Posts by Timothy Nelson5

Nancy Gomez26 said:If the West fails, the Saudis lose everything regarding their investments in bonds denominated in Western currencies—the very surpluses they’ve scraped together from oil sales. If they finish these massive projects, all they will have left are empty skyscrapers, perhaps filled with travelers from elsewhere, maybe from the East. I don't see tourism becoming a cornerstone of the economy in KSA unless there is a fundamental shift, which, realistically speaking, seems highly unlikely. They remain a largely insular society; there are internal forces working hard to ensure it stays that way. Introducing true freedoms would fundamentally alter the nation's character, something the leadership simply cannot tolerate. MBS is reminiscent of Gorbachev; he wants to modernize the state without actually changing the underlying system... but reality doesn't work that way. Once the pressure becomes too great, the reforms will grind to a halt.

The cultural heritage of that region has always been centered around raids, plunder—including slaves, I suppose—trading just about anything, and squeezing taxes out of groups who hadn't converted to their religion...
Hard work, entrepreneurship, tourism... those things were never really part of the DNA for that civilization.

Thinking this can all be flipped on its head in ten years is probably just an illusion.

Most of that part of the world is desert or semi-desert, so naturally, it couldn't support nearly as many people as it does now. It was only through massive investments in infrastructure and basic civilization that the population could actually expand.
A large portion of them have learned to live off the state-provided welfare. You have huge numbers of people doing almost nothing, while importing millions of foreign workers—Western experts and laborers from poorer third-world nations.

Once the revenue from natural resources starts to stagnate significantly, I suspect everything will fall apart.

And honestly, the situation in Russia isn't much better.
They also run a huge chunk of their economy and national budget around selling natural resources.
Not quite as much as Saudi Arabia, and they are more diversified... but there are plenty of similarities.

It’s a fairly closed society globally, and someone on the inside is working very hard to keep it that way. Introducing certain freedoms would likely fundamentally change the character of the state itself, which I imagine the authorities find unacceptable. MBS is a bit like Mikhail Gorbachev; he wants changes to modernize the state, but he wants the system and the power structure to remain untouched... but that's not how reality works. When or if the authorities feel threatened, the reforms will stop.

You only have to look at Islamic extremist Iran, which used to be a much more cosmopolitan civilization... what happens when modernism clashes with tradition...

Something similar happened in Russia too... several times, actually...

lonetrucker4 said:Well, you clearly weren't paying attention in class, because nobody actually teaches that.

that everything popped out of nothing

And that’s not even a physical theory either; besides, cosmological theories are complicated stuff you might barely hear about in a high school physics class. Physics mostly hits that "Planck time" wall and just admits it has no clue what the laws of nature were like before that, other than "something" existed: matter-energy in a state we can't even wrap our heads around.

But funny enough, some theologians today are actually using those cosmological theories to argue for the existence of God.

Isn't that exactly what the Bible says—that God created something from nothing?

and how to use condoms

Are they seriously teaching that in schools here nowadays!? 😲 I mean, hey, useful skill, I guess.

that kind of education in a mostly Catholic country where over 90% are Catholic

Forget the debate over the actual number of Catholics; the Catholic Church has been acknowledging evolution since somewhere in the middle of the last century.

Nikola Vranješ - Tomislav Miletić: THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IN A MODERN PASTORAL-CATECHETICAL CONTEXT

A paper published in a theological journal by a doctor and master of theology. Right out of the gate, it mentions that evolution is a scientific fact. Doesn't question it once. It actually warns that denying it is a huge mistake when trying to promote faith.

In other words, I guess no actual scientist should really be ruling out the possibility that some "higher" entity designed the entire universe—one that we tiny little humans might assign divine attributes to, just because it makes sense practically?🤔

Setting aside the debate over how many Catholics are actually out there, the Catholic Church has been acknowledging the theory of evolution since somewhere around the middle of the last century.

It was an article in a theological journal, written by people with master's and doctoral degrees in theology. Right in the opening sentence, they treat the theory of evolution as a scientific fact. They don't question it at all. In fact, they warn that trying to deny it while promoting faith is a massive mistake.

If you look at the Bible stories regarding creation through a broad, metaphorical lens, nothing is actually in conflict with evolutionary theory.

lonetrucker4 said:There it is. Classic psychological projection right there. 🤣

Five hundred years ago, people were asking "where's the proof Earth is orbiting the Sun" too.

The proof is sitting right there in dozens of IPCC reports over the last 35 years. We're talking hundreds of climatologists per report—people who literally spent their entire lives studying this stuff—all based on thousands of peer-reviewed papers. Every single one has a "non-technical summary" designed specifically for any educated person to wrap their head around.

But nah, that’s way too much work. People just want a simple answer like "well, it says so in the Bible." 😵

Anyway, you're veering off topic.

A paper like that shouldn't have even made it past the first round of review in an engineering department. It shows how broken the standards are. Look: I could probably scrape together a paper on "pandemic apocalypses in 20th century Sci-Fi," but that’s literary theory, not medicine.

I suppose you mean the evidence that drove Nikola Kuzanski, a cardinal in the Catholic Church, then Copernicus, a priest, and then Kepler, who was also a priest, to map out planetary motion...

A fascinating read on "Institutionalized Ideological Corruption in Academia" would be something regarding how those French quasi-Enlightenment types—basically propaganda agents for the revolution—spread lies and misinformation about the Ancien regime and specifically the Catholic Church, work which eventually paved the way for cultural Marxism...

The evidence is right there in the roughly twenty IPCC reports from the last 35 years. Each one involved hundreds of climatologists—people who have basically dedicated their entire lives to studying climate—and these reports are built on thousands of scientific papers. Every single one includes a "non-technical summary" meant to be accessible to an educated layperson.

The only issue, I guess, is that this still hasn't been confirmed as scientific theory; it's more like a massive collection of unverified quasi-scientific hypotheses—the latest being that 'Hockey' stick,'
ps
We're talking about the impact of anthropogenic CO2 as the primary driver of climate change...

But no, that’s too complicated. We just want a simple answer, something like, "Well, it says so in the Bible."

Yeah, I suspect the other side would love nothing more than having interlocutors like that, just so they can mock them.
It’s inconvenient when people actually know things and start asking uncomfortable questions or presenting an uncomfortable truth.

Anyway, you're drifting off-topic here.

Are posts only allowed if they involve spitting on the FBI, because any work that isn't 'kosher' with the globalist progressive cabal is forbidden?

Work like this should never have been accepted in an engineering program. It just shows how truly broken the criteria have become. I could probably, with a little effort, write a paper on a "pandemic apocalypse in 20th century Sci-Fi," but that would be a literary theory paper, not a medical one.

Would there be nearly as much of an uproar if someone wrote an engineering thesis on a 'feminist' topic—like, "a woman in the history of engineering"?

slycobra5 said:Are you suggesting a contractor who renovated an apartment would claim he has no memory of doing the work?
Is that really what you're getting at?
What possible motive would he have for that?
Fear of some crew of unlicensed handymen working under the table?

If the contractor who renovated the unit gets sued, he’ll probably go talk to a lawyer—assuming he’s got any sense at all.
It’s pretty debatable whether a contractor or the property owner would even be held liable just because someone wasn't watching their step on the stairs. I mean, the person could have tripped anytime in the last month. It wasn't like a brick fell out of a worker's hand and hit them.
So, honestly, a lawsuit like that feels like a real long shot.

But calling the IRS or reporting them to OSHA for hiring workers under the table? That's a different story. That would almost certainly trigger some massive fines.

And the witnesses? They're just neighbors or other people in the building who would likely prefer not to get caught in the crossfire between two parties in a legal dispute.
They'd probably just say they didn't see anything happen and that they don't know a thing about it.

slycobra5 said:Look, if an ambulance picked them up, there has to be a paper trail. Everything should be logged and filed under standard medical protocols....

So, what does the report actually say?
I mean, it probably just claims the injured person fell down some stairs on their own. I doubt there's much more detail than that, honestly.

slycobra5 said:You can say whatever you want here on this forum, but things work differently in a courtroom. Out there, you have to deal with perjury, and that’s a serious crime—one that carries mandatory prison time.
Go ahead. Tell them they're wrong. Just say it.

1. Maybe take a closer look at Section 305 of the Penal Code and notice specifically who actually gets prosecuted for perjury.
2. Most people who get subpoenaed to testify but don't want to get dragged into the mess just play dumb. They say they didn't see anything or, more commonly, they "don't recall."
3. In reality, courts almost never go after witnesses who are obviously lying. I mean, I know of cases where a witness claims they saw the defendant on the street through their living room window, but their house doesn't even have a window on that side. That kind of blatant lying happens all the time. Honestly, sometimes you can't even prosecute them because the lie is just too stupid to hold up.
I don't think I've ever heard of anyone facing any real consequences. If the pressure gets intense enough, people eventually "confess" and change their stories...
I guess I believe perjury would be taken seriously in a major case, like a murder trial. But in situations like this? Not really.

Thomas Rivera10 said:There isn't much "maybe" about it. Goldman Sachs picked up the injured party right at the scene.

I mean, is there actually any eyewitness testimony, a police report, or even a formal statement on file?

slycobra5 said:The only real way to handle this is to sue the client who commissioned the work... that’s the only move that actually makes sense. If they get dragged into court, they're forced to go on the record and disclose exactly who hired them and who actually carried out the job in the first place.

First off, the plaintiff would have to prove they actually slipped on some debris in an apartment building staircase—like, specifically proving it was uncleaned grit that caused the fall.

Then you have the other side, whoever they may be, just claiming they have no idea what happened. Maybe the guy just fell off a barstool at a local pub and cracked his head on the edge of the counter... and now he's just looking for a quick payout...
☕

lonetrucker4 said:Look, Faraday and Maxwell were working way after the Holy Inquisition lost its teeth. Plus, they were in the United Kingdom, where that whole Inquisition thing was dead and buried long before they could even touch Newton a century earlier.

But hey, even in the 1800s, those old-school reactionary types still basically banned atheism at universities.

Seriously, you should be embarrassed for throwing out such half-baked arguments.

The Inquisition wasn't actually out to get science or scientists, I suppose. It was more about hunting down heresy and heretics, if you look at it that way. Maybe people just conflate the two, but they weren't really the same thing... I guess.

Back then, you had people using the Inquisition to settle petty scores—just pure spite or greed, really. They’d throw out these baseless accusations just to grab whatever they could get. I guess it's not much different from when some local commissar would label Mark a "kulak" just so he could seize his property and toss him into a labor camp. Or maybe it's like when Joe reported Paul as a "collaborator"—even though all Paul did was work at the local mill grinding grain for everyone—simply because Joe had eyes for Paul's wife and wanted to move in once Paul was executed. It's all the same pattern, I suppose. Just people using power to steal what isn't theirs.

Even back in the 1800s, I suppose you could say the reactionary forces essentially maintained a functional ban on atheism within the halls of academia. It was always there, lurking... that sort of unspoken rule keeping certain ideas out of the universities.

It feels like we’re seeing this growing wave of militant anti-theism within the academic community lately, and it’s getting harder to ignore. It isn't just about targeting people who follow traditional religions, either. It seems more like an outright spread of hostility toward anyone who doesn't subscribe to those endless, ever-shifting "progressive" values. It just feels like there's no end to it, I guess. Maybe it's just how things are heading now, but it's definitely noticeable.

Honestly, one really ought to feel some level of shame for rushing through such pointless arguments. It’s all just noise, I suppose.

Can you actually look yourself in the mirror and say that out loud?😁

Charles Ross3 said:You were listening to Marxism because it was a mandatory requirement (even if they called it something else), but you were studying Marxism within an engineering program, not "Engineering Marxism" or "Marxist Mechanical Engineering."

The reality is that under the socialist system, subjects like Marxism or sociology were integrated into almost every major. It's also true that, for the most part, they served as tools for indoctrination. However, people weren't sitting in "Sociology of Mechanical Engineering" or "Marxism for Electrical Engineering"; rather, the idea was that students of engineering, electrical tech, or agriculture needed to grasp the broader social landscape they lived in. Of course, that brings us right back to the question of how much of that was genuine social insight versus pure indoctrination.

But regardless, when we are talking about the hard sciences, these were two entirely separate spheres: you studied your engineering because you had to, and you sat through some Marxism or sociology just to check a box—likely doing the bare minimum to pass—but it existed as a distinct entity. You wouldn't go looking for electrical schematics inside Marx's *Capital* or Engels' *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State*.

What we are seeing now, with this supposed 'introduction of the Bible into engineering,' is a completely different beast. The Bible, as a collection of texts with diverse origins and eras, can certainly be analyzed through the lens of the humanities—looking at historical context, literary merit, dramatic structure, or its inherent messaging. But it simply cannot serve as the foundation for exact, empirical research. A collection of texts that claims to be dogma and eternal truth cannot be the basis for the hard sciences and rigorous scientific inquiry—which is precisely what an original, technical engineering paper ought to be.

I mean, what follows this: Catholic Dentistry?

Yeah, luckily I didn't grow up in China or Cambodia to experience the true joys of actual communism, where you'd get taught "engineering Marxism"... where engineers get humiliated and forced to quote Marx just because their machines or blueprints didn't turn out quite right...

Anyway, I recall my father—who was an atheist, though a very tolerant one—getting quite worked up when an older neighbor, maybe fifteen years my senior, wrote her thesis at the state business school on the spread of Christianity throughout Europe.
Back in the socialist era... early 1970s...
(He was annoyed because it had nothing to do with economics, not because he hated faith or believers like many of the forum users here might)

this whole thing now, with what’s being called the 'introduction of the Bible to engineering,' is a different beast: the Bible, viewed as a collection of freely interpreted texts from various origins, regardless of when they were written, can be analyzed within the humanities through historical context, or as literary value via its dramatic structure and messages, etc., but it cannot serve as a foundation for exact sciences. A collection of texts that claims to represent dogma and eternal truth simply cannot be the basis for empirical research—and that is precisely what an exact, original engineering thesis ought to be.

I'm not so naive that I can't see the forest for the trees.

This entire topic seems designed to further the ideological indoctrination of the academic community, serving as a final stand for common sense against various globalist mercenaries and their 'useful idiots.' They've intentionally picked some obscure thesis just to use it as a smokescreen to attack the supposed lack of indoctrination in perhaps the last STEM department that hasn't been fully infiltrated by 'modern values.'

Why not just rename the topic "Ideological indoctrination of the academic community"?

That way we could write about the endless stream of other nonsense found in supposedly 'scientific' papers...
Or, heaven forbid, suggest actually interesting topics for legitimate scientific papers in the social science departments...

bluemason3 said:Take away Newton and Einstein and what do you have left?

The geometry curriculum, for instance, relied heavily on ancient Greek foundations until quite recently; they were incredibly advanced back then. While our methodology has shifted today, much of the core content remains "ancient" through even relatively advanced levels.

Nicholas of Cusa, Copernicus, Kepler, ... Volta, Pascal, Kelvin, Babbage...
... Boyle, Lavoisier, Euler, Faraday, Maxwell, Mendel...

A good number of them were priests—true believers, really... and I haven't even started counting the Jews...

The geometry curriculum, for instance, was based on ancient Greek foundations until quite recently; they were incredibly advanced back then. Methodologically, things have shifted today, but the core content remains largely "ancient" even through fairly advanced levels.

Ancient, sure, but not necessarily Greek.
The Kufu pyramid is basically a monument built around Pi, Phi, and those other "numbers"... and the Cheops pyramid serves as a testament to triangular geometry, all two and a half millennia before Pythagoras...

You say Greek...

bluemason3 said:Modern science owes a massive debt to the Greeks. By extension, you could argue science itself was built to support slavery. 🧐

#logic

Look, let's be real—we aren't tossing out creationists themselves, just creationism. If a creationist makes a contribution that actually holds up scientifically, fine. But don't expect that breakthrough to land in evolutionary biology.
Even Newton spent more time obsessing over religion and alchemy than he did on actual physics, so most of that stuff is just noise at this point.

Philosophers, perhaps.
Science? I don't know... take away Archimedes and what's even left?

crimsonorca42 said:I think you hit the nail on the head here. 👍

It’s probably why the humanities keeps peddling all sorts of nonsense to us—right from the top levels of the Department of Education. 😬

Do people actually think mistakes in mechanical engineering are what's dangerous?

Guiding nonsense in humanities studies (NOT the sciences—those aren't even sciences, I guess) is incomparably more dangerous and harmful.

Sam Martinez9 said:Fair point, but so what? Einstein was a Jew, but the theory of relativity isn't exactly *Jewish physics*.

There is no such thing as Christian agriculture, no Islamic economics, and certainly no Catholic mechanical engineering. Religion eventually retreated from those fields because it simply wasn't effective there. Prayer won't end a drought; irrigation solves a drought.

A scientist might belong to a religion, but faith—be it their own or anyone else's—has absolutely no business interfering with science, least of all the specific field they are currently working in.

Sam Martinez9 again—a Strawman par Excellence.

Anthony Perez9 said:There's that old biblical line about how God can't stop the turning of iron wheels.

Isn't that right up an engineer's alley?

But our resident religious fanatic didn't even bother mentioning it in her paper.
She was probably too scared of bruising 😂God's reputation
.
☕It’s just pathetic how our education system lets this kind of "work" pass through.

At this rate, we might as well expect creationists teaching biology at MIT.

I suppose there are actually some legitimate scientific papers out there that attempt to find references to modern technology within biblical texts. It’s not all just nonsense, I guess. At the very least, you have to admit they’re... interesting. Intrigued, maybe? They certainly provide food for thought if you're into that sort of thing.

It’s just so typical, really. And honestly, pretty pathetic. The way our entire education system handles this kind of "work"... it’s just sad.

So, what exactly makes that undergrad thesis "subpar"? I mean, if we're looking at it through that lens, then why wouldn't a doctoral dissertation on the mitski aspekt ekofeminizm be considered acceptable? It’s all a bit subjective, I guess. Maybe.
I mean, I guess you’d think a doctoral dissertation would actually require... well, more than this. It feels like there's a baseline expectation for depth, isn't there? Or maybe I'm just being cynical. Either way, it feels a bit thin.
I mean, honestly... a bachelor's thesis? That's mostly just a formality at this point. You check the boxes, you follow the rubric, you move on. But a PhD dissertation? That’s an entirely different beast altogether. It's not just paperwork.

I suppose we might even see creationists showing up in the natural sciences department... maybe. It feels like one of those inevitable shifts, doesn't it? Everything seems to be blurring lately.

If you sit down and actually compile a list of those massive names in scientific history—you know, the heavy hitters from Europe and beyond—you start to notice a pattern that most modern textbooks tend to gloss over. It’s a bit unsettling, I guess, when you realize that the vast majority of them were actually creationists. They weren't looking to tear down the idea of a Creator; they were often trying to understand the mechanics of how He put everything together. It makes you wonder if we've lost some perspective along the way.
If the architects of the natural sciences were all creationists, does that mean we should just toss the whole field out the window? I guess it’s an interesting thought, if a bit heavy. Maybe. It makes you wonder about the foundation of everything we claim to know. If the people who laid the groundwork were operating under a completely different set of assumptions than what we teach in schools today, does that invalidate the math? Or the physics? I don't know. It feels like a slippery slope, honestly. It's a messy question, and I suspect there isn't a clean answer to be found anywhere.

Even now, I suppose most scientists fall somewhere into the agnostic camp.
A true scientist should probably be an agnostic—not quite a believer, yet not strictly an atheist either. I mean, looking at the way today’s "activists" act, they aren't even really atheists; they're more like anti-theists. It's all a bit messy, I guess.

Karen Doyle72 said:Because machines don't run on stupidity.

If they’re just nonsense—then why are people actually studying them?
Why on earth are we footing the bill for degrees that teach nothing but fluff?

And by the way—there’s this constant push for everyone to get paid the exact same amount for the same job.
As if we're all somehow "equally valuable."
The idea that a person with an engineering degree from MIT should earn the same paycheck as someone with a gender studies degree.

So, I guess it doesn't really matter if the machinery actually works when it's being designed by people who don't know what they're doing, right?
It's all about feelings and good intentions now, I suppose.

🍿

bluemason3 said:Holly earned her degree in the humanities, not engineering. Also, if I recall our old debates correctly, the dissertation is about ecofeminism rather than being an ecofeminist work itself, and it includes plenty of critiques of the subject. This means those quoted statements could easily be taken out of context; they represent someone else's views, not necessarily the author's own position.

I actually read that dissertation. Well, I didn't exactly study it, but I skimmed through it pretty quickly. And, honestly, I noticed some of the most... interesting choices she made.
It was available online back then, so you can go ahead and dig through it yourself if you feel the need.

And maybe you, or anyone else, could explain something to me—what does it mean that the humanities can just push through any kind of nonsense, while something like MIT can't?
Why isn't that the case?

Charles Ross3 said:For years now, people have been sounding the alarm about the crisis in higher education here in the States, pointing to the slipping rankings of major institutions like the University of California, Berkeley (which is actually a topic being discussed right here), questioning the actual quality of various programs and whether the graduates coming out of our universities are truly becoming academic citizens.

But lately, all eyes have been on a bizarre situation involving a senior thesis at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology—a field we all know is incredibly demanding—and everyone is asking: is this even an appropriate topic for a mechanical engineering degree?

The thesis topic from a student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Bible, titled "A Technical Review in the Bible," is what has everyone talking.

According to the introduction, the entire subject was suggested by her assigned faculty advisor.

Looking at the first source:
Quote:>

According to the definition provided by the Encyclopædia Britannica, mechanical engineering is a professional field and scientific discipline encompassing the design, production, and operation of energy, work, and tool machines, etc., where its theoretical principles are rooted in scientific disciplines such as mathematics, mechanics, thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, and materials engineering.

Some of the specific excerpts taken from the paper include:

Quote:>

"In the Bible, sulfur is mentioned 15 times, and its mention is always linked to divine judgment, the underworld, and death: 'Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah...' (Genesis 19:24)

As references in a thesis completed after five years of rigorous engineering study, they cite sites like ziva-rijec.online, studentlesson.com, bible-govori.hr, christiananswers.net, and quora.com...

So, where does the Bible fit into this story?
Quote:>>

The advisor for this Bible-themed engineering thesis was actually on Oprah Winfrey's list.

A philosopher and theologian commented on the topic, calling this case "sacramental engineering," and used it to touch upon the broader issue of secularization:

Quote:>

In a democratic society—meaning a society that has successfully moved past these old ways in America—the principle of secularization must hold true. Secularization is vital because it prevents a nation and its people from sinking into a total loss of freedom by identifying too closely with religious institutions and religious content. When you claim a country is defined solely by one religion, you aren't really describing a sovereign state anymore. A state that identifies itself through religious content becomes a place where freedom and diversity are punished. Our current situation, as those students of "sacramental engineering" might put it, seems to be constructed from two primary materials: misfortune and nonsense. It feels like we’re living in this unfortunate country that just can't seem to handle true freedom; we talk about liberty so incessantly that we've practically forced it into a military uniform and draped a rosary around its neck.

Back when I was a student, during the old socialist era, we had this one course in our first year—I can't quite recall the exact name... but the core was basically Cultural Marxism and Critical Theory... at the time, those terms felt a bit strange to me, certainly different from the usual slogans like Marshall or the Democratic Party... but looking back, I suppose it was just a subtle way of ideologically conditioning the newer generations.
So, I don't really see why anyone is acting surprised now... every era pushes its own ideology, and I guess the pendulum just swings back sometimes...

Besides, didn't Elizabeth Warren get her doctorate with a paper called "The mythical aspect of ecofeminism"? If you actually bother to read it, you'll see just how much nonsense is packed in there... something along the lines of "women are connected to Mother Nature and the cosmos through menstruation"... if I recall correctly.
If that qualifies as a doctoral thesis, then I don't see why a paper analyzing the statistics of material mentions in the Bible is suddenly considered unacceptable...

On that subject:


An interesting comment:
This was funny 7 years ago....
7 years later.... It's literally becoming reality

Just another instance where reality ends up overtaking what used to be mere satire...

Richard Wilson4 said:Tennis is a joke right now. Honestly, even the corrupt mess that is American soccer has banned Russia.

Tennis is an individual sport. A national soccer team represents a whole country, but a single player competing in a European league? Not really.

I guess all sports organizations ought to adopt some kind of clear procedure for situations like this.
When some fascist aggressor regime gets hit with sanctions, all of that nation's national teams get banned. That makes sense, I suppose.
But individual athletes in solo sports... if they want to keep competing, maybe they shouldn't represent their country anymore. They should have to make some kind of statement—something neutral, at least—clearly declaring they don't support their homeland's policies. And maybe they could make some appropriate donations to help the victims caused by that regime's actions.

Then, let people decide.

William Miller12 said:Not quite.
Your interpretation feels a bit like hindsight bias...
Putin didn't launch an invasion expecting a multi-month grind, nor did he care how oil prices would swing once the guns started firing.

Oil and gas prices in the years leading up to the invasion had a much larger impact—specifically from at least 2014 onwards.
During that window, the Kremlin was busy stockpiling financial reserves for this exact adventure. Sure, about half of that was frozen, which caught the Kremlin off guard, but it still stung.

But before the invasion, high oil (and gas) prices were exactly what filled the Russian treasury and paved the road to war.

Now, if things had gone the way you're describing, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the rest of OPEC would have cut production to keep prices high. I don't think that would have stopped Putin from invading Ukraine.

As for what happens after... maybe an oil embargo would have hit sooner—instead of December 5, perhaps early September. And while Russia might have made slightly less from speculative trading, I doubt it would have been the deciding factor.
Looking at the comparative charts for Brent/WTI/Urals, the discounts on Urals were highest when speculative pressure was at its peak. When that dropped in early September, the Brent-Urals spread tightened, only to widen again after December 5.

Regardless, it wouldn't have changed the gas market situation, and the Kremlin relied far more on gas revenue than oil.

Timothy Nelson5
And yeah—anyone can reasonably argue that Saudi Arabia should look out for its own interests.
That’s true.
It's just that next time an Iranian terrorist regime attacks Saudi refineries and tankers, they shouldn't expect Uncle Sam and the West to show up to defend a feudal monarchy.

Maybe a new president (unlike this senile Biden) could tell the Saudis: [B says:
when we asked for your cooperation and help, you blew us off and cashed in. [/B]
Because of that, we had to send hundreds of billions in military aid to Ukraine, and we have no desire to keep helping you.
You made your money, so go ahead and buy our expensive, high-quality weaponry—it's already proven its worth in the war in Ukraine!

☕

Well, the Saudis buy a massive amount of weaponry. They’re actually ranked fourth globally in defense spending, yet they barely produce anything domestically compared to the top three.

The real issue with the Saudi military isn't their gear or their hardware—it's the personnel. It's the exact same story you see with Russia.

___

I don't think you quite caught my drift, because you're arguing against something I didn't even say—something most people already take for granted, I suppose.

Oil and gas prices actually had a much bigger impact in the years leading up to the invasion, specifically from 2014 onwards.
During that window, the White House was busy stacking up cash reserves for a war adventure. Sure, about half of that got frozen, which was unexpected and apparently caught the White House off guard.

Actually, the timing is a bit different than that.
High oil prices right before the Russian invasion of Georgia.
High oil prices right before the Russian annexation of Crimea.

After those events, oil prices stayed relatively low and stable, largely thanks to the expansion of American fracking.
That stability was basically nuked by a senile Biden on his very first day in the White House, just signing whatever document his handlers shoved under his nose. He even admitted himself that he 'didn't know what he was signing.'
In a way, he signed off on giving Putin a massive incentive to invade Ukraine.

But prior to the invasion, it was precisely those high oil (and gas) prices that padded the Russian budget and essentially paved the road to war.

Immediately preceding the war, yes.
Putin finally felt emboldened once his slow-motion coup against Trump in the US succeeded.
Trump was against Nord Stream 2, and he used to press NATO members to stop relying on Russian energy and finally hit that 2% defense spending target they all agreed on.
Trump pushed for fracking. If he were still around, I guess US oil production might be at least 0% higher, maybe even 50% more for natural gas, more LNG terminals would have been built, and the Keystone pipeline wouldn't have been halted.
Under those circumstances, Putin wouldn't have even dreamed of invading Ukraine. A core part of his playbook was assuming that after a 'blitz' victory and taking Kyiv, Europe—completely dependent on Russian gas—would react weakly, maybe with some cosmetic sanctions.
By clumsily killing the Keystone pipeline project, Biden gave Putin the green light he needed.
All in the name of the Green New Deal, I suppose.

Biden basically shot the American economy in the foot.
On that same day, gas prices at the American Henry Hub jumped 100% up, and that was effectively the start of the energy price surge before the war in Ukraine.

But if what you're describing were true, Russia, the Saudis, and the whole OPEC group would have cut production to keep prices high.

It seems you clearly don't grasp the point of sanctions.

I don't think anyone honestly expects Putin to just pack up and walk away from the invasion of Ukraine.

The whole motivation behind Putin’s move... I guess it really traces back to those newly discovered hydrocarbon deposits under the sea near Crimea... and also that Solovjansk-Kramatorsk area which the Ukrainians have been fighting so hard to hold onto throughout this entire conflict.

As for what might have happened next... maybe an oil embargo would have hit sooner—like, instead of December 5th, perhaps by early September. Russia might have made a bit less from speculative trading, but I doubt that would have been the deciding factor.

It likely would have started five or six months earlier.

If you look at the comparative charts for Brent, WTI, and Urals, you can see the discounts on Urals were at their peak when speculative pressure was highest. Once that dropped in early September, the Brent-Urals spread narrowed, and it only really widened again after December 5th.

.

Speculative pressure is such a subjective thing, isn't it? It doesn't just rely on supply and demand; it's more about how people perceive them.
That's probably why those firm statements from Western leaders right at the start of the embargo helped keep the speculative price swings somewhat in check.

But even then, it wouldn't have changed the gas market situation much; the outcome would be the same, and the White House was clearly banking much more on gas prices than on oil.

True enough... though I suppose that's because the Germans, led by Merkel, kept pushing for even deeper reliance on Russian pipelines instead of diversifying their supply or actually building out LNG terminals.

Well, the Saudis buy a massive amount of weapons... they're fourth in global spending, yet they practically have zero domestic military production compared to the top three.

The real issue with the Saudi military isn't the gear or the hardware, it's the personnel—it's pretty much the same struggle they face in Russia.

👍