Say goodbye to your dear ones "if":

[Revoltingest]

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

Do you think we're applying undue coercion on
oil producing countries? Evidence?

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

Then cut USA some slack in doing the right thing for once.
Let's not offer justification to Putin to expand the Russian
empire to who knows what extent.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Specifics?

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.

This doesn't accurately describe my position. The U.S. has strong influence over most Gulf countries, which makes such a request quite evocative of previous puppet governments and their service to U.S. interests at the cost of their sovereignty and integrity.

Do you think the U.S. won't follow up its request with pressure? History leads me to suspect it might, but I hope I'm wrong to be suspicious.

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.

See my previous question.

Not by that word, but by that deed.

According to your interpretation of it, but I maintain only the positions I have explicitly supported.

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

The statement isn't wrong if it's completely unaccompanied by pressure from the U.S. on any OPEC countries. Do you believe that is or will be the case? Like I said above, I hope my suspicion, based on historical precedents, turns out wrong. You may be more optimistic about this than I am.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Do you think we're applying undue coercion on
oil producing countries? Evidence?

Many of them have long been ruled by puppets of the U.S. Saudi Arabia is a prime example.

This ties into my question in the previous post.

Then cut USA some slack in doing the right thing for once.
Let's not offer justification to Putin to expand the Russian
empire to who knows what extent.

I think it's mistaken to equate criticism of the U.S. with justification for Putin. Supporting the USSR against the Third Reich in WWII didn't necessarily make one a Stalinist, and criticizing it didn't make one a Nazi. George Orwell opposed both but still aligned against Nazis in the war.

 

[Revoltingest]

This doesn't accurately describe my position. The U.S. has strong influence over most Gulf countries, which makes such a request quite evocative of previous puppet governments and their service to U.S. interests at the cost of their sovereignty and integrity.

Whatever sins it evokes in the minds of some, there
is the usefulness of requesting increased production
to offset Russian fuel being embargoed.....unless you
believe this increase would be wrong?

Do you think the U.S. won't follow up its request with pressure?

Some kinds of pressure are legitimate. If a producer
sides with Putin, & intends applying economic pressure
to Europe to force acquiescence to violent Russian
expansionism, then some pressure is warranted, eg,
no longer supporting weapons systems sold to them.

According to your interpretation of it, but I maintain only the positions I have explicitly supported.

There's no subtext in criticism of USA for seeking
cooperation in economic sanctions upon Russia?

The statement isn't wrong if it's completely unaccompanied by pressure from the U.S. on any OPEC countries. Do you believe that is or will be the case? Like I said above, I hope my suspicion, based on historical precedents, turns out wrong. You may be more optimistic about this than I am.

I'm optimistic by nature. But I'm realistic
in seeing the risks of escalating conflict.
We should do what appears best to do.
If critics of these policies object because
of past wrongs, let them step up in our stead.
Be useful.

 

[exchemist]

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.

Yes, for sure and that is good news. But again, it will take 1-2 years minimum before any benefits result. In the short term I think Germany had better revisit its misjudged commitment to phase out nuclear power and put some of its mothballed reactors back into service. Far better that than start burning more coal.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think it's mistaken to equate criticism of the U.S. with justification for Putin.

No equating.
My point:
Whataboutism & apologetics will be used by Putin.
Criticism of wrongful USA foreign actions is fine with
me. I've often criticized may US policies.
But in the context of Russia's invading Ukraine, using
this criticism to decry current policy serves Putin.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Whatever sins it evokes in the minds of some, there
is the usefulness of requesting increased production
to offset Russian fuel being embargoed.....unless you
believe this increase would be wrong?

I believe such an increase would be the ethical/right thing to do. This is different from opposition to foreign interventionism to force sovereign nations to handle their resources in a certain way. Historically, that has led to a lot of corruption and undermining of autonomous decision-making.

Some kinds of pressure are legitimate. If a producer
sides with Putin, & intends applying economic pressure
to Europe to force acquiescence to violent Russian
expansionism, then some pressure is warranted, eg,
no longer supporting weapons systems sold to them.

If a country sides with Putin, sure, pressure is warranted and even necessary. But much of OPEC is already allied with the U.S.

There's no subtext in criticism of USA for seeking
cooperation in economic sanctions upon Russia?

That isn't an accurate description. Instead, it's criticism of typical U.S. MO of feeling entitled to other countries' resources.

I'd be happy to be proven wrong about my skepticism toward the U.S. in this case.

I'm optimistic by nature. But I'm realistic
in seeing the risks of escalating conflict.
We should do what appears best to do.
If critics of these policies object because
of past wrongs, let them step up in our stead.
Be useful.

We don't disagree that escalating conflict would be an undesirable and harmful approach.

 

[Revoltingest]

I believe such an increase would be the ethical/right thing to do. This is different from opposition to foreign interventionism to force sovereign nations to handle their resources in a certain way. Historically, that has led to a lot of corruption and undermining of autonomous decision-making.



If a country sides with Putin, sure, pressure is warranted and even necessary. But much of OPEC is already allied with the U.S.



That isn't an accurate description. Instead, it's criticism of typical U.S. MO of feeling entitled to other countries' resources.

I'd be happy to be proven wrong about my skepticism toward the U.S. in this case.



We don't disagree that escalating conflict would be an undesirable and harmful approach.

For someone who seems to agree with me on the
issues, you sure do argue against them a lot.
I begin to suspect that you'll never immigrate here.

 

[Debater Slayer]

No equating.
My point:
Whataboutism & apologetics will be used by Putin.

I see no apologetics here. "Whataboutism" is debatable, but I can see your point on that.

Criticism of wrongful USA foreign actions is fine with
me. I've often criticized may US policies.
But in the context of Russia's invading Ukraine, using
this criticism to decry current policy serves Putin.

Continually improving the response to Putin doesn't serve him. I would argue the opposite, if anything.

We already agree that sanctions are essential in responding to the invasion and that Putin's actions are indefensible. Other considerations, regardless of disagreement, stem from this.

 

[exchemist]

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

OK, but syngas is not methane. You need to change the burners. That's probably feasible for industry but quite impossible for domestic use, without a massive national campaign. I am old enough to remember when the gas board came round to all the houses to change the burners so we could burn North Sea gas, instead of the town gas (basically syngas) that had been used before. The flame speed is different.

 

[Debater Slayer]

For someone who seems to agree with me on the
issues, you sure do argue against them a lot.
I begin to suspect that you'll never immigrate here.

There are at least a dozen other destinations I would consider before the U.S. for immigration, but I wasn't under the impression the U.S. rejected any immigration applications on the basis of criticism of its government or past actions.

 

[Godobeyer]

Yes I think there is a significant chance of a third World War now. The more brutally Putin's army destroys the cities of Ukraine, and the more of its citizens it kills, the harder it will be for other countries to sit and watch.

I imagine if Russia before (I can't sit and watch) then involved and defend for Vietnam or Iraq or Serbia same way ?
Sit and watch or meet all God soon ?
For my opinion Ukrain gone ,it's because of stupidity of their leaders decisions to approach to West ,while Russia refuse that.

 

[Revoltingest]

There are at least a dozen other destinations I would consider before the U.S. for immigration, but I wasn't under the impression the U.S. rejected any immigration applications on the basis of criticism of its government or past actions.

I surmised that you'd be rejecting us, the Great Satan.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I surmised that you'd be rejecting us, the Great Satan.

No, I'm inclined to believe most Americans are decent and friendly people. The loud minority and the ideologues in power don't represent the whole country.

I'd consider other destinations first for various other reasons.

 

[exchemist]

I imagine if Russia before (I can't sit and watch) then involved and defend for Vietnam or Iraq or Serbia same way ?
Sit and watch or meet all God soon ?
For my opinion Ukrain gone ,it's because of stupidity of their leaders decisions to approach to West ,while Russia refuse that.

The difference is Ukraine is a democratic state, with a government freely chosen by its people. So its government has legitimacy. They approached the West because the West is democratic too and they want to be part of that family, rather than being part of the alternative family, which is one of tyrants, autocrats and secret police.

But you, apparently, think that was a foolish choice on their part: they should have chosen the tyrants and secret police, right?

 

[sayak83]

OK, but syngas is not methane. You need to change the burners. That's probably feasible for industry but quite impossible for domestic use, without a massive national campaign. I am old enough to remember when the gas board came round to all the houses to change the burners so we could burn North Sea gas, instead of the town gas (basically syngas) that had been used before. The flame speed is different.

I kind of work on the topic. We are doing some work with an European company on how to retrofit burners to get about 20% syngas with CH4 without increasing costs too much. If we can reduce CH4 consumption by 20% through introducing syngas, then that becomes a significant part of the solution.

 

[exchemist]

I kind of work on the topic. We are doing some work with an European company on how to retrofit burners to get about 20% syngas with CH4 without increasing costs too much. If we can reduce CH4 consumption by 20% through introducing syngas, then that becomes a significant part of the solution.

Oh that's interesting. I'm aware Keele University has done a pilot project showing you can mix up to 20% hydrogen into the natural gas supply without needing to change the burners. So that fits.

OK so your idea is to mix 20% syngas into the supply, reducing natural gas demand by 20%? It's a thought.

 

[sayak83]

Oh that's interesting. I'm aware Keele University has done a pilot project showing you can mix up to 20% hydrogen into the natural gas supply without needing to change the burners. So that fits.

OK so your idea is to mix 20% syngas into the supply, reducing natural gas demand by 20%? It's a thought.

Yes.

 

[Godobeyer]

The difference is Ukraine is a democratic state, with a government freely chosen by its people. So its government has legitimacy. They approached the West because the West is democratic too and they want to be part of that family, rather than being part of the alternative family, which is one of tyrants, autocrats and secret police.

But you, apparently, think that was a foolish choice on their part: they should have chosen the tyrants and secret police, right?

So The people are responsible to choose bad person to cause a war against Russia ?
USA far from Iran could be 11 thousand km they afraid from Iran nuclear .
How about Russia next to Ukraine,the Ukrain president want nuclear weapon "to recover Crimea" ?

I remember before
Western countries come to maneuvers in black sea next to Crimea, Russia said why you came here ?

I don't justify war , but I think Ukraine leaders was not wise. they decline to West more than Russia.
Should be neutral , because they live next to big brother.

 

[Nimos]

The West destoried (Iraq ,Libya,Yogslavia )and sanction all real allies of Russia,like Iran Cuba Cenezuela.
Ukrain leaders was not smart, they live next big country ,never be allie to their enemy(West )
Would be benefit economy by both sides.be the link between West and Russia ,instead be in side of West or Russia.

I think it is a bit more complicated than that.

Ukraine is a fairly young country and suffers from a split in their populations interest, some prefer Russia and some EU. The west are not enemies of Ukraine, I don't know where you got that from? I don't even think Ukraine were considered an enemy of Russia before all this, sure their were some tensions etc. but that is not the same as referring to them as enemies.

The reason Ukraine can't be part or haven't become part of EU is because they have a lot of issues living up to the rules set by EU, which are in regards to corruption, economics, humanitarian rules etc. that all EU countries have to live up to. Now certain countries joined under the promise of improving these things, which turned out to not really be a good way of doing it. That is why it is a long process to become a member of the EU.

Russia obviously see it as a threat if Ukraine joins the EU and NATO and want to prevent it, so they decided to invade them instead.