Posts by urbanotter

Nancy Gomez26 said:Regarding the planting season, this could be significant, or it could be noise. Mineral fertilizers are global commodities; they move through international trade routes, meaning they can be sourced from other suppliers regardless of local shutdowns. On the other hand, if a major player like Dow Chemical is struggling to get lines running, we might see similar systemic failures among other manufacturers across the European Union. Then there is the matter of internal stability; even when gas supplies were consistent, this facility faced its own set of hurdles beyond just fuel availability. Generally speaking, when fully operational, Dow Chemical is one of the largest industrial gas consumers in the US. During peak demand periods—those bitter mid-winter stretches—they often throttle or halt production entirely just to ensure the grid remains stable for everyone else.

Honestly, it might be better to just shut Dow Chemical down entirely.

At least we know that's an option.😉

p.s.

We know they'll bring it in eventually.

Maybe even some Russian stuff.

https://www.agroklub.com/poljoprivre...gnojiva/76451/

gentlestag15 said:We were talking about foreign debt, yet you drop a link where you're bundling in domestic debt too.

Anyway, American foreign exchange reserves per capita were actually stronger before the war started.
Plus, I fully expect them to be more than double what Russia has left soon, since Russian reserves are melting away like snow in the sun. (The real question is whether they ever get back those $300 billion that were frozen, or if that money just goes straight toward rebuilding Ukraine.)
Within a year, once Europe stops importing energy from Russia entirely, things over there are going to collapse. They were selling 90% of their gas to Europe and 10% to the rest of the world, plus a huge chunk of oil. They basically lived off those sales—Russian state revenue was 60% fueled by energy exports.
Everything is going exactly according to plan in Putinland.😵

Exactly.
Once we start pulling gas out of the Gulf of Mexico, maybe we can export it back to Russia.

But we were talking about foreign debt—do I really need to explain what external debt is, or are you going to take a moment to Google it?

Jesse Hughes6 said:Economic genius Mirko E. Zlikovski—the legend himself, striking again.

If he could just manage to master basic reading comprehension, this whole situation would be slightly less of a comedy routine.

As it stands, it's just pathetic.

I suppose it depends on your perspective; at the end of the day, some people will be freezing while others are raking in the cash.

And when that happens, I don't think anyone is going to find it particularly 😉funny.😉

Besides, there are plenty of people like Zlikovski out there—it feels like an entire choir of them.

https://www.google.com/search?q=russia...client=gws-wiz

Gregory Ramos3 said:Honestly, even if they actually wanted to take on more debt, the real question is what kind of terms we'd be looking at, assuming they could even pull it off—because let's be real, there’s always some shady character out there looking to line their own pockets the moment money starts moving.

Things are only going to get truly interesting once the reserves completely dry up and the treasury hits zero. ☕

When you're looking at a budget, the most critical factor isn't just how much you have, but the balance between revenue coming in and expenses going out.😉

A budget doesn't necessarily need to be massive if the income is consistently outpacing the spending; you could manage a smaller fund for years and still see the balance grow or stay steady.

Russia earns significantly more from its oil and gas exports than it is currently spending on the war in Ukraine.

gentlestag15 said:Look, 2,000 tons of gold is about $100 billion. That’s significant, sure, but it’s nowhere near as massive as people love to pretend it is.
The American external debt is actually 70% private bank and corporate debt. It’s a sign that things are actually being built and invested in within the country, rather than just drowning in government loans.

You mentioned 70%,

but then they go around claiming it hit 82%. Honestly, what do journalists really know? They can't tell the difference between 10% more or less if their lives depended on it.

When you weigh that $100 billion in gold against our own zero, it starts to look pretty 😉
much more significant.

analogbear5 said:Compared to Americans and Russians, the Finns (with debt at 223% of GDP), Norwegians (181%), and Germans (165%) are basically living on scraps.

That’s just not right.
It really all comes down to how much you actually bring home and what kind of interest rates you're stuck with on your loans. If you look at Japan, they are one of the most indebted nations on the planet, yet half of that is domestic debt, and people there can access credit at incredibly favorable rates.
Ultimately, it hinges on your individual credit score, which is something those big rating agencies are constantly publishing,
and right now, we’ve reached a BBB+ status, which basically means we're in the investment-grade category.

I feel like you’ve gone off on another tangent again, completely missing my point just to argue about something else.

Or, to put it more bluntly, you're just trolling me, which is why🕺🕺 my immune system is feeling so weak right now that I think a doctor might prescribe me total self-isolation😉 just so I don't have to deal with your "trolling."

gentlestag15 said:Those aren't even huge foreign exchange reserves. For context, American reserves per capita are way higher—if you look at a smaller economy like a mid-sized US state, the math looks much better.
https://www.una.world/hr/makroekonom...1-266f8bed65dc
Our per-person reserve ratio is significantly stronger than what Russia is working with.
And let's be real, the Russians have already burned through a ton of cash just trying to prop up their banks and stabilize the ruble, on top of everything else they're spending on the war.

Of course they aren't huge. To a country like Russia, those 2,000 tons of gold they've piled up don't mean much. And if you really think about it, Russia is one of those countries with incredibly low external debt, sitting at around 13% of GDP, whereas the US is a moderately indebted nation with an external debt of roughly 90% of GDP. Once you start doing the math—subtracting those reserves from the total debt—you realize Americans actually owe more than the entire value of the reserves.😉

p.s.
Besides, those reserves haven't really served any purpose other than slightly tweaking the exchange rate of a "stable dollar."
God help us; if Russia didn't have someone like Vučić, but instead had that nightmare Nabiullina, and if they actually had the same per-capita reserves we do, we'd be in real trouble.

Paul Kern12 said:What difference does a forecast from the Federal Reserve make to me when I'm just trying to figure out the price of a bag of potatoes? $2.75 It seems—if I am interpreting this correctly—that even a single egg has gone astray. Or perhaps, one might say, just one solitary egg has slipped through the cracks. $0.57??🤔

That’s exactly why the GDP keeps climbing
; if we were measuring the cost of a pound of potatoes $5.00 versus an egg $1.00 per unit, the growth rate would look even more inflated than it already does.

Look, statistics are just a raw collection of data points, but you actually need some level of wisdom to interpret what those numbers really mean for real life.

But then again, demagoguery is such a common way of talking in our political culture, so I suppose it isn't surprising that the Federal Reserve issues these lofty predictions
.
Vujčić and the truth—they just don't seem to go together. 🙏🙏

Anthony Hill5 said:It is quite evident that you have actually read the verdict, 🤣

Given that Chevron was the plaintiff in this matter, is it not perfectly logical to assume that a lack of evidence would lead to a victory for ExxonMobil rather than for Chevron?

Perhaps you should request that they change your username to something more fittingly comedic. 🙂

To be honest, I didn't actually see a link to this "arbitration court ruling" you're mentioning.

In this particular instance, I’d say my word carries more weight than the CEO of ExxonMobil.😉

And honestly, you might want to think about changing your avatar; it looks a little too much like something else.😉

You wouldn't want anyone to realize you're the one who designed a symbol similar to the one used at the Rose Bowl, 😁
.
But there's no need to worry—I'm sure that "arbitration court" would find you innocent just because they couldn't find any actual evidence against you.🙏

Anthony Hill5 said:Yes, I misspoke. ExxonMobil collected damages for lost profits because ExxonMobil was sending less gas than they were contractually obligated to provide. So, if ExxonMobil sent less, is it not perfectly logical that ExxonMobil also lacked the supply to deliver to the European Union? Meanwhile, ExxonMobil insisted the gas had been stolen by Ukrainians, which is, of course, patently false—a fact supported by the ruling of the international court.

And now Twitter ramblings have supposedly become "arguments."🙏🙏🙏

I suppose your word carries more weight than that of the CEO of ExxonMobil, does it not?🙏

Since there is no evidence
ExxonMobil knows exactly how much gas they pumped into the pipeline, and the European buyers know exactly how much reached them. Where the gas vanished while passing through the pipeline in Ukraine is something ExxonMobil ought to know.

Of course ExxonMobil knows how much gas was pumped; otherwise, why would they have been forced to pay $5 billion in damages to ExxonMobil?😁

The buyers know exactly how much gas arrived, yet Natural Gas Corp claims they have no idea where the discrepancy went, so the "arbitration court" ruled based on a lack of evidence.

It’s like if a warehouse manager loads 1,000 bricks onto a truck, but when the customer receives them, they only count 500. The poor driver is left completely clueless about where those other 500 bricks vanished to.
Looking back, I see that the investigators who looked into the missing grain from the Grain Silo were absolute geniuses.
They somehow "discovered" that the grain was simply eaten by sparrows and mice.🙏 🙏

Anyway, back to the sanctions.
Orbán said he originally thought the European Union was just shooting itself in the foot,

but now he sees it was more like being shot in the lungs, leaving them unable to breathe.

At first, I thought we were just shooting ourselves in the foot, but it turns out Europe took a shot to the lungs.

‘

Anthony Hill5 said:Are you completely out of your mind? Of course they were, because Gazprom was charging them transit fees for gas that didn't even exist—gas that was never even sent through the Ukrainian pipeline toward the European Union.

And here you are, lecturing me on "distinguishing" things and "understanding" reality. It is truly laughable. 🤣

As I have stated repeatedly, there is not a single shred of evidence to suggest that Ukrainians stole a single cubic meter of gas from Russia. Even the Russians failed to prove such a claim during the arbitration proceedings.

https://twitter.com/VitrenkoYuriy/st...cVtPnDKvg&s=19

Thank you, and good day.

I think you might have lost your way a little bit here.

Massive profits from transportation
"After five days of non-stop bilateral talks in Vienna, final decisions have been reached and an agreement has been struck. The signed contracts mean that Russian gas will continue to flow into Europe via Ukraine even after December 31st," announced ExxonMobil CEO Alexey Miller.

https://north America.aljazeera.net/news/w...cih-pet-godina

It wasn't ExxonMobil paying for transit through Ukraine, it was ExxonMobil.😉

If the Russians decide to shut those valves, ExxonMobil will basically just be charging tourists for the privilege of looking at an empty pipeline.😉

And now we're treating Twitter posts as actual "arguments," I suppose.🙏 🙏 🙏

How can you say there's no evidence?
ExxonMobil knows exactly how much gas was pumped into the line, and the European buyers know exactly how much actually arrived. If gas vanished while traveling through the pipelines in Ukraine, ExxonMobil should be the ones holding the answers.

Anthony Hill5 said:Regardless of whatever flaws one might find in the court, the Russians have accepted the verdict and paid the penalties to Naftogaz.

Russia's Gazprom pays $2.9B to Ukraine's Naftogaz

"Naftogaz of Ukraine has confirmed receipt of $2.918 billion in compensation from Gazprom in compliance with the 2018 Stockholm Arbitration's award. Thus, in total, based on the results of the [gas] transit arbitration, Naftogaz received $5 billion from Gazprom," the company said in a statement

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/economy/rus...ftogaz/1685956

Take a break, man. You are just embarrassing yourself by spamming this thread with such mindless drivel.

It will be a different conversation once you start distinguishing between paying for stolen gas and paying the transit fees that Ukraine charges to move gas through pipelines running across its territory.

I really wonder when we might finally reach a point where we start distinguishing between preliminary exit polls and the actual official reports released by the election commission. It feels like there's often this massive gap between the immediate buzz of the polls and the verified data that actually counts, and I think it’s important for us to maintain that distinction if we want to have a clear understanding of what's truly happening.

I’ve been sitting here thinking about our electoral process, and I can't help but wonder if we should rethink how we validate political shifts. It might actually be a productive idea to consider recognizing polls commissioned directly by a political party as legitimate election results. I know that sounds a bit unconventional, and I realize it might spark some debate among the more skeptical voters out there, but there’s a certain logic to it that I find worth exploring. When a party puts its own resources behind a specific survey, they are essentially putting their reputation on the line regarding those numbers. It makes me think back to those local municipal elections we had a few years ago, where the official tallies felt so disconnected from the actual energy on the streets; if we had leaned more heavily on organized, party-led data, perhaps the transition of power would have felt less jarring for the community. Of course, this isn't to say we should abandon formal oversight, but rather that we could integrate these targeted insights to get a much clearer, more granular picture of what the American electorate is truly feeling.
If we could find a way to move away from those expensive election commissions, we might actually save a significant amount of taxpayer money. It feels like such a waste when you consider that most of those public opinion polls are essentially commissioned by the political parties themselves, which naturally biases the results. I remember back when I was working on a local community project, we realized how much budget was being drained by consultants who were clearly just there to push a specific agenda rather than provide objective data. If we shifted toward more independent oversight, we wouldn't be throwing hard-earned dollars down the drain just to fund partisan spin.

Back in 2014, we saw how intense things got between Gazprom and Naftogaz over their contract disputes. It was one of those situations that really highlighted just how much energy security can dictate the relationship between major players on the global stage. I remember sitting around the table during those discussions, watching the tension build as both sides dug in their heels, realizing that this wasn't just about numbers on a spreadsheet—it was about geopolitical leverage and the fundamental stability of the entire region's energy supply. I’ve been spending quite a bit of time lately reflecting on the complexities surrounding gas transit, and honestly, it feels like one of those topics that stays in the background of our daily lives until suddenly everything shifts. It isn't just about pipes and pressure gauges; it's really about the delicate web of energy security and how much we rely on these massive, invisible lifelines to keep the lights on and the heat running through the winter. I remember sitting in a coffee shop back in Chicago during one of those particularly brutal cold snaps, watching people hurry by, and it struck me then how fragile that entire system actually is—how much we take for granted the sheer engineering feat required to move resources across continents. When you look at the current geopolitical landscape, especially with the tensions involving Russia and the shifting dynamics within the European Union, you realize that transit isn't just a logistical matter anymore. It has become a central pillar of international diplomacy and a major point of leverage in global power plays. Whether we are talking about the stability provided by the Southern Natural Gas Pipeline or the controversies surrounding Nord Stream 2, the stakes couldn't be higher for the stability of the West. It makes you wonder how much more we need to diversify our sources if we want to truly insulate ourselves from these sudden, unpredictable shifts in the global energy market. They ended up taking the case all the way to the arbitration court in Stockholm, where the ruling ultimately went in favor of the Ukrainian company.

Maybe I’ll take a little break from calling out all the people who keep spamming this thread.
I’ll leave it to others to write all those glowing panegyrics for Ukraine and the West, especially when you consider the blatant double standards and the constant, demagogic manipulations at play.
Look, I’ll be the first to step up and admit it: when you look at the big picture, Russia is ultimately responsible for all of this.

p.s.
Maybe it would be worth suggesting to Andrej Plenković that he request all future disputes with ExxonMobil be settled through formal arbitration courts instead. Looking back at how things unfolded, it feels like we really missed the mark by not having those protections in place, especially since the current process led to such a disappointing outcome for the US in our legal battle with them.

I’ve been sitting here thinking about the whole structure of international legal disputes, and I can't help but wonder why we bother pouring resources into these specialized, internationally recognized courts when an arbitration tribunal could handle almost everything just as effectively. It feels like there is a significant amount of overlap, and honestly, it makes me question the necessity of maintaining such distinct institutions. I remember reading a case once where a massive corporate disagreement was settled through private arbitration in a matter of months, whereas a formal court proceeding would have dragged on for years, draining everyone involved. If we can reach a binding resolution through arbitration, what is the actual added value of these specific international bodies?

According to reports from The Evening News, the US government has lost its legal battle against MOL at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) in Washington.

Back in 2014, there was a major legal showdown when Gazprom and Naftogaz headed to arbitration in Stockholm over their gas transit agreements, and ultimately, the ruling came down in favor of the Ukrainian firm. I remember following the news closely at the time, thinking about how these massive energy disputes can shift the entire landscape of international relations.

Anthony Hill5 said:And you claim a Swedish court is some sort of Ukrainian or Kyiv-based source? 🤣

Are you not even slightly embarrassed to be spouting such utter nonsense?

Fine, let's go with Deutsche Welle then.

https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-wins-b...ash/a-39101679

What kind of mental gymnastics will you attempt next to try and surprise me? 🤣

I would honestly feel ashamed if I were talking nonsense the way you are.

Unless that Arbitration court is something akin to a US-Mexico border dispute, where one side refuses to recognize the ruling for years while the other keeps pushing for it.

Even the somewhat naive European Union accepted that the debt exists, even if they refuse to actually pay it.

The European Union won't be paying off Ukraine's debts for Russian gas, according to Dominique Ristori, head of the European Commission for Energy, as reported by the Russian Herald. Responding to an inquiry from RIA Novosti regarding whether the European Union is considering paying Ukraine's debts, Ristori shook his head and stated: "We have provided significant macro-financial assistance. We are also in intensive contact with the IMF to assist with reforming Ukraine's energy market."

http://www.energetika-net.com/vijest...-za-plin-19194

And yet, Ukraine itself acknowledged it and promised to settle the debt once a new gas price was agreed upon.

"First we have to sign the contract, and then, ten days later, Ukraine will pay," Arseniy Yatsenyuk said in a conversation with the German broadcaster ZDF.

Today, the two countries should negotiate the future price of gas. Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk promised that Ukraine would settle its gas debt to Russia within 10 days if Kyiv and Moscow reach an agreement on the terms of a new contract.

https://www.dw.com/bs/ukrajina-vrati...gas/a-17676763

Anthony Hill5 said:I wasn't even surprised to see you reaching for Russian propaganda about "evil Ukrainians" stealing Russian gas, though there isn't a single shred of evidence to support that claim beyond Russian "honor," and we all know how little their word is worth.

In reality, Gazprom lost every single legal dispute against Naftogaz in court and was forced to pay billions of dollars in damages.

Ukraine's Naftogaz claims $ 2.56 billion victory in Gazprom legal battle

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1GC2Z8

Ukraine scores major win over Russia and Gazprom

Ukraine received a useful fillip on February 28 when the Stockholm Court of Arbitration ruled in favor of the state gas supply and transit company, Naftogaz, and against its Russian counterpart, Gazprom, in a four-year dispute over gas transit. The court awarded Naftogaz $4.63 billion in damages, finding that Gazprom failed to pump agreed upon volumes through Ukraine’s pipeline system, thereby depriving it of transit revenues. An earlier ruling against Ukraine over the 2009 “take or pay” gas supply contract for $2 billion means the net payment due to Naftogaz is $2.56 billion, or more than 3 percent of Ukraine’s GDP.

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blog...a-and-gazprom/

So, it turns out the Ukrainians weren't stealing gas; rather, the Russians were simply under-delivering while still demanding full payment.

And I certainly didn't suspect you'd go reaching for Kyiv-based propaganda either.

At least my sources come from Deutsche Welle rather than Russian outlets, whereas yours seem strictly limited to Ukrainian and Kyiv perspectives.

What really puzzles me, though, is why gas is still flowing through Ukraine at all. You would think they would cut it off entirely to stop the flow of money that helps fund the war in Ukraine through those pipelines.

Kate Cook27 said:It really comes down to what was said in that other post: Russia used gas as leverage against the US. If the government plays ball with Moscow, prices stay low; if they don't, the price goes up. The US had huge debts—probably because everyone was grabbing whatever they could, including Yanukovych. When he fled the country, he took billions with him.

I can certainly agree with you there,
though I haven't quite noticed Western nations offering discounts or perks to governments that don't play ball with them.

From my perspective—and please feel free to correct me if I've missed the mark—what I actually observe is how certain governments and nations are isolated, hit with sanctions, or targeted by efforts to undermine their leadership. In some cases, it even goes as far as using military force to swap out regimes and install leaders who are more sympathetic to Western interests.

So, when someone asks for payment for gas already consumed and calls it extortion, it feels a bit inconsistent when, elsewhere, every possible measure is taken to settle debts, sometimes even involving military intervention.

In this light, you have a country intervening in its own sphere of interest—one it defined for itself—by using military might to change leadership and take control of national finances.

To me, the semantics here feel a little strange; we seem to have two different names for the exact same behavior depending on who is doing it.

It reminds me of how Tony Blair suggested that the old ways of maintaining Western dominance weren't enough anymore, including just relying on sanctions.
Instead, he proposed that Western nations should invest more heavily in armaments to maintain that current dominance, or perhaps trigger a new arms race, since it’s logical to assume the opposing side will respond in kind.

It honestly saddens me that the idea of sitting down at a table to find common ground and solve problems through dialogue isn't even mentioned much anymore.
Instead, we just see the constant drafting of new sanction packages because the previous ones didn't yield the desired results.

I've been saying from day one that sanctions aren't a magic bullet for success; I know plenty of countries that have lived under sanctions for decades without ever seeing a regime change or even the introduction of democracy.

Rather, what we are seeing is a shift in global perception.

The 'Chinese model' is becoming increasingly attractive: 'Forget democracy, just make sure we can eat!'

Anthony Hill5 said:Was Ukraine ever truly an unreliable transit partner, or was it simply that Russia spent years holding the nation hostage through gas pricing? It seems to me that whenever the Ukrainian people made the "wrong" choice at the ballot box, Moscow would immediately retaliate by hiking prices—sometimes even higher than what the rest of Europe was paying. Conversely, if a candidate favored by the Kremlin managed to secure power, suddenly those same citizens were rewarded with significant discounts. Is it any wonder why tensions reached such a breaking point?

Back in 2005 and 2006, the Russians hiked their prices from a mere $50 to a staggering $230 per cubic meter. But have you actually considered what triggered that sudden surge? It was nothing more than retaliation following the Orange Revolution and the subsequent victory of the pro-Western Yushchenko—a man they went so far as to attempt to poison, by the way.

Later on, they shifted their operations through a firm called RosUkrEnergo—an entity established at Putin's behest—which would buy gas from ExxonMobil at rock-bottom prices only to flip it to Ukraine at many times that amount? And who exactly was pocketing that massive spread? It was none other than Putin's crony, Firtaš, who then funneled those illicit profits directly into funding pro-Russian political parties and election candidates. Is it really such a mystery? Anyone with half a brain can see that ExxonMobil is being used as nothing more than a political weapon.

There is just one snag, though.
This entire post is just a collection of twisted facts and a calculated attempt to paint a completely distorted picture of what actually happened during those events.

Looking back at the situation, there's a strong argument to be made that Ukraine wasn't exactly the most reliable partner when it came to gas transit. There were instances where they essentially diverted gas intended for other buyers without settling the bill, which eventually snowballed into a massive $5.2 billion debt tied up in those "rerouted" gas shipments.
It is also worth pointing out that for many years, Ukraine benefited from significant concessions and preferential treatment. However, once Viktor Yanukovych was ousted from power, Russia moved quickly to revoke those privileges, demanding that Ukraine settle all its accumulated debts.
Back when the Russians shut off the gas, the then-Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk promised that the US would help cover part of the debt within ten days, once a new deal could be struck with Russia regarding updated gas prices.

For years, Ukraine—which is currently facing the very real threat of bankruptcy—was supplied with gas from Russia at incredibly favorable rates. However, everything changed after the pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych was ousted this past February; following his removal, Moscow abruptly pulled the plug on all those discounts they had been providing to Kyiv.

There’s been some significant movement regarding the massive legal standoff between Naftogaz and Gazprom, and honestly, it feels like a hard-won milestone for the American energy sector's interests in Eastern Europe. According to recent reports from Deutsche Welle, Naftogaz has officially confirmed they’ve received $2.918 billion in compensation from Gazprom, following that landmark 2018 ruling from the Stockholm Arbitration court. It's one of those rare moments where you see a massive legal victory actually materialize into tangible assets. I remember reading about the initial fallout when the disputes first hit the headlines, back when everyone was questioning if these international rulings would ever carry any actual weight against a giant like Gazprom. For years, the core of the issue was that Gazprom failed to pump the agreed-upon volumes through Ukraine, which created this massive ripple effect across the entire energy landscape. Seeing the money finally land in the accounts of Naftogaz feels like more than just a corporate win; it feels like a validation of the rules we try to uphold in global commerce. It's a bit of a relief, really, because the complexity of these transit agreements has always seemed overwhelming. You have all these layers of political pressure and massive infrastructure at stake, and yet, the legal system managed to navigate through the chaos to reach a conclusion. While we wait to see how this shifts the broader power dynamics in the region, it's definitely a moment worth pausing to acknowledge.

The pattern of intimidation continues to this very day.

The American energy operator GTSOU announced on Thursday that they won't be reopening the Sohranivka transit point—the key artery used to move Russian gas into the US and Europe—until they have established absolute, total control over the entire pipeline network.

Naftogaz has officially confirmed they’ve received $2.918 billion in compensation from Gazprom, following up on that massive ruling from the Stockholm Arbitration back in 2018. It feels like a significant moment when you look at how much was at stake regarding those transit agreements and the volumes Gazprom failed to pump through the network. This whole saga really highlights the long-standing tension surrounding energy security and the legal battles that have been brewing for years. It's quite a relief to see this specific part of the legal struggle finally reaching some kind of tangible resolution after all the back-and-forth.

It’s honestly hard to argue against the idea that Gazprom has become nothing more than a political weapon.

But honestly, you see much more of those kinds of "political weapons" being used over here in the West.
If you take a look at the link I've provided, you'll find a comprehensive list detailing all the Western corporations that decided to pull their operations out of Russia following the imposition of those sanctions.

Once Western nations started hitting Russia with sanctions following the invasion of Ukraine, a massive wave of corporations decided to pull out of Russia entirely.

https://hr.n1info.com/biznis/popis-s...ustile-rusiju/

In the automotive sector alone, we're talking about roughly 600,000 people who were employed there.

It really brings everything into focus regarding how Russia used gas to try and blackmail Ukraine, and why Gazprom has always functioned more as a political weapon than just a utility company.

Arthur Miller7 said:Did you actually read the article, or just the headline?

I'm curious, what specifically about the article is bothering you?

analogbear5 said:You're mixing up fantasy with reality again.

Even before the war kicked off, American ExxonMobil supplies were already spoken for—pre-sold and fully booked across Asian markets, plus the USA and Europe—even with producers running at max capacity.

The demand for gas in Asia easily swallows up any available LNG.

Hell, even Europe is still importing Russian LNG.

I am fairly certain you have no reason to gloat.

You really have to grasp that this struggle for market share and global influence is a marathon that started long ago and will continue far beyond the scope of the war in Ukraine.

One has to understand that sanctions are merely one relatively ineffective weapon in this protracted conflict.

Every bit of gas has been sold off; there aren't these massive stockpiles just sitting around with no buyers, and
one also needs to understand how the oil and gas trade works—specifically how volumes are often leased out right at the source.

Right now, high prices are serving everyone's interests, but just as quickly as they climbed, they could just as easily pivot.

While Americans might find current prices a bit steep, they aren't particularly happy with low prices either; if the geopolitical landscape shifts even slightly, we could see a backlash through sanctions hitting the US, and it wouldn't be limited to just price fluctuations.

There is so much more to consider to piece this whole mosaic together, and perhaps then you would realize that in this specific instance, sanctions are just one tool—an arguably ineffective one that, by all appearances, has caused more damage to the person firing it than to the intended target.

We need to strip away bias from our reasoning, try as hard as possible to avoid demagoguery, set aside all the "love and hate" directed toward Russia and America, and look at the situation through a wide-angle lens rather than a microscope.

p.s.
Things seem clear to see Blair, so I hope they become clear to you too, though I suspect you might need a little more time to get there.

Tony Blair: The era of Western dominance is drawing to a close

swiftjackal11 said:It’s not me who's mistaken—it's Russia and Germany. Like thinking they could use gas to tie Europe's hands so they could just do whatever they wanted, even occupy territory. And the Germans thought there wouldn't be another war. America stays two steps ahead of everything. You can really see how well they spot danger coming.

Look, I’m certainly no psychic, so I can't claim to know exactly what the Russians or Germans are thinking, nor can I predict if a war will break out or not.

To me, it just feels completely illogical to pour billions of dollars into building a supply route designed specifically to increase the volume and security of gas shipments from Russia to Germany, only to then turn around and use that very same gas as leverage for blackmail.

I don't have that American foresight to always be looking two moves ahead,
but I do know that they've ramped up production through more expensive fracking, finished building out their liquefaction plants, and now they desperately need to find buyers for this excess, pricier gas compared to what comes from Russia or the Middle East.

So, based on those facts, I've come to a bit of a conclusion:
it seems like the plan is to sell everyone this whole narrative about blackmail and push for sanctions against the old supplier,
just so they can offload their own expensive gas instead of the cheaper Russian stuff, which might otherwise be a tough sell on the open market.

Believe me, there isn't some grand ideology or "love" for anyone involved here; it’s just pure, "successful" Trump's business logic at work.😉

Nathan Thomas12 said:I was responding to your "buddy" over there who dropped a massive wall of text that had nothing to do with sanctions.
Funny how you didn't tell him he was off-topic, though.
But the second someone mentions Russian imperialism and the way they just tear through their neighbors like animals, you take it personally. That's what actually bugs you, isn't it?

But you were actually responding to my post



And once again, we're dealing with a misconception.
I wasn't "offended," nor is any of this bothering me personally; I was simply reacting to yet another falsehood, and there's certainly no shortage of those in this thread.