Well, yeah. There is a lot going on at the same time now elsewhere as well.
We may be living in interesting times unfortunately…
This is a long article, but a very worthwhile read for all of those who are concerned about the future of the US.
3 Likes
nobgobblers…the best.
1 Like
3.5 million tonnes is hardly worth mentioning. That is less than 5% of US total LNG capacity, and no one was buying it. LNG prices are still nowhere near their 2011-2016 average, and that is in the context of spiking natural gas prices now, versus a long market then. It is a comment utterly uninformed by knowledge of the LNG market.
Never the less, there is an element of Do as I say and not as I do I, I think. This annoys some intellectuals, valid or not.
Short of shipping it to Europe for free, I am not sure what the expectation is. For FFS, it was a term coined by a Trump appointee, and was widely recognized as stupid at the time, and some European journo thinks it was the Marshall Plan?
I don’t know what they think. Bruno isn’t an idiot, but I doubt energy politics is his special field. Like me, Bruno is still bitter about Afghanistan though, so like me he is probably skeptical of everything the US does geopolitically going forward and re-tweets some what knee-jerkish, US critical tweets concerning geopolitics. Everyone has their prejudices, I myself have gained quite a few after the US republican party nominated Trump, he managed to win, and even went through a full term without getting sacked. That can’t be forgotten (certainly not by me, I will be cautious of the US for the rest of my life).
But it’s Henry Foy who writes for the Financial Times and who is supposed to be the economy guy here.
Personally I don’t know. I don’t know that much about the LNG market at all, other than what I read about Russia and from Norwegian news (since we sell it too) and I don’t spend time reading up about it, particularly now during a terribly important flash point in Ukraine which takes absolutely all my attention.
So I guess I posted it because I have prejudices, saw it as US hypocrisy, and I am very bitter concerning recent US geopolitics and their “pivot to Asia” and etc., etc., etc. But this is not my field so happy to be educated.
I mixed in a couple of insensible, and quite unrelated (i.e. current admin is not the Trump admin), prejudices above. Mostly to show that they have them.
The thing is, I don’t think you can truly understand what is happening with Ukraine without understanding the natural gas situation (less the LNG, but the pipe and LNG gas markets interlink). If the US was actually capable of supplying Europe’s natural gas demand at anything remotely close to a competitive price, the entire situation would be radically different. That was one of the many reasons why the ‘molecules of freedom’ idea was absurd on the face of it. Russia has the commanding heights in this situation, Europe really cannot take a strong position. Gazprom supplies ~ 175 billion cubic meters of natural gas to Europe per annum, which is about the same amount of energy as 1/4 of the global LNG market. US production is growing, and will soon be the largest globally, but it won’t be 25% of world production.
1 Like
Seriously what can the US and EU do except… TALK? Seriously war is just a matter of Putin being crazy and going full crazy. If Putin says fuck it, I gonna walk into Kiev, what will these powers do? Sanctions? Yea that works. I hate wars because only the common people suffer. And there is no solution seriously because all the chips are in Putins hand, the only reason why there is no invasion yet is not because Putin is afraid but he wants to see what he can wring out of these powers before he decides he wants to go full crazy or not.
Well, I understand that at least. You mention the rather big glaring problem and the very cause of Nordstream 2. When I said I didn’t understand the LNG, market in detail I didn’t mean that to mean that I don’t know anything about the energy situation in Europe. That is after all much of what is at stake.
I don’t mind admitting gaps in my knowledge or point to my known prejudices, but it shouldn’t be read as I say I know nothing about the geopolitical situation between energy hungry Europe, Ukraine, Russia and the US, @Arminius
He isn’t going to walk into Kyiv. No one really thinks that Russia is interested in occupying western Ukraine and fight an insurrection. Far more likely if they go in, that they destroy or mangle the Ukrainian army, threaten Kyiv with encirclement, take territory along the Dnieper/support a Separatist offensive to grab some Donbas land, maybe Kharkiv region and Mariupol too.
But they are not going west of the Dnieper. The Russians are not fools. If they attack, and it it still an if, then they want a “Short Victorious War” leading to Kyiv signing a very unfavorable document (for Ukraine). Russia wants guarantees there won’t be NATO troops or equipment and that Ukraine is never admitted to NATO and preferably not the EU etc.
But occupation of Western Ukraine is unrealistic and probably not something Russia wants. Rememeber how bad the Ukrainian economy is too, how much corruption there is. That drain of all drains on top of a hostile civilian population ? Not likely. The Russians have however long range fires, ballistic missiles, which can devastate the Ukrainian army and force a military collapse and then Russian military doctrine is to encircle battalions in boilers, and kill them with artillery and fires, using mechanised formations and irregulars for mop up. But I dare say that invasion of Western Ukraine is extremely unlikely except to force a capitulation. In that event, Russia will pull back to the east of the Dnieper, almost certainly.
But yeah, solution seems very difficult since Russia wants a Sphere of Interest in all Ex-Soviet republics.
Edit: My point is that the Ukrainian population that is quite split, is in the east and not the west of the country. Holding territory where circa 50% or more of the population views you favourably, is very different than holding territory where 80% + views you very unfavourably in military technical terms. Also, Ukraine’s heavy industry is in the east and south east mostly. Strategic targets that offers some value.
1 Like
Was not implying that you did understand the Nordstream angle, but rather the relation/scale between Russian export of NG to Europe versus what is even possible in the LNG market. The ‘freedom molecules’ idea was absurd from the first, and the journo complaining about 3.5 Mt not going to Europe actually gives it perverse credence. The US will be the world’s largest producer of LNG not later than 2025, and it still won’t be able to even move the needle. Even leaving aside the volume issue, the price is in a different frame. JKM was just below $50 this week, Gazprom is delivering at ~$550 per 10k m3, about a quarter of the cost.
The US cannot provide Europe with energy on a meaningful scale, and there is no prospect of it doing so any time soon (we’ll leave aside those pesky climate commitments).
1 Like
Yeah, it was probably silly and I probably shouldn’t have retweeted it. I should be more cautious and critical.
But yes, American gas that the US tried to pressure Germany into buying instead of Russian is of course as you say, far more expensive and with no infrastructure in place. I guess this energy situation pretty much defines Geopolitics as a subject really. It’s difficult, and some weak parties are bound to suffer because that difficulty precisely. And weak alliance free states ? Shudders
The real takeaway from ‘freedom gas’ was always that the US government was in the hands of not particularly serious people who were utterly incompetent, and seemingly unaware of that.
2 Likes
@gasband Sorry, some experts do indeed think that Russia can take Ukraine, as in the entire country and that this could be an objective, and not no one like I said (sorry about that). I don’t think so at all though, I believe Putin likes overwhelming victories with choice strategic targets to annex if he wants to. Russia wants to be seen as invincible, it is their image, the invincible dangerously unpredictable bear that is. Protracted warfare is expensive and yields dubious value, while a limited war with a crushing victory could achieve what is needed, i.e. full and total castration of Ukraine and some sort of Minsk 3 agreement that will really be a capitulation document, as well as a mega huge propaganda victory internally and externally. Therefore, in the event of invasion, I strongly think Russia will use complete and total overwhelming force to demolish Ukrainian morale and force some nasty facts on the ground, maybe cut Ukraine in two, threaten but not actually take Kyiv. Maybe invade Western Ukraine too, but most probably pull back to the east after a negotiated settlement.
That US government damaged me in a way sadly. Because seeing the entire Republican party go along with it, shook me to my very core. I will always view the US differently and will likely always be skeptical of US guarantees and the wisdom of (we all know they have very bright people over there) their leaders concerning foreign policy, as well as the advice they get from people around them. And Biden disappointed me terribly with following up Trump’s policies in Afghanistan. I cannot forgive it. Low cost operation, and he gave Pakistan a strategic victory and invigorated every jihadist group, every insurrectionist, under the sun for decades to come. Just hold on for 2 decades with a low intensity insurgence and the US will yield. Every one has taken notice. So I have to consciously struggle to be less biased, because I am still furious with the US due to Afghanistan, and completely disgusted by their political culture and the fact that one of their great two parties is now 100% philosophically corrupt.
1 Like
@Magnus, I suppose the U.S. should have stayed in Afghanistan forever? It was never in our national interest to “nation build” in Afghanistan and was one of Bush’s policy blunders in responding to 911, a minor one when compared to invading Iraq, which handed that nation to the influence of Iran.
As to Ukraine, why should the U.S. take the lead there? Strategically, of far less importance to the U.S. than to Europe. Of course, Europe will not lead in its own back yard. This is the fallacy of the European Union. Of course, the U.S. is the de facto leader of NATO, due to the size of our military, but, really, this should change, too, which was one of the few good points Donald Trump made.
1 Like
Traditionally the answer of course is far less about Ukraine than it is about opposing Russia. With the way Putin has infiltrated US domestic politics anything overt from the US is simply out of the question and would be opposed by near 50% of the country. Not because we we’re war weary, but because they’d rather side with Russia than a Democrat.
1 Like
The United States set the mission parameters, and later changed them, for Afghanistan. The United States invoked Article 5 of the NATO pact, dragging the entire alliance in. That it was deeply unwise and that the policy was naive is besides the point and completely irrelevant to the responsibility the United States have having done the above. I don’t think it matters much what you think was or not was in your National Interest, The US did think so at the time and responsibility lie squarely with the United States no matter what you think was your actual interest (that I would agree with you is also irrelevant, when the war is actually launched and the mission later changed).
The US has taken the lead there. Google Victoria Nuland and Ukraine, then google who lobbied for eastern European (ex-Soviet republics) to become part of NATO and in so doing clashing with Russian interests, setting up flashpoints for a later date. You write as if the US should act, fuck up the geopolitics of Europe, then just say “nah, never-mind, not our responsibility anymore, we’ll leave you at the mercy of angry Russians, ta da !” and that is infuriating (when the United States puts European countries at risk and persuades European countries to a certain course of action, it has a clear responsibility). Again, what you think is in the actual US National Interest does not play a role, what the US does and how it acts does. When you act, you become responsible for said actions. As for what you write about the European Union, I would tend to agree, however, which state is pushing and pushing and pushing, always blocking every European security idea and project ? The United States. The United States because the United States sees it in it’s interest to that the European Union does not have a security pact. Your latter point comes across as rude to me, because again, the United States leads because it wants to lead and because it is in US interests and allows no space for anyone else to do so. You may not agree with your state, but your state pursues those policies with gusto and has done so since the Second World War. When you choose a certain course of action, you follow through. Having great power comes with a greater responsibility and that is not just a Marvel saying.
However, I agree fundamentally with may of your points, but it does not matter, since the US pursues another policy and the US establishment thinks otherwise. I also happen to think that Europe should embark on widespread rearmament and would have voted for a political party that pursued that myself. Incidentally, partly because I now view the United States to be deeply unreliable but that’s besides the point. However, the US has forced European countries to adjust their defense dramatically, for Int Ops, so European countries are no longer set up well for actual invasion defense, but rather to be cogs in the wheel of US led NATO Int Ops. That must change, and will take a very long time and a hell of a lot of money, incidentally also thanks to the US since this was what they were pushing for. But sure, defense spending is much too low, I agree and have always agreed with that. Invasion defense is built down thanks to the US though, special expeditionary and very costly units built up instead; to support the US.
In my opinion, European countries needs to ditch the reliance on the US, say “fuck you too”, to the US, and pursue a Defence policy akin to Finland, but integrated with other European countries that share actual cultural values. More expensive, but much less frustrating and more reliable. The problem then becomes the lack of nukes if a Nordic alliance would come into effect (some want this, I don’t, since we need nukes). We would need nukes and no one wants those and those who have them would not let others get them. An alternative is a European Union based Defense Treaty, but this clashes with the United States, since the United States will do all in its power to block that.
But certainly, if the US wants to pursue a clash with China, then that is fundamentally not a European Interest and we need to do everything in our power not to join that train-wreck in the making in my personal view. Here of course most will disagree, since most Europeans are staunchly pro-NATO like I used to be. I still am pro-NATO at this point in time, but I have become a NATO skeptic due to US actions and think we should actively look for other solutions so we do not have to be led to the brink of doom by the US any longer. But for now, NATO is the prudent and best choice. However, European states needs to increase their defense capabilities, tone down the expeditionary over-costed elements, and build up proper invasion defense once again. And when I say tone down the expeditionary elements I mean the limited ability to project force to another continent while relying on US air power and naval power to protect such a deployment. We should never tone down the expeditionary element to aid each other by land. But since the US does not care about us, we need to care about ourselves a lot more.
Anyway, that was a lot of opinions, some emotional, some less so, in a short time and not every one has been going through deep thinking, so don’t be surprised if I change my mind on some points later on.
3 Likes