Russia-Ukraine War Politics Thread Mk. 2
- Thread starter Emperor Tippy
- Start date
I'm guessing more than buying a new box of bullets or a new rifle. Higher end civilian firearms are sometimes cheaper to replace than buying new parts.
mrttao
Well-known member
> "we are giving them"
why are you larping as an american now?
A few days ago you admitted you are from eastern europe.
...I do not even know how to respond to that, because it is so wrong.
mrttao
Well-known member
Wow, they have finally fallen as low as america and europe.
Where we had our own citizens looting and burning our cities for years now in "fiery but mostly peaceful protests"
yeah....It would be nice if that didn't happen.
History Learner
Well-known member
Said Greens being the most Pro NATO party in Germany, which even advocates for American nuclear weapons to be stationed in the country, so yes I'd agree on that.
Specific to the rest of the claim, I always find this funny because prior to 2/24/22 Russia was the second largest supplier of oil to the United States. You know who are main supplier of uranium was and is? Russia. Every critique of Germany in this regard is equally applicable to the United States and it's made the more bizarre given most of you are devout Capitalists; sans Russian oil and natural gas, what were the alternatives for Germany? Left Wingers say Green energy, Right wingers tend to say Nuclear.
Former is dominated by China, later is dominated in inputs by Russia. Net effect is still the same end result of German energy dependence on another country hostile to the G7/NATO.
Why don't you take this Baghdad Bob grade stuff somewhere else?
Oil imports and exports - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
U.S. crude oil imports sources including OPEC and Persian Gulf, and top five source countries of U.S. oil imports and destinations of U.S. crude oil exports.
And that's not counting the largest supplier, USA itself.
So much for "equally applicable to United States". Fucking 8%.
Wanna talk uranium?
Ok...
Where our uranium comes from - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
Sources of uranium, how and where uranium is produced in the United States, and source of U.S. uranium imports.
Sorry, regardless of what certain mad imperialists of Kremlin would wish, Kazakhstan is not Russia.
Oh, but that's USA.
Where does the biggest by far user of nuclear power in the EU get their uranium? Guess fucking what, it's generally not Russia, so why doesn't Germany take a page from their best buddies and neighbors.
Does France's emphasis on nuclear power guarantee its energy independence?
As the Ukraine crisis continues to push fuel prices up, France’s championing of nuclear power as a way of ensuring its energy sovereignty sounds great. But a group of researchers says it's a red herring…
www.rfi.fr
Last edited:
History Learner
Well-known member
Why don't you take this Baghdad Bob grade stuff somewhere else?
Oil imports and exports - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
U.S. crude oil imports sources including OPEC and Persian Gulf, and top five source countries of U.S. oil imports and destinations of U.S. crude oil exports.www.eia.gov
Your own chart shows Russia in second place. If you take a five second google trip as well, you see this too:
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%.
U.S. domestic production cannot be counted as imports, given it is not imported; these are very basic conceptual terms you should be familiar with before trying to argue upon them. Next, you should also likewise know the U.S. imports more oil than it produces.
So far, you've proved my point entirely correct.
Wanna talk uranium?
Ok...
Where our uranium comes from - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
Sources of uranium, how and where uranium is produced in the United States, and source of U.S. uranium imports.
Sorry, regardless of what certain mad imperialists of Kremlin would wish, Kazakhstan is not Russia.
In terms of national baseline statistics, sure. When you actually look under the hood at Kazatomprom, it's a different story entirely:
The sale of a stake in a massive new uranium mine to Russia prompted an exodus of senior managers at Kazakhstan's state-run miner. The deal for part of the Budenovskoye mine, projected to become the world's biggest source of the radioactive metal, to Russia's nuclear power monopoly, Rosatom, went through at the end of last year, according to people familiar with the matter. The deal was pushed by Kazakhstan's sovereign wealth fund against the wishes of the leadership at miner Kazatomprom, the people said, asking not to be identified discussing a sensitive matter. A fleeting reference to the change of ownership was made in Kazatomprom's 2022 financial overview in March and its annual report in April, though Rosatom wasn't identified as the buyer.
Likewise, Uranium on it's own cannot power anything without enrichment. Who dominates that Globally?
Russia accounts for half the world's uranium enrichment capacity, supplying fuel to nuclear reactors around the world, but relies on imports of Kazakh ore to supply its plants. Gaining a stake in Budenovskoye, which is expected to account for more than 10% of global output within three years, will help give Rosatom security of supply.
Yeah, surely an article from August 2021 has total data from 2021...
Don't care, and for this attempt to further bullshit me i think my opinion of your character fell a little lower, even though i thought it can't be any lower than it was.
No i didn't. Places don't matter, especially with such huge divergences in the percentages they represent, percentages matter.
Germany 'very, very' close to independence from Russian oil
Thanks to efforts to diversify oil suppliers and with support from the Polish government, Germany is days away from being independent of Russian oil, Vice-Chancellor Robert Habeck said.
www.euractiv.com
Perhaps in your alternate reality it is, but it's not for the rest of us, and your focus on "but third place!" instead of the massive difference in the number behind it or your clearly stated equivalence of US and German situation demonstrates your maliciously manipulative intent here very clearly.
Kazakhstan is still not Russia, how many third and second world countries buy their fuel matters little for France and USA, and rumors about stakes in projected largest mine are completely unconvincing of anything.
Last edited:
History Learner
Well-known member
Total data, no, but it confirms for at least 2/3rd of 2021, this was the case. Which leads into the second point...
In which case, why are you trying to argue 8% is larger than 8%? If you're consistently applying this rule, than you have done exactly as I said, in that you proved my point for me.
Is 8% of imports to a country with majority domestic supply equivalent to 35% of import in one that doesn't have that?Germany 'very, very' close to independence from Russian oil
Thanks to efforts to diversify oil suppliers and with support from the Polish government, Germany is days away from being independent of Russian oil, Vice-Chancellor Robert Habeck said.
Yes because the original point was the underlying logic of said move. The U.S. has majority domestic supply, why exactly was it needing to import Russian oil at all? Germany has no large deposits, has mostly exhausted its coal supplies through two centuries of industrialization and has no large deposits of uranium either. Russia is also far closer to it than the United States, so there was the added economic consideration of transportation costs.
We attack Germany for going with the most free market, cost efficient option while ignoring the United States was getting almost a tenth of its supplies despite having none of the constraints of Germany. This was the point I was making and to which you seem to have forgotten in your rush to engage in a gotcha.
If you're holding a consistent ethic in this vein, then the illogic of Germany doing this is equal to the United States; both were using large quantities of Russian oil. One had the argument it had nothing better to defend its decision, the other doesn't. This isn't manipulative intent, it's basic economic reasoning.
The deal went through, hence why all those managers resigned. If the Uranium is mined by Russian companies and is then sent to Russia for enrichment before being exported to destination countries, it's only from Kazakhstan in the nominal sense it came from the dirt of that country. If you remove Russia from that process, it doesn't get dug up nor does it get refined into anything usable; without enrichment, Uranium is just spicy rock.
To look at it further, if Russian opened a Lada parts factory in Hungary, then sent the goods to Russia for final assembly before export to Poland, are those cars Russian or Hungarian? The parts came from Hungary, but it's still a subsidiary of Lada and final assembly to make it into a drive-able car happened in Russia. Same concept here with the Uranium.
What are you seeing in photos that tells you an M16 as different from the one I was issued 20 years ago?
Carry handle?
What 8? Germany imports 35% from Russia, not 8%, the hell are you referring to.
Because USA has no centralized economy and private companies can import it when they see fit.
Oh no, poor Germany, they have only.... the 7th largest coal reserves in the world!
List of countries by coal reserves - Wikipedia
And yet you saw it fit to say this:
Do feel ashamed yet?
Citation needed. And i will not accept any not based on numbers followed by a currency.
Please, stop. Imports, not supplies. These little word games insult someone's intelligence, yours or mine, which one is it?
So the point is, that USA is bad for not having a sanctions policy based on time travel?
Because in terms of dependence, it's absolutely not the same, and the numbers are the measure of how exactly different they are.
No, economic dependence is measured in numbers, take your pseudoethical handwaving someone else, it won't convince anyone even 0.00000000000000000000001% of the way, considering what an ethical authority you are.
>large
There are numbers for that. What are the numbers? We're not in preschool here, we can discuss this in large numbers. There goes your "basic economic reasoning".
I don't care what random theories you turn some rumors into in your head. You have shown zero evidence the specific Uranium USA buys from Kazakhstan is processed in Russia.
Nice theory there, but do you have any evidence that it is counted that way in reality?
Uranium processed in Russia is counted as imported from Russia, and rumors (aka anonymous sources) about some mine stake ownership in Kazakhstan change nothing in that.
Last edited:
Frankly, it was a trick question. There is really no difference, between those Veitnam era M16s and the ones my unit were issued. (well, burst fire vs. full auto) Carry handles were still present on my unit's arms.
Did you have A3s or A4s?
Or A2s?
Because that does matter.
Was the Carry Handle removable?
And muzzle break matters as well but yes I know the point.
20 years ago would be M16A4s would they not? They are using M16A2s. Then again they are also using museum pieces from as far back as 1880s. Several militia marksmen, and Russian conscripts posed with their Gewehr 88, 90s, Mosin 1891s, 1907. Although the Ukrainians at least are making the effort to replace them as quickly as they can with more modern weapons.
History Learner
Well-known member
We were talking about the United States, where else do you think that 8% comes from? You were the one who cited the EIA figures in your opening post.
So is Germany, so why does the U.S. get a pass but Germany doesn't?
Indeed I said that, and I've explained three times now that Germany had underlying logic to do what it did while the U.S. didn't; it makes no sense to attack the former while giving the latter a pass. I have no reason to feel ashamed for holding a consistent ethic in applying standards, I would rather avoid in engaging in flagrant hypocrisy as you are here.
To move oil by ship:
The price for shipping oil using tankers varies. The cost for oil tankers in 32,000-45,000 DWT is US$43 million, while the 80,000–105,000 DWT costs $58 million. 250,000–280,000 DWT oil tankers rakes in $120 million for shipping oil. Moreover, tankers cost $40K-$70K per day for shipping 250k-2000k barrels. So, mathematically, the cost comes down to $1.00/barrel/1000 mi. after including all costs.
To move oil by pipeline:
Gas can be transported by pipeline or liquefied and then shipped by sea on special liquefied natural gas carriers. The cost of transporting 1000 cubic feet of gas 1000 miles by pipeline is approximately $.50. The cost of transporting 1000 cubic feet of LNG a distance of 1000 miles by sea is approximately $.30. However, the cost of liquefaction and regasification is approximately $1.40 per 1000 CF. Thus, for natural gas, transporting the energy equivalent of one barrel of oil a distance of 1000 miles costs $3.00 by pipeline and $10.20 if it is liquefied and transported by sea. By contrast, the cost of transporting a barrel of crude oil is approximately $.10 per thousand miles.
So, oil tanker is $1 per 1,000 miles vs .10 cents per thousand miles via pipeline. With this in mind:
Moscow to Berlin: 1,137 miles
Ras Tanura to Hamburg: 8,763 miles
Russia wins out no matter how you slice it in economic logic.
There is no difference in these terms in this usage; imports are supplies, and supplies are from imports. If I said something like total supply, sure, but I didn't. If you feel otherwise, please explain why with citations as you asked me to do above.
No, the people arguing Germany was bad for choosing its most economical option are, especially when they fail to castigate the United States for also importing from Russia. The amount does not matter, the end result is still lining Russian pockets if that this the thing you are opposed to.
Sure, but the degree of dependence wasn't my argument, however.
In which case, defer back to the numbers I provided on transportation costs, if you are wanting to insist on measuring things on numbers.
The numbers have already been provided, by both myself and you, I'm not sure why you are attempting to spin this as a gotcha when they were never under debate. What was, from my very post and explained to you multiple times now, was the consistent application of condemnation and the equally economically illiterate refusal to consider the numbers, as you put it, as they pertain to Germany's needs.
If Germany was wrong for importing oil from Russia, so was the United States. The degree of dependence does not matter, because the entire argument is made on a moral judgement, not an economic one. If you want to make an economic case, defer back to transportation costs.
Second, condemnation of Germany ignores the costs and resources available to them. They don't have coal, gas, uranium or oil of their own, and their own geography plus material constraints limits going Green. This meant they would always need to import this from somewhere, and that somewhere, on the most efficient basis, was Russia. I've covered the transportation costs of Oil, would you like me to do the same for Natural Gas?
Here you go:
Russia has the world's largest uranium enrichment complex, accounting for almost half the global capacity, but it is a relatively small uranium producer with only six percent of the global supply in 2020. In fact, Russia mines less uranium than it exports to the United States and the EU—for instance, in 2020, it mined 2,800 tonnes while exporting 3,100 and 2,500 tonnes to the United States and the EU, respectively. This is possible because most of the uranium Russia exports is bought from Kazakhstan—a country that is landlocked and ships its uranium to Europe and the United States through Russia. Kazakhstan is the world's largest uranium producer with 19,500 tonnes in 2020.
Last edited: