Nord Stream has been suspended indefinitely

a reply to: xpert11

Yes, in Europe at least, the corruption runs deep when it comes to Russian cash.

Not surprising in the case of Germany; they've been thoroughly penetrated by Russian influence since the world war. Schroeder is just a highly visible example of a much broader phenomenon in German society.

Cheers

a reply to: xpert11

2035-2040 sounds completely reasonable... even beyond what I would have estimated. But you are more familiar with the regional attitudes and politics there, so I must bow to your superior knowledge on that. if a region wanted to badly enough, they could likely have nuclear plants operating by 2030, but that assumes a lot of public pressure, public acceptance, and government allowance.

But if we assume 2035 as the date for nuclear power, when Russia is taken out of the economic picture, that's still 13 long years. 13 summers with oppressive heat and 13 winters with biting cold. It's also 13 years for Russia to build up their infrastructure and diversify. I really don't think we have that long. I didn't know about it when i first posted, but I later saw this thread explaining how some meteorologists are now expecting a harsh winter in Europe due to the eruption of the Hunga Tonga volcano in January. I read the source article, and it appears the science is sound.

If this is true, I fear many in Europe won't see summer in 2023.

In any case, it's not Russia that drives my predictions; it's China. Russia is simply the key to aiding Chinese ambition, which at this time (or just prior to) had one and only one thing restraining that ambition: their insatiable need for energy. Russia had been splitting their exports between Europe and China, but now it's all going to China. There are no more obstacles to China's growth. They have the rare earth minerals that modern technology requires to create, they have the labor force, and now (or at least in the very near future) they have the energy needed to produce.

At the same time, the rest of the planet is completely reliant on China for the technology they depend on. How does that not fuel China into becoming the economic superpower, unchallenged, and spreading their particular form of control over the rest of the planet? That's what we did... the USA has a long history of overthrowing governments to implement rulers friendly to our desires. China thinks differently from us; they would probably just take over countries directly.

That is WWIII.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

The hardships that Europe and the UK endured in WW1 and WW2 are no longer in living memory. People discover exceptional levels of resilience in the worst possible situations. Although I have no desire to see people anywhere suffer the effects of energy shortages in colder or hotter climates.

China poses a more significant threat in a WW3 scenario in a broader international context. The thought of converting Chinese industrial output from junk quality consumer goods to wartime production is scary. As a side note, Russian military incompetency and corruption in Ukraine prevented WW3 from breaking out, but the risk of global conflict remains.

Also, China's economic power/global reach coincides with their efforts to export their version of fascism, but a proper examination of these matters is for another discussion. But Russia's lack of economic muscle compared to China is worth highlighting. Russia doesn't have the means relating investment and international trade to leverage influence in Ukraine and Eastern Europe and compete with the EU. Yet those measures wouldn't have undone people's disdain for living behind the Iron Curtain. Those are some of the motivations behind Putin's war in Ukraine.



Moreover, my analysis is from someone who lives in New Zealand. Geographically speaking, people in Poland and the Baltic States will place a greater focus on Russian threats and actions.

At the onset of the U.S. Civil War, the Confederacy staked their future/international diplomatic recognition on denying cotton exports to the UK market. Putin placed the outcome of his regime on the war in Ukraine and Russian energy exports to global buyers. The Confederacy's gambit failed with the UK industry sourcing cotton from within the British Empire. However, Western countries face longer time constraints concerning finding alternatives to Russian energy. But Putin's regime is doomed, and what occurs in the interim profoundly concerns me.

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe
I hope they completely cut off all supplies to europe, before winter.

Pay back.

Same here.

SLAVA ROSSIYA
🇷🇺🐻🇷🇺🐻🇷🇺🐻🇷🇺🐻

"Nord Stream has been suspended indefinitely"

I fail to see how this either a bad thing, or unexpected at this point. (Assuming it's even true)


Europeans always knew they'd pay this price (or much worse) for intentionally becoming completely dependent on a brutal dictator with nukes and territorial ambitions to provide it's most basic energy needs.

Ripping off that bandaid right now certainly won't be pleasant, but it doesn't really change the inevitable consequences of European stupidity in recent decades, or even alter the timing by much vs Europe's existing post invasion energy plans.

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe
I hope they completely cut off all supplies to europe, before winter.

Pay back.

Same here.

SLAVA ROSSIYA
🇷🇺🐻🇷🇺🐻🇷🇺🐻🇷🇺🐻

That's a big wish you both hope for up there.
Would you also be able to sit and look in the dulling eyes of the elderly and young as they take a last frost-ridden breath?
Of course you could, empathy is sadly a trait in humans that is being bred out of existence.

originally posted by: MidnightWatcher

"Nord Stream has been suspended indefinitely"

I fail to see how this either a bad thing, or unexpected at this point. (Assuming it's even true)

If Putin closed the Nord Stream pipeline permanently, it would represent a gigantic self-inflicted wound. Germany would be forced to source their energy from nuclear power and other sources. Russia shutting down that pipeline on an interim basis to disrupt supplies and increase fuel prices is a more likely scenario.

Europeans always knew they'd pay this price (or much worse) for intentionally becoming completely dependent on a brutal dictator with nukes and territorial ambitions to provide it's most basic energy needs.

People who didn't have commercial interests in Russian energy and are grounded in geopolitical/economic realities foresaw the dangers.

Ripping off that bandaid right now certainly won't be pleasant, but it doesn't really change the inevitable consequences of European stupidity in recent decades, or even alter the timing by much vs Europe's existing post invasion energy plans.

Are you suggesting Russia terminating the supply of oil and gas to global markets wouldn't impact those countries' approaches to energy production?

originally posted by: vNex92
a reply to: Grimpachi

see some panic setting

The Panic should be coming from the people in Euporean countries that their leaders are obsessed onto fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian or that they have no concern whatever the people are experiencing difficulty over the energy crisis for which.

The EU and US are to be blamed.

Did the US & EU invade a non threatening country to violently annex it's territory?

russia did.

a reply to: TritonTaranis


I see EXACTLY the same thing.

Along with a worthless currency only accepted by a handful of other brutal dictators, near zero modern manufacturing inputs, 1b per day in immediate war costs (MUCH more than that in the long term), a military that the entire world now knows is a paper tiger (probably an insult to paper), and surrounded by neighbors it has abused for a century or more.

The only remaining unknowns are when (not if) russia surrenders to Ukraine (by leaving Ukrainian territory), whether putin will throw a tantrum and hurl nukes at every country he doesn't like, and how many more innocent humans russia will kill before surrendering.

Learn Russian.

This is the only way to keep warm this winter.

a reply to: xpert11

"Are you suggesting Russia terminating the supply of oil and gas to global markets wouldn't impact those countries' approaches to energy production"

I'm suggesting that the eventual near term permanent shutdown, the permanent switch to just about every non russian energy option, and the resulting short term pain for Europeans became inevitable and unavoidable on 2/24.

"People who didn't have commercial interests in Russian energy and are grounded in geopolitical/economic realities foresaw the dangers."

Agreed, I should have been more specific. Though I think everyone with commercial interests in russian energy were also well aware, they just thought their greed and ideology were more important.

"If Putin closed the Nord Stream pipeline permanently, it would represent a gigantic self-inflicted wound. Germany would be forced to source their energy from nuclear power and other sources."

Agreed. It may also force the democrat party to stop standing in the way of U.S. energy production once they see enough tv images of suffering Europeans.

We have more than enough gas to completely replace the russian supplies at reasonable prices, we just don't have any way to get it there since democrats have been mostly successful at preventing the construction and expansion of pipelines and LNG terminals, so the 'party of environmentlists' forces us to burn it all off in the atmosphere 24x7 at thousands of locations in the U.S. (possibly a million well heads by the end of 2020) instead of selling it to those in need.

originally posted by: MisguidedAngel

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe
I hope they completely cut off all supplies to europe, before winter.

Pay back.

Same here.

SLAVA ROSSIYA
🇷🇺🐻🇷🇺🐻🇷🇺🐻🇷🇺🐻

Are you rooting for another attempted genocide by russia?

Sure looks that way.

Won't work this time, we've all seen this movie before.

a reply to: turretless


Excuse me ? Me staying warm in winter has absolutely nothing to do with Russia , nothing , zilch...so why learn Russian .

originally posted by: Kenzo
a reply to: turretless


Excuse me ? Me staying warm in winter has absolutely nothing to do with Russia , nothing , zilch...so why learn Russian .

It was a joke.

a reply to: xpert11

The hardships that Europe and the UK endured in WW1 and WW2 are no longer in living memory.

This is very true. It is easy to convince oneself that one can endure what one cannot fathom.

People discover exceptional levels of resilience in the worst possible situations.

While I cannot disagree with this, there was an advantage during WWI and WWII. People of that time were more social and faster to trust each other. During the Great Depression in the 1920s, those who held onto traditional values and formed tight-knit communities survived; those who did not, well, many of them jumped out of high-rise buildings.

That's oversimplifying the social science of the time, but in general I think gets my point across. Since WWII, society has changed to where reliance on neighbors and community is no longer the norm. Today that reliance is on government and social institutions. Those can (and will) fail when times get tough, whereas neighbors and community will always be composed of people trying to survive.

Think of it this way: it used to be that, when one would have a break-down on the side of the road, one could rest assured that someone they knew would be by soon, see them, and offer assistance. Today, that's a pipe dream; people rely now on using a cell phone to call for road service. That works, and is better overall that waiting on a neighbor to chance to come by, but it only works when cell towers are functional and road service is available. If the cell tower is down or the road service company goes out of business, the original way works better. But today, if one stops to ask if someone needs help, they are met with suspicion and disdain. Thus the old way will no longer work... and that change took years to happen in the first place and will not change back overnight.

I know; that's a purely American point of view. It may or may not be applicable to the EU, but I'm not in the EU. That perspective is all I have at this time.

The thought of converting Chinese industrial output from junk quality consumer goods to wartime production is scary.

That's the point I have been trying to get across to people for some time now. Sure, a factory making cheap, second-rate electric scooters has never struck fear into others... but that same factory can be converted to making military assault vehicles, often within a matter of days. All China needs is the energy, and there is absolutely nothing preventing them from doing as they see fit. That would include "annexing" Russia even... as I said, Russia and this conflict are being used as a means to an end. China's entire goal is to get Russia to increase their supply infrastructure to China; any alliance that is forming is purely to accomplish an end goal. China and Russia have never been friends.

As a side note, Russian military incompetency and corruption in Ukraine prevented WW3 from breaking out, but the risk of global conflict remains.

I am still not convinced Russia ever intended to take Ukraine. Putin said he did not intend to do so before the invasion started, he repeated it during the invasion, and he has never claimed anything else. Western sources have insisted that the annexing of Ukraine was Putin's goal, but his military strategy has been laughably inefficient if that were so.

I see this like: If I am sitting at a red light beside a worn-out Yugo and the light changes, I can easily outrun the Yugo... but it does not matter. The Yugo was not going to try and outrun me, so any bragging about what a great racer i am at that point is meaningless. One's prowess can only be tested when one is tested against reality.

That;s what the West is doing: they are laughing at Russia's "failures" when Russia never intended to do what they claim Russia failed at. It's just war-time propaganda.

I believe Putin threatened Ukraine over the rhetoric that Ukraine was going to be fast-tracked into NATO and used to place NATO weapons on Russia's border. I believe Putin invaded when the Nord Stream 2 pipeline was shut down, negating a substantial Russian investment in economic trade and placing Ukraine back as the only real "port" Russia had in order to sell to Europe. That was the idea behind the Nord Stream 1 and 2, after all... it bypassed the Ukrainian pipelines, taking the Ukraine's leverage away from them in dealing with Russia. Both sides have claimed inappropriate dealings with the other for decades now, and we have hard evidence in the USA that the Ukraine was being used as a kingpin in a major money-laundering operation by the Biden family and many in the DNC.

I think Russia went in with the intention to resolve their disputes with Ukraine by force. How close they are or are not to accomplishing that goal, I do not know. But I think it is disingenuous to declare a military action a "failure" without being sure what the mission was.

At the onset of the U.S. Civil War, the Confederacy staked their future/international diplomatic recognition on denying cotton exports to the UK market.

Actually, no. You have that backward. The Confederate states wanted to open up direct cotton sales to the UK. The US was restricting sales by making all sales go through central Northern ports so they could be heavily taxed. The Confederate states wanted to sell cotton directly instead of through those Northern ports and withheld cotton from them in protest. That was one of the many reasons for the war.

Just more propaganda that tried to change history and it almost succeeded. Your interpretation of that time period is not uncommon. The winners write the history books.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Subject to the character of a location, people might discover a sense of community from catastrophic events. But if that is from energy shortages or conflict, it is a product of political failures, not mother nature. I can only offer limited insights on these matters from my New Zealand point of view without going off-topic.


It is worth noting how the parents of the 1939- 45 generation witnessed the first war and the fall of European and Russian monarchies. Along with the Treaty of Versailles delaying another outbreak of fighting for 25 years, redrawing the map of Europe, the Russian Civil War/emergence of Communist Russia, and other matters are born around that time. So if WW3 occurs, what might the post-war world resemble?

China remains the potential wildcard on the international stage. If China perceives Putin's regime is on the rocks, they might invade Siberia under the guise of liberation. Of course, controlling Siberia's existing and untapped natural resources would be the Chinese's goal. Suffice, the current geopolitical and economic spheres would vanish for the length of that war.

Concerning the failings of Putin's war machine: In practical terms, one of the disadvantages facing dictatorial regimes is the absence of people to deliver home truths to the likes of Putin. Cracking down on dissent produces unintended consequences.

For the reader interested in the Confederacy's daft approach to cotton exports, see Donald Stoker's excellent book concerning strategy and the U.S. Civil War.

Some comments about Europe are pertinent at this point.

Some of the non-Europeans here don't seem to understand that Europe (even minus Russia) is BIG. Lots of area with a lot of climate variation.

So, whatever happens in terms of weather and gas supply, the effects will be nothing like uniform over the entire continent.

People should also bear in mind something called the Gulf Stream. It makes a huge difference in weather for certain areas of Europe.

Europe has faced hungry times before. The last big event was thanks to the effects of the world war. There were a few hungry years, but the Europeans got through it. Propaganda pounced back then as well. It was simply hard times ... but not an event that depopulated the continent or even seriously upset the politics in many countries that were just getting back on their feet after the war.

So, geographically, specific regions of Europe north of the Alps and in mountainous regions may have a rough winter and there may be spot shortages of food. Other parts of Europe will chip in and provide emergency aid as required. As dysfunctional as it is at times, there is this thing called the "EU" than can mobilize the resources of many countries to meet various challenges.

Yes, political unity in terms of the EU and within individual countries will get stretched hard. There have been poor decisions made that were cheered on by compliant national medias and given the nod by politicians who did not want to rock the boat. Perhaps, in this sense, the EU will owe Russia for a long overdue wake-up call regarding political and economic realities.

It won't be fun, but I doubt it will be a political, economic, or humanitarian catastrophe for the continent.

Cheers

a reply to: xpert11

I can only offer limited insights on these matters from my New Zealand point of view without going off-topic.

As can I from only a US perspective. It is saddening to me, however, to see what these poor folks are going to have to endure. Even in the best case, I do not think Europe will ever be the same.

The Great Depression was almost 100 years ago, yet we still can see aspects of American society that began in those years. The War of Northern Aggression was about 160 years ago, yet many aspects of our society (including even the Southern penchant for college football) are echoes from that time.

If China perceives Putin's regime is on the rocks, they might invade Siberia under the guise of liberation.

That is one possibility. Another would be that Putin leaves office for some reason and is replaced by someone who is not as friendly to China. I personally put more faith in that scenario, but time will tell. Either way, the economic alliance between China and Russia will not last forever and China will be the aggressor when it fails.

Mark my words.



We're getting a bit off topic here, but let me say my statements are based on direct family history as passed down from actual survivors of those times.

TheRedneck

a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

IMO the scale of oil and gas shortages in Europe is more likely to resemble the 1970s energy shock than Russia turning the tap off. Therefore, the likelihood of Russia terminating access to overseas energy markets is low.

In particular, geographical perceptions of Western Europe differ based on where a person lives. For instance, in comparison to Australia, Western Europe is a relativity small geographical area with a high population density.

My previous point concerning WW2 no longer being in living memory can extend to Western Europe and Japan before post-war reconstruction/ the Marshall Plan. I wouldn't draw a comparison between current energy crises and the destruction brought on by the last world war.

a reply to: xpert11

I think if violence takes place on any scale, it will be more a consequence of long smoldering social and political issues than anything else. Granted, hardship brought on by food and energy problems can serve as fuel for those fires.

LONG VIEW: The Western World has not met the challenges presented by the end of the Cold War 30+ years ago. Instead, politicians with short term goals 'muddled through' and too often took the easiest route to get around problems rather than resolving them. This is an approach that can work in the short term, but which lacks the vision to ensure long term stability. This approach was made considerably worse by the cheering on of virtue signaling and other political stunts that brought very short term gain but no substance. I consider the foregoing but statement of facts; to which I would opine that, given the lack of high level political leadership in the last 30+ years, actors outside of government have arbitrarily assumed roles that are not theirs to take on. A social challenge of note in the near future will have to be the removal of these unelected 'operators' from positions of political influence.

Cheers