Posts by Morgan Wright5

brightheron64 said:Whether you call it romanticism or just plain old aggression... do you truly believe that the only valid way forward is to rely on raw military might—to simply crush, overpower, and steamroll anyone who dares to disagree with us...?

If you sit down and actually crunch the numbers, the sheer cost of the American involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq runs into the trillions of dollars. And that’s just the financial side of things—it doesn't even begin to touch the devastating human toll... If we could have taken all those resources poured into every war since 1945 and instead funneled them into cattle ranching, agricultural breakthroughs, cutting-edge tech, or robust social programs, imagine where we might be today...
I don't even need to bring up the history involving Agent Orange and the sheer devastation it inflicted on the environment—though, if you look at the silver lining, Vietnam managed to climb the ranks to become the second-largest coffee producer in the world because of it... we could just shrug our shoulders and accept it as one of those "shit happens" moments, a dark little blot on our shared history that’s been defined by so much conflict, but surely we were meant to walk away from all that with a few lessons learned, right...

On the other hand, if we were to take those trillions of dollars and transform them into something tangible, something material, and genuinely useful for the world... just consider the cost of livestock. You could look at everything from the absolute gold standard, those elite Holstein and Angus master breeds, down to a perfectly serviceable cow that wouldn't even break the $2,000 mark. When you start converting all those massive military budgets into animals capable of feeding huge swaths of humanity—and let's not even get into the methane issue—you really have to ask how much sense warfare actually makes. Anything you might hope to achieve through brute force could almost certainly be handled more effectively through diplomacy and kindness, all without leaving a trail of lost souls on your conscience... assuming you even have one. I’ll say it again: a carrot is far more interesting and productive than a stick...

With a little bit of common sense, all those people who think they can achieve global dominance through nothing but military doctrines and sheer force should probably realize that there are so many other ways to win... from controlling raw materials to securing food supplies, especially when it comes to food security, which grants a level of invincibility far more potent than any rifle ever could...
Look, George Lewis9, if you’re being bankrolled and politically elevated by a giant like Lockheed Martin, then of course you're going to claim that heavy artillery is the only way forward... But it's funny how those people are always the very last ones to ever see a trench or send their own children off to fight, just to be clear about what I mean here... and meanwhile, Vladimir Putin is out there dancing to that exact same twisted rhythm...

It’s certainly much easier to focus on churning out tanks, building aircraft carriers, or "disciplining" anyone who dares to disagree... rather than actually contemplating how to make things better or working toward the global good... which, let's be honest, offers a far more drastic and completely legitimate form of dominance—if that's truly what you're after—than any weapon ever could...

An aircraft carrier is essentially 100,000 tons of diplomacy.

Nancy Gomez26 said:Now, this is entirely beyond my expertise and knowledge... what on earth is a 'Miami cockade'? I've heard of the Miami Bishops, but a cockade...????

Well, for all the scammers, the loafers, the tricksters, the phonies, the rascals, the misfits, and the absolute jokers out there, you might catch me wandering through the streets of Miami, but you certainly won't hear me talking about those local originals.

Harold Nelson6 said:I’m with you—sanctions just aren't working.

That deficit we saw back in January and February—hitting $35 billion (which is a 45% shortfall compared to spending, or more simply—they spent nearly 100% more than what actually came into the budget)—is all because Russia is pouring money into salaries, pensions, healthcare, education, and just generally leveling up the quality of life for its people. My Russian visa is currently being processed—I am officially leaving this decaying West behind for a land of milk and honey that, despite the sanctions, is actually thriving.

brightheron64 said:Does anyone actually truly care about what happens in the very countries where our coffee, cocoa, cobalt, and nickel come from...?

Well, since most people here seem to view the conditions under which cobalt is mined in the Congo as a very low priority while they're busy scrolling on their phones, I imagine the situation in Ukraine holds a similarly low priority for the average Indian. It's a rather sad reality, I suppose, but that seems to be how it is.

Harold Nelson6 said:I’m with you—sanctions just aren't working.

That deficit we saw back in January and February—hitting $35 billion (which is a 45% shortfall compared to spending, or more simply—they spent nearly 100% more than what actually came into the budget)—is all because Russia is pouring money into salaries, pensions, healthcare, education, and just generally leveling up the quality of life for its people. My Russian visa is currently being processed—I am officially leaving this decaying West behind for a land of milk and honey that, despite the sanctions, is actually thriving.

It seems you might have missed the point of my previous post, but I suppose that's alright.

Noah Diaz said:These are genuine discounts, calculated against Brent using a specific formula.

Offers for ESPO that’s typically loaded at Kozmino port was close to $6.50 to $7 a barrel below ICE Brent on a delivered basis to China, while flagship Urals shipped from western ports was around $10 under the same benchmark, said traders.

Brent is currently sitting at $77.45.

Based on the formula mentioned above, Russia is selling:

ESPO: ~$70
URAL: ~$67

It seems that the largest importers and transporters of Russian oil have gone ahead and implemented price caps and shipping restrictions, yet it appears these measures are being turned on their head. I suppose new buyers are simply using those very same sanctions as a convenient excuse to demand even deeper discounts on oil purchases. To put it mildly, one might say these sanctions aren't exactly having the intended effect.

Noah Diaz said:... as effectively as what we're seeing today!?

This isn't isolation. This is a joke—a total caricature of sanctions. You have fleets sitting right off the coast of the European Union calmly transferring Russian oil and shipping it off to Asia for about $70 a barrel.🤣

Oh, wonderful. So you can buy oil at a massive discount while you're stuck paying $70.

Noah Diaz said:Russia managed to bypass the oil price cap and energy sanctions almost immediately, though that was predictable from the jump. They already had a shadow fleet ready to go and plenty of buyers waiting in Asia.

I think even this latest article shows how much pressure is being put on India. They want everyone to believe these sanctions are actually working, but it's all just Russian propaganda.

Just for your information, you might want to take a look at whose tankers are actually hauling most of the Russian oil even today.

Mark Carter14 said:If you looked this up in a slang dictionary, it would basically mean: "holy crap, the crazy guy is losing it." 🤣

A massive pivot in the US: They’re backing away from an embargo that might have actually taken down Putin!

The Wall Street Journal reported that representatives from the Biden-esque administration met with the heavyweights of the global commodities trade. The goal? To hammer out a deal that keeps the flow of Russian oil at a steady level.
...
Some of the big global oil traders—names like Glencore, Vitol, and Gunvor—had already slashed their Russian oil business on their own. Why? Because they were terrified of the public backlash if they kept moving millions of barrels a day. Now, the US is essentially telling them there's nothing to fear.
...
"The Americans really want things moving," one trader at the meetings remarked, referring to that Russian oil.
...

I don't think that's quite right, though. If I'm reading the situation correctly, the real goal seems to be keeping oil on the market at lower prices—essentially trying to starve Russia of its revenue without causing a supply shortage that would trigger a global meltdown.

Mark Carter14 said:So what's left for the Russians to say? Sanctions, a global pandemic, and a war... and they still have enough fuel in the tank to keep going.🤔

I haven't the slightest clue what people over there are saying; I haven't been on the ground since this whole thing kicked off.

Mark Carter14 said:Poor Americans... blaming Russia for empty grocery shelves when they won't even send over the fertilizer needed for production. 🤣

Have sanctions REALLY wrecked life in Russia? While supermarkets in the UK are handing out eggs and veggies—partly thanks to Putin's war in Ukraine—police in some small Russian town are practically struggling under piles of fresh food, according to the Sue Reid Quote.

...
Actually, these scenes are a total reversal from 40 years ago, back when most of us watched those depressing news clips of Russians under the Communist regime waiting in lines just to get bread and eggs.

Now it's the UK's turn to deal with the fallout. Local supermarkets here are rationing tomatoes, cucumbers, peppers, and lettuce because farmers in the United Kingdom are battling massive energy costs, making it impossible to run greenhouses during the winter. Even soft fruits, like raspberries, are becoming hard to find on the shelves.

Tony Montalbano, the director of Green Acre Salads in Roydon, Essex, usually pumps out a million kilograms of baby cucumbers a year, but his greenhouses sat empty last month.

He had to put off his planting just to dodge fuel bills that could spike up to £500,000 a month this winter. He’s expecting his total output to drop by half this year.

"It's sad and frustrating, but I just can't afford to grow," he said. "I have to make money. If I don't, there's no point in continuing. A lot of growers are just shutting their doors and selling out."
...
'

When I look at photos from the UK and then compare them to photos from Russia, it feels like I've stepped into the Twilight Zone. 😲

If anyone had predicted this thirty or forty years ago, people would have thought they were insane. 🤣

It’s really just the Brexit combination, the pandemic, and now this war.

William Miller12 said:Unloading a million barrels from a Suezmax at a terminal takes about 15 to 20 hours—and that’s only after the tanker has been brought in, anchored, and hooked up to all three or four available connections using terminal pumps, which are typically higher capacity than what you get during an STS transfer.

___

First off, the tanker isn't even moored at a terminal in this scenario. Secondly, they aren't actually using terminal pumps for the discharge; they rely on the ship's own pumps, so I suppose the capacity remains essentially the same.

William Miller12 said:Well, feel free to keep being a genius then.

Standard & Poor's activity happens quite a bit, but it isn't "standard" in the sense that you can just wing it without highly qualified crew and specialized gear—gear that usually isn't part of a typical tanker's standard kit.
Why would it be? That equipment is typically found at an oil terminal.
Just getting two Suezmaxes to sail parallel to each other isn't exactly a walk in the park. Specialized pilots have to bring those ships into a discharge port, so just maneuvering them into an STS position is a major operation in itself.

Marine Insurance is the backbone of the sanctions regime because practically 100% of that insurance is held by Western institutions. The Chinese and Russians can be best friends all they want, but who’s going to pay for the damage at a Chinese terminal caused by some uninsured Russian tanker?

Look at the Ever Given blocking the Suez Canal; it was roughly the size of a single Suezmax. Now consider the damage it caused, and that was just a container ship. It wasn't hauling oil that can leak, pollute massive areas, or catch fire.

___

Having personally overseen about 50 STS operations by now, I think I know enough to speak with some authority on the matter.

Joshua Myers432 said:STS can actually be handled on the fly—you don't even need to be moored to one another. And it doesn't take "a few days" either.

Of course, the timeframe remains more or less the same as it would at a terminal.

William Miller12 said:Maybe do a little homework before typing things out from memory...

Panamax vessels carry about 500,000
Suezmaxes hit 1 million
VLCCs are around 2 million, but they’re way too massive for this kind of operation...

It sounds like a lot, but keep in mind that renting a Suezmax can cost $120,000 to $150,000 a day (not counting fuel). That tanker alone is worth at least $50 million.

Now, imagine you're trying to take over cargo from a Russian shadow tanker out at sea...
Let's use a Suezmax as our benchmark.

Ship-to-ship transfers take days. What’s the risk of something going sideways—like a collision? Which insurance company is actually going to cover damages caused by an uninsured tanker performing a transfer that violates sanctions?
Not to mention, if there's an oil spill, the environmental agencies will come down on you hard. I'm sure the Russians won't be stepping in to bail you out...

Plus, the crew doing this work is definitely going to demand special bonuses. Standard crews aren't trained for these kinds of maneuvers, and you need specialized equipment that costs money. Even just the sudden demand for that gear will set off some alarm bells.
You also need a team to handle the paperwork and scrub the actual origin of the oil.
And finally, everyone involved is going to want a cut for the shady nature of the job. Everyone in the chain will know exactly what's happening and why you're the only one making the big money.
The people you need are already pulling decent salaries doing completely legal oil business, so your "bonuses" would have to be massive to tempt them.

So, would you really do all that for a measly couple of million dollars per tanker?

Unless there's a difference of at least $15–$20 per barrel—which translates to tens of millions per tanker—nobody is even going to consider getting involved.

___

I think you're talking complete nonsense here. First off, ship-to-ship transfers are among the most standard tanker operations performed every single day. And if the oil is being delivered to countries that haven't imposed sanctions on Russia, I'm not sure why you're obsessing over uninsured tankers.

William Miller12 said:Not quite....

The buyer pays over $70 for Russian oil, and it goes through some middleman "smuggler."
How much of that actually hits the Russians? Only they know. Since Russia doesn't publish even basic economic data anymore, you can only get the real story from the buyers.

I highly doubt any middleman is going to take the risk of Chinese ship-to-ship transfers using uninsured tankers for a measly couple of dollars per barrel...
It's the same logic for an oil terminal—why would they accept an uninsured Russian tanker for unloading for peanuts?
For instance, imagine if that tanker catches fire or explodes... I'm sure Putin would be the first one rushing out to cover the damages.

And let's not forget those gas pipelines that mysteriously vanished into thin air... ☕

___

If you take a look at the sheer volume of barrels these tankers move, you might realize that a few extra dollars per barrel adds up to much more than just pocket change.

analogbear5 said:What sanctions are we even talking about bypassing here? It clearly states they’re shipping that oil to buyers in Asia.

The more middlemen and shipping costs you add to the mix, the less profit Russia actually keeps. Not sure what part of that isn't clicking.

Besides, why does Russian oil even need to be transferred to tankers just to get to Asian countries? I thought Russia had been selling to them at full tilt for ages.

Once that oil is loaded onto the tankers, I guess Russia doesn't really have much control over it anymore. It seems to me that Russian profits aren't really affected by things like midstream transfers or various intermediaries.

wiredfalcon2 said:The Homeland War. Mexico wasn't the one getting hit.

I suppose one might wonder if Mexico was operating on a full-scale war economy during that period?

William Cooper11 said:We’ll just have to wait and see how much those sanctions actually bite over time. Even at the start of the conflict, the first wave of mobilization sent nearly a million people fleeing the country. Sure, some might argue that isn't even 1% of the population, but it’s still a massive problem when it's the wealthiest and most capable citizens who leave. You're left with a population that lacks the very foundation needed to build a strong economy.

I find myself wondering what a "war economy" actually entails in Russia. From what I can gather, they are already struggling to manage their current capacity, so I'm not entirely sure why they would bother trying to expand it.

William Cooper11 said:Fine, but what’s the point of Russia switching to a total war economy when you're terrified of domestic unrest because you haven't actually been invaded yet? You've got a population that's dodging the draft and doesn't even see the current situation as an existential threat.

I suppose it’s possible they aren't particularly worried about losing public support for the war after all.

William Cooper11 said:What, like during World War II?

Well, I suppose if we're looking at the first instance, in the second one they actually started implementing measures even before the actual outbreak of war. If you need a specific historical precedent, you could probably look at Japan during World War II.