Say goodbye to your dear ones "if":

[sayak83]

Hello all.
Suddenly we almost escape from corona. To face WWIII.

I think if Saudi Arabia following request of Biden by more oil in market. Would be end of this world. This is Russia guys not Iran or Iraq.

If Russia get hurt in economy. That's definitely end of the world.

All economy wars turn to real wars.

They should. All the other oil producing countries must increase production so that at least for the next 5 years Russia gets no chance to sell its oil. With that source of money gone, Putin and his cronies will surely be overthrown just like the Soviet regime before it. Let's break this regime economically.
Overall this will provide another reason for Europe to switch completely to renewables quickly. For too long oil resource has caused bloodshed and war in the world as well as environmental disaster staring at us now. Let's end oil once and for all.

 

[exchemist]

They should. All the other oil producing countries must increase production so that at least for the next 5 years Russia gets no chance to sell its oil. With that source of money gone, Putin and his cronies will surely be overthrown just like the Soviet regime before it. Let's break this regime economically.
Overall this will provide another reason for Europe to switch completely to renewables quickly. For too long oil resource has caused bloodshed and war in the world as well as environmental disaster staring at us now. Let's end oil once and for all.

I agree except that the issue is gas, rather than oil. This is a problem, as sources of gas are less plentiful and gas is harder to transport from alternative sources.

 

[sayak83]

I agree except that the issue is gas, rather than oil. This is a problem, as sources of gas are less plentiful and gas is harder to transport from alternative sources.

Oil can be converted to gas through processing. It will take some time to install, but it can be done. I understand the problem and I understand that price rise will happen, but increasing oil production will mitigate it, as well as transport of CNG and LNG through tankers.

 

[Debater Slayer]

They should. All the other oil producing countries must increase production so that at least for the next 5 years Russia gets no chance to sell its oil. With that source of money gone, Putin and his cronies will surely be overthrown just like the Soviet regime before it. Let's break this regime economically.
Overall this will provide another reason for Europe to switch completely to renewables quickly. For too long oil resource has caused bloodshed and war in the world as well as environmental disaster staring at us now. Let's end oil once and for all.

Although increasing oil production is the ethically sound route for major oil-producing countries to take, there are political and historical reasons the request of the U.S. is tone-deaf and remarkably arrogant.

The Middle East is the same region in which the U.S. invaded a sovereign country less than two decades ago, carried out numerous drone strikes with civilian casualties, and overthrew governments that weren't aligned with its regional and hegemonic interests. Biden, the sitting POTUS, voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq. Now the U.S. is asking oil producers in that very region to comply with its requests and choose it over Russia and China because... why? American Greatness?

This is a situation where a globally powerful country with peaceful intentions would be the ideal leader of de-escalation. The fact that a historically aggressive and unscrupulous power like the U.S. is the one leading the charge against Russia is deeply unfortunate for everyone else who hopes for an end to Russian aggression.

 

[exchemist]

Oil can be converted to gas through processing. It will take some time to install, but it can be done. I understand the problem and I understand that price rise will happen, but increasing oil production will mitigate it, as well as transport of CNG and LNG through tankers.

Yes but it will take a year or two to build an LNG terminal, even supposing the gas can be supplied from somewhere else.

I am not aware of any large scale process for converting oil to methane. Do you know of one? There isn't enough hydrogen, surely? You would end up with masses of coke.

 

[sun rise]

Keep hoping, then. I feel closer today to being fried than I have ever done in my life - and I have lived through just about all of the Cold War.

It may be that Putin is bluffing about nuclear weapons. He may be deploying the "madman" strategy, that Nixon used some decades ago. The West must be very careful to exert maximum pressures on him but not in a way that makes him feel he has to resort to nuclear escalation.

I'm close to what I felt during the Cuban Missile Crisis when I was certain I was about to die within days.

I'm afraid putin feels that either he wins or displays the ultimate nuclear cornered rat scenario.

 

[sun rise]

historically aggressive and unscrupulous power like the U.S.

We part company absolutely on the unscrupulous attack. Arrogant, certainly. But compared to putin, xi and other tyrants, absolutely not.

 

[sun rise]

Oil can be converted to gas through processing. It will take some time to install, but it can be done. I understand the problem and I understand that price rise will happen, but increasing oil production will mitigate it, as well as transport of CNG and LNG through tankers.

And we'll see a dramatic rise in renewable energy production especially in Europe now that they understand that russia can use especially gas as a weapon against them.

 

[Debater Slayer]

We part company absolutely on the unscrupulous attack. Arrogant, certainly. But compared to putin, xi and other tyrants, absolutely not.

From my perspective, George W. Bush is of the same variety of warmongers as Putin. The only major difference is that Putin may be unhinged enough to use nukes. Bush was self-preserving even at his worst.

 

[Revoltingest]

Although increasing oil production is the ethically sound route for major oil-producing countries to take, there are political and historical reasons the request of the U.S. is tone-deaf and remarkably arrogant.

It is "arrogant" to be doing the right thing for a change?

The Middle East is the same region in which the U.S. invaded a sovereign country less than two decades ago, carried out numerous drone strikes with civilian casualties, and overthrew governments that weren't aligned with its regional and hegemonic interests. Biden, the sitting POTUS, voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq. Now the U.S. is asking oil producers in that very region to comply with its requests and choose it over Russia and China because... why? American Greatness?

Do you really believe that our response to Russia's
invasion is simple because of "American Greatness"?
Instead, I see good foreign policy (for a change).

I tell ya....there is no pleasing some critics.

This is a situation where a globally powerful country with peaceful intentions would be the ideal leader of de-escalation. The fact that a historically aggressive and unscrupulous power like the U.S. is the one leading the charge against Russia is deeply unfortunate for everyone else who hopes for an end to Russian aggression.

I don't see any other country stepping to to de-escalate
Russian aggression.
History is what it is. We can't change it. But we do have
the option of doing what is best regarding current events.
What would you have Ameristan do differently now?

 

[Revoltingest]

From my perspective, George W. Bush is of the same variety of warmongers as Putin. The only major difference is that Putin may be unhinged enough to use nukes. Bush was self-preserving even at his worst.

One highly relevant difference was the Bush wasn't
waging war for conquest. We didn't annex any of
the countries attacked, unlike Russia vs Georgia,
Crimea, & Ukraine. This bespeaks different motives,
portending different future dangers.
Note also that it wasn't just Bush. There was bi-partisan
approval for starting & continuing the wars. Let the blame
fall upon all Dems & Pubs in Congress who participated.

The left is overly fond of the cry "False Equivalency!".
But in this case, I'd allow it.

 

[Debater Slayer]

It is "arrogant" to be doing the right thing for a change?

Do you really believe that our response to Russia's
invasion is simple because of "American Greatness"?
Instead, I see good foreign policy (for a change).

No, the response as a whole seems sound and far more reasonable than military escalation or conflict. The specific aspect of micro-managing other countries' decisions is what I find tone-deaf/arrogant in this case.

It is up to OPEC whether or not to increase oil production. I think they should regardless of the request from the U.S., but it is their and only their decision.

I don't see any other country stepping to to de-escalate
Russian aggression.
History is what it is. We can't change it. But we do have
the option of doing what is best regarding current events.

The EU has been working toward de-escalation as well. The U.S. thankfully isn't alone in its efforts.

What would you have Ameristan do differently now?

Now? Probably little or nothing. It's too late to do what should have probably been done differently. Different foreign policy could have potentially averted the situation, but 1) there would have been no guarantee even then considering Putin's instability, and 2) the U.S. doesn't have a track record of giving up desire for regional influence even when pursuing such could lead to major diplomatic or military crises.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, the response as a whole seems sound and far more reasonable than military escalation or conflict. The specific aspect of micro-managing other countries' decisions is what I find tone-deaf/arrogant in this case.

What micro-managing are you objecting to?

It is up to OPEC whether or not to increase oil production. I think they should regardless of the request from the U.S., but it is their and only their decision.

U.S. calls on OPEC and its allies to pump more oil
This strikes me as a reasonable call, considering that
Europe is losing a major energy source. Increased oil
production would ease the economic stress on allies.
This benefits them far more than ourselves because
we can ramp up domestic production.

How would this be micro-managing?

The EU has been working toward de-escalation as well. The U.S. thankfully isn't alone in its efforts.

I see USA & EU cooperating.
This isn't hypocritical, tone deaf, or flexing "American Greatness".

Now? Probably little or nothing. It's too late to do what should have probably been done differently. Different foreign policy could have potentially averted the situation, but 1) there would have been no guarantee even then considering Putin's instability, and 2) the U.S. doesn't have a track record of giving up desire for regional influence even when pursuing such could lead to major diplomatic or military crises.

So if you've no better alternative to current
USA foreign policies regarding the invasion,
why criticize them?

 

[sayak83]

From my perspective, George W. Bush is of the same variety of warmongers as Putin. The only major difference is that Putin may be unhinged enough to use nukes. Bush was self-preserving even at his worst.

I agree. Bush Jr. is as bad a warmonger if not worse, and it was sad to see him and his cronies go unpunished for all the 300,000 - 800,000 deaths caused (directly or indirectly) by his military adventurism in IRAQ. The nearly absolutist powers the US president holds on wars and foreign policy interventions abroad is the cause for this (it was strengthened after 9/11 to the detriment of US democracy) and anything can be shielded under the excuse of patriotism and national security. The only silver lining here is that the US president changes from time to time (unlike Putin or the Chinese guy) and there is some effort underway now to limit the Presidents powers to declare war without Congressional approval. Let's see where it goes.

 

[Debater Slayer]

One highly relevant difference was the Bush wasn't
waging war for conquest. We didn't annex any of
the countries attacked, unlike Russia vs Georgia,
Crimea, & Ukraine. This bespeaks different motives,
portending different future dangers.

Different isn't necessarily better. Looking at Iraq and Afghanistan now, that's not a future I would want for any country I lived in. Conquest was also not even the worst thing Bush could have done given that the war resulted in about 500,000 Iraqi deaths.

Note also that it wasn't just Bush. There was bi-partisan
approval for starting & continuing the wars. Let the blame
fall upon all Dems & Pubs in Congress who participated.

Yes, anyone who knowingly authorized the atrocity bears part of the responsibility. This is far bigger than bipartisan allegiance; both parties participated in enabling and allowing it all to happen.

But let's try not to veer too far from the thread topic, which is the Russian invasion.

 

[sayak83]

Yes but it will take a year or two to build an LNG terminal, even supposing the gas can be supplied from somewhere else.

I am not aware of any large scale process for converting oil to methane. Do you know of one? There isn't enough hydrogen, surely? You would end up with masses of coke.

Something useful to know
How Europe can cut natural gas imports from Russia significantly within a year - News - IEA
What you need to do is to convert liquid or solid hydrocarbons to syngas and then use syngas as replacement for natural gas in the short term. The long term plan is the IEA link above.
Syngas - Wikipedia

 

[Debater Slayer]

What micro-managing are you objecting to?

That of other countries' resources and governments. I think you're aware of the prevalent MO of the U.S. when it comes to that.

U.S. calls on OPEC and its allies to pump more oil
This strikes me as a reasonable call, considering that
Europe is losing a major energy source. Increased oil
production would ease the economic stress on allies.
This benefits them far more than ourselves because
we can ramp up domestic production.

How would this be micro-managing?

What sovereign countries do with their resources is their call, as I said. Asking someone else to foot the bill for one's battles and foreign policy seems too interventionist.

To the U.S. government's credit, at least this time it's only asking and not using military pressure to have its way.

I see USA & EU cooperating.
This isn't hypocritical, tone deaf, or flexing "American Greatness".

The cooperation wasn't what I was criticizing.

So if you've no better alternative to current
USA foreign policies regarding the invasion,
why criticize them?

I didn't. I criticized a specific statement, for the reasons I have already outlined.

 

[Revoltingest]

Different isn't necessarily better.

Some differences matter, & are better.
USA got a bloody nose from the 2 recent wars, yet no material gain.
This has cooled USA's taste for such nation building by war.
Russia got rewarded with 2 territories, Georgia & Ukraine.
Those inspired the invasion of Ukraine.
Thus some differences portend greater likelihood of future risk.

Looking at Iraq and Afghanistan now, that's not a future I would want for any country I lived in. Conquest was also not even the worst thing Bush could have done given that the war resulted in about 500,000 Iraqi deaths.

I disapproved of those wars.
But they aren't the same as Russian invasions.
Nor do they delegitimize our criticism of Russia
or our support for Ukraine.
We will be neither silent nor inactive just cuz
our critics dislike our historical sins.

But let's try not to veer too far from the thread topic, which is the Russian invasion.

I agree....let's not make it about Ameristan's
past misbehavior, lest it be seen as apologetics
for Russia's crushing Ukraine.

 

[Revoltingest]

That of other countries' resources and governments. I think you're aware of the prevalent MO of the U.S. when it comes to that.

Specifics?

What sovereign countries do with their resources is their call, as I said. Asking someone else to foot the bill for one's battles and foreign policy seems too interventionist.

It appears that you're objecting to nations asking for
help in addressing the invasion of Ukraine. You might
see this cooperation as wrong, ie, nations should act
without asking anything of others. I see it as necessary.
Ukraine has asked us for support. We've given some,
eg, weapons. We've denied other, eg, creating a no-fly
zone.
To ask oil producers to step up production strikes me
as reasonable. We don't need it here. Europe does.

The cooperation wasn't what I was criticizing.

Not by that word, but by that deed.

I didn't. I criticized a specific statement, for the reasons I have already outlined.

Was the statement wrong in your opinion?
What should've been said?

 

[Debater Slayer]

I disapproved of those wars.
But they aren't the same as Russian invasions.
Nor do they delegitimize our criticism of Russia
or our support for Ukraine.

Neither of which I said they did; my objection remains only aimed at overstepping into other countries' decisions concerning their resources (primarily oil).

We will be neither silent nor inactive just cuz
our critics dislike our historical sins.

Nobody in power should be silent about what Putin is doing... unless they want to enable him further.