Sanctions on Russia

brightheron64 said:Actually, you absolutely can. You pin that demon down while he's still on his back, you don't give him a second to breathe, let alone stand up... and come after you again.

That whole idea of a "deservedly slow death" feels like a tired cliché from some James Bond film where the villain is left to fade away, only to somehow manage to wreck everything anyway at the very end...

The general global population—and I say this gently, but many couldn't even point to Moscow on a map if their lives depended on it—happily swallows the narrative that sanctions will slowly wither Russia away. They fail to realize they are dealing with a nation that transitioned from feudalism and a brutal autocracy (essentially total destitution under the Tsars) into another form of struggle—communism—and was then handed a version of "progress" and democracy by Putin himself, leading to a lifestyle where things like BMWs, iPhones, Adidas, and Nestle became the standard norm...

The West (NATO) seems to be viewing this entire situation through rose-colored glasses, assuming that whatever hurts them must be hurting the Russians just as much. But if you want to see how effective that kind of policy really is, just look at South Korea... which, heaven help us, is still breathing, thriving, and living on nothing but a bowl of rice, all while building up a defense sector so massive that picking a fight with them would be genuinely, perilously dangerous...

Try sending a million starving people to surrender and then see how that works out for you.

Arthur Miller7 As stated by:
So, North Korea? People act like they’re just some myth or a ghost story, but they are very much alive and kicking... I mean, seriously, who are they actually fighting these days? And more importantly, does anyone truly believe they have the actual capacity to launch an assault on South Korea...?

Don't go steering the ship unless you're prepared to engage in a psychological battle with that beacon of democracy...

And could they actually launch an attack on the South? In a conventional sense, I just don't see it happening. They simply aren't prepared for that kind of fight...
On the other hand, I really have to wonder what they actually stand to gain from maintaining such a radioactive wasteland...

hiddeneagle98 said:Try sending a million starving people to surrender and then see how that works out for you.

Well, that could actually be a pretty devious strategic move—just throwing the borders wide open and letting the folks from the North finally reconnect with their relatives down South...

The only real catch is that Kim Jong Un still hasn't quite grasped the reality of his situation; he’s clearly too dense to realize that life would be infinitely more comfortable if he were just an oligarch lounging on some private island in the Caribbean, wearing nothing but a palm leaf skirt and sipping cocktails, rather than playing the role of the "Great Leader" of a nation struggling with hunger and poverty...

It’s truly fascinating how power can become such an intoxicating substitute for genuine personal satisfaction or actual pleasure. It becomes its own end, doesn't it? By the end of the ballad, you're left with the impression that Marshall was perhaps one of those rare dictators who actually grasped the sheer absurdity of making 2+2 equal 5...

The G7 has committed to moving away from Russian oil imports entirely

Dana Robinson4 said:By the way, I recall the folks in Texas went through a massive drilling project last year, but there hasn't been a single word about finding anything useful...

The Appalachian Mountains are absolutely saturated with natural gas; you can find drill sites and gas metering stations practically every few hundred yards. About twenty years ago, gas flares were burning steadily in places like a small town in rural America, the Holy Trinity, and another small town in rural America, but then they mysteriously just went out.

Word is, drilling in the Appalachian Mountains isn't even recommended because the geological area is too unstable.

hiddenhound3 said:The Appalachian Mountains are absolutely saturated with natural gas; you can find drill sites and gas metering stations practically every few hundred yards. About twenty years ago, gas flares were burning steadily in places like a small town in rural America, the Holy Trinity, and another small town in rural America, but then they mysteriously just went out.

Word is, drilling in the Appalachian Mountains isn't even recommended because the geological area is too unstable.

It’s just not worth it. I mean, sure, you could theoretically pull gas out of Mt. Everest if you really wanted to, but then you’d actually have to drill. I guess it's just not practical! 5.0 miles Watch out for those rocks before you hit the starting point where Rus and Arapin kick things off.

Everyone’s just staring at the bottom line lately. And sure, if you look at the numbers, Putin's gas looks cheaper. But I guess people forget that his gas comes with a massive hidden tax—one we're all going to end up paying down the road. Maybe we'll see.

Relying on resources from elsewhere is just bad news. I guess it’s always a bit risky, maybe? It really is.

boldotter2 said:It’s just not worth it. I mean, sure, you could theoretically pull gas out of Mt. Everest if you really wanted to, but then you’d actually have to drill. I guess it's just not practical! 5.0 miles Watch out for those rocks before you hit the starting point where Rus and Arapin kick things off.

Everyone’s just staring at the bottom line lately. And sure, if you look at the numbers, Putin's gas looks cheaper. But I guess people forget that his gas comes with a massive hidden tax—one we're all going to end up paying down the road. Maybe we'll see.

Relying on resources from elsewhere is just bad news. I guess it’s always a bit risky, maybe? It really is.

To put it bluntly: those cheap energy subsidies are basically just paying for political favors.

The German establishment knows exactly what they're doing.

Carl Lee27 said:Look, if we're talking about the biggest exporters on the planet, you've got Australia, Qatar, and the USA. And honestly, out of those three, Americans have by far the most potential to actually ship stuff over to Europe.

Now, Canada LNG isn't even exporting yet. Like, at all. They're currently building their only terminal up in British Columbia, which is backed by major players like Japan, China, Malaysia, and Korea. So, if any shipments eventually start coming out of Canada, they'll mostly likely just end up flowing through US terminals anyway.
Norway is also kind of a minor player in this specific context, just one terminal pushing maybe 6 to 7 billion annually.

That really leaves Qatar and Australia to pick up the slack, and they'll definitely cover some of the demand. I can't say for sure about Australia, but Qatar is actually planning to ramp up production. The catch—and it's a bit of a headache—is that just like the Russians, they much prefer those long-term contracts, and a huge chunk of their capacity is already locked down for Asia.

It looks like Qatar has a few strings attached for Germany
https://www.reuters.com/business/ene...es-2022-05-09/

hiddeneagle98 said:Try sending a million starving people to surrender and then see how that works out for you.

When a million hungry people show up at your door, they won't just eat from your buffet—they'll tear you apart.

My personal theory is that Qatar might sell their resources to Asia at a lower rate, then pivot to supply Europe at a slightly higher premium; meanwhile, the Russians could focus on selling to Asia, allowing Europe to eventually strengthen its ties with Ukraine and permanently sideline Russia from the equation.

velvetbadger11 said:My personal theory is that Qatar might sell their resources to Asia at a lower rate, then pivot to supply Europe at a slightly higher premium; meanwhile, the Russians could focus on selling to Asia, allowing Europe to eventually strengthen its ties with Ukraine and permanently sideline Russia from the equation.

Brilliant plan! We'll probably need about ten years to pull that off, so in the meantime, I suggest you try sun gazing. You won't even need food, water, or heat—just stare at the sun and hope for the best.🎉

Joshua Myers432 said:Brilliant plan! We'll probably need about ten years to pull that off, so in the meantime, I suggest you try sun gazing. You won't even need food, water, or heat—just stare at the sun and hope for the best.🎉

Exactly. We just need to shrug our shoulders, say "well, it is what it is," acknowledge that Vlad is being a bit blunt, and then do absolutely nothing at all.

Arthur Watson4 said:Exactly. We just need to shrug our shoulders, say "well, it is what it is," acknowledge that Vlad is being a bit blunt, and then do absolutely nothing at all.

Not quite, dinosaur. This is more like shooting yourself in the foot. It’s a brilliant strategy if the goal is to completely wreck Russia.

Joshua Myers432 said:Not quite, dinosaur. This is more like shooting yourself in the foot. It’s a brilliant strategy if the goal is to completely wreck Russia.

Look, you can't take down Russia without some collateral damage. What's the alternative here? You'd rather just go straight to war with them?

How exactly would you stick it to them without anyone getting hurt—besides Russia, obviously?

Roy said:And you, are you actually getting paid in rubles or are you just some activist?

He would honestly prefer if Ukrainians just sacrificed themselves on our behalf so that we miserable folks in the European Union could enjoy cheaper gas and oil.
In reality, the guy respects Putko, the "strongest man" in the world, and if he is receiving some kind of salary, it is probably just enough for a cheap sandwich.

Joshua Myers432 said:Not quite, dinosaur. This is more like shooting yourself in the foot. It’s a brilliant strategy if the goal is to completely wreck Russia.

If we've collectively decided that the goal is to take down Russia, then please, by all means, share your suggestion on how to do that without causing ourselves unnecessary pain.

Gerald Torres84 said:He would honestly prefer if Ukrainians just sacrificed themselves on our behalf so that we miserable folks in the European Union could enjoy cheaper gas and oil.
In reality, the guy respects Putko, the "strongest man" in the world, and if he is receiving some kind of salary, it is probably just enough for a cheap sandwich.

And what exactly is the problem with that?

The era of the nation-state is over. Humanity as a whole is moving toward corporate control. As individuals, we rely on corporations to deliver our gas, electricity, water, and so on. You buy the things you need to survive from corporations, not from the government.

When someone like Elon Musk drops billions on Twitter—billions that could arguably end world hunger or stop the war in Ukraine overnight, billions that dwarf our entire GDP... well, some of us are smart enough to see it.

So, honestly? I'd much rather have cheap gas and electricity and live like a normal person than pay ten times more just to uphold certain ideals.

Dreaming about some "green transition" while pushing millions of people into poverty... only someone completely lacking empathy would do that.

Andrew Ross4 said:And what exactly is the problem with that?

The era of the nation-state is over. Humanity as a whole is moving toward corporate control. As individuals, we rely on corporations to deliver our gas, electricity, water, and so on. You buy the things you need to survive from corporations, not from the government.

When someone like Elon Musk drops billions on Twitter—billions that could arguably end world hunger or stop the war in Ukraine overnight, billions that dwarf our entire GDP... well, some of us are smart enough to see it.

So, honestly? I'd much rather have cheap gas and electricity and live like a normal person than pay ten times more just to uphold certain ideals.

Dreaming about some "green transition" while pushing millions of people into poverty... only someone completely lacking empathy would do that.

Corporations can only hold sway in a democracy. They certainly don't run things in Russia.

He paid less than our total GDP for Twitter, let alone several times over.

World hunger isn't solved by throwing money at it; that's just naive rhetoric.

In the long run, climate change has the potential to drive more people into hunger than the cost of moving away from fossil fuels ever will.

🎉

Andrew Ross4 said:And what exactly is the problem with that?

The era of the nation-state is over. Humanity as a whole is moving toward corporate control. As individuals, we rely on corporations to deliver our gas, electricity, water, and so on. You buy the things you need to survive from corporations, not from the government.

When someone like Elon Musk drops billions on Twitter—billions that could arguably end world hunger or stop the war in Ukraine overnight, billions that dwarf our entire GDP... well, some of us are smart enough to see it.

So, honestly? I'd much rather have cheap gas and electricity and live like a normal person than pay ten times more just to uphold certain ideals.

Dreaming about some "green transition" while pushing millions of people into poverty... only someone completely lacking empathy would do that.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion; there is no need for this much whining.
The Ukrainians themselves get to decide whether they will cede territory to Russia in exchange for peace and stability for this part of the world.🙂
+ We could have also given some territory to Mexicans to ensure peace everywhere around us... yet, we didn't.

analogbear5 said:Look, you can't take down Russia without some collateral damage. What's the alternative here? You'd rather just go straight to war with them?

How exactly would you stick it to them without anyone getting hurt—besides Russia, obviously?

We are already at war with Russia. It’s just that nobody bothered to tell you.

analogbear5 said:Look, you can't take down Russia without some collateral damage. What's the alternative here? You'd rather just go straight to war with them?

How exactly would you stick it to them without anyone getting hurt—besides Russia, obviously?

That's like me asking you: how would you jump off a thirty-story skyscraper without a parachute and expect to walk away fine? You wouldn't... there is no way.

There. Problem solved. Russia can only be pushed back if they’re willing to pay a price.

I think instead of all those warnings about us shooting ourselves in the foot, it might be better to ask: is it even necessary to squeeze Russia this hard right now? Especially since the threat of Ukraine being wiped off the map is fading, and it's pretty obvious Russia has already managed to cripple itself quite a bit.