Political Roundtable Part XXX

[nate33]

Also conveniently ignores Republicans overwhelmingly supporting NATO membership for Ukraine in 2014.

The GOP and its lackeys are just shameful.

There has been a massive shift in Republican opinions on NATO expansion in the past 8 years. Most of it thanks to Trump. Republicans of 2022 do not have the same opinions as Republicans of 2014. They have mostly purged the neoCons (Bill Krystal, David Frum, Jennifer Rubin, etc.) from the party. Trump mistakenly courted warmonger John Bolton but that didn't end well, which further pushed the Trump wing of the Republican party away from their previous warmonger tendencies. This doesn't mean that all Republicans are peaceniks or anything, but I'd venture to say that pro-war saber-rattling is now coming from Democrats even more than Republicans.

The fact of the matter is that Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine if Europe could credibly threaten to cripple their economy with sanctions as a deterrence. The problem is, with Europe and America's aggressive attack on fossil fuel production, Europe now needs Russian natural gas more than ever and they can't credibly threatened sanctions on Russia's most meaningful export. Russia is merely taking advantage of the leverage that they have, leverage obtained by the abandonment of Trump's energy policies.

[Zonkerbl]

lots of "blaming the victim" energy in this thread. Russia has had nukes pointed at them from minutes away from West Germany for decades and decades. They tried to retaliate IN THE SIXTIES by putting nukes in Cuba and we booted the mfers out.

[dckingsfan]

Trump's energy policy was "more coal".

And it isn't as simple as restrictions in drilling or fracking – in fact, quite the opposite. My take is that the transition from fossil fuels to renewables is going to be ugly and we as a nation don’t have a good plan (and Trump certainly didn't have one).

• Producers are worried about investing (having been burnt)
• OPEC doesn’t want to increase production (for the same reason)
• Banks having been burnt aren't loaning money
• Investment firms are divesting out of fossil fuels
• US production is now back to pre-pandemic levels
oooo But not accounting for the setback to the reserve levels from Hurricane IDA
• Industry executives have are preaching financial conservatism
oooo Cashflow to shareholders vs. new drilling

OPEC, Russia and others have been careful not to raise oil production for fear that prices could fall if they flood the market. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Russia and a few other producers have roughly eight million barrels of spare capacity.

And

The market is not structurally short on oil supply,” said Bjornar Tonhaugen, head of oil markets for Rystad Energy, a Norwegian energy consulting firm.

And

If OPEC raises production, U.S. producers like Mr. Edwards of Latigo Petroleum will be even more reluctant to drill. So far, he has stuck to the investment plans he made at the beginning of the year to drill just eight new wells over the last eight months.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/04/business/energy-environment/oil-and-gas-prices-clean-energy.html

[dckingsfan]

One more thing - I haven't see the love & peace Rs come out with a proposal to decrease defense spending... but maybe I missed that part of their platform?

[Zonkerbl]

Trump republicans aren't peaceniks, like Nate said - they're just not actively rattling sabers either. They see Putin as a tovarisch who they feel comfortable working with, given they have very similar politics and attitudes towards representative democracy.

[Pointgod]

Ask the Ukrainians who they think is culpable.

Underestimating Russia and its resolve to protect its interests squarely falls onto the shoulders of the USA and its NATO partners.

How would the US react if the tables were turned with Russian allies establishing foothold in South America?

Forcing eastward NATO expansion was a blunder of epic proportions.

Well considering that the US has faced criticism worldwide as an occupying force in Iraq, they’d be in the wrong for military action unprovoked. Diplomacy is an option and it shouldn’t be only brought up in one sided criticism of the US.

The argument that you’re making is that Mexico would be justified in attacking the southern US because Texas was at one time part of Mexico and it’s in their interests to take territory from the US. I’d assume national interests kind of stop when you’re invading a sovereign nation unprovoked.

Acting like Putin would only expand his influence in Europe because of NATO is the equivalent of the abuser saying blaming his wife for hitting her.

[dobrojim]

Trump's energy policy was "more coal".

And it isn't as simple as restrictions in drilling or fracking – in fact, quite the opposite. My take is that the transition from fossil fuels to renewables is going to be ugly and we as a nation don’t have a good plan (and Trump certainly didn't have one).

• Producers are worried about investing (having been burnt)
• OPEC doesn’t want to increase production (for the same reason)
• Banks having been burnt aren't loaning money
• Investment firms are divesting out of fossil fuels
• US production is now back to pre-pandemic levels
oooo But not accounting for the setback to the reserve levels from Hurricane IDA
• Industry executives have are preaching financial conservatism
oooo Cashflow to shareholders vs. new drilling

OPEC, Russia and others have been careful not to raise oil production for fear that prices could fall if they flood the market. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Russia and a few other producers have roughly eight million barrels of spare capacity.

And

The market is not structurally short on oil supply,” said Bjornar Tonhaugen, head of oil markets for Rystad Energy, a Norwegian energy consulting firm.

And

If OPEC raises production, U.S. producers like Mr. Edwards of Latigo Petroleum will be even more reluctant to drill. So far, he has stuck to the investment plans he made at the beginning of the year to drill just eight new wells over the last eight months.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/04/business/energy-environment/oil-and-gas-prices-clean-energy.html

Improved technology and design has already allowed for increased economic growth to occur
simultaneously with decreased energy usage. ie the amount of energy required to produce $1 of GDP
is declining and has been for a number of years. Lovins predicted this and now believes that this
trend is likely to continue and/or accelerate.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad965

Yet empirically, modern energy efficiency is, and shows every sign of durably remaining, an expanding-quantity, declining-cost resource. Its adoption is constrained by major but correctable market failures and increasingly motivated by positive externalities. Most importantly, in both newbuild and retrofit applications, its quantity is severalfold larger and its cost lower than most in the energy and climate communities realize. The efficiency resource far exceeds the sum of savings by individual technologies because artfully choosing, combining, sequencing, and timing fewer and simpler technologies can save more energy at lower cost than deploying more and fancier but dis-integrated and randomly timed technologies.

[queridiculo]

lots of "blaming the victim" energy in this thread. Russia has had nukes pointed at them from minutes away from West Germany for decades and decades. They tried to retaliate IN THE SIXTIES by putting nukes in Cuba and we booted the mfers out.

I think it's possible to recognize US foreign policy **** ups while also recognizing that Putin is a megalomaniac ****.

Those aren't exactly two competing ideas, nor is it victim blaming.

[queridiculo]

Ask the Ukrainians who they think is culpable.

Underestimating Russia and its resolve to protect its interests squarely falls onto the shoulders of the USA and its NATO partners.

How would the US react if the tables were turned with Russian allies establishing foothold in South America?

Forcing eastward NATO expansion was a blunder of epic proportions.

Well considering that the US has faced criticism worldwide as an occupying force in Iraq, they’d be in the wrong for military action unprovoked. Diplomacy is an option and it shouldn’t be only brought up in one sided criticism of the US.

The argument that you’re making is that Mexico would be justified in attacking the southern US because Texas was at one time part of Mexico and it’s in their interests to take territory from the US. I’d assume national interests kind of stop when you’re invading a sovereign nation unprovoked.

Acting like Putin would only expand his influence in Europe because of NATO is the equivalent of the abuser saying blaming his wife for hitting her.

The argument that I am making is that Putin's reaction was predictable and that NATO's framing of Russia as a persistent threat to peace in Europe was a self-fulfilling prophecy.

There is countless material out there on the subject, Putin's actions are the chickens coming home to roost.

Interesting read if you have a minute.

edit:
https://fr.art1lib.org/book/9647073/f5bad5

[TGW]

How ridiculous….the link isn’t working.

Anyway, Putin has been warning since like 9 months ago that if he sees nato or western penetration into the donetsk region, he will retailiate. The western forces actually pulled his bluff months ago and moved into the province, and then Putin started building forces up as a response. Not sure why western media is acting like this is some sneak attack…this is months in the making. Actually years in the making.

[queridiculo]

How ridiculous….the link isn’t working.

Anyway, Putin has been warning since like 9 months ago that if he sees nato or western penetration into the donetsk region, he will retailiate. The western forces actually pulled his bluff months ago and moved into the province, and then Putin started building forces up as a response. Not sure why western media is acting like this is some sneak attack…this is months in the making. Actually years in the making.

Sorry, I directy linked to the pdf.

https://fr.art1lib.org/book/9647073/f5bad5

[closg00]

I see that the Russian investment in flooding U.S social media platforms with Russian propaganda over the years has been wildly successful, Ronald Reagan is turning-over in his grave.

[nate33]

I see that the Russian investment in flooding U.S social media platforms with Russian propaganda over the years has been wildly successful, Ronald Reagan is turning-over in his grave.

Ah yes, I see we are at the "everything I disagree with is Russian propaganda" stage of the discussion.

[pancakes3]

Underestimating Russia and its resolve to protect its interests squarely falls onto the shoulders of the USA and its NATO partners.

How would the US react if the tables were turned with Russian allies establishing foothold in South America?

Forcing eastward NATO expansion was a blunder of epic proportions.

Well considering that the US has faced criticism worldwide as an occupying force in Iraq, they’d be in the wrong for military action unprovoked. Diplomacy is an option and it shouldn’t be only brought up in one sided criticism of the US.

The argument that you’re making is that Mexico would be justified in attacking the southern US because Texas was at one time part of Mexico and it’s in their interests to take territory from the US. I’d assume national interests kind of stop when you’re invading a sovereign nation unprovoked.

Acting like Putin would only expand his influence in Europe because of NATO is the equivalent of the abuser saying blaming his wife for hitting her.

The argument that I am making is that Putin's reaction was predictable and that NATO's framing of Russia as a persistent threat to peace in Europe was a self-fulfilling prophecy.

There is countless material out there on the subject, Putin's actions are the chickens coming home to roost.

Interesting read if you have a minute.

edit:
https://fr.art1lib.org/book/9647073/f5bad5

your linked article (1) writes from the vantage of evaluating British policy; (2) glibly assumes that the will of the Russian people post-USSR isfor cooperation with the West*; (3) equates the will of the Russian people with that of its leadership; (4) at the time of publication, Putin had seized control and there is significantly more literature from that era decrying Putin installing "neo-stalinsim" and that the westernization "put a McDonald's in Red Square" brand of diplomacy was decidedly less effective.

* or not so glibly, but at least does so with much handwaving

Read on Twitter

but I still reject the assertion that this invasion amounts to the US being a bratty 5 year old playing the "not touching you" game with a 3 year old. it overstates the U.S.'s aggression and infantilizes Russia. I don't even want to get into the energy discussion, it's so dumb.

[closg00]

I see that the Russian investment in flooding U.S social media platforms with Russian propaganda over the years has been wildly successful, Ronald Reagan is turning-over in his grave.

Ah yes, I see we are at the "everything I disagree with is Russian propaganda" stage of the discussion.

Getting a segment of the U.S population to side with a Dictator invading a sovereign country and against all of the U.S.'s allies trying to stop it, is a remarkable achievement in propaganda.

[pancakes3]

the russian people themselves are protesting the invasion and idiot Nate here is saying "well them's the breaks. when you mess with the bull, you get the horns."

[TGW]

I see that the Russian investment in flooding U.S social media platforms with Russian propaganda over the years has been wildly successful, Ronald Reagan is turning-over in his grave.

Ah yes, I see we are at the "everything I disagree with is Russian propaganda" stage of the discussion.

Getting a segment of the U.S population to side with a Dictator invading a sovereign country and against all of the U.S.'s allies trying to stop it, is a remarkable achievement in propaganda.

Has nothing to do with propaganda. If Texas seceded from the United States and then became a Russian satellite country, would you not see that as a problem? That is basically what happened. Has nothing to do with Russian propaganda…simply ridiculous considering pretty much every media outlet with a voice has a pro-western stance.

Edit: also, how many Americans actually care about this in reality? Most Americans couldn’t point out the Ukraine on a map, let alone care about them getting attacked. The average American is more concerned about gas prices and sending their kids back to school then provocation in the Donetsk region. So if Russian propaganda in the media (lol I still laugh at that) even reached a sliver of 1% of the population I’d be surprised.

[doclinkin]

Ask the Ukrainians who they think is culpable.

Underestimating Russia and its resolve to protect its interests squarely falls onto the shoulders of the USA and its NATO partners.

How would the US react if the tables were turned with Russian allies establishing foothold in South America?

So the only error in the Bay of Pigs invasion was that we should have brought more tanks?

If Mexico elected a socialist government there's zero chance the US rolls across the border with heavy armor. We'd do what we usually do when unaligned governments take over in our hemisphere: we undermine the new government, train local insurgents, perhaps perform a few assassinations, create disadvantageous financial situations, and funnel money and assistance to opposition parties.

We don't even fly drone strikes in our hemisphere, that is reserved for faraway (generally muslim) brown folks who have fewer friends and relatives living, working, and voting here.

No, a land war in our hemisphere is not the way we play it. Not for us fomenting political insurrection in a nearby border country.

That would be like US invading Crimea for the Russians foisting Trump upon us.

[nate33]

the russian people themselves are protesting the invasion and idiot Nate here is saying "well them's the breaks. when you mess with the bull, you get the horns."

U.S. citizens protested our war in Vietnam and Iraq. What's your point?

I never said Putin was right to invade Ukraine, or that Putin had full backing of every last Russian citizen. All I said was that Putin waited until he had the leverage to do this because he knows the rest of the western world is too dependent on his fossil fuels to impose any effective sanctions. The West is all talk at this point and Putin called their bluff.

We need to be less worried about Putin's motivations and more cognizant of the fact that the West is no longer the world power they perceive themselves to be.

[closg00]

Ah yes, I see we are at the "everything I disagree with is Russian propaganda" stage of the discussion.

Getting a segment of the U.S population to side with a Dictator invading a sovereign country and against all of the U.S.'s allies trying to stop it, is a remarkable achievement in propaganda.

Has nothing to do with propaganda. If Texas seceded from the United States and then became a Russian satellite country, would you not see that as a problem? That is basically what happened. Has nothing to do with Russian propaganda…simply ridiculous considering pretty much every media outlet with a voice has a pro-western stance.

Edit: also, how many Americans actually care about this in reality? Most Americans couldn’t point out the Ukraine on a map, let alone care about them getting attacked. The average American is more concerned about gas prices and sending their kids back to school then provocation in the Donetsk region. So if Russian propaganda in the media (lol I still laugh at that) even reached a sliver of 1% of the population I’d be surprised.

The former USSR disbanded in 1991 and Ukraine has been a struggling Democracy since...with it's own elected President, Putin doesn't get a do-over now just because he is murderous Dictator and thug. The Putin apologist position is F Ukraine sovereignty, let Putin do what he wants.