|
|
On March 20 2014 17:18 Ghanburighan wrote:Those are pretty bad analyses, though (to be expected considering both sources). The LNG deregulation isn't even intended to help Ukraine, it's crucial for a) reducing the Russian gas dependence of certain allies such as Estonia, but also other important countries like Finland, b) to pull down the price of gas on the world market. If there's more gas on the market, no matter where it is, it has a dampening effect on the prices, making the Russian budget way harder to balance. The timing is also fine, for example, the Baltic Sea LNG terminal is still in its planning stages. Whatever positive effect the deregulation will have will follow in a few years.
I think the huffington post analysis was pretty good- it referred to all sides in the debate, and painted a good picture of the political situation in the US. Could you point out what you specifically thought was 'bad' in it?
It's quite clear that the current push for liberalizing LNG is in response to the Ukraine situation but obviously won't help Ukraine. The title of the article is "U.S. Push For Natural Gas Exports To Help Ukraine Won't Actually Help Ukraine".
|
On March 20 2014 17:54 Mc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2014 17:18 Ghanburighan wrote:Those are pretty bad analyses, though (to be expected considering both sources). The LNG deregulation isn't even intended to help Ukraine, it's crucial for a) reducing the Russian gas dependence of certain allies such as Estonia, but also other important countries like Finland, b) to pull down the price of gas on the world market. If there's more gas on the market, no matter where it is, it has a dampening effect on the prices, making the Russian budget way harder to balance. The timing is also fine, for example, the Baltic Sea LNG terminal is still in its planning stages. Whatever positive effect the deregulation will have will follow in a few years. I think the huffington post analysis was pretty good- it referred to all sides in the debate, and painted a good picture of the political situation in the US. Could you point out what you specifically thought was 'bad' in it? It's quite clear that the current push for liberalizing LNG is in response to the Ukraine situation but obviously won't help Ukraine. The title of the article is "U.S. Push For Natural Gas Exports To Help Ukraine Won't Actually Help Ukraine".
Quoting whoever the activist was, the issue is a red herring. And so is the article. They are trying to lobby against gas deregulation by saying that it won't help Ukraine, but as it's not meant to help Ukraine, that counterargument is dead in the water. As the entire article is basically a large exposition of that single argument, it's `bad analysis' as it's entirely detached from reality. A proper analysis will have to analyze the effect of deregulation on the Baltic sea region, Germany and other affected regions.
***
|
I wonder why they don't invite China to join the G8 instead. They deserve to be there.
|
Could you give the primary source?
|
On March 20 2014 18:57 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2014 17:54 Mc wrote:On March 20 2014 17:18 Ghanburighan wrote:Those are pretty bad analyses, though (to be expected considering both sources). The LNG deregulation isn't even intended to help Ukraine, it's crucial for a) reducing the Russian gas dependence of certain allies such as Estonia, but also other important countries like Finland, b) to pull down the price of gas on the world market. If there's more gas on the market, no matter where it is, it has a dampening effect on the prices, making the Russian budget way harder to balance. The timing is also fine, for example, the Baltic Sea LNG terminal is still in its planning stages. Whatever positive effect the deregulation will have will follow in a few years. I think the huffington post analysis was pretty good- it referred to all sides in the debate, and painted a good picture of the political situation in the US. Could you point out what you specifically thought was 'bad' in it? It's quite clear that the current push for liberalizing LNG is in response to the Ukraine situation but obviously won't help Ukraine. The title of the article is "U.S. Push For Natural Gas Exports To Help Ukraine Won't Actually Help Ukraine". Quoting whoever the activist was, the issue is a red herring. And so is the article. They are trying to lobby against gas deregulation by saying that it won't help Ukraine, but as it's not meant to help Ukraine, that counterargument is dead in the water. As the entire article is basically a large exposition of that single argument, it's `bad analysis' as it's entirely detached from reality. A proper analysis will have to analyze the effect of deregulation on the Baltic sea region, Germany and other affected regions. *** https://twitter.com/myroslavapetsa/status/446576636163784704
Seriously, read the article again. It's simply just describing the state of US politics around the issue of LNG and saying that although it is brought up in the context of Ukraine, that it won't help the current Ukranian government. It will mostly benefit Europe as a whole, waning it off of Russian gas (some countries more NATO allies, some countries less -Ukraine). The article supports that argument.
Nowhere in the article do they 'lobby' against deregulation, if something the article seems to be for it. For example:
"Studies by independent energy experts and the Energy Department have found little evidence that gas exports would increase the domestic gas price."
I also would like to learn more on how it would effect Baltic states. The article doesn't mention that, and it can't mention everything.
|
Russia appears to have escalated the conflict further:
***
Regarding LNG in the Baltic Sea region (this includes Scandinavia and Poland, btw), here's an opinion piece pushing the issue. Follow the links within.
|
LMAO russia is now concerned about russian speaking people in Estonia and how they are trying to lower the amount of people speaking in russian (wat)
See ya Baltics , hope you havent forgot russian language :\
|
^ Concur, but nothing will happen soon. But we have considered ourselves to be on the Russian hit-list since 2008.
More words on the Mistral deal. Not yet suspended, but definitely being considered.
|
On March 20 2014 20:27 Ghanburighan wrote:^ Concur, but nothing will happen soon. But we have considered ourselves to be on the Russian hit-list since 2008. More words on the Mistral deal. Not yet suspended, but definitely being considered. https://twitter.com/FHeisbourg/status/446607092146003968
I hope you used that time to build a proper military 
|
On March 20 2014 19:10 RvB wrote:
I wonder why they don't invite China to join the G8 instead. They deserve to be there.
China doesnt deserve shit. They are much worse than Russia.
|
The land of freedom23126 Posts
On March 20 2014 20:25 whiteLotus wrote:
LMAO russia is now concerned about russian speaking people in Estonia and how they are trying to lower the amount of people speaking in russian (wat)
See ya Baltics , hope you havent forgot russian language :\
There are still Russian schools, Russian language exams and tons of people who can't get citizenship in Latvia at least :D
But noone will touch them, srsly, chill out.
|
On March 20 2014 21:03 DaCruise wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2014 19:10 RvB wrote:
I wonder why they don't invite China to join the G8 instead. They deserve to be there. China doesnt deserve shit. They are much worse than Russia.
Well I meant economically since the G8 is originally a group for important industrial countries.
|
On March 20 2014 21:03 DaCruise wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2014 19:10 RvB wrote:
I wonder why they don't invite China to join the G8 instead. They deserve to be there. China doesnt deserve shit. They are much worse than Russia.
There's no good here. West, China, Russia, same shit, who's the worst is just matter of perspective....
China's so important economically that it should be in G8
|
Seriously... while the "West" has its (big) flaws.
Saying it's just a matter of perspective if the west or russia/china are better/worse is just downright retarded. The west is better for its citizens... Thats a simple fact, this is not even up to debate, there is like no area where China/Russia are "better".
|
So... how many people did Russia kill in Ukraine up until now?
|
On March 20 2014 21:35 zezamer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2014 21:03 DaCruise wrote:On March 20 2014 19:10 RvB wrote:
I wonder why they don't invite China to join the G8 instead. They deserve to be there. China doesnt deserve shit. They are much worse than Russia. There's no good here. West, China, Russia, same shit, who's the worst is just matter of perspective.... China's so important economically that it should be in G8
No, it's a matter of common sense, one wants to protect its interests and the liberal model then defend human rights and global peace, the other has only economic growth in its head hence the most massive social dumping history has known (+ environmental issues + human rights issues), and the last wants to go back to the Middle Age and expand its territory with again no regards for anything (be it economy or human rights).
The choice is pretty easy to make, I don't like our neo-liberal and capitalistic model but I won't put on the same level the US and Russia or China, these ones are rly shitty politicaly and have been for yrs.
|
On March 20 2014 21:44 Saumure wrote:
So... how many people did Russia kill in Ukraine up until now?
It's not a matter of killing but of sovereinity, think before posting.
edit : and perhaps soon enough it will be about killing
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On March 20 2014 21:49 Acertos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2014 21:44 Saumure wrote:
So... how many people did Russia kill in Ukraine up until now? It's not a matter of killing but of sovereinity, think before posting. edit : and perhaps soon enough it will be about killing
I thought about it, and noticed i didn't know how much were killed. Perhaps you whould think a little yourself...
|
On March 20 2014 21:44 Saumure wrote:
So... how many people did Russia kill in Ukraine up until now?
But General Secre-...President Putin and Comrade Lavrov say those "polite people" definitely aren't Russians, so we have to believe them!
On March 20 2014 20:25 whiteLotus wrote:
See ya Baltics , hope you havent forgot russian language :\
He would have to really lose all of his marbles if he tried that rubbish with Estonia. I'm pretty sure even Putin wouldn't dare to take a NATO member head-on like that. As for the rest of Ukraine however...
|
On March 20 2014 22:22 sgtnoobkilla wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2014 21:44 Saumure wrote:
So... how many people did Russia kill in Ukraine up until now? But General Secre-...President Putin and Comrade Lavrov say those "polite people" definitely aren't Russians, so we have to believe them! Show nested quote +On March 20 2014 20:25 whiteLotus wrote:
See ya Baltics , hope you havent forgot russian language :\ He would have to really lose all of his marbles if he tried that rubbish with Estonia. I'm pretty sure even Putin wouldn't dare to take a NATO member head-on like that. As for the rest of Ukraine however...
Well since Obama said USA does not want a military conflict with Russia, Putin just might try it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
