Posts by Michael Davis9

Nancy Gomez26 said:Strategically speaking, putting all your eggs in one basket is reckless, especially when dealing with natural gas—a critical fuel for so many industries. Then again, who is going to foot the bill for the price gap created by an alternative ExxonMobil terminal? Without the steady flow from existing pipelines, that extra capacity would essentially sit there gathering dust. Furthermore, having just one terminal to satisfy Germany's massive demand is practically the same as having none at all. For our scale of consumption, however, that single terminal provides a perfectly viable alternative.
In my view, Germany would have been much better off securing pipeline alternatives from one or more suppliers in North Africa.

That is spot on, and honestly, it applies to pretty much any energy source you can think of.

If you ask me, Germany would have been much better off securing an alternative supply route through pipelines from one or more producers in North Africa.

That option doesn't really help with the current crisis, though, because by the time a potential pipeline to a single country is actually built, the war might already be over.

Not to mention that you'd essentially be handing all the leverage to that one North African nation, whereas with floating ExxonMobil terminals, you don't have to worry about that kind of exclusivity.

Looking at the maps we've seen, I actually think Schloz came up with the most optimal solution. You can see that reflected in the TTF gas prices—and yeah, I know, I know, the warm weather plays a part in that too.

There is absolutely no way the Germans are going to stop importing gas anytime soon; if anything, things are just ramping up, especially since those new floating LNG terminals aren't even scheduled to go online until early 2023...

The free market is all about give and take. If we hadn't seen those prices hitting the $200–$300 per MWh range—which, let's face it, was exactly why so many people were trucking gas over to the European Union—we wouldn't be looking at storage levels sitting above 90% right now. In Germany, they’re actually sitting at a massive 97%. They literally have nowhere to put all this extra gas; since the heating season is running late and a good chunk of the industrial sector has already switched over to alternative energy sources, demand just isn't what it used to be.

And honestly, without that 97% fill rate, we wouldn't be seeing prices hovering back around the $100 mark either. There are plenty of other moving parts involved, of course, but at its core, the free market is just a pretty straightforward mechanism...

Chloe Jones3 said:Prices spiked because of market volatility, setting up new supply lines, and mostly just pure speculation and panic over shortages. A lot of people sat on their hands, waiting for prices to climb even higher. Now that most folks have secured what they need, storage is full, the fall is looking mild, and things are shifting. Once surpluses start building up, those prices are going to tank. Those speculators will dump everything just to free up capacity and avoid being caught empty-handed. At the end of the day, Putin's plan failed here, just like it did everywhere else.

If you ask me, a free market just keeps humming along regardless. Both big corporations and individual consumers have already baked these high energy costs into our budgets, and we've been adjusting our behavior accordingly for quite some time now.

The only way Putin can actually hurt Europe at this stage is if he pivots toward large-scale terrorism targeting non-Russian energy corridors.

I'm talking about attacks on oil and gas tankers, hits on storage facilities (which are currently sitting at over 90% capacity), or strikes against critical energy infrastructure and power plants of all kinds.

I truly hope that Europe and the West are keeping every single link in the energy supply chain under tight military and police surveillance...

Andrew Booth29 said:I’m just not convinced they’re going to sacrifice the entire planet for 15% of Ukraine. Does that actually look like a smart trade to you? If I were sitting on the sidelines, I’d be shorting the whole thing. lol.

Exactly!

Melissa Rivera5 said:It’s not like they'll necessarily go nuclear, but they really HAVE to hit back hard. Like, they don't really have much of a choice here—it's either do nothing or react in a way that isn't just... weak.

There is no such thing as "have to."

When it comes to Russia using limited nuclear weapons, NATO and the West essentially have three paths to choose from:
1) A direct strike on Russia -> a clash between nuclear superpowers -> total nuclear holocaust.
2) Total economic and diplomatic isolation of Russia. We’re talking about a scenario where anyone buying a single grain of wheat or a molecule of gas from them is treated with the same level of isolation as Russia itself. It's possible that China and India might agree to stay on the Western side of that divide, though it's unlikely they'd go much further than that. Either way, the world would definitely enter a new era of intense bloc-based division, likely without any non-aligned nations left in the middle.
3) Doing absolutely nothing.

To me, Option 2 seems like the most probable and logical route. Option 1 carries a terrible risk-to-reward ratio for the West, and Option 3 is just too weak to be viable.

Melissa Rivera5 said:If they don't act, they've basically already sacrificed everything anyway. Because then Putin realizes he doesn't need anything else to take over whatever's next—he could just drop a nuke on the capital of any country he wants to annex.

That logic only holds water IF the territory being targeted isn't covered by a nuclear umbrella—whether that's their own or through a military alliance.
Plus, I highly doubt Putin is quite deranged enough to start dropping nukes on major capitals across Asia...

Christian Torres3 said:The US response would be conventional. There were probably two Arleigh Burke class destroyers near Alaska—maybe they're still there—with enough Tomahawks to level that Russian base. I doubt Putin would ever dare touch US soil.

But wait, what exactly does it mean for the USA or Ukraine to achieve "conventional leveling" of Alaska?
From my perspective, that would essentially amount to one nuclear superpower launching a direct assault on another, which just doesn't seem to align with American interests at all—especially when things are already moving along quite smoothly for them just the way they are...

bluepuma9 said:We need to push Putin to the breaking point. That's when his own people will finally ditch him. There are plenty of soft spots to hit. Look at Syria, or some of those various Russian republics that aren't exactly thrilled with how things are playing out. Then you've got Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Tajikistan. Too many vulnerabilities, and not enough resources to cover them all.

Honestly, none of that is even strictly necessary given the current trajectory—Russia is already sliding toward losing this war in Ukraine.

On one hand, you have to look at the massive leap in capability; the Ukrainian military in 2022 is a completely different beast compared to back in 2014.

On the other hand, Americans have never been more efficient at converting taxpayer dollars into direct damage against the Russian forces.
It reminds me a bit of what the Soviets were doing during the Vietnam War—even though they had direct involvement with their own pilots and air defense crews, I’d argue that the efficiency of resource conversion we're seeing in Ukraine right now is exceptionally high.

And regarding the whole nuclear question—it's not realistic to expect the US to trigger a nuclear holocaust just because of a few tactical nukes being used in eastern Ukraine. Of course, using them is basically Russia's only way to avoid a total loss, but the fallout from such a move would be incredibly difficult to predict. In my view, it would likely result in Russia facing absolute global isolation and some sort of forced ceasefire along a wasteland buffer zone.

Zelenskyy is playing this perfectly—every single time Russia tries to escalate, it just triggers a fresh Ukrainian countermove. It’s almost funny watching them try to step up, only to find themselves digging their own graves instead...

Kate Cook27 said:Honestly, most of them looked like they were at a funeral. As for Ramzan Kadyrov, he just looked like he was holding back tears, and Dmitry Peskov looked like he nearly passed out.

Honestly, I'd rather they break down in tears than have some dictator send them straight to the front lines.

gentlestag15 said:Volodymyr Zelenskyy: Ukraine will not hold any negotiations with Russia as long as Putin is the President of the Russian Federation.

In today’s terms, you’d call that pure BIG DICK ENERGY!
I truly believe the phones over at the KGB (or the military command) are going to be ringing off the hook in the coming days; the ball is firmly in their court now.

Kate Cook27 said:Is Belarus getting pulled into this fight too?

http://www.twitter.com/PavelLatushka...Czma2UkN0rAAAA

Our sources report: #Lukashenko agreed to deploy 120K soldiers during November-February. Belarus undertakes to supply 100K mobilized soldiers in addition. Lukashenko is preparing for a full-scale war. The West must issue an ultimatum he cannot refuse.

So—Russian troops moving into Belarus, plus local mobilization on top of that? It sounds like Lukashenko gave the green light, probably during a meeting in Sochi. Are we looking at a new push toward Kyiv?? 😁 Or maybe Kharkiv?

Honestly, since the conflict began, I feel like I’ve seen reports claiming Belarus is gearing up for war at least fifty different times.

Lukashenko would have to be incredibly foolish to jump headlong into a losing war, and he isn't quite that dim-witted. It serves him much better to just run military exercises near the Ukrainian border every few weeks; that way, he supports Putin without actually putting himself on the line.

The only real way Belarus gets actively involved is if the KGB Lukashenko holds a gun to his head, but even then, you have to wonder whether the country or the military would actually follow through with an invasion of Ukraine or if they'd just revolt.

I) Putin launched his invasion of Ukraine without having enough force to guarantee a win, yet he brought just enough to keep Ukrainians fighting with everything they had out of pure survival instinct. At one point, Kyiv was under serious threat, Kherson had fallen, and cities like Chernihiv and Sumy were completely surrounded—it was incredibly intense.
Then, after seven months of seeing his primary forces largely decimated and watching the Ukrainians successfully build a winning military, he finally resorted to a mass mobilization.
If he had hit Ukraine with 600,000 troops right at the start, he might not have conquered the whole country, but he likely would have seized the entire eastern side of the Dnieper.
What we’re seeing now is essentially just throwing artillery fodder against highly trained, deeply motivated Ukrainians, which is going to have a negligible impact on the actual outcome of the war.

II) It’s also worth noting that he didn't shut off the pipelines supplying the European Union immediately; instead, he waited six months, gradually turning down the flow before ultimately destroying the pipeline altogether. But most of Europe had already prepared for winter—it's that classic case of "too little, too late" policy-making.

III) And finally, if he goes ahead and annexes these few regions, he’ll actually be doing the Ukrainians a massive favor. By putting Crimea, Kherson, and these newly annexed areas all on the same legal footing, he removes any distinction when Ukrainians eventually liberate parts of Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, or Crimea. For the Ukrainians themselves, there isn't much difference, but this way, even the Chinese will see that the Russians don't actually care about losing their own territory.

It’s honestly hard to imagine Putin playing his hand any better against Ukraine.

hollowdriver13 said:Look, you've got a whole bunch of politicians out there claiming that if radiation hits any NATO members, it's an automatic trigger for Article 5.

"Nukes Hitting Ukraine Would be ' Attack on NATO ' duo to Radiation"

https://www.newsweek.com/nukes-hitti...graham-1704598

Even Jens Stoltenberg mentioned that NATO would respond "in full capacity" if there's a leak at Zaporizhzhia or if the Russians drop something and radiation starts drifting into NATO territories.

You know, when you really stop to think about it, there are thousands upon thousands of politicians spread across all the different NATO member nations, and it’s fascinating how much weight their words actually carry. It isn't some uniform level of influence, either; the impact of what they say fluctuates wildly depending on which country they represent and what specific role they hold within the alliance. One leader's comment might move markets or shift entire diplomatic strategies, while another's might barely register a ripple, all because of those underlying layers of national importance and official standing.

Senator Lindsey Graham was just laying it out there, making it clear that if Vladimir Putin decides to actually pull the trigger on nuclear weapons in Ukraine, we aren't just looking at a regional crisis—we’re looking at an absolute catastrophe. According to him, such a move would essentially force our hand by triggering Article 5. It's a heavy thought, isn't it? He's basically saying that the moment those nukes are used, it stops being a localized conflict and becomes a direct confrontation that necessitates a full-blown NATO response. It really puts the gravity of the situation into perspective when you hear someone in his position framing it that way.

It’s honestly a bit surprising how the nuclear power plant doesn't even get a single mention in this discussion.

Jens Stoltenberg basically laid it all out there, making it crystal clear that if things go south at Zaporizhzhia—like a leak or if Russia decides to drop something that sends radiation drifting toward NATO members—the Alliance wouldn't just sit idly by. He made it very clear that NATO would respond in its full capacity to handle such a situation.

Can someone please drop a link to the full text?

But even if I were to take you at your word, while you're sitting there talking about:

It really feels like Russia is just leveling the playing field on its own home turf right now.

He’s talking about...
"In full capacity"—honestly, that is a completely different beast altogether.

hollowdriver13 said:It’s not just about dropping a bomb, either. Word has been sent to the Russians that if they mess around with the Zaporizhzhia NPP and radiation leaks out toward NATO members, that counts as triggering Article 5. If that happens, they'll be dealing with a massive retaliation right on their own doorstep.

https://twitter.com/Tobias_Ellwood/s...05699179925509

That’s likely why the IAEA suddenly made a visit to the nuclear plant and why the bombing has dialed back a bit.

Russia is basically your classic neighborhood bully—acting like the big man on campus until someone shows up with a bigger stick.

I'm curious, though—who exactly gave them that warning?

Bryan Booth82 said:Hold on a second—wasn't the push toward the European Union one of the primary triggers back in 2014?🤔
Isn't this whole narrative about the dangers of the European Union and the West to Ukraine largely just a cornerstone of Russian propaganda?🤔 🤔

Best regards,

The drop in Ukrainian industrial output caused by the war has hit German industry right where it hurts—we're seeing shortages in everything from automotive wiring to construction materials and cement, which is creating a massive ripple effect of problems.

The notion that older European Union members are somehow conspiring to dismantle Ukrainian industry is honestly a pretty wild theory; I can't wrap my head around WHY they would want to do that, let alone HOW they could possibly pull it off.

But I'm sure our colleague here will dive into all the specifics and walk us through the reasoning...

Kate Lewis3 said:Luckily for the Ukrainians, they already finished their own privatization process, so it might be harder for people to spin the narrative that outsiders forced them into a war with Russia just to grab their companies.

The absolute worst-case scenario for Ukraine—on top of all the destruction caused by Russian aggression—is joining the European Union, where the "old guard" members will likely try to protect their own turf by crushing any Ukrainian industry that actually poses a threat to their dominance.

I’m curious, though—how exactly would those established European Union nations go about eliminating Ukrainian industry?
Don't hold back on the details!

It feels like more history has been made in the last three days than in the entire past three months. Honestly, I'm just glad it's finally the weekend, because my productivity has taken a serious nose dive lately...

It looks like the entire front line between Cleveland and Indianapolis has basically crumbled over the last three days.
I’m definitely not trying to downplay how much progress the Ukrainian forces have made elsewhere, but it’s entirely possible the Russians were spread incredibly thin in this specific sector, especially since that area offers them the most strategic depth.

I have no doubt the Ukrainians are fighting just as bravely down south, but between the difficult terrain and what looks like a much heavier concentration of Russian troops in that region, it's a whole different beast...

Jessica Peterson2 As I was reading through the thread, I couldn't help but notice what Michael Davis9 had to say about this situation. It really makes you stop and think when you look at the details they provided.
None of that is happening. It’s just going to be my wife and me celebrating together.

😁

No sarcasm intended here, but you all truly seem like die-hard Russian patriots! It’s just a shame that most people don't seem to realize it...

Jessica Peterson2 said:To my mind, Russian Orthodoxy is nothing short of pure fascism, and frankly, it has no business existing on this planet. Quite frankly,
@Kate Cook27 Don't pay too much attention to my posts if my writing style isn't to your liking. However, what you're saying—especially when you're relaying things from personal conversations with female defenders of Ukraine or folks living in the occupied territories—is a bit overblown, wouldn't you say?
Please, do carry on.
And naturally,
Slava Ukraini!

I know it’s cold comfort, but the Russians aren't exactly some unique anomaly here. When Americans were voting to go after Iraq—based on that whole supposed nuclear weapons argument—if I recall correctly, there was only one congresswoman who stood her ground against it. It just goes to show how easily people can be fired up by those "defending the nation" narratives; Goebbels understood that tactic perfectly well a long time ago.

@Jessica Peterson2, I was wondering, how is the media landscape over in Russia actually portraying this Ukrainian offensive near Kupiansk? Is there any actual coverage at all, or are they just completely ignoring it?

gentlerider7 said:https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-...yhzwxc5f72ancr

Look, we’re living through some seriously sketchy times, right? And honestly, if you ask me, instead of just following whatever Washington decides to do, European leaders really ought to be chasing after what actually matters—The true source of European security : not US hegemony. We need actual European security arrangements that respect The legitimate security interests of All European nations , certainly including Ukraine, while also keeping in mind that Russia isn't exactly thrilled about NATO pushing its way into the Black Sea. Europe should reflect on The fact that The non-enlargement of NATO and The implementation of The Minsk ii agreements would have averted this awful War in Ukraine. Seriously, at this point, if we want any hope for European and Global security, we've got to lean into diplomacy rather than just cranking up the military tension, don't you think?

Is Jeffrey Sachs just a total shill?

While Vladimir Putin sends 200,000 soldiers on an aggressive push along the line from Kyiv all the way down to Kherson, 1243 mileswe hear people claiming the conflict was actually triggered by "NATO expansion" and the failure to follow through on the "Minsk agreements."

If you don't consider that classic Russian propaganda, then I honestly don't know what is.