Russia-Ukrainian War

[no_free_lunch]

2 hours ago, Castanza said:

That doesn’t answer the question as to why the US is taking the lead. At the end of all this who do you think will incur the majority of the cost? People have been war weary in the states for well over a decade and have been very critical of military spending. Now all of a sudden that stance goes out the window? The US is pricing itself out future power by constantly expending itself and footing the bill. We have enough problems back home to deal with. When you try to apply morality to geo politics you end up with situations like Vietnam, Kosovo, Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq. NATO went from being a defensive tool to an offensive regime changing tool and it has failed miserably. NATO is what lead to this entire situation. 
 

If Russia takes Ukraine what changes? I’m skeptical of the view that Russia would push any further. Disregarding their ability to even do so, where would they go and why? 
 

I would rather the US take in the refuges than fork over billions of dollars with zero oversight to a nation with very corrupt politics. 
 

Our current involvement is possibly going to drag us into a land war. Very few militaries including ours is prepared for a land war. Ukraine was one of the largest armies in Europe equipped to fight a land war. While the US and other nations have been perfecting small unit tactics, Russia has been practicing and focusing on large scale land warfare. People are not giving them credit where credit is due. Look at the US in 03. Logistics were a mess and we barely took on an already weak Iraq army. 

From my layman perspective it seems like we are spending a lot of money now and future by prolonging the inevitable. What we’re doing now is simply destroying more infrastructure and ultimately draining resources. 
 

I think negotiation should be top priority 

 

If Russia is going to take Ukraine in the end then whose infrastructure is being destroyed?

 

[Castanza]

1 hour ago, no_free_lunch said:

If Russia is going to take Ukraine in the end then whose infrastructure is being destroyed?

 

Is there a winner if all the infrastructure is destroyed? There are certainly a lot losers. If Ukraine holds off Russia and Putin runs away with his tail between his legs but all their infrastructure and industry is destroyed are the people there better off? How many will stay? How much will it cost? Who will pay?
 

Why is Ukraine already asking for money to rebuild? The war shows no signs of slowing. 

Record breaking amounts of lobbying for Ukraine; many “pro bono”. 10k contacts made with congress before the war even started . More than the Saudis. Think Tanks, Lawyers, you name it.
 

How is it that Zelensky can claim he is being hunted constantly by spec ops and survived multiple attacks yet somehow the guy doesn’t miss a zoom meeting to ask for money? 

 

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/23188403/inside-ukraine-foreign-lobbying-blitz-washington-fara-justice

 

There is undoubtedly a shit ton of fraud going on. “Never let a good crisis go to waste” 

 

Paging Dick Cheney 

Edited July 9, 2022 by Castanza

[changegonnacome]

3 hours ago, Castanza said:

From my layman perspective it seems like we are spending a lot of money now and future by prolonging the inevitable. What we’re doing now is simply destroying more infrastructure and ultimately draining resources. 

 

Exactly right......Star Trek had the prime directive, you know don't interfere on other planets civilizations because your interference can have unintended consequences & not be welcome in the long run.....its a piece of wisdom wrapped up in a space soap opera.

 

Nobody of course can prove me right or wrong on this one.....but if the US & allies hadn't flooded Ukraine with arms sustaining the conflict & their belief they could "beat" the Russians back over their border......this war would already be over & Ukraine would be in better shape than it is today & in the future.......and the crazy thing is the peace deal would look exactly like the deal Zelinsky kite flyed two weeks after the whole thing started > Ukrainian neutrality, Minsk Agreement solution in the East.....Putin would have packed up & left, if you believe like me, that his ultimate aim from the get go and for the last decade really was a neutral Ukraine in a classic military buffer state sense............but I know lots of people in this thread are signed up to the Putin is an expansionist lunatic, hell bent on occupying Ukraine (with 250,000 soldiers  ), recreating the USSR & then marching on to take Poland, Lithuania, East Germany. That idea though is just pure nonsense and a media/politcal invention that doesnt stand up to a second a logic....the easiest of which just requires you to read the CIA's intelligence reports of the number of troops amassed in Russia/Belarus before the conflict began.....an army so large it would struggle to capture & but more importantly hold the State of Wyoming, never mind a country of 70 million people. Some people will believe anything.

Edited July 9, 2022 by changegonnacome

[no_free_lunch]

OK let's examine this logic change vs reality.  So it's impossible for Putin to invade, but yet he surrounded Kiev for a month, he has taken Mariupol and this in spite of the west providing weapons.  How did that happen if .. Putin can't win?   I don't even want to get into the details. From a simple logic perspective, you are saying he couldn't invade Ukraine and yet.. he took huge portions, inspite of our weapons.  Some people will believe anything, yeah I can tell.

 

Edited July 9, 2022 by no_free_lunch

[no_free_lunch]

2 hours ago, Castanza said:

Is there a winner if all the infrastructure is destroyed? There are certainly a lot losers. If Ukraine holds off Russia and Putin runs away with his tail between his legs but all their infrastructure and industry is destroyed are the people there better off? How many will stay? How much will it cost? Who will pay?
 

Why is Ukraine already asking for money to rebuild? The war shows no signs of slowing. 

Record breaking amounts of lobbying for Ukraine; many “pro bono”. 10k contacts made with congress before the war even started . More than the Saudis. Think Tanks, Lawyers, you name it.
 

How is it that Zelensky can claim he is being hunted constantly by spec ops and survived multiple attacks yet somehow the guy doesn’t miss a zoom meeting to ask for money? 

 

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/23188403/inside-ukraine-foreign-lobbying-blitz-washington-fara-justice

 

There is undoubtedly a shit ton of fraud going on. “Never let a good crisis go to waste” 

 

Paging Dick Cheney 

 

You do not understand what is going on there. This is not a game. Yes, scorched earth is better than slavery and holocaust.  Wake the fuck up and stop making this about yourself.

Edited July 9, 2022 by no_free_lunch

[no_free_lunch]

This is what happened the last time Russia ruled Ukraine.  State induced famine that killed millions of people. if you don't want to help, fine fuck off. But do not start with this bullshit about oh they would be better off.  Selfish clowns.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

Edited July 9, 2022 by no_free_lunch

[Castanza]

9 hours ago, no_free_lunch said:

 

You do not understand what is going on there. This is not a game. Yes, scorched earth is better than slavery and holocaust.  Wake the fuck up and stop making this about yourself.

I don’t understand what’s going on there yet you equate it to slavery and the Holocaust…. 

 

Putin has been saying and has said what he was going to do since the 2000’s. He’s doing exactly what he said he was going to do. 
 

2008 - Bucharest NATO Summit

- NATO discussed expansion and recognizing Ukraine. Russia explicitly drew a line in the sand and said what they would do and why. 
 

6 years go by and NATO pushed on with their goals. Then you have the 2014 Russian response in Crimea.
 

Another 8 years go by and the west continues to ignore the line drawn in the sand. 

 

 

9 hours ago, no_free_lunch said:

This is what happened the last time Russia ruled Ukraine.  State induced famine that killed millions of people. if you don't want to help, fine fuck off. But do not start with this bullshit about oh they would be better off.  Selfish clowns.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

The Soviet Union fell a long time ago. 
 

Why are you not pounding the table for the dozen other wars going on around the globe? Don’t call me selfish because you can’t separate your emotion from reality. 

 

Here you go

https://fightforua.org/

Edited July 9, 2022 by Castanza

[changegonnacome]

24 minutes ago, no_free_lunch said:

From a simple logic perspective, you are saying he couldn't invade Ukraine and yet.. he took huge portions, inspite of our weapons.  Some people will believe anything, yeah I can tell.

 

Dont think you understood what i was saying……i should have been clearer………folks in this thread have Putin as an expansionist hell bent on re-creating the USSR and taking back Ukraine “forever” melding it back into the Russian Federation & in their wild fantasies he marches on to Warsaw & into East Germany………but look at the evidence…….he amassed a small fighting force on the borders of Ukraine in February……a really minuscule amount of forces 190,000 to 250,000 men as per the CIA….……..you can invade and capture a lot of territory with an army like that, on a good day maybe you get all the way to Kyiv if you catch the Ukranian’s flat footed………..but here’s the rub & the key point the expansionists need to grapple with…….…….can you occupy and control even a medium sized city with such a tiny army?Never mind the administrative capital Kyiv + other cities + plus plus plus the rest of Ukraine with that many troops? No you cant. Its mathematically impossible. It would be like trying to buy the Empire State building for a $10,000, I mean you can try but its not gonna work out. I mean somebody please try and explain away this key piece of logic & in no way did he Putin believe somehow the Western Ukranian people would like welcome Russian tanks into Kyiv. That is nonsense. So the expansionist theorists have a problem. The maths dont work.

 

So we have a problem with the expansion theory of what Putin was doing in February unless someone has logical explaintion to the above for me……..was he really planning to take control of the WHOLE of Ukraine and fold it into mother Russia with 250,000 troops? Not even a deluded president advised by spineless generals 6 months out of a Moscow academy would be dumb enough to suggest that and Putin is not a fool. So as I say put the Putin invading, capturing AND occupying Ukraine narrative out of your head the facts dont back it up.

 

So what was his calculation……..my guess…….was he hoped for a super successful blitzergreig to Kyiv, Russian troops walking around the halls of Government buildings of Kyiv in a few days or a couple of weeks, scare the shit out of Zelensky/the West, rely on a flat footed & uncoordinated response from the West……force Zelensky to a neutrality deal quickly, maybe some concession on Donbass…..Ukraine drifting into the arms of NATO would be stopped for a generation……..Putin has made his point to the West that Russian “red lines” are real and also reminded the EU that peace in Europe isnt a given and that the post-world war security architecture of Europe still have relevancy and Russia’s concerns should be respected not least because it has the worlds largest nuclear arsenal.

 

I think he had very limited military aspirations in February but a very large strategic aspiration - stopping the drift of Ukrane into a deepening military alignment with NATO/the West.

 

What happened? Putin underestimated the effectiveness of the Ukranian army & he under estimated how coordinated the response from the West was going to be with sanctions + military aid and how quickly his fight against the Ukranian army became a fight against the Ukranian + unlimited military equipment from the UK/US etc. i.e a good old fashioned proxy war with the US. Where now I’m fairly positive that Zelensky behind closed doors, as he watches every city that matters in Ukraine reduced to rubble, would love to go back to the “peace deal” he offered no more than three weeks into the conflict but he now knows this deal would look too much like a Russian victory that it would be a problem for his US allies & the hardline Ukranian right, which makes it politically unacceptable. So they fight on.

 

Russia’s response to all this…….fine they would have liked the quick neutrality deal I outlined above two weeks after the war started…….but now they know they are in a proxy war…..where politically Putin cant be seen to “lose” either now to the US/NATO/Ukraine in the same way the US/NATO allies cant be seen to lose. His response is really just to demolish Ukraine back to the stone ages. When Russia “takes” a Ukrainian city…you should go look at the victory photos…..its Russian troops beside a completely bombed out government building with everything in frame completley demolished…….they have no intention of staying/occupying or running administratively large swathes of Ukraine (with the exception of the Russian speaking parts in the East)…they just intend to wreck it & achieve through aerial artillery demolition, what they hoped to achieve with a quick “no NATO” peace deal….a militarily neutered Ukraine.

[Spekulatius]

Putin is not going to mess with NATO territory,  I but he will go into other places where he can. target smay be Caucasus, Kazakstan , he is already in Syria, maybe mess with states around the Persian gulf. He wants to resurrect Russia as a superpower. He is also absolutely ruthless, probably the most ruthless leader since Hitler. Zero moral compass.

 

Claiming that Ukraine would be better off his he had conquered it diss not seem to agree with Ukrainian people which I think are probably the people who know best.

 

On the war, if current conditions exist, the Russian will grind it out and win, if you call it that. We probably have to support them in the long haul, rain their troops on western weapons and supply them in sufficient quantity , train their pilots on F-15’s - the whole nine yards.

Edited July 9, 2022 by Spekulatius

[Castanza]

The best take on the situation imo
 

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/hidden-forces/id1205359334?i=1000565338940

[no_free_lunch]

19 hours ago, Castanza said:

I don’t understand what’s going on there yet you equate it to slavery and the Holocaust…. 

 

Putin has been saying and has said what he was going to do since the 2000’s. He’s doing exactly what he said he was going to do. 
 

2008 - Bucharest NATO Summit

- NATO discussed expansion and recognizing Ukraine. Russia explicitly drew a line in the sand and said what they would do and why. 
 

6 years go by and NATO pushed on with their goals. Then you have the 2014 Russian response in Crimea.
 

Another 8 years go by and the west continues to ignore the line drawn in the sand. 

 

 

The Soviet Union fell a long time ago. 
 

Why are you not pounding the table for the dozen other wars going on around the globe? Don’t call me selfish because you can’t separate your emotion from reality. 

 

Here you go

https://fightforua.org/

 

It's the same people as the soviet union, same tactics.  Putin even was former KGB, those guys were in control the whole time back through the 30's and really back to the 1800's under the czar.  There is a long history of disrespect for life over there.

 

This is what happened in Chechnya, 250k dead out of 1.5m people.  That is all under Putin too.

 

Quote

As many as 250,000 civilians were killed in the combined Chechen wars, along with many thousands more combatants on both sides. Reports of rape, arson, torture, and other crimes by Russian soldiers were widespread — and cast as a wholly necessary evil by those forces. "Without bespredel [no limits warfare], we'll get nowhere in Chechnya," a 21-year-old Russian conscript told the Los Angeles Times in 2000. "We have to be cruel to them. Otherwise, we'll achieve nothing."

 

https://theweek.com/russo-ukrainian-war/1010764/putins-brutal-record-in-chechnya-and-syria-is-ominous-for-ukraine

 

You are also ignoring what even mainstream russia media is saying they will do. They talk about Ukrainian's as less than human and needing to be purged.  Same shit that Hitler used to say.

 

The reason I push this is it's right on Europe's doorstep and Ukraine will not hate on us for helping them.  I would want to help all these countries with their problems but they don't want us in, their own people will attack us.  It's not like that here.   

 

I think this selfishness we are seeing will come back on you all.  Guys like Putin and Xi can see the fear and if we flinch then it just emboldens them.  Right now Russia is contained and can't take the west in a fight but if we let them gain territories the calculation starts to change.  There was a time where we had nothing to fear from China either, now they are a peer to the US, probably could have been prevented or slowed down but we handed it to them.

Edited July 10, 2022 by no_free_lunch

[Xerxes]

Folks. We are all on “team humanity”. Let’s be civil. 
 

That said, from a historical perspective the notion that, Ukraine was some far flung colony of Kremlin and its evil empire, is wrong and yet another western fantasy. 
 

It is correct to say that today Ukrainian people (majority I think) have made a choice and that is to be European and that is what self determination means. But to create a fictional narrative from the Soviet era, with Kiev under Russian jackboot is highly misleading. 
 

Soviet Union was an institution and its two towering pillars were Moscow and Kiev. The latter not only made technological, political and military contribution it was at the very heart of that empire. You had Ukrainian generals, marshals of the Soviet Union, scientists, secretary generals, prime minister, technocrats all contributing to the Soviet Union and its mission. Never mind it’s vast farmlands and industrial base.  

 

This was not at ALL like the British sovereignty of the India, where there was a master-slave relationship. (Of course, Western perspective: we civilized the Indians)
 

Now someone is going to point to the war in the 1920s, so what!!  millions of Russians died during the rule of the Georgian-born non-Russian Joseph Stalin. Trotsky was Ukrainian ! Felix Derzhensky, founder of Cheka and grandfather of KGB was polish background (not Russian). A hero of the war, marshal Rokosovsky was Polish. marshal Timoshinko was Ukrainian (a Soviet Heinz Guderian figure who met his fate during the Red Terror). Of the 3 admiral of the fleet, the Soviet Union had, 1 was Armenian, 1 was of Serbian background and 1 was of Russian background. The company  Mikoyan (Migs) was founded by an Armenian whose brother held position in Stalin’ court. Etc. 

 

support Ukraine for the right reasons. 

But stick to facts. Not fiction and what is convenient to spew at the time.

 

And I said earlier, I very much hope next time there is a genocide elsewhere involving non-whites (don’t look too far we had one in Burma in 2018), and in a not so geopolitical relevant location, you will support those cause with the same fire and passion and get all “Churchillian”. I hope your moral compass does not have an “aeroplane mode”. 
 

 

 

 

Edited July 10, 2022 by Xerxes

[no_free_lunch]

There was a famine in the 30's, intentionally created by the Russian government that killed millions of people Xerxes.  It was designed to purge out resistance from the rural class.  That is not fear mongering that is fact.  Most countries consider it a genocide.

[Xerxes]

52 minutes ago, no_free_lunch said:

There was a famine in the 30's, intentionally created by the Russian government that killed millions of people Xerxes.  It was designed to purge out resistance from the rural class.  That is not fear mongering that is fact.  Most countries consider it a genocide

 

You seem to know more than me about that episode in the first few decades of the USSR. All I know is that millions died of famine and purges etc. So thanks for the clarification. Not that it changes anything for the victims (Ukrainian, Russian or otherwise).   

 

Admitingly I also know very little of U.S. campaign against the native Indian as that the United States was being build up as a nation. 
 

Is that called genocide as well ?

 

 

 

 

Edited July 10, 2022 by Xerxes

[no_free_lunch]

It likely was, certain periods for sure.  However it isn't happening now in the US.  It seems everyone wants to go into the US, they are not running from them.

 

None of that changes the fact that there was a genocide and it is sure relevant when we are discussing whether the Ukrainians would be better off laying down arms.  Could you imagine if Germany was somehow invading Israel, telling them that it's actually better to just get it over with.  Yeah right!  It might explain some of the resistance too, if you understood the blood history.  It's not just a territorial war, it's a fight to exterminate.  Not to kill all Ukrainians but the upper class and anyone who would resist.

Edited July 10, 2022 by no_free_lunch

[Xerxes]

Ok. Agreed. That is fair in the context of your point (which is about what is happening now)

 

my point was that Ukraine was to the Soviet empire what Scotland was to the British empire. A willing participant of its imperial expansion, a major contributor of its industrial war machine, politicians, marshals, generals etc. if there was no Ukraine there would be no Soviet empire as a super power. notwithstanding the early days ….

 

this goes in our “agree but on different points” bucket. 

[Dinar]

2 hours ago, no_free_lunch said:

It likely was, certain periods for sure.  However it isn't happening now in the US.  It seems everyone wants to go into the US, they are not running from them.

 

None of that changes the fact that there was a genocide and it is sure relevant when we are discussing whether the Ukrainians would be better off laying down arms.  Could you imagine if Germany was somehow invading Israel, telling them that it's actually better to just get it over with.  Yeah right!  It might explain some of the resistance too, if you understood the blood history.  It's not just a territorial war, it's a fight to exterminate.  Not to kill all Ukrainians but the upper class and anyone who would resist.

It was a Communist organized famine, not Russian organized famine, there is a difference.   

[Spekulatius]

Just one mans opinion:

 

[changegonnacome]

Prediction time  , lets call it a hunch - I think a peace deal/conflict freeze whatever you want to call it………gets done before year end 22……maybe even sooner…….optimal timing based on the fact Russian casualties/shortage of soldiers/equipment means that a declaration of war from Putin is needed relatively soon if he wants to continue scaling into this conflict…..i think this is a red line for him which i dont think he’ll cross…………PLUS the point of maximum leverage for Russia will be in the early part of this winter………European political leaders will sell their soul once they get back from the beaches of Spain/France/Portugal in late August to avoid what seems inevitably a winter of discontent on the energy/inflation front & Putin knows when to press an advantage…….. all this points to Putin coming to the table I would think in November/December at the latest……I think potentially as early as August/September……..……spicy take but think it gets done…..wrinkle might the US Mid-terms & what suits Zelensky’s US partners but would expect an accerlation of talks to happen after the results are in.

[Spekulatius]

I dont predict anything other than the European leaders having very little influence on the outcome here. Russian gas is done and could be turned off at any moment, so they need to find alternative means to keep home heated the industry going. Lack of power wont be the issue, there is enough spare generation capacity in the grid to keep the light on.

[changegonnacome]

23 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

European leaders having very little influence on the outcome here.

 

Disagree - the international communities support led by the US & EU is the ONLY reason Ukraine has been able remain belligerent in the face of Russian aggression. I don't think anybody can deny that.

 

As we head into the winter......the US is an ocean away both metaphorically & in reality from dealing with the down stream impacts of the conflict and sanctions regime...this is my point....the US can take a principled approach here but European leaders will start to get very pragmatic, very soon when the consequences for them really start to bite.........Europe is facing BOTH higher energy prices than the US (exasperated by a weakening euro vis-à-vis the dollar) but also potential shortages/rationing of ACTUAL gas/heat this winter.

 

Last i checked no US citizen voter is being told to buckle up for a winter where they may not be able to turn on the heat in their homes..........or that their local governments are being told to identify municipal buildings that could be used to house 100's of senior citizens at night time in the event gas gets turned off.

 

My point is European leaders (especially Germany) will become important influencers moving into fall/winter....as these countries and electorate are at the thin end of spear......Joe Sixpack doesnt like that a tank of gas for his F150 costs $100+......but could he countenance being told he cant have ANY gas and that he should plan to sit in his home this winter watching TV with his jacket on? The US administration's attitude would shift radically if this was the case......lets see if the US/EU solidarity on the Ukraine-Russia conflict remains but I expect a splintering coming very soon....which as I've said maybe the catalyst for some imperfect end/freeze to the conflict. You can already hear the solidarity creaking with Macron's off ramp/humiliation language (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/04/world/europe/ukraine-macron-russia-izium.html) 

 

https://www.dw.com/en/german-residents-make-plans-amid-fears-of-a-winter-gas-shortage/a-62482737

Edited July 17, 2022 by changegonnacome

[Viking]

I think as winter approaches we are entering a phase of the Ukraine war i would describe as maximum uncertainty:

1.) how deep will the recession in Europe be if nat gas prices remain where they are today for the next 6-12 months? Can heavy industry in Europe survive? Can European governments afford the required energy bailouts, especially the southern countries?
2.) what will Europe do if Russia cuts back further on gas supplies (driving prices even higher)?
3.) the flip side of 2.) is can Russia even afford to cut off nat gas to Europe? Unlike oil, nat gas cannot be diverted to China and India (until new pipelines are built which will take years). Russia needs $ to keep its war machine going. 
4.) where does Russia take the actual Ukraine war from here? 
5.) does Western resolve hold? Do we reach a breaking point in the coming months in Europe where the economic pain starts to shift the political winds and support for the Ukraine war reverses? 

 

Currently my crystal ball is very, very murky. Normally, after analysis, i will develop a base case that i am fairly confident in. And then over time i try and figure out why i am wrong. Right now i really have no idea how the Ukraine war/ energy crisis in Europe is going to play out over the next 6-12 months. I see a lot of competing forces at work that are not sustainable (i think). The geopolitical risks are as unpredictable as i have seen them in a long time. 
 

What is the investment angle?

1.) one obvious move is to carry a higher than normal cash balance. There is a very good chance that something breaks. Cash is king when that happens.

2.) oil: we are in the middle of an energy crisis that might be as bad as the 1970’s Arab oil embargo. So oil looks interesting should the war in Ukraine drag on or take a turn for the worse.

Edited July 17, 2022 by Viking

[no_free_lunch]

Is there not some risk to Russia in cutting off the natural gas?   I was under the impression that they don't have sufficient pipeline capacity to sell all that nat gas to non Europe buyers.   As a result, it seems this will hit RU quite hard economically and while they are in the middle of a war.  I guess they could just take the pain but I think it's a bluff.  Certainly if they go through it, Europe will take aggressive actions to counter it and I don't know if Russia will ever sell to them again.  On a personal note, I hope it happens, let's get this thing going.

 

There was a report yesterday that crypto transactions were outlawed recently in Russia.  The far right idiots hold Russia up as this paragon of fiscal prudence as there is some sort of gold backing to the currency.  Would such a country really outlaw crypto?  To me it points to a system in financial distress.  Again, it makes me wonder if they have the ability to stop selling to Europe.

Edited July 18, 2022 by no_free_lunch

[changegonnacome]

4 hours ago, no_free_lunch said:

Is there not some risk to Russia in cutting off the natural gas?   I was under the impression that they don't have sufficient pipeline capacity to sell all that nat gas to non Europe buyers. 

 

If you believe Soros from his Davos talk....its actually not a realistic threat from Putin but it seems to work to scare European leaders.

 

Soros's take was this (i believe he sent a letter to Mario Draghi pointing this out) and I havent done any DD on whether this is even remotely true (maybe O&G folks on here will know) but he effectively said you should think of Russian natural gas as a by product of Russian oil production........the wells they have producing oil, produce gas in Siberia.......the gas is effectively sold off at a very basic cost+ model, there is no margin on Russian gas as it isnt fungible and can be only sold to those at the end of gas pipelines like nordstream.....and anyway the real money margin is in the oil......this is fungible and can put on trucks > tankers and sold to the chinese/iranians/global markets or whatever. Refusing gas deliveries would require the shutting down on some Siberian wells.

 

I think Soros's point was that EUROPE should shut off nordstream itself or threaten too or heavily curtail usage....knowing that if Putin had nowhere to send the gas it would actually force the closure of his oil fields which would really harm him & his fiscal positon......anyway this seemed kind of fanciful but who knows.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/soros-urges-europe-heavy-taxes-on-russian-natural-gas-putin-2022-5

[Dinar]

1 hour ago, changegonnacome said:

 

If you believe Soros from his Davos talk....its actually not a realistic threat from Putin but it seems to work to scare European leaders.

 

Soros's take was this (i believe he sent a letter to Mario Draghi pointing this out) and I havent done any DD on whether this is even remotely true (maybe O&G folks on here will know) but he effectively said you should think of Russian natural gas as a by product of Russian oil production........the wells they have producing oil, produce gas in Siberia.......the gas is effectively sold off at a very basic cost+ model, there is no margin on Russian gas as it isnt fungible and can be only sold to those at the end of gas pipelines like nordstream.....and anyway the real money margin is in the oil......this is fungible and can put on trucks > tankers and sold to the chinese/iranians/global markets or whatever. Refusing gas deliveries would require the shutting down on some Siberian wells.

 

I think Soros's point was that EUROPE should shut off nordstream itself or threaten too or heavily curtail usage....knowing that if Putin had nowhere to send the gas it would actually force the closure of his oil fields which would really harm him & his fiscal positon......anyway this seemed kind of fanciful but who knows.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/soros-urges-europe-heavy-taxes-on-russian-natural-gas-putin-2022-5

You can simply flare gas, which is what Putin will do rather than shut down wells.  I am 99.99% confident that Soros is aware of this, the fact that he omits this fact once again shows that he is, while a great investor, not a person to be trusted in my opinion.