Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

[Sir Adrian]

At legios request:

Putin Literally threatened Europe with a nuclear holocaust if the intervene against Russian aggression.

[Vanoi]

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) collects, analyzes, and disseminates independent and impartial energy information to promote sound policymaking, efficient markets, and public understanding of energy and its interaction with the economy and the environment.

https://www.eia.gov/about/

Russia is supplying more oil to the U.S. than any other foreign producer aside from Canada as American refiners scour the globe for gasoline-rich feedstocks to feed surging motor-fuel demand.

U.S. imports of crude and refined petroleum products from its former Cold War adversary surged 23% in May to 844,000 barrels a day from the prior month, government data showed. Mexico was edged out of the No. 2 spot as its shipments to its northern neighbor rose by less than 3%.
Russia has become a favored source for U.S. fuel makers largely because it producers ample supplies of semi-refined oils such as Mazut 100, an ideal feedstock for American refineries accustomed to processing thick, sludgy crude from Venezuela and the Middle East. Cargoes from the former dried up due to sanctions, and OPEC-orchestrated output limits have crimped shipments from the latter, leaving an opening for Russian exporters.

The rise in Russian shipments is happening despite intensifying rancor between Washington and the Kremlin over a controversial pipeline that will haul Siberian gas to Germany. But in the absence of actual sanctions, U.S. companies are not bound by the diplomatic and geopolitical goals of the White House.
Russian feedstock “seems to be functioning as a good substitute for Venezuelan oil, particularly in the high-demand summer season,” said Shirin Lakhani, director of global oil service at Rapidan Energy Group.


Despite Russia’s ascendence, it’s no threat to Canada’s preeminence as the largest foreign crude supplier to the world’s biggest economy. In fact, Canada accounts for almost half of U.S. imports, delivering almost five times as much as Russia, the data showed.
Nevertheless, the importance of the U.S. market looms large in Moscow, where Federal Customs Service records show America is the single largest buyer of the nation’s heavy-oil products, the category that includes Mazut 100. U.S. buyers absorbed almost one-fifth of Russian heavy-oil exports during the first five months of the year.
READ: U.S. Thirst for Russian Oil Hits Record High Despite Tough Talk
Most of the U.S.-bound Russian crude has docked along the West Coast to feed refineries like Phillips 66’s plant 100 miles (160 kilometers) north of Seattle and California refineries owned by Chevron Corp. and Valero Energy Corp., government data showed.

Refiners in Texas and Louisiana also have been buying Russian oil products; just last week, 1.5 million barrels from the Black and Baltic seas landed in the region. The influx was substantial enough to cut prices at the Houston Ship Channel by 3% earlier this week.
Benchmark Price

Going forward, Russian shipments to U.S. shores appear bound to increase as the Middle East benchmark that governs the nation’s oil exports comes under pressure from slowly rising output by OPEC and its allies, Rapidan’s Lakhani said.
Lower prices relative to other available sources of similar fuel oils will invite even more purchasing, she said.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ppliers-to-u-s

Hmm, should i trust EIA and Bloomberg or a guy called Vanoi?

I think i trust the former.

You know your sources are contradicting each other right? Your first source shows that in 2021 US oil imports from Russia never reached 800,000.

One of your source is wrong here. I stand by your first source showing Russian oil exports in 2021 to the US never reaching 800,000.

[Heathen Hammer]

Here’s a sunny assessment for NATO. Tbf this guy’s bias is that he thinks Russia is doomed to internally collapse as a state, to the extent that’s relevant. So yeah, sunny.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=yYGDfBKCoO4

Crimean War 2.0? I do agree though that I don’t see how Putin climbs down from this without losing face domestically and internationally.

Climb down from what? If Ukraine attacks the LPR or DPR, Russia will just arty them like its no tomorrow, while the catalogue and quality of military hardware available to Novorussian troops increases. Putin knows he doesn't have to get directly involved, while any other outcome for NATO means a humiliation and blunder.
Essentially Russians set up a trap for NATO and its proxy regime in Kiev, where its a lose-lose no matter what they do.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

You know your sources are contradicting each other right? Your first source shows that in 2021 US oil imports from Russia never reached 800,000.

One of your source is wrong here. I stand by your first source showing Russian oil exports in 2021 to the US never reaching 800,000.

@Vanoi: Do me please a favor, if you have not some interesting sources or arguments except your opinion that the US is awesome, home of liberty, Russia evil, Ukraine good, Putin = Hitler 2.0, Germany appeasing Russia, blablablablub, don't try to force me in a debate, i'm not interested in such debates.

I was talking to Ludicus.

[Infidel144]

@Vanoi: Do me please a favor, if you have not some interesting sources or arguments except your opinion that the US is awesome, home of liberty, Russia evil, Ukraine good, Putin = Hitler 2.0, Germany appeasing Russia, blablablablub, don't try to force me in a debate, i'm not interested in such debates.

I was talking to Ludicus.

Were your sources contradicting each other?

[Vanoi]

@Vanoi: Do me please a favor, if you have not some interesting sources or arguments except your opinion that the US is awesome, home of liberty, Russia evil, Ukraine good, Putin = Hitler 2.0, Germany appeasing Russia, blablablablub, don't try to force me in a debate, i'm not interested in such debates.

I was talking to Ludicus.

I do have a source. It's the first source you posted when we started discussing US oil imports from Russia. Your first source shows much oil barrels the US imported from Russia by month in 2021. It does not reach 800,000. Almost every claim you have made so far is plain out false.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

The first source is counting in thousand barrels, so May 2021 26,171 * 1000 barrels are 26.171.000 barrels from Russia in May 2021. Bloomberg is talking from 800.000 barrels per day. So it fits with my maths.

And now bye bye.

Edit: And in 2020 540.000 barrels per day.

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=727&t=6

[Vanoi]

The first source is counting in thousand barrels, so May 2021 26,171 * 1000 barrels are 26.171.000 barrels from Russia in May 2021. Bloomberg is talking from 800.000 barrels per day. So it fits with my maths.

So your two sources are still contradicting each other? That doesn't add up to 800,000 abd still doesn't support your earlier claims.

At this point you've tried to compare the US's imports of Russian oil to that of Germany's own import of Russian fossil fuels but that amount the US imports doesn't come close to that of Germany bor is the US reliant on it in the first place. And of course the US isn't ing over fellow NATO allies to import Russian fossil fuels unlike that of Germany

[Love Mountain]

Ahhh the tricky wordsmith.

As the big child in the schoolyard leans in towards the weak with fist hovering in the air... one does not need to express their threats literally. They can be implied by all sorts of statements and actions.

Due respect, I don't think it is appropriate to reference Discord on the site. It borders on doxxing.

My point is that oil imports from Russia are insignificant. Unlike the Germans and Europeans the US is not dependent on Russian fossil fuels. Don't even see the reason to bring up Russian oil.exports to the US unless you were that ignorant that you didn't realize they were pretty insignificant.

Btw your math is horribly off. According to your own link the US imported around 200,000 to 300,000 barrels of oil from Russia in 2020

That's out of a total of over 3 billion barrels of oil imported per year in the US. 200,000 barrels of oil out of 3.4 billion is not 5 to 8 percent of US oil imports. You need to go back to math class.

Russia constitutes 7% of U.S. oil imports according to EIA, but it's irrelevant. If oil prices rise or if United States has to import more oil from someone else, it will do so. This isn't an issue to the U.S. government. It's an issue for U.S. private companies who will have to bear the cost of higher prices. In other words, we don't give a .

On the other hand, Germany does. This isn't a Scholz issue, it's a Germany issue. Both Merkel and Scholz have repeatedly protected Nord Stream 2. In fact, they seem to care about it even more than Russia does. This is puzzling because while replacing Russian energy imports would be costly, it would not be prohibitively more expensive. The answer must be that German policymakers must believe that the political fallout and instability form higher energy prices, threaten EU and NATO unity more than "selling out" Ukraine. I question such calculus, because firstly, I doubt that Russia will actually stop selling to Germany if Germany axes Nord Stream 2 or sends lethal aid to Ukraine (they have a ton of weapons stocks). Secondly, energy prices aren't going to double or be cut off overnight. This is a problem that's manageable.

So in reality, Germany's choice isn't between political instability/helping Ukraine vs credibility crisis/not helping Ukraine. The choice is between mild discomfort/helping Ukraine and credibility crisis/not helping Ukraine. With friends like Germany, who needs enemies? Europe has always been a rather partner, but the fact that we have to literally drag the corpse of NATO unity over the objections of our own allies to get a basic agreement on sanctions should be embarrassing. Arguably, Russia continues to pull one over the West despite drawing increasingly hands.

[Loyt]

Ideal scenario is that Russia strikes a deal with Ukrainian nationalists bypassing Kiev regime, allowing for Russian regions to split off without hostilities as former take over government in the Western half.

That implies willingness of nationalistic forces to give up half of their country territory. They won't agree with that in the first place.
But more importantly, that implies that nationalistic forces have some real power in ukrainian politics. They don't, they are vocal minority. They lost all elections quite crushingly, all theirs attempts at political protestations haven't bear any results.
Sheer existance of opportunity for such deal is just fantasy, wishful thinking.

[Loyt]

Crimean War 2.0? I do agree though that I don’t see how Putin climbs down from this without losing face domestically and internationally.

Not even close. Crimean war happened then western coalition actually went to war. Now there is no such risk for Russia, no one wants to fight for some insignificant eastern european country. The worst threats are just economic sanctions, which might even never happen - every year after 2014 each new sanctions are more and more insignificant and laughable.

And what "loosin face" situation everyone is talking about? We are not talking about democratic country, it just doesn't matter in dictatorship. Any move of Putin can be showed in positive light, they'll say on TV how Putin made all world around to dance to his tune over nothing, and majority will prase his cunning and wisdom.

[antaeus]

And what "loosin face" situation everyone is talking about? We are not talking about democratic country, it just doesn't matter in dictatorship. Any move of Putin can be showed in positive light, they'll say on TV how Putin made all world around to dance to his tune over nothing, and majority will prase his cunning and wisdom.

The issue there is that much of Putin's legitimacy is built around the idea that Russia works best under authoritarian leadership, Putin himself has suggested that Ukrainians and Russians shouldn't be in different countries, because they're one people. If Ukrainians can manage a democratic, western aligned country, then Russia shoudln't have any problems with it either.

Two considerations: Firstly, as recently as last year, Putin was confronting protests at home. And secondly, all dictatorships exist only at the consent of the populace - it might seem counter intuitive, but we see time and time again what happens to dictators when they lose legitimacy in the eyes of the populace. Ukraine itself is evidence of this.

Dictators maintain power by playing internal factions off against each other, and directing popular discontent towards the 'other' that they can rally against. If either of these fail, the dictator is at risk.

[Cookiegod]

Ahhh the tricky wordsmith.

As the big child in the schoolyard leans in towards the weak with fist hovering in the air... one does not need to express their threats literally. They can be implied by all sorts of statements and actions.



Again the tricky wordsmith.

You've implied that one side of a conflict is all Nazis. The leader of the other has assembled a large force on the border while stating your Nazis aren't really their own people...

Again... threats don't need to be literal. The threat of invasion is implied by the assemblage of force on a scale with other logical purpose.

Ok, cool. So you admit to the Russian government denying any invasion plans. Next question: What assemblage of forces? What forces were pulled to the Ukrainian border in October 2021 (the time when the mass hysteria started) that weren't present even before that?

Putin Literally threatened Europe with a nuclear holocaust if the intervene against Russian aggression.

Disingenuous retelling to try and mislead people. Putin said, during the press conference with Macron, a war between Russia and NATO would be a nuclear one, and that neither president Macron nor Putin want that.

You've implied that one side of a conflict is all Nazis. The leader of the other has assembled a large force on the border while stating your Nazis aren't really their own people...

Boy you guys sure are unlucky, aren't ya.
Apparently there's hardly any nazis in Ukraine and yet for some reason Western journalists get hardly any reporting done from the frontline that doesn't include a literal neonazi.

But no no, apparently stating the historical fact that Russia and Ukraine have the same roots and a shared history for a millennia is at least as bad as stating that "N..."s in your country are a threat and should shine your shoes, beat up gay book presentations, etc. Funniest part is that by trivialising and relativising actual nazism (which in my view is a step up from just right wing, but you guys obviously have a different opinion), you and selfascribed "nationalist" Legio do not reflect positively on your own political stance. It's not me calling you two nazis, you implicitly do it yourself.

Me stating that you guys supporting a nazi regime is pretty much supported by the facts. Ukraine can't become a member of Europe based on the fact that it's suppressing its minorities alone. To quote a Ukrainian journalist and actual opposition leader, who's had to flee and obtain asylum in the EU (and the current regime is still going after his wife's mother based on nothing whatsoever), you don't need the majority to be the nazis. In a football stadium with 10000 people, if 100 of them are carrying guns, they will be the ones making the commands. I have more connections to the family in Ukraine than that in Russia. I follow the news in Ukraine far more than I do those in Russia.

All that for you guys to claim that I'm justifying an invasion which I'm pretty much confident does not make the slightest sense. But rationality is not something that any of you guys need.

[antaeus]

Ok, cool. So you admit to the Russian government denying any invasion plans.

Now you're putting words in my mouth fancy pants.

Next question: What assemblage of forces? What forces were pulled to the Ukrainian border in October 2021 (the time when the mass hysteria started) that weren't present even before that?

You can look that up for yourself. There's all the links to all the analysis you need from sources such as Time, Economist, Fox, etc.

Apparently there's hardly any nazis in Ukraine

Unnecessary sarcasm.

and yet for some reason Western journalists get hardly any reporting done from the frontline that doesn't include a literal neonazi.

I'm sure there are actual white supremacists and Nazis in Ukraine, and this conflict certainly is likely to attract nationalists. But then there are also Nazis in my own suburb but it hasn't stopped me doing my groceries every week.

But no no, apparently stating the historical fact that Russia and Ukraine have the same roots and a shared history for a millennia is at least as bad as stating that "N..."s in your country are a threat and should shine your shoes, beat up gay book presentations, etc. Funniest part is that by trivialising and relativising actual nazism (which in my view is a step up from just right wing, but you guys obviously have a different opinion), you and selfascribed "nationalist" Legio do not reflect positively on your own political stance. It's not me calling you two nazis, you implicitly do it yourself.

Interesting statement... given Legio's libertarian stance on most issues - relative to my generally progressive stances. I wonder if there's a little assumption in there.

Me stating that you guys supporting a nazi regime is pretty much supported by the facts.

Now your turn. Evidence me some sort of official source that supports this claim. Something with a .gov.ua on the end of it will do.

Ukraine can't become a member of Europe based on the fact that it's suppressing its minorities alone. To quote a Ukrainian journalist and actual opposition leader, who's had to flee and obtain asylum in the EU (and the current regime is still going after his wife's mother based on nothing whatsoever), you don't need the majority to be the nazis. In a football stadium with 10000 people, if 100 of them are carrying guns, they will be the ones making the commands. I have more connections to the family in Ukraine than that in Russia. I follow the news in Ukraine far more than I do those in Russia.

Fluff.

All that for you guys to claim that I'm justifying an invasion which I'm pretty much confident does not make the slightest sense. But rationality is not something that any of you guys need.

You're the one playing the discredit a country game. Again... prove to me your Nazi assertions. Something in policy. Anything.

[Cookiegod]

Now you're putting words in my mouth fancy pants.

Come on Antaeus. Pick your hill to die on. Did the Russian government voice the threat of an invasion, yes or no? I keep asking, you keep running. First you say they didn't, now you say I'm putting words in your mouth.

[antaeus]

Come on Antaeus. Pick your hill to die on. Did the Russian government voice the threat of an invasion, yes or no? I keep asking, you keep running. First you say they didn't, now you say I'm putting words in your mouth.

I have already illustrated how threats don't have to be literal statements using a school bully metaphor, and I've also linked you the widely published and accepted timeline of events which clearly illustrate the path of escalation, that includes a summary of Russian deployments, and statements. Please go back and read, it's Wikipedia for Pete's sake.

All you've done here is made sketchy straw-man assumptions as to what I'm meaning and how I feel about things. That's not how Gotchas work.

Yet when I've asked you to evidence Ukrainian Nazism, and you accuse me of running and hiding. Cookie, if I'm dying on a hill, you're in the trench next to me and we're sharing a cup of sock brewed coffee.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

They didn't voice any threats, because that's simply not how Russia operates. We'd have something more similar to the 2008 Georgia scenario: separatists start a provocation, Ukranians counter attack, big boy Russia swoops in to save the day.

[Cookiegod]

I have already illustrated how threats don't have to be literal statements using a school bully metaphor

So we're back at you conceding that no one in the Russian government voiced any threat of invasion of Ukraine? Or what is wrong about that statement that you claimed I was putting words in your mouth?

I've also linked you the widely published and accepted timeline of events which clearly illustrate the path of escalation, that includes a summary of Russian deployments, and statements. Please go back and read, it's Wikipedia for Pete's sake.

Nah, I'm asking you. What troop formations specifically, what regiments, divisions, etc. specifically did Russia redeploy to the Ukrainian border? The Februrary one is the only real one. The Ukrainians on all channels were all out announcing yet another invasion of the Donbass and muscled up, Russia muscled up in response, Ukraine backed down, then so did the Russians.

And how according to you will the Russian army seize and control the country with 100k? That gives you like 1 soldier per 6km².

The fact that you guys are capable of parrotting the first paragraphs of the NYT and WP without any critical thoughts whatsoever doesn't really make those hot takes any less moronic.

Hm. Frozen?!
K... Let's see...

Huh.
But never mind. All those hottakes based on some few fun facts from WW2 do little to change the fact that none of that makes sense. Rasputitsa is mostly an issue in the Pripyat swamps in the North and very little of an issue in the south, and Ukraine has a much better road network than it had back then, even as the cleptocratic regime struggles to even finish a single bridge in its capital.

Yet when I've asked you to evidence Ukrainian Nazism, and you accuse me of running and hiding.

Oh! Apologies! Here you go.

They didn't voice any threats, because that's simply not how Russia operates. We'd have something more similar to the 2008 Georgia scenario: separatists start a provocation, Ukranians counter attack, big boy Russia swoops in to save the day.

lmao. Oh, Russia did that? Pretty sure there were plenty of warnings from Medvedev telling the Georgians that if they were to attack the South Ossetians, Russia would intervene. The Georgian army started its attack with a large scale artillery barrage across the entire front and shelled Russian peacekeepers in their barracks while they were asleep without warning. With all that it's amazing that you can still find people to pretend otherwise.

[Sir Adrian]

Disingenuous retelling to try and mislead people. Putin said, during the press conference with Macron, a war between Russia and NATO would be a nuclear one, and that neither president Macron nor Putin want that.

Lamo.Great spin mate. To bad it's a lie. Macron went for peace talks. Putin replied to the peace by threatening to use nukes if NATO defends Ukraine, knowing full well that NATO had no intention of using nukes. He literally said that Russia does not have the military power of NATO but they have nukes.

No idea why you're doing this for a guy who would not think twice of killing you and everyone you know.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I have already illustrated how threats don't have to be literal statements using a school bully metaphor, and I've also linked you the widely published and accepted timeline of events which clearly illustrate the path of escalation, that includes a summary of Russian deployments, and statements. Please go back and read, it's Wikipedia for Pete's sake.

PSA:

Sealioning is a harassment tactic by which a participant in a debate or online discussion pesters the other participant with disingenuous questions under the guise of sincerity, hoping to erode the patience or goodwill of the target to the point where they appear unreasonable. Often, sealioning involved asking for evidence for even basic claims. The term comes from a web comic depicting a sea lion engaging in such behavior.