The Russian/Syrian connection thread

[fathertime]

Even the anti-assad rebel groups don't want us interfering in Syria....why do we feel we must continue to poke our nose in this battle?


Syrian Rebels Taunt U.S. Troops



“Dogs!” the bearded fighters shouted.


“American agents!”
“No to the Christian coalition!”

“Down with America and all the countries that side with America!”
“Pigs!”
These were just some of the choice epithets hurled at U.S.-backed Syrian forces—and U.S. advisors among them—as their convoy passed through the border town of al-Rai in Aleppo province earlier this month.
An unnamed man in a black mask threatened, “We are going to slaughter you. You will not have a place among us. We will kill those who are fighting with you.”
A video of this incident—which pitted the shouting partisans

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/30/syrian-rebels-taunt-u-s-troops.html


Fathertime!

[Gator]

Secretary Kerry reveals in a recent recording that he pushed for forceful intervention in Syria, yet was denied by others in the White House.  He said, "You can be mad at us, but what we are trying to do is help Syrians to fight for their own country, and we have been spending a lot of money, a lot of effort."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/01/politics/kerry-audio-recording-syria/index.html

The Russian State Department warned the US yesterday that if the US attacks Syrian forces, it “will lead to terrible, tectonic consequences not only on the territory of this country but also in the region on the whole.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-warns-us-tectonic-consequences-syria/

In other words, Putin is telling Obama don't dare consider anything against Assad, as if Obama would do anything.  Much of the world has complained about past American interventions.  Obama has taken America out of the intervention business, even to stop human suffering, and Putin has filled the void.  Putin has no concern about human suffering, as evidenced by the increased bombings of Aleppo or last week's direct bombing by Russian jets of a convoy attempting to deliver humanitarian aid to Aleppo.   For sure Putin has no concern about international law.  Welcome to the new world order.

Putin's plans have a far horizon.  He is thinking of the next 20 years.  He will do more in the Middle East.  He will do  more in the new world (e. g., consider his obvious goal to control the Artic, the soon to be lowest cost shipping lane between Europe and Asia  - 60 Minutes). 

[BillyB]

Putin is telling Obama don't dare consider anything against Assad, as if Obama would do anything.

Most people figured Obama wouldn't do much. Putin probably learned Obama's stance in Syria and Ukraine by reading Obama's emails. Now Putin is going a step further. Putin is boldly telling Obama not to do anything in public instead of behind closed doors. Putin would not be putting this out in public if he thought it could backfire and embarrass him. While Obama seeks to push peace, Russia is currently sending more military hardware to Syria.

[jone]

Most people figured Obama wouldn't do much. Putin probably learned Obama's stance in Syria and Ukraine by reading Obama's emails. Now Putin is going a step further. Putin is boldly telling Obama not to do anything in public instead of behind closed doors. Putin would not be putting this out in public if he thought it could backfire and embarrass him. While Obama seeks to push peace, Russia is currently sending more military hardware to Syria.

And people disput that Putin has an 80% approval rating at home?  Putin makes all the moves.  The US just plays defense.  Thanks Obama.  While Trump is still a questionmark, I think that Hillary is more aggressive than Obama.

[Gator]

In just one day the situation has worsened for Aleppo rebels and civilians. 

Either the Russians or Syrians (with Russian ordnance) took out a most underground hospital with bunker-buster bombs.  Earlier in the day, the same happened to another underground hospital in another rebel-held area.  Over the weekend, the Syrian military captured still another hospital situated atop a strategic hill overlooking Aleppo. 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/03/middleeast/syria-aleppo/index.html

It seems the Syrians-Russians are targeting hospitals.   Almost all armed conflicts purposefully avoid hospitals, realizing they are needed to treat casualties of war.  I suggest those who believe Russia is no worse than the US should reexamine their criteria. 

[Gator]

Other news: 

1.  U.S. on Monday suspended direct diplomatic talks with Russia over Syria.

2.  Moscow halted cooperation on a joint program for disposal of weapons-grade plutonium.

3.  Over the weekend Russia deployed at its naval base in Syria  advanced anti-missile and anti-aircraft system (SA-23 Gladiator systems).  These systems can defend against cruise missiles and aircraft.  Considering the rebels have neither missiles nor aircraft, these are deployed  to prevent an attack by the US as well as  prevent the US from creating a "no fly zone."

[BillyB]

It seems the Syrians-Russians are targeting hospitals.   Almost all armed conflicts purposefully avoid hospitals, realizing they are needed to treat casualties of war.  I suggest those who believe Russia is no worse than the US should reexamine their criteria.

It's not Russia's fault! It's America's policies that made Russia act aggressive everywhere they go so they can achieve parity!  That's all they want is parity and no more. How does the Syrian people feel about Russia? Just count the number of Syrian refugees that chose Russia over the EU.

Russia sending more warplanes to Syria for wholesale liquidation of anti Assad populations. Assad is going to be paying Russia handsomely so that he can stay in power forever. In exchange for wiping out his people, he'll probably pay in oil and offer military bases so that Russia can dominate the Middle East. When Russia is done with Syria, are they going to help Ukraine the same way?

http://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-sending-more-warplanes-syria-world-anger-grows-142318914.html

[Belvis]

Russia sending more warplanes to Syria for wholesale liquidation of anti Assad populations.

It is rather unusual to call armed opposition and islamic terrorists as anti Assad populations, but formally that's true. Russia waited a few years till it became obvious for everybody that US failed to fight radical islamism at ME. Moreover the radical islamism was kind of created by US actions so Russia had little choice to clean up the mess there. Somebody has to do the dirty work.

When Russia is done with Syria, are they going to help Ukraine the same way?

Only if legitimate Ukrainian government asked about, as it happened in Syria.

[BC]

Well might as well let them have it or?  Obviously the long history of US practice attempting to topple dictators is simply creating more problems than it resolves.  In Syria a CIA coup was attempted in 1957 and GW Bush financed anti-government efforts (discovered via wikileaks), so a rocky past that sounds soooo familiar...   http://www.truth-out.org/progressivepicks/item/33180-wikileaks-reveals-how-the-us-aggressively-pursued-regime-change-in-syria-igniting-a-bloodbath

Assad is a Ba'athist.  Ba'athism ideology is generally secular which is probably a good thing.  Folks in that part of the world are so entwined in religious power struggles that left alone without a dictator or secular government there is no control or limiting strife between religious parties.  De-Ba'athification is a perfect example of how things go south in this environment.

Russia insisted from the beginning that deposing Assad was the wrong way to go.  Now we'll have to sit back and see if their 'way' is right or wrong.  I think in principle Putin's ideas makes more sense.  Leave Assad in power for now, fight ISIS and then deal with him once control and a semblance of order has been achieved.  Their assertions that the US has destabilized the region seems to be fairly accurate with efforts going back a decade and more.

US involvement in many of the past wars such as Korea, Vietnam etc can be said to be ideological power struggles between RU and the US.  One would think since the USSR fell that there would be little need for such ideological conflicts... but the power struggles obviously still exists..  so if it's not ideology then what?  My gut feeling is cheap oil.  On RU's side, increasing their influence in Syria puts Iraq in a political squeeze between Syria and Iran.  Also Syria is a good oil transit country aside from being a small producer.

http://osnetdaily.com/2015/09/us-plans-to-partition-iraq-and-syria-into-pipeline-states/



Also makes sense why RU is snuggling up to Turkey...

I think the big elephant in the room is if and how long the US can remain petro-energy independent and at what cost/prices. As I stated a while ago, the US as the largest petro consumer is begging to be in a bad way a few short decades down the road.  Production prices in the US and Canada will rise much faster than cheaper oil elsewhere..

This I believe is Putin's end game.  Not war, not territorial assets but instead assuring they will be able to produce, transport at much higher profit down the road, thus increasing their economic might and political power.

You can bet once Syria is locked up, Iraq is next on Putin's list, not Europe.

 

[BillyB]

It is rather unusual to call armed opposition and islamic terrorists as anti Assad populations, but formally that's true.

Some people called it Arab Spring. Sure terrorists wanted to capitalize but most regular citizens don't like Assad. Would you? You think what America did was bad but look who Assad invited in to kill citizens. Tens of millions are displaced from their homes already. Who's going to rebuild Syria? Russia?

Russia waited a few years till it became obvious for everybody that US failed to fight radical islamism at ME. Moreover the radical islamism was kind of created by US actions so Russia had little choice to clean up the mess there. Somebody has to do the dirty work.
Only if legitimate Ukrainian government asked about, as it happened in Syria.

I've criticized Obama many times for not doing more to end the war quicker and allowing terrorism to grow. He's not willing to kill enough but Russia is willing to kill too much. Russia is also saving it's bombs for those seeking freedom from Assad over terrorists. Did you see terrorism around the world decrease after Russia got involved? I think Putin is okay with ISIS remaining a thorn in America's and Europe's side.

[Gator]

Well might as well let them have it or?  Obviously the long history of US practice attempting to topple dictators is simply creating more problems than it resolves.  In Syria a CIA coup was attempted in 1957 and GW Bush financed anti-government efforts (discovered via wikileaks), so a rocky past that sounds soooo familiar...   http://www.truth-out.org/progressivepicks/item/33180-wikileaks-reveals-how-the-us-aggressively-pursued-regime-change-in-syria-igniting-a-bloodbath

Blame Bush, of course.  This time it is GW Bush!  All was fairly peaceful in Assad's secular government until he cracked down harshly on Arab Spring protesters.  That started the Syrian Civil War.

Assad is a Ba'athist. 

He is an Ophthalmologist.       Seriously, it is more relevant in this conflict that he is Alawite, a Shia sect.   The Alawites are concentrated in the west with Sunni Arabs in the east, with significant groupings of Christians (Armenians, Assyrians, Orthodox, etc.), Kurds, Druze, etc.  The list is long, resembling Lebanon, so long and complicated that in contrast the Balkans appear relatively simple.  We are talking about ancient history where diverse peoples have learned to live with each other for over 25 centuries.   

Many minorities strive to maintain neutrality in the conflict, boiling the war down to the Alawites vs. the Sunni Arabs.   The Alawites are a small minority (12%) vs. the Arab-Sunni majority (60%).  This alignment is confirmed by the regional support given each side:  Iran and Hezbollah supporting Assad and Arab Gulf states supporting the opposition. 

The Alawites are so small that the collective Christian community is equal to them in population.  The difference is that the Alawites were the ruling party and to the ruling power go the riches, what little there are in Syria.   

Ba'athism ideology is generally secular which is probably a good thing.  Folks in that part of the world are so entwined in religious power struggles that left alone without a dictator or secular government there is no control or limiting strife between religious parties.  De-Ba'athification is a perfect example of how things go south in this environment.

Completely agree with you, except Assad did the "De-Ba'athification" with his brutal crackdown on  Arab Spring protestors. 

Russia insisted from the beginning that deposing Assad was the wrong way to go.  Now we'll have to sit back and see if their 'way' is right or wrong.

It is apparent that Assad would have lost if Putin had not stepped in.  The economy is in tatters and can not support a long conflict.  Being a minority a significant percentage of  Alawite men had become casualties of the war.  Some Alawite communities were becoming neutral to protect their young men.  The end was in sight and had the Russians not stepped in, the fighting would be over now (maybe over, dependent upon the aftermath). 

I think in principle Putin's ideas makes more sense.  Leave Assad in power for now, fight ISIS and then deal with him once control and a semblance of order has been achieved.  Their assertions that the US has destabilized the region seems to be fairly accurate with efforts going back a decade and more.

I disagree but don't have time this morning to explain.

 

US involvement in many of the past wars such as Korea, Vietnam etc can be said to be ideological power struggles between RU and the US.  One would think since the USSR fell that there would be little need for such ideological conflicts... but the power struggles obviously still exists..  so if it's not ideology then what?  My gut feeling is cheap oil.  On RU's side, increasing their influence in Syria puts Iraq in a political squeeze between Syria and Iran.  Also Syria is a good oil transit country aside from being a small producer.

http://osnetdaily.com/2015/09/us-plans-to-partition-iraq-and-syria-into-pipeline-states/



Also makes sense why RU is snuggling up to Turkey...

Partially agree, partially disagree.

I think the big elephant in the room is if and how long the US can remain petro-energy independent and at what cost/prices. As I stated a while ago, the US as the largest petro consumer is begging to be in a bad way a few short decades down the road.  Production prices in the US and Canada will rise much faster than cheaper oil elsewhere..

$40/bbl for decades.  US will not be affected.  Europe and Asia will, however.

This I believe is Putin's end game.  Not war, not territorial assets but instead assuring they will be able to produce, transport at much higher profit down the road, thus increasing their economic might and political power.

You can bet once Syria is locked up, Iraq is next on Putin's list, not Europe.

Iran and Russia have huge long-term plans that could destabilize the Sunni Gulf States.  Europe will suffer from having to pay higher prices for oil. 

See you later. 

[BC]

.....$40/bbl for decades.  US will not be affected.  Europe and Asia will, however.

See you later.

Gator,

Thanks for taking the time for that informative post and putting a few pieces of the puzzle together!  I'll chew on it for a bit.. quite complex relationships for sure...

Just to throw something in as for oil production.. and $40 bbl..



http://marketrealist.com/2016/01/crude-oils-total-cost-production-impacts-major-oil-producers/

See who gains the most?

[jone]

Gator,

Thanks for taking the time for that informative post and putting a few pieces of the puzzle together!  I'll chew on it for a bit.. quite complex relationships for sure...

Just to throw something in as for oil production.. and $40 bbl..





http://marketrealist.com/2016/01/crude-oils-total-cost-production-impacts-major-oil-producers/

See who gains the most?

Produce, not transport

[Gator]

I think in principle Putin's ideas makes more sense.  Leave Assad in power for now, fight ISIS and then deal with him once control and a semblance of order has been achieved.  Their assertions that the US has destabilized the region seems to be fairly accurate with efforts going back a decade and more.

It makes sense if one can trust Putin and Assad to be humane.  I don't.

Would Putin even consider the alternative of replacing Assad.  Putin certainly would not consider a democratically elected replacement given the Sunni Arabs are a 60% majority and Alawites are 12%?  So the process many never get off the ground unless some type of divided leadership deal can be negotiated.  Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of Syrians  have died and millions have emigrated.   

Yes, the US destabilized the region in multiple ways.  It started with Bush and continued with Obama/Clinton.  It is far from over.    
 

US involvement in many of the past wars such as Korea, Vietnam etc can be said to be ideological power struggles between RU and the US.  One would think since the USSR fell that there would be little need for such ideological conflicts... but the power struggles obviously still exists..  so if it's not ideology then what?  My gut feeling is cheap oil.  On RU's side, increasing their influence in Syria puts Iraq in a political squeeze between Syria and Iran.  Also Syria is a good oil transit country aside from being a small producer.

http://osnetdaily.com/2015/09/us-plans-to-partition-iraq-and-syria-into-pipeline-states/


 

You are correct that although the conflicts today are not communism vs. capitalism, economics is the issue.  The world has an oversupply of gas and oil, driving prices down.  Russia wants higher oil and gas prices to improve its way of life.  So does Iran.   And Iran wants to produce more too.  Gas prices could drop more because of the two gas pipelines to Europe  proposed through Syria in your graphic.   

To increase oil prices, Russia and Iran could  "pressure" Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni Gulf states into reducing their market share by producing less oil.  As far as gas pipelines, there are possible routes that do not go though Syria, so I do not understand the significance attached to Syria's role for supplying gas to Europe.  And why would Putin want either of these two pipelines to become operational, considering they will take market share from Russian gas?   Hopefully your information will explain.   
 

Also makes sense why RU is snuggling up to Turkey...

Strange bedfellows.  Turkey is long term enemy of the Kurds.  Turkey opposes Assad.  Turkey downs a Russian jet fighter.  ISIS carries out terror attacks in Turkey.  Yet, here there are together in gas pipeline deals, etc.  2TallBill explained earlier in this thread that Turkey is a whore who will sell to anyone who has money. 

I think the big elephant in the room is if and how long the US can remain petro-energy independent and at what cost/prices. As I stated a while ago, the US as the largest petro consumer is begging to be in a bad way a few short decades down the road.  Production prices in the US and Canada will rise much faster than cheaper oil elsewhere..

Not an issue now or in the long term future.  From earlier in this thread:



Now you can understand why the US is not incentivized to do "heavy lifting" in the Middle East.  Shale oil gave US its freedom from dependency on Middle East oil.   

Guess who was against fracking to produce shale oil?  Answer - Obama.  Ironical, yes.  The energy companies worked around him.  You explain that many countries produce oil for a lower cost than fracking,  yet the production cost of something around $40/bbl is still reasonable. 

This I believe is Putin's end game.  Not war, not territorial assets but instead assuring they will be able to produce, transport at much higher profit down the road, thus increasing their economic might and political power.

Higher oil and gas prices is Putin's goal.  His best bet for achieving this is to intimidate the Gulf states into producing less oil and not building gas pipelines to Europe.   

You can bet once Syria is locked up, Iraq is next on Putin's list, not Europe.

He does not want to occupy western Europe.  He would like to see the EU dissolved, and for sure he wants Europe to pay Russia more for gas and oil. 

You and others have complained about the US's long history of being involved in the Middle East.  After these decades of meddling, there is not one country in the Middle East who fears the US.  How many now fear Russia and Iran?   Too bad if they do, because the US seems to be following Obama's vision to withdraw military forces from the Middle East. 

Now I have something for you to ponder.  The CCCP collapsed in large part due to the costly war in Afghanistan.  The US CIA ran covert operations to stir up the  Mujahideen, prompting the Soviets to invade Afghanistan to support the dictator in power.   Is Syria a similar "trap" for the Russians?    There are differences, yet there are important similarities. 

[jone]

Hey, Gator? ......

What's the CCCP? 

[Gator]

Hey, Gator? ......

What's the CCCP?

Russian language for USSR.  I saw it for many years on the front of Soviet athletic jerseys such as in this photo of  the "Miracle on Ice" in 1980:



or this one when the Philadelphia Flyers played the Soviet team (Red Army) in the fourth of a four game  exhibition tour (first time NHL played Soviet teams).  In the prior three games, the Soviets had won two and tied one.   Whooops - can not see the "CCCP" when prone on the ice after being checked.   The Soviet coach pulled his players off the ice after this hard check by Ed Van Impe (refs called it a clean hit).   The Flyers were infamous for rough, tough hockey ("Broad Street Bullies").   The Flyers owner informed the coach that the Soviet team would not receive their exhibition money unless they played.  The Soviets played and lost 4-1.  It was referred to as DÉTENTE, PHILLY STYLE.

There is one clue in the photo proving the Soviet players were smarter than the Flyers.  H-E-L-M-E-T.

[BillyB]

Russian language for USSR.

It's their version of the abbreviation of the name of their nation which is different than how we abbreviate it. CCCP = USSR

[SANDRO43]

СССР = Союз Советских Социалистических Республик
i.e.         Union of the Sovietic Socialist Republics

[BC]

It makes sense if one can trust Putin and Assad to be humane.  I don't.

Would Putin even consider the alternative of replacing Assad.  Putin certainly would not consider a democratically elected replacement given the Sunni Arabs are a 60% majority and Alawites are 12%?  So the process many never get off the ground unless some type of divided leadership deal can be negotiated.  Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of Syrians  have died and millions have emigrated.

Surely trust is an issue, in fact THE issue on all sides.  As for Putin one should of course be wary.  One has to try and clearly understand his goals and then decide to work either for or against him along with having one's own 'end game' that is not just a simple stop sign here or there.  Here's a very interesting article I stumbled across this morning:

http://www.meforum.org/5876/why-putin-wants-syria  It is a bit long but well worth the time to digest.
 

Yes, the US destabilized the region in multiple ways.  It started with Bush and continued with Obama/Clinton.  It is far from over.    
 
You are correct that although the conflicts today are not communism vs. capitalism, economics is the issue.  The world has an oversupply of gas and oil, driving prices down.  Russia wants higher oil and gas prices to improve its way of life.  So does Iran.   And Iran wants to produce more too.  Gas prices could drop more because of the two gas pipelines to Europe  proposed through Syria in your graphic.   

To increase oil prices, Russia and Iran could  "pressure" Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni Gulf states into reducing their market share by producing less oil.  As far as gas pipelines, there are possible routes that do not go though Syria, so I do not understand the significance attached to Syria's role for supplying gas to Europe.  And why would Putin want either of these two pipelines to become operational, considering they will take market share from Russian gas?   Hopefully your information will explain.

For the most part this aspect is explained in the article mentioned above with much more insight and eloquence than I can muster without spending a week's time researching and formulating.  I pretty much agree with what the author says, even regarding Obama. 

Regarding oil prices it seems that low production cost countries / OPEC / RU / IQ / IR and independent producers will attempt to keep their pricing right below US production costs.  This maximizes their profits.  While the US/CA can produce plenty of oil, the resulting profits will likely be much lower.  Economic might is a huge part of 'Power' in military and political terms.  Putin would not have been in a position to act as he did without a long period of high petro prices that allowed him to spend a ton on rebuilding military might or at least getting 'ship shape'.  So yes, the US will have plenty of oil, but at low profits whilst allowing other producers to profit more handsomely thus gaining more relative 'Power', even factoring in higher production costs on both sides.

As an aside, the US could gain considerable edge in this argument by investing heavily in building the most awesome electric cars and trucks, along with nuclear and alternative energy resources on a much greater scale and future technologies such as controlled fusion.  This should be THE national plan, comparable with Kennedy announcing we will go to the moon and back. These are all achievable goals and I am sure we have the technological know how to do it if only we can get past the petro lobby.

Strange bedfellows.  Turkey is long term enemy of the Kurds.  Turkey opposes Assad.  Turkey downs a Russian jet fighter.  ISIS carries out terror attacks in Turkey.  Yet, here there are together in gas pipeline deals, etc.  2TallBill explained earlier in this thread that Turkey is a whore who will sell to anyone who has money. 

Not an issue now or in the long term future.  From earlier in this thread:



Now you can understand why the US is not incentivized to do "heavy lifting" in the Middle East.  Shale oil gave US its freedom from dependency on Middle East oil.

Corrected so that the chart shows.

Turkey does have a good bit of wealth, quite industrious with a solid manufacturing base. I wouldn't call them whores but yes I do wonder about their political future.  Maybe you or Bill can expound on the whore part as I don't quite 'get it'.
   

Guess who was against fracking to produce shale oil?  Answer - Obama.  Ironical, yes.  The energy companies worked around him.  You explain that many countries produce oil for a lower cost than fracking,  yet the production cost of something around $40/bbl is still reasonable.

 
see responses above.

Higher oil and gas prices is Putin's goal.  His best bet for achieving this is to intimidate the Gulf states into producing less oil and not building gas pipelines to Europe.   

Yes higher oil prices and more control/options with transit routes is what he wants.

He does not want to occupy western Europe.  He would like to see the EU dissolved, and for sure he wants Europe to pay Russia more for gas and oil. 

He wants everyone to pay more for gas and oil..  Markets are free thank goodness.  Why dissolve Europe?  He'll wait out Brexit and see how EU policies evolve without this staunch US ally.

You and others have complained about the US's long history of being involved in the Middle East.  After these decades of meddling, there is not one country in the Middle East who fears the US.  How many now fear Russia and Iran?   Too bad if they do, because the US seems to be following Obama's vision to withdraw military forces from the Middle East. 

It's not about being involved, but instead how that involvement is formed.  I'll support every diplomatic and economic efforts possible, but I don't support covert CIA and other actions that attempt to disrupt political systems from the outside.

The US mainly acts in it's own interests and that's ok with me as long as we take the high road and do not try and force our ideology upon others.  Let them learn by example.

Now I have something for you to ponder.  The CCCP collapsed in large part due to the costly war in Afghanistan.  The US CIA ran covert operations to stir up the  Mujahideen, prompting the Soviets to invade Afghanistan to support the dictator in power.   Is Syria a similar "trap" for the Russians?    There are differences, yet there are important similarities.

I don't believe so.. as the article seems to point out, Putin is quite flexible and adept to avoid past failures and pitfalls.  Some may call him a dictator, but I see him more as a very smart and astute leader that is unencumbered by a burdensome political system.  Yes he pushes limits in the strategic interests of RU and will take advantage of every opportunity presented.  He is showing that RU can stand on the world stage regardless if others like it or not.

[jone]

BC,

Don't discredit yourself.  Controlled fusion?   Come on!   

[jone]

While I agree, generally, with the ideas promoted by BC's latest post about the cost of oil, etc.  He puts out figures that are deceptive because they don't address the cost of transport. 

While it may be a moot point for Europe, it is not for the United States.  What I am saying is that getting oil from the United States to Europe costs money and, therefore, is not desirable.  But getting oil from the Arabian peninsula to the US is also not inexpensive.  Therefore, the US is very competitive when serving the US. 

I know of no US efforts to establish oil or natural gas depots for shipping to Europe.  If a viable pipeline for delivery of oil to Europe from the Arabian peninsula (that bypasses Russia) is created, Russia's short term monopoly on transport (currently mostly through Ukraine) would be circumvented. 

As I said before, the problem is Transport not Production.  That is why all of the charts above are not binding on this discussion (or have small impact).

Russia played its hand in double dealing with a number of oil clients that caused Europe to re-think its strategic needs for oil and who it chooses to get the oil from.  I think this is the greatest blunder that Russia made during the Ukrainian incursion.  It also shows how Ukraine still has a strategic role to play in Russia's economy.  I believe, as others do, that if Ukraine would have shut down the pipeline at the start of the incursion, Russia would have had no choice but to seek full control over Ukraine through a full invasion.   

[jone]

Hey, Gator? ......

What's the CCCP?

Okay, you guys do know I was joking, correct?

 

For those who have not seen the movie 'Tinker, Taylor, Soldier, Spy', I recommend it.  It takes you right back to the spy wars that were the norm between the West and the Soviet Union. 

[Slumba]

Amazing that USA has no problem supporting other dictatorships, such as the repugnant Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, but somehow for Assad the requirements are different.

That the proposed natural gas pipeline goes through Syria and on to EU has nothing to do with it?

[Gator]

Okay, you guys do know I was joking, correct?

What can I say.  Some of us don't pick up quickly Mensa humor. 

[jone]

What can I say.  Some of us don't pick up quickly Mensa humor.

One of the first things my son and I learned, while taking Russian classes together (he is much more adept at languages than I am and it is frustrating) was the Soviet National Anthem.  Like in the movie I quoted above, it is sung by us with humor but also a bit of nostalgia.  Both of us are (admittedly neophyte) Soviet scholars, having started when we took up the language.  (I had Russian classes in college.)



I am sometimes surprised by how little the average Russian knows about their history.  I am also surprised by how they gloss over the repression of the Stalin years.  But then I still see the great majority of Russians falling into the proletariat role.