Sanctions on Russia

hollowdriver13 said:I mean, is reading comprehension really that much of a struggle? Because that's basically what I'm saying.

Bottom line: the USA is actually the third largest fertilizer exporter in the world.

https://oec.world/en/profile/bilater...?redirect=true

Plus, they only pull about 8% of their raw materials from Russia.

As for that famous potash that everyone claims Russia has a "monopoly" on—the US imports almost everything they can't make domestically from Canada. Though, let me tweak that slightly: in 2021, they imported about 83% of their total potash needs from Canada.

https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/20...nd-the-us.html

Countries like Brazil are feeling the squeeze because they rely on imports from Russia, but honestly, just like Germany did with their gas, they kind of brought this on themselves by tying so much of their economy to a single nation. It’s tough, but hey, that’s what happens when a leader like Bolsonaro tries to play it cool and ties the country's fate so closely to one specific industry.

It seems you aren't actually reading the data provided in the link you shared.

EXPORTS
In 2020, the leading fertilizer exporters were Russia ($7.6 billion), China ($6.99 billion), Canada ($5.49 billion), Morocco ($3.71 billion), and the United States ($3.68 billion).

IMPORTS
In 2020, the largest fertilizer importers were Brazil ($7.82 billion), India ($6.5 billion), the United States ($5.34 billion), China ($2.62 billion), and France ($1.83 billion).

If I were trolling this much, I would have been banned from the forum ages ago.

So, I’m stepping away from this "discussion" for now.
After dealing with this level of trolling, I need to take a breather—much like a professional athlete needing recovery time after playing four games in ten days. It is genuinely difficult for me to "process" the idea that $3.68 billion is somehow larger than $7.6 billion.
The way I was taught math was a little different; clearly, I haven't kept up with whatever "new math" trends are happening lately.

urbanotter said:It seems you aren't actually reading the data provided in the link you shared.

EXPORTS
In 2020, the leading fertilizer exporters were Russia ($7.6 billion), China ($6.99 billion), Canada ($5.49 billion), Morocco ($3.71 billion), and the United States ($3.68 billion).

IMPORTS
In 2020, the largest fertilizer importers were Brazil ($7.82 billion), India ($6.5 billion), the United States ($5.34 billion), China ($2.62 billion), and France ($1.83 billion).

If I were trolling this much, I would have been banned from the forum ages ago.

So, I’m stepping away from this "discussion" for now.
After dealing with this level of trolling, I need to take a breather—much like a professional athlete needing recovery time after playing four games in ten days. It is genuinely difficult for me to "process" the idea that $3.68 billion is somehow larger than $7.6 billion.
The way I was taught math was a little different; clearly, I haven't kept up with whatever "new math" trends are happening lately.

The OECD doesn't let you link directly to the latest data because it's all behind a paywall, but both categories shot up; they're actually top three in both exports and imports for 2022.

Exports spiked because everyone was relying on Russian fertilizers before, and now they're frantically hunting for new suppliers, while imports surged from places like Saudi Arabia and Germany.

And honestly, you can take that "troll" accusation and shove it; I never once denied that Russia is number one in exports with China breathing down their necks. I'm just responding to that half-baked link Milko posted from our neighbor to the East, and you're just collateral damage because you jumped on it without checking the facts, simply because it fits your whole "Russia stronk!" narrative.

If only the US had enough natural gas reserves to sustain large-scale synthetic fertilizer production... honestly, we aren't going to make any real headway without the Russians.

urbanotter said:I find myself reflecting on how much our perspective shifts depending on where we stand in relation to global events. It’s easy to get lost in the sheer scale of things, but when you step back, you realize that everything is interconnected in ways we often overlook during the heat of the moment. I was reading through some recent discussions, and it struck me how much we tend to focus on the immediate fallout while missing the deeper, structural changes happening beneath the surface. There's a certain weight to these shifts—not just in economics or politics, but in how we perceive stability itself. It reminds me of a time back when I was working in logistics; you could see a minor delay in one port ripple out and disrupt an entire supply chain weeks later. We often think we can manage the chaos, but the reality is that we are all just navigating a series of overlapping waves.

I was actually referring to the global export trends for potash and synthetic fertilizers, rather than focusing specifically on the trade dynamics between the USA and Brazil.

Well, if DW is spreading misinformation, then I suppose I was just passing along incorrect data myself.

I was reading an interesting piece from DW recently regarding how the ongoing conflict in Ukraine is rippling through global supply chains, specifically when it comes to fertilizer exports heading toward Brazil. It’s one of those situations where you realize just how interconnected everything has become; a disruption in Eastern Europe can fundamentally shift the agricultural landscape in South America and eventually impact food prices all the way here in the States. The article dives into the complexities of how the war in Ukraine and its effect on fertilizer exports to Brazil and the U.S. is creating a massive headache for farmers. When major suppliers are cut off or face logistical nightmares, the entire global market starts to tremble. I remember back when I was helping my uncle out on his farm over in Iowa, we used to talk about how much we relied on specific imports to keep the soil healthy and the yields high. Even then, the idea that a conflict thousands of miles away could dictate our planting costs felt distant, but now it feels like an inescapable reality. It’s a sobering reminder that stability isn't just a political concept—it's a practical necessity for keeping the world fed. Seeing how these shifts affect both Brazilian imports and the domestic American market makes you realize that there is no such thing as an isolated event in a modern, globalized economy. We are all tied to the same string, and when one end is pulled, we all feel the tension.

And if you look closely at the link you shared, it actually says the exact same thing.
j Quote

Russia stands as one of the most significant players in the global fertilizer market, supplying roughly 15 percent of the world's nitrate fertilizers and about 17 percent of its potash. Belarus also plays a massive role in this sector, making them key contributors to global agricultural stability. However, things have taken a worrying turn lately. In recent weeks, we've seen Russia halt the export of several different types of fertilizer. To make matters even more complicated, the entire production process for these fertilizers relies heavily on natural gas—another critical resource that flows largely from Russia into the global supply chain. It’s a precarious situation that really highlights how interconnected our food security is with these specific energy and commodity flows.

The article that milko84 is referencing deals specifically with fertilizer imports into the USA.

You didn't even bother reading the article, yet you felt the sudden urge to lecture me on how vital natural gas is for fertilizer production. Nice try, Sherlock. 😵

Michael Ortiz68 said:The article that milko84 is referencing deals specifically with fertilizer imports into the USA.

You didn't even bother reading the article, yet you felt the sudden urge to lecture me on how vital natural gas is for fertilizer production. Nice try, Sherlock. 😵

Quincey:

The piece shared by our colleague milko 84 discusses how The US government is quietly encouraging agricultural and shipping companies to purchase and transport more Russian fertilizer, according to sources familiar with the matter. Meanwhile, a fear of sanctions has led to a sharp decline in stockpiles, which has subsequently caused food prices to spiral out of control. Government efforts are part of complex and difficult negotiations involving the United Nations, aimed at increasing the supply of fertilizer, grains, and other agricultural products from Russia and Ukraine—supplies that were disrupted by Vladimir Putin's invasion of his southern neighbor.

So, what you're saying is the US government is essentially begging corporations to bypass the very sanctions it implemented? It seems that without Russian fertilizer exports, which have dropped 25% globally because of these rules, we're facing a massive food shortage or, at the very least, skyrocketing prices that will leave many people hungry while others struggle to afford basic meals.

Maybe you clicked on the link, but I doubt you truly grasped the implications of what was written there.

As for the point about natural gas being essential for synthetic fertilizer production, that's common knowledge to any farmer or even someone working at a local utility plant like an ExxonMobil facility; they've been struggling for months because current gas prices are just too high, especially considering fertilizer costs have already jumped by 300%.

Go ahead and keep trolling if you want, but I've had enough of this shallow logic. I can clearly see the disaster looming if these trade routes aren't normalized soon, especially since Russia is demanding the lifting of sanctions to fix it.

Joshua Wilson17 said:Not exactly healthy...😁

Insane? 😁

The real impact of sanctions—the true fallout—won't hit until this coming fall or winter.

Especially if things in Ukraine take a turn in favor of the aggressor.

urbanotter said:Quincey:

The piece shared by our colleague milko 84 discusses how The US government is quietly encouraging agricultural and shipping companies to purchase and transport more Russian fertilizer, according to sources familiar with the matter. Meanwhile, a fear of sanctions has led to a sharp decline in stockpiles, which has subsequently caused food prices to spiral out of control. Government efforts are part of complex and difficult negotiations involving the United Nations, aimed at increasing the supply of fertilizer, grains, and other agricultural products from Russia and Ukraine—supplies that were disrupted by Vladimir Putin's invasion of his southern neighbor.

So, what you're saying is the US government is essentially begging corporations to bypass the very sanctions it implemented? It seems that without Russian fertilizer exports, which have dropped 25% globally because of these rules, we're facing a massive food shortage or, at the very least, skyrocketing prices that will leave many people hungry while others struggle to afford basic meals.

Maybe you clicked on the link, but I doubt you truly grasped the implications of what was written there.

As for the point about natural gas being essential for synthetic fertilizer production, that's common knowledge to any farmer or even someone working at a local utility plant like an ExxonMobil facility; they've been struggling for months because current gas prices are just too high, especially considering fertilizer costs have already jumped by 300%.

Go ahead and keep trolling if you want, but I've had enough of this shallow logic. I can clearly see the disaster looming if these trade routes aren't normalized soon, especially since Russia is demanding the lifting of sanctions to fix it.

Not quite what you're getting at. The text actually says:

The EU and USA have carved out exceptions to their restrictions on doing business with Russia to allow for the trade of fertilizers, since Moscow is a major global supplier. However, many ship owners, banks, and insurers have been avoiding this trade out of fear of accidentally running afoul of the regulations.

Bottom line? The US government isn't asking companies to dodge sanctions—fertilizer is already exempted.

urbanotter said:Quincey:

The piece shared by our colleague milko 84 discusses how The US government is quietly encouraging agricultural and shipping companies to purchase and transport more Russian fertilizer, according to sources familiar with the matter. Meanwhile, a fear of sanctions has led to a sharp decline in stockpiles, which has subsequently caused food prices to spiral out of control. Government efforts are part of complex and difficult negotiations involving the United Nations, aimed at increasing the supply of fertilizer, grains, and other agricultural products from Russia and Ukraine—supplies that were disrupted by Vladimir Putin's invasion of his southern neighbor.

So, what you're saying is the US government is essentially begging corporations to bypass the very sanctions it implemented? It seems that without Russian fertilizer exports, which have dropped 25% globally because of these rules, we're facing a massive food shortage or, at the very least, skyrocketing prices that will leave many people hungry while others struggle to afford basic meals.

Maybe you clicked on the link, but I doubt you truly grasped the implications of what was written there.

As for the point about natural gas being essential for synthetic fertilizer production, that's common knowledge to any farmer or even someone working at a local utility plant like an ExxonMobil facility; they've been struggling for months because current gas prices are just too high, especially considering fertilizer costs have already jumped by 300%.

Go ahead and keep trolling if you want, but I've had enough of this shallow logic. I can clearly see the disaster looming if these trade routes aren't normalized soon, especially since Russia is demanding the lifting of sanctions to fix it.

From where I'm sitting, it looks like nobody actually read the article.

urbanotter said:Quincey:

The piece shared by our colleague milko 84 discusses how The US government is quietly encouraging agricultural and shipping companies to purchase and transport more Russian fertilizer, according to sources familiar with the matter. Meanwhile, a fear of sanctions has led to a sharp decline in stockpiles, which has subsequently caused food prices to spiral out of control. Government efforts are part of complex and difficult negotiations involving the United Nations, aimed at increasing the supply of fertilizer, grains, and other agricultural products from Russia and Ukraine—supplies that were disrupted by Vladimir Putin's invasion of his southern neighbor.

So, what you're saying is the US government is essentially begging corporations to bypass the very sanctions it implemented? It seems that without Russian fertilizer exports, which have dropped 25% globally because of these rules, we're facing a massive food shortage or, at the very least, skyrocketing prices that will leave many people hungry while others struggle to afford basic meals.

Maybe you clicked on the link, but I doubt you truly grasped the implications of what was written there.

As for the point about natural gas being essential for synthetic fertilizer production, that's common knowledge to any farmer or even someone working at a local utility plant like an ExxonMobil facility; they've been struggling for months because current gas prices are just too high, especially considering fertilizer costs have already jumped by 300%.

Go ahead and keep trolling if you want, but I've had enough of this shallow logic. I can clearly see the disaster looming if these trade routes aren't normalized soon, especially since Russia is demanding the lifting of sanctions to fix it.

So, you actually buy into Bloomberg’s narrative about the US government being "concerned" over global food shortages? You also take at face value an article suggesting that ramping up fertilizer imports is some magic bullet for curbing inflation? It’s funny—you know who else blames inflation on sanctions against Russia? Joe Biden. He clearly thinks the American people are too dim to see through the spin.

Essentially, if you’re taking cues from Bloomberg and Joe Biden, you’re easily the most pro-establishment person on this entire subforum.

Michael Ortiz68 said:So, you actually buy into Bloomberg’s narrative about the US government being "concerned" over global food shortages? You also take at face value an article suggesting that ramping up fertilizer imports is some magic bullet for curbing inflation? It’s funny—you know who else blames inflation on sanctions against Russia? Joe Biden. He clearly thinks the American people are too dim to see through the spin.

Essentially, if you’re taking cues from Bloomberg and Joe Biden, you’re easily the most pro-establishment person on this entire subforum.

I don't think Biden spends much time thinking about policy; he's probably too preoccupied with his own health issues.

Look, the idea that prices spike when supply drops is basic economics—even a local farmer at a roadside stand knows that if they only have a few peppers left, it's the perfect time to hike the price.

I don't need to rely on Bloomberg's spin when I can just rely on common sense and actual facts on the ground.

Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but you don't even need to be an expert to see the reality. Just walk into any local grocery store or a big chain like Walmart; if you can remember, the price of a bottle of Crisco was around $3.25/l a few months ago, and today you can't find it for less than $6.00/l.
To anyone who can handle elementary school math, it's obvious that cooking oil prices have jumped by 80%, and over in Germany, they've even hit €5 per liter.👋

https://mobile.twitter.com/NeilPHaue...C9tcfsqNMqAAAA

The CIA just dropped some pretty heavy numbers: the amount of people living below the poverty line in Russia shot up by 41% back in 2022, jumping from about 12.4 million all the way to 20.9 million.

$125 and it still won't budge.

Is there a more brainless move in history? Honestly, the world doesn't need sanctions. What we actually need are massive taxes on hydrocarbons. We could take all that cash and dump it straight into funding sustainable energy and green tech. That’s how you actually build a future for the kids growing up right now.
Making a move like this just lines the pockets of OPEC and ends up bankrolling the Russian genocide in Ukraine. Meanwhile, the end consumer gets stuck paying the exact same price for energy anyway. 🤔

We seriously need to stop with those tired jokes about how clueless or lazy people can be. 🙂

https://twitter.com/disclosetv/statu...VTnAiMb8Ge_W0g
Because Simens is dragging its feet on repairs, Russia has slashed flow through ST2 by 40%.

Looks like it’s going to be a brutal winter for Germany ☕

Though—knowing how this goes—those repairs will probably magically get finished right on schedule now.

Oil prices actually started their climb well before the conflict in Ukraine even kicked off. If you look at the stretch from early December 2021 through the end of February 2022, prices had already surged by nearly 50%. It seems like global production is being swallowed up entirely by demand—meaning the production and sale of Russian oil hasn't even taken a hit yet.

urbanotter said:I don't think Biden spends much time thinking about policy; he's probably too preoccupied with his own health issues.

Look, the idea that prices spike when supply drops is basic economics—even a local farmer at a roadside stand knows that if they only have a few peppers left, it's the perfect time to hike the price.

I don't need to rely on Bloomberg's spin when I can just rely on common sense and actual facts on the ground.

Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but you don't even need to be an expert to see the reality. Just walk into any local grocery store or a big chain like Walmart; if you can remember, the price of a bottle of Crisco was around $3.25/l a few months ago, and today you can't find it for less than $6.00/l.
To anyone who can handle elementary school math, it's obvious that cooking oil prices have jumped by 80%, and over in Germany, they've even hit €5 per liter.👋

You're only looking at things through the lens of your own self-interest. I'm guessing you weren't much better back in '91 either. You didn't give a damn about the neighbor defending his home from invaders; all you cared about was whether the grocery stores were empty.😁.

swiftjackal11 said:You're only looking at things through the lens of your own self-interest. I'm guessing you weren't much better back in '91 either. You didn't give a damn about the neighbor defending his home from invaders; all you cared about was whether the grocery stores were empty.😁.

I find your sudden outburst of "empathy" and your obsession with where I stood during the early '90s somewhat amusing.
For what it's worth, when things started falling apart and I saw how the world was shifting, I did everything within my power to ensure our nation achieved independence rather than remaining part of a collapsing union that clearly had no future.
That experience didn't, however, drive me toward some pathological hatred of everything related to our former neighbors. I understood then, as I do now, that we would eventually be neighbors again, and that it is in everyone's best interest to move past old grudges and foster the best possible relations.

My core issue is simply that I don't believe nearly 8 billion people should be held hostage by a few hundred thousand Ukrainian nationalists who seem convinced that the US and NATO should bark orders from the borders of Russia. It isn't worth pushing a button that could make life practically impossible for every person on this planet. The current approach to resolving the Ukrainian conflict is steadily pushing us closer to a scenario where someone, somewhere, actually decides to press that button.

At this point, it looks increasingly likely that sanctions won't yield tangible results, that Western societies are becoming more divided in their interests, and that the Ukrainian leadership might eventually have to accept losing parts of their territory—returning to the borders they held after the collapse of the USSR.

I personally detest all forms of violence, let alone war, but I try not to hold double standards. I see conflicts happening all over the globe, yet I notice that certain pro-Western circles don't mourn the fate of Palestinians or Iraqis with the same intensity they use to lionize the Maidan fighters, who essentially used a coup to overthrow an elected government.
Of course, these perspectives don't align with the prevailing narrative, so I expect to be met with a certain amount of "coldness" here.
Stay safe and hold onto your convictions; in short order, we will see how things settle in Ukraine and how the internal relationships among Ukrainians evolve.
Ultimately, I just want the killing to stop—especially the killing of innocent people who are merely being misled by the interests of a small group of citizens in that region.

urbanotter said:I find your sudden outburst of "empathy" and your obsession with where I stood during the early '90s somewhat amusing.
For what it's worth, when things started falling apart and I saw how the world was shifting, I did everything within my power to ensure our nation achieved independence rather than remaining part of a collapsing union that clearly had no future.
That experience didn't, however, drive me toward some pathological hatred of everything related to our former neighbors. I understood then, as I do now, that we would eventually be neighbors again, and that it is in everyone's best interest to move past old grudges and foster the best possible relations.

My core issue is simply that I don't believe nearly 8 billion people should be held hostage by a few hundred thousand Ukrainian nationalists who seem convinced that the US and NATO should bark orders from the borders of Russia. It isn't worth pushing a button that could make life practically impossible for every person on this planet. The current approach to resolving the Ukrainian conflict is steadily pushing us closer to a scenario where someone, somewhere, actually decides to press that button.

At this point, it looks increasingly likely that sanctions won't yield tangible results, that Western societies are becoming more divided in their interests, and that the Ukrainian leadership might eventually have to accept losing parts of their territory—returning to the borders they held after the collapse of the USSR.

I personally detest all forms of violence, let alone war, but I try not to hold double standards. I see conflicts happening all over the globe, yet I notice that certain pro-Western circles don't mourn the fate of Palestinians or Iraqis with the same intensity they use to lionize the Maidan fighters, who essentially used a coup to overthrow an elected government.
Of course, these perspectives don't align with the prevailing narrative, so I expect to be met with a certain amount of "coldness" here.
Stay safe and hold onto your convictions; in short order, we will see how things settle in Ukraine and how the internal relationships among Ukrainians evolve.
Ultimately, I just want the killing to stop—especially the killing of innocent people who are merely being misled by the interests of a small group of citizens in that region.

You're worried about grocery store prices first, and only then the end of the war.

Andrew Booth29 said:Oil prices actually started their climb well before the conflict in Ukraine even kicked off. If you look at the stretch from early December 2021 through the end of February 2022, prices had already surged by nearly 50%. It seems like global production is being swallowed up entirely by demand—meaning the production and sale of Russian oil hasn't even taken a hit yet.

Look, it’s totally normal that prices spiked when COVID-19 restrictions started easing. Nobody knew exactly when things would open back up. When that unplanned reopening happened, prices shot up—that's just how it works. But instead of prices settling back down to those pre-pandemic 2019 levels (around $60), they just kept skyrocketing because everyone started speculating on whether Russian oil, gas, and coal production would take a massive dive next year.

We could have prevented all this ages ago if the West had gone hard on hydrocarbon consumption cuts (you know, by using those massive subsidies for green energy or at least investing heavily in nuclear), but nope. Instead, we'd rather hand cash over to Vladimir Putin or dump it into those ridiculous 500-story skyscrapers.
Whatever, it is what it is. 🙂

rustywalker82 said:Look, it’s totally normal that prices spiked when COVID-19 restrictions started easing. Nobody knew exactly when things would open back up. When that unplanned reopening happened, prices shot up—that's just how it works. But instead of prices settling back down to those pre-pandemic 2019 levels (around $60), they just kept skyrocketing because everyone started speculating on whether Russian oil, gas, and coal production would take a massive dive next year.

We could have prevented all this ages ago if the West had gone hard on hydrocarbon consumption cuts (you know, by using those massive subsidies for green energy or at least investing heavily in nuclear), but nope. Instead, we'd rather hand cash over to Vladimir Putin or dump it into those ridiculous 500-story skyscrapers.
Whatever, it is what it is. 🙂

I find myself agreeing with your perspective, though I suspect that on a local level here in America, we can achieve some small progress if we stick to letting the free market—speculators included—set the pricing.

Our ability to influence global oil trends is basically nothing more than a statistical rounding error at this point.

Now that everything has boiled over and reached such a fever pitch, it’s going to be incredibly difficult to take the pot off the stove without getting burned. The longer we leave this thing simmering, the hotter it gets, and we’re reaching a point where the whole thing might just boil over completely.
I personally think it would be wise to make a few concessions just to stop the senseless slaughter of Ukrainian civilians, and then once everyone is back at the negotiating table, do everything possible to support the survivors. You can't bring the dead back, after all. At least in my experience, you don't see people doing that, even after they've beaten an opponent so badly they're forced into an unconditional surrender.
Two WW2 conflicts claimed roughly 100 million lives, and even back then, sanctions were enforced with much tighter oversight than what we see today, where about 80% of nations are participating in them.

urbanotter said:I don't think Biden spends much time thinking about policy; he's probably too preoccupied with his own health issues.

Look, the idea that prices spike when supply drops is basic economics—even a local farmer at a roadside stand knows that if they only have a few peppers left, it's the perfect time to hike the price.

I don't need to rely on Bloomberg's spin when I can just rely on common sense and actual facts on the ground.

Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but you don't even need to be an expert to see the reality. Just walk into any local grocery store or a big chain like Walmart; if you can remember, the price of a bottle of Crisco was around $3.25/l a few months ago, and today you can't find it for less than $6.00/l.
To anyone who can handle elementary school math, it's obvious that cooking oil prices have jumped by 80%, and over in Germany, they've even hit €5 per liter.👋

And I suppose we're all supposed to believe that sanctions on Russia are the sole culprit for these price hikes, right? 😉 I mean, Bloomberg certainly did a stellar job spinning the narrative. As they say, where there are sheep, there will be wool.

rustywalker82 said:Look, it’s totally normal that prices spiked when COVID-19 restrictions started easing. Nobody knew exactly when things would open back up. When that unplanned reopening happened, prices shot up—that's just how it works. But instead of prices settling back down to those pre-pandemic 2019 levels (around $60), they just kept skyrocketing because everyone started speculating on whether Russian oil, gas, and coal production would take a massive dive next year.

We could have prevented all this ages ago if the West had gone hard on hydrocarbon consumption cuts (you know, by using those massive subsidies for green energy or at least investing heavily in nuclear), but nope. Instead, we'd rather hand cash over to Vladimir Putin or dump it into those ridiculous 500-story skyscrapers.
Whatever, it is what it is. 🙂

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statis...ted)_(%25).png

The trend has been crystal clear for a year now. If you want to know the primary cause of inflation, look at the lockdowns and the various stimulus packages. As for the oil supply? It's tight—to put it mildly. They'll always try to spin the narrative that way.