Yet another war, this time with Iran

[DrZoidberg]

NATO is not involved in the Ukraine war at all. NATO is a defensive pact. Ukraine is not a NATO country. So the NATO alliance hasn't kicked in.

If NATO was involved NATO ground troops would have poured in immediately. It wouldn't even be a debate in the member countries. The fact that NATO troops are not in Ukraine proves NATO is not involved

That is exactly what US wanted. Not to send their soldiers but let the Ukrainians die. Keep sending armaments so that the conflict does not end.

If this were true, why is the west pushing so hard for sustainable peace? While Russia is not. Russia wants peace, if Ukraine completely disarms. Then 6 months later, Russia will reinvade.

Like that time when Russia took Crimea and super promised they wouldn't take anymore? Or when Ukraine gave up all their nuclear weapons, sent them to Russia because Russia super duper promissed not to attack Ukraine?

Agreements with Russia aren't worth shit because Russia don't respect agreements.

 

[SLD]

Interesting analysis of the effect of the war and ongoing oil prices. If the straights aren’t opened by September, expect a serious parabolic shift upwards in oil prices.

Supermajor Warns Oil Prices Could Hit $160 Within Weeks | OilPrice.com

Exxon and Chevron executives warn at Bernstein conference that near-record-low oil inventories will push Brent prices to $150-$160 within weeks.

oilprice.com

From Exxon’s CEO:

We're approaching unheard of inventory levels. I mean, really, really low levels. You can debate whether that's going to hit those really low levels in two weeks or three weeks. Once you get to that point, then you'll see price shoot up. A model would say dated Brent will shoot up. Once you get to that really low inventory level, up to $150, $160.The models would tell you that. And then what happens is when the price gets to a certain level, demand destruction brings it back into balance. Prices go so high, it becomes unaffordable. And that's what happens. And so we're at that level right now.

Chevron’s CEO was hardly more optimistic, saying that we won’t see oil prices come back down until 2nd quarter of 2027, and only if the straits are reopened now. Trump can only lie so much about an imminent deal. There isn’t one. There can’t be one and Iran holds the cards.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But the fact remains that for geopolitical reasons removing Maduro from power and taking down the Castro regime, is in the interest of the European regimes.

How is that in the interest of the European regimes? Did Venezuela or Cuba harm European interests?

Socialism is bad for business. Democracies tend to be more peaceful. It's good for overall wealth, stability and world peace.

As a reminder, Cuba was hardly a democracy before Castro took over.

In the end, Socialism is economically important. Capitalism is economically important. They need each other desperately, because either one on its own is going to fail in a big way.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Interesting analysis of the effect of the war and ongoing oil prices. If the straights aren’t opened by September, expect a serious parabolic shift upwards in oil prices.

Indeed. This was written the second the Strait closed. The timer started ticking.

From Exxon’s CEO:

We're approaching unheard of inventory levels. I mean, really, really low levels. You can debate whether that's going to hit those really low levels in two weeks or three weeks. Once you get to that point, then you'll see price shoot up. A model would say dated Brent will shoot up. Once you get to that really low inventory level, up to $150, $160.The models would tell you that. And then what happens is when the price gets to a certain level, demand destruction brings it back into balance. Prices go so high, it becomes unaffordable. And that's what happens. And so we're at that level right now.

Chevron’s CEO was hardly more optimistic, saying that we won’t see oil prices come back down until 2nd quarter of 2027, and only if the straits are reopened now. Trump can only lie so much about an imminent deal. There isn’t one. There can’t be one and Iran holds the cards.

Supply / Demand is a pain. You don't need to run out of something for problems to arise quickly. You just need to not have enough. And unlike chicken eggs, costs will shoot up because transport costs will become untenable. Then supply will dwindle for products, making those prices go up.

If Trump doesn't have someone in his Admin pull his head out of his ass, we'll be back to Covid-19 working from home situation because gasoline will be too expensive.

 

[bilby]

If the straights aren’t opened by September, expect a serious parabolic shift upwards in oil prices.

It's a strait. There's only one that is closed. It's actually not straight at all, it has a sharp curve.

"The straits" is a geopolitical term usually used to describe the passage between the Mediterrainean and Black Seas, which includes both the Dardanelles and Bosphorous straits. These are ~3,000km from the Strait of Hormuz.

 

[DrZoidberg]

But the fact remains that for geopolitical reasons removing Maduro from power and taking down the Castro regime, is in the interest of the European regimes.

How is that in the interest of the European regimes? Did Venezuela or Cuba harm European interests?

Socialism is bad for business. Democracies tend to be more peaceful. It's good for overall wealth, stability and world peace.

As a reminder, Cuba was hardly a democracy before Castro took over.

That doesn't magically make Castro's regime ok

In the end, Socialism is economically important. Capitalism is economically important. They need each other desperately, because either one on its own is going to fail in a big way.

How is socialism economically important? Socialism is great for social stability. But in what sense is it good for the economy?

 

[bilby]

How is socialism economically important? Socialism is great for social stability. But in what sense is it good for the economy?

It provides the infrastructure (in the broadest sense of the word) that makes specialisation possible.

I recently read a history of the London and North Western Railway Company, which in the 1890s was the largest corporation ever to have existed. They did literally everything for themselves, because nothing they wanted, existed (at least, not on the required scale). That extended to providing workers housing and healthcare, building roads and canals, inventing and installing telecommunications, supplying water from reservoir and dam building to point of use, mining coal, iron ore, and building stone, teaching children to read and write, making and distributing clothing...

Socialism is a far more efficient way to arrange broad infrastructure, such that a business can concentrate on their actual business, and just assume the infrastructure will be there to make it viable.

If it's something (almost) everyone needs, it is highly inefficient to have everyone doing it themselves. And natural monopolies cannot be controlled through competition; They must be controlled by government, if they are not owned by their ultimate customer.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But the fact remains that for geopolitical reasons removing Maduro from power and taking down the Castro regime, is in the interest of the European regimes.

How is that in the interest of the European regimes? Did Venezuela or Cuba harm European interests?

Socialism is bad for business. Democracies tend to be more peaceful. It's good for overall wealth, stability and world peace.

As a reminder, Cuba was hardly a democracy before Castro took over.

That doesn't magically make Castro's regime ok

Can you follow your own conversations? You pitted Socialism against democracy. That wasn't what was at stake in Cuba. They effectively traded one tyranny for another.

And Cuban communism would have fallen much earlier if Mr. Burns didn't lose that billion dollars to Castro.

In the end, Socialism is economically important. Capitalism is economically important. They need each other desperately, because either one on its own is going to fail in a big way.

How is socialism economically important? Socialism is great for social stability. But in what sense is it good for the economy?

Stability is good for the economy.

 

[bilby]

Interesting aside - the reason why expensive private schools in England, such as Eton and Harrow, are called "public schools" is to differentiate them from the schools run by guilds and corporations. The L&NWR school might be the best school in your town, but you couldn't send your son there no matter how wealthy you were, unless you were an L&NWR employee. (And if you quit, died, or were fired, your son would be thrown out of school that same day).

 

[Tigers!]

I am particularly interested in the relationship between Ukraine and Russia from Stalin to Gorbachev and developments since the breakup of the USSR.

Well, there is plenty of materials from respectable historians about history of Russia and Ukraine.

You had better give us this list of respectable historians so we do not get it wrong

I recommend you educate yourself so that you don't step into another Hunka debacle.

Agreed

 

[Tigers!]

Especially if he does it one bite at a time. Georgia, Crimea, Donbas, a bit of Moldova, etc.

Same case as in Ukraine.
"In 2000, Vladimir Putin became Russia's president, while Georgia experienced the Rose Revolution in 2003 and moved towards forging closer ties with the European Union and NATO. Consequently, Georgia–Russia relations deteriorated rapidly by 2006 and spiraled into a diplomatic crisis by 2008."
Ignore Russian concerns at the instigation of NATO and get into a war. Some nations need to be wiser to keep a balasnce.

I suppose if your next door neighbor didn't like your friends you would throw your friends under the bus for your neighbor.

Ukraine and Russia are not just neighbors. Most of the Ukraine has shared families and history.
As I said before my neibhours from upstairs have family there
Better analogy for Ukraine would be a relative who has alcohol problems and who befriended a criminal

The criminal is Russia?

The criminal is obviously the West.

Got it. West Russia

 

[Tigers!]

How is socialism economically important? Socialism is great for social stability. But in what sense is it good for the economy?

It provides the infrastructure (in the broadest sense of the word) that makes specialisation possible.

I recently read a history of the London and North Western Railway Company, which in the 1890s was the largest corporation ever to have existed. They did literally everything for themselves, because nothing they wanted, existed (at least, not on the required scale). That extended to providing workers housing and healthcare, building roads and canals, inventing and installing telecommunications, supplying water from reservoir and dam building to point of use, mining coal, iron ore, and building stone, teaching children to read and write, making and distributing clothing...

But if the corporation is doing all that it is not socialism as classically defined, but rather corporatism.

Socialism is a far more efficient way to arrange broad infrastructure, such that a business can concentrate on their actual business, and just assume the infrastructure will be there to make it viable.

If it's something (almost) everyone needs, it is highly inefficient to have everyone doing it themselves. And natural monopolies cannot be controlled through competition; They must be controlled by government, if they are not owned by their ultimate customer.

 

[bilby]

How is socialism economically important? Socialism is great for social stability. But in what sense is it good for the economy?

It provides the infrastructure (in the broadest sense of the word) that makes specialisation possible.

I recently read a history of the London and North Western Railway Company, which in the 1890s was the largest corporation ever to have existed. They did literally everything for themselves, because nothing they wanted, existed (at least, not on the required scale). That extended to providing workers housing and healthcare, building roads and canals, inventing and installing telecommunications, supplying water from reservoir and dam building to point of use, mining coal, iron ore, and building stone, teaching children to read and write, making and distributing clothing...

But if the corporation is doing all that it is not socialism as classically defined, but rather corporatism.

Indeed. And it is how things were done. But that's not how things are done anymore, even in the most capitalist of countries. It's a model that has been ditched, because it's not as efficient as blending socialism and capitalism.

I thought it was obvious that that was my point; It's not the 1890s anymore...

Socialism is a far more efficient way to arrange broad infrastructure, such that a business can concentrate on their actual business, and just assume the infrastructure will be there to make it viable.

If it's something (almost) everyone needs, it is highly inefficient to have everyone doing it themselves. And natural monopolies cannot be controlled through competition; They must be controlled by government, if they are not owned by their ultimate customer.

 

[Arctish]

Link to a few sources on that history so I can read it.

LOL, I gave the link 10 years ago, search for it yourself.

LOL, history didn't stop 10 years ago. A lot has happened since then.

If you don't have a good source for information, just say so.

Thank you for the link. That guy was very informative. He cited people and agreements by name and events by date, which makes it easy to fact check his statements. He seems to know a lot about the current situation and what led up to it.

None of what he said refutes my analogy, though. In fact, I think his statements support it.

He makes clear distinctions between Russians and Ukrainians. And he says that Russia will not allow Ukraine to set its own course. He says Russia wants Ukraine to be a buffer between it and the rest of Europe. He says Putin sent troops into Ukraine to prevent Ukraine becoming a NATO member, calling it a "red line" that was about to be crossed. That's the behavior I was describing: an abuser not allowing a partner to leave a relationship, and using force and coercion to make them stay.

He also says that the Ukrainians currently running the government are criminals and murderers. That may be true but it doesn't have anything to do with why Russians invaded. They didn't go in there to install a government of fine upstanding leaders who would then do what was best for Ukraine. Putin sent them in to control a region he values for economic and strategic reasons, not out of alturism.

I think the Ukrainians are correct in surmising that joining NATO is advantageous for them. I think Putin and his supporters won't let that happen without a fight, and that's why there's fighting.

 

[aupmanyav]

And then your neighbor arms up and attacks you.

If my neighbor attacks me, then I would do what is necessary.

 

[aupmanyav]

If this were true, why is the west pushing so hard for sustainable peace? While Russia is not. Russia wants peace, if Ukraine completely disarms. Then 6 months later, Russia will reinvade.

Zelenskyy has offered direct talks in Moscow. Putin has said 'anytime you want'.

 

[barbos]

Thank you for the link. That guy was very informative. He cited people and agreements by name and events by date, which makes it easy to fact check his statements. He seems to know a lot about the current situation and what led up to it.

You welcome.

None of what he said refutes my analogy, though. In fact, I think his statements support it.

You analogy is BS.

He makes clear distinctions between Russians and Ukrainians. And he says that Russia will not allow Ukraine to set its own course

You clearly did not understood his lecture.
It's not really about distinction. It's about the fact that Ukraine has two part (really three) - russian part and ukrainian part. And it is "ukrainian" part is responsible for the all the shit which is happening.

 

[aupmanyav]

What exactly did USA want and what is your evidence for it?

US plan was simple. Make Russia fight a proxy war. Evidence is four-year Russia-Ukraine conflict in which both suffered, Ukraine bearing the brunt of it, making millions leave Ukraine. US and Europe enjoyed the war from distance sending arms to Ukraine. But Trump got involved in another war, with less resources to send to Ukraine.

 

[barbos]

Like that time when Russia took Crimea and super promised they wouldn't take anymore?

We did not take Crimea, they voted to leave Ukraine and join Russia. Same with Eastern Ukraine they voted to leave nazi hell hole which had been bombing them for 8 years.
And we didn't promise anything. As far as I am concerned, Ukraine is a failed state which should be dissolved and go back to Russia. I am willing to consider leaving western Ukraine to its own devices though.

 

[aupmanyav]

Like that time when Russia took Crimea and super promised they wouldn't take anymore? Or when Ukraine gave up all their nuclear weapons, sent them to Russia because Russia super duper promissed not to attack Ukraine?

Russia was always clear that it would not want NATO in Ukraine.

As a reminder, Cuba was hardly a democracy before Castro took over.

The final reminder: Whether Cuba is communist or a democracy, it is its own business. Why should US Interfere?

Stability is good for the economy.

Laos and Vietnam are communist. Vietnam is doing particularly well on economic front.