Posts by Morgan Wright5

William Cooper11 said:Why would they bother? Russia hasn't been attacked.

William Cooper11 said:Alright, then give me one single example of that happening. Thanks!

The USA.

William Cooper11 said:Why would they bother? Russia hasn't been attacked.

I suppose we're operating under the assumption that only nations actually under fire should pivot toward a wartime economy?

Noah Diaz said:War isn't about cash flow; it’s about raw resources. That is the only logic that matters here. This conflict won't end until one side runs completely dry. Right now, Ukraine is looking much closer to that breaking point.

So, when America sells weapons to its NATO allies, what exactly are we calling that? Is it just an act of love? Or when those last few war profiteers turn around and hike up gas prices—or even blow up energy infrastructure—what’s the label then? Friendship, maybe? 😁

Smuggling is rampant when dealing with European Union or G7 nations, yet trade with countries like India or China is actually booming, reaching volumes even higher than last year.

I guess money only stops being relevant when people are essentially trying to fight a war with sticks and stones.

Melissa Peterson19 said:I assume you're a young man, so listen closely: don't let yourself get sucked into fanatical assumptions and prejudices. During the most intense periods of the Cold War, the USSR was capable of producing nuclear bombs, nuclear icebreakers, and submarines; they conquered space and even downed a US spy U2 from 19 miles altitude and captured the pilot... yet here you are asking about tractors and other trivialities. Are you aware that their heavy machinery in Alaska starts up perfectly fine at -40°C? Do some research and try to grasp the sheer scale of that nation. They can survive a nuclear war, whereas others likely cannot; their resources are inexhaustible. This is a country with deep roots, tradition, and a culture that has contributed to civilization just as much as powerful European nations like Italians, Germans, Frenchmen, or Englishmen.

And don't worry, the collapse of Russia as a state is impossible. There will always emerge a leader strong enough to hold it together, whether through diplomacy or force, regardless of the cost. The West won't allow a collapse either, because letting the world's largest nuclear arsenal fall into unstable hands would create a situation that is impossible to control.

Don't fall for the pipe dreams of Putinophobes.

Well, they seem to be so famous for consumer goods that the only product I’ve ever actually heard of is a Jeep. And I think I even have a thermometer at home that was made in the USSR.

electricsurfer47 said:What do you guys think would happen if Russia ditched the ruble entirely and started using gold as their main currency? Just thinking hypothetically here... would gold end up being more stable than the ruble? Probably, right?

People have been talking about gold becoming the go-to currency for ages, which is probably why so many countries are hoarding it in their reserves.

They don't actually hold any gold reserves for that reason.

dustyowl29 said:Sure, Russians can build turbines for gas plants, but the catch for supplying the European Union was that they had to use top-tier compressors and turbines to meet safety standards. That’s why Western tech was the go-to choice.
They'll probably whip up some turbines of their own eventually—but that power line running from Siberia to China? It won't be using General Electric pumps; it'll likely be some Chinese knockoff.

Actually, they can, specifically through GE Aerospace. Generally speaking, the capacity coming out of Alaska just isn't held to the same standard as something like Nord Stream, which I suppose is to be expected.

George Robinson43 said:🙂
Actually, they might be slightly lower since I wasn't looking directly at the chart data! lol



The last time SA hit 12 million was back in 2020.

That makes sense; based on how you phrased it, it seemed more like monthly production rather than a daily rate.

George Robinson43 said:Let’s be honest here. This is the actual oil production in Saudi Arabia for 2022:
January: 10.16 million barrels
February: 10.2 million
March: 10.3 million
April: 10.42 million
May: 10.55 million
June: 10.62 million
July: 10.82 million
August: 11.3 million
September: 11.1 million
October: 10.8 million

The talk of production cuts only started because everyone was forecasting a recession, seeing orders drop from China, and wanting to prevent a price collapse.
November: 10.45 million

Biden requested 12 million per day, but he was told it wasn't necessary—meaning prices are headed down, and the Arabs were right all along.
I am almost certain prices would be under $60 if Americans weren't busy refilling the strategic reserves.

I suspect those figures you provided for Saudi Arabia are a bit on the low side.

Joshua Myers432 said:I’d say they’re going to run short on gas, but honestly, both the Russophobes and the Russophiles are going to feel the squeeze. They can just hug each other; maybe that'll keep them warm. Personally, I’m fine. Down in South Florida, we've got solar. 😉 ☕ Let their industry go bust; it’s too much of a headache anyway. Every summer it’s unbearable—you can’t even enjoy a swim in peace. Every beach is packed, paved over with concrete, trees chopped down, the whole environment trashed. Everything just reeks of cheap pizza slices and old fryer oil.

It wasn't some outside force that paved over the coast, cut down the trees, and ruined the environment until everything reeks of pizza crusts and stale oil; we did that to ourselves.

hiddeneagle98 said:That is pure, unadulterated disinformation. They’ve bumped their gas exports to China by 28%, and the revenue has tripled—likely because prices have spiked.

There isn't anything groundbreaking happening with Russian gas sales; they just boosted the output from those Siberian fields that were already totally cut off from the EU anyway, and that's basically it.
The main Russian fields that feed Europe aren't connected to China, so you can't just flip a switch and reroute the flow.
Sure, you could try shipping it, but you don't have nearly enough capacity to handle all that excess volume—there aren't enough tankers or offshore platforms in existence to unload it all to buyers. That's why they end up flaring it. Honestly, nothing much changes unless Putin decides to let the gas flow back to Europe.

Oil finds buyers a bit more easily, I suppose... but even if the EU blocks certain pipelines, it's a sunk cost at this point. It's much easier and more profitable to move it through the routes they still control.

Russia only has two LNG liquefaction terminals: Sakhalin and Yamal.

Linda Collins3 said:

Fair enough, that was my mistake; I suppose the ones I happened to see weren't quite as deep, and they certainly weren't out in the Baltic.

Nancy Gomez26 said:Yes, the pipes are coated in a type of concrete—which also functions as ballast to ensure the empty pipe sinks and stays anchored to the seabed—along nearly its entire length. However, at the welded joints, there is only some sort of insulation covering the weld rather than concrete; it's thinner there. Concrete likely won't act as much of a barrier against high explosives, so it will be interesting to see the post-blast imagery to determine the size and shape of the resulting crater.

There isn't any concrete around those pipes, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from.

Joshua Myers432 said:One thing is certain: peace will happen, one way or another. Do you really think Europe and Russia will never have economic ties again? Some pro-Western government will eventually take over in Russia sooner or later. What does Russia even have to do with the Far East, China, or India? Russia is a European country. They've been a bit lost since 1917, but there's no avoiding it—globalization is relentless.

They will certainly have economic cooperation, though I suspect this conflict won't conclude quite like World War II did. There are several possible ways this could play out, and I doubt any of them will be a mere repetition of 1945. To my mind, Russia isn't strictly a European country, nor is it purely Asian; Russia is simply Russia, and I think it's best to view it as such.

Joshua Myers432 said:Give me a break. Just look at the timeline from 1944 to 1945 compared to the years immediately following. Look at how the US, Germany, and Japan handled economic cooperation.

Forget the fairy tales. Money moves the world—or more specifically, the dollar does. 🍿

It’s not even a fair comparison, I suppose. By 1945, Germany and Japan didn't pose any kind of threat anymore. It wasn't so much about "cooperation" as it was about the literal process of pulling those nations up from the ashes.

Henry Gonzalez67 said:And if the valve on the Russian side is closed, then how do you explain those "bubbles" in the Baltic Sea? How does the gas reach the site of the rupture?

I suppose we should consider just how long that pipeline actually is; once you shut off the valve, is there a vacuum left inside the pipe, or is it still filled with residual gas?

Bryan Taylor6 said:They patrol the area, listen for anything suspicious, and if anyone else shows up, they deal with them... obviously talking about an underwater gas line...🤣

If you're dropping bombs from planes, you just have planes patrolling constantly...

But I guess one has to wonder, what would be the actual point of all that?

Bryan Taylor6 said:Why aren't NATO submarines guarding the pipeline?

I suppose one has to wonder, though, exactly how a submarine would go about guarding a pipeline.

northernsailor8 said:Excellent. 👍

What kind of gas deposits are we even talking about in the Sea of Azov????

analogbear5 said:Putting a tampon in an open wound has to be one of the dumbest things I've heard lately.

Without a doubt.

Joshua Myers432 said:What are you talking about with the Su-25? Maybe if we're talking about the later Su25T variant. The A-10 is light years ahead; this Russian tin can is basically just a slightly tweaked WW2-era jet fighter. It’s the textbook definition of Soviet doctrine: quantity over quality. That mindset belongs in the 1960s.

I suppose I wonder, in what specific ways is the A-10 actually considered superior to the SU-25?