[Politics_Observer]

@Beren

I am having a conversation with you and merely demonstrated in this debate that the premise of your argument doesn't hold up. Therefore, rational people can dismiss your argument and the position you have chosen to take. Your argument and position has no merit and it appears to be based on some sort of bias and emotion rather than on rationality and logic. Your argument and position has been demonstrated rationally and logically to be without foundation.

[Beren]

@Beren

I am having a conversation with you and merely demonstrated in this debate that the premise of your argument doesn't hold up. Therefore, rational people can dismiss your argument and the position you have chosen to take. Your argument and position has no merit and it appears to be based on some sort of bias and emotion rather than on rationality and logic.

The Germans need the Nord Stream project to keep their energy sources diversified. Tell me if you understand that.

[Igor Antunov]

@Igor Antunov



I wouldn't call Russia a "reliable source" for energy, especially given that Russia is ran by Putin and Germany is democratic rather than autocratic. Putin will use this to force Germany to bend to his will.

How short-winded is your world view? Putin (and Merkel) are blips on the historical radar-whatever your reservations about such long sitting leaders. Whoever replaces either Putin or Merkel will want to continue getting cheap energy and selling energy to a long term trade partner.

Not everything is as neurotic, useless and two-faced as the US presidential cycle you know.

Here's a simple formula to get your long term planning juices flowing: Russia and Germany are not going anywhere anytime soon; and Russia's giant Siberian and Arctic resource base sure as hell ain't going anywhere either. No, renewables can't compete with these quantities of fossil fuels-especially if you want to distance yourselves from China's monopoly on every metal required for battery storage manufacture. And that right there means Germany is going to keep buying gas from Russia for decades to come, perhaps longer.

[Juin]

Bullshit. They're a reliable source of energy as long as you're a reliable source of income, even the USSR was. Anytime they shut off the gas to Ukraine, for example, the Ukrainians are in arrears actually. The Russians just can't afford not being a reliable source of energy.

The assertion that a dictatorship or tyranny is by definition an unreliable business partner is False. History does not bear that out. I see no direct correlation between reliability in business transactions and political ideology or political systems.

And there is much truth to your "The gas must flow". And that goes for oil as well. As long as there is demand gas will flow. Period. Demand guarantees the flow.



I will give you an example of the truism of that maxim from the Cold War days. Angola. That is the Angola of the 70s up till fall of Soviet Union.

Background. Newly independent Angola was broiled in Civil War. The MPLA wound up backed by the USSR and tens of thousands of Cuban troops. FNLA and UNITA wound up backed by the USA through the CIA, and also by the then white run South Africa.

Angola's chief export was oil. Which is where the plot thickened.

Naturally the pro Soviet MPLA government in Angola would have loved nothing better than to sell its oil to the USSR. Afterall, who better to do business with than your own fellow communists? Except the USSR itself had no use for Angolan oil. The USSR was a major oil producer. So what to do with this black gold Angola was flush with? It would be one thing if those communist countries were cash rich. They were not. They were broke. All of them. If there is a hallmark of any communist country it is poverty and being cash strapped. They badly needed the dollars Angola's oil would fetch. Were they gonna sit on Angola's black gold just to spite the west? Of course, not.

So they did what was natural. Marxist Angola turned to the West to do business. Oil is oil, and fetches a good revenue in western markets. From America Gulf Oil or Chevron-Gulf stepped in, building installations for the Marxists in Angola, extracting the oil, and selling it. Some article put it some 95% of Marxist Angola's budget was from doing business with Gulf Oil and other western companies!

But the US government and South Africa were also bent on making life very difficult, if not fatal for the Marxist MPLA government. For the US it sufficed that the MPLA was communist and the Soviets were getting a foothold. For South Africa it was because the Marxist MPLA, immediately it implanted itself, was gonna back black rebel groups fighting white run South Africa.

The Marxist MPLA also had its enemies on the ground. Nothing unusual about that. Communists naturally create enemies. MPLA was no exception. Holden Roberto's FNLA and Jonas Savimbi's UNITA wanted a piece, if not the whole jugular of their MPLA enemies. They found willing sponsors in the CIA and the South African government.

You then wind up with this crazy situation where you have big American Oil companies in league with Marxists, building their oil installations, and facilitating a flow of cash into their Marxist coffers. But these American Oil Companies and their installations were being attacked by UNITA and FNLA financed by the CIA and South Africans. And for their protection had to rely on Soviet arms and tens of thousands of Cuban troops. Made for strange bedfellows, didnt it?

Still the oil flowed on. The oil must flow. And it did. How could it not? As long as there was demand, and demand was big for oil, oil was gonna flow come hell or high water.

It is a no brainer. It not for naught some ancients observed that gold had a way of getting past the guards. Oil as well.

Bottom line?

Anyone saying political ideologies or differences in political systems is an impediment to business does not know what they are talking about.





Cabinda and The Company: Chevron-Gulf,
the CIA, and the Angolan Civil War

The history of Gulf Oil and later Chevron-Gulf1 operations in
Angola is a complex story of split alliances, nation-controlling wealth,
and the follies of organizational nearsightedness in times of conflict. The
involvement of Chevron-Gulf in Angola and the machinations of the
CIA would pull the two organizations inexorably into a miniature Cold
War against each other, with the political future of Angola caught in the
crossfire.

https://uca.edu/cahss/files/2020/07/Angel-CLA-2018.pdf

[Gardener]

That is totally false.

Sanctions against the German company that manages the pipeline project were introduced by the Joe Biden administration, not by Trump. The pipeline was built under Trump.

"...President Donald Trump has signed a law that will impose sanctions on any firm that helps Russia's state-owned gas company, Gazprom, finish a pipeline into the European Union..." (BBC article, December 2019)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-50875935

"...The Biden administration has waived sanctions on a company building a controversial gas pipeline between Russia and Germany. The US also lifted sanctions on the executive - an ally of Russia's Vladimir Putin - who leads the firm behind the Nord Stream 2 project.."
((BBC article, May 2021)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-57180674

Clearly, Biden is a .. now, what was the phrase they used against Trump ? .. oh yes.... "Putin's Puppet".

[noemon]

A country engaged in terrorism against the EU, is not a reliable partner for the EU by definition, not for energy, not even for chewing gum.

Trolls vouching for Russian "reliability" in the abstract*, while defending Russian terrorism against Europe are totally transparent.

*Compared to who is Russia more reliable? the other gas suppliers like the Scandinavian countries? she is factually not.

Russia can be reliable, when she apologizes for her anti-EU terrorism, removes her occupation forces from the Ukraine, and releases the multitude of prisoners she is holding.

Until then calling Russia "reliable" is merely a litmus test to demonstrate the trolls from those that aren't.

[Politics_Observer]

*delete*

[Politics_Observer]

@Juin

The assertion that a dictatorship or tyranny is by definition an unreliable business partner is False.

I will have to concede a little bit to your assertion. You might have a point. A dictatorship or tyranny could possibly be a reliable supplier of energy so long as they are a vassal state to the ones they are supplying. However, Russia is not a vassal state to Germany so the power dynamics are much different in the case of Russia, Germany and the EU. However, as noted by the U.S. Energy Information Administration it states:

Europe is dependent on Russia as a source of supply for both oil and natural gas. More than one-third of crude oil imports to European countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in 2016 came from Russia. More than 70% of natural gas imports to those countries also came from Russia in 2016. Russia is dependent on Europe as a market for its oil and natural gas and the revenues those exports generate. In 2016, nearly 60% of Russia’s crude oil exports and more than 75% of Russia’s natural gas exports went to OECD Europe.

https://www.eia.gov/international/analysis/country/RUS

So, there is no question that Europe is dependent on Russia for energy. When Ukraine decided to no longer become a vassal of Russia, Russia cut the gas off to Ukraine as noted here:

Russia moved on 16 June to turn off the taps, after complaining that Ukraine had failed to pay off its debts, estimated at $5.3bn (£3.3bn; 4.2bn euros) by Russian state-run giant Gazprom. Gazprom had sought a repayment of $1.95bn.

It was not the first time: it cut supplies because of price disputes in 2006 and in the winter of 2008-09. Those earlier disputes led to gas shortages elsewhere in Eastern Europe, meaning hardship for many ordinary citizens in mid-winter.

In the tug-of-war between Russia and the EU over the future direction of Ukraine, the current gas row has been harder to resolve.

It seems that Ukraine in 2014 much like Europe has failed to diversify who their energy suppliers are giving too much power to Russia and unable to have a major disagreement with Russia without getting their gas supplies cut off.

Ukraine, until the current crisis, relied on Russia for half its gas supplies. Some EU member states such as Slovakia take all their gas from Russia. In total, Russia supplies 23% of the EU's gas.

Russia's supply lines run through Ukraine to several EU countries and as much as 70% of its gas to the EU is carried through those pipes. So while Russia has in recent years tried to bypass Ukraine, in particular with the Nord Stream and South Stream projects, the two countries are, for now, inextricably linked.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29521564

The above article brings Russia's reliability as an energy supplier into question given that Ukraine and Russia had a major disagreement at the time Ukraine opted to no longer be Russia's vassal, hence why Russia cut off gas supplies to Ukraine. It's the obvious conclusion from the facts presented. In addition, you can be guaranteed that if the EU ever felt the need to sanction Russia for bad behavior that Russia in turn will turn off gas supplies to the EU.

That's a guarantee. Europe and Germany need to diversify their suppliers much more than they are currently, otherwise, they will be held hostage and will be forced to bow down and toe the line with those, like Russia, who supply a large amount of their energy as shown above. Europe doesn't have energy security currently because it relies too much on Russia for supplies, which gives Russia influence and leverage to use against Europe.

Further highlighting my assertion, position and argument is a report from the EU parliament itself stating that authoritarian states like Russia use the fact they are energy suppliers as foreign policy leverage. The 2018 report states from it's abstract as follows:

Russia and other energy-rich authoritarian states use their energy exports for economic gains but also as a tool of foreign policy leverage. This study looks at the ways and methods these states have used to exert political pressure through their energy supplies, and what it means for the European Union.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2018/603868/EXPO_STU(2018)603868_EN.pdf

[noemon]

I will have to concede a little bit to your assertion. You might have a point. A dictatorship or tyranny could possibly be a reliable supplier of energy so long as they are a vassal state to the ones they are supplying. However, Russia is not a vassal state to Germany so the power dynamics are much different in the case of Russia, Germany and the EU. However, as noted by the U.S. Energy Information Administration it states:

It is not just about power dynamics and Juin's argument is a strawman by definition as I never claimed that dictatorships/tyrannies cannot be trade partners. They can and they are.

Terrorist enemies that openly attack one's own country cannot be called reliable trade partners.

[Politics_Observer]

@noemon

I agree with your assertion as well noemon. Take a look at some of the quotes from some of the sources I have posted. I think these are, for the most part, authoritative sources with one being a news report. Everybody knows in 2014 that Russia cut off gas supplies to Ukraine. It's easy to dual source the BBC's report from another respected journalistic news source but this is common knowledge and probably un-necessary for me to dual source.

[Juin]

@Juin



https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29521564

The above article brings Russia's reliability as an energy supplier into question given that Ukraine and Russia had a major disagreement at the time Ukraine opted to no longer be Russia's vassal, hence why Russia cut off gas supplies to Ukraine. It's the obvious conclusion from the facts presented. In addition, you can be guaranteed that if the EU ever felt the need to sanction Russia for bad behavior that Russia in turn will turn off gas supplies to the EU.


]

I read the bbc article and many others as well surrounding the 2014 Russia-Ukraine gas disputes, and my take is different from yours.

I do not see how any of the articles I read justify the claim Russia is not a reliable partner.

You know why the Colombian Pablo Escobar was a successful business man? It was because his clients could rely on him to deliver. He used mules, he used submarines, he used planes, he used boats, he bought transition points on Carribean islands, he dug tunnels. Each route was rife with hazards. Which hazards he overcame by multiplying his delivery routes. He did everything to ensure his consumers got their goods. If that is not being reliable, then what is reliable to you?

That is why I consider the assertion that good guys make reliable business partners and bad guys make unreliable partners False. Successful business men- moral or immoral, ethical or unethical- are successful because they work hard to deliver. And they are not reliable out of the goodness of their hearts. They chose to be reliable because their profits are directly related to their ability to deliver in a timely fashion.

You consider Putin a villain, a tyrant. Ergo, by definition, he is unreliable. I disagree with that. To be an unreliable business partner with the EU is against his own interests. European Euros run the Russian economy. Russia needs those Euros. To get the Euros, billions of them, Putin must deliver. And to that end he has worked tirelessly to multiply delivery routes. Ukraine, everything working out, would have been his cheapest and most profitable route. But Ukraine proved unreliable. You can place all the blame on Putin if you want, but it changes nothing. The obvious thing for Putin to do is what he did: multiply his delivery routes. Avoid Ukraine and all its headaches. To that end he opened up other routes through the south Balkans and pipelines in the Baltic Sea.

I already, in an earlier post, gave the example of same indifferent business dynamics at play in Cold War Angola. US Oil companies partnered with Marxist MPLA to exploit Angola's oil; even as these same Oil installations were the target of FNLA and UNITA funded by CIA and South Africa; necessitating US Gulf and the MPLA to seek protection, which protection was provided by Soviet arms and thousands of Cuban troops. These strange bedfellows managed to deliver Angolan oil to western consumers through it all.



I will address the other points you raised in another later. This one is getting kinda long

[Rancid]

So... what's up with the pipeline?