Ukraine Crisis master thread

More regarding gas.

Not unsurprinsingly serious people, with byros in the breast pockets, have been totting up the scores for European gas production, imports etc. And this is what Financial Times came up with.

It's interesting because it gives figures — who uses how much, from where? — including inter-state flows within the EU, and domestic gas production:

Oh, bit big — better put that in a spoiler:

Knock yourselves out!

I am delighted to know that employees of Financial Times can draw pictures on a computer. No, seriously!

Australia is gas rich, we could help out the Europeans in their time of need.

Aleksey_aka_al said:

I am delighted to know that employees of Financial Times can draw pictures on a computer. No, seriously!

Click to expand...

In a choice between knowledge and denial, we know what you will pick.

Denial? I'd listen with pleasure what deniers of the Fascist coup in Ukraine could tell me about denial!

Kaiserguard said:

The link between geopolitical opposition to Russia, Atlanticism and Cold War mindset are actually quite strong. It is precisely the reason why newer EU states are more hostile towards Russia and not-suprisingly, more Pro-American as well. It only makes sense to oppose Russia from an Atlanticist POV, with the goal of reacting against other currents that compete with Atlanticism, of which friendly ties with Russia anathema.

Try to think of the EU as a standalone entity and forget about the NATO: What kind of interest do we have to be hostile to Russia? Nil. Again, the USA and the pleas from recent EU states and would-be EU states like Ukraine that propels us into an anti-Russian position we have no reason to take. It only makes sense to be opposed to Russia under the aegis of Atlanticism. Considering Russia long ceased to be the Cold War threat it used to be, Atlanticism should be shed in favour for closer friendship with Russia. Not in the last part because we will have more leverage in such a relationship than the one we currently have with the US. I am not anti-American in any way, yet we need to re-evaluate our ties with the US, similar to what Gaullist France did in the 1960s.



The only victims of this mindset will be ourselves. Russia may be acting highly aggressively in regards to the Crimea, though we have to face the fact that plenty of ethnic Russians welcome Russia's actions and that it is simply not the big bad wolf we'd like to believe it is. We also have no obligation, morally or otherwise, to protect a state that is NOT part of the EU, we have no such agreement requiring such and is not significantly more free than Russia.

Now, that is still far cry from saying that everything Russia is doing is great. Yet we are wasting our heads and use human rights rethoric to feel good about it, in the process. Any political conflict between Russia and the EU, will weaken both, though especially the EU.

Click to expand...

Ahh Kaiserguard is always a smart lad.

classical_hero said:

Australia is gas rich, we could help out the Europeans in their time of need.

Click to expand...

Well, thanks a bunch!

Check out the green figures, for the LNG terminals. That's where Aussie gas might potentially get plugged into the system.

But we don't know if the EU will, or can, get even moderately radical over this. The decision needs to be unanimous, and for now the Bulgarians are apparently holding out. It's a minority government there, formed with support from a right wing party that is staunchly pro-Russian, and absolutely approves of the Russian annexation of Crimea. Either this Bulgarian government nixes any move by the EU against Russian gas imports, or its a government crisis in Bulgaria.

Otherwise the logic of gas consumption says that the EU might want to embargo Russia in spring and summer, when the demand is low, and then hook itself up again when it starts to get nippy. For a Russian embargo of the EU to be really effective, it's precisely when temperatures drop they should do that. But otoh then Russia loses the revenue from the winter season, when the demand, consumption and prices all tend to be high.

Who knows, maybe the EU can turn Russia into a kind of seasonal energy economy? We embargo them in summer, and then wave the money in front of the Russian noses in time for the cold months. They can of course do the principled thing, and turn their noses up at the money, but then they will lose out on the lucrative winter season. It wouldn't be the most efficient of sanction arrangements, but it might give everyone something to think about?

Winner said:

That's nonsense, there's no causal link as you describe it and you're conjuring it up out of thin air. Study the foreign policy of ex-Warsaw Pact states and you'll find a pretty complicated web of relationships with Russia - some adversarial, some cooperative.

The new EU states are in general more Atlanticist and more Russia-sceptic simply because a) Russia has never really stopped attempting to interfere with their matters and there was always the looming threat of Russia returning to its previous expansionist policies. The old saying "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" applies; and b) because NATO and therefore the US involvement in Europe was perceived as the only deterrent strong enough to dissuade Russia from attempting to include Central Europe in its "near abroad" as it had in the previous several decades. Opinions such as yours coming from some western European countries only strengthened the need in these countries to hedge their bets, lest the Germans, the French, the British and others decided to rehash their long-established tradition of throwing Central and Eastern Europe to the wolves, be they of any totalitarian variety.

In other words, is was a sensible, rational choice to pursue a strategy to protect their political and economic independence from foreign meddling. If there was an ideological dimension to it, it was the democratic paradigm - after getting rid of one undemocratic, oppressive regime, nobody was in any mood to have the Russian "oligarchic" model imposed on them. Western Europe was the model to be pursued.

Again this nonsensical, insulting notion that the whole situation is somehow created by crazy "eastern Europeans" antagonizing good old calm and friendly Russia. Do you realize how offensive it sounds? Are you really that blind with respect to what policies the Russian regime pursues vis-a-vis Central and Eastern Europe?

Some countries do have a LEGITIMATE cause to fear Russian interference in their affairs. The EU is obliged, if it is to have any role and value as an alliance or indeed a proto-federal state, to ensure that other entities, be it Russia, the US, China, or whomever, are not able to carve it up, divide it and subjugate its parts while the rest sits on their behinds doing nothing.

Click to expand...

I understand the fears, yet if we are frank, those ARE leftovers from the Cold War. Remember why I made the comparison with the Arab-Israeli conflict? Because the Arab countries still think in terms of when Israel was just established and automatically went to war in a Pavlovian reaction. We are doing the same and it will damage us as it did to the Arabs.

Russia has no interest in acquiring interest in any part of Eastern Europe that doesn't have a populace willing to join Russia. We should work to keep it that way.

Winner said:

No, it makes every sense to be opposed to Russia if Russia is acting aggressively against the EU, its member states and its allies. It's called self-defence, you know.

But if what you mean is "throw anything east of Germany to Russia so that we can be friendly with them", say it openly - just make it clear that is the price you're willing to pay.

Click to expand...

Again, Ukraine is not EU. If it was Estonia it would have been a different matter. And speaking of which, the EU was right to demand to Estonia to improve the rights of Russian speakers as pre-condition of joining the EU.

Winner said:

Again, what price are you willing to pay for this "friendship"? And it takes two to tango, I am afraid.

Click to expand...

For starters, ending the Atlanticist dogma?

Winner said:

Ukraine was openly bullied and forced not to sign an agreement with the EU that had been years in preparations. Clearly, Russia was the initiator of this crisis; it was the Russian paranoid notion that association with the EU is a hostile act toward Russia.

The Ukrainians overthrew the government and profess determination to pursue closer ties with the EU and adoption of our values. The EU can leave them hang out to dry, thus losing credibility as a serious force in the world, or it can stand up for itself and its interests. The Russians will react and their reaction will determine the future of EU-Russia reactions.

The point is, it is up to Russia to stop being belligerent and adversarial. The EU is not doing anything hostile against Russia.

Click to expand...

Ukraine is a sharply divided country. Diverse ethnic groups need not to be a problem, yet Ukraine is clearly politically divided in those who have interest in ties with Russia and those who have ties with Ukraine. It would be a sensible solution to split Ukraine. I've ridiculed that notion in the past, yet let's face it: The Ukrainian crisis is not going to solve itself.

Winner said:

Translation: we should resign on human rights, rule of law, democracy and everything the EU defines as its basic values in order to appease Russia. Lovely.

Click to expand...

The problem is that even if Russia were to be liberal polity guided by the rule of law, we would still be hostile with the mindset we currently have.

Besides, human rights abuse by a state can never be an excuse to be hostile to that state if the result simply will be more human rights abuses. Iraq 2003 ring any bells?

How much money does Russia make from selling gas and/or oil to the rest of Europe? I'm not that sure that they could do without all that money.

classical_hero said:

Australia is gas rich, we could help out the Europeans in their time of need.

Click to expand...

Isn't serving as a giant prison cell enough?

Verbose said:

Well, because 1) it's cheap,

Click to expand...

And the european economy is in no position to buy it at any other price but cheap.

Verbose said:

Who knows, maybe the EU can turn Russia into a kind of seasonal energy economy?

Click to expand...

Not even gonna happen.

We can then drop the act, and simply deal in terms of money, power and violence, at our discretion.

Click to expand...

It is funny you think the EU isn't violent now. NATO is incredibly violent. Nobody has dropped more bombs or killed more people in the past 20 years than nations working at the behest of NATO/IMF/US/EU. It is all the same power structure, and they all have the same goal.

the EU/NATO/US has been bullying the world since the soviet Union fell, with money, power and violence at their discretion. In fact, I can't even see how you would expect them to do any more so than they are now, without full scale world war.

Winner said:

lest the Germans, the French, the British and others decided to rehash their long-established tradition of throwing Central and Eastern Europe to the wolves, be they of any totalitarian variety.

Click to expand...

I thought you had forgotten this past. Your pan-european fanaticism sure seems to suggest it. Why you feel safe int he arms of these people, and worth something, is a mystery to me. Western Europe could care less about the Czech Republic, and would sell them out in a heart beat if it were expedient.

The new EU states are in general more Atlanticist and more Russia-sceptic simply because a) Russia has never really stopped attempting to interfere with their matters and there was always the looming threat of Russia returning to its previous expansionist policies.

Click to expand...

You talk of the states, but what about the people? The US and now the IMF et al have never stopped interfering with the countries of the EU either. When you say "their" you mean the bankers of Europe, "their" matters. The people of Europe have a whole different set of worries.

The Ukrainians are just about to find that out. Instead of cheap gas, they will now get gas 50% more, plus the removal of the Russian discount. This in return for a load of debt slavery that their grand children will be paying off. And will Ukraine, in return, become an economic miracle?

The idea is laughable. It will get way worse than Greece or Spain.

ClassicHero said:

Australia is gas rich, we could help out the Europeans in their time of need.

Click to expand...

You all seem to be missing something here. Energy is a finite resource. If you just try to pull Russia out of the trade system, the whole world feels shockwaves, shockwaves big enough to cause the weak, stumbling world economy to completely collapse.

It is completely inefficient and expensive to ship gas to Europe from Australia. Pipelines are made because they transport the energy CHEAP.

Kaisergaurd said:

What kind of interest do we have to be hostile to Russia?

Click to expand...

As a people, none. But the leaders of the EU are slaves to the Central Banks, and the Central Banks hate Russia, because it is not yet ready to sell it's people into austerity for the sacrifices necessary to build bigger yachts and extra mansions.

Winner said:

Translation: we should resign on human rights, rule of law, democracy and everything the EU defines as its basic values in order to appease Russia. Lovely.

Click to expand...

The dozens of NATO foreign incursions have already proven "we" have resigned on those tenets long ago. It is funny how you talk of the EU as "we". The EU is in no way a "we". It is held together by weak bonds that eventually will break. And then your armband will mean nothing, and you'll be just another Czech. It is so sad you get some feeling of belonging from what is essentially an experimental and artificial system of government created by a Central Banking system.

I see you don't comprehend sarcasm either.

Click to expand...

I comprehended it fine.

Kaiserguard said:

Russia has no interest in acquiring interest in any part of Eastern Europe that doesn't have a populace willing to join Russia. We should work to keep it that way.

Click to expand...

That MIGHT be fine and dandy, if there was actual agreement on who this populace is. There's not. More to whit, Russia keeps moving the target around who these people are supposed to be. And by now we know that the present Russian government is perfectly happy to do this through "politics by paratrooper".

That makes the situation inherently unstable, dangerous, and not necessarily successfully resolved if left to Russia to decide unilaterally. Though the Russian government might like nothing better. We take their word, they take some land and people, and later it might well transpire these people, on that land, think we sold them out, and the whole thing potentially comes back to back everybody's backside.

Takhisis said:

How much money does Russia make from selling gas and/or oil to the rest of Europe? I'm not that sure that they could do without all that money.

Click to expand...

What really gets me is why this question is even being bandied about as if it is realistic either way. Gas will not be shut off from Russia, nor will their be a Europe wide boycott of Russian national gas.

It could only happen in a world war scenario, and neither side is actually anywhere near hostile enough to start a world war, nor is Europe united enough to start dying en masse for a flag and a huge book of trade rules and a common currency.

This is simply not enough to stir people to war a solid entity. Nor is it enough for them to accept the sacrifices require to actually boycott Russian natural gas. The whole conversation about what if's is SO inane. It is not going to happen.

Russia is in control.

1. Nationalism stirs sentiment, not pan Europeanism.
2. Russia can cut off gas to who it wants, when it wants, but Europe can not do the same. Europe needs Russian gas more than Russia needs their paper currency.
3. Russia is, and always has been, one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world. This is important, because foreign capital is mostly essential only to provide the advanced goods that country can provide. Russia can mostly provide for herself.

The coup in the Ukraine was a sign of desperation. It was all about Syria, actually, and Putin saw the move for what it was, and didn't even think before positioning the pawn he had set.

It's check mate. The west is stumbling around, putting it's hand on a piece, and then pulling back, furrowing its brow, putting its hand on another piece, looking around the board, wishing it could make two moves instead of one, telling Russia that the game isn't over yet, and again holding it's finger to it's chin, completely stunned. It has been outwitted.

NewEnd said:

It is funny you think the EU isn't violent now. NATO is incredibly violent. Nobody has dropped more bombs or killed more people in the past 20 years than nations working at the behest of NATO/IMF/US/EU. It is all the same power structure, and they all have the same goal.

the EU/NATO/US has been bullying the world since the soviet Union fell, with money, power and violence at their discretion. In fact, I can't even see how you would expect them to do any more so than they are now, without full scale world war.

Click to expand...

It is a possible way to regard things. It's a rather unfair view, but not impossible.

Which means you are not going to be so naive as to think any of these entities is going to become even a smidge nicer and less violence-prone — if that is really what they are — UNRESTRAINED by the UN system? Which was the point. There is a principle under attack, of not accepting right of conquest. If the principle instead becomes that conquest confers rights, and the great powers all get in on it, everybody will get to become part of a great power, and there's likely going to be a scramble. If these westerners are already such bad customers, how much violence do you think you should expect? Or is it that you think the west already unconstrained by the UN system, and so it won't matter? (Which, if so, I think would be a mistaken idea.)

Lots of people think the UN system is a sham. Lots of Americans too, not least. Insufficient and imperfect as it is, it's still the only principle-based protection, by mutual consent, against what in Swedish is called "the fist-right".

Verbose said:

That makes the situation inherently unstable, dangerous, and not necessarily successfully resolved if left to Russia to decide unilaterally. Though the Russian government might like nothing better. We take their word, they take some land and people, and later it might well transpire these people, on that land, think we sold them out, and the whole thing potentially comes back to back everybody's backside.

Click to expand...

The Ukrainians will soon be wishing they had been "sold out" to Russia, and not the IMF.

What everybody should really be looking for from now on, is the EU diversification of its energy supply.

And if Russia knew how to build a consumer economy, it wouldn't still be relying on raw material exports.

Verbose said:

It is a possible way to regard things. It's a rather unfair view, but not impossible.

Which means you are not going to be so naive as to think any of these entities is going to become even a smidge nicer and less violence-prone — if that is really what they are — UNRESTRAINED by the UN system? Which was the point. There is a principle under attack, of not accepting right of conquest.

Click to expand...

The sanctity of marriage was under attack way before gays. Just like the sanctity of the UN was under attack way before Russia annexed Crimea. Try looking to all the wars NATO and the US engaged in, with or without the consent of the UN, before calling a bloodless annexation some kind of attack on the principles of the UN. You can start with the Korean War, and go form there. The UN has never been anything but a tool of the west, and was always about preserving an archaic world system of power.

Lots of people think the UN system is a sham. Lots of Americans too, not least. Insufficient and imperfect as it is, it's still the only principle-based protection, by mutual consent, against what in Swedish is called "the fist-right".

Click to expand...

Protection for who, exactly? Korea? Vietnam? Grenada? Guetemala? Colombia? Iran? Iraq? Libya? Sudan? Yugoslavia? Panama? Nicaragua? Cuba? Afghanistan? The people of Spain? Of Greece?

Who exactly is the UN protecting, and from whom are they protecting these people?

What everybody should really be looking for from now on, is the EU diversification of its energy supply.

Click to expand...

Pipe dreams!

the US talked about this in the 1970's. Since then, it has done very little to achieve energy independence.

And, as in my chess analogy, this is the EU wishing it could move twice. You don't have time to diversify. Europe should have done that a long time ago. Too busy building weapons and stadiums and going to war.

And if Russia knew how to build a consumer economy, it wouldn't still be relying on raw material exports.

Click to expand...

Russia is fine! Russia doesn't need Europe as bad as Europe needs Russia. It has China. And China needs cheap energy more than it needs US capital and Euro money. It is up to it's ears in that junk.

The whole discussion, as I have noted, is ridiculous. Europeans and the west are now realizing, that Russia is a part of the world economy, and not just because the rules in the UN say so, but in every reality, it is a player, and it is going to come back.

Of course the Chinese already knew this, in their multi-polar theory they wrote about 20 years ago.

NewEnd said:

Protection for who, exactly? Korea? Vietnam? Grenada? Guetemala? Colombia? Iran? Iraq? Libya? Sudan? Yugoslavia? Panama? Nicaragua? Cuba? Afghanistan? The people of Spain? Of Greece?

Click to expand...

Please indicate which of these have been subject to military conquest — not invasion and/or occupation, but conquest — in full, thus having had to be either stricken off the list of current soverign nations, or in part, at least by losing national territory to some other nation by right of conquest?

And Spain? Really? Care to explain how you're figuring that one?

Another interesting thought: if this is about the rights of Russian speakers and historical restitution, what about the rights of non-Russian speakers? Or are some peoples more equal than others?

NewEnd said:

What really gets me is why this question is even being bandied about as if it is realistic either way. Gas will not be shut off from Russia, nor will their be a Europe wide boycott of Russian national gas.

It could only happen in a world war scenario, and neither side is actually anywhere near hostile enough to start a world war, nor is Europe united enough to start dying en masse for a flag and a huge book of trade rules and a common currency.

This is simply not enough to stir people to war a solid entity. Nor is it enough for them to accept the sacrifices require to actually boycott Russian natural gas. The whole conversation about what if's is SO inane. It is not going to happen.

Russia is in control.

1. Nationalism stirs sentiment, not pan Europeanism.
2. Russia can cut off gas to who it wants, when it wants, but Europe can not do the same. Europe needs Russian gas more than Russia needs their paper currency.
3. Russia is, and always has been, one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world. This is important, because foreign capital is mostly essential only to provide the advanced goods that country can provide. Russia can mostly provide for herself.

The coup in the Ukraine was a sign of desperation. It was all about Syria, actually, and Putin saw the move for what it was, and didn't even think before positioning the pawn he had set.

It's check mate. The west is stumbling around, putting it's hand on a piece, and then pulling back, furrowing its brow, putting its hand on another piece, looking around the board, wishing it could make two moves instead of one, telling Russia that the game isn't over yet, and again holding it's finger to it's chin, completely stunned. It has been outwitted.

Click to expand...

I do agree that Russia holds the advantage right now, not only because of those factors but also because there are less internal checks on what the government can and does do (do you see anyone forcing Putin out of office? the French government is currently a shambles) but I still think that a OPEP '73^-1 might be feasible. Of course this is highly theoretical because the EU is too disunited to do it and they don't have the timeframe to do such a thing, Putin could invade all of Ukraine up to the gates of Kyiv during the next six months and no economic sanctions would have any effect fast enough to prevent him from doing anything.

Verbose said:

Please indicate which of these have been subject to military conquest — not invasion and/or occupation, but conquest — in full, thus having had to be either stricken off the list of current soverign nations, or in part, at least by losing national territory to some other nation by right of conquest?

And Spain? Really? Care to explain how you're figuring that one?

Click to expand...

You are still thinking in the archaic way of flags and colors and line drawn on maps. You seem to think that the annexation of Crimea was politically different from the various installations of puppet governments around the world by the US and/or NATO. Just because the US did not go in and hoist an American flag over the face of the Saddam statue and declare Iraq the 51st state, does not mean it was any less of a conquest and control of the resources and people of Iraq by the banking interests of the western banking conglomerate, ie, the IMF, the world Bank, and the various major central banks.

The people of Greece and Spain are suffering from the austerity measures of these rulers, and their governments helpless to stop their people from being pilfered in the name of "what is necessary". Necessary to who? Do you honestly believe that one day Greece and Spain will have vibrant economies? Do you actually think they will austerity measure their way to prosperity?

You are continuing to bluster and cry over a letter of law, whose spirit was obliterated literally within days of it being created. The UN has never been anything but a tool of the west. Ever.

NewEnd said:

Russia is fine! Russia doesn't need Europe as bad as Europe needs Russia. It has China. And China needs cheap energy more than it needs US capital and Euro money. It is up to it's ears in that junk.

The whole discussion, as I have noted, is ridiculous. Europeans and the west are now realizing, that Russia is a part of the world economy, and not just because the rules in the UN say so, but in every reality, it is a player, and it is going to come back.

Click to expand...

So who wasn't aware Russia is a part of the world economy? It's been the EU gambit to MAKE it so these last 20 years. And that bit was successful. The Soviet Union was pretty much an self-sufficient autonomous economy, present day Russia is not. For what it's worth Russia is a world actor in economic terms, with about 3% of the world GDP. The EU represents 25% of the world GDP.

The bit that's likely going to bite Russia regardless, is that it is now the master of 3% of the world GDP, on the condition that it presents a picture and situation amenable to business and trade. Armies traipsing about, provinces lopped off of neighbours, threats and intimidation, are all things that typically makes markets and investors seriously nervous, making them head for the exits.

Russia is where it is for being a good boy so far. If Russia turns naughty, it might still all change. What Russia has built for itself in the post-Soviet world economy, is not some kind of fief it rules and controls by fiat, but a much more unruly and fugitive agglomeration of assets.