Posts by Bryan Booth82

analogbear5 said:The reality is, the loss in value for Nord Stream 2 is already baked in. Some debts have been written off as sunk costs, but the biggest hit is just the fact that its importance isn't coming back. Nancy Gomez26 is betting it will, but everything points to the contrary.

We'll see who's closer to the truth by watching how the creditors move.

Over in the West (looking specifically at Germany), there’s been talk for ages about the desperate need for a completely different approach to energy production.
This war is going to force our hand, shifting the conversation from mere pricing to actual physical supply—because what we’ve been hearing about for years? We're finally starting to feel the sting of it.
For the average person, it’s not necessarily the cost itself that hurts—it’s not the difference between paying $1.60 or $2.30 for gas—but that extra digit at the front? That is incredibly aggravating.
The same goes for electricity; nobody enjoys seeing their annual bill jump by an extra $300, even if they can technically afford it. It’s infuriating.

I’m sitting here watching a morning news segment right now, and they’re pitching these solar "power plants" designed for a balcony that cost anywhere from $400 to $800... supposedly "plug and play," claiming they'll slash your monthly utility bill.

Now, let’s not be naive, but investing in ventures like that probably offers a much better shot at growing your capital than throwing money into Russian gas.

Best regards,

Nancy Gomez26 said:Everything you just laid out implies that, for investors, this is precisely the moment to pick up stakes in Nord Stream 2 (assuming, of course, the price is right and fits one's tolerance for the very real risk and uncertainty involved). My view is that gas from the Russian Federation remains—technologically speaking—the most cost-effective energy source for the foreseeable future. Since the only way to deliver it without losing its primary advantage is via pipeline, now is the window to invest. You buy when it's cheap and sell when it's expensive. While many see today's situation as a living hell due to the war, others may see it as a compelling investment opportunity. It simply requires capital, vision, and a certain level of nerve. Who dares, wins.

I don't know; what you're suggesting sounds a lot like buying into the distribution of Iranian oil back in the '80s to me. I'm not so sure the person who "gambled" on something like that ever actually saw their money again.🤔 🤔

Unlike you (which doesn't necessarily mean I'm right), I see manual gas exports trending downward in the near future. I also anticipate that gas consumption will eventually drop off further down the road.
How much capital those assumptions will actually attract? That is anyone's guess.

Best regards,

Nancy Gomez26 said:Nothing about Nord Stream 2 has actually failed. It isn't as if someone physically picked up the pipeline and walked off with it. The gas will eventually flow through those lines with just a slight delay, and by the end of the day, the whole thing will prove to be profitable. Perhaps some investor will swoop in now to scoop up shares from the current owners at a discount. I suspect most of those investors would still be selling their stakes with heavy hearts, simply because the project retains its potential—they just need to wait it out.

It isn't quite that simple, though.
Nord Stream 2 cost 7.4 Billions of euros... and that massive investment needs to pay itself off as soon as possible... especially since we are talking about private capital here.

If you want to see a return on investment quickly, Nord Stream 2 had to start operating immediately... and let's not forget that Nord Stream 2 has a limited lifespan; it wasn't designed to last forever.

Even during construction, Nord Stream 2 was being slowed down, causing completion to lag by two years.
Right now, there aren't even any clear signs of when operations might actually begin... theoretically, anything can happen. It might never go live, or it could take years to get moving... but for now, we are still stuck in the realm of pure speculation.

What we do know are the facts, and none of them favor Nord Stream 2. Germany has decided to scale back its gas imports from Russia, and because of the war in Ukraine, that shift is going to be drastically and irreversibly accelerated.
Furthermore, there will certainly be a push to reduce reliance on fossil fuels in the future, a transition that is also being fast-tracked due to the conflict in Ukraine.

Even if the gas eventually starts flowing, the "cards" are stacked heavily against it in terms of justifying such a massive financial undertaking—especially when you consider the existence of Nord Stream 1 and the much more politically viable pipeline running through Ukraine.

Plenty of analysts are already agreeing that Nord Stream 2 is a financial disaster (since we now know its primary goal was to replace the Ukrainian pipeline, an objective that was already failing before the war even started). Personally, I wouldn't touch the stock of a company tasked with managing this project; I simply don't see a positive financial future for it.

Best regards,

Robert Barrett6 said:🤔

Man, you really botched that translation. Instead of just saying "mea culpa," you're turning it around and accusing him of spinning things.

And what does the comment section actually have to do with reality? Most people commenting only read the headline, which journalists intentionally make sensational just to farm clicks. Even if they did read the whole thing, how much does the average American actually know about global food trade?

By the way, besides China, the EU has the largest agricultural production—it just has far fewer mouths to feed than China does.

https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL/visualize

Look, take a massive corporation like Nestlé. They have factories in 79 countries all over the world, plus suppliers for basically every type of food imaginable. What difference does it make if cocoa is grown in Ghana when Nestlé buys it up, processes it, and ships it off to their other plants?

Unless they're working directly on a plantation, folks in Ghana don't see the cocoa, nor do they see the final product. At the end of the day, the amount of cocoa produced in Ghana has nothing to do with the actual issue of hunger.

It would also be wrong to call this a European or Swiss company, since there's hardly a nation on Earth that doesn't hold some kind of stake in it.

Of course the comments matter! People cling to any straw they can find because if you misinterpret something even slightly, or if you cherry-pick a troll's comment from below the text, you end up manufacturing your own version of reality.
That’s exactly what Russian propaganda has been doing for years; it shouldn't come as a surprise to you.

lp

hollowdriver13 said:Man, looks like English grammar is giving you a run for your money.

“Regarding food shortages, yeah, we talked about them and they’re going to be real. The cost of these sanctions isn't just being dumped on Russia; it's hitting a huge number of nations, including the EU and the US.”

You're spinning things and twisting the facts again. You originally wrote that Biden said the US and the EU would face food shortages, but he never actually said it the way you're trying to frame it now.

You have to understand my position here; I don't have any more RTs left, so now I have to come up with everything on my own.🤔

lp

hollowdriver13 said:Izvrces, just say whatever fits your narrative, man.

He doesn't even mention the US or the EU specifically; he just says "many countries worldwide will feel the impact due to the sanctions imposed." Basically, food prices are gonna spike in the US and Europe, and places like Africa and Asia are going to get absolutely hammered since those struggling nations rely so heavily on exports from the big players, not to mention the mess with Ukraine and Russia.

Get used to it. This is exactly what they've been doing for years; there's nothing new under the sun here. The only real difference is that, for some reason, they aren't showing up in the discussions right now.

lp

Anthony Hill5 said:Those pathetic Putin sympathizers have finally realized they can just pop up out of nowhere with their grandstanding claims, insisting we’re all going to starve just like we did during the pandemic if we don't have Sputnik, or that we'll freeze solid this winter without Russian gas. What kind of absolute buffoons are these? 🤣

Exactly. And get this—they aren't even bothering to drop links from those RT trash heaps anymore; they’re just claiming that the entire geopolitical landscape has "shifted" the narrative overnight. 🤣
It’s clearly a struggle for them, so I suppose we should show some sympathy. I truly feel bad for these people.

lp

swiftjackal11 said:Just move to Russia then. They've got everything you need there, especially if you have plenty of rubles.😁

Oh, please. He isn't going anywhere. We all know how Putko operates—he’s the king of his own little world, isn't he? I remember exactly how everyone used to fawn over him whenever the topic of Russia came up. And now look at him. He’s completely lost his grip, and what does he have to show for it? His only remaining supporters are Eritrea and North Korea. It’s pathetic! Even Mexico won't stand by him anymore, which, frankly, is the most stinging blow of all.

I honestly can’t help but look back at all those old threads discussing Russia, and I find myself spiraling into pure frustration. How on earth are we supposed to just sit here and let Putko—this self-proclaimed emperor of the world—decide whether or not we freeze our tails off this winter? It’s absolutely absurd! And what is the grand plan here? How exactly does Putko, the supposed ruler of the entire galaxy, intend to transform Russia into some kind of unstoppable superpower? We’re told they have a massive military, but does that actually equate to actual stability or global dominance? Is that really how power works in the modern age? It makes me livid just thinking about how much leverage one man thinks he has over everyone else's basic survival.
🤣
Abigail, times have truly changed. Instead of actually listening to what the great Putko has to say, everyone just blindly parrots whatever the Western media outlets and the President of the USA decide to feed them!🤦

lp

steelfox98 said:The Qatari energy minister is denying any deal with Germany. He’s even going as far as to say there's zero chance we'll see Russian gas replaced anytime soon:
https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/...-17908896.html

Do us all a favor and actually read the article instead of just latching onto a bombastic headline that happens to feed your specific bias. It’s easy to cherry-pick a title that confirms what you already want to believe, isn't it?
Look, let's be real here—Putin is a loser.

lp

wiredseal7 said:They’d be better off just starting a revolution themselves—if they actually want to see how that ends. Look at what happened in Syria, where the people were sold this exact same dream: get rid of Assad and everything will be great. Eleven years later, the place is a total wreck, and the West—acting like the "friend of the people"—just keeps piling on sanctions to stall any recovery and keep them stuck in poverty.

I’d probably tell the Russians to just stick with Putin—show some backbone so they aren't getting bullied. They should pull out of Ukraine—well, except for Crimea and the Donetsk/Luhansk areas plus a buffer around Donetsk—but they shouldn't bow down to foreign advice designed to bleed their country dry, regardless of who's running things.

Honestly, Putin would be making his smartest move by stepping down—but only if there’s actually someone competent waiting in the wings to handle both the economy and the geopolitical mess. That is, provided it isn't just another group of clowns like Navalny's crowd. 🤣

Without hesitation, Putin himself would sign this comment as his own... or at least give a massive thumbs up to the work being done by Russian propaganda.

Best regards,

Dennis Price said:Here we go again. Everything you're saying is right—Russia invaded Ukraine and now the whole deck is being reshuffled. It's pretty simple. There isn't an economic reason in the world that justifies the Russian invasion. Even if they gave away oil and gas for free, it wouldn't work. I don't know what people aren't getting.

It’s entirely possible for Russia to "give away" gas for a long stretch just to cover the costs of war reparations.🤔

lp

rowdytiger13 said:It took an actual war for them to wake up.
The Germans are an absolute embarrassment.

I can't say I disagree. This decades-long denial regarding their reliance on Russian energy has been nothing short of shameful and self-destructive. But let's look at the reality here... if they actually manage to pull it off—and judging by their recent aggressive pivot, it looks like they're trying hard—to finally break free from that Russian stranglehold... what happens if Putin decides to just twist the valves shut? That would be nothing short of a catastrophe, akin to seeing Mariupol fall all over again.

People need to wrap their heads around this: years of disastrous policy built this massive dependency on Russian fuel. Now, the German economy needs a Herculean effort—and frankly, a massive stroke of luck—just to survive the transition to independence.

If you think about it, hasn't Putin already lost? He might have just handed away arguably the most lucrative customer anyone could ever dream of having.

Best regards,

Habeck, the German Minister for Economic Affairs, is making some bold claims according to reports from the German press... he’s suggesting that Germany will finally break its reliance on Russian coal by early summer, move away from Russian oil by the end of the summer, and completely cut ties with Russian gas by sometime in 2024.

The big question remains: does Putin actually have the stones to double down on demanding energy payments in rubles? If he does, he might just end up fast-tracking the entire process of cutting off his own lifeline to the West.

lp

Justin Kern67 said:Fair enough. I think we can all agree those decisions were made purely out of self-interest, not some noble crusade to save Europe from communism. Besides, we all saw how things turned out for Eastern Europe; if they had actually intended to save it, they could have done so—even if it meant risking nuclear escalation.
Furthermore, the world is far more complicated now than it was in '45, and the USA has plenty of other priorities that outweigh European concerns, such as matters in the Pacific Ocean and the Middle East.

Are you certain they won't just sell out Eastern Europe again in exchange for something else once a major global conflict breaks out?

Sell them out to whom?

Best regards,

Mark Clark6 said:A nation requires funding, and an army demands its share. It is an absolute necessity. But one must ask: what is the true price of a lost war?
What is the true price tag on national survival?
What is the true price of liberty?
What is the true price of admission to the Western world, if one seeks a life that possesses even a modicum of human dignity?

Should we simply surrender and hand everything back to Russia within their sphere of influence? I might actually be open to that proposition if someone could point to just ONE nation that has truly benefited from a marriage with Russia. Just one single example...

If you ask me, that kind of reasoning isn't actually about wanting to belong to Russia or any other power bloc... it’s nothing more than pure, unadulterated selfishness.

It’s the exact same mindset as people during the pandemic asking, "Why should I wear a mask if it doesn't protect me personally?" Or drivers refusing to use a turn signal because they don't care if the person behind them knows where they're turning... it's all the same lack of civic duty.

lp

German ZDF is reporting that there's been an agreement reached at the EU level to stop all gas payments in rubles.👍👍

Now, let's wait and see if that absolute scumbag actually follows through by halting those daily transfers of 200 million euros.🤔

LP i

Nihil said:They’ve decided to pull that classic Russian war tactic of playing the victim, acting all high and mighty with the "you don't have enough... what can we possibly send?" routine. Now they're pivoting to claim you guys don't have nearly as many tanks as they have missiles—missiles they have in such massive quantities that they're wasting them just hitting supply trucks with anti-tank rounds. 😬

Oh yeah, why don't you just go ahead and hop in one of those Kamaz supply trucks carrying food for the troops? You know, the ones where the truck and its cargo are worth maybe ten grand, but they'll be raining down a rocket on you worth $150,000. 🤔

There are plenty of reasons for a Russian soldier to stop and think twice.
Best,

casualtiger2 said:That’s 13,000 anti-tank rounds—not even counting what they already have in stock.
Why on earth do they need that many when Russia doesn't even have that many tanks left?

For crying out loud, if we follow that ridiculous logic, they wouldn't need more than 150,000 rounds of ammunition total!🤔
LP

Benjamin Taylor6 said:Look, if you want to buy anything from them, you have to play by their rules and use rubles.

But here’s the catch—you’re going to have to buy those rubles at whatever exchange rate the Russians decide to set that day. Let’s say they decide 1 USD equals 50 rubles.
Putin is going to act like this ultimate legalist—he'll insist on sticking to the official contract price in Euros, sure, but he'll demand the actual payment be made in rubles. In reality, you’ll end up handing over twice as many Euros just to cover the spread. So, without ever actually touching the sticker price of the gas, you've effectively doubled the cost. It's a clever little shell game. 😬

I can only imagine how consumers will react, because what Putin is pulling here is nothing short of... extortion. It’s a move where those being squeezed have the choice to comply, but certainly don't have to.
Best regards,

William Anderson5 said:The Germans are really at fault for this entire mess. They spent years convincing everyone across Europe that the Russians weren't using gas as leverage, claiming it was all just American propaganda. Then, right after the annexation of Crimea, they doubled down on building ST2... Meanwhile, they don't have a single LNG terminal to show for it. It’s just pure incompetence...

Merkel will go down in history as the new Neville Chamberlain...

You are spot on, though thanks to the democratic process—specifically our ability to actually influence leadership—they are now moving at breakneck speed to fix the massive disaster they created.
With enough capital, which they certainly have, they might actually pull it off.
Given how aggressively they’ve pivoted, I wouldn't be surprised if they "shut down" Nord Stream 1 within a month or two, or at least walk away from coal and oil imports altogether... which would deal a massive blow to Russia.

There is also a lot of loud chatter regarding the fact that they are still funneling 200 million euros a day to Russia, which could very well be just the beginning of the shift.
Best regards,