western oil major cooperation. Along
with Exxon, Eni of Italy and Statoil of Norway had joint ventures to work with
Rosneft in the Kara, Laptev, and Chukchi seas above Russia.
After the September sanctions
suspended those deals
, Rosneft negotiated to rent from Gazprom four Russian
ice-class drilling rigs for next season's exploration work, should Exxon still be
sanction-barred from doing the work next summer.
Rosneft has also booked six rigs from North Atlantic Drilling, a unit of Seadrill of
Norway, under contracts signed in July and grandfathered in under the sanctions.
The Russians are in early talks with the Chinese over sailing rigs from the South
China Sea to the Arctic Ocean, industry executives say.
This spring as the threat of sanctions loomed, Rosneft bought the Russian and
Venezuelan well-drilling business of Weatherford, adding to its in-house
capabilities.
A further "Russification" of the industry seems inevitable. In October, President
Vladimir V. Putin approved the creation of a state-owned oil services company, RBC, a
Russian business newspaper reported. The intention is to duplicate, as well as
possible, the services purveyed now by Halliburton, Baker Hughes and Schlumberger.
Certainly, some in the oil industry see the Russian official response as bluff,
asserting Rosneft has neither the skills nor the capital to drill for oil in its 42
offshore licenses blocks. Under the joint ventures, the Western companies financed
and managed the exploration work.
The three companies, Exxon, Eni and Statoil, were to invest $20 billion in
exploration, and the company has been mute on how it will replace that. Just this
summer, Exxon paid $700 million to drill the Universitetskaya-1 well in the Kara Sea.
Russia, meanwhile, does not even manufacture subsea hardware like well heads.
Rosneft's finances are restricted to 30-day loans under sanctions.
Yet the company and the Russian industry are already tooling up for just such an
effort.
The sheer uncertainty of sanctions is pushing the Russian industry to turn inward.
Russian companies, even those who prefer to work with U.S. oilfield equipment or
services providers because the cost or quality is better, can never know when new
sanctions might scuttle a deal.
DealBook
DealBook delivers the news driving the markets and the
conversation. Delivered weekday mornings and afternoons.
Thank you for subscribing.
An error has occurred. Please try again
later.
You are already subscribed to this email.
"The client looks at you and says 'I like you, I like your product, but you are not
dependable,' " Alexis Rodzianko, the director of the American Chamber of Commerce in
Russia said in an interview.
Russia now has a "hierarchy of procurement" placing domestic and Asian companies
first, U.S. companies last.
"The consensus in Russia is this is not a one-off, short-term problem," Ildar
Davletshin, an oil analyst at Renaissance Capital in Moscow, said in an interview, of
the Russian effort to pivot to domestic and Asian suppliers.
"Nobody will just sit and wait" for sanctions to be lifted, he said.
Whether Russian technology can fill the gap left by Western oil majors as the country
prepares for the extraordinary engineering challenge of oil drilling under the Arctic
ice remains an unsettled question within the industry.
Russia brings Soviet legacy technologies, including the world's only fleet of nuclear
icebreakers, awesome machines of immense power, with names like 50 Years of Victory
and Yamal, which sail year-round in the Arctic Ocean.
"Let's not underestimate them," said one oil company executive who visited Exxon's
West Alpha rig this summer, but could not speak publicly because of company policy.
Russians are no strangers to the north, and the cold. "They are determined to do it.
They might do it on their own."
The Russian intention to do just that became clear out on the Arctic Ocean at the end
of the short drilling window this summer.
Ice floes were already creeping down from the polar ice cap in tongues when the U.S.
government announced Sept. 12 that Exxon was to halt all assistance to Rosneft by
Sept. 26, in response to Russian military assistance to a rebel counteroffensive
against the Ukrainian Army in late August.
The Exxon crew stopped drilling, though the well was only about 75 percent complete.
In an early indication of the Russians' intentions to go it alone after sanctions,
Rosneft executives told Exxon they would not allow the
West Alpha rig
to leave Russian waters without finishing the well, according to
the oil company executive familiar with events on the platform in September.
If Exxon withdrew American engineers, Rosneft would fly out a Russian replacement
crew, putting the localization plan into immediate action, the executive said.
Rosneft's press service contested this characterization of the company's position,
calling it a "fiction."
In the end, Exxon obtained an extension on its waiver to the sanction from the U.S.
Treasury Department, stretching the window for work with Rosneft in the Arctic until
Oct. 10.
The Arctic Ocean, Mr. Sechin said later that month in the interview with Bloomberg
News at the drilling site in the Kara Sea, is Russia's "Saudi Arabia" of oil, vast
and pivotal to Russia's national interests.
Rosneft's website estimates the Kara Sea's reservoirs hold about 87 billion barrels
of oil and the equivalent in
natural gas
, calling this more than the deposits of the Gulf of Mexico, the
Brazilian shelf or the offshore potential north of Alaska and Canada.
After a daylong pause on Sept. 12 to Sept. 13, the Russian brinkmanship worked: The
American crew continued drilling and about a week later, in mid-September, discovered
a vast oil deposit, holding about 750 million barrels of oil. Mr. Sechin thanked
Western partners for the find, and named the field Pobeda, or Victory.
MOSCOW - The Russian government announced Wednesday that it will sell nearly 20 percent of its
state
oil company,
Rosneft , to the Swiss commodity trading firm Glencore and the
sovereign wealth fund of Qatar.
The deal defies expectations that no investor would dare buy a share in the Russian asset, given
Western sanctions against the government of President Vladimir V. Putin.
But the emergence of foreign money suggests that investors are reassessing the sanctions after
the election of Donald J. Trump, who has advocated warming ties with authorities in Moscow and is
considering the chairman of Exxon Mobil, Rex W. Tillerson, as a candidate for secretary of state.
Mr. Tillerson criticized the sanctions as harmful for business after they halted an Exxon joint
venture with Rosneft to drill for oil in the Kara Sea, in
Russia 's sector of the Arctic Ocean.
The deal will bring Moscow $11.3 billion to help plug a widening budget deficit as Russia fights
two wars, in Syria and Ukraine, and has struggled to meet pension payments and public-sector payrolls.
The agreement came as a surprise twist in the privatization of Rosneft. With an end-of-the-year
deadline looming, no buyers had come forward for the 19.5 percent share in the world's largest publicly
traded oil company, as measured by production and reserves. The apparent lack of bidders was a pessimistic
sign for investor interest in Russia.
The Russian government had for most of the year planned to sell shares back to the majority state-owned
company itself, which would hardly have qualified as a genuine privatization.
The sanctions limit long-term lending and transfer of American technology for drilling offshore
and shale oil deposits.
The deal carries other risks as well. Both Glencore and the Qatari fund, the Qatar Investment
Authority, have extensive investments in emerging markets. The Qatar fund is also an investor in
Glencore.
The announced price valued Rosneft at $58 billion, slightly less than the company's stock market
value at the close of trading in Moscow on Wednesday, of just under $59 billion.
Both the market price of shares and the sale price for the 19.5 percent stake announced Wednesday
are a relative bargain, indicating the Russian government's eagerness to cut a deal to shore up its
finances.
Denmark's government is proposing amending legislation to allow it to ban pipeline projects
on the grounds of foreign and security policy, due to concerns raised by Russian efforts
to build a disputed gas pipeline through Danish waters.
"We want to have the possibility to say yes or no from a perspective of security
and foreign policy," the minister of energy and climate, Lars Christian Lilleholt, told
Reuters, adding that it was currently only possible to veto such projects on the grounds
of environmental concerns .
Denmark and Sweden earlier this year requested that the European Commission intervene
in Nord Stream 2 before the two states agree on permits for the pipeline to pass through
their waters. EU diplomats said there was little scope for either nation to block the plan.
The current regulatory framework does not allow Denmark to say "no" to the construction
of transit pipelines in territorial waters on the basis of foreign policy considerations,
the ministry said in a statement .
EU sources have said the Commission, sensing that there may ultimately be no legal basis
to block approval of Nord Stream 2, is delaying it as long as possible .
Denmark's right-wing minority government would now negotiate with other parties to
win support for the proposal.
####
' sensing that there may ultimately be no legal basis to block approval..' – Well that's
quite a polishing of the EU turd when we
know
that the EU has no legal way to block
the pipeline, sic the opinion of the EU's own Legal Service. How delicate the EU stuffed
suits are that they cannot just admit it outright. Oh, but that would be a propaganda victory
for Russia. They should be grateful because if they had blocked it, it would have been a
very clear message that the EU's
Rule of Law
which it proudly pronounces around the
world is barely a fig leaf that is dropped as the slightest political pressure. It's a joke
already, but with a project as big as . as it has done with much political decisions
While they're creating magic out of whole cloth, why not a law that anyone who discovers
significant gas deposits anywhere must immediately hand them over to the EU for their exclusive
use and disbursement? Or a law that orders massive new gas deposits be discovered in Denmark?
I suspect that the government is having a slow news day and as there is absolutely no consequence
to Russophobia as it is essentially a free gift that keeps on giving when and wherever is
needed, i.e. to distract from domestic politics.
The Whole G7 'How can we f/k up Russia further' conveniently segues with the improvement
of Russia's economy and the continued failure of G7 sanctions against Russia. I'm not really
sure what else they can do without shooting themselves in the foot.
There's already been some whinging that the West's actions have only further driven it
in to China's arms, so WTF? I guess they have to come up with something that looks tough,
but isn't. After all, they will need to put out a key statement signed by them all. IN short,
'This spade is far too small. Let's go and get another one!'.
"... "Russia is reducing its oil production in stages, in accordance with the plans we worked out voluntarily with our production companies," ..."
"... "We anticipate complying with the figure outlined in the agreement by the end of April," ..."
"... "Undoubtedly, and this could be an even more important factor, is the situation on the market linked with the balance between supply and demand and the situation with regards to the development of the situation with oil reserves and oil product reserves in the OECD countries and the countries in the world as a whole," ..."
"... "And we will be following this closely; it will be important for us to know what's going to happen in April, the forecasts for May and June and the second half of next year," ..."
"... "Currently, we are producing about 17 percent of our total oil production in the Arctic. In 20 years, in accordance with our strategic plans, this share will increase to as much as 26 percent. But the figures for gas will be even more interesting to you. We currently produce 80 percent of our gas in the Arctic," ..."
"... "As far as energy independence is concerned I don't think this is anything new for the United States. It's unlikely that at any time it was ever US policy to increase its dependence on imported energy resources," ..."
"... "It's clear that we are all assessing the situation in a sober fashion, we understand that there will be a rise in the production of shale oil. Again I want to say that we need to look at the situation as a whole throughout the world," ..."
Moscow is fully complying with the deal to cap oil production, while accurately
evaluating longer-term structural developments in the market, according
to Russian Energy Minister Aleksandr Novak.
In March, the country's producers reduced output by 200,000 barrels per
day as the decrease in January and February was ahead of the original
plans, according to the minister.
'Largest
discovery' of oil off Scottish coast could raise chances of independence
"Russia is reducing its oil production in stages, in accordance
with the plans we worked out voluntarily with our production companies,"
Novak said in an interview with CNBC at the International Artic Forum
in Arkhangelsk on Thursday.
"We anticipate complying with the figure outlined in the agreement
by the end of April,"
he said, stressing that the reduction target
was 300,000 barrels per day.
According to Novak, overall supply and demand trends will be a major
reason for Russia to support renewing the agreement at the end of May.
"Undoubtedly, and this could be an even more important factor,
is the situation on the market linked with the balance between supply
and demand and the situation with regards to the development of the situation
with oil reserves and oil product reserves in the OECD countries and the
countries in the world as a whole,"
said the energy minister.
"And we will be following this closely; it will be important for
us to know what's going to happen in April, the forecasts for May and
June and the second half of next year,"
he stressed.
The minister has also pointed to the importance of the Arctic region
for Russia's energy strategy.
"Currently, we are producing about 17 percent of our total oil production
in the Arctic. In 20 years, in accordance with our strategic plans, this
share will increase to as much as 26 percent. But the figures for gas
will be even more interesting to you. We currently produce 80 percent
of our gas in the Arctic,"
he said, adding that new production was
ongoing on the Arctic shelf.
The minister's comments followed the recent
changes in US policy to increase the country's energy independence. There
has been a resurgence in the activity of US shale producers that could
lead to increased supply to the global market given a rebound in the oil
price.
"As far as energy independence is concerned I don't think this is
anything new for the United States. It's unlikely that at any time it
was ever US policy to increase its dependence on imported energy resources,"
he said.
At the same time, the boost in shale oil production may reach
up to 400,000 barrels a day this year, according to Novak.
"It's clear that we are all assessing the situation in a sober
fashion, we understand that there will be a rise in the production of
shale oil. Again I want to say that we need to look at the situation as
a whole throughout the world,"
the energy minister concluded.
Why target Russia? Is it because of an impending Seneca cliff in Saudi Arabia?
They were supposed to peak 10 years ago but water and nitrogen injections kept
them afloat. Now?
"I've gotten a couple emails from people who have asked me what I think the
"end game" is in regards to Russia. And, indeed, the government is going into
extra innings with this whole Russia vilification project. This is worse than
someone who has held on to a grudge for years. The government does that, too,
but they haven't done it over ideology (as with Cuba) for quite some time now.
What, then, is the motive?
The motive is perfectly clear: Oil. You see, Russia has already eclipsed
Saudi Arabia as the world's biggest oil producer. This means the big Saudi oil
fields are drying up. And the government knows that, but they can't tell us
this because it'll create a panic. One would think this would motivate the
United States to get cozier with Russia. However, what the United States
government fears is that if we do that, Russia will twig to the motive for it,
and realize it has the United States over a barrel. An oil barrel. At which
point the price goes up. Not to mention extracting concessions in the global
sphere of influence.
Thus, what the United States is playing at here is trying to install a
different "regime" in Russia. That being, one that Vladimir Putin does not
control or have any influence over. This is easier said than done and the
United States knows this. But the stakes are quite a bit higher than
controlling the dwindling oil supply in the Middle East. Russia is obviously in
control of most of the world's remaining oil reserves. The United States needs
a puppet regime in Russia to have access to that oil without paying the correct
market price for it.
At some point, this gambit will fail. Russia is not the Middle East. A war
with Russia cannot be won or cease-fired out of. Nor can a United States-backed
"regime change" succeed over there. This is not the 1990s Russia of Boris
Yeltsin. The United States, however, cannot come clean with the truth to the
American people. The reason is because if the American people knew the truth,
they'd never sleep nights anymore. The truth is this: Our entire economic
system is based on petroleum and low-cost petroleum at that. But the actual
nightmare is that our entire agricultural system is based on cheap oil."
Saudi has had water injection for much longer than ten years on pretty well
all it's fields and I don't think they are using nitrogen injection
anywhere, there may be some small CO2 EOR projects though. Their production
has been maintained by developing three old, heavy oil fields that were
mostly dormant (Manifa, Khurais and Shaybah), by using a lot of in-fill
drilling and intelligent wells (where water breakthrough can be controlled)
on maturing fields and by extensively redeveloping offshore fields with new
wellhead platforms and adding artificial lift.
I don't think their fields are anywhere near drying up; they may be
hitting some limits in surface facilities – probably to do with water
injection or treatment of produced water which means they have to
continually choke back so as not to damage the reservoirs.
"... US and EU sanctions only affect Russian offshore projects in the Arctic and development of Russia's tight oil. If sanctions are lifted, projects with foreign participation in these two areas will be able to produce meaningful quantities of oil not before 2025. But these volumes will not be sufficient to flood the market. ..."
"... Russia is participating in OPEC-non-OPEC supply cuts and certainly is not interested in flooding the market and exerting a downward pressure on prices. ..."
"... The only Russia's offshore Arctic project is Prirazlomnoye field developed by Gazpromneft without foreign participation (already producing oil). ..."
"... In general, even if there were no sanctions, Arctic projects would be developed relatively slowly, due to high costs and environmental issues. Russia's long-term energy program anticipates more or less meaningful volumes of oil production in the Arctic offshore only in the 2030s. ..."
"... Everything in that stuff you wrote is baloney. Russia's Black Sea exports go through Novorossysk and Tuapse. There isn't an oil pipeline going to Crimea. Furthermore, putting an oil loading port in Crimea is nutty (because the oil comes from the East and it makes much more sense to load as far to the East as possible). There used to be some oil loaded in Odessa, but that was never a big deal. ..."
"... Regarding the Exxon deal, that's also baloney. But I don't feel like trying to explain the basics to somebody who picks up information from Facebook. ..."
"... From all that I've read, I would conclude that a "flood of oil" out of Russia is about as likely as a "flood of new fracked oil from shales in the United States, not yet drilled." That is, it's rather low on the probability meter. ..."
"... Why target Russia? Is it because of an impending Seneca cliff in Saudi Arabia? They were supposed to peak 10 years ago but water and nitrogen injections kept them afloat. Now? ..."
"... Thus, what the United States is playing at here is trying to install a different "regime" in Russia. That being, one that Vladimir Putin does not control or have any influence over. This is easier said than done and the United States knows this. But the stakes are quite a bit higher than controlling the dwindling oil supply in the Middle East. Russia is obviously in control of most of the world's remaining oil reserves. The United States needs a puppet regime in Russia to have access to that oil without paying the correct market price for it. ..."
"... At some point, this gambit will fail. Russia is not the Middle East. A war with Russia cannot be won or cease-fired out of. Nor can a United States-backed "regime change" succeed over there. This is not the 1990s Russia of Boris Yeltsin. The United States, however, cannot come clean with the truth to the American people. The reason is because if the American people knew the truth, they'd never sleep nights anymore. The truth is this: Our entire economic system is based on petroleum and low-cost petroleum at that. But the actual nightmare is that our entire agricultural system is based on cheap oil." ..."
"Exxon Mobil, under Rex Tillerson, brokered a deal with Russia in 2013 to lease over 60 million
acres of Russian land to pump oil out of (which is five times as much land as they lease in the
United States), but all that Russian oil would go through pipelines in the Ukraine, who heavily
tax the proceeds, and Ukraine was applying for admission into NATO at the time.
Putin subsequently invaded Ukraine in 2014, secured the routes to export the oil tax-free by
sea, and took control of the port where their Black Sea Naval Fleet is based, by taking the Crimean
peninsula from Ukraine by force. This was Hitler style imperialism that broke every international
law in the free world.
After Obama sanctioned Russia for the invasion, Exxon Mobil could only pump oil from approximately
3 of those 60+ million acres. But now Rex Tillerson is soon to be our Secretary of State, and
as of today, there's information circulating that Donald Trump will likely unilaterally remove
all sanctions against Russia in the coming days or weeks.
The Russian government's oil company, Rosneft, will make half a trillion (500 Billion) dollars
from that much untapped oil, all pumped tax-free through Crimea, stolen from Ukraine, now owned
by Russia. Putin may have subverted our government just for this deal to go through."
______
Now, a flood of oil on the market from Russia would likely keep US oil prices down, thus hurting
US drillers right?
If one is conspiracy-minded, could that be part of the deal, too? Russia uses low oil prices
to take down US oil production, and then tries assert itself as one of the countries left standing.
In about 1780, Catherine the Great and the Ottoman Empire agreed that the Crimea was a part of
Russia. [Yes, there was conflict for years prior (as with any other piece of land in the world).]
In 1954, in honor of the 300th Anniversary of the Republic of Ukraine being a part of Russia,
Nikita Krushchev "gave" the governance of the Crimea to the Republic of Ukraine. It was not constitutional
under the Russian constitution. The UN said nothing about it, nor any other international law
body. Krushchev later trumped up an approval without even a quorum.
So the Republic of Ukraine seceded from Russia and took the Crimea with it. In the US, when
states (republics) seceded [having been states for much less than 100 years, let alone over 300
years] the rest of the states killed as many people as they could until they "agreed to rejoin
the union." People might not like it, but the vast majority of people living in the Crimea had
ties to mother Russia, and they voted to go back to being governed by Russia. So, Putin accepted.
And please, let's not get into an argument about the fairness of elections, unless your candidate
wins.
So, what would we do if Obama gave South Carolina to Florida, and then Florida seceded. I guess
that the rest of the states would just say "shucks, we lost South Carolina too." Especially if
South Carolina had the only warm water port in the US [the Crimea has the only warm water port
in Russia]. The rest of the ports are in the North Sea, etc. And, yes, that is a critical military
point.
"This was Hitler style imperialism that broke every international law in the free world." That
is a pathetic joke! Okay – let's let the US South secede again, since the Cival War broke every
international law in the free world and was exactly the same as Hitler's imperialism.
Just one clarification: the ports in Crimea are not the only warm water ports in Russia.
Russia has several other ports in the Black Sea and Azov Sea.
Other ports are in the Baltic Sea, Arctic seas and the Pacific; not in the North Sea
Perhaps I am wrong, but are those other ports large enough and deep enough for military use [which
I failed to state clearly]? I beleive that Russia still operated their huge military port in the
Crimea even after the Ukraine seceded and prior to Russia taking back the Crimea.
Sevastopol, the largest port in Crimea, was founded by Catherine the Great as Russia's main military
port in the Black Sea.
It had special status when Crimea was part of the Soviet Ukraine, and also when Ukraine became
independent. Russia had a long-term arrangement with Ukraine for using Sevastopol.
Russia also has a large military port in Novorossiisk (Russian part of Caucasus); but you are
right, Sevastopol is deeper, bigger and more convenient.
Rurik set up rule in Novgorod, giving more provincial towns to his brothers. There is some
ambiguity even in the Primary Chronicle about the specifics of the story, "hence their paradoxical
statement 'the people of Novgorod are of Varangian stock, for formerly they were Slovenes.'" However,
archaeological evidence such as "Frankish swords, a sword chape and a tortoiseshell brooch" in
the area suggest that there was, in fact, a Scandinavian population during the tenth century at
the latest.[3] The "Rurikid Dynasty DNA Project" of FamilyTreeDNA commercial genetic genealogy
company reports that Y-DNA testing of the descendants of Rurikids suggests their non-Slavic origin.
Kiev was the Capital of Russia when Moscow was still a hunting camp
It's your choice to use Facebook as the main source of information on the oil and gas industry,
but please don't repost this BS on the oil-dedicated thread.
Exxon Mobil didn't lease any land in Russia. It is the operator of the Sakhalin-1 project in
Russia' Far East (very far from Ukraine); and oil produced from this project is exported by sea
(Pacific ocean).
Exxon's JV with Rosneft has also found an oil field in Kara Sea (Russian Arctic), but this
project was suspended due to the sanctions.
In the past Russia was exporting a small part of its oil by the "Druzhba" ("Friendship") pipeline
through Ukraine and was paying normal transporation fee, not taxes.
Now all Russian oil is exported via Russian oil terminals near Novorossiisk (Black Sea) and
Ust-Luga and Primorsk (on the Baltic Sea). New transporation routes include East-Siberia – Pacific
Ocean (ESPO) oil pipeline linking Russian oil fields in Siberia with the ports on Pacific Ocean
and with China's Daking; as well as oil terminals in the Arctic (Varandey).
If US sanctions on Russia are lifted, Rosneft and Exxon will be able to develop their joint
project in the Artcic, but oil found there certainly is not worth "half a trillion (500 Billion)
dollars', and cannot seriously change the global supply-demand balance.
clueless gave you a good answer on Crimea
BTW, 1) there is no oil terminal in Crimea;
2) Russian oil is taxed in Russia
"It's your choice to use Facebook as the main source of information on the oil and gas industry,
but please don't repost this BS on the oil-dedicated thread."
I never use Facebook as a source of information on the oil and gas industry. The topic never
comes up among my Facebook friends or my news sources on Facebook. When I want gas and oil info,
I use Google to look at legitimate news sources from industry observers.
I just wanted some people's thoughts on that. Your reaction actually tells me a lot about how
you think about it.
We've had quite a few discussions here about how politics, both domestic and international,
shapes oil production, so I was just inquiring about any insight. I'm rather surprised that you
are telling me not to even post a question on the subject. Touchy, maybe?
The relationship between Trump and Russia has triggered some questions, not just among Democrats,
but also the GOP. And some people are wondering if there is some tie in about oil.
"some people are wondering if there is some tie in about oil."
The only "tie in" is Exxon's frozen investments in the Pobeda (Victory) field in the Kara Sea.
But that's no secret; you can find information on this project on Exxon's and Rosneft's websites
and in international business media.
The Sakhalin-1 project is not covered by the sanctions and is being successfully developed.
"Will a flood of Russian oil affect US oil prices?"
US and EU sanctions only affect Russian offshore projects in the Arctic and development of
Russia's tight oil. If sanctions are lifted, projects with foreign participation in these two
areas will be able to produce meaningful quantities of oil not before 2025. But these volumes
will not be sufficient to flood the market.
Russia is participating in OPEC-non-OPEC supply cuts and certainly is not interested in flooding
the market and exerting a downward pressure on prices.
I think Exxon could re-enter the project if the sanctions are lifted. If sanctions are not lifted
for several years, Rosneft will likely develop this field independently, but it would take more
time as Rosneft lacks experience in offshore projects.
The only Russia's offshore Arctic project is Prirazlomnoye field developed by Gazpromneft without
foreign participation (already producing oil).
In general, even if there were no sanctions, Arctic projects would be developed relatively
slowly, due to high costs and environmental issues. Russia's long-term energy program anticipates
more or less meaningful volumes of oil production in the Arctic offshore only in the 2030s.
"Exxon Mobil, under Rex Tillerson, brokered a deal with Russia in 2013 to lease over 60 million
acres of Russian land to pump oil out of (which is five times as much land as they lease in the
United States), but all that Russian oil would go through pipelines in the Ukraine"
Almost all pipelines through Ukraine are nat gas. Not oil. There is some minor oil flow. "All"
is just profoundly absurd.
Russia's oil output is going to Asia and northern Europe via Transneft lines to Poland and
Belarus. Not through Ukraine. Haven't looked for where those Exxon leases are, but I'm pretty
sure that's the Rosneft joint venture up around the Arctic.
Nowhere near Ukraine. This is all just completely wrong.
FedBook, er I mean Facebook, is a ghetto of sentimentality. I suggest deleting from it. I joined
Facebook once for a very short time and the only thing I learnt from it was that most of my friends
are idiots.
Everything in that stuff you wrote is baloney. Russia's Black Sea exports go through Novorossysk
and Tuapse. There isn't an oil pipeline going to Crimea. Furthermore, putting an oil loading port
in Crimea is nutty (because the oil comes from the East and it makes much more sense to load as
far to the East as possible). There used to be some oil loaded in Odessa, but that was never a
big deal.
Regarding the Exxon deal, that's also baloney. But I don't feel like trying to explain the
basics to somebody who picks up information from Facebook.
From all that I've read, I would conclude that a "flood of oil" out of Russia is about as likely
as a "flood of new fracked oil from shales in the United States, not yet drilled." That is, it's
rather low on the probability meter.
Again from what I've read (numerous sources) the Russian oil fields are being extracted just
about as heavily as they can be at this time, as are the Saudi fields, again relying on a number
of different sources.
Without getting too "tinfoil-hatty" I'd say most of the stories about the global oil markets
which promise big bursts of production from (heretofore undisclosed) big new oil fields are in
the category of "fake news." These stories serve to boost U.S. consumer confidence and U.S. automobile
and light truck sales, but contradict what people in the industry (such as Art Berman, Tadeusz
Patzek et al.) are saying about future supply.
Why target Russia? Is it because of an impending Seneca cliff in Saudi Arabia? They were supposed
to peak 10 years ago but water and nitrogen injections kept them afloat. Now?
"I've gotten a couple emails from people who have asked me what I think the "end game" is in
regards to Russia. And, indeed, the government is going into extra innings with this whole Russia
vilification project. This is worse than someone who has held on to a grudge for years. The government
does that, too, but they haven't done it over ideology (as with Cuba) for quite some time now.
What, then, is the motive?
The motive is perfectly clear: Oil. You see, Russia has already eclipsed Saudi Arabia as the
world's biggest oil producer. This means the big Saudi oil fields are drying up. And the government
knows that, but they can't tell us this because it'll create a panic. One would think this would
motivate the United States to get cozier with Russia. However, what the United States government
fears is that if we do that, Russia will twig to the motive for it, and realize it has the United
States over a barrel. An oil barrel. At which point the price goes up. Not to mention extracting
concessions in the global sphere of influence.
Thus, what the United States is playing at here is trying to install a different "regime" in
Russia. That being, one that Vladimir Putin does not control or have any influence over. This
is easier said than done and the United States knows this. But the stakes are quite a bit higher
than controlling the dwindling oil supply in the Middle East. Russia is obviously in control of
most of the world's remaining oil reserves. The United States needs a puppet regime in Russia
to have access to that oil without paying the correct market price for it.
At some point, this gambit will fail. Russia is not the Middle East. A war with Russia cannot
be won or cease-fired out of. Nor can a United States-backed "regime change" succeed over there.
This is not the 1990s Russia of Boris Yeltsin. The United States, however, cannot come clean with
the truth to the American people. The reason is because if the American people knew the truth,
they'd never sleep nights anymore. The truth is this: Our entire economic system is based on petroleum
and low-cost petroleum at that. But the actual nightmare is that our entire agricultural system
is based on cheap oil."
Saudi has had water injection for much longer than ten years on pretty well all it's fields and
I don't think they are using nitrogen injection anywhere, there may be some small CO2 EOR projects
though. Their production has been maintained by developing three old, heavy oil fields that were
mostly dormant (Manifa, Khurais and Shaybah), by using a lot of in-fill drilling and intelligent
wells (where water breakthrough can be controlled) on maturing fields and by extensively redeveloping
offshore fields with new wellhead platforms and adding artificial lift. I don't think their fields
are anywhere near drying up; they may be hitting some limits in surface facilities – probably
to do with water injection or treatment of produced water which means they have to continually
choke back so as not to damage the reservoirs.
According to preliminary estimate by CDU TEK, statistical unit of Russia's Energy Ministry, the country's
C+C production in December was 11.21 mb/d, flat month-on-month and close to post-Soviet record of
11.23 mb/d reached in October. Monthly-average output was more than 400 kb/d (3.7%) higher than in
December 2015.
In 2016 in total, output reached 10.96 mb/d, up from 10.71 million in 2015 (+2.3%)
and significantly higher that the energy ministry's initial guidance in the beginning of the year
(10.75 mb/d).
Russia has pledged to cut output by 300 kb/d from October reference levels, but the energy ministry
has said that the reduction would be gradual as production cannot be cut abruptly due to weather
and technological conditions.
According to the ministry's guidance, output will be reduced by 50-100 kb/d in January. By the end
of March it will be 200 kb/d less the October level; and the target of 10.947 mb/d will not be reached
until April or May.
It is interesting that actual monthly-average output in October was 11.230 mb/d (using 7.33 barrels/ton
conversion factor) rather than 11.247 mb/d stated by the Ministry as the reference level.
On my estimate based on ministry's guidance, production in 1st half of 2017 should average around
11.06 mb/d, 100 kb/d higher than the average 2016 level, although lower than in the last four months
of the year.
OPEC and 11 non-OPEC countries agreed to cut output for a six-months period starting January 1st
2017, and nothing was said if and how this deal will be prolonged for the second half of the year.
For 2017 as a whole, the Russian energy ministry is sticking to its oil production forecast of 548-551
million tons, or 11.01-11.07 mb/d, which implies higher output than the target of 10.947 mb/d in
2H2017. According to independent Russian experts, C+C production in 2017 may average 555 million
tons, or 11.15 mb/d. According to a quote in Reuters, the IEA also expects Russian oil production
to rise in the second half of the year: "While little information on the duration of production cuts
has been made public, provisionally we assume that output will rise gradually again during the second
half of 2017."
[
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-oil-output-idUSKBN14M0AZ
].
Important to note, the energy ministry said that Russia's crude oil exports (that had increased
by 4.8% in 2016), will rise again in 2017 despite output cuts.
Russian oil production: actual (2013-2016) and energy ministry's guidance for 1st half of 2017
(mb/d)
Presumably the guy who was buying it with no customer because he has tanks to put it in
and that's where it was to go. Maybe he's a collector of liquids and never intends to sell.
He just has to do without.
Based on the energy ministry's guidance, the actual reduction in Russia'a output will be
less than 300 kb/d, but it will still be a real cut, especially given that Russia was expected
to increase oil production by 200-300 kb/d in 2017.
Two other non-OPEC countries where
the cuts should be real are Oman and Kazakhstan, as they were also expected to increase
output.
In most other non-OPEC countries, including Mexico and Azerbaijan, output reduction will
simply match natural declines.
The table below is from the IEA OMR; the numbers include NGLs
"Presumably the guy who was buying it with no customer because he has tanks to put it in
and that's where it was to go. Maybe he's a collector of liquids and never intends to sell.
He just has to do without."
This is the most awesomely entertaining image of the week,
thank you Watcher!
"On December
30, a Russian government outlet announced that American service companies are scheduled to work on
the Arctic offshore platform Prirazlomnaja for three months this summer – an activity which could
potentially violate U.S. sanctions"
"On December 30, a Russian government outlet announced that American service companies are scheduled
to work on the Arctic offshore platform Prirazlomnaja for three months this summer – an activity
which could potentially violate U.S. sanctions.
The maintenance period itself is unremarkable: parts of Prirazlomnaja's topsides date to 1984,
and the offshore environment above the Arctic Circle is extraordinarily hard on equipment. However,
it is not clear that an American firm could perform the work without a waiver from the U.S. Department
of the Treasury. The platform is owned by Gazprom Neft, and to penalize Russia for the annexation
of Crimea, the Treasury prohibits American firms from providing this firm (and others) with goods,
services or technology for "exploration or production for deepwater, Arctic offshore, or shale projects
that have the potential to produce oil."
If these sanctions are still in place this summer, the unnamed American service companies could
be liable for civil penalties. Recent enforcement actions have led to multimillion-dollar fines for
the most egregious sanctions cases.
There is a possibility, however, that the sanctions might be lifted by the incoming Trump administration,
which will enter office January 20. President-elect Trump's team says that he remains undecided on
whether to lift the Ukraine sanctions program, and his appointee for Secretary of State, ExxonMobil
CEO Rex Tillerson, has a close relationship with the Russian government due to projects that sanctions
now prohibit: he received the Russian Order of Friendship in 2013 for collaboration with Rosneft
on a major Arctic drilling program. Tillerson is a critic of sanctions in general, and his firm still
has billions at stake in Russian joint ventures. Last year, the head of ExxonMobil's Russian operations
said that the company stands ready to return once sanctions are lifted.
Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, recently told Politico
that he considers Tillerson's nomination "as a clear sign of intent that Trump is going to remove
sanctions." Procedurally, this would only require an executive order from the president – and American
service companies could proceed to Prirazlomnaja as scheduled."
XOM has long coveted the Siberian and sub-Arctic oil and Russia deeply needs
our technology and capital to develop them. Remember, Russia is a petro state
and their economy is highly dependent on hydrocarbons. Also, as one of the
great kleptocracies the ruling class, driven by Putin, needs higher oil prices
to continue to drive their personal wealth. A major reason Russia seized the
Crimea is that there is a very large offshore natural gas reserve that the
Ukraine was putting up for bid and it looked like Gazprom wouldn't get it. A
new, major source of natural gas to W. Europe is a direct threat to Russia
which uses natural gas for both economic gain and political leverage. As I
recall when they were trying to exercise political power in Ukraine they shut
down the pipe of gas to them. I do not believe it is an accident that the
Glencore investment into Rosneft occurred once Trump won and the prospects for
a change in US policy looked possible (probable?). Russia is heavily indebted
and any increase in export revenues can only help them. There has been some
appreciation in the Ruble since the election. [Though I would expect a cold
winter in W. Europe to help them more in the short run than the time it will
take to alter US policies.]
This probably means an end to the US participation in the multi-lateral
agreement with Iran, which somewhat helps Russia as it keeps US dollars out and
slows the development and export of Iran's oil. A modest potential bump up in
oil prices. I would expect a loosening or end to the sanctions against Russia
by Treasury pretty quickly.
One also has to wonder if the recent agreement by OPEC to cut production was
influenced by Trump's win. It either is a signal by the Saudi's that they can
influence oil prices in the short term, which in this case pushes them up.
Though I suspect they will be cautious and keep them below say $80 per barrel
for Brent to ensure that there isn't a resumption of fracking in the US. For
all the bluster, fracking is expensive oil and the drop in drilling reflects
economics and isn't a function of regulations.
Best rationale I've seen for the Saudis' sudden willingness to cut and
cut some more, is that $80 crude will bolster Aramco's valuation in the
planned 2018 IPO.
Another factor in pulling off Aramco's epic IPO will be keeping the
global economy out of recession and OECD stock prices bubbly.
Perhaps the Saudis could give us a hand with that last bit.
Dow
22,942!
The news that President-elect Donald Trump is expected to nominate Rex
Tillerson, the chairman and chief executive of ExxonMobil, as his Secretary of
State is astonishing on many levels. As an exercise of public diplomacy, it
will certainly confirm the assumption of many people around the world that
American power is best understood as a raw, neocolonial exercise in securing
resources.
"... Libya and Venezuela peaked long ago. Russia is at her peak right now. Iran is very likely post peak. Iraq can increase production slightly but is very near her peak. Kazakhstan is at 1.75 million bpd and if they can manage to keep the toxic oil from Kashagan from corroding their pipes they may one day get to 2 million bpd. Big deal. ..."
"... The Ukraine crisis was provoked by NATO itself (see: EuroMaidan) and Russia reacted to it. NATO was long looking for an excuse as well as the right timing for imposing sanctions on Russia. ..."
What Ron Patterson and the Peak Oil-ers in general fail to include
in their calculations is the geopolitical aspect of oil, as well as
Global Economics.
In order for us to understand what the imperatives are in
dictating oil production levels, prices etc we should be at first
able to distinguish between the different types of oil producers.
To provide the most obvious contrasting example, let's take Russia
& the USA. These two major oil producers are quite dissimilar to
each other, if not outright opposites. For Russia – a much poorer
country – oil production is *the* core industry, as well as the
core export item which is vital for the country's success or
failure. The US – a much wealthier country – despite its high
production levels, is still a massive importer. This distinction
makes a world of difference. For the US, the aim of oil production
is to be maximized, so that imports can be minimized and also that
oil exporters (such as Russia) can enjoy far less strategic or
economic leverage. Hence, the expensive and risky gambit on shale
oil and tar sands in North America. For Russia on the other hand,
the goal is never to maximize production, their aim is to balance
production levels with price levels so that the Russian economy can
get the best results and the country the most leverage possible in
the long-run. My point here is that when we make forecasts over
future production we should always make the distinction between
countries that are producers, yet importers and countries that are
producers-exporters and rely to a high (or absolute) degree on oil
revenues for their well-being. So, the first distinction we can
make, is between oil-producing-exporters and
oil-producing-importers. The first category would include: Russia,
KSA, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, UAE, Libya, Venezuela etc, while the 2nd
would include the US, China, UK, India etc But another, even more
important distinction is crucially important here. Some of the oil
exporters are part and parcel of the US-EU (NATO) economic-military
structure while others are not. The first category would include:
KSA, Kuwait, UAE, Norway, Canada etc while the second category
would include: Russia, Iraq*, Iran, Libya*, Venezuela, Kazakhstan
etc
From the above, another clear conclusion arises. The US-EU Axis
(NATO) has calculated that the oil exporters it doesn't already
control must be attacked until a high degree of control over them
can be imposed. This has taken the form of a direct military attack
as in the cases of Libya and Iraq, or the form of Hybrid Warfare
methods of sabotage and subversion against all the others.
Now, how does all this relate to actual production levels? My
point here is this, the dominant US-EU Axis is very much interested
in suppressing the levels of oil production (or conversely, the
level of prices) from places such as Russia, Iran, Iraq etc
whenever this is possible (for example, when the North Sea and
North Slope were being developed, or when shale/tar sands came
online more recently) In fact they have been doing exactly that for
decades now (pressure on Yeltsin's Russia, sanctions on Saddam's
Iraq, sanctions on Iran and now sanctions on Russia) As you can
see, the sanctions carousel shifts between these 3 oil giants that
NATO does not control.
This is the point I have been periodically making on this blog
but nobody seems to be picking up on it. Yes, countries such as the
US, Norway, UK, Indonesia etc have peaked to various degrees and
can only maintain or increase production temporarily via massive
capital expenditure and technological breakthroughs. While
countries that have been victims of US-EU (NATO) hostility are
merely trying to navigate out of the siege laid against them until
they hold enough leverage to produce closer to their real
potential.
So, for the umpteenth time, Russia, Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan and
very possibly Libya and Venezuela are nowhere near the peaks and
will be growing producers in the coming decades. The only question
is whether this will be done under their own terms, or under NATO's
terms.
For the US, the aim of oil production is to be maximized, so
that imports can be minimized and also that oil exporters (such
as Russia) can enjoy far less strategic or economic leverage.
Baloney! The US
government
does not have an aim of oil
production. The US
government
does not produce a single
barrel of oil. Oil, in the USA, is produced by private and
publicly owned companies. Their aim is to make money, nothing
else.
Hence, the expensive and risky gambit on shale oil and tar
sands in North America.
Again, that risky gambit was not made by the US government,
it was made by private and publicly owned companies. They took
that risky gambit because they thought they could make a
fortune. Do you really believe they had Russia in mind when they
decided to drill and frack that oil bearing shale? Do you really
believe they did it because they wanted Russia to enjoy less
economic leverage? I doubt that any of them really gave a shit
about Russia's welfare.
The US sanctions against Russia was because of their takeover
of Crimea and their invasion into Ukraine. It had nothing to do
with trying to suppress their oil production. Ditto for the
Iranian sanctions. Obama wanted to halt their development of
nuclear weapons. Good God man, do you really believe those
sanctions was about suppressing their oil production instead?
So, for the umpteenth time, Russia, Iran, Iraq,
Kazakhstan and very possibly Libya and Venezuela are nowhere
near the peaks and will be growing producers in the coming
decades.
Libya and Venezuela peaked long ago. Russia is at her
peak right now. Iran is very likely post peak. Iraq can increase
production slightly but is very near her peak. Kazakhstan is at
1.75 million bpd and if they can manage to keep the toxic oil
from Kashagan from corroding their pipes they may one day get to
2 million bpd. Big deal.
So you really believe that the USG has no way of influencing
what the various American corporations do? There is no such
thing as "free-market" in the abstract, the state is involved
heavily every step of the way. Legislation, regulation,
taxation, subsidies (or lack thereof) directions to financial
institutions, bail-outs etc etc etc. I am not of course
saying that the USG commands US corporations as would be the
case under say a Stalinist system, but you can bet it can
*influence* it. Several laws were passed around more than a
decade ago in order to precisely encourage shale operations
(Cheney was behind them) Secondly, I find it shocking that
you deny the most obvious statement I made, namely that major
oil importers struggle any which way they can to minimize oil
imports, maximize own oil production (if they have any oil
reserves that is) and also control the countries that do
export oil. Just read what the CIA said about the Persian
Gulf right after WWII. Control of oil-rich regions has been
an absolute imperative for US FP since then. Astonishing that
anyone that can doubt that. As for your claims about
anti-Russian sanctions, again your ignorance about
geopolitics is astonishing.
The Ukraine crisis was provoked by NATO itself (see:
EuroMaidan) and Russia reacted to it. NATO was long looking
for an excuse as well as the right timing for imposing
sanctions on Russia.
The Ukraine crisis, as well as
rising oil production in North America provided a perfect
opportunity for those sanctions to be imposed at the time
they did, otherwise they would have looked pretty pathetic.
And notice what the sanctions were all about: a) no
selling of oil equipment to RUS firms, b) no lending to RUS
oil firms, c) no US-EU oil corporation can invest in RUS oil
or cooperate with RUS oil companies. This, coupled with a
crushed price was hoped that would discourage/impede the
Russian oil industry. It's so eye-popping it hurts. BTW, I am
not moralizing here, I am just presenting the facts as I see
them, from the prism of RealPolitik.
As for your persistent belief that every country in the
world has peaked in terms of oil production. How long do you
have to be proven wrong until you admit it? I am sure that
you thought that Iraq under Saddam had "peaked" or that
during the early years of US occupation it had also peaked.
But what do we see?
A war ravaged country being able to rapidly expand
production. Imagine what the Iraqi oil production levels
would be if the country enjoyed some relative piece and the
global market called for it? My point here is that these
countries are constrained by market as well as geopolitical
factors, which you seem to completely ignore.
So, I hope that your blog is still around in the coming
years, when all of Russia, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Venezuela &
Kazakhstan boost oil production. Some of them will boost
their production massively, others significantly. You will
see.
I'm sure the world looks like you depict it, from where
you look Stravos. But it doesn't look like that from here.
Russia has sanctions imposed on it for acting aggressive
on its borders. I'm sure it feels uncomfortable to be
surrounded, and not have a good port to the south for its
navy. I truly believe that USA and the rest of the modern
world were hoping Russia would join in a constructive and
cooperative role after the Soviet breakup, but they have
failed miserably so far. Still hope though.
And Iran has sanctions imposed because they have been
an extremely aggressive theocracy that no one wants to
have nukes- the sanctions imposed included China and
Russia as sponsors. Also, it was to Russia advantage
economically, to not have Iranian oil on the market.
China, Europe and USA do prefer to have Iranian oil on
the market, but not at the cost of a theocracy (bizarre)
with nucs.
More to say- but thats enough to chew on.
I talk Real-Politik but you have again collapsed into
the cheap hypocritical nonsense of the MSM and
pseudo-experts. The mere suggestion that Iran has been
"aggressive" is insulting to my intelligence. Iran
can't be aggressive regardless of their inner desires.
Iran can only hope to defend itself from the US & its
allies and even that would have been impossible without
Russian and Chinese support from behind the scenes. I
don't see why you think that Russia & China going along
with the West on imposing sanctions on Iran somehow
proves that the excuse for them was truthful. No,
Russia & China both make deals with the West all the
time, in the hope that they can serve their own
interests as best possible. If it means screwing Iran
in some cases, then so be it. Every state is in this
for its very own interests (no permanent allies, only
permanent interests)
As for Russia. There wouldn't be a more catastrophic
scenario imaginable for the West (especially Europe) if
Russia ever managed or was allowed to enter the global
marketplace in anything remotely resembling "fair
terms". The reason why NATO is so obsessed with Russia
is because that country possesses *all* the necessary
elements (massive hydrocarbon reserves, nukes, metals,
strategic location, geographic size) for a superpower,
except of course the economic part. But, as NATO
strategists are keenly aware, that can change, and if
it does, then the Global Balance of Power changes
radically and at the expense of NATO. This is why
Russia is NATO's number one target and not say China,
or India or anybody else. Most people have been fooled
by thinking that power in international relations is
all about the size of your GDP. While this may be true
for most countries, it's definitely not true when it
comes to Russia. If I were NATO I would be doing the
same and more in order to bring Russia down.
International rig counts are out – up five overall, mostly a bounce back to around September numbers
from an unusually big dip in October, especially in the North Sea.
Also I took a look at some of the Bakken daily reports for this week, new permitting and completions
announcements seem to have come to a stop – maybe the extra cold weather, or maybe someone on vacation
and not completing the paperwork, or a sign of things to come?
Is this the news of an industry with a rosy glow of optimism following the OPEC announcements?
Too early to feel the impact yet I guess.
"... Hello …According to Reuters , the European Union on Friday lifted limits on Gazprom's use of a link from its offshore Nord Stream pipeline to Germany, allowing Russia to pump more gas to Europe and bypass its usual routes via Ukraine. ..."
Hello …According to
Reuters , the European Union on Friday lifted limits on Gazprom's use of a link from its offshore
Nord Stream pipeline to Germany, allowing Russia to pump more gas to Europe and bypass its usual
routes via Ukraine.
"... The Russian-Turkish plan to pipe Russian gas through Turkey and then on to Macedonia and thence into southern Europe has long been opposed by the West, which is seeking to block the Russians at every turn. Now the Western powers have found an effective way to stop it: by overthrowing the pro-Russian government of Macedonian Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski . ..."
"... Speaking of which: the government of President Petro Poroshenko is leading the country into complete financial insolvency and veritable martial law. ..."
"... which makes it a crime to criticize the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) that fought on the side of the Germans during World War II. ..."
The
Russian-Turkish plan to pipe Russian gas
through Turkey and then on to Macedonia and thence into southern Europe has long been opposed
by the West, which is
seeking
to block the Russians at every turn. Now the Western powers have found an effective way to stop
it: by overthrowing the pro-Russian government of Macedonian Prime Minister
Nikola Gruevski.
The original plan was for the pipeline to go through Bulgaria, but
Western pressure on the government there nixed that and so the
alternative was to pipe the gas through Macedonia and Greece. With the Greeks uninterested in
taking dictation from the EU – and relatively impervious, at the moment, to Western-sponsored regime
change – the Macedonians were deemed to be the weak link in the pro-Russian chain. That was the cue
for the perpetually aggrieved Albanians to play their historic role as the West's willing proxies.
After a long period of dormancy, suddenly the "National
Liberation Army" (NLA) of separatist Albanians rose up, commandeering police stations in Kumanovo
and a nearby village earlier this month. A 16-hour gun battle ensued, with 8 Macedonian police and
14 terrorists killed in the fighting. The NLA, which
reportedly received
vital assistance from Western powers during the 2001 insurgency, claimed responsibility for the
attacks.
Simultaneously, the opposition Social Democratic Union party (SDSM)
– formerly the ruling League of Communists under the Stalinist Tito regime – called for mass demonstrations
over a series of recent government scandals. SDSM has
lost the last three elections, deemed "fair" by the OCSE, with Gruevski's conservative VMRO-DPMNE
(Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization – Democratic Party for Macedonian National Unity)
enjoying a comfortable majority in parliament. But that doesn't matter to the "pro-democracy" regime-changers:
SDSM leader Zoran Zaev
declared "This will not be a protest where we gather, express discontent and go home. We will
stay until Gruevski quits."
Macedonia has a long history of manipulation at the hands of the NATO powers, who nurtured the
Muslim-Kosovar insurgency to impose their will on the components of the former Yugoslavia. As in
Kosovo, the Albanians of Macedonia were willing pawns of the West, carrying out terrorist attacks
on civilians in pursuit of their goal of a "Greater Albania."
During the 2001 Albanian insurgency, an outgrowth of the Kosovo war, the EU/US used the NLA as
a battering ram against the Slavic authorities. The NLA was never an authentic indigenous force,
but actually
an arm of the US-armed-and-trained "Kosovo Liberation Army," which now rules over the gangster
state of Kosovo, crime capital of Europe. A "peace accord," the Ohrid Agreement, was brokered by
the West, which kept the NLA essentially intact, albeit formally "dissolved," while the Macedonian
government was blackmailed into submission. I wrote about it at the time,
here
and here.
Follow that last link to read about the George Soros connection. Soros was originally a big booster
of Macedonia, handing them a
$25 million aid package and holding the country up as a model of multiculturalism. However, the
Macedonians soon turned against him when he sided with the Albanians in their demands for government-subsidized
Albanian-language universities and ethnic quotas for government jobs. When he told them to change
the name of the country to "Slavomakejonija," they told him to take a walk. Soros, a longtime promoter
of Albanian separatism – he played sugar daddy to a multitude of front groups that promoted the Kosovo
war – is now getting his revenge.
Prime Minister Gruevski, for his part, charges that the sudden uptick in ethnic violence and political
turmoil is the work of Western "NGOs" and intelligence agencies (or do I repeat myself?) with the
latter playing a key role in releasing
recordings of phone conversations incriminating several top government officials. A not-so-implausible
scenario, given what happened
in neighboring Ukraine.
Speaking of which: the government of President Petro Poroshenko is leading the country into
complete financial insolvency and veritable martial law. Aid money from the West is going into
the prosecution of the ongoing civil war, and the country has already
defaulted on its huge debt in all but the formal sense. Opposition politicians and journalists
are routinely murdered and their deaths reported as "suicides," while it is now illegal to describe
the ongoing conflict with the eastern provinces as anything but a "Russian invasion." Journalists
who contradict the official view are imprisoned: Ruslan Kotsaba, whose arrest I reported on in this
space, is still being held, his
"trial" a farce that no Western journalist has seen fit to report on. Kotsaba's "crime"? Making
a video in which he denounced the war and called on his fellow Ukrainians to resist being conscripted
into the military. Antiwar activists throughout the country have been rounded up and imprisoned.
Any journalist connected to a Russian media outlet has been arrested.
Yes, these are the "European values" Ukraine is now putting into practice. Adding ignominy to
outrage, a law was recently passed – in spite of
this Reuters piece urging Poroshenko to veto it – which makes it a crime to criticize the
Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) that fought on the
side of the Germans during World War II. As Ha'aretzreports, a group of 40 historians
from major Western academic institutions issued an open letter protesting this outrage:
"Not only would it be a crime to question the legitimacy of an organization (UPA) that slaughtered
tens of thousands of Poles in one of the most heinous acts of ethnic cleansing in the history
of Ukraine, but also it would exempt from criticism the OUN, one of the most extreme political
groups in Western Ukraine between the wars, and one which collaborated with Nazi Germany at the
outset of the Soviet invasion in 1941. It also took part in anti-Jewish pogroms in Ukraine and,
in the case of the Melnyk faction, remained allied with the occupation regime throughout the war."
Ukraine is showing its true colors, which I identified
last year, to the point where even the usually compliant Western media is forced to admit the
truth.
It is pretty interesting and educational to read such articles one year after
they are published.
Notable quotes:
"... Russia is already in dire straits. The economy has contracted by 4.9pc over the past year and the downturn is certain to drag on as oil prices crumble after a tentative rally. Half of Russia's tax income comes from oil and gas. ..."
"... Core inflation is running at 16.7pc and real incomes have fallen by 8.4pc over the past year, a far deeper cut to living standards than occurred following the Lehman crisis. ..."
"... This man "forecasted" Russia's demise last year. He has to show that that forecast is still liable to happen ..."
"... What Colby said is palpably true. That is why we don't hear real news and instead we are bombarded with news about their "celebs" ..."
"... He should know. And certainly, Western media coverage of the Ukraine crisis demonstrated to many millions of people in the West that major Western media is almost all controlled by the US neocons. Anyone with half a brain can see that - but clearly not you. ..."
"... Russia is not interested in invading anyone. The US has tried to force Russia to invade Ukraine in an iraq style trap but it didn't work. So they had to invent an invasion, the first in living memory without a single satellite, video or photo image of any air campaign, heavy armour, uniformed soldiers, testimony from friends & family of servicemen they could pay to get a statement, not even a mobile photo of a Russian sitting on a tank. ..."
"... As the merkins tell us a devalued dollar is your problem.. the devalued rouble is the EUs problem! ..."
"... So the political sanctions are bankrupting Russia because they dared to challenge EU expansion. Result millions of poor Russians will start to flow West and the UK will have another flood of Eastern Europeans. But at least we showed them our politicians are tough. ..."
"... Spelling it out for Russia (or Britain) that would mean giving up Byzantine based ambitions and prospering through alliances with the Muslim Nation or Countries, including Turkey. In the short term such a move would quell internal dissent of the 11m immigrants in Russia, reduce unsustainable security expenditure with its central Asian neighbours, open and expand market for Russian goods in the Middle East, Far East and North Africa, and eventually form and provide a military-commercial -political alliance (like NATO) for the Muslim nations with Russia (with partner strength based upon what is mostly commercial placed on the table (see the gist in the Vienna Agreement between P5+1 and Iran). ..."
"... The formation of such an alliance would trump Russia's (or Britain's) opponents ambitions and bring prosperity. ..."
"... Propaganda. Laughable coming from the UK hack when the UK has un-payable debt and Russia has little external debt plus we have no Gold and Russia has probably 20,000 tonnes. NATO surrounds Russia yet they are the aggressors. ..."
"... In the end, Ambrose is too ideological to be credible on the issue. Sure, Russia has couple lean years ahead, but it will come out of this ordeal stronger, not weaker. There are already reports of mini boomlets gathering steam under the surface. ..."
Russia is already in dire straits. The economy has contracted by 4.9pc
over the past year and the downturn is certain to drag on as oil prices crumble
after a tentative rally. Half of Russia's tax income comes from oil and gas.
Core inflation is running at 16.7pc and real incomes have fallen by 8.4pc
over the past year, a far deeper cut to living standards than occurred following
the Lehman crisis. This time there is no recovery in sight as Western sanctions
remain in place and US shale production limits any rebound in global oil prices.
"We've seen the full impact of the crisis in the second quarter. It is
now hitting light industry and manufacturing," said Dmitri Petrov from Nomura.
"Russia is going to be in a very difficult fiscal situation by 2017," said
Lubomir Mitov from Unicredit. "By the end of next year there won't be any money
left in the oil reserve fund and there is a humongous deficit in the pension
fund. They are running a budget deficit of 3.7pc of GDP but without developed
capital markets Russia can't really afford to run a deficit at all."
A report by the Higher School of Economics in Moscow warned that a quarter
of Russia's 83 regions are effectively in default as they struggle to cope with
salary increases and welfare costs dumped on them by President Vladimir Putin
before his election in 2012. "The regions in the far east are basically bankrupt,"
said Mr Mitov.
Russian companies have to refinance $86bn in foreign currency debt in the
second half of this year. They cannot easily roll this over since the country
is still cut off from global capital markets, so they must rely on swap funding
from the central bank.
Dave Hanson
For once, Flimflambrose paints a fairly accurate picture. His formula
is to take a few facts and stretch them to their illogical conclusion to
create a story that sells subscriptions to the Telegraph. Sort of like the
National Enquirer. He does that well. He only mentions the other side of
the story in a sentence or two, usually at the end of his column. The scary
headline at the top comes true perhaps one in a thousand times, just enough
to keep readers from totally dismissing him as a fruitcake. Not yellow journalism.
Clever journalism.
steph borne •
jezzam steph borne •a day ago
''Under Putin Russia has progressed from a respectable rank 60 on the
transparency international corruption index to an appalling rank 140. It
is now one of the most corrupt countries in the world, entirely due to Putin.''
http://www.theguardian.com/wor...
.
jezzam is using the Corruption Perceptions Index as fact?
but it is ''Perceptions''???
''The CPI measures perception of corruption due to the difficulty of measuring
absolute levels of corruption.[8]'' Wiki
Just more nonsense from Jezzam
soton
my wife is russian, she speak's to her mother on the phone every day,
from what she tell's me nothing has changed economically for the "average
joe" no doubt some of the abramovich types have seen the value of their
properties plunge
Rosbif2
So if Russia is financially sinking below the waves, how come AEP in
other articles claimed that Russia could buy themselves into Greece and
menace Europe?
It seems like Greece & Russia are two drowning men who would grab onto each
other & drown even faster
AEP seems to lack "joined up thinking" in his articles
giltedged
This man "forecasted" Russia's demise last year. He has to show that
that forecast is still liable to happen
What Colby said is palpably true. That is why we don't hear real
news and instead we are bombarded with news about their "celebs"
Real news to show that a new world economy is being built totally outside
the control of US Neocons and Globalists, that the world is now multi-polar,
that for example this journalist's capital city, London, now has officially
a majority of the population not merely non-British in origin, but non-European,
that his own country survives because of London property sales
Richard N
And isn't AEP rubbing his hands with glee at this supposedly desperate
situation of Russia!
Colby, the ex-boss of the CIA, said in retirement that there is no journalist
of consequence or influence in the Western media that the CIA 'does not
own'.
I often find myself remembering that, when I read Ambrose pumping out
the US neocon / CIA propaganda standard lines about 'Russian aggression'
in Ukraine, and so on - choosing to ignore the fact that Russia's action
in Crimea was in direct response and reaction to the US Neocons' coup in
Ukraine, which overthrew an elected government in a sovereign state, to
replace it with the current US puppet regime in Kiev.
Of course, this collapse of oil and gas prices are no accident at all
- but are part of America's full-scale economic war against Russia, aiming
to get Putin overthrown, and replaced by someone controlled by the US Globalists,
leaving then
China as the only major power centre in the world outside the Globalists'
control.
Richard N > jezzam • a day ago
If you bothered to read what I wrote carefully, you would see that, with
reference to journalists, I was simply repeating what ex-head of the CIA
Mr. Colby said.
He should know. And certainly, Western media coverage of the Ukraine
crisis demonstrated to many millions of people in the West that major Western
media is almost all controlled by the US neocons. Anyone with half a brain
can see that - but clearly not you.
steph borne
''Russian bear will roar once more, says World Bank''
01 Jun 2015
''Russia economy forecast to grow by 0.7pc next year, reversing negative
growth
forecast''
Carried on to the absurd extreme at which all the dollars are held outside
of America, the US simply prints more money thus devaluing it's currency
and favoring exports (which are then cheaper to produce and cheaper buy)
people giving their currency to the US in return for goods and services
and restoring economic balance.
I can understand that Russia doesn't have much experience with the 'boom
and bust' cycles of market economies. They've had less than 20 years experience
at it.
Did you know that in the 19th century China's trade surplus with Europe
was so vast that Europe almost went bankrupt and ran out of precious metals
buying Chinese goods, surely by your thinking it was truly a golden age
of eastern supremacy, western failure. Ask any Chinese person what the 19th
century means to them, you might be surprised.
steph borne > Halou
Shame you can't provide a link or two to back up your thoughts on trade
surpluses.. altho I know amongst bankrupt countries they tell you that money/assets
leaving the country is a good thing....
Strange that the Germans don't agree --
''Germany recorded a trade surplus of 19600 EUR Million in May of 2015.
Balance ...reaching an all time high of 23468.80 EUR Million in July of
2014...'' http://www.tradingeconomics.co...
Obviously another country heading for financial self-destruction
steph borne
02 Oct 2014 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... 02 Oct 2014
Russias-economy-is-being-hit-hard-by-sanctions.html
01 Sept 2014 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... 01 Sept 2014 Cameron-we-will-permanently-damage-Russias-economy.html
cameron says.??? Aha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha
29 Dec 2014 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin... 29 Dec 2014 /Recession-looms-for-Russia-as-economy-shrinks-for-first-time-since-2009.html
24 Nov 2014 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin... 24 Nov 2014 Russia-faces-recession-as-oil-crash-and-sanctions-cost-economy-90bn.html
22 Dec 2014 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin... 22 Dec 2014 Russia-starts-bailing-out-banks-as-economy-faces-full-blown-economic-crisis.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin... 29 Apr 2015
Ukraines-conflict-with-Russia-leaves-economy-in-ruins.htm
.
Still going!!!
Graham Milne
Russia has physical assets (oil, minerals and so on); we don't. It is
the UK which is toast, not Russia.
billsimpson > Graham Milne
Russia is way too big & resource rich to ever be total toast. And the
people are educated, even if they do drink a lot. But they could get a bit
hungry in another economic collapse. All the nukes they have is the real
problem. Those need to be kept secure, should another revolution occur,
or the country break apart after an economic collapse.
The US & Canada would never sit back and watch the UK melt down. Witness
the Five Eyes communal global spying system.
Electrify all the rail system that you can, so people can still get around
on less oil. Some oil is essential for growing and transporting food.
Sal20111
Russia can't just blame it on sanctions, or price wars in oil and gas.
They have not reinvested the proceeds of their prodigous fossil fuel sales
smartly and neither have they diversified quickly enough - the gas sales
to China was an afterthought after Ukraine.
Putin cracked down on some of the oligarchs but not all - national wealth
has clearly been sucked out by a few. Nepotism and favouritism seem to be
rife. They should have learnt the lesson from their communist history not
to concentrate power in state contriolled organisations. Not sure whether
there is much of a small to medium business culture.
With the amount of natural resources it has, and a well educated public,
particularly in math and technical skills, Russia should be doing much better.
rob22
Russia is not interested in invading anyone. The US has tried to
force Russia to invade Ukraine in an iraq style trap but it didn't work.
So they had to invent an invasion, the first in living memory without a
single satellite, video or photo image of any air campaign, heavy armour,
uniformed soldiers, testimony from friends & family of servicemen they could
pay to get a statement, not even a mobile photo of a Russian sitting on
a tank.
Russia is too busy building up an independent agriculture and import
substitution, not to mention creating economic and trade links with its
Eurasian neighbours like China & India via the silk road, BRICS, Eurasian
Ecconomic Union and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.
A total nightmare for the US which once hoped to divide & dominate the
region (see new American century doc)
Putin enjoys about 85% approval ratings (independent foreign stats) because
it knows to surrender to the US means a return to the 90`s where the nations
oil revenue went to wall st and everything else
If things get bad they`ll just devalue the ruble, get paid in dollars
and spend in rubles.
This is why most Russians are willing to dig in and play the long game.
Londonmaxwell
Over the top with Ambrose, as usual. Words like "depression", "crisis",
"plummet", and "shrivels"; and these only in the first two paragraphs! Moscow
looks absolutely normal to me: traffic jams, packed malls and restaurants,
crowded airports and train stations. Unemployment is low, inflation is tolerable.
Ambrose misses some key points.
First, if Gazprom's revenues fell from $146bn to $106bn, then this
implies (drumroll) a revenue increase from RUB 5.1 trillion to RUB 5.8
trillion. Since Gazprom/Lukoil/Rosneft et al have USD revenues but RUB
expenses, they are all doing quite nicely, as is the Russian treasury.
Second, while Russian companies do have foreign debt to pay back,
I suspect much of this "debt" is owed to (drumroll) Russian-controlled
companies in BVI, Cyprus, Luxie, Swissie, and the other usual suspects.
Third, if the oil price declines more in 2015, the Kremlin will simply
let the ruble slide, and the biggest losers will again be (drumroll)
European exporters.
Russia's present situation is not glorious, but it is not as precarious
as Ambrose portrays it to be. Be wary of writing off Russia. The great game
is just beginning.
energman58 > Londonmaxwell
Except that the slack has to be taken up by inflation and declining living
standards - Russia isn't unique; in Zimbabwe dollar terms almost every company
there did splendidly but the place is still bust. The problem is that most
of the debt is USD denominated and without the investment blocked by sanctions
they are looking at a declining production, low oil prices and an increasing
debt service burden. Presumably they could revert to the traditional model
of starving the peasants that has served them so well in the past but I
am not sure if the people with the real stroke will be quite so happy to
see their assets wither away...
Londonmaxwell > energman58
Comparing Russia with Mugabeland is a stretch, but I see your point.
If the sanctions stay and the oil price goes south permanently, then Moscow
has problems. But I question both assumptions. Merkel/Hollande/Renzi already
face huge pressure from their business leaders to resume normal relations
with Russia; i.e., drop the sanctions. As for oil prices, the USA's shale
sector is already in trouble. Russia's debt burden (both public and private)
is manageable and can scarcely worsen since it is cut off from the credit
markets. While the oil price slump certainly hurts Russia's economy, I don't
see the wheels falling off anytime soon.
AEP writes well and is always thought-provoking, but his view that Russia
is facing Armageddon because of oil prices and sanctions is way off the
mark.
steph borne
Here come the Ukrainian Nazis.. You lot must be very happy
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/e... 18 minutes in..
Maidan number 3 on the way as I predicted a year ago.
midnightrambler
Amazing how the narrative for military action is being fostered by articles
such as this one.
So many people eager for something they have no intention of getting
involved in themselves
snotcricket
It is rather odd the posts on this thread accusing any & all who question
the obvious US gov line in such articles.
Could it be that some have better memories ie the Ukrainian crisis was
in fact created by the support of the US & EU for but a few thousand sat
in Independence Sq just two years after the country had voted in the target
with a majority the likes of Cameron, Obama could only dream of.
Only an idiot could not have seen the Russki response to a situation
that could in but a very short timescale see NATO troops & kit but a literal
footstep from Russki soil....while the ports used by the Russki fleets would
be lost overnight usurped no doubt by a 'NATO' fleet of US proportions.....plainly
the US knew the likely outcome to the deposing of the elected leader & replaced
by the EU puppets....the Russki's had little option.....Putin or no Putin
this would have been the outcome.
With regard to the US led attack on the Russki economy with sanctions....well
those sanctions hurt the UK too...but of course not the US (they have lobbyist
for such matters) our farmers were hurting afore the sanctions....that became
a damn sight worse after the imposition.
The US attempts to turn off the oil/gas taps of Putin has done damage
to the Russkis, similarly its done damage to W. Europe thus ourselves as
oil prices are now held at a level by the sanctions reducing world supplies
(the US have lobbyists for such matters) thus the god of the US, the market
is skewed & forecourt prices too sighed Osborne as the overall taxation
gathers 67% of what goes through the retailers till.
This has been rumbling for over 3 years since the BRICS held their meeting
to create a currency that would challenge the $ in terms of the general
w.w economy but specifically oil. They did mistime the threat & should have
kept their powder dry as the US economy like our own lives on borrowed time
& money.....but they made the mistake the US was in such decline they couldn't
respond....of course the US have the biggest of all responses to any threat....its
armed forces & their technology that advances far more rapidly than any
economy.
Incidentally I write this sat at my laptop in the North of England in
between running my own business & contacting clients etc..........I suspect
my politics would make Putin wince.....however the chronology, actions/outcomes
& the general logic of the situation has now't to do with supporting one
or t'other.......& do remember the US grudgingly acknowledge without the
Russkis the er, er agreement with Iran & non-proliferation would still be
a can yet to be kicked down the road.
Personally I'd be more worried that Putin has made fools of the US/EU
leaders so many times thus wonder just what is the intent in assisting the
brokering of any deal? With the West & Iran.
steph borne
If Russia was worried about the oil price they would not have been so
helpful in getting the usa & Iran together on a deal which will put more
downward pressure on the oil price!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... Barack Obama praises Putin for help
clinching Iran deal
oleteo
Reading this article I saw only one message to be sent to the Russians:"Russians,surrender!"
The rumours about the desease and the ongoing decease of the Russian economy
are greatly exaggerated.
steph borne
June 17, 2015 at 1:44 pm Boeing said it struck a $7.4 billion deal to
sell 20 of its 747-8 freighters to Russia's Volga-Dnepr Group, providing
a much-needed boost to the jumbo-jet program amid flagging demand for four-engine
aircraft. http://www.seattletimes.com/bu...
MOSCOW, Russia (May 26, 2015) – Bell Helicopter,
a Textron Inc. (NYSE: TXT) company, announced today an agreement with
JSC Ural Works of Civil Aviation (UWCA) for the development of final
assembly capabilities by UWCA for the Bell 407GXP in order to support
UWCA in obtaining Russian registry to facilitate their operations. http://www.bellhelicopter.com/...
.
Oh business as normal at Bell looks like sanctions only to be paid heed
by the useful idiots in the EU
snotcricket > steph borne
Yes the sanctions do seem to TTIP more in the US favour than their Western,
er, er partners
Sonduh
Just like Brown Osborne is reducing borrowing but encouraging consumer
debt which is close to 120% GDP. By the end of next year household debt
will be 172% of earnings.Once household debt reaches saturation point and
they start defaulting on their debt as they did in 2008 -- Game over. I
hear the Black Sea is nice this time of year.
steph borne
A report by Sberbank warned that Gazprom's revenues are likely to drop
by almost a third to $106bn this year from $146bn in 2014, seriously eroding
Russia's economic base.''
Last year $146 billion bought 4672 billion pybs this year $106 billion
will buy 6148 Billion pybs
Gazprom alone generates a tenth of Russian GDP and a fifth of all budget
revenues. the Pyb devaluation vs. $ has led to a 31% increase in revenues..
Something Salmond should take notice of should the SNP want to go for
independence again. Inflation at 16% may well be but its the price of imported
stuff pushing up the prices.. mainly EU goods for sale .. that won't be
bought!
As the merkins tell us a devalued dollar is your problem.. the devalued
rouble is the EUs problem!
Nikki Santoro
What is happening is the Anglo-Muricuns are actively provoking the Chinese
and Russkies into a war. However once it is all said and done, they are
going to need a cover story. People are going to ask why the Russkies attacked.
And then the Anglo-Muricuns are going to say that Putin put all his eggs
in one basket. Yeah that is what happened but really if Putin does attack,
it will be because of the endless Anglo-Muricun provocations. Just as they
provoked Hilter to no end and Imperial Japan as well.
steph borne
Russian companies have to refinance $86bn....''
So what are you going to do if they default.. go in and repossess..You
and who's army? They are struggling trying to get Greece to comply..
Russia's trade surplus is still in the Billions of Dollars while the
usa's & UKs is mired in deficit.. Russia recorded a trade surplus of 17.142
USD Billion in May of 2015 http://www.tradingeconomics.co....
Debt public/ external debt ratios
U. K..................92%........317%
usa...................74%......... 98%
And
Russia...............8%..........40%
''And while UK growth could reach 3pc this year, our expansion is far
too reliant on rising personal and government debt. ''
''The UK, with an external deficit now equal to 6pc of GDP, the second-largest
in half a century,''
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin...
As ever the west points to Russia and says Look over there (for God's sake
don't look here!)
Sonduh > steph borne
And don't forget all their gold reserves. And all their natural resources.
Skalla
Prosperous countries are usually benevolent (the US being the exception
to the rule). Hungry countries get to be greedy and aggressive. The US with
its economic and financial manipulations will turn a sleepy bear into a
very awake and ravenous one, and after hibernation, the first thing bears
do is FEED --
vandieman
A cynic could say that the US is driving the oil prices down to push
Russia into a war.
Anth2305 > vandieman
Wait until Iranian oil comes fully on stream, which I heard some pundit
on TV say could drive the cost down to < $30 a barrel, forcing the Saudis
into having to eat massively into their foreign reserves.
gardiner
When the old USSR 'collapsed', what we call the 'Oligarchs' ( a collection
of the most highly influential State officials who pocketed practically
all the old State assets) corruption was at the very highest level, and
society was at its weakest.
The economy became dependant on resource exports.
Because the country's capital was so concentrated, there was practically
no 'middle class' of entrepreneurs who could invest capital in job creating,
internationally competitive industry.
Although a lot further down this road than the UK - the warning is stark!
beatonthedonis > gardiner
Abramovich wasn't a state official, he was a rubber-duck salesman. Berezovsky
wasn't a state official, he was an academic. Khodorkovsky wasn't a state
official, he was a PC importer. Gusinsky wasn't a state official, he was
an unlicensed cab driver. Smolensky wasn't a state official, he was a blackmarketeer.
Fridman wasn't a state official, he was a ticket tout.
daddyseanicus
So the political sanctions are bankrupting Russia because they dared
to challenge EU expansion. Result millions of poor Russians will start to
flow West and the UK will have another flood of Eastern Europeans.
But at least we showed them our politicians are tough.
Busufi > Jonathan
In the East there is a saying: Why use poison when sugar delivers the
same result. Or say as Deng said, It doesn't matter whether the Cat is black
or white, so long it catches the mice.
Spelling it out for Russia (or Britain) that would mean giving up
Byzantine based ambitions and prospering through alliances with the Muslim
Nation or Countries, including Turkey. In the short term such a move would
quell internal dissent of the 11m immigrants in Russia, reduce unsustainable
security expenditure with its central Asian neighbours, open and expand
market for Russian goods in the Middle East, Far East and North Africa,
and eventually form and provide a military-commercial -political alliance
(like NATO) for the Muslim nations with Russia (with partner strength based
upon what is mostly commercial placed on the table (see the gist in the
Vienna Agreement between P5+1 and Iran).
The formation of such an alliance would trump Russia's (or Britain's)
opponents ambitions and bring prosperity.
Sonduh
" They are running a budget deficit of 3.7pc of GDP but without developed
capital markets Russia can't really afford to run a deficit at all."
We are able to have a budget deficit of 4.8% and 90% national debt, 115%
non financial corporate debt , 200% financial corporate debt and 120% household
debt due to voodoo economics ie. countries can print money to buy your debt.
PS we also have unfunded liabilities like pensions which amounts to many
hundred pc of GDP.
The results showed the extraordinary sums that Britain has committed to
pay its future retirees. In total, the UK is committed to paying Ł7.1 trillion
in pensions to people who are currently either already retired or still
in the workforce.
This is equivalent to nearly five times the UK's total economic output.
Such a figure may be hard to put into proportion, as a trillion – a thousand
billion – is obviously a huge number.
And we think Russia is in a bad state.
georgesilver
Propaganda. Laughable coming from the UK hack when the UK has un-payable
debt and Russia has little external debt plus we have no Gold and Russia
has probably 20,000 tonnes. NATO surrounds Russia yet they are the aggressors.
Laughable but idiots still believe the propaganda.
tarentius > georgesilver
The entire world combined has 32,000 tonnes of gold reserves. Russia
has 1,200 tonnes.
Russia has government debt of 18% to GDP, a contracting GDP. It is forced
to pay interest of 15% on any newly issued bonds, and that's rising. And
it has a refinancing crisis on existing debt on the horizon.
Russia's regions are heavily in debt and about 25% of them are already
bankrupt. The number is rising.
And we haven't even gotten into the problem with Russian business loans.
Turn out the lights, the party's over for Russia.
Bendu Be Praised > mrsgkhan •
The issue is the medias portrayal of Putin .. If the UK media was straight
up with the people and just said .. "our friends in the US hate the Russians
.. The Russians are growing too big and scary therefore we are going to
join in destroying the Russian economy before they become uncatchable "
the people would back them ..
Lets be honest .. The Russians don't do anything that we don't .. Apart
from stand up to the US that is
Jim0341
Yesterday, AEP spread the gloom about China, today it is Russia. As ever,
he uses quotes from leading figures in banks and finance houses, which are
generally bemoaning low returns on investments, rather than the wellbeing,
or otherwise, of the national economy..
Whose turn is it tomorrow, AEP? My bet is Taiwan.
Bendu Be Praised > FreddieTCapitalist
I think you will find that the UK are just pretending the sanctions and
wars are not hurting us ..
Just look at the budget .. 40% cuts to public services .. America tried
to destroy the Russian economy by flooding the market with cheap oil but
it will come back to bite them ..
The UK should just back off .. lift sanctions against Russia and let
the US squabble with them by themselves ..
I sick of paying taxes for the US governments "War on the terror and
the rest of the world"
alec bell
This article makes no sense. First of all, there is no way that Gazprom
is responsible for 1/10th of Russia's GDP. That is mathematically impossible.
1/20th is more like it. Second, if push comes to shove, Russians are perfectly
capable of developing their own vitally-important technologies. Drilling
holes in the ground cannot be more complicated than conquering space.
Whatever problems Russia has, engineering impotence is not one of them.
And third, if Russians' reliance on resourses' exports has led to "the
atrophy of their industry" as AEP rightly points out, then it must logically
follow that disappearance of that revenue will inevitably result in their
industrial and agricultural renaissance.
In the end, Ambrose is too ideological to be credible on the issue.
Sure, Russia has couple lean years ahead, but it will come out of this ordeal
stronger, not weaker. There are already reports of mini boomlets gathering
steam under the surface.
alec bell > vlad
vlad, JFYI: According to research conducted by the World Economic Forum
(which excludes China and India due to lack of data), Russia leads the way,
producing an annual total of 454,000 graduates in engineering, manufacturing
and construction. The United States is in second position with 237,826 while
Iran rounds off the top three with 233,695. Developing economies including
Indonesia and Vietnam have also made it into the top 10, producing 140,000
and 100,000 engineering graduates each year respectively.
Nikki Santoro
Don't mess with the Anglo-Muricuns. They will jack you up bad. Unless
you are thousands of miles away and posting anonymously. But even still
they can lens you out and cleanse you out should you take it too far. However
their dominance is not some much because of their brilliance. They don't
have any despite their propaganda. But rather the depths they are willing
to stoop to in order to secure victory. Like blowing up an airliner and
then pinning it on you for instance. Or poisoning their own farmland.
steve_from_virginia
Futures' traders got burned earlier this year betting that oil prices
would rise right back to where they were a year previously. Now they have
'gotten smart'. They know now the problem isn't Saudi Arabia but billions
of bankrupt consumers the world around.
Customers are bankrupt b/c of QE and other easing which shifts purchasing
power claims from customers to drillers -- and to the banks. As the customers
go broke so do the banks: instead of gas lines there are ATM lines.
At the same time, ongoing 'success' at resource stripping is cannibalizing
the purchasing power faster than ever before. Soon enough, the claims will
be worthless! When the resource capital is inaccessible, so is the purchasing
power -- which is the ability to obtain that resource capital.
Business has caught itself in the net of its own propaganda; that there
is such a thing as material progress out of waste ... that a better future
will arrive the day after tomorrow.
Turns out tomorrow arrives and things get worse. Who could have thunk
it?
Brabantian
If AEP is as right about Russia as he was about the Yank shale gas 'boom'
- now collapsing into a pile of toxic bad debt -
Then our Russian friends have nothing to worry about
midnightrambler > Guest
The largest military spend - the US - bigger than the next 20 countries
combined
The most bases - the US with 800, including many in Germany
Nobody wants war - but the US needs it as their largest industry is defence
- apart from manipulative banking.
We are heading for a point of rupture between those who are peaceful and
those whose main aim is control and conflict.
Take your pick
A few leaders choose war - most people (who will fight those wars) choose
peace.
And of course all wars are bankers' wars - it is only they who profit
Timothy D. Naegele
Both Putin and Russia are in a spiral, from which they will not recover.
See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.... ("Putin Meets Economic Collapse
With Purges, Broken Promises")
Tony Cocks > Timothy D. Naegele
"Both Putin and Russia are in a spiral, from which they will not recover."
This from someone whose former President and gang of criminal henchmen
lied to the world on a monumental scale about WMD in Iraq , and waged an
illegal war on that country killing hundreds of thousands in the process
. Following that it was Libyas turn , then Syrias . Now its Russia the US
neo con warmongers are hounding, the difference being that Russia holds
the worlds biggest nuclear arsenal.
The US forces had their kicked out of Vietnam and were thoroughly beaten
despite throwing everything they had at the conflict save the nuclear option.
Imagine what will happen if it eventually comes to armed conflict with Russia.
midnightrambler > Timothy D. Naegele
A yank lawyer advocating killing.
From the land of citizen killers
What a surprise
Stay away
stephenmarchant
Instead of demonising Putin and banging on about the problems of the
Russian economy the MSM should be worried about indebted Western economies
including the UK and US. Russian Govt finances are not burdened with nearly
Ł2trn of debt that has funded unsustainable nominal growth. Here in the
UK the real GDP growth per capita is declining at over 3% per anum so as
a nation the UK is continuing its decline:-
Govt deficit at 5% per anum
Govt debt at about 80% GDP
Private debt and corporate debt each of a similar order
Record current account deficit of about 5% per anum
A deteriorating NIIP (Net International Investment Position)
Uncontrolled immigration
Our whole debt based fiat system is on the brink but few can see it whilst
they party with asset and property bubbles. A few of us foresaw the first
crash of 2007/8 but we now face a systemic collapse of our fiat system because
of the resulting 'extend and pretend' policy of Govts and central bankers.
In the final analysis the true prosperity of a nation will depend upon
its natural resources, infrastructure, skills of its workforce and social
cohesion.
Graham Milne > JabbaTheCat
The scale of Russian kleptocracy pales into vanishing insignificance
beside the criminality of western banks (and the government who 'regulate'
them). Europe and the USA are regimes run by criminals; worse than that,
they are run by traitors. At least Putin isn't a traitor to his country.
Busufi
The best way for Russia to beat the downturn in it's oil and gas is to
invest in down-stream strategic production of petroleum products that would
give Russia a competitive advantage on a global scale.
Selling raw natural resources is the Third World way of exports. Not
smart.
GAZPROM wins. Gas will flow thru Turkey to Europe. The amounts will
increase. Ukraine will soon no longer be a conduit, and lose all clout when
they try to dodge paying the bill for their own.
Probably back in the
Russian sphere of influence in a few years, assuming the EU won't pay their
gas bill, and the present leadership will be wards of the EU somewhere in
Germany. Actually, were Russia wise, they would just refuse gas to the
Ukraine at any price. Surrender or freeze. Maybe needlessly heavy handed.
Just impose increasingly crushing conditions. With a smile.
Europe Nat Gas consumption:
1.132 billion cubic meters/day (from mazama and converted to m^3)
minus Europe Nat Gas production
–> about 570 million cubic meters/day imported (9.5% increase in 2015) X 365 = 208 billion cubic
meters/yr
Nordstream pipeline 55 billion cubic meters/yr plans to double by 2019 to 110 billion m^3/yr.
That's Gazprom thru Germany.
Ukraine pipeline(s) into Europe presently: 142 billion cubic meters/year.
Belarus pipeline(s) into Europe presently: 38 billion cubic meters/year
Adds to 235 billion cubic meters/yr which is 20 some billion more than the Euro number above
because some is going to Macedonia, Serbia and other none EU countries. Relatively inconsequential.
Note that the popular phrasing that Russia only provides 31% of Europe's gas is almost certainly
bogus. More like 45-50%.
Now then, Nordstream 2 (that's all GAZPROM gas) will be chopped from Ukraine's flow. Because
GAZPROM can just force Belarus gas to be used by not flowing enough thru Ukraine.
The TANAP pipeline is to flow only 16 billion cubic meters/yr of gas from a non Russia source
thru Turkey.
The agreement just reached between Putin and Erdogan is for a pipeline carrying Russian gas
at 63 billion cubic meters/yr. Turkey will burn 14 of that (they burn 45 billion m^3 /yr) leaving
49 to flow to Europe.
The EU is already trying to interfere, saying there is insufficient capacity in pipelines north
thru Greece and other countries, but clearly Greece will burn it and that reduces what's left
going north.
Bottom line. Nordstream 2 will be a new 55 billion m^3/yr of GAZPROM gas. TurkeyStream will
flow another 49 billion m^3/yr. This will be new from present flows. And Ukraine's flow is 142.
They'll be reduced to under 40.
Ukraine gets almost $3 billion/yr in transit fees.
They have demanded just about a double
of that 5 mos ago. GAZPROM has not agreed. The Ukraine transit pipeline system apparently
also needs $19B in maintenance work GAZPROM had planned to pay for before Ukraine broke
relations with Russia. No longer.
Ukraine GDP 90B in 2015 and is falling this year.
So either the EU picks up the $19B plus the $3B/yr in transit fees Ukraine will lose
starting late next year (plus cost of Ukraine's consumption itself(they are 5th largest
in Europe)), or the fat lady sings.
BTW Poland just completed an LNG import terminal. Look at those flow numbers above in
the thread. Now . . . understand Poland is talking about sending Qatari gas from the LNG
terminal to Lithuania and the rest of Europe, to reduce horrible dependence on Russian gas,
even if LNG gas is priced 3X higher than piped GAZPROM gas. But yes, Poland is going to
send gas to other countries from their LNG terminal.
Oh, and the new LNG terminal has a capacity of 5 billion m^3/yr. Repeat. 5 billion m^3/year.
That's max in its final form.
Chairman Xi Jinping is making Russia an offer that
Russia can't refuse?
Notable quotes:
"... "We are now seeing the aggressive actions on the part of the United States, regarding both Russia and China. I believe that Russia and China could create an alliance toward which NATO will be powerless and which will put an end to the imperialist desires of the West." ..."
"The world is on the verge of radical change. We see how the European Union is gradually collapsing,
as is the US economy -- it is all over for the new world order. So, it will never again be as
it was before, in 10 years we will have a new world order in which the key will be the union of
China and Russia."
"We are now seeing the aggressive actions on the part of the United States,
regarding both Russia and China. I believe that Russia and China could create an alliance toward
which NATO will be powerless and which will put an end to the imperialist desires of the West."
Great link, thanks.
Given the real world politic, I don't see that Russia has much choice. The lack of pressure by
the PRC is an important note; Russia isn't being coerced but rather romanced.
My fear has been, and remains, the bat shit crazy neo-cons and their inability to let go of the
imperialist dream of world hegemon.
[Aug 07, 2016] Neocon from Foreign Policy magazine are still dreaming about dismembering and colonizing Russi
Notable quotes:
"... No kidding; Kiev's ability to interrupt gas flows to Europe – which the west previously would not even discuss, since it was obviously Russia using energy as a weapon – is presented as just kittenish playfulness, and such an interruption is not a big problem because it's so amusing to watch the clever Ukrainians tweak Moscow's nose. All in good fun, of course, and transit fees are a right. There's just nothing about going around Ukraine to prevent that from happening which could be described as good fun, or tweaking Kiev's nose. Because the Ukrainians are cute, and the Russians are savages. ..."
"This summer hasn't seen a lot of setbacks for Russia, not even for its Olympic hopefuls.
Crimea has been annexed and fully absorbed, with the blessing of Republican presidential front-runner
Donald Trump, who also calls NATO "obsolete." Russian intelligence services have allegedly
been pawing through the emails of U.S. political parties, and releasing them at their leisure.
Turkey, in the wake of a failed coup attempt, is rushing to mend fences with Moscow."
Couple of things, my unfellow whiner. First, Crimea has been annexed and absorbed prior to
Trump's statement. Ergo it could not have happened with his blessing, since his blessing could
only come after the events took place, but what's temporal physics to a "journalist" from FP?
Second, at this point I think it's safe to conclude that every intelligence service of any powerful
countries studied those e-mails, no need for allegedly. And we don't know if it's the Russians
that are releasing them. Third, Turkey rushed to mend ties with Moscow before the coup, not after,
but then again, what's temporal physics to a "journalist" from FP? This article promises to deliver
mirth, let's read on!
"All of which makes last month's decision by the Polish antitrust regulator to file a formal
objection against Russia's proposed "Nord Stream 2" gas pipeline more noteworthy. That regulatory
spanner could be Europe's last and best chance to halt construction of a pipeline that critics
say will divide Europe, beggar Ukraine, and reinforce Moscow's energy dominance for another generation."
That's a big deal? Poland's opposition to Nord Stream 2 has been well document throughout the
ages. Ukraine is already beggared, but let's all blame that on Russia. Moscow's energy dominance
comes from the EU being a voracious money swallowing pit, and not enough solar/wind/nuclear powerplants
being built, due to, wait for it… lack of funding! Those funds are in places like Syria and Iraq.
Oh, and won't the lack of construction divide Europe? Cause I doubt that Russia's going to prop
up Ukraine, so if Southern Europe has no gas and Northern Europe has some, won't that be divisive?
"For years, Russia has sought to keep Europe dependent on its exports of energy, especially
through natural gas pipelines. But Moscow is also desperate to cut out potentially meddlesome
middlemen, like Ukraine, which sits smack between Russia's natural gas fields and millions of
European consumers. That gives Kiev the ability to interrupt Russian gas flows headed to Europe,
infuriating Moscow, but also earns Ukraine billions of dollars in much-needed transit fees."
Oh really? So Kaliningrad's border with EU member states are somehow attached to Ukraine? Intriguing,
very intriguing, did someone skip his geography class?
"A decade ago, Russia enlisted former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder to help it build a
pipe across the Baltic from Russia to Germany, sidestepping Ukraine: Nord Stream. Then Russia
tried to build another pipeline, "South Stream," across the Black Sea from Russia to Bulgaria,
also bypassing Ukraine, but that was quashed by the European Union in 2014. Then, Moscow invented
the idea of a "Turkish Stream," another proposed Black Sea pipe, one landing in Turkey, outside
of Brussels's reach. But last fall, Turkish F-16s shot down a Russian jet, and with it hopes of
any immediate Russo-Turkish energy cooperation."
Really? Because in the beginning, the article claimed that "Turkey…is rushing to mend fences
with Moscow." So they're rushing to cooperate, ergo there won't be cooperation? Stellar "journalism"
absolutely stellar.
'… But the Polish Office of Competition and Consumer Protection last month determined that
Nord Stream 2 - which wouldn't even touch Polish territory - could harm consumers. "The Office
found that the concentration might lead to restriction of competition," it tentatively concluded,
adding that the project could "further strengthen" Gazprom's "dominant position." …'
Looks as if the Poles and the FP writer have a strange idea of what free market competition
is. Their idea seems to be that the more middlemen there are, taking their cut, oops, share of
the transit fees, and passing the costs down the pipeline, the more competition there is. Plus
the journalist fails to see what's wrong with Ukraine interrupting the flow of gas from Russia
to the EU to get transit fee income, unless of course he thinks extortion is a legitimate way
of doing business.
That gives Kiev the ability to interrupt Russian gas flows headed to Europe, infuriating
Moscow, but also earns Ukraine billions of dollars in much-needed transit fees.
So, when Ukraine interrupts gas flow to Europe to "infuriate" Moscow, Europe is not infuriated
to contend with a crippling gas shortage? And how long is Russia expected to rely on a transit
country that likes to infuriate its customer? Gawd, this guy is stupid.
No kidding; Kiev's ability to interrupt gas flows to Europe – which the west previously would
not even discuss, since it was obviously Russia using energy as a weapon – is presented as just
kittenish playfulness, and such an interruption is not a big problem because it's so amusing to
watch the clever Ukrainians tweak Moscow's nose. All in good fun, of course, and transit fees
are a right. There's just nothing about going around Ukraine to prevent that from happening which
could be described as good fun, or tweaking Kiev's nose. Because the Ukrainians are cute, and
the Russians are savages.
It looks like Russia is not going to be told that it must continue transiting gas through Ukraine,
although Ukraine has been on its best behavior where transit is concerned over the last little
while (to show how reliable it can be), and transit through Ukraine has actually increased, a
fact they lose no opportunity to point out (as if to say, you need us now more than ever). But
Kiev reserves the right to hike the transit fees whenever it needs a little more struttin' money,
and while the obstructive talk is on hold for now, the Ukrainians love to shoot their mouths off
and have made it clear they will simply take gas intended for Europe if Russia restricts Ukraine's
supply (although they have brought their Russia supplies way, way down by buying Russian gas from
other European countries, bought with gas money given it by the IMF.
Russia would very likely agree to continue supplying Ukraine through its own pipeline network,
probably even at a quite attractive price – but if Ukraine started any of its special-needs antics,
Russia would not have to worry about Europe's supply going through Ukraine's decrepit pipeline
system. Ukraine could be cut off without a second thought, as any reasonable supplier would do
if it is not getting paid or is otherwise abused by its customer – and as Europe would do in a
second if it were the other way round and Russia was spending billions for European gas transited
through Ukraine, which the Ukrainians poached at their leisure.
"... Expect this issue to take center stage in the coming months, because northwest Europe, with declining production of its own gas, is going to need a reliable solution, and should be getting pretty tired of propping up Ukraine, Romania and Poland the perennial malcontents. At the present time Poland's regulatory commission is holding up Nord Stream II just because it can – but don't expect that to last. The EU is soon going to be faced with the choice of a Russian gas pipeline in whose operation they will at least have input and in whose construction European companies will share some of the lolly – or a Russo-Turkic pipeline in which they have no say at all and the gas delivery point is at the border. ..."
"... Expect Brussels to accuse Russia of 'dumping' gas on the EU market, regardless of any truth. Russia could still reduce price and make a profit, ergo not 'dumping' in any sense. I would then expect all those new gas reservoirs being built by Germany, Gasprom and others to fill up on cheap Russian gas. ..."
Why does Nord Stream operate at less than 100% capacity? Because of
capacity restrictions imposed by Brussels – just remember that the next time that poxy twat
Sefcovic starts blabbering on about why do we need Nord Stream II when the original pipeline only
operates at half-capacity? And he will, be sure of it. If Nord Stream could operate at 100% capacity,
it would be half the cost of transiting through Ukraine. Just how much charity is Russia expected
to offer, especially considering Ukraine imposed a transit rate hike last year for the privilege
of using its leaky, whistling, rotting pipeline network?
Expect this issue to take center stage in the coming months, because northwest Europe, with
declining production of its own gas, is going to need a reliable solution, and should be getting
pretty tired of propping up Ukraine, Romania and Poland the perennial malcontents. At the present
time Poland's regulatory commission is holding up Nord Stream II just because it can – but don't
expect that to last. The EU is soon going to be faced with the choice of a Russian gas pipeline
in whose operation they will at least have input and in whose construction European companies
will share some of the lolly – or a Russo-Turkic pipeline in which they have no say at all and
the gas delivery point is at the border.
And really, the
EU's arguments make it look like it was dropped on its head as an infant. If Turkish Stream
goes ahead, the story goes, it will increase dependency on Russian gas, but block Caspian supplies.
How? Caspian supplies (Azerbaijan) are supposed to come via the Southern Gas Corridor, which the
EU keeps saying it is pressing on with but has yet to lay a foot of. Remind you of the talking-shop
that Nabucco became? How much money was pissed away on that, and they didn't build any of it.
But the argument seems to be that if Turkish Stream is built, the Southern Gas Corridor cannot
be. Why not? What's stopping you?
Price. The EU is scared it cannot do it as cheaply as Russia. And it probably can't. How does
that bear on the consumer? Sefcovic already told you – it's not all about price. What price freedom,
my friends? Aren't you willing to pay more for your gas so you can say it is Azerbaijani gas instead
of Putin's gas? What do you say, European consumer? But it keeps going on about how Turkey and
everybody else will get cheap gas, but is still trying to frighten Europeans that if they depend
on Russian gas it will go up. Why would it, if it's costing Russia less to ship it?
Kiev should be getting scared. Because there is an increased chance Brussels will cave on the
Nord Stream II issue, considering the factors I've already laid out. Or else Putin will build
Turkish Stream, and the EU will have to build its own infrastructure to hook up at the border,
and either solution will bypass Ukraine – through which, incidentally, transit was up 21% in the
first months of 2016, as the Ukrainians try to showcase what reliable partners they are. But that
route fails on price. Wah wah wahhhhhh….sorry, Kiev.
But even if the price of gas did rise due to EU dithering, Russia could still undercut American
LNG price. It comes down to how much are you willing to pay to proudly say "No thank you, Mr.
Putin"? It's like Sikorski and his Polish LNG terminal, where he said it costs more, but at least
it flies the Polish flag, or like how you could probably sleep with the starlet of your dreams…if
you were willing to do anything to get her. Prostitute yourself, sell drugs, move to another country,
completely change your lifestyle, whatever it took. A lot of things that are attainable in the
abstract are simply not worth it. the UK might be able to get by with no gas imports at all –
it still has a little, and they could go back to coal and wood-burning fireplaces like on "Upstairs,
Downstairs" (my ex loved that program", and theoretically they could do it, with just a little
of that famed British pluck and a stiff upper lip. But nobody wants to do it, because the illusion
of independence is not worth behaving so stupidly. It has become a game to see who can get their
people deeper in self-denial so that their leader can thumb his nose at Putin.
It is a bit like Hinckley Point – the UK can't be reliant on Chinese involvement for security
reasons (although the French suffered too when the agreement was frozen). Our elites try to get
away with it by keeping the population in a state of fear. But they also reward their own chums
with contracts, no matter what the cost.
So, yes, I do think they'll try to get away with it, whatever the cost (they'll just blame
the utility companies).
There would be the entry of an opposition political figure, telling the populace as much as it
would listen to about how an alternate source which is cheaper is available but our political
masters make us pay more in order to score political points with their master and perhaps
advance themselves and their positions…if the situation were reversed and Russia were dependent
on European gas, and Putin was trying to wean the Russians off of it in favour of a more-expensive
but more exclusionary alternative.
In my opinion, Russia needs to do that more. Sponsor opposition politicians in enemy countries,
I mean. It's a go-to western tactic.
Expect Brussels to accuse Russia of 'dumping' gas on the EU market, regardless of any truth. Russia
could still reduce price and make a profit, ergo not 'dumping' in any sense. I would then expect
all those new gas reservoirs being built by Germany, Gasprom and others to fill up on cheap Russian
gas.
I have a question though. If gazprom fills up its CEEC/Balkan reservoirs when gas is X price
at X time, is that the fixed price of the gas or if the world price drops, it can sell it for
less without it technically being 'dumping'? Does anyone know what the mechanism is?
Here's those good ole western values again on display here, this time directed at the peons in
Europe. You wouldn't know it from our posturing politicians but fuel poverty is a massive problem
in Europe affecting between 50 to 125 million people. The health consequences are dire from thousands
of excess deaths in winter's maw to increases in chronic lung and respiratory diseases. And would
you believe it but the Baltic chihuahuas, ever-reliably yapping at all things Russian, have large
numbers of their populations living in fuel poverty. Ever read anything by Edward Lucas on this?
No, me neither. So, I couldn't really do justice to how angry the behaviour of these morons makes
me….people die before their time every year because they can't afford to properly heat their homes
and these geniuses in Brussels paid for by us are totally OK with rocketing fuel prices as long
as they can say they poked a finger in Vladimir Putin's eye.
Reply
Ukraine has managed to get rid of its gas dependence
on Russia, thus destroying the "energy weapon" of the Kremlin, U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey
Pyatt has said.
The Ukrainian authorities over the past few years have in fact destroyed Moscow's energy weapon,
which used gas in this way, Pyatt said during a meeting of the discussion club "Open World" on
the transformations in Ukraine, progress and tasks for the future in Kyiv on Tuesday.
The diplomat said that Ukraine's national gas company Naftogaz Ukrainy currently purchases
gas only if it finds the price acceptable, but the natural gas has ceased to be the instrument
of manipulation. Ukrainians are no longer in the situation when the Kremlin uses energy resources
as a weapon, as an instrument of manipulating Ukrainian politicians, so that they should take
certain decisions, he said.
Pyatt also said that the Ukrainian energy sector is undergoing serious transformations and
this is very important to bring these changes to completion.
What? Buying the cheapest gas on the market is more economical than not paying for it at all,
which is what they did as regards gas directly supplied by Russia?
And where does this cheaper alternative supply come from - originally, not through an intermediary?
Украина не должна возвращать России $3 млрд, которые были получены во времена Виктора
Януковича. Об этом в программе "О политике" с Сергеем Руденко в эфире Еспресо [sic].TV
заявил министр финансов Александр Данилюк. "Это был политический кредит, который нас
заставили взять",- пояснил министр.
По словам господина Данилюка, эти средства в то время могли пойти на различные
выплаты в государстве. "Наша позиция заключается в том, что мы не должны возвращать эти
деньги",- сказал Александр Данилюк.
In the Ukraine they see no reason for paying back their $3 billion debt to Russia
The Ukraine is not obliged to return to Russia the $3 billion debt that was
accrued during Victor Yanukovych's
presidency.This
is what Finance Minister Alexander Danyluk said live on air to Sergei Rudenko during the
Espresso TV programme "On Politics". "Our position was that we were politically forced
to accept this credit. Therefore, our position is that we do not have to return this
money", explained the minister.
According to Mr. Danyluk, at the time they were able to use the money for the
payment of various state benefits. "Our position is that we should not return the
money", said Alexander Danyluk.
On December 16 last year, the IMF Executive Board recognized the official status of
the $3 billion Russian loan to the Ukraine. In response, the Ukraine announced a
moratorium on the payment of any debts to the Russian Federation.
Which is good business practice, according to Pyatt Twat, I presume.
They evidently believe Daddy Pyatt's muck that they are getting off the Gazprom tit
just because they are buying Gazprom gas from someone else. I would have a quiet word
with those people to warn them of the possibility that they might have to suddenly
find 45% to 90% of their gas supplies somewhere else if they did not put pressure on
Ukraine to pay its debts. Because it has evidently not occurred to Ukraine where they
would get their gas if their brotherly suppliers did not have any to sell, and were
scrambling to find enough for themselves. America would crow that Russia was using
energy as a weapon, of course, but Russia should be past caring what America thinks
or says because they are never going to be anything like friends no matter what
Russia says or does.
Meanwhile, Daddy Pyatt is going to have some 'splainin' to do
when Gazprom refuses to sell Ukraine any more gas until they pay. Because they're
still getting more than 10% directly. Russia is being nice, and usually sells them
gas as soon as they pay in advance for that amount. But maybe they should say, "You
know what? I think you should pay all your past dues before you get any more". And
they wouldn't have a leg to stand on, because it doesn't matter what 'their position'
is; the debt has been recognized as legal and binding.
He would take any criticism from Russia as an accolade, an indicator that he is
doing something right, because getting up Russia's nose is his stock in trade and
the reason he's posted in there. He's there to provoke confrontation between
Russia and Ukraine, the more the better, and he could not care less what will
happen to Ukrainians after he's gone.
As usual, Pyatt is trumpeting nonsense, although I would love for some intrepid journalist
to ask him why the USA is so resistant to Nord Stream II and preserving Ukraine's transit
fees for Russian gas. If it's so easy to cut your imports of Russian gas by more than half
that the poorest country in Europe can do it, why couldn't anyone do it?
Such as
the countries from whom Ukraine now buys its gas
– Slovakia, Hungary and Poland. Of the
three Slovakia is 90% dependent on Russian gas, Hungary 44%, and Poland 45%. These are the
countries that scream Nord Stream II must not be built – what would happen if Russia
stopped supplying them with gas? Where would Ukraine get its gas then? Where would its
suppliers make up their shortfall? American LNG? Ah ha, ha, ha!! Yes, I'm sure; forgive me
for laughing, I couldn't help it.
Russia is not making as much money, that's certainly true and will remain true for as
long as the west can force the price down through oversupply. Who will run out first? I
guess we'll see. But although profits are undeniably lower, Gazprom's exports to Europe
increased by approximately 16%
between January and May of this year. I think Europeans
should be asking themselves how important Ukraine really is in their gas-distribution
network. But bravo to Ukraine! See if you can reduce your Gazprom imports to zero! Now,
there's a worthy target. Just ask Daddy Pyatt from time to time how you're doing.
Back in the day contracts were "consensus in idem" or, my version =
"agreement in all essentials".
The "partners" ought to be aware that the RF (and its "emanations of the State" (c)
EU Law) appears to be relying on that, hmmm, understanding of "the rule of Law".
Chihuahua yelps and Banderastan yowls and EU poodle elite yips aside, the rest of the
wide world sees reality as the RF does.
"... Timchenko's exit was designed to quell any concerns about his role in the company, as he was due to be named in a list of people with alleged links to the Kremlin sanctioned by the US after Russia's invasion of Crimea. ..."
Oil trading giant Gunvor handed its chief executive a $1bn dividend to fund a deal that
helped the company distance itself from US sanctions against Russia.
Torbjörn Törnqvist agreed to buy a 43% stake in the company, the fourth largest oil trader
in the world, from co-founder Gennady Timchenko in 2014 for an undisclosed fee.
Timchenko's exit was designed to quell any concerns about his role in the company, as he
was due to be named in a list of people with alleged links to the Kremlin sanctioned by the
US after Russia's invasion of Crimea.
But the sheer size of Gunvor, which pulled in revenues of $64bn (Ł44bn) last year despite
rock-bottom oil prices, meant Törnqvist could not fund the deal in one go.
The payment of a $1bn dividend, only part of which was used to fund the deal, allowed Törnqvist
to settle his remaining debt to Timchenko.
The new complex will allow to increase the output of diesel fuel of Euro-5 class.
The PM D. Medvedev will visit Volgograd on May 31st.
He will participate in the ceremony of start-up and commissioning works at the plant "Lukoil-Volgogradnetepererabotka".
The new complex of deep processing of vacuum gasoil with the capacity of 3,500 thousand tons a
year is to become the largest one in Russia. The complex comprises: a unit of vacuum gasoil hyrocracking;
a hydrogen production unit meant for hydrogen containing gas supply to the hydrocracking process;
a combined sulfur unit used for utilization of hydrogen disulfide containing amine solution of the
hydroracking process. With the putting of the complex into operation the output of diesel fuel
of class-5 will grow by 1.8 mln tons a year, oil processing efficiency will reach 95%.
Russian Q1 GDP came in better than expected but still showing contraction at -1.2 percent YoY
(versus -2.1 percent expected). A piece in the
Wall Street Journal today addresses the challenges experienced by Russia currently, as the government
is considering raising taxes to help ease its budget deficit. As the chart below illustrates, Russia's
reserve fund is being swiftly depleted – to levels not seen since the 2009 financial crisis – as
the government tries to plug the gap left by lost revenue from lower oil prices:
"... Russia is diversifying oil and gas exports towards rapidly rising Asian markets due to economic and security considerations. But cutting oil exports to Europe, even for one month, would be inefficient and self-destroying. ..."
"... There are also serious logistical issues. Russia exports oil to Asia from the fields in Eastern Siberia and Far East. The fields in West Siberia, Volga-Urals and Timan-Pechora regions are not linked by pipelines with Russia's eastern borders and transportation costs in this case would be too high. ..."
"... Cutting energy supplies to Europe, even for a month, would destroy Russia's reputation as a reliable supplier and result in multiple lawsuits and potential multi-billion fines. Note that Russian oil companies own significant assets in Europe, including refineries, oil terminals, storage facilities, etc. ..."
"... However, if Russia (even for economic reasons) began diverting supplies to Asia via pipelines, wouldn't that mean there would be less for the West to buy? Due to the laws of mathematics? ..."
"... Try putting together a spreadsheet with sources and sinks. Use transport costs to link these two. When you do you'll see the only difference is to change transport costs and security. I used to work and live in Russia and I'm sure they are using models like we did to understand the best options to move Russian oil. I'm a bit outdated, but what we see is a need to refine oil for internal consumption with a better kit. They need to improve their refineries to grind oil molecules for real. ..."
"... This is a very questionable assumption. Supply/demand dynamics, especially reckless financing of shale in the USA was a factor (as in "crisis of overproduction" - if we remember classic Marxist term ;-), but this is only one and probably not decisive contributing factor. Paper oil, HFT, Saudis oil damping and Western MSM and agencies (Wild cries "Oil Glut !!!", "OMG Oil glut !!!" supported by questionable statistics from EIA, IEA and friends) were equally important factors. It you deny this you deny the reality. ..."
"... I agree, but this not the whole story. Western MSM went to crazy pitch trying to amplify Saudi animosities and to play "young reckless prince" card toward Iran and Russia. Do you remember the interview the prince gave to Bloomberg just before the freeze ? Do you think that this was accidental? ..."
"... definitely $50-$60 price band is not enough to revive the US shale. LTO is dead probably on any level below $80 and may be even above this level. That does not exclude "dead chicken bounce". Moreover LTO is already played card for financial industries. In reality it probably needs prices above $100 to fully recover. ..."
"... neoliberals still dominates in Russia. Especially oil and economics ministries. Reading interviews of Russian oil officials is pretty depressing. They swallow and repeat all the Western propaganda one-to-one. Unfortunately. In this area they have a lot to learn from Americans :-). ..."
"... At the same time, increasing the volume of high additional value products such as plastics, rubber, composites, etc is in best Russia's interest. It is difficult to achieve though. I think creating the ability to withhold substantial amount of oil from the markets for the periods of say 6 to 12 month is more important. And here they can get some help from OPEC members, Saudi be damned. ..."
"... This is a tricky balancing solution, but still this is some insurance against the price slumps like the current one, when Russia was caught swimming naked and did not have any viable game plan. It is unclear what is the optimal mix, but in no way this 100% or even 80% raw oil. ..."
3) Russia's oil policy is driven by economic considerations. Cutting oil exports (and hence foreign
currency revenues) in order to "punish" the West is like shooting yourself in the foot.
Aleks,
I agree that a sustained embargo on the West by Russia is not realistic economically. Cutting
supplies for a month to send a message might be.
Or you could do something else…send your supplies via pipeline to Asia.
There by you get your money and decrease the supplies the West has access to.
I am sorry, but what you and likbez are saying here sounds naďve.
Russia is diversifying oil and gas exports towards rapidly rising Asian markets due to
economic and security considerations. But cutting oil exports to Europe, even for one month, would
be inefficient and self-destroying.
1) European customers could easily find alternative sources of supply. Saudi Arabia and
Iran would be happy to take Russia's share in the European market and it would be very difficult
to take it back.
2) It is impossible to redirect all Russian oil exports to Asia. Nobody there expects sharply
increased volumes of Russian oil. China has increased oil imports from Russia, but is not willing
to depend entirely on Russian supplies. There are also serious logistical issues. Russia exports
oil to Asia from the fields in Eastern Siberia and Far East. The fields in West Siberia, Volga-Urals
and Timan-Pechora regions are not linked by pipelines with Russia's eastern borders and transportation
costs in this case would be too high.
3) Contrary to what the western MSM is saying, Russia has never used energy exports as a political
weapon. The episodes when Russia was cutting gas supplies to Ukraine were related with prolonged
non-payments from that country. As soon as payments were resumed, Russia restarted gas supplies.
Today, when relations between Russia and Ukraine are worse than ever, Russia is supplying gas
to Ukraine as Ukraine is paying for it.
Cutting energy supplies to Europe, even for a month, would destroy Russia's reputation
as a reliable supplier and result in multiple lawsuits and potential multi-billion fines. Note
that Russian oil companies own significant assets in Europe, including refineries, oil terminals,
storage facilities, etc.
In general, Russia and Europe are so interdependent in the energy sector, that any drastic
steps there may have extremely negative consequences for both sides. Not surprisingly, the western
sanctions against Russia did not include a ban on the imports of Russian oil and gas. Russia,
on its side, will never cut its energy supplies to Europe.
"Russia is diversifying oil and gas exports towards rapidly rising Asian markets due to economic
and security considerations. But cutting oil exports to Europe, even for one month, would be
inefficient and self-destroying ".
Hey AlexS,
I think you are correct with the bolded part above.
However, if Russia (even for economic reasons) began diverting supplies to Asia via pipelines,
wouldn't that mean there would be less for the West to buy? Due to the laws of mathematics?
Unless of course Russia's Oil/Gas production is growing to offset the diversion.
Also, please note that my couch potato analysis was meant to be considered under Peak Oil/ELM
conditions. Not BAU as in today. I should have specified.
If there is anyone to trust on this point…It isn't me!!! LOL!
No. Try putting together a spreadsheet with sources and sinks. Use transport costs to link
these two. When you do you'll see the only difference is to change transport costs and security.
I used to work and live in Russia and I'm sure they are using models like we did to understand
the best options to move Russian oil. I'm a bit outdated, but what we see is a need to refine
oil for internal consumption with a better kit. They need to improve their refineries to grind
oil molecules for real.
The current oil price slump is due to supply/demand dynamics, not to western conspiracies
This is a very questionable assumption. Supply/demand dynamics, especially reckless financing
of shale in the USA was a factor (as in "crisis of overproduction" - if we remember classic Marxist
term ;-), but this is only one and probably not decisive contributing factor. Paper oil, HFT,
Saudis oil damping and Western MSM and agencies (Wild cries "Oil Glut !!!", "OMG Oil glut !!!"
supported by questionable statistics from EIA, IEA and friends) were equally important factors.
It you deny this you deny the reality.
Remember the key Roman legal principle "cue bono". And who in this case is the prime suspect?
Can you please answer this question.
And please remember that the originator of the word "conspiracies" was CIA (to discredit those
who questioned the official version of JFK assassination).
2) The Doha deal was torpedoed by Saudi Arabia, primarily due to its conflict with Iran
and the intention to defend market share.
I agree, but this not the whole story. Western MSM went to crazy pitch trying to amplify
Saudi animosities and to play "young reckless prince" card toward Iran and Russia. Do you remember
the interview the prince gave to Bloomberg just before the freeze ? Do you think that this was
accidental?
BTW I agree that this was a huge win of Western diplomacy and "low oil price forever" forces.
An increase in oil prices well above $50 this year is not in Russia's or Saudi interest,
as it could reverse the declining trend in LTO output.
Nonsense. First of all mankind now needs oil above $100 to speed up the switch to hybrid cars
for personal transportation, and Russia and Saudi are the part of mankind.
It is also in best Russia's and Saudi economic interests, contrary to what you read on Bloomberg
or similar rags. World oil production is severely damaged by low oil prices and 1MB/d that shale
it can probably additionally produce in best circumstances is not that easy to achieve after this
slump.
And definitely $50-$60 price band is not enough to revive the US shale. LTO is dead probably
on any level below $80 and may be even above this level. That does not exclude "dead chicken bounce".
Moreover LTO is already played card for financial industries. In reality it probably needs prices
above $100 to fully recover.
For probably the next five-seven years everybody will be too shy in financing shale and other
high risk oil production ventures. So the oil price will probably set a new record. After that
we will have another round of "gold rush" in oil as institutional memory about the current oil
price slump will gradually evaporate. Neoliberalism is an unstable economic system, you can bet
on that.
Russia's oil policy is driven by economic considerations. Cutting oil exports (and hence
foreign currency revenues) in order to "punish" the West is like shooting yourself in the foot.
Nonsense. No nation politics is driven only by economic consideration but Russia stupidly or
not tried to play the role of stable, reliable oil and gas supplier to people who would betray
you for a penny. And sometimes this desire to play nice with the West led to betraying its own
national interests.
If I were Putin I would create strategic reserves and divert part of oil export to them to
sell them later at higher prices. Buy low, sell high: is not this a good strategy :-)
Or play some other card by artificially restricting export of oil to Western Europe to refined
products (and to please the USA, as it so badly wanted Russia to restrict supplies to EU to damage
their long time strategic partner :-) and let the EU face consequences of their own polices.
But this is probably not a possibility as neoliberals still dominates in Russia. Especially
oil and economics ministries. Reading interviews of Russian oil officials is pretty depressing.
They swallow and repeat all the Western propaganda one-to-one. Unfortunately. In this area they
have a lot to learn from Americans :-).
Exports are reliable hard currency stream. But it not a stable stream, as Russia recently discovered.
At the same time, increasing the volume of high additional value products such as plastics,
rubber, composites, etc is in best Russia's interest. It is difficult to achieve though. I think
creating the ability to withhold substantial amount of oil from the markets for the periods of
say 6 to 12 month is more important. And here they can get some help from OPEC members, Saudi
be damned.
Upgrading oil refining capacity means that Russian oil companies are able to increase
the share of refined products in total exports at the expense of crude oil.
This is a tricky balancing solution, but still this is some insurance against the price
slumps like the current one, when Russia was caught swimming naked and did not have any viable
game plan. It is unclear what is the optimal mix, but in no way this 100% or even 80% raw oil.
Construction work is starting on a new pipeline project bringing Azeri gas through northern
Greece and Albania to Italy, reducing Europe's energy dependency on Russia.
The Trans Adriatic Pipeline will run for 878 kilometers (550 miles), from Greece's border with
Turkey to southern Italy, and includes a 105-kilometer (65-mile) stretch under the Adriatic Sea.
First deliveries to Europe are expected in 2020.
Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras said the project would create 8,000 jobs in his financially
struggling country, which has more than 24 percent unemployment.
He spoke at a ceremony Tuesday to mark the beginning of the pipeline's construction in the
northern port city of Thessaloniki.
TAP is a joint project by Britain's BP, Azerbaijan's SOCAR, Italy's Snam, Belgium's Fluxys,
Spain's Enagas and Swiss Axpo.
"... This is a very questionable assumption. Supply/demand dynamics, especially reckless financing of shale in the USA was a factor (as in "crisis of overproduction" - if we remember classic Marxist term ;-), but this is only one and probably not decisive contributing factor. Paper oil, HFT, Saudis oil damping and Western MSM and agencies (Wild cries "Oil Glut !!!", "OMG Oil glut !!!" supported by questionable statistics from EIA, IEA and friends) were equally important factors. It you deny this you deny the reality. ..."
"... I agree, but this not the whole story. Western MSM went to crazy pitch trying to amplify Saudi animosities and to play "young reckless prince" card toward Iran and Russia. Do you remember the interview the prince gave to Bloomberg just before the freeze ? Do you think that this was accidental? ..."
"... definitely $50-$60 price band is not enough to revive the US shale. LTO is dead probably on any level below $80 and may be even above this level. That does not exclude "dead chicken bounce". Moreover LTO is already played card for financial industries. In reality it probably needs prices above $100 to fully recover. ..."
"... neoliberals still dominates in Russia. Especially oil and economics ministries. Reading interviews of Russian oil officials is pretty depressing. They swallow and repeat all the Western propaganda one-to-one. Unfortunately. In this area they have a lot to learn from Americans :-). ..."
"... At the same time, increasing the volume of high additional value products such as plastics, rubber, composites, etc is in best Russia's interest. It is difficult to achieve though. I think creating the ability to withhold substantial amount of oil from the markets for the periods of say 6 to 12 month is more important. And here they can get some help from OPEC members, Saudi be damned. ..."
"... This is a tricky balancing solution, but still this is some insurance against the price slumps like the current one, when Russia was caught swimming naked and did not have any viable game plan. It is unclear what is the optimal mix, but in no way this 100% or even 80% raw oil. ..."
I doubt that Russian will so easily forgive the West the current price slump and sanctions.
Remember it was Russia which was one on the main initiators of "freeze" the US and EU managed
to derail.
My impression is that Russia wants to process most of its oil internally which will reduce
the amount of oil available for export significantly. That's now semi-official policy.
Production figures are less meaningful in this context then export volumes and are like a smokescreen
on the eminent move to oil shortages on world markets.
Yes, production might be stable or slowly declining. But exports will not be stable. They will
be declining. Now what ?
1) The current oil price slump is due to supply/demand dynamics, not to western conspiracies.
This is very well understood by Russian officials.
2) The Doha deal was torpedoed by Saudi Arabia, primarily due to its conflict with Iran and
the intention to defend market share.
3) The output freeze deal was intended at changing the sentiment in the market and prevent
further decline in oil prices. This objective was achieved: oil prices are up 70% from February
lows, which is partly due to the talks between Russia, Saudi Arabia and others that started in
February.
Nobody expected the Doha deal to help oil prices to return to $100 levels, as an output freeze
is not an output cut. Besides, the agreement should have been non-binding and there was no mechanism
to control its implementation.
An increase in oil prices well above $50 this year is not in Russia's or Saudi interest, as
it could reverse the declining trend in LTO output. Russia's government officials, management
of oil companies and experts generally think that rebalancing of the oil market should be left
to market forces, and any attempts to artificially cut supply would be counter-productive. Therefore,
nobody saw the failure of the Doha agreement as a tragedy, particulalry as prices are already
at acceptable levels.
3) Russia's oil policy is driven by economic considerations. Cutting oil exports (and hence
foreign currency revenues) in order to "punish" the West is like shooting yourself in the foot.
4) As Russian oil production was increasing in the past 15 years, and domestic demand remained
relatively stable, the country has been ramping up exports of both crude oil and refined products.
Upgrading oil refining capacity means that Russian oil companies are able to increase the share
of refined products in total exports at the expense of crude oil.
This results in changing structure of liquid fuel exports, not in the decrease in its combined
volume. In fact, the structure of petroleum exports depends on comparative profitability of crude
and product exports. Sometimes it is more profitable to export crude rather than diesel or fuel
oil.
The current oil price slump is due to supply/demand dynamics, not to western conspiracies
This is a very questionable assumption. Supply/demand dynamics, especially reckless financing
of shale in the USA was a factor (as in "crisis of overproduction" - if we remember classic Marxist
term ;-), but this is only one and probably not decisive contributing factor. Paper oil, HFT,
Saudis oil damping and Western MSM and agencies (Wild cries "Oil Glut !!!", "OMG Oil glut !!!"
supported by questionable statistics from EIA, IEA and friends) were equally important factors.
It you deny this you deny the reality.
Remember the key Roman legal principle "cue bono". And who in this case is the prime suspect?
Can you please answer this question.
And please remember that the originator of the word "conspiracies" was CIA (to discredit those
who questioned the official version of JFK assassination).
2) The Doha deal was torpedoed by Saudi Arabia, primarily due to its conflict with Iran
and the intention to defend market share.
I agree, but this not the whole story. Western MSM went to crazy pitch trying to amplify
Saudi animosities and to play "young reckless prince" card toward Iran and Russia. Do you remember
the interview the prince gave to Bloomberg just before the freeze ? Do you think that this was
accidental?
BTW I agree that this was a huge win of Western diplomacy and "low oil price forever" forces.
An increase in oil prices well above $50 this year is not in Russia's or Saudi interest,
as it could reverse the declining trend in LTO output.
Nonsense. First of all mankind now needs oil above $100 to speed up the switch to hybrid cars
for personal transportation, and Russia and Saudi are the part of mankind.
It is also in best Russia's and Saudi economic interests, contrary to what you read on Bloomberg
or similar rags. World oil production is severely damaged by low oil prices and 1MB/d that shale
it can probably additionally produce in best circumstances is not that easy to achieve after this
slump.
And definitely $50-$60 price band is not enough to revive the US shale. LTO is dead probably
on any level below $80 and may be even above this level. That does not exclude "dead chicken bounce".
Moreover LTO is already played card for financial industries. In reality it probably needs prices
above $100 to fully recover.
For probably the next five-seven years everybody will be too shy in financing shale and other
high risk oil production ventures. So the oil price will probably set a new record. After that
we will have another round of "gold rush" in oil as institutional memory about the current oil
price slump will gradually evaporate. Neoliberalism is an unstable economic system, you can bet
on that.
Russia's oil policy is driven by economic considerations. Cutting oil exports (and hence
foreign currency revenues) in order to "punish" the West is like shooting yourself in the foot.
Nonsense. No nation politics is driven only by economic consideration but Russia stupidly or
not tried to play the role of stable, reliable oil and gas supplier to people who would betray
you for a penny. And sometimes this desire to play nice with the West led to betraying its own
national interests.
If I were Putin I would create strategic reserves and divert part of oil export to them to
sell them later at higher prices. Buy low, sell high: is not this a good strategy :-)
Or play some other card by artificially restricting export of oil to Western Europe to refined
products (and to please the USA, as it so badly wanted Russia to restrict supplies to EU to damage
their long time strategic partner :-) and let the EU face consequences of their own polices.
But this is probably not a possibility as neoliberals still dominates in Russia. Especially
oil and economics ministries. Reading interviews of Russian oil officials is pretty depressing.
They swallow and repeat all the Western propaganda one-to-one. Unfortunately. In this area they
have a lot to learn from Americans :-).
Exports are reliable hard currency stream. But it not a stable stream, as Russia recently discovered.
At the same time, increasing the volume of high additional value products such as plastics,
rubber, composites, etc is in best Russia's interest. It is difficult to achieve though. I think
creating the ability to withhold substantial amount of oil from the markets for the periods of
say 6 to 12 month is more important. And here they can get some help from OPEC members, Saudi
be damned.
Upgrading oil refining capacity means that Russian oil companies are able to increase
the share of refined products in total exports at the expense of crude oil.
This is a tricky balancing solution, but still this is some insurance against the price
slumps like the current one, when Russia was caught swimming naked and did not have any viable
game plan. It is unclear what is the optimal mix, but in no way this 100% or even 80% raw oil.
"... Russia is not planning to significantly ramp production capacity. Energy Minister Novak said today that the country will be able to maintain long-term production levels within the range 525-545 million tons per year (10.5-10.9 mb/d). That's what Russian officials were saying earlier. ..."
"... According to the Saudi officials, planned expansion of the Khurais and Shaybah oil fields will only compensate for falling output at other fields. They claim that the country's "maximum sustainable output capacity is 12 million barrels per day and the nation's total capacity is 12.5 million bpd", but there are no plans to increase capacity and there is no evidence that this capacity really exists. ..."
Russia is not planning to significantly ramp production capacity.
Energy Minister Novak said today that the country will be able to maintain long-term production
levels within the range 525-545 million tons per year (10.5-10.9 mb/d). That's what Russian officials
were saying earlier.
According to the Saudi officials, planned expansion of the Khurais and Shaybah oil fields will
only
compensate for falling output at other fields. They claim that the country's "maximum sustainable
output capacity is 12 million barrels per day and the nation's total capacity is 12.5 million
bpd", but there are no plans to increase capacity and there is no evidence that this capacity
really exists.
I think that in reality Saudi Arabia is able to increase crude production from the current
10.2 mb/d to 10.5-10.6 mb/d during the peak season for local demand in the Summer, but not well
above those levels.
I agree with AlexS's assessment. In short, no not much further
increase in output will come from Russia and Saudi Arabia, certainly not
until oil prices rise above $70/b in 2018, and perhaps never.
The combined output of Russia and KSA will remain within +/- 2 Mb/d of
2015 C+C output levels until 2020 in my view.
Russia is bleeding hard currency but still its oil industry is the best shape among OPEC
nations, despite low oil prices and sanctions. It might well be that Russia will preserve the level
of oil production which it reached in 2015 in 2016.
While discussing major factors influencing the oil market at the Forum, the speakers agreed
the geopolitics have become an essential factor, although the condition of the world economy and
market forces along with the technological advancement seemed to still be taking a lead in
driving oil prices.
"We must understand that the oil prices cannot change drastically because we are now reaching the
projected output level that we set out to achieve with the investments that we historically made
six, five, four years ago, and the production cannot be curtailed," said Vagit Alekperov,
LUKoil's Chief Executive Officer. According to Alekperov, last year LUKoil spent 300 billion
rubles on investments in the industry, and 112 billion rubles of investments in the first quarter
of 2016.
Related: ISIS Working On Driverless Car Causes More Worry Than Necessary
Alekperov also said that the complex geopolitical situation in the Persian Gulf has caused the
OPEC members from the Middle East to compete harder for their share of the oil market.
"What we see here, is that amidst the oil prices slump the Persian Gulf countries attempt to
increase their production output to cover their budget deficits caused by slashed oil revenues,
including compensating for the part of budget they need for procuring arms", Alekperov noted.
However, LUKoil's CEO believes oil prices are passed their lowest point, and the equilibrium
price should fluctuate around $50 per barrel for the rest of 2016 and first half of 2017. Prices
should then rise in the second half of 2017 as demand begins to exceed supply.
The Chairman of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs, Alexander Shohin,
described a litany of geopolitical issues affecting oil prices. "The fact that the Saudis
rejected freezing the output blaming it on Iran's absence from the negotiations and its refusal
to cooperate by announcing intention to raise the production back to pre-sanctions level of 5
million bpd plus a couple million bpd on top of that; turmoil in Libya's political situation, and
a lack of a legitimate government there ; let alone the conspiracy plots that impact oil prices
in countries that may be regarded as 'unfriendly'…all this definitely points to a high role of
geopolitics in global oil market," he said.
"... From the Iranian side, I have no doubts that an increase of another 1m barrels a day is precisely what they hope will happen, but the reality will surely be different. For all oil production, whether it is from an independent oil company or a sovereign nation, capital expenditures will determine the increase or decrease that can be achieved. Iran has a decidedly arthritic oil infrastructure, slowed by the lack of Western technology and the impact of a decade of sanctions. Their own economy is too weak to generate anywhere near the capex required to increase another 1 million barrels in the next year, and their overtures to foreign oil companies for leases inside Iran has been met cooly by prime contenders Total (TOT) and Eni (E). There is a lagged amount of already developed barrels that Iran can push onto the global market – perhaps 300,000 barrels a day; but by my reckoning, already 150,000 of those barrels have been added – making their ultimate targets very unlikely indeed to be reached. ..."
"... It wouldn't be consistent to believe that for the last year and a half, the Saudis have been capable of increasing their production by another 20 percent, but have so far kept that potential under wraps. Instead, I am fully of the opinion that the Saudis are near, if not at their full production potential right now. ..."
"... The oil market seems to agree – in February, if the threat of another 3 million barrels of oil hitting the global market had been unleashed, oil might have reached below $20 a barrel; today, oil is getting very close to rallying towards $50 a barrel instead. ..."
In light of the missed opportunity at Doha to curb OPEC production, angry statements have emerged
from both Iran and Saudi Arabia on oil production – the Iranians saying that they cannot be stopped
in increasing their exports another 1m barrels a day in the next 12 months, the Saudi oil minister
in turn threatening to increase production another 2m barrels a day. Both of these statements need
to be taken with not a grain, but a 5-pound bag of salt.
From the Iranian side, I have no doubts that an increase of another 1m barrels a day is precisely
what they hope will happen, but the reality will surely be different. For all oil production, whether
it is from an independent oil company or a sovereign nation, capital expenditures will determine
the increase or decrease that can be achieved. Iran has a decidedly arthritic oil infrastructure,
slowed by the lack of Western technology and the impact of a decade of sanctions. Their own economy
is too weak to generate anywhere near the capex required to increase another 1 million barrels in
the next year, and their overtures to foreign oil companies for leases inside Iran has been met cooly
by prime contenders Total (TOT) and Eni (E). There is a lagged amount of already developed barrels
that Iran can push onto the global market – perhaps 300,000 barrels a day; but by my reckoning, already
150,000 of those barrels have been added – making their ultimate targets very unlikely indeed to
be reached.
The Saudis do not have any of the capex or technology problems that plague the Iranians. But the
question of how much capacity the Saudis actually do have comes into play when they threaten to increase
production by another 2 million barrels. For my entire career in oil, there has always been a dark
question on Saudi 'spare capacity' – How much could the Saudis ultimately pump, if they were willing
to open the spigots up fully? For years, the speculation from most oil analysts was near to 7.5m
or 8m barrels a day – a number that was blown out in the last two years as Saudi production rocketed
above 10m barrels a day.
But the strategy the Saudis have pursued has been clear – they have been working towards full
production and an aggressive fight for market share since the failure of the Vienna OPEC meeting
in November of 2014. It is very difficult to believe that the Saudis have had much, if any, remaining
capacity to easily put on the market since that time, or if any spare capacity could be developed
at all. It wouldn't be consistent to believe that for the last year and a half, the Saudis have been
capable of increasing their production by another 20 percent, but have so far kept that potential
under wraps. Instead, I am fully of the opinion that the Saudis are near, if not at their full production
potential right now.
The oil market seems to agree – in February, if the threat of another 3 million barrels of oil
hitting the global market had been unleashed, oil might have reached below $20 a barrel; today, oil
is getting very close to rallying towards $50 a barrel instead.
"... "They (Saudis) have the ability to raise output significantly. But so do we," Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak told journalists on the sidelines of an international energy conference in Moscow. ..."
"... He said Russia was "in theory" able to raise production to 12 or even 13 million bpd from current record levels of close to 11 million bpd. ..."
"... Russian oil output has repeatedly surprised on the upside over the past decade, rising from as low as 6 million bpd at the turn of the millennium. Oil experts have repeatedly predicted an unavoidable decline but it has yet to happen. ..."
"... we are headed for some incredibly rough times. We need for oil to be just like Goldilock's porridge, not to hot, not too cold, not too plentiful and cheap, not too scarce and expensive, for at least another couple of decades. ..."
Russia said on Wednesday it was prepared to push oil production to new historic highs, just
days after a global deal to freeze output levels collapsed and Saudi Arabia threatened to flood
markets with more crude.
The deal had been meant to help the market rebalance by removing a large chunk of oversupply
and a stockpile glut.
But Saudi Arabia said it could jack up output instead – by as much as 2 million barrels per
day (bpd) to over 12 million, which would allow it to overtake Russia as the world's largest producer.
"They (Saudis) have the ability to raise output significantly. But so do we," Russian
Energy Minister Alexander Novak told journalists on the sidelines of an international energy
conference in Moscow.
He said Russia was "in theory" able to raise production to 12 or even 13 million bpd from
current record levels of close to 11 million bpd.
Russian oil output has repeatedly surprised on the upside over the past decade, rising
from as low as 6 million bpd at the turn of the millennium. Oil experts have repeatedly predicted
an unavoidable decline but it has yet to happen.
"Oil experts have repeatedly predicted an unavoidable decline but it has yet to happen."
This is a "WHEN" question, rather than an "if" question. Let's hope and pray to the Sky Daddy
or Sky Mommy of our choice that the supply of oil holds up well enough, long enough, for the renewables
and electric car industries to grow up.
Otherwise, we are headed for some incredibly rough times. We need for oil to be just like
Goldilock's porridge, not to hot, not too cold, not too plentiful and cheap, not too scarce and
expensive, for at least another couple of decades.
"... There is a LOT of food for thought in it. Russia may soon peak as as oil producer, but gas production is another story. Russia may now turn out to be the swing producer in some respects. ..."
"... I read that the Russian government is selling a 19.5% stake in Rosneft and looking for a "non-greedy" partner for the interest. Russia also says do not expect prices to rise after Doha meeting. I believe we discussed this back in February. The goal is not necessarily to return prices back to 2011-14 levels, but to stop the speculators driving the prices into the $20s and below. ..."
"... I wish they shale guys would say they need $70 to survive. Then OPEC and Russia would be ok with $60, and $60 WTI would be just fine by us for quite awhile. ..."
"... Wait, you're playing the speculator card? I thought those HFT engines were all that was putting it at $110. ..."
This link is a longer one ( not for sound bite fans ) going into some substantial detail concerning
Russia as an energy exporting country, and what it means to the rest of the world politically
and economically.
Read it for insight. There is a LOT of food for thought in it. Russia may soon peak as as oil
producer, but gas production is another story. Russia may now turn out to be the swing producer
in some respects.
Russia can sell pipeline gas cheaper than we yankees can sell LNG overseas for instance.
I read that the Russian government is selling a 19.5% stake in Rosneft and looking for a "non-greedy"
partner for the interest. Russia also says do not expect prices to rise after Doha meeting. I
believe we discussed this back in February. The goal is not necessarily to return prices back
to 2011-14 levels, but to stop the speculators driving the prices into the $20s and below.
I wish they shale guys would say they need $70 to survive. Then OPEC and Russia would be
ok with $60, and $60 WTI would be just fine by us for quite awhile.
"All oil producing countries … now started accelerated development of petrochemical industry.
This is probably the most important consequence of this oil price slump.
They all want to export more refined products and products with substantial added value (plastics,
composites)."
This process started at least 10 years ago and has nothing to do with the drop in oil prices.
See, for example, the chart below:
Russia's crude oil and refined products exports (million tons)
Not so fast. I remember that Sechin on one of International conferences had proudly pumped
his chest explaining how good a player Russia is in a sense that they are just exporting raw oil
instead of refined products. This guy dumped huge amount of money into Arctic shelf instead of
building refineries and other chemical plants which would help enormously in 2015.
Can you please compare that with KSA dynamics. Because that will tell us how backward in this
respect Russians were up to this day in comparison with Arab sheikhs.
The recent refinery built in KSA (0.4 Mb/d):
Yanbu Aramco Sinopec Refining Company (YASREF) Ltd. King Salman and Chinese President Xi
Jinping inaugurate YASREF Refinery Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, January 20, 2016 The Custodian of
the Two Holy Mosques King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, the King of Saudi Arabia and His Excellency
Xi Jinping, the President of the People's Republic of China today jointly inaugurated the Yanbu
Aramco Sinopec Refining Company (YASREF)refinery.
https://lnkd.in/eCBZ4PZ W.J
I do not know what you remember, but there are statistical facts.
The share of refined products in Russia's oil and product exports increased from 25-30% in 2000-2005
to 41-42% in 2014-2015.
In volume terms, exports of refined products increased by 174% (almost 3 times) between 2000 and
2015.
Given that Russia has sufficient primary distillation capacity, there was an intensive modernization
program.
Saudi Arabia has also been developing refining capacity and currently covers all its domestic
needs. In 2015, refining products accounted for 13% of total crude and products exports.
Saudi Arabia's crude and refined product exports (mb/d)
source: JODI
As you mentioned Sechin, here is a brief summary of Rosneft's refinery modernization program:
"Rosneft is implementing the most ambitions modernization program in RF: more than 30 construction
projects, reconstruction of re-refinery units. The Company's refineries are implementing the modernization
program that implies significant increase of the refining depth and improvement of the produced
petroleum products (all motor fuels will correspond to the European environmental class Euro-5).
The capacity of the modernization program projects:
primary processing – 12.0 million tons/year;
conversion processes – 23.6 million tons/year;
reforming processes – 35.9 million tons/ year.
At present, within the framework of implementation of the program, reconstruction and construction
works are being performed with respect of the following:
reforming, isomerization, alkylation plants for production of high-octane gasoline components;
catalytic cracking plants for production of high-quality gasoline components and oil conversion
rate increase;
hydrocracking plants for production of high-quality diesel fuel components, jet fuel and oil conversion
rate increase;
hydrotreatment plants for compliance with the requirements of the Technical Regulations of the
Customs Union in terms of sulfur content in the products."
"... even if LTO output starts to recover, its annual growth rate will never return to previous high growth rate of 1 mb/d. ..."
"... Potential 300-400 kb/d annual growth in LTO output will be much less than 1.2mb/d projected growth in global demand. ..."
"... I do not dispute Russian companies are cash flow positive. My point is, what do Russian oil and gas industry workers make in salary and benefits, in relation to their US peers? If it is substantially less, is this why, in part, Russian oil and gas companies are still cash flow positive? ..."
"... Yes, salaries in Russia are generally much lower than in the U.S., not just in the oil industry. Especially, if they are measured in dollar-terms, rather than in real purchasing power. Locally produced equipment, pipes, other materials, electricity, services, etc. are also much less expensive, especially after the depreciation of the local currency. ..."
"... Finally, and particularly important, Russia produces higher volume of C+C with a much less number of wells. The number of new wells drilled annually is also several times less than in the U.S. ..."
"... Old conventional onshore fields are on average less mature. There is almost no stripper wells. There is much less (high-cost) deep offshore production. And almost no LTO output. ..."
"... I do not know a lot about Russian oil and gas production, but it does appear to me that a combination of lower costs, and less mature fields, is keeping Russian oil and gas companies generally profitable, despite the downturn. ..."
"... Maybe too simplistic, but there was a time, from 1986-2004, where we would have been cheering $40 WTI. A combination of lower production volumes, combined with much higher costs, make $40 WTI a money loser in most onshore US fields, or at least not enough for new wells. I guess maybe Russia is just where the US was 30 years ago? 30 years ago, $40 WTI would have been very profitable in most US onshore fields. ..."
"I read Russian companies are still making money, but the purchasing power of their currency is
much less than it was."
shallow sand,
Their revenues are mostly in dollars, and 90% of costs are in rubles. So the decline of the
ruble's rate versus the dollar is very positive for the Russian companies, as it partially mitigates
the negative effect of low oil prices.
Which means that OPEC decision not to cut output was correct. One year more of relatively low
oil prices ($40-50) and LTO will not be a threat to other producers.
The excess supply will be eliminated by that time. And even if LTO output starts to recover,
its annual growth rate will never return to previous high growth rate of 1 mb/d.
Potential 300-400 kb/d annual growth in LTO output will be much less than 1.2mb/d projected
growth in global demand.
I do not dispute Russian companies are cash flow positive. My point is, what do Russian
oil and gas industry workers make in salary and benefits, in relation to their US peers? If it
is substantially less, is this why, in part, Russian oil and gas companies are still cash flow
positive?
I do not know the answer, maybe you could provide some information in that regard?
Yes, salaries in Russia are generally much lower than in the U.S., not just in the oil
industry. Especially, if they are measured in dollar-terms, rather than in real purchasing power.
Locally produced equipment, pipes, other materials, electricity, services, etc. are also much
less expensive, especially after the depreciation of the local currency.
Finally, and particularly important, Russia produces higher volume of C+C with a much less
number of wells. The number of new wells drilled annually is also several times less than in the
U.S.
Old conventional onshore fields are on average less mature. There is almost no stripper
wells. There is much less (high-cost) deep offshore production. And almost no LTO output.
Thanks. I always appreciate your comments on this site.
I do not know a lot about Russian oil and gas production, but it does appear to me that
a combination of lower costs, and less mature fields, is keeping Russian oil and gas companies
generally profitable, despite the downturn.
Maybe too simplistic, but there was a time, from 1986-2004, where we would have been cheering
$40 WTI. A combination of lower production volumes, combined with much higher costs, make $40
WTI a money loser in most onshore US fields, or at least not enough for new wells. I guess maybe
Russia is just where the US was 30 years ago? 30 years ago, $40 WTI would have been very profitable
in most US onshore fields.
Fernando, I also agree on the spending part, but I doubt you will find many places more consumer
spending driven than the US. But I am going to refrain from further comment on this topic, as
last time I discussed it, I put both feet in my mouth. And we need to stick to the oil topic.
LOL!
"... Looks like this is what the West wants Russia to want, not what Russia wants :-). I think in reality Russia wants $80 or higher, but with capex reduced most Russian oil companies for some short period might be content with $50-$60 range. ..."
"... If we are talking about a fair price of oil globally, I believe this is $80 per barrel. Keep in mind that a significant part of oil – about a third – is produced offshore, where the cost can be high. And there is a deep-water shelf, for example, in Brazil, where one of the first well cost more than $300 million. Subsequent wells would of course cost less, around the half the price, but still very expensive. ..."
Russia and Saudi Arabia gave signals that they want to have a price of no more than USD 45
per barrel as this prevents high cost oil to gain market share for some time.
Thus, Saudi Arabia prefers to export 10 mill bbl/d at USD 45 per barrel rather than 5 mill
bbl/d at USD 90 per barrel. Saudi Arabia has still 2 mill bbl/d as reserve capacity, which will
take some time to come to the market, yet I think the Saudis are ready to use this. USD 45 per
barrel is a comfortable price for Saudi Arabia and Russia.
As a conclusion, it could take – depending on the Saudis – a long time until prices can go
up again, which is clearly a disadvantage for shale. It is now up to the shale production to reduce
capacity and bring prices up again.
Russia and Saudi Arabia gave signals that they want to have a price of no more than USD
45 per barrel as this prevents high cost oil to gain market share for some time.
Looks like this is what the West wants Russia to want, not what Russia wants :-). I think
in reality Russia wants $80 or higher, but with capex reduced most Russian oil companies for some
short period might be content with $50-$60 range. See interview of the President of the Union
of oil and gas Industrialists of Russia Gennady Shmal (
http://peakoilbarrel.com/open-thread-petroleum-oil-natural-gas/#comment-565010 ):
A: If we are talking about a fair price of oil globally, I believe this is $80 per barrel.
Keep in mind that a significant part of oil – about a third – is produced offshore, where the
cost can be high. And there is a deep-water shelf, for example, in Brazil, where one of the
first well cost more than $300 million. Subsequent wells would of course cost less, around
the half the price, but still very expensive. Therefore, the capex of this oil extraction
is high enough. The breakeven price of our oil production without taxes is around $10 per barrel,
nationally. But when we include taxes, we get around $30 per barrel. But this cost is not no
tragedy for us. I remember a time when a barrel of oil was less than $10. Then we dreamed about
the price rising to $20.
When the three-year average cost of oil was above $100 per barrel, we got too used to it.
But the high price has one big drawback – it can negatively affect demand and stimulates production.
And that's what basically happened.
Therefore, now our oil companies might be now content with the price around $50-60 per barrel.
And I think in general, globally it would be OK price for both producers and consumers.
Even for the United States that would be an acceptable price. Canadians with their oil sands
would need a higher price – up to $80. But as the Canadian oil going to the United States,
anyway, losses can be compensated with the domestic shale production and they would have to
come to a common denominator.
I have to laugh at the argument that today's low oil prices are something Saudi Arabia wants in
order to (1) punish LTO producers in the U.S or (2) punish Russia or (3) punish other OPEC producers
or (4) punish (insert country name here). There is no way SA wants low prices and their economy
is suffering. They are burning through their foreign reserves. So why are the continuing to produce
flat out as Ron insightfully informs us?
Because they have no choice! They need every dollar they can get and they don't control the
price of oil. If they export less the price of oil will go up somewhat, of course, but not enough
to increase their net take. In other words, their profitability would go up but their total profit
would decrease.
Now it's true that SA has made statements that make it look like this is part of some strategy,
but I believe that is all just public relations. Putting lipstick on a pig, if you will (apologies
to Muslim readers). If prices remain low we could be looking at some big time internal and regional
disruption as poor Saudi's (and there are lots of them) become desperate and the privileged Saud
class finds their standard of living declining. Saudi Arabia has been a pillar of stability (yes,
repressive stability) in the mid east for decades. If that changes many bad things could happen.
But please, stop with the talk that SA wants low oil prices.
If KSA cut production by 3 million barrels per day (for example), I'd bet my life savings that
oil prices would at least double to say 70 or even 80 USD per barrel – and I think that is being
conservative. That cut would totally eliminate the current rate of oversupply.
That sacrifice would reduce their volume of oil exported by about 30%, but revenue from that
oil would double – with that production providing greater profit margins as well for the same
given revenue.
I don't think it is accurate to say that a) they couldn't control the price of oil at least
directionally, and b) that their total profit would decrease – it simply wouldn't, it would increase.
How else did OPEC work in the past if that was not the case?
Well, you can make your bet and I'd make mine. When I say control the price of oil I mean CONTROL
the price - not just influence it. Any producer can influence the price at some marginal level.
But Saudi Arabia is seen by many as holding the key to world prices. So your assertion is that
KSA could cut back and increase the price sufficiently to more than make up for the lost exports.
So why aren't they? To hurt the US frackers? To hurt Russia? To hurt Iran? I just don't but it.
They are burning through their foreign exchange reserves at a blistering pace. And if they someday
decide to cut production and increase world prices, won't that just bring back the other producers?
It's all my opinion, of course, and we are all entitled to one, but I don't see how KSA is
operating on some kind of brilliant strategy.
I have to laugh at the argument that today's low oil prices are
something Saudi Arabia wants in order to (1) punish LTO producers in the U.S or (2) punish Russia
or (3) punish other OPEC producers or (4) punish (insert contry name here). There is no way SA
wants low prices and their economy is suffering. They are burning through their foreign reserves.
So why are the continuing to produce flat out as Ron insightfully informs us?
KSA used predatory pricing to drive down oil prices. This is undisputable. It takes two for
tango and they were supported by growth of US shale production and the heavy artillery of the
USA MSM claiming "Oh my God, oil glut, oil glut !" as well as disingenuous statistics from EIA
and IEA (both controlled by the same people).
It looks that oil glut did occurred, mainly due to condensate overproduction for the second
half of 2014 and the first half of 2015 and this fact was used to drive oil prices from over $100
to below $30 or three times. Wall Street guys are called "masters of the universe" for a reason.
That put most oil producing nations in a very precarious situation with several countries balancing
of the wedge of bankruptcies. This also was equivalent to huge monetary stimulus for the Western
and Asian economies. For the USA it was equivalent to the continuation of the Fed stimulus program.
Probably around 600 billion per year worldwide were redistributed from oil producing nations
to oil consuming nations.
KSA actions also created tensions between two groups of OPEC nations - Gulf monarchies and
everybody else to the extent that OPEC now exists only formally (not withstanding that cheating
OPEC quotas was widespread practice even before).
In February the situation looked really grim for oil producing nations and Russians became
really concerned that Wall Street manipulators (aka paper oil producers) will manage to drive
oil to $20 (you can almost sense the level of panic in Sechin speech in London
http://www.rosneft.com/attach/0/57/51/pdf_10022016_en.pdf
)
Our message about the gap between the financial instruments of the oil market which, in
fact, determine the prices and specifics of the actual industry development has been clearly
confirmed. The financial market observes its own interests, and they are often abstracted from
the problems of sustainable development of the industry. In this market, prices can both fall
to the "bottom" where any development or stable functioning are impossible, and climb to unreasonably
high levels.
Financial players have tools that allow them making profit on both rise and fall in prices.
Today, the financial technique implies that decisions are often made by robots at the trading
platforms, and the programs managed by them impersonally respond instantly to such short-term
changes of the situation or information on the oil reserves movements;
Link of the price dynamics with the parameters of production is primarily important to the
producers who have a long-term horizon of decision-making, investment and implementation of
major projects, and the consumers who are also interested in predictability. In the past year,
we saw developments in which producers were split up, and some of them announced a "price war"
setting up a mission to oust "ineffective" suppliers from the market and take their place at
the market, in fact, this price war should have determined who is "ineffective".
In these circumstances, it is quite expected that the financial market players went bears
while the related (if not affiliated) think tanks helpfully prompted lower and lower price
benchmarks to the market.
Who was the main beneficiary of the current crisis? Apparently, not consumers because the
retail prices fell by less than 20% on average, but rather financial players who, by the way,
have not redirected $250-300 bln investments released from oil sector into projects in other
sectors of the economy so far.
Slide 5. Explosive growth of shale oil production in the US in 2013-2014 ceased in 2015
As we know, the explosive growth of shale production in the US in 2013-2014 became another
crucial factor, and even the "trigger" of the crisis.
In 2013-2014, this growth was probably unprecedented in the world history in terms of its
scale and pace. We have already noted that this reflected the advantage of the developed
US market with its financial instruments (large-scale hedging of risks, availability of cheap
investment, propensity of investors to take prompt decisions, use of land pledge and encumbrances,
etc.), and its capacities in drilling, service and transportation.
In late 2014, some of the leading oil producers from the Middle East followed the example
of the US strategy in increasing oil production.
As the result, the problems of excess oil on the market, long-time decline in oil prices,
falloff in capacity of commercial shale oil production in the US have become worse.
Slide 6. OPEC actions gave backing to imbalance in the oil market
There is every reason to believe that these producers have deliberately created and continue
to maintain a surplus of supply over demand claiming their commitment to the policy of low
prices. The consequences of this policy, even if it is changed or adjusted, will have affect
for a certain time.
Slide 7. Positions of major speculators in the oil futures markets
We have to admit we underestimated the fact that the financial market players have no restrictions
in dealing with their sheer financial objectives and are ready to "test" any price levels –
for example, 27$ in January – down to $10 per barrel as it was recently announced by a reputable
investment structure. What is it if not "an invitation to the irresponsible game" for an unlimited
price drop?
That's why all those talks about freeze started in February - this was a meek attempt of damage
control of KSA reckless gambit from which other oil producing nations suffered greatly (and Saudis
decided to get on board of this initiative for a simple reason that events got out of control
and they also feel really threatened by the possibility of $20 oil).
The most interesting is the fact that Saudis cooperated with Russia (whom they consider their
enemy). Russia in turn decided to cooperate with KSA not out of good will toward KSA. They consider
Wahhabism a mortal threat for Russia and you can get in jail if you just get Wahhabi literature
in Russia, to say nothing about openly declaring yourself to be adherent of this dominant in KSA
sect (it is considered to be criminal organization in Russia). That tells us something about the
precarious situation in which oil producing nations has found themselves in February.
In any case, in February it looked like oil producing nations will be taken for a ride by Wall
Street for 2016 and probably 2017. And financially raped.
That's why this freeze agreement was announced and it helped to push prices slightly higher
even before it full ratification which might occur in late April despite all the efforts by the
West to torpedo the agreement (and somewhat duplicitous behavior of Iran, which it seems does
not understand that producing 4 Mb/day at $30 is equivalent to producing 2 Mb/d at $60).
Russia also launched a national program of development of their petrochemical industry which
will eventually reduce the amount of oil available for export, even if production remains flat.
Saudis did the same and actually on much larger scale. So their internal consumption will be
rising faster then their production capacities.
To get out this KSA induced fiasco with oil prices this cocky and impulsive new Saudi prince
is now trying to save his butt pretending to be Margaret Thatcher of Saudi Arabia. He is trying
to launch the program of privatization of state assets including part of Aramco to lessen the
draw of foreign reserves due to budget deficit (currently around $100 billion a year; KAS needs
around $90 per barrel to balance the budget; Russia needs around $60).
So either with gentle encouragement of Obamoids or on their own initiative this new prince
( who actually rules the county instead of his father king who is suffering from dementia ) essentially
destroyed around one third of the country foreign reserves, engaged in destructive war in Yemen,
deteriorated relations with the major geopolitical rivals such as Iran (via war in Yemen and the
execution of Shiite cleric) and Russia (by supporting and financing (indirectly) Syria jihadists)
and got nothing in return.
Moreover he managed even to cool relations with the USA - the major beneficiary of his actions.
That clearly demonstrates the grave danger inherent in absolute monarchy - a lot depends on
the man at the top.
…..Why would a price spike above $40 be a bad thing for Saudi Arabia?
Because it would provide a life support to American frackers who have undermined the pricing
power of the Kingdom these days, as was discussed in a previous piece here.
But there's another, more important problem: high crude prices can help Russia and Iran raise
the funds they need to support insurgent movements that threaten the Kingdom's regime………
Saudi Arabia and Russia are by no means at the end of their finances as can be seen from their
still unabated drilling activity, buying refineries in the US, investing in Europe…:
Heinrich, your assertion that I am trying to prevent people from expressing their opinion is insulting
as well as misplaced. I did nothing of the sort. Also, I certainly don't consider Forbes to be
good company on pretty much any subject. SA's foreign exchange reserves dropped from about $740
billion in Oct 2014 to about $590 billion today, having dropped $9 billion in February alone.
I'm not saying they are on the ropes yet, but the Kingdom is scaling back on social welfare payments.
They are running a massive budget deficit. Anyone who thinks this is part of some brilliant strategy
is misguided.
Your assertion that unabated drilling activity is a sign of financial strength is not supported
by the link you provided. That's about investing in LNG facilities. What does that have to do
with oil production?
Moscow isn't sowing Middle East chaos to drive up oil prices.
Russia's leaders certainly do care about oil prices, and with good reason. Plunging oil prices
decrease the ruble's value, which closely follows oil prices. Oil exports are important to Russia's
federal budget and to its overall balance of trade. Indeed, when monthly average Brent oil prices
peaked at about $125 per barrel in March 2012, the ruble was close to its own peak, at approximately
twenty-nine rubles to every U.S. dollar. When Brent prices fell to $30.70 per barrel in January 2016,
the ruble had fallen to about eighty rubles to the dollar. It is easy to examine this currency-resource
correlation by comparing U.S. Energy Information Administration oil price data with Russian Central
Bank ruble values. As a result, the Russian government has imposed sweeping budget cuts that will
now affect defense expenditures as well as social programs and other areas.
... ... ...
On the contrary, Russia has been working with Riyadh to contain prices and announcing a withdrawal
from Syria and a new focus on peace talks there. If Russia were determined to play the oil card,
it could do so in many different ways. For example, one option might be to step up support for Assad's
government to win a comprehensive military victory over its foes. If Russia looked seriously at this
option, the changing conditions could draw Saudi Arabia and other supporters of the Syrian opposition
more deeply into the conflict and perhaps expand it. This is much more likely to raise oil prices
than what Moscow has done in the past. But Syria is not a major oil producer or exporter. So perhaps
Russia's policy in Syria is not oil centric, but its approach to other problems could. Unfortunately,
there is not much evidence to support this argument either.
One of the strongest counterarguments to the oil-price theory of Russian foreign policy is
the recent Iran nuclear agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JPCOA). If higher
oil prices were Russia's principal goal in dealing with Iran-which has the world's fourth-largest
proven oil reserves-why facilitate the JPCOA at all? It would be far better to block the agreement
in hopes of forcing a showdown between Washington and Tehran, possibly including U.S. military action.
Alternatively, Russia could have agreed to Western proposals to tighten sanctions on Iran's
energy sector, further limiting oil supplies. Or Moscow could have delayed the talks, hoping that
this would create sufficient uncertainty to raise oil prices. Instead, at a time when Russia was
already suffering economically from low oil prices and from Western economic sanctions, President
Vladimir Putin decided to support an agreement that would only further decrease oil prices.
... ... ...
...Russia did much less to oppose U.S. and NATO air strikes in Libya in 2011-so maybe this proves
that Moscow wanted disorder there to increase oil prices? It doesn't look that way. First, then-president
Dmitry Medvedev agreed to accept the strikes after intense pressure from President Obama and appeared
to do so in large part to appease the United States. Second-perhaps more importantly-then-prime minister
Putin criticized Medvedev's decision to order Russian diplomats to abstain in United Nations Security
Council vote, prompting a rebuke from Medvedev. Since Putin has been controlling Russian foreign
policy for most of the last sixteen years, Medvedev's move was likely an exception rather than the
rule. Finally, oil prices were already quite high in early 2011 when Medvedev made his choice. Even
if moving oil prices upward was a top priority in Russian foreign policy, it would have been much
less necessary at this specific time.
While oil prices are important for Russia, they are generally not a driving factor of Russian
leaders' key decisions. Thus, Russia does seek to shape oil prices, but does so through routine diplomatic
processes. There are many reasons for this, but one of the most significant is that Russia sees
critical national-security interests in the Middle East that override its concerns over oil prices.
In fact, in each of the above cases-Syria, Iran and Iraq-President Putin has pursued policies that
appear intended to produce stability. So Russia's supposed secret plans to boost oil prices
may produce entertaining conversation, but they don't lead to much else.
Paul J. Saunders is Executive Director at the Center for the National Interest and a Research
Scientist at CNA Corporation.
Borgţór Jónsson > Guest
You are correct,except the US wars are not so secret.
They are there for everyone to see.
Sinbad2 > Borgţór Jónsson
Americans don't see their wars. The US Government keeps the American people in a cocoon of
ignorance.
O_Pinion > Guest
Who needs secret wars when you can have secret bank accounts?
So the US fracking oil boom never happened, iraq's oil output didn't increase to an all time
high, there are no macroeconomic forces cooling demand and the law of supply and demand is a fiction.
it is all simply a grand conspiracy cooked up by Saudi Arabia and the US.
Serge Krieger > Sinbad2
It is very complex topic. I think too many things came together to create this perfect
storm. Frankly, new oil reserves are not profitable at anything below $70.
I guess it was both market overproduction with Canadian sands and US fracking and Saudis and
possibly even Russian oil production that caused this. I do not think Saudis alone would be capable
of such fit.
Sensible analysis, its much more likely Russia is just preparing the way to make sure it doesn't
end up with an American boot stamping on its face forever.
Because of this Russia is in the cross hairs of the Anglo-Zionists who can only survive if they
tear apart Russia and take control of its vast resources.
China and the US who are the 2 biggest purchasers of energy in the world, have been doubling
their investments in renewable energy!
Castlerock58
The US,Turkey and Saudi Arabia are promoting the instability in the Middle East.
Bankotsu
"Moscow isn't sowing Middle East chaos...."
I think the writer confused Russia with U.S.
Pacemaker4
Russia oil and gas industry accounts for 15% of their GDP.... that fact is lost on the
author.
Kalinin Yuri > HotelQuebec
All the vessels in the ocean instead of Diesel should use some nuclear reactors, right? The
trucks that move all the goods - also batteries? Has anybody calculated emissions from power
stations in order to charge a car that runs 80 km? Also how much does it cost to recycle the
batteries?
Sinbad2 > Kalinin Yuri
The silicon used in solar panels, is one of the dirtiest refining processes on the planet.
Hippies are well meaning critters, but not very smart.
Gregory Anbreit
Oh wow, so it was Russia who started all the chaos in the Middle East? Is this a joke? Who
invaded Iraq in 2003? Who has destroyed Libya? Who was supporting "Arab springs"? Who sends
weapons to AQ and ISIS in Syria?
But yeah, blame Russia.....how typical.
deadman449
Russia exports two things. Oil and weapons. If you think about it, it makes sense to cause
mischief in other countries near oil production. Question is, then why is the oil price so
low?
Andre
If Russia really wanted to use conflict to raise oil prices and achieve irridentist
ambitions at the same time, it would launch a Crimean/Donbas-type dirty war in northern
Kazakhstan with a view to annexing the Russian-inhabited areas. Kazakhstan occupies a similar
position with respect to oil production as Libya did in 2011 and its cost of production is not
too much more than many Gulf Arab states. Kazakhstan is also non-aligned and quite frankly
indefensible. From a geopolitical standpoint I see this move as much more likely than some
dangerous play in the Baltics which would yield little in terms of added Russian citizens or
resources.
Andre
If Russia really wanted to use conflict to raise oil prices and achieve irridentist ambitions at
the same time, it would launch a Crimean/Donbas-type dirty war in northern Kazakhstan with a view
to annexing the Russian-inhabited areas. Kazakhstan occupies a similar position with respect to
oil production as Libya did in 2011 and its cost of production is not too much more than many
Gulf Arab states. Kazakhstan is also non-aligned and quite frankly indefensible. From a
geopolitical standpoint I see this move as much more likely than some dangerous play in the
Baltics which would yield little in terms of added Russian citizens or resources.
Roman Lvovskiy > Andre
you're like Tom Clancy reborn, honestly
Andre > Roman Lvovskiy
Tom Clancy was remarkably prescient among techno-thriller writers, although some works were much
better than others, particularly "The Hunt for Red October", "Red Storm Rising" and "SSN".
You may consider my opinions fanciful, but look at the academic debate: there is an assumption
that Russian military intervention in Georgia and Ukraine poses a threat to NATO, and that the
Syrian adventure merely compounds this.
In comparison, I maintain the view that while Putin can be reckless - a common human flaw - his
aggression has been highly targeted to interests that have been articulated for many years,
including prior to his presidency e.g. absorbing the ethnic Russian diaspora bordering the RF,
halting NATO expansion, regaining global prestige.
Both Georgia and Ukraine were non-aligned countries when he invaded, and there is every
indication that he is aware of the distinction between NATO and non-NATO members. Therefore, if
he is planning on intervening anywhere, I would expect that country to: (a) be a "core interest",
(b) be non-aligned and (c) feature developments that challenge Russian interests. Belarus and
Kazakhstan both meet all these criteria, as each is drifting away from Russia. In Kazakhstan's
case, the recent policies concerning the official use of Kazakh and Russian are increasingly
discriminatory toward Russian-speakers, more so than any policies even contemplated by the
post-Maidan Ukrainian government. Unlike Belarus, Kazakhstan features immense natural resources
and many more ethnic Russians...
Roman Lvovskiy > Andre
i suspect it, that 'Red Storm Rising' is your fave. i like it as well, despite the fact that it's
hardly accurate when it comes to wording out actual features possessed by the Soviet hardware of
that period, described thereby.
one thing that eludes you always is that Putin can not afford to subjugate anyone. that would be
stretching beyond capacity, both financially and politically. also, there's hardly that much of
anyting that is in Kazakhstan's possession presently or in short-to-midterm perspective to make
Putin even think about considering the risks.
so i'm guessing it's just your wishful thinking. i'd also suggest reading something more
profound, like something by Vonnegut or Trumbo. there's more to American culture than your garden
variety of trash usually presented on TV, sadly - less and less with each passing year.
Andre > Roman Lvovskiy
You're correct that Putin can't afford a grinding counter-insurgency, and he seems to have taken
in the Soviet experience in occupying East-Central Europe, as well as the quagmires in
Afghanistan and Chechnya. Interestingly, as soon as it became apparent that support for union
with Russia was not as warm in Donbas as Crimea, the Novorossiya project was quietly buried.
But Putin certainly has his eye on Belarus and Kazakhstan, and Astana's been taking an
increasingly independent line. There is a demographic and economic case, as I've laid out in
prior comments. But this is not a "call", after all, Crimea was annexed 20 years after analysts
were worried about it.
I'll be honest with you - I've never read a Clancy book all the way through - I've read many
papers on military technology and strategy, but I still find Clancy too dry. There are more
contemporary American authors that are great, McCarthy being one.
dennis powell
There seems to be a lot of russian supporters , who are seeing the world thru rose colored
glasses , commenting here. Russia would love nothing more then to see oil higher. Inside their
own country the fall of the ruble isn't as much a big deal as it is when they try and conduct
business outside of russia.
They are paying for their actions in the ukraine. The annexation of
crimea was a just move to take back what should have never been given away. Their mistake was in
how it was done. Their move into syria wasn't about right and wrong but about protecting their
military interests. Any one who says anything different is being foolish. Their subsequent
withdrawal is an indication that they have satisfied that end. It also , I suspect , is to
contain the costs of such an operation. Russia is a gas station parading as a country.
Their only
claim to significance is their nuclear arsenal. They have an overblown view of themselves which
masks their deep paranoia. Take away their nuclear arsenal and they wouldn't be anymore
significant then brazil.
Frank Blangeard > dennis powell • 6 days ago
The last three lines of your comment seem to apply more to the United States than to Russia.
Randal > dennis powell • 7 days ago
"They are paying for their actions in the ukraine."
How
have Russia's actions in the Ukraine caused the oil price to fall
dramatically? The US sphere sanctions are an irrelevant pinprick in
comparison.
"The annexation of crimea was a just move to take back what
should have never been given away. Their mistake was in how it was
done."
I'd love to hear how you think it could possibly have been done
any other way.
"Their move into syria wasn't about right and wrong but about
protecting their military interests. Any one who says anything
different is being foolish."
What military interests? Surely you aren't talking about the
Tartus base? Have you actually seen it? Apart from that they had
almost zero military interests in Syria before the commencement of
the regime change attempt there.
"Their subsequent withdrawal is an indication that they have
satisfied that end. It also , I suspect , is to contain the costs
of such an operation."
Given the trivial costs in Russian budgetary terms of their
relatively small operation in Syria, how do you justify claiming
that would be an overwhelming factor in their decision making?
"Russia is a gas station parading as a country."
That pretty much discredits you terminally as any kind of
objective observer on Russia, I think.
"Their only claim to significance is their nuclear arsenal.
They have an overblown view of themselves which masks their deep
paranoia. Take away their nuclear arsenal and they wouldn't be
anymore significant then brazil."
Oh, really? Do feel free to explain exactly how their nuclear
arsenal enabled them to intervene successfully in Syria, in stark
contrast to the US regime's repeated failures. And while you are
about it, feel free also to explain the utility of their nuclear
arsenal in recovering the Crimea, or any of Russia's other recent
activities.
Presumably you think Brazil could have done both, if it only had
a nuclear arsenal like Russia's.
Borgţór Jónsson > dennis powell
Of course Putin went to Syria to protect the bases,but there are also several other
reasons.
Putin wanted to protect the sovereignty of Syria.
He did not want a state similar to Libya so close to his boarders.
That is exactly what would have happened if he did not intervene.
It would have happened ,because that is what the US wanted. They wanted to grow a terrorist
state close to Russia borders.
Putin also went to Syria because he wanted to fight terrorism in area where they would be
easier to defeat than in Caucasus.
Imagine the trouble it had cost him if he had a terrorist state in Syria constantly supplying
terrorists and weapons to the Caucasus.
That was one of the aims of the US,that is the reason they fed the terrorists with weapons.
The final goal was that they would later use those weapons against Russian people.
Same goes for the Ukraine.
The final goal there is that the Ukrainian Nasis will finally attack Russia.That is the
reason for the Us cooperation with Ukrainian nationalists. Ukrainian nationalists are violent
idiots on par with ISIS as you know.
You are not the only person that are obsessed with that misunderstanding that Russia is a
gas station. This misunderstanding is the reason the US sanctioned Russia. But it does not
work,because after all, the oil is only 12% of the Russian GDP. It is uncomfortable because it
is so big part of the export, but Russia is in no way going to collapse because of it.
In fact the Russian economy is exceptionally strong,I believe that no other nation on
earth would have been able to withstand such hardship as the sharp fall of their export and at
the same time sanctions from the western powers.
Later this year or next year their economy will most likely start growing again. Well
done Russia.
Borgţór Jónsson > Borgţór Jónsson
I forgot to address another misunderstanding of yours. Russia has not left Syria.
In the beginning Russia used SU 24 and SU 25 plains for strategic bombing. What it means is
that they were used for taking out the oil business of the terrorists and also their weapons
depots,their control stations and training facilities. That is now over and those plains are
sent home.
Now they have the SU 34 And SU 35 that are more suitable for assisting the Syrian Army in
their offence. On top of that they have the MI 28 attack helicopters and of course the
the dreaded KA 52. All those plains and helicopters played a vital role in the liberation of
Palmyra.
The Russians are not home yet,they will stay in Syria and fight the terrorists till the end.
Valhalla rising
its not the jewish NeoCohens and liberal Hawks that destabilized the Middle East.Nope the
Russians are goyim -- The Russians are evil goyim -- Czar Putin shuts us down --
The Russians disposed Muhammad Gaddafi --
The Russians supported the Muslim Brotherhood in egypt --
The Russians supported the islamic onslaught against Assad --
... ... ...
http://www.dailystormer.com/gl...
The Russian energy ministry sees the very real possibility that Russian oil production enters
long-term decline, possibly even falling by half by 2035. Russia's major oil fields are decades
old, so it will be increasingly difficult to prevent output from falling. At the same time,
Russian oil companies are not discovering new sources of supply that could replace that lost
output. The Arctic offers one area where very large reserves could be exploited, but western
sanctions have blocked the participation of major international oil companies, which could help
Russian companies pull off the expensive and tricky Arctic drilling operations.
Meanwhile, Russia's natural resources minister said in late March – with an eye on the Doha
meeting – that Rosneft will likely lower its output this year. Rosneft actually did not comment
on his remarks, but the minister's comments were likely meant to demonstrate Russia's willingness
to cooperate with OPEC in Doha.
... ... ....
Russian output is expected to decline by 20,000 barrels per day on average this year,
according to OPEC's latest assessment.
See an interesting interview (slightly edited Google translation). Looks like the new oil reserves
in Russia are very expensive, on par with the US shale and the old are mostly depleted.
The President of the Union of oil and gas Industrialists of Russia Gennady Shmal told "Izvestia"
about what oil price is needed for Russia and when the industry will overcome dependence on imported
equipment
Q: OPEC believe that soon the price of oil should stabilize at a "normal", but not a too
high level. What do you think, what level of oil prices can be considered normal for Russia today?
A: If we are talking about a fair price of oil globally, I believe this is $80 per barrel.
Keep in mind that a significant part of oil – about a third – is produced offshore, where the
cost can be high. And there is a deep-water shelf, for example, in Brazil, where one of the first
well cost more than $300 million. Subsequent wells would of course cost less, around the half
the price, but still very expensive. Therefore, the capex of this oil extraction is high enough.
The breakeven price of our oil production without taxes is around $10 per barrel, nationally.
But when we include taxes, we get around $30 per barrel. But this cost is not no tragedy for us.
I remember a time when a barrel of oil was less than $10. Then we dreamed about the price rising
to $20.
When the three-year average cost of oil was above $100 per barrel, we got too used to
it. But the high price has one big drawback – it can negatively affect demand and stimulates production. And that's
what basically happened.
Therefore, now our oil companies might be now content with the price around $50-60
per barrel.
And I think in general, globally it would be OK price for both producers and consumers. Even
for the United States that would be an acceptable price. Canadians with their oil sands would
need a higher price – up to $80. But as the Canadian oil going to the United States, anyway,
losses can
be compensated with the domestic shale production and they would have to come to a common denominator.
Q: You're talking about this level of prices, without taking into account the Arctic shelf
projects?
A: Arctic shelf – it is quite another matter. My point of view on this issue is different from
the most popular view that exists today. I believe that we need to engage the shelf in terms of
prospecting, exploration. We generally do not even know that there, how much oil we have on the
shelf. We have so far only preliminary estimates of reserves – C2, C3 (preliminary estimated reserves,
potential reserves). And in order to have A, B, C1 (proven reserves), it is necessary to drill.
I am sure that we are not ready to work on the Arctic shelf both technically and technologically,
nor economically.
We do not have qualified people for that too. First of all, we need several platforms. One
platform for "Prirazlomnoe" that we now have been built for more than 15 years, and we sank into
it about $4 billion
And this one is not a new one, this is a second hand equipment. In order to seriously develop
the shelf, we need not one, but dozens of platforms, support vessels. Also offshore operations
must have the regulatory framework.
That means all the necessary technical regulations, standards. We have nothing. But the main
thing – the cost effectiveness of this oil: it is necessary to consider how profitable in today's
environment to produce Arctic oil. So, I think we now have enough things to do on land – in Eastern
Siberia, for example, before we need to jump with two legs into arctic oil extraction.
Q: How record oil production that Russian oil companies demonstrate in the past few years,
affects the structure of the Russian economy?
A: First of all, I believe that there are no records. Yes, we produced 534 million tons. But
in 1987 the Russian Federation has produced 572 million tons. Compared to the 1990s there is a
certain growth in recent years, but I would not talk about records. Second, the question about
optimal production volumes is a very complex one. The main question to which I have no answer
today: how much oil we need to extract?
Without answer on this question it is impossible to say whether we produced too little oil
or too much. If we consider that in 2015 we extracted more then 246 million tons, then, I would
say
we produced too much. This is not the way this business should be run. The fact is that Russia
can not influence the world oil price too much because we make only 19-20% of the market. But
we can and should make the country less dependent on raw oil price fluctuations. We could process
all extracted oil and export mainly gasoline and diesel fuel, as well as products with high added
value in the form of chemicals, petrochemicals, composite materials.
That means that we need to adopt a different approach to the structure of our industrial production.
For example, China in the last twenty years has built a series of petrochemical plants, and
today they have the chemical products sector with total value of production about $1.4 trillion,
or around 20% of China GDP. It should be noted that China's GDP is eight times more than ours.
Our chemical sector production is around $80 billion – 1.6% of Russia's GDP. In 2014 alone BASF
Chemicals (which is a single German company) produced 1.5 times more than all the chemical enterprises
of Russia. Petrochemicals may be the critical link, pulling which we could change the whole structure
of industrial production in Russia.
Q: If we talk about production prospects, what we levels of production we can expect in
the future, based on our today's oil reserves
structure?
A: Unfortunately, today we do not have a reliable statistics. According to some estimates,
of
those oil reserves that are under development, about 70% are so-called hard-to-extract oil. That
is, stocks, where oil production is complicated mining and geological, geographical conditions.
In these fields there might be tight reservoirs, reservoirs with low permeability, viscous
oil, etc. By the way, today we have no any clear definition of hard-to-extract inventory, although
this defines the benefits that can be granted to companies to work on the fields with such
reserves. Therefore we need serious work on the classification and definition of reserves that
will be put into the hard-to-extract category.
By the way, the current production mostly (about
70%) relies on the old fields, which now have a high water content, high percentage of
depletion of reserves. Of course, they will not last forever. Therefore, sooner or later, will
have to enter the development of the fields with hard to recover reserves.
Q: Extraction of hard inventory requires new technologies, which in Russia does not fully
have. What are the tools the government has to encourage their development?
A: The state has a lot of tools to stimulate those technological developments. Our tax
system can perform stimulating role along with fiscal and re-distributive functions. However,
our tax system currently performs mostly fiscal function and only slightly – re-distributive
function. Simulative
function is not yet here. As an illustration, take Texas, USA: if the well there gives 500 liters
of oil per day, it is considered a cost-effective – this way the tax system is built. For us a
well, which gives 4000 liters per day, is already viewed as unprofitable, and is moved into the
idle fund. Now, of course, some work is being done in respect of incentives for low producing
wells – MET rates introduced.
But I believe that the future of our oil industry is largely dependent on whether we are
able to create the technology of oil production from the Bazhenov Formation or not. Because the
geological reserves of the Bazhenov Formation in Western Siberia are more than 100 billion tons
of oil. Even at a conservative estimate, if it is possible to extract around 40-60 billion tones
of oil with the current technologies.
And please remember that all we have in Russia today, all C2 stocks, are just around 28
billion tons So if we find the necessary technology that can be applied to the
Bazhenov Formation,
the peak oil production issue for Russia can be resolved for a sufficiently long period of time.
And in respect of the help from the state it could be such measures such as tax holidays, tax
exemption, reduction in mineral extraction tax, etc.
But currently the Ministry of Finance is interested only in filling the budget. We need to
make sure that taxes are fair. For this, they must be applied to the end result of production.
In our country today we have taxes on earnings – up to 65-70% of the average withdrawal. Norway,
for example, has high taxes too, but they are levied on profits.
Taxes should be applied to profits, not revenue, the latter for us looks like the absolutely
wrong approach.
Q: According to various estimates, in the Russian oil and gas industry today up to 45-50%
of the equipment are imported. Will Russian oil companies to move away from this dependence
in view of sanctions. And what should be role of the state in achieving this results?
A: At the request of "Lukoil" we did last year such a study. We've got that on average
53% of drilling equipment in Russia is imported. Of course, we must bear in mind that, for
example, pipes, with rare exceptions, we can produce domestically. But today there are some
technological segments where there is a high dependence of Russian oil from foreign suppliers.
Those segments include: software control, automation and remote control.
Today, the Ministry of Energy to the Ministry of Industry set up working groups that
are engaged in import substitution. And we have already been there for some equipment that is
competitive with foreign models. So, one of the factories in Perm began to produce excellent pumps,
which match in quality the best foreign analogues. Some factories in Bashkortostan started the
production of valves, cut-offs switches and other fittings for any type of drilling. But it is
not necessary to replace all the foreign oil production equipment. And, of course, we can not
do this.
We make good tanks, but we do not produce luxury cars like Mercedes. We just don't produce
them. I believe that if we had a dependence on imports in the range of 20-25%, it would be acceptable
and probably close to optimal.
Today we can get rigs from China. Our experts say that they are of a sufficient level of quality.
We also have a factory, which in 1990 produced drilling rigs – "Uralmash". Then, the plant produced
365 sets of drilling equipment per year. In the past year – only 25.
Therefore we need to rely on the Chinese oil extracting equipment, as they have learned to
make a decent drilling equipment. And for the price, no one can match them. I believe that we
need to very clearly define few areas of oil extraction equipment, which are critical for us.
and then pay close attention and allocate resources to those areas. We do not need to cover everything.
And I am sure that before the end of 2020 Russia could reduce this dependence on foreign equipment
to 25-30%.
Russia's oil output hit a post-Soviet record of 10.9 mb/d in January 2016, but that could be a
ceiling as the country's massive oil fields face decline. The bulk of Russia's oil output
comes from its aging West Siberian fields, which require ever more investment just to keep output
stable. The depreciation of the ruble has helped a bit, lowering the real cost of spending on
production and allowing Russian companies to increase investment by one-third this year. However,
some long-term projects are being pushed off due to the financial squeeze from western sanctions
and low oil prices. An estimated 29 projects, amounting to 500,000 barrels per day in new
production, have been delayed. With most of Russia's large oil fields having been under
production since the Soviet era, and with precious few new sources of supply, Russia is facing
long-term decline.
"... The rising clamor at home from the crashing shale sector and the banks that financed it; the resilience of Russia in spite of sanctions and its exclusion from Western capital markets; Russia's entrance into the Syrian take-down attempt having put Russia into a new position of influence in the Middle East; demands for higher prices from more and more OPEC members; Russian and Iranian resistance to demands that they agree to limit production; Kuwait refusing to limit production; Venezuela and Mexico nearing default; Ukraine melting down politically, financially, and militarily: financial tremors at home and in Europe; and the rise of Trump and Bernie as an election nears, - these factors have led Western leaders to stop suppressing the price of crude. ..."
IMHO, the rise in crude prices is evidence that the West has blinked and is giving up on its
attempt to bankrupt Russia in order to make Putin kowtow to the West.
The rising clamor at home from the crashing shale sector and the banks that financed it; the
resilience of Russia in spite of sanctions and its exclusion from Western capital markets; Russia's
entrance into the Syrian take-down attempt having put Russia into a new position of influence
in the Middle East; demands for higher prices from more and more OPEC members; Russian and Iranian
resistance to demands that they agree to limit production; Kuwait refusing to limit production;
Venezuela and Mexico nearing default; Ukraine melting down politically, financially, and militarily:
financial tremors at home and in Europe; and the rise of Trump and Bernie as an election nears,
- these factors have led Western leaders to stop suppressing the price of crude.
The commodities traders and their algos will now be allowed to manipulate up the prices. Fundamentals
of excess supply and weak demand do not matter, and have not mattered for a long time. Futures
contracts, refinery shutdowns for fires or scheduled maintenance, pipeline ruptures, and rumors
of international instability can all be used to increase crude prices.
Oil production in Russia will inevitably decline by 2035 according to an Energy Ministry
report seen by the Vedomosti business daily. The different scenarios predict an output drop from
1.2 percent up to 46 percent two decades from now.
The document, obtained by the newspaper and confirmed by a source in the ministry, says by
2035 existing oil fields will be able to provide Russia with less than half of today's production
of about 10.1 million barrels per day.
The shortfall should be met by increased production from proven reserves, according to projections
by the Energy Ministry.
In the best case for oil producers, short-term growth remains possible only until 2020, according
to the report. After that, production will contract. The figures vary from 1.2 percent to 46 percent,
depending on prices, taxation and whether or not anti-Russian sanctions will be in force.
A slight increase in production is possible only for smaller companies like Slavneft and Russneft,
while the market leaders are facing the depletion of existing deposits. Added to an unfavorable
tax environment, their production is set to fall by 39-61 percent.
To counter the decline in oil production, the Energy Ministry proposes giving private companies
access to the Arctic shelf, to soften the tax regime and support for small and medium-sized
independent companies.
The Ministry also suggests promoting the processing of high-sulfur and super viscous
heavy oil with the introduction of preferential rates of excise duties on fuel produced from
such oil.
This forecast published by "Vedomosti" is for crude only and excludes condensate (around 520 kb/d
in 2015). It was not yet officially released. Condensate production growth in 2014-15 was
higher than crude only. There are gas condensate fields in the far north of West Siberia that
should start production in the next few years.
The worse case assumes very low oil prices and sanctions remaining for the whole period. Is
$30-40 oil a realistic scenario to 2035?
Base case implies 2035 crude production only 2.1% below 2015 levels
"Reasonably favorable" scenario: crude production in 2020-2030 slightly above 2015 levels;
2035: 1.6% below 2015.
Russian crude (ex condensate) production scenarios.
Source: Vedomosti newspaper based on the Energy Ministry data
Meanwhile, the EIA in its Short-Term Energy Outlook has revised upwards estimates and projections
for Russian oil production in 2015-17.
From the report:
"Russia is one example of production exceeding EIA's expectations. Fourth quarter 2015 oil
production in Russia is 0.2 million b/d higher than in last month's STEO, with initial data indicating
it has remained at high levels in early 2016. This higher historical production creates a higher
baseline level that carries through the forecast period. Russia's production is expected to increase
by 0.2 million b/d in 2016 and then decline by 0.1 million b/d in 2017. Russia's exposure to low
oil prices has been mitigated by the depreciation of the ruble relative to the dollar, given ruble-denominated
production costs, and by Russia's taxation regime for the oil sector."
The EIA is the last of the key international energy forecasting agencies to revise the numbers
for Russia (others are IEA, JODI and OPEC)
Besides what Alex already said, I want to add another important point: the recovery of oil-in-place
in Russia is very low compared to international averages, around 20-25%. This is why there is
a lot of potential just by improving extraction from current fields.
P.S. Then, there is shale oil, really a lot of it, but it requires much higher prices for it
to be developed, and economically it makes more sense to first increase the % extracted of oil-in-place
Though Iran hasn't committed to a production freeze, since it wants to ramp up production to pre-sanction
levels, Russian Energy Minister
Aleksander
Novak has noted that "Iran has a special situation as the country is at its lowest levels
of production. So I think, it might be approached individually, with a separate solution."
With all the major Gulf nations agreeing, Iraq, which is without a credible political leadership,
will also likely follow suit if Russia assures them of stronger support against ISIS.
If the
above scenario plays out, Russia will emerge as the de facto leader of the major oil producing
nations of the world, accounting for almost 73 percent of the global oil supply.
Along with this, Russia has been in the forefront of plans to move away from Petrodollars,
and Moscow has formed pacts with various nations to trade oil in local currencies. With this new
cartel of ROPEC (Russia and OPEC nations), a move away from petrodollars will become a reality
sooner rather than later.
Russia is smart. Vladimir Putin is genius. Moscow senses the opportunity that is almost tangibly
floating about in the low crude price environment and appears to be ready to capitalize on it
in a way that would reshape the geopolitical landscape exponentially.
"The EU, which gets 30 percent of its gas from Russia, was equally hungry for the pipeline, which
would have given its members cheap energy and relief from Vladimir Putin's stifling economic and
political leverage."
That is nonsense. The issue is that Russia has quite limited leverage: They can not replace
the European customers on short notice – pipeline chain producer to certain custrumers – and they
urgently need the income.
The more interesting question for Russia is how to cope with a customers who may reduce the
demand for NG by 1% per year for the next few decades.
"The issue is that Russia has quite limited leverage: They can not replace the European customers
on short notice"
Leverage is always mutual in the gas trade that involves long term contracts
and long gas supply lines. It is like marriage :-)
"The more interesting question for Russia is how to cope with a customers who may reduce the
demand for NG by 1% per year for the next few decades."
I am not sure that this is the case.
"Gazprom's gas exports to Europe – including Turkey – had increased to 158.6 billion cubic meters
in 2015 with a 8.2 percent increase compared to 2014."
The EU's domestic production of natural gas, including non-EU member Norway, is already in
terminal decline and will be declining into the future by almost 2% per year until it reaches
zero.
Unless the EU can find alternative sources of natural gas at competitive prices, Russia remains
the only economical option, hence the extremely high stakes over the Syrian War.
Moreover, the EU's "Green Energy" policies are an outright, insolvent disaster. Windmills and
solar panels can never and will never compete with hydrocarbons and don't let any muppet claim
otherwise. If wind and solar were anywhere remotely viable sources then why would anyone give
a toss over the Middle East at all? The degree to which "alternative energy" is uneconomical can
be seen from the EU's extremely high energy costs, far and away the highest in the world. In their
fanatical crusade against Russia, the EU countries have opted for a catastrophic energy policy
that has rendered them global economic growth laggards. All this, just so that Russia's gas exports
could be kept at the absolute minimum.
What Russia seeks to achieve vis-a-vis Europe, is to force/encourage/compel the EU to integrate
by as much as possible with Russia. What NATO (and especially the US and Euro-Atlanticists) most
fear is that a Russia rich in capital and technology would be the world's dominant geopolitical
player.
This is what is at stake in the current Global Hybrid War.
"... The meeting of oil-producing countries will be held on March 20th in Russia, the Minister of oil of Nigeria, Emmanuel Kachikwu, announced. According to him, it will be attended by representatives of countries who are OPEC members and countries that are not members in the organization. Mr. Kachikwu noted that producers seek to restore oil prices to $50 per barrel ..."
here is some good news. You have heard it first from me here on POB 2 weeks ago. We are moving
in direction of restoring the prices to acceptable level that major producers can live temporarily.
"The meeting of oil-producing countries will be held on March 20th in Russia, the Minister
of oil of Nigeria, Emmanuel Kachikwu, announced. According to him, it will be attended by representatives
of countries who are OPEC members and countries that are not members in the organization. Mr.
Kachikwu noted that producers seek to restore oil prices to $50 per barrel."
"... Instead, it reprieved the fading remnants of the military-industrial-congressional complex, the neocon interventionist camp and Washingtons legions of cold war apparatchiks. All of the foregoing would have been otherwise consigned to the dust bin of history. ..."
"... The Saudis geopolitical goal is to contain the economic and political power of the kingdoms principal rival, Iran, a Shiite state, and close ally of Bashar Assad. The Saudi monarchy viewed the U.S.-sponsored Shiite takeover in Iraq (and, more recently, the termination of the Iran trade embargo) as a demotion to its regional power status and was already engaged in a proxy war against Tehran in Yemen, highlighted by the Saudi genocide against the Iranian backed Houthi tribe. ..."
"... But the Sunni kingdoms with vast petrodollars at stake wanted a much deeper involvement from America. On September 4, 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry told a congressional hearing that the Sunni kingdoms had offered to foot the bill for a U.S. invasion of Syria to oust Bashar Assad. In fact, some of them have said that if the United States is prepared to go do the whole thing, the way weve done it previously in other places [Iraq], theyll carry the cost. Kerry reiterated the offer to Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.): With respect to Arab countries offering to bear the costs of [an American invasion] to topple Assad, the answer is profoundly yes, they have. The offer is on the table. ..."
"... Gazproms gas exports to Europe – including Turkey – had increased to 158.6 billion cubic meters in 2015 with a 8.2 percent increase compared to 2014 ..."
Stockman's Tales of western intervention into the ME Oil Puzzle.
"The Trumpster Sends The GOP/Neocon Establishment To The Dumpster"
"And most certainly, this lamentable turn to the War Party's disastrous reign had nothing to do
with oil security or economic prosperity in America. The cure for high oil is always and everywhere
high oil prices, not the Fifth Fleet"
It goes all the way back to the collapse of the old Soviet Union and the elder Bush's historically
foolish decision to invade the Persian Gulf in February 1991. The latter stopped dead in its
tracks the first genuine opportunity for peace the people of the world had been afforded since
August 1914.
Instead, it reprieved the fading remnants of the military-industrial-congressional complex,
the neocon interventionist camp and Washington's legions of cold war apparatchiks. All of the
foregoing would have been otherwise consigned to the dust bin of history.
Yet at that crucial inflection point there was absolutely nothing at stake with respect
to the safety and security of the American people in the petty quarrel between Saddam Hussein
and the Emir of Kuwait.
Having alienated Iraq and Syria, Kim Roosevelt fled the Mideast to work as an executive
for the oil industry that he had served so well during his public service career at the CIA.
Roosevelt's replacement as CIA station chief, James Critchfield, attempted a failed assassination
plot against the new Iraqi president using a toxic handkerchief, according to Weiner. Five
years later, the CIA finally succeeded in deposing the Iraqi president and installing the Ba'ath
Party in power in Iraq. A charismatic young murderer named Saddam Hussein was one of the distinguished
leaders of the CIA's Ba'athist team.
… … …
The EU, which gets 30 percent of its gas from Russia, was equally hungry for the pipeline,
which would have given its members cheap energy and relief from Vladimir Putin's stifling economic
and political leverage. Turkey, Russia's second largest gas customer, was particularly anxious
to end its reliance on its ancient rival and to position itself as the lucrative transect hub
for Asian fuels to EU markets. The Qatari pipeline would have benefited Saudi Arabia's conservative
Sunni monarchy by giving it a foothold in Shia-dominated Syria. The Saudis' geopolitical goal
is to contain the economic and political power of the kingdom's principal rival, Iran, a Shiite
state, and close ally of Bashar Assad. The Saudi monarchy viewed the U.S.-sponsored Shiite
takeover in Iraq (and, more recently, the termination of the Iran trade embargo) as a demotion
to its regional power status and was already engaged in a proxy war against Tehran in Yemen,
highlighted by the Saudi genocide against the Iranian backed Houthi tribe.
Of course, the Russians, who sell 70 percent of their gas exports to Europe, viewed the
Qatar/Turkey pipeline as an existential threat. In Putin's view, the Qatar pipeline is a NATO
plot to change the status quo, deprive Russia of its only foothold in the Middle East, strangle
the Russian economy and end Russian leverage in the European energy market. In 2009, Assad
announced that he would refuse to sign the agreement to allow the pipeline to run through Syria
"to protect the interests of our Russian ally."
… … …
But the Sunni kingdoms with vast petrodollars at stake wanted a much deeper involvement
from America. On September 4, 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry told a congressional hearing
that the Sunni kingdoms had offered to foot the bill for a U.S. invasion of Syria to oust Bashar
Assad. "In fact, some of them have said that if the United States is prepared to go do the
whole thing, the way we've done it previously in other places [Iraq], they'll carry the cost."
Kerry reiterated the offer to Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.): "With respect to Arab countries
offering to bear the costs of [an American invasion] to topple Assad, the answer is profoundly
yes, they have. The offer is on the table."
"The EU, which gets 30 percent of its gas from Russia, was equally hungry for the pipeline, which
would have given its members cheap energy and relief from Vladimir Putin's stifling economic and
political leverage."
That is nonsense. The issue is that Russia has quite limited leverage: They can not replace
the European customers on short notice – pipeline chain producer to certain customers – and they
urgently need the income.
The more interesting question for Russia is how to cope with a customers who may reduce the
demand for NG by 1% per year for the next few decades.
"The issue is that Russia has quite limited leverage: They can not replace the European customers
on short notice"
Leverage is always mutual in the gas trade that involves long term contracts and long gas supply
lines. It is like marriage :-)
"The more interesting question for Russia is how to cope with a customers who may reduce the
demand for NG by 1% per year for the next few decades."
I am not sure that this is the case.
"Gazprom's gas exports to Europe – including Turkey – had increased to 158.6 billion cubic
meters in 2015 with a 8.2 percent increase compared to 2014."
So, max oil production when there has been falling demand causes
low prices which is good for consumers, what could go wrong?
If you're Syria you're the pipeline hub to enable either NATO or
Russian control of european gas supplies.
If you're Ukraine, well, everything has gone wrong, hasn't it?
Innocence of the masses VS effective propaganda...
If you're Yemen then your border is contiguous with that of a large
Saudi oil field, not to mention a competing brand of Islam.
If you're Iraq then, well, you've been totally f*d over since Bush
Sr., sorry about that.
If you're Libya and want to sell oil in gold Dinars, and your name
is Kadaffy (I know, but who cares how it's spelled?) then you should
have known better. Doesn't matter if you have a huge aquaifier and can
give away land and irrigate it, or provide free university education.
I guess I should be glad I'm just a simple consumer! Wait, I'm
paying for all this shiite!!!
Short term, the trade was to sell w/34.69 APR 16 as a stop. There
is still the trend, mojo to the downside, which has not yet broken.
The shot game is to hold feb high, and plunge to new lows, so March is
a thich red monthly bar that closes near the lows. I think the trigger
price is Feb highs, and it isn't too far away prev year sett, meaning
a break of feb = touching the prev yr sett, and going positive for the
year, which is an epic event, esp in this setting. Right now the
market is trapped inside of the 2/16/2016 shadow, w yday close
conspicuously settling (once again) inside that shadow @.75, with the
top of yday bar @.98, last trade 90.
the news is bad, but the news is bs. just a headline. the news is
only a story, the truth is somewhere else. so trading on old news
wears out and the paradigm shifts. pretty soon they talk about how the
world's population break 8 BB, so many ppl, so much demand, all that
stuff. then you stare at a chart that is in love with the upper right
hand corner of the chart, instead of the lower.
It's hard to see it, and believe me, impossible to feel it, esp
with all this short sniping and juking ower, threatening, etc, but,
and I get the velocity of money thing, I had not really taken that
fully into consideration, but nonetheless, the money supply flying
around out there is still 4x greater
today
that it was in
2009, where the prices were
higher
than they are now. On the
surface of it, that seems crazy to me.
So, theoretically, commods across the board are front running a
collapse in money supply (which has not happened yet) bcz, if I have
this right, the ponzi scheme of this money system requires fresh debt
to cover old % obligations, and those % obligations touch innumerable
amounts of debt instruments, govt, corp, down to mom and pop private.
As ZH hammers away on all the time, the question is, exactly
where
is the fresh money supply supposed to come from to cover?
If ZIRP failed for lack of takers, and one could argue that failure is
real because of the existence of NIRP, where the banks just go into
your acct and simply take
your
money to cover
their
obligations, and if NIRP is only a temporary bandaid (TM, haha)
solution, the argument goes that if there is not enough liquidity in
the system, these obligations
cannot
be covered, and as we
saw in 2008, when
that
happens, the par value of the bonds
pretty much hits zero, and when that happens,
then
the money
supply crashes, because as we know,
debt is money.
Assuming Putin is not (at least completely) right about the selling
politically motivated, with the hidden hand behind it the US Treasury,
trying to destroy Mother Russia (that has to at least be a factor),
what I would say that we are looking at, considering the extreme, mind
blowing divergence between oil prices and the stock market indices, is
at least the
possibility
the market has just
priced in
the coming money supply wipe out, the
worst case scenario.
So let's say the money supply crashes from today's levels to 2009,
that is a big drop, for sure, but oil
already played that
, to
the
extreme
of hitting $26 (!). That would definitely have an
impact on stock prices, but if oil
was
at $35 @2009 MS
levels, why would it be @10?
Of course, when the money supply crashes, moving away from the
current, seemingly impenatrable MS ceiling, this then leaves a lot of
room for fresh injections of money supply, to get the game started all
over again - but not after a lot of ppl get whatever they had in
equity totally wiped out.
But, under my analysis here, assuming that scenario, oil was way
out in front, so they wont be trading on that anymore because it
happened. That is old news, for real. And in that scenario, oil
production gets wiped out, but the demand (static as it generally is,
increasing only with a steady rise in population, in broad terms),
this would force oil prices much higher.
And what if the bet on money supply crash is wrong, and the central
banks pull a rabbit out of their hat? That is supportive of oil prices
as well.
Finally, setting aside all else, assuming our crazy world just
keeps on keeping on, and the fraud of headlines continues to mask the
truth that things are far better in the world than the headline
dictates, and that no new technology has come into play that makes oil
obsolete, the most basic and primitive analysis has one looking at
$26 v 0 and $26 v $150. You tell me, where is the risk?
Getting to new all time highs in a commod can take a very long
time, I grant you that. But no matter how I slice it, while sellers
might get some love down here for, what, $10, $15, they are starting
to play a game of market roulette, where instead of one bullet in the
chamber, there are like 3 or 4.
Thus, (150 - 25) / 2 = $62. (150 - 15) / 2 = $67. In other words,
the lower the prices go, the higher the mid point in the range between
old all time high, and last printed low. Some would argue the $150 oil
was an anomaly, but I say it has to be accounted for, and the
underlying factors that led to it are still in play, and not likely to
change for years to come. Even
if
there is an equity crash
back to 2009 lows, what does anybody thing the odds are that the fed
res system will be abolished and the hands that control the money
system will change?
If
that
happens, then the FRN becomes extinct, and then
perhaps we see a repricing across the board, where
everybody
gets a massive haircut. But that is a separate issue. Apples and
oranges, and a different risk discussion. Hence, in the present
context, I see oil back in the mid 60s, hard to say when, 2 years? Who
knows. But if the context doesn't change, I am far more focused on
that $150 than the $10, because if the context doesn't change, even
if
there is a MS crash, as oil is way out in front of it,
they can just rebuild the MS and put everybody right back where they
were in 2007, or even worse - meaning oil trades @ $200 p/bbl, back to
peak oil headlines, incessent demand, etc.
You cant see it now. 5 years? 7? Yeah, it wont look like this.
Leave it to the markets and the news and all the BS of the day
distract you from seeing a once in a lifetime opportunity. But, that
is what makes a market a market. Everybody has their own ideas, and
definitions of risk, and execute accordingly.
Russia's crude and condensate production in February was 10,840 kb/d (preliminary estimate), up
2.1% year-on-year, and down 25 kb/d (0.2%) from January level.
Looks like Russian bear after being hit in the head and robbed at gun point starts slow awakening
from hibernation. The honchos of Russian oil companies are now officially onboard for the freeze
and some of them want more drastic measures. They have a discussion of "stabilization of Russian
economy" (which means stabilization of oil prices) with President Putin, which means that Putin
got his marching orders from oil oligarchs, some of which wants "quid pro quo" from the
government (not to increase taxes on oil despite budget deficit). Details are scarce. But previously
hapless head of Rosneft Igor Sechin lamented about the situation he drove his company into, being
completely unprepared to the oil price crush. May be he got promises of additional loans to keep
the company afoot.
Generally Russian performance in this crises leaves to me the impression of complete incompetence
on high level. Especially unimpressive is Alexander Novak – the Russian Minister of Energy. He
speaks like a typical neoliberal. This is when more centralized economy should score points and
they instead were taken for the ride and continued to buy the US Treasuries. Why not to buy Russia
oil for the strategic reserve instead, like China did ? I think Russia still does not have any
state strategic oil reserves (the only major country in such a position).
President Vladimir Putin and the heads of major Russian oil companies discussed implementation
of decisive measures to stabilize the Russian economy in view of increased volatility of world
markets.
As a start Russia is ready to join the group of countries within and outside OPEC, which approved
the proposal to freeze the level of production of oil in 2016 at January level. Such production
limits can be implemented by a joint agreement of key countries, that is already was put on table
on Feb 16, 2016 by Saudis, Russia, Qatar and Venezuela and now is at the stage of multilateral
discussion with other oil exporting countries. The final decision is expected somewhere in March
on a new meeting of Ministers of oil producing countries.
This meeting at the Kremlin was chaired by Vladimir Putin and was attended by all key representatives
of the Russian oil industry - the Chairman of the Board of "LUKOIL" Vagit Alekperov, the General
Director "Surgutneftegaz" Vladimir Bogdanov, the head of Board "Gazprom oil" Alexander Dyukov,
the President of the company "Bashneft" Alexander Korsik, the General Director of Zarubezhneft
Sergey Kudryashov, the head of "Tatneft" Nail Maganov, President of "Rosneft" Igor Sechin, the
head of the Independent oil and gas company Eduard Khudainatov.
In addition, the Russian minister of energy Alexander Novak and the head of the presidential
administration Sergei Ivanov, as well as aide to President Putin Andrei Belousov also participated
in this meeting.
This year Alexander Novak held a series of meetings with Ministers of oil-producing countries.
In February, the negotiations in the Qatari capital and it was proposed to fix the production
at the level of January. In January, Russia produced 46,006 million metric tons of oil with gas
condensate. This is 1.5% more than in January 2015. Average daily production amounted to 10.9
million barrels.
Before the meeting, when everybody was sitting at the table, Vladimir Putin held a short private
consultation with Alexander Novak. After that Putin opened the meeting with the following statement:
"As the Minister reported to me, some of you have more radical suggestions (for the countries
- exporters of oil. - Izvestia) for the stabilization of oil markets, but about this particular
measure (fixation of production at the level of January. - "The news") as I understand something
close to a consensus already exists.
The purpose of our meeting today is to hear from each of the heads of the companies represented
here personally the opinion of each of you on the subject of the discussion. How do you really
feel about the current situation and measures that need to be taken ?"
CEOs of major Russian companies remained silent while journalists were present. Only the General
Director "Tatneft" Nail Maganov and Chairman of the Board "Gazprom oil" Alexander Dyukov start
grinning, because these companies in January of this year recorded a growth of production relative
to January of last year (by 4.2% and 5.6% respectively, according to the Central Department of
Control of Fuel and Energy Complex).
After those introductory remarks journalists were asked to leave the meeting.
The meeting did not last long. After the meeting ended, Minister Alexander Novak in a press
conference said to journalists that all heads the Russian companies who were present supported
this international initiative. He stated that:
The implementation of this freeze should give a positive impulse on oil markets. It increases
the predictability of behaviors of key market participants, which should lead to the reduction
of volatility…
Today, the total surplus of world oil production is estimated to be around 1.5 million barrels
per day. If you freeze the level of production on the level of January, 2016 and the demand
increases by 1.3 million to 1.5 million barrels a day, the oversupply in the market will be
eliminated at the end of the year. And we already saw some signs of stabilization of the market
after this measure was announced.
Alexander Novak also noted that this freeze may not only reduce price volatility but also shorten
the period of depressed oil prices to the end of 2016, when in his opinion oil prices can return
to the $50-60 per barrel range. He noted that as of today 15 oil producing countries have publicly
declared his readiness to sign the agreement.
According to the Minister, they represent around 73% of world oil production. The exact format
of the agreement, in which the key is the method of monitoring of compliance, is yet to be determined.
The sighing of the freeze agreement can happen at another meeting of oil ministers in March.
According to Alexander Novak, even if Iran does not join the agreement, the market will still
stabilize, as Iran still has a very low level of production and can't increase it fast. Due to
this countries-signers of the agreement can make an exception for Iran and increase its ceiling
over the January 2016 level.
Freezing production at least will stop flooding the market with new volumes of oil in the delusionary
pursuit of "market share", commented on the event the analyst of FC "Discovery Broker" Andrei
Kochetkov. It will more be influenced by the financial strength of companies and countries as
well as the real costs of production from the depleting fields. On average, traditional oil wells
lose 3-5% of production volume each year, he said. Accordingly, if the flow of new investments
in the field slow down to a halt, the global market might lose another 3-4 million barrels per
day of the production at the end of the year. This drop even if less drastic as stated will increase
the pressure on oil prices said the expert.
There should not be any major problem for Russian companies with freezing the production of
oil on January, 2016 level said the head of the analytical company of the Small Letters Vitaly
Kryukov. We should not fear that this measure damage our fields, given that in Western Siberia
production continues to fall, he said.
That, of course, might lead to less drilling in some places but will not affect the commissioning
of new projects that were under construction. For example, LUKOIL is expected to launch new projects
this year in the Caspian sea, but at the same time they are quickly losing the volume of production
in Western Siberia.
The second topic discussed at the meeting with the President was the taxation of Russian oil
companies. The heads of the companies have asked the head of state in the medium term, not to
raise taxes and to keep the current system of taxation while the current turmoil with oil prices
exist. In his after the meeting interview Alexander Novak stated that Vladimir Putin is now aware
about the position of the heads of Russian oil companies on this subject, but this issue still
needs to be discussed inside the government.
Looks like Russian oil minister decided to play the role of a regular supply and demand jerk, may
be intentionally. Generally Russians unlike Chinese's behaved like idiots in this situation. Inread
of building state petroleum reserves like Chinese did and later selling oil later at reasonable prices
they continued to dump the oil on market helping Saudis to crash the price. Russia is still buying US
treasures instead as if oil is not as reliable as currency. Russia is the only major country that does
not have strategic oil reserves.
Alexander Novak mostly sounded like a regular member of the neoliberal cosmopolitan elite not as
a Russian oil minister who is interested in well-being of Russian citizens. As Soros aptly mentioned
such people have more in common with Wall Street financial oligarchs that with interests
of their own country.
Whether this was intentional of this is a his assumed position for Die Welt I do no know.
Notable quotes:
"... Given the pricing environment we expect in 2016 further reductions of 15-40%. Thus, this year 30 largest companies in the world can cut $200 billion from capex budgets . At the same time, we see that rise in in the price of the credit for oil producers in the US hinders their access to financial markets. ..."
"... On a global scale in the short term, these effects will be minimal. However, in the medium and long term they will be dramatic, because many of the cancelled projects were important for stability of oil supply from the point of view of growing global demand, have been postponed or frozen. So we can assumed that after 2020 a stable supply of oil is under threat. In this regard, Russia seeks to remain a stable supplier of oil globally. ..."
24.02.2016 | Die Welt/InoSMI
Russia is suffering from extremely low oil prices. Energy Minister Alexander Novak warned us
against the dramatic consequences of falling oil prices for the entire world. After the oversupply
of oil, according to him, a severe deficit is coming.
Die Welt: You have agreed with the oil Minister of Saudi Arabia on the limitation of oil
production. At first the market reacted to the results of your negotiations negativity and oil prices
continued to fall. What, in general, gives us this arrangement?
Alexander Novak: I Think our meeting with the colleagues from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Venezuela
were very productive. The main result was a preliminary agreement on limiting oil production in 2016
at the level of January of this year. The final decision will be made when this initiative will join
most other oil producers. In our view, this approach would gradually reduce the oversupply and stabilize
prices at a level that will ensure the stability of the industry in the long term.
- Let's assume that others will agree with this. However, experts believe that price stabilization
is necessary not just freeze, and a reduction in oil production.
- Such proposals are periodically received. But we think that this may soon lead to an abrupt
artificial increase in prices. Because such a rise in prices entails the inflow of speculative
money into capital-intensive projects, for example, in the production of shale oil that, in turn,
will lead to rapid increase of oil production and as a result another round of oil prices fall. Of
crucial importance is the level of prices at which US shale oil is unprofitable. If the oil price
moved higher higher, we will again be faced with the effect of plummeting oil prices. That is why
we need mutual consultation in order better to access the current supply and demand situation.
- But the decline in prices over the last 18 months ago is already having a serious negative
impact on producers with higher costs.
- Yes, albeit slower than expected. This is a change from previous oil price cycles, when only
the oil exporting countries influenced the market by voluntarily reducing the production. But after
the invention of the technology for shale gas extraction in 2009, the situation has changed.
- So you agree with the International energy Agency, believes that in 2016, contrary to expectations,
oil prices stabilize?
- In general yes. Because when in mid-2014 oil prices began to decline, many thought that soon
shale oil will fall prey of it. However, this did not happen. We can see that the price at around
$100 per barrel was too high, but shale oil companies for more then a year managed to withstood the
falling oil prices and continue oil extraction is volumes comparable with the volume at peak.
Demand and supply grow equally, and the gap between them did not became smaller. That's why in 2016
everyone is adjusting their predictions about the end of low oil prices regime.
Limited access to funding by high cost producers and delay in implementation of capital intensive
projects will play a role in the alignment of supply and demand in the market and the volume of oil
production outside OPEC, primarily in North America, will be reduced. For example, in the US, the
number of drilling rigs already has declined by two-thirds.
- Not only in the United States. All the world's leading oil companies reduced their investment
programs by 10-35%. What reductions we can expect in 2016?
- Given the pricing environment we expect in 2016 further reductions of 15-40%. Thus, this
year 30 largest companies in the world can cut $200 billion from capex budgets . At the same time,
we see that rise in in the price of the credit for oil producers in the US hinders their access to
financial markets.
- What can be the consequences of reducing investments in the foreseeable future?
- On a global scale in the short term, these effects will be minimal. However, in the medium
and long term they will be dramatic, because many of the cancelled projects were important
for stability of oil supply from the point of view of growing global demand, have been postponed
or frozen. So we can assumed that after 2020 a stable supply of oil is under threat. In this regard,
Russia seeks to remain a stable supplier of oil globally.
- Can Russia to help stabilize prices, "selling" to OPEC and other major producers the
idea to reduce production?
- We haven't made exact calculations. For Russia, this is a difficult question due to the technological
aspects of oil extraction, the current state of the projects under construction and climatic conditions.
You can understand our situation from a simple fact: Russia has more than 170 thousand wells, and
to reduce their number very difficult. And in the middle East much less wells: Saudi Arabia produces
the same amount of oil as we do, with only 3500 wells. In addition, our oil companies are independent
joint-stock companies which are independently planning the level of their own production.
- The head of the second largest Russian oil company LUKOIL Vagit Alekperov said recently that
the Russian oil sector is most afraid that the government will change tax rules for him.
- I share the opinion of the head of the Lukoil concern. We needs a stable tax system. Oil prices,
along with the ruble and so fell and to this created for oil companies the problems of financing
of the oil extraction. If in addition we change the rules of taxation, the future would
become impossible to predict and the companies would be unable to plan their activities for more
then one year. We in the last two years had introduced some tax breaks which should encourage the
production at new fields in Eastern Siberia and the far East. Their effect is already noticeable:
in 2015, we got from those fields additional 60 million tons.
- And in the Arctic region?
- This region now is off-limit due to the costs. But the investments in the extraction of Okhotsk
and Caspian seas have risen because they are attractive from the point of view of taxation. In the
long run we are - regardless of the dynamics of oil prices - will have to change the tax system.
Together with the Ministry of Finance we will develop in the course of this year proposals.
- Russia, as you know, is struggling with declining production in current fields. If the investment
will be reduced, won't this mean that in 2017 the volume of oil production will fail?
- Much will depend on the situation with oil prices and the ruble exchange rate. All our major
companies confirm that they will be able to maintain production at the current fields at the current
level. However, at the current oil prices, investment in new projects will be reduced - at least
by 20-30%.
- In the medium to long term additional load on unconventional and expensive projects will
fall and Western sanctions. How noticeable the effect of them now?
- Impact on overall production is extremely small. In the last two years we have extracted from
these "difficult" fields were we do need western technology just 18 million tons, or around
3% of our total production. The growth of their share is a matter of the future.
- However, without the Western technologies to achieve it will be difficult.
- I expect the opposite effect. Since our companies cannot cooperate with the West in this
area, they had to do this work independently and to develop new technologies in Russia.
- Let me get this straight: in the next few years Russia can't eliminate technological handicap
with the West. This will not work.
At least, we achieve our goals. In three years we seriously upgraded the level of our current
technology. Professionals, scientific and practical basis of all that we have. Many companies are
working on it.
- As for the gas sector, the European Commission seeks to obtain access to all of the gas contracts.
What is that in your shows?
- It's hard for me to comment on it. We believe that commercial contracts are a matter between
the two companies.
- Are you concerned about the behaviour of the EU?
- European authorities want the contract on deliveries was coordinated by the European Commission.
However, many countries disagree. Much will depend on them.
- Differences between the EU and Gazprom have a long tradition. For a long time Gazprom attitude
to the EU's was aggressive and disrespectful. Now his tone was softer. How do you evaluate the bilateral
relations at the moment?
- We believe that Russia is a reliable supplier and that the relationship is beneficial to both
parties. Thus the entire current infrastructure was created. Now, however, we have to expand
it taking into account the fact that production in Europe will decrease and demand will increase.
But differences remain. Can we call the position of Europe a constructive policy ?
- Political aspects now take precedence over the economic aspect of natural gas and oil supplies.
So, for political reasons the project "South stream" was blocked . For political reasons, there
are attempts to prevent the expansion of Nord stream. It is obvious that the construction of the
first two lines of the "Nord stream" conformed to European legal norms. However, the attitude
to the two new branches is different. In addition, we see that in the new energy strategy of the
EU does n mention relations with Russia. How can this be considering the fact that we are the main
supplier of energy to EU? We hope, however, that pragmatism will prevail. We need to develop relations
based on mutual interests, guarantees and long-term prospects.
- I can assume that you are counting on the support of Germany to expand the "Nord stream".
- We presume that we are talking, primarily, about economic project. Major energy companies of
Europe are interested in him. Because this is a long term project. And we will compete with other
suppliers of natural and liquefied gas, which is the rate now.
Don't forget that of every four barrels of extra oil that we need over the next 25 years, only one
will be used to meet demand growth. Three others will just compensate for the decline of existing fields.
The number of vehicles in the world tin 2012 was over a billion (700 M cars, 300 m trucks and buses).
Notable quotes:
"... The question what will happen now with the oil prices in a short run still remains open. Iran has offered Europe a good discount to compete with Saudi Arabia depressing prices. According to National Iranian oil company , the discount on Iranian oil grades Iran Heavy (part of the OPEC basket) is $6.55 dollar while Saudi Arabia discount is $4.85 dollars per barrel. ..."
"... In this situation, in my opinion, the statement about the freezing of the production is from Saudi Arabia was just a tactical move, which hints on possible production cuts by OPEC later. A bluff if you wish. ..."
"... However, from now on the most natural trend for oil prices is up. And not due to any agreements, but due to depletion when production in most countries naturally goes down because of low capex. This is a more fundamental factor, but the agreement allow to win some time before this fundamental factor fully comes into play. ..."
"... The fact is that the oil the world economy still consumes more and more oil each year and now this trend was accelerated by low prices. As the result problems with meeting demand might arise as early ad the end of 2016 and inventories will start being depleted. ..."
"... After that we will enter a new uptrend , a new phase of higher prices of energy. But once scared twice shy and it is unlikely that oil prices will go up quickly. But I expect 2016 average in the range of $40-45 per barrel. This price range, I believe, will suit most conventional oil companies in the world. And especially Russian, which due to the devaluation of the national currency is largely compensated for falling prices of the oil on world markets... ..."
"... The key value of the Doha statement is that it implies that the restriction of volumes of production is possible, changing market expectation. Thats it. ..."
"... No one still can predict how much more time will be needed for coming to agreement to reduce oil production, and whether agreement will be reached at all, but it does change market expectations immediately. ..."
From my point of view, it is a signal that Saudi game in the oil dumping is close to the end,
from now on Riyadh is interested in raising energy prices. Another thing, again, that the Saudis
are ready to freeze and to reduce production only if Iran and Russian freeze or proportionately
reduce their production too.
"SP": How will other members of OPEN react on Doha announcement?
Other members will most probably support this decision. Already, a number of members of
OPEC with higher production costs, were in favor of restricting their production.
This is first of all Venezuela, partially United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Oman. And we must
understand that if for Saudi Arabia and Russia low oil prices created problems with balancing the
budgets, for Venezuela this is a real question of survival.
This alignment of interests have led to the situation with this joint statement and subsequent
reaction of the market which is currently unfolding before our eyes. One way to move another
step forward might be an emergency OPEC meeting, which could take place in early March, and on which
the proposal to freeze production by cartel members can be officially adopted.
"SP": will oil price go up from now on?
The market is essentially ready for the return of higher oil prices, therefore, it might respond
positively to this news. However, the oil market is very speculative, and responding primarily to
the expectations - the real figures of production do not play a primary role in forming the spot
price for oil.
And yet, to seriously move oil prices up, it is probably necessary to reduce the world production
by around 1.5 million barrels a day. No matter by what measures.
We also think that oil speculators might use this situation to switch the trend and try to earn
money on uptrend instead of downtrend. This is the opinion of the head of the analytical Department
of the Russian energy Security Fund Alexander Pasechnik. Even minimal 'warming" of oil market is
beneficial to the producers of "black gold", including Russia which now waist their national
treasure.
He suggested that the agreement in Doha was possible because it was impossible to wait longer
for some measures to stop speculative attacks on oil price. The possibility of creating an
artificial shortage of supply in the oil market were actively discussed for the last few months on
different levels, but no decision were made.
The question what will happen now with the oil prices "in a short run" still remains open.
Iran has offered Europe a good discount to compete with Saudi Arabia depressing prices. According
to "National Iranian oil company", the discount on Iranian oil grades Iran Heavy (part of the OPEC
basket) is $6.55 dollar while Saudi Arabia discount is $4.85 dollars per barrel.
In this situation, in my opinion, the statement about the freezing of the production is from
Saudi Arabia was just a tactical move, which hints on possible production cuts by OPEC later. A bluff
if you wish.
"SP": What are the risks for Russia, due to freeze of production at the current level?
In my opinion, there is no any significant risks. In any case we will be forced to reduce production
due to the increase of the fiscal burden on the oil industry, and the consequent reduction of investments
in the sector. Let me remind you that in 2016, the oil companies will pay 200 billion rubles of additional
taxes, and government intends to stick to this tax regime in 2017 and possibly in 2018. This means
that the coming drop of production in the Russian Federation is baked into the cake. Agreement with
Saudis for freeze production on January 2016 level does not change this reality.
On the other hand, we should not expect much from the agreements in Doha. Even if the position
the Quartet will be supported by all other members of OPEC, it does not guarantee that such
a "gentleman's agreement" will be respected by all members of the cartel.
However, from now on the most natural trend for oil prices is up. And not due to any agreements,
but due to depletion when production in most countries "naturally" goes down because of low
capex. This is a more fundamental factor, but the agreement allow to win some time before this
fundamental factor fully comes into play.
The fact is that the oil the world economy still consumes more and more oil each year and
now this trend was accelerated by low prices. As the result problems with meeting demand might arise
as early ad the end of 2016 and inventories will start being depleted.
After that we will enter a new "uptrend", a new phase of higher prices of energy. But
once scared twice shy and it is unlikely that oil prices will go up quickly. But I expect 2016 average
in the range of $40-45 per barrel. This price range, I believe, will suit most conventional oil companies
in the world. And especially Russian, which due to the devaluation of the national currency is largely
compensated for falling prices of the oil on world markets...
"The key value of the Doha statement is that it implies that the restriction of volumes
of production is possible, changing market expectation. That's it." This is how Director
of the Energy Institute Sergey Pravosudov thinks about the announcement. The key purpose of such
statements is to spook speculators pushing the oil price down, and not to push oil prices up.
No one still can predict how much more time will be needed for coming to agreement to reduce
oil production, and whether agreement will be reached at all, but it does change market expectations
immediately.
"... A group of Russian Duma deputies proposed to prohibit for 5 years the sale of raw oil abroad and develop a strategy for the development of the economy of Russia in the direction of reducing the dependence on the fluctuations of world oil prices. ..."
A group of Russian Duma deputies proposed to prohibit for 5 years
the sale of raw oil abroad and develop a strategy for the development
of the economy of Russia in the direction of reducing the dependence
on the fluctuations of world oil prices.
A letter to the Minister of Economic Development Alexei Ulyukayev
was sent by deputies from the minority party "Fair Russia", informs
"RIA Novosti".
According to the parliamentarians, the biggest problem is that Russia
still sits on an oil needle. So state reforms are needed for the domestic
economy.
"Today we need to summon all the courage to declare the abolition
of the raw oil sales to world markets. We must start to turn out economy
in the direction of increasing the level of oil processing in domestic
petrochemical industry and lessening the priority of oil extraction
industries. Russia has repeatedly demonstrated that it can rise from
the ashes. The state needs reforms which reallocates currency reserves
to ensure this path of development of the domestic economy based on
the internal opportunities of economic development " says deputies'
request.
According to the parliamentarians, the immediate introduction of
such prohibition is impossible, because Russia has obligations to the
current trading partners.
Instead Deputies proposed to adopt a government program "Development
of the economy of the Russian Federation in the direction of reduction
of its dependence on raw oil sales".
"While we procrastinate and endure the slump of oil prices waiting
for the rise of oil prices, Russian economy deteriorates and Russian
state suffers too. Why do we recklessly waste our precious natural resources
depriving future generations? To be the world's gas fueling station
is not what Russia wants to be", they wrote.
"... The media puts forth a continuous stream of completely unadulterated crap to its readership. Saudi Arabia is not going to spend $175 billion per year to put out of business producers that produce an entirely different product, and which sells to an entirely different market. LTO is as much like Saudi crude as Shetland Ponies are to an Arabian race horses. The similarities stop at horse. ..."
"... LTO is a very light hydrocarbon that is used as a diluent, and feed stock. Its API is 45. It is used to thin heavier hydrocarbons like Canadian bitumen to allow it to be transported by pipe. It is used as a feedstock to make hundreds of different products from paint to plastic pipe. ..."
"... Saudis light sweet crude has an API 45, and the heavier ones, API 40, deliver entirely different products as show in the graph below: ..."
"... Goldman Sachs is an unscrupulous pack of thieves who have no qualms about lying to their clients, or the public if it serves their purposes. They, and others in the shale financing business will continue to push the Saudi/ US LTO myth for as long as they can find investors that are credulous enough to believe them. ..."
"... Some see only what they want to see. Others see the whole forest. Bloomberg and Goldman are both habitual liars and thieves. Goldman says it and Bloomberg backs it up, as if either have any credibility left. ..."
"... Short has it correct. All you see in the US MSM is bullshit in ever higher and smellier piles. As we approach the end, the cries will be louder, shriller and continuous. Wait and see. ..."
"A deal is not only "highly unlikely," in the estimation of Goldman Sachs, but "self-defeating"
for the Saudis. By cutting production now and boosting prices, Saudi Arabia would effectively
bail out U.S. shale producers just as the Saudi strategy of keeping prices low to squeeze them
out of the market is beginning to work, Goldman's Jeff Currie argues."
The media puts forth a continuous stream of completely unadulterated crap to its readership.
Saudi Arabia is not going to spend $175 billion per year to put out of business producers that
produce an entirely different product, and which sells to an entirely different market. LTO is
as much like Saudi crude as Shetland Ponies are to an Arabian race horses. The similarities stop
at horse.
LTO is a very light hydrocarbon that is used as a diluent, and feed stock. Its API is >
45. It is used to thin heavier hydrocarbons like Canadian bitumen to allow it to be transported
by pipe. It is used as a feedstock to make hundreds of different products from paint to plastic
pipe.
Saudi's light sweet crude has an API 45, and the heavier ones, API < 40, deliver entirely
different products as show in the graph below:
Saudi's light sweet crude, and LTO are entirely different products that sell to entirely different
markets. Saudi's crude is no competition to LTO and LTO is no competition for Saudi's crude.
Goldman Sachs is an unscrupulous pack of thieves who have no qualms about lying to their
clients, or the public if it serves their purposes. They, and others in the shale financing business
will continue to push the Saudi/ US LTO myth for as long as they can find investors that are credulous
enough to believe them.
makati1 on Thu, 4th Feb 2016 7:59 pm
Some see only what they want to see. Others see the whole forest. Bloomberg and Goldman
are both habitual liars and thieves. Goldman says it and Bloomberg backs it up, as if either have
any credibility left.
Short has it correct. All you see in the US MSM is bullshit in ever higher and smellier
piles. As we approach the end, the cries will be louder, shriller and continuous. Wait and see.
Output from Russia, which vies with Saudi Arabia and the U.S. as the world's
top producer, may fall this year by as much as 150,000 barrels a day, or about
1.3 percent, according to analysts including Neil Beveridge, at Sanford C. Bernstein
& Co.
The country's production set a post-Soviet high in January as output of crude
and a light oil called condensate climbed 1.5 percent from a year earlier to
10.878 million barrels a day, according to the Energy Ministry's CDU-TEK unit.
"... Were going on 2 yrs since the price decline began, what . . . about 20 months ago? Just how
long is that long run were supposed to be waiting for to see sharp production decline? ..."
MOSCOW, Feb 2 (Reuters) – Oil production in Russia hit a post-Soviet high in January, reaching
an average of 10.88 million barrels per day (bpd), preliminary data released by the Energy Ministry
showed on Tuesday.
------------
My comment:
At 7.3 barrels / ton ratio, production in January was 10,834 kb/d vs. 10,76o kb/d (revised) in
December 2015 and 10,613 in January 2015 (year-on-year increase of 2.1%)
Russian crude and condensate production (mb/d)
source: Russian Energy Ministry
Two new mid-sized fields came onstream, one in December and one in January
Several new field start-ups are expected for 2016, including a relatively large Filanovskogo project
in Northern Caspian.
The numbers in tons (as stated in Ministry's report and in b/d)
(sorry, the last column is January 2016)
People are going to have to wrap their minds around reality. Production doesn't have to fall
because of price - especially in locales with total government control.
We're going on 2 yrs since the price decline began, what . . . about 20 months ago? Just
how long is that long run we're supposed to be waiting for to see sharp production decline?
Estimates of decline are varied from none to 0.5Mb/d, but when it can start and how sharp it
will be is anybody guess.
I think it will not be sharp as Russian producers are partially isolated from oil price slump
by the currency depreciation and long term contracts that they typically use.
== quote ==
The economics of Russian production provide a glimpse of how painful current prices are. According
to ESAI Energy's analysis in the accompanying chart, when the Urals price is $30 per barrel,
a producer's net revenue after paying the crude export duty and Mineral Extraction tax is $17.
But since their costs are paid in rubles, the value of which has plummeted, lifting costs and
pipeline transport from West Siberia are roughly $8 per barrel.
These numbers indicate Russian producers can withstand prices as low as even $20 per barrel
without them having a significant impact on production in 2016. That said, oil companies like
Lukoil and Rosneft, which together account for 5.5 million b/d of Russian production, might
participate in production limits were the Putin regime to pursue them.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told reporters in the United Arab Emirates on Tuesday that
Moscow is "open for other forms of cooperation, if there is general interest in holding a meeting
between OPEC members and producer countries."
The article is weak and one-sided, but some facts (or more correctly fuzzy estimates) are
interesting. While this is not an objective assessment of russian conditions, it is pretty good
assement of Western sentiments toward Russia as reflected in MSM.
Notable quotes:
"... in the key Soviet-era fields in western Siberia, the annual rate of depletion is averaging 8 percent to 11 percent, while new projects are being curtailed. ..."
"... According to the Telegraph [ article by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard ( 14 Jan 2016)], Transneft, the Russian crude and product pipeline monopoly, estimated that Russian crude exports could decrease in 2016 by some 460,000 barrels per day, based on producer applications for pipeline capacity. ..."
"... At the end of Q3, Rosneft's net debt stood at $24 billion. ..."
"... Rosneft likely cannot generate the cash to cover its investment, interest, and debt repayment obligations. ..."
Until recent weeks, the Russian government had some basis to
harbor hope that GDP, after contracting ~3.5 percent in 2015, would
return to growth within this two year window. As late as Q3 2015,
the IMF estimated that in 2016, GDP would grow, if only anemically
at below 1 percent.
Recent crude price action, however, has dashed such hopes and
instead has raised the prospect of a deeper and longer recession.
In a "stress" test it conducted in November, the Russian Central
Bank estimated that with Ural crude prices
below $40 per barrel between 2016-2018, the Russian economy
would contract five percent in 2016, inflation would run at 7-to-9
percent, and that these conditions "would also raise risks to
inflation and financial stability.
Central Bank efforts to stabilize the Ruble and contain
inflation are one reason the "stress" test results may prove
prescient. The plunge in crude prices is preventing the Central
Bank from easing monetary policy to stimulate the economy. Friday,
January 29, it announced that it would keep its benchmark interest
rate at 11 percent, to support the Ruble (which fell as low as
~R82.5/US$ last week before recovering to ~RUB75.5/US$ on January
29) and contain inflation. In its announcement, it noted that its
next move could be to raise rather than lower the benchmark rate,
were inflationary pressures to increase.
.... ... ...
The Russian government is also contemplating asset sales
(including part of its stake in Rosneft and in VTB, a major bank),
but such sales would provide one-time boosts to revenue and in any
case would take time to organize. Borrowing is a possibility, since
Russia's sovereign debt is low, but the Russian government can't
access U.S. and European capital markets, closed to it due to U.S.
and EU sanctions related to the conflict over Ukraine).
The Russian energy industry is also a target-and potentially a
lucrative one, given the structure of Russian taxes on the
industry. In 2015's first three quarters, for example, low crude
prices decreased the revenues the Russian government collected in
export customs duties from Rosneft, Russia's largest producer, by
RUB 520 billion (RUB 1058 billion to RUB 738 billion), while taxes
other than income taxes increased only RUB 80 billion, from RUB 919
billion to RUB 1009 billion).
It is therefore not surprising that in September, the Russian
Finance Ministry attempted to increase the mineral extraction tax.
Industry opposition and opposition from other Russian
ministries-citing the negative impact on investment and
output-forced it to back down (Venezuela is an example, admittedly
extreme, of what happens when government raids on industry revenues
to fund current operations squeezes investment). It proposed
instead to slow down the planned decrease in crude export duty rate
(from 42 percent to 36 percent. Also under consideration is a
windfall profits tax on Russian energy exporters benefitting from
the Ruble's depreciation.
Deteriorating Energy Industry Conditions
The situation of Russian energy producers is also difficult. The
Telegraph (UK) in early January quoted Russia's deputy finance
minister, Maxim Oreshkin, as telling TASS earlier this month that
low crude prices could lead to "hard and fast closures in coming
months." The article also said noted that in the key Soviet-era
fields in western Siberia, the annual rate of depletion is
averaging 8 percent to 11 percent, while new projects are being
curtailed.
According to the
Telegraph
[ article by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard ( 14 Jan 2016)], Transneft, the Russian crude and
product pipeline monopoly, estimated that Russian crude exports
could decrease in 2016 by some 460,000 barrels per day, based on
producer applications for pipeline capacity.
In an interview with TASS, the Russian news agency last week,
Lukoil Vice President Leonid Fedun commented that Lukoil
was unlikely to produce the one hundred million tons it
produced in 2015. He also said that it made more economic sense to
sell one barrel of oil for $50 than two barrels for $30.
Gazprom, Russia's natural gas giant, shows signs of stress. In
recent weeks, it has instituted a series of cuts in investments.
January 11, Reuters reported Gazprom cancelled one tender in
December and three tenders in January for work on the construction
of the Ukhta-Torzhok pipeline, a domestic key component of pipeline
system which will transport natural gas directly to Germany through
the Nord Stream II pipeline. According to Reuters, Gazprom Neft (of
which Gazprom is the majority shareholder) recently
terminated negotiations to acquire a 49 percent stake in
Vietnam's Binh Son Refining and Petrochemical, a subsidiary of
Vietnam's state-owned PetroVietnam.
A January 15
Reuters article quoted "sources close to Gazrpom" as saying
that Chinese economic problems and low energy prices have reduced
the volume of natural gas Gazprom expects to export to China via
the Power of Siberia pipeline-the project on which Gazprom has bet
its future-when it is completed. Given the already questionable
economics of the Power of Siberia project, reduced volumes will
intensify doubts about the project's financial viability and future
(Putin
Is Taking A Big Risk With China Gas Deals).
Overleveraged, Rosneft's Pain is Particularly Acute
The pain for Rosneft, the company which the Russian government
hoped would gain the size necessary to compete on equal terms with
Western oil majors, is particularly acute. As part of its effort to
gain scale, the company in 2013 took on massive debt-$40 billion
according to Reuters-to finance its acquisition of Russian
competitor TNK-BP for $55 billion.
To help pay down debt, Rosneft, also in 2013, concluded an
agreement with Chinese National Petroleum Corporation to supply 400
million metric tons of crude over twenty five years, under which
Rosneft was entitled to receive prepayment equal to 30 percent of
the contract's value (Rosneft received RUB 1027 billion in 2015
Q3).
At the end of Q3, Rosneft's net debt stood at $24 billion. Yet, Alexey Bulgakov, a fixed income analyst at Sberbank CIB
estimates that Rosneft may already have accessed the maximum amount
of cash it can under the deal, given the decline in price from
~$100-plus per barrel in 2013 to ~$30 per barrel now and the terms
of the agreement.
And, should crude prices remain at current levels, Rosneft
likely cannot generate the cash to cover its investment, interest,
and debt repayment obligations.
Russian government officials and energy producers argue that a
depreciating Ruble has attenuated the impact of lower crude prices,
since each US$ generates more Rubles, which is important given that
the bulk of their expenses are in Rubles. This, however, isn't the
only impact of a weak Ruble. It can also cause inflation, and this
has been the case in Russia.
Dalan McEndree has a BA in history, MA in European History, M.Phil. in Russian and Soviet
history, Soviet economics, and International economics, and MBA in finance and marketing. He also
studied at the East European Institute of Berlin's Free University and the U.S. Army Russian
Institute in Garmisch, Germany (now the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies).
His career has focused on the Soviet Union and Russia, and has included fifteen years in Russia
as a U.S. diplomat, in business, working both for international and Russian businesses, and in
consulting. He is also the author of several self-published Russia-focused murder mysteries, and
two satires.
"... Thanks to a great post from John Kemp from Reuters we now know who is behind the magically higher imports starting in 2015 and that continues. This incremental 500,000 barrels per day of imports has been the primary reason for why the U.S. market remains imbalanced (although not nearly as much as what is portrayed in media). ..."
"... The motives for Saudi Arabia's oil market strategies today – whether for vengeance, ego, politics or irrationality – cannot be known for sure. But it surely was not economics, given the price drop in 2015. A 50 percent drop in price on 9 million barrels per day (mb/d) was not made up by a 500,000 bpd [exports] increase. ..."
"... I should also note that almost all of the Saudi production ramp up in 2015 went to fuel this surge. We should recall a U.S. State Department visit to Saudi Arabia in late summer 2014 when all of this started, as the dollar rose and Russia Ruble imploded. In light of the recent EPA methane crack down and tax levy on U.S. wells, one has to wonder how much of a coincidence all this is, as there is clearly a war on fossil energy as the global warming agenda ramps up. ..."
The so-called experts know this yet they continue to cloud the issue with ideologically based
biased spin.
Thanks to a great post from John Kemp from Reuters we now know who is behind the magically
higher imports starting in 2015 and that continues. This incremental 500,000 barrels per day of imports
has been the primary reason for why the U.S. market remains imbalanced (although not nearly as much
as what is portrayed in media).
The motives for
Saudi Arabia's oil market strategies today – whether for vengeance, ego, politics or irrationality
– cannot be known for sure. But it surely was not economics, given the price drop in 2015. A 50 percent
drop in price on 9 million barrels per day (mb/d) was not made up by a 500,000 bpd [exports] increase.
I should also note that almost all of the Saudi production ramp up in 2015 went to fuel this
surge. We should recall a U.S. State Department visit to Saudi Arabia in late summer 2014 when all
of this started, as the dollar rose and Russia Ruble imploded. In light of the recent EPA methane
crack down and tax levy on U.S. wells, one has to wonder how much of a coincidence all this is, as
there is clearly a war on fossil energy as the global warming agenda ramps up.
"... As regards the future, I agree that Russia is on a plateau, with potential +/- 1-2% annual fluctuations around 2014-2015 average levels. ..."
"... Is it possible that there is some political bias in those reports by the Russian Oil Minister? ..."
"... Not any more likely than political bias by the EIA or NEB, imo. I think EIA numbers for the US are pretty good, NEBs numbers for Canada are best and the Russian Energy Ministry numbers for Russia would be best. ..."
"Russia peaked in January at 10,246,000 bpd and in Octber was down 106,000 bpd to 10,140,000 bpd.
Russia appears to be on a plateau, likely before a slow decline that begins in 2016."
Oh yes, the EIA doesn't know exactly how much oil is produced in the U.S., but they surely
know better than the Russian Energy Ministry what are production volumes in Russia.
As regards the future, I agree that Russia is on a plateau, with potential +/- 1-2% annual fluctuations
around 2014-2015 average levels.
Alex, the EIA depends entirely on other sources for its Russian oil production reports. This is
very similar to OPEC's "Secondary Sources". The EIA and JODI, for the last three years or so,
are extremely close with their Russian production numbers. They both report numbers well below
what the Russian Oil Minister reports. And they both often report a monthly decline in production
when the official Russian numbers report an increase in production.
Is it possible that there is some political bias in those reports by the Russian Oil Minister?
Not any more likely than political bias by the EIA or NEB, imo. I think EIA numbers for the
US are pretty good, NEB's numbers for Canada are best and the Russian Energy Ministry numbers
for Russia would be best.
Dennis, I do appreciate your input but sometimes you just try way too hard to be fair.
;-) What motive
would the EIA or the NEB have for fudging the numbers? And which way would they fudge them if
they did?
A perfect example: If you go to OPEC's
MOMR
and check the production numbers for each OPEC nation, you will find two different sets
of numbers. One set will be from "Secondary Sources" and the other set will be from "Direct Communication".
The direct communication numbers, for several countries, is always off by several hundred barrels
per day. For others the two sets of numbers are relatively close. The difference is some have
a motive for fudging the numbers, others do not. And also, secondary sources, such as Platts and
others, is almost always more accurate than the numbers produced by direct communication with
the country itself.
Also Dennis, I must ask, and this is very important, does the EIA or NEB have a reputation
of producing propaganda? Does the Soviet Government have a reputation of producing propaganda?
Now I do fault the EIA in some of their numbers. But they do not fudge the numbers deliberately.
But due to budget restraints or lack of a good data source they sometimes just seem to insert
a number. But there is no malicious intent here. They don't have a good number so they just use
the last good number they had… again.
As to those Russian numbers. JODI, when they reduced Russia's numbers significantly a few years
ago, was highly criticized for doing so. (They just brought them into line with what the EIA was
already reporting.) They said they had several sources for those numbers and stood by them. Now
the JODI numbers and the EIA numbers still vary but not by any significant amount. Prior to that
adjustment JODI had been using Russia's direct communication numbers.
Bottom line, I trust the EIA's and JODI's "Secondary Sources" far more than I trust Russia's
"Direct Communication".
You may not have noticed, but the Soviet Union no longer exists.
;-)
AlexS is very sharp, if the Russian Energy ministry was fudging its numbers he would be aware.
I have no evidence that the Russian Energy ministry is fudging any numbers and to assume otherwise
is a mistake in my opinion.
I agree the OPEC numbers based on direct communication may be fudged, there is no auditing
of OPEC data.
The Russians report in metric tonnes rather than barrels or cubic meters so the output numbers
depend on the appropriate average density of the oil.
The difference between US and Russian data may be a matter of how C5 is reported, in the US
C5 produced in the field is counted with crude and C5 produced in a natural gas processing plant
is considered NGL.
This is a strange distinction unique to the United States. In Canada all pentanes and pentanes
plus are grouped together regardless of where they are produced, perhaps Russia does the same.
If so, it is the US EIA which is not accounting for C+C properly rather than the Russians,
so I am being both fair and logical if my guess is correct.
I don't know Russian so I cannot read the Russian Energy Ministry website. Perhaps AlexS can
comment on how pentanes( and C5+) from natural gas processing plants in Russia are reported. Are
they included in C+C output numbers (similar to the way Canada reports its data)?
Hi AlexS. It would be nice to have a link to the source of that data. Looking at the discrepancy
to other datasets I work with, I would guess it is not reporting exactly the same products. The
EIA C+C dataset is pretty restrictive (as it should be), for instance, it only includes fossil
products that are stable in liquid state at the surface.
The numbers are in tons per months. I am using 7.3 barrels/ton ratio to convert into b/d. Condensate is included, but not NGLs.
More detailed data by each company and by each subsidiary of large vertically integrated companies
is available in the CDU TEK (a Russian analogue of the EIA) website, but it's not free.
These detailed numbers are republished in a number of Russian oil&gas industry journals (also
not free). Detailed monthly and annual averages in kb/d are also published by Energy Intelligence (paid site)
http://www.energyintel.com/pages/login.aspx?fid=art&DocId=913740
But they are using 7.33 conversion ratio, so their numbers in kb/d are slightly higher than mine.
>
By reducing oil prices, Saudi Arabia is waging a secret war against Russia and Iran, according to
political analyst Bassam Tahhan.
In
an
interview with RT , political analyst Bassam Tahhan said that Saudi Arabia and the other countries
of the Gulf Cooperation Council are trying to force down oil prices in order to harm Iran and a number
of other oil-producing countries, including Russia.
"A secret war is being waged by
Saudi Arabia and Gulf Cooperation Council states which are slashing oil prices so as to strangle
Iran, Russia, Algeria and Venezuela, as well as the entire 'anti-American' axis created by these
countries," Tahhan said.
He explained that all those countries had refused to adhere to Washington's demands with regard
to
Ukraine , Syria and
Yemen .
According to Tahhan, the oil spat between Riyadh and Tehran is unlikely to lead to a war, given
Iran's military potential and the sheer territory of the country.
What's more, he said, Saudi Arabia will fail to prod the UN or the West to issue a resolution
to condemn Iran and authorize invasion of the country.
Rather, Saudi Arabia itself may be attacked by Iran's allies, such as Yemen, a scenario that Tahhan
said may see Saudi oil fields destroyed and oil prices rise.
At the same time, he noted that
the United States is unlikely to say "no" to the war between Saudi Arabia and Iran, because Washington
could supply arms to both parties to the conflict.
Earlier this month, international business analyst
Ralph Winnie told Sputnik that Saudi Arabia has dropped its oil prices to try and wreck the Iranian
economy and keep Tehran's oil exports out of major European markets.
"The Saudis are looking to gain a competitive advantage: this is a response to the lifting of
Western economic sanctions on Iran , which allow the Iranians to reenter the global energy marketplace,"
he said.
His remarks came after the Saudi oil giant Aramco announced that it would cut oil prices for Europe,
apparently in preparation for Iran's resumption of oil exports to the region later this year.
He was echoed by Executive Intelligence Review senior editor
Jeff Steinberg , who said in a separate interview with Sputnik that by slashing their oil prices,
the Saudis were targeting US and Russian oil producers as well as the Iranian ones.
Russia's Federal Statistics Service says the country's economy contracted 3.7 percent last
year. This corresponds to the prediction from the Economic Development Ministry.
Unemployment in Russia grew to 7.4 percent last year or 4.2 million jobless.
Retail trade turnover fell by 10 percent compared to the previous year at 27.6 trillion rubles
(or $452.5 billion at 61 rubles per dollar, average exchange rate in 2015). Capital investment
decreased by 8.4 percent to $230 billion.
Car manufacturing and industrial production have also seen a decline. In 2015, Russia's
automobile production was down 27.7 percent. Industrial production contracted 3.4 percent from
2014.
Positive news came from the agricultural sector. Preliminary estimates for agricultural
production show an increase of 3 percent to $82 billion. This figure includes data for all
farmers - from households to large holdings.
Last week, the International Monetary Fund predicted a 3.7 percent contraction for the Russian
economy in 2015. The IMF also forecast Russia's GDP to drop this year from negative 0.6 percent
to negative one percent.
In its 2016 outlook, the Economic Development Ministry is forecasting a 0.8 percent GDP fall
revising its previous projection of 0.7 percent growth, according to business daily Vedomosti.
The main reason for the downgrade is collapsing oil prices that have fallen $6 per barrel this
year to $31 which is still a rebound from last week's 12-year low of $26. Brent crude was trading
at $31.1 per barrel at 2:00pm GMT on Monday, while US WTI oil stood at $31.27
Tom Brite
As Russia's inflation reached double-digits last year, Russians saw their real wages
decline by 9.5 percent compared to 2014, data published by the Rosstat state statistics
service showed Monday.
In December 2015, real wages of Russians dropped 10 percent when compared to the same month
in 2014, according to Rosstat data. The average monthly salary in Russia last year was
30,311 rubles ($381).
In the discussion thread following the original 2006 Oil Drum post, Sam Foucher ("Khebab")
and I had a number of discussions about Russian production, and after talking to Sam, I suggested
that some point after 2007 we should see a very sharp decline in production. Clearly I was wrong,
but on the other hand the post-2007 rate of increase in production slowed, versus 2002 to 2007,
and Russian net exports have been on an "Undulating plateau" since 2007.
Based on EIA data (total petroleum liquids + other liquids for production), Russian net exports
increased from 5.1 million bpd in 2002 to 7.0 million bpd in 2007. At this rate of increase, they
would have been at about 10 million bpd in 2013 (EIA 2014 consumption data not yet available,
but the EIA shows that Russian production increased by 0.1 million bpd from 2013 to 2014).
From 2007 to 2013 inclusive, Russian net exports have been within a range of 6.9 to 7.2 million
bpd with an average value of 7.1 million bpd, versus 7.0 million bpd in 2014, based on the most
recent EIA data.
And virtually flat Russian net exports, combined with the post-2005 decline in Norway's and
Saudi Arabia's net exports, contributed to the observed overall decline in (2005) Top Three net
exports from 2005 to 2013. As I discussed, at the time of my Oil Drum essay, the (then) Top Three
net exporters were showing a very strong combined increase in net exports.
Or let me put it this way. If either Saudi Arabia or Russia had maintained their previous rates
of increase in net exports, the combined (2005) Top Three net exports would have been up, not
down in 2013, relative to 2005.
"... The national currency declined by 2 percent to 79.1 rubles to the dollar in Moscow, its lowest trading level since December 2014. ..."
"... Russia is running a budget deficit of 3 percent of GDP this year, and the government is looking to cut 10 percent from the federal budget, which was drafted with oil prices of $50 a barrel in mind. ..."
"... The government has recently downgraded its economy forecast for this year, from 0.7 percent growth to a 0.8 percent decline. ..."
MOSCOW - The Russian ruble, battered by weak oil prices, on Monday fell to an all-time low against
the euro and dropped to its lowest level in more than a year against the dollar.
The Central Bank set the official exchange rate at over 85 rubles to the euro on Monday. The
national currency declined by 2 percent to 79.1 rubles to the dollar in Moscow, its lowest trading
level since December 2014.
Oil, the mainstay of the Russian economy, recently plummeted to under $30 a barrel, a 13-year
low. The ruble is also under pressure from economic sanctions that the West imposed on Russia for
its involvement in the Ukraine crisis.
Russia is running a budget deficit of 3 percent of GDP this year, and the government is looking
to cut 10 percent from the federal budget, which was drafted with oil prices of $50 a barrel in mind.
All Russian ministries are expected to present their proposed cuts by the end of the month with
a view to cutting 500 billion rubles ($6.3 billion) in government expenses, Finance Minister Anton
Siluanov said.
Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, in televised comments on Monday, said that the government finds
the price of oil "difficult to predict" and that Russia should use this moment to diversify its economy
away from oil since it "has got a chance now to do it as quickly as possible."
The government has recently downgraded its economy forecast for this year, from 0.7 percent
growth to a 0.8 percent decline.
Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich told Russian news agencies in Hong Kong that the government
and monetary officials are discussing ways to spur growth and hoping GDP will be flat this year compared
with 2015.
"... Supreme Leader Ali Khameini has said Iran isn't ready to make big deals with U.S. oil companies. ..."
"... The current market turmoil has created a once in a generation opportunity for savvy energy investors. Whilst the mainstream media prints scare stories of oil prices falling through the floor smart investors are setting up their next winning oil plays. ..."
As the lifting of sanctions neared, it appeared that Iran, about to be re-integrated into the world
economy, was
tilting
toward closer relations with Russia, not with the United States. For example, until Saturday
Iran showed no inclination to release the American prisoners it was holding, and Supreme Leader Ali Khameini has said Iran isn't ready to make big deals with U.S. oil companies.
Meanwhile, Iran's
ties to Russia seemed to be warming. First, President Vladimir Putin was a special guest at the Nov.
23 Tehran summit of gas-exporting countries. Moscow has also been considering extending two loans
to the Iranian government worth a total of $7 billion, and Russia will equip Iran with modern air-defense
systems, according to country's financial daily, Kommersant.
Finally, Iran Shipbuilding & Offshore Industries Complex Co. (ISOICO) has reached a tentative
deal with the Russian shipyard Krasnye Barrikady, or Red Barricades, to cooperate in the construction
of oil rigs and share technology.
The current market turmoil has created a once in a generation opportunity for savvy energy investors.
Whilst the mainstream media prints scare stories of oil prices falling through the floor smart investors
are setting up their next winning oil plays.
If all these deals with Russia come to pass, Tehran and Moscow likely will fast become economic
and political allies, while the United States, and especially its large corporations, appear to be
left out of Iran's economic rebirth. Further, critics of the nuclear deal with Iran said that to
engage Tehran rather than fight it would merely make Iran twice the threat it already is to an unstable
Middle East.
Throughout the Vienna negotiations, the Obama administration argued exactly the opposite, that
to engage Iran was the best way to soften, if not eliminate, its hostility to the West, just as President
Richard Nixon's overtures to China in 1972 turned Beijing from a communist adversary into what President
George W. Bush once described as a "strategic competitor."
"... This oil decline is a genius move by the US foreign policy. ..."
"... That being said, this part of the strategy engineered to hurt Russia can only last another six months or so. Stripper wells shutting down in mass would be a permanent loss of production and cannot be be allowed. Its better to keep the Fracking oil in the ground now where it can act as a second "strategic petroleum reserve" to keep OPEC from getting too greedy. ..."
"... The Saudis really screwed up. Had they let oil stay over 100 the Emperor would have been truly naked in a few years. This way the threat of a renewed fracking push keeps things tame for a while. ..."
This oil decline is a genius move by the US foreign policy. Had oil stayed over 100 the Fracking
fools would have pumped the things dry and the Baaken and Eagle Ford would be looking like the
Barnett in a few years.
That being said, this part of the strategy engineered to hurt Russia can
only last another six months or so. Stripper wells shutting down in mass would be a permanent
loss of production and cannot be be allowed. Its better to keep the Fracking oil in the ground
now where it can act as a second "strategic petroleum reserve" to keep OPEC from getting too greedy.
The Saudis really screwed up. Had they let oil stay over 100 the Emperor would have been truly
naked in a few years. This way the threat of a renewed fracking push keeps things tame for a while.
"... Russian companies plan to pump for export via the Transneft system 6.4%f (of 215.8
million tones total) tons less oil than the last year. ..."
"... According to the Director of the Small Letters research company Vitaly Kryukov, the possible reduction of oil exports indicates that companies will reduce production. Senior analyst of Aton Alexander Kornilov agreed that at current low oil prices, record oil production achieved in 2015 will not happen again in the near future . ..."
"... A strong decline is observed in West Siberia (the main oil producing region of Russia), said Vitaly Kryukov. The main oil producing asset of Rosneft, Yuganskneftegaz, has reduced production by 3.3% to 62.4 million tons, LUKOIL - Western Siberia - by 6,1 % to 41 million tones. ..."
Russian companies plan to pump for export via the Transneft system 6.4%f (of 215.8
million tones total) tons less oil than the last year.
The companies plans to reduce exports in 2016 surprised experts. Director, Moscow oil
& gas center EY Denis Borisov said that there are no obvious prerequisites for a drop in production
of black gold in Russia yet. "It's hard to say what caused such a drop in export", - quote "Vedomosti"
the words of Borisov.
Deputy energy Minister Kirill Molodtsov noted that these figures are based on preliminary applications,
which are compiled according to conservative projections and may change during thef the year.
The low
preliminary requests by companies might be explained by the principle "pump or pay": if the declared
volume of oil is not pumped, they will have to pay a fine.
According to the Director of the "Small Letters" research company Vitaly Kryukov, the possible reduction of oil
exports indicates that companies will reduce production. Senior analyst of "Aton" Alexander Kornilov
agreed that at current low oil prices, record oil production achieved in 2015 will not
happen again in the near future .
A strong decline is observed in West Siberia (the main oil producing region of Russia), said Vitaly Kryukov.
The
main oil producing asset of Rosneft, Yuganskneftegaz, has reduced production by 3.3% to 62.4 million
tons, "LUKOIL - Western Siberia" - by 6,1 % to 41 million tones.
"... Experts say the fall in Russian exports could nonetheless indicate a fall in production. "With current low oil prices, 2015's record high oil production will not be continued in the near future," said analyst Aleksandr Kornilov. ..."
"... Russia's willingness to cut oil production could also be a signal to Saudi Arabia. Moscow could be testing to see if OPEC can agree to do the same in order to stabilize sliding crude prices. At this point, Riyadh has been unwilling to cut output despite pleas from other OPEC members. ..."
"... Any thoughts on how long Gulf OPEC members will hold out? ..."
"... Our companies say now that production volume in 2016 will be kept at last-year level, ..."
"... I think we're in a situation where at some point we're going to see prices rising and production continuing to fall, which will push prices even higher as talk of a future shortage starts up. ..."
"... China was up 10% yr over yr for December and India fuel consumption rose 8.3% yr over yr. ..."
"... when oil again spikes due to low investment, OPEC and Russian economies will rebound greatly. ..."
"... Too bad there is so much volatility in all markets. ..."
State-owned oil transportation monopoly Transneft says Russian oil companies have applied
for 215 million tons of crude exports in 2016. This is 6.4 percent less than last year, business
daily Vedomosti reports.
In 2015, the situation was the opposite for Transneft, which accounts for almost 90 percent of
Russian oil shipments. The company transported seven percent more oil than in 2014.
"It's hard to say what caused the drop in export applications. There is no evident reason for
oil production to fall in Russia," EY's (Ernst & Young) Moscow oil and gas director Denis Borisov
told Vedomosti….
Experts say the fall in Russian exports could nonetheless indicate a fall in production.
"With current low oil prices, 2015's record high oil production will not be continued in the near
future," said analyst Aleksandr Kornilov.
The fight for Europe could intensify even more, once sanctions against Iran are lifted and
the country resumes oil exports. Europe is a key market for Tehran, and if it cuts prices Russian
companies could lose more market share.
Russia's willingness to cut oil production could also be a signal to Saudi Arabia. Moscow
could be testing to see if OPEC can agree to do the same in order to stabilize sliding crude prices.
At this point, Riyadh has been unwilling to cut output despite pleas from other OPEC members.
I am not predicting anything. But I when Russian officials say something to the effect:
No we will not increase production in 2016 but intend to keep product at the same level as 2105….,
I believe that says enough right there.
Russia plans to repeat last year's oil production record in 2016
- minister
MOSCOW, January 14. /TASS/. Russian oil producers plan to repeat the last-year production
record in 2016, Energy Minister Alexander Novak said on Thursday on the sidelines of 2016
Gaidar Forum. "Our companies say now that production volume in 2016 will be kept at
last-year level," the minister said. Russian oil companies produced record-breaking
534 mln tonnes of oil in 2015, up 1.4% year-on-year, according to data of the Central Dispatching
Department of Fuel and Energy Complex.
Based on daily production numbers for the first half of January from CDU TEK, it seems
that this month will see another post-Soviet record oil production in Russia.
The article is misleading. Given the current tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia the
likelyhood of any OPEC agreement on output cuts is very low. How can Russia discuss output
cuts with OPEC, if there is no accord within this organization.
I have no idea really but my theory is Saudi wanted to see U.S. production and investment
come down enough, which it certainly has, and cuts were put on hold the last meeting to
get Russia onboard. I remembered you saying a few months back that every time in the past
OPEC had always cut xx amount of time into a crash. I think it makes sense, Brents currently
at 28.58; the OPEC basket is at $25. A 1 mmbpd cut would probably get us to 45, maybe 50.
At $50 I don't see shale ramping up enough to increase production.
I think we're in a situation where at some point we're going to see prices rising and production
continuing to fall, which will push prices even higher as talk of a future shortage starts
up. That's assuming demand doesn't fall, but thus far China and India consumption have been
increasing significantly. China was up 10% yr over yr for December and India fuel consumption
rose 8.3% yr over yr.
shallow sand, 01/14/2016 at 11:10 pm
AlexS,
I have been surprised by the lack of US demand growth, given I have seen gasoline for sale
as low as $1.49 US. Maybe that will change when spring hits.
As I have said many times, we are part of a very small minority in the US that want higher
oil prices. My view is the oil war between OPEC, Russia and shale hurts all and helps
none. But, of those three I suppose OPEC is damaged most, followed by Russia and then US. US
economy is going to take a hit, but likely least of the three.
However, when oil again spikes due to low investment, OPEC and Russian economies will
rebound greatly.
Too bad there is so much volatility in all markets. But also too bad there is so
much hostility between governments.
"... Our mission now questions how much the Saudis can now substantively influence the crude markets over the long term. Clearly they can drive prices up, but we question whether they any longer have the power to drive prices down for a prolonged period. ..."
"... The following year, Mining Weekly ran a story which suggested the overestimation of The Kingdoms reserves might go as high as 70% . They meant all of OPEC, but Saudi reserves would have to be overstated by more than 40% to make that true. Business Insider suggests that it is elementary the Saudis are fibbing about their reserves – but it also says oil may have peaked in 2005 and production might start to fall in the next year or two . That was in 2011. ..."
"... For how long are they going to allow their OPEC allies to continue pumping at maximum capacity into a glutted market? It is an obvious radical departure from the former careful balance of supply and demand, which was supposed to be a clever plan to make Russia collapse. What if it makes America collapse instead? ..."
"... Hundreds of billions of dollars were invested in the oil fracking effort. alternative energy projects and other technologies that banked on high energy costs. The incurred debt would take many years or decades to pay off. However, a relatively short term drop in oil prices can drive the debt holders out of business. Massive loan defaults and hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs will be lost. The ensuing drag on the economy can exceed the benefits of lower oil prices, at least in the short term. ..."
"... Up and down energy prices are likely more harmful than steady high prices on long term economic development. If oil prices were to remain low for, say, 5 years, then the net economic gain can become significant. Dont bank on that being the case. ..."
"... The American tight oil boom was almost entirely financed by junk bonds and only made financial sense at oil prices a lot higher than they are now. There is going to be a lot of pain as those bonds get defaulted on and the companies that issued them go bankrupt. However, the big question is what kinds and amounts of derivatives were leveraged on those bonds, and who is going to blow up when those bonds blow. ..."
"... Unless the USA withdraws its sponsorship of The Kingdom, and lets Saudi Arabia collapse from its internal problems. God knows America has learned a lot about the regime-change game considering all the practice its gotten. ..."
I can't promise anything like a simple explanation but the most thought provoking take I've seen
is from hedge-fund manager and father of MMT, Warren Mosler. It's summarized quite well here (though
FFS don't surmise from that that Agora is a fount of wisdom. It's not: a pump and dump stock kiting
scheme with kick ass copywriters.) Regardless, I have a lot of time for Mosler. He has very rewarding
unconventional views:
That is a very interesting explanation. But there is a great big hole in it, reasoning-wise,
and that is, why does the USA continue to put up with this? Two of its oil companies are among
the ten most profitable entities in the world, and they can't be happy with the Saudis' largess.
You could see the USA letting it go on for as long as it possibly can, considering it makes the
U.S. dollar stronger for consumers, if and only if the core of very rich and very powerful people
who run the United States were happy with a situation in which corporate profits were halved,
but the people were giddy because their dollar buys more pots and pans and vacations and gasoline
and picnic baskets. Are they happy with that situation, do you think? Are the two biggest energy
companies in the USA – Exxon-Mobil and Chevron – happy with an economy in which the big boys take
home a lot less, but the rubes are in clover? And not even that the rubes make more, because they
don't – it just buys more.
Call me a cynic, but I can't see them being happy with that. In fact, I can't see America's
corporate hurt, after they went to all the trouble of declaring that a corporation is legally
a person and can therefore contribute an unlimited amount to political campaigns, being happy
with a situation in which oil costs around what it did in the 1960's. Especially when that situation
could end at any time, and they do not have any control over when that time is. They were probably
okay with it while they thought it was going to destroy Russia, but it's not – not before the
United States is itself destroyed. And long before either of those countries cries "Uncle!!" there
is going to be a wave of poverty and bankruptcies such as the world has never seen.
We'll see. But back in 2011 there was fear – you'll love this – that Saudi Arabia was not going
to be able to keep a lid on prices at $100.00 a barrel,
according to Wikileaks . They based this on an alleged overestimation of Saudi reserves by
about 40%, that overstating having been introduced deliberately to spur foreign investment. Here's
my favourite quote, I love this one;
"Our mission now questions how much the Saudis can now substantively influence the crude
markets over the long term. Clearly they can drive prices up, but we question whether they
any longer have the power to drive prices down for a prolonged period."
Well, I guess that one was answered, wasn't it?
The following year, Mining Weekly ran a story which suggested the overestimation of The Kingdom's
reserves
might go as high as 70% . They meant all of OPEC, but Saudi reserves would have to be overstated
by more than 40% to make that true. Business Insider
suggests
that it is elementary the Saudis are fibbing about their reserves – but it also says oil may
have peaked in 2005 and 'production might start to fall in the next year or two". That was in
2011.
What's that going to mean to the American economy? Three of the
ten most profitable companies in the world are oil companies, and of them two – Exxon-Mobil
and Chevron – are American. Chevron's profits in 2014 were $33.6 Billion, and even that was a
drop of 40% over fiscal year 2012/13. For how long can the American economy sustain that kind
of hit?
For how long are they going to allow their OPEC allies to continue pumping at maximum
capacity into a glutted market? It is an obvious radical departure from the former careful balance
of supply and demand, which was supposed to be a clever plan to make Russia collapse. What if
it makes America collapse instead? Of the vaunted most profitable companies,
the remaining American star is Appple . Are people going to want an Apple watch or a new Smartphone
if the economy starts to falter?
I would say the low oil price benefits the American economy since it is a net oil importer. Their
economy eats a lot of oil. In fact the USA is still the biggest net importer of oil in the world
even with their "shale revolution".
Yes, that's true on the consumption side, so low prices are a boon to homeowners and consumers
in general. But what is it doing to corporate profits? Exxon and Chevron are used to turning a
profit on oil sales in America, too.
Gasoline is finally starting to fall at the pump, down more than 12 cents over the past couple
of weeks here.
Karl, its not that simple. Hundreds of billions of dollars were invested in the oil fracking effort.
alternative energy projects and other technologies that banked on high energy costs. The incurred
debt would take many years or decades to pay off. However, a relatively short term drop in oil
prices can drive the debt holders out of business. Massive loan defaults and hundreds of thousands
of good-paying jobs will be lost. The ensuing drag on the economy can exceed the benefits of lower
oil prices, at least in the short term.
Up and down energy prices are likely more harmful than
steady high prices on long term economic development. If oil prices were to remain low for, say, 5 years, then the net economic gain can become significant.
Don't bank on that being the case.
The American tight oil boom was almost entirely financed by junk bonds and only made financial
sense at oil prices a lot higher than they are now. There is going to be a lot of pain as those
bonds get defaulted on and the companies that issued them go bankrupt. However, the big question
is what kinds and amounts of derivatives were leveraged on those bonds, and who is going to blow
up when those bonds blow.
My personal take is this is going to be a very, very bad year. There are no bright spots that
I can see anywhere in the world. It is going to get very ugly out there, and the US is no exception.
Unless the USA withdraws its sponsorship of The Kingdom, and lets Saudi Arabia collapse from its
internal problems. God knows America has learned a lot about the regime-change game considering
all the practice it's gotten.
You have mentioned sanctions. In my view, this was a foolish decision and a harmful one. I have
said that our turnover with Germany amounted to $83–85 billion, and thousands of jobs were created
in Germany as a result of this cooperation. And what are the restrictions that we are facing? This
is not the worst thing we are going through, but it is harmful for our economy anyway, since it affects
our access to international financial markets.
As to the worst harm inflicted by today's situation, first of all on our economy, it is the harm
caused by the falling prices on our traditional export goods. However, both the former and the latter
have their positive aspects. When oil prices are high, it is very difficult for us to resist spending
oil revenues to cover current expenses. I believe that our non-oil and gas deficit had risen to a
very dangerous level. So now we are forced to lower it. And this is healthy…
Question: For the budget deficit?
Vladimir Putin: We divide it. There is the total deficit and then there are non-oil and
gas revenues. There are revenues from oil and gas, and we divide all the rest as well.
The total deficit is quite small. But when you subtract the non-oil and gas deficit, then you
see that the oil and gas deficit is too large. In order to reduce it, such countries as Norway, for
example, put a significant proportion of non-oil and gas revenues into the reserve. It is very difficult,
I repeat, to resist spending oil and gas revenues to cover current expenses. It is the reduction
of these expenses that improves the economy. That is the first point.
Second point. You can buy anything with petrodollars. High oil revenues discourage development,
especially in the high technology sectors. We are witnessing a decrease in GDP by 3.8 percent, in
industrial production by 3.3 percent and an increase in inflation, which has reached 12.7 percent.
This is a lot, but we still have a surplus in foreign trade, and the total exports of goods with
high added value have grown significantly for the first time in years. That is an expressly positive
trend in the economy.
The reserves are still at a high level, and the Central Bank has about 340 billion in gold and
foreign currency reserves. If I am not mistaken, they amount to over 300. There are also two reserve
funds of the Government of the Russian Federation, each of which amounts to $70 to $80 billion. One
of them holds $70 billion, the other – $80 billion. We believe that we will be steadily moving towards
stabilisation and economic growth. We have adopted a whole range of programmes, including those aimed
at import replacement, which means investing in high technologies.
Petroleo Brasileiro SA, as Brazil's state-controlled oil producer is formally known, slashed
its business plan for the five years through 2019 to $98.4 billion, the latest adjustment to the
original $130 billion announced last year, it said Tuesday in a filing. The Rio de
Janeiro-based company reduced its 2020 target for Brazilian oil production by 3.6 percent to 2.7
million barrels a day.
... ... ...
The world's most-indebted oil company said it plans to invest $20 billion in 2016, up slightly
from its most recent estimate of $19 billion. Petrobras still plans to divest $14.4 billion this
year to help fund its spending plan. The company expects Brent crude prices to average $45 a
barrel this year, down from its previous estimate of $55 a barrel.
"... "I can't think of too many investors who predicted that oil would be trading at current levels, so a continuing slump in crude adds to investor nervousness, leading to a spike in volatility," ..."
"... crude at $35 a barrel would cause Russia's gross domestic product to decline by as much as 3 percent in 2016, its central bank said in December. ..."
"I can't think of too many investors who predicted that oil would be trading at current
levels, so a continuing slump in crude adds to investor nervousness, leading to a spike in
volatility," Pavel Laberko, who helps manage $150 million in emerging-market assets at Union
Bancaire Privee in London, said by phone on Wednesday. "There is a lot of uncertainty as to where
oil is going to go from current levels, and this uncertainty is not doing much to decrease price
swings."
... ... ...
...crude at $35 a barrel would cause Russia's gross domestic product to decline by as much
as 3 percent in 2016, its central bank
said in December.
... ... ...
The ruble advanced 0.5 percent to 76.65 against the dollar at 3:18 p.m. in New York, narrowing
its retreat this year to 4 percent, among the biggest drops among emerging-market currencies. The
Market Vectors Russia ETF slid 0.7 percent to $13.10. The dollar-denominated RTS Index fell 0.2
percent in Moscow, while futures contracts on the index retreated 0.7 percent to 68,530 in U.S.
hours.
... If anything, the Saudis have
actually
increased
their output.
Many reasons have been given for the Saudis' resistance to production
cutbacks, including a desire to
punish
Iran and Russia for their support of the Assad regime in Syria.
In the view of many industry analysts, the Saudis see themselves as better
positioned than their rivals for weathering a long-term price decline
because of their lower costs of production and their large cushion of
foreign reserves. The most likely explanation, though, and the one advanced
by the Saudis themselves is that they are seeking to maintain a price
environment in which U.S. shale producers and other tough-oil operators will
be driven out of the market. "There is no doubt about it, the price fall of
the last several months has deterred investors away from expensive oil
including U.S. shale, deep offshore, and heavy oils," a top Saudi official
told
the
Financial Times
last spring.
Despite the Saudis' best efforts, the larger U.S. producers have, for the
most part, adjusted to the low-price environment, cutting costs and shedding
unprofitable operations, even as many smaller firms have filed for
bankruptcy. As a result, U.S. crude production, at about
9.2 million barrels
per day, is actually slightly higher than it was a
year ago.
In other words, even at $33 a barrel, production continues to outpace
global demand and there seems little likelihood of prices rising soon,
especially since, among other things, both Iraq and Iran continue to
increase their output. With the Islamic State slowly losing ground in Iraq
and most major oil fields still in government hands, that country's
production is expected to continue its stellar growth. In fact, some
analysts
project
that its output could triple during the coming decade from the
present three million barrels per day level to as much as nine million
barrels.
For years, Iranian production has been
hobbled
by sanctions imposed by Washington and the European Union
(E.U.), impeding both export transactions and the acquisition of advanced
Western drilling technology. Now, thanks to its nuclear deal with
Washington, those sanctions are being lifted, allowing it both to reenter
the oil market and import needed technology. According to the U.S. Energy
Information Administration, Iranian output
could rise
by as much as 600,000 barrels per day in 2016 and by more in
the years to follow.
Only three developments could conceivably alter the present low-price
environment for oil: a Middle Eastern war that took out one or more of the
major energy suppliers; a Saudi decision to constrain production in order to
boost prices; or an unexpected global surge in demand.
The prospect of a new war between, say, Iran and Saudi Arabia -- two
powers at each other's throats at this very moment -- can never be ruled
out, though neither side is believed to have the capacity or inclination to
undertake such a risky move. A Saudi decision to constrain production is
somewhat more likely sooner or later, given the precipitous decline in
government revenues. However, the Saudis have
repeatedly affirmed
their determination to avoid such a move, as it
would largely benefit the very producers -- namely shale operators in the
U.S. -- they seek to eliminate.
The likelihood of a sudden spike in demand appears
unlikely indeed. Not only is economic activity still slowing in China and
many other parts of the world, but there's an extra wrinkle that should
worry the Saudis at least as much as all that shale oil coming out of North
America: oil itself is beginning to lose some of its appeal.
While newly affluent consumers in China and India continue to buy
oil-powered automobiles -- albeit not at the breakneck pace once predicted
-- a growing number of consumers in the older industrial nations are
exhibiting a preference for hybrid and all-electric cars, or for alternative
means of transportation. Moreover, with concern over climate change growing
globally, increasing numbers of young urban dwellers are choosing to subsist
without cars altogether, relying instead on bikes and public transit. In
addition, the use of renewable energy sources -- sun, wind, and water power
-- is
on the rise
and will only grow more rapidly in this century.
These trends have prompted some analysts to predict that global oil
demand will soon peak and then be followed by a period of declining
consumption. Amy Myers Jaffe, director of the energy and sustainability
program at the University of California, Davis, suggests that growing
urbanization combined with technological breakthroughs in renewables will
dramatically reduce future demand for oil. "Increasingly, cities around the
world are seeking smarter designs for transport systems as well as penalties
and restrictions on car ownership. Already in the West, trendsetting
millennials are urbanizing, eliminating the need for commuting and interest
in individual car ownership," she
wrote
in the
Wall Street Journal
last year.
The Changing World Power Equation
Many countries that get a significant share of their funds from oil and
natural gas exports and that gained enormous influence as petroleum
exporters are already experiencing a
significant erosion
in prominence. Their leaders, once bolstered by
high oil revenues, which meant money to spread around and buy popularity
domestically, are falling into disfavor.
Nigeria's government, for example, traditionally
obtains
75% of its revenues from such sales; Russia's,
50%
; and Venezuela's,
40%
. With oil now at a third of the price of 18 months ago, state
revenues in all three have plummeted, putting a crimp in their ability
to undertake ambitious domestic and foreign initiatives.
In Nigeria, diminished government spending combined with rampant
corruption discredited the government of President Goodluck Jonathan and
helped fuel a vicious insurgency by Boko Haram, prompting Nigerian voters to
abandon him in the most recent election and
install
a former military ruler, Muhammadu Buhari, in his place. Since
taking office, Buhari has pledged to crack down on corruption, crush Boko
Haram, and -- in a telling sign of the times --
diversify
the economy, lessening its reliance on oil.
Venezuela has experienced a similar political shock thanks to depressed
oil prices. When prices were high, President Hugo Chávez took revenues from
the state-owned oil company,
Petróleos de Venezuela S.A.
, and used them to build housing and provide
other benefits for the country's poor and working classes, winning vast
popular support for his United Socialist Party. He also sought regional
support by offering
oil subsidies
to friendly countries like Cuba, Nicaragua, and Bolivia.
After he died in March 2013, his chosen successor, Nicolas Maduro, sought to
perpetuate this strategy, but oil
didn't cooperate
and, not surprisingly, public support for him and for
Chávez's party began to collapse. On December 6th, the center-right
opposition swept to electoral victory, taking a
majority
of the seats in the National Assembly. It now seeks to
dismantle Chávez's "Bolivarian Revolution," though Maduro's supporters have
pledged
firm resistance to any such moves.
The situation in Russia remains somewhat more fluid. President Vladimir
Putin continues to enjoy widespread popular support and, from Ukraine to
Syria, he has indeed been moving ambitiously on the international front.
Still, falling oil prices combined with economic sanctions imposed by the
E.U. and the U.S. have begun to cause some expressions of dissatisfaction,
including a recent
protest
by long-distance truckers over increased highway tolls. Russia's
economy is expected to
contract
in a significant way in 2016, undermining the living standards
of ordinary Russians and possibly sparking further anti-government
protests. In fact, some analysts believe that Putin took the risky step of
intervening in the Syrian conflict partly to deflect public attention from
deteriorating economic conditions at home. He may also have done so to
create a situation in which Russian help in achieving a negotiated
resolution to the bitter, increasingly internationalized Syrian civil war
could be
traded
for the lifting of sanctions over Ukraine. If so, this is a very
dangerous game
, and no one -- least of all Putin -- can be certain of
the outcome.
Saudi Arabia, the world's leading oil exporter, has been similarly
buffeted, but appears -- for the time being, anyway -- to be in a somewhat
better
position
to weather the shock. When oil prices were high, the Saudis
socked away a massive trove of foreign reserves, estimated at three-quarters
of a trillion dollars. Now that prices have fallen, they are drawing on
those reserves to sustain generous social spending meant to stave off unrest
in the kingdom and to finance their ambitious intervention in Yemen's civil
war, which is already beginning to look like a Saudi Vietnam. Still, those
reserves have fallen by some $90 billion since last year and the government
is already announcing cutbacks in public spending, leading some observers to
question
how long the royal family can continue to buy off the
discontent of the country's growing populace. Even if the Saudis were to
reverse course and limit the kingdom's oil production to drive the price of
oil back up, it's unlikely that their oil income would rise high enough to
sustain all of their present lavish spending priorities.
Other major oil-producing countries also face the prospect of political
turmoil, including
Algeria
and
Angola
. The leaders of both countries had achieved the usual deceptive
degree of stability in energy producing countries through the usual
oil-financed government largesse. That is now coming to an end, which means
that both countries could face internal challenges.
And keep in mind that the tremors from the oil pricequake have
undoubtedly yet to reach their full magnitude. Prices will, of course, rise
someday. That's inevitable, given the way investors are pulling the plug on
energy projects globally. Still, on a planet heading for a green energy
revolution, there's no assurance that they will ever reach the $100-plus
levels that were once taken for granted. Whatever happens to oil and the
countries that produce it, the global political order that once rested on
oil's soaring price is doomed. While this may mean hardship for some,
especially the citizens of export-dependent states like Russia and
Venezuela, it could help smooth the transition to a world powered by
renewable forms of energy.
Michael T. Klare, a
TomDispatch
regular
, is a professor of peace and world
security studies at Hampshire College and the author, most recently, of
The Race for What's Left
. A documentary movie version of his book
Blood and Oil
is available from the Media Education Foundation
.
Follow him on Twitter at @mklare1.
"... Not sure about Russia, but the Middle East knows if they go all out and produce as much as they can they will just drive the oil price lower and reduce their profits. ..."
"... Lately OPEC seems to have forgotten this, but they must have other motives besides profits. If they were concerned about profits they would cut production as they have almost always done in the past (except when Saudi Arabia decides to punish other OPEC members (or the Soviet Union) by flooding the market and driving down the oil price. ..."
"... If the Saudi aim was to drive the high cost producers out of business, I think it has taken longer than they expected, now that they have chosen this road they may stubbornly stick to it until high cost producers go belly up and supply from non-OPEC decreases to the point that oil prices rise. ..."
"... This will be a valuable lesson to the rest of the World, that always assumed they could produce as much as they wanted and OPEC would cut back to keep oil prices high. ..."
"... The chart AlexS posted is a snapshot of current costs, it could be that these costs have increased as expensive projects have been started, but the chart is median cost rather than marginal cost. There may be some expensive fields in Russia and several OPEC countries that have come on line recently, but there are also older less expensive fields producing which brings the median cost lower for many countries. ..."
"... As regards Russia, most of the current upstream capex is also in lower-cost brownfield developments in Western Siberia and Volga-Urals regions. This includes infill drilling, development of satellite fields, previously undeveloped zones or deeper horizons of the old producing fields (such as Samotlor). There are also a number of new fields in these old regions. They are much smaller, but unit costs are not too high, as the necessary infrastructure, including roads and pipeline, is already in place. ..."
"... Costs in newly developed regions, such as Eastern Siberia, Timan Pechora, far north of Western Siberia (Yamal peninsula), Northern Caspian (shallow water fields), Far East (Sakhalin), are higher, sometimes much higher. But not prohibitively high even at current prices, as the key infrastructure, such as large pipelines (Eastern Siberia–Pacific Ocean oil pipeline), terminals ( Varandey on the Barents Sea), roads, etc. was already built during the years of high oil prices. ..."
"... Important to note that average unit costs in Russia were much lower than global average even before 2014, but they have significantly declined in dollar terms due to the depreciation of the ruble (see the chart below). ..."
"... Low oil prices have however significantly delayed high cost offshore Arctic and tight oil projects. ..."
"... The only producing offshore Arctic project is Prirazlomnoye oil field on the Pechora Sea shelf (developed by Gazpromneft). Rosneft has postponed further drilling in the Kara Sea and is now only exploring new blocks using 2D seismic. ..."
Rystad Energy recently released estimates for the total, all-in production cost for one barrel
of oil across major oil-producing countries.
According to Rystad, "this chart was compiled using data from more than 15,000 oil fields across
20 nations. The production costs were calculated by including a mix of capital expenditures and
operational expenditures. Capital expenditures included the costs involved with building oil facilities,
pipelines and new wells. Operational expenditures included the costs of lifting oil out of the
ground, paying employee salaries and general administrative duties."
Note that these numbers apparently do not include interest payments and taxes.
Furthermore, these are full-cycle costs rather than breakeven price, as Internal rate of return
(IRR) is not included.
Also note that these are median costs, which does not represent the whole picture, as there
are significant differences in production costs within each country.
In any case, the chart shows that at today's price of $31/barrel (Brent and WTI), most of oil
from the already producing fields can still be extracted profitably. There are, however, notable
exceptions, including U.S. stripper wells, several deepwater projects (incl. Brazil), some fields
in the North Sea, etc.
As regards new projects, they are already unprofitable in a number of countries, including the
U.S., Canada, U.K., Norway, Brazil, and West Africa.
Median Total Cost of Oil Production per Barrel
Source: Rystad Energy
I was wondering about these low full cycle costs in the Middle East & Russia.
During several years of high oil prices, why weren't more high-cost projects started in these
area's, like what happened in the US & Canada? If the costs are really as low as indicated in
your above chart, couldn't they have earned much more by starting slightly higher cost projects?
Is it that except these low-cost fields, there are not that many, even higher-cost, projects available?
Or is there less of a capitalistic spirit/access to financial markets?
To me it would make sense if everywhere around the world costs have increased to a much higher
level, given several years of high oil prices, reflecting the incentives to try to bring us much
oil to the market as long as costs are (significantly) lower than the price.
Effective oil price for Russian oil companies was always the same, around $30 per barrel. Everything
above was taxed. Some fields, especially in Eastern Siberia, were exempted from the tax, but there
aren't that many of them.
Enno: " reflecting the incentives to try to bring us much oil to the market as long as costs are
(significantly) lower than the price."
There are no incentives to bring as much oil to the market in the environment of high prices,
same as there are no incentives to bring less oil to the market in the low price environment like
today.
Not sure about Russia, but the Middle East knows if they go all out and produce as much as
they can they will just drive the oil price lower and reduce their profits.
Lately OPEC seems to have forgotten this, but they must have other motives besides profits.
If they were concerned about profits they would cut production as they have almost always done
in the past (except when Saudi Arabia decides to punish other OPEC members (or the Soviet Union)
by flooding the market and driving down the oil price.
If the Saudi aim was to drive the high cost producers out of business, I think it has taken
longer than they expected, now that they have chosen this road they may stubbornly stick to it
until high cost producers go belly up and supply from non-OPEC decreases to the point that oil
prices rise.
This will be a valuable lesson to the rest of the World, that always assumed they could produce
as much as they wanted and OPEC would cut back to keep oil prices high.
In the future non-OPEC producers will not be so sure that this is the case and may be a little
more careful about expanding output too quickly.
On re-reading you comment above, I think I see better what you are asking.
The chart AlexS posted is a snapshot of current costs, it could be that these costs have increased
as expensive projects have been started, but the chart is median cost rather than marginal cost.
There may be some expensive fields in Russia and several OPEC countries that have come on line
recently, but there are also older less expensive fields producing which brings the median cost
lower for many countries.
I guess average unit costs in the Middle East have risen at least twice over the past 10-15
years, reflecting input cost inflation in the global oil industry. But costs are still very low
as:
1) Most of the capex is in brownfields (infill drilling, water floods, etc.)
2) Most of the fields that start production now were actually discovered several decades ago,
so exploration costs are close to zero. These fields are located onshore and a few of them in
shallow waters. Geology is generally favorable. There is no ice, no winter cold, and high temperatures
are not a problem. The necessary infrastructure is already in place. The fields are huge, with
very high production per well and low decline rates. Therefore, average development costs are
also very low.
As regards Russia, most of the current upstream capex is also in lower-cost brownfield developments
in Western Siberia and Volga-Urals regions. This includes infill drilling, development of satellite
fields, previously undeveloped zones or deeper horizons of the old producing fields (such as Samotlor).
There are also a number of new fields in these old regions. They are much smaller, but unit costs
are not too high, as the necessary infrastructure, including roads and pipeline, is already in
place.
Costs in newly developed regions, such as Eastern Siberia, Timan Pechora, far north of Western
Siberia (Yamal peninsula), Northern Caspian (shallow water fields), Far East (Sakhalin), are higher,
sometimes much higher. But not prohibitively high even at current prices, as the key infrastructure,
such as large pipelines (Eastern Siberia–Pacific Ocean oil pipeline), terminals ( Varandey on
the Barents Sea), roads, etc. was already built during the years of high oil prices.
There are
a number of new projects at later stages of development, which will not be postponed or delayed
and are scheduled to begin production in 2016-18.
Important to note that average unit costs in Russia were much lower than global average even
before 2014, but they have significantly declined in dollar terms due to the depreciation of the
ruble (see the chart below).
The tax component of the costs was also significantly lowered thanks
to the Russia oil tax system.
Low oil prices have however significantly delayed high cost offshore Arctic and tight oil projects.
There is a significant dollar-denominated component in capex (imported equipment, services and
technologies), which is exacerbated by the effect of the sanctions.
The only producing offshore
Arctic project is Prirazlomnoye oil field on the Pechora Sea shelf (developed by Gazpromneft).
Rosneft has postponed further drilling in the Kara Sea and is now only exploring new blocks using
2D seismic.
Gazpromneft, Lukoil and others are still working on pilot projects in the Bazhenov
shale, but commercial development will not start before next decade.
Comparative lifting costs: Russian oils vs. global majors
2) Most of the fields that start production now were actually discovered several decades ago,
so exploration costs are close to zero.
Well that was true a few years ago, especially for Saudi Arabia. But I just don't believe that
is the case anymore. Perhaps there are some very small fields that didn't seem worth developing
back then. But I don't think there are any large, long ago discovered fields, that are still undeveloped.
Oil output in Russia, one of the world's largest producers, hit a post-Soviet high last month
and in 2015 as small- and medium-sized energy companies cranked up the pumps despite falling crude
prices, Energy Ministry data showed on Saturday.
The rise shows producers are taking advantage of lower costs due to rouble devaluation and
signals Moscow's resolve not to give in to producer group OPEC's request to curb oil output to
support prices.
But the rise will contribute to a global oil supply glut and exert continued downward pressure
on oil prices which hit an 11-year low near $36 per barrel last month, having fallen almost 70
percent in the past 18 months.
For the whole of 2015, Russian oil and gas condensate output rose to more than 534 million
tonnes, or 10.73 million barrels per day (bpd) from 10.58 million bpd in 2014.
In December, Russian oil output rose to 10.83 million bpd from 10.78 million bpd in November.
In tonnes, oil output was 45.782 million last month versus 44.115 million in November.
The increase in production defied many expectations of a fall in Russian oil output which has
been on a steady rise since 1998 apart from a small decline in 2008.
The Energy Ministry had expected output to fall to 525 million tonnes in 2015 due to the exhaustion
of mature oilfields in Western Siberia, which account for over a half of the country's total oil
production.
But medium-sized producers, such as Bashneft, cranked up production. And Gazprom, the world's
top natural gas producer, increased production of oil, mainly gas condensate, by 5.3 percent for
the year.
However, oil output at Russia's leading producers declined. Production at Rosneft edged down
by 0.9 percent, while output at Lukoil's Russian assets fell by 1.1 percent last year.
According to a Reuters poll, Russian oil production in 2016 is expected to rise to a new post-Soviet
yearly average high of 10.78 million bpd despite price falls as new fields come online and producers
enjoy lower costs due to rouble devaluation.
-----------------
Note: using 7.3 (rather than 7.33) barrels/ton ratio, C+C output in December was 10.78 mb/d
AlexS. Interesting that Russian production was falling in the first half of 2014, when oil prices
were very high, and then began rising once the price began to fall.
The highest output yet came last month, with oil prices the lowest since early 2004.
Is all Russian oil profitable on an operating basis at current prices? I suspect many conventional
water floods and CO2 floods in the US are not. Doesnt Russia have quite a bit of similar mature
production? Is the ruble devaluation keeping this production above water? I suspect the cost of
labor in the US is much higher than in Russia, I do think we have discussed this aspect before.
As I have stated before, I believe that US conventional onshore oil production is falling fast,
the number of vertical production wells being drilled is likely the lowest in modern times (post
1970).
It is interesting to me that Russian conventional onshore oil production is so much more resilient
than US, given the similarities. Or maybe the production is not so similar?
I appreciate all of the oil information you provide. Any detail you are able to give on Russian
production is very much appreciated by me, and I suspect many other persons here.
"... According to the Westminster-controlled BBC, a Russian pilot "died when his SU-24 aircraft was shot down". If that is a time appreciation, it is a fairly accurate one, but he actually died after his aircraft hit the ground, and that fact was not the cause of his death. He died because he was shot full of holes from the ground while he was hanging helpless in his parachute straps and was not armed. As has been demonstrated to what should be the complete satisfaction of all, this is a war crime, illegal under international law regardless who does it. ..."
"... But the Washington-and-Westminster-controlled western media skates adroitly around that fact, and consistently normalizes his death as just one of those unfortunate things that happens in war. ..."
"... I can promise you that the murder of a western pilot under the same circumstances would not be soft-pedaled in the same manner, and the fact that criminal circumstances were attached to his dying would have been shouted to the skies. ..."
According to the Westminster-controlled BBC, a Russian pilot "died when his SU-24 aircraft was
shot down". If that is a time appreciation, it is a fairly accurate one, but he actually died
after his aircraft hit the ground, and that fact was not the cause of his death. He died because
he was shot full of holes from the ground while he was hanging helpless in his parachute straps
and was not armed. As has been demonstrated to what should be the complete satisfaction of all,
this is a war crime, illegal under international law regardless who does it.
But the Washington-and-Westminster-controlled
western media skates adroitly around that fact, and consistently normalizes his death as just
one of those unfortunate things that happens in war.
I can promise you that the murder of a western
pilot under the same circumstances would not be soft-pedaled in the same manner, and the fact
that criminal circumstances were attached to his dying would have been shouted to the skies.
No way that oil price will be average $60 per barrel in 2016. Russian budget assume base scenario
$50 but they will lower on $40-45 average in 2016. Russians said they not expected that average
oil price be over $60 till 2018, they are very pessimistic on oil price.
I have one question: what is really number for LTO reserves in USA(USGS and EIA) on price around
$60-70(in 2015 $)? Because, if it is around 30-35 billion barrels this all charts(not only
OPEC but EIA) for US LTO production are mathematically impossible. They have average US LTO
production on 4-4.5 mb/b but when you calculate that on 25 years period reserves need are around
40 billion barrels.
4.25mb/d x 365 days=1.55 billion barrels per year
1.55 barrels/year x 25 years=38.7 billion barrels.
I'm something miss or badly calculate?
It is not government prediction but private funds and Lukoil, biggest private oil company in
Russia. This is official government prediction, unfortunately it is on russian.
Base: price for Ural(around $2 discount on Brent)
2016: $50
2017: $52
2018: $55
Pessimistic:
2016-2018 average price $40.
All budget plans, GDP, CPI are project on this oil price projections in Russia.
So Russian goverment don't see oil price on brent over $60 in 2018.
And if i'm correct, Russian Central Bank and finance/economic minister now make plans for $30-35
average price for 2016.
I just see official numbers of EIA for LTO reserves in USA and that is around 14 billion,
if that is true all predictions about US LTO production on 4mb/d in next 25 are imposible,
they even imposible if there is increased of 200% in LTO reserves from today level.
Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak said oil production in Western Siberia, once a major
contributor to overall output, was declining at an average rate of around 1 percent per year.
Changes in a tax system, where so-called excess profits will be taxed at 70 percent, will make
Western Siberia commercially viable.
Under the current tax regime, Novak said about 73 billion barrels of oil are not economic.
...Novak said a return to oil priced around $100 barrel is a long ways off. Volatility is
expected to linger through the early part of 2015 before some level of balance returns to the
market.
"It is unlikely there will be a sharp surge in prices," he said. "In my opinion, as of today the
price of around $50 a barrel would be fair, if we proceed from economic parameters, the balance
of supply and demand and the cost of oil production."
"... This year Saudi Arabia has ramped up production by 1.5 million barrels per day, which in fact destabilized the situation on the market, ..."
"... What is now emerging, especially clear since the Turkish deliberate ambush of the Russian SU-24 jet inside Syrian airspace, is that Russia is not fighting a war against merely ISIS terrorists, nor against the ISIS backers in Turkey. Russia is taking on, perhaps unknowingly, a vastly more dangerous plot. Behind that plot is the hidden role of Saudi Arabia and its new monarch, King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, together with his son, the Defense Minister, Prince Salman. ..."
Saudi Arabia has destabilized the crude market while increasing its
oil output by 1.5 million barrels a day, said Russia's Energy Minister
Aleksandr Novak.
"This year Saudi Arabia has ramped up production by 1.5 million
barrels per day, which in fact destabilized the situation on the
market," Novak told Rossiya 24 TV channel.
According to him,
the balance of oil supply and demand could be achieved in 2016. Iran's
return to the global energy market could also affect oil prices, Novak
added.
The world saw this behavior from the Saudi's in 1975 and 1978
when they created oil shortages to gain market share just as they
are doing today, sacrificing fellow members of OPEC for their own
greed.....we have seen this dumb show before and yet the world
allows it to continue.
Tom Brite > Greg G1
Greg G
Saudi Arabia responsible for oil market destabilization. Russia
seems to be doing so as well. Just wait till Iranian oil hits the
market!
vann tedd > nikko sharkenstein
nikko sharkenstein
Kathryn Roston
What is now emerging, especially
clear since the Turkish deliberate ambush of the Russian SU-24
jet inside Syrian
airspace, is that Russia is not fighting a war against merely
ISIS terrorists, nor against the ISIS backers in Turkey. Russia
is taking on, perhaps unknowingly, a vastly more dangerous plot.
Behind that plot is the hidden role of Saudi Arabia and its new
monarch, King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, together with his
son, the Defense Minister, Prince Salman.
The Saudi monarchy is determined to control the oil fields of
Iraq and of Syria using ISIS to do it. They clearly want to
control the entire world oil market, first bankrupting the
recent challenge from US shale oil producers, then by
controlling through Turkey the oil flows of Iraq and Syria.
If we strip away the phony religious cover, what emerges is a
Saudi move to grab some of the world's largest oil reserves,
those of the Sunni parts of Iraq, and of Syria, using the
criminal Turkish regime in the role of thug to do the rough
work, like a bouncer in a brothel.
It's the monarchy of King Salman and his hot-headed son, Prince
Salman. For decades they have financed terrorism under a fake
religious disguise, to advance their private plutocratic agenda.
It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with
money and oil. A look at the ISIS map from Iraq to Syria shows
that they precisely targeted the oil riches of those two
sovereign states. Saudi control of that oil wealth via their
ISIS agents, along with her clear plan to take out the US shale
oil competition, or so Riyadh reckons, would make the Saudi
monarchy a vastly richer state, one, perhaps because of that
money, finally respected by white western rich men and their
society.
What Russia is facing is an indirect soft war from United
States. in at least 3 fronts, in Ukraine, in Syria and on its
Economy. but also it could be said in IRAQ too, since just
like Syria and IRAN, IRAQ is the other of the few countries in
middle east that Americans do not fully control, and that
cooperates with Russia and buys a lot of military hardware from
them. Saudi king, Turkey, US and ISrael are the lifeline of ISIS
and Alqaeda. This is why is impossible to completely defeat the
organization as long those countries continues recruiting
terrorist, and aiding terrorism with money and weapons.
And
logistics and training. It could be said that well organized
terrorism, but also ultra radical right wing nazis like in Ukraine
and baltic states are groups that Americans Government as a policy,
helps to organize and to become more powerful, simply because they
can be used to fight Russia. The major world conflict in the world
today, the major wars, are all caused by Americans with the aim to
weaken and isolate Russia. We are effectively in a "Cold war 2.0",
that Americans began against Russia, and forcing them to defend
itself before the problem grows too much (what Americans wants) and
affect directly the security of Russia directly and its long term
economic interest.
No way that oil price will be average $60 per barrel in 2016. Russian budget assume base scenario
$50 but they will lower on $40-45 average in 2016. Russians said they not expected that average
oil price be over $60 till 2018, they are very pessimistic on oil price.
I have one question: what is really number for LTO reserves in USA(USGS and EIA) on price around
$60-70(in 2015 $)? Because, if it is around 30-35 billion barrels this all charts(not only OPEC
but EIA) for US LTO production are mathematically impossible. They have average US LTO production
on 4-4.5 mb/b but when you calculate that on 25 years period reserves need are around 40 billion
barrels.
4.25mb/d x 365 days=1.55 billion barrels per year
1.55 barrels/year x 25 years=38.7 billion barrels.
I'm something miss or badly calculate?
It is not government prediction but private funds and Lukoil, biggest private oil company in Russia.
This is official government prediction, unfortunately it is on Russian.
All budget plans, GDP, CPI are project on this oil price projections in Russia.
So Russian government don't see oil price on brent over $60 in 2018.
And if i'm correct, Russian Central Bank and finance/economic minister now make plans for $30-35
average price for 2016.
I just see official numbers of EIA for LTO reserves in USA and that is around 14 billion, if
that is true all predictions about US LTO production on 4mb/d in next 25 are impossible, they even
impossible if there is increased of 200% in LTO reserves from today level.
Russian oil company, Gazpromneft, recently said that their current operations will remain profitable
at $15 per barrel, and at $20 they will drill new wells
"... apparently, two USAF F-15C Eagle air superiority fighters (which had been deployed to Incirlik
Air Force Base, Turkey, in November 2015) were in the air as back-up to the Türk Hava Kuvvetleri (Turkish
Air Force: THK) F-16s, one of which shot down the Su-24. ..."
"... At best, Russia may now move to cover its tactical operations in northern Syria more effectively
by offering its own deterrence of top cover by advanced fighters while the ground attack aircraft, such
as the Su-24s, do their job. It is also clear that any further Turkish incursions into Syrian airspace
were now at-risk, but the Turks already knew that. ..."
It was, in this latest incident, Turkey, working with the U.S. Government of President Barack
Obama, which planned and executed the November 24, 2015, interception of the Russian Air Force Su-24.
The event was not a spontaneous occurrence, and, apparently, two USAF F-15C Eagle air superiority
fighters (which had been deployed to Incirlik Air Force Base, Turkey, in November 2015) were in the
air as back-up to the Türk Hava Kuvvetleri (Turkish Air Force: THK) F-16s, one of which shot down
the Su-24. USAF sources subsequently said that the U.S. was taken by surprise when the THK shot
down the Sukhoi, but that hardly squares with the historical Turkish practice of coordinating such
actions with Washington. Moreover, the Turkish narrative that it "warned" the Russian aircraft several
times over a period of five minutes before the THK F-16 shot it down also does not square with reality.
And in this particular ground attack operation, the two Su-24s - including the one which was destroyed
- were engaged on missions which did not require them to enter Turkish airspace, even though an acci-dental
entry into it was conceivable. Their targets were in the area of northern Syria: pro-Ankara Turkmen
militia engaged in supporting the massive cross-border operations of ISIS (asad- Dawlah al-Islamiyah
fi al-'Iraq wash-Sham, or Islamic State) moving oil, fighters, and weapons across the Syria-Turkish
border.
Dave Majumdar, Defense Editor at the U.S. blogsite, The National Interest, on December 7, 2015,
noted: "The United States and Turkey are working on an agreement that would allow the US Air Force
F-15Cs to defend Turkish airspace. However, the precise rules of engagement and procedures have yet
to be ironed out." It is possible that Turkey wanted to illustrate to the US that its airspace was,
in fact, threatened. But what has been clear is that no credible Russian military threat to Turkey
existed.
At best, Russia may now move to cover its tactical operations in northern Syria more effectively
by offering its own deterrence of top cover by advanced fighters while the ground attack aircraft,
such as the Su-24s, do their job. It is also clear that any further Turkish incursions into Syrian
airspace were now at-risk, but the Turks already knew that.
Recently-retired U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lt.-Gen. Michael Flynn publicly said
in Moscow on December 10, 2015, that there was no possibility that the Turkish shootdown was undertaken
without the express permission and direction of "the highest authority" in Turkey.
Indeed, Turkey has traditionally played the role of aggressor in terms of airspace violation.
Not only did the THK lose an RF-4E Phantom II reconnaissance aircraft well into Syrian airspace on
June 22, 2012, as a result of surface-to-air missile fire, it continues to consistently invade the
airspace of fellow NATO member and neighbor Greece in a manner far more hostile than the penetration
of Turkish airspace it alleged Russia undertook (for 17 seconds). THK F-16s entered Greek airspace
some 2,200 times in 2014 alone. Moreover, Turkey consistently has violated Cypriot air-, sea, and
land-space since its 1974 invasion and occupation of the northern 37 percent of Cyprus.1
So Turkey is hardly the victim. [Indeed, by deliberately starting the "civil war" to remove Pres.
Bashar al-Assad from power in Syria, Turkey only incurred a "refugee problem" as a result of its
own actions, and has subsequently sought to push those refugees onward into Europe as quickly as
possible, seeking political rewards from Europe as the only power capable of stopping the refugee
flows.]
In any event, Pres. Erdogan, three years ago said that "a short- term border violation can never
be a pre-text for an attack". But that, of course, was when a THK aircraft was shot down by Syria
when the THK F-4E deliberately and for some time penetrated Syrian airspace on a mission against
Syria.
... .... ....
Turkey, too, will not remain inactive. It will resume its support for anti-Russian terrorism,
including support for jihadist movements in the Caucasus. These have included such groups as
Kvadrat (Quadrant), a Bos-nia-based Wahhabist unit, which had "laundered" its operations through
Turkish-occupied Northern Cy-prus, thence into Turkey and on into the Russian Caucasus.4 But the
reactivation of Turkish-backed terror-ism in the Russian Caucasus will be far wider than just
Kvadrat: Turkey works extensively, even now, with Chechen and other Caucasus groups inside ISIS
and in the jihadi operations in Syria.
Significantly, by early December 2015, President Erdogan assumed that the crisis had passed
sufficiently for Turkey to expand its activities in the area. There was no indication that Turkey
and ISIS had diminished their extensive and integrated operations in terms of oil transactions,
the supply of weapons to ISIS via Turkey, and the use of Turkey as a medical support arena for
ISIS wounded. But Turkey went further and deployed Turkish Army troops into northern Iraq near
the ISIS-held city of Mosul in early December 2015. Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi led
calls for Turkish troops to be withdrawn immediately; they had not been withdrawn by the time
this report went to press.
... ... ...
The path, however, is open for a great Russian cooperation with the Kurdish forces, as well as
with other regional allies which are concerned about Turkey's strategic adventurism. The Kurds,
particularly those led by the majority Kurdish force (under the PKK: Partiya Karkeręn Kurdistan,
the Kurdish Workers' Par-ty), are now well underway in responding to Ankara. The civil war is
underway inside Turkey, and it re-mains literally out-of-bounds to the international media. What
is significant is that the Kurds have thus far not agreed to cooperate with Russia, but are
awaiting a nod from their principal ally, Israel, before trust-ing Russia.
Thus Israel's position becomes critical in this debate.
Much of the Israeli leadership still hopes that a rapprochement might be achievable with Turkey,
but that hope is fading. On the other hand, Israeli planners have to consider whether a broken
Turkey - perhaps replaced by a patchwork of states, and with no non-Arab player other than Iran
to monitor the region - is worse than a troublesome Turkey. There is also the question of whether
unqualified Israeli support for the Kurdish "big push" against Turkey would then jeopardize
Israeli strategic relations with Saudi Arabia, which is apparently undecided on whether, or how
much, it favors a continuation of the Turkish state.
Without Turkey, according to the Saudi rationale, who would be the counterweight to Iran?
Israel is also not immune to this argument, although for Israel the prospect exists for an
eventual reunion with Tehran, after the clerical leadership goes, or modifies.
So Russia is left with three potential regional allies - apart from Syria, Iraq, and Iran
- against Ankara: Greece, Egypt, and Jordan. And Cyprus and Armenia to the limited extent that
they can assist.
... ... ...
Articles 10 to 18 are the articles which allow for various states, including Russia, to
transit military ships through the straits. In short, if Turkey invoked either Article 20 or
Article 21, Russia would be legally blocked from moving any naval vessel through the Straits.
Moscow has clearly long gamed out this scenario, which accounts for President Putin's
commitment to a measured response to Ankara. Thus it must be a proxy response, for the most part,
as well as an economic one. But while it demonstrates the delicacy needed by Moscow, it also
demonstrates the reality that Russia cannot continue to be strategically constrained by an
increasingly hostile and ambitious Turkey.
So where Turkey is vulnerable is in its economy.
The effects of Russian economic embargoes against Turkey are far more significant than
would seem to be the case because the Turkish economy is more vulnerable than it has been
portrayed. It is far more leveraged with borrowings than at any time in the recent past. It
has a discreet outflow of domestic capital and is heavily reliant on discreet financial
injections, probably coming from Qatar, and possible Saudi Arabia. But Saudi Arabia's ability to
prop up Turkey is becoming limited.
...while Turkey may not be regarded as an entirely stable partner for the PRC in the region,
Beijing would be wary of acting precipitously against it.
...Iran - like Russia - is constrained to act cautiously and indirectly against Turkey.
Moreover, Iran cannot risk that its own Kurdish population could join with Syrian, Iraqi, and
Turkish Kurds to form a new Kurdish state.
...And in the short-term, this all has hardened Ankara's position on remaining in control of
the northern 37 percent of Cyprus, which it has occupied militarily since 1974.
...There is no doubt that Pres. Erdogan believes that continued brinkmanship will be possible,
although he is not perhaps aware that he is losing the information war, or the psychological war.
Amvet on December 15 2015 said:
Thank you Mr. Copley for a well researched, honest, and very interesting article. Any chance
of getting this published in any US mainstream
newspaper or magazine ?? .
Jim on December 15 2015 said:
...Nice information actually, most mainstream media doesn't even come close. Thanks. definitely
a deliberate and pre-approved escalation of the conflict, pointing fingers back to Washington,
D.C.
Chris on December 15 2015 said:
A great article that brings together much of what has been reported and provides a coherent
framework for understanding it. This piece should be in a general interest publication such as
the NY Times so that more Americans could understand what is really going on in the Middle East.
But not everyone agrees that this is sustainable. Some say efforts to improve efficiency have
run their course and with financing for exploration scarce, further gains may be hard to come by.
Interestingly, Bloomberg also notes that because Moscow takes "nearly everything above $30-$40 a
barrel" on exports, producers won't feel the impact of low prices until crude falls substantially
below those levels.
The takeaway here is that the Saudi gambit failed to wrench market share away from the
Russians and between the conflict in Syria, Moscow's closer ties with Beijing, and Riyadh's move
to antagonize The Kremlin by encroaching on Russia's eastern European market share, one shouldn't
expect Putin to back down any time soon. In short, if John Kerry and Riyadh did in fact plan to
bankrupt the Russians by tanking crude prices, the effort was a miserable failure that resulted
not only in a 20% fiscal deficit for the Saudis, but also in the destruction of American jobs in
the oil patch.
MalteseFalcon
Peak oil is sometimes qualified as peak cheap oil.
If the Saudi's are at peak oil it's because the Saudi "cost structure" is too high and
includes generous welfare to keep their over-procreating rabble from revolting, expense
accounts for over 100 "princes", funding for extreme Islamic radicals all over the globe, a
war in Syria and a war in Yemen.
In a word: bullshit.
Gregory Poonsores
Found it a bit weird myself.
Most of the increases by Russia would have been baked in before the price fell, so I don't
understand the song a dance about it.
I mean the Saudis were already on a massive infill drilling program which boosted their output
this year.
Of course this presupposes the Russians are actually increasing production or just trying to
spook the Saudis whose production is dropping again anyway. Besides, all OPEC increases seem
to be coming from Iraq now.
Seer
When everyone is backpedaling/contracting I'd think that any increase, even a "paltry"
3-4%, is fairly significant. Think Caterpillar wouldn't want that? (hell, they' probably love
to be able to maintain, rather than DROP, production).
Again, for those that don't have a clue about the business world, when things are really
tight ANY gains are HUGE. Seeing as most of the West's bankers are force-feeding inflation at
2% (figure it as faked "growth") that 3-4% could be seen as 5-6%,
For the mathematically-challenged, this exponentially pencils out to a DOUBLING of
production in only 11 1/2 to 14 years.
The point isn't to show off how much you can produce, it's about out-lasting your
competition.
The income changed accordingly. In 10 months of the year it amounted to $35,209 billion for
gas, which is a 25,65% decrease from the same period in 2014, according to the data of the
Federal Customs Service. Our country received 1.75 times less from oil exports in January-October
of 2015 compared to the same period of last year - $76,738 billion.
There are also issues with exports. Despite the slowdown in the global economy (according to
different estimates it amounts to less than 3%), energy resources remain the "blood" of the
modern world order. Therefore it is reasonable to think about the potential for the export of
Russian hydrocarbons and new areas of cooperation.
Here assessments are also different. For example, "Transneft" predicts the decline of Russian oil
exports in 2016 to 210 million tons from 222 million tons in 2015. This was announced by first
vice-president Maxim Grishanin.
The head of the Energy Ministry of Russia, Alexander Novak expects Russian oil exports at the
level of 237 million tonnes a year in 2015 and 2016. According to the Ministry of Economic
Development, Russia will sell 227,5 million tons of "black gold" abroad in 2016
According to the forecast of the Ministry of Economic Development gas exports will amount to
174,7 billion cubic meters in 2016.
Operational statistics are not sufficient for the forecast to be more or less reliable, thinks
the leading expert of the Union of Oil & Gas Producers, Rustam Tankaev. However, he says some
assessments can be made.
...This year one of unexpected destinations for the exports of "black gold" became the US,
reminds Rustam Tankaev. "Apparently, this market will continue to grow next year, especially as
shale oil production in the New World is gradually declining due to low prices," - he suggests.
"... According to Dyukov, currently there is shorting game . One of the reasons is the expectation of a rate increase by the Fed. For now the price has stabilized. Theoretically, if the shorting game will continue, the price may get lower but it is obvious that this decline will be short-term, - said Alexander Dyukov. ..."
"... If you removed 1.5 to 2 million barrels of oil from the market, it would bring oil prices to 65 dollars per barrel, guaranteed ..."
"... The extraction of unconventional hydrocarbons in North America is likely to decline, which will balance supply and demand in the medium term. This will lead to higher prices. The lifting of the embargo on oil exports from the United States, according to Dyukov, will not have a significant impact on the global market. ..."
Orginally publushed by Rossijskaya Gazeta. Translated from Russian by Kristina Rus for Fort
Russ
Global oil prices could sink below the current level of 36 dollars per barrel, but it will not
last long, says general director of "Gazprom Oil," Alexander Dyukov.
"No matter what, in the medium or long term the rates will begin to return to the level that is
just and right for consumers and producers. I'm talking about the price of 90-100 dollars per
barrel", - he declared in an interview with TV channel "Russia 24".
According to Dyukov, currently there is "shorting game". One of the reasons is the
expectation of a rate increase by the Fed. For now the price has stabilized. "Theoretically, if
the shorting game will continue, the price may get lower but it is obvious that this decline will
be short-term," - said Alexander Dyukov.
However, reaching the level of $90-100 per barrel may take a few years. The head of "Gazprom Oil"
called the current situation not the most favorable.
"It will have long term implications not just for oil companies but for the consumers," - he
said. Dyukov also believes that Russia should not change the strategy on the global oil market in
an attempt to maintain global oil prices.
"We don't feel the weakest in this game, we have a serious margin of safety. I don't see any
point for us to change the strategy that was chosen by the Russian Federation. If we talk about
this competition - we won't lose it for sure. It's a game of nerves, who'll blink first, but
Russia is absolutely prepared for this game. In production costs we are not far behind the Middle
East, maybe even better off in some ways," - he said.
The lost balance of supply and demand in the oil market could be restored by OPEC and Saudi
Arabia.
"But Saudi Arabia is currently fighting for the market share, in addition to increasing its
share it is trying to take over expensive projects from many investors. If you removed 1.5 to
2 million barrels of oil from the market, it would bring oil prices to 65 dollars per barrel,
guaranteed", - said Dyukov.
The extraction of unconventional hydrocarbons in North America is likely to decline, which
will balance supply and demand in the medium term. This will lead to higher prices. The lifting
of the embargo on oil exports from the United States, according to Dyukov, will not have a
significant impact on the global market.
"... "The chance for a durable Washington-Moscow strategic partnership was lost in the 1990 after the Soviet Union ended. Actually it began to be lost earlier, because it was [President Ronald] Reagan and [Soviet leader Mikhail] Gorbachev who gave us the opportunity for a strategic partnership between 1985-89. ..."
"... "And it certainly ended under the Clinton Administration, and it didn't end in Moscow. It ended in Washington - it was squandered and lost in Washington. And it was lost so badly that today, and for at least the last several years (and I would argue since the Georgian war in 2008), we have literally been in a new Cold War with Russia. ..."
"... "TODAY THERE ARE NO RED LINES. One of the things that Putin and his predecessor President Medvedev keep saying to Washington is: You are crossing our Red Lines! And Washington said, and continues to say, 'You don't have any red lines. We have red lines and we can have all the bases we want around your borders, but you can't have bases in Canada or Mexico. Your red lines don't exist.' This clearly illustrates that today there are no mutual rules of conduct. ..."
"... "Another important point: Today there is absolutely no organized anti-Cold War or Pro-Detente political force or movement in the United States at all –– not in our political parties, not in the White House, not in the State Department, not in the mainstream media, not in the universities or the think tanks. … None of this exists today. … ..."
"... In practice, President Assad's imposed ouster precisely will empower ISIS, rather than implode it, and the consequences will ripple across the Middle East – and beyond. ..."
"... Indeed, ISIS and the other Caliphate forces have very clear human motivations and clearly articulated political objectives, and none of these is in any way consistent with the type of Syrian State that America says it wants for Syria. This precisely reflects the danger of becoming hostage to a certain narrative, rather than being willing to examine the prevailing conceptual framework more critically. ..."
"... unfortunately, today's reports seem to indicate that the White House and State Department are thinking primarily how to counter Russia's actions in Syria. They are worried, it was reported, that Russia is diminishing America's leadership in the world. ..."
"... Washington's disinclination to permit Russia any enhancement to its standing in Europe, or in the non-West, through its initiative strategically to defeat Wahhabist jihadism in Syria, is not only to play with fire in the Middle East. It is playing with a fire of even greater danger: to do both at the same time seems extraordinarily reckless. ..."
"... As Europe becomes accomplice in raising the various pressures on Russia in Syria – economically through sanctions and other financial measures , in Ukraine and Crimea, and in beckoning Montenegro, Georgia and the Baltic towards NATO – we should perhaps contemplate the paradox that Russia's determination to try to avoid war is leading to war. ..."
"... Russia's call to co-operate with Western states against the scourge of ISIS; its low-key and carefully crafted responses to such provocations as the ambush of its SU-24 bomber in Syria; and President Putin's calm rhetoric, are all being used by Washington and London to paint Russia as a "paper tiger," whom no one needs fear. ..."
"... In short, Russia is being offered only the binary choice: to acquiesce to the "benevolent" hegemon, or to prepare for war. ..."
Official Washington is awash with tough talk about Russia and the need to punish President Putin
for his role in Ukraine and Syria. But this bravado ignores Russia's genuine national interests,
its "red lines," and the risk that "tough-guy-ism" can lead to nuclear war, as Alastair Crooke explains.
We all know the narrative in which we (the West) are seized. It is the narrative of the Cold War:
America versus the "Evil Empire." And, as Professor Ira Chernus has
written, since
we are "human" and somehow they (the USSR or, now, ISIS) plainly are not, we must be their polar
opposite in every way.
"If they are absolute evil, we must be the absolute opposite. It's the old apocalyptic tale: God's
people versus Satan's. It ensures that we never have to admit to any meaningful connection with the
enemy." It is the basis to America's and Europe's claim to exceptionalism and leadership.
And "buried in the assumption that the enemy is not in any sense human like us, is [an] absolution
for whatever hand we may have had in sparking or contributing to evil's rise and spread. How could
we have fertilized the soil of absolute evil or bear any responsibility for its successes? It's a
basic postulate of wars against evil: God's people must be innocent," (and that the evil cannot be
mediated, for how can one mediate with evil).
Westerners may generally think ourselves to be rationalist and (mostly) secular, but Christian
modes of conceptualizing the world still permeate contemporary foreign policy.
It is this Cold War narrative of the Reagan era, with its correlates that America simply stared
down the Soviet Empire through military and – as importantly – financial "pressures," whilst making
no concessions to the enemy.
What is sometimes forgotten, is how the Bush neo-cons gave their "spin" to this narrative for
the Middle East by casting Arab national secularists and Ba'athists as the offspring of "Satan":
David Wurmser was advocating in 1996, "expediting the chaotic collapse" of secular-Arab nationalism
in general, and Baathism in particular. He concurred with King Hussein of Jordan that "the phenomenon
of Baathism" was, from
the very beginning, "an agent of foreign, namely Soviet policy."
Moreover, apart from being agents of socialism, these states opposed Israel, too. So, on the principle
that if these were the enemy, then my enemy's enemy (the kings, Emirs and monarchs of the Middle
East) became the Bush neo-cons friends. And they remain such today – however much their interests
now diverge from those of the U.S.
The problem, as Professor Steve Cohen, the foremost Russia scholar in the U.S.,
laments, is that it is this narrative which has precluded America from ever concluding
any real ability to find a mutually acceptable modus vivendi with Russia – which it sorely
needs, if it is ever seriously to tackle the phenomenon of Wahhabist jihadism (or resolve the Syrian
conflict).
What is more, the "Cold War narrative" simply does not reflect history, but rather the narrative
effaces history: It looses for us the ability to really understand the demonized "calous
tyrant" – be it (Russian) President Vladimir Putin or (Ba'athist) President Bashar al-Assad – because
we simply ignore the actual history of how that state came to be what it is, and, our part in it
becoming what it is.
Indeed the state, or its leaders, often are not what we think they are – at all. Cohen
explains: "The chance for a durable Washington-Moscow strategic partnership was lost in
the 1990 after the Soviet Union ended. Actually it began to be lost earlier, because it was [President
Ronald] Reagan and [Soviet leader Mikhail] Gorbachev who gave us the opportunity for a strategic
partnership between 1985-89.
"And it certainly ended under the Clinton Administration, and it didn't end in Moscow. It ended
in Washington - it was squandered and lost in Washington. And it was lost so badly that today, and
for at least the last several years (and I would argue since the Georgian war in 2008), we have literally
been in a new Cold War with Russia.
"Many people in politics and in the media don't want to call it this, because if they admit, 'Yes,
we are in a Cold War,' they would have to explain what they were doing during the past 20 years.
So they instead say, 'No, it is not a Cold War.'
"Here is my next point. This new Cold War has all of the potential to be even more dangerous than
the preceding 40-year Cold War, for several reasons. First of all, think about it. The epicentre
of the earlier Cold War was in Berlin, not close to Russia. There was a vast buffer zone between
Russia and the West in Eastern Europe.
"Today, the epicentre is in Ukraine, literally on Russia's borders. It was the Ukrainian conflict
that set this off, and politically Ukraine remains a ticking time bomb. Today's confrontation is
not only on Russia's borders, but it's in the heart of Russian-Ukrainian 'Slavic civilization.' This
is a civil war as profound in some ways as was America's Civil War."
Cohen continued: "My next point: and still worse – You will remember that after the Cuban Missile
Crisis, Washington and Moscow developed certain rules-of-mutual conduct. They saw how dangerously
close they had come to a nuclear war, so they adopted "No-Nos,' whether they were encoded in treaties
or in unofficial understandings. Each side knew where the other's red line was. Both sides tripped
over them on occasion but immediately pulled back because there was a mutual understanding that there
were red lines.
"TODAY THERE ARE NO RED LINES. One of the things that Putin and his predecessor President Medvedev
keep saying to Washington is: You are crossing our Red Lines! And Washington said, and continues
to say, 'You don't have any red lines. We have red lines and we can have all the bases we want around
your borders, but you can't have bases in Canada or Mexico. Your red lines don't exist.' This
clearly illustrates that today there are no mutual rules of conduct.
"Another important point: Today there is absolutely no organized anti-Cold War or Pro-Detente
political force or movement in the United States at all –– not in our political parties, not in the
White House, not in the State Department, not in the mainstream media, not in the universities or
the think tanks. … None of this exists today. …
"My next point is a question: Who is responsible for this new Cold War? I don't ask this question
because I want to point a finger at anyone. The position of the current American political media
establishment is that this new Cold War is all Putin's fault – all of it, everything. We in America
didn't do anything wrong. At every stage, we were virtuous and wise and Putin was aggressive and
a bad man. And therefore, what's to rethink? Putin has to do all of the rethinking, not us."
These two narratives, the Cold War narrative, and the neocons' subsequent "spin" on it: i.e. Bill
Kristol's formulation (in 2002) that precisely because of its Cold War "victory," America could,
and must, become the "benevolent global hegemon," guaranteeing and sustaining the new American-authored
global order – an "omelette that cannot be made without breaking eggs" – converge and conflate in
Syria, in the persons of President Assad and President Putin.
President Obama is no neocon, but he is constrained by the global hegemon legacy, which he must
either sustain, or be labeled as the arch facilitator of America's decline. And the President is
also surrounded by R2P ("responsibility-to-protect") proselytizers, such as Samantha Power, who seem
to have convinced the President that "the tyrant" Assad's ouster would puncture and collapse the
Wahhabist jihadist balloon, allowing "moderate" jihadists such as Ahrar al-Sham to finish off the
deflated fragments of the punctured ISIS balloon.
In practice, President Assad's imposed ouster precisely will empower ISIS, rather than implode
it, and the consequences will ripple across the Middle East – and beyond. President Obama privately
may understand the nature and dangers of the
Wahhabist
cultural revolution, but seems to adhere to the conviction that everything will change if
only President Assad steps down. The Gulf States said the same about Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki
in Iraq. He has gone (for now), but what changed? ISIS got stronger.
Of course if we think of ISIS as evil, for evil's sake, bent on mindless, whimsical slaughter,
"what a foolish task it obviously [would be] to think about the enemy's actual motives. After all,
to do so would be to treat them as humans, with human purposes arising out of history. It would smack
of sympathy for the devil. Of course," Professor Chernus
continues, "this
means that, whatever we might think of their actions, we generally ignore a wealth of evidence that
the Islamic State's fighters couldn't be more human or have more comprehensible motivations."
Indeed, ISIS and the other Caliphate forces have very clear human motivations and clearly articulated
political objectives, and none of these is in any way consistent with the type of Syrian State that
America says it wants for Syria. This precisely reflects the danger of becoming hostage to a certain
narrative, rather than being willing to examine the prevailing conceptual framework more critically.
America lies far away from Syria and the Middle East, and as Professor Stephen Cohen notes, "unfortunately,
today's reports seem to indicate that the White House and State Department are thinking primarily
how to counter Russia's actions in Syria. They are worried, it was reported, that Russia is diminishing
America's leadership in the world."
It is a meme of perpetual national insecurity, of perpetual fears about America's standing
and of challenges to its standing, Professor Chernus
suggests.
But Europe is not "far away"; it lies on Syria's doorstep. It is also neighbor to Russia.
And in this connection, it is worth pondering Professor Cohen's last point: Washington's disinclination
to permit Russia any enhancement to its standing in Europe, or in the non-West, through its initiative
strategically to defeat Wahhabist jihadism in Syria, is not only to play with fire in the Middle
East. It is playing with a fire of even greater danger: to do both at the same time seems extraordinarily
reckless.
Cohen again:
"The false idea [has taken root] that the nuclear threat ended with the Soviet Union:
In fact, the threat became more diverse and difficult. This is something the political elite forgot.
It was another disservice of the Clinton Administration (and to a certain extent the first President
Bush in his re-election campaign) saying that the nuclear dangers of the preceding Cold War era no
longer existed after 1991. The reality is that the threat grew, whether by inattention or accident,
and is now more dangerous than ever."
As Europe becomes accomplice in raising the various pressures on Russia in Syria – economically
through sanctions and
other financial measures, in Ukraine and Crimea, and in beckoning Montenegro, Georgia
and the Baltic towards NATO – we should perhaps contemplate the paradox that Russia's determination
to try to avoid war is leading to war.
Russia's call to co-operate with Western states against the scourge of ISIS; its low-key and carefully
crafted responses to such provocations as the ambush of its SU-24 bomber in Syria; and President
Putin's calm rhetoric, are all being used by Washington and London to paint Russia as a "paper tiger,"
whom no one needs fear.
In short, Russia is being offered only the binary choice: to acquiesce to the "benevolent" hegemon,
or to prepare for war.
Alastair Crooke is a British diplomat who was a senior figure in British intelligence
and in European Union diplomacy. He is the founder and director of the Conflicts Forum, which advocates
for engagement between political Islam and the West. [This article also appeared at the Conflicts
Forum's Web site and is
republished with permission.]
"... I have said the exact same thing on this blog several times before. But let me expand on this issue some more. The oil production capacity of at least these five countries is artificially suppressed by the still dominant NATO-GCC alliance: a) Russia, b) Iran, c) Iraq, d) Kazakhstan and e) Venezuela. ..."
"... To be clear, I am not moralizing here, but I am merely saying that the NATO-GCC alliance sees fit to exclude those countries from fully participating in the global market-place on equal terms. It's good old Real-politik. ..."
I have said the exact same thing on this blog several times before. But let me expand on this
issue some more. The oil production capacity of at least these five countries is artificially suppressed
by the still dominant NATO-GCC alliance: a) Russia, b) Iran, c) Iraq, d) Kazakhstan and e) Venezuela.
To be clear, I am not moralizing here, but I am merely saying that the NATO-GCC alliance sees
fit to exclude those countries from fully participating in the global market-place on equal terms.
It's good old Real-politik.
The suppressed oil production from these regions, has allowed western oil majors, as well as much
more numerous but smaller US shale drillers to increase their own production of quite marginal oil
& gas deposits in the US shale patch, the Canadian tar sands, in several deep-offshore sites around
the globe etc…
This is at least 50% why the above countries are allied with each other and against the NATO-GCC
Empire.
"... The relationship between Russia and Western Europe's far right may be a marriage of convenience... ..."
"... Closer ties with rising political parties in the EU will give Putin more leverage against NATO. For its part, the European right sees the Russian leader as a staunch defender of national sovereignty and conservative values who has challenged US influence ..."
The relationship between Russia and Western Europe's far right may be a marriage of convenience...
Closer ties with rising political parties in the EU will give Putin more leverage against
NATO. For its part, the European right sees the Russian leader as a staunch defender of national
sovereignty and conservative values who has challenged US influence...
George Friedman, Founder and Chairman of Stratfor, or what is called by many "private/shadow CIA"
for its well known connections and close cooperation with the CIA, gave a very interesting speech
to the Chicago Council of Foreign Affairs on subject Europe: Destined for Conflict? in February of
this year.
The charges and counter-charges have been fast
and furious since last week, when the Turkish air force shot down a Russian fighter jet near Turkey's
border with Syria. But now it's getting personal.
The Russian Defense Ministry is accusing
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, his family and his country's leadership of being tied
up in illegal trade in oil with the so-called Islamic State (IS), and that Turkey is the group's
chief customer.
"According to our data, the top political leadership of the country – President Erdogan and
his family – is involved in this criminal business," Antonov said, adding that, "Turkey
is the main consumer of the oil stolen from its rightful owners, Syria and Iraq."
During the briefing, reporters were shown satellite images that ministry officials said showed
columns of the tanker trucks taking on cargoes of oil at loading facilities in areas of Syria
and Iraq controlled by IS, and other photos said to show the vehicles crossing into Turkey.
The briefing didn't present direct evidence that Erdogan and his family were involved in the
trade – an accusation that the Turkish leader has emphatically denied – but Antonov said, "According
to information we've received, the senior political leadership of the country, President Erdogan
and his family, are involved in this criminal business."
Antonov specifically implicated Erdogan's son and his son-in-law in the illegal trade. "In
the West, no one has asked questions about the fact that the Turkish president's son heads one
of the biggest energy companies, or that his son has been appointed energy minister," he said,
adding sarcastically. "What a marvelous family business."
Turkey's Energy Minister is
Berat Albayrak, the president's son-in-law. The son Antonov referred to evidently is Necmettin
Bilal Erdogan, one of three owners of BMZ Group, a marine shipping concern that has been
linked in at least
one news report with transporting IS's stolen oil.
Antonov didn't say how much oil was involved in the suspected IS trade with Turkey, but another
ministry official stressed that the quantity would be greater today if Russia hadn't begun its
operations against IS – also called ISIS and Daesh – on Sept. 30, greatly cutting into the group's
revenues from oil smuggling.
"The income of this terrorist organization was about $3 million per day," Lt.-Gen. Sergey Rudskoy
said. "After two months of Russian airstrikes, their income was about $1.5 million a day."
The intensity of Russia's accusations has been growing since the downing of the jet on Nov.
24, the most dangerous incident involving Russia and a NATO state in the past 50 years. On Monday,
as the heat was rising between the two countries,
Erdogan demanded that Russian President
Vladimir Putin back up his allegations with evidence. If he could, the Turkish leader said,
he would resign.
"As soon as such a claim is proved, the nobility of our nation requires [me] to [step down].
I will not remain in this post," Erdogan said. He also challenged Putin to do the same if the
accusations prove baseless. "I am asking Mr Putin, would you remain?"
Russian oil output in November hovered near a post-Soviet record set the previous month, shrugging
off a crude-price slump before OPEC gathers for its annual meeting in Vienna.
Production of crude and gas condensate averaged 10.779 million barrels a day during the month,
according to data from the Energy Ministry's CDU-TEK unit. That's an increase of 1.3 percent from
a year earlier and slightly beneath the 10.782 million barrels a day record in October.
Russia … continues to build output as a weakened ruble reduces costs for drilling and the nation's
tax system helps compensate for the lower price.
Crude exports reached 5.32 million barrels of oil a day in November, an 11 percent gain from the
previous year and a 2.4 percent decline from the previous month.
My comment: using the 7.3 barrels/ton conversion ratio, November production was 10,735 kb/d
vs. 10,737 kb/d in October (revised; preliminary estimate for October was 10,731 kb/d).
Russian annual output is on track to surpass the official forecast for 2015 of 533 million tons,
or 10.66 mb/d.
Source: Russian Energy Ministry
"... It's perhaps more so high yield paper issuance ..."
"... We imagined that a mini Apocalypse loomed, derived from shutting down oil production via loan shutoff simply because it was not profitable. How absurd, in retrospect. Profitable. Profitable was a lot more powerful a requirement pre 2009 than post 2009. Now, it's almost laughable. No one is going to allow horrible outcomes just because numbers on a screen are red. ..."
The "big news" this month is that the banks granted over leveraged, loss making shale oil drillers
a stay of execution by continuing to provide credit lines. Consequently, there was no major move
in US oil drilling or production though both are trending down. Elsewhere, the story is one of production
plateaus and stabilisation of rig counts. The modest production rises and falls detailed below are
simply noise on these production baselines.
Against this backdrop of no news, the oil price traded sideways in October. OPEC countries, Russia
and International Oil Companies are all losing billions and look set to continue doing so throughout
2016 as over-supply now looks set to continue until early 2017. The situation is one of stalemate
as opposed to checkmate.
"Banks". It's perhaps more so high yield paper issuance, and we have seen at least one
story indicating a bank (JP Morgan) orchestrated placement of the issuance in order to service debt
JPM had actually loaned. So this would mean banks are selling debt to the public (with their powerful
sales force), and doing so to protect their own loan portfolios. One might also wonder about their
managed accounts (client money entrusted to in-house advisors) and if those accounts were put into
this HY paper.
There was that JPM quote in response to a question about the risks to their loan portfolio. "We
have offloaded that risk to investors."
To a certain extent it all says that I forgot my own mantra: Nothing relevant to money is going
to be allowed to destroy civilization, because it can be created from nothingness.
We imagined that a mini Apocalypse loomed, derived from shutting down oil production via loan
shutoff simply because it was not profitable. How absurd, in retrospect. Profitable. Profitable was
a lot more powerful a requirement pre 2009 than post 2009. Now, it's almost laughable. No one is
going to allow horrible outcomes just because numbers on a screen are red.
Huge debts levels of most oil producers (both nation states and companies) completely changes the
dynamics after a price drop and that along with financial machinations with futures enabled the current
operation "oil price drop" which was probably designed to hurt Russia. Debt needs to be serviced and
that means producing at any price but cutting all capital expenditures. In those conditions, despite
hidden subsidies from the US government, additional production from the US shale might disappear in
two to three years from now as period of life for shale wells is much shorter then for conventional
wells...
"... ...OPEC has only slightly increased output from 2014, and much of it came from Iraq, which
has been trying to increase production at all costs, regardless of OPEC decisions. Iraq is not subject
to the quota restrictions, and so it is pulling out all the stops to increase output. ..."
"... The U.S. on the other hand, has aggressively increased output. It is easy to see that much
of the responsibility for the crash in oil prices stems from a massive spending spree in the U.S. shale
patch, which increased
output by around 4 million barrels per day between 2011 and the peak in 2015, nearly doubling production
from 5.6 million barrels per day (mb/d) to 9.6 mb/d. OPEC's production, meanwhile, hasn't changed dramatically
over the same time period. ..."
However, there is an element of imperialism and superiority in the expectation that the burden
should fall on OPEC, which is largely made up of producers from the Middle East. It is a bizarre
mentality to think that private companies deserve to seize as much market share as they can manage,
after which OPEC producers can take what is left. Steven Kopits, President of Princeton Energy Advisors,
laid out the concept very nicely in a
Platts article
earlier this year, in which he says the expression "call on OPEC" should be scrapped.
Kopits offers an interesting thought experiment. If the industry in question were, say, automobiles
rather than oil, there is no question that such an arrangement would not be framed in the same manner.
Imagine that the world thought it reasonable that GM or Ford could take as much market share as possible,
and Toyota was expected to slash production if there weren't enough customers left over. It is an
absurd scenario, but not so different from the world of oil.
...OPEC has only slightly increased output from 2014, and much of it came from Iraq, which has
been trying to increase production at all costs, regardless of OPEC decisions. Iraq is not subject
to the quota restrictions, and so it is pulling out all the stops to increase output.
The U.S. on the other hand, has aggressively increased output. It is easy to see that much
of the responsibility for the crash in oil prices stems from a massive spending spree in the U.S.
shale patch, which
increased output
by around 4 million barrels per day between 2011 and the peak in 2015, nearly doubling production
from 5.6 million barrels per day (mb/d) to 9.6 mb/d. OPEC's production, meanwhile, hasn't changed
dramatically over the same time period.
No, the "atmosphere is not well," because again, the Saudis are out to achieve "ancillary diplomatic
benefits" (i.e. geopolitical advantages) by keeping crude prices low, and those benefits include
squeezing the Russians and perhaps limiting the revenue Tehran can bring in when Iran returns to
the market.
As you can see, all of this is inextricably linked and it looks as though Russia and Iran may
be on the verge of attempting to challenge the Saudis for domination of the oil market (don't forget
Moscow surpassed Riyadh as the number one supplier to China for the second time this year in September).
Is a "new oil order" in the works? We shall see.
pot_and_kettle
Can someone point out when Syria didn't sign off on the Qatar - Turkey pipeline and when the
pipeline was first proposed? This is news to me and seems like the watershed event for what the
zio-US fomented in that part of the world.
Next step: open that eastern front on the Arabian Peninsula.
Freddie
Persia has been around thousands of years.
A person may not like the Russians or Iranaians but they "ain't" going anywhere. They are also
pretty tough on the battlefield (see Hezbollah). They also stood up for Syrian and the Syrian
people including Syrian Christians.
Persians are a lot smarter than Saudis too.
alphahammer
Yea lets take a look. Good of you to point that out.
---
China Not So In Love With Russia After All
JUN 17, 2015
Shunned by the West, Russia may want to promote its new Chinese love affair to the world these
days, but Czar Romeo shouldn't get his hopes up.
Russia's second biggest lender, VTB Bank, said that most Chinese banks have foregone doing
business with them. The reason? Western sanctions against VTB. China lenders don't want to get
caught up in the drama and - having more business with the U.S. and Europe than with Russia -
have opted to play it safe.
"China's ambiguous position regarding Russian banks in the wake of US and EU sanctions is a
key issue holding back progress toward greater bilateral cooperation," VTB Bank First Deputy Chairman
Yuri Soloviev write in an op-ed published by the FinanceAsia news agency on Tuesday.
Freddie
Anything that smacks the shit out of the Saudis or Qatar makes me happy. What they did to Syria
with the help of the USA, Turkey, UK, Israel and others is sickening.
This is a very expensive oil that Russians now selling at loss. Financial capitalism in action.
Notable quotes:
"... Gazprom Neft began production at the Prirazlomnoye field in 2013 and reached commercial figures last year, with a total output of roughly 5,000 barrels per day (bpd). ..."
"... No more than 10 percent of the equipment applied at the Prirazlomnaya installation is believed to be Russian-made, and this level of disparity is commonplace at both Russia's onshore and offshore fields. ..."
A cursory search of 'Arctic' and 'oil' elicits little in the way of positivity. Certainly,
Shell's
failure
in the Chukchi Sea is notable. Combined with the Obama administration's waffling
distaste for future offshore Arctic development, it marks what should be a period of relative
dormancy in U.S. waters. Still, it's not indicative of the sector globally, which is seeing progress,
albeit at a glacial pace.
The shining example of such development to date is Gazprom Neft's Prirazlomnaya platform.
Located nearly 40 miles offshore in the Pechora Sea, the rig is the world's first Arctic oil project
involving a stationary platform – though the general concept itself has been employed before (see:
BP's
Northstar Island).
Gazprom Neft began production at the Prirazlomnoye field in 2013 and reached commercial figures
last year, with a
total output
of roughly 5,000 barrels per day (bpd). With production well number two (of 19) now
online, output should
reach somewhere between 10,000-15,000 bpd by year's end.
To be fair, several important tests lie ahead for Prirazlomnaya and Russia's Arctic shelf
development in general. Chief among them is rapidly addressing its import dependence – one
of the primary targets of U.S. and EU sanctions. No more than 10 percent of the equipment applied
at the Prirazlomnaya installation is believed to be
Russian-made, and this level of disparity is commonplace at both Russia's onshore and offshore fields.
Attention, domestic and international, has been given to the courting of China, India, and other
backers – both financial and technological – but all eyes should be on the Russian solution, which
will seek to demonstrate its efficacy by 2020.
At the Prirazlomnoye field, the Russian institute Omskneftekhimproekt has
begun work on the modernization of the rig's drilling
installations, technological equipment, and safety and telecommunications systems. The primary objectives
are to
boost production capacity (to ~120,000 bpd) toward 2020 and lay the building blocks for the future
development of Russian-sourced platforms.
The work by Omskneftekhimproekt mirrors that of several institutes, companies, and universities
across the country, rallying around the call for import substitution. However, just how much can
actually be accomplished is the billion dollar question.
The author is pretty naive assuming the KAS can decide to move oil prices without the USA
blessing and the US controlled financial market support of such a move. In a sense it's no longer
KAS that determine the oil price, it's Wall street as volume of "paper oil" exceeds "real oil" by
several times now. Making oil more like a play in another currency. Also probably some
tangible or intangible compensation was promized for KAS for putting pressure on Russia.
The Saudi government is also scrambling. After an eight year hiatus from issuing sovereign
debt, the Saudi government announced a plan during the summer to borrow $28 billion in 2015 and
launched the borrowing with a $5 billion offering in August. The Ministry of Finance has banned
contracts for new projects, hiring and promotions, and purchase of vehicles or furniture in the
fourth quarter, while the newly created Council for Economic and Development Affairs must now
approve all government projects worth more than $27 million. The Saudi government also is
preparing to privatize airports and contemplating seeking private financing for infrastructure
projects.
Related: Airstrikes Have Yet To Stop ISIS Oil Industry
The budget situation puts the Saudi government in a difficult situation. On the one hand, the
size of the deficits requires drastic cuts in spending, but such drastic cuts would impact
politically sensitive areas such as energy subsidies, government employment opportunities for
Saudi citizens, education, and economic development projects. On the other hand, depleting Saudi
government reserves to finance the deficits will put the Saudi sovereign credit rating at risk,
which would raise the cost of borrowing as well as pressure the Saudi currency (the consequences
of which are discussed below).
RAF given green light to shoot down hostile Russian jets in Syria
As relations between the West and Russia steadily deteriorate, Royal Air Force (RAF) pilots
have been given the go-ahead to shoot down Russian military jets when flying missions over Syria
and Iraq, if they are endangered by them. The development comes with warnings that the UK and
Russia are now "one step closer" to being at war.
"The first thing a British pilot will do is to try to avoid a situation where an air-to-air
attack is likely to occur - you avoid an area if there is Russian activity," an unidentified source
from the UK's Permanent Joint Headquarters (PJHQ) told the Sunday Times. "But if a pilot is fired
on or believes he is about to be fired on, he can defend himself. We now have a situation where
a single pilot, irrespective of nationality, can have a strategic impact on future events."
The headline is a bit over the top, don't you think?
The same rule applies to all combat pilots of any nation, as indeed the (as usual) unidentified
source is quoted as saying.
That's why the US navy shot down an Iranian airliner, isn't it: the warship thought it was
being threatened by the passenger aircraft.
Trigger happy, poorly trained, panic-stricken, glory-seeking and incompetent – what else can
describe the US Navy's shoot-down? How would they perform in a real war with an adversary able
to hit back hard?
Yes to the first, and no to the second. The U.S. Navy shot down an Iranian airliner they claim
they mistook for an Iranian F-14 Tomcat, although it (1) took off from a known civil airport following
a commercial air route and within the air safety corridor, (2) was displaying the IFF interrogator
trace for civil aviation, (3) was correlated to a civil aviation radar emitter rather than the
AN/AWG-9 radar associated with the F-14, and which is quite distinctive on ESM gear and (4) was
not descending or following an attack profile. The USS VINCENNES stationed itself directly underneath
an air traffic corridor within Iranian airspace, so that normal air traffic passed directly over
it; obviously, for one half of its transit, an aircraft would close the VINCENNES, and for the
remainder it would be opening after it passed overhead. I'd have to look up again if any warnings
were passed, but if there were the pilot likely did not think the surface unit was talking to
him, since he was flying the same route he did every day or week or with whatever degree of regularity.
So if he was told to turn away he likely did not think it applied to him, as few commercial pilots
would be able to conceive of the arrogance of a ship's captain who would park his ship in Iranian
territorial waters and then demand that all the country's civil aviation reroute themselves around
his position.
In 2014, Gazprom delivered
27.3 billion cubic meters (bcm) of gas to Turkey via its Blue Stream and Trans-Balkan pipelines.
Gas exports from Russia are up some 34 percent since
2010, and Turkey
– now Russia's second largest market after Germany – is only getting hungrier. By 2030, gas demand
in Turkey is
expected to expand 30 percent, reaching 70 bcm per year.
... ... ...
With European demand projected to
grow by just over 1 bcm per year in the same period, Russia's South Stream pipeline proposal
was as misguided as it was non-compliant with the EU's Third Energy Package. Routed through Turkey
however, Russia's newest pipeline, TurkStream, promised to add greater utility. Turkey gets its gas
and partly fulfills its transit aspirations; Russia bypasses Ukraine while opening windows to Europe
and the Middle East; and Europe, if it wants it, will have gas
on demand.
It sounds good – okay, at least – but as so often happens in Russia, the tale has taken a turn
for the worse. TurkStream has stumbled out of the gates and larger happenings in Syria look to significantly
damage Russia-Turkey relations.
Originally intended as a four-pipe 63-bcm project, TurkStream will now
top out at 32 bcm,
if it gets off the ground at all. As it stands, the parties have
agreed to draft the text of
an intergovernmental agreement, with a targeted signing date of early next year, following Turkey's
general election. And that's it.
"... Russia
bombed some of the CIAS trained, armed and paid groups. It had earlier asked the U.S. to tell
it who not to bomb but didnt receive an answer. As the CIA mercenaries are fighting against the
Syrian government and are practically not distinguishable from al-Qaeda, ISI or other terrorists
they are a legitimate targets. But
not in the eyes of the CIA which nevertheless finds Russian attacks on them useful: ..."
"... Erdogans AK-Party and his government have supported the Islamic State and al-Qaeda
in Syria. It sees the HDP party and the Kurds in general as its enemies. As one Turkish non-AKP politician
said today, the bloody incident in Ankara was either a total Turkish intelligence failure
or a Turkish intelligence operation. ..."
"... Today the Russian President Putin will
meet
the Saudi young leader deputy crown-prince Mohammed Salman-un. Can Putin read him the riot act
and tell him to stop being a proxy in the U.S. war on Syria? One hopes so. ..."
But instead of building on that agreement and of further working with the Russians, the U.S. is now
slipping into a full war by proxy against the Russian Federation and especially with its contingent
in Syria. Obama
had claimed that he would not get drawn into a proxy war with Russia in Syria but his administration,
the Pentagon and the CIA, is now doing all it can to create one. The Russian support for Syria is
not limited. With the U.S. administration now moving into a position where war on Russia in Syria
becomes the priority the fighting in and around Syria will continue for a long time.
The official
Pentagon program to train Syrian insurgents will cease to vet, train, arm and support those mercenaries.
But the program will not end. The Pentagon will simply shorten the process. It skips the vetting
and training part and will
arm and support anyone who proclaims to want to "fight ISIS":
The move marks an expansion of U.S. involvement in Syria's protracted ground
war and could expose the Obama administration to greater risks if weapons provided to a wider
array of rebel units go astray, or if U.S.-backed fighters come under attack from forces loyal
to Assad and his allies.
...
Under the new plan, leaders of groups already battling the Islamic State undergo vetting and receive
a crash course in human rights and combat communications. Many of them have already received that
training outside Syria, officials said.
Eventually the Pentagon plans to provide ammunition and basic weapons to those leaders' fighters
and would carry out airstrikes on targets identified by those units.
We know how well things go when some rogue proxies identify targets they want the U.S. air force
to hit. The destroyed MSF hospital in Kunduz and the 50 something killed in the U.S. attack on it,
on request of Afghan special forces, tell the story.
Significant military aid to those fighters, in an area where Islamist extremist groups are mixed
with and often fighting beside moderate opposition rebels, would mark a departure from previous
U.S. policy. A senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss
the matter, declined to give specifics on any new aid that might arrive in northwest Syria. But
the official said that "these supplies will be delivered to anti-ISIL forces whose leaders were
appropriately vetted," and described them as "groups with diverse membership."
That would be
these diverse groups which all include al-Nusra/al-Qaeda, Ahrar al Shams and other Jihadis. Even
if not directly given to them the fact that al-Qaeda
demands a "toll"
of 1/3 of all weapons going through its controls, and sometimes takes all, shows that this program
is effectively a direct, though unacknowledged, armament program for al-Qaeda.
The new program is separate from a CIA-led effort to aid rebel factions in Syria. It was not immediately
clear how Friday's announcement might affect the CIA program.
The CIA runs a similar but much bigger program since 2012. Weapons are handed out to everyone
who wants to take down the Syrian government. Most of those weapons have landed in the hands of the
Islamic State or al-Qaeda.
Indeed it is the CIA, under its torture justifying chief Brennan, which has pushed the Obama administration
away from Kerry's conceding statement and into a full blown proxy war with Russia.
Russia
bombed some of the CIA'S trained, armed and paid groups. It had earlier asked the U.S. to tell
it who not to bomb but didn't receive an answer. As the CIA mercenaries are fighting against the
Syrian government and are practically not distinguishable from al-Qaeda, ISI or other terrorists
they are a legitimate targets. But
not in the eyes of the CIA which nevertheless finds Russian attacks on them useful:
Reports indicate that CIA-trained groups have sustained a small number of casualties and have
been urged to avoid moves that would expose them to Russian aircraft. One U.S. official who is
familiar with the CIA program - and who like other officials spoke on the condition of anonymity
to discuss intelligence matters - said the attacks have galvanized some of the agency-equipped
units. "Now they get to fight the Russians," the official said. "This improves morale."
...
Brennan departed for the Middle East last week as the Russian strikes intensified.
U.S. officials said that the trip was previously planned and not related to the bombings but acknowledged
that his discussions centered on Syria.
...
The decision to dismantle the Pentagon's training program - whose small teams of fighters were
often quickly captured or surrendered their weapons to rival rebel groups in Syria - may force
Obama to weigh ramping up support to the CIA-backed groups.
U.S. officials said those involved in the agency program are already exploring options
that include sending in rocket systems and other weapons that could enable rebels to strike Russian
bases without sending in surface-to-air missiles that terrorist groups could use to target
civilian aircraft.
The person who told the Saudis to
deliver 500
TOW missiles to Syria ASAP was likely CIA chief Brennan. He also ordered to plan for attacks
on the Russian base.
So instead of a calming down and cooperation with Russia to fight the Islamic State the Pentagon
was told to shorten its program and to hand out weapons to everyone who asks. The CIA is feeding
more weapons to its mercenaries via its Gulf proxies and is planning for direct attacks on Russians.
The war on Syria, and now also on Russia, is unlikely to end in the near future. With the U.S.
throwing more oil into the fire the war will burn not only in Syria but in every other country around
it.
Two suicide bombers blew themselves up today at a rally of the Kurd friendly HDP party in Ankara.
Some 90 people were killed and some 200 wounded. This is the biggest terrorist attack modern Turkey
has ever seen. The Turkish government disconnected the country from Twitter and forbid any reporting
about the terror attack. The HDP party is leftist and supports a peaceful struggle for Kurdish autonomy.
The militant Kurdish PKK in Turkey is currently fighting skirmishes with Turkish security forces
in the east of the country. It has now announced that it will stop all attacks unless when it is
attacked first. The sister organization of the PKK in Syria, the YPK, is currently fighting against
the Islamic State. Erdogan's AK-Party and his government have supported the Islamic State and al-Qaeda
in Syria. It sees the HDP party and the Kurds in general as its enemies. As one Turkish non-AKP politician
said today, the bloody incident in Ankara was either a total Turkish intelligence failure
or a Turkish intelligence operation.
Whatever else it was, the bombing, very likely by Islamic State suicide bombers, is a sign of
an ongoing destabilization of Turkey. The instability will increase further until there is a major
policy change and a complete crackdown on any support for the Jihadis in Syria as well as a complete
closure of the Turkish-Syrian border.
Today the Russian President Putin will
meet
the Saudi "young leader" deputy crown-prince Mohammed Salman-un. Can Putin read him the riot act
and tell him to stop being a proxy in the U.S. war on Syria? One hopes so.
"... The second reason, is that NATO is facing problems, the alliance is weakening and its credibility has been damaged a lot. Essentially, the members which are fully aligned behind US imperialism right now are the Baltic countries, the former eastern bloc countries and the traditional US ally, United Kingdom. ..."
"... One of the 3 reasons it gives for US not attacking Russia is that Russia is needed to clean up the US mess in Syria. ..."
"... Did you know that CIA has NO Congressional oversight now? With no threat of hearings, theyre running free. ..."
"... It seems that most of the military/foreign policy establishment is actively pushing the neocon unipolarist adventurism. More like those who are active in trying to dilute its actions are the rogue element. Obama, I am convinced, is trying even while covering himself w a milder version of neocon rhetoric. I never thought I wd approve anything about such a liar. ..."
"... Its a real study to read the articles from the NYT and other big media outlets here on the subject of Syria and particularly the rebels . The concoction of terms that have been used over the past couple of years and especially since ~ June is mind boggling. At one point I had started collecting them. Moderate rebels morphed into relatively moderate insurgents and all kinds of other permutations. ..."
"... McCain, Lindsey, Rubio, Cotton and other unstable personalities decide grand total of nothing in US foreign policy. They are encouraged to talk tough only insofar as it softens up the foreign interlocutors for the responsible players like Obama and Kerry. The responsibles can always point to the lunatics and extract concessions from frightened opposite side. ..."
"... On another note, Erdogan is setting himself up for a landslide defeat at the polls or a military coup detat, hes made so many enemies in the Turkish army and body politic, that combined with his erratic personal behavior and foreign/internal policies, and his delusions of grandeur, are not a good omen for his future. If Turkey still had any illusions re: membership in the EU, Erdogan and the recent suicide bombings just kill them for time to come, and la Merkel now has more ammunition to throw at Turkeys EU aspirations. ..."
"... Russians are far more cautious than Americans, because they have had more 1000 years to hone their diplomacy, and are acutely aware that blowback is an inevitable consequence of any poorly though-out action and/or overreach. Americans are still learning the a , b and c of the craft, and maybe even regressing since the end of the Cold War. ..."
"... The US plan (export ISIS and Al Qaida to balkanize) is extremely defective because it also threatens the stability and even existence of traditional US stooges like Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, etc, and it also inflicts massive economic pain and an immigration crisis upon Europe. ..."
"... Saudi, Qatar, and UAE have exported terrorism with complete impunity for decades now. Russia, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, etc need to do something rather direct about that or it will continue. The American people should do something as well but were brainwashed idiots. ..."
"... We have become a Propaganda Wonderland. ..."
"... Believing John Kerry in saying that he agrees to a secular stable Syria was bullshit from the first breath that came out of his mouth. ..."
"... The Empire is scrambling for answers and actions due to Russias surprise intervention in Syria and its a simple as that. Read my post from yesterday. Once they decide on a course of despicable action, it will become much clearer in the next few weeks or months. ..."
"... Weeks ago I mentioned that this Russian in intervention is not a riskless, easy program thats so many Putin-bots were desperate for. One can either describe reality, or be a biased self-credibility eviserator. The evil US Empire is super pissed and they are going to double down instead of retreat. ..."
"... The empire will not cede an inch of their unipolar delusion, and will fight to defeat Russia/China/Iran aspirations for a multipolar world. ..."
"... excellent article up at zerohedge... http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-10/carpe-chaos-isis-israel-iraq-syria-its-all-part-plan ..."
The first, and probably most important reason for which NATO is not attacking Russia for the moment,
is the upgraded Russian nuclear arsenal. As in the Cold War 1.0 era, the nuclear strength of both
superpowers, capable to destroy the planet many times, was a key preventing factor against a direct
conflict between the USA and the former Soviet Union.
Moreover, the US indirect aggression against China lately, a stupid strategy coming from the neocon
agenda, brought China closer to Russia, building an even stronger alliance between them. They are
both now in a race of developing further their nuclear arsenals and this is a key deterrent which
prevents NATO to confront them openly.
The second reason, is that NATO is facing problems, the alliance is weakening and its credibility
has been damaged a lot. Essentially, the members which are fully aligned behind US imperialism right
now are the Baltic countries, the former eastern bloc countries and the traditional US ally, United
Kingdom.
The relations between the United States and other major countries inside the alliance appear to
be in a quite bad shape, especially those with Germany and Turkey. The recent Volkswagen emission
scandal confirmed that, indeed, there is an underground fierce economic war between the United States
and Germany. Besides that, the relations between the two countries started to worse rapidly after
the known revelations of the NSA interceptions.
Concerning Turkey, it is known that the US promote the creation of a Kurdish state because it
serves better their interests. This is totally unacceptable for Erdoğan,who is occupied by the illusion
of the Turkish expansionism. Washington is not very happy seeing ISIS being used by Turkey to fight
Kurds, instead of operating in full force against Assad regime.
Other key allies like France, are not very happy with the sanctions, imposed by the US, against
Russia. The economic damage is not insignificant. The most characteristic example concerning France,
is the cancellation of the deal concerning the Mistral warships, by Russia.
The third reason, is that the US need Russia and even Iran to clean up the mess in Middle East.
A mess which was created by the US and their allies in Middle East when they started to arm anti-Assad
forces to confront the Assad regime. Now, ISIS is out of control.
However, the Americans had enough troubles with the attrition wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They
wouldn't risk further mess by bringing 'boots on the ground' to confront ISIS. The recent deal with
Iran, concerning its nuclear program, is not accidental. Besides, Pentagon announced that will stop
training new militant forces in Syria, which is actually an admission of failure of its so far strategy.
Exclusive: With Cold War II in full swing, the New York Times is dusting off what might be
called McCarthyism II, the suggestion that anyone who doesn't get in line with U.S. propaganda
must be working for Moscow, reports Robert Parry.
snip
Perhaps it's no surprise that the U.S. government's plunge into Cold War II would bring
back the one-sided propaganda themes that dominated Cold War I, but it's still unsettling to
see how quickly the major U.S. news media has returned to the old ways, especially the New
York Times, which has emerged as Official Washington's propaganda vehicle of choice.
What has been most striking in the behavior of the Times and most other U.S. mainstream
media outlets is their utter lack of self-awareness, for instance, accusing Russia of engaging
in propaganda and alliance-building that are a pale shadow of what the U.S. government routinely
does. Yet, the Times and the rest of the MSM act as if these actions are unique to Moscow.
BIG SNIP
USAID, working with billionaire
George Soros's Open Society, also funds the Organized
Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, which engages in "investigative journalism" that usually
goes after governments that have fallen into disfavor with the United States and then are singled
out for accusations of corruption.
The USAID-funded OCCRP also collaborates with Bellingcat,
an online investigative website founded by blogger Eliot Higgins.
Soros is coming to get us. :) Look for uptick in trolls. Hope Operation Summer Rains trolls
have retired.
Lysander
| Oct 10, 2015 1:16:14 PM | 14
Best defense for Russia is the ability to retaliate in kind. Yemen against KSA and PKK against
Turkey. It doesn't mean they won't arm the terrorists, but it does mean it will be costly for
them. And the Russians can always play the "gee it looks like your manpads fell into the wrong
hands and they went and shot down an Aapache in Iraq."
james
| Oct 10, 2015 1:26:51 PM | 18
what is the disconnect between the us admin and the cia? is this some sort of good guy, bad
guy routine that they like to have going? are they supposed to make out like the right hand doesn't
know what the left hand is doing too? looks like the cia is calling the shots... so much for that
friggin' democracy joke under the nobel peace prizer's command..
actually i think skipping the vetting and training of those working for the usa administration
and the cia is a huge problem.. they can do that when they want to put weapons in isis's hands
to overthrow assad, but they need to stop doing it to their own country as it's doing to blow
up in their face..on 2nd thought maybe they are hoping for regime change in the usa! that's one
way to get an amerikkkan regime change in your own country - destroy it..
i am sorry to hear of the horrible event in ankara.. i can't imagine sultan erdogan being happy
about it either..who advises this dipstick? or, is that an example of how things will go better
with isis?
Virgile
| Oct 10, 2015 1:45:51 PM | 19
This is where Iran comes in...
It is clear that if the USA starts a proxy war in Syria against Russia, Iran will retaliate
by hitting the USA ally, Saudi Arabia, in Yemen.
In parallel to Saudi Arabia arming Syrian rebels, we will see Iran (and Russia) arming the
Houthis in Yemen. I expect heavy military escalation on the Saudi Yemeni border soon
MMARR
| Oct 10, 2015 1:51:14 PM | 21
@17 shadylady
Impotence is an unfamiliar feeling in DC, so they are all "pissed" right now. Generals, politicos,
arms merchants, lobbyists, think tankers, all of them. They are scrambling for a response, but
can't find a single one that wouldn't lead to a worsening of their position.
We are witnessing the last gasp of American hegemony, and the process is natural and irreversible.
nmb @2, Thanks for the link.
One of the 3 reasons it gives for US not attacking Russia is that
Russia is needed to clean up the US mess in Syria.
I agree and evidently some faction in the US
with Obama as its point-man agrees. However this faction is so weak that it cannot even seem to
speak out forthrightly, but relies on undermining the neocon strategy, which remains the same.
The unipolarists are still determined upon absolute rule generally-- and destruction of Syria
and its govt specifically.
@ MMARR @ BOG @ James, I love reading Pepe Escorbar and M.K. Bhadrakumar
NATO all dressed up, nowhere to go in Syria
Neither Erdogan nor Russian President Vladimir Putin is spoiling for a fight. By the way,
what actually happened over the weekend on the Turkish-Syrian border too is shrouded in mystery
and increasingly it seems Ankara and Moscow are in some foreplay over new ground rules for
the non-existent Turkish-Syrian border.
From Erdogan's latest remarks, he seems to be tapping down tensions.
snip
The European Union's proposal to 'assist' Turkey in handling the refugee flow from Syria is
a case in point. The EU offers to subsidize Turkey financially provided Ankara kept custody
of the Syrian refugees. Ankara has an open mind – everything depends on how generous the EU
funding will be.
Clearly, $1.5 billion is 'peanuts'.
Turkey does not want foreign troops to come and defend it. Its preference is that the US
and Germany would change their mind and allowed the Patriot batteries to remain in Turkey.
(Alas, they are not agreeable.)
snip
A broad Turkish-Russian understanding over Syria may even emerge out of it. Erdogan will
most certainly expect Putin not to arm the Syrian Kurds.
Did you know that CIA has NO Congressional oversight now? With no threat of hearings, they're
running free.
It seems that most of the military/foreign policy establishment is actively pushing the
neocon unipolarist adventurism. More like those who are active in trying to dilute its actions
are the rogue element. Obama, I am convinced, is trying even while covering himself w a milder
version of neocon rhetoric. I never thought I wd approve anything about such a liar.
He weakened the Pentagon's program to send in fighters, but I don't think there's anything
he can do against the CIA I guess he still appoints the director, but making that change wd be
an awfully dangerous move.
Does anyone know if there are elements in the military who resist the military adventurism
for whom McCain and the neocons are the point-men?
gemini33
| Oct 10, 2015 2:35:41 PM | 30
@11 Penelope
It's a real study to read the articles from the NYT and other big media outlets here on the subject
of Syria and particularly the "rebels". The concoction of terms that have been used over the past
couple of years and especially since ~ June is mind boggling. At one point I had started collecting
them. "Moderate rebels" morphed into "relatively moderate insurgents" and all kinds of other permutations.
It's also interesting to note the way they refer to their numerous anonymous sources. We have
become a Propaganda Wonderland.
MMARR | Oct 10, 2015 2:42:38 PM | 33
@25 Penelope
McCain, Lindsey, Rubio, Cotton and other "unstable" personalities decide grand total of
nothing in US foreign policy. They are encouraged to talk tough only insofar as it softens up
the foreign interlocutors for the "responsible" players like Obama and Kerry. The "responsibles"
can always point to the "lunatics" and extract concessions from frightened opposite side.
People who take their bluster seriously are making a mistake, because that's exactly their
goal. Yet it's simply a bluster, a theater, and nothing more.
Therefore, nobody in the US military "resists their adventurism", because they are all part of
the same team, only with different roles.
Proxy wars were how the Cold War 1.0 was fought, and after a brief hiatus, that's how the new
Cold War 2.0 will be fought, what has changed is the weaponry and the type of warfare, mainly
from guerrilla wars of liberation in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, to hybrid and asymmetrical
warfare. The empire will not cede an inch of their unipolar delusion, and will fight to defeat
Russia/China/Iran aspirations for a multipolar world.
On another note, Erdogan is setting himself up for a landslide defeat at the polls or a
military coup d'etat, he's made so many enemies in the Turkish army and body politic, that combined
with his erratic personal behavior and foreign/internal policies, and his delusions of grandeur,
are not a good omen for his future. If Turkey still had any illusions re: membership in the EU,
Erdogan and the recent suicide bombings just kill them for time to come, and la Merkel now has
more ammunition to throw at Turkey's EU aspirations.
Russians are far more cautious than Americans, because they have had more 1000 years to hone their
diplomacy, and are acutely aware that blowback is an inevitable consequence of any poorly though-out
action and/or overreach. Americans are still learning the "a","b" and "c" of the craft, and maybe
even regressing since the end of the Cold War.
So, Moscow will definitely refrain from any preemptive action with regard to undermining Saudis
or Turks. They usually prefer to sit and watch, to talk and to calculate the odds, and only then
move a figure on a chessboard. Americans move first and think later, believing they can always
kill the opponent, if the game develops not to their liking.
As for Russia not supplying Syria or Iran with S-300, I think that was done mostly in order
not to alarm and antagonize the West prematurely, while Russia's military was moving swiftly on
the path of wholesale reorganization and modernization. In Putin's world, it seems, everything
has its own time and its own place.
The Russians must have had a very clear understanding that when they attacked those "al Nusra"
and other "moderate" targets in Northern Syria that they that these forces were being supplied
and encouraged by the CIA Russia knowingly attacked US backed forces. Perhaps Obama and Kerry
are too stupid to realize what that means. What it means is that there are very powerful forces
inside the US government and military that will see this as an attack on the United States of
America and that we must respond to that aggression. I hope that Obama is starting to understand
what he is up against. He should be trying to bring those agencies under control. Any tiny efforts
to neutralize those War Party forces with compromise will only make matters worse. It is time
exert executive control over these groups and execute top level purges if they resist. Somehow
this seems unlikely.
I hope Putin and Lavrov thought this through before they acted. The outcome
could be very dangerous indeed. I was terribly worried last week when the Russian attack began
that it would produce a strong reaction inside the US government among all of those war monger
plants inside State, the military and intelligence agencies that have been slowly gaining power
for the last decade. All of that cheering we have been hearing over the last week here at MOA
has been serious -- representatives of the US hegemon do not like to be ridiculed.
BOG @ 13, I don't think it's a divide between the executive & military. I think the majority
of each is committed to an aggressive foreign policy. Obama I think is resisting it and only giving
rhetorical agreement. I'm not sure who else is in the resistors' faction.
Thanks for posting about the withdrawal of the USS Theodore Roosevelt "just one day after Russian
missile strikes from the Caspian. Didn't make sense to me, cuz Russians aren't threatening ships.
In fact, departure was well telegraphed in advance: In April, June & July. Announcement was
that for first time since 2007 there wd be a two month gap in the Fall w/o an aircraft carrier
in the Gulf. Replacement in December. Reason: Only 10 active now, stead of 11 & ideal maintenace
schedule is 7 months deployment; as it is we're deploying for 8 months. Oct 5 announced imminent
departure, day before Rusian missiles.
The Russians surely anticipated such a move from the US so i assume Putin has a counter move
for the US. China's participation would certainly supply that but there are lots of things Putin
can do, many are mentioned above.
The US plan (export ISIS and Al Qaida to balkanize) is extremely defective because it also
threatens the stability and even existence of traditional US stooges like Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt,
etc, and it also inflicts massive economic pain and an immigration crisis upon Europe.
I doubt US allies will be able to endure this US push to implement Brzezinki's nefarious plot
and Israel's similar plan for the ME. I expect some major defections from the US camp.
Saudi, Qatar, and UAE have exported terrorism with complete impunity for decades now. Russia,
Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, etc need to do something rather direct about that or it will continue.
The American people should do something as well but we're brainwashed idiots.
IMO the lack of western reaction is due to two things - 1) Russians have some toys that the
west can't neutralize and 2) Europe wants to survive and wants no war anyway
I think the arab statements are pure posturing, they'll basically trade Syria for Yemen in
the end.
Erdogan played both east and west and betrayed both. He has no future, this way or the other.
The current chaos there could come from both sides just as well.
Please don't hate me because I was right, once again.
Believing John Kerry in saying that he agrees to a secular stable Syria was bullshit from the
first breath that came out of his mouth.
Like I said weeks ago when b and others here gave Kerry the benefit of the doubt, which was never
deserved. How could Kerry be a proven unreliable liar in regards to Ukraine, but he's capable
of telling the truth in Syria ?! it makes no sense. Desperate, wishful thinking.
The Empire is scrambling for answers and actions due to Russia's surprise intervention in Syria
and it's a simple as that. Read my post from yesterday. Once they decide on a course of despicable
action, it will become much clearer in the next few weeks or months.
And when Russia inevitably becomes Iraqs foreign helpful power, replacing the US there, then
expect far more US support for jihadi terrorists. If the US is left out of the loop in Iraq, they
will counter that with more jihadis and more weapons. It's why they are the evil empire and the
Great Satan.
Oh, and that time frame of the Russian involvement in Syria will be only four months, like
I said was bullshit yesterday, guess what, it's time to hate tom again, because I was spot on
there too.
Weeks ago I mentioned that this Russian in intervention is not a riskless, easy program that's
so many Putin-bots were desperate for. One can either describe reality, or be a biased self-credibility
eviserator.
The evil US Empire is super pissed and they are going to double down instead of retreat.
In geopolitics the words of intent almost always hide the real intent. They are
meaningless.
All of this verbal saber-rattling is nothing more than psy-ops, the lowest cost form of warfare.
People are simply trying no nudge the Russians to engage in talks, as well as enhance their own
position at the negotiating table. US government also has to calm down the viewers of FOX News.
Moscow understands that.
My prediction - neither the West nor the Gulf Arabs (who operate some of the world's biggest
and fines airlines) will supply high-tech anti-aircraft weapons to head choppers. Russians produce
the best such toys in the world, and the blowback for this "act of war" could be vicious.
"On Friday, Russian air power "destroyed two command centres of the militants, an ammunition depot
in the Hama Province, 29 field camps, 23 fortified stations and positions with ammunition and
equipment."
Radio intercepts revealed ISIS now faces a shortage of fuel, weapons, ammunition and increasingly
the will to fight in the face of an onslaught against which they're defenseless.
Thousands "are demoralized and are actively leaving the battle zone, moving in eastern and northeastern
directions," Konashenkov explained.
Areas targeted in the last 24 hours included Raqqa (the main ISIS stronghold), Hama, Idlib, the
Damascus countryside and Aleppo."
http://sjlendman.blogspot.co.uk/
Not bad for a start, won't do McCains health any good.
Satellite images located a hidden Idlib province command center. "After
analysis of pictures from space and after air reconnaissance by drones," Russian air strikes destroyed
it.
The Russians are certainly good at self-promotion and propaganda bombing. Reading this detailed
report you would think they face a conventional army in the Islamic State who sit in buildings
waiting for orders while the bombs fall.
The IS is a nonconventional force an Urban Guerilla
force dispersed across the country in small groups and if there was a command center it was
evacuated and empty when bombed just as the training facilities/ school yards were empty.
The IS fighters were running during this bombing spree but they were running to capture
new territory from other rebel groups that the Russians softened up for them.
LoneWolf @35 said:
" The empire will not cede an inch of their unipolar delusion, and will
fight to defeat Russia/China/Iran aspirations for a multipolar world."
Yep, and as long as the dollar reins, they'll create all they need to meet their goals.
nmb @ 38 said: "I'm afraid things can get worse with the 2016 US elections. Any GOP will certainly
promote the neocon agenda, but also Hillary will adopt such policies. I doubt that the US deep
state will let any chance for Sanders."
Agreed. It's the money people, til' that changes, nothing changes. Go BRICS, go!
The Russians are certainly good at self-promotion and propaganda bombing.
I don't think the takfiris you so much defend would have the same opinion. They are being blown
to bits, and that according to your buddy-buddy at the Syrian "Observatory for Human Rights" (sic!).
Reading this detailed report you would think they face a conventional army in the Islamic
State who sit in buildings waiting for orders while the bombs fall. The IS is a nonconventional
force an Urban Guerilla force dispersed across the country in small groups and if there was a
command center it was evacuated and empty when bombed just as the training facilities/ school
yards were empty.
Wrong again. IS performs and behaves like a conventional army, with entire regions, cities
and territory under their control, some of them for years now, with a functioning economy, bureaucracy,
the entire infrastructure of a state. They are not a rag-tag guerrilla group, they have ties to
the infrastructure they have stolen, gas and oil fields to defend, training grounds, C&C centers,
etc. IS might use non-conventional, guerrilla tactics in their fighting, as many armies do, that
doesn't turn them into a non-conventional force. A guerrilla moves to fight another day, does
not engage in attrition tactics.
The IS fighters were running during this bombing spree but they were running to capture
new territory from other rebel groups that the Russians softened up for them.
You pretend to be so well informed. How would you know those details? Your takfiri rats are
running all over because their time for reckoning is up, now they have to pay for their crimes,
and are being sent to hell in bits and pieces so their master can use them for fuel.
Oil prices have risen 12 percent in October to a two-month high. Rising crude coincides with
Russia's airstrikes against Islamic State targets in Syria which began on September 30.
The price of Brent in London increased over one percent to $53 per barrel on Friday. US
benchmark WTI is trading higher than $50 per barrel for the first time in three months after
hitting six-year lows in late August. Other factors contributing to rising oil prices include a
weakened dollar and shrinking US production.
Crude prices can be particularly responsive to unrest or violence in the Middle East, one of
world's biggest oil-producing regions. While Syria does not have significant oil reserves, crude
prices rise over fears the conflict could spread to the broader region.
"Syria is not a crude oil producer-its real significance to the energy markets is not a
heightening of its ongoing internal conflict but rather the risk of contagion within the region
at large," the Wall Street Journal quotes NUS Consulting Group as saying.
norbert kimar 4 hours ago
"Syria is not a crude oil producer.." the Wall Street Journal.." I thought ISIS etc made
$1-2million/day from smuggling Syrian oil.
Nana Akosua -> Baakan Agyiriwah 6 hours ago
LOL, it's all about the war, the fighting, the blood and the gore that makes the stocks
rise and the blood boil in delirium. Funny how war makes the cash registers ring and the
banksters happy, they don't care who does it, just do it!! what a mad, mad, mad world we live
in.
Illya Kuryakin 7 hours ago
So Russia's CIA-Saudi Extermination Policy is paying for itself. Nice!
PeterNZL 11 hours ago
grzeghh
Putin's the man. He scored 7 goals in the ice hockey match in Sochi and that was just
more...
Obama, too, was a skilled athlete. He scored 2000 civilians before winning his Nobel Peace
Prize. Remarkable!
RE: Russian oil production statistics from various sources
Ron,
I personally never questioned the reliability of Russian oil statistics. But as you have repeatedly
raised this issue, I did a brief assessment of the data from various sources.
The Russian Energy Ministry provides very detailed data on oil + condensate production by each Russian
producer on a daily basis. As in Soviet times, these numbers are reported directly by the companies
to the Ministry. They can be easily verified as all oil produced is transported by pipelines owned by
the state –owned Transneft. Small quantities are processed for internal use by the companies at mini-refineries,
but their throughput is also reported to the ministry.
The Ministry reports production in tons without converting it in barrels per day. However other sources
(including Russian and foreign oil companies operating in Russia) use conversion ratios at 7.33 and
7.3 for Russian oil production. In the table below I calculate both numbers. NGL production is reported separately and is not included in C+C numbers.
IEA oil production statistics include C+C+NGLs, however in their recent monthly Oil Market Reports
the IEA is also mentioning C+C production for Russia. These numbers are very close to the data provided
by the Russian Energy Ministry. In the past, the IEA did not disclose separate numbers for the Russian
C+C, and it was first mentioned in the May OMR (p.25):
"Despite sanctions and lower oil prices, Russian producers managed to maintain crude oil output near
record levels through April, hovering around 10.7 mb/d since the start of the year. Including gas liquids,
Russian output exceeded 11 mb/d in both March and April."
Note, that the IEA works closely with Russia and gets data directly from the Russian Energy Ministry.
The EIA has detailed oil and other liquids production data for many countries and releases it excel
format:
(International Energy Statistics, Petroleum Production
http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=50&pid=53&aid=1).
This is very useful when you don't have other sources of data. However in many cases the EIA does not
get information directly from national sources and uses third party data. Besides these numbers are
relatively rarely updated and in some cases look incorrect. For example, their newest international
oil production data are for April 2015.
The EIA also publishes "Total liquids supply" data for the key producers in the STEO, where the numbers
are updated monthly. (STEO excel file, Table 3b. Non-OPEC Petroleum and Other Liquids Supply).
Note that the updated numbers for Russia in the September STEO are 143 kb/d higher for April and
132 higher for March, compared with the EIA International Energy Statistics. Given that the EIA constantly
estimates Russian refinery processing gains at 26 kb/d, we can easily calculate C+C+NGL production estimates
up to August by subtracting 26 kb/d from the STEO Total liquids numbers.
As a result, as can be seen from the table below, EIA's C+C+NGL production estimates for Russia are
only marginally below the IEA's numbers (the average discrepancy for Jan.-Aug. 2015 is ~40 kb/d).
You can also note that the EIA's estimate for Russia's NGLs output in the first 4 months of 2015
is around 755kb/d, while the IEA's number is only ~350 kb/d. I think that the EIA classifies all or
part of Russian condensate production as NGLs, while in the IEA and the Russian Energy Ministry's statistics
it is included in the C+C output.
Finally, JODI data is based on national statistics. As it says on its website: "The data are submitted
by the national authority of the participating country. These data are considered authoritative and
are not subject to alteration by any of the JODI partner organisations." (https://www.jodidata.org/about-jodi/faqs.aspx).
Nevertheless, in some cases JODI data differs significantly from national statistics. JODI does not explain its methodology, and its
officials do not respond to emails to comment on why its data differs from figures provided by national
agencies. JODI provides data on both Russian oil and NGL production. NGL data is much higher than IEA's numbers,
but slightly lower than the EIA. JODI data is released with significant delay to the IEA and especially to national statistics. I also
noticed that, unlike the IEA, they generally do not update the numbers released earlier. That can partly
explain, why JODI numbers for Russia are lower than data from other sources. On average, JODI's C+C+NGL
numbers for January-July 2015 are 203 kb/d lower than IEA and 164 lower than EIA.
In general, all serious experts on Russian oil industry use the official numbers provided by the
Energy Ministry.
Russian oil production statistics from various sources
I think Russian production would be easier to measure given it is much lower decline, there aren't
as many companies nor as many governmental agencies measuring it.
It appears to me US data is the most variable and likely inaccurate.
I think AlexS has solved the discrepancy between the EIA/JODI data and the IEA/Russia data. It is
mostly a matter of how pentanes plus should be classified.
The EIA puts some of these(field or wellhead pentanes plus) in the C+C category and the pentanes
plus produced during natural gas processing (to produce dry gas to ship to customers) is included in
the NGL category. Canada and Russia group all pentanes plus together in the condensate category (which
makes perfect sense from a chemistry perspective), this accounts for about a 400 kb/d difference between
EIA estimates for Russian C+C and the Russian Energy ministry estimates. The rest of difference might
be due to the EIA assuming a different estimate for the density of Russian C+C (possibly they use the
density of the Urals blend which would have a reciprocal of 7.25 barrels per metric ton) than the IEA
(which uses about 7.31 barrels per metric ton).
In fact, the lighter is the barrel, the more barrels are in 1 ton. 43961 ktons reported by the Energy Ministry for September is 10741 kb/d with 7.33 conversion ratio 10697 kb/d with 7.3 10551 kb/d with 7.2 10404 kb/d with 7.1 10258 kb/d with 7.0 10111 kb/d with 6.9
As I said earlier, the most widely used ratio is 7.33 (the numbers in Reuters and Bloomberg articles,
as well as all Russian statistics by Energy Intelligence, etc.) and 7.3 (apparently used by the IEA) I also prefer 7.3, as I think the average Russian barrel is heavier than 7.33.
That said, the Russian oil output is getting lighter due to the growing share of new fields in eastern
Siberia, Far East (Sakhalin) and some other regions. Thus, according to Platts, the Urals blend API
is 31.55 API, ESPO (East Siberia) is 34.8, Sokol and Vityaz (Far East) are 39.7 and 34.4 API degrees, respectively. (Source:
http://www.platts.com/im.platts.content/insightanalysis/industrysolutionpapers/espoupdate0510.pdf
) So in theory, as the share of lighter crudes rises, the conversion ration should also increase. But
I doubt that the IEA, EIA or JODI are changing their conversion ratios.
The EIA and JODI do not specify which conversion ratios they are using for Russia. If they are using
7.2 or 7.1, that could partly explain the discrepancy between their numbers and Energy Ministry and
the IEA numbers.
However the key difference is the volume of condensate and NGL output. It seems that JODI and the
EIA account most of condensate production as NGLs. Therefore, their NGL volumes for Russia are much
higher than the IEA, and their C+C volume estimates are lower than the numbers provided by the IEA. The IEA normally reports only combined C+C+NGL volumes, but this year they also include C+C production
numbers for Russia (in the OMR main text). By subtracting C+C from C+C+NGL we get the IEA's estimate
for Russian NGL production at 340-350 kb/d in the past several months. This compares with the EIA's
755 kb/d average monthly estimates (January-April) and JODI's 710 kb/d estimate (January-July).
I think that the IEA's numbers are more accurate, as in 2010 they published a study on global NGL
production, where they carefully analyzed NGL and condensate production for the key producing countries
using national statistics, as well as information provided by individual companies. ("Natural Gas Liquids Supply Outlook 2008-2015." IEA, April 2010.
http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/ngl2010_free.pdf ) Here are their numbers for Russia's output levels in 2008: Condensate: 356 kb/d "Other NGLs": 180 kb/d Total NGL and condensate: 536 kb/d
From the IEA report: "The Russian Ministry of Oil and Energy does not report NGLs per se, but they
do report LPG and condensate production per company. In this study we have applied the reports of LPG
and condensate production per company as a starting point to arrive at a proxy for Russian NGL production.
Based on the reported figures at August 2009 the LPG production of Russian gas processing plants was
230 kb/d, while the condensate production was 361 kb/d, a total of 591 kb/d."
In this report, the IEA projected a sharp increase in Russia's "Condensate and other NGLs" production
from 536 kb/d In 2008 to 817 kb/d in 2015. Indeed, as we know now, both condensate and NGL output has increased even
faster in the past few years due to: 1) increasing production of wet gas, 2) better utilization of previously
flared associated gas, and 3) development of several new gas condensate fields. Thus, in the first quarter
of 2015, gas condensate output jumped 18% year on year to 7.86 million tons (~640 kb/d) due to the launch
of new production facilities in West Siberia, primarily by Novatek and Gazprom Neft. As per the IEA
numbers, NGL output also almost doubled from 180 kb/d in 2008 to 340-350 kb/d in 2015.
Apparently, JODI did not researched as deep as the IEA into the Russian NGL and condensate output,
so they account most of condensate as NGLs. As regards the EIA, their list of sources for International Energy Statistics [http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/docs/sources.cfm]
does not include the Russian Energy Ministry. This is rather strange, as they get data from the national
agencies of such countries, as Cuba, Mongolia and others. Apparently their numbers for Russia are based
on statistics from JODI, the IEA and the "Russian Energy Monthly, Eastern Bloc Research" (never heard
of it).
That said, I do not suspect JODI and the EIA of being biased against Russia. These are just different
statistical methodologies.
If you measure 100 cc of oil in a graduated cylinder, since the density, specific gravity, is less
than water, 100 cc of oil will weigh less than 100cc of water. 1 cc of agua weighs 1 gram, 1 cc of oil
will weigh less than one gram, you will need more oil, a greater volume, to obtain a weight of one gram
for the oil.
A metric ton of oil will occupy a volume greater than one cubic meter, more barrels.
Jan 2012 Refineries came on line (?) Mother Russia keeps the good stuff for value added high density
i.e.. Diesel/jet fuel? Russian polymers in the 90's were terrible and next to useless for packaging.
Many markets now well supplied with SABIC Polymers.
https://www.sabic.com/americas/en/productsandservices/plastics/
No, Russian production is genuinely at an all-time high. It's not like the Russians count Lukoil's
production in Iraq as "Russian" LOL!
Consider also that Russia is under sanctions specifically
designed by the West to harm its oil output.
Peak-oilers are over-eager to claim that country "X" or "Y" has peaked in terms of oil production.
This is often not the case.
The only countries that have peaked in oil production, are the capital rich ones of the West.
The reason for that is very clear. Those countries started exploiting their oil reserves earlier,
and even more importantly have had the capital and technology to extract even the most marginal of
deposits. Even in those cases, ultra-cheap financing can lead to temporary booms (US shale, Canadian
sands) even if production takes place at a considerable financial loss.
Countries like Iraq, Iran, Russia or Kazakhstan still have lots of untapped reserves.
This also partly explains the current World Crisis that could even escalate into WWIII.
The author uncritically accepts the myth of the "Great American Shale Revolution," which, as you
say, is a play in which "production takes place at a considerable financial loss."
Nevertheless, the take-away is the importance that oil and gas play in geopolitics.
"... And in turn, Remove the United States as a Superpower in the Middle East ..."
"... The bigger story however has not been the fighting but the subterfuge which was ignored by
the Western mainstream media with regards to an economic war against Russia and Syria has been quite
successful thus far in the guise of sanctions and destroying the price of crude oil( via CNBC ..."
"... This indiscreet economic and political war on Russia might have been perceived as a clever
method to keep the bear trapped inside the Ukrainian box, contained so as to prevent any further impact
on Western economies and enough to help the Wests Middle East petro partners. ..."
"... The idea is a not so subtle message to the United States and Saudi Arabia; if you continue
to support ISIS and the various rebel forces in Syria and Iraq, a new united front will push them back
into your lap for your nation to deal with it. ..."
"... Without any supplies crossing from Turkey or Saudi Arabia, those forces will attempt to migrate
into the Kurdish controlled portions of Iraq and Turkey where they will eventually be dispersed or destroyed.
..."
"... Saudi Arabia is ill prepared to fight a two front war with Yemen on it south and ISIS/Al Qaeda
to its north thus there is a high probability that terrorist units will have little trouble penetrating
deep into Kuwait and the Saudi kingdom. Russia and Iran will view this as justifiable payback for the
Sunni militias that the kingdoms sponsored and as such, destabilize the monarchies to the point where
oil prices will be severely impacted in 2016; eventually driving the price of Brent Crude back over
$100 per bbl. As China has already locked in their prices via long term supply contracts with Iran and
Russia the opportunity for their forces to act in support of such an offensive in a peace keeping role
is viable, usurping the U.S. hegemony in the region. ..."
"... The idea by Europe, the United States, and Arab kingdoms that a pipeline was a viable plan
using mercenaries funded and supplied in the name of Syrian liberation was a myth from the beginning.
Now the incompetency of their strategy may soon backfire and impact their economies far more severely
than Russias, leaving a greater vacuum of power on the world stage; a void which will be filled by the
new Sino-Russian alliance to purge American influence from the Middle East after twenty years of relative
peace. ..."
And in turn, Remove the United States as a Superpower in the Middle East
On post super blood moon Monday,
Vladimir Putin will be meeting with President Obama to discuss the ISIS crisis in the Middle
East. There are many within the U.S. media who are promoting this meeting as some strange idea that
the Russians are about to ask the Americans for help against ISIS. While there might be a small gnat's
hair bit of truth to this, in reality, Putin is about to dictate terms and the United States is ill
prepared to deal with the consequences.
The bigger story however has not been the fighting but the subterfuge which was ignored by
the Western mainstream media with regards to an economic war against Russia and Syria has been quite
successful thus far in the guise of sanctions and destroying the price of crude oil( via
CNBC as of Friday, 9/25
):
This indiscreet economic and political war on Russia might have been perceived as a clever
method to keep the bear trapped inside the Ukrainian box, contained so as to prevent any further
impact on Western economies and enough to help the West's Middle East petro partners.
... ... ...
The Middle East is aflame right now and the economic situation along with terrorist Islamist ideologues
have exported their problems into Europe with a massive migration of millions of refugees from Syria,
Jordan, Libya, and Iraq. Mixed within these people are numerous terrorist operatives as was promised
by ISIS and Al Qaeda years ago but ignored by the naive European Union. The future problems this
will create are another story but the question has been promoted by some in the United States asking
why the Arab nations of the Arabian Peninsula have not taken any of the refugees. That answer is
obvious; their economies and domestic political situations are so tentative and fragile that an influx
of millions of new residents would probably tip nations like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia closer to full
blown civil war within their own borders.
... ... ...
The idea is a not so subtle message to the United States and Saudi Arabia; if you continue
to support ISIS and the various rebel forces in Syria and Iraq, a new united front will push them
back into your lap for your nation to deal with it. By later on this year and early next year
their should be sufficient forces on the ground in Syria and Iraq to push the ISIS militants into
a meat grinder, eventually cutting them off from their northern forces somewhere in north central
Iraq. Without any supplies crossing from Turkey or Saudi Arabia, those forces will attempt to
migrate into the Kurdish controlled portions of Iraq and Turkey where they will eventually be dispersed
or destroyed.
Meanwhile in the southern part of Iraq, ISIS will be left unchecked for a short duration and eventually
pushed into Saudi Arabia and the GCC states, to let the sponsors of this terrorist army deal with
the problems they funded and created. The brilliance of this strategy by the new alliance of Egypt,
Russia, Iran, Iraq, and Syria (which may soon include Jordan) is obvious; the return of the malcontents
who will feel betrayed by the House of Saud and other various sheikdoms of the region will create
domestic instability and as a result the destruction wrought on Iraq's oil infrastructure will now
become a GCC problem.
Saudi Arabia is ill prepared to fight a two front war with Yemen on it south and ISIS/Al Qaeda
to its north thus there is a high probability that terrorist units will have little trouble penetrating
deep into Kuwait and the Saudi kingdom. Russia and Iran will view this as justifiable payback for
the Sunni militias that the kingdoms sponsored and as such, destabilize the monarchies to the point
where oil prices will be severely impacted in 2016; eventually driving the price of Brent Crude back
over $100 per bbl. As China has already locked in their prices via long term supply contracts with
Iran and Russia the opportunity for their forces to act in support of such an offensive in a "peace
keeping" role is viable, usurping the U.S. hegemony in the region.
The idea by Europe, the United States, and Arab kingdoms that a pipeline was a viable plan
using mercenaries funded and supplied in the name of Syrian liberation was a myth from the beginning.
Now the incompetency of their strategy may soon backfire and impact their economies far more severely
than Russia's, leaving a greater vacuum of power on the world stage; a void which will be filled
by the new Sino-Russian alliance to purge American influence from the Middle East after twenty years
of relative peace.
The Russian government is moving to plug a whole in its budget by raising more
revenue from its oil and gas industry.
According to
Reuters , the Russian finance ministry will tweak the Mineral Extraction
Tax on oil companies, slapping on a "rouble deduction," which could raise 1.6
trillion roubles ($24.1 billion) through 2018. In effect, oil companies pay
a tax that is largely calculated based on the strength of the country's currency,
leading to a decline in revenues as the rouble has lost a significant amount
of its value over the past year.
Instead of using a previous formula that used an exchange rate based on when
the tax was paid, the government will instead use a rate close to what the rouble
traded for in late 2014. That means, instead of a projected 63.5 roubles per
dollar that the government expects for 2016, the tax will instead by based on
43.8 roubles per dollar.
The effect will be much more tax paid by oil companies, since the rouble
was dramatically stronger in 2014 compared to where the rouble has gone since
then.
Russia has invested another $10 billion in the US national debt
In July Russia increased its investment in US Treasury bonds by $9.7 billion of dollars, according
to information given by the United States Treasury and Federal Reserve.
It's odd, but $10 Billion doesn't really represent much of an adventure. The least Russia has held
of American securities
in the last two years was in April this year, when it held only $66.5 Billion. The most during
the period shown was in August last year, when Russia held nearly twice that, $118.1 Billion. And
China, while media mythology has them shoveling dollars out the windows, held $1.24 Trillion at the
end of July this year, up slightly from January. Nobody seemed to notice that Belgium sold of $20
Billion more than China did.
"... Now with his war under attack, even President George W. Bush has gone public, telling reporters
last August, "[a] failed Iraq … would give the terrorists and extremists an additional tool besides
safe haven, and that is revenues from oil sales." Of course, Bush not only wants to keep oil out of
his enemies' hands, he also wants to put it into the hands of his friends. "
"...Guaranteeing access to Iraq's oil, however isn't the whole story. Despite the lives lost
and the utter ruin that the war has brought, the overarching economic agenda that the administration
is successfully pursuing in the Middle East might be the most enduring legacy of the war-and the most
ignored. Just two months after declaring "mission accomplished" in Iraq, Bush announced his plans for
a U.S.-Middle East Free Trade Area to spread the economic invasion well-underway in Iraq to the rest
of the region by 2013. Negotiations have progressed rapidly as countries seek to prove that they are
with the United States, not against it."
"...In 2004, Michael Scheuer-the CIA's senior expert on al-Qaeda until he quit in disgust with
the Bush administration-wrote, "The U.S. invasion of Iraq was not preemption; it was … an avaricious,
premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat but whose defeat did offer
economic advantages." How right he was. For it is an absolute fallacy that the Bush administration had
no post-invasion plan for Iraq. The administration had a very clear economic plan that has contributed
significantly to the disastrous results of the war. The plan was prepared at least two months prior
to the war by the U.S. consultancy firm, Bearing Point, Inc., which then received a $250 million contract
to remake Iraq's economic infrastructure.
"...Halliburton received the largest contract, worth more than $12 billion, while 13 other U.S.
companies received contracts worth more than $1.5 billion each. The seven largest reconstruction contracts
went to the Parsons Corporation of Pasadena, Calif. ($5.3 billion); Fluor Corporation of Aliso Viejo,
Calif. ($3.75 billion); Washington Group International of Boise, Idaho ($3.1 billion); Shaw Group of
Baton Rouge, La. ($3 billion); Bechtel Corporation of San Francisco ($2.8 billion); Perini Corporation
of Framingham, Mass. ($2.5 billion); and Contrack International, Inc. of Arlington, Va. ($2.3 billion).
These companies are responsible for virtually all reconstruction in Iraq, including water, bridges,
roads, hospitals, and sewers and, most significantly, electricity."
"...Put simply, U.S. oil companies want access to as much of Iraq's oil as they can get and
on the best possible terms. The fact that Iraq is a war-ravaged and occupied nation works to the companies'
benefit. As a result, the companies and the Bush administration are holding U.S. troops hostage in Iraq
until they get what they want. Once the companies get their lucrative contracts, they will still
need protection to get to work. What better security force is there than 144,000 American troops?
{Following this pattern, we can know understand why the U.S. has not completed medical clinics, re-establish
electric service, etc. They are holding the country hostage, with a promise of approve the sale of the
oil fields and then these projects will be completed--jk.}"
Both parties support neoliberalism, and
this is sufficient to explain the course of events leading up to and following the invasion of Iraq.
Biparticism and media support of neoliberalism has left a gap in debate and reporting. The article
below fills that gap-jk.
Spoils of War: Oil, the U.S.-Middle East Free Trade Area and the Bush Agenda
By Antonia Juhasz, Antonia Juhasz,
a visiting scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, is the author of The Bush Agenda: Invading
the World, One Economy at a Time, on which part of this article is based. She is working on a new
book that will make the case for the break-up of the largest American oil companies. Learn more at
www.TheBushAgenda.net.
Remember oil? That thing we didn't go to war in Iraq for? Now with his war under attack,
even President George W. Bush has gone public, telling reporters last August, "[a] failed Iraq …
would give the terrorists and extremists an additional tool besides safe haven, and that is revenues
from oil sales." Of course, Bush not only wants to keep oil out of his enemies' hands, he also wants
to put it into the hands of his friends.
The President's concern over Iraq's oil is shared by the Iraq Study Group, which on December 6
released its much-anticipated report. While the mainstream press focused on the report's criticism
of Bush's handling of the war and the report's call for (potential) removal of (most) U.S. troops
(maybe) by 2008, ignored was the report's focus on Iraq's oil. Page 1, chapter 1 laid out in no uncertain
terms Iraq's importance to the Middle East, the United States and the world with this reminder: "It
has the world's second-largest known oil reserves." The group then proceeds to give very specific
and radical recommendations as to what should be done to secure those reserves.
Guaranteeing access to Iraq's oil, however isn't the whole story. Despite the lives lost and
the utter ruin that the war has brought, the overarching economic agenda that the administration
is successfully pursuing in the Middle East might be the most enduring legacy of the war-and the
most ignored. Just two months after declaring "mission accomplished" in Iraq, Bush announced his
plans for a U.S.-Middle East Free Trade Area to spread the economic invasion well-underway in Iraq
to the rest of the region by 2013. Negotiations have progressed rapidly as countries seek to prove
that they are with the United States, not against it.
The Bush Agenda
Within days of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, then-U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick announced
that the Bush administration would be "countering terror with trade." Bush reiterated that pledge
four years later when he told the United Nations, "By expanding trade, we spread hope and opportunity
to the corners of the world, and we strike a blow against the terrorists. Our agenda for freer trade
is part of our agenda for a freer world." In the case of the March 2003 invasion and ongoing occupation
of Iraq, these "free trade"-or corporate globalization-policies have been applied in tandem with
America's military forces.
The Bush administration used the military invasion of Iraq to oust its leader, replace its government,
implement new economic and political laws, and write a new constitution. The new economic laws have
transformed Iraq's economy, applying some of the most radical-and sought-after-corporate globalization
policies in the world and locking in sweeping advantages to U.S. corporations. Through the ongoing
occupation, the Bush administration seeks to ensure that both Iraq's new government and this new
economic structure stay firmly in place. The ultimate goal-opening Iraq to U.S. oil companies-is
reaching fruition.
In 2004, Michael Scheuer-the CIA's senior expert on al-Qaeda until he quit in disgust with
the Bush administration-wrote, "The U.S. invasion of Iraq was not preemption; it was … an avaricious,
premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat but whose defeat did offer
economic advantages." How right he was. For it is an absolute fallacy that the Bush administration
had no post-invasion plan for Iraq. The administration had a very clear economic plan that has contributed
significantly to the disastrous results of the war. The plan was prepared at least two months prior
to the war by the U.S. consultancy firm, Bearing Point, Inc., which then received a $250 million
contract to remake Iraq's economic infrastructure.
L. Paul Bremer III-the head of the U.S. occupation government of Iraq, the Coalition Provisional
Authority (CPA)-followed Bearing Point's plan to the letter. From May 6, 2003 until June 28, 2004,
Bremer implemented his "100 Orders" with the force of law, all but a handful of which remain in place
today. As the preamble to many of the orders state, they are intended to "transition [Iraq] from
a … centrally planned economy to a market economy" virtually overnight and by U.S. fiat. Bremer's
orders included firing the entire Iraqi military-some half a million men-in the first weeks of the
occupation. Suddenly jobless, many of these men took their guns with them and joined the violent
insurgency. Bremer also fired 120,000 of Iraq's senior bureaucrats from every government ministry,
hospital and school. {By removing the Sumi bureaucracy, they removed opposition to globalization.
The U.S. could now shop for support from what would soon be a newly elected factionalized parliament-jk.}
His laws allowed for the privatization of Iraq's state-owned enterprises (excluding oil) and for
American companies to receive preferential treatment over Iraqis in the awarding of reconstruction
contracts. The laws reduced taxes on all corporations by 25 percent and opened every sector of the
Iraqi economy to private foreign investment. The laws allowed foreign firms to own 100 percent of
Iraqi businesses (as opposed to partnering with Iraqi firms) and to send their profits home without
having to invest a cent in the struggling Iraqi economy. Iraqi laws governing banking, foreign investment,
patents, copyrights, business ownership, taxes, the media, agriculture and trade were all changed
to conform to U.S. goals.
After the U.S. corporate invasion of Iraq
More than 150 U.S. companies were awarded contracts for post-war work totaling more than $50 billion.
The American companies were hired, even though Iraqi companies had successfully rebuilt the country
after the previous U.S. invasion. And, because the American companies did not have to hire Iraqis,
many imported foreign workers instead. The Iraqis were, of course, well aware that American firms
had received billions of dollars for reconstruction, that Iraqi companies and workers had been rejected
and that the country was still without basic services. The result: increasing hostility, acts of
sabotage targeted directly at foreign contractors and their work, and a rising insurgency.
Halliburton received the largest contract, worth more than $12 billion, while 13 other U.S.
companies received contracts worth more than $1.5 billion each. The seven largest reconstruction
contracts went to the Parsons Corporation of Pasadena, Calif. ($5.3 billion); Fluor Corporation of
Aliso Viejo, Calif. ($3.75 billion); Washington Group International of Boise, Idaho ($3.1 billion);
Shaw Group of Baton Rouge, La. ($3 billion); Bechtel Corporation of San Francisco ($2.8 billion);
Perini Corporation of Framingham, Mass. ($2.5 billion); and Contrack International, Inc. of Arlington,
Va. ($2.3 billion). These companies are responsible for virtually all reconstruction in Iraq, including
water, bridges, roads, hospitals, and sewers and, most significantly, electricity.
U.S. Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner, author of a 2002 U.S. government study on the likely effect
that U.S. bombardment would have on Iraq's power system, said, "frankly, if we had just given the
Iraqis some baling wire and a little bit of space to keep things running, it would have been better.
But instead we've let big U.S. companies go in with plans for major overhauls."
Many companies had their sights set on years-long privatization in Iraq, which helps explain their
interest in "major overhauls" rather than getting the systems up and running. Cliff Mumm, head of
Bechtel's Iraq operation, put it this way: "[Iraq] has two rivers, it's fertile, it's sitting on
an ocean of oil. Iraq ought to be a major player in the world. And we want to be working for them
long term."
And, since many U.S. contracts guaranteed that all of the companies' costs would be covered, plus
a set rate of profit (known as cost-plus contracts), they took their time, building expensive new
facilities that showcased their skills and would serve their own needs should they be runing the
systems one day.
Mismanagement, waste, abuse and criminality have also characterized U.S. corporations in Iraq-leading
to a series of U.S. contract cancellations. For example, a $243 million contract held by the Parsons
Corporation for the construction of 150 health care centers was cancelled after more than two years
of work and $186 million yielded just six centers, only two of which are serving patients. Parsons
was also dropped from two different contracts to build prisons, one in Mosul and the other in Nasiriyah.
The Bechtel Corporation was dropped from a $50 million contract for the construction of a children's
hospital in Basra after it went $90 million over budget and a year-and-a-half behind schedule. These
contracts have since been turned over to Iraqi companies.
Halliburton's subsidiary KBR is currently being investigated by government agencies and facing
dozens of charges for waste, fraud and abuse. Most significantly, in 2006, the U.S. Army cancelled
Halliburton's largest government contract, the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP), which
was for worldwide logistical support to U.S. troops. Halliburton will continue its current Iraq contract,
but this year the LOGCAP will be broken into smaller parts and competitively bid out to other companies.
The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR), a congressionally-mandated independent
auditing and oversight body, has opened 256 investigations into criminal fraud, four of which have
resulted in convictions. SIGIR has provided critical oversight of the U.S. reconstruction, but this
fall it nearly fell prey to a GOP attempt to shut down its activities well ahead
of schedule. Fortunately, it survived.
SIGIR's October 2006 report to Congress reveals the failure of U.S. corporations in Iraq. In the
electricity sector, less than half of all planned projects in Iraq have been completed, while 21
percent have yet to even begin. Even the term "complete" can be misleading as, for example, SIGIR
has found that contractors have failed to build transmission and distribution lines to connect new
generators to homes and businesses. Thus, nationally, Iraqis have on average just 11 hours of electricity
a day, and in Baghdad, the heart of instability in Iraq, there are between four and eight hours on
average per day. Before the war, Baghdad averaged 24 hours per day of electricity.
While there has been greater success in finishing water and sewage projects, the fact that 80
percent of potable water projects are reported complete does little good if there is no electricity
to pump the water into homes, hospitals or businesses. Meanwhile, the health care sector is truly
a tragedy. Just 36 percent of planned projects are reported as complete. Of 20 planned hospitals,
12 are finished and only six of 150 planned public health centers are serving patients today.
Overall, the economy is languishing, with high inflation, low growth, and unemployment rates estimated
at 30 to 50 percent {being part of a militia is providing employment} for the nation and as high
as 70 percent in some areas. The International Monetary Fund has enforced a structural adjustment
program on Iraq that mirrors much of Bush's corporate globalization agenda, and the administration
continues to push for Iraq's admission into the World Trade Organization.
Iraq has not, therefore, emerged as the wealthy free market haven that Bush & Co. had hoped for.
Several U.S. companies are now preparing to pack up, head home and take their billions of dollars
with them, their work in Iraq left undone. The Bush administration is likely to follow a dual strategy:
continuing to pursue a corporate free-trade haven in Iraq, while helping U.S. corporations extricate
themselves without consequence. The administration will also focus on the big prize: Iraq's oil.
Winning Iraq's oil prize:
The Bush Agenda does have supporters, especially those corporate allies that have both shaped
and benefited from the administration's economic and military policies. In the 2000 election cycle,
the oil and gas industry donated 13 times more money to Bush's campaign than to Al Gore's. The Bush
administration is the first in history in which the president, vice president and secretary of state
are all former energy company officials. In fact, the only other U.S. president to come from the
oil and gas industry was Bush's father. Moreover, both George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice have more
experience running oil companies than they do working for the government.
Planning to secure Iraq's oil for U.S. companies began on the tenth day of the Bush presidency,
when Vice President Dick Cheney established the National Energy Policy Development Group-widely referred
to as "Cheney's Energy Task Force." It produced two lists, titled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield
Contracts as of 5 March 2001," which named more than 60 companies from some 30 countries with
contracts for oil and gas projects across Iraq-none of which were with American firms. However, because
sanctions were imposed on Iraq at this time, none of the contracts could come into force. If the
sanctions were removed-which was becoming increasingly likely as public opinion turned against the
sanctions and Hussein remained in power-the contracts would go to all of those foreign oil companies
and the U.S. oil industry would be shut out.
As the Bush administration stepped up its war planning, the State Department began preparations
for post-invasion Iraq. Meeting four times between December 2002 and April 2003, members of the State
Department's Oil and Energy Working Group mapped out Iraq's oil future. They agreed that Iraq "should
be opened to international oil companies as quickly as possible after the war" and that the best
method for doing so was through Production Sharing Agreements (PSAs).
PSAs are considered "privatization lite" in the oil business and, as such, are the favorite of
international oil companies and the worst-case scenario for oil-rich states. With PSAs, oil ownership
ultimately rests with the government, but the most profitable aspects of the industry-exploration
and production-are contracted to the private companies under highly favorable terms. None of the
top oil producers in the Middle East use PSAs, because they favor private companies at the expense
of the exporting governments. In fact, PSAs are only used in respect to about 12 percent of world
oil reserves {such as Nigeria}.
After the invasion
Two months after the invasion of Iraq, in May 2003, the U.S.-appointed senior adviser to the Iraqi
Oil Ministry, Thamer al-Ghadban, announced that the new Iraqi government would honor few, if any,
of the dozens of contracts signed with foreign oil companies under the Hussein regime.
At the same time, Bremer was laying the economic groundwork for a "U.S. corporate friendly"
Iraq. When Bremer left Iraq in June 2004, he bequeathed the Bush economic agenda to two men,
Ayad Allawi and Adel Abdul Mahdi, who Bremer appointed interim Prime Minister and Finance Minister,
respectively {viz., two sell the oil lackeys to head the Iraq government}. Two months later, Allawi
(a former CIA asset) submitted guidelines for a new petroleum law to Iraq's Supreme Council for Oil
Policy. The guidelines declared "an end to the centrally planned and state dominated Iraqi economy"
and advised the "Iraqi government to disengage from running the oil sector, including management
of the planned Iraq National Oil Company (INOC), and that the INOC be partly privatized in the future."
Allawi's guidelines also turned all undeveloped oil and gas fields over to private international
oil companies. Because only 17 of Iraq's 80 known oil fields have been developed, Allawi's proposal
would put 64 percent of Iraq's oil into the hands of foreign firms. However, if a further 100
billion barrels are discovered, as is widely predicted, foreign companies could control 81 percent
of Iraq's oil-or 87 percent if, as the Oil Ministry predicts, 200 billion barrels are found.
On December 21, 2004, Mahdi joined U.S. Undersecretary of State Alan Larson at the National
Press Club and announced Iraq's plans for a new petroleum law that would open the oil sector to private
foreign investment. "I think this is very promising to the American investors and to American
enterprise, certainly to oil companies," said Mahdi. He described how, under the proposed law, foreign
companies would gain access both to "downstream" and "maybe even upstream" oil investment in Iraq.
("Downstream" refers to refining, distribution, and marketing of oil. "Upstream" refers to exploration
and production.)
The draft petroleum law adopted Allawi's recommendation that currently producing oil fields are
to be developed by Iraq's National Oil Company, while all new fields are opened to private companies
using PSAs.
The Bush administration and U.S. oil companies have maintained constant pressure on Iraq to pass
the petroleum law. The administration appointed an advisor to the Iraqi government from Bearing Point
to support completion of the law. And in July 2006, U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman announced
in Baghdad that oil executives told him that their companies would not enter Iraq without passage
of the new oil law. Petroleum Economist magazine later reported that U.S. oil companies
considered passage of the new oil law more important than increased security when deciding whether
to go into business in Iraq.
The Iraq Study Group, recognizing as it did the primacy of oil in its Iraq calculations, recommended
that the U.S. "assist Iraqi leaders to reorganize the national oil industry as a commercial enterprise"
and "encourage investment in Iraq's oil sector by the international community and by international
energy companies."
Put simply, U.S. oil companies want access to as much of Iraq's oil as they can get and on
the best possible terms. The fact that Iraq is a war-ravaged and occupied nation works to the companies'
benefit. As a result, the companies and the Bush administration are holding U.S. troops hostage in
Iraq until they get what they want. Once the companies get their lucrative contracts, they will
still need protection to get to work. What better security force is there than 144,000 American
troops? {Following this pattern, we can know understand why the U.S. has not completed medical clinics,
re-establish electric service, etc. They are holding the country hostage, with a promise of approve
the sale of the oil fields and then these projects will be completed--jk.}
Three days after the release of the Iraq Study Group Report, the al-Maliki government announced
that Iraq's oil law was near completion. The law adopts PSAs and not only opens Iraq to private foreign
companies, but permits "for the first time-local and international companies to carry out oil exploration
in Iraq."
To ensure that this model prevails, the Iraq Study Group recommends that Iraq's constitution
be rewritten to give the central government of Iraq-as opposed to individual regions-the ultimate
decision-making authority over all of Iraq's developed and undeveloped oil fields.
Standard Oil Company's John D. Rockefeller famously said, "Own nothing, control everything." He
would be proud of the U.S. oil companies and the Bush administration, as they seem poised to get
exactly the control they want over Iraq's oil.
Beyond Iraq: the U.S.-Middle East Free Trade Area
But the Bush agenda has never been limited to Iraq. As the Wall Street Journal reported
in May 2003, "For many conservatives, Iraq is now the test case for whether the U.S. can engender
American-style free-market capitalism {neoliberalism} within the Arab world." To this end, the
administration has used the "stick" of the Iraq war to convince nations across the Middle East to
adopt its free trade agenda. The mechanism for doing so is the president's U.S.-Middle East Free
Trade Area (MEFTA).
The corporate lobbying group behind the MEFTA, the aptly named U.S.-Middle East Free Trade Coalition,
includes among its 120 members Chevron, ExxonMobil, Bechtel and Halliburton-companies intimately
connected to the Bush administration that have already been big winners in Iraq.
Insulated by oil revenue, the Middle East has largely avoided succumbing to the sacrifices
required under free trade agreements. But since the war began, negotiations for the MEFTA have progressed
rapidly.
The Bush administration devised a unique negotiating strategy for the MEFTA. Rather than negotiate
with all of the nations as a bloc, the United States negotiates one-on-one with each country. This
means that every nation-some half the size of one state in the United States-must try to make a deal
that serves its own interests with the most economically and militarily dominant nation in the world.
The reality is that there can be no "negotiation" between such thoroughly unequal pairings.
These individual free trade agreements are then united under the MEFTA. If successful, the MEFTA
would be concluded by 2013 and include 20 countries: Algeria, Bahrain, Cyprus, Egypt, Palestine,
Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, the
United Arab Emirates, Tunisia and Yemen.
To date, the Bush administration has signed 13 Trade and Investment Framework Agreements (TIFAs),
which demonstrate a country's commitment to the MEFTA, and are considered the key step towards passage
of a full Free Trade Agreement (FTA). Things have moved briskly since the invasion of Iraq. Algeria
and Bahrain signed before the war, while agreements with Lebanon (the most recent, signed in December),
Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Egypt, Morocco, Oman and Iraq
all followed the war. The United States has signed FTAs with five Middle Eastern countries: Israel,
Jordan, Morocco, Bahrain, and Oman. The last three were signed after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Negotiations
with the United Arab Emirates are underway and near completion.
The winners, of course, are U.S. corporations. On January 19, 2006, for example, then-U.S. Trade
Representative Robert Portman sent a letter to Oman's minister of commerce and industry affirming
that, when it signs contracts, the Omani government may not give preference to the government's state-controlled
oil companies. As for Oman's apparel industry, the U.S. International Trade Commission estimates
that the U.S.-Oman agreement will lead to a 66 percent increase in U.S. imports of apparel manufactured
in Oman. What are the likely effects? In May, a report by the National Labor Committee detailed the
cost of the first Middle East trade agreement signed by Bush in December 2001-the U.S.-Jordan FTA.
After that agreement was implemented, new factories arrived in Jordan to service American companies,
primarily apparel firms such as Wal-Mart, JC Penney, Target and Jones New York. These factories have
engaged in the worst kinds of rights violations, including 48-hour shifts without sleep, physical
and psychological abuse, and, in the case of imported foreign workers, employers who hold passports
and refuse to pay. (Wal-Mart also is a member of the U.S.-Middle East Free Trade Coalition. The Bush
administration will spend the next two years aggressively pushing the MEFTA as it seeks to expand
the economic invasion of Iraq to the entire region.
What's next?
Throughout his presidency, George W. Bush has claimed that we will live in a safer, more prosperous,
and more peaceful world if the United States remains at war and if countries throughout the world
change their laws and adopt economic policies that benefit America's largest multinational corporations.
The Bush Agenda has proven to have the opposite effect: increasing deadly acts of terrorism and economic
insecurity, reducing freedom, and engendering more war. To replace the Bush Agenda, we must address
each of its key pillars individually-war, imperialism and corporate globalization.
The most urgent first step is ending the war in Iraq by ending both the military and corporate
occupations. We in the peace movement have already made tremendous progress in reaching these ends.
Most Americans now oppose the war. The peace movement has welcomed with open arms U.S. soldiers and
their families who share this opposition and unity has made us all stronger. Counter-recruitment
efforts are blossoming across the country. The U.S. labor movement has joined forces with its counterpart
in Iraq. Protests at corporate headquarters and shareholder meetings have led to U.S. war profiteers
being called to account for their abuses in Iraq. Our success was made concrete with the dismissal
of the president's party from power in both the House and the Senate.
According to "Election 2006: No to Staying the course on Trade," by Public Citizen, 18 House races
saw "fair traders" replace "free traders" in the midterm election, and not a single "free trader"
beat a fair trade candidate. {Staying the course translates into holding the Iraq nation
hostage until they pass PSA-jk.} In every Senate seat that changed hands, a fair trader beat
a free trader. One of their most important tasks this year will be to deny Bush the renewal of Fast
Track negotiating authority when it expires in July. Fast Track allows the president to move trade
bills through Congress quickly by overriding core aspects of the democratic process, such as committee
deliberations, full congressional debate and the ability to offer amendments. In addition to the
newcomers, several existing allies have been elevated to new positions of power. Rep. Ike Skelton
(D-Mo.) is now chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. He has pledged to resurrect the subcommittee
on oversight and investigations. Rep. David Obey (D-Wisc.) will use his chairmanship of the House
Appropriations Committee to exercise greater oversight of Bush's war spending. The most important
ally, however, will likely be Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), the new chairman of the House Government
Reform Committee. Waxman has been one of the most effective and aggressive critics of Halliburton's
work in Iraq, greatly contributing to Halliburton's loss of its LOGCAP contract.
Our allies in the new Congress should put forward two key demands:
First, all remaining and future U.S. reconstruction funds must be turned over to Iraqi companies
and Iraqi workers. SIGIR found that when Iraqi companies receive contracts (rather than subcontracts
from U.S. companies), their work is faster, less expensive and less prone to insurgent attack. There
are literally hundreds of both private and public Iraqi companies-and millions of Iraqi workers-ready,
able and willing to do this work. U.S. military commanders and soldiers in Iraq have repeatedly made
this demand as they have learned firsthand that a person with a clipboard or a shovel in his or her
hands is far less likely to carry a gun.
Second, U.S. corporations must not be allowed to "cut and run." Every U.S. corporation with reconstruction
contracts in Iraq must be individually audited and each project investigated by SIGIR. Misspent funds
must be returned and made available to Iraqis for reconstruction. SIGIR has begun this process with
plans for a full audit of Bechtel's work due out early this year. SIGIR needs more staff, greater
oversight authority and more money to complete this work in a timely manner.
The Democrats must abandon the Bush administration's plan to remake Iraq into an economic wonderland
for U.S. corporations. Iraq must belong to the Iraqis to remake as they see fit. Nowhere is this
demand more critical than in the case of Iraq's oil. It is clear that Iraq needs to develop its oil
sector to survive and that it needs to retain as much of the proceeds from its oil as possible. It
is also clear that it should be the Iraqi public-freed of the external pressure of a foreign occupation,
the Bush administration and U.S. corporations-that decides how its oil is developed. U.S. oil corporations
cannot be permitted to "win" the war in Iraq while we-Iraqis and Americans-pay the price for their
victory.
IMF policy is to sell of the assets of each
nation-which was consistent with the Whitehouse plan. From the point of view of Muslim zealots, this
Americanization of the Arab world is the greatest immediate threat to their faith. Our presence on
their turf and our plans for free trade turns these zealots into freedom fighters--jk.
Read about how neoliberalism brought about the
war in Iraq, and the plans to sell off the oil field through our puppet government there.
What we all thought about the cause of the war, oil. However this article ties in international
corporations and their wanting to upon up markets with the war. The politicians are not about informing
through debate what is going on, but rather about selling their product and making their opponents
look bad.
Is this unfounded speculation of hidden attempt to form expectations? Will Iran able or willing
to do that taking into account low oil prices? Increase need substantial capital investmant
which at current price point might not pay for themselves for a lon, lon time. So why bury money
into the ground just to please the USA?
Iran, which produces a similar grade of crude to Russia, is preparing to ramp up production by
as much as 1 million barrels a day next year after reaching an agreement to lift international
sanctions.
A very weak article. The actual volumes Rosneft produces and volume growth dynamics
are left behind...
Notable quotes:
"... With a production of more than 10 million barrels per day in month of July, Russia's oil output has reached its post-Soviet era production levels. ..."
"... According to a study by Citigroup, Russia's exports are still as profitable as they were during the $100 per barrel oil price levels, because of the currency devaluation. ..."
In fact, some market analysts and traders are even predicting oil prices
will fall to $30 per barrel.
... ... ...
In contrast, the drilling volumes at Rosneft have increased by 27 percent
during the first seven months of 2015 where more than 800 new wells were drilled.
At a time when oil companies are shying away from newer acquisitions, Rosneft
is all set to buy Trican Well Service Limited's Russian Hydraulic Fracturing
business. So how does Rosneft manage to increase spending on its operations
and acquisitions when other major oil companies are struggling?
....the ruble has weakened substantially against the U.S. dollar and is now
trading at almost half of the value it was a year ago. The devaluation in the
ruble has reduced the operational costs as oil companies would earn in dollar
and pay their expenses in rubles.
Moreover, Russian tax laws have resulted in domestic oil companies bearing
just one fifth of the burden related to the total drop in the crude oil prices.
"As we expected, changes to Russia's taxation mechanism on the oil sector at
the start of 2015 are cushioning domestic companies within the sector from the
effects of lower oil prices," said Julia Pribytkova of Moody's. With a production
of more than 10 million barrels per day in month of July, Russia's oil output
has reached its post-Soviet era production levels.
... ... ...
According to a study by Citigroup, Russia's exports are still as profitable
as they were during the $100 per barrel oil price levels, because of the currency
devaluation. It is therefore quite obvious that Russia is set to increase
its exports (and add to the supply glut) as the country has no other choice
but to produce more oil in order to maintain its market share. This is highlighted
by Rosneft's first quarter profits, which fell by more than 35%, yet it still
decided to increase its production levels
... ... ...
Gaurav Agnihotri, a Mechanical engineer and an MBA -Marketing from ICFAI
(Institute of Chartered Financial Accountants), Mumbai
"... Since the Russians haven't rolled over the first time, the US is trying again. These days, the price of oil is determined by activity in the futures market impacting the spot price. Likewise, I expect for shares and wouldn't be surprised if someone is shorting the stock. Any oil and gas not pumped today is available to be pumped tomorrow - possibly at higher prices. Gazprom isn't going bankrupt. Neither are any of the other major oil companies. ..."
"... Therefore, he said, "today there are no conditions under which all thought that if tomorrow Russia will cease to supply gas, this same gas would be supplied by Iran." "Our production is still far from this stage", - said the president. ..."
"... "Competition should not be problematic, it should be healthy competition, should not do so to the profit only for the buyer, and the exporters suffering damage ". ..."
"... the recent Security Council vote ending the Iran sanctions also enabled was the release of ~$150 billion that was held in foreign accounts. ..."
"... When Russia responded at the sanctions by its sanctions in the agriculture I heard here the malevolent sneers there'd be a famine in Russia. Now the collapse of Gasprom, the failure of the deal with China. What a shame for The Guardian to become an yellow shit ..."
"... Seems the author is a warrior in the camp of the unnamed competitor which would like to supply its liquid costly gas.I know one direction where his bid will be welcomed at any price but for free- Ukraine ..."
"... What is happening in the oil market is a very complicated process. Do not simplify the process of digestion by eating only the headlines. The headlines are not very high-calorie product, if you certainly do not pursue the goal to lose weight. Including lose money. ..."
"... Putin has tried to shrug off the economic sanctions as no big deal, but the secret agreement between the West and Saudi Arabia to keep oil supplies high and gas prices low is really hurting Russia. ..."
"... Kuwait and Abu Dhabi can live with crude at its current level: Saudi Arabia cannot. It requires an oil price of $106 a barrel to balance the books... Not $20 ..."
Russia is looking to channel gas through Turkey and adding two new lines
to the Baltic
Nord Stream network, transporting gas over the top of Europe.
The total costs of the projects, without taking into account overruns, will
reach about $25.4bn.
Beyond the construction expenses, transit costs for North Stream appear to
be significantly more expensive than through Ukraine. Experts estimate that
in 2014 it cost Gazprom $43 to transport1,000 cubic metres via Nord Stream
compared to $33 via Ukrainian
. Factored over the tens of billions of cubic metres that Gazprom wants
to send through the Baltic pipes, that's a mighty extra cost just to avoid Ukraine.
Willinilli 8 Aug 2015 02:36
Lazy, lazy, lazy journalism.. Even for a business /economics journalist
.. Saudi Aramco has a much larger potential market cap..
Though to be fair, it was the original FT study that was lazy.. This
is just uninformed churnalism..
annamarinja airman23 8 Aug 2015 09:09
Poor airman23. Have you ever heard about Dick Cheney? Have you ever looked
at the Wolfowitz Doctrine? If not, then you are very much behind the nowadays
understanding of fascism and fascists. On the other hand, you are such a
concrete success of Mrs. Nuland-Kagan' (and likes) travails.
annamarinja -> psygone 8 Aug 2015 09:03
Fracking? Are you serious to monger this this barbaric technique that
has spurred a mass movement in the US and Canada against the ecological
dangers generated by fracking? Each and every of your posts is in line with
MSM "reports." It seems that you value FauxNews above else.
yemrajesh -> psygone 8 Aug 2015 07:36
Difficult to say. If the costs are true'ly low it would have reflected
at the Pump. But it hasn't. Another flaw is how can oil pumped from deeper
well ( Fracked Oil) is cheaper than conventional oil. It looks more like
US flexing its muscles to subdue Russia. Besides its not Just Gazprom ,
shell, BP, Exxon , Gulf, Mobil etc also many of US vassal states are affected.
It would be interesting to see how long this artificial price drop continue
with zero benefit to the customers.
Kaiama 8 Aug 2015 06:07
Since the Russians haven't rolled over the first time, the US is
trying again. These days, the price of oil is determined by activity in
the futures market impacting the spot price. Likewise, I expect for shares
and wouldn't be surprised if someone is shorting the stock. Any oil and
gas not pumped today is available to be pumped tomorrow - possibly at higher
prices. Gazprom isn't going bankrupt. Neither are any of the other major
oil companies.
AlbertEU -> alpamysh 7 Aug 2015 17:09
The crisis of one industry necessarily will hurt other sectors. Hard-hit
banking sector, which is credited US shale industry. The effect can be like
an avalanche. Especially if it is strengthened by additional steps. I think
for anybody is not a secret the existence of a huge number of empty weight
of the dollar, which is produced by running the printing press. Oil trade
is in the dollar, which in turn keeps the volume of the empty weight of
the dollar. Now imagine a situation where part of the oil market has not
traded more in dollars. It is equally affected, the USA and Russia.
But there is one important detail. Russia has never in its history, was
a rich country (if you count all the inhabitants of Russia, not individuals).
In the country there is no cult of consumption. The traditional religions
of Russia, that is, those that have always existed in Russia (Orthodox Christianity,
Islam and Buddhism) did not contribute to the emergence of such a cult.
Orthodoxy says plainly that material wealth is not important for a man.
Wealth is only supplied in addition to achieve the main goal in the life
of an Orthodox Christian. Therefore, to be poor in Russia is not a problem.
This is a normal way of life. Hence the stoic resistance to any hardship,
challenges, wars and so on. Expectations of great social upheaval in Russia,
caused by the lowering of the standard of living is a little naive. Russia
used to run in the marathon. Who would have more strength, intelligence
and endurance is a big question. Geopolitics is a very strange science...
airman23 7 Aug 2015 16:31
Ooops, It's just been announced that the U.S. is adding the Yuzhno-Kirinskoye
oil and gas field that belongs to Gazprom to it's sanctions list. It looks
like Gazprom is gonna loose even more money. This is certainly not what
the Fuehrer had in mind when he started his imperialist war of conquest
in Ukraine and illegally annexed Crimea. Unintended consequences to be sure
but what comes around, goes around.
John Smith -> William_Diaz 7 Aug 2015 16:05
From Iranian president from October last year:
Therefore, he said, "today there are no conditions under which all
thought that if tomorrow Russia will cease to supply gas, this same gas
would be supplied by Iran." "Our production is still far from this stage",
- said the president.
He also said that Iran is ready to cooperate with Russia in the gas sector.
"For several years we have been making efforts that countries that export
gas would be able to cooperate" - he recalled. - "Competition should
not be problematic, it should be healthy competition, should not do so to
the profit only for the buyer, and the exporters suffering damage ".
John Smith -> William_Diaz 7 Aug 2015 15:56
Your ignorance only, with whom do you think Iran will coordinate their
actions?
Who brokered them a deal? Do you think Russians are stupid?
Turkey will be not just a transit country but a hub. The EU got to built
they own pipeline if they want Russian gas in 2019. Turkey will set prices.
William_Diaz -> John Smith 7 Aug 2015 15:13
Your ignorance is astounding, lol. Iran doesn't need anyone else to 'jump
in', among the other things that the recent Security Council vote ending
the Iran sanctions also enabled was the release of ~$150 billion that was
held in foreign accounts.
There is more than enough money available for domestic investment, including
a natural gas pipeline to Europe.
Have a great day!
oleteo -> JanZamoyski 7 Aug 2015 14:23
When Russia responded at the sanctions by its sanctions in the agriculture
I heard here the malevolent sneers there'd be a famine in Russia. Now the
collapse of Gasprom, the failure of the deal with China. What a shame for
The Guardian to become an yellow shit
oleteo 7 Aug 2015 14:12
Seems the author is a warrior in the camp of the unnamed competitor
which would like to supply its liquid costly gas.I know one direction where
his bid will be welcomed at any price but for free- Ukraine
AlbertEU 7 Aug 2015 12:59
To kill a competitor, had to endure their own pain. Are you sure that
these actions will kill the Russian oil production instead of US shale oil?
In this case, Saudi Arabia has nothing to lose by increasing oil production,
the same does and lowering the price of Russian oil. Recently, the Crown
Prince of Saudi Arabia visited Russia.
They have a lot of something talked with Putin. Russia, the USA, Iran,
Saudi Arabia are competitors.
Over the past year the United States increased the number of purchased
crude oil from Russia. Saudi Arabia's oil squeezed out of the US market
by their own shale oil. If Saudi Arabia could bankrupt the US oil shale
industry, it (Saudi Arabia) will regain US market.
What is happening in the oil market is a very complicated process.
Do not simplify the process of digestion by eating only the headlines. The
headlines are not very high-calorie product, if you certainly do not pursue
the goal to lose weight. Including lose money.
Yankee_Liberal 7 Aug 2015 11:37
Putin has tried to shrug off the economic sanctions as no big deal, but
the secret agreement between the West and Saudi Arabia to keep oil supplies
high and gas prices low is really hurting Russia. Eventually the Russian
people will realize that a lot of economic pain will go away when Putin
goes and they start respecting their neighbors boundaries.
andydav 7 Aug 2015 11:18
The Guardian has no idea what it is printing. Fact's are not a requirement
in there story's any more EG:: Like many oil-producing countries, Saudi
had got used to an era of high oil prices.
Kuwait and Abu Dhabi can live
with crude at its current level: Saudi Arabia cannot. It requires an oil
price of $106 a barrel to balance the books... Not $20
"... the delay of 46 major oil and gas projects that have 20 billion barrels of oil equivalent in
reserves mean that global production several years from now could be much lower than anticipated. Due
to long lead times, decisions made today will impact the world's production profile towards the end
of this decade and into the 2020s. It makes sense for companies to cut today, but collectively that
could lead to much lower supplies in the future."
Aug 05, 2015 | Oilprice.com
Many oil companies had trimmed their budgets heading into 2015 to deal with lower oil prices.
But the rebound in April and May to $60 per barrel from the mid-$40s suggested that the severe
drop was merely temporary.
But the collapse of prices in July – owing to the Iran nuclear deal, an ongoing production
surplus, and economic and financial concerns in Greece and China – have darkened the mood. Now
a prevailing sense that oil prices may stay lower for longer has hit the markets.
Oil futures for delivery in December 2020 are currently trading $8 lower than they were at
the beginning of this year even while immediate spot prices are $4 higher today. In other words,
oil traders are now feeling much gloomier about oil prices several years out than they were at
the beginning of 2015.
The growing acceptance that oil prices could stay lower for longer will kick off a fresh round
of cuts in spending and workforces for the oil industry.
"It's a monumental challenge to offset the impact of a 50% drop in oil price," Fadel Gheit,
an analyst with Oppenheimer & Co., told the WSJ. "The priorities have shifted completely. The
priority now is to discontinue budget spending. The priority is to live within your means. Forget
about growth. They are now in survival mode."
And many companies are also recalculating the oil price needed for new drilling projects to
make financial sense. For example, according to the Wall Street Journal, BP is assuming an oil
price of $60 per barrel moving forward. Royal Dutch Shell is a little more pessimistic, using
$50 per barrel as their projection. For now, projects that need $100+ per barrel will be put on
ice indefinitely. The oil majors have cancelled or delayed a combined $200 billion in new projects
as they seek to rein in costs, according to Wood Mackenzie.
But the delay of 46 major oil and gas projects that have 20 billion barrels of oil equivalent
in reserves mean that global production several years from now could be much lower than anticipated.
Due to long lead times, decisions made today will impact the world's production profile towards
the end of this decade and into the 2020s. It makes sense for companies to cut today, but collectively
that could lead to much lower supplies in the future.
That is a problem because the oil majors were struggling to boost oil production even when
oil prices were high. 2014 was one of the worst in over six decades for major new oil discoveries,
even though oil prices were high for most of the year. Despite high levels of spending, exploration
companies are simply finding fewer and fewer reserves of oil.
Shale production has surged in recent years, but it could be a fleeting phenomenon. Precipitous
decline rates from shale wells mean that much of a well's lifetime production occurs within the
first year or two. Moreover, after the best spots are drilled, the shale revolution could start
to come to a close. The IEA predicts that U.S. shale will plateau and begin to decline in the
2020s. That means it would not be able to keep up with rising demand. Add in the fact that oil
wells around the world suffer from natural decline rates on the order of 5 percent per year (with
very wide variation), and it becomes clear that major new sources of oil will need to come online.
One other factor that could tighten oil markets over the long-term is the fact that Saudi Arabia
has churned through much of its spare capacity. As one of the only countries that can ramp up
latent oil capacity within just a few weeks, Saudi Arabia's spare capacity is crucial to world
oil market stability.
Many energy analysts like to compare the current oil bust to the one that occurred in the 1980s.
But one of the major differences between the two events is that, in addition to the glut of oil
supplies in the 1980s, was the fact that Saudi Arabia dramatically reduced its output from 10
million barrels per day (mb/d) down to less than 4 mb/d in response. As a result, on top of the
fact that the world was awash in oil throughout the 1980s and 1990s, there were also several million
barrels per day of spare capacity sitting on the sidelines, meaning there was virtually no chance
of a price spike for more than a decade.
That is no longer the case. Today OPEC has only 1.6 mb/d of spare capacity, the lowest level
since before the 2008 financial crisis. So while Saudi Arabia is currently flooding the market
with crude, it has exhausted its spare capacity, leaving few tools to come to the rescue in a
pinch.
That brings us back to the large spending cuts the oil majors are undertaking. With spare capacity
shot and major new sources of oil not coming online in a few years, the world may end up struggling
to meet rising oil demand. That could cause oil prices to spike.
More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:
•Could WTI Trade At A Premium To Brent By Next Year?
•How Russia's Energy Giant Imploded
•US Oil Production Finally Starting to Decline
1. Oil Guru Who Called 2014 Slump Sees a Return to $100 Crude Bloomberg
2. Oil Warning: The Crash Could Be the Worst in More Than 45 Years Bloomberg
3. Oil bulls' hope for quick price dip dimmed by 2020 crude under $70 Reuters
4. How Iran Impacts The Price and Supply of Oil Investopedia
5. Shell to Cut 6,500 Jobs as Profit Drops The Wall Street Journal
"...I would completely agree that the "petrodollar" is a pillar of American power but am frankly
confused by what the essential mechanism of this is. To my mind to institute the petrodollar it is not
sufficient to say that oil will be denominated in dollars or even sold only in dollars. The key is that
the proceeds need to STAY in dollar assets. This was only achieved once Kissinger brokered Petro-dollar
recycling, meaning that the dollars earned in this way would be recycled into treasury securities or
used to purchase American weaponry or the engineering skills of the American firms that basically built
the Kingdom as it now exists. This is what I was hinting at when I was talking about the circular nature
of trade between currency blocs. No non-circular trade patterns can persist for long.
.
We emphasize different things. I suspect that the simple scale of the dollar value of trading of financial
claims on things – trading in which London and New York are dominant – contributes more to the maintenance
of the dollar reserve system than you are proposing. The upshot being that America's "debt" problem
is actually a demonstration of its financial power. "
. "..."The result was a depreciation of the dollar and other industrialized nations'
currencies. Because oil was priced in dollars, oil producers' real income decreased. In September 1971,
OPEC issued a joint communiqué stating that, from then on, they would price oil in terms of a fixed
amount of gold."
.
So it seems that the oil sellers, seeing that their "real" income from selling oil was decreasing (they
were selling oil at the same price in terms of dollars, but at a lower price in terms of gold), were
determined not to let the depreciating dollar erase a big chunk of their earnings. I think this goes
to show how deep is entrenched in the collective psyche the idea that gold is THE medium for storing
wealth. Barbarous relic? I think not…
.
After all, value is a social construct and economic relations are social relations mediated through
these things we call "commodities". Gold has proven itself to be a very good mediator of these social
relations, not because some magical qualities, but because of obvious practical advantages. So, although
its role is significantly smaller these days, I think it still retains the roles of "medium of last
resort" and "measuring stick of wealth"."
I had to start a new thread, Mark. Your first question – "does the fact that the USA's debt
is more than 100% of its GDP not make it insolvent?"
I take it you are using the definition of insolvency being when an organizations liabilities exceed
it's assets. The nation's GDP does not belong to the government and so cannot be seen as an asset
of the govt. So the question, as framed, is not 'well English', speaking economically :) Perhaps
you could rephrase it?
Insolvency can also be defined as an inability to meet current liabilities as they fall
due which is a cash flow problem rather than an asset problem. A government that owns and
controls its central bank cannot ever have a cash flow problem; that would be Iran, for instance,
or Libya before Terror Inc was unleashed on it.
A govt that does not own and control its central bank cannot have a cash flow problem so long
as its debt is denominated in its own national currency and the privately owned central bank continues
to monetize the government's newly issued bond/treasury certificates; that is countries like the
US and the UK.
A government that has its debt nominated in a foreign or external currency, such as Greece
and other Euro zone countries, is in the position of any other business and can be declared insolvent
and its assets sold up for the creditors. This situation with Greece was always going to come
right from the beginning.
I don't follow what you are asking with your second question – "Would it, if there were
a deliberate run on the dollar to drive it down and reduce its circulation, by refusing to use
it as a medium of exchange?" Could you rephrase it also?
A government that has its debt nominated in a foreign or external currency, such as Greece
and other Eurozone countries, is in the position of any other business and can be declared insolvent
and its assets sold up for the creditors. This situation with Greece was always going to come
right from the beginning.
Bang! I do not follow all of your points, but on this one I totally agree. To reconnect with
what Tim was writing about Italy, the problem with Italy (and Greece) is that they both have:
– a currency which is grossly overvalued with respect to their economies (this makes import
artificially easier than it should be, and export artificially harder)
– no control on what the value of that currency is (e.g. by devaluing its currency Italy
could keep its products competitive in the past)
When did the Italian crisis start? Answer: when Italy pegged its currency to the future
Euro, with the Maastrich Treaty.
In the second question, I meant ""Would it (be insolvent), if there were a deliberate
run on the dollar to drive it down and reduce its circulation, by refusing to use it as a medium
of exchange?" That is, would a deliberate turning-away from the dollar put the USA in a position
where it had to pay its debts and live within its means? And the answer is, not likely, because
the government does not control the bank or own the money, although there is most definitely a
very close relationship between the governors and the bankers. Still, there must be a relationship
between the whole world using the dollar and U.S. power, because if there were not the U.S. would
not attack a country on some made-up excuse as soon as it made noises about dropping the dollar.
Unless that's just a crackpot conspiracy theory.
Thanks for the clarification, Mark. The US could well find itself in trouble and that is my
expectation but "insolvent" is the wrong word to use.
First, the basics of the relationship between the Fed and the US Treasury dept. I think someone
here (Tim?), about a year ago, spelt out the actual mechanics of it all but a rough Idea will
suffice for our purposes. When the US govt wants to get more money, they have the Treasury Dept
draw up treasury certificates which are essentially IOU's and hand them to the Fed. The Fed creates
the credit to the value of the IOU's and places it in the US govt's a/c (at interest). The govt
can then meet all future expenses including maturing loans with this money because all of the
US's trade and loan contracts are written in US$.
There is no limit to the debt that the US can run up in this manner so there will always be
money to meet commitments. So the US govt cannot become technically insolvent.
Crystal ball stuff now – the problem for the US govt (and the Fed) is that it is committed
to printing ever more money at a time when the demand for it internationally is shrinking because
the BRICS countries and others are avoiding using the US dollar when possible. This will lead
to inflation for the dollar. In other words, it will lose value and make it less and less attractive
for people, companies and govts to hold it and thus further decreasing demand. We now have a self
fuelling downward spiral for the dollar.
The inflation happens because the US dollar is backed not only by the domestic GDP of the US
but also by all the international trade that is conducted using the dollar. As the total amount
of dollars in circulation increases and the demand decreases (because people are avoiding using
it) we have more dollars to buy less goods (because sellers do not want US dollars for their goods)
so the prices on the goods that are still available for US dollars will be bid upwards by the
excess money over goods available causing the inflation. I have been very impressed how the FED/govt
and Wall st generally have been able to stave off this inevitable inflation so far.
As for the US ever 'living within its means' that will only come when other trading partners
en masse refuse to accept US dollars for their goods (incl military materiel). The US will then
have to sell something tangible to raise the foreign currency (as most other countries now have
to do) to buy Chinese clothing and uniforms and ammunition etc. They may not be able to pay for
the military occupation in foreign countries using US dollars and so the Empire will start visibly
shrinking.
If this happens, countries like israel and Saudi Arabia will be left high and dry and have
to fend for themselves – and good luck with that! But psychopaths never say die so they just might
pull something out of the hat other than a rabbit. We'll see soon enough, I think. You can see,
though, that time is not on the side of the usual suspects.
I hope that answers your question adequately, Mark. If not, come on back to me!
" … Still, there must be a relationship between the whole world using the dollar and U.S. power,
because if there were not the U.S. would not attack a country on some made-up excuse as soon as
it made noises about dropping the dollar. Unless that's just a crackpot conspiracy theory."
I mentioned earlier in this thread that in 2000, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein switched to
trading oil for euros and then Iraq began conducting all its trade in euros. Not long afterwards,
the euro appreciated in value, perhaps in part as a result of its use as a trading currency, and
the value of Iraq's gold reserves also shot up as a result. http://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/feb/16/iraq.theeuro
Iran and North Korea then switched to trading in euros. Next thing you know, all three countries
became the New Axis of Evil.
If the world has to use the US dollar for trade, this means there will always be a demand from
exporters and importers for US dollars and this keeps the value of the US dollar high relative
to other currencies. To an extent this means that in a situation where all currencies are free-floating
(that is, not subjected to any controls on their value or supply by governments in the countries
where they are legal tender) and are completely subject to market supply and demand, the US dollar
will not experience high and low extremes when its value against other currencies fluctuates.
This keeps the US dollar's value high and steady.
The use of the US dollar as a world currency for trade was adopted during the Bretton Woods
conference in the late 1940s just after the Second World War. At the time, the US was the pre-eminent
manufacturing economy in the world and could dictate its terms to a ruined Europe. If the rest
of the world were to catch up with the US in manufacturing and trading capability, then everyone
needed to use US dollars to buy US goods, services and intellectual know-how in the form of patents,
advice and training. Few people at the time foresaw what would happen to the US economy if the
US dollar became the world's trading currency: the US economy would start to suffer persistent
trade and balance of payment deficits and the US government would be unable to control the supply
of US dollars. This is known as the Triffin Dilemma.
The British economist John Maynard Keynes who attended Bretton Woods was one of the few who
knew – that was partly why he advocated for adopting an international trade currency (bancor)
and an international clearing house for balance-of-payments surpluses and deficits – but as he
was the representative of an exhausted and defeated empire, his ideas were given short shrift
by the US attendees.
Posted this on earlier thread one page back before I saw this:
Here's where I think you, James and I agree: the reserve status of the dollar allows the U.S.
to fund it's deficit at the expense of other countries.
Here's' where I think (?) we disagree:
my point is that the reserve status makes it possible for the U.S. to run persistent trade
deficits but the ability to run a deficit is a virtue of all fiat systems. The fact that the
reserve status of the dollar means those deficits can be much higher doesn't change the fact.
Nor should it discredit deficit-spending by association.
I would completely agree that the "petrodollar" is a pillar of American power but am
frankly confused by what the essential mechanism of this is. To my mind to institute the
petrodollar it is not sufficient to say that oil will be denominated in dollars or even sold
only in dollars. The key is that the proceeds need to STAY in dollar assets. This was only
achieved once Kissinger brokered Petro-dollar recycling, meaning that the dollars earned in
this way would be recycled into treasury securities or used to purchase American weaponry or
the engineering skills of the American firms that basically built the Kingdom as it now exists.
This is what I was hinting at when I was talking about the circular nature of trade between
currency blocs. No non-circular trade patterns can persist for long.
We emphasize different things. I suspect that the simple scale of the dollar value of trading
of financial claims on things – trading in which London and New York are dominant – contributes
more to the maintenance of the dollar reserve system than you are proposing. The upshot
being that America's "debt" problem is actually a demonstration of its financial power. *
Could it become it's greatest weakness? It's possible I suppose but I don't see this happening
when western finance dwarfs the trading clout of its rivals. The system develops over time and,
with time it gains scale and so momentum. In other words I'm suggesting that a dollar collapse
is less likely than one might suppose.
*This was the point I was trying to make with the dollar as "safe haven" comments above. If
the dollar zigs (strengthens) when your mental model of the world says it should zag (weaken)
then this should really suggest that your model is missing some important part of the complex
mechanism it is trying to simulate.
Tim, I'll quote your words back to you and insert some clarifying (for me) words to demonstrate
my understanding and to see if it is the same as yours-
– my point is that the reserve status makes it possible for the U.S. to run persistent
(international) trade deficits but the ability to run a (domestic budgetary) deficit
is a virtue of all fiat systems. The fact that the reserve status of the dollar means those
(international trade and domestic budgetary) deficits can be much higher doesn't change
the fact. Nor should it discredit (domestic budgetary) deficit-spending by association."
The Bretton Woods agreement specified that the US would make gold available for purchase at
an agreed fixed price. This condition was thought to inhibit the US from printing money to excess.
But the Vietnam War came along and the US was printing money to pay for it. This extra money was
not financing extra productive capacity or creating wealth. Quite the opposite, in fact. So we
had an increasing supply of US dollars around the world but no commensurate extra production to
absorb the extra dollars.
This is exactly what the French thought would happen and they started demanding gold for their
US dollars. Eventually, the US had to stop selling gold now that it was greatly undervalued because
the dollar was overvalued. So Nixon took the US dollar off the gold standard. Inflation ensued.
Something was needed to soak up the extra purchasing power of the extra US dollars sloshing
around the world. This money was called "EuroDollars" at the time. Oil was the answer. The Saudis
(at the behest of Wall St) and OPEC jacked up the price of oil by a factor of four (IIRC) and
rapidly increased the demand for dollars and reversed the inflationary trend and the subsequent
loss of value.
As Tim points out, the Saudis had to not only sell oil exclusively for US dollars but they
had to deposit their surplus with New York banks. This way the banks won in three different ways.
1. they had overnight increased the international demand for US dollars and boosting its strength
and prestige (perceptions are everything)
2. They had handed a fortune to the Saudis but by keeping the money in the NY banks, the bankers
still controlled the Saudis
3. This surplus money was also kept out of other international banks and so could not be used
by them to effectively compete with the NY banks and so kept those other banks under control as
well and Wall St dominant.
Point 1 was the most important for the bankers, in my view. This created the petrodollar –
a dollar that used to be covered by gold as well as international trade and the US domestic GDP.
Then gold dropped out of the equation and was replaced with oil at a hugely inflated price.
At a bankers symposium during the eighties (I think from memory), the head of Citibank at the
time, Walter Wriston, answered a question concerning what his bank would do if the Saudis wanted
their money back. He replied blithely, "No problem. We'll write them a cheque!" His reply was
met with dumbfounded silence which told me told me that most of the audience of bankers did not
understand banking at that level. There should have been laughter because the money cannot escape
the system. It can only get transferred from one bank to another and each bank is dependent on
remaining in the system to keep operating.
It's just a matter of borrowing from each other. If Citibank has the Saudi's money to cover
their other loans, then this will be more profitable for them than having to borrow it from other
banks. But it is not a system breaker if they do have to borrow it from other banks. That's what
the system is for.
It would be interesting to know when the Saudis also started buying up weapons and military
hardware from the US and the UK. If they began some time in the early / mid 1970s to buy such
equipment, and it were possible to find out where the money was coming from, that would be another
piece in a big puzzle that links the collapse of the Bretton Woods agreement, the Vietnam War,
the 1973 oil crisis and subsequent decline in the US car manufacturing industry, the Yom Kippur
War and maybe more besides.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis#End_of_the_Bretton_Woods_accord
Hello Jen! From the Wiki article you linked, I found this paragraph to be very interesting:
"The result was a depreciation of the dollar and other industrialized nations' currencies.
Because oil was priced in dollars, oil producers' real income decreased. In September 1971, OPEC
issued a joint communiqué stating that, from then on, they would price oil in terms of a fixed
amount of gold."
So it seems that the oil sellers, seeing that their "real" income from selling oil was decreasing
(they were selling oil at the same price in terms of dollars, but at a lower price in terms of
gold), were determined not to let the depreciating dollar erase a big chunk of their earnings.
I think this goes to show how deep is entrenched in the collective psyche the idea that gold is
THE medium for storing wealth. Barbarous relic? I think not…
After all, value is a social construct and economic relations are social relations mediated
through these things we call "commodities". Gold has proven itself to be a very good mediator
of these social relations, not because some magical qualities, but because of obvious practical
advantages. So, although its role is significantly smaller these days, I think it still retains
the roles of "medium of last resort" and "measuring stick of wealth".
The currency Gaddafi had moved to introduce was the gold dinar, an actual negotiable gold coin,
and he proposed all African and Muslim nations
accept only the dinar for oil. The sources speculating on this look a little tabloid-ey, but
as with many such subjects, the mainstream press just never mentions it, as if deciding not to
talk about it removes it from consideration as an issue.
Similarly, the disappearance of Libya's gold is easily explained – unscrupulous people, including
Gaddafi himself,
stole it. The guy who was planning to introduce a gold currency to Africa actually stole all
the gold for himself, the tricky devil.
Jen, my recollection is that the Saudi's started buying armaments big-time during the seventies
because I remember asking myself, "what's wrong with this picture?" Here is a supposed enemy of
Israel buying huge amounts of military equipment, particularly fighter jets, from the country
it has just imposed sanctions on, the US. Added to that, the US is THE big supporter of Israel
and indeed, saved its bacon during the Yom Kippur war!
The money for the military hardware could only have come from the increased price of oil
and looking back it is increasingly obvious that these sales were part of the original deal to
increase the price of oil. It is part of the circular trading that Tim was talking about.
The petrol rationing exercises in the US and elsewhere are looking more and more like theatre
to condition the punters that we have to pay more. The whole crisis was stage managed and nothing
has changed in forty years!
The USA has a similar arrangement with Israel, in which it transfers billions in foreign aid
to this prosperous country and Israel then uses it to buy U.S. weapons and military equipment.
It would be simpler to just gift them the military equipment, but that would look as if the USA
was building a military ally to extend its own power – which it is – and the former way helps
create the need for more dollars.
(Reuters) - The United States has added a Russian oil and gas field, the
Yuzhno-Kirinskoye Field, to its list of energy sector sanctions prompted by
Moscow's actions in Ukraine, drawing a prompt rebuke from the Kremlin on Friday.
The federal government said on Thursday the field, located in the Sea of
Okhotsk of the Siberian coast and owned by Russia's leading gas producer Gazprom,
contains substantial reserves of oil in addition to reserves of gas.
"The Yuzhno-Kirinskoye Field is being added to the Entity List because it
is reported to contain substantial reserves of oil," according to a rule notice
in the Federal Register.
Adding the field to the list means a license will be required for exports,
re-exports or transfers of oil from that location, it said. The gas and condensate
field was discovered in 2010, according to Gazprom.
Douglas Jacobson, an international trade lawyer in Washington, said the addition
"represents a new arrow in the quiver of U.S. sanctions on Russia."
He said the addition means that no U.S. origin items or non-U.S. origin items
containing more than 25 percent U.S. content can be exported or re-exported
to the field without a Commerce Department license, which he said was not likely
to be issued.
"This goes beyond the current Russia sanctions, which prohibit certain items
to be exported to Russia when they are used directly or indirectly in the exploration
for, or production of, oil or gas in Russian deepwater (greater than 500 feet),"
Jacobsen said in an email.
The action builds on those taken since last year by the United States and
the European Union after Russia's annexation of Crimea and its use of force
in Ukraine.
Last week, the United States imposed additional Russia and Ukraine-related
sanctions, adding associates of a billionaire Russian gas trader, Crimean port
operators and former Ukrainian officials to its list of those it is penalizing
in response to Russia's actions in Ukraine.
(Additional reporting by Yeganeh Torbati in Washington and Ekaterina Golubkova
and Maria Tsvetkova in Moscow; Editing by Andrew Hay)
Russian giant Rosneft's recent deals in Asia suggest it is potentially shifting the balance of
its crude oil sales in the region - one of its most important export markets - from a spot tender
basis to long term contracts and significantly reducing the amount of Russian crude that enters the
spot market in Asia.
Last year the company sent 35% of its total crude exports, or around 680,000 b/d, to Asia, with
South Korea, Japan and China being the main buyers.
Russia's crude exports to Asia have been rising steadily, underpinned by term contracts sealed
with Chinese buyers, primarily China National Petroleum Corp. By 2018, Rosneft will raise its term
sales to CNPC to over 600,000 b/d, doubling from current volumes.
... ... ...
Data from Beijing shows that Russia for the first time overtook Saudi Arabia to be China's top
crude oil supplier in May, with volumes exceeding 900,000 b/d. Russian flows again surpassed 900,000
b/d in June, although Saudi Arabia reclaimed the top spot.
And don't forget
Iran.
In early 2016, once economic sanctions are fully lifted, it is expected to join the SCO, turning
it into a G9. As its foreign minister, Javad Zarif, made clear recently to Russia's Channel 1 television,
Tehran considers the two countries strategic partners. "Russia," he said, "has been the most important
participant in Iran's nuclear program and it will continue under the current agreement to be Iran's
major nuclear partner." The same will, he added, be true when it comes to "oil and gas cooperation,"
given the shared interest of those two energy-rich nations in "maintaining stability in global market
prices."
philipat
Add also a pissed-off Saudi Arabia agreeing to China (It's largest customer) paying for oil
in CNY much sooner than would otherwise have been the case. Then too the peoples of Europe are
waking up to the fact that sanctions against Russia are unwarranted and are not in the best interests
of Europe itself and that further tensions with Russia, created by the US, could result in nuclear
war IN EUROPE whilst the US mainland would probably be unaffected,
So, all in all, yes a brilliant strategy by the neocons who seem to be living in the past....
ebworthen
The U.S.A. deserves to have rings run around it; we have been incredibly arrogant, and fomented
war instead of heeding the instructions of our Founding Fathers and our Constitution (which has
been trampled by those sworn to protect it).
Russia has overtaken Saudi Arabia as the largest supplier of oil to China for the first time,
sending almost 930,000 barrels a day last month – up 21% on April.
China imported 3.92m tonnes of crude oil from Russia in May. In comparison, oil imports from Angola
and Saudia Arabia totalled 3.26m tonnes and 3.05m tonnes respectively.
Popeyes
24 Jun 2015 16:33
Just another example of Russia and China working together at the expense of the U.S. Currency
swaps between Russia (ruble) and China (yuan) for an initial US$ 25 billion equivalent have already
been implemented, to allow direct transactions between the two countries. Similar swaps are under
way between China and Russia with other countries, primarily the BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation
Organisation.
In other words, a large junk of hydrocarbons are no longer being traded in US (petro) dollars,
but in rubles and yuans and their partners respective local currencies, thus reducing worldwide
demand for the petro dollar.
PlatonKuzin -> 6i9vern
24 Jun 2015 16:28
True. And what the US is now doing - to prevent the above said from happening - is preparing
a war against Russia in Europe by proxy, using the same Europe. There is only one, but very important
aspect crossing its dirty criminal intentions.
And that is that, if the US wages a war in Europe, this time, number one target of Russia will
be the United States and the war will go on its territory. The States will not survive this time
overseas. It must keep it in mind all the time.
6i9vern
24 Jun 2015 15:09
"Russia now accepts yuan for oil payments"
And so it begins - the end of the petro-dollar, the end of virtually all international trade
being mediated in dollars.
And when that ends, the ability of the USA to run trillion dollar deficits at minimal cost
goes. The state will have to shrink. The military industrial complex and entitlements will be
radically cut.
70 million lower middle-class Americans will cease having First World lifestyles.
Kaiama -> sasha19
24 Jun 2015 15:04
Actually, I am aware that a deal was signed by Tsipras in St Petersberg to construct a gas
pipeline to carry Russian gas from Turkey. But, and this is the crucial point, Russia's trade
with China is growing: goods, energy and military technology. In the future, I would expect most
of the petrochemicals and natural resources to be redirected to Asia rather than Europe. Yes,
the Russians are trying to keep their European Business, but they are also developing the Asian
alternative where people aren't trying to screw Russia at the same time. Long term, I suggest
that trade with Europe, including gas, will decline permanently or at least for a generation until
people have forgotten about everything.
Petar -> Peter iangio
24 Jun 2015 14:58
You probably meant ukrainian fascist butchering innocent children and women in Novorossia..but
not for long .Russia is redirecting its exports to Asia to break independence on corrupt western
money..once it is done..ukraine is doomed.
BMWAlbert -> Chirographer
24 Jun 2015 14:55
I think the 'out-of-ground' price in RU is Globally speaking, very low, but China tends to
low-ball producing of all energy and materials with a provision of large volume and importantly,
high reliability. It was the same with the NG, it was priced something like 30USD below the Euro-rate
mean.
tiojo
24 Jun 2015 13:43
One of the expected consequences of US and EU economic sanctions on Russia. It finds other
partners with which to trade. With the NATO sabre rattlers doing their best to keep themselves
and their armed forces in employment combined with economic sanctions that build barriers rather
than ties any thought of constructive dialogue seems to have gone out of the window. A pity that
Ms Merkel seems to be sidelined in Greece. She seemed to be the only one who saw a future in a
positive relationship between Europe and Russia.
MaoChengJi
24 Jun 2015 13:27
Calculations at the time shows Russia needs an oil price of $105 a barrel for its budget to
break-even
Well, of course the budget is not sent down by God. They planned for $105/barrel, and now they'll
have a different budget. Or they'll compensate by selling more oil. Or they'll use a part of their
large rainy-day fund.
Phil_Paris -> oleteo
24 Jun 2015 12:52
It is not a coincidence that the huge increase of production of gas thanks to fracking has
the consequence of lowering the sales of oil from the Saudi Arabia to the US.
Now China is buying a lot of oil from a Saudi Arabia.
Then the USA is not as dependant of Saudi Arabia, which is a reasonnable move after 9/11, but
undoubtebly must retain good connections in the oil industry there which can be usefull when China
is highly dependant on imported oil.
Phil_Paris -> quarrytone
24 Jun 2015 12:38
China doesn't "cement ties in South America", China for example makes agreements with Brasil
to build a railway across the Amazonia to carry GM soya and cut the forest to export logs to China,
and eliminate indigenous tribes if necessary
It's colonial.
As regards China and Russia, Russia has signed an agreement whereby it will sell gas to China
with Chinese financing through a pipeline (built by Chinese firms, Chinese workers probably too
as it would be naive to think that China will pay to employ Russians) not connected to the grid
to Europe ie for the sole destination of China, hence China will hold Russia by the b....
In the South China Sea China is violating the International Law of the Sea and occupies islands
and islets included in the EEZ of states thousands of km from its own shores.
quarrytone -> Phil_Paris
24 Jun 2015 11:49
However the biased press likes to dress it up, China does have a historic claim to uninhabited
islands and reefs, however tenuous in Western law. Comparing that old KMT claim to a sudden annexation
across a long settled border is faintly hysterical.
And no, there are not millions of Chinese on Russia's border. Clearly geography isn't your
strong point. There are one or two cities with a couple of million doing well thanks through trade
with Russia, and Russians doing very well in trade with China. If China wants farmland produce
then that will only cement ties with Russia, as it does with South America.
Does anybody know what Russia's plans are to try to prevent runaway climate change? Or is Russia's
government oblivious to the catastrophic effects of continued greenhouse gas emissions? Their
aggressive plans for oil drilling in the Arctic indicate the latter.
"Or is Russia's government oblivious to the catastrophic effects of continued greenhouse gas
emissions?" Sounds like a typical cheap shot against Russia to me. The country most oblivious
to the catastrophic effects, and one of the two the biggest contributors (with China), is the
good ole USA. Russian is at 6%, USA at 20%! Your propaganda driven prejudice is showing!
With Russia's utter dependence upon oil and gas, plus lack of FDI, they have no alternative
but to drill baby drill. Eventual regime change may increase their long term prospects.
Careful now. This could encourage blow-back from Barry Fay.
Let me just say that Russia is not a static society (education is prized). They can, and likely
will, create a more diversified/un-stratified economy going forward. As for regime change, that's
an habitual fantasy of folks who read only MSM propaganda. Putin, despite the grandstanding of
American representatives (98% return rate) has the support of 80% of the Russian population. Russians
are not stupid (See USA for comparison.)
2. At a time when China and parts of Eastern Europe remain dependent on highly polluting coal-fired
power plants, Germany is returning to coal following its phase-out of nuclear power, cash-strapped
EU countries are phasing out renewable energy subsidies, and many Eastern European nuclear plants
are overdue for retirement, natural gas remains a necessary – and environmentally friendly – energy
alternative. The only question then is where the gas to come from. The UK's oil and gas industry
is in terminal decline, large-scale imports from North America and the Middle East are a decade
or more away, and efforts to promote fracking-related gas production in Europe has failed for
a variety of reasons. To borrow a favorite line of the neo-liberals, "there is no alternative"
(TINA) to Russian gas.
3. Since the end of the Cold War, the West has aggressively used the WTO, investor-state dispute
tribunals, sanctions, propaganda campaigns, and "regime change" to punish resource-exporting nations
who limit, or attempt to limit, exports for environmental reasons. To the WTO, for example, environmental
laws in countries outside of Western Europe, the US, and Canada are illegal "non-tariff trade
barriers." Russian attempts to protect its old growth forests against timber exporters and Chinese
attempts to limit the environmentally disastrous (and often illegal) mining of rare earth ores
were both struck down by the WTO at the request of the West. If Russia were to limit oil and gas
exports for environmental reasons, the resulting legal, political, and military confrontation
with the West would dwarf the Cuban missile crisis.
Burning any hydrocarbon produces carbon dioxide, so natural gas is not "environmentally friendly."
There is clear evidence, too, that natural gas exploration and production release huge quantities
of methane into the atmosphere. EPA has proposed rules on that for producers (late and weak, of
course). Methane in atmosphere is over 20X as damaging as CO.
Russian scientists contribute much to
Climate Mayhem knowledge, especially in the rapidly changing arctic and on the threat of methane
release.
Russian Academy of Sciences, Far Eastern Branch, Pacific Oceanological Institute, 43 Baltiiskaya
Street, Vladivostok 690041, Russia
Natalia Shakhova, Igor Semiletov, Anatoly Salyuk, Denis Kosmach & Denis Chernykh
Russian Academy of Sciences, Far Eastern Branch, Institute of Chemistry, 159, 100-Let Vladivostok
Prospect, Vladivostok 690022, Russia
Valentin Sergienko
To name a few.
One wonders if Russian climate scientists are censored and hounded as much as are U.S. and
U.K. researchers, especially in the US government (USGS, NOAA, NASA, etc.). Persecution and censorship
of US scientists is above McCarthey-esque proportions today.
Just like the War on Drugs is most successful when it focuses on reducing demand (drug users)
rather than fighting/bombing the suppliers (Mexico, Colombia, etc), the War on greenhouse gases
is best fought by reducing demand. If the Europeans find a way to no longer need so much natgas,
then Russia wouldn't be selling it to them. Otherwise, someone else will sell it to them regardless.
That doesn't completely exonerate Russia, of course, and given their history with the Aral
Sea, I'm not sure that they would put environmental concerns very high on their list of priorities
(certainly not higher than their economic security). But right now, the problem with greenhouse
gases is on the other end of all these pipelines.
The abandonment of South Stream was not much of a surprise to anybody with even a passing interest
in the energy politics.
Brussels and Washington were both adamant that it would never pass through Bulgaria.
I suppose some people were surprised at how quickly negotiations progressed with Turkey. Possibly
there is some quid pro quo regarding Iranian and Kurdish hydrocarbons.
Serbia and Hungary are anxious for access. The Austrians are even talking money. Greece of
course needs gas and transit fees. Italia, Slovakia, Czech would welcome shares. The only problem
is some people have suddenly taken an interest in organizing a colour revolution in Makedonia.
I questioned the author's perspective as soon as I saw this (in the second sentence)
:
Six months ago Russian President Vladimir Putin surprised the energy world by dismissing
the long-prepared South Stream project in favour of Turkish Stream.
Russia re-routed South Stream to Turkey (now called "TurkStream") because Bulgaria rejected
South Stream under pressure from US/EU. OIFVet, a frequent commentator at NC, has written loads
of good and inciteful comments with respect to this farce (he is Bulgarian).
The author refers to a "Russian Waltz" which casts aspersions on Russian intentions. Their
intentions are clear. To by-pass a Ukraine that is hostile to Russia. Period. Their efforts to
do so are being blocked (first by pressuring Bulgaria, now with a color revolution in Macedonia).
Russia's 'waltz' partner is the EU which created the rule that pipeline ownership must be independent
of supplier. This rule has dubious value when applied to large suppliers like Russia/Gazprom.
The author artfully guides us to three possibilities but ignores the most logical and intuitive
one. Russia is likely to be taking this move now to hedge against the developing brinkmanship
whereby Russia is blamed for causing European suffering by refusing to transit gas through Ukraine
– despite the US/EU's irresponsible blocking of South Stream / Turk Stream as a delivery platform.
=
I believe that one must be very careful about sources when dealing with issues that are sensitive
to the US/EU establishment.
Brugel is nominally an independent think tank but it is governed by, led by, and staffed with
establishment figures and technocrats. From their annual report:
The idea to set up an independent European think tank devoted to international economics
stemmed from discussions involving economists, policymakers and private practitioners from
many European countries. The initiative subsequently found support from 12 EU governments and
17 leading European corporations, who committed to the project's initial funding base and participated
in the election of its first Board in December 2004. Operations started in 2005 and today Bruegel
counts 18 EU governments, 33 corporations and 10 institutions
among its members.
It is difficult to trust "experts" that have a vested interest in culling favor with the establishment.
This article proves that such skepticism is very much warranted.
Putin's plan, to maintain a chokehold of the distribution of gas, mimics John Rockefeller's
strategy for Standard Oil to control the distribution of oil in the late 19th century.
Syria has really taken a hit for Russia. Until the conflict there is resolved the the Saudis/Arab
natgas cannot build their pipeline. And by the time it is resolved Russia will have already established
its network. It looks like this leaves the Saudis and other MidEast natural gas suppliers at the
mercy of China and India. The BRICS.
You already know this, but Israel wants to send the gas production from the Levantine Basin
to the Europe market and Assad stands in the way for the time being. Once Assad is toppled and
a new puppet regime is put in place, I think we'll see the construction of the pipeline through
Syria. Qatar & Saudi Arabia will connect through the same artery to reach the Europe market…and
then Russia finds itself with competition. This is the key for the West to gain greater control
of the Russian economy, and eventually profit from Russia's resources. So, in the short term (~10
yrs), Russia may have its infrastructure in place (whether via Nord, Turkish or South stream),
but in the long term (~20+ yrs), we'll see Israel, Saudi Arabia and Qatar enter the Europe market
and Russia will no longer be the only game in town. We think we're seeing the squeeze put on Russia
now, but it will only get worse with time. The West looks at Russia's resources and sees dollar
signs.
In the current political situation, there should be a natural alliance between Russia and Greece,
but it can't be a declared alliance – that leads to retaliation that neither one wants to deal
with right now.
A covert alliance with Russia could put Greece in a position to obtain finance through China.
Without any overt declarations, the European countries might figure out "on their own" that continued
sanctions against Russia are counter-productive.
Even in default, if Greece can maintain any kind of economy, the wily Varoufakis gets to sit
back and smile while the EU ministers try to explain to southern Europe why their policies are
necessary and correct.
The US gets to continue with its unprofitable wars in the mid-East while trying to avoid major
embarrassment from the fascists in DonBass. The major problem for the Russians is watching as
Russians in Ukraine are ethnically cleansed.
If the Russians can avoid a military response all that is needed is someone to maintain the
body count. The overall death count would probably be a lot less than a military response.
An MOU with Greece has been signed, providing significant investment funds, a route around
Ukraine, and a potential clinker in the Russian sanction vote on Monday. Further complications
for debt negotiations? Greece is also reportedly "drawing up a default plan, which would see the
country institute capital controls and nationalize its banking industry" (ibtimes). It ain't over
till it's over…
Management fees are gone, although they were small chunk as main tax evaders were not Russians.
President Vladimir Putin is pushing harder on Russia's richest citizens to repatriate offshore
assets amid a slump in the ruble and the imposition of sanctions by the U.S. and the European Union.
Under new tax rules signed into law by a presidential decree in November, Russian residents will
from this year pay a tax of 13 percent on earnings reported by foreign companies and trusts they
control. Should authorities prove those entities are managed from Russia and don't have significant
assets or employees abroad, the tax rate increases to 20 percent
Annual exports to Russia from Western companies are approximately $320 billions. Exports in Russia
decreased to 390 billion in January 2013 from 480 billion in December 2012. West can say good buy to
most of those. Russia main exports are oil and natural gas (58% of total exports), nickel, palladium,
iron and chemical products will also be severely affected. In 2014 "oil producers import $7,6 billion
of capital . For comparison, they exported $60 billion in 2013 and $248 billion in 2012 according to
BNP Paribas".
Oil touches every aspect of our lives and its price is crashing. Here are just some of the
mixed blessings that may flow – from cheaper holidays and safer sex to busier roads and more terrorism
... ... ...
Russian tourism dries up
In recent years, Russian tourists have joined ranks with the Chinese to become major cash cows
for holiday destinations around the world. With the conflict in Ukraine, subsequent sanctions from
the west and a drop in the value of the rouble, their numbers are already in decline.
The drop in oil prices will only add to this. "Economic growth might be dented in countries which
are oil exporters," says John Kester, trend researcher at the United Nations World Tourism Organization
(UNWTO). "The Russias and the Nigerias of the world might see fewer people travelling."
And this will have knock-on effects for the countries that traditionally host them. As Dr George
Filis, associate professor in financial economics at Bournemouth University, explains: "I'm from
Greece and one of our largest markets is Russian tourists. So if they stop coming, that could be
quite damaging."
Russia pulls even further away from Europe
The falling oil price has severely damaged President Vladimir Putin's regime in Russia, which
is heavily dependent on oil and gas revenues and cannot balance its budget at current prices. Putin
has already signalled public sector wage freezes and spending cuts. The economy is set to shrink
by 5% as the rouble's value falls and consumer prices rise. Russia's annexation of Crimea and intervention
in eastern Ukraine last year provoked western sanctions, exacerbating economic problems. Putin's
generally more aggressive geopolitical stance vis a vis Nato and the west has also raised anxiety
levels in Washington.
As with Iran, it is suggested the US and Saudi Arabia have colluded on oil to punish Russia over
Ukraine, curb future expansionism, and weaken its support for Syria's Assad. There is a precedent.
In 1998, the Saudis, resentful of Russian competition, sent the oil price plummeting; Russia defaulted
on its debts. Russia currently has about $400bn in reserves, but private sector debt amounts to about
$700bn.
If Russia is squeezed enough, it is argued, Putin may back down on Ukraine. But don't hold your
breath.
The Russian leader says the answer is to diversify the Russian economy away from oil. He has
also begun to woo China with multi-billion dollar energy deals. This eastwards "pivot" could
have long-term strategic implications for Russia's relations with Europe and US, forcing two of the
world's most authoritarian regimes into alliance. ST
In our view, there is a kind of cold war going on between the US and Russia. The US worked
to destabilize Ukraine from what we can tell and now along with Saudi Arabia has caused the price
of oil to plummet.
Low prices for oil put pressure on Russia's economy and currency. Moody's has just downgraded
Russia and the ruble. This is a kind of war by proxy, one the US seems confident of winning.
But this article makes the case that in the long run, market forces could prove stronger than
manipulation.
Here's more:
Representatives of the leading members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting countries
have been saying for weeks they would not pump less oil no matter how low its price goes.
Saudi Arabian Oil Minister Ali Al-Naimi has said even $20 per barrel wouldn't trigger a change
of heart. Initial reactions in the U.S. were confident: U.S. oil producers were resilient enough;
they would keep producing even at very low sale prices because the marginal cost of pumping from
existing wells was even lower;
OPEC would
lose because its members' social safety nets depends on the oil price; and anyway, OPEC was dead.
That optimism was reminiscent of the cavalier Russian reaction at the beginning of the price
slide: In October, Russian President Vladimir Putin said "none of the serious players" was
interested in an oil price below $80. This complacency has taken Russia to the brink: On
Friday, Fitch
downgraded its credit rating to a notch above junk, and it'll probably go lower as the ruble continues
to devalue in line with the oil slump.
It's generally a bad idea to act cocky in a price war. By definition, everybody is going to
get hurt, and any victory can only be relative. The winner is he who can take the most pain.
My tentative bet so far is on the Saudis -- and, though it might seem counterintuitive, the Russians.
For now, the only sign that U.S. crude oil production may shrink is the falling number of operational
oil rigs in the U.S. It was down to 1750 last week, 61 less than the week before and four less
than a year ago. Oil output, however, is still at a record level. In the week that ended on Jan.
2, when the number of rigs also dropped, it reached 9.13 million barrels a day, more than ever
before.
Oil companies are only stopping production at their worst wells, which only produce a few barrels
a day – at current prices, those wells aren't worth the lease payments on the equipment. Since
nobody is cutting production, the price keeps going down; today, Brent was at $48.27 per barrel
and trends are still heading downward.
The article goes on to point out that "All this will eventually have an impact." The basic
impact would be felt by producers "shutting-in production at a level where there is a significant
reduction in global oil supply. At $40 Brent, 1.5 million barrels per day is cash negative with
the largest contribution coming from several oil sands projects in Canada, followed by the U.S.A.
and then Colombia."
The weak link here is US fracking. Frackers, according to the article, will keep pumping
at a loss because they have debts: "about $200 billion in total debt, comparable to the financing
needs of Russia's state energy companies."
Eventually this newfound US industry will begin to face bankruptcy. First, will go the highly
leveraged producers. But the industry will not contract in an orderly fashion because healthier
companies won't be in a position to purchase the unhealthy ones. A crisis of investor confidence
will affect all concerned.
This could be a bloody, prolonged battle with an uncertain outcome. The oil price is rather
inelastic to short-term changes in demand and supply. Its course this year will, therefore, be
largely dictated by the news and the market's reaction to it. A wave of bankruptcies in the U.S.
shale industry will probably drive it up because it will be perceived as a negative factor for
supply.
How high it will go, however, is unpredictable. It may actually rise enough to enable consolidation
in the U.S. shale industry, giving it second wind and driving OPEC countries, Russia, Mexico and
Norway into greater difficulties – or it might just even out at a level that would make the U.S.
forget about its shale boom. That would have dire consequences for the U.S. economic recovery.
Surprisingly, the article makes the suggestion that the US government might want to start preparing
for the day when fracking begins to melt down from a financial standpoint. If the price of oil hovers
in the US$40 area, the US may find it is in its strategic interest to "bail out or temporarily subsidize
shale producers."
An average oil price in 2015 will probably be in the range of $60 to $80 a barrel, say leading
Russian politicians and bankers talking at the Gaidar Economic Forum in Moscow. The Head of Sberbank
German Gref suggests oil will return to the level of $60-70 a barrel in the near future. "I do not
believe it will continue to be low at $40, but it may stay at $60-70 for several years," Gref told
reporters at the economic forum in Moscow Wednesday.
"The oil price of $25 put forward by the Emirates won't last for long. The deeper we
fall today, the faster the rebound will be," said Gref, adding that it's impossible to keep the price
in the range of $25-35 a barrel at the current output level.
Gref believes the current oil prices will inevitably affect the Russian economy. "We will see
a reduction in costs," he said, adding that Russia won't be able to avoid a major bank crisis should
oil prices stay at the level of $45-50 a barrel.
Deputy Minister of Economic Development Aleksey Vedev agreed with the assumptions, saying the
estimates of an oil price between $60 and $80 a barrel are "the most reliable."
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
français italiano Español Português Türkçe română Deutsch norsk
December 8, 2019 © Photo: Wikimedia For all of 2019
December has been a magnet. A number of major geopolitical issues come to head this month and
many of them have everything to do with energy. This is the month that Russian gas giant
Gazprom was due to finish production on three major pipeline projects – Nordstream 2,
Turkstream and Power of Siberia.
Ukraine is
overpaying for European gas & wants Russia to foot the bill
