|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On December 25 2019 06:58 Silvanel wrote:
Russia is biggest supplier only because Germany & Russia keep sabotaging efforts to change that. It is in their interest, but it is also big "fuck You" shown to all EE EU members. Once Nord Stream 2 becomes active Russia will be able to tottally circumevent Slovakia with one switch -->meaning they will be able to supply enough gas to Germany/France/Italy etc. while supplying 0 to Slovakia. With some small cuts to western Europe suplies also tottaly shut off Poland. Russia already shown they are willing to use this card against Ukraine, we do not want to be in that position.
No,it's mainly just simple economics. Russia is the cheapest supplier of fossil resources due to its proximity. Even Poland gets about two-thirds of its natural gas from Russia. There is an emerging alternative of liquified natural gas (LNG) from countries like the US, but this is relatively new competition that has only taken off since the shale revolution in the US, and the US only recently (in 2017) , became a net exporter of gas. So maybe in the mid-2020s, the energy market in Europe will be more diverse, but until then Russia will dominate fossil fuels, including to countries in Eastern Europe which have an antagonistic position towards Russia. There is no German Russian energy conspiracy going on here.
|
It's not simple economics. There's a clear political dimension with Nord stream 2. It's a way to circumvent and increases russian leverage over Eastern Europe. It's not a conspiracy but it's a clear fuck you to Eastern European member states.
|
“Simple economics” is practically always a cover for something else when used outside an academic context.
|
There also is no point in building more pipelines for fossils when a country has clearly stated to reduce fossil energy demands.
That is of course only if you are actually intending to do so and don't belong to the modern Nazi parties that try hard to turn the planet into a global gas chamber. Which sadly are almost all of them, in particular extremists like Miss Merkel.
But hey, I know, it is not politically correct to state the obvious, regardless how often scientists tell us the consequences of global gasing.
|
On December 27 2019 10:03 Big J wrote:
There also is no point in building more pipelines for fossils when a country has clearly stated to reduce fossil energy demands.
True in a sense. But Germany tries to get rid of nuclear energy AND coal at the same time. This is already hard enough. Getting out of gas as well will be too difficult at the given time.
On December 27 2019 10:03 Big J wrote:
That is of course only if you are actually intending to do so and don't belong to the modern Nazi parties that try hard to turn the planet into a global gas chamber. Which sadly are almost all of them, in particular extremists like Miss Merkel.
But hey, I know, it is not politically correct to state the obvious, regardless how often scientists tell us the consequences of global gasing.
Yeah right. You know, what you write is not "politically incorrect", it is complete bullshit and offensive. If you want to see Nazi parties in Germany you will find them. But as much as i despise CDU/CSU myself, there are still AfD and NPD.
|
On December 27 2019 08:46 RvB wrote:
It's not simple economics. There's a clear political dimension with Nord stream 2. It's a way to circumvent and increases russian leverage over Eastern Europe. It's not a conspiracy but it's a clear fuck you to Eastern European member states.
There's a political dimension to everything. The alleged conspiracy was that Germany is somehow 'sabotaging efforts' to reduce reliance on Russian fossil fuels, which is not the case. Germany was one of the earliest drivers of renewables in Europe with one of the goals being diminishing the dependence of fossil fuels, it's just that Germany and other Western European nations also have energy security interests in the meantime, because these are all decades-long strategic topics.
I'm also not really sure what a 'fuck you' is, to be honest. Is European nations pursuing both national and European interests which sometimes come into conflict a 'fuck you'? Because if so welcome to the real world, all European member states have conflicting interests domestically and in regards to the EU, the accusation of sabotage is quite a bit stronger than mere balancing those out.
It seems like the default position in regards to Germany is that the country must have no national interests at all, because the moment it voices them someone is around the corner invoking Molotov-Ribbentrop or some other hyperbolic thing.
|
On December 28 2019 06:26 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2019 08:46 RvB wrote:
It's not simple economics. There's a clear political dimension with Nord stream 2. It's a way to circumvent and increases russian leverage over Eastern Europe. It's not a conspiracy but it's a clear fuck you to Eastern European member states. There's a political dimension to everything. The alleged conspiracy was that Germany is somehow 'sabotaging efforts' to reduce reliance on Russian fossil fuels, which is not the case. Germany was one of the earliest drivers of renewables in Europe with one of the goals being diminishing the dependence of fossil fuels, it's just that Germany and other Western European nations also have energy security interests in the meantime, because these are all decades-long strategic topics. I'm also not really sure what a 'fuck you' is, to be honest. Is European nations pursuing both national and European interests which sometimes come into conflict a 'fuck you'? Because if so welcome to the real world, all European member states have conflicting interests domestically and in regards to the EU, the accusation of sabotage is quite a bit stronger than mere balancing those out. It seems like the default position in regards to Germany is that the country must have no national interests at all, because the moment it voices them someone is around the corner invoking Molotov-Ribbentrop or some other hyperbolic thing. I think you missed the point, Russia likes to use its gas supply to pressure countries around it by threatening to cut off their supply. If that same supply also goes to Western Europe its harder to do this, because Germany ect will raise a ruckus if their gas supply is affected.
By building their own pipeline that bypasses Eastern Europe, Germany is opening the way for Russia to increase its leverage over its European neighbours.
Yes Germany has to think about themselves aswell but Eastern Europe being pissed off is perfectly understandable.
|
I don't think you can fault Germany for not wanting to rely on the cooperation of countries like Belarus, Ukraine and Poland for their power supply. Who knows what the political situation will be like in those countries 20 years from now. That said, further investing in fossile fuel and from Russia of all places seems like very backward thinking.
|
Right now the conflict isn't about the existence of the pipeline, but about the rules under which the pipeline should be operated. According to Poland and a few other eastern states, the rules and exemptions desired by Germany are breaking the European law (the principle of energy solidarity) by allowing Gazprom to gain dominant position over EU member states without economical justification. The pipeline doesn't make the Russian gas cheaper, it's only purpose is to allow Germany and Gazprom to continue doing business in situations where there is a conflict between Gazprom and eastern states. This is the previously mentioned "fuck you". The full version is "fuck you, it's your problem not mine".
In Ukraine's case it's different because the country is not an EU member so there are no legal issues there. Everyone knows the consequences of leaving them on their own though.
|
You are also missing the fact that Baltic is very shallow sea, laying a pipline on its bed limits the size of ships that can enter port in Szczecin (most notably tankers carrying liquified gas from Middleeast or US) thus "sabotaging" polish efforts to achive diversity in energy supply.
|
In Ukraine's case we won't be able to become EU member having a grey zone on a border + with very "friendly" regime next door. We're kinda a buffer zone. Poland also to some degree. This may change if the regime falls.
The whole situation is a joke 
|
Nissan Mogul Carlos Ghosn escaped Japan's 24 hour surveillance while awaiting trial.
+ Show Spoiler +
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/dec/31/carlos-ghosn-escaped-japan-hiding-in-a-musical-instrument-case
Carlos Ghosn reportedly fled house arrest in Japan in a musical instrument case, in an audacious Hollywood movie-style escape masterminded by his wife, Carole, with the assistance of a Gregorian music band and a team of ex-special forces officers.
The escape began when the band arrived at his home in Tokyo, where Ghosn has been held under house arrest and strict police surveillance, according to Lebanese TV news channel MTV. At the end of the performance, as the musicians packed up their instruments, Ghosn – whose height is stated at 1.7m, or just under 5ft 6in, in his Wikipedia entry – apparently slipped into one of the larger cases and was taken to a small local airport.
A private plane was waiting to whisk the former corporate titan to Istanbul, Turkey. From there he appears to have boarded a Bombardier Challenger private jet for a flight to Lebanon, where he arrived before dawn on Monday. The flight path recorded by plane tracking site FlightRadar shows the jet disappear at 4.16am, just as it approached Beirut-Rafic Hariri international airport.
User was warned for this post.
|
This has nothing to do with Europe whatsoever. Why post this?
|
So in Austria, the new government will be conservatives + greens? What did they agree on, particularly on ecology?
|
On January 02 2020 05:09 TheDwf wrote:
So in Austria, the new government will be conservatives + greens? What did they agree on, particularly on ecology?
Nothing that I'd know of. What I know is that the greens were in financial trouble after the right won.
Conservatives probably supporting them this term to keep them afloat and the left splintered in two parties (there's also a third but currently not relevant). Would be threatening for them if we didn't have the greens to compete with the social democrats which are more of a center-left.
|
Russian Federation421 Posts
On December 28 2019 08:52 Sent. wrote:
Right now the conflict isn't about the existence of the pipeline, but about the rules under which the pipeline should be operated. According to Poland and a few other eastern states, the rules and exemptions desired by Germany are breaking the European law (the principle of energy solidarity) by allowing Gazprom to gain dominant position over EU member states without economical justification. The pipeline doesn't make the Russian gas cheaper, it's only purpose is to allow Germany and Gazprom to continue doing business in situations where there is a conflict between Gazprom and eastern states. This is the previously mentioned "fuck you". The full version is "fuck you, it's your problem not mine".
In Ukraine's case it's different because the country is not an EU member so there are no legal issues there. Everyone knows the consequences of leaving them on their own though.
I find this take rather strange. AFAIK Russia never threatened Poland with cutting natural gas supply - Gasprom is more than happy to sell it to Poland, on the contrary it’s Poland who intends to stop importing natural gas from Russia by 2022. And Russia has a history of selling gas to countries that it has poor relations with - like Georgia and Ukraine (Gasprom has just negotiated a new deal with it). The only time Russia cut supply to Ukraine was when Ukraine couldn’t pay its bills.
I also don’t understand why you think there no cost of transit of gas - I remember reading a report that Nord Stream gas transit costs were lower for Gasprom than the Ukraine route and slightly higher than Yamal-Europe pipeline. I also remember reading that Poland intended to increase the transit fees for Russian gas which means Nord Stream and planned TurkStream second pipe may become the cheapest source of natural gas from Russia to Central and Western Europe. This should affect the resulting price so unless you believe that Poland is entitled to Western European money by the nature of its geography Nord Stream does make the Russian gas cheaper.
There were also plans to build a second Yamal-Europe pipeline through Poland which were shut down by the Polish side. And it sounds like you don’t intend to import Russian LNG on a matter of principle despite having capability and the fact that 80% of Russian liquified gas is sold to Europe. It sounds like your country is awfully uncooperative - is it any wonder plans are made to avoid you?
|
Poland is very pro-US(republican); it's energy politics - control the EU and cut off the russians while importing LNG from US.
In 2018, Poland's state-owned oil&gas company, PGNiG signed long-term agreements for liquefied natural gas (LNG) deliveries from the US companies. PGNiG also announced it was spending EUR200m on a gas pipeline project to deliver gas from Norway, while not extending its gas deal with Russian Gazprom in 2022. Piotr Wozniak, the CEO of PGNiG said the LNG contracts signed with the US partners allow his company to purchase natural gas 20-30 per cent cheaper than gas purchased from Gazprom .
...
A tanker loaded with LNG from the US, whose gas is ultimately destined for Ukraine, has arrived at the Polish LNG terminal at Swinoujscie, the US embassy in Kiev said Wednesday. Poland wants to become a LNG hub.
|
In austria the Green party (14%) and the conservatives (37%) have announced to form a coalition government.
After weeks of discrete negotiations between these two parties it seems like they have come to an agreement.
The details of the deal are still unpublished, but the ministries seem to be assigned:
Conservatives:
Chancellor - Sebastian Kurz
Interior
Exterior
Europe
Economy
Finance
Agriculture
Education
Family & Work
Defense
Integration
Greens:
Vice Chancellor - Werner Kogler
Infrastructure & Enviroment
Social & Health
Justice
Art & Culture
The deal still has to go through the Green's base vote in a few days and obviously some seem to be frustrated, because they should vote on a 300 page text that they don't know of yet and a list of ministers that seems extremely unfavorable to the Greens.
In essence, the Greens are getting a new super ministry for enviroment and infrastructure in this coalition, with all other big budget ministries (chancellor, finance, interior, economy, work & family, agriculture) being controlled by the conservatives.
But it is expected that the vote goes through.
|
On January 02 2020 06:58 Ingvar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2019 08:52 Sent. wrote:
Right now the conflict isn't about the existence of the pipeline, but about the rules under which the pipeline should be operated. According to Poland and a few other eastern states, the rules and exemptions desired by Germany are breaking the European law (the principle of energy solidarity) by allowing Gazprom to gain dominant position over EU member states without economical justification. The pipeline doesn't make the Russian gas cheaper, it's only purpose is to allow Germany and Gazprom to continue doing business in situations where there is a conflict between Gazprom and eastern states. This is the previously mentioned "fuck you". The full version is "fuck you, it's your problem not mine".
In Ukraine's case it's different because the country is not an EU member so there are no legal issues there. Everyone knows the consequences of leaving them on their own though. I find this take rather strange. AFAIK Russia never threatened Poland with cutting natural gas supply - Gasprom is more than happy to sell it to Poland, on the contrary it’s Poland who intends to stop importing natural gas from Russia by 2022. And Russia has a history of selling gas to countries that it has poor relations with - like Georgia and Ukraine (Gasprom has just negotiated a new deal with it). The only time Russia cut supply to Ukraine was when Ukraine couldn’t pay its bills. I also don’t understand why you think there no cost of transit of gas - I remember reading a report that Nord Stream gas transit costs were lower for Gasprom than the Ukraine route and slightly higher than Yamal-Europe pipeline. I also remember reading that Poland intended to increase the transit fees for Russian gas which means Nord Stream and planned TurkStream second pipe may become the cheapest source of natural gas from Russia to Central and Western Europe. This should affect the resulting price so unless you believe that Poland is entitled to Western European money by the nature of its geography Nord Stream does make the Russian gas cheaper. There were also plans to build a second Yamal-Europe pipeline through Poland which were shut down by the Polish side. And it sounds like you don’t intend to import Russian LNG on a matter of principle despite having capability and the fact that 80% of Russian liquified gas is sold to Europe. It sounds like your country is awfully uncooperative - is it any wonder plans are made to avoid you?
You find it strange that Poland finds Russia untrustworthy or that Poland wants to limit its reliance on a partner who's more than happy to keep it reliant on their supply?
Poland isn't entitled to German money by the nature of its geography. It is entitled to German solidarity in a way that they should cooperate to make sure both countries get the best possible deals when dealing with a third party.
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Article 194
1. In the context of the establishment and functioning of the internal market and with regard for the need to preserve and improve the environment, Union policy on energy shall aim, in a spirit of solidarity between Member States, to:
(a) ensure the functioning of the energy market;
(b) ensure security of energy supply in the Union;
(c) promote energy efficiency and energy saving and the development of new and renewable forms of energy; and
(d) promote the interconnection of energy networks.
According to this principle (at least in my opinion), EU members should respect each other's interests with the goal of bringing the total cost of European purchases to be as low as it is possible. If Poland raised its transit fees above the reasonable level, say, a level justifying burning billions of euros on building and maintaining an underwater pipeline, Germany would be entitled to sue Poland.
I have to add that I'm not a fan of phrases like "existential threat" because ever since we built our own LNG terminal they became an unnecessary exaggeration. We're in a much better position than Ukraine or the Baltic states.
The plans of a second Yamal pipeline were shut down because Poland would be gaining negligible economic benefits in exchange of a large political cost of giving Russia more tools to strangle Ukrainian economy. Agreeing to that while protesting against the construction of Nord Stream would be quite a hypocrisy.
|
On December 13 2019 04:39 TheDwf wrote:
A major social conflict is ongoing in France concerning pensions. The government wants to change our system to a points-based system and more or less increase the retirement age (it's 62 years currently, they want 64 for the full pension, even if you'll still be able to retire at 62 with a malus). The pension will also be calculated on the whole career instead of the 25 best years (private) or the 6 last months (public). Basically they want people to work longer for lower pensions. They also want to suppress special regimes which are advantageous for a few professions, notably in the transports.
There was a big day of strike and demonstrations last week, the 5/12. It had been prepared for at least 2 months. It was a grassroots movement, initially coming from the workers of the transport sector (train, metro) who will lose much with the new reform. Between 806 000 (according to the Interior) and 1.5 million (according to unions) people demonstrated against the reform. The strike rate was very high at the SNCF (train company), the RATP (metro in Paris), among the teachers (who are expected to lose hundreds of euros per month with the new system), at EDF (electricity company), etc. That was the biggest start for a social movement for decades, and it was the first time since 2010 that there were that many people in the streets. The demonstrations were particularly crowded in small and medium-sized towns. A successful show of force from the unions, which did not win anything on a national level since 2006.
The Prime minister said that he would make announcements about the reform on the 11/12 (yesterday). A new day of strike and demonstrations gathered between 339 000 and ~900 000 people the day before.
The Prime minister confirmed the main axis of the reform and managed to anger even the most compliant trade unions. Now every union is calling for a day of demonstration the 17/12. It should be big. This is the first time since 2010 (when Sarkozy increased the retirement age from 60 to 62) that there is a relative unity in the ranks of unions, even if it should quickly shatter when the governement makes concessions.
Public transports in Paris' region and trains in the whole country have been heavily disrupted for a week. The activity in ports and refineries is also disrupted by strikes and/or blockades. This should be the beginning of a harsh and long conflict.
I suspect you know that this is a totally dishonest and biaised presentation of this reform.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
