Posts by Nancy Gomez26

analogbear5 said:The reality is, the loss in value for Nord Stream 2 is already baked in. Some debts have been written off as sunk costs, but the biggest hit is just the fact that its importance isn't coming back. Nancy Gomez26 is betting it will, but everything points to the contrary.

We'll see who's closer to the truth by watching how the creditors move.

Creditors lent their capital toward what was, at the time, a promising venture in hopes of a return. If they suddenly decide to exit the project and try to dump it for pennies on the dollar—there would certainly be buyers. The only question is how much anyone would actually bid and how much these people are willing to lose (assuming they can afford to lose anything at all). Right now, it’s a terrible time to sell, but if a panic sets in—which the media is more than happy to fuel—it could happen. The sensationalist headlines claiming this is a total disaster and that the project's value has plummeted to near zero? That simply isn't the truth. A true failure would occur if someone physically destroyed the pipeline, making it useless; nobody wants to play that game because it puts everyone at risk. I understand that if profit isn't immediate, the media quickly writes a project off as a lost cause, but in the real world, very little ever goes exactly according to plan.
Russia will find its footing eventually, and that pipeline will run. In fact, it would provide the cheapest gas in the European Union, something no one can truly turn down. When you force politics onto an economy, things end badly—that is precisely what we are witnessing with Russia right now.

Brenda Murphy3 As stated by:
The sheer scale of this self-inflicted wound by Russia and Putin is staggering. It’s an absolute catastrophe of their own making. Of course, the Kremlin and their inner circle couldn't care less about how this fallout hits the average Russian citizen. There is a certain peak hypocrisy in the way they operate—acting as if their own children will somehow find refuge and comfort in the West while they dismantle their own nation's future. They are effectively burning down their own house while dreaming of vacationing in someone else's. But make no mistake: the damage dealt to their own country is undeniable and permanent.

Forget about the immediate chaos for a second—look at the bigger picture. This situation is going to fundamentally shift Russia's standing on the global stage, which directly hits the ego of its leader. And we all know that’s his primary driver. Up until now, he’s maintained a certain level of influence; people actually paused to ask what the Kremlin thought about major shifts, and more often than not, they listened. That era is over. For the foreseeable future, nobody is going to be checking in with them for guidance, and even when the dust settles, that seat at the table won't be returned easily. It will take a massive paradigm shift—or perhaps it won't happen at all—before things return to any semblance of the previous status quo.

Based on the discussion above, it seems we aren't even using Russian gas anymore, nor is Ukraine. While that’s technically possible, I find it hard to swallow.

George Robinson43 said:To put it plainly, dumping all that money into Western ventures did very little for society at large—unless you consider oligarchs buying luxury toys like soccer teams or renting out mega-yachts to be "useful" for the West.
The idea that things will simply revert to the old status quo is becoming a fantasy, especially now that countries like Poland and the Baltic states have already begun pivoting toward LNG to replace Russian gas entirely.
Then you have Germany, Austria, and little Canada, which will likely remain beholden to Russian energy producers even after the European Union officially breaks ties, simply because that’s what the boss in the Kremlin demands.
Don't forget that half of the European Union—everything west of Germany—has long since rejected Russian gas and halted any possible pipeline construction heading toward their borders.

The entire pipeline infrastructure is interconnected; it operates on whoever offers the lowest price. The West won't reject cheaper gas just because its origin is the Russian Federation. However, they will certainly reject it if that gas comes bundled with shady political strings attached. That seems to be the nuance a low-level KGB agent fails to grasp, which is precisely why he gets so frustrated when his tactics fail to translate into policy.

slyfox43 said:If you had written this, say, six months ago, it might have carried some weight. Honestly, even then it would have been a stretch, but at least you'd be in good company with those assessments.

Since then, the Russians have... how should I put it?... diversified their methods of extortion.

So... calculating the true "price of cheap" requires a bit more time and depth than this. This is really just one dimension of a much larger problem.

The Russians—much like any other player—want to squeeze every cent out of their product. Putin’s original play was to charge for the gas and then use that supply as political leverage over his customers. That is the exact position Orban accepted. Everyone else refused, because the math simply doesn't work. Once Putin realizes his game isn't working, he will pivot back to selling gas strictly for profit. Or someone else will step in to take his place. For everyone involved here, that gas remains the cheapest option, and as long as money is the only metric, the temptation stays. One must maintain an alternative, such as LNG, and actively sustain it—terminals, fleets, contracts—to ensure you keep the Russians under control. Right now, they will be forced to offer incredibly low prices if they want to regain market share. That is when the investment in alternative supply sources finally pays off.

George Robinson43 said:Returning to Russian energy would essentially mean the leadership in the European Union is suffering from severe cognitive decline.
It isn't enough to just diversify supply and cut ties with Russia; they absolutely must initiate a strategic repatriation of industries from the East back into the European Union.
Just twenty years ago, the current situation would have been unthinkable, as those currently acting so boldly on the world stage lacked any real capital—wealth only began flowing to them once the West stopped investing heavily and moved production overseas.
If this doesn't serve as a wake-up call for the West, then I truly don't know what it will take for them to realize that others are going to use their own money to devour them.

That group—those who had nothing and then grew wealthy off gas and oil—has developed a taste for luxury. They won't walk away from it easily. It would be far simpler for the European Union to abandon Russian gas than it would be for those people to give up the money constantly flowing into their pockets (since, theoretically, the European Union has alternatives). Let's take a moment to remember where and how that money was spent and invested... Essentially, they sold resources to the West and then turned around and reinvested that cash right back into the West. What could be better for the West? This entire situation is merely a passing storm—a miscalculation, an ego trip—but it will pass. Gas and oil will flow again under even more favorable terms, and everything will return to its status quo. Perhaps there will be more caution next time, and everyone will be satisfied. Civilization is built on cheap energy; there is simply no alternative.
Had they invested their resource profits into their own nation, they probably wouldn't be at war right now. Even if they had gone to war, they might have actually won if they had believed in themselves and their own state. But they didn't. They invested in the West—which is now investing in the very people who attacked them.

feralnomad35 said:I mean, seriously, what reason would there be for Europe not to slash its reliance on peak Russian oil & gas?

The cost of the LNG technological process. At the end of the day, everything boils down to money. Look, I’ve always been an advocate for diversifying supply channels for all raw materials and fuels—that’s just sound policy. You can't afford to be in a position where you depend on a single supplier; if you do, you're finished, regardless of who that supplier happens to be. Sure, gas from Russia is likely the cheapest option, but only if you have a backup plan tucked away somewhere—like a minimum number of functioning LNG terminals. Once a Rus (or anyone else) realizes they can hold you hostage through supply, you've already lost. The Russians are decent partners, in a sense; they start squeezing you the moment they spot your dependency. Others might let you drift too far out before pulling the plug, making it impossible to return, but not them. They make sure to remind you, quite conscientiously and right on schedule, that relying on them isn't worth the price. Some would call them impatient or greedy. I simply say they are diligent when pointing out your own weaknesses.

slyfox43 said:I mean, I get it. It’s just pretty amusing to watch a colleague—who wasn't exactly a huge fan of Bolsonaro a while back—suddenly trying to find "fundamental differences" with his new moral compass, Maduro.

It is interesting to note how this situation has handed Maduro a massive opening. He might actually be forced to weigh the tangible military strength of his distant allies and, based on those calculations, pivot his policy accordingly.

hollowdriver13 said:Nord Stream 2 is dead in the water. Between Europe cutting ties and the status of Nord Stream 1, Yamal, Brotherhood, and Soyuz, there is zero chance Nord Stream 2 ever becomes profitable again.
Its only purpose was to further tighten Europe's reliance on Russian gas.

It isn't just that those pipelines will return to full capacity—new ones will likely be built because current supply won't cut it. Biology always wins in the end; wars eventually cease, and life moves forward regardless. It might be hard to wrap your head around right now, but it's inevitable. The only variable left is how long it takes. Given how deeply ingrained these habits are and the universal drive for comfort... it probably won't be a long wait.

hollowdriver13 said:It's not Bolsonaro's lapdog barking because of your precious Putin; they're barking to protect themselves and their own regime. Tough times ahead for those wannabe dictators.

That's an easy assumption to make. When a soldier under Bolsonaro sees the actual impact sanctions have on the regime in Moscow, he starts wondering what a similar hammer would do to his own leadership. That is the crux of the issue. He hates it because he could lose grip on the entire country due to external variables completely outside his command. Any politician with even a shred of foresight should find this situation deeply unsettling.

slyfox43 said:If they don't agree, they shouldn't join in.

Unilateral? By what metric are they unilateral? You just said they involve about 35 nations.

Selective? They aren't exactly going to be indiscriminate; the whole point of a sanction is that it targets specific things.

At the end of the day—who cares about fascist Bolsonaro?

The logic behind sanctions is to inflict more damage on the target than on the entity imposing them. But looking at the big picture, sanctions tend to hurt everyone involved. Generally speaking, these measures only carry weight when implemented by an economically superior power. In this instance, it isn't really about whether 'only' 35 nations are participating; it’s about the actual economic muscle behind those specific countries. Once you weigh their combined financial power, you get a much clearer idea of who is actually pulling the strings and how far their reach extends.

Bryan Booth82 said:It isn't quite that simple, though.
Nord Stream 2 cost 7.4 Billions of euros... and that massive investment needs to pay itself off as soon as possible... especially since we are talking about private capital here.

If you want to see a return on investment quickly, Nord Stream 2 had to start operating immediately... and let's not forget that Nord Stream 2 has a limited lifespan; it wasn't designed to last forever.

Even during construction, Nord Stream 2 was being slowed down, causing completion to lag by two years.
Right now, there aren't even any clear signs of when operations might actually begin... theoretically, anything can happen. It might never go live, or it could take years to get moving... but for now, we are still stuck in the realm of pure speculation.

What we do know are the facts, and none of them favor Nord Stream 2. Germany has decided to scale back its gas imports from Russia, and because of the war in Ukraine, that shift is going to be drastically and irreversibly accelerated.
Furthermore, there will certainly be a push to reduce reliance on fossil fuels in the future, a transition that is also being fast-tracked due to the conflict in Ukraine.

Even if the gas eventually starts flowing, the "cards" are stacked heavily against it in terms of justifying such a massive financial undertaking—especially when you consider the existence of Nord Stream 1 and the much more politically viable pipeline running through Ukraine.

Plenty of analysts are already agreeing that Nord Stream 2 is a financial disaster (since we now know its primary goal was to replace the Ukrainian pipeline, an objective that was already failing before the war even started). Personally, I wouldn't touch the stock of a company tasked with managing this project; I simply don't see a positive financial future for it.

Best regards,

Everything you just laid out implies that, for investors, this is precisely the moment to pick up stakes in Nord Stream 2 (assuming, of course, the price is right and fits one's tolerance for the very real risk and uncertainty involved). My view is that gas from the Russian Federation remains—technologically speaking—the most cost-effective energy source for the foreseeable future. Since the only way to deliver it without losing its primary advantage is via pipeline, now is the window to invest. You buy when it's cheap and sell when it's expensive. While many see today's situation as a living hell due to the war, others may see it as a compelling investment opportunity. It simply requires capital, vision, and a certain level of nerve. Who dares, wins.

analogbear5 said:People actually believe the economy is run by some central command center at the CIA.

The Nord Stream 2 project had massive energy giants footing the bill: 50% from ExxonMobil (Russia), with the rest coming from Shell (UK-Netherlands), ExxonMobil (Austria), Engie (France), and Chevron (Germany). Their billions are gone.

Aside from ExxonMobil, these were corporations that definitely knew exactly what kind of risks they were taking.

Nothing about Nord Stream 2 has actually failed. It isn't as if someone physically picked up the pipeline and walked off with it. The gas will eventually flow through those lines with just a slight delay, and by the end of the day, the whole thing will prove to be profitable. Perhaps some investor will swoop in now to scoop up shares from the current owners at a discount. I suspect most of those investors would still be selling their stakes with heavy hearts, simply because the project retains its potential—they just need to wait it out.

Grace Bennett6 said:It lands right in an ExxonMobil account owned by the Nord Stream stakeholders—which, let's be real, means Russia owns it. Since 2014, it’s been simple: you pay the price, you get the gas. If they want to know where the money went, they should ask Russia.

They ought to ask if they're ready to pay back the EU and the USA the billions owed from April 4, 2022, or if they're just going to hide behind a default. 😉

There is zero incentive for them to settle debts under these circumstances. They are already under sanctions, frozen out, and kicked off Swift. Repaying loans is likely the least of their concerns right now; frankly, the burden lies with the creditors, not the debtors. This situation merely adds pressure to the financial institutions that extended them credit—those banks are left wondering how to write off these losses. The only leverage one might have against the debtors is when they eventually require fresh financing, and that moment will inevitably arrive. Even if these old debts were somehow cleared, they would still face a higher risk profile, which translates to much steeper interest rates down the road.

Ronald Chavez2 said:I find that hard to swallow; is there really any scenario where a Russian defeat results in anything more catastrophic than the mess we saw when the Soviet Union fell?

I don't see such a scenario right now either. However, looking back at how rapidly the Soviet Union disintegrated—it was difficult to track in real-time... we learned from that lesson that truly any outcome remains possible.

Gary Wilson said:Since Germany is a cornerstone of the EU—and its interests are vital to the entire Union and even non-EU nations—decoupling from Russian gas is absolutely critical.
The truth is, she spent her entire tenure trading away geostrategic space to the Russians just to serve her own interests.
She was also quite diligent in supporting Russian players in the North America, such as Aleksandar Vučić.

We are all paying the price for her foolish policy of dependency on Russia, while Ukrainians are paying for our security with their blood.

Germany has finally realized that security comes with a price tag and shouldn't be used as a bargaining chip. If that cost means more expensive gas, it's still a bargain compared to the total destruction of entire nations.

It isn't just Ukraine fighting in Ukraine. All of Europe is defending itself there. If Ukraine falls, Europe is finished—because this aggressor certainly wouldn't stop at Moldova or the Baltic states.

Even if Ukraine were fully occupied—which is an impossible scenario—the EU might survive; I suspect the fear of Vladimir Putin might even force a greater unification within the EU. But that isn't the goal. The ideal scenario is a Ukraine free from the Russian Federation, capable of deciding its own future without outside interference.

Peter Ruiz2 said:Russia is actually one of those rare countries that exports more than it imports, and this whole mantra about them being solely dependent on raw material exports is honestly a joke. Sure, sanctions hit them. They made it hard to get the tech components needed for their industry, but nothing that would actually shake them to the core. Americans have kept Cuba under an economic blockade for sixty years, and you don't see people starving there, do you? Cubans even managed to develop their own vaccine while the European Union couldn't even figure out how to make masks. As for factories closing—where exactly do you live that makes you think what's happening in the EU is some distant reality? Factories are shuttering in Germany right now; workers are getting laid off or sent back to "short-time" work like during the pandemic (which, by the way, hasn't really ended). But this time, it's not because of a virus. Like I said, Russians are used to sanctions; they play the long game. They aren't living hand-to-mouth like we are, where our biggest tragedy yesterday was an Amazon package arriving late.

We're living in a version of the EU where the German Chancellor is openly calling for everyone to "freeze ourselves in protest against Putin." Newsflash: he and the rest of these sanction-obsessed elites aren't actually going to freeze or shop in half-empty grocery stores. It’s not just gas and oil we’re talking about; it’s grain and fertilizer that the EU mostly imported from Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus. This level of shortsightedness from Western political elites is just unprecedented.

Cuba serves as a perfect example of how much damage sanctions can inflict when paired with certain political leadership. On paper, everything looks fine, but in practice... As long as the leaders and their most loyal subordinates have everything they need, the rest doesn't matter.

Gerald Chavez7 said:Anyone can pull up FlightRadar24, head over to southeastern New York near Buffalo, and watch a dozen transport planes touch down there every single day. From there, the supplies get loaded onto trucks, trains, or cars and shipped straight into Ukraine. The Russians just can't seem to shut that border down...

In my estimation, the logistics have shifted into a different gear entirely.

Carl Lee27 said:Maybe even some kamikaze drones from America, including those versions specifically designed to take out tanks...
Just keep them coming, Joe!

The Biden admin. is considering providing Ukraine with U.S.-made killer drones—cutting edge guided missiles that could accurately target Russian tanks and artillery positions from miles away, two Congressional officials briefed on the matter tell @NBCNews. https://t.co/ZCaSnvrOxI

The 'grasshopper' strikes me as an incredibly simple, effective, and low-cost tool.... Weaponry of this nature has the potential to shift entire battlefield doctrines. Imagine if China started mass-producing these and flooding the market; plenty of players would find themselves in a tight spot very quickly.

Dennis Price said:I'd love to see the trolls explain how they think Americans will just wiggle out of these obligations. 😵 Global aircraft delivery backlogs are massive right now—Russia is basically a tiny market that can be ignored in the global civil aviation scene without much trouble.

They might have dodged their responsibilities today with that "law," but they've just dug a deeper hole that they'll have to climb out of tomorrow. Most aircraft and engines are owned by leasing companies. By pulling this stunt, they are simply making future cooperation in this sector significantly more expensive. Leasing firms now have the option to collect debts by seizing assets abroad—which is bad news for the Russian Federation, as those assets will likely be sold off for pennies on the dollar—or they can simply "wait" until the Russian Federation reopens its doors and then attempt to collect everything at once (whoever is still standing by then). It is a certainty that leasing companies will view the risk of doing business with the Russian Federation very differently following this event; in short, the cost of leasing and capital for companies within the Russian Federation will skyrocket once the doors to business are reopened. Then there is the matter of technical support, aircraft maintenance, flight safety, and so on. I find it hard to believe a modern aircraft, packed with dozens of onboard computers, could function indefinitely without regular, licensed software updates, or that engine maintenance is even possible without the proper spare parts. Domestic production also relies heavily on numerous imported components; it will take a vast amount of time—if they ever succeed at all—to fully substitute those with domestic manufacturing. By entering the war with Ukraine, Putin made a massive blunder, and now, with these types of "laws," he is digging an even deeper trench for the country he leads. This might look good domestically right now for political optics—a sort of "we showed them" sentiment—but when you scratch beneath the surface of the actual problem, it is a massive losing hand for the Russian Federation.
But none of this matters compared to the lives lost in Ukraine.