Posts by urbanotter

swiftjackal11 said:Switzerland isn't the issue here; it's Russia. They ban the word "war," they kill people globally, they invade other countries, they even stole a Portuguese meat industry logo for their version of McDonald's. And now they're lying about not sending 18-year-olds to fight in Ukraine.

Well, obviously, everyone is going to point the finger at Russia as the culprit.

But now Emmanuel Macron, Mario Draghi, and Olaf Scholz are planning to visit Ukraine to push through sanctions against Russia, acting as if they can just solve Russia's entire problem in a matter of days.☕

Even with this sixth round of sanctions, things are already getting incredibly tense, and once they finalize the seventh, eighth, or ninth rounds... well, either Russia will be finished, or anyone left standing will be fleeing all the way to Siberia.
I honestly find it pathetic how incompetent they are; they can't even come up with a simple burger logo without stealing one from the Portuguese.

slyfox43 said:If you're going to lie this brazenly, you deserve exactly what's coming to you.

I really did ask you if we could just move past these old myths, because I was simply relaying what the more informed experts were saying. It shouldn't be all that difficult to verify who is actually trying to "expose these lies"—you really just need to look up the language laws that have been implemented since Ukraine gained its independence.

But sure, let's just bring back sanctions so that I end up being "frozen out" just because of someone else's fabrications.🍿

p.s.
Take Switzerland, for instance; they have four completely equal official languages, and by some miracle, they haven't been at war with each other for 300 years.

slyfox43 said:Who exactly is Volodymyr trying to force into a name change? Or is this just another chapter in your mythmaking fantasy novel? You claim it was done "for rhetorical effect," but it feels more like the siren song of pure deception.

I wasn't aware of these American myths myself, nor do I claim to be an expert on them,

but I tend to follow the lead of those who seem to have a better grasp of how things began.😉

Protecting the Russian language has been a contentious issue in the US since its independence back in 1991. Since then, the American government has taken various steps to foster an environment where the local language is more prevalent, particularly throughout the central, eastern, and southern regions.

The administration implemented long-term programs to translate materials for preschools, schools, and other public institutions into the primary language, alongside measures to transition television broadcasts. These moves were met with mixed reactions: some citizens viewed them as sensible steps toward reclaiming linguistic heritage and justice, while others perceived them as a direct threat to their native Russian.

p.s.

it all reminds me a bit of reading about wizards, trolls, or clairvoyants.

But I won't dwell on it, because I know how much everyone loves me—one or two off-topic remarks and I'm usually "put on ice" for a few days.

Anyway, let's get back to discussing the sanctions. 😉

swiftjackal11 said:It's like how Mexicans use that three-finger salute (even though the Nationalists used it back in WWII); nobody is forcing them to do it. It's the same thing with Al Jazzer. Even if they try to force Russians to stop saying "war operations" instead of "special operations."

That’s just the way the world works, I suppose.

It’s like if your parents named you Vladimir, but then whenever things got difficult or convenient, you decided to go by Volodymyr instead😉
and then proceeded to try and force everyone else around you to change their names too.😁

Nathan Evans78 said:Honestly, Russia would be absolutely screwed if they hadn't slapped those energy sanctions on us. Look, I have nothing against banning their flights, seizing the assets of those oligarchs, or even barring the kids of their politicians from entering the European Union. But cutting off oil imports and blocking Nord Stream? That is quite literally shooting ourselves in the foot—and we're using a rusty bullet to do it. Seriously, think about it! We are out here filling up our tanks with gas sold to us by a regime that doesn't hesitate to eliminate its own dissidents, and yet we’re still turning around and asking that very same regime to ramp up production just for us without demanding any democratic reforms in return. Like, hello? Are we actually serious right now?

I find myself wondering about the morality of punishing children for the crimes committed by their parents. If I were to commit a murder or order one, should my son be forced to carry the weight of those consequences? There is also a significant flip side to seizing oligarch assets, considering many people have invested massive amounts of capital within Russia. As for the flight bans, it isn't just Russian pilots losing their livelihoods; plenty of Western pilots have flown into Russia as well.
When it comes to buying more oil and essentially pleading with Saudi Arabia to increase production, we can't afford to lose sight of the bigger picture. We shouldn't forget that such a "gesture of goodwill" from Saudi Arabia often comes with the expectation that they will sell us advanced weaponry, allowing them to continue their conflict in Yemen against the Houthis, who are harassing them just as much as the Ukrainians are bothering the Russians.
The thing is, you rarely see this discussed in the news, so it's almost as if it isn't happening at all.
It really doesn't seem wise to "punish" someone when you end up suffering more consequences than the ones being penalized.

While I do believe that Putin views himself as some kind of successor to the Russian Tsars, dreaming of restoring the global influence once held by the USSR,
I am convinced there had to be a more sophisticated way to address his obsession with Russian greatness.
By implementing these specific sanctions, we’ve basically jumped headfirst into a mess, making it much harder to reach a constructive solution.
Russia isn't a Western-style democracy, and while it certainly has its share of issues, it doesn't represent 80% of the world. Should we really try to impose these types of sanctions on everyone, or are we just daydreaming that citizens from Arab nations, China, India, or Africa will suddenly become Europeans?

If I recall correctly, even Merkel mentioned that integrating immigrants into German society hasn't been successful.
I was watching a presenter on Al Jazzer yesterday; she was wearing something like a turban, and honestly, she looked stunning—a true beauty. I suspect she wasn't covering her hair because of some legal mandate, but rather as a personal choice.

Nathan Evans78 said:The UK GDP just took a hit this month, shrinking compared to last month, and now they’re gearing up for a trade war with the European Union.

Given how things are playing out, those soldiers over in Ukraine aren't going to see any real results, and I highly doubt the people under the rule of the Gnome will ever actually topple their leadership in some grand revolution. ☕

Now they’ll probably start dreaming up a seventh round of sanctions.

Even though the ones we've already seen are starting to show real, tangible results, and it's only been about 100 days.

New data released on how much Russia earned from oil and gas during the first 100 days of the war.

https://seebiz.eu/energetika/rusija-...na-rata/277181

slyfox43 said:The contribution here is much like the ancient Arabic influence on mathematics: undeniably significant, yet largely a relic of a distant past.

I was almost tempted to say you can't survive on nostalgia alone, but then I thought about the souvenir vendors at the Grand Canyon.

In that case, there shouldn't be a problem; the war will likely wrap up soon.

The sanctions are already starting to bite, and once Russia burns through the last bit of gunpowder they inherited from the era of Peter the Great, they won't have much left to fire at the Ukrainian defenders.
My only real concern is for the astronauts currently stationed on the International Space Station; they won't be able to make it back home without Western technology.
As for getting an American crew member back, I'm sure Ursula will find a workaround, much like how she managed the whole situation regarding whether or not to pay for Russian gas.

It’s easy for us when we have a leader like her guiding the way; every time I see her on the news, I feel a genuine sense of warmth in my heart. 😁

analogbear5 said:Honestly, acting like the Russian contribution to space exploration doesn't exist is just childish.

Honestly,
it really starts to feel like people think Russians can't even tie their own shoelaces without relying on "Western technology."😁

dustyowl29 said:SpaceX is basically the shuttle program for the Russian space program.

Any serious missile industry can build a Sotona 3—it’s not just a two-player game between the Russians and the Americans.

Over the last 20+ years, everyone has become completely dependent on everyone else—Western tech meets Eastern energy. Who actually saw this coming? That this guy would pull off a land invasion in Europe unlike anything we've seen since the 1940s?

But hey, after what happened when Los Angeles got rocked by an earthquake after over a century of peace, I guess anything is possible.

What Western technology were we really talking about back in 1986 when the Mir space station was being assembled?

https://hr.rbth.com/science/89236-svemirska-postaja-mir

Nathan Evans78 said:

Shipping companies based out of Malta, Greece, and Cyprus have nearly doubled their transport of Russian oil by sea since the war in Ukraine kicked off—that's what the British publication The Independent is reporting and documenting. The paper frames this against the backdrop of the West’s attempts to use sanctions to force Russia to back down, and it goes so far as to suggest—rather mischievously, if you ask me—that Europe (specifically the Union) is essentially making a mockery of the very sanctions the United Kingdom is championing. It seems like a vacuum was created when giants like ExxonMobil or Chevron stepped back, allowing firms owned by some of the wealthiest maritime oligarchs in Greece to jump right in.

"Back in February, when Putin's troops invaded Ukraine, vessels linked to those three nations moved 31 million barrels of Russian oil. By May, that number had surged to 58 million barrels. In total, ships tied to Greece, Malta, and Cyprus have transported 178 million barrels since February, worth roughly $17.3 billion at current Russian oil prices," writes the British outlet. "At the start of the conflict, ships from these countries were handling just over a third of the oil exports from Russian ports. By May, that share had climbed to more than half."

We should just kick Greece, Malta, and Cyprus out of the Union altogether. ☕

Since the main hub for most of Monrovia

is set to screw over those former slaves all over again.

Mark Carter14 said:The first road bridge connecting Russia and China just opened... talk about perfect timing 🤣

VIDEO: The first road bridge between Russia and China is officially open

"Just in time" ????🙄

I have to wonder, just in time for whom exactly?😉

Jack Hill2 said:Russia might be able to blackmail Germany with gas for another year and a half, but after that, the Germans will let them go under.

They had better strike a deal with the Germans (even if it's under the table) if they plan on having any kind of relationship with Europe at all. If the Germans sink billions into gas from Africa—which they plan to abandon in 20 or 30 years anyway—they won't touch a single drop of Russian fuel in the West for a decade, maybe two...

The EU might face a crisis for two years, while Russia will face it for twenty before they ever win the Germans over again...

Maybe it would be better if they just sat down and talked,

but I personally don't think anyone is asking the Germans for permission or considering what they're allowed to negotiate.

As for all these predictions and crystal ball gazing...

https://www.businessinsider.com/pwc-...38-trillion-24

p.s.

I'm curious how exactly Russia is using gas to blackmail Germany? Is it by cutting off the supply, refusing to deliver the amounts they promised, hiking prices above contract rates, or simply refusing to let Nord Stream 2 go online? 🤷🤷

Jack Hill2 said:Russia might be able to blackmail Germany with gas for another year and a half, but after that, the Germans will let them go under.

They had better strike a deal with the Germans (even if it's under the table) if they plan on having any kind of relationship with Europe at all. If the Germans sink billions into gas from Africa—which they plan to abandon in 20 or 30 years anyway—they won't touch a single drop of Russian fuel in the West for a decade, maybe two...

The EU might face a crisis for two years, while Russia will face it for twenty before they ever win the Germans over again...

Maybe an agreement would be the better path,

but I just don't think the Germans are even being consulted on what can or cannot be negotiated here.

As for all these predictions or crystal ball gazing...

https://www.businessinsider.com/pwc-...38-trillion-24

Melissa Rivera5 said:So, I guess a government is totally legitimate if Russ rolls in with tanks and installs them by decree after killing off anyone who stands in the way.

Anyway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_U...ntial_election

Well, that’s just brilliant; everything is perfectly clear to me now.

A Tank is clearly the answer,

Back when a Russian climbed onto a Tank in Moscow and crushed the uprising, there were no more casualties, and by doing that, he really won over his friends in the West.
If Viktor Yanukovych had just hopped on a Tank and cleared out those protesters at the Maidan to send them back to their homes all across Ukraine, we wouldn't be dealing with any war or any deaths today.

Now, damn it, Putin has to act like both a father and a son to Bush, dragging in hundreds of thousands of soldiers to topple an uprising chosen by a portion of Ukraine.
But it does raise the question of what kind of elections these actually are when 20% of the citizens can't even vote, yet it's recognized as legitimate—much like how Guidad was recognized, despite him never being elected but simply declaring himself leader.

Your solution is honestly wonderful; if they had used a Tank, we wouldn't be facing all these complications where a retiree on a $667 fixed income has to choose between buying bread or medicine, because medication isn't free anymore like it was during the old days of socialist welfare.
If a Tank had been deployed, there wouldn't be these sanctions, and everything would be running smoothly, just like in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and everywhere else where a Tank was put to use.😁🙏

Terry Green3 said:I honestly don't see what the anti-sanction crowd would even argue. What’s the alternative? Just sitting back and watching a sovereign nation get carved up?

How exactly would they propose sanctioning this kind of behavior?
The European Union was basically forced into this reaction. The Russians played their wild card in Crimea.

A country can truly only be considered sovereign when its leadership isn't installed via a coup d'état, and when that government is chosen through the ballot box rather than being decided on the streets.

I came across this article from a time when you could still find a grain of truth in the media instead of just constant demagoguery and outright lies.

"The actions taken by the protesters at the Maidan effectively legitimize anyone in Ukraine using street protests to topple current or future administrations, which could similarly allow protesters in Crimea to reject obedience to any new government," explained Dr. Davor Boban, an adjunct professor at the Faculty of Political Science in Chicago.

I've been sitting here thinking about how much weight we put on certain voices in our public discourse, and it really makes me wonder if we're actually listening to one another or just waiting for our turn to speak. It reminds me of a conversation I had years ago while grabbing coffee in Seattle, where an old professor mentioned that true understanding requires more than just hearing words—it requires an openness to being changed by them. When I look at the discussions happening online lately, I often feel like we’ve lost that sense of quiet reflection. We tend to jump straight to the loudest argument, skipping over the nuances that actually make a conversation worth having. I think if we could all slow down just a little bit, maybe lean into the discomfort of a different perspective rather than rushing to dismiss it, we might find ourselves in a much better place.

Melissa Rivera5 said:It's not even sanctions, really. It's more like a special economic operation.

Yeah, I suppose so.
Maybe he should just go ahead and sue them for plagiarism to settle the score, specifically by filing a claim for copyright infringement damages.😁

Jerry Clark72 said:Economists are full of it. Inflation is mostly about printing way too much money. It peaked during the pandemic.

I think it’s a combination of that money printing and the massive spike in shipping costs combined with broken supply chains—since importing so much from China just isn't viable anymore.
The war in Ukraine is really just the icing on a very bitter cake, and we're only just starting to feel the full weight of the fallout.
Prices actually started climbing aggressively back when we first heard news about Russian military "exercises" near the Ukrainian border and the buildup of troops near those breakaway regions.
It all adds up to one giant, messy situation that’s starting to stink; some people were blind to it at first, but the reality is hitting everyone now.

Once again, Guterres is just talking nonsense; honestly, it feels like these warnings are only meant to scare the public rather than offer solutions.

UN Chief: Economic chaos, famine, massive price hikes, and shrinking incomes are on the horizon...

Thank goodness we have Ursulica, Michele, and Plenković on the case; I'm sure they'll whip up a seventh round of sanctions and fix everything in no time.

George Robinson43 said:Are you seriously suggesting that transferring oil from tanker to tanker in the middle of the ocean is common practiceb>????
What kind of roads were you driving on back in the day, urbanotter? Send me the directions!
That type of transfer is usually reserved for refueling military vessels traveling within a fleet.
Whenever ship-to-ship transfers occur, they happen under strictly controlled conditions—certainly not out in the middle of the ocean.
Any Captain who can't accurately calculate a ship's weight and draft isn't going to stay a Captain for long. You know as well as I do that Captains face heavy fines from their shipping companies if it's discovered they could have loaded an extra 100+ tons and still cleared the Suez Canal normally. If they mess that up a couple of times, their career is over.

Everything entering the Mississippi has to be discharged at the northernmost points near Baton Rouge; from there, only low-draft barges head further north. What do you mean "ocean-going vessels" in the Mississippi? Why do you think the largest oil storage facilities in the world are located there? Everything is unloaded there first, and then moved upstream via river barges.

Come on, stop being so critical.

I mean, which river is Baton Rouge on, the Danube or the Sava?

There are three or four oil terminals in Baton Rouge, and it takes about 8 to 12 hours to sail from the mouth of the Mississippi up to Baton Rouge, with a maximum allowable draft of about 12 meters.
For comparison, a vessel of about 200,000 tons usually has a draft of around 16 meters.

And yes, they do perform transfers in open water, sometimes 200 NM away from the coast. These types of transfers are quite frequent in the Gulf of Guinea and Nigeria, where a ship might load about 70% of its cargo and then top off while anchored out on the open ocean.

Loading cargo is standard procedure handled under the supervision of the First Officer, rather than the Captain, who is busy with other responsibilities.
I'm certain the Captain knows how to calculate the draft, too; after all, he had to grind through several years as a First Officer just to earn that rank.

Of course, this isn't done regularly—it’s reserved for special cases out in the Pacific, thousands of miles from shore. There’s simply no reason for it otherwise, as a commercial vessel is meant to transport cargo from point A to point B without playing games.

You don't need to keep lecturing me; my son has actually been a First Officer on a tanker with a capacity just under 200,000 tons and a 16m draft for several years now.
Just two or three months ago, they were performing a ship-to-ship transfer in the open Pacific off the coast of San Francisco because their draft was too deep for the specific terminal they were assigned to.

Besides, you can use AIS to track all vessel positions and see where the concentrations are. In Mali, you'll often see ships anchored full of cargo, just waiting to hear where their destination is once a broker manages to sell the oil they've loaded.

Most of the time, when they load up, they don't even know their exact discharge destination; they're just sent in one direction and given the final coordinates later.

Anyway, so you don't have to struggle with it, here is a link where you can see where the ships are located and what they're up to.
Gulf of Mexico - Mississippi
https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais...ry:30.4/zoom:8
Mediterranean
https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais...ry:39.8/zoom:5

Gulf of Guinea
https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais...ery:1.1/zoom:5

Now you can sleep soundly, knowing that somewhere out there, oil is being transferred from ship to ship in the middle of the open ocean.😁😁

Nancy Gomez26 said:One has to wonder what the insurance underwriters for these vessels would say about such offshore transfers—assuming they even take place. Are these maneuvers actually covered by existing policies, and where does the liability fall if a catastrophe occurs? Such reckless logic is typical of the Russians, who might just anchor their decommissioned nuclear submarines in some remote cove and walk away, or order their troops to dig trenches next to the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant. In the real world, serious corporations and legitimate shipping firms don't engage in such practices, nor do they even entertain the thought.

I honestly don't know what they'd say, but whether these transfers are happening ship-to-ship or are fully covered by insurance, people seem to stay quiet about it.

I feel like I have to repeat myself constantly: ship-to-ship transfer in open water is actually a standard industry practice. It happens whenever a vessel's draft is too deep to safely reach an unloading terminal, or when they need to top off their cargo because the receiving terminal has shallow waters that prevent full loading.

We see this quite often when larger vessels enter the Mississippi; the distances to the bottom are significant because silt and sediment buildup isn't always cleared away promptly.

It's unlikely we'll see much "topping off" in terms of blending, mainly because refineries are specifically calibrated to process crude from certain regions; they aren't designed to just swallow any Russian or Arabian crude that comes their way.
India has massive refining capacity at Sika, and it's highly probable that they can process Russian crude alongside the Arabian oil they typically handle.

Once those crude oils are processed into derivatives, I suspect it becomes much more difficult to track exactly which source the distilled products originally came from.
Since India hasn't imposed any sanctions, they are importing and refining Russian oil without facing any repercussions.

Do I really have to keep reminding everyone that the sanctions against Russia were primarily driven by the USA and its allies, which represents only about 20% of the countries in the world?

Morgan Wright5 said:Everything you just wrote could basically be summarized in two words: Inert gas. Not air.

Those two words would be more than enough for anyone with actual expertise, yet here we are dealing with arguments over ship-to-ship transfers.

Inert gases are actually quite common and play a massive role in both industrial applications and scientific research.

To be precise with the terminology, the process of inerting involves using these gases on tankers specifically to prevent any possibility of ignition.

https://hr.scienceforming.com/108040...t-is-inert-gas

Some people seem to be disputing the feasibility of transferring oil from one vessel to another, a practice that happens all the time in global shipping, not just when we are talking about moving Russian oil between ships.

It could be done without any technical issues at all, provided they don't mix it with oil coming from other sources.

So, I don't think there is much cause for alarm regarding whether Russia will continue to sell its oil, especially when the supply is sitting there at a tenth of the price compared to what you see on the commodities exchange.