|
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 January 03 2020 01:18 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2020 06:58 Ingvar wrote: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. Show nested quote +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.
While it's good and surprising to see Poland call for solidarity, one can't help wondering where that solidarity was in 2015-16 and onward. Showing solidarity to fellow EU members wasn't as important then. It isn't a one-way street you know, Germany owes you nothing in terrms of solidarity.
|
On January 03 2020 22:46 Longshank wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2020 01:18 Sent. wrote:On January 02 2020 06:58 Ingvar wrote: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. While it's good and surprising to see Poland call for solidarity, one can't help wondering where that solidarity was in 2015-16 and onward. Showing solidarity to fellow EU members wasn't as important then. It isn't a one-way street you know, Germany owes you nothing in terrms of solidarity.
You should probably look up Nord Stream 1, mate... ;-)
|
An aqcuaintance of mine did a lot of coding for the north stream 1 project and was invited to some inauguration festivities. Also present was the former German chanellor Gerhard Schröder. Who was already tipsy at 1pm.
|
On January 03 2020 22:46 Longshank wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2020 01:18 Sent. wrote:On January 02 2020 06:58 Ingvar wrote: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. While it's good and surprising to see Poland call for solidarity, one can't help wondering where that solidarity was in 2015-16 and onward. Showing solidarity to fellow EU members wasn't as important then. It isn't a one-way street you know, Germany owes you nothing in terrms of solidarity.
It doesn't work like this. What you're saying equates to "You broke my window therefore it is okay for me to key your car" attitude. Poland, Germany and 26 other countries agreed to form a community with specific rules designed to make everyone's lives better. If a fair trial determines one member of the community broke another's window, he's supposed to pay his fine and fix the window he broke. His wrongdoing doesn't entitle others to key his car.
|
On January 03 2020 23:08 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2020 22:46 Longshank wrote:On January 03 2020 01:18 Sent. wrote:On January 02 2020 06:58 Ingvar wrote: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. While it's good and surprising to see Poland call for solidarity, one can't help wondering where that solidarity was in 2015-16 and onward. Showing solidarity to fellow EU members wasn't as important then. It isn't a one-way street you know, Germany owes you nothing in terrms of solidarity. You should probably look up Nord Stream 1, mate... ;-)
Yeah, it was pointed out several times during migration crisis that Germany acusing Poland of lack of soldiarity is laughable. They were deaf to such calls when Nord Stream 1 was being build, Poland only returned the favor.
|
On January 04 2020 00:51 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2020 22:46 Longshank wrote:On January 03 2020 01:18 Sent. wrote:On January 02 2020 06:58 Ingvar wrote: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. While it's good and surprising to see Poland call for solidarity, one can't help wondering where that solidarity was in 2015-16 and onward. Showing solidarity to fellow EU members wasn't as important then. It isn't a one-way street you know, Germany owes you nothing in terrms of solidarity. It doesn't work like this. What you're saying equates to "You broke my window therefore it is okay for me to key your car" attitude. Poland, Germany and 26 other countries agreed to form a community with specific rules designed to make everyone's lives better. If a fair trial determines one member of the community broke another's window, he's supposed to pay his fine and fix the window he broke. His wrongdoing doesn't entitle others to key his car.
Sure, in a perfect world. Meanwhile in this one, not many people will get worked up if the guy with the car has spent the last few years being a dick to everyone. Some might even say it's justified.
If Poland can battle Germany legally then fair game, well done. But cries for EU-solidarity after Polands behaviour are astonishingly tone deaf.
|
On January 04 2020 01:01 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2020 23:08 maybenexttime wrote:On January 03 2020 22:46 Longshank wrote:On January 03 2020 01:18 Sent. wrote:On January 02 2020 06:58 Ingvar wrote: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. While it's good and surprising to see Poland call for solidarity, one can't help wondering where that solidarity was in 2015-16 and onward. Showing solidarity to fellow EU members wasn't as important then. It isn't a one-way street you know, Germany owes you nothing in terrms of solidarity. You should probably look up Nord Stream 1, mate... ;-) Yeah, it was pointed out several times during migration crisis that Germany acusing Poland of lack of soldiarity is laughable. They were deaf to such calls when Nord Stream 1 was being build, Poland only returned the favor.
Not only Germany, Italy, Greece, Sweden, Denmark, United Kingdom, Spain, France, Belgium, The Netherlands, Finland, Ireland and Luxemburg did as well.
|
Russian Federation421 Posts
On January 03 2020 01:18 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2020 06:58 Ingvar wrote: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. Show nested quote +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.
Ok, let me try to follow your narrative. Poland doesn’t want to buy cheap Russian gas because of political implications. I don’t see how Germany or any other EU country can help you here - they aren’t expected to follow suit because Article 194 doesn’t speak about political solidarity - only about functioning, security and interconnection and these things don’t depend on the source or the price of Polish imported gas. On the other hand, Germany wants cheap Russian gas. There is a precedent that Ukraine is an unreliable transit country so alternative pipelines directly to EU countries are desirable. Poland refuses to build second Yamal pipeline and opposes Nord Stream 2 in direct violation of 194(b) (and possibly 194(a)). It seems to me that Poland here violates the spirit of solidarity.
As for the goal of bringing the total cost of European purchases to be as low as it is possible - Germany does exactly that. Poland’s costs can’t be lowered since they aren’t economically motivated - so the right course of action here is to lower your own costs as much as possible.
|
|
|
What these children deserve abd what the reality of the situation is are two different things though.
For starters, we cannot just swoop in and kidnap these children. They have parents, and while they might in all cases be better off without those parents, it'd need to be sorted out in a case by case basis. Those parents, in general, have no interest in returning to the Netherlands, except maybe to continue their jihad, and need to be judged for their role with IS and whatever they did (some maybe nothing, others maybe warcrimes). So what are you planning on doing? Forcing the parents to come to the Netherlands so we can decide they've committed crimes, toss them in jail and stick their kids in the foster system? And you expect the kids to grow up grateful for this (even though rationally, it is probably a better childhood than growing up with their shitty jihadist parents in a refugee camp)?
Then there's logistics. These kids are somewhere in a refugee camp in Turkey or Lebanon. They don't have Dutch passports and their parents are trying to hide away from the Dutch authorities. We know that they exist. We can.even estimate how many there are, but actually finding who and where they are is seriously difficult, and dangerous, work.
And all of this for a cause that a significant chunk of the population thinks is equivalent to willfully importing enemies of the state, and will exhaust all political capital in achieving, causing things that the government actually wants to fight for go undone.
Do I think it is morally the right choice here to leave them? No. It's a despicable choice. But it may be the only realistic choice given the practical difficulties in doing the *right* thing.
Finally, if we're talking ethics, I don't really know why being born Dutch should give these children special rights over their neighbors, who were born Syrian. Why should we *save* the Dutch kids but let the Syrian kids in exactly the same situation to rot?
|
On January 06 2020 19:35 Ingvar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2020 01:18 Sent. wrote:On January 02 2020 06:58 Ingvar wrote: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. Ok, let me try to follow your narrative. Poland doesn’t want to buy cheap Russian gas because of political implications. I don’t see how Germany or any other EU country can help you here - they aren’t expected to follow suit because Article 194 doesn’t speak about political solidarity - only about functioning, security and interconnection and these things don’t depend on the source or the price of Polish imported gas. On the other hand, Germany wants cheap Russian gas. There is a precedent that Ukraine is an unreliable transit country so alternative pipelines directly to EU countries are desirable. Poland refuses to build second Yamal pipeline and opposes Nord Stream 2 in direct violation of 194(b) (and possibly 194(a)). It seems to me that Poland here violates the spirit of solidarity. As for the goal of bringing the total cost of European purchases to be as low as it is possible - Germany does exactly that. Poland’s costs can’t be lowered since they aren’t economically motivated - so the right course of action here is to lower your own costs as much as possible.
Thats a load of BS and fortunately so thinks the thinks the ECJ : https://www.rferl.org/a/poland-ukraine-hail-eu-court-ruling-that-curbs-gazprom-nord-stream-pipeline-access/30158148.html. Energy solidarity is a thing, EU has agreed on that. This problem is mainly political, economy comes second. Germany loves to juggle between "economy" and "politics" when it suits them but noone is buying that, not the ECJ and the Americans fortunately.
|
On January 23 2020 16:22 Acrofales wrote:What these children deserve abd what the reality of the situation is are two different things though. For starters, we cannot just swoop in and kidnap these children. They have parents, and while they might in all cases be better off without those parents, it'd need to be sorted out in a case by case basis. Those parents, in general, have no interest in returning to the Netherlands, except maybe to continue their jihad, and need to be judged for their role with IS and whatever they did (some maybe nothing, others maybe warcrimes). So what are you planning on doing? Forcing the parents to come to the Netherlands so we can decide they've committed crimes, toss them in jail and stick their kids in the foster system? And you expect the kids to grow up grateful for this (even though rationally, it is probably a better childhood than growing up with their shitty jihadist parents in a refugee camp)? Then there's logistics. These kids are somewhere in a refugee camp in Turkey or Lebanon. They don't have Dutch passports and their parents are trying to hide away from the Dutch authorities. We know that they exist. We can.even estimate how many there are, but actually finding who and where they are is seriously difficult, and dangerous, work. And all of this for a cause that a significant chunk of the population thinks is equivalent to willfully importing enemies of the state, and will exhaust all political capital in achieving, causing things that the government actually wants to fight for go undone. Do I think it is morally the right choice here to leave them? No. It's a despicable choice. But it may be the only realistic choice given the practical difficulties in doing the *right* thing. Finally, if we're talking ethics, I don't really know why being born Dutch should give these children special rights over their neighbors, who were born Syrian. Why should we *save* the Dutch kids but let the Syrian kids in exactly the same situation to rot?
1) Most of these children are in kurdistan, at least for France and Russia, the ones who manage to get in Turkey are brought home, the same goes for Irak which is absolutely logic. The only (or at least the majority) ones who are stuck there are the ones in kurdistan because there are no proper states and legislation. The reason is simple, in Irak or Labanon the parents are sentenced by the state so the children immediatly go back to France, Turkey does the same. Actually, that's funny because Russia which is not supposed to be a human right country is bringing back a lot of these children, whether Putin is a angelic human rights supporters or he undestands what bring potential terrorists. Like cmon, I dare you to say this man is not pragmatic ?
2) What about the ones in the kurdes camp in which are clearly a majority of these people ? The ngo have identified them, the kurds too, it shouldn't be too hard especially because most of the parents want to go back to France whether it is because they lost their illusions or for a more lenient judgement. And if they don't want to go, well, the kurdes don't have the structures to judge for now so they had little choices but coming back to a judgement in their home country. A plan had been done in France in order to get back the children with the mothers who would have prosecutes but it has been revealed and stopped with the uproar of public opinions, so it is not about logistics or reakpolitiks or anything, it is about fear and hatred directly toward djihadists and their children. There are zero rationality behind it.
3) They will grow resentful you say, sure, let's abandon them in the hand of people from daesh in these shitty conditions, I bet it will be for the better and they surely won't become terrorists that way. I believed you were pragmatic ? How is it pragmatic ? It's both barbaric and incredibly stupid, you make them terrorists and even if you don't, letting children died in camps... Invoking realpolitics for that is incredibly shitty, it is just a vengeance by very dumb public opinion against innocents. Because that's the thing, the children have been abused, they need to be protected. And sorry but I don't plan to extrapolate that much on the children's future, there are less than 10 years, if they are correctly reinsered, they might understand their parents were criminals and despite their faults, we have treated them as normal citizens. Unless you believe that less than a 10yo is beyond help but then, our views are too much differents. But that might be not the case, "rationally" you seem to agree with me, well, fair enough, be rational please !
4) As for ethics, that's a strawman argument, I remind you you're advocating the solution of letting less than 10yo rotten in camps without decent sanitary condition, terrible food, parked in a camp site, during the winter, some of them are dying. But still, to answer you, yes; being born in a specific country is a privilege, it gives you rights, like the right to live a decent life, to be protected from an unfair jugdement in a foreign country, you might have a different point of view but mine is let's help the ones we have the duty to help, the kurds don't have to deal with these children or the djihadists, it's up to us. Whatever their parents did, these kids are french just like I am. I hate the argument, "there is someone in a worst posture than you so no need to help".
The fact there are syrian and iraqis kids in similar conditions in a devasted state is a tragedy, instrumentalizing it in order to justify letting children of your own country is morally dubious at best just like not helping the ones you can and must help.
Like really, I can't see the argue for the young Nassim, 8-9 yo who have been brought by his parents in Syria around 5 to stay in this camp while his grandparents who are good people are waiting for him.
Finally, why do you write save between asterisks ? You're thinking they have been not abused or that they are not in danger and very bad conditions in these camps ?
5) In 1981, french public opinion still supported death penality, now, they're supporting something that is punishing innocents by letting them die, the djihadists have won right ? 'Cause all the speeches "I stand by my values" have disappeared now. Unless our values are letting children who should be in our schools rot in djihadist prisonner camps. I don't think that's their real place, a better place would be a secular school for example, there have suffered enough, that's what they deserve now and this is the better way to fight terrorism.
Btw, our gov doesn't care much about public opinion, the current reform initiated by Macron is disapproved by the majority of the polls and despite the strike, it'll pass.
|
Seems odd the protests in France don't generate more posts here. I recently saw that some cops and firefighters were fighting in the street at recent protests.
That seems like a big deal, am I missing something about why that isn't making more (any?) headlines stateside?
|
On January 29 2020 15:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
Seems odd the protests in France don't generate more posts here. I recently saw that some cops and firefighters were fighting in the street at recent protests.
That seems like a big deal, am I missing something about why that isn't making more (any?) headlines stateside?
Fatigue about the frequency.
|
On January 29 2020 15:51 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2020 15:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
Seems odd the protests in France don't generate more posts here. I recently saw that some cops and firefighters were fighting in the street at recent protests.
That seems like a big deal, am I missing something about why that isn't making more (any?) headlines stateside? Fatigue about the frequency.
Do cops and firefighters fight in the streets that frequently in Europe? Because that would be a big deal in the states.
|
On January 29 2020 15:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2020 15:51 Yurie wrote:On January 29 2020 15:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
Seems odd the protests in France don't generate more posts here. I recently saw that some cops and firefighters were fighting in the street at recent protests.
That seems like a big deal, am I missing something about why that isn't making more (any?) headlines stateside? Fatigue about the frequency. Do cops and firefighters fight in the streets that frequently in Europe? Because that would be a big deal in the states.
I meant it more like, France, protest yet again. Would need massive escalations to reach prime news slots.
26 days ago is the last time I find any news about strikes in France in the papers here. That being a 30 day strike.
|
On January 29 2020 15:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2020 15:51 Yurie wrote:On January 29 2020 15:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
Seems odd the protests in France don't generate more posts here. I recently saw that some cops and firefighters were fighting in the street at recent protests.
That seems like a big deal, am I missing something about why that isn't making more (any?) headlines stateside? Fatigue about the frequency. Do cops and firefighters fight in the streets that frequently in Europe? Because that would be a big deal in the states.
These demonstrations/clashes have waged for over a year now in France? People are just tired of it and the reforms Macron tries to get thru are not exactly extreme.
In basically any other european country this would be huge news, but it's France. They seem to strike/demonstrate if the weather was shitty for 2-3 days.
Firefighters (and the police, in some groups) are also not put on a pedestal like in the USA, atleast thats how it looks to me.
|
Most intriguing to me is the relentlessly recurring police violence in France.
And I'm super torn between "Wtf are they complaining about with their stupidly early pension age and overly convoluted system" and "Why am I not on the streets or writing my local politician about things that are dear to me?"
Additionally I hardly know enough about the substance of the protest to honestly discuss it.
|
Nobody considers the French riots a big deal here too. It's pretty much a meme ("What? They're rioting again? haha").
Supporters of our government are trying to weaponize that meme by bringing up the police violence in France whenever someone from the EU complains about undermining the rule of law in Poland. Something along the lines of "you should focus on the real problems in France instead of made up issues in Poland". It's like that Soviet joke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes.
|
On January 30 2020 01:26 Sent. wrote:Nobody considers the French riots a big deal here too. It's pretty much a meme ("What? They're rioting again? haha"). Supporters of our government are trying to weaponize that meme by bringing up the police violence in France whenever someone from the EU complains about undermining the rule of law in Poland. Something along the lines of "you should focus on the real problems in France instead of made up issues in Poland". It's like that Soviet joke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes.
Do they teach in Europe about how Nazi Germany was actually inspired by US race science and oppression of minorities? That the Nazi's concluded some US race laws were too harsh? Nuremberg Laws were heavily influenced by US citizen and antimiscegenation laws in the US?
As Whitman shows, the Nuremberg Laws were crafted in an atmosphere of considerable attention to the precedents American race laws had to offer. German praise for American practices, already found in Hitler’s Mein Kampf, was continuous throughout the early 1930s, and the most radical Nazi lawyers were eager advocates of the use of American models. But while Jim Crow segregation was one aspect of American law that appealed to Nazi radicals, it was not the most consequential one. Rather, both American citizenship and antimiscegenation laws proved directly relevant to the two principal Nuremberg Laws—the Citizenship Law and the Blood Law. Whitman looks at the ultimate, ugly irony that when Nazis rejected American practices, it was sometimes not because they found them too enlightened, but too harsh.
press.princeton.edu
I guess I get the "It is France" angle but seeing these videos of the fights is sorta wild
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
