Europe cannot afford to have its foreign and domestic policies dictated by Putin’s blackmail
Guest essay by Paul Driessen
European Union nations want to impose tougher economic sanctions on Russia for invading Ukraine and providing the missiles that shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17. However, they are worried about biting the hand that feeds them – with the natural gas that fuels much of its economy.
Russia is the world’s second-biggest natural gas producer and third-biggest oil producer, so it can inflict tremendous pressure and damage on its neighbors without firing a shot. The 28 EU nations as a whole depend on Russia for one-third of their oil and gas. However, Estonia, Finland, Latvia and Lithuania get 100% of their natural gas from Russian President Vladimir Putin. Six other European countries get more than half of their gas from the powerful Russian Bear: Czech Republic (57%), Poland (59%), Ukraine (60%), Hungary (80%), Slovakia (84%) and Bulgaria (89%).
That makes the Europeans highly vulnerable to cuts in the fuel supplies they need to power their cars, keep their businesses, factories and economies running smoothly – and heat homes, to literally keep people alive during brutal winters like those they’ve experienced recently. A simple “nyet” from Mr. Putin could reduce or cut off energy exports, leaving the continent hostage to Russia and creating a potential disaster. European officials know this but so far are frozen by their own fears and policies.
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) calls Russia “a gas station masquerading as a country,” because 60% of its exports are oil and natural gas. Cutting these exports to pressure Europe politically might hurt Russia’s economy. However, it has already done so, is currently squeezing Ukraine over winter gas supplies – supposedly over late payments for past deliveries – and is making export arrangements with China and other countries, to reduce any economic harm it might suffer from engaging in renewed energy blackmail.
Moreover, during one week this September, Russia supplied up to 45% less gas than Poland requested, the Poles’ largest oil and gas company reported. Over the past decade, “Russia has halted the flow of gas through Ukraine three times, directly affecting eastern and southern European countries most reliant on Gazprom, the giant Russian energy monopoly,” the Christian Science Monitor has observed.
Indeed, 16% of Russian natural gas exports flow through Ukraine. In yet another pressure tactic, Russia began tightening the export spigot in June. Russian gas supplies through Ukraine to Slovakia have been cut by 25%, says Ukrainian Energy Minister Yuriy Prodan.
There’s no question that the EU and USA must punish Russia for seizing Crimea, infiltrating troops and military equipment into eastern Ukraine to support secessionists, aiding terrorism, and killing hundreds of innocent jetliner passengers. Since no one wants a shooting war with Russia, economic sanctions are all that’s left. Failure to do even that would give Putin a green light to move more forcefully against Ukraine – or even try to occupy other former Soviet Union nations.
Putin has called the breakup of the Soviet Union “the greatest tragedy of the 20th century.” Before invading Ukraine, Russia invaded the former Soviet territory of Georgia in 2008 to support separatists who had declared independence for the Georgian provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. It’s not at all hard to imagine Putin moving against Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, other former Soviet possessions or even Finland, to bring them into Mother Russia’s suffocating embrace. But how can the EU end the blackmail, enjoy some foreign policy independence and improve its faltering economy with less reliance on Russia?
If European countries faced food shortages due to import restrictions, they would offer their farmers incentives to grow more. EU members need to act the same way on the energy front. Otherwise, they give Russia tremendous sway over their future. European nations certainly have the ability to take action.
For one thing, they could import more natural gas from the United States and other countries besides Russia, until it can produce more domestic energy. Europe is blessed with enormous quantities of oil and natural gas – including enough gas to supply all its needs for at least 28 years, during which it could develop viable alternatives to gas and the dozens of coal-fired generators it is now building. US Energy Information Administration data reveal that Sweden has enough gas to meet its needs for 250 years. Denmark, Poland, Bulgaria, France and Spain also have extensive potential, as do Great Britain and other countries. Unfortunately, those deposits aren’t economically recoverable using traditional drilling.
However, they can be captured using hydraulic fracturing (fracking) – which has been used safely and with great economic and employment benefit more than a million times in the United States since 1947. It has made the United States the world’s largest natural gas producer.
Not surprisingly, environmental extremists strenuously oppose fracking – further crippling Europe’s ability to meet its energy needs and chart its economic destiny and foreign policy. Also not surprising, Russia is secretly funding the European anti-fracking movement “to maintain European dependence on imported Russian gas,” NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen recently revealed.
But if there’s a silver lining to unfolding Middle East events and Russia’s naked aggression, it’s that more sensible Europeans are finally looking more critically at their self-destructive energy and environmental policies. The European Union announced in September that it will combine previously separate energy and climate ministries into one office. The decision infuriates radical greens, but it reflects growing business, worker, consumer and family concerns about reliable, affordable electricity and motor fuels.
Next, Europe needs to allow fracking. Right now, virtually every EU nation except Poland and Britain bans fracking. Besides making Europe more energy independent, fracking would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by enabling European nations to rely more on natural gas and less on coal. Fracking would also reduce EU natural gas, electricity and even oil prices, as it has in the USA. It would also create or save millions of jobs that are endangered (or gone) because of Europe’s outrageously high energy costs. In fact, many EU companies and families pay three to eight times more than Americans do for electricity.
Another problem in Europe is that people living above the shale deposits have no ownership or economic interests in developing them. They are inconvenienced, but the state and drilling companies get all the money. The EU needs to devise incentives that give landowners and residents a positive stake in development – such as a royalty or percentage of every Euro of oil and gas produced and sold.
On this side of the pond, US petroleum production must be further increased. The huge gains in American oil and gas output since 2009 were all on private and state lands, while the Obama administration has presided over a nearly 40% decline in production from onshore and offshore federal lands. The President and congressional Democrats need to stop being energy obstructionists, and let American companies tap these energy treasure troves. That would create jobs, generate billions in government revenues, make more gas available for European purchase, and strengthen our economy and balance of trade. Congress should also consider prohibiting state and local fracking bans as unconstitutional constraints on trade.
Congress and the President should also fast-track US natural gas exports to Europe, by speeding permits for liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities. These actions would encourage further drilling, technology improvements and job creation. As Europeans adapt and improve America’s rapidly advancing fracking technologies and develop their own gas, these exports will be less vital. But they are essential now.
The world is not going find safe, efficient, affordable, environment-friendly alternatives to oil, natural gas and coal in the next decade or so. (Right now, Europe gets just 1.3% of its energy from wind and solar, but 75% from fossil fuels – and both wind and solar exact significant environmental costs.) In the meantime, we need to rely more on realistic opportunities and initiatives, and on our oil supplier friends in Canada and Mexico. If we don’t, we’ll have to continue importing from increasingly unstable and unfriendly parts of the world – and being constantly at their tender mercies, just like the Europeans.
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and Congress of Racial Equality, and author or Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’m pretty happy with the recent emphasis on the political battle ground in the climate scare realm. It will be in the political world where this sad chapter will end. Too much political enlightenment isn’t enough in a world where every vote is critical, and one one single vote can put us solidly on the path to ruin.
Sounds a lot like the “bargaining” phase.
Perhaps the politics will soon be “settled”…
A Russia stripped of supplying its resources is a dangerous Russia.
Russia has long been a bully – majorly to its own citizens! Imagine you agree to buy the school bully’s cigarettes from him every day, so it gives him money. Then one day you tell him that you are getting them somewhere else or making your own. Does that make the bully less or more of a threat to you? I know the analogy is poor, and there is a ridiculousness about placating a country, but as I said, Russia can very easily turn into a dangerous country. They are a very strange people, formed by their history. And we should be wary of the alternatives to Putin (a macho bully disguised as a leader), for they are more hard-lined than him.
I agree that reducing or cutting off the bully entails some danger, but the other choice is to continue feeding the bullies ever increasing demands basically become a slave to the bully. Yes and economically damaged Russia can be dangerous but when the option is to economically and politically damaging your own country then the choice is clear.
Your simile assumes that the bully will keep his strength without selling cigarettes. Russia will not keep its strength without exporting oil and gas.
Do you have personal experience of this, or are you channeling 50+ year old Cold War propaganda?
Cold War propaganda? Hardly! Growing up in England (being just the same distance from Moscow as Washington DC is to Denver) we have been taught that Russia is only understood if you understand its history. Now, it may surprise you to learn that I’m no fan of the way the US has handled Russia. It was wrong-footed over Syria for a start (but that’s very recent politics). The US is poking Russia with a stick much like you would a bear, and it’s not a very good strategy. The Ukraine is being coerced into joining in on the poking. However, Russia does understand someone marking a red line (as did JFK). And there’s your trouble. Once you cajole the Ukraine into being West-leaning, then you’d better follow through. The downing of the airliner should have been a reason for a red line. But Germany is weak, given its economic, energy, and geopolitical position. Without Germany being strong then the EU is just playing games. The future is far from certain.
Just read the headlines. As far as the Russians are concerned, the cold war never ended.
The statement that Russia has acted as a bully, mainly to its own citizens is hardly controversial.
Reply to The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley September 30, 2014 at 5:20 am
Yes it¨s true that you need to know, and understand Russian History in order to understand the past and present of Russia! That´s a problem because not even here in Sweden which have a long history together with and sometimes against Russia, people are taught in school the most important parts of the history.
Such as:
The Nector’s cronicle which more than one scholar of history here in Europe disputed, is confirmed when it comes to what happened in 861 AD. Where? In a wellknown contemporary sourse Rimbert’s Vita Ansgarii chapter 32 ff. When did Rimbert write his work? In 865-67 AD. Mind you, we do know that Rimbert visited Sweden and in his own work he mention a person with his own name who visited the Baltic areas the years around 861…. But he didn’t mention Rurik only what happened and had happened during centuries before.
Rurik, or should we say Rus’ Eric is mentioned in other eastern sources as a co-king to his father and brother. Same names are to be found on runestones dated by runexperts 100 years later.
Now the most important thing hardly ever told is that leading people from what’s now Swedish areas up to Birger Jarl’s days collected taxes from 100 Russian gorods. If they didn’t pay the tax: a squirel fur and an other fur, then the people collecting the “tax” took the leading men in the gorods (town) to row their boats and sold them as slaves in The Byzantic Empire later on to the new rulers.
Russia never ever had democraty the way we in West have had. Mind you there are dark spots on democraty here in Sweden. There are only two countries outside Schweiz where all “ingridients” need to be a true democracy is at hand, US and France.
I am a conservative “Moderat”. Voted for Reinfeldt and our Allians who sadly lost. But I have to say that you “Ghost” as so many others never learnt nor understood the most important historic factors.
If you like to know more, please read:
Sorry not to have translated but you might translate via google translate
Krims 1103 år gamla Rusisk-Svenska historia (Crimea’s 1103 year old Russian-Swedish History
more
Nestorskrönikan bekräftas av Rimberts Vita Ansgarii and
Sveriges okända rysk-ukrainska historia
Nice to know you haven’t outgrown your land of ‘1984’ indoctrination.
The UK is probably the only nation more Russophobic than the US – due to the Monarchy’s multiple stymied attempts to gain a foothold in the Black Sea. That nation seems to have no problem taking oligarchs’ money stolen from the Russian people, but complains about the ones who stay at home and brought Russia back from the brink of economic and demographic decline?
I’d look a little closer to see which nation’s leadership is more divorced from its citizens: the one where we have father and son Presidents in the past 2 decades, with a possible husband/wife President combo – or the one where the military has not engaged in any conflicts more than 500 miles from its border in literally 60 years.
Russia is not imperialistic. In Georgia it intervened in small regions of the country with a Russian population, it could easily have taken control of the whole of Georgia but did not. Likewise in Ukraine claims that Russia has its eyes on the whole of Ukraine are wrong. It only intervenes in regions where a pro-Russian population is involved in a conflict. I’m not saying everything Russia does in Ukraine is OK – far from it. Giving buk missiles to militias was a huge mistake. (“What was a Malaysian plane doing in Ukrainian airspace?”) But even in Crimea – what the population has done there is no more than what nationalists in Scotland tried – unsuccessfully – to do this month.
There is absolutely zero evidence to support the claim that Russia had any direct or indirect role in the shoot-down of MH17.
Of course there is no evidence – they destroyed it 😉
MH17 was a 767 flying at a usual operating altitude of ~35,000 feet. The only missiles capable of striking aircaft at that altitude were Russian made/supplied. The usual targets were twin-prop transports about half the size of a 767 and operate at an altitude of ~26,000 feet. There is plenty of evidence that MH17 was struck by some form of missile at ~35,000 feet.
MH17 was shot down by a fighter jet’s machine gun strafed both sides of the cockpit to kill the pilot, not a missile. look at the damage to the cockpit, it consists of entry and exit holes on the same piece of wreckage just below the cockpit window, impossible for a missile to do. eyewitness state MH17 was being followed by a fighter jet. google “20mm cannon mh17” and look at the photos yourself, they are not difficult to find.
this is but one untruth of many in the article.
Given that both the coup to power Ukrainian present government and its independence/terrorist opponents are using ex-Soviet equipment, the above statement is quite thoroughly fatuous.
I also like how so much of the “stories” of Russia invading, Russia bad this, Russia bad that come from Twitter postings by the US Ambassadar to Ukraine using material supplied by the coup-to-power government’s intelligence services. Yes, the same Ambassador who was the other side in the F**K the EU call.
Really – that’s the best that can be done given the US’ trillions of spending on satellite reconnaissance? Not to mention European defense intelligence capabilities or that there was an American Aegis cruiser literally offshore from the area where MH17 was shot.
No radar images, no plumes detected, no photographs. Seems odd.
After the whole Saddam (lack of) WMD situation – I personally place the burden of proof to be higher for such allegations.
So its 30mm cannon now?
@enviro mental
The type of missile that destroyed MH17 is designed to explode near the plane, showering it with shrapnel.
enviro mental – September 30, 2014 at 12:53 am
You obviously have no idea on how the guns on fighter aircraft are set or how close to impossible it is to ‘strafe the side of a cockpit’ which would be a 90 degree offset. Note that most fighters have only around 10 seconds of ammunition or less – some as little as 3 seconds. Standard attacks with guns are from below and behind. The Dutch investigators have already stated that it was a close by explosion with the aircraft being peppered with high velocity fragments. There may have been subsequent attempts on the ground to obfuscate the cause of the crash using ground based guns, which only makes it more likely that it was a Buk missile strike otherwise why try to hide the reason for the crash?
If a missile struck MH17 there would have been a fireball in the sky. There wasn’t. Furthermore the official inquiry failed to identify the attack as coming from a missile… Perhaps if the US released satellite images this issue could be resolved. And why are have the control tower audio tapes been sequestered?
I thought that it was a 777?
The Ukrainian Gov’t also has plenty of Russian designed missiles, both of the Buk variety and air-to-air missiles.
Sure, but which side did the obfuscating?
We seem to be digging deeper and deeper into conspiracy theories without knowing exactly how the plane was shot down.
Even US intelligence is now admitting that MH17 was shot down by fighters, not shot down by a missile. You really need to update your knowledge base.
As for who loses power by the loss of Russian gas and oil to Europe? Ask the companies of Europe, not the European Union. In case none of the Russia bashers have noticed, the pipeline to China is already underway. The Europeans are bound by contract – and need – to Russian supplies long enough for the pipeline to be completed – that is, if the Ukrainian government will allow the gas to be passed through the pipelines through its territory. If Europe gets a bit chilly this winter, they can only be thankful for their new friends just to the east of them. After that, Europe had better have another source since Russia will already have another client for they gas they were buying..
This whole fracas sounds like the elites in the US want to make more money on their frakked natural gas which they want to ship to Europe rather than make the US more energy independent by selling it here.
I have seen nothing from Putin that implies bullying. I have seen a lot of effort to find peaceful ways out of international conflicts. You need to start reading outside of the MSM which has told you the absolute truth about climate change for as long as it has told you the absolute truth about world politics. How can you believe one and not the other? Its the same agenda. Russia stands in the way of a one world government, which is the whole drive behind the climate change bull crap. A one world government can’t allow sovereign states like Russia, which is why you have the European Union made up of vassal states with no say in anything.
Absolutely ridiculous, Amatør1. Have you seen these ‘rebels’? It’s unlikely they can fire an AK47 properly – that’s why the Ukraine army were having little trouble in pushing them back. By all accounts, most of them were drunk for most of the day! Then Russia got more involved. They sent in equipment that only THEIR men had been trained to use, so the personnel had to go in too. If you really do think that Russian personnel didn’t down MH17 then you must fall for every con trick coming your way.
Amatør1 is right. The American public is being subjected to a neocon inspired propaganda campaign. This is identical to the “Iraq WMD” story.
The author´s statement: “There’s no question that the EU and USA must punish Russia for seizing Crimea, infiltrating troops and military equipment into eastern Ukraine to support secessionists, aiding terrorism, and killing hundreds of innocent jetliner passengers.” is pure baloney.
Why should the EU and the USA punish Russia for sezing Crimea? Does the author understand Crimea used to be part of Russia, and was handed over to Ukraine by Krushev in what amounted to an administrative reorganization? Whether Russia is infiltrating troops and military equipment to support seccessionists is also questionable. And even if it is, the Russians would be acting to preserve their defensive buffer against European nations which have already shown their tendency to invade Russian territory. As for the missile downing the airplane, that´s also questionable. As far as I can see the shooting was probably accidental. Let´s not forget the USA downed an Iranian plane full of civilians and I can´t recall anybody declaring war on the USA over this matter.
What ought to be clear to the readership is that, just like you are subjected to a campaign of lies by Obama over the global warming issue, you can also be subjected to a campaign of lies to make you support a new cold war. And what drives this campaign? That´s something you will need to think about.
Show your evidence then.
Amatør1 and Fernando Leanme are correct. Americans are not getting accurate reports.
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley: you’ve got it exactly backwards. The “rebels,” as you call them, are the eastern Ukrainians who (1) do not want their country divvied up and fed to the EU and bond vigilantes, (2) are not willing to hand over their natural resources to the US neocons, and circling vultures like Joe Biden’s son, and (3) are much better soldiers than the Privat Sektor (Right Sector, the western Nazis), that’s why they repelled them and the Kiev prez was forced to back down.
The Dneiper-Donetz basin is in eastern Ukraine. That oil field is bigger than the Alaskan one. What the hell do you think this fight has been about?
——————-
Paul Driessen is naive, and badly educated. Putin was responding to Georgia’s lethal aggression against the citizens of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in the middle of the night (running tanks and bulldozers through people’s houses) while Putin was at the Beijing Olympics. Both Abkhazia and South Ossetia had submitted requests to the Russian Duma the previous April asking for Russia’s help in making them part of Russia. Russia had announced in March that it would no longer participate in the Commonwealth of Independent States economic sanctions against the two countries. Georgia was trying to gain NATO entrance by this action and failed.
Further, Driessen seems unaware that the reason why the “Obama administration has presided over a nearly 40% decline in production from onshore and offshore federal lands,” is the same reason there have been no new oil refineries or domestic drilling (except a limited amt) since 1979. Through Reagan, Clinton, Bush, and Obama. Oil is National Security Item #1, and has been since the 1973 embargo when the US military discovered the lack of oil left US forces with one-to-two day reserves. The US strategic goal since became to rid other countries of their oil before we use ours. It costs us nothing to buy foreign oil for our military; we are the reserve currency and oil is denominated in $US, which we issue.
As you admit, Crimea was given to Ukraine, the Russians then invaded to take it back.
Using your logic Mexico would be justified in invading the US in order to take back the southwest, since it was once part of Mexico.
second that! ukraines 2 planes tailing it at the time…funny how thats glossed over.
No evidence, other than all the evidence.
What constitutes a direct role? Do you mean did Russia order it? Did Russia approve it? No, of course not.
Did Russia supply the weapons? Yes. Did Russia train the rebels? Yes. Were Russians actually manning the SAM launcher? Very likely.
my respect for cfact has just evaporated. this article is full of blatant untruths. it epitomises and justifies everything the greens say about the oil industry.
One little article justifies all the greens claims? Heck of an article!. Almost as powerful as CO2 itself!
Please: list the “blatant untruths”.
not “all the green claims” but “everything the greens say about the oil industry”.
“Please: list the blatant untruths”.
1. Russia invading Ukraine.
crimean people voted to succeed from ukraine, then voted to join russia where it historically belonged for hundreds of years. russia sent no troops into ukraine, they had long term basing rights agreed with the ukraine government. no “invasion”.
2. providing the missiles that shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17.
MH17 was shot down by a ukrainian fighter jet’s machine gun. pictures show entry and exit holes next to each other on the wreckage just below the pilots window – strafed from both sides by machine gun fire.
3. squeezing Ukraine over winter gas supplies – supposedly over late payments for past deliveries.
not supposedly but actually.
4. Russia invaded the former Soviet territory of Georgia in 2008
It was Georgia that attacked russia.
patrick, why do you assume that the plane was shot down accidentally?
Enviro mental,
Seems that either you have swallowed the Russian propaganda without question or have swallowed some of the Russian anti-fracking funding.
Watermelons have a spiritual home in communism .
@environ mental can you point to a post where I assume that the plane was shotdown accidentally? I was comparing certain facts about MH17 (767) and the usual twin-prop transports (An Antonov if I recall) which if I recall two were shot down a few days before and it’s clear a certain type of missile struck MH17 at crusing altitude well above a military target.
patrick, you said this “If MH17 was shotdown by a fighter, then the pilot would have been able to visually identify the aircraft was a commercial passenger jet flying legally in an established and recognised air corridor.” I am reading you say here that a jet could not have shot down mh17 because it would have seen the target as a passenger plane. given that the evidence shows that the cockpit was strafed from both sides with a fighter’s machine gun, the obvious conclusion is that the ukrainian jet fighter following mh17 (as proven by radar data) deliberately shot it down knowing it was a passenger plane. look at the following picture of the pilot’s window, you can see bullet entry and exit holes next to each other, impossible for a missile given it’s blast is in one direction, notwithstanding that a missile would target the engine, not the pilot:
http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/images/localworld/ugc-images/276309/Article/images/21747780/6461452-large.jpg
@enviro mental
..
If the fighter jets were “following” MH17, how did the bullets from it’s guns fly past the airliner, turn around then hit the pilot’s window area? ….
Did it have U-turn enabled bullets?
No, that is not what I am saying. That is what you are saying. If you read my posts the implication is that it WAS indeed shotdown deliberately, by whatever means, it was shot down deliberately. I was just not using direct language.
Even in the picture you post, top left-hand side, you can see entry and exit points…
Sorry, Ukranian fioghters are armed with 30mm cannons. Those holes are not what a 30 mm cannon would cause. You will have to come up with another theory that actually fits the data.
@ur momisugly beckleybud@ur momisuglygmail.com
have you ever noticed that a fighter jet is faster than and more maneuverable than a passenger jet. you appear to be looking for a reason to justify your belief, rather than form a conclusion from the evidence.
@ddpalmer, you provide no evidence that “those holes are not caused by 30mm cannon”
you will have to take up your belief with the forensic investigators who disagree with you, meanwhile do you have another unevidenced belief about how those holes punctured both sides of the cockpit.
@Patrick,
ok, i acknowledge I misunderstood your original post.
@environMENTAL, those are very obviously shrapnel holes. First off they are way to concentrated to be cannon shots, secondly they come in all shapes and sizes. Cannon shot comes in one size and one shape.
You are believing what you want to believe and ignoring reality to do it.
A good article, pointing out how the EU could become energy self-sufficient via fracking. One only needs to look at what has happened to US oil and gas production, with the US on track to be the worlds largest produce of oil and gas after many years of decline.
The EU could of course do the same and free itself from the current situation. Putin is obviously aware of this and the risk to Russia’s economic future. Thus the large number of posts trying to pin the blame on everyone else. Clearly WUWT has the Kremlin’s attention.
You know that “secession” is a dirty word these days as far as certain people are concerned.
Besides, the narrative is more important than ascertaining the facts.
They do not necessarily look like 30mm bullet holes, but then there are other questions:
1. Why would a BUK missile detonate near the cockpit. It is such a small fraction of the aircraft.
2. Since they detonate in proximity with the aircraft and throw out metal fragments in a sphere, I would expect the holes to be spread further apart the further they are from the detonation and to have a different pattern than those holes, which all “seem” to be oriented in much the same direction.
blatant untruths? oh yes, the sort of untruths that are mentioned, but never specified. sort of like invisible untruths.
If MH17 was shotdown by a fighter, then the pilot would have been able to visually identify the aircraft was a commercial passenger jet flying legally in an established and recognised air corridor.
I see. Political / military actions are proof of a big-oil conspiracy behind CFACT.
CFACT repeating blatant, provable and widely acknowledged neocon propaganda is evidence that CFACT (or at least the author of this piece) has a marriage with western oil interests and is motivated by oil interests and western hegemony, rather than any truth regarding AGW. for the record, I am not a advocate for dangerous AGW.
Nah, what this post shows is the US government´s ability to collude with the media to spread lies and seek public support for stupid moves. President Obama has been convinced by his advisors to back really dumb moves to “fight global warming”. The anti Russian campaign is a parallel case of dumb policy pursued for the wrong reasons.
Let´s be clear about something: Neither Putin nor the Ukrainian separatists are good guys. But this world is full of really bad guys, and the USA can´t afford to impose its will on other nations using economic sanctions (or even worse, military actions and wars). Right now, today, we see the Cuban dictatorship thumb its nose at the US and practically invade Venezuela, where they set up one of their moles as Dictator. Does Obama do anything about it? Not a peep. Do you want more examples? I can make you a huge list. But when the government and the media work in cahoots to make the country march in a given direction they sure push hard. This is what happened when the USA blundered into Iraq. Today it is blundering by seeking a confrotation with Russia.
+++++ yup!
I agree with you, enviro mental. What a stunningly stupid article for CFACT to write.
thank you, “stunningly stupid article” is ALL that needs to be said. it is one massive own goal.
Completely agree – let’s just see the followings:
1) Do you accept a president of a country who forcefully crushes through the country and overthrows a democratic system and then bans the opposition in parliament (hint: Poroshenko)
2) The same guy sends troops into areas where a stronghold of the opposition resides and kills people (incl opposition supporters) – do you condemn the outcry and support of the neighboring country (Russia)?
3) Again, this so called president has the guts to ask USA and Europe for support and help with weapons – is this for a humanitarian cause? or maybe to suppress further opposition in his country? (see 1 above)
4) Ukraine has shown over and over that democracy is pledged but not led by example (see Tymoshenko’s case). The upper elite is riddled with corruption – (ok – Russia may not be a good example either but that is not the point here) and the Western World gets blinded by these leaders who pretend to protect their people but in fact throw civilization back into Medieval times by trying to eliminate any opposition and cling on to power. The West should have long NOT accepted this guy as legitimate leader but somehow none of the Western countries has the courage to point the obvious and call for democracy.
So does that make Russia a bag guy? Or should we let Ukraine know that we do not accept suppression of opposition and that the opposition party needs to be back in parliament before we consider any further help or action? Russia is not a saint but at least it condemns the way Ukraine treats some of their own people just because of different opinions!
Russia invading Ukraine and providing missiles for the MH shoot down? Where do you get that from?
From the Russia media: Russia provided enough materials for experts to conclude that MH17 was shot by Russia missiles – it provided satellites photos of missiles launching systems in “rebels” controlled area in reality – in area controlled by Russia mercenaries): Russia claimed that it was Ukrainian launching systems, but there wasn’t any Ukrainian forces in vicinity: Russia provided record of “Ukrainian military plane flight”, which as Russians claimed destroyed MH17, but starting point of “Ukrainian military plane flight” was from earlier photographed location point of missile launching system in Russia mercenaries controlled area and final point of “flight of plane” is point of destruction of MH17 flight. Ukrainian military intelligence concluded, that purpose of Russian attack was flight of Russian airlines, which was flying on the same time through northern borders of Russia controlled area, but Russian forces confused point of destination to dislocate missile launching system and instead settlement on the front line with Ukrainian army, they launched missiles from the settlement with exactly same name in the center of Russia controlled area. Near planned site of launching there is Ukrainian site of air defence, so all materials were prepared to support claim of shoot down of Russia civil flight by Ukraine. And these materials were used by Russian Media in early efforts to divert attention from Russia crime,
Absolute nonsense. This is the Russian tv report of what the engineers found: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7puNlaX0s0
An English translation of the Russian Union of Engineers report can be found here: http://www.vineyardsaker.co.nz/2014/09/18/malaysian-flight-mh17-crash-analysis-by-the-russian-union-of-engineers/
[Please note: the English translation doc ends with an additional ‘.dot’ extension. Remove it. MH17_Report_Russian_Union_of_Engineers_EN_Oceania_Saker.docx]
From the report:
Well, we cannot be sure that they were not fed information by the Russian Gov’t either.
There are two government parties here and they are both likely feeding us mis-information.
Well, I find that less than convincing 🙂
I have read the report. It is more thorough than much of the speculation from the other side, but there is much that is unknown.
Sounds like you bought the absurd lies from the US govt hook line and sinker. Quoting McCain (who poses with terrorists) boy that’s a really strong argument. The USA started everything to take over resources from Russia and weaken it in its oil dealings per the wolfowitz doctrine What do you think an ambassador caught on the phone saying “screw europe” means? The list of your fallacies goes on and on, the CIA and NGO’s fingerprints are all over this one just like Georgia, the orange revolution, etc. Putin kicked the bankers and oligarchs out of the country and they are pissed and want back in to take over the resources from the largest resource country in the world. Problem is this time they are meddling with a nuclear state that has comparable or even better technologies. They have already said that they would have to use nukes if pushed, because the USA policy of surrounding Russia is an obvious first strike approach. These idiots in Washington with their hubris are going to start WW III and people actually egg them on, go figure?
agreed, the CIA took over Crimea. those are secretly Amerikans dressed as Russians manning the border posts in Crimea. Putin is completely innocent. He told me so himself, so I know it is true.
pissedman’s post is highly accurate. the only thing that is going to stop this madness is the truth. there is no excuse for being propagandised when you have a reasoning mind and the internet.
Yes, because the internet is full of reasoning minds and unbiased truths.
Agreed. This horrible post must be in the top 5 all-time horrible posts at this site. The U.S. Empire is killing men, women, and children worldwide but Russia is the new Satan? None so blind as those who will not see.
pissedman,
That about sums it up in 13 lines.
any nation that might become a threat to uSSa hegemony is a threat to be removed basically
presently russia and china are it.
I dont see Russia putting missiles all over the borders of nearby nations
theres a hell of a lot of nato ones though
wolfowitz doctrine I think it is?
stinks.
most aussies would like you to pack n leave pine gap and not add more marines etc in Darwin.
Chairman of BP admitting the Russian economic sanctions are ineffective.
Russia is simply relabelling equipment imports for the oil industry, which are subject to sanctions, as “gas” drilling equipment. Gas extraction is exempt from the sanctions, because Europe cannot survive without imports of Russian gas.
You base this article on the assumption that EU politicians are rational, big mistake.
Couldn’t agree more, EU politicians have a strong left-wing bias with some having been communists and Marxists in the past and is probably why Obama is so keen to see the UK fully subsumed into the EU state.
The EU is built on the premise that you can’t trust the public to make the right decisions through democratic votes and that an unelected political elite and elite civil service must take over this role. That is how the EU operates and it has such a major democratic deficit that it is largely anti-democracy in terms of what people understands democracy to mean or to be.
And that is where the EU’s economic and energy problems come from. The overwhelmingly left-wing, unelected EU elite have far too much in common with the watermelons under the ‘green umbrella’ and that is why they have worked hand in glove with them to (wittingly or unwittingly) destroy the EU’s energy base.
I think EU politicians are fiddling along with the USA. The initial hostile move was made by the EU when it encouraged and then backed the Ukrainian coup de etat earlier this year. Now the EU economy is tanking, they run the risk of reduced gas deliveries, and all of this to support a crooked government in the far reaches of Eastern Europe? It´s absolutely crazy.
With the energy deals with China in the Russian pocket, the first snow flakes over Europe may indicate a bitter winter for the EU.
It is going to be several years before Russia is actually delivering gas to China.
There is plenty of evidence that MH17 was shot down by a BUK. The ceiling for the BUK is well in excess of the highest flying passenger jet.
Then show it.
Just look at the fragments, they are not bullet holes, they are too irregular. The jet was downed by a missile, tracked by satellite in 3 countries, and detonated by proximity fuse before striking the aircraft, the resulting shrapnel peppered the aircraft causing it to break up in flight so quickly the Pilots didn’t even know what was happening. Yes a machine gun might down a 767 but it’d take a lot of holes and I’d think the 767 pilot or flight engineer might happen to notice that and mention it on the flight recording.
Was the flight recording ever released?
bobl, do you see the picture i posted. the window frame you see is that of the pilots, the very front tip of the aircraft, look at the window frame, how it curves up, it is the pilot’s window.
>>>Just look at the fragments, they are not bullet holes, they are too irregular.
nonsense, many are round, others are at an angle, just like bullet holes.
>>>”The jet was downed by a missile, tracked by satellite in 3 countries, and detonated by proximity fuse before striking the aircraft, the resulting shrapnel peppered the aircraft causing it to break up in flight so quickly the Pilots didn’t even know what was happening.”
a missile blast next to the aircraft is in one direction. the holes in the picture are entry holes and exit holes, not consistent with a missile explosion, yet it is consistent with the cockpit being shot at from one side, then the other.
>> Yes a machine gun might down a 767 but it’d take a lot of holes and I’d think the 767 pilot or flight engineer might happen to notice that and mention it on the flight recording.
look at the picture – that is the cockpit, the pilot was sat just behind that window, can you count these 30mm cannon fire, just one of those bullets will take your arm off.
So you contend that they were shot at head on by a jet aircraft on a collision course with the aircraft, gee, the guns would have to point straight at it, and neither the pilot, nor the automated systems for collision avoidance nor air traffic control noticed a thing. Yup, I’m sure you’re right /sarc
@enviro mental
…
How did the jet hit the front of the cockpit with bullets if it was flying behind the airliner?
Enviro mental…
Err no, it depends on the warhead, if this device had multiple payloads designed to spray a cloud of shrapnel in all directioms, I’d expect the target to be hit in multiple directions pretty much simultaneously. The blast does not come from one direction at all.
Bobl, can you provide some links to the reports you cite? Because even the Dutch don’t say that it was a missile. Equally, the only satellite or radar evidence I’ve seen to date was provided by the Russians. No Kiev air traffic control radar or controller conversations. No US satellite imagery. No US or European radar records.
RESNAP – a fragmentation missile cannot simultaneously explode on one side of the aircraft and again on the other side of the aircraft. if someone throws a grenade and it lands in front of you, it explodes in front of you, it does not explode in front of you and at the same time explode behind you.
I have seen what 20 and 30mm cannon can do to steel. What you see in the single picture you post is shrapnel from an exposive. If you can post pictures of the fussilage from BOTH sides, verfiable, then you may have some credence. Either way…thats not 30mm connon holes, not even 20.
patrick, you said , “What you see in the single picture you post is shrapnel from an exposive”
how do you explain entry and exit holes near the same location? an explosion radiates from a single point outside of the plane, any object in the way of an explosion is going to be hit by shrapnel from a single direction. the wreckage should have shown only exit holes or only entry holes. explain please.
Look at the “pealed” back section of rivetted metal… and also not all entry/exit points are similar…rules out a single calibre weapon.
>>look at the picture – that is the cockpit, the pilot was sat just behind that window, can you count these 30mm cannon fire, just one of those bullets will take your arm off.
And you have contended that it was shot from both sides of the cockpit. After the first pass if those were 30 mm cannon holes, which they aren’t, the pilots and controls would have been destroyed. So the Ukranian fighter pilot is so good that he could accurately fire on the other side of the cockpit while the plane was flying out of control.
And if it was downed by cannon fire to the cockpit why did it come apart before hitting the ground?
And what reason would Ukraine have for shooting down a commercial jetliner?
@Patrick
Boeing’s aren’t made of steel. They’re mostly aluminum. Just saying.
false dichotmoty – that is not evidence that a BUK shot it down and certainly not “plenty” of evidence. ukraine has BUK’s so says nothing to who did it.
how does a BUK cause entry and exit holes next to each other.
a BUK homes to the engine, not the cockpit.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/malaysia-airlines-flight-mh17-extraordinary-new-wreckage-discovered-machine-gun-type-holes-1458258
[img]http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/images/localworld/ugc-images/276309/Article/images/21747780/6461452-large.jpg[/img]
This class of missile has a fragmentation warhead coupled with a proximity fuse designed to explode beneath an airborne target at a range of between 100 & 300 feet, depending on the variant. The warhead is designed to explode in an expanding pattern which ensures that the target is struck multiple times.
RESnape – a fragmentation missile cannot simultaneously explode on one side of the aircraft and again on the other side of the aircraft. if someone throws a grenade and it lands in front of you, it explodes in front of you, it does not explode in front of you and at the same time explode behind you.
When the pilots’ oxygen tank that is in the cockpit explodes when hit by shrapnel from the missle
The images are meaninless. Certainly not 30mm connon.
I don’t believe that the bold part is true.
The Wiki page on the BUK missiles claims that terminal guidance is under the control of semi-active radar and that it is radar proximity fused.
So, while I don’t think it homes in on the engines, I would expect the designers to have it home in on the center of the object as determined by its radar reflections, although there might be problems with that as well.
In any event, if a BUK was used, it would have been approaching the plane from below, but off to one side (ie, not directly below), and heading roughly towards one of the wing roots, I would have thought, and would have detonated once it was within the proximity distance they designed into the missile. I imagine that 5 meters would be the distance, but it could be longer.
From the picture above the holes appear to be going the wrong way for such a scenario, but I could be wrong. The picture also shows some holes (3) (top left) that appear to have been created by objects going from outside the plane to inside the plane, and other holes that appear to have been created by objects that were travelling from inside the plane to outside the plane.
We can also estimate the size of those objects by comparing the holes to the screw/rivet heads nearby.
At 100 feet, the total surface area of the sphere when it reaches the plane is something like 125,000 feet. A 777-300 subtends about 3% of that surface in one direction (across its width) and 39% in the other direction. It total, a 777-300 intersects with about 4% of that sphere. (as long as I have not got my numbers wrong.)
I think there are serious problems with the claim that a BUK was used if your claim that it detonates between 100 & 300 feet from the plane is correct. I would expect holes all along the portion of the plane facing the explosion and they should have differing trajectories, and that does not seem to be the case from what we have seen.
Where I said 125,000 feet, I meant square feet 🙂
The moment of the shot down there were more US spy satellites watching this place than any other place on Earth. The Big Boys know exactly what happend that day.
… but they have not bothered to show us what they claim to know.
Of course they haven’t shown us. Intelligence agencies have historically been loath to reveal their sources and capabilities. In WWII attacks that could have been stopped or impeded weren’t just so the Germans wouldn’t suspect that Enigma had been compomised.
But still you believe them?
Where did I ever say I believed any intelligence agency?
If Russia does turn off the gas this will be an excellent opportunity for the EU to make use of all their green technology. Reportedly trees burn quite well and will heat a house in winter.
Well I see WUWT is now spreading NATO propaganda.
[your opinion is noted, and ignored -mod]
I wouldn´t even call it “NATO” propaganda. It seems to be a neocon campaign.
Exactly. Victoria Nuland, wife of Robert Kagan, is the one who said “F**k the EU” as she engineered the Ukrainian coup that overthrew the elected government of President Yanukovych. Nuland was foreign-policy advisor to Dick Cheney during the George W. Bush administration, and is currently serving as assistant secretary of European and Eurasian Affairs in the Obama administration.
Husband Robert Kagan was the original director of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), and created its successor, the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), with Bill Kristol in 2009 after PNAC garnered too much attention as a fifth column in foreign policy.
Now Robert’s brother, Fred, and his wife, Kim, are eager to get WWIII started, and slay Iran for Israel in the process, with a horrifically idiotic strategy published in September, 2014, called A Strategy to Defeat the Islamic State. If you ever wonder how we get embroiled in wars we don’t know how to end, or enact foreign policy that comes back to bite us on the rump, skim the Kagan doc. All these people possess is a vocabulary. Their stupidity is beyond belief.
(contd.) Or they are trying to destroy the USA.
Fernando Leanme
September 30, 2014 at 3:14 am
“I wouldn´t even call it “NATO” propaganda. It seems to be a neocon campaign.”
Same/same. NATO always has as supreme commander an American general (Breedlove currently); the general secretary is the public figurehead, always a European, who has no say.
Obama administration is basically run by neocons who also ran the previous administration (Nuland/Nudelman et al).
The EU is an off-chute of the russian empire. They pretend to apply sanctions but really can’t. The greens rule the EU via the commissariat and will not allow the drilling for oil and gas in europe of which there are massive reserves. The greens don’t care either way, their form of marxism or the russian form of communism.
Yesterday, the far right FN entered the french Sénat for the first time ever. UKIP are marching in the UK, AfD in germany.
Your post is correct in all respects bar one – you need to replace “russian” with “US” in your first sentence.
They say that like war is a bad thing.
The US has gotten far better returns as advances with profitable practical applications from research spending on military technologies than it has ever been gotten from research spending on windmills and sun catchers.
Besides, we could use the jobs, and wartime economies make lots. Domestic manufacturing would skyrocket as importing from China wouldn’t be too sensible.
It could also help with the recent cross-border flood of undocumented would-be future Democrats. They come from horrible places plagued with corruption and violence. Let them sign up and serve as front line grunts, after a few years we’ll ship them back to their home nations with a fat contract completion bonus and the acquired skills to fix their own countries so their people don’t have to come here.
And pushing the EU faster towards independence from Russian energy supplies and away from thinking “carbon emissions” are a tangible global threat would be a great boon.
War is good, when it’s a good war.
Well smashing things up, should be a real boon to the economy, Bastiat has a thing to say about that I think; but let’s look at the wonderful experiences the USA had:
Vietnam – depleted the Gold reserves and forced an end to Bretton Woods, switch to PetroDollar, fourfold increase of Oil price in USD terms, and the subsequent 1970ies stagflation economy.
Iraq – huge deficits, switch to the Greenspan housing bubble which got pricked in 2007, and threw labor force participation rate back to levels of the 1970ies, to this day, even while the Fed was printing trillions of Dollars…
WELL GOOD LUCK WARMONGER.
See, you make my case. War is good, when it’s a good war. Vietnam certainly wasn’t one, ongoing skirmishes in brush and swamp with no clear objective that went on far too long for no good reason.
For Iraq you’re largely attributing the effects of long-standing and ongoing Democrat policies and initiatives to the war. Yes, you are blaming Bush. For Afghanistan there was a clear goal, punish the Taliban for shielding the 9/11 perpetrators. Done. For Iraq it was get rid of Saddam. Done. But then we tried to build democratic nations of regions comprised of sects and tribes that could only be temporarily unified by strong dictators.
Now World War Two, there was a clear enemy that wanted to destroy us. The entire country could support the effort, except for disloyal sympathizers and betrayers, the common people were willing to buckle down and accept sacrifice, to volunteer. It was a world war where we had strong allies who were fighting for their survival as well. It lead to a massive economic boom and tremendous increases in personal wealth. Before people in poverty couldn’t afford food. Nowadays people in poverty might not be able to afford premium cable TV.
Provided the nukes aren’t used, and even the losing side wouldn’t want their own people wiped out in the retaliation, World War Three could be a very good war.
Do you notice what you just said? Small wars, nyaah, they’re stupid. World Wars, those are the ones where we make money hand over fist.
I won’t even go into the details of who did what and how America managed to earn money in WW II; what you’re saying is, let’s destroy all kinds of countries quickly while trying to avoid damage to our own and we should be fine, and you’re right, that’s a great way to run a world war if one can get it.
But this time the weapons systems would not allow you to survive the war unscathed.
Maybe something to consider even for an Arch war monger.
Sorry, but the broken window economic view is a fallacy – triply so when talking about ‘good’ war.
I saw recently that the highest federal spending in 1 year for the Vietnam war was in the last decade – because of ongoing medical and other benefit costs for the US troops who served there.
I also don’t see how 58K dead and 150K+ wounded – not to mention the opportunity cost of literally millions of prime working age American men and women – can be considered an economic boost.
Then there’s the fact that the combination of Vietnam war spending and Johnson’s economic programs forced the US to exit Bretton Woods because the US gold supply was dangerously depleted.
No. On the international scene, it was France depleting the US gold supply throughout the 60s that forced Nixon’s hand. Every time France got their mitts on $US35.00, they would trade it in for an ounce of gold. For 10 years.
The US paid for the Vietnam War and continues to pay for domestic economic programs with $US we issue. We’ve been off the gold standard domestically since 1934. We can’t go broke. We’re not broke. We issue our own currency and can denominate all debts owed in $US.
Don’t you know why and how France was depleting the US’ gold supply? It was because under Bretton Woods, a nation which had too much of another nation’s currency was allowed to redeem it for gold at a fixed price.
Thus your assertion is correct, but you have the correlation completely wrong.
From c1ue on September 30, 2014 at 4:43 am:
So of course you try to make your points using the Vietnam war, which I had already identified as not being a good war, thus your “points” were meaningless towards refuting my words as they actually reinforced my case.
“I saw recently that the highest federal spending in 1 year for the Vietnam war was in the last decade…”
Good wars are normally short, brutal, and effective.
“I also don’t see how 58K dead and 150K+ wounded (…) can be considered an economic boost.”
That comes afterwards, when the victors extract their rewards of victory. And mere body counts are meaningless, WWII had far more, 420K US dead. It’s the technology and tactics that determine those.
“…forced the US to exit Bretton Woods…”
The Bretton Woods system assured WWII was a very good war by fortifying the dominant economic position the US had gained. But by setting a fixed price of US dollars to a fixed amount of gold, it was doomed to failure. If nothing else, the natural increasing of the worldwide gold supply assured the devaluing of the dollar. Its collapse was inherent, leading to the US changing the game to retain dominance.
The Greenies will continue to push renewables and fight shale. No matter the cost as they are building their pre-industrial utopia. So what people die of the cold, their are saving the planet!
No wonder they are considered Putins Pawns, he must be proud of them!
Fracking may not be banned in UK , but neither is it happening. Decisions are taken, not at National level but at local, County level , and the local councils are too frightened by activists to allow it.
Milliband and Labour are certain to regain power in May 2015 and one of their first decisions will surely be to ban fracking. I understand from the media that they intend to greatly expand wind power capability , onshore and off shore- “1 million green jobs to be created by next Labour Govt”.
During this last month of lovely anticyclone weather ( thanks to AGW of course ) wind power supplied approx. 1% of UK’s power consumption against a nominal 6%.
Seriously?
Why I agree with the necessity of europe developing shale gas, this whole article is nothing but a load of anti Russian propaganda.
Is the moderator asleep? Anthony, your website should not venture this far afield of science affiliated politics, it dilutes the message. This is the first time I have seen this happen since reading here daily for 4 years now. Stick to science related politics along with the science not this.
It will be fun to see if Putin’s propaganda machine comes down on WUWT. Judging from some of the comments above it seems that they may have taken notice. CBC (Canadian national radio well known for being delusional over global warming) had a phone in show on the situation in Ukraine and half the people who called in had strong Russian accents and they were filled with comments like “Putin ees warm teddy bear who just want to make warm luvy duvy but evil West is corrupting our slavic brothers in Ukraine”. CBC being rather dull witted simply aired the inane comments without challenging them. However you respond to these Putses, make sure you take the time to have a good laugh because they really are hilarious. Hale to the Putsin.
BCBill
September 30, 2014 at 1:36 am
“It will be fun to see if Putin’s propaganda machine comes down on WUWT. Judging from some of the comments above it seems that they may have taken notice. ”
I don’t get a check from Putin neither do I get one from Big Oil for being a Global Warming Skeptic, but thanks for the slur, you show your colors.
But you know I am in an American colony, therefore closer to the wars the USA wages than a CONUS inhabitant, so you might understand I see the actions of the USA warmongers with a bit more skepicism than you. For you it might be great business in the military industrial complex; for the rest of the world, not so.
BCBill – I suggest you hail the spell-checker.
The supposed Russian speakers at least have the excuse of not having English as their primary language.
What’s your excuse for not being able to spell or compose grammatically correct sentences?
Or use that “enter” key on your keyboard?
The spelling mistakes were intentional.
You miss-spelled Putz too – although why you’d use a Jewish term for a Russian Slav is beyond me.
A sad attempt at humor?
Was your failure to use punctuation also deliberate? The run-ons in your post are quite delightful.
A more energy self-sufficient Europe is a good thing. There are many ways to achieve this, and if we look at the total supply and use of energy in Europe, the Russian part is not that big. Russia depends more on Europe as a customer than Europe depends on Russia as a supplier.
More fracking, more nucear power, more coal. That seems to be the way international politics is pushing European energy in the nexrt few years, at least. Wind and sun will probably become less interesting if the political crises in the east goes on.
We’ll see this winter. BTW, Russia has made a deal in the last two weeks to send gas to Ukraine.
Yes, we will see this winter. BTW, Russia seems to be eager to keep Ukraine as a customer? And Germany has gas reserves that they are ready to send to Ukraine via Poland.
Other suppliers are also ready to step in:
“Lithuanian gas supplier Litgas said Thursday it has signed a five-year deal with Norway’s Statoil AS to deliver 540 million cubic meters of natural gas annually from 2015, a move that could put an end to Lithuania being wholly dependent on Russian gas.”
http://online.wsj.com/articles/statoil-to-supply-gas-to-lithuania-in-five-year-deal-1408637833
Especially the nuclear. Am I mistaken, or did Germany and Japan effectively dismantle their nuclear infrastructure?
Anthony, please assess this article for content and the author for motive. At the least, please address our comments here. The whole essay beggars confidence. It is difficult to conceive how this article isn’t similar to a propaganda piece.
1. It appears to identify several emotionally-charged events: jetliner downing, Ukraine civil war, Russian human-rights record, etc.
2. It focuses substantially on fracking and natural gas as a solution to energy and electricity supply challenges, utterly neglecting nuclear power.
3. It seems to advocate for substantive legal and political change, such as adjusting laws to mineral rights property ownership, potentially motivating citizens receiving those rights to vote policy for personal gain (not that there’s anything wrong with that, but we’re talking a major shift in law).
4. It advocates that the US, which has so far been unable to arrange even the Keystone XL pipeline for tar sands, should focus efforts to transport natural gas across an ocean to supply nations with several local alternative fuel sources, including coal and nuclear fuels.
5. The article utterly neglects efficiency solutions. Granted, Europe is already very energy-efficient, but the omission is still telling.
6. The article places much blame at the feet of one man: Vladimir Putin. Such arguments should be suspect in this world after the deaths of Mohamar Khadaffi and Saddam Hussein, among others.
7. The article ignores alternative customers for Russian oil and gas, specifically China, but also both Koreas and Japan.
8. I am especially troubled by the apparent motive for European energy independence from Russia. While I believe every nation should seek at least enough economic and resource independence to sustain sovereignty, the article appears to advocate energy independence for the express purpose of opposing a particular nation’s pursuit of its own sovereignty and internal governmental affairs – one that arguably ought be permitted to sell inexpensive energy resources to others. Is the next argument for an embargo of Russian energy exports?
9. Finally, and here I am on shakier ground, I recall some international disputes over Ukrainian transport fees for Russian petroleum through Ukraine. It seems unlikely that Ukraine will successfully emerge from very difficult economic conditions without Russian participation and Russian trade, especially given Crimea’s independence form Ukraine and attachment to Russia.
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) calls Russia “a gas station masquerading as a country,” because 60% of its exports are oil and natural gas.
How would he call Saudi-Arabia ?
Both the US and the EU are bankrupt so they take you to war. They have no other way out of the debt crisis. But don’t worry WW III will be short. I myself have calculated that it could be over in 1 or 2 hours
Time is running out for Congress to extend more than 50 tax breaks worth nearly $85 billion, including popular ones for college expenses and energy-efficient appliances.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/30/dozens-tax-breaks-set-to-expire-unless-congress-votes-for-extenders-in-lame/
You might need a stronger battery for your PC, so that the war game could last a bit longer.
The US, Great Britain, Japan, Canada, and Australia cannot go broke. They have sovereign non-convertible currencies on a floating exchange rate.
The EU countries that use the Euro are another matter. They’ve given up their sovereignty. They are subject to the whim of the unelected technocrats in Brussels who dole out the Euros.
I suspect World War III has been ongoing for much of living memory. It started with the unnecessary nuclear bombing of civilians in Japan and has gathered steam ever since. Cold War, Berlin Wall fall, NATO expansion, and 9/11 marked changes in phase. Sure, nuclear exchange and an end of civilization in a few hours is entirely possible. An Orwellian permanent warfare world or a New World Gulag are more likely though..
It`s Germany you have to watch, it`s never had an empire, tried twice and now it`s having a third go by stealth.
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/leo-mckinstry/485699/Germany-s-march-to-control-Europe-is-now-relentless
Yup. And considering it was the country with the largest debt and in trouble in 1999, that’s quite a feat.
“The 28 EU nations as a whole depend on Russia for one-third of their oil and gas.”
Such statements are always difficult to interpret. Are all 28 countries regarded as equal here, so that Estonia counts for as much as Germany? Or is it 1/3 of the total use of oil and gas in the EU?
European nations imported 449 billion cubic meters of natural gas in 2013, and produced about 236 billion cubic meters. Production is declining as fields deplete. The problem is more serious in Great Britain.
162 billion cubic meters were imported from Russia in 2013.
The key point is that Europe is “hard piped” to consume Russian gas in large quantities. A slight reduction in deliveries can´t made up. The idea that USA gas can replace Russian gas is naive. The USA lacks the export facilities, Europe lacks the import facilities and distribution grid. And the USA doesn´t have the gas delivery capacity to replace Russian gas.
Russian oil is also supplied to Europe in large volumes. Replacing Russian oil is also logistically impossible because a portion is delivered by pipeline. Europe lacks the distribution networks to flow oil from import points into the pipeline nodes.
If you want to study the issue in more detail you could start here
http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/about-bp/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy/statistical-review-downloads.html