Posts by Joshua Myers432

Dennis Price said:A win would basically just preserve Russia's current political structure. As for what happens to Russia if they lose this war? Honestly, God only knows.

But really, why act like they're tethered to an "enemy"? That "enemy" is also their best customer.

Sure, it might save the political structure, but it won't save Russia itself. If they lose, the power structure in Russia will shift—maybe for the better, maybe for the worse—but life goes on.

And leaning so heavily on an unreliable partner under the guise of an "enemy" isn't exactly a brilliant business move. Both sides are going to feel the fallout from that one soon enough.

Dennis Price said:Remember how Wile E. Coyote only realizes he's free-falling when he finally looks down? That’s basically where the Russians are. Once they take a second to look at where they've ended up, they'll see the cliff they're heading toward. Anyone outside that bubble sees it clearly. Honestly, their only way out is to win the war—and even those propaganda hacks know that.

Probably. They tied themselves way too tightly to their old nemesis: the West.

It was never clear to me how you could identify someone as your enemy and then go ahead and become dependent on them.

And honestly, I don't get how winning the war would even save them. Let's say they actually pull off a total victory—which doesn't look realistic right now—what then? What's the endgame?

analogbear5 said:Putin might be a decent chess player, but this isn't a two-player game—and moves aren't just happening one after the other. A checkers strategy doesn't get you very far when you're actually playing poker.

If we look at the war between Russia and Ukraine through a chess lens, though, the Russians aren't stuck in zugzwang anymore—that spot where you're forced to make a bad move because you've run out of options.

The offensive up in the northeast is basically the main indicator of where this whole conflict is headed. The Ukrainians really can't afford to fall for their own propaganda—the way the Russians did.

And it’d be a massive self-inflicted wound if they got too comfortable just assuming the West has their back.

From my perspective, Putin has been in zugzwang since day one. 😁 It's the same story for Europe; no matter what move you make, it's going to be the wrong one.

electricsurfer47 said:Let's not kid ourselves—without NATO, there would probably be way more wars happening in Europe, and Russia could easily annex more countries, just like the Soviet Union used to do. With NATO around, smaller nations actually have a fighting chance to defend themselves.

To be perfectly blunt, comparing the USSR to Russia—whether you're looking at the 1960s versus 2022 or any other era—is just plain foolish.

hollowdriver13 said:If that 69D chess player in the Kremlin hadn't pulled a few more years out of his sleeve, NATO would probably be falling apart by now due to internal drama and aimless wandering.
And don't even get me started on Europe itself. Before this mess, the US barely gave a damn about them; we were focusing our attention on the Pacific while European countries treated their militaries like some ancient relic or a massive waste of money (just look at the state of the Bundeswehr).
That's a solid assessment of Russia, 👍 though it's almost as much of a toss-up as how hard Ukraine will fight back against the invasion.
Historically speaking, things usually end up going "well" for Russia and the rest of the world only after Europe arms itself to the teeth and the arsenals start firing at each other...

Probably. Any alliance like that needs a tangible enemy to exist. Without one, it's pointless. Either the Kremlin chess player is a terrible strategist, or he's seeing three moves ahead. We'll see. Whoever survives gets to tell the story.

Christian Torres3 said:What hostility? Did someone attack or threaten Russia? Maybe, just maybe, you'll eventually realize that Russia is actually the villain in this story.

I’m not sure if you even grasp the purpose of NATO or why it was established in the first place. Let’s be honest: expanding NATO eastward and encircling Russia is nothing more than a blatant display of hostility toward them.

Sure, nations have every right to form military alliances as they see fit—but don't act surprised when you end up becoming dependent on hostile energy suppliers because of it. Honestly, the political maneuvering in Europe over the last century has been utterly nonsensical, leading directly to two World Wars on European soil, and now it looks like we're sprinting headlong into a third.

At the end of the day, "villain" and "hero" are just matters of perspective. And yes, I believe Russia is the bad guy here. That's my subjective take, just as yours is yours.

electricsurfer47 said:The United Kingdom is planning to build 8 nuclear power plants by 2030.
Germany could always just flip the switch on those nuclear plants they recently shut down when they made the big move toward solar and wind.

Some countries might find their salvation in electricity, especially since the US and Europe both have these massive plans to shift entirely to EVs anyway.

As for everyone else, the government really ought to step in with some tax breaks or incentives to make transitioning to other energy sources—like wood heating—a bit easier to manage.
Here in the States, we get about 40% from our own domestic sources, and we pull in some LNG because we have the infrastructure for it.
The US can definitely adapt to different energy sources; it doesn't all have to revolve around gas.

Anything is possible, provided you ask how long it takes and what the price tag is. Honestly, this whole Western policy approach is a massive joke. Constantly fueling tensions and hostility with Russia while simultaneously becoming more dependent on Russian energy is a total circus act.

hollowdriver13 said:It’s getting to the point where we might actually see Asia trading oil with Russia using rubles, which would basically be the final nail in the coffin for the petrodollar.
I mean, look at the Rosneft auction for oil priced in rubles—literally zero buyers showed up.

The issue is simple: if you don't pay for oil in petrodollars, you might wake up the next morning to find an American aircraft carrier sitting off your coast, ready to introduce some "democracy."
It’s hardly surprising there were zero bidders. 😁

casualtiger2 said:Found an interesting page tracking gas inventory levels across Europe here: Gas Reserves

Peak demand hit 8.7 TWh/day.
Right now, storage sits at 350 TWh—which means we’ve technically got enough to cover about 2 or 3 months if we were heading straight into the fall-winter stretch.
Storage is currently at 32%, with daily fluctuations between +0.35% and 0.50% (depending on which country you look at).
I have a feeling Germany is dragging its feet on sanctions just to make sure their reserves are topped off first—they even passed that minimum capacity law. Honestly, that little gremlin emptied out the Russian firms' storage right before the invasion, but now the Germans have stepped in to take control of those facilities. At this rate, it'll take them maybe 3 or 4 months to hit that 85-90% sweet spot (once they factor in LNG).
My money is on them reaching some kind of agreement regarding sanctions on Russian gas within the next 4 months, tops.

The Germans screwed themselves big time by becoming needlessly dependent on Russian gas. On the flip side, the Russians completely botched this invasion of Ukraine. Now, both sides are desperately scrambling to find a way out of the massive mess they've created.
Someone is going to have to swallow their pride and admit defeat.

fadedjackal8 said:This isn't even a debate if you aren't some die-hard fan or trying to play "neutral."

Which guy are you talking about? I see two people here, so I'm not quite sure what you mean.
And from what I can tell, the Germans don't agree with you—they probably side with that Easterner instead.

Arthur Miller7 said:So here's the real question: just how soft is the American public? You hear all this talk on the news and online about how once shortages actually start hitting, people will be out in the streets protesting everything under the sun, but I'm not so sure. Look at COVID—we were locked down for two years and it wasn't like there were massive riots or governments collapsing or wars in the streets... plus, we know exactly who to blame for that mess. In my opinion, more people have probably shown up to support Ukraine than actually went out to protest during those two years of lockdowns.

It’s hard to compare the two, especially since we’ve essentially layered a new economic disaster—sanctions against Russia—right on top of the economic wreckage left by COVID. For those who lean toward conspiracy theories, the timing and the coincidence are certainly interesting.😉

Thomas Nelson25 said:Europe could probably hold out for a few months before Putin actually runs out of cash.

It’s a tricky balance—you have to prep for winter, but if we're going for total sanctions, the sooner the better.

If the Russians manage to oust Putin, things might get back to normal pretty fast.
I mean, we aren't expecting some miracle or a complete 180 in Moscow's policy—plus, you've still got the whole aftermath between Ukraine and Russia to deal with. Not to mention the reconstruction.

There are plenty of scenarios. etc.

The real question is how spoiled the Russians have become over the last 20 or 30 years. If the propaganda machine in Europe works this hard, imagine what it’s like in Russia. Brainwashing is incredibly effective for 95% of the population; just look at North Korea.

The big question remains: which side will the sanctions cripple first, Russia or the US/Europe?
Sure, Putin might be removed, but who steps into his shoes? And why would you assume they'd be any better than Vladimir? Vladimir isn't even close to being the worst ruler Russia or the USSR has seen in the last century, so I wouldn't get too optimistic.

wearytrucker22 said:That sounds great on paper, sure. Maybe a portion of the oil, yeah—if they increase what they're already sending to Asia by about 10-20%, they might break even.
But how do you actually shift 5 million barrels of oil a day over to Asia? Most of the tankers currently cruising the Mediterranean aren't even remotely capable of sailing past the Arabian Sea, and even then, it's a huge question mark. Plus, those tankers are Western-owned. If Russia wants to ship to Asia, they’ll have to use their own fleet or rely on Suezmax vessels from those Asian countries.

Basically, they’d need something like 6 tankers a day times 80...
meaning they’d have to source 480 to 500 Suezmax tankers.
And don't even get me started on the economics. You're looking at a 35-day haul to China loaded with oil, and then another 35 days sailing back empty. That’s a fantastic business model right there.

Russia likely thinks Europe is bluffing, and honestly, they aren't wrong. Europe can't function without Russian gas and oil, and Russia can't survive without the European market. At least not in the short to medium term. Long-term, Europe can find new suppliers and Russia can find new buyers, but building out all that new infrastructure and making those investments takes massive amounts of time and money.

It looks like two cars barreling toward each other at full speed, both waiting to see who blinks first and swerves. Sanctions hit Russia harder, but their population is tougher. Sanctions hit Europe less, but their people are incredibly spoiled.

Carl Lee27 said:What we're looking at here is a drop in production. That's not the same thing as a drop in exports, which is probably even steeper. A dip in production is a massive tell—it means they've filled up their storage tanks and are now starting to slowly shut down the wells. And they filled those tanks because they can't sell the oil even with a discount; at this point, a price hike doesn't mean a damn thing to them.

But look, the economy plays a massive role in wartime scenarios. This isn't just some brief skirmish in Ukraine; this is a much deeper clash between Russia and the West that's going to drag on for years, likely until the current top brass in Russia falls. Ukraine might just end up being one of many proxy wars, and honestly, this whole thing could easily stretch on for years. Just like how the USSR wasn't defeated purely on a battlefield, but was instead brought down by its own economic collapse, that's exactly how today's Russia is going to go down.
But fine, since you guys are all so annoyed by the economic analysts... does anyone actually have a suggestion for how to "militarily crush" a nuclear superpower while simultaneously making sure there's still a planet left to live on? Or do you seriously believe that losing an offensive in Donbas is going to flip the mindset of the Russian public, cause Putin to commit suicide, lead to the withdrawal of recognition for those republics, or see Crimea returned, and so on?

True enough, but that's a long game. If you want to crush an army in three days, you just load up some tractors and call it a day. Besides, economic sanctions often end up hitting the sender like a boomerang. That’s what Europe is facing. In my view, it would be great to take down Russia, but not by blowing ourselves up in the process.

Dennis Price said:Russia is now forecasting a 10% GDP drop instead of that 4% growth they were bragging about earlier this year. Or, as they'd probably put it—everything is going exactly according to plan.

I’d say those projections are incredibly optimistic.

Chris Thomas94 said:You ever wonder how they handle those massive oil well fires? They use explosives to blow it up and cut off the oxygen.
And how do you stop a huge wildfire from spreading? You set controlled burns in smaller areas first...

So yeah, the theory actually makes sense if you think about it. 🤣

I know about using explosives, but I've never heard of using gasoline. But hey, give it a shot and let me know how it works out for you. 😁

Nancy Gomez26 said:That is precisely why there is a chance. If an entity were to seize control and stabilize the basic food supply—which is entirely possible, say, by capturing the profits from gas sales and transport—the people would be indebted. A major crisis has a way of uniting tribes, different nations, entire countries, even continents, provided there is a shared interest. We are seeing that play out right now with this war.

No chance. You’re suggesting solving chaos with more chaos. It's an interesting theory, I guess—kind of like trying to put out a fire with gasoline. 😁

jadescout12 said:Money makes the world go round. As long as that gas keeps moving, everyone gets a slice of the pie.
It was pretty much the same deal with oil back home in the States. Of course, nobody ever said it out loud officially.

Sure. A lot more blood will flow down the Mississippi toward St. Louis before the naive folks on this forum actually manage to connect the dots.

David Torres2 said:Austria is sticking with Russian gas, which honestly makes total sense if you think about it.

They could have just focused on retrofitting buildings for energy efficiency, thrown some coal back into the mix, and voilà—problem solved.🎉

Anthony Perez9 said:There's way too much defeatist energy on this forum lately, with everyone whining about how "Germans are going to freeze this winter"... as if that’ll somehow force them to just roll over and hand everything to Putin. 😵🤦

Only an idiot shoots himself in the foot just to cripple his enemy. A smart man finds a different way to win.

Gerald Chavez7 said:This is bottom-tier stuff; there isn't any actual depth to your argument.

Let’s break this down point by point. The only issue here is that your points are nothing but hot air.

Europe—and specifically Germany—can't afford to be left without Russian gas. That's why this won't happen. Not even if the Russians level Kyiv and Rammstein to the ground.

How Europe ended up in this corner is a question for our incompetent politicians, but really, what else can anyone expect from them?